In a culture that promotes alternative medicine, natural childbirth, and sometimes-bizarre dietary supplements, it seems strange that natural infertility treatments are not well-known. A natural infertility treatment is not necessarily alternative medicine, but rather a conventional-medicine approach that seeks to cure the underlying cause of infertility, allowing natural conception. It stands in contrast to assisted reproductive technology such as in vitro fertilization (IVF), which is stick a "band-aid" solution that does nothing about the underlying causes of fertility problems.

Why is assisted reproductive technology the current standard of care for infertility? If you type "fertility treatment" into Wikipedia, you are redirected to "assisted reproductive technology." Wikipedia, being written collaboratively by people around the world, reflects the biases and attitudes of those people. Fertility drugs and IVF are what people think of when they think about infertility treatments.

I think the reason IVF is so popular — despite its astronomical cost and mediocre success rate (only 1 in 3 attempts results in a live birth) — is because it is a "magic pill" approach. It is a silver bullet, a straightforward process left in the hands of doctors. Natural fertility treatments are more complicated because they start with diagnostics, rather than jumping immediately into treatment.

Among the diagnostic steps used in natural fertility treatments for women are ultrasound, laparoscopy, and sonohysterosalpingography (SHSG) to look for structural problems in the reproductive organs, as well as hormone level checks. During her menstrual cycle, a woman's estrogen and progesterone levels can change significantly in as little as 24 hours, so daily or every-other-day tests are best. Any underlying disease or structural abnormality that is uncovered is treated to increase the odds of a naturally conceived pregnancy.

How successful is natural infertility treatment compared to assisted reproductive technology? IVF has a maximum success (pregnancy) rate well under 50% (for 27-year-old women), with an average success rate closer to 35%. Statistics for live birth are even worse, with an average of only about 27% of attempts resulting in live births. That means that an average of 8% of attempts result in a miscarriage or stillbirth (or, if the fetus is imperfect, abortion). The poor success rates reflect, in part, the fact that over 50% of embryos conceived in vitro have chromosomal abnormalities, as reported by Rebecca Taylor of Mary Meets Dolly. Natural fertility technology also has treatments for male infertility.

According to the Pope Paul VI institute, a major proponent of natural infertility treatment, so-called "natural reproductive technology" has higher success rates than IVF for various infertility diagnoses. These results are both statistically significant (i.e. not due to chance) and personally significant (i.e. they're a lot higher). For example, for a diagnosis of endometriosis, IVF has a success (pregnancy) rate of about 21%, while natural reproductive treatment has a success rate of about 57%. It reports a 37% success rate for tubal occlusion compared to IVF's 27%. The whopping 82% success rate reported for natural fertility treatment of anovulation (not producing mature eggs) may be due to straightforward treatment of the most obvious cause of anovulation, hormonal insufficiency (although I am speculating here).

I find it amazing that natural treatments for infertility are not better-known, even though they are more effective than current approaches. That's right: for infertile couples, it is more effective to try to conceive a baby the way nature always has than to inject a sperm into an egg under a microscope, with less chance of complications like chromosomal abnormalities and multiple gestation. Who wouldn't choose that first, if they knew it was available?

Image credit: "Test tube baby" by Brendan Dolan-Gavitt. (CC) Some rights reserved.

Why do people think it's selfish to have lots of kids?

Recently there was a bit of a dust-up in the combox at my sister's blog, Mama Says*, in which one commenter in particular charged that only selfish parents have big families. Having lots of kids (eight, in this case) allegedly is harmful to the older children in the family.

This is a mainstream attitude in modern American culture. Big families are viewed with scorn and derision, the parents accused of being selfish because either (a) they are dividing their love and attention among too many kids, (b) they are contributing to overpopulation, (c) they are using more than their share of natural resources, or (d) all of the above.

As a cradle Catholic, I have known a lot of big families. I even grew up in one, as the oldest of a brood of eight. But I have yet to meet a big family with selfish parents who are focused on fulfilling their own desires at the expense of either their family or our larger society.

I think this attitude stems from the discomfort people feel when they see large families. They cannot imagine themselves having a baseball team's worth of children, so they feel subconsciously threatened when they see one. That statement is not intended to be judgmental; it's human nature, and everyone experiences feelings like that when confronted with behavior that falls outside of social norms.

Why it is not selfish to have a big family

Let me present a picture of a typical big family. This fictional family has two parents and a startling number of kids. They have a strong religious faith, perhaps Catholic or Mormon or Evangelical. The parents at times feel overwhelmed by the sheer number of people underfoot. They know they could easily take steps to prevent themselves from having so many children, but they don't, because they have decided to trust God. They see each kid as a gift and have faith that God will provide for the kids he gave them. This is not a decision made lightly. This is radical, and they know it.

