Ornery.org

SEARCH  OA   Ornery.org   The Internet    

ADVERTISEMENT

FRONT PAGE
ABOUT ORNERY
WORLD WATCH
GUEST ESSAYS
FORUMS
CONTACT US

How to Submit Essays

Receive Ornery.org headlines via our XML/RSS feed

RSS FeedsRSS Feeds


Print this page
E-mail this page


World Watch
First appeared in print in The Rhinoceros Times, Greensboro, NC
By Orson Scott Card October 17, 2004

Dumb Science, Kerry's Religion

We already knew Kerry had a plan for everything -- ending the war, not getting in the war in the first place, getting allies to join us in the war, saving Social Security, lowering taxes, vastly increasing spending, cutting the deficit in half.

You know. Miracles.

But who knew that Kerry and Edwards could cause the crippled to rise up and walk?

I don't think that has ever been promised in a political campaign before.

I was amused when Kerry said, during the second debate, "I believe in science."

That was a pretty clear contrast with George W. Bush, who believes in God.

The real difference in their faiths is that George W. Bush has actually read the Bible and gone to church, so chances are he knows something about what Christians believe about God.

Unfortunately, John Kerry has no idea what scientists believe about science.

As Charles Krauthammer pointed out in a sharply reasoned essay ("Anything to Get Elected"), Edwards's recent statement, "When John Kerry is president, people like Christopher Reeve are going to walk, get up out of that wheelchair and walk again," does not overlap with actual science at any point.

It's religion, pure and simple. And it's not really faith in science. It's faith in money spent on science. And, of course, faith in the gullibility of the American voter.

This whole issue is about stem cell research, which is only controversial when the stem cells come from fetuses, because it seems to put a profit motive in abortion.

Kerry says that George W. Bush has banned stem cell research.

1. The truth is that Bush is the first president to allow embryonic stem cell research. And the only restriction on it is that it be confined to existing lines of embryonic stem cells.

This was actually a daring step for a president beholden to the religious right -- there is no shortage of people for whom even this was over the line. But George W. Bush is a moderate, and sought a middle way.

Furthermore, right now the most productive area of stem cell research is using adult stem cells. No surprise, really -- they are designed to thrive in full-grown humans. There is particular interest in the stem cells that grow amid human fat. It's possible that liposuction may give us more productive stem cells than abortion ever could.

2. Embryonic stem cells have been researched for some time, and there is no encouragement for the belief that they will provide a cure for Parkinson's disease, Alzheimer's, or spinal cord injuries like the one Christopher Reeve suffered.

So at least as far as we know right now, no matter how much money you throw at embryonic stem cell research, ain't nobody gettin' out of his wheelchair and walkin'.

There is a great deal of promising research being done in curing, circumventing, or preventing damage to the nervous system; embryonic stem cell research is merely a small part of it, and not the part getting the best results right now. This is not because of any "ban" -- it's because the hoped-for results simply didn't happen in the experiments done so far.

3. No scientist, speaking as a scientist, could possibly predict the results of experiments that have not yet been performed. Cures come where and when they happen to come, as often from unexpected places as from expected ones.

The recent history of science is littered with stupid promises like, "Within fifteen years artificial intelligence will be a reality" or "We are only ten years away from fully understanding how human consciousness is formed within the brain."

Any time future dates are mentioned as part of a timetable for desired discoveries, you are not hearing science -- you are hearing faith, pure and simple. The faith might be in science, but faith in future science is sadly misplaced.

Science cannot be delivered on command. It can't be bought. Desired results cannot be predicted or promised.

If John Kerry or John Edwards knew diddly-squat about science, they would know that.

People hearing their repulsive promises to cure the crippled and raise up the man suffering from palsy should turn away in disgust at Kerry's and Edwards's dishonesty, their stupidity, and their low opinion of the intelligence of the American people.

Wasn't George W. Bush supposed to be the dumb one?

*

From the second debate between Bush and Kerry, when Kerry was asked about abortion:

"KERRY: I cannot tell you how deeply I respect the belief about life and when it begins. I'm a Catholic, raised a Catholic. I was an altar boy. Religion has been a huge part of my life. It helped lead me through a war, leads me today.

"But I can't take what is an article of faith for me and legislate it for someone who doesn't share that article of faith, whether they be agnostic, atheist, Jew, Protestant, whatever. I can't do that."

Let's see. Religion leads John Kerry today. Who knew?

But apparently his religion doesn't cause him to support laws that would stop people from killing even perfectly viable, full-term babies in the midst of being born. Because murder isn't murder if the victim's beating heart has not yet pumped blood charged with oxygen drawn through the victim's own lungs.

What I want to know is how you can possibly legislate anything at all that does not involve taking your personal belief about what is right and wrong and punishing those who don't go along.

Did John Kerry not vote for the notorious "hate speech" laws? Didn't he decide that certain words and ideas were so evil and loathsome that people who say them while committed a crime should receive extra punishment?

Didn't John Kerry support the ban on peaceful demonstrations anywhere near abortion clinics? Didn't he impose his beliefs on those who hope to save innocent lives by kneeling and silently praying in front of abortion clinics, when he voted for the law that allows them to be arrested for that?

Perhaps he abstained from forcing his beliefs on others because those laws are in direct violation of the actual written words of the Constitution, as opposed to the fantasy clause that protects "abortion rights." I'd have to check the record on that.

When Kerry really believes something is wrong, he does not hesitate to call for laws to ban it. What he's really saying is that it's illegitimate to ban something you believe is wrong if -- and only if -- your belief in its wrongness comes from your religion.

So in his worldview, only religious people are forbidden to impose their beliefs about right and wrong on others. As long as you have no religion behind you, you can force your beliefs about right and wrong on anybody you want.

John Kerry says he's against "disenfranchising" people.

He really means, "except for people who believe their view of morality comes from God." Those people can just sit down and shut up, while the unbelievers make all the laws that rule their lives.

Copyright © 2004 by Orson Scott Card.


Your Comments
Print This Page
E-mail This Page

OA Featured Columnist
World Watch
Recent Columns:
    By Orson Scott Card
More World Watch
OA Recent Guest Essays
 Conservative Principles and the Common Man
By David M. Huntwork
February 21, 2014
 Position on Immigration
By Jason F. Smith
April 15, 2008
More Guest Essays
OA Links of Interest
• Many people have asked OSC where they can get the facts behind the rhetoric about the war. A good starting place is: "Who Is Lying About Iraq?" by Norman Podhoretz, who takes on the "Bush Lied, People Died" slogan.
Past Links
Ornery.Org



Copyright © 2014 Hatrack River Enterprises Inc. All rights reserved.
Reproduction in whole or in part without permission is prohibited.
  Front Page   |   About Ornery.org   |   World Watch   |   Guest Essays   |   Forums   |   Contact Us
Web Site Hosted and Designed by WebBoulevard.com