By The Hillsdale Daily News

JACKSON Students and community members are invited to learn the latest advances in genetics research when the noted speaker and educator Sam Rhine presents a Genetics Update Conference from 9 a.m. to 12:30 p.m. March 14 in the Harold Sheffer Music Hall, Potter Center.

Over the years, Rhine has spoken to tens of thousands of students and teachers about genetics research. High school and college students who attend Rhines conference are often enrolled in biology or Advanced Placement biology classes, are college bound, in college or in pre-professional tracks like medicine, life sciences or social studies. Every presentation begins with a review of the basics, so less experienced students need not worry about being lost. Students have a unique chance to hear one of the top educators in the country present the most recent genetics information. This years conference will cover Human Embryology Basis of Stem Cell Biology, CRISPR-Cas9 Applications of Genome Editing, and more. In addition to the biologic and medical applications, the conference will also review the ethical issues raised by this work.

Sam Rhine has crossed the country for 30-plus years presenting the latest genetic information to students and teachers. Sam has devoted himself to genetics education. He is a gifted speaker with the desire to take biology out of the textbook and see how it works in the real world.

Admission to the Sam Rhine Genetic Update Conference is $20 per person for students, teachers and community guests. Jackson College faculty and students, including dual-enrolled high school students, are free with student ID or class schedule. Please pre-register online at http://www.samrhine.com.

See the rest here:
Rhine speaks on genetics - The Hillsdale Daily News

Cambridge University researchers mixed two kinds of mouse stem cell and placed them on a 3D scaffold. After four days of growth in a tank of chemicals designed to mimic conditions in the womb, the cells formed the structure of a living mouse embryo.

The breakthrough has been described as a "masterpiece" in bioengineering that might eventually allow scientists to grow human embryos without sperm or an egg.

Growing embryos would help researchers study the early stages of human life so they could understand why some pregnancies fail but the research is likely to raise questions about what constitutes human life.

Currently scientists can carry out experiments on embryos left over from IVF treatments but they are in short supply and must be destroyed after 14 days.

Scientists say that being able to create unlimited numbers of embryos in the lab could speed up research and perhaps overcome some of the ethical boundaries.

"We think that it will be possible to mimic a lot of the embryological development events occurring before 14 days using human stem cells," said the university's Magdalena Zernicka-Goetz, who led the research.

"We are very optimistic that this will allow us to study key events of this critical stage of human development without having to work on [IVF] embryos. Knowing how development normally occurs will allow us to understand why it so often goes wrong."

The embryos were created using genetically engineered stem cells coupled with extra-embryonic trophoblast stem cells, which form the placenta in a normal pregnancy.

Previous attempts to grow embryos using only one kind of stem cell proved unsuccessful because the cells would not assemble into their correct positions. But scientists discovered that when they added the second "placental" stem cells the two types of cell began to "talk to each other", telling each other where to assemble.

Together they eventually melded to form an embryonic structure, with two distinct clusters of cells at each end and a cavity in the middle in which the embryo would continue to develop. The embryo would not grow into a mouse because it lacked the stem cells that would make a yolk sack.

However, such work raises ethical questions about the "sanctity" of human life and whether it should be manipulated or created in the lab. Critics warn that allowing embryos to be grown for science opens the door to designer babies and genetically modified humans.

David King, director of the watchdog group Human Genetics Alert, said: "What concerns me about the possibility of artificial embryos is that this might become a route to creating genetically modified or even cloned babies.

"Until there is an enforceable global ban on those possibilities, as we saw with mitochondrial transfer, this kind of research risks doing the groundwork for entrepreneurs, who will use the technologies in countries with no regulation."

UK scientists will need to get permission from the Human Fertility and Embryology Authority before attempting to create human embryos using the technique, and experts have called for international dialogue before research can be allowed to progress.

Continue reading here:
Lab-grown humans soon - Times LIVE

The UK has given researchers at the Francis Crick Institute permission to edit the genes of early-stage human embryos. This is huge news, not only in genetics and biology fields, but for science as a whole. No other researcher has ever been granted permission to perform gene editing on viable human embryos before.

The usual fears of designer babies and slippery slopes popped up, but as most of the general news sources reported, those fears are relatively unwarranted for this research. In fact, this project, with is led by Dr. Kathy Niakan, could arguably be closer to the existential hope side of the spectrum.

