A race is going on around the world to create artificial life. It started several years ago, and it is expected that the first artificial life form will be produced in the next 3-10 years. Some atheists are greeting this work with glee. Known as “Alife,” these organisms come in several forms: some are virtual, and some are expected to be actual “wet” single celled critters never seen before on the Earth. Craig Venter, one of the pioneers of the mapping of the Human Genome, has already applied for a patent on an artificial life form.

These plans currently center on taking existing biological materials and recombining them to produce a unique new organism. This has led some to point out that such life will not truly be artificial but only re-engineered life. However, this is usually shrugged off as nitpicking.

Be that as it may, the rationale for producing an Alife entity is the hope that such organisms can be designed to do wonderful and economically beneficial things such as producing cheap biofuels, disposing of CO2, cleaning up toxic waste, making new antibiotics, curing diseases, desalinating sea water, mining minerals, and just about anything else imaginable including figuring out how Darwinian Evolution supposedly works.

The prospect of making artificial life, of course, has its critics. Some point out that once introduced into the environment, there is no way to know what the long-range effects of these organisms might be. It is widely recognized that the law of unintended consequences has quite an unpleasant history. For example, the original hope for the use of the nuclear chain reaction was energy production to provide free electricity not the creation of super bombs. Consequently it is not difficult to imagine many Frankensteinian scenarios of Alife experiments gone awry. Destruction of entire ecosystems, new plagues, and bio-terror are just a few of the possibilities. However, those are not the main issues for this Blog.

Why This Is Important

Atheists often claim that the creation of artificial life will somehow disprove the existence of God. The reasoning runs something like this – religious people believe that only God can create life. Therefore, if man creates life, it proves that there is no God because God is not needed to produce life.

Ignoring the logical problems with the above line of reasoning, it can be argued that the atheist claim is not supported in Scripture. While Scripture does say that God created life, it does not say that man cannot. It can be argued on the basis of Scripture that, in principle, there should be no barrier to the creation of artificial life, and it can be asserted that it is also reasonable to claim that the creation of artificial life is consistent with Biblical discourse.

Genesis 2:9 recounts that in the middle of the Garden of Eden “were the Tree of Life and the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil.” Adam and Eve are then told in 2:16-17 “You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; but you must not eat from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil,…” They were not prohibited from eating of the Tree of Life. Now what exactly this means is in the realm of theological conjecture; however, Genesis 3:22 sheds further light on the subject. “He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the Tree of Life and eat and live forever.” Later in Genesis 11:6 we are told “…then nothing they plan to do will be impossible for them.”

Whatever the Tree of Life was or represented cannot be known with certainty; however, a biological implication is there in the Scriptures. Additionally, Genesis 3:22 indicates that even after the expulsion from Eden there was still “nothing” “impossible” for humans if they set their minds to it.

Therefore, the creation of artificial life by mankind, if it is accomplished and even if it is not in God’s will, will be in no way a proof against the existence of God, but if anything, it will be evidence in support of Biblical accuracy.

Source:

“Artificial Life Likely in 3 to 10 Years,” by Seth Borenstein, Aug. 19, 2007, AP, Washington, DC.

By: Lawrence Vescera, Ph. D.

Having assumed that God would only create with absolute perfection and would never allow any changes to His design, critics of divine creation assert that all “useless” organs and “unneeded” features are evidence against the belief that God created life. Two of the most commonly cited examples of these alleged imperfections in God’s creation are the human appendix and “Junk” DNA.

The appendix, a little worm shaped organ that sits at a major bend in the large intestine, seemed to be doing nothing except producing trouble by occasionally getting inflamed and causing appendicitis. However, new research published in the Journal of Theoretical Biology describes the discovery of a vital function that the appendix performs. These researchers found that the appendix provides a backup system, which has been important to the long-term survival of the human race. It seems that the appendix acts as a reservoir and shelter for the digestive bacteria that populate the human gut. These are the bacteria, such as E. Coli, that help break down food and assist in its transformation into polysaccharide molecules that can be absorbed by the body’s cells.

A reservoir of these “good bacteria” is needed because certain diseases, such as cholera, and many types of food poisoning wipe out these bacteria. It is very difficult for these bacteria to repopulate the gut after such an infection without a healthy colony to act as a starter. This is where the appendix comes in. It preserves a supply of these bacteria, which, subsequent to the eradication of friendly bacteria in the gut, are released back into the intestine, allowing the digestive system to come back online quickly to resume digesting food and to enable the victim to recover. Without an appendix, some common maladies would be fatal more often.

