Genetic Engineering: Taking Evolution Into Our Own Hands: Guest Post by OldJohnJ

T"here were long stretches of DNA in between genes that didn't seem to be doing very much; some even referred to these as "junk DNA," though a certain amount of hubris was required for anyone to call any part of the genome "junk," given our level of ignorance.” 
― Francis S. Collins, The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief link

http://www.publicdomainpictures.net/view-image.php?image=31530&picture=structure-of-dna
Structure of DNA

Once again, our good friend, OldJohnJ (his preferred moniker)He is now retired, received a Ph.D. in experimental physics from Duke in 1967 and made computer science his career. He has written a number of well received and much discussed posts on creationism for TWW. Some of them hold the title of some of the most discussed posts at TWW. 

This post is NOT about creationism. It is about genomics and the coming clash of ethical issues. Everything is now in place to begin human genome engineering. If you have difficulty working through the carefully spelled out history and methods surrounding, head to the end of the post.He asks one question that totally blew me away! See if you can guess which one!

Thank you, OldJohnJ J. I am glad you found us.

Also please continue discussing the Dones posts and the Elevation Church post. We are beginning to collect the data and will be writing posts based on your comments is a few week. 


Genomics: A coming collision between faith and technology

This post is a brief presentation on the present state of genomics, genetic engineering and possible implications of this science and technology for the relatively short term, few decades, future. I am a genomics outsider, a retired physicist who made a career in computer science, not a biologist. However, my background enables me to form a reasonable overview of the science of genomics and how the technology based on it may develop.

There is a vast gap between understanding some of the basics and implications of a science and how to actually do the science. Science is the understanding of physical processes. Technology or engineering is the exploiting of science to achieve various goals. These are not two separate endeavors but are intrinsically coupled and progress together. We assuredly have a spiritual component but our bodies are part of the physical world and subject to its laws.

This is not a tutorial on genomics and genetic engineering although a few high points will be mentioned. I hope to make a case that there will be a collision between this very rapidly developing technology and our Christian faith. Contributions from specialists in this field are particularly welcome. Molecular biology is an often used synonym for genomics.

Genomics is the study of DNA

Simply, genomics is the study of the DNA that is contained in the nucleus of each cell of any single or multicell organism. Genetic engineering is the modification of a cells DNA for the purpose of therapy or enhancement of the organism. If the genetically modified cell is an embryo for a multicell organism, the germ line, the genome passed on to an offspring, will retain the change. In the case of single cell organisms genetic engineering is now a pathway to the production of many kinds of medicine.

Genomics started with the elucidation of the double helix structure of DNA by James Watson and Francis Crick published in 1953 in the journal NATURE. ( ed. note: Nature is considered one of the finest of scientific journals.) This paper is brief, insightful, easily readable and available at: 

http://dwb4.unl.edu/Chem/CHEM869N/CHEM869NLinks/biocrs.biomed.brown.edu/Books/Chapters/Ch208/DH-Paper.html 

Its significance was recognized early and lead to the awarding of the 1962 Nobel Prize in Physiology to its authors. DNA is encoded as a long series of pairs of four particular chemicals, bases, identified by the letters C, A, G and T. These base pairs form the linkages between the double helix backbone of the DNA. An adequate description of DNA is simply made with a long text string of these four characters.

What do genes/DNA do?

Genes are the instructions to cellular functions on how to construct proteins, the primary building blocks and controllers of biological function. In addition to genes, DNA also includes sequences that control when particular genes should be expressed (proteins made). The web page

http://users.rcn.com/jkimball.ma.ultranet/BiologyPages/G/GenomeSizes.html

contains a table of genome sizes and the number of genes encoded for many different organisms. The genome sizes table indicates the total number of these four chemicals in the "Base pairs" column. The number of genes identified in each organisms DNA is also given.

What is recombinant DNA?

A process of inserting a gene from one organism into the DNA of a different one is called recombinant DNA. Human insulin production is one of many substances made possible by this technology and has greatly benefited insulin dependent diabetics of which I am one. The 1980 Nobel Prize in Chemistry was shared by Paul Berg for his contributions to recombinant DNA and by Frederick Sanger and Walter Gilbert for DNA sequencing contributions.

Human genetic engineering: Where ethical issues and science collide

In what follows I will be discussing human genetic engineering. However, I do recognize that the initial applications are now and will continue to be towards agriculture and other non direct human uses. Under the label GMO (Genetically Modified Organism) such practices are currently considered questionable by many.

Participants in the early phases of DNA research and modification of various organisms DNA recognized potential ethical problems in this field. This awareness lead to the 1975 Asimolar Conference on Recombinant DNA which was organized by previously mentioned Paul Berg. By publicly recognizing possible dangers and agreeing to limit or ban the most dangerous ones the participants hoped to forestall onerous governmental regulations.

Christianity Today in its February 1986 issue ran an article "Genetic Engineering: Promise & Threat" by Dennis Chamberland. The article begins:

"Can we find a firm approach to the powerful new science that tampers with life's smallest components?

SOMETIMES UNEASY ALLIES, both science and religion seek to improve the lot of mankind. Nevertheless, their conflicting values have often forced them into a showdown.

Now the social and ethical stakes are as high as they have ever been. With even the slightest advances in genetic engineering, such afflictions as cancer, viral diseases, and even certain aspects of the aging process may become curses of the past. Science is carefully unraveling DNA'S double helix, probing and mapping the stuff of life. Yet genetic engineering's place in society and its boundaries are ill defined. And the religious community has yet to establish a firm equilibrium with the new, powerful science that has dared to tamper with life's smallest material components. 

The genetic engineering debate may well be irreconcilable at the most elemental levels of logic as scientists and moral theologians address each other from different dimensions. But one thing is certain: The ultimate outcome will determine the future shape of humanity."