Niakans objective is to try to understand the first seven days of embryo development, and shell do so by using CRISPR to systematically sweep through genes in embryos that were donated from in vitro fertilization (IVF) procedures. While research in mice and other animals has given researchers an idea of the roles different genes play at those early stages of development, there many genes that are uniquely human and cant be studied in other animals. Many causes of infertility and miscarriages are thought to occur in some of those genes during those very early stages of development, but we can only determine that through this kind of research.

Niakan explained to the BBC, We would really like to understand the genes needed for a human embryo to develop successfully into a healthy baby. The reason why it is so important is because miscarriages and infertility are extremely common, but theyre not very well understood.

It may be hard to see how preventing miscarriages could be bad, but this is a controversial research technique under normal circumstances, and Niakans request for approval came on the heels of human embryo research that did upset the world.

Last year, outrage swept through the scientific community after scientists in China chose to skip proper approval processes to perform gene-editing research on nonviable human embryos. Many prominent scientists in the field, including FLIs Scientific Advisory Board Member George Church, responded by calling for a temporary moratorium on using the CRISPR/Cas-9 gene-editing tool in human embryos that would be carried to term.

An important distinction to make here is that Dr. Niakan went through all of the proper approval channels to start her research. Though the UKs approval process isnt quite as stringent as that in the US which prohibits all research on viable embryos the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority, which is the approving body, is still quite strict, insisting, among other things, that the embryos be destroyed after 14 days to ensure they cant ever be taken to term. The team will also only use embryos that were donated with full consent by the IVF patients

Max Schubert, a doctoral candidate of Dr. George Churchs lab at Harvard, explained that one of the reasons for the temporary moratorium was to give researchers time to study the effects of CRISPR first to understand how effective and safe it truly is. I think [Niakans research] represents the kind of work that you need to do to understand the risks that those scientists are concerned about, said Schubert.

John Min, also a PhD candidate in Dr. Churchs lab, pointed out that the knowledge we could gain from this research will very likely lead to medications and drugs that can be used to help prevent miscarriages, and that the final treatment could very possibly not involve any type of gene editing at all. This would eliminate, or at least limit, concerns about genetically modified humans.

Said Min, This is a case that illustrates really well the potential of CRISPR technology CRISPR will give us the answers to [Niakans] questions much more cheaply and much faster than any other existing technology.

Originally posted here:
For the First Time, Researchers Can Genetically Modify Human Embryos - Futurism

By Dave Andrusko

What a terrific motto for the annual pro-life educational event of the year: Keeping Tomorrow Alive: Life is for Everyone.

Likewise the annual National Right to Life Convention is for everyone. Young and old, novice and veteran, each and every one who attends will learn from the best and brightest minds in our Movement.

And what a time to share insights and words of encouragement. For the first time since 2009, we have a pro-life President who has made many promises to pro-lifers, including (as he already has) to appoint Supreme Court nominees in the mold of Justice Antonin Scalia.

Ive attended every convention since 1980. Ive never been disappointed. Every topic from the basics of embryology, the latest legislative and political developments, through how to get a pro-life chapter going in your area is covered.

If you havent had a chance to visit the Convention websitenrlconvention.complease do. Over the next couple of months, it will be updated with new and exciting information.

So, please join this 3-day national meeting of the pro-life grassroots in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, June 29-July 1. It is the best place to learn, grow, and get energized to take a stand for life!

Theres no better way for pro-lifers to access the resources and knowledge they need to accomplish what is, in fact, the most important and most effective work there can be.

Mark your calendars. And to stay up-to-date, visit nrlconvention.com.

Read the original here:
Have you made arrangements yet to attend the National Right to Life Convention June 29-July 1? - National Right to Life News

One of the famous phrases that Planned Parenthood uses is reproductive rights. A lot of the time, one of the reproductive rights theyre referring to is abortion. As a lover of science and embryology, if I dont first laugh at this, I certainly get disappointed and frustrated.

What is a reproductive right? Presumably, by the name, a reproductive right is the right to reproduce. And what is reproduction? According to biology, reproduction is the production of offspring by organized bodies. Therefore, a reproductive right is the right to produce offspring. Someone wanting to limit reproductive rights would be one wanting to limit, ban or control how much one reproduces. An example of this would be the one-child policy that China had. This policy regulated how often one could reproduce. By this, the Chinese government was taking away a womans right to reproduce her reproductive rights.