Oh yes, regarding “Junk DNA,” those sections of DNA which do not code for protein production, on August 25th this Blog published an article on new research done by the Encode Project showing that at least 50% of the so-called “Junk DNA” is not “Junk” at all, but indeed has numerous vital functions. As research continues on “Junk” DNA, more functions are being discovered for it. It seems that ultimately all of this “junk” will be found to have a vital purpose.

New research shows that these non-protein-coding DNAs are playing the pivotal role of “conductor” in regulating the cell’s activities. They produce huge numbers of micro-RNAs, which regulate gene expression and thereby “conduct” the activities of the coding sections of the DNA molecules. This is no small thing; these micro-RNAs are like little mid-level managers, accountants, and quality control agents in a factory. They are responsible for making sure that the right proteins get to the right place at the right time and much more.

This new, vast level of cellular complexity has been labeled the “Conductome.”

Why This Is Important

The existence of currently useless organs (if such actually exist) does not prove that God did not design them. It arguably could show that God was slow to remove them or, the truth be told, what it actually shows is that we have failed to understand their purposes. However, the existence of vestigial organs is necessary to the Darwinian claim of evolution by purely natural processes. If an organ is no longer needed, random mutations should begin to destroy it through the accumulation of small changes which do not effect the overall fitness of the organism

These two icons of Darwinism, the appendix and junk DNA, have been so widely touted in the literature that it will probably take decades before they are expunged. However, the Darwinists will soon advance new examples in their effort to discredit God’s role in creation. After all, in their view, Darwinism is unfalsifiable; so the evidence against it does not shake them.

Sources:

1. “Appendix Isn’t Useless After All” Global Health Vision, Richard Merritt, Duke University Medical Center.

2. “The RNA Conductome” The-Scientist, Vol. 21, Issue 10, p.55.

By: Lawrence Vescera, Ph.D

“Genetic Entropy” is the title of a stunningly important new book by Dr. John Sanford, a well known and long time Professor of Genetics and genetic researcher at Cornell University. The book details his reasons for “rejecting the Primary Axiom” of Darwinism – the idea that man and all organisms are “the product of random mutations plus natural selection.”

“Genetic Entropy” is a very difficult book to review in a short Blog. Therefore, I strongly recommend that you read it. Despite its title and technical details, the book is understandable and quite interesting.

Dr. Sanford begins by pointing out that the terms “Natural Selection” and “Survival of the Fittest” have become a kind of “magic wand” for Darwinists. The terms are thrown at biological problems like an “Easy Button” that automatically explains everything. For example, why do giraffes have long necks? Easy, the longer the neck, the better to get to high leaves – therefore giraffes with longer necks have a better chance of surviving and reproducing. This ignores the fact that tens of thousands of mutually interdependent changes are required to lengthen the animal’s neck. Just for starters: additional vertebrae are needed along with an enlarged body frame, lengthened and strengthened bones and muscles, a greatly enlarged heart and oh yes, a unique new organ similar to a spleen located next to the brain that acts as a backup blood reservoir to keep the giraffe from passing out when it raises it head to 20 feet above the ground.

This mode of magic-like explanation has even been extended to the persistence of religion – why does every culture have religion? Easy, religion “even though just a fantasy” has survival value.

The power in this book comes from its exploration of how genetics actually work in the real world and of the math behind it. To greatly simplify an enormously complicated process, consider the fact that your genetic code is like a library. The genes are like books in the library and are written on three billion nucleotide pairs, three of these pairs constitute one letter of your genetic code. This equals a library of about 1700 volumes (which incidentally have undergone “data compression so sophisticated that they are contained in an area 100,000th the size of the period at the end of this sentence).” In a lifetime, about 200 point mutations or misspellings will be introduced into each person’s genetic code. It is from these misspellings, combined with a mate’s misspellings, that natural selection is supposed to produce biological evolution.

However, there are some big problems with this theory. First, when you reproduce, you do not select genes one by one; you take your mate’s entire genome; you are forced to take all modifications good and bad. Additionally you do not know what mutations your mate has undergone because these are not expressed in the adult but will only be manifest in the offspring. You don’t even know what mutations have occurred in your own genetic code!

