What's evolution got to do with it?

I've been commenting on newspaper articles or letters lately, so I might as well continue. This time the article in question is a recent opinion piece by Cal Thomas in the Jamestown Sun. Thomas is a conservative writer, often focusing on issues involving the religious right. This piece focuses on stem cell research, specifically a recent report on the use of stem cells for spinal cord injuries.

It comes as no surprise that Thomas is opposed to this research. He questions why this is necessary, with the availability of induced pluripotent stem cells (iPS cells), which do not have the ethical baggage of embryonic stem cells. It is not my goal to discuss this part of his article, although I can quickly point out that iPS cells are not yet ready for prime time. They do not seem to have quite the same characteristics as embryonic cells and there is a risk that they may be more likely to lead to cancer. Research is continuing on them and hopefully they will eventually live up to their promise, but for now they are not a full replacement for embryonic stem cells. If this research on spinal cord injuries shows promise, it could easily be adapted to iPS cells once they are more fully developed.

The reason I want to discuss this article is what comes next. After three paragraphs discussing stem cells, evolution is thrown in out of the blue:

The answer to the “why? [why do this research]” question has something to do with how we view ourselves. If you are an evolutionist who does not believe in a Creator who endowed us with the right to life, you might be more liberal in your approach to manipulating human tissue for the “benefit” of others. But that still doesn’t justify using embryonic stem cells when artificial ones appear to function just as well.

If, on the other hand, you think “playing God” is not good for the human race and that other ways to relieve suffering can, should and, in fact, are being discovered, you are more likely to want to control human urges to do whatever can be done in a laboratory.

Appeals to the uniqueness of human life are likely to fall on deaf ears if you are an evolutionist. Reminders of the horrors unrestrained scientists have created in the past are likely to be viewed as an aberration.

In retrospect, great horrors are usually seen as springing up full-formed. Many people didn’t notice the small steps that led to the Nazi Holocaust or to the selling of African slaves in the public square. Senses must first be dulled; religion trivialized; and self enthroned before tolerance for the horrific is accepted.

I won't ask why he has the word benefit in scare quotes. I've read this several times, and I cannot understand the connection between evolution and stem cells. He does not make it at all clear. He just makes it as an assertion: if you are an evolutionist, you might be more liberal in your approach. Why? The strangest paragraph is the third one, where he asserts that appeals to the uniqueness of human life are likely to fall on deaf ears if you are an evolutionist. Why? What is the logic of the connection? I especially don't see why reminders of the horrors of unrestrained science would fall on deaf ears.

It is not like this type of argument surprises me. I know creationists always assert that evolution is the source of all evil, but I never have seen the logic. Why does the question of the value of human life, or the value of an embryo, or especially the ability to see past horrors, have anything to do with whether we evolved? I have heard the right to life issue debated a thousand times. People argue over what makes us human and over the consequences to the mother and over the potential of the cells. Never once have I heard an argument from either side depend on whether we are related to apes or not. There are many people who believe in evolution who are right to life. Almost all evolution believing scientists look with horror on abuses of science in the past, such as the Nazis or Tuskegee.

I believe I can identify at least a little bit of Thomas' unstated logic. As with most creationists, he makes no distinction between evolution and materialism and atheism. His real assertion is that strict materialism leads to these views. Evolution has nothing really to do with it, other than that it is a materialist explanation. Meteorology is also a materialist explanation for the weather, but he does not make the same assertion for meteorologists. Our origins or relationship to other living things is irrelevant, even to Thomas. He just uses evolutionist as a code word for atheist or materialist. He believes they are all the same thing, anyway.

So Thomas' real argument is that materialism leads to these views on stem cells (and to not seeing the horrors of the past), not evolution. But this view is also not supported. It is common for a person whose views on right or wrong comes only from one source, such as their religious conviction, to be unable to imagine that there are other possible sources. Thomas makes no effort to show that materialism leads to nihilism. His logic is simply this: my views on moral questions comes from my religious beliefs. Materialists do not share my religious beliefs, therefore there is no way they can have moral beliefs". I would think he has heard secular arguments both for and against stem cell research, or Nazi horrors, so he should understand that there are other sources for those beliefs, but he does not.

Empirical evidence fails to support Thomas. Some people who believe in evolution oppose stem cell research, some do not. Almost all of them look in horror at Nazi abuses and other abuses of science in the past. If Thomas was correct, you would expect that belief in evolution should correlate with increased likelihood of abortion. In fact, the opposite is found. Within the United States, those states with the lowest belief in evolution have the highest abortion rate. Within the developed world, those countries that have the lowest belief in evolution also have the highest abortion rate. The relationship is exactly the opposite of that predicted by Thomas.

I am not really interested in discussing stem cell research or secular versus religious ethics. I am just always a little surprised at the non sequitor of randomly inserting evolution into topics that have nothing to do with the science, and the world of hidden assumptions beneath it.