Clarifying the Stem Cell Debate

Since the death of President Reagan, President Bush has come under fresh attacks for his policy on embryonic stem-cell research. Notice I said embryonic stem-cell research. What you hear out of much of the media is that President Bush is against “stem-cell research.” They fail to mention that he is not against stem-cell research in general, only against research that destroys embryos. They also fail to mention that all the policy does, which was laid down by Bush almost three years ago, is ban the use of taxpayer dollars for research that destroys human embryos. Privately funded organizations are still free to do this type of research, and many are. The AP reported earlier this year that Harvard University plans to launch a multimillion-dollar center to grow and study human embryonic stem cells.

Many who are criticizing the President on this issue are basically accusing him of blindly following his “right wing” constituency and ignoring what “science” is telling us concerning stem cells. The President’s critics would have us believe that the debate over embryonic stem cells is all but over in the scientific community, and his policy is keeping us from the cure for everything from Alzheimer’s to Parkinson’s diseases. This is far from the truth.

A New England Journal of Medicine report published in March of this year states that embryonic stem cells often cause tumors in animal studies, and therefore using them in humans is highly problematic. Dr. Carlo Croce, MD, Director of the Kimmel Cancer Institute and Kimmel Cancer Center at the Thomas Jefferson University in Philadelphia, found that animal experiments show that serious cancer frequently develops when the animals received manipulated embryonic stem cells. Dr. John Gearhart of Johns Hopkins University has recently stated that embryonic stem cells are “surprisingly genetically unstable in mice and perhaps in humans as well.” Maureen L. Condic, an Assistant Professor of Neurobiology and Anatomy at the University of Utah, states that “there are profound immunological issues associated with putting cells derived from one human being into the body of another. The same compromises and complications associated with organ transplant hold true for embryonic stem cells.”

The President’s critics are suspiciously silent about the alternatives to embryonic stem-cell research. Umbilical cord blood (UCB) stem cells are one such alternative. They are genetically younger than cloned embryonic stem cells, can be easily obtained, and are risk free. There are no ethical issues about their use because umbilical stem cells are a natural component of the blood in the afterbirth and would otherwise be regarded as part of the medical waste of childbirth. Also, in the last few years, tremendous progress has been made in the field of adult stem-cell research.

Hardly a serious biologists in the world would argue that life—whether human, dog, cat, or pig—does not begin at conception. Every living human being begins the same way: a sperm fertilizes an egg. The moment after conception, this one-celled, forty-six-chromosomed human being possesses everything it needs to grow into an adult human. A report from Senate Judiciary Committee S-158, 1981 reads: "Physicians, biologists and other scientists agree that conception marks the beginning of the life of a human being--a being is alive and is a member of the human species. There is overwhelming agreement on this point in countless medical, biological, and scientific writings."

Those for federally funded embryonic stem cell research also imply that those who believe that life begins at conception are in the vast minority. Current polls show nothing of the sort. According to a recent Harris poll, 47% of Americans believe life begins at conception. In a recent Fox News poll 55% believe the same, and a recent Newsweek poll shows that 58% consider a fertilized egg the beginning of human life. Even President Bush’s opponent in the fall, Senator Kerry, recently stated that he believes that life begins at conception.

Scientists are constantly making new medical advances in this generation. Advances in medicine and technology often involve “leaps into the unknown.” However, this should not occur at any price. To put a person on Mars, would we force the unwilling to risk their lives? In developing a new vaccine, would we test it on someone, say a child, who could not determine whether he or she wanted to assume the risks? Embryonic stem-cell research presents the same type of dilemma, and the answer should be the same: the end does not justify the means.

Copyright 2015, Trevor Grant Thomas
At the Intersection of Politics, Science, Faith, and Reason.
www.trevorgrantthomas.com
Trevor and his wife Michelle are the authors of: Debt Free Living in a Debt Filled World
tthomas@trevorgrantthomas.com

Removing "Evolution" From Georgia's Curriculum

Let me say this right from the start: removing the word “evolution” from Georgia’s science curriculum was not going to accomplish much for those on the creation side of the evolution debate. Simply to remove the word without real change in the curriculum is no accomplishment. In other words, if Darwinian evolution is taught under the phrase “biological changes over time,” nothing has really changed. I’m a bit (a very little bit) surprised at all of the outrage expressed by those on the evolution side of the debate. It doesn’t seem like they would have lost any real ground. I have a BS in physics and graduate degrees in mathematics education. I teach secondary mathematics. If Secretary Cox wanted me to teach the Pythagorean theorem under some other name, I would chuckle and go about my business pretty much as usual. The value of the theorem is not in its name or title.

