Uh-oh. Double trouble!

Their immoral desires include trying to cure people of chronic diseases! Don't they know that these are trials sent by God to purify us for the life to come!?

It's a utilitarian, materialistic view of doing whatever they can do to pursue their desired goals.

...says a man who has both a law degree AND an MBA. While we're generalizing about the moral flexiblity and potentially dangerous utilitarian nature of certain professions, I can think of a copule to add to that list.

Rick

It's a utilitarian, materialistic view of doing whatever they can do to pursue their desired goals.

Yeah. Fundies never ever behave that way. They follow their strict moral code as embodied in the Ten Commandments to the frickin T.

Check this out:

http://evolutionanddesign.blogsome.com/2006/07/24/specified-complexity/

When asked to put up or shut up with respect Dumbski's bogus algorith, how does Allen MacNeill's favorite little propagandist respond?

It probably hasn't occured to you, but we actually don't all have infinite amounts of time, and some of us have in fact our own studies and research. That would suggest there might be a limit as to how much you can reasonably ask of another person.

Ah, yes, we scientists and our fascination with "pathetic levels of detail." Must be sweet to be a lazy script-reciting creationist.

Last May I posted The Truth About Atheists, which cited a young college student's "explanation" of why atheists were incapable of moral behavior (his title was "A look at atheism using logic"). I replied that I hoped he would continue his education and eventually get some sense into his head. But should the boy even bother? Rick Santorum is proof positive that one can attain high political office in the U.S. without acquiring even a lick of sense. Of course, he's not the only one to prove that...

And what's wrong with a little copule-ating, T Frog?

All those atheists have to come from somewhere, don't they--and surely they can't be examples of intelligent design?

Well, not so as any of them would admit, anyway.

Santorum? This coming from a man who brought his miscarried fetus offspring home in a blanket for the family to spend some quality time with it? I must be defining "moral" in a slightly different manner.

Watch out--when my army of undead cyborg squid-human hybrids is assembled, I won't hesitate to use it.

Ah, that would explain this.

Most scientists unfortunately, those that certainly are advocating for this [embryonic stem cell research], and many others feel very little moral compulsion. It's a utilitarian, materialistic view of doing whatever they can do to pursue their desired goals.

Yeah, because politicians are highly moral creatures who never exploit their positions in the calculated, cynical pursuit of power.

I want a cyborg squid-human, please!

I should add that I'm an atheist political scientist. Does that make me semi-moral?

I really think you need to include this photo of good ol' Ricky in your post:

Nice Suit!

Their immoral desires include trying to cure people of chronic diseases!

Actually Mr. Santorum did touch upon the issue of "animal studies" and suggested that the reason that certain studies are done with animals instead of people is not due to any moral obligation on the part of the scientists, but rather it is due to the fact that they are afraid of hurting people.

Don't they know that these are trials sent by God to purify us for the life to come!?

No they don't know that, but they would know that if the fundamentalists are ever successful in replacing science with their particular brand of so-called methodological "poofyism."

As someone who has killed and eaten lesser men than Rick Santorum, I won't have him lecturing me about morals.

let's see....(yes i can admit this) ....my texas repbulican aunt and uncle who attend the same church as bush sr. are advocates of stem cell research....but then he was rendered a quadrapaligic several years ago and stem cell could benefit him.

does this mean that fundies who end up with something that stem cell could benefit they would support it? yikes, not wishing something like that on anyone!!!

btw, i have a terrible, awful, horrible, insulting, questionable post on condi rice.
also had to post the 'rosy lipped batfish' and give credit to this site and scienceblogs, that pic totally blew my mind!!!!!!

Ah, but do your cybersquid run Linux? Then you'll be in true super-villain class!

Atheist scientists, of course, are absolutely the worst.

Actually, I think gay atheist scientists are what really haunt their nightmares. If only I was a scientist...

As someone who has killed and eaten lesser men than Rick Santorum...

... You found someone who's a lesser man than Rick Santorum? Where were you looking, the graveyard?

…if only I were gay…nah, that would make my wife very unhappy.

Atheist scientists, of course, are absolutely the worst. Watch out--when my army of undead cyborg squid-human hybrids is assembled, I won't hesitate to use it.