However, abortion is not a reproductive right. Why? Because by the time an abortion happens, reproduction has already taken place. I am not trying to limit how many children a mother has. As a matter of fact, I encourage everyone to bring as many wonderful children into the world as a husband and wife can. I would never support any legislation forcing mothers to have children. The fact that I believe that a mother should not be able to kill her child does not control how many times she can reproduce; it just means that she should not be able to kill the children which she has already reproduced.

Im not saying this because Im against abortion; Im saying this because I find it important to be literate of modern science. Even if youre pro-choice, you shouldnt use unscientific terms in order to further your cause. Anyone, no matter what his or her stance is, should embrace science and what it teaches. To say that abortion has anything to do with reproduction is scientifically inaccurate. Furthermore, if you use the term reproductive right whenever talking about abortion to somebody who is well-versed in embryology, you will look very ignorant and lose your credibility, as science has no place for emotion.

These conversations are important ones to have; make sure if you have them, youre providing facts, not spewing out emotional rhetoric in a science-based conversation.

Jacob is a sophomore studying pre-law at Ohio University. Please note that the views and opinions of the columnists do not reflect those of The Post. Do you think of scientific discussion? Let Jacob know by tweeting him @JacobHoback.

Continued here:
Pro-Life Pondered: Abortion is not a reproductive right - The Post

By Letter to the Editor on March 2, 2017.

Tony Ouwerkerks passing reference to Darwin being wrong on several theories (Feb. 23) is typical of the cherry-picked facts constantly promulgated by Creationists. He asserts that a one-thousandth accuracy quoted in a National Geographic article is shaky evidence.

The November 2004 article included a subsequent statement conveniently omitted from Ouwerkerks assertion. That statement, far from confirming shaky evidence, pointed out that dozens of intermediate forms have subsequently been found. (It was referring to a 40-million-year-old whale fossil and so-called missing links.)

The entire article begins with the question Was Darwin wrong? Using biogeography, embryology, morphology and paleontology, the author correctly answers the question with a resounding No. He further explains his answer using more recent discoveries: Similarities between genetic makeup of species comparing the human genome with that of a mouse, bacterial drug resistance, viral mutations, extinctions and anatomical similarities between species. These latter examples being largely unknown to science in the 19th century.

In Darwins day, chromosomes had yet to be discovered and somewhat earlier, Galileo had been branded a heretic for challenging Catholic earth-centric dogma. Scientific discoveries continue across our world and beyond. Such findings may or may not confirm a particular hypothesis. Science has never relied upon blind faith to stubbornly cling to an outdated line of thinking.

In fact, it was not just Darwin who introduced the then radical idea of Evolution. A.R. Wallace, a contemporary of Darwins, introduced a similar concept. Today, that theory is backed by observation and experiment. It is not just a theory.

That the letter writer insists he is a critical thinker is interesting. Such a thinker must include all the facts and not simply use those that seemingly agree with a point of view or indeed, ignore those that would be critical of an observation. Ouwerkerk fails this test.

The very fact that his letter was defending publicly funded Christian schools and resorted to critiquing a valid component of science (Darwinism, call it what you will), is reason enough to question exactly what sort of scientific education children attending such schools, are receiving.

No doubt that as I write this, there are many of Ouwerkerks persuasion, who think the newly discovered Earth-like planets orbiting a distant star are simply an aberration. After all, the Earth is flat, our sun orbits the Earth and dinosaurs walked with our ancestors.

Science 101, right?

John P. Nightingale

Lethbridge

You must be logged in to post a comment.

See the article here:
Critical thinkers don't ignore scientific facts - Lethbridge Herald

By Veronica Graham | Okaloosa County Extension Office

Hello, my name is Veronica Graham and I am the new 4H Program Assistant for Okaloosa County.

Istarted working at the extension office as a volunteer for the Master Gardener Program in 2016, butjoined the 4-H team just before Christmas of 2016. I grew up in Livingston, Montana, where I enjoyedoutdoor activities such as bike riding, hiking and spending time with my three horses and two dogs.

After high school I joined the Air Force, where I served four years as an EOD technician.

