N. T. Wright on his guitar, again!!!! Good Stuff

Creation and the Bible from Bibledex

Is Creationism a Threat to Human Rights?

Posted: Monday, October 08, 2007 at 5:47 am ET

As if the world needed another crazy development, the Council of Europe, the continent's central human rights body, last week declared creationism to be a threat to human rights. The group's Parliamentary Assembly approved a resolution stating that creationism is promoted by "forms of religious extremism."

As Reuters reported:
The Council, based in the eastern French city of Strasbourg, oversees human rights standards in member states and enforces decisions of the European Court of Human Rights.

The resolution, which passed 48 votes to 25 with 3 abstentions, is not binding on the Council's 47 member states but reflects widespread opposition among politicians to teaching creationism in science class.

The text of the resolution leaves no doubt about the Council of Europe's judgment. "For some people the Creation, as a matter of religious belief, gives a meaning to life," the text acknowledges. "Nevertheless, the Parliamentary Assembly is worried about the possible ill-effects of the spread of creationist ideas within our education systems and about the consequences for our democracies. If we are not careful, creationism could become a threat to human rights which are a key concern of the Council of Europe."

Anyone looking for evidence of a secularized culture should take a quick look at this resolution. When the official human rights institution of Europe has to explain that "some people" believe that the divine creation of the universe "gives a meaning to life," this can only mean that Europe (at least as represented by the Council of Europe) has forgotten even its Christian memory.

This body is seriously concerned that creationism is not only a threat to their secularized educational systems, but to democracy itself. Human rights could be endangered, the Council claims, if the continent is "not careful."

Someone must be passing out paranoia pills in Strasbourg. But more than secular paranoia is operating here. A closer look at this resolution indicates the centrality of Darwinian evolution to the secular worldview. Any breach in the wall defending evolution can lead, they are sure, to disaster.

"Creationists question the scientific character of certain items of knowledge and argue that the theory of evolution is only one interpretation among others," they argue. "They accuse scientists of not providing enough evidence to establish the theory of evolution as scientifically valid. On the contrary, they defend their own statements as scientific. None of this stands up to objective analysis."

So the initial cause of the offense is that creationists argue that evolution is only one theory among others. Creationists also "question the scientific character of certain items of knowledge," they assert. This rather awkward wording amounts to the charge that creationists deny the larger structure of naturalistic thought. Any doubt about the meaning of that charge is removed when the text goes on to state:

We are witnessing a growth of modes of thought which, the better to impose religious dogma, are attacking the very core of the knowledge that we have patiently built up on nature, evolution, our origins and our place in the universe.

And:

The Assembly has constantly insisted that science is of fundamental importance. Science has made possible considerable improvements in living and working conditions and is a not insignificant factor in economic, technological and social development. The theory of evolution has nothing to do with divine revelation but is built on facts.

That last sentence is truly amazing. Evolution is simply based upon "facts," they claim -- a claim that would make most evolutionary scientists blush.

But the group's commitment to naturalistic evolution is unconditional. The Council even suggests that the meaning and importance of evolution touches the totality of life and drives the development of societies: "Evolution is not simply a matter of the evolution of humans and of populations. Denying it could have serious consequences for the development of our societies."
The Council also attempts to root creationism in a political agenda to replace democracy with a theocracy. Look carefully at these two paragraphs:

Our modern world is based on a long history, of which the development of science and technology forms an important part. However, the scientific approach is still not well understood and this is liable to encourage the development of all manner of fundamentalism and extremism. The total rejection of science is definitely one of the most serious threats to human rights and civic rights.

The war on the theory of evolution and on its proponents most often originates in forms of religious extremism which are closely allied to extreme right-wing political movements. The creationist movements possess real political power. The fact of the matter, and this has been exposed on several occasions, is that some advocates of strict creationism are out to replace democracy by theocracy.

I would be most interested to see any evidence put forth to back up this claim. The group claims that such knowledge "has been exposed on several occasions" but fails to mention even one such occasion.