Significant advancements in genomics since the CT article from 30 years ago

The scientific achievements in genomics have been vastly expanded in the almost 30 years since this CT publication. While the article was published, the CT cover art for the issue and lead for the article was a depiction of a giant Tower of Babel being constructed in the form of a DNA double helix, in my opinion a rather unsubtle negative editorial commentary on the issues raised by Chamberland. Sadly, this issue of CT is not in their archives.

 2001: The complete mapping of the human genome

A very significant milestone in genomics was realized in 2001 when the complete human genome was independently sequenced by two different groups that simultaneously published accounts of their achievements in parallel issues of two of the most prestigious scientific journals. The J. Craig Ventner group effort was described in a topical issue of SCIENCE, the 16 February 2001 issue. The Francis Collins lead NIH group was given comparable coverage in the corresponding 15 February 2001 issue of NATURE. Starting from these efforts the human genome is now known to contain approximately 21,000 genes in the roughly 3,300,000,000 base pairs included in its 23 chromosomes. Since a DNA description can be stored as a computer representation, the ability to create or write a segment of DNA from its digital representation is also needed and available.

As an aside, it takes two bits of information to specify which of the four possible bases is at each position in a genome. Thus one of the paired chromosome copies (haploid) of the human genome can be described in 2*3,300,000,000/8 = 825 MBytes, approximately the information content of an audio CD. That is, every cell in our bodies has pretty much the equivalent of two CDs worth of data in its diploid nucleus.

The initial sequencing efforts for a single human genome were in the $100 million range. A web page maintained by the NIH

http://www.genome.gov/sequencingcosts/

indicates this cost has dropped to about $5000. Further substantial reduction can be anticipated. An additional factor of 10 reduction should be enough to start wide spread use of full human genome sequencing.

What does a particular gene do in an organism, particularly humans.

An obvious question is what does a particular gene do in an organism. With simpler than human or other large mammals, mice are popular for this, a technique called knock-out, the disabling of a particular gene, and studying the effect of the knock-out on the mature organism provides answers. Such techniques are not used on the human genome for obvious ethical reasons. Additionally, the development time of an individual is far too long to make the knock-out approach useful.

What can be done and in fact is starting to be done with the human genome is a technique called Genome Wide Association Studies, GWAS, where entire genomes are correlated with some particular trait. An early study of this kind is described in PERSPECTIVES: Herit-Ability, Jonathan Flint & Marcus Munafo, SCIENCE 21 Jun 2013, Vol 340, pp 1416-1417

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/340/6139/1416.

This summary references the actual study published in the same issue. From the PERSPECTIVE summary:

"A genome-wide association study reveals possible variants that influence the complex behavior of educational attainment." This study uses Single Nucleotide Polymorphisms, SNPs, as a substitute for full genome sequencing.  Educational attainment is a weak surrogate for intelligence. IQ is a polygenic, depends on many genes, trait. The study shows individual gene differences make a very small contributions to educational attainment. (The full article concludes with) "So is this, by the backdoor, the first successful study of the genetics of IQ?"

Full genome sequencing leads to consumer based information

The rapidly approaching era of widespread full genome sequencing and extensive medical record and personal data bases will make GWAS increasingly and usefully powerful for determining which genes influence particular traits and will also characterize the contribution of variants of each gene to the strength of the trait. Consumer genetic analysis organizations now providing primarily genealogical information hold large numbers of identified DNA samples and likely will be among the first to offer whole genome sequencing services to the public although acceptance will be very cost sensitive. I suspect informed consent on the use of such data will be a casualty.

One problem to over come: the point of insertion or deletion on the gene.

For genetic engineering to become a readily used technique one necessary function has not been described, a precise and easy to use means of locating the point of deletion, insertion or change to be made in a genome. Precise means essentially zero probability of performing the edit at a point in the genome other than the intended one. Easy, of course, is on the scale of difficulty that characterizes molecular biology procedures.

In 2012 a breakthrough was published describing the CRISPR-cas9 technique for genome editing. CRISPR-cas9 starts with an acronym Clustered Regularly InterSpaced Palindromic Repeats (Ed. note:Dee had to read that 5 times)  that describes the target point in the genome for the cut. The -cas9 suffix refers to a particular CRISPR associated protein that performs the genome cutting. Existing Double Strand Break repair mechanisms in the cell are used to complete the editing.

A review article, "The new frontier of genome engineering with CRISPR-Cas9" , Jennifer A. Doudna & Emmanuelle Charpentier, describing this technique was published in SCIENCE 28 Nov 2014, Vol 346, p 1077. A non paywalled  extended abstract can be viewed online at

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/346/6213/1258096.abstract?sid=8d08e5cc-c724-4002-9290-817ad6a1fe96 

The paywalled full review can be downloaded in the form of a pdf document. This review is for molecular biologists and is not intended as an introduction to the subject for those outside the field. Doudna and Charpentier are two of the six authors of the 2012 SCIENCE breakthrough paper.

The technology for gene editing is now in place.

All the needed technologies for genome editing are now in place at the level of editing or replacing existing genes in a genome, not adding additional ones. Both embryonic and therapeutic genetic engineering are imminent. Since embryonic genetic engineering is conceptually easier and the modified genome is passed onto subsequent generations it is the focus of much research. Therapeutic applications are considerably more complicated because of the difficulties of locating and accessing stem cells in a particular organ. The blog article

http://leahcanscience.com/2014/08/21/crispr-gene-therapy-cures-liver-disease/ 

describes cure of a hereditary genetic liver disease in mice using the CRISPR-cas9 system. This very clear explanation includes a link to the original NATURE paper. It also points out why this particular cure is a picking low hanging fruit type of experiment.

