When Ideology Trumps Science

Those open to the idea of intelligent design are often charged with allowing ideology to get in the way of science.  On the other hand, opponents of intelligent design claim that their only concern is the purity of science, and that they are immune to allowing their ideology to get in the way of science.  What happens when a leading ID critic's ideology is at odds with clear scientific data?  Lets find out.

In this post by the acerbic professor PZ Myers, he begins by using his apt teaching skills to review the process of neurulation, which is a very important step of human development.  Like many complex developmental processes, if it goes wrong there are significant pathological sequela that result.  After describing this process in detail, and explaining some of these pathologies, he states:

I can't imagine a clearer case to illustrate that humanity involves more than just the fusion of two gametes. We aren't defined by our complement of genes or a single instant of genetic combination, but are the result of many genetic and epigenetic processes working progressively through embryogenesis to assemble a functioning human being. When moral absolutists try to apply simple-minded, black-and-white reasoning to a complex situation (and defining a human being is certainly a complex problem), you get criminal travesties like this one: (my emphasis)

It is certainly true that the developmental process of a human being (or any organism) is complex, but is it true that "defining a human being" is a complex scientific problem?  From a completely scientific view, it is not.  It is a biologic certainty that the life of an individual organism of the species homo sapiens begins at fertilization (see JivinJ's embryology quotes of the week).  The complexity of an organism's development says nothing about ontological status of the organism that is undergoing the process.  In other words, even when things go wrong, the organism in question is undeniably an organism, is human, and is alive.  These are the necessary conditions for a living human being.

Myers wants to add another necessary condition to the "definition" of what a human being is, namely that an organism is not a human being until after its neural tube is closed.  Is this a scientifically valid statement, or simply an attempt to justify his ideology?  It is very easy to illustrate that it is the latter.

This is a patient who is undergoing fetal surgery to repair a neural tube defect, in this case spina bifida.  According to Myers' view, this hand does not belong to a human being, until after the repair of the myelomenigocele is complete.  I'm all for glorifying the work of a surgeon, but it is absurd to conclude that this repair is what created a human being.  The owner of this hand was a human being before (albeit with a significant pathological condition) and remains one after.  This does not change, and is completely consistent with our scientific knowledge.

Science can only get us so far.  Although science can tell us what a human being is, it cannot tell how we should treat other human beings.  It is here where Myers' ideology is revealed.  He seems to want to claim that an individual living organism of our species has value when they become "a functioning human being" (a term eerily similar to that used in this excellent presentation.)  He also mentions spina bifida, and his solution to that problem also involves surgical intervention, but with very different results:

What if the fetus was diagnosed with 'merely' a case of myelomeningocele that meant it would be paralyzed, require extensive surgeries, and would be a crippling financial burden? The average cost per year of maintaining a child with myelomeningocele is approximately $70,000, and that drain never ends. People with severe spina bifida can be intellectually and socially capable, fully human, but a young family with limited resources ought to have the privilege of making a choice about whether to shoulder the responsibility before the fetus has acquired those mental capacities.

People with severe spina bifida "can be" fully human?  What does that mean?  Human beings with disablities are human beings, not some other entity.  At what point do we become "functioning human beings" in his view?  Is it when we earn advanced degrees?  What form of test is necessary to show that we belong to "humanity"?

Myers is entitled to his ideological view that human beings are not valuable until they attain the ability to function in a certain way.  He can assert his view that humans should be considered instrumentally (and not intrinsically) valuable, and should be thrown away and discarded when they don't "work right".  He just can't attempt to change the scientific definition of a human being to do so.  It is a shame when someone lets his ideological views to get in the way of science.