During that time,I had two beautiful children and decided that they needed me more than the military did. I put down myboots and picked up the books. By 2014, I had my bachelors degree in Project Management with afocus in Training and Development.

Currently, I am leading the Embryology School Enrichment Programin 8 schools that include 54 classes. I really enjoy the fact that these students are learning thedevelopmental stages of life.

I have also been working with the Family Nutrition Program to developnew raised bed gardens for local schools.

Contact me at vgraham@co.okaloosa.fl.us or call 689-5850to find out more about 4-H in our county.

See original here:
Graham joins Crestview extension office staff - Crestview News Bulletin

Last year, more than $1,000 4-H Cloverbud, School Enrichment, Special Interest and 4-H Club members from Harlan Elementary and Middle Schools, Rosspoint, Cumberland, Evarts, Black Mountain, Cawood, James A. Cawood, Harlan County Christian, Sunshine Preschool, Wallins School, Mr. Lewis Science Class at Harlan County High School and a college class at the Cumberland Hope Center participated in the 4-H Chick Incubation Project during March.

This year we anticipate about the same number as last year to participate in the 4-H Chick Incubation Project. This project fulfills the 4-H project curriculum requirements for animal science and is also designed for correlation to the U.S. National Science Education Standards. Embryology: The Study of Life is designed to provide classroom teachers background information and exciting activities for hands on activities provided by the Harlan County 4-H Chick Incubation Project.

Children have a natural sense of curiosity about living things in the world around them. Building on this curiosity, students can develop an understanding of biology concepts through the direct experience with baby chicks, their life cycles and their development. 4-H believes that students learn best through their experiences and interactions with the world. 4-H Club members learn by listening, observing, experiencing and applying their knowledge to real-world situations. Each activity in the 4-H Animal Science curriculum follows these steps in the experiential learning model.

An additional goal of this curriculum is to help students develop life skills. Life skills are abilities that help an individual live a productive and satisfying life. Within this curriculum 4-H club members will have an opportunity to develop life skills related to science processes, teamwork, keeping records, and planning and organizing.

Before each classroom 4-H club leader receives eggs, incubators, and brooders, they will learn what happens from egg to chick. Students will learn definitions relating to poultry incubation and the importance of chickens and eggs in the economy. Students will discuss consumer concerns about eggs and cholesterol. In addition, students will learn the structure of the egg, and actually take a look inside the egg as the embryo develops by constructing an egg candler. Students will use the candler to determine whether the incubated eggs are fertile, and if fertile, to check on the growth and development of the embryo. Students will learn the timing of major embryonic development of the chicks: fertilization, division and growth of living cells, and segregation of cells into groups of special function. On Day 21 students will observe the actual hatching process of the chicks.

Prior to starting this 4-H incubation and embryology project, a specific plan for the chicks will be worked out. The chicks will then be given to someone who has proper brooding facilities, successful brooding experience, and the interest to properly care for and raise the chicks. No chicks will be given to children for pets. A young childs enthusiasm often results in unintentional cruelty. Improper handling can produce broken legs and wings as well as emotional stress for the birds. If a bird dies or is injured, it is not only a traumatic experience for the bird, but for the youngster as well. In addition, a childs initial enthusiasm fades, and he or she will likely grow tired of the chick as it becomes an adult. Few people realize how quickly the fluffy yellow down of chicks is replaced by feathers. If one of these chicks survives, it is often abandoned or becomes a burden to the parents of the child. Or, lack of care leads to unintentional abuse or neglect, thus unintentional cruelty results.

Thirty-five dozen eggs for the project are scheduled to be picked up by the 4-H Agent on Feb. 27. These eggs will be donated by the University of Kentucky College of Agriculture Poultry Department. We also plan to obtain eight to ten dozen local eggs from poultry farmers in the surrounding area. Incubators with automatic turners have been delivered to all school mentioned above who participated last year and including the Cumberland Hope Center. Eggs will be delivered and set in incubators on Feb. 28 and eggs are expected to hatch approximately 21 days later. Each school will have approximately two dozen eggs to incubate.

