We’ve already seen the results of a grossly flummoxed Nathan Bradfield’s attempt to debunk evolution, in which he displayed all the rhetorical skill and erudition of a cannabis-soaked donkey. Not content to limit his scientific ignorance to a single discipline, Bradfield, who washed up in the comment field of my Saturday post about the Creation Museum and inspired me to visit his site anew, has belched up a cloud of foolishness about President Bush’s vetoing of an embryonic stem cell research funding bill last week.
Bradfield, using the issue as a platform to express his distaste for Nancy Pelosi and Hillary Clinton, writes:
“[Bush] is saying ‘No’ to murder.”
I wonder if Bradfield is aware of the alternate disposition of embryonic stem cells used in research. That’s right — they’re thrown in the trash. None of the embryos used for research purposes will ever develop into a life. As a result, invoking the term “murder” — which, by the way, implies malice aforethought, making its use by hysterical God-nuts in the context of ESCR even more irrelevant — is meaningless.
Also, Bush did not veto the practice of ESCR; his failure to approve a lifting of funding restrictions makes ESCR less expedient, but does nothing to limit the research itself. Bush doesn’t care whether these embryos are “killed” or not; he’s merely appealing to the dark-minded conservatives who harbor reflexive animosity toward ESCR thanks to rigid and backward religious beliefs.
“Thankfully, Bush understands the difference between a political and a moral issue and will not allow Democrats to swap them at their convenience, especially when Adult Stem Cell Research (ASCR) is producing all the results without killing humans.”
Who is Bradfield kidding? One of the biggest failures of the current administration is its conflation of selective morality and politics. Bush expressed a moral imperative to go to war with “the evil ones” in Iraq; all we hear from opponents to gay civil unions and marriage is rhetoric about morality.
Also, his hunger to criticize Democrats is completely misplaced, since there was bipartisan support for the bill that Bush vetoed. Bet he didn’t catch that part.
But the goofiest thing Bradfield says, of course, is that adult stem cell research “is producing all the results without killing humans.” I wonder if Nathan has ever heard the word “totipotent” and understands its implications. You see, Nathan, embryonic stem cells have particular properties that adult stem cells don’t. If this were not the case, scientists would be content to simply use adult stem cells in their research.
Also, I’d be interested in learning of all of the success stories of ASCR Bradfield mentions. He chooses not to expand on what “all the results” means, and I am just a little suspicious that in deploying this phrase Nathan is talking out of his ass in order to advance a particular position.
He closes with this:
“Pelosi’s invoking of God in her absurd implication that ESCR is a ‘gift from God,’ as if God desires that we kill his creation, was in vain.”
I wonder what Bradfield thinks of that fact that God chooses to “kill” close to half of all fertilized embryos in the pre-implantation and early implantation stages. The guy in the sky is by far the world’s most prolific abortionist. But it’s easy enough to avoid the implications of the curiously high spontaneous miscarriage rate when you cloak yourself in childish mythology and view everything through a stubbornly short-sighted and selectively opaque lens. Thinking bad! Reflex good! No moral murder nope!
Anyway, for those who don’t understand why people would oppose this potentially promising type of research in spite of its having no functional drawbacks, Nathan is Exhibit A. He doesn’t consider any of the relevant biology, nor does he weigh the potential benefits of using an embryo for research against those of throwing it in the garbage, which apparently is less “murderous” than donating it to a potentially life-saving cause. He simply spouts up nonsense about morals and killing and cheers ESRC opponents, all while pretending that it’s a Democratic death-conspiracy. If it were up to people like Nathan, the state of American medical practice would remain in the Bronze Age.