All the members of the family make a lot of sacrifices in order to follow this path. Maybe the kids aren't in as many organized activities, sports, and lessons as most of their peers. Maybe they go to restaurants less often, take fewer vacations, and share bedrooms. Maybe the younger kids rarely see a new article of clothing, being clad instead in hand-me-downs.

But they also have a lot of privileges that their peers will never know. They are never lonely. Their house is the neighborhood social hub for the 18-and-under set. They probably have a groupie or two, lonely children with no siblings whose parents work all day. They have a precocious understanding of the important things in life, like love and sharing. The older ones help their parents and learn child-care skills. They all learn practical life skills by doing chores, such as how to do laundry. They see what it is like to really live according to one's ideals and values.

They never have to hear their parents say that children are burdens, or that they are "so glad" they're done having kids.

And above all, they never, ever feel unloved. Big families like to repeat the saying that "love doesn't divide, it multiplies." It's more than a cute saying, it's literally true: the kids all love each other. Each new baby has a live-in fan club. Each older child has a crowd of younger devotees who think he is the coolest person on the planet.

The truth is, every parent of a crowd has no choice but to give of the deepest part of themselves, every single day. They are practically forced to be unselfish.

Selfish parents could not do this job.

* (cough cough) Which I helped design, by the way (ahem) not that I'm boasting or anything, but I have mad skillz don't I? Nevermind that I didn't do most of the work.

I'm mulling over a move from Blogger to my own site. I know what content-management system I'll use (and it's not Wordpress), have hosting already, and really just have to bite the bullet and start setting it up. I'd like to make this a science-and-faith site, not just a science-and-faith blog. The new site will probably have separate feeds for different topics (like science, Catholicism, health), a combined feed if you want all the posts in one place, and ... a forum! I might be looking for new writers or guest posters, too. I am open to feedback about what changes you might like to see here.

This Sunday is Pentecost, the day the terrified and confused apostles were sent out from the second-floor room where they hid after Christ ascended into heaven. The Bible records that the Holy Spirit provided "tongues of fire" that let them be understood to speakers of all languages. Kind of makes Pentecostal "speaking in tongues" (untranslatable tongues, that is) pale by comparison. Wear red to church!

Father Alberto Cutie is not cute. After being caught fooling around with a woman on a public beach, he was put on leave by Archbishop of Miami John C. Favalora. That was scarcely three weeks ago, and now he has already decided to convert to Episcopalianism so he can "be with the woman he loves." (Also, as he did not say in the statement, so he can break his vows without being chastised.) Presumably, he chose his new faith so he can still be a priest, since as a Catholic, he can be married or be a priest, but not both. What kind of priestly formation did Fr. Cutie go through, that he finds switching faiths as easy as buying a new car or repainting a house? Three weeks?

The acting director of the National Institutes of Health is Dr. Raynard Kington, but some (unfortunately not very current) rumors hint that Dr. Francis Collins is a "top contender" for the permanent spot. Dr. Collins is the former director of the National Human Genome Research Institute and author of The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief. H/T to Rebecca Taylor of Mary Meets Dolly.

My "Animals and Catholics" series will continue. Really. It's just been a distracting month, what with National Anxiety and Depression Awareness Week and everything else. Stay tuned.

Tropical depressions are forming in the Gulf of Mexico. Last year, there was a bumper crop of named storms after two lean years, though not as many as in 2005. Let us pray that this year resembles more 2006 and 2007. After all, if another storm hits southeast Texas, this blog will suffer. I had a very hard time posting last year when the power went out!

Kari Byron is pregnant. You don't know who Kari Byron is? Then you lose geek points! She's the red-headed chick on Mythbusters. The growing belly is growing obvious on the show, and she's been sitting out on the bungee jumping and skydiving. I'm just waiting for her to bust the myth that what you crave during pregnancy will tell you whether it's a boy or a girl. (I thought they had a chromosome for that.)

Faith Hope, who remarkably lived 93 days with a condition (anencephaly) said to be "incompatible with life," has passed away. Requiescat in pacem. Of course she will. She was innocent of personal sin.

Her mother loved her so much. That love spoke more for Faith's humanity than all the rational arguments I could put in this space.

Rebecca Taylor of Mary Meets Dolly seems to have posted the story first. (I fell behind on my blog reading, so I am just coming across it now.) Dr. Mehmet Oz, who is both an eminent heart surgeon and Columbia Medical School professor and a pop health celebrity and Oprah darling, told Michael J. Fox to forget about embryonic stem cells.



Dr. Oz said, "I think the stem cell debate is dead.... The problem with embryonic stem cells is that ... it's very hard to control them, and they can become cancer.... In the last year we've made ten years of advancement" on induced pluripotent stem cells.

