What We Believe Spritually Has Great Effects

Stephanie Errigo

Dr. Adam Johns

Essay #3

When you type in the phrase, “What is the meaning of life?” in a Google search, you come up with over 34,700,000 results. This makes me think that many people may think that they know what the meaning of life is and that they understand why people are put on this earth. Some people may believe that a great philosopher holds the answer to what we are here for, but I don’t think that is the case at all. I believe that we are put on this earth for many reasons and it depends on your religious beliefs for the most part. I also think that bringing designer babies into the mix would make us lose our sense of individuality. Individualism as we know it today would disappear and I also think that once people found out that everyone was engineered to have their special “niche” that people would want to escape the path they are told they have to follow.

The meaning of life can be a hard thing for people to comprehend or even want to think about. Even thinking about this question made me question why I think that people are on this earth. Obviously we can’t just be here for nothing. I feel like a lot of people look toward their religion for the answer to this question. In the case of my religion, Catholic, I look at this question in a spiritual way. I think that Pope Benedict XVI puts it best when he said, “Life is not just a succession of events or experiences; it is the search for the true, the good and the beautiful.” (Catholic.com) If we feel we aren’t here for a real reason, then we believe that life is just a succession of events and experiences. I think the things that make this world beautiful is helping each other which makes things good and true. Don’t we always seem to search for the true, good and beautiful? Aren’t we always thinking looking for the good in the world today? I feel like McKibben would agree with me in the sense that people do have a purpose even if we can’t put our finger on the reason completely.

Silver would not agree with my preceding paragraph in the least. He would say that we are here for no reason, just to better the earth and make a Utopia for us to live in. I feel like he shows the selfish side of human nature. As he says in his book, “Slowly, inevitably, human nature will remake all of Mother Nature in the image of the idealized world that exists within our minds—which is what most people really want subconsciously.”(Silver, xvi)

What if people are like Silver and belief that we aren’t here for a reason, that we’re here to make a Utopia, and what if people don’t look to their spiritual or religious background? What do they believe? I think that many people would say that they have never even thought of the answer to such a question. I know that before this was brought up in prompt, I never had thought about it before. These people may say that we are here to live for ourselves, maybe thinking that it is the “Every Man for Himself” type of society, which could be true.

Whether we think we know the meaning of life or not means that we can form opinions on designer babies. Some people like Silver may think that we are here to make a Utopian world, so of course we would make designer babies. But I feel that making designer babies would cause our meaning of life to disappear along with our sense of individuality. If we make designer babies that are specialized in the areas that the parents believe are the greatest aspects, what happens to all the other great talents that someone may have that people may forget? I’m a licensed auctioneer and have been since the age of 17. I wouldn’t trade anything for that. I don’t care that I’m not an outstanding runner or the next Mozart. People like me would be gone, and other jobs that people enjoy but may not be perceived as prestigious would disappear.

What if these designer babies found out they were designer and wanted to switch the way they were? They couldn’t because they were programmed to be that way. McKibben states in Enough that, “If you’ve been designed and programmed to run, what meaning can running hold? It becomes an endless round on a treadmill, except that the treadmill is inside you—you take it out into the woods when you go for a trail run, and onto the beach when you run beside the breakers.” (McKibben, 55) I feel like McKibben is forming a metaphor for the treadmill such that the “treadmill” is the engineered genes. You can’t escape them, you take them everywhere, and if you want to be an individual, that choice is gone.

Designer babies also mean the end of very talented people. Everyone would be the same, and how much competition could really exist if everyone is really good at so many things? There would be no more Micheal Phelps, there would be 1,000,000 and there would no longer be Ludacris dropping beats, there would be 500,000 of them. Babies would no longer be a surprise either, no more “It’s a boy!” It would turn into, “Cool, we knew this was going to be a boy who excels at sports.”

The meaning of life is not found through designer babies, neither is it found anywhere for many people. I think many people turn to their spiritual beliefs for what to think about the meaning of life, but if you don’t have a faith, you may think that we have no purpose. Designer babies take away from our meaning of life I think, and they cause the whole population to lose their sense of individuality. If we allow designer babies we might as well say goodbye to life as we know it.

Silver, Lee Challenging Nature. Harper Collins Publishers, 2006

McKibben, Bill Enough. Owl Books, 2003

www.forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?p=4820894 (Feb 18, 2009)

What We Believe Spritually Has Great Effects

Stephanie Errigo

Dr. Adam Johns

Essay #3

When you type in the phrase, “What is the meaning of life?” in a Google search, you come up with over 34,700,000 results. This makes me think that many people may think that they know what the meaning of life is and that they understand why people are put on this earth. Some people may believe that a great philosopher holds the answer to what we are here for, but I don’t think that is the case at all. I believe that we are put on this earth for many reasons and it depends on your religious beliefs for the most part. I also think that bringing designer babies into the mix would make us lose our sense of individuality. Individualism as we know it today would disappear and I also think that once people found out that everyone was engineered to have their special “niche” that people would want to escape the path they are told they have to follow.

The meaning of life can be a hard thing for people to comprehend or even want to think about. Even thinking about this question made me question why I think that people are on this earth. Obviously we can’t just be here for nothing. I feel like a lot of people look toward their religion for the answer to this question. In the case of my religion, Catholic, I look at this question in a spiritual way. I think that Pope Benedict XVI puts it best when he said, “Life is not just a succession of events or experiences; it is the search for the true, the good and the beautiful.” (Catholic.com) If we feel we aren’t here for a real reason, then we believe that life is just a succession of events and experiences. I think the things that make this world beautiful is helping each other which makes things good and true. Don’t we always seem to search for the true, good and beautiful? Aren’t we always thinking looking for the good in the world today? I feel like McKibben would agree with me in the sense that people do have a purpose even if we can’t put our finger on the reason completely.

Silver would not agree with my preceding paragraph in the least. He would say that we are here for no reason, just to better the earth and make a Utopia for us to live in. I feel like he shows the selfish side of human nature. As he says in his book, “Slowly, inevitably, human nature will remake all of Mother Nature in the image of the idealized world that exists within our minds—which is what most people really want subconsciously.”(Silver, xvi)

What if people are like Silver and belief that we aren’t here for a reason, that we’re here to make a Utopia, and what if people don’t look to their spiritual or religious background? What do they believe? I think that many people would say that they have never even thought of the answer to such a question. I know that before this was brought up in prompt, I never had thought about it before. These people may say that we are here to live for ourselves, maybe thinking that it is the “Every Man for Himself” type of society, which could be true.

Whether we think we know the meaning of life or not means that we can form opinions on designer babies. Some people like Silver may think that we are here to make a Utopian world, so of course we would make designer babies. But I feel that making designer babies would cause our meaning of life to disappear along with our sense of individuality. If we make designer babies that are specialized in the areas that the parents believe are the greatest aspects, what happens to all the other great talents that someone may have that people may forget? I’m a licensed auctioneer and have been since the age of 17. I wouldn’t trade anything for that. I don’t care that I’m not an outstanding runner or the next Mozart. People like me would be gone, and other jobs that people enjoy but may not be perceived as prestigious would disappear.

