ESC and ASC Efficiency

An interesting article from Science Daily:

"Fundamental research in embryonic stem cells is extremely important for us to harness the full potentials of these cells, and this study provides valuable and crucial insights into the mechanism of reprogramming."

I'd be curious to see if these a human embryonic cells, or animal cells they are using...

"we were very surprised with the discovery that Nr5a2 could replace Oct4"

Oct4 is generated in ESC, Nr5a2 was found to help in the production of ASC.

"they presented evidence that this and another nuclear receptor can significantly increase the efficiency of reprogramming."

Haiti Quake

I wish Pat Robertson would stop talking to the press. Inevitably, his statements make Christians look foolish (and not in "the Gospel is foolishness to those perishing" sense)...

"According to some fundamentalist Christians, including Pat Roberston, revolt leaders made a pact with Satan in 1791 to gain independence from France. Haiti won its freedom in 1804.

Robertson said last week that deal brought on the quake.

'You know, the Haitians revolted and got themselves free,' Robertson was quoted as saying. 'But ever since, they have been cursed by one thing after the other.'"

Of course, "mainstream" (aka liberal) Protestants can't do any better:

"'Why do we always have to go here?' said David Burns, pastor at Trinity Presbyterian Church in Atlanta. 'Can't there be another explanation rather than, "God did this?" Why not, "God does not micromanage the world. God's heart breaks with us and instantaneously moves to comfort, catalyze imagination and compassion, and instill hope."'"

Robertson is actually closer to the mark...

We should be clear - God does micromanage the world. God is in control of everything that happens (or, you could say that He could prevent anything from happening). Anything less means that we cannot rely on God to help us (He is too weak or not paying attention) - that robs us of hope.

But Robertson goes too far. You cannot say "X is because of Y", unless you can show it clearly in the Bible ("death is because of sin"). Are Haitians rebels ("in a pact with Satan")? Sure, we all are. Do bad things happen to sinners? Sure. Are Haitians cursed? Sure, we all are.

Is this earthquake because of any particular sin - we don't know.

Is Suffering Good?

One of the problems of the old earth is that of suffering.

An old earther must believe that animals lived and died (often horrible deaths, eaten alive) for hundreds of millions of years before man and sin.

Yet, the Bible tells us on day five (before man and sin) everything was good.

The Catholic church accepts the old earth, there is also an odd view of suffering which comes out in this interview with the current Pope (then Cardinal).

"Anyone who really wanted to get rid of suffering would have to get rid of love before anything else, because there can be no love without suffering, because it always demands an element of self-sacrifice"

That looks really bad on the face of it, but I think I understand the deeper context (love in the context of the current, fallen world). There is an "element" of self-sacrifice, but love is an eternal attribute of God. There was love expressed in the Trinity before creation, and there will be love in eternity future. I assume Catholics believe we will be free of suffering in eternity future...

"Seewald: What would actually have happened if Christ had not appeared and if he had not died on the tree of the Cross? Would the world long since have come to ruin without him?

Cardinal Ratzinger: That we cannot say. Yet we can say that man would have no access to God. He would then only be able to relate to God in occasional fragmentary attempts. And, in the end, he would not know who or what God actually is.

Something of the light of God shines through in the great religions of the world, of course, and yet they remain a matter of fragments and questions. But if the question about God finds no answer, if the road to him is blocked, if there is no forgiveness, which can only come with the authority of God himself, then human life is nothing but a meaningless experiment."

I actually like most of Ratzinger's answer here. The answer to any "what if" should be "we cannot say". We can only say what is - if we know, or what was - if it has been revealed to us.

The "Something of the light of God shines through in the great religions of the world" sounds like something a politician would say. The light of God shines in creation (and in the proclamation of the Gospel), the false religions seek to obscure and distort that light - we should be clear on that.

I want to focus on "if there is no forgiveness, which can only come with the authority of God himself". This is an odd expression, something I would expect from a Muslim. Forgiveness comes from the substitutionary death of Jesus - the righteous in place of the unrighteous - our sin is attributed to Him, and His righteousness attributed to us. For God to simply forgive sin on "His authority" (as Muslims believe) would be unjust - there must be a payment for sin.