The Council also asserted that respectable faiths had found a way to accept and accommodate evolutionary theory. "All leading representatives of the main monotheistic religions have adopted a much more moderate attitude," they advise.

The Council of Europe's resolution is clear evidence of the fact that a secularized society desperately needs naturalistic evolution as the metaphysical foundation of its worldview. Any threat to evolution is seen as a threat to democracy and human rights -- and democracy and human rights are understood in an entirely secular framework as well.

This resolution is so extreme that, at first glance, it appears to be a farce or parody. Sadly, it is not. This is no joke. This is the shape of a secularized future.

A blessing and a curse? Synthetic sperm and being human

In the last post, I posted the news that scientist have finally dealt with the problem of sterility in men, by creating what it seems a proper way of self reproduction, and not taking into account third party options, such as donors, as for men to be able to father children.

I guess that this is good news for those couples, a man and a woman, who are unable to have children. This is a chance that they are getting so they can fulfill their dreams on becoming parents, when the affects of sin have not allowed them to fulfill their God given mandate, to multiply, Genesis 1:28 God blessed them and said to them, "Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and over every living creature that moves on the ground."

However, as with other scientific advances, this discovery may be used for the wrong reasons. Among the first people that were glad to see such a discovery were lesbians couples. They now had a chance to raise a family which would be of their own, not having to bring a third person into their relationship in order to procreate.

I hope the law makers will make good judgments in order to maintain the integrity of the family, which apart from the children, are made up of a dad and a mom, and at best, when something unforseen has happen, of one father or one mother. The family has never been envisioned to be two dads or two moms, living under one roof together.

It is my hope, my prayer, that this discovery, as with stem cells research, will be treated with the care and wisdom needed as to not temper with the family structure that has served humanity for so long.

Luis A. Jovel

German scientists "manufacture" human sperm

24 April 2007
Hamburg (dpa) - A team of scientists in Germany have "manufactured" human sperm from bone marrow, raising the prospect of mass-producing sperm that can be used in IVF treatment or to restore fertility to men made sterile by cancer therapy.

Such applications are still many years away. But scientists hope to grow fully formed sperm cells in as little as three years.

The research, conducted in Germany, has been published in the journal Reproduction: Gamete Biology.

The team led by Professor Karim Nayernia, from the University of Goettingen, first took bone marrow from male volunteers. From the samples, they isolated mesenchymal stem cells, which have previously been shown to grow into body tissues such as muscle.

Stem cells are immature cells that can be made to follow different functional pathways.

Using a form of vitamin A, the scientists coaxed the mesenchymal cells to become primordial germ cells (PGCs) - the first stage in the genesis of sperm. Specific genetic markers showed that some PGCs had further developed into more advanced spermatagonial stem cells.

Under normal circumstances, these cells eventually turn into mature, functional sperm that can fertilise an egg.

About 3 per cent of the original bone marrow stem cells were able to reach the point of being spermatagonial cells. In earlier work, Prof Nayernia derived sperm stem cells from mouse bone marrow and transplanted them into the animals' testes. Here they multiplied and began to differentiate further, without actually becoming fully formed sperm.

Nayernia said: "We are very excited about this discovery, particularly as our earlier work in mice suggests that we could develop the work even further.

"Our next goal is to see if we can get the spermatagonial stem cells to progress to mature sperm in the laboratory, and this should take around three to five years of experiments."

A priority will be to investigate why the cells fail to enter meiosis, the final stage of cell division before they become fully formed sperm.

One possibility is that they need to be accompanied by sertoli cells - special "nursing" cells found in the testes that have the job of nurturing growing sperm.

Producing sertoli cells from bone marrow, as well as sperm, is another avenue being explored.

Nayernia hopes in future the research will lead to new male infertility treatments. In particular he wants to look at the feasibility of restoring fertility to young men who have undergone chemotherapy for cancer.

This could involve culturing early-stage sperm cells in the laboratory from samples of bone marrow, or testes tissue. They would then be implanted back in the testes.

"We now have the first step, but the cells don't enter meiosis," said Nayernia. "If we could solve this problem, and I think it's scientifically possible, the next stage will be to produce functional sperm."