If it stops the Dominionists and theocrats, please do use it.

How can anyone question our dear Mr. Santorum? Like the good baptist theologian at Emory said (this in reference to Kentucky's Georgetown College leaving tthe Baptist fold) "In fundamentalism, you have all the truths. In education, you're searching for truths." I guess Santorum who's Catholic, is still a fundamentalist and at the tender age of 49 has yet to be exposed to anything that resembles an education, his LLB and MBA notwithstanding. Do you think any college/university would admit to his having taken (not earned) a degree from it? By the way, I'm a life long Republican (and atheist) and Pennsylvania resident who will hold his nose this November and vote for Casey, who's only marginally better than Santorum. But we have to take what we can get.

Atheist scientists, of course, are absolutely the worst. Watch out--when my army of undead cyborg squid-human hybrids is assembled, I won't hesitate to use it.
Count my robot army in as well! By the way, aren't squid-human hybrids what would happen if gays were allowed to marry according to Santorum? :^O
I have seen that picture of ol' Rick before but it still amazes me that the suit color is pushing into the ultraviolet range! I'll see your Santorum and raise you a Frist though:
http://shegeek1000101.livejournal.com/15330.html

Some
Assholes
Never
Transcend
Obviously
Ridiculous
Uninspired
Moronity

my texas republican aunt and uncle attend the same church as bush sr.. they are advocates of stem cell research because it may benefit my uncle, who is a quadrapalegic from an accident serveral years ago. is this what it would take, for the fundamenalists to have accidents? i don't wish that upon anyone.

my texas repbulican aunt and uncle who attend the same church as bush sr. are advocates of stem cell research....but then he was rendered a quadrapaligic several years ago and stem cell could benefit him.

I've heard a conservative is a liberal who has been mugged. Perhaps we could say a liberal is a conservative with a spinal injury?

Santorum? This coming from a man who brought his miscarried fetus offspring home in a blanket for the family to spend some quality time with it? I must be defining "moral" in a slightly different manner.

Are you implying that that was immoral? I don't see that as immoral behavior... frighteningly batshit insane, yes... but not immoral.

my texas repbulican aunt and uncle who attend the same church as bush sr. are advocates of stem cell research....but then he was rendered a quadrapaligic several years ago and stem cell could benefit him.

I have never known a Republican who was morally opposed to something that could benefit him personally.

Some
Assholes
Never
Transcend
Obviously
Ridiculous
Uninspired
Moronity

Seeing that we've descended to the level of using someone's name to insult them (my favorite level!) I gleefully decided to find a suitable anagram of Santorum, but there's not much there... so I tried Rick Santorum. But about all there is is "a scrotum rink."

Find me some polysyllabic conservatives to attack!

craig, will james mountain inhofe do?

QUOTE: "I've heard a conservative is a liberal who has been mugged..."

If I am not mistaken, a conservative came up with that one, so it's a bit of a one-sided, uninformed proverb...ya know, like a lot of conservative self-agrandizing rhetoric. I can tell you I've been "mugged" before, and it hasn't made me necessarily any more "conservative" than I ever was. Of course, today's conservatives would see that as some sort of personal weakness, like I'm "soft on crime" or some crap like that. I like a bad guy getting his justice just as much as the next good citizen. The difference is I don't feel like every other human outside my circle is out to get me.

IMO the current breed of "conservatism" subscribes to something like: "a conservative is someone who chooses their assumptions and runs with it." Taken even further - and I think this is quite the psychological contrast between conservatives and liberals - I'd say that a conservative today is someone who assumes guilt prior to innocence, and a liberal innocence prior to guilt.

I would personally go Octopus-human for my hybrid. I mean, at least get the outer covering of an octopus, blend in with stuff to such a huge degree you would be an amazing assassin. Hooking up the nerves might be hard. Although perhaps the human brain could cope, with the nerves we already have. It would seem to a shame to have the best camo in nature and not be able to change colors, much less textures. Although, perhaps hawk eyes would be best. Though, mammal eyes might actually work better. Don't gazelles have pretty good eyesight?

>>doing whatever they can do to pursue their desired goals.