Perhaps that is implied, but I would expect it to be more explicit.

HPV Vaccine

I've been able to resist the temptation to comment on the HPV vaccine controversy before, but this provocative piece from Science Daily is really too much.

"individuals who have cultural values that favor authority and individualism perceive the vaccine as risky, in part because they believe it will lead girls to engage in unsafe sex. But individuals with cultural values that favor gender equality and pro-community/government involvement in basic health care are more likely to see the vaccine as low risk and high benefit."

There is so much in there, I don't know where to start!

1. Aren't "favor authority" and "individualism" (rebels) opposites? Although, this does sum up Republicans pretty well
   
2. As I've discussed previously "Gender equality" is actually demeaning to women, note the positive connotations for liberals and Democrats ("pro-government")

"When views about HPV vaccines came from sources respondents believed shared their values, individuals tended to be more willing to accept the information. But when it came from an expert whom they perceived held values different from theirs, the information was not accepted. In the first instance, respondents perceived the experts to have cultural credibility and trustworthiness, but when respondent values differed from the experts, the experts were perceived to lack cultural credibility."

This reflects the fallacy of an "appeal to authority" (ironically). An expert should be believed because they are an expert.

It ignores theology entirely.

That is, if someone shares my values, it is likely due to shared theology (truth). If someone rejects my values and adopts opposite ones, again, that is revealing their theology (which is against truth).

If someone who does not know truth says something I know to be false, I'm not going to be impressed. If someone who claims to know the truth disagrees with me, I can at least consider it.

ASC and Breast Cancer

From Science Daily, an interesting analysis of using adult stem cells during the treatment of breast cancer.

Guns, Germs, and Steel

Growing up, I learned and trusted in evolution. Before becoming a Christian, I read "Guns, Germs, and Steel" (GGS)(Jared Diamond).

Even in the evolutionary mindset, this had some big impacts on me:

• It undermined my faith in science - Diamond revealed much of the underlying racism, pride, and arrogance in anthropology
• It made me pause and consider determinism. I was a strong believer in "the future is what we make it" (the power of human will). The idea that all of world history could turn on the layout of land masses made me consider that perhaps God was in control.

Having adopting a young earth viewpoint, I still recommend GGS.

Not that Diamond is favorable to a young earth. He is an evolutionary ornithologist (studying the evolution of birds). But, everything he says makes a lot of sense from a young earth point of view.

1. Until recently all human populations were the same (technology wise)
2. Humans spread rapidly to all the parts of the globe they would reach
3. There are only a handful of plant and animal species useful to man

Much of the book is exploring the first point, and it is the one that can have the biggest impact on the reader. I've never seen another book that covers pre-history so well.

My interest is in the third point.

Diamond believes that it was the layout of land masses that allowed people in the middle east to bring together the ingredients needed for civilization (east-to-west configuration provides for rapid transport from multiple, compatible biomes).

That is, perhaps, correct. But there is an alternative interpretation.

What if the plants and animals useful to man are those brought on the Ark?

They would start in the middle east, and would need to be transported elsewhere (perhaps being lost in transport, made difficult by the ice age).

In this case, the wild versions did not come first, with minor mutations for the human-ready versions. The wild versions came later...

A story from Science Daily to ponder.

Gay Marriage

It's been over a year since I last addressed the topic of gay marriage.

My opinion hasn't changed, but I had to address this article from CNN...

It starts with a commentary on the state of "normal" marriage, and I agree totally. Anyone who wants to defend marriage needs to go back and address no-fault divorce and related issues. Marriage is a joke in our society. I'm not really sure what homosexuals see in it...

It follows with an appeal for access to some "1100 rights". There is no reason these rights should be attached to marriage. Civil unions should be fine for everyone (get the government out of "marriage" entirely). Problem solved.

My main disagreement:

"And don't tell me that civil unions are exactly the same as marriage. If that's true, then let's let gays and lesbians pick first. If they pick marriage, and heterosexuals are relegated to civil unions, no problem, right, since they are exactly the same?"

I'm really curious, what is the difference? From the point of view of the State, not God.