Secretary Cox is somewhat correct in insinuating that there are problems with the word “evolution.” One problem is that it is not a mere “buzzword,” but, as Michael Matthews recently pointed out, it has taken on two meanings: (1) “biological changes over time,” (the phrase Cox prefers) a process which scientists on all sides of the debate have always accepted, and (2) the process of creatures changing into completely new creatures over millions of years. It’s the second meaning that people like me reject, whatever name or phrase is attached to it.

Molecules-to-man evolution should not be taught as fact in any academic setting. I say this not only out of my Christian convictions, but also as someone who has read, studied, and listened to lectures, and concluded that the scientific evidence simply does not support it. I’m by no means the only educated person who has come to such a conclusion. In fact, there are thousands of more highly educated scientists in this country alone who reject molecules-to-man evolution. It is their books I’ve read and their lectures to which I’ve listened. I know of scientists in almost every conceivable field who reject this type of evolution: biologists, chemists, geneticists, physicists, engineers (of all types), mathematicians, geologists, astronomers, computer scientists, archaeologists, paleontologists, dentists, medical doctors, and so on. I know engineers, chemists, medical doctors, dentists, and mathematicians personally who reject Darwinian evolution.

All that most creationists want is a fair presentation of the facts. The evidence for what has happened in the past is the same for all of us. What is different is the framework through which the evidence is interpreted. For example, the billions of dead things lying in the earth, better known as the fossil record, can be seen as evidence supporting evolution or evidence supporting the biblical account of history. Evolutionists believe in hundreds of millions of years of death and destruction. They have several theories explaining the many mass extinctions that have supposedly occurred in our planet’s history (such as a giant asteroid striking the earth). Most biblical creationists would explain much of the fossil record by the global Flood (recorded in the book of Genesis).

Dr. Jonathan Sarfati similarly explains that, “Creationists and evolutionists interpret the geological layers differently…Evolutionists interpret the sequence of layers as a sequence of ages with different types of creatures; creationists interpret them as a sequence of burial by a global Flood and its after-effects.” In fact, the creationists’ model better explains the lack of “transitional” creatures (creatures that are in the transition of changing from one kind to another) in the fossil record, and why there are many creatures found in the fossil record (supposedly hundreds of millions of years old) that are still present today. Discussions of these things will rarely, if ever, take place in a public school classroom.

If nothing else, I wish that those on the other side of this debate, especially those in the media, would stop portraying creationists as uneducated, backward thinking, ignorant hillbillies. One of the more ironic things in this debate is that most of the articles and editorials written about it are by journalists who know little or nothing about the facts. I believe they have taken a stance with the evolutionists because it seems that the majority of scientists believe in molecules-to-man evolution. Little real research is done, and those who can present a sound argument against this type of evolution are largely ignored.

Please, let those on all sides of this issue stop with the shrill and mean-spirited rhetoric and let us get on with meaningful, fair, and productive debate. We all, especially our children, deserve better than what we are getting.

Copyright 2015, Trevor Grant Thomas
At the Intersection of Politics, Science, Faith, and Reason.
www.trevorgrantthomas.com
Trevor and his wife Michelle are the authors of: Debt Free Living in a Debt Filled World
tthomas@trevorgrantthomas.com

The Constitution and the Commandments

In declaring government religious (mainly Christian) expression unconstitutional, the courts refer to the First Amendment, and they interpret that amendment through the words of Jefferson penned to the Danbury Baptists, which declared “a wall of separation between Church and State.” Our current Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, William Rehnquist, says of this interpretation, “It is impossible to build sound constitutional doctrine upon a mistaken understanding of constitutional history,…the [Jefferson] ‘wall’ has proved all but useless as a guide to sound constitutional adjudication.”

It is interesting that Jefferson, considered by many to be an expert on the First Amendment, did not sign the Constitution, was not present at the Constitutional Convention of 1787, and was not present when the First Amendment was debated in the first session of Congress in 1789. The principal authors of the First Amendment were Fisher Ames and Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts, not Thomas Jefferson.