A plausible approach to mammalian embryonic genetic engineering

A plausible approach to mammalian embryonic genetic engineering can be outlined:

(1) The harvesting of eggs and sperm from the biological parents.
(2) In vitro fertilization of one or more eggs.
(3) At the greater than two cell stage of embryonic development sequence the DNA from a single cell.
(4a) Make a decision on the genetic viability or suitability of the embryo. Discard it if the tests are unsatisfactory.
Or
(4b) Use genetic engineering methods to suitably modify one of the remaining cells.
(5) Implant the remaining or modified embryonic cells in the gestation mother.

The no longer theoretical ethics of genetic engineering

All of these steps are routinely done on laboratory animals. All but (4b) are done on human embryos. In (4a) discarding an undesirable but otherwise viable human embryo is essentially an abortion.

The ethical and  moral implications of these kinds of genetic engineering are no longer theoretical as the first formal published article on human embryonic genetic engineering has been reported: "Embryo engineering study splits scientific community", Jocelyn Kaiser, Dennis Normile, SCIENCE  1 May 2015:  Vol. 348 no. 6234 pp. 486-487,

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/348/6234/486 

The article abstract is:

"On 18 April, a Chinese team published the first-ever report on genetically altered human embryos. It ignited a firestorm of controversy and exposed a rift in the scientific community. Researchers at Sun Yat-sen University in Guangzhou reported how they attempted to use the CRISPR-Cas9 system, a new gene-editing technology, to modify the gene that causes the blood disorder beta thalassemia in abnormal human embryos rejected for in vitro fertilization use. They had minimal success altering the gene and said the technique is not yet ready for clinical use. Although approved by an ethics review board, the research set off alarms. Scientists agree there should be a moratorium on clinical use of genome editing at present. But some also want a moratorium on fundamental experiments; others are equally adamant that basic research using human embryos is scientifically and ethically justifiable." (summary)

The scientific world reacts to the ethics of modifying embryos.

The embryos modified were chosen from in vitro fertilized ones that were non viable and not intended to be implanted. NATURE and SCIENCE refused to publish the paper citing the experiment as unacceptable. Francis Collins writing as Director of the NIH in

http://www.nih.gov/about/director/04292015_statement_gene_editing_technologies.htm

indicates such experiments are unacceptable and that the NIH will not fund them.  As the referenced SCIENCE article indicates, not all scientists in this field agree that this form of research is unacceptable. The controversial human embryo genetic engineering paper is summarized in a easily understood fashion in

http://leahcanscience.com/2015/05/13/crispr-used-in-human-embryos/ 

that also contains a reference to the original journal article.

From SCIENCE an article "Embryo engineering alarm", Gretchen Vogel, 20 March 2015: Vol. 347 no. 6228 p. 1301

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/347/6228/1301

"Asilomar. The word conjures up not only stunning California coastline but also vexing questions posed by new, potentially world-changing technologies. In 1975, the Asilomar conference center hosted a meeting where biologists crafted guidelines for research that altered the DNA of living organisms. Now scientists are calling for another Asilomar¡ªthis time to discuss the possibility of genetically engineered human beings. In 1975, the notion of using recombinant DNA to design human babies was too remote to seriously consider, but the explosion of powerful new genome-editing technologies such as CRISPR-Cas9, zinc fingers, and TALENs has changed that.

They have made it easy for anyone with basic molecular biology training to insert, remove, and edit genes in cells, including sperm, eggs, and embryos, potentially curing genetic diseases or adding desirable traits.

Rumors are rife that scientists in China have already used CRISPR on human embryos. Researchers fear that publicity surrounding such experiments could trigger a public backlash that would block legitimate uses of the technology. In two commentaries, one published online in Science on 19 March 2015 (referenced above) and one in NATURE on 12 March, two groups of scientists recommend what steps the scientific community could take to ensure the technology would be used safely and ethically." (summary)

This article is based on an online version of  "A prudent path forward for genomic engineering and germline gene modification"

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/348/6230/36

(summary), 14 authors, SCIENCE 3 April 2015:  Vol. 348 no. 6230 pp. 36-38

and is a call for an Asilomar II conference to define an acceptable uses of genetic engineering by a group of accomplished researchers in the molecular biology field. It's apparent that these authors were aware of the human embryo genetic modifications mentioned in the Kaiser & Normile article above which provided urgency to their call for a conference.

All the needed technologies to allow for genetic engineering now exist by even modestly equipped labs.

We have seen stunning progress in molecular biology during the past 30 years. At present all the needed techniques to allow genetic engineering in embryos, human included, exist. Furthermore, these techniques are within the competency of modestly equipped laboratories. Some of the required techniques and materials are now available from commercial suppliers. All these techniques will continue to be extended, refined and improved. The leaders of the molecular biology field recognize potential ethical problems posed by their research and are taking steps to voluntarily limit the application of these techniques. However, these limitations will only be effective in regimes with well established regulatory practices.

An obvious question then is what input can or should the Christian community make in this debate? (OldJohnJ is hoping for discussion of the following)

I strongly feel that one area where the Christian community can make a difference is the definition of when human life begins. What follows are my reasons and opinions and I hope they will stimulate some deep discussions. A fertilized egg contains a unique genome. Thus a new, biologically independent life starts at conception. After a few cell divisions the normal progress is the implantation of the embryo in the uterine wall triggering the development of the placenta. Since the embryo is an biologically unique organism the placenta mechanism exists to prevent the mother's natural immune responses from rejecting the embryo.

The arbitrary decision between life and nonlife.

From this point a normal pregnancy results which ends with the birth of the infant. A critical observation is that it takes nine months of continuous development of the infant to get to this stage. There is no defensible point in its prebirth development that an unambiguous decision between life and non life can be made. Any such decision is completely arbitrary. Change the decision point time by a week in either direction and what is different? In fact the newly born infant is no less dependent on care than the not yet born one. The only difference birth makes is that the number of individuals that can care for the infant increases.

