Comments on Book Reviews Part 2

Maybe it's not just coincidence that the review of _Curious Minds: How a Child Becomes a Scientist_ on p. 904 (_Nature_ v. 431, 21 Oct. 2004) includes an account of when Richard Dawkins was a child and mistook "a blue tit for a chaffinch." Any British folk on the list care to enlighten me as to how big an error this is? For all I know, there's not much difference, but his grandfather wondered aloud, "...is that possible?"

BTW, there doesn't seem to be any common factor in the journey from childhood to becoming a scientist. Also, I note that Stephen Pinker is one of the contributors. Isn't he one of those fellows who've written a lot of scathing attacks on "creationism" -- which have often been soundly refuted by Answers in Genesis? And if so, is there any other reason he might have been selected as a contributor?

(_Nature_ v. 431, 21 Oct. 2004 p. 905) "Stalking life's second secret" is a review of Ann B. Parson's _The Proteus Effect: Stem Cells and their Promise for Medicine_. Reviewer Lee M. Silver, "a professor of molecular biology and public affairs at Princeton" -- biology and public affairs? curious... -- starts the review in an unremarkable way, but at a couple points... well...

The first "secret of life," as Francis Crick proclaimed in 1953, was the structure of DNA, but "while everyone knows of Watson and Crick, hardly anyone has heard of Leroy Stevens and other early stem-cell pioneers" seeking the answers to "A second mystery ... the process by which a microscopic embryo could develop into a fully functional human being or other mammal. Embryologists...didn't know how developmental control was asserted."

All well and good, a fine but unremarkable review. Then I read this comment (based on Parson's book, or the reviewers own opinion?) as to why it was "assumed, without evidence, that a permanent loss of biological components or capabilities was responsible for the narrowing of cellular potential": "Goal-oriented unidirectional development was easily accepted as scientific dogma because it aligns neatly with traditional Judaeo-Christian-derived religious doctrine, which permeates Western culture."

Wow, what do you think of that? In the creation v evolution arena, we hear so much about religion and science being opposed, or in separate realms, or science dictating what to believe, or about religion that finds God in (or in spite of) the god-free nature of modern science, "modern" being about everything since Darwin... and now here's this statement that a belief ("dogma," no less) of science in the 1950s was due to the influence of "traditional Judaeo-Christian-derived religious doctrine"! Okay, either Silver (or Parson, or both) are just spouting so much hooey, or I'd like to see the documentation on this, and every other case they might come up with. Wouldn't that be interesting? There's certainly reason to believe that Darwin and Darwinism were strongly influenced by "modern" liberal religious ideas and religio-philosophical progressivism.

I think it may just be that Silver is on a crusade against those who oppose embryonic stem cell research. He never mentions adult stem cell research _per se_, let alone how successful it's been, especially compared to embryonic stem cell tests. He does devote most of the rest of that paragraph to attacking a member of the Bush administration (another professor at Princeton and "a defender of strict Catholicism") for saying that embryonic growth "is not extrinsically determined" and (in Silver's words) "Consequently, according to ...the Bush administration, human zygotes...are...deserving of protection from the murderous pursuits of biomedical scientists."

I can't speak for the Bush administration, but the actual effects of extrinsic conditions on the embryo has nothing to do with why I believe human embryos should be considered human life and should not be destroyed by experiments. Silver notes that "Parson engages the debate between supporters and opponents of human embryo research by allowing the main players to speak for themselves. She doesn't advocate for or against, although the book's subtitle leaves no doubt as to her own position." So I wonder if a lot of this review isn't more about Silver venting or something, as when he boldly and grandly proclaims/predicts that when human embryos were first kept growing in a culture without differentiating, "the age of regenerative medicine was initiated."

Until Next Time,

David Bump
Philippians 3: 13 Brethren, I
count not myself to have
apprehended: but [this] one thing
[I do], forgetting those things
which are behind, and reaching
forth unto those things which are
before, 14 I press toward the
mark for the prize of the high
calling of God in Christ Jesus.

http://home.att.net/~david.bump