Students who are planning to participate in this years 4-H Communications Day need to contact the Extension Office if you have any questions or need any help. Communications Day will be held March 16, at 4:45 pm at Southeast Community College Harlan campus. It will consist of speeches, demonstrations and variety show acts. There will be T-shirts and a participation ribbon to all who participate and their participation will count as a completed 4-H project. All first place winners will be awarded a 4-H medallion and will advance to participate in the Area 4-H Communication Day held at North Laurel High School the first Saturday in May.

If you have any questions about the Chick Incubation Project or 4-H Communications Day contact Raymond Cox 4-H Agent at 606-273-0835 or 606-573-4464 or email me at [emailprotected] or message me on Facebook.

Raymond Cox is the Harlan County extension agent for 4-H/youth development. Educational programs of the Kentucky Cooperative Extension Service serve all people regardless of race, color, age, sex, religion, disability or national origin.

http://harlandaily.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/web1_Raymond-Cox-1.jpg

.

Read the original here:
4-H Chick Incubation Project coming up - The Harlan Daily Enterprise

MHRA Unveils 'Regulatory Ready' Stem Cell Lines Posted 27 February 2017 By Michael Mezher

The UK's Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) on Monday said it is looking to boost the development of cell therapies through the availability of what it calls "regulatory ready" embryonic stem cell lines.

"The UK Stem Cell Bank (UKSCB) at the National Institute for Biological Standards and Control (NIBSC) is releasing its first stem cell lines suitable for development into novel cell-based medicines to researchers wishing to bring new and innovative therapies to clinical trial," MHRA said on Monday.

The stem cell lines are intended to serve as qualified starting materials for cell therapies looking to enter clinical trials.

"The availability of EUTCD [EU Tissue and Cell Directives]-grade human embryonic stem cell lines via the UKSCB provides an invaluable 'gold standard' starting material; ensuring high quality and ethically-sourced stem cells are widely available to the research community to use in human clinical studies," said Rob Buckle, chief science officer at the UK's Medical Research Council, which is a co-sponsor of the UKSCB.

The stem cell lines will be produced by a handful of UK-based universities and deposited at the UKSCB in compliance with the EUTCD, which establishes quality and safety standards for human tissue and cells.

According to the UKSCB, "EUTCD-grade cell lines undergo a process known as due diligence to ensure they meet the requirements of the EU Tissue and Cell Directives before they are accepted for banking and distribution for human application. The EUTCD-grade cell lines have been derived from embryos under the informed consent requirements of the UK Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA) and have been reviewed by an independent UK Steering Committee."

In the coming months, MHRA says that stem cell lines produced by the University of Sheffield, University of Manchester and King's College London will be made available, followed by additional stem cell lines from Newcastle University and Roslin Cells by the end of the year.

MHRA

Share this article:

Categories: Human cell and tissue, Clinical, News, Europe, MHRA

Tags:

Go here to see the original:
MHRA Unveils 'Regulatory Ready' Stem Cell Lines - Regulatory Focus

There are two primary fronts in the conflict or apparent conflict between science and Christian faith: (1) Are the scientific claims intrinsically atheistic? and (2) How do we reconcile Scripture with the scientific data? Neither of these are new problems, but they play a significant role in Western society today. In his book Evolution: Scripture and Nature Say Yes Denis Lamoureux seeks to demonstrate that scientific claims are not intrinsically atheistic, rather that it requires faith to move from science to any metaphysical claim about the existence or non-existence of God. Nothing in our scientific understanding of the universe either requires or eliminates God from the picture. We can endeavor to predict the weather based on physics and chemistry and still view it as under Gods control. Our understanding of embryology and fetus development does not require us to dismiss the Psalmists wonder and awe of God who formed my inward parts and knitted me together in my mothers womb.(Ps 139:13)

Although the story of Galileos run-in with the Catholic Church is often cast as a paradigm for the unavoidable conflict between science and Christian faith, it is a story from which we can learn much. We can draw insights concerning the most effective way that scientists can introduce findings to the church, the manner in which the church can productively engage with science, and the approach we should take to apparent scientific claims in Scripture.

Very few today doubt that the earth and other planets orbit the sun, or that the earth is in one of many solar systems in the galaxy, one of many galaxies in the universe. For most of church history, however, there was no belief but that the earth was the center of the universe and that the Holy Scriptures clearly taught this truth. Augustine wasnt even convinced that the earth was spherical, although he was convinced that it was ridiculous to imagine antipodians (individuals with their feet pointing towards his) on the other side of the earth if the earth was spherical. Among other things, God could not be in the heavens above both Rome and the antipodians and this was contrary to Scripture (so Augustine thought).

