Science versus Religion...again
As the elections are coming up in a week, we're being bombarded by all kinds of partisan advertisments. In Missouri there is a major battle over stem-cell research with two celebrities getting involved in the scuffle. On the side of pro-science is former Back to the Future and Spin City star, Michael J. Fox, who uses his celebrity status to gain research support for the disease he suffers from: Parkinson's. On the side of religion (or anti-science) is former Super Bowl MVP Kurt Warner who is famous for his rise to fame from obscurity and his love for everything Jesus. The problem with this debate is the fact that it's an argument between those who believe in progress and those who think that we're the pinnacle of progress. If you already believe that "god" made this world in his "perfect" image, then why would you ever support any kind of research? Obviously religion is, and always will be, at odds with rational thought and science. But the most frightening thing about the fight between science and religion is that so many of our "leaders", people who should be more rational and informed than all of the voting public, are on the side of religion. That is why the debate is being led by a man who suffers from a disease that has much potential to be cured with stem-cell research and has been studying the prospects for years versus a man who was working as a bag-boy before he became a born-again Christian NFL star. It's the fight of someone who is informed versus someone who has no idea what he is talking about.
Warner is obviously not an authority on anything other than football, but having him speak out against stem-cell research is simply the work of politicians who care not for truth and justice, but for victory at any cost. Using a local sports hero to speak out against progress has to be considered anti-American and bordering on treason (isn't mis-informing your own people for your political gain enough to be considered treason?), but Warner's argument is simply too stupid for people to take seriously, right? Probably not. On the Warner commercial, he speaks about why he is against stem-cell research, and it's not for the typical religious reasons that are usually stated, but for the TIME IT WOULD TAKE! He says that because the cures may not come for another 15 years, that it's a waste to try. Hmm, isn't Bush saying that only history will tell us how effective the Iraq war has been? Wouldn't someone who supports Warner's reasoning for voting against stem-cell research also be anti-Bush because of his idea that the war may take decades for the result to become visible?
So what if it does take 15 years for some research to show its results? Didn't it take that long for airplanes and cars to be developed? What about the cures to Polio, Rubella, Smallpox and all the others? If something doesn't take a long time to research, it's not really that major of a problem. If we could cure parkinsons and alzheimer's by 2021, wouldn't that help Warner (who would likely be facing some kind of effects from one of those due to his concussion history and career as a football player) have a more enjoyable twilight of life? Lets go back in time 15 years ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1991 ) and see how much that was going on back then is still facing us today. Now look at the various advances in medicine and technology since then and tell me that 15 years down the line isn't too much time to wait for an advance to be made. We've seen DVD, MP3 and DVR players become the standard of their various media, replacing VHS, CD and VCR. We've seen new advances in medicine that include the ability to get hard at age 75 (another thing Warner should be supportive of...), so how can anyone say that we shouldn't fund scientific research simply because we're only speculating about the possible advances that may come 15 years down the line?
If history has taught us nothing else (though it definitely has, history teaches us A LOT) it is that most medical advances come by accident. While researching cures for Parkinson's disease through stem-cell research, there is a possiblity that the scientists discover a cure for cancer or even aging. We wont know until we try. It's not like stem-cell research is the same as biological weapon research, there isn't a clear danger from the study of stem-cells. They can't be stolen and sold to terrorists, unless the terrorists want to help cure diseases...um, they wouldn't be terrorists if they did that. Viagra ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viagra#History ) was not being researched as a penis hardening pill, it was being developed for hypertension and angina. If that much of a divergence in usage can come from a very specific compound, how many unique (and previously not considered) uses will stem-cells uncover? The answer we do not know, but those cures will never come if we do not try.
