Re: [asa] scientific fact vs. ideology?

From: David Clounch <>
Date: Mon Mar 16 2009 - 07:35:36 EDT

On Mon, Mar 16, 2009 at 12:13 AM, Don Winterstein <>wrote:

> Well, I offer a solution, but I can tell from what you've written that
> you're not going to accept it. As I implied in my post (below), I believe a
> human person with a soul is physically much more complex than an early-stage
> embryo. In fact, I believe in order to be a person the body must have at
> least a rudimentary brain.
> Its an interesting question. But one must ask "how do we know"? And if
we don't know then what standard should we go by?

In defense of David Opderbeck I would suggest this subject isn't so much
in the area of science as it is within law. What standards does one then
I'd suggest reasonable doubt could be one. Or preponderance of the
evidence could be another.
But as a professor of law David Opderbeck may say to me "those are just
plain silly, they simply don't apply here." But if that were the case, then
I'd have to ask, "what standards would a court then use?"

The worst possible outcome, IMHO, is where America tosses out consideration
of the soul altogether. I suspect the Dover-like court might seek to do
that, using the theory that if an idea is primarily religious then it must
be disallowed (everything else being equal).

 When that happens, when the soul is tossed out (because it is merely a
religious concept) then Christianity will have lost all of its salt, and as
I said before, will essentially be dead. We already have a society where
individuals, using any criteria they want, capriciously decide to destroy
other human beings. That type of standard worries me. Christianity would
say, or ought to say, "no, don't institutionalize that."

Best Regards,
David Clounch

To unsubscribe, send a message to with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Mon Mar 16 07:36:00 2009

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Mon Mar 16 2009 - 07:36:01 EDT