Second, most changes to the genetic code are point mutations that effect only one nucleotide out of six billion. These mutations have such tiny effects that they are of no value or harm; their effect is “neutral.” Therefore, they are not actually “selectable” unless they are fatal.

Third, it has recently been discovered that many genes are “polyconstrained,” meaning that they simultaneous code for more than one protein (usually three and possibly more) depending on how they are read. Consequently, mutations for these nucleotides cannot produce an improvement in the organism because even if one protein were improved then at least another one or more would be damaged.

Why this is Important

Sanford’s research caused him to lose faith in the Darwinian mechanism’s ability to drive Darwinian Evolution. In the book, he describes the painful intellectual change he underwent when he realized that he would have to reject the “Primary Axiom,” “the most sacred cow in biology.” He also realized that this probably meant the end of his career and possibly his expulsion from academia. However, he felt compelled to tell the truth about what his research really showed. He became convinced that life and its development could only be explained by a purposeful design, which he attributes to God.

He now views Darwinism with its claims that life is meaningless and that man is just a bag of molecules as a false doctrine which “…has been the most insidious and destructive thought system ever devised by man.”

However the recognition that we are the product of divine planning means that we do have purpose, and life does have meaning. The consequences of this truth are truly mind-boggling.

Source: Genetic Entropy & The Mystery of the Genome , John C. Sanford, 2005, Elim Publishing, Lima, NY.

By Lawrence Vescera, Ph.D.

“Genetic Entropy” is the title of a stunningly important new book by Dr. John Sanford, a well known and long time Professor of Genetics and genetic researcher at Cornell University. The book details his reasons for “rejecting the Primary Axiom” of Darwinism – the idea that man and all organisms are “the product of random mutations plus natural selection.”

“Genetic Entropy” is a very difficult book to review in a short Blog. Therefore, I strongly recommend that you read it. Despite its title and technical details, the book is understandable and quite interesting.

Dr. Sanford begins by pointing out that the terms “Natural Selection” and “Survival of the Fittest” have become a kind of “magic wand” for Darwinists. The terms are thrown at biological problems like an “Easy Button” that automatically explains everything. For example, why do giraffes have long necks? Easy, the longer the neck, the better to get to high leaves – therefore giraffes with longer necks have a better chance of surviving and reproducing. This ignores the fact that tens of thousands of mutually interdependent changes are required to lengthen the animal’s neck. Just for starters: additional vertebrae are needed along with an enlarged body frame, lengthened and strengthened bones and muscles, a greatly enlarged heart and oh yes, a unique new organ similar to a spleen located next to the brain that acts as a backup blood reservoir to keep the giraffe from passing out when it raises it head to 20 feet above the ground.

This mode of magic-like explanation has even been extended to the persistence of religion – why does every culture have religion? Easy, religion “even though just a fantasy” has survival value.

The power in this book comes from its exploration of how genetics actually work in the real world and of the math behind it. To greatly simplify an enormously complicated process, consider the fact that your genetic code is like a library. The genes are like books in the library and are written on three billion nucleotide pairs, three of these pairs constitute one letter of your genetic code. This equals a library of about 1700 volumes (which incidentally have undergone “data compression so sophisticated that they are contained in an area 100,000th the size of the period at the end of this sentence).” In a lifetime, about 200 point mutations or misspellings will be introduced into each person’s genetic code. It is from these misspellings, combined with a mate’s misspellings, that natural selection is supposed to produce biological evolution.

However, there are some big problems with this theory. First, when you reproduce, you do not select genes one by one; you take your mate’s entire genome; you are forced to take all modifications good and bad. Additionally you do not know what mutations your mate has undergone because these are not expressed in the adult but will only be manifest in the offspring. You don’t even know what mutations have occurred in your own genetic code!

Second, most changes to the genetic code are point mutations that effect only one nucleotide out of six billion. These mutations have such tiny effects that they are of no value or harm; their effect is “neutral.” Therefore, they are not actually “selectable” unless they are fatal.

Third, it has recently been discovered that many genes are “polyconstrained,” meaning that they simultaneous code for more than one protein (usually three and possibly more) depending on how they are read. Consequently, mutations for these nucleotides cannot produce an improvement in the organism because even if one protein were improved then at least another one or more would be damaged.