What are these sinister goals? Oh, making crippled people walk and curing diseases. If God didn't want people to be crippled or have diseases he wouldn't have crippled them or given them diseases!

When you unleash your army of undead cyborg squid-human hybrids, can I be a cringing flunky?

I win, I win! I'm a gay atheistic scientist...and all I get is to be in Santorum's worst dreams. Sigh.

I AM A STEM CELL SCIENTIST FEED ME BABIES!

I NEED BABIES TO LIVE!

*sounds of munching babies*

Santorum.........
that name still has me laughing since I Googled it....

"...if only I were gay...nah, that would make my wife very unhappy."

Little known true fact: the wingnuts are even more terrified of bisexuals than they are about TehGayâ¢. They're harder to spot in a stadium crowd, you know.

If they want to keep waging a war on ethics with us, I say bring 'em on, as they are on the losing side of that battle, too. As scientists, we defend the sanctity of human life through knowledge and discovery, which directly impacts the lives of everyone on this earth for the better. Mr. Santorum and his ilk choose to uphold a sanctity for "aspiring life" rather than for life itself, and believe defending the rights of a ball of cells trumps the right of the suffering to new and better drug therapies and treatments. We should be calling them on this every second we get the chance.

craig, will james mountain inhofe do?

Well, lets see.
"Him, a nominee of juntas..."
"infamous Jim, neo-hate" but that leaves a spare "n."

"Enemas unjam hoof in it?"

See, that's a tough one too - too many vowels.

You sometimes have to wonder what scientists were thinking when they built a flame thrower, or a rocket, or an atomic bomb...

I'm gonna Santoriumize you whole lot of amoral atheist for renaming small, innocent babies ESC and killing them for the sport of it.

First time poster from Norway

PS. Keep up the good work PZ

D, for a moment I thought you had typed Santorum's wet dreams...

Can some of the experts here doublecheck my post:

Is this what the debate is about? Or do you need more developed embryos for stem cell research?

decrepitoldfool: Or had someone close to them suffer for years with Alzheimers. (Cf. Nancy Reagan.)

QUOTE: "I've heard a conservative is a liberal who has been mugged..."

Well, for what that's worth, I know of at least one godless liberal who was mugged to near-death, and remains just as godlessly liberal.

Aiabx: Where's your imagination, man!? I would wanna be one of the undead cyborg cephalopod-humans! Although I could probably do without the undead part...rotting flesh is such a nuisance.

QUOTE: "I've heard a conservative is a liberal who has been mugged..."

This was replaced, during the 1980's, by the phrase 'A liberal is a conservative who's been indicted' :)

May this also be a pertinent saying this decade.

is it really moral opposition or bush leading the sheeple cause he's dipping his hand everywhere he can to help pay for the war? or both? if someone dug around bet they could find lots of dough going for nuclear war survival (a paying republican's hand book), and let's not forget avian flu vaccines (first ordered for whitehouse staff).

i suppose there's many a republican moralist who wouldn't balk at the idea of animal testing.....life is life, be it human or animal kingdom....so where's the cries from the right when it comes to inflicting pain and death on innocent, sentient beings??? oh right, we're human so we're above all else.

oh no, oh geeze damn! a lot of medical science that's helping the fundamentalists came from cadavers. that's it, STOP , please inform them they should not be having any medical science applied to their maladies. help them now!

I, for one, welcome our undead cyborg squid-human hybrid overlords.

Chris Smyr wrote:

As scientists, we defend the sanctity of human life through knowledge and discovery, which directly impacts the lives of everyone on this earth for the better.

How about the knowledge and discovery of nuclear fission which led to the knowledge and discovery of nuclear bombs? Did that discovery impact the lives of everyon on this earth for the better? Or how about the knowledge and discovery of the chemical components of and delivery systems for WMDs?

Contrary to Chris's post, scientist are just as guilty as everyone else of acting without moral restraint. Note, that doesn't mean all scientists, but certainly some.

Chris continues:

Mr. Santorum and his ilk choose to uphold a sanctity for "aspiring life" rather than for life itself, and believe defending the rights of a ball of cells trumps the right of the suffering to new and better drug therapies and treatments. We should be calling them on this every second we get the chance.