What if these designer babies found out they were designer and wanted to switch the way they were? They couldn’t because they were programmed to be that way. McKibben states in Enough that, “If you’ve been designed and programmed to run, what meaning can running hold? It becomes an endless round on a treadmill, except that the treadmill is inside you—you take it out into the woods when you go for a trail run, and onto the beach when you run beside the breakers.” (McKibben, 55) I feel like McKibben is forming a metaphor for the treadmill such that the “treadmill” is the engineered genes. You can’t escape them, you take them everywhere, and if you want to be an individual, that choice is gone.

Designer babies also mean the end of very talented people. Everyone would be the same, and how much competition could really exist if everyone is really good at so many things? There would be no more Micheal Phelps, there would be 1,000,000 and there would no longer be Ludacris dropping beats, there would be 500,000 of them. Babies would no longer be a surprise either, no more “It’s a boy!” It would turn into, “Cool, we knew this was going to be a boy who excels at sports.”

The meaning of life is not found through designer babies, neither is it found anywhere for many people. I think many people turn to their spiritual beliefs for what to think about the meaning of life, but if you don’t have a faith, you may think that we have no purpose. Designer babies take away from our meaning of life I think, and they cause the whole population to lose their sense of individuality. If we allow designer babies we might as well say goodbye to life as we know it.

Silver, Lee Challenging Nature. Harper Collins Publishers, 2006

McKibben, Bill Enough. Owl Books, 2003

www.forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?p=4820894 (Feb 18, 2009)

Assignment for Group #1, Due on Tuesday

Note: I posted this assignment on the wrong blog several days ago. Any time that I should have posted something and didn't, let me now.

Consequently: This will be due this week. I assume that some of you won't have it done for Tuesday, though. As long as the revised versions are ready for next Tuesday, whatever timeline you work out with your partners is fine.

Assignment: Note: Be sure to have finished Enough for Tuesday as well.

Assignment: On page 94 of Enough, McKibben briefly refers to an essay collection by Wendell Berry, entitled What Are People For? This idea, or question, is much like the cliched question "what is the meaning of life?" I would argue that Berry formulates it this way, and McKibben references this version, to put the focus squarely on human life. Rather than asking (perhaps selfishly or short-sightedly) what the meaning of our individual lives and rather than asking in some abstract way what some kind of generic life (human? animal? post-human? pre-human?) is for, McKibben and Berry are focused on the meaning of human life life. The question is more abstract than asking "what is the meaning of my life?" and more focused than asking "what is the meaning of life?"

For this assignment, you want to formulate some kind of answer to the question "What are people for?" While the essay can be personal, you should make use of McKibben and at least one other author we've read this semester. This would be a good opportunity to bring in outside sources, if you wish. Remember, though, that this isn't strictly personal; you are trying to convince us that your understanding of what people are for is correct, or at least valuable.

The True Nature of Mother Nature

Evan Kelly
Option #1
Dr. Adam Johns
Seminar in Composition

The True Nature of Mother Nature

It is the norm in many religions, particularly Western post-Christian cultures, to believe in a benevolent force often referred to as Mother Nature. She is thought to be a kind spiritual figure that breathes life into the plants and keeps forests lush and free of erosion. On pages 202-203 of “Challenging Nature” however, Lee Silver proposes direct evidence in opposition to the existence of Mother Nature. It is clear to me that Mother Nature is no more real than Santa Claus or the Tooth Fairy and that the religious view that she watches over the land is false.
Thanks to the research of the Serbian Milutin Milankovitch, there is now a scientific explanation for warm periods and ice ages throughout the Earth’s history. Milankovitch traced these periodic weather anomalies to the Earth’s interaction with Jupiter. The largest planet exerts a small amount of force on our planet, which periodically tilts the Earth towards or away from the sun at angles between 22 and 25 degrees. It also varies the Earth orbital path slightly. These changes have now been linked to the Earth’s climate variations over the past 500,000 years (200).
Evidence that refutes the natural benevolence of Mother Nature is the transformation of the Sahara Desert. In approximately 13,000 BCE, the Sahara was a densely vegetated forest, receiving rain year round. It was lined with rivers and was home to a variety of species such as lions, tigers, giraffes, and elephants, many of which have gradually made the transformation into a species that can maintain life on the scare supplies offered by the modern day desolate Saharan environment. In ancient times though, it was easy for civilization to make a living hunting game in the wild and fishing in the fresh water of lakes and rivers. Roughly five to ten thousand years ago the climate of the Saharan region was dramatically different compared to today. The African Humid Period, during which the Sahara was transformed, occurred when the northern hemisphere was both tilted and closer to the summer sun (201). This was a particularly arid period of time. Unlike the usual gradual change in climate, the Sahara is believed to have fully transformed from a luscious forest into a barren desert in about 150 years or less. Some say that the vegetated Sahara was the inspiration for the description of the Garden of Eden, but this will never be proved. Michael Williams of Oxford writes, “It is a deeply rooted myth in the Western psyche and its culture that nature is a passive, harmonious, God-given backdrop against which the drama of human life is played out… But it is a myth”(202). Mother Nature is the modern day version of Poseidon. She is an apparition, created to assure religious followers that nature will be merciful as long as people do not harm it.
What Mother Nature does not explain are the occurrences of natural disasters, such as tsunamis and earthquakes. These weather anomalies can be attributed to irregular shift in the Earth’s plates or low temperatures colliding with high temperatures to form an irregular weather pattern. During ancient times, tribes people believed that sacrifices and gifts would spare their village from the eruption of a volcano, but whenever the forces of science caused an eruption, nobody was spared. This is another example of the non-existence of Mother Nature. With industry continually booming, as it has since World War I, scientists say that we have now entered the anthropogenic era of natural history. This is defined as the Human Created era, because the globalization and pollution that is occurring all over the world, will have a profound affect on the future of our climate and atmosphere. Computer models have shown that a human-forced increase in world temperature could cause the Sahara to become green again. It is possible that 25% of the Sahara could be restored to its ancient state over the next century.
Without the help of human industry the revered Mother Nature left the Saharan forest to become a desert, ruined ancient civilizations, and buried Canada in mile-deep glaciers (203). Who’s to say that this will not happen again if society leaves the environment alone? Only controlled biotechnology will create a climate that citizens of the world yearn for. Science can create plants better suited to withstand pollution and changing environments. Mother Nature has already deteriorated much of Earth’s naturally beautiful climate and will continue to do so, if left unchecked.

A Fraction of a Soul?

Julia Sandoval
ENG CMP 0200
Option #1
February 3, 2009

A Fraction of a Soul?


One of the most interesting subjects Lee M. Silver discusses in his book, Challenging Nature , is the prospect about to what extent conjoined twins are recognized in society as separate persons, or simply parasites to a fully human host. The matter is difficult, considering how sporadically society must deal with such an issue, but nevertheless it must be determined. In some cases the extra mass attached to the host is in fact a fully formed, intelligent being. Yet in others it can be as insignificant as a mass of body tissue, donning some random pieces of human structure, like teeth or hair or nails, found attached the other twin, or even inside, as is the case for a fetus-in-fetu, or a teratoma. The word “conjoin” means simply to join-with. This is strange because there is at no point a joining of embryos. The embryo splits. Either way, the prospect of whether or not these entities have “souls” is both ethically and morally confusing. In cases to determine if it does, it is necessary to realize if the conjoined body has the function of reason and intelligence or not.

