Two more points that I should have offered below.
First, accusing Ramesh of being influenced by Catholic thought is not the same as accusing him of voodooism. Obviously, Derb doesn’t quite do that. But there’s an implication that religious = irrational and is therefore illegitimate. It’s worth noting that the Catholic Church actually does go to considerable lengths to try to be on the right side of reason and science as best it can. This is the Thomistic legacy of the Church and it deserves some respect.
Second, I guess what bothers me is Derb’s apparent rejection of scientific arguments. Derb is the Great Champion of Science here at NR and he is an impressive champion at that. But he’s exasperated by the frigidness of Ramesh’s discussion of cells and eggs and whatnot. I can’t help but shake the sense there’s an inconsistency here. Derb has argued many, many times that breakthroughs in genetic science are chipping away at our understanding of free will and human nature. Less and less of me is really me, according to Derb’s explication of genetics and evolutionary biology. Some say it is a cold and depressing rendition of reality. But, Derb replies, it is science and therefore it is true, like it or not. So why is it that when it comes to human nature and the differences between racial groups he is willing to be scientifically reductionist but when it comes to biological definitions of human life he says “Bah!” That is an “inhuman,” “frigid and pitiless dogma.”
Without taking sides myself, my thermometer nonetheless rates a worldview which reduces us to genes, nerves and ganglia to be more frigid than one which says that every human life is sacred. Why the contradiction? Is it that the former is a convenient confirmation of his feelings while the latter is an inconvenient contradiction of them?
Derb: What am I missing here?