It is also interesting to look at other writings and deeds of Jefferson, of which many today would be declared “unconstitutional” using our current courts’ frequent interpretation of the First Amendment. While Jefferson was President, Christian worship services were held in the capital, local governments were urged to make land available specifically for Christian purposes, and President Jefferson provided $300 to “assist the said Kaskaskia tribe in the erection of a church” and to provide “annually for seven years $100 towards the support of a Catholic priest.”

Fisher Ames, who, as stated above, was one of the principal authors of the First Amendment, said this in a magazine article published on September 20, 1789:

“We have a dangerous trend beginning to take place in our education. We’re starting to put more and more textbooks into our schools… We’ve become accustomed of late of putting little books into the hands of children containing fables and moral lessons… We are spending less time in the classroom on the Bible, which should be the principal text in our schools… The Bible states these great moral lessons better than any manmade book.”

Does it sounds like Mr. Ames, one of the authors of the First amendment, would be for removing prayer from school or the Ten Commandments from government buildings? Maybe our current justices should consider this article instead of Jefferson’s letter in “interpreting” the First Amendment.

However, that is really the problem: For the past five or six decades judges have been “interpreting” our Constitution instead of honoring the original words and intent of the text. Liberal judges have “interpreted” the First Amendment beyond recognition. The words are plain enough, but a bit of history makes things more obvious.

The initial draft of the First Amendment was made by James Madison on June 8, 1789. His wording was:

The civil rights of none shall be abridged on account of religious belief or worship, nor shall any national religion be established, nor shall the full and equal rights of conscience be in any manner, or on any pretext infringed.

The House Select Committee on August 15, 1789 revised Madison’s statement to read:

No religion shall be established by law, nor shall the equal rights of conscience be infringed.

A representative from New York, Peter Sylvester, objected to the revised statement, declaring:

It might be thought to have a tendency to abolish religion altogether.

Madison changed the wording slightly, but Congressman Benjamin Huntington still objected saying,

The words might be taken in such latitude as to be extremely hurtful to the cause of religion.

Madison later responded to Congressman Huntington and Congressman Sylvester agreeing that he,

…believes that the people feared one sect might obtain a preeminence, or two combine and establish a religion to which they would compel others to conform.

The House agreed on the following, proposed by Ames on August 20, 1789:

Congress shall make no law establishing religion, or to prevent the free exercise thereof, or to infringe the rights of conscience.

The Senate then took up the debate with versions that read:

Congress shall not make any law infringing the rights of conscience, or establishing any religious sect or society.

Congress shall make no law establishing any particular denomination of religion in preference to another…

Congress shall make no law establishing one religious society in preference to others…

Both houses agreed on the wording we have today:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…

Given this small bit of history, one can see that what our Founders were trying to accomplish with the initial part of the First Amendment was to prevent an “official” government denomination/religion, one that people could be required to follow, not the removal of God and His Word from our government. This becomes more obvious when one examines the summary of words and deeds of all our Founders and not just the eight words of Jefferson’s letter. I can imagine that hardly any, much less a majority, of our Founders would intend for the First Amendment to be used to remove a display of the Ten Commandments from a public courthouse. I think to conclude otherwise, one would have to rewrite our history.

Copyright 2015, Trevor Grant Thomas
At the Intersection of Politics, Science, Faith, and Reason.
www.trevorgrantthomas.com
Trevor and his wife Michelle are the authors of: Debt Free Living in a Debt Filled World
tthomas@trevorgrantthomas.com

The Faith of the Founders

I would like to take issue with several of the things Bo Turner said in his December 23 article; however, at this time I will take issue with only one. In his article he said that most of the framers of the U.S. Constitution were “deists, agnostics, Unitarians, and free-thinkers.” First of all let’s define some of these: 1) In certain dictionaries the terms “deist,” “agnostic,” and “atheist” appear as synonyms. So a deist can range from someone who believes there is no God, to those who believe in a distant, impersonal creator, to those who believe there is no way to know if God exists. The most common definition of deism is the belief in a distant, impersonal creator. 2) Deism gave rise to Unitarianism. A Unitarian is defined as “A monotheist who rejects the doctrine of the Trinity.”