Embryonic stem cells have turned out to be wild horses. They are too flexible. Induced pluripotent stem cells are recently developed technology that uses a patient's own body cells. They do not cause an immune response in the patient and they do not require the killing of anyone, embryo or adult.

It turns out, in the stem cell debate, that you can have your cake and eat it too: you can have pluripotent stem cells, and you can have them ethically.


Animals and Catholics series will continue soon, I promise.

My sister Mile Hi Mama gets a hat tip for pointing out a blog called Taliban Rising. This blog is about heretical, patriarchal ideas being promoted by certain radical members of the traditionalist Catholic movement ("Rad Trads"). As blogger Jeanette points out, these ideas delve into the realm of the distinctly non-Catholic (i.e., heretical) philosophy of religious naturalism. (Before reading further, please be aware, if you are not already, that Leave the lights on is written by a woman.)

In her post "Weaving the Mental Burqa," Jeanette (who writes with more clarity and spirit than I can manage here) quotes a few Rad Trad intellectual leaders, including Dr. Peter Chojnowski and the infamous Bishop Richard Williamson. Bishop Williamson's outrageous comments do not need to be refuted; they fairly refute themselves. Dr. Chojnowski, on the other hand, writes with a style reeking of erudition and opaque scholarship, and I consider his work to be a fair target.

He publishes a blog in which he reprints some of the articles he has written. In the introduction to his recently posted article "Our Lady as Woman and Warrior," he decries "the various writers on the internet who insist on distorting everything I have to say about women." I hope he does not consider this quote from that article to be a distortion:

"On account of the fact that the 'lady,' in all of her various aspects and roles, is commonly accepted to be the model of what all woman, on the natural level, ought to be. Just as the masculine ideal is one of being a 'master'...." (emphasis added)

It certainly sounds like much of this writer's philosophy is based on religious naturalism.

I do not mean to say, as some feminists do, that men and women are exactly the same (clearly they are not), nor that mothers and fathers do not have duties particular to their respective roles in the family (clearly they do). But as Jeanette points out, God's plan for men and women is not ordered primarily toward their sex, but rather toward Christ. Our duties arise not from our gender, but from our specific roles in the service of God.

To quote Dr. Gyula Mago, in the article "Feminism as Antichurch" in the Angelus, "[Woman] is subject to man, but not because he is the end for which she exists." The Angelus is a traditionalist publication; this quote is indicative of the fact that the naturalist heresy is not completely pervasive in the traditionalist movement, only in a small number of Rad Trads.

Contrast this statement with the following from Dr. Chojnowski's article "Flesh of my Flesh":

"It will be my contention that women have their being as women actualized only through their relationship with men. Women need men in order to be truly women. Men, however, do not need women in order to be truly men. ... Every convent has its father confessor and the Eucharistic Bridegroom." (emphasis original)

Though Chojnowski states this is based on Thomistic philosophy, I think St. Thomas Aquinas would shudder to think of his clearly reasoned philosphy invoked for such confused, pop-psych drivel. There are two errors in this quote. The first is the statement that "women have their being actualized by men." Nowhere in Catholic theology does one find this sentiment. The second error is the assertion that the presence of priests in convents somehow "proves" the first. It proves nothing of the sort; what it proves is that women, like men, need Christ. The priest is there to bring Christ in the sacraments to the nuns of the convent, not to "actualize their being," whatever that means.

My experience suggests that women have as much of a civilizing influence on men as men have a stabilizing influence on women. Even these observations are only broad generalities, as individual men and women vary widely in temperament.

Dr. Chojnowski can continue writing to encourage men to find women to actualize into being. (I imagine he does not intend women, being mentally inferior and subordinate to men, to read what he writes. I also imagine he has not ever had a real conversation with an actual woman.) As for me and my blog, we will serve the Lord, not the male sex.

This post is a contribution to the blog swarm "Blog for Darwin," held from February 12-15, 2009, to celebrate the 200th anniversary of Charles Darwin's birth.

When Charles Darwin published On the Origin of Species in 1859, introducing the world to the revolutionary concept of evolution through natural selection, he noted that "perhaps ... the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory" was the apparent lack of "transitional" fossils in the geological record. He speculated that the reason that "geology ... does not reveal [a] finely graded organic chain" of intermediate forms was because of the paucity of fossil discoveries at the time.

In one sense, every species that has ever existed is a "transitional" form; it reflects characteristics of its ancestors, and its characteristics will be reflected in its descendants. But humans are impressed by the dramatic, and in the years since Darwin's first book on evolution was published, some very dramatic fossils, intermediate between two large classes, have been discovered.