Why this is Important

Sanford’s research caused him to lose faith in the Darwinian mechanism’s ability to drive Darwinian Evolution. In the book, he describes the painful intellectual change he underwent when he realized that he would have to reject the “Primary Axiom,” “the most sacred cow in biology.” He also realized that this probably meant the end of his career and possibly his expulsion from academia. However, he felt compelled to tell the truth about what his research really showed. He became convinced that life and its development could only be explained by a purposeful design, which he attributes to God.

He now views Darwinism with its claims that life is meaningless and that man is just a bag of molecules as a false doctrine which “…has been the most insidious and destructive thought system ever devised by man.”

However the recognition that we are the product of divine planning means that we do have purpose, and life does have meaning. The consequences of this truth are truly mind-boggling.

Source: Genetic Entropy & The Mystery of the Genome , John C. Sanford, 2005, Elim Publishing, Lima, NY.

By: Lawrence Vescera, Ph.D.

Despite their lousy name, “Slime Molds” are among the most amazing organisms in existence. During most of their lives they live as individual cells on the forest floor. They look and behave much like amoebas, spending their time scavenging for food among the detritus on the ground. They are especially fond of cow dung and rotting wood because these are rich in bacteria, the slime molds’ food of preference. However, on occasion, these solitary creatures will come together in large numbers to form a colony, called a plasmodium. Amazingly, slime mold plasmodiums look and behave like multi-cellular organisms. Some look like fungi, others like slugs. These plasmodium move about and can travel up to several feet a day.

When conditions for the colony are not favorable, the plasmodium may produce a stalk with a puffball full of spores. The puffball releases spores into the wind, which are carried off and produce more of the amoeba-like slime molds. After this reproductive action, the plasmodium may again disaggregate into individual cells that return to their solitary lives.

How is this possible? These individual cells appear to act with conscious volition. How do they communicate? How do they know how to differentiate into specialized organs?

As amazing as this cellular level intelligence is, a new, even more amazing phenomenon has been discovered at the sub-cellular level. Labeled “Natural Genetic Engineering” by Dr. James Shapiro, a University of Chicago Geneticist and Biochemist, and brought to light by Dr. Barbara McClintock in her 1983 Nobel Prize Acceptance Address, predictably, this stunning discovery has been largely ignored by the media.

Natural genetic engineering is the process by which cells modify their own DNA. If you are not familiar with this process, your eyes are not deceiving you, it actually happens. Cells, under challenge from something in their environment, can restructure their own DNA, thereby changing their internal biochemical capabilities. This restructuring process enables the cells to produce new proteins and other molecular products needed for survival.

Why This is Important

Dr. Shapiro has come under criticism and has had difficulty getting at least one paper published because of the implications of his work. The quotation below shows why.

“The idea of natural genetic engineering is controversial to some because it implies the existence of an “engineer” to decide when restructuring should occur.”… “The obvious problem is that it is hard to imagine material causes alone producing sentience and consciousness via random interactions. The sentience, together with messages in DNA and extrodinarily sophisticated genetic code and information processing systems, are arguably a large number of “smoking guns” for an intelligent cause operating in the system itself.”

The problem comes down to this: cells have no brains and no nervous systems to direct their activities, so where is the intelligence coming from that directs the cells to perform intricate, delicate surgery on their own genes? It would be easier for a human to perform complex brain surgery on him or herself; so, how is it possible for a cell to modify its own genetic code?

The answer of course is obvious to all except those who refuse to accept the truth glaring starkly in their faces. There are, of course, intervening natural mechanisms, which mediate these biological processes; however, God is the intelligence behind it all.

Source: http//Shapiro.bsd.uchicago.edu/2006.ExeterMeeting.pdf

By: Lawrence Vescera, Ph. D.

Genetic engineering opened the possibility of transferring genes between humans and animals and creating new organisms that are part human and part animal. The term for such a creature is a “chimera.” If this term is new to you, get used to it because in the future you are going to see it frequently.

Until recently, the actual production of a human/animal chimera was not legal in most countries, and scientists refrained from engaging in this type of experimentation. It was generally seen as a moral boundary few wanted to cross. However, with the slippery slope of today’s utilitarian materialism, sooner or later, every boundary is crossed.

On March 26th of this year, mailonsunday.co.uk reported that British researchers had succeeded in producing a sheep chimera with “…15% human cells and 85% animal cells.” The human cells were mostly isolated to the liver and other internal organs. The creature looks like a sheep with no visible human traits. However, it has a human liver. The object of the experiment was to create organs to be transplanted back into humans.

