News from Around the World

Richard M. Doerflinger — Deputy Director, Secretariat for Pro-Life Activities, U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops — testified on November 15 before a Virginia legislative stem cell research subcommittee regarding the Catholic Church’s perspective on stem cell research. A copy of his testimony is available stemcellresearch.org

You can view the two ads online by clicking here. One 30 second ad features former Senator Jack Danforth arguing that you can be "pro-lfe" and pro-stem cell. The other 60 second ad explains the value of stem cell research and encourages Missourians to sign the iniative.

I actually attended this talk and stayed for the whole time and saw that the liberal audience was respectful — certainly not the “unhinged” portrayal that Malkin presents. If anything, the double standard becomes apparent in the unhinged conservative movements, not only do they call everything a “liberal bias” or “anti-Bush” but the comparable extremes to Malkin’s case studies are norms such as war-mongering ego-driven profiteers and the extreme cases of ignorant conservatism ranging from intolerance of scientific progress (again, ranging from stem cell research to intelligent design) to the KKK.

New West has the story. Apparently, Dennis “Wasn’t Interested in Science ‘Til He Heard It Involves Flasks” Rehberg is amazed by how “real scientists” want some changes to the Endangered Species Act. He apparently found other “real scientists” less convincing when they told him that stem cell research is good and global warming exists.