Existing practice of in vitro fertilization and conception, primarily used as a medical means of achieving pregnancy, explicitly recognizes conception as the beginning of life. Unimplanted embryos can be and are stored indefinitely by being frozen and examples of legal custody battles over which of the parents own the embryos are not uncommon. Preimplantation genetic diagnosis will be added to this procedure and further increase the pressure for discarding, unsuitable for what ever reason, embryos.

Potential personhood vs preperson state

The increasing use of the term pre-embryo, a fertilized egg before implantation, is a subtle way of making a distinction between potential personhood and a preperson state. Implicit in the term pre-embryo is the concept that it is not yet human unlike the implanted embryo. Clearly, accepting that life begins at conception, not some arbitrary later time, makes the ethical decisions about embryonic genetic engineering much clearer and more demanding.

Sadly, the definition of life as beginning at conception is at variance with the increasingly permissive practice of abortion. May 13, 2015 the House passed bill generally banning late term abortions defined as after the 20th week of pregnancy but containing some limited exceptions

http://www.cnn.com/2015/05/13/politics/house-gop-abortion-20-weeks/

pretty much along party lines. Some Democrats called the bill extreme. Given the realities of our present politics this bill is extremely unlikely to become law. Twenty weeks is over half way through a normal pregnancy!

Authorized use of human embryonic testing is still in the future.

Widespread authorized use of human embryonic genetic engineering is still well into the future. The techniques will have to be shown free of unintended or undesirable side effects. The US FDA seems quite conservative about approving new treatments of any kind and any form of human genetic engineering is a radical step. The opening salvos in the patent war over ownership of CRISPR techniques have been fired. Legal complications may slow initial applications of genetic engineering. Ownership of particular gene variants likely will also prove contentious.

Eugenics, the super race, and the elimination of disease

Are the old ideas surrounding eugenics, perfectibility of the human race, creating a super race or completely eliminating disease more defensible when editing an embryo than making such decisions after birth? Eugenics was the chief concern in the cited 1986 CT article by Dennis Chamberland. Is eugenics by embryonic genome evaluation or genome editing before implantation more acceptable or even conceptually different? Robert Pollack, Professor of Biological Sciences and Director of Center for the Study of Science and Religion at Columbia University in a letter to SCIENCE in response to the "A prudent path forward" article above, Eugenics lurk in the shadow of CRISPR (22 May 2015: Vol. 348 no. 6237 p. 871) concludes:

"Rational eugenics is still eugenics. The best in the world will not remove the pain from those born into a world of germ-line modification but who had not been given a costly investment in their gametes. They will emerge with the complexity of a genome different from what this technology will be able to define as 'normal.' I do not think anything short of a complete and total ban on human germline modification will do, to prevent this powerful force for rational medicine¡ªone patient at a time¡ªfrom becoming the beginning of the end of the simplest notion of each of us being 'endowed by our Creator with certain inalienable rights'"

As a conclusion here are a few random thoughts/questions of mine about the very rapidly developing field of genetic engineering.

Implicit in the use of genetic engineering to alter human DNA, especially germline or embryonic DNA where the changes will be inherited, is the concept that we collectively are in charge of our own destiny and that there will no longer be a need for Godly intervention in the evolution process. Do we have the wisdom to do this effectively?

Twenty plus years after investing heavily in intellectual achievement genetic engineering for your in vitro conceived child he or she is a dropout from your local tech school, not the Harvard valedictorian. Who is liable?

How are our evangelical leaders who do not recognize the validity of scientific concepts such as evolution going to argue against supplementing evolution with genetic engineering? Failure to understand and accept the reality of this science and technology will severely impair making meaningful moral judgments about how to use it. We, the Christian church, appear to have let the first domino, abortion, topple. How are we going to stop the next one from following?

A fascinating question on submission!!!

A concept no longer completely in the domain of science fiction is a "vaccination" capable of giving specific personality traits. If the "vaccine" induced significant submissiveness in the recipients perhaps our current Calvinista CEO/Pastor/Minipopes often discussed here at TWW might actually welcome it. (Ed. question: What does submission mean in this context? Could receiving this injection be part of a membership contract?)

The genetic engineering genie is out of the bottle and it is not going to be put back.

Comments

Genetic Engineering: Taking Evolution Into Our Own Hands: Guest Post by OldJohnJ — 232 Comments

  1. Dee, thanks for posting this and the editing you have done, especially the section headings, helps immensely.

  2. Thanks, OldJohnJ. I’ll start with the easy question. Forget about getting China to self-regulate. They are going to do whatever they can to gain advantage, IMO. I would look there for the first application of the “submission vaccine” because they have a large population with built-in sociological time-bombs.

    I also think it is going to be difficult to resist the impulse to do whatever we can do, and there will be a plausible rationale for doing so. I know of some kids with severe genetic issues. Can we refuse to help them? If them, then why not the embryos who are conceived but afflicted? And then, why not fix the germline so that those parents’ rights to a healthy child can be protected?

    I’m sure a penumbra can be located somewhere to cover what people are going to want to do.

    I once had a physician advise me to not make a decision, which seemed like a good one, which would make another more difficult decision both necessary and inevitable. That was good advice.

  3. From the post:

    “The increasing use of the term pre-embryo, a fertilized egg before implantation, is a subtle way of making a distinction between potential personhood and a preperson state. Implicit in the term pre-embryo is the concept that it is not yet human unlike the implanted embryo. Clearly, accepting that life begins at conception, not some arbitrary later time, makes the ethical decisions about embryonic genetic engineering much clearer and more demanding.”