The most famous of these is Archaeopterix, which depending on one's interpretation is either a a bird with teeth and clawed hands or a feathered, flying dinosaur. But another lesser-known fossil is equally dramatic as an example of a transitional form: the marvelous Ichthyostega.

Ichthyostega is an intermediate form between fishes and amphibians from the late Devonian period, about 365 million years ago. One could describe it as a fish with legs that could walk around on land, or one could say it was an amphibian with the head and tail of a fish. Since fish have their weight supported by the water, Ichthyostega faced the problem of supporting its weight on land, which was accomplished by thickened, overlapping ribs — a clumsy, primitive solution necessary because it had so recently evolved from its lungfish-like ancestors.

Ichthyostega had seven toes on each hind foot, notable since the number of toes on tetrapod* feet stabilized at five early in their evolution. Its shoulder and hip had adaptations to help it move about on land. Its hind limbs could support its body as a juvenile, but were likely too weak to support its full weight on land in adulthood. It is hypothesized that juveniles could leave the water to escape predators, but adults only partially pulled themselves out of the water to sun themselves.

Ichthyostega is one of many fossils that fill in the natural history of the evolution of tetrapods from fish. The story is still not complete: "Romer's gap" (named after paleontologist Alfred Sherwood Romer) is a 20 million year period of missing fossils between Ichthyostega and its contemporaries and the next-oldest known tetrapods.

Gaps in the fossil record like this were a worry to Darwin, who recognized them as a potential rebuttal of his seminal theory. Yet absence of evidence is not evidence of absence; the most parsimonious explanation for Romer's gap remains the one Darwin put forth — the incompleteness of the geological record. Charles Darwin's extraordinary theory is now secure as one of the most well-established, concrete principles of biology.

*Tetrapods are four-legged vertebrates and their descendants; in other words, all vertebrates except fish.

More information on Ichthyostega

• Ichthyostega from the Tree of Life web project
• Cladogram showing Ichthyostega's place in the evolution of tetrapods (Palaeos database)

Ichthyostega image information

• Top right: Reconstruction of a juvenile Ichthyostega from the National Museum of Natural Science in Taiwan. Photo by Alton Thompson. (CC) Some rights reserved.
• Left: Pencil drawing of Ichthyostega. From Wikimedia Commons, licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL).
• Bottom right: Drawing of Ichthyostega skeleton. The forelimbs are incompletely fossilized and the hand morphology is unknown. From the Tree of Life web project (link above), after Ahlberg et al. 2005. (CC) Some rights reserved.
  

I have started a new blog, my first experiment with Wordpress: Photo Mine. It's a collection of the most interesting, beautiful, and odd — in a word, remarkable — images I find on the web. And they are all free images, so you can reuse them on your own projects. Check it out!

Above: Space shuttle Columbia lifting off at the beginning of STS-107, its 28th and final mission. Courtesy of NASA.

To NASA, it's STS-107. To most of the rest of the world, it was the Space Shuttle Columbia disaster of 2003. A briefcase-sized chunk of foam weighing a little over a pound hit the orbiter's wing at 800 feet per second — that's about 550 miles per hour — damaging the thermal protection system (TPS). The compromised TPS was not adequate to the 3000° F reentry temperatures, and on its landing approach, the shuttle broke up into a handful of fireballs over Texas and Louisiana.

The shuttle disaster happened on my birthday. It's the worst birthday I have ever had.

This catastrophic event recalled to mind the Challenger disaster of 1986, seventeen years and four days earlier. I was in elementary school, and they wheeled a TV into our classroom so we could watch the shuttle explode over the Atlantic Ocean.

Stephanie Barr is a NASA engineer who writes the blog Rocket Scientist. She was part of the STS-107 team, and has a blog post remembering the Columbia tragedy. Go over and read it right now. I'll wait.

Then come back and tell me where you were when the Challenger and Columbia disasters happened.

On the site ObamiconMe, one can create images in the style of the famous "CHANGE" poster for Obama. (See my profile.) A change feared by many Americans is the passage of the Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA), which would undoubtedly increase the rate of abortion and, according to some reports, require hospitals and clinics to provide elective abortions even if the management opposes the procedure.

These "Obamicons" feature the juniormost Leave the lights on blogger, my 13-month-old son. They're under a Creative Commons license, so feel free to share them. If you put one or both on your blog, you can add a link on the Mr. Linky widget below. Please note that if you do not post one of these posters, your link will be deleted.





Edit: Added new versions with improved backgrounds. For the original images, see Choose Life and Fight FOCA.