The fact that uninformed people are speaking out against scientists should be enough of a sign that those people are irrational and shouldn't be listened to at any cost. But Americans are gullible and basically a large flock of sheep who will listen to anything an authority tells them. Case in point: the anti-marijuana ads the US Government has produced over the past 7 decades. First marijuana made people crazy, then it made them communists, then it made them lazy, then it made them terrorists, now it's just going to keep people from doing things...basically, it's one lie after another that the majority of people still believe because they believe anything they're told. Just like the denial of global warming, the anti-stem-cell movement is fighting against progress and doing it at the cost of our children and our future health. Do we really need to listen to Kurt Warner or Michael J Fox? As long as there are no possible weapons or highly addictive drugs being developed, research can't ever be the wrong option because that is where progress comes from. So the people have a choice, they can side with Kurt Warner and vote against progress, or they can side with Michael J Fox and help contribute to this nation continuing to maintain its place on top of the world.
Warner is obviously not an authority on anything other than football, but having him speak out against stem-cell research is simply the work of politicians who care not for truth and justice, but for victory at any cost. Using a local sports hero to speak out against progress has to be considered anti-American and bordering on treason (isn't mis-informing your own people for your political gain enough to be considered treason?), but Warner's argument is simply too stupid for people to take seriously, right? Probably not. On the Warner commercial, he speaks about why he is against stem-cell research, and it's not for the typical religious reasons that are usually stated, but for the TIME IT WOULD TAKE! He says that because the cures may not come for another 15 years, that it's a waste to try. Hmm, isn't Bush saying that only history will tell us how effective the Iraq war has been? Wouldn't someone who supports Warner's reasoning for voting against stem-cell research also be anti-Bush because of his idea that the war may take decades for the result to become visible?
So what if it does take 15 years for some research to show its results? Didn't it take that long for airplanes and cars to be developed? What about the cures to Polio, Rubella, Smallpox and all the others? If something doesn't take a long time to research, it's not really that major of a problem. If we could cure parkinsons and alzheimer's by 2021, wouldn't that help Warner (who would likely be facing some kind of effects from one of those due to his concussion history and career as a football player) have a more enjoyable twilight of life? Lets go back in time 15 years ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1991 ) and see how much that was going on back then is still facing us today. Now look at the various advances in medicine and technology since then and tell me that 15 years down the line isn't too much time to wait for an advance to be made. We've seen DVD, MP3 and DVR players become the standard of their various media, replacing VHS, CD and VCR. We've seen new advances in medicine that include the ability to get hard at age 75 (another thing Warner should be supportive of...), so how can anyone say that we shouldn't fund scientific research simply because we're only speculating about the possible advances that may come 15 years down the line?
If history has taught us nothing else (though it definitely has, history teaches us A LOT) it is that most medical advances come by accident. While researching cures for Parkinson's disease through stem-cell research, there is a possiblity that the scientists discover a cure for cancer or even aging. We wont know until we try. It's not like stem-cell research is the same as biological weapon research, there isn't a clear danger from the study of stem-cells. They can't be stolen and sold to terrorists, unless the terrorists want to help cure diseases...um, they wouldn't be terrorists if they did that. Viagra ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viagra#History ) was not being researched as a penis hardening pill, it was being developed for hypertension and angina. If that much of a divergence in usage can come from a very specific compound, how many unique (and previously not considered) uses will stem-cells uncover? The answer we do not know, but those cures will never come if we do not try.
The fact that uninformed people are speaking out against scientists should be enough of a sign that those people are irrational and shouldn't be listened to at any cost. But Americans are gullible and basically a large flock of sheep who will listen to anything an authority tells them. Case in point: the anti-marijuana ads the US Government has produced over the past 7 decades. First marijuana made people crazy, then it made them communists, then it made them lazy, then it made them terrorists, now it's just going to keep people from doing things...basically, it's one lie after another that the majority of people still believe because they believe anything they're told. Just like the denial of global warming, the anti-stem-cell movement is fighting against progress and doing it at the cost of our children and our future health. Do we really need to listen to Kurt Warner or Michael J Fox? As long as there are no possible weapons or highly addictive drugs being developed, research can't ever be the wrong option because that is where progress comes from. So the people have a choice, they can side with Kurt Warner and vote against progress, or they can side with Michael J Fox and help contribute to this nation continuing to maintain its place on top of the world.
posted by Dan Pasternack at 1:01 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home