No one had seen other galaxies from the Hubble Telescope or the earth from a Space Shuttle. When Jesus healed in Galilee, No one had heard of the germ theory, or antibiotics, Or stem cell research, the double helix of DNA or the Human Genome project. When Paul wrote to the churches in Corinth and Ephesus, and Philippi, no one knew of CroMagnon, Neanderthal, Java Man or Louis Leakey’s Lucy. Biblical writers and Jesus-followers knew no conflict between science and religion. We might envy them. Today, major science/religion issues make news weekly, if not more often: stem cell research, genetic engineering, abortion, evolution/intelligent design, to name just a few. When scientific observations (whether they be of the solar system, or subatomic particles, animal behavior or cell physiology) meet religious faith (whether that be of the origin of the humankind, or end-of-life choices) fireworks spark in both fields and people get nervous. So, how do you and I who live in an advanced scientific culture sustain a religious faith whose history dates to a pre-scientific age? Scientists are asked the question and edge toward atheism. Theologians are asked the question and find refuge in fundamentalism. Politicians are asked the question and try to gain votes, choose the most widely acceptable Supreme Court Justices, and raise campaign funds. Poets write bad couplets like Scottish poet William McGonagall who wrote, “When faith and reason clash Let reason go to smash” OR “And, when faith and reason clash, ‘Tis faith that goes to smash.” But what helps us when it comes to practical living—what gets taught in public schools, who gets public funding, how we live a life of faithfulness before God? We enjoy jokes which cover up our existential angst: God is sitting in heaven when a scientist prays to Him, “God, we don’t need you anymore. Science has finally figured out a way to create life out of nothing. In other words, we can now do what you did in the “beginning.” “Oh, is that so? Tell Me…” replies God. “Well,” says the scientist, “we can take dirt and form it into the likeness of you and breathe life into it, thus creating man.” “Well, that’s interesting…show Me.” So the scientist bends down to the earth and starts to mold the soil. “No, no, no…” interrupts God, “Get your own dirt.” Dirt. When it comes to the question of evolution, that’s what it comes down to. Primordial mud. To find answers to life’s persistent questions, both Christians and anthropologists turn to dirt…for bones…or for the story of creation. This second creation account of Genesis 2 arises out of a different tradition than that in Genesis 1. It is simplified: no formless void and darkness, no creation “ex nihilo” out of nothing, no mention of days or time, no chorus of “it’s very good”. Creation is not complete: no animals as yet, no passing weather fronts to provide rain, no garden for food. The text suggests there is dry land, and underground springs which flood the land. From this barren environment, God scoops up, and then molds, (not creates, which is a different Hebrew word, but molds like clay) the adamah, (earth) into the “adam” the as yet genderless earthling. (Woman and man are differentiated later in the chapter; until then the word is generic for “human”.) Our bodies actually are composed of the same elements as in the earth and sea: Oxygen, and hydrogen, carbon, and nitrogen, calcium, phosphorus as well as trace amounts of zinc and copper and iron. We are of humble origins; some physicists will tell us that those elements came from exploding stars…we are made of recycled stardust! But the earthling made of earth’s clay was not complete! God inspirited it with God’s very breath, the breath of life, granting the earthling unique status among all other animals. Dirt and Deity. The Judeo-Christian faith tells us we are made of Dirt And Deity. Remembering that the Bible is no more a book of science than the Darwin’s Origin of the Species is of faith, I suggest we can affirm these statements from Genesis: God’s hand is evident in creation. Humankind alone is inspirited with the breath of God. Each human being is both spirit and matter, of earth and heaven. Our other text, from Psalm 8, which we sang earlier, suggests two additional affirmations: God’s awesome beauty and power manifests itself in the physical world. Humans stand in humble awe of their Creator, and their Creator’s care. The Presbyterian Church (USA) adds this statement for our consideration: “Neither Scripture, our Confession of Faith, nor our Catechisms, teach the Creation of man by the direct and immediate acts of God so as to exclude the possibility of evolution as a scientific theory.” Evolutionary theory in particular, scientific inquiry in general, need not be a threat to us. These affirmations in hand, how might we interface with scientific theories of our beginnings? Ian Barbour, theologian and physicist, observes four ways science and theology meet one another. They act in conflict, act independently, are in dialogue, or integrate. Imagine with me a school with four classrooms, physicists, biologists, anthropologists, scientists, and people of faith…we name them all theologians because they have been thinking about God. We enter the first classroom and are immediately overwhelmed by aggressive, noisy debate. CONFLICT! Passions run high. Think Scopes “Monkey Trial”, or school boards in Georgia arguing about which textbook science teachers will use. The media and those on the extremes of each field have fanned the flames to encourage conflict and an “I’m right, you’re wrong” attitude. Biblical literalists and fundamentalists clash in this room. The Biblical Literalists believe, for example, that the theory of evolution denies the existence of a deity: it must be jettisoned or proved in error. On the other hand, the scientists defend a philosophy that matter is the only reality in the universe and argue that evolution is completely incompatible with any religious belief inclusive of a Higher Being. Fundamentalist scientists and fundamentalist people of faith put on face masks and protective jackets and go at it like fencers, parlaying forward, back, thrust, touché! The good news is that we need not stay and bear this attack. Exhausted by the conflict, we move on to the next classroom. Immediately we see an entirely different attitude: All the scientists are in one corner talking amongst themselves. All the religious advocates are in another. Occasionally they look over and smile at the other group. They have decided to maintain independence. Both sides have their own ways of “knowing”, (science through observation and testing of hypotheses and formulating theories, and faith through divine revelation in scripture, history, personal experience). In this worldview, scientific theory is taught in schools; matters of faith are taught and tended in church and home. The constitutionally mandated separation of Church and State requires it. Occasionally a visitor from the Conflict Room enters and stirs things up by suggesting that classically religious beliefs (Creationism or Intelligent Design) are actually scientific theory, but for the most part, there is peace. Science and religion would no more engage in this room than, say, Colin Powell would consult with Star Trek’s Captain Kirk We see merits in what’s happening in this classroom. It’s easier to live in, less stressful, even happy. We look at each other and nod. Maybe this is the solution. But the tour is not over. The next room is the Dialogue Room. Two lines of chairs sit in the middle of the room, one line of scientists, another line of theologians and people of faith. Each is clear about what they believe and know. They are comparing methods, and asking questions of one another in attempt to bridge differences and gain input in areas lacking in clarity. Anthropologists are conversing with theologians around the idea that at a certain time in history, suddenly the fossil record shows that humans intentionally buried their dead. What does this mean to the theologians? Has there been an evolution of the spirit? The author of a new book, Spook, engages a scientist and a preacher about the weight and existence of the soul. A bizarre book, but at least there is dialogue. On the walls of this room we read the rules. “Every opinion is valid. Everyone has a chance to talk.” We do not see the likes of Pat Robertson. In this room, science can speak with religion about what the history of the universe has been like and how life developed on Earth. Faith may suggest in response that God preceded evolutionary process, established the rules of physics, or biochemistry, reminding their dialogue partner that science need not deny the that the world is God’s creation. It’s tempting to remain here, but there is one more classroom, the Room of Integration. On the walls we notice quotations from the past when science and religion cooperated. “Nothing would ‘rejoice’ me more than that my science should be used for the purpose of demonstrating the existence of a deity.” Sir Isaac Newton. “Science is not only the surest path to knowing God, it is the only path.” Maimonides. “No doubt God could have produced a ready made world with a snap of the divine fingers, but the Creator chose to do something cleverer than that!” English Clergyman Charles Kingsley. The interaction in the room looks like the Meet and Mingle café. Everyone is mingling about, occasionally pairing up for deeper engagement because in here, scientists and religious folk do not see themselves as enemies, but rather as partners in search of the truth. Theologians do not attempt to be scientists, suggesting they can prove their beliefs and scientists do not dabble ignorantly in Biblical interpretation—unless they have been cross-trained. . You hear a physicist discussing his recent graduation from a theological seminary with a seminary professor who also has a PhD in physics. What a contrast to the first classroom! You wonder what would happen if you shared some of your religious beliefs here…both with the other people of faith, and with the scientists: God’s hand is evident in creation. Humankind alone is inspirited with the breath of God. Each human being is both spirit and matter, of earth and heaven. God’s awesome beauty and power manifests itself in the physical world. Humans stand in humble awe of their Creator, and their Creator’s care. We have walked through imaginary, external rooms, but conversations and conflicts about science and faith are internal as well; our minds fight with our spirits; our life of faith dialogues with our intellectual acceptance of scientific theory. At times we push evolution into one corner, and our faith into another. There is more than one way to resolve this dissonance! As for me, Biblical faith tells me that God molded humanity into being. Science theorizes how, over what period of time; I am intrigued by both! If the heavens are declaring God’s glory, why not learn from scientists about how, whether or not they themselves believe in a Creator? Do we have ancestors who climbed trees, walked on all fours, had pea size brains? Did the universe begin with a Bang? I’m reasonably convinced by those theories, but whether or not they can be proven, I know God’s hand molded me and keeps on molding me, that God’s Spirit is within this physical body, so similar to other animals. I shall still praise God for the beauty of a fall day, and the playful whimsy of Chimpanzee, the twinkling of the stars on a crisp dark night and that I am made of stardust.