If you read any of the many blogs or news sources that deals with bioethics, then you will have heard of the story from the BBC that a British fertility doctor has successfully performed eugenics via in vitro fertilization. He tested embryos for a gene that is associated with an increased risk of breast cancer, and implanted only those embryos that were pure enough to meet his standards; the rest were killed (euphemistically, "discarded"). What was really remarkable about the story was the ridiculous attempt to redefine standard medical terminology to make the act more palatable. Conception is synonymous with fertilization, but the BBC parroted the doctor in incorrectly claiming that conception is actually synonymous with implantation. This allows the doctors to pretend that the genetic test took place before any human individuals were created by saying it was "pre-conception." For more information, see this post on the blog Mary Meets Dolly.

For the benefit of readers who may encounter mendacious doctors and scientists who deal with beginning-of-life issues, here is a glossary of related terms:

abortifacient

A drug or other substance that induces an abortion. Abortifacients may cause expulsion of the embryo or fetus, killing it, or they may prevent the implantation of an embryo. In the narrowest clinical sense, the latter is not technically the termination of a pregnancy, but it does result in the killing of the embryo.

abortion

The termination of a pregnancy; usually used for terminations before about 20 weeks gestation. Abortions may be spontaneous and natural (in which case they are also called miscarriages) or intentional (in which case they are also called induced abortions). An abortion always results in the death of the embryo or fetus.

adult stem cell

Any stem cell derived from an individual after the embryonic stage of development. Despite the name, they can be obtained from fetuses, umbilical cords, and children as well as from adults. Adult stem cells vary widely in potency. They can be obtained without injuring the donor.

baby

A non-scientific, non-specific term referring to a young human individual. Depending on context, it can refer to a zygote, embryo, fetus, newborn, or older child. Obstetricians routinely refer to embryos and fetuses as "babies" when the pregnancy is wanted, but not if the mother intends to abort the pregnancy. See abortion.

chromosome

A unit of genetic material. Every species has a fixed number of chromosomes.

conception

Synonymous with fertilization.

diploid

Having two copies of each chromosome per cell. In mammals, all cells except gametes are diploid.

egg

Also called an ovum, a female gamete. In humans, eggs are very large cells that are usually produced one at a time.

embryo

An organism from the time of the first cell division to a set point such as birth or hatching. In humans, an individual from the first cell division after conception until eight weeks after conception (ten weeks gestation), at which point it is called a fetus.

embryonic stem cell

A stem cell taken from an embryo. Embryonic stem cells are pluripotent, meaning they can differentiate into almost any tissue type. They are obtained by removing the embryo's inner cell mass, killing the embryo.

eugenics

The practice of attempting to improve the human race by either killing individuals perceived as genetically inferior, preventing such individuals from reproducing, or encouraging increased reproduction for individuals perceived as superior.

fertilization

The union of a haploid egg and a haploid sperm, resulting in a new, independent diploid individual. Fertilization naturally takes place in a woman's Fallopian tube after sperm are introduced through sexual intercourse.

fetus

In humans, an individual from eight weeks after fertilization until birth. A fetus that is near term is indistinguishable from a newborn except in certain physiological characteristics that change at birth, such as the closing of a blood vessel called the ductus arteriosus.

gamete

A haploid reproductive cell whose role is to unite with an opposite-sex gamete to create a new individual. Also called sex cells, they consist of eggs and sperm.

haploid

Having one copy of each chromosome per cell. In mammals, only gametes are haploid; all other cells are diploid.

implantation

The point at which an embryo, at the age of a few days in humans, becomes attached to the lining of the uterus.

in vitro fertilization

Fertilization that takes place outside the human body ("in vitro" literally means "in glass"). In vitro fertilization removes the sex act from reproduction. The zygotes are allowed to develop for several days into embryos, at which time one (or more) is placed inside the mother's body in the hope that it (or they) will undergo implantation, resulting in pregnancy. For practical reasons, it involves the fertilization of multiple zygotes, almost always more than can ever be implanted.

miscarriage

Also called spontaneous abortion, the unintentional termination of a pregnancy as a result of natural causes or, less commonly, accident.

newborn

Also called a neonate, an individual who has very recently been born. A newborn is indistinguishable from a late-term fetus except in certain physiological characteristics related to the loss of the placenta.

pregnancy

In mammals, including humans, the carrying of one or more embryos or fetuses in the uterus. In clinical terms, pregnancy begins at implantation, though the embryo exists as a separate individual in the mother's body before implantation. Thus pregnancy begins after the beginning of an individual human life.

sperm

A male gamete. In humans, sperm are small, motile cells that are produced daily in very large numbers by men's bodies.

stem cell

A cell capable of reproducing indefinitely, and usually capable of developing into one of several types of tissue. Stem cells are classified by "potency," that is, how many different types of tissue they can become. Stem cells are found in developing embryos, in umbilical cords, and in various other tissues such as bone marrow.

zygote

A brand-new, single-celled individual from fertilization until the first cell division, at which point it is called an embryo. The zygote stage in humans is very brief; it experiences the first cell division and becomes an embryo even before implantation.

