Barack Obama has lifted the ban on embryonic stem-cell research, saying that scientific decisions should be “based on facts, not ideology.” But this is nonsense.

Few of us will soon forget President Obama’s answer to the question of when human life begins. “That’s above my pay grade,” he said. It was a flippant remark, yet it was perhaps one of the times he was perfectly honest. I’m not being sarcastic.

Like many people, Obama is confused about quite a number of moral issues. He is not the kind of man who could mount a compelling argument for when human life begins, for example (nor does he care). And the same kind of knowledge deficit is evident in Obama’s recent pronouncements concerning science and stem-cell research. Writes the Associated Press, “Promoting science ‘is about letting scientists . . . do their jobs, free from manipulation or coercion . . . .’ Obama said.” But does this make sense?  

Just like those who went before us, we embrace much nonsense. We defend all sorts of lunacy with certain battle cries, ones that really are getting a little stale. People speak of “academic freedom.” This is nonsense. Activists talk about students’ right to “free speech.” This is nonsense. And people such as Obama say that science shouldn’t be constrained by ideology. This is also nonsense.

Whether we realize it or not – and this is true on both sides of the aisle – we always establish ethical limits in intellectual endeavors. For instance, we wouldn’t allow a college professor or schoolboy within academia’s halls to openly espouse Nazi ideology and the extermination of a minority (although likening 9/11 victims to Nazis seems to be OK). Nor would we allow scientists to experiment on that minority – that is, unless that minority is unborn babies. Yet it sounds noble to speak of “academic freedom,” “freedom of speech” in school or scientific freedom. It’s the mark of a pseudo-intellectual.

Why can’t science’s ethical boundaries be left to scientists? Because science unfettered means not only great triumphs but also Dr. Mengele experimenting on twins and Alfred Kinsey encouraging pedophiles to rape children so he could collect “data.” You may say that using children as guinea pigs or molesting them is obviously wrong, but not according to science.

You cannot prove any moral principle scientifically, as morality lies in the philosophical realm. Science can tell us what we can do, not what we should do. This is why a man of science who is only a man of science can become a Kinsey, who would sometimes refer to a child with the pronoun “it.” He would probably have told you that he never saw a soul in a Petri dish or a moral principle proven empirically.

This isn’t to say every scientist is an amoral automaton. Some are wonderful individuals of unsurpassed moral fiber, yet we have to recognize the group’s characteristic limitations. Many find it preposterous that a bishop, philosopher or a Bush would constrain the endeavors of brilliant men such as an Einstein or a James Watson, completely missing the point that while their intelligence is great, it’s also narrow. Time and again I’ve observed that colossal scientific minds are rarely colossal philosophical ones. In fact, speak to many scientists and often a great many limitations become apparent. They’re sometimes inarticulate and cannot translate their thoughts well into words; consequently, they can be poor teachers. You might say some are almost like idiot savants.

I don’t mean this to be as demeaning as it sounds. We all have limitations, and being extremely gifted in one area isn’t synonymous with being a jack of all trades. Being a chess master doesn’t mean being a great writer anymore than being a great writer means being a great physicist. And being a great scientist has nothing to do with being a great moral philosopher. It’s often above such a person’s pay grade.   

An example of this is Harvard Stem Cell Institute co-director Doug Melton, who said, “Science thrives when there is an open and collaborative exchange, not when there are artificial barriers, silos, constructed by the government.” This sounds good, but what’s implied is nonsense. Kinsey would tell his underlings that “. . . as scientists, they are not bound by bourgeois morality” to eliminate any aversion to child molestation. To him that was just an artificial barrier.

Yet what does it mean for a barrier to be “artificial”? It means it has no basis in reality, that it’s created by man. So, to a Darwinist such as Kinsey – who believed humans were just highly-evolved animals and didn’t believe in Truth and, therefore, thought that “right and wrong” were inventions of man – all moral barriers are artificial. Thus, discerning moral principles is definitely above such a person’s pay grade.

In other words, there cannot be moral barriers unless moral reality (Truth) exists, and we cannot know if a given moral barrier is “artificial” without understanding moral reality.

Given this, no “sophisticate” who takes pride in seeing only shades of gray has any business determining the artificiality of moral barriers and drawing up science’s ethical boundaries. He simply doesn’t know enough, and his pronouncements are nothing but air. This is where leftists say that we traditionalists are arrogant for claiming we know what Truth is, but whether we’re right or wrong, we’re logically consistent. They claim humility in saying they don’t know moral reality, but then prove their stupidity by legislating on it regardless. Does this make sense? If a person admits he knows nothing about brain surgery, he may be humble. But if he decides to take a scalpel to someone’s cranium anyway, it’s his mind that needs work.

Thus, there’s no substitute for knowing Truth, as it’s a prerequisite for making moral decisions. But Truth can’t be seen through a telescope or in a test tube. This is why I would sooner trust 200 people out of the phone book to govern science than the whole body of scientists themselves.

 
Selwyn Duke is a columnist and public speaker whose work has been published widely online and in print, on both the local and national levels. He has been featured on the Rush Limbaugh Show, at WorldNetDaily.com, in American Conservative magazine, is a contributor to AmericanThinker.com and appears regularly as a guest on the award-winning, nationally-syndicated Michael Savage Show. Visit his Website.

TrackBack URI for this entry

Comments (4)

Subscribe to this comment's feed

Show/Hide comments

danwhitehead1 said:

	The problem - - - - - - is Godlessness. The fool hath said in his heart," There is no God". . . Psalm 14:1 Psalm 53:1
	report abuse vote down vote up

March 16, 2009
Votes: +6

Thomas Paine said:

Freemasonry and Moral relativity Mr. Duke is on to something. In Freemasonry, they do not believe in the God of the Bible, they study all religions and basically state that faith and morality are relative. Read: Report From Iron Mountain. This 1967 report allegedly produced by Military and CIA intellegence talks about relative truths and justification of immoral acts such as killing Civilians for the Good of Society. L. Fletcher Prouty a military insider disclosed this sick reality in the dark corners of our government. The New World Order is driven by Atheist. A very scary thought. God loving people must fight this war for Faith, truth and Morality.

report abuse vote down vote up

March 16, 2009
Votes: +4

MarkGlen said:

Masonic confusion The plan of salvation of the Masonic Lodge is: The blending of opposites or the doctrine of equilibrium. They teach that action and reaction will bring about a higher state of existence, known as equilibrium. Ex. Man is part good and part bad, they say, and if the two natures are blended together, moderately, then presto, man has arrived at his highest state. They would believe the action/reaction scenario between Israel and her enemies will bring about a desired result.

report abuse vote down vote up

March 17, 2009 | url
Votes: +1

Douglas Strother said:

	Anti-masonic Hogwash What's with the anti-Masonic hogwash?!?! A belief in God is one of the Landmark requirements to be a member of the Fraternity. Masons are taught to protect the defenseless, and to aid and assist those in need.
	report abuse vote down vote up

March 18, 2009 | url
Votes: -1