Antioch Road

One Paragraph Review: Stars and Their Purpose by Werner Gitt

Stars and Their Purpose: Signposts in Space by Werner Gitt
My rating: 5 of 5 stars

This book from German physics professor Werner Gitt presents, from a Bibical perspective, the purposes of the stars. Along the way, Gitt sets out amazing facts about our solar system, our galaxy, and the universe beyond, underscoring the incredible scope and magnitude of it all. The central message, though, is explaining *why* the stars are there. Many people look up at the night sky and wonder what is out there; some even place their hope in the stars. The Bible is not silent on these issues. This book outlines in straightforward fashion why God created the stars. If we believe the Bible, it is worth knowing what it says about the "stars and their purpose" (or, more accurately than the title, their "purposes," for there are more than one). Translated into English from German, the book reads well and quickly, and is an excellent resource.

View all my reviews

One Paragraph Review: The Great Alaskan Dinosaur Adventure by Buddy Davis

The Great Alaskan Dinosaur Adventure by Buddy Davis

My review

rating: 3 of 5 stars
This is the story of the true journey of fine men into Alaska in search of unfossilized bones. As an adventure story, it's good. I learned a lot about Alaska (watch out for the mosquitoes!). It's also a very quick read, as it's just 133 pages in relatively large typeface. I did expect more from the book on the significance for a young earth of unfossilized bones. But I had fun reading it nonetheless.

View all my reviews.

One Paragraph Review: The Modern Creation Trilogy: Volume I: Scripture & Creation

The first volume of Henry & John Morris's creation trilogy sets forth the Biblical argument for a six-day, young-earth creation. In doing so, they effectively argue against various Biblical interpretations that seek to line the Bible up with an old earth viewpoint, such as theistic evolution, progressive creation, the day-age theory, and the gap theory. The most valuable part of the book is its explanation of why recent creation is an essential doctrine. Everything about our lives -- from sin-led separation to Christ's redemptive sacrifice to repentance to salvation -- flows from God's creative acts and the timing of those acts. God's gifts are great and the first Gift is Life. After reading this book, one can no longer take the importance of Genesis for granted.

Where Would John Kerry Draw the Line on Scientific Research?

Eric Cohen asks some important questions of John Kerry in the July 5 issue of The Weekly Standard ("Kerry's Zealotry: Extremism in defense of science is no virtue."), questions Kerry has yet to answer at the same time he criticizes the President for his stand on embryonic stem cell research:

The one-dimensional zeal of Kerry's stem cell campaign is striking. He offers no serious discussion of the ethical dilemmas involved in destroying nascent human life--just assertions that the ethical issues will be "resolved." He shows little respect for citizens who believe destroying human embryos is wrong--just demands that their tax dollars be used to support it. He says that we should "push the boundaries of medical exploration"--but says nothing about what ethical boundaries, if any, should be inviolable. For example: Should we use public funds to produce cloned embryos for research and destruction? Should we develop embryos--cloned or uncloned--to the fetal stage as a source of spare parts? Should we implant human embryos in animal wombs? Is there anything a civilized people should refuse to do--even if it might advance medicine in the future? On these ethical questions, Kerry is utterly silent. Or rather, he says, "I have full faith that our scientists will go forward with a moral compass"--but says nothing about what compass they'll use.

Before being taken seriously on this issue, Kerry must begin to answer these questions.

Man and Ape

Louder Fenn on the DNA differences between man and ape:

What's this? Chimp DNA and human DNA are almost identical? Ah, yes. The factoid has resurfaced. What's the latest percentage? Oh, my: 99.4%... Yeah, yeah. Whatever. Obviously that 0.6% makes all the difference in the world.

Exactly. The rest of the post is worth reading as well.

Following the Great Example

Eve Tushnet linked to my post discussing cloning in which I mentioned an old British case that held upheld the convictions of murder of three men who killed a fourth man in order to keep themselves alive while adrift at sea. I finally got around to looking the case up. I was right that it is a British case (Regina v. Dudley and Stephens). It was decided in 1884. In reading parts of it again, I was struck by this statement from one of the judges: "[I]t is enough in a Christian country to remind ourselves of the Great Example whom we profess to follow." The judge made the statement in the context of stating that one of the men on the boat should have sacrificed himself for the others, rather than 3 of the men murdering a fourth. It's a statement that I don't think we'll hear out of Britian anytime soon (not that there aren't Christian judges in Britian, but Christianity in Britian has been on a study decline for at least much of the past half-century).

You Can't Kill to Save

Morally misguided scientific paralysis (Bruce Fein, Washington Times, 4/16/2002)

Bruce Fein, the general counsel for the Center for Law and Accountability, argues against a blanket ban on human embryo cloning for research or reproductive purposes.  In doing so, he employs the following analogy:

Suppose a child, a middle-aged married female, and an elderly man are adrift on a raft. All will starve before reaching shore unless one is cannibalized. Their lives have been equally irreproachable. Doesn't morality dictate killing the man in his sunset hours to save the infant and spouse with exciting long years ahead instead of letting all three perish? Doesn't the life-giving end justify the homicidal means, analogous to the right to kill in self-defense or defense of another?

I was initially going to say that this was a stupid fact situation. But instead, I think it's just a stupid conclusion. No, morality does not dictate killing the man to save the others. The means do not justify the ends. The murder is unjustified. Any number of things could happen that would have made the killing of the man unnecessary, with the most likely their being rescued before they reach shore.

In any case, morality dictates that one of them should sacrifice themselves to save the other two. Obviously, the infant wouldn't have the mental capacity to grasp the situation, leaving either the woman or the man to sacrifice themselves. In no case, however, should 2 of the 3 decide to kill the other without that person's consent. That person has as much of a right to live as the other three. The key point is that someone must voluntarily sacrifice their life. In the case of an embryo destroyed for research purposes (which is the case of embryos that would be cloned for research), the embryo has not made a voluntary decision to be destroyed.

Some people find it easy to justify destroying embryos because they rationalize that an embryo isn't really a person. They haven't been born, we can't talk to them, etc. But there is no doubt that an embryo is a lifeform. And there is further no doubt that that lifeform is human in nature. There is no way around that fact.

In fact, the fact situation made up by Bruce Fein actually happened. My first year criminal law class discussed it. The case is called Regina v. Dudley and Stephens. It's an older case, and I seem to remember it being a British case, but I can't remember at the moment. The court in that case upheld the defendants' convictions for murder. To paraphrase the court (taken from my notes), someone should have sacrificed themselves to save the others or accept the consequences instead of three of the men deciding to kill the weaker fourth one.

Meanwhile, Benjamin Domenech had a good post on cloning last night dealing with libertarian support of it.