By the time of the Reformation (Luther nailed his theses to the door in 1517), Copernicus (mid 1500s) and Galileo a bit later in the early 1600s, a spherical earth was not terribly controversial. Columbus sailed west in search of a route to the Far East in 1492. The idea of a sun-centered solar system introduced by Copernicus, accepted and popularized by Galileo, was controversial. Many arguments were raised against the idea, only some of which were grounded in Scripture. It was not at all unreasonable for the church to take an attitude of wait and see. It was unfortunate that the church authorities chose to make definite pronouncements against the ideas advanced by Copernicus, Galileo and others. It wasnt until Newtons theory of gravity made the scene (late 1600s) and more refined astronomical measurements followed (1700s) that Galileo and Copernicus were fully vindicated.

Galileo and the Interpretation of Scripture. Galileo was a devout Christian loyal to the Catholic Church. Because of this he wrestled with the interpretation of Scripture and the implications of the scientific evidence. Lamoureux digs into Galileos views, especially those related in his Letters to the Grand Duchess Christina. Galileo firmly believed that God was revealed both in Scripture and in nature.

Galileo believed that Scripture and nature are divine revelations. He asserts, God reveals himself to us no less excellently in [1] the effects of nature than in [2] the sacred words of Scripture, as Tertullian perhaps meant when he said, We postulate that God ought first to be known [1] by nature, and afterward further known [2] by doctrine [1] by nature through his works, [2] by doctrine through official teaching. (p. 138-139)

Gods self-revelation, recorded for us in the words of Scripture provide knowledge otherwise beyond the reach of human reason. We cannot know, from reason alone, that God is love, that humans were created in his image, that God is both merciful and just, that he pursues his people, that Jesus died for the sins of the world. This revelation, however, is couched in a framework intelligible to the original audience, 2000 to 4000 years ago in the Middle East. It came to humankind though the personal relationship of God with his creation; it did not require any scientific understanding of the big-bang, the magnitude and age of the universe, quantum theory or evolution.

Lamoureux continues:

With regard to matters dealing with science and the physical world Galileo defends the priority of nature over Scripture. He writes, I think that in disputed about natural phenomena one must begin not with the authority of scriptural passages but with sensory experience and necessary demonstrations [i.e. science]. (p. 139-140)

Later:

Galileo argued that the Creator gave us a mind that so that we could practice science. I do not think one has to believe that the same God who has given us our senses, language, and intellect would want us to set aside the use of these. Indeed, who wants the human mind put to death? Galileo affirms that God is not deceptive, but faithful. We can trust our mind and the scientific discoveries we make in nature because the Creator made us that way. An implication of being blessed by the Lord with our senses, language, and intellect is that he wants us to use these gifts. In fact, they assist us in obeying Jesus commandment to love the Lord our God with all our mind (Matt. 22:37). (p. 141)

Because God created the universe (making it a reliable revelation) and us with senses, language, and intellect, as his image bearers, it is entirely proper to use information derived from study of the universe to aid in the proper interpretation of Scripture. Galileo adds that it would be proper to ascertain the [scientific] facts first, so that they could guide us in finding the true meaning of Scripture. (p. 143). Lamoureux points out that we all do this, we interpret the immovability of the earth, the rising and setting of the sun, and the vault above as phenomenological statements not scientific statements. We interpret the pillars of the earth and the storehouses of hail as poetic rather than scientific.

Why do [we] do this? Its because scientists have shown us the structure of the solar system and explained how gravity works. After the Galileo affair, Christians realized that astronomers had proven geocentricism to be false. The earth is not the center of the universe with the sun circling it. Consequently, Christians could no longer read biblical verses about the earths immovability and the suns movement as factual scientific statements. (p. 143)

Ive had this conversation many times following various blogs and in discussion groups. Most Christians simply accept without questions that the demonstrably false statements in Scripture are not intended to be interpreted literally. The mind is not located in the gut. The stars are not inscribed on a vault. Many translations go so far as to hide the original referent from the modern audience without giving it a second thought. It isnt usually dishonest, but grounded in the realization that other language will convey the truth more clearly to a modern audience. Every translation requires interpretation.