Mr. Turner said that “most” of the framers fell into one of the categories named above. While it can be argued that a few of the framers fit into his description, including Thomas Jefferson, it is very misleading to say that “most” did. In fact, hardly any of the notable Founders can be called anything but orthodox evangelical Christians. Noted historian David Barton claims that “52 of the 55 founding fathers were orthodox evangelical Christians.” Actually there were over 200 “Founders”(55 at the Constitutional Convention, to which Mr. Barton refers, 90 who framed the First Amendment and the Bill of Rights, and 56 who signed the Declaration of Independence). Let’s briefly examine some of the words of a few of the more significant, or popular, Founders.

George Washington was an open promoter of Christianity. In a speech on May 12, 1779, he stated that what children needed to learn “above all” was the “religion of Jesus Christ.” He charged his soldiers at Valley Forge that, “To the distinguished character of patriot, it should be our highest glory to add the more distinguished character of Christian.” He also said, “It is impossible to govern the world without God. He must be worse than an infidel that lacks faith, and more than wicked that has not gratitude enough to acknowledge his obligation.” In the Yale Divinity School Library there is a book by William Johnson entitled George Washington, the Christian. In it are many words from Washington which reveal that he was a devout Christian. Washington certainly doesn’t fit Mr. Turner’s description of a Founder.

Neither does Benjamin Franklin. At a very crucial point at the Constitutional Convention in May, 1787, Franklin gave a short, but resounding speech. (The debate over representation was becoming very bitter, and the Convention was on the verge of breaking up.) In it he said, “In the beginning of the contest with Britain, when we were sensible of danger, we had daily prayers in this room for Divine protection. Our prayers, Sir, were heard, and they were graciously answered…I have lived, Sir, a long time, and the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth: ‘that God governs in the affairs of man.’ And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without His notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without His aid?…We have been assured, Sir, in the Sacred Writings that except the Lord build the house, they labor in vain that build it. I firmly believe this…” In a letter to the French ministry he said, “He who shall introduce into public affairs the principles of primitive Christianity will change the face of the world.” Franklin also chose a biblical inscription for the Seal of the United States and was instrumental in the establishment of a paid chaplain in Congress.

On the subject of the Bible Patrick Henry said, “There is a Book worth all other books which were ever printed.” We’ve all heard of Henry’s famous line “Give me liberty or give me death!” In that same speech he also said, “God presides over the destinies of nations and will raise up friends for us.” In his will it reads, “I have now disposed of all my property to my family; there is one more thing I wish I could give them, and that is the Christian religion. If they had this, and I had not given them one shilling, they would be rich; but if they had not that, and I had given them all the world, they would be poor.” Does Henry sound like a Unitarian?

John Adams said, “I believe in God and in His wisdom and benevolence.” Of the day that the Declaration was passed Adams wrote to his wife saying that that day “ought to be commemorated, as the Day of Deliverance, by solemn acts of devotion to God Almighty.”

James Madison’s writings are full of declarations of his faith in God and Christ. In a letter to Attorney General Bradford he said that public officials should be “fervent advocates for the cause of Christ.”

John Jay, who was the first Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, and along with Madison and Alexander Hamilton wrote the Federalist Papers, said this: “Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers and it is the duty as well as the privilege and interest of our Christian nation to select and prefer Christians for their rulers.” Imagine that! The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court telling us that we ought to elect Christians!

Consider some of the lesser known Founders, as noted by David Barton: “Charles Pickney and John Langdon—founders of the American Bible Society; James McHenry—founder of the Baltimore Bible Society; Rufus King—helped found a Bible society for Anglicans; Abraham Baldwin—a chaplain in the Revolution and considered the youngest theologian in America; Roger Sherman, William Samuel Johnson, John Dickinson, and Jacob Broom—also theological writers; James Wilson and William Patterson—placed on the Supreme Court by President George Washington, they had prayer over juries in the U.S. Supreme Court room; and the list could go on. This does not even include the huge number of thoroughly evangelical Christians who signed the Declaration or who helped frame the Bill of Rights.” I think Mr. Turner should be more careful than to make such sweeping statements that would label men such as these to be deists, agnostics, or Unitarians.

I’ll end with a quote from Mr. Turner’s favorite Founder, Thomas Jefferson: “Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.”

Copyright 2015, Trevor Grant Thomas
At the Intersection of Politics, Science, Faith, and Reason.
www.trevorgrantthomas.com
Trevor and his wife Michelle are the authors of: Debt Free Living in a Debt Filled World
tthomas@trevorgrantthomas.com