When the process of conjoined twins begin, the embryo slightly splits in one place; if it were to fully sever, the result would be in twins; if there are two severs, triplets, etc. This split usually occurs within the first two weeks of maturation of the embryo. According to Silver’s interpretation of the Jewish Religion, the point at which a body receives its soul is at the first breath of life (Silver 10). This would mean then, that during the time at which this particular embryo splits, it is not endowed with a soul yet. The point at which it receives its soul is only at the first breath of life. Yet, ironically, it is in keeping with the Jewish belief that abortion is an option within the time that the fetus is inside the mother’s womb; but the interesting part is after the birth. What would be done if the child is in fact conjoined, but with a nonfunctioning parasitic host? Is it morally and ethically alright to kill this body? If it were apparent before the birth, there is no doubt that in the Jewish religion it would be reasonable to abort the child(ren). Yet in the aftermath, does the same right hold? Perhaps if the nonfunctioning being was never able to breathe its first breath, for the only factor that would determine its possession of a soul would be this one moment in life.

When confronted with the news that she would be birthing conjoined twins, one devout Roman Catholic woman decided, without hesitation, that it would be completely against her religion to abort the fetuses. She went on with the pregnancy and gave birth. However and unfortunately, these conjoined twins were not the same; Gracie was fully functioning, but her attached sister, Rosie, had a body whose lungs and heart collapsed within a short time after having been born. She was then, at that point, considered a human, yet due to her reliability on her sister’s cardiovascular system, posed an enormous threat on both of their lives. This was the point at which she must be considered a parasitic host. The operation, contrary to the mother’s wishes yet crucial to the survival of Gracie, went on as recommended and resulted in the death of Rosie and a fully normal life for Gracie (Silver 160).

But what, exactly, is a “parasite?” Any biologist will tell you that a parasite is an organism that grows, feeds, and is sheltered on or in a different organism while contributing nothing to the survival of its host (Dictionary.com). Yet, the tricky aspect concerning whether or not these supposed human beings can ever be attributed to this word, which is usually associated with tapeworms and leeches, lies in their capabilities. If the “lesser” conjoined twin definitely poses a threat to the healthier, and cannot function as a normal being should, the twin is usually considered a “tumor” and is, for lack of a better word, removed. It is contrary to the belief about human existence to even suggest that a fully fledged, living human being of no matter what living capacity should be associated with and determined a “parasite.”


Most people who are uniformed about the facts of conjoined twins, would probably be quick to assume that the easiest way to determine if the parasitic entity is capable of human thought would be to consider if it has a head or not. However, this head might not be fully developed and might not have a brain. Furthermore, this head might be attached to an otherwise normal human, and be just a parasitic mass that causes more difficulties to the cardiovascular system of the more conscious part of the conjoined pair. The soul is something that makes humans different from animals. It endows personality, spirit, upon its body. The soul is indistinguishable and cannot be recognized other than through the emotions and reasoning of its host. If the nonfunctioning conjoined twin is considered a parasite and cannot defend or control itself, it is no more than what can be considered an animal and therefore, it is not worthy of the same rights a fully functioning human being is.


Works Cited
Silver, Lee. Challenging Nature: The Clash Between Biotechnology and Spirituality.
New York: HarperCollins, 2007.

The Spirit of Utopia

Jessica Titler
ENGCMP 0200
Essay 2, Option 3

The concept of Utopia has long been a preoccupation of mankind. For thousands of years, philosophers and authors have been taking pen to paper in order to draft their own personal version of mankind’s most ultimate paradise. Yet, there has been little agreement in the academic sphere as to what this Utopia that mankind strives to attain should consist of. One of the earliest texts concerning mankind’s paramount setting, written in approximately 380 BC, can be found in Plato’s The Republic. In The Republic, Plato envisions a paradise of supreme justice, with little art or poetry present in society (“Plato” 1). More than two thousand years later, author James Hilton presents a very different view of mankind’s ideal environment. In Lost Horizon, published in 1933, Utopia is represented by a paradise called Shangri-La, located high in the mountains of Tibet. “Shangri-La is an ageless society, whose inhabitants keep their youth and live far beyond the span of humans from the outside world” ("James Hilton." 1). It is a land of extreme beauty that places the utmost emphasis on the importance of art and knowledge.

These two examples show the glaring problem with creating an ideal world for humanity to inhabit: that which is ideal for one man may not be ideal to another. The difficulty in crafting a penultimate environment for mankind to live in is in defining what, exactly, is the ultimate. No matter the technology or resources available, what would fulfill the needs of one group to perfection may leave another left wanting. To borrow from a clichéd, but valid, phraseology, what is good for the goose is not always good for the gander. The desires of humanity are not uniform between individuals and, thus, there is little way to provide for all in a way that creates an earthly Utopia. To create a planetary environment that simultaneously satisfies the needs of every human being in existence fully is impractical, because the needs of humanity are varied and often conflicting. It is for this reason that the establishment of a Utopian planet is impossible.

A recent attempt at portraying mankind’s Utopia can be found in Lee Silver’s Challenging Nature: The Clash of Science and Spirituality at the New Frontiers of Life. Silver, as a preeminent molecular biologist and an expert in the field of biotechnology, presents his Utopia in a unique way. Rather than simply describe the world that he sees as idyllic and assert the shortcomings of the current state of humanity, he expounds on the method by which humanity may achieve the ideal. To Silver, the attainment of an ideal world is possible with biotechnology, if only mankind can overcome his spiritual side.

Yet, this stipulation in and of itself presents a problem. For the majority of human beings across the globe, religion is an integral part of life. It guides decision making, lifestyle, and belief systems. To rid humanity of religion, especially Judeo-Christian religion, would depreciate the quality of life for many individuals across the globe. Regardless of whether or not religion is a valid institution in a scientific context, it does serve a purpose to mankind and, if abolished for scientific purposes, its loss would be grieved by many.

The science of Silver’s argument is difficult to dispute, especially for one who is less than proficient in the exact terms of molecular biology. He describes the creation of stunning technological breakthroughs that will improve mankind’s quality of life with precision and accuracy, clearly outlining the ways in which man can achieve his dreamworld. Yet, there is still one inherent flaw in his belief that an ideal world can be created with the use of biotechnology at the sacrifice of organized religion and spiritualism; he fails to acknowledge that, for many, the requisite removal of a soul or loss of spirituality would diminish any sense of idealism whatsoever.

Human Nature as an Adjunct to Religion

Albert Wu
Engcmp 0200

Human Nature as an Adjunct to Religion

Darwin would define human nature, at its most subtle level, is an innate and primordial instinct to survive and proliferate as a species. Darwin’s application of animalistic instincts driving human nature is most evident when Silver attributes the survival of our species to our capability for abstract thought processes and our “high level of consciousness… [that] provided our ancestors with the ability to outcompete or kill off cousins that were not equally endowed” (93). Our very early ancestors, however, did not base their judgments or decisions on religious or statutory guidelines; their nature was elucidated based on the availability of food, water, and shelter in harsh environments. In modern society, however, where the conflict between science and religion provide abstract and contrasting scopes into the realm of human behavior, I believe that moral guidelines, based on fundamentally (albeit loosely defined) religious principles, define our perspective on human nature.