This is precisely the utilitarian argument to which Santorum referred. What Chris calls a "ball of cells" some call "human life". The fundamental question is "What does it mean to be human?" The utilitarian argument wants to draw a line somewhere between conception and death. Then, the argument goes, we are free to use, abuse, impose upon or otherswise take advantage of any form of human life prior to that line, but not after it. The problem, of course, is where to draw the line. Who decides? Science? Politicians? Philosophers? Based on what criterion? Who gets to establish that criterion and why?

It might be Chris personal opinion that the line is drawn such that the "ball of cells" is on the side of the line that allows science complete freedom to do whatever they wish, even if it results in the death of those cells. But, upon what is that decision based? Why is that ball of cells only "aspiring life" and not life itself? Is there a definitive scientific finding out there somewhere that says so? Is there a definitive philosophical definition that says so?

And here's another poser...can the line be moved? If so, under what conditions and according to what criterion? If not, why not?

How about the knowledge and discovery of nuclear fission which led to the knowledge and discovery of nuclear bombs?

And also treatments for cancer.

Did that discovery impact the lives of everyon on this earth for the better?

I don't know. How many of them have cancer, or know someone who does?

Contrary to Chris's post, scientist are just as guilty as everyone else of acting without moral restraint.

Do you think that if Oppenheimer (for instance) had chosen to discontinue his work, that the German nuclear scientists would have done the exact same thing?

You're free to characterize the results of the atomic age by whatever means you see fit. But to characterize the researchers and scientists who made that age possible as "acting without moral restraint" is idiotic, ignorant, and slanders some pretty brilliant and moral people. They made an enormously difficult decision to birth a technology with the capacity to end all life as we know it - because the alternative was the birth of the exact same technology into the hands of a madman.

This is precisely the utilitarian argument to which Santorum referred.

You say "utilitarian" like its a bad thing.

The problem, of course, is where to draw the line. Who decides?

In a democracy? We do.

I think Dan Savage (not to be confused with Mike) has the right idea regarding Santorum.

I'm not a religious person and I don't believe in an afterlife. Ironically, while I also won't stake a claim to being a Christian in the defined and institutional sense of the word, I am content to support the notion that the examples offered by a man (fictional or factual are irrelevant to me) named Jesus can guide us to change. His is the story of a social critic who dissected the fallacies and hypocrisies that permeate the human experience. He did so at great personal risk because I believe "he" saw it as I choose to see it...if one man can elect to pursue and follow "truth", then he is entitled to believe and expect that all men can do the same.

In doing so, when each individual makes this necessary choice, we will cease pursuing and negotiating for a better, future destiny...and we will finally live heaven on earth. Our destiny is of our own making. I refuse to allow religion, or those who believe it is theirs to define, to remove that destiny from my earthly grasp. In the end, we can choose to be good people that honor humanity without submitting to any religious institutions or doctrines. Attempts to argue that science needs religion to keep it humane are therefore absurd.

read the full article here:

http://www.thoughttheater.com/2006/05/does_science_need_religion_to.php

A ball of cells a hundred times smaller than this [ . ] is human life?

Are we going to argue about whether it feels anything too?

Chet, you missed the point of my post entirely. And you really display an incredible lack of understanding with

The problem, of course, is where to draw the line. Who decides?

In a democracy? We do.

Fortunately for all mankind, the answer to question What does it mean to be human? isn't decided at the ballot box!!

Steve_C

A ball of cells a hundred times smaller than this [ . ] is human life?

...that is going to get thrown away anyway.

And even those that get implanted have a very low survival rate. You typically implant at least four in the hopes that one will make it.

A friend went through In Vitro four times before getting a single embryo to take. Hers was an extreme case, but that is at least 12 to 16 embryos that didn't make it even in the best of circumstances. The daughter that got was worth the emotional trials and expense, and the next time around they went two for four to get a nice set of twin boys.

Chet, you missed the point of my post entirely.

No, I didn't. I just leveled a rebuttal apparently so devastating that you have no capacity to respond.

Fortunately for all mankind, the answer to question What does it mean to be human? isn't decided at the ballot box!!

