Now it's CSI

Tonight it was CSI's turn to provide America with its dose of bad theology and socially Leftist propaganda.

The plot involved a group with the obviously absurd conviction that life begins at conception. Catherine Eddowes pointed out to the head of the group (a charlatan who posed as a doctor, though she had no medical degree) that throughout a major part of its history the Western church (including at least one pope) held that life began when the mother felt the movement of the fetus (aka "quickening"). Her ignorant antagonist responded that this was merely "her opinion."

Which Catherine, of course, immediately establishes is not the case. Which, of course, it is not. Neither does it reflect the application of Scripture or Christian theology to a modern, scientific understanding of what actually happens at conception- an understanding Eddowes, of course, avoids discussing.

Later, Grissom gets in his licks, suggesting that dating life no earlier than the appearance of blood would be a theological position "difficult to refute," on the basis of Leviticus 17:11 (just what is this fascination which socially Leftist TV writers have with the Pentateuch as the be-all and end-all of the Bible, anyway?).

That cell division (and thus life) begins- as a matter of biological fact- at conception, and that the life in question is of the species homo sapiens (and thus, human life) was not mentioned. No room for science on CSI; just socially liberal propaganda.

When it comes to theology, Jeremiah 1:5, for example, is never mentioned. That a human life has been begun when sperm and egg unite and cell division begins, and that God's intention that the process of genetic expression begun at conception as expressed simply in the initiation of that process, is a matter utterly ignored. The necessity of ruling certain biologically living members of our species effectively out of the species if "significant" human life is held to begin other than at conception is never mentioned.

In other words, the real issues- exegetical, theological, ethical and philosophical- involved in the issue were- as usual for network TV- avoided (and probably not even comprehended), in favor of cheap shots in support of a position manufactured from isolated biblical passages yanked out of context to make what the writers imagined to be a coherent biblical argument.

Sad. Protected by the First Amendment, of course- but one more example of the role of network TV as a propaganda mouthpiece for the cultural Left- seeking, despite what is claimed, to create cultural attitudes rather than reflect them.

And relying on popular ignorance of the actual arguments in order to pull it off.