It’s important to note that human behavior is arbitrarily based on observational human behavior, however, regardless of political or religious beliefs, it’s irrefutable that an innate moral code guides our thought processes and decision-making today. For example, in this situational crisis, three people, one atheist, one agnostic, and one Christian fundamentalist are presented with the same moral dilemma: to murder another human being knowing that there would be no legal repercussion. Obviously, the Christian fundamentalist considers murder as wrong by every means based on his interpretation of the Ten Commandments. But what about the other two people in this quandary? They’re cognizant of the fact that they can escape this crime with only a guilty conscience; they’re not obligated to abide by the set of religious imperatives condemning murder, what do they do? In this situation, both the atheist and the agnostic choose not to kill. Why? Because, as Francis Fukuyama describes, “there is a human defining attribute, Factor X,” that tells us what it is to be human in the most basic sense (96). Silver uses Fukuyama’s words to reinforce his argument against the Vatican’s ambiguous definition of evolutionary theory. However, I think that in Fukuyama’s words are applicable to more than biology. His description of Factor X, interpreted by Silver to literally mean the human soul, is actually just an innate form of moral judgment, based on fundamentally religious principles (such as not to murder), that exists in the unconscious of every human being. These moral principles, I believe, are intuitive characteristics of all people and are a foundation for human nature.

Another poignant example of how morality defines human nature is a case of conjoined twins Silver presents in his book that he uses to illustrate the arbitrary and ambiguous line drawn between committing murder and not committing murder. In 2000, a woman gave birth to conjoined twins – Rose and Gracie – who were born without adequate means to support both of their lives for a sustained period of time. Gracie was awake, alert, and oriented whereas Rosie was lethargic. The physicians and parents had to make a decision: “kill” Rosie to ensure Gracie, the daughter exhibiting higher brain function, could live a fruitful life, or sentence both to a short life span by doing nothing? The parents, with good intentions guided by religious morals, wanted to sustain both lives and “let nature take its course” (161). The physicians, whose actions were guided by similarly good intentions, wanted to surgically remove Rosie to ensure Gracie could live a healthy life. In this instance, a high court resolution ruled in favor of surgical removal of Rosie. Albeit in this situation, morality favored the “murder” of Rosie, the natures of the parents, the physicians, and the judges decisions had religious foundations. The parents protested in favor of religious purpose, they were “quite happy for God’s will to decide what happens” (161). The physicians and high courts decision had a more tenuous connection to religious morality. They wanted to save the life of one daughter in exchange for the partial existence of the other. This is reflected in Islam where a principle of priority to save lives exists. Evidently, all parties involved in this case of morality based their judgments on fundamentally religious principles.

It’s clear that in every case of human pondering and decision-making has an ethereal tie to religious principle. Human nature isn’t defined by biology, by definitive scientific explanation; rather human nature is built on a foundation of theological moral framework. In modern society, where a lot of behavior is dictated by polite social procedure, there is a fundamentally unconscious conscience that influences human nature.

The Ultimate Impact of Science on Religion

I was raised as a Roman Catholic and even though I am not an extremely religious person I will always consider myself a Roman Catholic. I go to church, I believe in God, and I enjoy taking part in the Catholic traditions. However, there is one thing that sets me apart from many other Catholics; I believe in evolution. I am the type of person that has to see something to believe it and that often leads me to question my religious beliefs. There’s no denying the “massive amount of observational and experimental data” that Darwin accumulated during his research (89).

There are three specific discoveries that prove Darwin’s theory. The first discovery is natural selection. This “demands that evolution must occur in circumstances where organisms compete for limited resources” (89). The second is the massive amount of data accumulated over two decades that “demonstrates how evolution is an actual description of the past history of life on earth” (89). The third discovery is that human beings “were no different from any other species in their evolution from simpler living things” (90). This relates back to the theory that humans are related to apes. This theory isn’t as outrageous as it sounds considering that our DNA and a chimp’s DNA is “about 99 percent the same” (85).

I have brought up the topic of evolution to my family and from their reaction I have learned to keep my beliefs to myself. My family is a very traditional, devout Roman Catholic family and I don’t think that there is any way to convince them of evolution. They strongly believe in the story of Adam and Eve and that they were, in fact, the first man and woman. However, according to Darwin there was never a first human. Instead, there were “an interminable number of intermediate forms” (91). No species originated at a single moment in time. Everything came from some form of evolution. This is quite the opposite of the Catholic belief that the universe and everything in it has “been produced by God from nothing” (“Adam, Eve, and Evolution”). The Catholic Church has stated that it “permits belief in either special creation or developmental creation on certain questions, it in no circumstances permits belief in atheistic evolution” (“Adam, Eve, and Evolution”). This shows that the church has come to accept certain aspects of evolution but they will always believe that everything is part of God’s plan.

From my perspective, I believe that each generation will become more and more open minded. However, I do not believe that science will ever completely replace religion. Religion is something that is passed down from one generation to the next and science can never take that away from people. Science has come such a far way within the last couple decades and there are still just as many people that practice a religion. Darwin’s theory of evolution is not a new discovery by any means and it obviously hasn’t had that much of an impact of religion. There are people that will never accept evolution and people that will, but religion will never become extinct.



Works Cited
"Adam, Eve, and Evolution." Catholic Answers. 10 Aug. 2004. 1 Feb. 2009 .

The Ultimate Battle: The Catholic Church vs. Science

The Ultimate Battle: The Catholic Church vs. Science
Melanie Siokalo
Tues 6- 8:30 pm
Option # 1

Growing up, religion was not a very big aspect of my life. Of course there were solid guidelines, however, the details of Catholicism were never strongly enforced. Because of this, my freedom to think what I wanted was never really challenged. But I do believe that my religious background did effect in some ways my views on the distinct separation between science and religion. In Lee Silvers book, "Challenging Nature", several scientific discoveries are described, each posing a different threat to the Catholic church. One of the more controversial topics is the the heated debate as to when an embryo is considered a separate, new human being. My own personal belief is one closer to the scientific aspect. Biology states that an embryo is a human being when it is able to breathe and think on its own. On the other side of the spectrum, the catholic church believes that an embryo is considered human when it is given a soul. But this is something that has never been able to be scientifically proven and therefore, a little cloudy on the believability.

According to dictionary.com, there are several distinct definitions of the word soul. The first definition is "the principle of life, feeling, thought, and action in humans, regarded as a distinct entity separate from the body, and commonly held to be separable in existence from the body; the spiritual part of humans as distinct from the physical part" ( Dictionary.com). This is something that cannot really be argued and can be seen as more of an opinion, not really a specific belief of the catholic church. However the fifth definition given is simply "a human being; person"( dictionary.com). Now this is something that can be argued endlessly. I do believe that something is missing to this exact definition. What should be added to this is, according to the Catholic church, the soul is a human being. Catholics believe that at the time of conception the one celled organism is given soul. But can this be proven scientifically?This is where I lean towards the scientific side. Almost everything can be proven scientifically, except this tiny detail. How can you measure what really has a soul, and what does not and more specifically, what is considered human and what is not?Silver states " So, just in case, every newly fertilized human embryo must be treated as if it is ensouled and is deserving of the same respect and right to life as every other human being" ( Silver 106). Silver is clearly being sarcastic and imitating what a catholic representative would say. However, Silver does pose several questions to back up his scientific beliefs. Would tissues studied in the lab have a soul or would a half-chimp, half- human conceived and gestated in a woman' womb have a soul?( Silver 106) A Catholic would most likely say no, but why? A tissue was once from something that was living and had a soul, and this half chimp was somehow conceived, why shouldn't they be considered full humans? To personally answer both questions, I feel that a human is a human when the baby is able to breathe and survive on its own, and then therefore is given a soul and will always have its soul. This doesn't really agree with either side of the argument. I agree with the science part in that a small one-celled organism does not have a soul, but I do believe that a baby does in fact have a soul. So this tissue does in fact have a soul and this half-chimp does as well. This is where my views are a bit controversial as well, because they don't agree with either side.

