Religious Conservatism and Science

Dear Khuram & Kaalchakra

Let us look at this from the of Darwinism.

Every living being is born with will-to-life.

This will-to-life manisfests is ingrained in our existence and encoded into our genes.

For a newly born animal, will-to-life is programmed into the mind as one simple instruction `Follow your elders`.

When the chicken,ducks are hatched they start following any thing bigger arround them.

This hard-coded instruction is the first sign of will-to-life in every living being.

The simple instruction hard coded into the newly-born human`s mind-computer are obey your elders.

When elder tell us stay away from the edge of cliff or not to eat poisnous red berries we follow them.

This concept of relegion can be thought of as a computer-virus in the human`s mind computer. It is so illogical.

All these things like animism/relegion/prophets/god etc in which we make our mind believe in are like computer virus.

Here is an islamic perspective:

Quote from the answer given by Dr. Muzammil H. Siddiqi (chairman of the Islamic Law Council of North America in Orange County, Calif) in reply to a question regarding position of Sharia on stem cell reasearch.

QUOTE

Married couples who cannot have pregnancy in a normal way are allowed to have in vitro fertilization as long as the fertilized ovum is placed in the womb of the woman from whom the egg the was taken (not a surrogate mother). The fertilization has to be with the sperm of her lawful husband during their married life, not after divorce or after the death of the husband. This is the general conclusion of various Muslim jurists’ meetings that discussed this subject.

Having recognized that in vitro fertilization is permissible in Islam, now the first question that we should ask is that should an embryo, which is formed within a few days after an artificial fertilization and is not yet in the womb of its mother, be considered a human being, with all the rights of a human being?

According to the Sharî`ah we should make a distinction between actual life and potential life. Also we should make a clear distinction between the fertilized ovum in the dish and the fertilized ovum in the womb of its mother. Indeed an embryo is valuable. It has the potential to grow into a human being, but it is not yet a human being. Similarly there is big difference in having something in a test tube or dish or something in the body of a human being. As mentioned above these embryos were developed initially in the laboratory solely for the sake of reproduction and, due to limitations of the in vitro fertilization technique, they were produced in excess of what was required for this purpose. As a result, the remaining embryos would have either been frozen indefinitely or destroyed. If these embryos were treated as full human, it would have been forbidden to produce them in excess and to destroy them later. No one treats them as humans. Destroying such embryos is not called and cannot be called abortion. We disagree with the Catholic position that this is “equivalent to infanticide”.

Muslim jurists have made a clear distinction between the early stages of pregnancy (first 40 days) and its later stages. It is mentioned that if someone attacks a pregnant woman and aborts her baby in the early stages of her pregnancy, that person’s punishment will be less than that of the person who does that during full pregnancy. And if he kills the child after the birth, then he is liable to be punished for homicide.

The second question is whether according to the Sharî`ah it is acceptable to destroy an embryo for the sake of research, even if this research can potentially cure many otherwise fatal diseases?

Our answer is that the embryo in this stage is not human. It is not in its natural environment, the womb. If it is not placed in the womb it will not survive and it will not become a human being. So there is nothing wrong in doing this research, especially if this research has a potential to cure diseases. However, it is important that we establish strict rules against the misuse of embryos. Research on embryos has the potential for misuse, for instance in regards to the donors of these cells, and we should anticipate what these misuses might be and establish safeguards against them. (For example, doctors might have infertility patient go through extra cycles of ovulation just so they can obtain more embryos, or they might pay women to produce embryos, or embryos might be obtained without the consent of the donors). In making rules the authorities should also clarify that there is a difference between the use of “spare” embryos from in vitro fertilization procedures which would be destroyed regardless, as compared to the deliberate production of embryos for stem cell research. Each year thousands of embryos are wasted in fertility clinics around the world. Such embryos should not be wasted, they should be used for research.

It is also good to encourage the research on the alternative: to use adult stem cells instead of embryonic or fetal stem cells.. This would be much less controversial. However, it seems from the discussion of the experts in the field that adult stem cells are not nearly as useful as embryonic stem cells in their ability to differentiate into different cell types and would therefore not be as applicable in treating many diseases.

Until more research is done on this subject and Muslim scholars deliberate in detail on various aspects of this research, humbly following recommendations are in order:

It is claimed by the experts in the field that the research on stem cells has great potential to relieve human disease and suffering. If this is the case then it is not only allowed but it is obligatory (fard kifayah) to pursue this research.