The theory, called altered nuclear transfer (ANT), proposes that researchers first create genetically altered embryos that are unable to implant in a uterus, and then extract stem cells from these embryos. Because the embryos cannot implant, they are by definition not "potential" human lives. Some suggest that this would quell the protests of critics who claim that embryonic stem cell research necessitates the destruction of human life. Scientists and ethicists have debated the merits of this approach, but so far it has not been achieved.

Science has never been more crucial to deciding the issues facing the country, yet science and scientists have less influence with the federal government than at any time since the Eisenhower administration. On a broad array of issues-stem cell research, climate change, missile defense, abstinence education, product safety, environmental regulation, and many others the Bush administration's positions fly in the face of overwhelming scientific consensus. Federal science agencies, once fiercely independent under both Republican and Democratic presidents, are increasingly staffed by political appointees and fringe theorists who know industry lobbyists and evangelical activists far better than they know the science.

Part of my argument for stem cell research naturally derives from my pro choice views. An embryo is just that, an embryo. Whether or not it can be considered a person is highly debatable. At any stage during which stem cells would conceivably be harvested, it lacks the central nervous system necessary to feel pain or even care about its state of being. If one accepts a woman’s right to choose abortion, then an embryo about to be aborted is essentially terminal. What harm can there be, then, by using it for the benefit of others? After all, the embryo is little more than a clump of organic tissue, no more a person than a harvested organ.

Scientists and ethicists said the approaches offered a potential compromise with social conservatives who see embryonic stem cell research as an untenable trade-off that amounts to destroying life to create medical cures.

