{"id":267798,"date":"2010-02-02T17:15:00","date_gmt":"2010-02-02T22:15:00","guid":{"rendered":"tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18884161.post-1978751643027512067"},"modified":"2010-02-02T17:25:06","modified_gmt":"2010-02-02T22:25:06","slug":"both-creationists-and-greenpeace-base-decisions-about-gmos-on-beliefs-not-skeptical-examination-of-evidence","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/mereja.media\/index\/267798","title":{"rendered":"Both Creationists and Greenpeace base decisions about GMOs on beliefs, not skeptical examination of evidence"},"content":{"rendered":"

Recent Pundit posts have covered claims by Gilles-Eric Séralini<\/a> and coworkers who went searching among hundreds of observations for a few  that fit with their own preconceptions. This work started as a Greenpeace funded analysis of earlier GM food safety assessments. American creationists are now describing this approach as "dispassionate", and they are lauding published results because fit with their creationist convictions.<\/p>\n

The Pundit sees a common theme of a search for justification of what is already believed, rather than careful checking of tentative new conjectures to see if they are false. In the latest Séralini paper referred to in the article below <\/p>\n

( Spiroux de Vendomois J, Roullier F, Cellier D and Séralini G-E, A Comparison of the Effects of Three GM Corn Varieties on Mammalian Health.Int J Biol Sci2009;5(7):706-726) there is active avoidance of  EFSA reports that show the Séralini approach<\/a> yields false results.<\/p>\n

A warning flag on such questionable claims is use of adjectives such as "dispassionate" and "independent" in press releases and news articles to imply greater credibility for a favoured spokes-person. Its much sounder science to let the evidence and logic speak for itself: in the de Vendomois paper it says false discovery is a real problem here.<\/p>\n

CREATIONISM EXAMINER <\/p>\n

GMO debate explodes in American media<\/a> <\/p>\n

Terry Hurlbut <\/p>\n

25.1.10 <\/p>\n

\n

The debate on whether genetically modified organisms (GMOs) are fit for human consumption exploded over the weekend, with multiple reports appearing in the popular press quoting some of the first "dispassionate" studies suggesting that GMOs are in fact dangerous. But what very few commentators realize is that the debate, such as it is, is confined only to those who believe in materialistic evolution. No creationist would have approved of any of the GMO projects under discussion. <\/p>\n

The most important, if not the sole, purveyor of GMO foodstuffs is a company called Monsanto. Late last year, four French scientists released this paper describing their study of three Monsanto GM corn strains. They fed corn from these strains to rats, and found clear signs that their livers and kidneys, and perhaps also their hearts, adrenal glands, spleens, and bone marrow were noticeably injured from repeated feedings. This should have surprised no one. As the French paper reveals, one of the strains is designed to be hardy enough to grow in a field sprayed with a weed killer (and would therefore be likely to contain residual amounts of that weed killer), while the other two are designed to make their own insecticide. This is what Monsanto, Inc. proposes that human beings eat–though one account alleges that at least some of Monsanto’s own employees refuse to eat their own products. <\/p>\n

The French study did not receive much circulation at first, perhaps because Europeans have never felt comfortable with GM foods, and this study would have told them nothing that they did not already suspect. The American situation is quite different. Until now, the loudest opposition to GM foods has come from movements best described as neo-Luddite in character, with a rare contribution from alternative-medicine advocates who are, sadly, obscure. But last Saturday evening, an article appeared in Discovery News citing the French study and an independent review of it. And today this article appeared in The Record-Bee (Lake County, California) advising readers to raise their voices at a County Supervisors’ meeting scheduled for this evening, and insist on a ban of GM foods from that county. <\/p>\n

Controversies like this happen only because too many people have accepted a totally materialistic view of the origins of life. Under that view, humans and the foods they eat have their particular form by accident. From that mindset follows another: that the foods that humans eat have room for improvement in their basic make-up, and that man is smart enough to do the improving. <\/p>\n

Not all materialists think this way. Joseph R. Mercola, for example, believes that one does not tinker with a food chain that has stood the test of (deep) time. He recommends foods "grown" or raised in conditions as close to "wild" as possible–not because he’s an instinctive machine-breaker, like the legendary Ned Ludd, but because he believes that mankind simply did not "evolve" to process farm-raised foods (especially cereal grains, which he never eats) properly, and no one should be arrogant enough to believe that he can improve on eons of "evolution." <\/p>\n

Creation-oriented diet advisers, like Jordan Rubin (The Maker’s Diet) and George Malkmus (The Hallelujah Diet), are not afraid of agriculture, but neither would they tolerate GM foods. They point out that many of the problems that GM foods are intended to solve, are the result of thoroughly unsound (and unbiblical) farming practices, like growing one single crop year after year, instead of rotating crops and even allowing land to lie fallow once every seven years, to regain its strength. They also point out another obvious consideration: when God made both man and his food, He made them perfectly suitable for one another, and any attempt to improve on either design would fall short of Divine perfection. In other words, one does not tinker with the Work of the Master.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Recent Pundit posts have covered claims by Gilles-Eric Séralini and coworkers who went searching among hundreds of observations for a few  that fit with their own preconceptions. This work started as a Greenpeace funded analysis of earlier GM food safety assessments. American creationists are now describing this approach as "dispassionate", and they are lauding published […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":710,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[7],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-267798","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-news"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/mereja.media\/index\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/267798","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/mereja.media\/index\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/mereja.media\/index\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/mereja.media\/index\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/710"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/mereja.media\/index\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=267798"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/mereja.media\/index\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/267798\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/mereja.media\/index\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=267798"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/mereja.media\/index\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=267798"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/mereja.media\/index\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=267798"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}