On September 4, 2007, it was reported by theregister.co.uk that the British government is about to permit the creation of human-chimera embryos. These will be embryos that are about 99% human and 1% animal. These will not be allowed to live beyond 14 days and are seen as only a research tool, at least for now.

It is not difficult to see where this research is heading. In the future, there will be pressure to bring such organisms to full term and to increase the percentage of animal cells in them. Indeed, Nazi researchers already tried this in the 1940s. They unsuccessfully tried to cross humans with apes. Some unfortunate female concentration camp inmates were actually inseminated with sperm from great apes and chimps to try to produce a half human - half ape hybrid. Fortunately, the Nazis lacked the proper technology, and the experiments failed. Unfortunately, humanity no longer lacks the necessary technology, and another of Hitler’s dreams may become reality before long.

Why This Is Important

The moral and legal dilemmas that this line of research will produce are unprecedented. What will a half human – half animal hybrid be regarded as spiritually? Does it have a soul? Is it made in God’s image? Should it be baptized? These questions probably will be a source of great delight to secularists as Christians struggle to deal with such issues.

However, the secular world will also have problems with this. For example, at what percentage of human genes does a chimera gain human rights? 51%? Can a human own a human chimera, or is this slavery? Can they be eaten? Can they own property and bring actions in court? Does the 15% human sheep chimera have 15% of human rights? Can a full human marry a chimera?

These are only a few of the hundreds of questions and morally repugnant possibilities that will soon be upon us.

By: Lawrence Vescera, Ph.D.

Darwinian evolution rests on two pillars: Natural Selection and Random Mutation. Random genetic mutations are supposed to provide new biological traits from which natural selection culls out those which are not useful for the organism and preserves the ones that are. This process is believed adequate to have produced all the world’s biological diversity.

Because Darwinists believe that evolution is a purposeless process, they believe that it should be riddled with useless, unnecessary products. The human appendix and the panda’s thumb are the two organs, which are most commonly cited as examples of the undirectedness of this process of random mutation. It is argued that the appendix has no known function with the possible exception of enabling children to obtain an immediate attention from parents by complaining of a pain in the side. The panda’s thumb however has recently fallen out of favor as an example of evolution’s randomness due to studies showing that it is actually a finely tuned adaptation, assisting the efficient stripping of bark from bamboo, it’s main food source thereby allowing the panda can get to the inner soft tissue more efficiently (But that is another story).

However, the most powerful evidence for the randomness of the evolutionary process was “Junk DNA.” Junk DNA’s are portions of DNA molecules that were believed to serve no useful purpose. They appeared to be inactive, not coding for the manufacture of proteins, which is the primary function of DNA. It was believed that junk DNA composed about 98% of all human DNA. The fact that so much DNA appeared to do nothing led to the conclusion that junk DNA represented the results of random natural processes mutating the DNA and producing unusable, nonsensical stretches of nucleotide code.

The New Discovery

In June of this year the Encode Project (Encyclopedia of DNA Elements) published a group of 29 papers produced by hundreds of scientists working in 11 different countries that have completely overturned the view of “Junk DNA” as useless. This work is still in its early stages but to sum it up briefly: the scientists found that over 50% of all human DNA actually codes for RNA’s which do not go on to produce proteins but seem to be involved in other regulatory functions. These functions include keeping chromosomes from unraveling and controlling cell division.

But the most surprising, indeed shocking, contention of all is that most of these RNA’s seems to be standing by in the event that the body is suddenly exposed to an environmental change. In that event, they are immediately available to produce an adaptation to enable the organism to meet this challenge. This raises an enormously difficult question for the Darwinian paradigm: how could these standby RNA’s be maintained throughout numerous generations, possibly even thousands of generations, until they are needed? With no utility to the current generation they should be quickly selected out of the population but they are not.

Why This is Important

If evolution is an undirected process, as Darwinists claim, it should produce nonsensical and useless outcomes on a prodigious basis as was once believed to be the case. It has been estimated that in humans, about 10,000 harmful or useless mutations should accompany every useful one. Junk DNA was thought to be “smoking gun” evidence for this random process. As it is turning out there is probably no such thing as “Junk DNA.” This is powerful evidence for the observation that evolution is not the result of a random natural process but is rather the result of purposeful design and that purposeful design requires a designer. This designer is, of course, God.