I have discussed stem cell research previously, but I have read a new article about a new procedure…

South Korea Catholic Church offers $10 Million for Adult Stem Cell Research :: Stem Cells :: ProLifeBlogs

Pro-embryonic stem cell research scientists are increasingly pushing the limits of the age of the unborn child when it becomes socially and scientifically acceptable to take apart for its body parts. While the 14-day embryo - which appears to be merely a ball of cells - is now the latest-stage embryo that most pro-cloning scientists say publicly that they will use for research, that boundary is being pushed back, with a recent study denying early embryos feel pain as just the latest, subtle volley, Hurlbut said. “Seven - to 10 - week old embryos are going to prove to be the most scientifically useful,” he said.

I was invited up to be a part of a Respect Life Symposium on Friday. It was a wonderful model, I think, for how to heighten awareness, give information and understanding, and foster action and commitment on the “gospel of life” with young people. The underlying theme/approach was about respecting life in a consistent ethic of life. The issues of abortion and euthanasia were discussed as well as stem cell research, war, racism, poverty, and capital punishment were brought into focus as part of a true Catholic understanding of respecting life. You need to contact Scott Miller for more on the dynamics and specifics of the day.

You may be frustrated with the Bush Administration, but think: you’re angry about spending, but did he promise not to spend money on the war or disaster relief? You’re angry about immigration, but did he say he was going to implement the plans you wanted? Maybe you’re frustrated about our still being in Iraq, but did he say we would be gone by now? No on all counts, and in fact, the opposite–he has always been very up-front about these things. And of course, there are the things he said he would do, and did, despite the opposition (embryonic stem cell research funding, tax cuts, and most of all, the war).

Alright when I first heard about this I was like huh? Then I was like wha? Then after I got over that moment of disorientation I said huh? Christopher Walken for President? He even has a platform on the website. He's pro-choice, for stem cell research, for campaign finance reform and here's his take on Iraq :

“[A]ccording to press reports, she did not win a reputation as a forceful conservative on issues such as the administration’s position on stem cell research or affirmative action.”

First, I do trust President Bush to be a genuinely committed social conservative. From stem cell research, to partial birth abortion, to defending marriage, his record has been strongly pro-life and pro-family. His passion throughout the campaign was to have good judges who will interpret law and not legislate from the bench. Second, I trust Dr. Dobson’s judgment and insight about Harriet Miers. Yes, I will closely watch the confirmation process hoping to learn more about Miers’ judicial philosophy. However, based on all that we know, Harriet Miers may be exactly the type of individual we want as the next Associate Justice for the Supreme Court. I do think that it should be made clear to this president and future presidents that social conservatives will not simply roll over and salute every risky decision made like this in the future. But throwing rocks at the President right now is not productive.

The Catholic Church in South Korea has decided to donate millions of dollars for adult stem cell research. The move comes amid strong Vatican opposition to embryonic stem cell research and is reflects support for research into an alternative.

Bush opposed stem cell research. That has even some anti-abortion types scratching their heads.

The opinion of the Church funding research for adult stem cells is that it is doing so because of her objection to embryonic stem cell research. But, it seems to make sense that money would be put behind endeavors that are fruitful, and don’t have the moral and ethical questions that embryonic stem cell research does.

And of course, who could forget Bill Frist's break with the culture-of-lifers when he came out in favor of government funded Stem Cell Research?

Polls have shown Mr. Bush's approval ratings near the lowest levels of his presidency. And Senate Republican strategists say that since his nomination of Judge John G. Roberts Jr. to the court, members of their conference have grown increasingly willing to disagree with the White House, notably on matters like stem cell research, Mr. Bush's choice for ambassador to the United Nations and the war in Iraq.

For two full days, George W. Bush was bashed. He was taken to task on his handling of stem cell research, population control, the Iraq war and, especially, Hurricane Katrina. The critics were no left-wing bloggers. They were rich, mainly Republican and presumably Bush voters in the last two presidential elections.

Lori Lipman Brown plans to work for her new church by fighting policies rooted in Christian religious beliefs, such as limits on stem cell research and access to emergency contraception. She is going to oppose policies that breach the “non-existant” wall between church and state, such as government funding of “faith-based” service programs.

Remember, if you live in the US, your president doesn’t want you to have the option of walking again after a spinal injury. He demonstrates his desires by blocking the research that is likely to provide the option. Bush opposes stem cell research. His reasons? It kills babies. The facts? No it doesn’t.