    The use of the term proembyro for the preimplantation conceptus is based on the fact that at that developmental state the conceptus includes both cells which will become an embryo and cells which will become the extraembryonic tissues of placenta and membranes. And at this stage it also retains the ability split resulting in multiple embryos (twins etc). To call the preimplantation conceptus an embryo therefore is to characterize the resulting placenta and membranes as embryo on the same level as the developing embryo itself, and would be to call twins the same person instead of two persons, if personhood began before the split. Obviously the extraembryonic tissues are not a person or part of a person. And twins are two people and not one person.

    I bring this up merely to point out that the use of the term proembryo has a basis in embryologic terminology and there are differences between a proembryo and an embryo.

    That said, of course, various arguments have been made concerning personhood which in my mind is a slightly different issue. Our society does not agree as to what a person actually is and the determination has been arbitrary and legal and subject to change, for instance regarding the legal status of married women and slaves. So far I have not seen science show us what a person is, and therefore the issue remains legal/political/religious. Neither am I aware of anything in scripture to date at what stage from zygote to birth a person becomes a person, but there is the statement that God knew (whoever it was–Jeremiah?) before he was born. So, it looks to me like there is religious evidence of personhood prior to birth without a specific developmental stage being specified. None of that is definitive to me as regards zygotes.

    For myself, I do have have any ethical questions about the technology itself in that I do not think that it is intrinsically evil. I do have a lot of distrust of humans, however, and I would bet that anything and everything including this could and would be misused for evil and dangerous purposes. Just like everything else.

  4. The questions of who is liable for failing to deliver the perfect “product” as ordered by the parents or other interested parties and who owns the IP might revive the legal industry. So there’s that. 🙂

  5. @ oldJohnJ:
    Thank you so much for writing these posts. I love science in all it’s beauty and depth, so it makes me sad when other christians marginalize and ridicule it.

  6. Okrapod wrote:

    And twins are two people and not one person.

    Yes, that is an interesting theological question, though as you said, the legal definition of a person is arbitrary and the rights of personhood are conferred at a specified and arbitrary point of development thanks to Justice Blackmun. Small “c” creationism or traducianism? I don’t know. Are humans material/immaterial or body/soul/spirit?

    I think that Christians will have as much impact on this ethical matter as they did with abortion on demand. As in most cases, the interests of the most powerful party will prevail, and the urgency of particular cases will make discussion of the consequences out of bounds.

  7. Gram3 wrote:

    I know of some kids with severe genetic issues. Can we refuse to help them? If them, then why not the embryos who are conceived but afflicted? And then, why not fix the germline so that those parents’ rights to a healthy child can be protected?

    I think therapeutic applications will be among the very first to be approved. However, the very difficult problem of targeting the stem cells for a particular organ will have to be solved. Such applications won’t result in germline changes so won’t be passed on to subsequent generations.

  8. If frozen embryos have equal status with a fully developed baby-then why isn’t the pro-life movement up in arms over the millions of “people” that have been frozen and literally been held back from living. It would be equal to imprisonment.

    What about every embryo that has been discarded or abandoned? Should the parents be held for murder & neglect?

    I bring it up, because I do share concerns about having ethical guidelines for genetic research and medicine-but I don’t understand how Christians can enter the discussion when they have black and white definitions that have huge blind spots (such as frozen embryos).

  9. @ oldJohnJ:
    Agreed, and that would be a great thing. I think of all the kids with cystic fibrosis or mitockids, for example, or mito kids or seizure disorders or Parkinson’s or a few of my own personal issues. How could we not want to alleviate their suffering?

    I don’t know where the logical line is when the notion of rights is vested in a person or group of persons rather than being ultimately held by the Creator and granted to the persons. It seems to me that is the issue.

    WRT to GMO foods, I’m also of mixed emotion. On the one hand, there are so many nutritionally deficient people who could benefit. OTOH, what are the unknown unknowns that might make matters much worse for others down the line?

  10. @ Okrapod:
    Thanks for the additional info on the pre/pro embryo state.

    Psalm 139:13 (NIV) “For you created my inmost being;  you knit me together in my mother’s womb.” is a verse that I think provides insight about when personhood starts.

  11. Apologies for the typo about the kids with mitochondrial disease. It is horrible, and it happens that these are the kids I hear about from physician family members.

  12. Corbin wrote:

    Thank you so much for writing these posts. I love science in all it’s beauty and depth, so it makes me sad when other christians marginalize and ridicule it.

    There’s another aspect to this. From St. Augustine ~400AD and paraphrased: When you speak nonsense about what I understand why should I listen to you about things I don’t understand.

  13. Corbin wrote:

    @ oldJohnJ:
    Thank you so much for writing these posts. I love science in all it’s beauty and depth, so it makes me sad when other christians marginalize and ridicule it.

    Great for you, Corbin! I have no idea why some Christians are afraid of scientific inquiry. If God created us, then it makes sense to me that it would please him for us to be curious about the things he has made and how he made them. God is not afraid of scientists.

  14. Twenty plus years after investing heavily in intellectual achievement genetic engineering for your in vitro conceived child he or she is a dropout from your local tech school, not the Harvard valedictorian. Who is liable?

    The Mom & Dad who had their Little Mini-Me Geneered to their specifications.

    As a Cold War Kid Genius who got the side effects BAD (and the damage is still there), I think I can speak for the Geneered Mini-Mes:

    * Often with High IQ comes personality/social retardation and even instability/neurosis. Nobody seems to ever realize there’s a KID connected to that IQ, a kid whose brain is racing ahead of all those around him to the point he’s living in Idiocracy, immersed in a herd of people who in comparison are borderline mentally retarded. Unable to grasp ideas and concepts that are trivial and obvious to you.
    * And if you seal yourself off with only those with IQ similar enough to be comprehensible, it’s too easy to think of yourself as a Master Race with all that implies. (Just instead of blond hair and blue eyes, it’s Higher & Higher IQs.)
    * I’ve heard it said that an IQ difference of 40-50 points is enough to become mutually incomprehensible. I believe it.
    * Think of the PRESSURE on the Kid to Achieve and Excel. Think of the EXPECTATIONS. At a minimum He IS Future Valedictorian at Harvard, he IS the uprated clone of Mozart who WILL finish Mozart’s Unfinished Requiem (actual plot of an SF story). And Mom & Dad paid Big Bucks to make sure he IS.
    * Wesley Crusher and Doogie Houser are the FANTASY of the Kid Genius. The reality is more like Dallas Egbert III.