The blog Science and Religion News, whose author Salman Hameed strongly favors science over religion, recently posted about two stories out of the Vatican. The post, entitled "Good Pope, Bad Pope," praised the pontiff for paying "tribute" to Galileo, but criticized him for the bioethics document Dignitas Personae.

"Good Pope": The Galileo Affair

In regard to the Galileo affair, it needs to be pointed out that the popular view — that Galileo was a noble pursuer of scientific truth against a scientifically backwards and rigid Church — is false. Galileo got in trouble for, in the words of Catholic apologist Jimmy Akin, being a jerk. Pope Urban VIII was actually sympathetic to Galileo's hypotheses about heliocentrism, despite being concerned that it would be difficult to work out the theological implications (which have since been reconciled with Scripture). He asked Galileo to explain, in Galileo's book Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems, the competing hypotheses of geocentrism and heliocentrism but not to advocate heliocentrism. Instead, the book ridiculed geocentrism and the pope himself, though there is controversy as to whether the apparent insults were deliberate or unintentional. It was the perceived riducule that got Galileo in trouble, not heliocentrism per se.

"Bad Pope": Dignitas Personae

In regard to Dignitas Personae, Hameed warns that in upholding previous teaching on bioethics (which asserts that all humans, including embryos, have certain rights, one of which I explained here), the Catholic Church risks becoming "irrelevant."

In other words, Hameed says that society as a whole will collectively dismiss the Church if she fails to accede to fickle public opinion.

This is the same Church that allowed the Protestant Reformation to become permanently entrenched in England over the indissolubility of marriage (in the Henry VIII affair). The same Church that suffered 400 years of prosecution in the Roman Empire for "irrelevantly" teaching that there is one God, incarnated in Jesus Christ, and denying the existence of the Roman pantheon. The same Church that has unblinkingly held to the "irrelevant" teaching that artificial contraception is an affront against God and against one's own spouse (a teaching consistent with the sublime Theology of the Body of John Paul the Great).

I'm laying my bets one who will be considered more irrelevant by history: the Church or the supporters of indignities against the tiniest humans.

This is just a quick note to say that if you do not regularly read the blog The Deeps of Time, go over and read Michael's excellent post on self-existence. He compares the rational reasons behind the Thomistic belief that God is self-existing to the idea that the physical universe may also somehow be self-existing. Michael effectively shoots down the claims of some scientists (like Neil deGrasse Tyson, of whom I am a fan, as a loyal Nova viewer) that these two claims are equally reasonable.

Over at the Raving Theist, formerly the Raving Atheist, there is ongoing hubbub over the author's recently-announced conversion to Christianity. A recent post about conversion compared the conversion from atheism to theism, or conversion between different religions, to conversion between two philosophical schools of thought: empiricism and rationalism. I must admit that I had never thought too much about these metaphysical approaches.

One of the themes of this blog is that religion is rational. Clearly I am a rationalist. But I also am a woman of science, which necessarily makes me an empiricist.

The bottom line is that I cannot accept either philosophy as completely superior to the other. They complement each other. In science, purely empirical observations can only describe the world, not explain it. A rational approach is also necessary. On the other hand, science is meaningless without an empirical approach. A hybrid of the two philosophies, in which reason informs observations and observations guide reason, is best for learning about the natural world.

Another theme of this blog is that there are two distinct realms of truth, what Stephen J. Gould called the two magisteria: natural truth (the laws of nature, which are explored and explained by science) and supernatural truth (those parts of existence that are outside nature, meaning God and other non-material beings). In exploring the supernatural world, I favor rationalism as coming before empiricism. Empirical observations of the supernatural would include revelation (such as the Bible) and personal experience. These must be subject to the rational mind. The abundance of contradicting religious beliefs are evidence of what happens when one relies only on "empirical observations" of the supernatural without using the rational mind.

Some religions utterly rely on abandoning the rational intellect. If you have ever talked to Latter Day Saints missionaries, who encourage people to read the Book of Mormon and wait for a subjective fiffy experience to decide whether it is true, you know what I am talking about. ("Fiffy" means related to a "fif," or "funny internal feeling.")

What do you think is a better philosophy for looking at the world, empiricism or rationalism?

This is not a meme-oriented blog by any means, but Brian Steele, author of the excellent new blog The Secret of Newton, tagged me, so what can I do? I'll follow this with a post with some content.