• As part of broad coalitions fighting policies rooted in religious beliefs, such as limits on stem cell research and access to emergency contraception.

I guess embryonic stem cell research is a global issue. Could it save lives? Well I hope so. There was a big issue involving the way research is used in finding cures that strongly affected the christian belief and politics in the United States. President Bush wants to stop the use of embryos for reseach because of his beliefs. But there shouldn’t be religion in politics right??? Well I believe so for one being Jewish and that who really determines when there is life and when there isn’t. Well good news. Thanks to research scientists have found the use of cord blood, has embryonic like cells that can be used instead of well the embryo. These cells can be used to make any tissue of the body and can be reproduced. Joyce Price said that “Scientists believe the ability to replicate tissue could lead to the development of ways to replace organs as well as treat life-threatening diseases such as diabetes, Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s, which have been the focus of stem-cell research. “What a great finding!! But I still think that embryonic cells need the research and Bush and others should get over it and realize that many people could eventually be cured of Parkinsons and other horrible diseases all over the world. Why should 1 person determine the use or not. You really should read this article andfind our more on the topic to decide what you think.

Do you believe in God? Do you really believe in God? Yes, I am challenging your faith right now. Get mad at me, throw something and proclaim "how dare he challenge my faith!". Yes, I am challenging your faith. If you really believe in God you know he doesn't believe in abortion. You know he doesn't want us to rip apart his children in the womb. If you really believe in God you know he isn't happy with embryonic stem cell research. We are God's children, not man's guinea pigs.

The Republican Right has, for far too long, utlizied distorted “science” to make points and pass legislation. Issues like stem cell research, climate change, and abstinence education are marketed to the public with spun “facts” that specifically fit the conservative agenda. There is legitimate science out there, people who study data and anaylize it with no political aspirations in mind. How is it possible that the Republican Right has succeeded in twisting data and spoonfeeding it to the public as truth? Why aren’t they held by the constraints of fact like the rest of us.

I resent the implication that because my personal beliefs and morals don’t position me against stem cell research, I am somehow blindly following the scientific community and their so-called “bio-apologists”. I know what stem cell research is. I know how it works. I know what is created and what is “destroyed.” Knowing all this, I still have no moral qualms against it. Why? Because I don’t believe there’s any inherent worth in small amounts of human tissue, no matter that tissue’s “potential.” There is worth in individuals, and if this research can help humans, I don’t see why it shouldn’t be given every opportunity to do so.

- Embryonic stem cell research is in full swing around the world, including the United States. Just because President Bush didn't fully fund it doesn't mean it isn't funded. California invested billions into the project already. Instead of being the first president to fund embryonic stem cell research he should have been the first president to ban it!

First, let's address the storm itself. As much as I love to blame W. for everything, I do realize specific meteorological phenomena aren't actually anyone's fault. BUT -- I believe global warming contributes significantly to the intensity of storms in the Atlantic, and that global warming is caused at least in part by greenhouse gas emissions. I understand there are those who like to pretend that scientists are still debating global warming. But these people also like to pretend scientists are still debating such issues as natural selection, the benefits of stem cell research, the safety of emergency contraception, the efficacy of corrective therapy for gay men, and the historicity of Noah's Ark.

Cross-country Wheelchair Trip in US by Paraplegic to Raise Funds for Stem Cell Research

In vitro fertilization, stem cell research, selective breeding in the womb, abortion on demand, human creation in the lab... all these things are reality today. This isn't some future science fiction novel, this is happening right now in the United States!

The report by the National Academy of Sciences, perhaps the nation’s most eminent organization of scientists, is scheduled to be made public on Tuesday morning at a news conference in Washington. It does not address Mr. Bush’s policy directly, though it strongly supports federal financing for stem cell research.

California's stem cell research agency awarded the first of a planned $3 billion in grants Friday, announcing that a little less than $39 million would go to UCLA, UC Irvine, Stanford and several other campuses to help set up programs to train scientists.