    These Built-to-Order Enhanced Uberkids are going to need help. Not Intellectual help to excel, but emotional and social help to survive. I’d be surprised if the number-one cause of death among them ISN’T suicide.

    In my case, what kept me from cracking up was discovering community in various Fandoms. Where there were others like me but with other interests and passions than “Who Has The Highest IQ”. (That’s also why I avoid MENSA.)

  15. As for “Evangelical Leaders”, do you mean Douggie Phillips ESQUIRE, Penetrate/Colonize/Conquer/Plant Wilson, Polishing-the-Shaft Schaapf, Focus-on-the-Family Dobson, Furtick, Perry Noble, Pat Robertson, Flutterhands Piper, The HUMBLE One, Bee Jay Driscoll, Tony “the Bullhorn” Miano, Megachurch CELEBRITY Pastor/Apostle du jour?

    “Evangelical Leaders”/Righteous Nincompoops are too busy Fighting to the Death 24/7/365 with EVILUTION(TM) and HOMOSEXUALITY(TM). Always mobilizing for Culture War Without End, Amen.

  16. Gram3 wrote:

    Thanks, OldJohnJ. I’ll start with the easy question. Forget about getting China to self-regulate. They are going to do whatever they can to gain advantage, IMO. I would look there for the first application of the “submission vaccine” because they have a large population with built-in sociological time-bombs.

    It’s a much more reliable way of breeding Fully Domesticated Human Stock than the crude methods used by, say, North Korea.

  17. And for your next question:

    SF litfan for over 40 years. Been doing “recreational thinking” along these lines since Star Trek meant Jim-Spock-Bones. And genetic engineering “So We Can Make REAL Furries” is a staple of Furry Fandom since it split off into a separate fandom.

    If I wasn’t crazy-busy all the time, I’d be camped out on this thread like a no-life fanboy.

    P.S. Anyone in this massmind ever heard of the name “Cordwainer Smith”?

  18. A concept no longer completely in the domain of science fiction is a “vaccination” capable of giving specific personality traits. If the “vaccine” induced significant submissiveness in the recipients perhaps our current Calvinista CEO/Pastor/Minipopes often discussed here at TWW might actually welcome it.

    I’m not much of a fan of S.M.Stirling, but this sounds like his novel Drakon, end-stage of his “Domination of the Draka” series.

  19. Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

    I’m not much of a fan of S.M.Stirling, but this sounds like his novel Drakon, end-stage of his “Domination of the Draka” series.

    I thought of you when I wrote what you quoted. I have distant memories of a Sci Fi novel where the hero didn’t get the vaccine for some reason. It’s still Sci Fi but who knows how far genetic engineering will go.

  20. Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

    Not Intellectual help to excel, but emotional and social help to survive.

    Absolutely. There is far more to being a successful adult than just genes.

    While the “vaccine” seems to have intrigued a lot of you it is still in the realm of science fiction

  21. Oldjohn thank you and Dee for publishing this article. I try to understand science and biology. I use to be a literalist of Gen, YEC, literal Adam and Eve etc. But there is just so much evidence for the ToE from what I have read.

  22. Gram3 wrote:

    God is not afraid of scientists.

    Many seem to think so. If we really believe that the universe has a creator, then why should we think that new discoveries somehow negate or disapprove that? Are there 2 realities? One that God created but we’re somehow disconnected from, and another that we actually experience?

  23. @ Corbin:
    Actually, if there is a Creator, then what a particular scientist thinks is irrelevant from the Creator’s POV, IMO and speaking for the Creator. Hey, the guys can do it; so can I. Also, if there is a Creator, then any scientist who discovers anything and reasons through a problem is displaying the glory of the One who made him/her and his/her fine mind, whether the scientist acknowledges a Creator or not. So there is nothing to fear, IMO, from inquiry.

    Whether we should trust a particular scientist or particular dogma of science is another question, because I don’t believe in a science priesthood any more than I do a religious priesthood. Scientific ideologues have been a big problem just like other kinds of idealogues. But the enormous benefits of those with agile and curious minds cannot be overstated.

    A big problem for Christians and science, I think, is that the vast majority of people, like me, do not understand the sciences, and we fear what we do not understand and cannot control. How silly it is to think that a human can disprove God exists if God indeed exists! My Creator gave me curiosity without the Science Gene, and I hope that in the New Creation I will at last be able to explore *and* understand, and I am really looking forward to having some fun. Thankfully, I did not pass on that particular disability to my kids so they don’t have to look for a genetic remedy.

  24. oldJohnJ wrote:

    When you speak nonsense about what I understand why should I listen to you about things I don’t understand.

    A very applicable quote. On such a question of science and ethics the christian community will have a very hard time gaining credibility when so many have been busily pouring it down the drain.

  25. Here is a poem I wrote back in 1997 when Dolly, the first cloned sheep, was introduced to the world. (I was not a Christian then, I’d change the line about sin if writing anew now.) The issues of genetic engineering are similar to those I mentioned here. But for genetic engineering we should speak of Human Photoshopping.

    Human Xeroxing

    Moralists look at researchers across a supposedly impassable rift;
    Neither side seems to realize this is another Promethean gift.

    Let no man have any doubt –
    The knowledge is forever out.
    The question is what we will do
    In the world of Dolly – duplicated ewe.
    Some fear, and would make this a crime.
    Wisdom says, “It’s just a matter of time.
    “Someone will see a path to wealth,
    “And claim, no doubt, ’twas done for health,”
    There is no way to turn back the world’s clocks
    So we must prepare for an attempted human xerox.