1. I grew up the oldest of eight kids, all with the same biological parents, no multiples. Unlike most new mothers today, I was comfortable around babies before I ever had kids of my own.

2. Speaking of kids of my own, I have two: a preschooler and a one-year-old. Both are boys. We adopted the older one and the younger one is biological.

3. I have worn many hats, including animal control officer, parrot trainer, and professional aquarium biologist. Now my only hats are mother (and that's a big hat) and writer.

4. I have read several books in the Harry Potter series — in Spanish. It was slow going and required frequent use of a Spanish-English dictionary, but I improved my Spanish immensely.

5. My only pets are three cats, one of whom regularly channels Satan, but in the past I have had a Pueblan milk snake, an Indian Ringneck Parakeet, a Yellow-Collared Macaw, a lovebird, a bunch of parakeets, an anole lizard, a couple of hermit crabs, and assorted freshwater fish.

6. I helped build this at the Sam Noble Oklahoma Museum of Natural History. I was going to be a vertebrate paleontologist — until I did my senior project and realized that looking at hundreds of tiny teeth through a microscope was not up my alley, after all.

It seems I am now supposed post the rules (rules?) and tag six bloggers. I am uneasy about the tagging. I don't want to pressure anybody, and besides, I am not sure everyone I would tag is a regular reader here. So how about this: If you have a blog, consider yourself tagged, if you would like to be. Let me know if you take me up and I'll link to you.

Tag Rules:
1. Link to the person who tagged you.
2. Post the rules on your blog.
3. Write six random things about yourself.
4. Tag six people at the end of your post and link to them.
5. Let each person know they were tagged and leave a comment on their blog.
6. Let the tagger know when your entry is up.

I enjoy Scientific American. I really do. So when it published an article on the newly issued document Dignitas Personae from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, I hesitated to comment here. It seems I so often criticize SciAm in this blog.

But then the secular pro-life blog Secondhand Smoke (hat tip to Der Wolfanwalt) made scathing remarks about the article, doing much of the job for me (and doing it better than I would have). So I really have no excuse not to make a few additions.

I am thunderstruck that when SciAm decided to interview an expert about a Vatican theological document, it chose a secular commentator, Josephine Johnston. This would be like interviewing an economist rather than a physician about a new recommendation by the FDA or the Surgeon General. And predictably, she makes both herself and SciAm look ridiculous by stating explicitly that she does not understand what she is talking about:

[The document] opposes IVF even if it doesn't involve embryo loss, because the Vatican is committed to conception that involves the conjugal act. This I don't really understand.

She does not understand it because she has no background in Catholic theology. But it stems from theological principles that underlie everything the magisterium has promulgated about sex and reproduction in the past 50 years. Dignitas Personae is completely consistent with Humanae Vitae, the landmark document that reaffirmed the church's opposition to artificial contraception, and John Paul the Great's theology of the body.

Johnston also sounds a little ridiculous at the end of the interview, when she says "I don't know enough about how Catholicism works in practice" and then implies that perhaps the Church should operate as a democracy when it comes to teaching. In theory and practice, Catholicism is not a democracy, but a Kingdom. Truth is objective regardless of fickle public opinion, and even if some members of the Body of Christ dissent, the whole of that Body will always be subject to his truth.

I had the pleasure recently of re-reading science fiction author John C. Wright's conversion story, "Why I am not a Deist." Wright was an atheist who converted to Catholicism after a series of theophanies he describes as "totally humiliating" and "an embarrassment of evidence" of the truth of Christianity.

Christianity as rational

Certain atheists today have devolved into a kind of fundamentalist and evangelical atheism, notably the likes of Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, and the king clown of noxious atheist behavior, P.Z. Myers. Wright does not seem to have been that sort of atheist. His writing, both fiction and non-fiction, makes it clear he has always sought Truth over Ideology, objective reality over subjective belief.

The fundamentalist atheism movement prefers to charge religion with being irrational. (They confuse religionists, who frequently are irrational, with the religious ideals they strive toward but often fail to follow.) So it is refreshing to read Wright's story, in which he insists that Christianity is an utterly rational religion:

The Christian religion places an emphasis on Reason that other religions, with the exception of the Jewish, do not share, or not to the same degree. None of them mention LOGOS, the rational account, the word, issuing directly from the Father.

Catholicism has a long tradition of rational thought. The Church honors no fewer than 33 thinkers with the title "Doctor of the Church." (Three of them, about 9%, are women, which is quite remarkable considering that in Western history, probably many fewer than 9% of educated persons were women.)

