Sam Harris Apparently Ignorant About ESCR Dispute
I love it when those who think they are smarter than the great unwashed, who at least believe in something rather than nothing, presume to talk down their noses--but are the ones who actually get it wrong. Atheist crusader, Sam Harris, is apparently one such advocate.
I bring this up because I was just reading today's Nickolas D. Kristof column (who I tend to like) in the NYT (calling for a truce between religion and atheism) and he quoted Mr. Harris about the embryonic stem cell debate: "Mr. Harris," Kristof writes, "makes some legitimate policy points, such as criticism of conservative Christians who try to block research on stem cells because of their potential to become humans. 'Almost every cell in your body is a potential human being, given our recent advances in genetic engineering,' notes Mr. Harris. 'Every time you scratch your nose, you have committed a Holocaust of potential human beings."
Ah, the hubris of the public intellectual who wrongly believes he is smarter than those he criticizes. First, the "conservative Christian" opponents of ESCR who I know do not criticize ESCR because stem cells are potential human beings. They know quite well that embryonic stem cells are just cells. Rather, they criticize ESCR because it destroys a human embryo, which is, from a biological perspective, a nascent and developing human being.
Second, cloning is the only technology by which any adult body cell could potentially be involved in the creation of a new human being. But that doesn't make every body cell a potential human being. You see, just as in sexual reproduction, asexual reproduction--or cloning--requires an egg. So at most, every body cell is akin to a sperm cell--which is not a potential human being either, but just a cell.
Third, ESCR and "stem cell research" are not synonyms. The former is one form of the latter.
Fourth: And neither is stem cell research a synonym for somatic cell nuclear transfer cloning, (although the political-scientists pushing the cloning agenda pretend it is, and the media plays right along.) Thus, trying to block cloning is not the same at all as trying to block stem cell research.
In any event, if the quote in Kristof's column is typical of the other arguments Harris makes, the great atheist crusader is the truly ignorant advocate. (Kristof appears woefully ignorant about ESCR, too, but at least he isn't hubristic about it.) Then again, perhaps they both just listened to the folk affiliated with the Alliance for Medical Research, whose descriptions of embryonic stem cell research would earn them a flunking grade in a high school biology class.
posted by Wesley J. Smith @ 4:03 PM
7 Comments
7 Comments:
I don't mind ignorance. We are all about some things. But he didn't even bother to find out what those with whom he disagrees actually argue. And his presumption is that he is oh, so RATIONAL while those he opposes are not. This demonstrates that it ain't necessarily so, at least with regard to ESCR.
I got this forwarded to my work email as the first patent for clinical use of ESC.
Now, I don't want to do your work for you, but the clinical/ peer review criteria for patent approval is nothing compared to FDA approval. Nowhere even close.
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-bool.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&co1=AND&d=PTXT&s1=7,141,363.PN.&OS=PN/7,141,363&RS=PN/7,141,363
Royale - can you clarify in a couple of ways?
What is the "nothing compared to" difference between patenting and FDA approval? Isn't it a bit apples and oranges to say that they should be compared? The Patent office only judges whether "something" is different than other "things" and possibly useful, while the FDA judges safety and efficacy. Suffice to say both are better than journal peer review and most "regulatory" peer review.
Also don't understand most of what I read in the patent but it seemed to how to move cells where you wanted them for various clinical cellsand didn't really focus on whether they were stem cells.
The article was sent to me by "stemcellpatentsonline", claiming it was the first peer reviewed publication about clinical use of stem cell research.
Bearing that in mind, it was for a patent and not a scientific one and not FDA approval.
I was implying that, but I suppose wasn't clear enough, that I was being skeptical of what it meant to be "peer reviewed." Peer review is very different from either and does not necessarily mean this thing actually works, or works well, or the benefits outweigh the ricks - all of which I figured would be more important issues for this blog.
I didn't understand from actually reading the patent that it was about stem cells. Again, it was sent to me by the organization claiming that it was. After reading it, I cannot reach the same conclusion that they did.
I am amazed at how you people excoriate Sam Harris. He exposes the insalubrious side about relgion in general, and Christianity and Islam in particular. It's my opinion that Christianity precipitated the Holocaust and that Islam is the source of all terrorism. That does not make me an atheist, nor does it make me even an enemy of religious people.
It reads to me like all of you are merely reacting to some uncomfortable truths about your "faith", regardless Sam Harris' "ignorance" of stem cell research.
Sam Harris' book The End of Faith has made me think hard on my faith in G-D, which is not a bad thing, really. Sam Harris' critizisms should goad us into greater introspection. And just what is wrong with that? I remember Rabbi Meir Kahane stating once that whenever one side of a debate cannot come up with a refutal or disproof, they usually revert to insult and ad hominem attacks. Your posts seem to be a perfect example of this "trend".
hockey bound: It is intellectually lazy to assume that people have a religious reason for arguing unless those are the arguments made. It allows you to avoid dealing with facts and assertions.
This blog is not religious and deals with the issues in which it engages from a secular human rights perspective. I could give a hoot about Harris' atheism.
So deal with the facts discussed, if you can.
I'm sorry, I was certain I read somewhere on this page the term "Christian conservative". I'm not a Christian, but I'm quite sure "religion" (whether secular or otherwise) has very much to do with the present stem cell debate.
"secular human rights perspective" would certainly fall under the heading "religious" in my books.
"intellectually lazy"? "avoid dealing with facts and assertions"?? Here you go with those ad hominem attacks again.
"It is intellectually lazy to assume that people have a religious reason for arguing unless those are the arguments made. It allows you to avoid dealing with facts and assertions."
I have no reason to avoid dealing with "facts and assertions". What on earth are you talking about? I was merely pointing out how your blog seems to be obssessed with excoriating Sam Harris and his views. Outside of that, I don't care about your views, whether religious, secular, or from the fucking planet Mars.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home