One approach to dealing with the presence of ancient science in Scripture is to invoke the idea of accommodation. This is not a new idea. Among others, both Augustine and the Reformers used the concept in their approach to Scripture. God didnt introduce seventeenth century or twenty-first century science into his self-revelation in Scripture because this would have introduced an unnecessary stumbling block for the original audience, obscuring the intended message.

What lessons should we as Christians take from the Galileo affair?

(1) Withhold judgment on scientific matters until there is a clear consensus. It isnt necessary or desirable to shoehorn every new idea into theology. Nor is it wise to reject ideas early, before all the evidence is in. We can afford to be generous and exercise intellectual humility. Science doesnt impact key claims of the Christian faith the nature of God or his relationship with his creatures, the incarnation, crucifixion and resurrections.

(2) Recognize that Scripture does contain ancient science and this does not detract from the message that is conveyed.

(3) Avoid proof-texting that rips passages from their biblical and cultural context and uses them to shore up a desired interpretation of Scripture. Someday I am going to write a post entitled Lord save us from a proof-text faith. The reliance on proof-texts is one of the biggest failings of western evangelicalism. We need to be immersed in Scripture not shored up by resting on favored tidbits.

(4) Avoid authoritative proclamations in areas outside of your expertise. Lamoureux argues Only let those with proper training in biology, especially evolutionary biology, be given the privilege of teaching about the origins of life in our churches and Sunday schools. (p. 150) I think this goes too far. Taken seriously it would mean that I should not teach on either Scripture or the question of origins as I am an authority on neither evolutionary biology nor ancient Hebrew and Near Eastern Culture. I would take a somewhat looser position. We should be skeptical of anyone without expertise who teaches an idea far outside of the mainstream, and of one who does not rely openly on trusted experts in the area. This isnt a cure-all but it would go a long way toward a cure for what ails the church on issues of science and Christian faith. Do not allow non-Christians to pronounce on the essence of Christian faith (proclamations that science demands atheism are ridiculous). Allow Christians with expertise in astronomy, geology, genetics, and biology the primacy of place in discussions of these fields in the Church. Allow those with expertise in ancient Near Eastern Culture and language the primacy of place in interpretation of the Old Testament.

(5) Understand the reasons given for variant positions on the questions of age and origins. Some Christian biologists and geologists hold views outside of the scientific mainstream, not because of the scientific evidence, but because of their view of Scripture. This doesnt mean they should be silenced but that their views should be evaluated on the appropriate grounds. Is the interpretation of Scripture reasonable and is it a sufficient reason to deviate from mainstream scientific views?

(6) Respect expertise whether you ultimately agree or disagree. This is important for our witness as Christians.

(7) Arguing that the church has always believed this as in the church has always believed in a earth-centered universe (true in 1600) or the church has always believed in de novo creation of species or kinds (true enough) doesnt really help with resolution of science and Christian faith. The church, and before that Judaism, have adapted to our growing understanding of Gods creation. (Kyle Greenwoods book Scripture and Cosmology is a great read here.)

We need to hold firm to truths about God and his relationship with his people, created in his image. That Scripture records ancient understandings of science incidental to the message should cause us little concern and no angst.

In his earlier book, Evolutionary Creation, Lamoureux notes that we should expect agreement between historical events and Scripture when the text records witnessed history this starts at some point in or after Genesis 12. This agreement will be consistent with the accepted forms of writing in ancient Israel up through the first century Roman world. We expect spiritual concord from beginning to end. Scripture faithful records the message of Gods work in the world. We expect scientific concord when phenomenological observations (common in the ancient Near East) are re-enforced by scientific study, not when they are revised or replaced.

Scientific concordism simply doesnt seem to be supported by a careful reading of Scripture or our growing understanding of Gods creation. The Holy Spirit did not correct errant understandings of science whether in biology, geology, medicine or cosmology. The price of insisting on scientific concordism is large both in driving some from the faith and in preventing others from even considering the faith.

What is the price of scientific concordism?

What can we learn from the story of Galileo?

If you wish to contact me directly you may do so at rjs4mail[at]att.net

If interested you can subscribe to a full text feed of my posts at Musings on Science and Theology.

Read more here:
What Price Concord? (RJS) - Patheos (blog)