Now as for the future? I believe the separation and confusion will be the same. Because a soul, more a less,will never be able to be proven, both arguments will most likely stay the same. I do feel as though as the future becomes clearer, the Catholic church will become more accepting to the views and findings of science. As it is the church has agreed that a discussion should take place on " the account the theological this and other implications of modern embryology" (Silver 107). The "this" being " If each embryo was a person, heaven would be populated mainly by people people who had never been born" ( Silver 107). This statement does in fact almost contradict the old catholic belief that every embryo is human. The fact that and if is added then this already shows the possible agreeableness with the biology department. However, I do believe the merge will never fully happen. And therefore, what the future holds for this separation is rather predictable.

My personal beliefs on the embryo discussion is neither fully agreeing with the science side or the Catholic side. I do believe however that a separation will always be in place but certain topics will be able to merge into one solid explanation, such as the issue of cloning and the actual formation of the earth. What the future holds for the science and religion worlds is quite predictable and something the human race shouldn't loose sleep over.

Science and Religion

Glenn Goss

"WHO PLAYS GOD IN THE TWENTY-FIRST CENTURY?" was the headline splayed across the top third of a full-page advertisement in the New York Times in a huge 130-point font, as if God himself were the author of the message that appeared on October 11, 1999 (Joy 287).  This statement made by Lee M. Silver in his book Challenging Nature is, in my mind, the major problem with modern biotechnology and genetic engineering.  No human being should have the ability to control or alter God's work.  "Playing God" essentially insinuates that God is thrown out the window and is no longer needed.  For those of us with religious beliefs, it is universally accepted that God is our creator; He is the one who instils life in each and every one of us. Genetically engineering ideal humans would go against everything that Christians stand for.  It never was and never will be necessary to engineer an ideal people.  God makes us who we are for a reason.  The only circumstances in which humans should be altered genetically are instances that could be beneficial.  An example of this would be using stem cells to grow a new liver for a person who is terminally ill.  We should limit our genetics research to providing cures for diseases that are currently incurable.  Using this potentially useful technology for useless things, such as engineering an ideal human population, is down right ludicrous.

With genetic engineering becoming more prominent in this century, where does religion stand? This question can be answered using the stem cell research scenario.  Should stem cell research be allowed?  Is it ethical?  These are questions asked by political officials and religious leaders throughout the world.  It is my understanding that stem cells do not only have to be taken from embryos;  there are alternate sources.  When stem cells are taken from embryos, the embryo must be terminated.  This embryo may only be in the early stages of development, but it will still eventually turn into a human being.  Basically, the proposition is made that stem cells will be taken for research by killing innocent lives.  Even if everything that is heard about stem cell research is true, lives are being exchanged.  The embryo is terminated and it's cells are used to cure someone else's disease.  Using the alternative sources for stem cells will eliminate this controversy.  Scientists will be permitted to continue their research with little consequence. Also, most Christians and others originally opposed to this technology will be liberated.  

With stem cells taken from sources other than embryos, the battle of ethics between the world of science and the theologists may be a bit brighter than it once seemed.  Religious leaders and scientists could possibly reach a happy medium.  Genetic engineering could be used in a responsible manner, providing care to many people throughout the world.  The key word is responsible.  Scientists cannot get carried away.  Obtain stem cells without killing innocent embryos that will one day be living beings, and use these cells reasonably.  We do not need a perfect, genetically impervious population.  We only need ways to alleviate the diseases and ailments in which we suffer.  It is not necessary to "play God".  If scientists were to play God, then what would we need God for?  Someday science and religion will be able to compromise in an ethical manner.

Works Cited

Silver, Lee. Challenging Nature: The Clash Between Biotechnology and Spirituality.
New York: HarperCollins, 2007.

Assignment for Tuesday (Group #2)

Notes: Note: The first two options are the same as the ones from last week. The third is new.Regardless of which option you follow, you should write in the form of an essay with a clear thesis statement, and use detailed textual support (page references and/or quotes).

Option 1: Take one precise passage, in which Silver poses a direct challenge to religious belief -- possibly your own. Without distorting or ignoring the facts as you understand them (you may go beyond Silver, but stick to *scientific* sources, not random junk from the internet), discuss what impact you imagine this *particular* set of scientific facts will have upon religion in the decades and centuries to come. I believe this assignment will allow most of you to write about what interests you.

Option 2: Showing detailed awareness of Silver’s book, especially of the material in part 2, write an essay in which you propose a definition of “human nature” or “the human” which you both agree with and are prepared to argue survives Silver’s various challenges to conventional understandings of human behavior.

Option 3: Make a precise response to either Silver's argument that we should literally create the "ideal world" of our subconscious or, if you prefer, Marcuse's similar argument that we should "pacify nature," making use of multiple parts of Silver's book. What do I mean by "precise response?" I mean that you should defend it, attack it, or qualify it, using both Silver's own words (from elsewhere in the book), and, optionally, outside research. You might argue, for instance, that his idea of an "ideal world" is contradicted at various points in the book, and is therefore void; you might also argue that a particular set of moments in the text does a good idea of explaining how and why the ideal world should come into being. Regardless, you are the one attacking or defending Silver: you should be articulating your own point of view.

Grades & Comments

All of you should have received a grade for your first post by now; my comments are on your individual blog posts. Jessica pointed out that I was grading her (and the rest of you) on a 10 point scale, whereas the syllabus says I'll be using a 15 point scale. We are, of course, following the syllabus, so to get your final grade just multiply what you got by 1.5 and round up to the nearest half point, since I don't use quarter points.

Catholic Church Conundrum

Bailey Moorhead
ENGCMP
Dr. Adam Johns

Over the centuries, the Catholic Church has been challenged by advancements in science, such as the understanding of our heliocentric solar system and Darwin’s theory of evolution. Though these theories only challenge Catholicism in a most literal sense of interpretation of the Bible, the Church does not immediately accept the new discoveries. In fact, it often takes centuries for the Church to accept scientific findings if it has traditionally opposed them. It was not until the second half of the twentieth century that the Church began to accept the theory of evolution and it was not until 2000 that Pope John Paul II apologized for the church’s treatment of Galileo Galilei. The issue of the embryonic soul presents more of a problem for the church, however. Not only is this subject very political, it also involves what the Church sees as human life. In Challenging Nature, Lee Silver offers an almost indisputable scientific argument against the treatment of embryos as human and laments the fact that religious leaders attempt to use science as a basis for their argument. Assuming what Lee Silver says is true, the Catholic Church must either come to accept the fact that human embryos are not quite human, just as they eventually came to accept the idea of a heliocentric universe, or they must drop the scientific façade used in their pro-life argument in the political arena because their arguments will no longer hold up.

