NYT able to reveal that science confirms that human life does not begin at conception

A hat tip to the CFI forum for bringing a New York Times story about New York's new Roman Catholic archbishop to my attention.

I was dumbfounded by the following statement from the story:

He did not refer to it, but there is conflict between Catholic dogma and scientific conventions on several fronts, including the medical definition of brain death, the legal definition of the beginning of human life and the ethics of embryonic stem cell research.

Apparently the graph was supposed to invoke our trust in science in opposition to Roman Catholic doctrines.

Though that may work with some, the statement actually just makes the writer and editor look stupid.

Science agrees with Roman Catholic doctrine regarding the beginning of human life, and both probably conflict with the legal definition. The legal definition, when it comes down to it, will be an ethical construct, and science does not inform us regarding ethics or morality except with respect to descriptive norms. That is, it can tell us what people regard as moral but not whether or not their beliefs about morality are correct.

The same goes for the ethics of embryonic stem cell research. The ethics of stem cell research do not stem from science.

Now, the brain-death issue I wasn't sure about at first. I hadn't read about the Vatican's stance on that one. But upon looking into it, it seems that the Roman Catholic concern conflicts not at all with science but simply takes note of potential ethical dilemmas such as the harvesting of organs from living bodies that have experienced brain death.

Perhaps there is some critical distinction between science per se and "scientific convention" where the latter simply represents the behavior of scientists.

Performing dangerous experiments on living human beings, for example, is not forbidden by science. Science could learn quite a bit from human experimentation, as a matter of fact. And it has been done in the past, thus representiing "scientific convention" at certain times and locations, at least.

But why belabor the point? The Times was simply stupid to allow such ignorance to go to print.