What it means to be human was not the question. The question is what is to be legal? And in our country we determine that via a democratic process.

"How about the knowledge and discovery of nuclear fission which led to the knowledge and discovery of nuclear bombs?"

This is a distortion of reality: the fact that scientists discovered this technology does not also entail they promoted and pushed for their use as weapons of war--you can blame that on those who advocate for their creation and use. Are we also to blame 9/11 on all of those who contributed to the discovery and design of massive commuter airplanes?

"This is precisely the utilitarian argument to which Santorum referred. What Chris calls a "ball of cells" some call "human life"."

If you want to advocate that 100 cells constitutes human life, and has a right to life that trumps the right of real, breathing human beings to new and approved drug therapies, then do so, and stop fellating yourself with your ideals of morality and ethics and simply EXPLAIN your position to the American public without an ad hominem attack on our morals. You want to run on the idea that extra blastocysts that aspiring parents donate to scientific research, clusters of cells that are often expelled from the body naturally after fertilization without the mother even knowing, somehow possess a soul, then do so. But stop with this dignity of life bullshit and clearly explain to the American people that your platform that ESC research is morally reprehensible is also equivalent to a position that oral contraception is morally reprehensible. I guarantee this would safeguard federal funding for ESC research for a long time to come.

I notice with some satisfaction that Chris Smyr is making use of a principle I think is good for settling the role of religion in public policy: namely everyone is welcome to their own motivations for positions on things, but to enact public policy requires a position rationally scrutinizable by everyone. (The parallel would be with the context of discovery / context of justification division in epistemology and the philosophy of science.) Of course, I think in order for this to work we need what I have called a metaculture, but places like this are a start in that direction ...

Alongside Santorum's little comment, put the end of Peggy Noonan's little climate change denial piece in the Wall Street Journal (via Chris Mooney):

"You would think the world's greatest scientists could do this [come together to study global warming and come up with some "believable conclusions" - that was the bit that sent Chris over the edge into full 'do you believe this' posting mode], in good faith and with complete honesty and a rigorous desire to discover the truth. And yet they can't. Because science too, like other great institutions, is poisoned by politics. Scientists have ideologies. They are politicized.

All too many of them could be expected to enter this work not as seekers for truth but agents for a point of view who are eager to use whatever data can be agreed upon to buttress their point of view.

And so, in the end, every report from every group of scientists is treated as a political document. And no one knows what to believe. So no consensus on what to do can emerge.

If global warming is real, and if it is new, and if it is caused not by nature and her cycles but man and his rapacity, and if it in fact endangers mankind, scientists will probably one day blame The People for doing nothing.

But I think The People will have a greater claim to blame the scientists, for refusing to be honest, for operating in cliques and holding to ideologies. For failing to be trustworthy."

It all does have a certain waiting for the re-education camps vibe to it . . .

"Fortunately for all mankind, the answer to question What does it mean to be human? isn't decided at the ballot box!!"

Too often one or another group doesn't even get that much.

"The problem, of course, is where to draw the line . . . And here's another poser...can the line be moved? If so, under what conditions and according to what criterion? If not, why not?"

Let me ask you something: why are we not especially worried that masturbation will one day, slippery-slope style, be declared an act of mass murder? (Although I wouldn't entirely rule out a potential future America where it is presented as shameful and unbiblical act . . .

I tend to think enough people can manage at a high enough level of common sense and moral development as to not need this sort of arbitary line-drawing meant to avoid atrocities far, far down the slippery slope. They don't need what is in effect a great big neon sign erected around all blastocysts labeled "All life in sacred" to avoid gleefully killing disabled folks or homeless people or whoever. Yes, yes, the Nazis did horrible things, but you need to look at the reasoning and attitudes behind them, which is quite different from what we see today re: stem cell research. LIke much else in fundamentalism, there is a confusion between form and substance. And of course, this is essence also a variation on 'if there's no objective moral Truth, what stops us from randomly killing little babies for fun and profit?!'-style thinking.

-Dan S.

"But I think The People will have a greater claim to blame the scientists, for refusing to be honest, for operating in cliques and holding to ideologies. For failing to be trustworthy."

That's classic. Curse you, Scientific Method! *Sigh*