Silver offers a very solid argument against the belief that embryos are human, creating an awkward situation for the Catholic Church in which they have three options: ignore the facts, accept Silver’s viewpoint, or drop the scientific façade of the pro-life argument. By using the example of teratomas and the HeLa line of cells, Silver argues that if we are to respect the life of an embryo, we must also respect the lives of these cells, although it is clear that no human would consider these a part of our species. He also argues that fertilization cannot be the point where an embryo becomes a human with a rational soul because teratomas, twinning, and chimeras occur after fertilization. He believes “the existence of human chimeras seems to invalidate the claim that every human embryo is a complete and whole human being from the moment of conception” (115). Unless the Catholic Church can either prove that the human soul exists at the time of fertilization or they can find a different point at which the embryo becomes human, the can not ignore the fact that there are scientific flaws in their arguments. For now, the Church responds to new scientific discoveries with “rationalizations;” Lee claims these rationalizations are “a matter of faith, not science” because they have never described a scientific test that could falsify the theory that embryos attain a soul at fertilization (116). The Catholic Church may ignore these facts and debate them using pseudo-scientific arguments for some time, but eventually as the public and, more specifically, members of the Church become informed about the issue they must address it. Though they may come to accept Lee’s argument, it is also likely that they may decide to argue for the protection of the lives of embryos religiously in the political realm. Because the American Constitution does not allow a national religion, however, the Catholic Church and other religions sharing the same opinion must hope that the entire population comes to share their viewpoint, or a biased administration takes power.

He also challenges the idea of “natural law,” which he believes is basically just a term religious leaders and conservative politicians use to oppose such things as homosexuality, mind-altering medicines, and embryonic stem cell research in a “secular” way. In Silver’s opinion the Catholic Church uses “one particular secular-sounding word—natural—frequently…to formulate its codes of morality” (119). He uses examples such as homosexuality in animals to show that natural law is actually just a way to defend Christian morals. He believes many people are swayed by the idea of natural law, which is why the idea is so effective when it comes to arguing against embryonic stem cell research. He argues, however, that it is absolutely religious in nature and that it cannot be used to argue against scientific fact. Once the myth of natural law is debunked, the Catholic Church will not have much to fall back on in the way of “scientific” arguments against embryonic stem cell research.

Though the Catholic Church may get by for some time using arguments that sound scientific, as people become more informed about the logic and scientific data behind people like Silver’s argument, there is no way this method will hold up for much longer. Unless a new scientific discovery is made that supports the Church’s pro-life stance, there should be no way that they are able to argue their ideas on the subject effectively in any secular nation’s politics. The only two options the Church has are to accept the argument and drastically change their traditional views, or argue an unmistakably religious argument and hope to convert everyone so that stem cell research and abortions never occur. Traditionally, the Catholic Church has come to accept scientific advancements, albeit rather slowly, but this issue is entirely different in that it effects the lives of embryos and has tangible consequences. Only time will tell which path the Catholic Church takes in dealing with this controversial issue, but it is clear that their methods must change as scientists are presenting increasingly convincing arguments and the populations of secular nations are becoming more informed.

This isn't a paper, but can someone help me?

I am really having issues (obviously) posting on this blog. I copy/paste my paper into the "create post" thing and then click publish post. Am I doing something wrong? I have a Mac so maybe that is the issue? Does anyone else have a Mac and knows how to get it to work?

Catholic Church Conundrum

Catholic Church Conundrum

How Human are Embryos?

Andrew Vogel
Dr. Adam Johns
1/27/09
ENGCMP 0200

The question of whether religion or science contains the truth is a much debated issue. In the case of human embryos, religious belief is that the embryos are in fact human, while Lee Silver argues in his book Challenging Nature that science shows they aren’t. The answer to this question is crucial to development of biotechnology. If religion is right, destroying embryos for research would be just as unethical as murdering human beings. If science is right, however, large strides will be made in biotechnology that will benefit human health and quality of life.

Religion offers a spiritual rationale for the idea that embryos are human. It is based on the assumption that human beings are defined as bodies containing a human soul. In fact, the Roman Catholic catechism says that, “The human body…is a human body precisely because it is animated by a spiritual soul” (Silver 106). Although the Vatican officially does not know when this soul is put into humans, there is an almost universal belief among Catholic priests and theologians that God ensouls an embryo at fertilization. This means that the embryo is a human being from this moment on. Furthermore, the Catholic view of this soul is that it is rational, and thus, has the ability to make decisions (Silver 104-105). This idea is completely spiritual because, as Silver says, an idea has to be falsifiable to become a scientific theory. This idea can never be disproven because a soul cannot be proven to not exist in an embryo, since souls may elude any attempt to find it through physical analysis (Silver 106). Nevertheless, Silver attacks this belief by showing the ridiculous implications of an embryonic soul. A very early embryo has one or a few cells, but by religious belief it has a rational soul capable of making decisions. A teratoma is a parasitic tumor that would have become a twin were it not for an error in development. According to religious belief, it is endowed with a soul and thus deserves to be treated like a human. Human tissues used for research have the same potential as embryos for developing into babies, making them morally identical. Therefore, researchers who throw away some of these research materials would be committing murder (Silver 99). The absurd consequences of accepting this religious idea make a convincing case that embryos do not have human souls.

The “scientific” basis of the religious argument is a chain of logic that uses a common belief that there should be no arbitrary line drawn between human and nonhuman organisms. There is no abrupt change in the development from the embryo to the baby, so if somewhere along the line of development there is a human, the organism just before this human is also human. Because a baby is undisputedly human, this makes everything from the embryo to the baby human (Silver 109-110). Silver attacks the assumption present in this argument with examples of how there really is no clear distinction between humans and nonhumans. Part human, part animal creatures have already been created with lambs containing 40% human livers. Even mice containing part of arguably the most human part of humans, the brain, have been created (Silver 181). Not only have animals with a small human element been created, but humans with a small animal element will be living in the near future when xenotransplantation is successfully implemented. These examples show that the religious assumption of no partial humans is wrong. Thus, an embryo could gradually develop into a human, with part-human stages occurring during the process.

Treating embryos as human tissue rather than human beings will lead to an explosion in biotechnology and a resulting increase in quality of life for humans. At the moment, the only fully supported embryo research is done in East Asia. In Singapore, a $3.5 billion facility was built for conducting research with hundreds of millions of dollars invested for other facilities. Already, progress has been made towards controlling Hepatitis B and diagnosing avian flu and malaria (Ling). In the rest of the world, this research is either banned or done with little financial support (Silver). With full legalization of embryo research, government and private investment can contribute billions of dollars towards increased well-being for humans. The benefits of discarding this religious idea in favor of science would be enormous.

Works Cited
Ling, Chan. "Singapore's biotechnology push". January 26th, 2009
http://www.iht.com/articles/2005/09/19/bloomberg/sxsing.php?page=1.
Silver, Lee. Challenging Nature: The Clash Between Biotechnology and Spirituality.
New York: HarperCollins, 2007.

Socio-Religious Evolution?

Christopher L. Owens

Dr. Adam Johns

Option #1

28 January 2009

Socio-Religious Evolution?

