Science is the Beginning, Not the End

“Better to illuminate than merely to shine, to deliver to others contemplated truths than merely to contemplate.” – St. Thomas Aquinas

Home » Politics, President Obama, Science

Science is the Beginning, Not the End

17 March 2009 8 Comments

obama11

BY: WC WINDBAG

Last week, President Obama gave a speech on Executive stem cell policy that Charles Krauthammer referred to as “morally unserious in the extreme”. After reading the full text of the speech, I am in total agreement with most of Krauthammer’s assessment.

The President encapsulates the difference of his beliefs from the previous Administration in one sentence:

But in recent years, when it comes to stem cell research, rather than furthering discovery, our government has forced what I believe is a false choice between sound science and moral values.

Krauthammer goes on to destroy Obama’s reasoning throughout the speech:

This is not just intellectual laziness. It is the moral arrogance of a man who continuously dismisses his critics as ideological while he is guided exclusively by pragmatism (in economics, social policy, foreign policy) and science in medical ethics.

Science has everything to say about what is possible. Science has nothing to say about what is permissible. Obama’s pretense that he will “restore science to its rightful place” and make science, not ideology, dispositive in moral debates is yet more rhetorical sleight of hand — this time to abdicate decision-making and color his own ideological preferences as authentically “scientific.”

I can not provide as timely or detailed commentary as Krauthammer and others here and here and here, but when you can find a lefty-leaning site like the Onion mocking how ridiculous it is to blindly trust science, it is best to share that posting… even if it is a week late.

Experts Agree Giant, Razor-Clawed Bioengineered Crabs Pose No Threat

Last 5 posts by The Windy City Windbag

Open Thread - August 12th, 2010
Fun Video of the Day - July 22nd, 2010
Jimmy Buffet Channeling His Inner Obama - July 9th, 2010
Shocking Poll of Elites: W One of the Worst Presidents Evah - July 2nd, 2010
Funny Video of the Day - June 25th, 2010

8 Comments »

still proud said:

Our founding fathers thought ahead to include a separation of church and state. Why? Then they included “In God we trust” on our money. Why?
who said power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely ? Were they a poor lot that wrote our constitution, or a bunch of business owners who subsequently became “we the people”? We all see who government protects.Let alzheimers patients decide on stem cell research. No one is suggesting cutting up babies (or kittens) are they?

# 19 March 2009 at 11:58 am

NC Viking said:

So far, only in Ukraine. Very slippery slope.

# 19 March 2009 at 5:06 pm

The Windy City Windbag (author) said:

Proud, I would say first that our founding fathers did NOT believe in a separation of church and state… they believed that there should be no establishment of an official Christian denomination. The courts in the 1950’s “interpreted” the Constitution by bringing in a letter written by Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptist Association in 1802 to answer a letter from them written in October 1801. As stated on http://www.usconstitution.net/jeffwall.html:

The Danbury Baptists were a religious minority in Connecticut, and they complained that in their state, the religious liberties they enjoyed were not seen as immutable rights, but as privileges granted by the legislature – as “favors granted.” Jefferson’s reply did not address their concerns about problems with state establishment of religion – only of establishment on the national level. The letter contains the phrase “wall of separation between church and state,” which led to the short-hand for the Establishment Clause that we use today: “Separation of church and state.”

The letter was the subject of intense scrutiny by Jefferson, and he consulted a couple of New England politicians to assure that his words would not offend while still conveying his message: it was not the place of the Congress or the Executive to do anything that might be misconstrued as the establishment of religion.

The Founding Fathers did not see a society without God, but to the contrary… they did not want an official religion where the Executive stood as the Head of State and Head of the Church. Religious freedom was a bedrock.

We do not let murder victims decide the fate of murderers, so we should not let those suffering from a terrible disease what the most moral answer is. If one’s child were in danger, a person would risk the lives of many others to save that child. Same with scientists. The scientist will tell you what is possible and say that it must be explored. They are no more qualified to determine the moral values around an issue than a member of a politician, a housewife, or a dishwasher. We defer our great moral questions not to the scientists, but to our moral leaders.

# 19 March 2009 at 6:31 pm

still proud said:

I read and I learn. I still find it hard to believe that anyone would do what the Ukraine are accused of. Moral leaders? Are you referring to our politicians morals? Or did you mean the likes of Jim Baker? Housewives and dishwashers have no morals, or are they incapable of voting morally? Perhaps they shouldn’t be allowed to vote at all. Only pompous asses with degrees and making 250,000 minimum annually.

# 19 March 2009 at 7:52 pm

The Windy City Windbag (author) said:

Good morning Proud…

When I referred to morals, I was referring to the morals of scientists. Their job is to ask “can it be done” and do not ask “should it be done”. I believe that those scientists do not have any higher moral authority to make decisions than any one else, and might have an incentive to proceed down the slipperly slope more than a non-scientists. It was not to disparage housewives or dishwashers… but to the contrary say that they likely would have something to say about this as well. President Obama said that we need to put the decisions back in the hands of scientists (“leave science to scientists”), but I think that is the wrong place to put it.

Sometimes I wish I was one of those pompous asses making 250K. I am not even close.

# 20 March 2009 at 6:01 am

Trackbacks

Introducing Hourly Tracking and more for your TV Campaigns | Hobby Cash: Make Cash Blogging About the Things You Love

So… What is Funny? How About Olby! | The Great Illuminator

Pelosi on Embryonic Stem Cell Research: “We need science, science, science, science, science!” | The Great Illuminator