Christianity is not only a proponent of rational philosophy; it is a promoter of rational science. Indeed, Wright points out,

...Christendom invented science.... The Christian world-view is not only NOT incompatible with the scientific and logical one, they reinforce each other. You must imagine my befuddlement when I see science presented as somehow being the enemy of religion. Science is the enemy of Taoism or Buddhism, perhaps, but not the enemy of a religion that combines the rationalism of Athens with the mysticism of Jerusalem. We invented the University, for God's sake.

Taoism and Buddhism as irrational

My previous (and largely disastrous) attempts to study kung fu exposed me to Taoism and Buddhism, particularly Chan Buddhism, the Chinese ancestor of Zen Buddhism. Taoism is the philosophy behind the art of tai chi and emphasizes the use of chi (ki in Japanese), an utterly unscientific force. The belief in chi is a form of vitalism. It is inherently unscientific in the same sense that the theory of intelligent design is unscientific: it attempts to explain natural observations by appealing to a force that is supernatural.*

Both Taoism and Buddhism include elements that are at once impersonal and supernatural. The idea of a force both supernatural (that is, outside or above the laws of nature) and impersonal (that is, not a person or being nor arising from one) is irrational itself. Any force that exists independent of a person begs an explanation. If it acts on nature, it must be a law of nature — or (if one accepts the existence of supernatural beings) it must arise from a supernatural being.

*Of course, rational Christianity recognizes personal supernatural forces and the possibility of their acting on the natural. An appeal to the supernatural is not necessarily irrational, but it is unscientific, because by definition science can only be concerned with the natural world. Thus elements of intelligent design may be true, but it will always be an unscientific theory.

From the blogosphere:

The Deeps of Time tells the chilling tale of a profoundly anti-life decision of the Oregon Court of Appeals, in which human embryos were apparently declared to be ordinary property. Read the post: "Oregon Continues March Into Inhumanity."

Mary Meets Dolly observes that children's books about where babies come from do not equivocate about the issue the way many in the pro-choice and pro-ESCR movements do. Read the post: "When Did I Begin?"

From the media:

Scientific American has the story on a new microscope that can observe an embryo from the single-cell stage to the point at which the heartbeat begins. The observations were performed on zebrafish embryos. (Hey, I used to have those in my aquarium!) As amazing as videos of a developing human embryo would be, I profoundly hope they do not perform the necessary indignity (and inevitable subsequent killing) on a human embryo.

No sooner did I post about the blog The Deeps of Time than it introduced me to a concept brand-new to me: the Universal Genome. In a nutshell, UG proposes that all animals have a large, and largely shared, genome; the differences between animal species result from different genes being expressed. Click here for a good explanation of the model, which appeared in a paper in the journal Cell Cycle in 2007.

Unlike evolution, UG really does hypothesize that complexity arose all at once — as if a Boeing 767 had appeared fully formed from a junk yard. In the case of UG, the 767 is the genome, not the phenotype (appearance). A better metaphor would be that the genome is a yard full of every kind of mechanical part one could want, and in each species only certain parts are used.

Clearly, UG fits in very well with Intelligent Design and very poorly with the theory of evolution.

Immediately two problems with this hypothesis jump out at me:

1. Life on earth does not consist solely of animals. I don't believe these genomic observations are found in other kingdoms, such as plants, nor in other domains, such as Bacteria and Archaea. Plant genomes are quite different from animal genomes in terms of what they can contain; for example, unlike animals, plants can easily accommodate many copies of large amounts of the genome, as in polyploidy (multiple copies of chromosomes). Universal genome is not a universal hypothesis if it applies only to animals, meaning some other hypothesis is necessary for other kingdoms of life.

2. Convergent evolution can explain at least some of the observations attributed to UG. For example, the paper notes that cubozoans (box jellies) have eyes that are genetically similar to the eyes of chordates, even though the last common ancestor of cubozoans and chordates did not have eyes. If this observation is true, an alternate explanation is that the eye evolved independently in both lineages from the same genes, genes that happened to be the best suited to the changes that could result in eye genes.

The observations cited in the paper in Cell Cycle hardly require the construction of a brand new theory of dubious scientific value to explain them. Good science would require searching for explanations among existing biological models first.

It has come to my attention that Leave the lights on is not unique. I have discovered another blog on "Science and Catholic faith": The Deeps of Time.

TDOT is a bulletin-style blog, which is something lacking here on LTLO. My approach here is to write articles and essays; TDOT keeps its readers up-to-date on science issues for Catholics, with recent posts on a new source for adult stem cells (wisdom teeth) and Pope Benedict XVI's prayer intention for August (awareness of God's Creation).

Interestingly, TDOT uses an opposite sort of metaphor for its title. But it's worth noting that it also uses "illumination" imagery in its banner logo. My banner shows a light shining down, while TDOT's banner shows a brilliant sunny day lighting up a cathedral.

Be sure to visit TDOT and consider subscribing.