 

In Lee Silver’s Controlling Nature, there is the suggestion that every thought humankind has ever had has been guided by the invisible hand of mathematics, and that every emotion experienced has been little more than the sum of probabilities and chaotic systems of the brain. The extent of this implication is such that much of the evidence presented is directly contradictory to the widely accepted notion of free will. Silver himself says, “Many people think that free will is the only philosophic alternative to a deterministic view of human mentality. But an understanding of brain biology, quantum mechanics, and chaos theory indicates otherwise […] As a philosophical concept, free will is like an onion whose skin has been completely peeled away: at its core, it ceases to exist” (59). That is, the causal relationship between physical biology and mental function is inverted from what is assumed; metaphorically, evidence indicates our brains are the marionettes rather than the puppeteers. Additionally, Silver similarly implies that if there exists a ‘soul’ at the core of human life it also is a product of the physical process and would cease to exist with death. And it is not implausible to assume that such ‘souls’ could also be reproduced in machine brains, essentially making humans the creators of another consciousness. With such scientific support, it is easy to understand how Silver is an (albeit reserved) atheist, and as such information spreads and technology is further developed, there will be a significant decline in religious belief. The future global population will naturally progress from creationist beliefs toward a positivist, reductionist outlook, where atheism is the norm and spirituality is unrelated to anything supernatural.

 

  According to Silver, approximately 90 percent of Americans believe in a higher power and 84 percent believe in an afterlife, yet the percentages for those educated in science are markedly lower (29). There is an obvious correlation between the level of education in science and religiosity. Thus, it is logical to speculate that the concepts of science and the notions of religion are mutually exclusive, that the information given by the two are conflicting. As progressively more people are exposed to commonly assumed scientific truths (namely Darwinism), the number of people that believe in supernatural power will presumably decline over time. This model produces an important question. If such a societal evolution could occur, why hasn’t it occurred already? The resolution to such uncertainty lies within Silver’s text. The necessary evidence to contradict traditional religious belief is only just becoming available. Technologies with true capacity to emulate the human ‘soul’ with genuine emotions, such as Aibo and Qrio, are just at the horizon, technologies that would make man, not God, a creator of a species (57). The majority has yet to be exposed to either the information or the physical evidence required to create a significantly powerful cognitive dissonance to reject conflicting idea of faith. In this faith in religions is rejected because evidence that can be experienced with the senses trumps hopeful confidence in the supernatural, from a positivist perspective.

 

If still skeptical of these ideas, notice that in the past, higher orders of religious thought have always displaced lower, less explanative ones. For example, the nature gods of indigenous peoples were replaced by a somewhat more complex system, polytheism (as with the Romans). When the tales of these gods were no longer sufficient, people adopted a monotheistic system, which also provided moral clarity for actions. The final step in global maturation no longer seems to require gods at all, as humanity is sufficiently advanced to explain any natural phenomena rationally, and many questions about afterlife, free will and soul seemingly diffused. Even within the recent period, Christianity has been transformed from fundamentalism and its literal interpretation of the Bible to a more modest metaphorical interpretation after many events were proven to be scientifically ridiculous to the Pope accepting the validity of Darwinism in a desperate attempt to incorporate science into the faith. However, the Pope refused to bend on the key concepts of Christianity, though are equally scientifically impossible as other parables (29). Based on Silver’s information, the age of humanity worshipping gods is coming to an end, and the worship of logic and science and positivism is reaching a golden age.

 

Silver, Lee M. Challenging Nature: The Clash Between Biotechnology and Spirituality. New York: HarperCollins Publishers, 2006.

Science and Religion Need Seperation

Stephanie Errigo
Dr. Johns
1/25/09
Option #1

Science and Religion Need Seperation

“Where could heaven be possibly located within this new scientific scheme? If the blue sky is an optical illusion, where do spirits fly when they leave dying or dead bodies? For Christians and others who maintain faith in a heavenly afterlife, there are two choices: either reject the Coperican system and keep a material heaven hovering above the earth, or move heaven and it’s spiritual inhabitants to another dimension, outside the physical universe altogether, which was the solution expounded by the seventeenth-century French mathematician and philosopher Rene Descartes.” (Silver, 39-40)

Over the course of history science and religion have been debated over and over again, only to find that most people, depending on what view point they have, will originally keep the same view point that they started with. I, myself, feel that this separation is for the best. What effect would this theory have on future generations? Will people accept the Copernican theory or move past the ideas of science and accept what religion has taught us for so long?

The Coperican system believes that the earth is just another planet in the solar system and that they revolve around the sun in a yearly pattern. (Silver, 40) It also states that the earth is revolving on its axis daily giving us night and day. The previously believed theory, brought about by Ptolemy, stated that all the planets and sun revolved around the earth. Geocentric means earth-centered. There was also a theory that stated that the sun was the center of the universe. This was called the heliocentric model. Thank you ninth grade science for informing me on these theories so crucial to science today.

Asking Christians if they accept the Copernican theory or the belief of heaven I think is like asking a cat if it enjoys milk or celery better. I have been raised in a Catholic household; both of my parents were Catholic. I went to church every Sunday, I got all of my sacraments and I never really thought that I would ever be interested in staying with the Catholic Church once I was on my own. I found that going to church every Sunday here at Pitt has made things easier for me. It’s amazing that just going to church sets me up for the week. I hate that people make fun of Catholics like they think they know everything about the religion when they really don’t. I think that is one thing that has kept me going in my faith is the controversies. The Copernican theory does not crush my beliefs of heaven. It hardly even made me quiver when I read that part in the book. Science and religion should have it’s dividing line and it’s up to you to believe what you feel is fit.

Also in the book, Galileo found that there was actually moons orbiting Jupiter. (Silver, 40) Today we have also found these items to be true. That doesn’t mean, however, that a heaven can’t exist. To me it’s something about your faith and what you believe that defies science. Not everything on earth makes sense, nor may it ever. But sometimes we just accept things as they are such as why the sky is blue. People have tried and tried to figure that out, but the question still remains no matter what research has been done so far. Religion is something that you can just grasp because you have faith. According to dictionary.com, faith is defined as, “belief that is not based on proof.” (1) Scientists have faith when they think about a new theory. I’m not saying that science is totally wrong, nor do I believe everything that my faith tells me, but I’m just saying that there has to be a certain separation. I am a science major at the university and I feel that science is very important. I just feel that it isn’t the right combination for debate with religion.

I feel that by rejecting the Coperican system we can see that a higher order heaven does exist, but we don’t have to. I am also a firm believer in believing and accepting for true what you believe as your own ideas. I’m not going to bash someone for saying that what I believe is totally out of line. The Coperican system leaves more to be desired for Christians who have a faith background. Science and religion need to be split.

Will Science Prevail?

Phill Oostdyk
Dr. Adams
Eng Comp

“Perhaps one day, a future pope will discover that science can prove the nonexistence of a God-infused soul in a newly fertilized embryo, and the Vatican’s official position will change once again” (p. 107). This is the hope of Lee Silver from his book Challenging Nature. The hope is that scientific discovery will lead the church, in this case the Catholic Church, to completely change their views that have they held for so many years. The fact is that science has always been able to change the views of religion; and will accomplish to do so for years to come.

The Christian belief that a newly fertilized embryo contains a soul dates back to the seventeenth century with the invention of microscopes. People believed that a fertilized egg contains the miniature person called homunculi (p. 104). Because of this thought, it was assumed that since homunculi exist at conception, than they must have a soul also. The homunculi theory was proven to be false in the beginning of the twentieth century with the development of better technology. However, the belief that a soul exists at the time of conception has become a staple of Christian faith.