    It is time for the fools we elect
    To reearn our lost respect;
    To guide the use of this invention,
    And show us the right of the questions.
    To clone a man, when is it right?
    And when is it abhorrent in our sight?
    We might get volunteer donors for a medical trial,
    But could the clones be said to have had a right of denial?
    Consent required – your genes your property –
    Or none needed – they belong to society?
    Would it make a difference if all humanity were sterile?
    So why not now, when some couples are infertile?
    If a cloned man dies intestate,
    Who gets what portions of the estate?
    If we can prove a clone committed a crime,
    But not which one, who does the time?
    When a clone reaches the age of maturity
    Is he free, or the payer’s property?

    So many queries I can’t really begin,
    In lack of good answers lies the real sin.
    So many ways to cause so much pain,
    But if done right, so much to gain.
    This genie can’t be stuffed back in the bottle,
    But we needn’t open wide the throttle.
    For more people the world has no pressing need,
    So lets get it right ere we create this new breed.

  26. oldJohnJ wrote:

    I’m guessing, a rhetorical question?

    No, and the answer to the your quoted one is also no.

    On the question of “do we have the wisdom” that is very interesting, my question was not rhetorical, but a guess. Thanks for clarifying.

    On the latter, I’m not sure of your response as it wasn’t a question. I’ll clarify, I’m an engineer by training and living in a university town. I feel I have less credibility as a Christian because I believe there is a perceived notion that many Christians have written off or devalue science. This is just my little corner of the world.

  27. A “submission vaccine”??? Hmmmmm … Calvinists prenups would require that the “weaker vessel” take a little ride to a veterinarian. Yeah, I’d rather catch rabies.
    How about our scientists put some thought into developing a special growth hormone so those boys can grow up and act like adults. Is that possible?

  28. Fascinating post. Great job bringing this level of depth to the topic…..

    I have a follow up prayer request to my work situation. There is a guy at work who is attempting to be “Frank Underwood.” He is manipulating the owner, bending facts to highlight his accomplishments, taking credit for others, blaming others for his faults, and overall creating a toxic work environment. Our company wasa fantastic place to work but this guys attitude and scheming in the last year has made it really frustrating. Today he was in a yelling match with another employee. Super uncomfortable. Please pray for something to change. He is really ruining the healthy environment we have had for years.

  29. Bill M wrote:

    I feel I have less credibility as a Christian because I believe there is a perceived notion that many Christians have written off or devalue science.

    Funny notion that Bill. I think it’s a very ‘new’ notion and part of our 21st century Zeitgeist. Two of the intellectual Titans of the Enlightenment who were scientists extraordinaire, Johannes Kepler and Isaac Newton, were also devout men of faith.

  30. Muff Potter wrote:

    Isaac Newton

    Interesting you should mention Newton. I’ve recall he has been devalued by some because of his interest in alchemy. Likely the issue is the common problem of dismissing someone because of their associated beliefs instead of understanding and engaging with them.

    Back to the subject at hand, I am concerned about what decisions will be made in genetic research and what type of controls are possible even if wise decisions are made on policy both in terms of too much or too little restriction.

    I’m not one who is concerned about the climate change hysteria, too much seems driven by political opportunism and funding skewed by money. But I see fears growing of genetic manipulation and it isn’t driven by politicians. We recently had a local initiative that would have outlawed almost all genetically modified crops. It was defeated likely because it was poorly crafted and would have cut off a lot of the university research. Also several of my former IT clients who did genetic research, and not just plant genetics, were extremely conscious of security due to vandalism from activists, local or otherwise.

    My generation, has been described as the generation without a future because of the scare of nuclear war in the 50s and 60s. I was at least one that wondered if I would get married, have a family, figuring there was a chance we wouldn’t make it. One of our neighbors in the 60’s built a bomb shelter. I don’t recall if I was ever part of one of the duck and cover drills but I certainly recall a mention of it in grade school.

    All the apocalyptic movies indicates more than a passing interest in genetic research. Hopefully more wise voices like OldJohn in the Christian community can speak out and set the tone before we hear from the Driscolls.

  31. I appreciate this post, but with Joni Eareckson Tada claiming less than 10 years ago that genetically modified lifeforms would be Nephilim (see How To Be Christian in a Brave New World) and the Discovery Institute’s rather joke approach to artificial intelligence, I just don’t think evangelicals really are in a position yet to know what a Christian bioethical vision should be. I’ve also seen a lot of posts in Charismatic circles where anti-genetic engineering sentiments are being tied to the idea that vaccinations will be used to insert the Mark of the Beast into unsuspecting Christians, permanently damning them. This is a popular enough belief that Wendy Alec, the founder of God TV and a prominent thinker in the New Apostolic Reformation, supports it in her Chronicle of Brothers series. Again, I mean absolutely no offense here, as I’m sure OldJohn J knows more about these matters than I do. On the whole point of the distinction between life and nonlife for various stages of embryonic development, OldJohn J is of course correct. Although, to be honest, from what my colleagues in Computer Science tell me, the whole distinction between a live me and a dead me is simply a different information pattern. There’s nothing inherently of more value in me, to nature, than there is in the keyboard I’m writing this on, or the desk that keyboard is placed on. They are just different information patterns, nothing more. I don’t see why I should value an embryo any less than an adult human being. But I also don’t see why I should value an adult human being more than a chair. Anyways, Dee and Deb, hope you are well, and OldJohn J, thanks for an excellent post.

