I read with interest Ken Blanchard's latest foray into the subject of science, evolution, and their limits (if any). I note that Hillary Clinton has taken President Bush to task for his veto of the embryonic stem cell bill, accusing Bush of putting "ideology before science." I am note sure what she means by "ideology." If she means simply ideals, than I am glad that Bush puts his ideals before science. Science can teach us lots of wonderful things about the world and certainly makes our lives more comfortable, but it can't teach us right from wrong. For more discussion listen to Dennis Prager (hour 3, Wednesday June 20, entitled "Science Before Idealism").
An example. In this interview, noted scientist and evangelical atheist Richard Dawkins argues against limits on embryonic stem cell research thusly:
For me, moral questions such as stem-cell research turn upon whether suffering is caused. In this case, clearly none is. The embryos have no nervous system. But that's not an issue discussed publicly. The issue is, Are they human? If you are an absolutist moralist, you say, "These cells are human, and therefore they deserve some kind of special moral treatment." Absolutist morality doesn't have to come from religion but usually does.
One wonder why the question of "whether suffering is caused" is significant. Based purely on science, can Dawkins tell us why causing suffering is wrong? (By the way, I'd make a distinction between pain and suffering, but that is another matter. Let's discuss as if they are the same thing.) Of course some medicine causes suffering to bring about a cure (think of radiation on cancer patients). So how do we know which suffering is good and which suffering is bad? Science itself cannot tell us. We must resort to ideals. What I see President Bush doing is having science serve his ideals, not the other way around. You may disagree with his ideals, but truly putting science ahead of our ideals is to become monsters (see Frankenstein).
Of course a problem arises if one truly is an ideologue, one whose pursues the ideal in spite of the reality of an imperfect world or the necessity of negotiating between multiple valid ideals. Much is made in some quarters about a Republican or conservative "war on science." First, as I pointed out toward the end of this post, whatever this phenomenon is, it is not a sole domain of the right. Second, the concern of most on the right (certainly the most thoughtful), is not science, but scientism, i.e., turning science into an ideology. Senator Clinton should be wary about falling into this error.
Recent Comments