This is not the first time in history that science is trying to take a gigantic leap forward and religion is standing in the way. In 1622, the Roman Catholic Church forced Galileo recant his findings that the earth is not the center of the universe. The Church placed Galileo on life long house arrest until he died in 1642. It was not until 1992 that the Church finally admitted that they were wrong.

In the case of Silver, his hopes are the religious ‘fundamentalists’ will change their view on ‘when does a human become a human being’. Silver wants these views to change so that science can move forward and help the human race through genetics research. The researching of stem cells will be able to help humans cure currently incurable diseases, help paraplegics walk, and let women unable to have children give birth. Just think of a loved one who suffered a horrible disease like cancer. They would be cured of the disease if this research were allowed to be conducted.

During President George W. Bush’s first term, a stalemate kept embryo-cloning research legal, but not federally funded (p. 136). Only 9 states have passed legislation to fund stem cell research. This national conservatism could be attributed to political fundamentalists and lobbyists. The separation of church and state are nonexistent in this matter because of the fundamentalists’ religious beliefs dictate their political decisions. This is apparent by their belief is fact that a newly fertilized embryo is a human being with a soul.

Silver states that Eastern cultures do not share the hesitancy of stem cell research because the “injunction not to ‘play God’ makes no sense” (p. 136). The religions beliefs of the East generally do not have a God or have multiple Gods. They do not share the Christian belief that one God is the creator and all-powerful, so the debate of when does God ensoul an embryo is lost to them.

The Catholic Church has a steadfast stand on the subject. According to Silver in his discussions with Catholic Bishops about when a human being gets their soul, the response was “we don’t yet know for sure’ (p. 106). The Catholic Church does go on to say that a human being is ‘not just an organism, but a special organism with a human soul provided immediately by God’ (p. 106). The Catholic Church does admit that scientists will never be able to prove the existence of a human soul in an embryo. If the Catholics do not know when an embryo is ensouled and yet they claim that it is when an egg is first fertilized.

Since the being of the human race, religion has dictated how people think. There have been times when religion has told people what to think. Religion has always had a hard stand in what it believes in; always slow to change and adapt. Columbus proved the world is round when religion said it was flat. Galileo proved the earth is not the center of the universe even though the church preached otherwise.

The fact is that religion has always had a definite stand on their values, until modern science and technology, no matter what time period, dictated to them that religion had to adapt. If religion never adapted to science, them everyone might still be praying to Zeus or Odin. Stem cell research is the new wave in medical technology and will help billions of people. It will move forward and have new breakthroughs with or without religious or political opposition. As time has proved, the science will be proved right, and religion will just have to give in.



Silver, Lee M. Challenging Nature: The Clash Between Biotechnology and Spirituality. New York: HarperCollins Publishers, 2006.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/custom/2005/08/12/CU2005081200827.html 26 Jan 2009

http://encarta.msn.com/media_461577188_761557587_-1_1/galileo_quick_facts.html 26 Jan 2009

Conjoined Twins

For anyone who's curious, there's a documentary about the Hensel (conjoined) twins available on Google Video; the relevant section is on pages 152-3 of Silver. Silver goes through a lot of unusual material, and it's worth a reminder periodically that he's dealing, from beginning to end, with real material.

Evolution Replacing God as Creator of Modern Man

Ryan Lynn
Dr. Adam Johns
ENGCMP 0200
27 January 2009

At a young age, I was instilled with the values of the Catholic Church. I attended church every Sunday and went to Sunday school. I was baptized, received First Communion and Confirmation. But as I grew older and more mature, my parents stopped forcing me to go to Church. This was a crossroads in my life where I decided what to believe in and where my personal faith truly lay. I stopped attending Church weekly and eventually stopped going altogether. I believe in a higher power, but I’m starting to realize that much of my faith is beginning to go into scientific developments. Some of these developments are extremely controversial, especially with Christians. The reason being is scientists are getting dangerously close to “playing God”, which Christians believe is going to far and that humans have no right to meddle with the affairs of what are considered God’s work. Other scientific hypotheses challenge the very creation of mankind by God, which is Darwin’s theory of evolution.
Christians believe that “…an omnipotent God created each species instantaneously exactly as it now appears” (Silver 93). In Lee Silver’s Challenging Nature: The Clash Between Biotechnology and Spirituality, it becomes blatantly obvious that Silver is not a “man of God”. Silver is a molecular biology professor at Princeton University and sees the world for what it is, and does not put his faith in an omnipotent figure. Silver claims that evolution “…doesn’t just contradict scriptural details; it completely eliminates any role for God…” (Silver 93). This statement is very bold to make because it bashes what Christians believe. They believe that God created one man, Adam. From the rib of Adam, God created his companion Eve. Adam and Eve are believed to be the starting point at which mankind began. To say that humans gradually evolved from genetic mutations occurring in generations of apes is heresy. Also, the theory of natural selection, paints a gruesome picture of the past in which weaker human evolutions are killed off by the more superior species of man (Silver). This is not an image that the Church would approve of.
I believe that evolution has caused some Christians to question their own creation from God when such hard evidence is shown to prove the theory of Darwin. Presently, evolution is still a controversial subject and even has its opposing view, which is known as Creationism. Creationism is the basic idea that God created everything. One reason why Christians oppose the theory of evolution and natural selection is their belief that “…all men and women-and no organisms other than men and women-are created in the image of God” (Silver 93). Upon reading this statement and comparing it to the theory of evolution, Christians believe that this results in “…an imperfect image of God” (Silver 94). The thought that God would be viewed as a quasi-ape man is utterly blasphemous, and exceedingly offensive to their beliefs. I personally believe that evolution is a scientific fact, despite the fact that I was raised on the very same values that object this way of thinking and reject it as fact. There is no convincing everyone to agree with Darwin, and I have therefore come to the conclusion that it will continue to be a topic of debate in the future. There may be a few Christians who eventually accept the theory, but still hold onto their Christian beliefs. There could also be people who will not accept it, even if the evidence is so strong that it has become fact. They will continue to believe in Creationism because it is what they were brought up to believe in and think it blasphemous to think otherwise.
The evidence is there. I do not think its coincidence that our DNA and a chimpanzee’s DNA are 99% similar on comparison. One reason mankind and chimpanzees look and act different could be due to the arrangement of our genes and the regulation of said genes. This is almost indisputable proof that evolution did occur. Eventually, Pope John Paul II had to comment on the growing controversy of Darwin’s theory, stating that “…physical evolution was gradual and continuous…spiritual evolution took place at a single instant in time” (Silver 94). The pope decides to distinguish between spiritual and physical evolution. In this quote, he does seem to more or less agree with the theory of evolution, but touches upon spiritual evolution, which occurred at the instant of conception. I think the pope’s statement satisfied both parties. Scientists were content that the pope did not deny evolution; Christians by acknowledging spiritual evolution as a fact that scientists cannot disprove.
I believe that evolution and Christianity will continue to be at war with each other. However, Christianity could possibly embrace evolution as fact and not take the story of Adam and Eve as a reality. The morals and values of the story could remain true to Christianity, but they would except the fact that mankind went through evolution in order to become the people they are today. An even more extreme thought would be Christians somehow incorporate the theory of evolution into their beliefs and how God had a part in the gradual development of modern day man.

Works Cited

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creationism. 26 January 2009

Silver, Lee M. Challenging Nature: The Clash Between Biotechnology and Spirituality. New York: HarperCollins Publishers, 2006.