While surfing aimlessly as I do, trying to get a feel for any possible worthy candidates for High Overlord once time tells Dubya to start pounding the pavement, I found a wonderful website. Full of informative quotes displaying a candidate with true hearted ideals and a sound interest in the well being of America. The website was filled with quotes from the candidate expressing an interest in the issues that affect real everyday American citizens. Issues like the war in Iraq, campaign finance reform, and stem cell research are approached in a fundamentalist manner. The candidate is not afraid to place himself firmly on one side of an issue and let his feelings be known.

Pros- we could find better ways to cure diseases like Alzheimer’s. Re: Stem Cell Research … Since I am not for in vitro fertilizatin I have no problem being agai

But while we are dragging Iraqis into the 21st century, we are forcing Americans back into the Dark Ages by allowing “other people’s choices” to become law. If the majority of Americans think birth control, including the morning-after pill, should be readily available, why isn’t it? If the majority wants to support stem cell research, why can’t they? If the majority understands the difference between scientific inquiry and faith-based wishful thinking, why are we allowing religious extremists to undermine our educational system?

$40 million from the Li Ka Shing Foundation to support innovative research, including stem cell research, as part of the UC Berkeley Health Sciences Initiative. The donation, the largest international gift in the history of UC Berkeley, will go toward the Li Ka Shing Center for Biomedical and Health Sciences.

Mooney covers a lot of ground and much of it will be famililar to many readers; climate change obviously gets a lot of coverage, but so too does intelligent design, the Endangered Species Act, attemptes to link cancer to abortion, abstinence programs. The chapter on stem cell research is particularly useful in dispelling both right-wing claims about adult stem cells & supporters claims about the potential for cure, while outlining the true potential on SCs. The reader will come away with a good grounding in Republican buzz-words such as “junk science” and legislation such as the “Data Quality Act”. In short, highly recommended.

There are many good articles at The Strata-Sphere on stem cell research, but I have had one position on this topic since day one, namely that if an embryo is a human being we don't have the right to kill him/her in order to use that person for healing or experimentation.

Lord Winston, who pioneered fertility research in the UK, bemoans the hype and spin from some supporters of embryonic stem cell research.

4. Denying the millions the benefits of stem cell research, refusing to fund it and terrorizing any sane minded

The potential benefits of embryonic stem cell research have probably been oversold to the public, fertility expert Lord Winston says.

#4. His base is falling apart. The one group that would never go to Kerry, even an inch, was the Religious Right. And what has he done for them lately? Absolutely nothing. All he’s done for them is endorse Intelligent Design, during the one week it was in the news. I only heard about him endorsing ID three times myself, so I can’t imagine a whole lot of his base heard about it. Even if they did, that is secondary to a whole lot of other things-stem cell research and abortion primarily.

While scientific literacy has doubled over the past two decades, only 20 to 25 percent of Americans are "scientifically savvy and alert," he said in an interview. Most of the rest "don't have a clue." At a time when science permeates debates on everything from global warming to stem cell research, he said, people's inability to understand basic scientific concepts undermines their ability to take part in the democratic process.

Our new governor, Rod Blagojevich (for out-of-state residents, that's pronounced "blahg-OY-ovitch", which is my best phonetic shot), seems particularly eager to make a name for himself early on. He made recent headlines when he allocated, by executive order, $10 million of the state's budget (which had previously been hidden in a vague line item for hospital and university research) specifically for embryonic stem cell research -- neatly side-stepping the legislature to do so.

"The Republican Party has never been this narrow, litmus-test type party," claimed Whitman, who plays to a 14.8 handicap index. "We can disagree on an issue like choice or stem cell research and not be an enemy or a bad person. We need to get away from this approach that we see more and more today, that you can't be a good Republican if you don't believe certain things in a certain way." In her book, "It's My Party Too," which came out earlier this year, she was critical of the Bush administration for how it disengaged from the Kyoto accord on global warming. At the same time, Whitman, who served as administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency until June 2003, praised President Bush for his efforts in other environmental areas...

Also, again with regard to the legislature, we lock the government in to spending money through these initiatives, like the stem cell research which passed in the last election. Does ANYONE have any idea as to the percentage of the general fund that has been committed in this way? It is one heck of a way to run a business. Be the initiatives a good idea, like the stem cell idea probably was, it is just no way to run the government.