The use of embryonic stem cells should be very heavily limited. Only allow isolation of stem cells from frozen embryos that were created for the purpose of in vitro fertilization and would otherwise have been destroyed. Obtain full consent from the donors. Provide safeguards against monetary compensation to embryo donors and against the creation of embryos in excess of what is required for in vitro fertilization.

Perhaps research using stem cells derived from adults will eventually prove to be most promising. We should encourage further research on the use of adult stem cells, to the point where it will be unnecessary to use embryos for this purpose. Specifically, we should find better ways to isolate existing stem cells in the human body.

UNQUOTE

This position seems quite logical to me. Link to the original link is:

http://www.crescentlife.com/wellness/stem_cell_research_islamic_perspective.htm

#5

My dear Nasah sahib,

Your angst is understandable. But truly, comparing the abortion issue to the draft is like comparing apples with bricks. The imposition of the draft is a policy decision taken after much deliberation and after everybody has a chance to give their input - not based on the whims of a single individual. Incidentally, currently there is NO draft in the USA. Most young men who are currently in harm’s way are volunteers who understood that there was a chance of being in harm’s way when they enlisted – and chose to take that risk – mostly based on patriotism – hence we never hear “heck, no, we won’t go!” sloganeering from them! The killing of life being hosted within a woman’s body is a completely different animal and not in the same league at all.

Nice column Dr. GIll -- embryos are God`s miracle -- don`t let them die uselssly for saving lives and limbs and curing diseases -- they need to grow into 18 year olds to die usefully in Irak.

Dr. Gill,

Human life consists of live cells which multiply. Each human cell consists of 46 chromosomes – 23 from each parent. The first such cell is formed upon conception – before that point it is not a human being because each cell has only 23 chromosomes. From the point of conception until the actual event of birth, the mother’s body is simply a custodian of the precious and miraculous gift of a new life and its only owner is the Almighty – not its host!

At what subsequent point in time the cluster of cells is strong enough to survive on its own is irrelevant to the simple fact that it is still the same thing – i.e., an alive being. Such required timeframe would vary on an individual basis and in some cases (e.g., handicapped births) it may NEVER be able to survive on its own. That timeframe ought to form no part of any discussion regarding whether anybody has a right to “terminate” this life!

Thank you Gill Sahib- An excellent treatise.
It is not the ``man playing God `` that worries me but as every thing else that mankind does, has the potential of ` gross abuse`. Church and its priests is one example.
Can science, if left to its own, not turn into a Church of Science and Scientists as its priests too?
If mankind were to have reached the maturity to always act within the ambit of `goodness `, we would only have nuclear energy for electricity and medicinal use as goodness and not bombs, as the second example.
There was time when death was supposed to be when the heart stopped beating, but today it is the function of brain impulses I understand. When is afetus a person then?Considering the number of miscarriages that occur world wide and particularly in the poor-world, it seems to me that God as presented to me by the Church is very callous with life!
Yet the same God has given his creation the freedom to think and act!
Rashid

This is the final assault by the scientific thought on these marginalized mullahs and priests. They failed since Galileo`s inquest. They would fail again!! These mullahs and priests find themselves unemployed because they cannot push their mind control agendas on modern citizens due to technology and science. Their stupid thesis of ``God`s Will`` controlling the outcome of events is a discredited theory that they want to revive so that they can justify their criminal behaviour and 9/11-s in the name of ``God`s Will``.
The struggle is between the conservatives who would like to use religious prejudices to control human intelligence and scientific creativity in the name of ``ethics`` and ``morality``.
This is the last bastion- and these conservative mullahs and priests cannot stop scientists from developing such technologies which directly CHALLENGE the theology of these conservatives.
The question is -

Can we let some theology decide what scientists can and cannot do??

Isn`t this going back to the dark ages and accepting the supremacy of the mullahs and priest`s stupid theology??

Very, very intelligent article. It shows how, despite everything we may say about this being a technologically-advanced age, the average individual still finds the idea of futher advancements in science nothing short of intimdiaing.
On my own behalf, I would like to say that science must not be hamepred. That is what makes us human... the quest for knowledge, the use of reasoning and logic to cross all boundaries. Where is this better exemplified than in research?

And as for the ``morality`` argument- it is simply outmoded. Had Galileo been such a myopic person...where would we be now? If Einstein had stopped to fret over how he might lead to the creation of an atomic bomb, where would science have been?
It is the job of the scientist to explore...how their discoveries are put to use is the forte of the public. It is there that the narrow-minded may preach.