Sources:

1. “Intricate Toiling Found in Nooks of DNA Once Believed to Stand Idle” Washington Post, June 2, 2007, p. A1.

2. http://www.genome.gov/ , The Encode Project.

By: Lawrence Vescera, Ph.D.

The words “Stem Cells” are probably the second most misused term in the current media lexicon, exceeded only by “Evolution”. The word is commonly misused in four ways simultaneously. Not an easy task but when the media is committed to advancing an agenda regardless of the facts, no amount of semantic misuse limits their imagination.

Please allow me to explain. As you have no doubt noticed during the last decade the media has been full of stories critical of those “opposed to stem cell research”. Such people are usually depicted as ignorant, pro-life, Luddites, opposed to scientific progress. Their mindless opposition, according to the media, is resulting in masses of suffering victims who would otherwise be cured if only these backward Christian, Conservatives would end their resistance to scientific progress.

What is the truth? Here are some facts.

A stem cell is a cell that has the ability to differentiate itself into different types of cells. A stem cell can turn into a liver, kidney, brain, hair, skin, bone or any other type of cell. Consequently it is believed that stem cells hold great promises for repairing damaged or diseased tissue. Imagine how wonderful it would be if a victim of liver cancer could be given an injection of stem cells that would go into the body and regenerate a new liver.

There are two main categories of stem cells: Embryonic Stem Cells and Adult Stem Cells. Embryonic stem cells are found in the placenta, placental blood and in embryos. Adult Stem Cells are found in other tissue mainly bone marrow, muscle and the brain. Stem cells are usually obtained from organ donors, fertility clinics and volunteers.

If you have been following the reporting on the subject you may be under the impression that stem cell research in the United States is currently not quite legal but some scientists, brave enough to defy the “zealots” on the Christian right have persisted in the face of persecution nonetheless.

Here are some facts. To begin with, there are no legal barriers to stem cell research carried out within HHS guidelines, absolutely none – none as in zero – despite the media misrepresentation. There are no limits on funding stem cell research with one exception and it is this one exception that the media is using as the source of its disinformation campaign. This one exception is using federal funds to harvest new lines of embryonic stem cells taken from human fetuses. This is the one and only exception. This one exception has come as the result of pro-life groups’ opposition to destroying more human embryos in order to extract their stem cells.

Here are a few other facts the media regularly fails to mention. If you want to harvest new lines of human embryonic stem cells there is absolutely nothing stopping you from doing it, as long as the funds used are not federal funds. So any foreign country, any university, any private company, any state, local government or private individual is completely free to do such research as long as they pay for it. As a matter of fact, several states including California have made funds available for this purpose.

Right now federal funds can be used to do research on all lines of adult human stem cells and all animal stem cells. Additionally in the United States there are currently over sixty lines of existing human embryonic stem cells available for research plus foreign line and privately owned lines for which federal funds can be used. On top of this, to show how truly bogus this entire issue is, new lines of Human Embryonic Stem Cells can be harvested from the placenta and placental blood of new births, making it completely unnecessary to use human embryos as a source for new lines of embryonic stem cells.

However, despite these facts, little money is going into establishing new lines of human embryonic stem cells. The reason for this is simple economics. Investors do not want to throw money away. It was widely believe on theoretical grounds that embryonic stem cells, being more plastic then adult cells, would be more likely to produce viable therapies. However so far this has not proven to be the case as there are currently 60 therapeutic uses of adult stem cells and 0 therapeutic uses of embryonic stem cells. The reasons for this are not entirely clear but seem to be related to genetic level complexities.

One of the reasons for the big push for federal funding of new lines from human fetal tissue seems to be to get funding for projects that would not be funded on economic or scientific grounds. This is being done by portraying denied federal funding as martyrs of “pro-life loonies” rather than people who are trying to pursue, what may very well be, a scientific blind alley.

Why the media distortions?

It is no secret that the media has an extremely strong liberal bias. They want to get their candidates elected and advance their ideological agenda and they are succeeding in this area. Polls have shown that their misrepresentation of this issue has created a very negative impression in the minds of many. The pro-life community is frequently believed to be indifferent to the suffering of disease victims. Additionally the media has succeeded to a large degree in portraying anyone who is concerned about the “slippery slope” of this type of research for any reason as “anti-science.”

By: Lawrence Vescera, Ph.D.