Comments on: Neurocreationism conversation and contention, for your attention Tue, 28 Apr 2009 03:04:35 +0000 hourly 1 By: doug Tue, 28 Apr 2009 03:04:35 +0000 One doesn’t “need” to believe in the soul to oppose embryonic stem cell research, but it certainly helps.
As Anthony Stevens-Arroyo writes:
“Catholic theological teaching is unequivocal: the human soul is infused by God at the moment of conception. The biological issue of when exactly conception can be considered to have occurred is less clear. Cardinal Rigali, head of the U.S. Bishops’ Committee on such matters has quoted some doctors who make fertilization of the embryo the moment of conception. Those embryos have souls, it would be said. Other doctors, perhaps a majority of fertility experts, state conception takes place only after that fertilized embryo is implanted in the womb and grows as a fetus.”
O’Leary herself confesses a devotion to the Paedophile Cult of Catholicism and, as I’ve said, I find it impossible to believe that she never considered the question of the soul as related to stem cell research.
Nonetheless, my comment about stem cell research was nowhere in my published criticism of her book. I merely mentioned it as a motive for my own dissection of her work. At the very least her book raises questions in the skeptical mind that she has proven unwilling or unable to answer.

By: uoflcard Fri, 24 Apr 2009 19:18:16 +0000 Why do you need to believe in a soul to be against embryonic stem cell research? This is what I don’t understand. An embryo, if left alone in its natural environment, will develop into a baby, child then adult human. You are trading this life to save another’s. If you are against killing a healthy baby to save an unrelated person, you should be against embryonic stem cell research (as well as abortion). None of it has to have anything to do with souls or God or Bibles or anything else like that. The liberal definition of human life (whatever is being trumpeted these days) is fuzzy and completely arbitrary.

I think liberals and/or atheists saw Christians (and other “religiots”) get on one side of the abortion/stem cell issues, and they fundamentally got on the other side. Yes, many Christians use scripture such as Jeremiah 1:5 (“Before I made you in the womb, I knew you”) to protest abortion and embryonic stem cell research, but you don’t have to believe that to believe it is still wrong.

Option #1: Leave embryo in mother –> Person
Option #2: Use embryo as stem cell research/implant/etc –> Another person’s tissue

You have traded one healthy person to save anther person’s life. That is the case whether you believe that person had a soul or not.

btw, I have urged Denyse (not that I know her personally0 to find time to respond to your review

By: Timcol Fri, 24 Apr 2009 19:02:10 +0000 I read Ms O’Leary’s reply and have to say I wasn’t all that surprised. After all it she did recently stop commenting on her “blog farm”. I used to regularly comment there, but it was quite apparent that any rational discussion with her was just about impossible. The cognitive dissonance on her part was so tangible you could reach out and just about taste it. You can see the same thing on Uncommon Descent – she’ll get hold of an issue, usually quite incorrectly, several people correct her, but she’ll basically ignore it – often with the excuse that she has “other stories” she needs to move on. Here’s a class example on the topic of research on herring gull chicks by Niko Tinbergen

As you will see in the last comment by JTaylor asking Denyse to comment on the fact that she had been basically caught in a lie, Denyse does what she always does when cornered – ignore it.

I think of all of the ID people she is by far the most intellectually dishonest than all of them put together. Her constant harping on the evils of materialism and “darwinism” is tiresome and silly. If there’s a crank out there on the Internet that supports her view (e.g., Hiram Canton) you can be sure that she would have no qualms to cherry pick away through the most dubious of material.

On the other hand could ID really have a better person to speak on their behalf?

By: Emma Wed, 22 Apr 2009 17:41:12 +0000 Further to the post published by Denyse O’Leary in her own blog, Mindful Hack, in which she says she will not deign to comment on Dougs review or address any of his points, Id like to draw the readers attention to an email interaction I had with Denyse a while back when I asked politely for her reaction. It seems we have a case of the lady is for turning. Contrary to her most recent stance, previously she was more than happy to promise a complete demolition of Dougs review, considering his comments most refutable:
From: []
Sent: Wednesday, November 19, 2008 6:41 AM
To: Denyse O’leary
Subject: The Spiritual Brain
Dear Ms O’leary,
Having read your book The Spiritual Brain and discussed it with friends, it was with interest that I recently read a review by Douglas Mesner of The Spiritual Brain, in the current issue of Skeptic magazine.
In it he makes some interesting points, which are worth repeating here as he brings a clarity of thought to the subject which need no embellishments from me.
For example, in the book reference is made to research conducted on Carmelite nuns during which the nuns interpret their experience as mystical and of being in the presence of God. Mr Mesner writes: This hardly flies in the face of conventional science, and is precisely what any scientist might expect of a Christian sect of meditators attempting communion with God.. Meditators of another religion would surely interpret their experience in their own spiritual frame-work. Mr Mesner goes on to make an important point as follows: There is a certain disorder that sometimes arises in stroke victims, in which they are capable of recognizing faces, but feel that the person has been replaced with an imposter. Would Beauregard have us believe that this is because exact human replica imposters delight in annoying perceptive stroke victims, or would he see the unique conditions of the brain as having manufactured this perception? The former would be just as scientifically valid as his assertion that spiritual experiences are provoked by a spiritual world. Im sure you will agree Mr Mesner makes a valid and irrefutable point here. I would be most interested to know your thoughts on this.
I am very pushed for time right now but would like to follow this email up with further questions. I note that your email address is freely available via your blog, therefore I hope you do not consider my contacting you presumptious. Please bear with me as regards time, and in the meantime I look forward to your reply.
Yours sincerely,

From: Denyse O’Leary
Subject: RE: The Spiritual Brain
Date: Wednesday, 19 November, 2008, 12:43 PM
Dear Ms. …..,
I too am pushed for time and will comment on Mr. Mesner’s views when his review is online at the mag where they were published.
I not only do not consider his comments irrefutable, I do not even grasp their relevance and know of no good reason to take them seriously.
Glad you enjoy the blog.
Cheers, Denyse
Needless to say, I did not follow up with further questions, thoroughly expecting a scathing rebuttal to follow online. Seems I was to be disappointed. And I didnt enjoy her blog.