Classes started today and I had two of them. I sat in a broken chair in both. That’s not really a good sign, but biology actually seems like it will be interesting, since they like to deal with current topics and things that will have an effect on us (like the melting permafrost in Alaska or gene therapy or [this will be a fun one] stem cell research). Maybe after a little discussion, we’ll have that many less red voters and Bush supporters. And how many headlines have I seen in the past few years that are the exact same phrase, ‘Bush defends policy on Iraq war’? Good luck douchebag.

Harvard scientists have figured out how to turn skin cells into embryonic stem cells, according to this AP story. This would be good news for all concerned. It would allow embryonic stem cell research to continue without all of the controversy.

The Senator makes no move that isn’t a calculated, cynical ploy for votes. His latest wink-wink-nudge-nudge act of Senatorial altruism, following his diagnosis of Terri Schiavo based on “an hour or so” of watching a video of her and his recent change of heart on stem cell research, is to state that intelligent design should be taught alongside evolution in public classrooms because such a curriculum “doesn’t force any particular theory on anyone.”

Frist, who is considering a presidential campaign in 2008, recently angered some conservatives by bucking Bush policy on embryonic stem cell research, voicing his support for expanded research on the subject.

I know there is a lot of talk about morality going on right now in the united states… or really it seems more like each side yelling at the other without listening. where is the line? i know that i don’t hear about much in the world of science that i think corsses the line. i’m all for stem cell research and all i think about snuppy the cloned puppy is that he is cute and i’d like to pet him. I love to hear about new materials, new discoveries, and the test tube meat excites me, I’d love to be able to satisfy the carnivore and the hippie in me at the same time.

Senator Bill Frist was uninvited after statements he made approving of certain scenarios of embryonic stem cell research. Even though Senator Frist claimed that only embryos that were to be destroyed anyway should be used, that was enough difference of opinion for him to be ousted by his once loyal supporters.

The suit was filed on behalf of Mary Scott Doe, a fictitious embryo produced by in vitro fertilization and then frozen and put into storage. Some of these embryos, which people have decided not to use in attempts to have children, have been donated for use in stem cell research, which involves destroying them.

DOBSON: You know, the thing that means so much to me here on this this issue [embryonic stem cell research] is that people talk about the potential for good that can come from destroying these little embryos and how we might be able to solve the problem of juvenile diabetes. There’s no indication yet that they’re gonna do that, but people say that, or spinal cord injuries or such things. But I have to ask this question: In World War II, the Nazis experimented on human beings in horrible ways in the concentration camps, and I imagine, if you wanted to take the time to read about it, there would have been some discoveries there that benefited mankind. You know, if you take a utilitarian approach, that if something results in good, then it is good. But that’s obviously not true. We condemn what the Nazis did because there are some things that we always could do but we haven’t done, because science always has to be guided by ethics and by morality. And you remove ethics and morality, and you get what happened in Nazi Germany. That’s why to Senator [Senate Majority Leader Bill] Frist [R-TN] and the others who are saying, “Look what may be accomplished.” Yeah, but there’s another issue, there’s a higher order of ethics here.

James Dobson is in hot water with the self-anointed intelligentsia over remarks he made comparing embryonic stem cell research with Nazi experimentation.

Over at The Corner, John Podhoretz and Ramesh Ponnuru, both thoughtful conservatives, are having a real-time, no-holds-barred debate on stem cell research. The debate is wide-ranging and incorporates the Talmud and the nature of democracy. At times it even borders on the ad hominimem.

We need to be very careful in the United States with our constant drumbeat for embryonic stem cell research. We are dangerously close to crossing the line between legitimate research and our own ethical demise.

Liberals argue that it is a mistake to let embryos in the freezer go to waste. President Bush argues that the destruction of embryos must be a last alternative and that embryo adoption would be better, but that ultimately stem cell research — perhaps with stem cells from adults or discarded placentas — must be investigated.

The Ayn Rand Institute (whose concern for the poor and suffering is legion) is the latest to dismiss human embryos from inclusion in our species based on their size.

what did he think of Sen. Frist’s position on stem cell research and his potential presidential bid?