  32. We take evolution “into our hands” all the time, simply by exercising sexual selection, i.e. choosing who to combine our DNA with. There’s no reason to regard genomics as qualitatively different from birth control or fertility treatment (and recall that some Christians once questioned whether test tube babies would be born without souls!). And if it can eliminate disease, or give your child some added advantage, surely it would be irresponsible to refuse–kind of like refusing to vaccinate your children. “The Christian community” (which is hardly a single bloc) lacks the moral authority to make these decisions, and those who have pronounced on them (notably the Vatican) are obviously making up their principles as they go. “Man was not meant to play God” is a bit hackneyed, isn’t it?

  33. Bill M wrote:

    oldJohnJ wrote:
    Do we have the wisdom to do this effectively?
    I’m guessing, a rhetorical question?

    Answer: No.

    I’ve read enough science fiction to see how it turns out and the predicted futures are not pretty.

  34. @ doubtful:
    There has actually been a lot of discussion on this topic. Here is one of a range of articles on this subject form Christiantity Today: http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2010/july/25.46.html?start=3
    And here are several organisations where women actually ‘adopt’ frozen embryos & carry them to term, if I remember rightly: https://www.nightlight.org/snowflakes-embryo-donation-adoption/ or http://www.embryoadoption.org/
    These are known a ‘snowflake babies’.

  35. Twenty plus years after investing heavily in intellectual achievement genetic engineering for your in vitro conceived child he or she is a dropout from your local tech school, not the Harvard valedictorian. Who is liable?

    I can totally see this lawsuit happening.

    On a more philosophical level, this and the observation that identical twins are two people and not one person, would seem to give the lie to the extremely reductionist idea held by some that we’re completely reducible to our genes, etc.

  36. A concept no longer completely in the domain of science fiction is a “vaccination” capable of giving specific personality traits. If the “vaccine” induced significant submissiveness in the recipients perhaps our current Calvinista CEO/Pastor/Minipopes often discussed here at TWW might actually welcome it.

    Per my last comment, would this even be possible unless everything about us is in fact entirely reducible to and derived from our genes/biology? It seems to me that even socialization via a normal life could potentially screw this up.

  37. @ Zla’od:

    There’s no reason to regard genomics as qualitatively different from birth control or fertility treatment

    …and while we’re on that topic, from where I’m sitting at least, it seems like there’s a resurgence of opposition to all forms of birth control going on in certain sectors of Christianity. (It seems to be connected to opposing homosexuality.) This probably won’t help Christians’ credibility to speak to genomics issues either. If something as simple as a condom is interfering in/thwarting God’s will, one has to ask if that doesn’t open the door to questioning the validity of a lot more.

  38. I do not think there is any “stopping” the coming custom genetic era. While I do not grasp the depth of this subject, there is a part of me that feels wary. If there is no God, and evolution is the ultimate highest ideal/truth a species aspires to, if you can quantitatively create “better” and more advanced/healthier/stronger/smarter humans what happens to those who either don’t go along with it, and/or, can’t afford to keep up.

    This would be more than just racism parading around as genetic superiority. It would be scientifically driven and measurable qualitative differences. Would an insurance company want to insure some genetically inferior person who is more prone to get sick, or, only want to cover those with certificates of genetic modification? Would jobs and schools care as much about the individual in front of them, or be looking mainly for those who are scientifically created to be more likely to succeed?

    What happens when we create a growing group of “superior” people when they realize that they truly are “better” than other people? AND they have science to justify that belief?

  39. A child inherits certain traits from parents. E.g., a person with a particular ability may pass the gene or genes for that ability to their child. If genomic modification occurs, what is the inheritance, and to whom to we attribute the traits that are expressed?

  40. So, this is probably a surprising thing for me to say, and might anger some people, but from my perspective the question is not when human life begins, but at what point pre-born human life is valued the same as born human life. Most prolife abortion arguments assume they are the same, but I don’t think you can make this argument from scripture. At least, I don’t think it’s iron clad.

    Simply put, scripture doesn’t seem to give us the point that human life becomes valuable, but there is some indication (to me) that early pre-born life is not considered as valuable as a born human: Numbers 5, where it seems that an abortificant is given to a woman accused of adultery. Now that’s an interpretation, but in my mind it is the clearest reading of the text, and absent any other information, it calls into question the idea that life at conception is considered by God to be as valuable as a newborn baby.

    I’m not saying I’m pro-choice, but I am trying to be reasonable about how much the pro-life (or “life begins at conception”) position can argue from scripture.

    But to the overall point, mucking with human beings and trying to perfect them is probably inevitable, but it’s terrifying. The answer to human sickness and pain is always first and foremost the Gospel, and secondary to that is the advances we can make through medicine and other human means. However, even medicine is abused quite often because many think it is the cure when it isn’t.

  41. Bill M wrote:

    I feel I have less credibility as a Christian because I believe there is a perceived notion that many Christians have written off or devalue science. This is just my little corner of the world.

    Sadly, I have pretty much the same feeling, especially since I live in GA and attend a small SBC church that is still in the 20th century.

    I think there are a lot of little corners of the world like yours.

  42. Bill M wrote:

    I feel I have less credibility as a Christian because I believe there is a perceived notion that many Christians have written off or devalue science. This is just my little corner of the world.

    Sadly, I have pretty much the same feeling, especially since I live in GA and attend a small SBC church that is still in the 20th century.

    I think there are a lot of little corners of the world like yours.Zla’od wrote:

    We take evolution “into our hands” all the time, simply by exercising sexual selection, i.e. choosing who to combine our DNA with. There’s no reason to regard genomics as qualitatively different from birth control or fertility treatment … .

    This is, in principle, traditional evolution. Genetic engineering, especially at the embryonic stage, will allow for purposeful modification of a genome to obtain enhanced (fill in the blank) and likely at a financial cost that only a small minority will be able to afford.

  43. Adam Borsay wrote:

    I do not think there is any “stopping” the coming custom genetic era. While I do not grasp the depth of this subject, there is a part of me that feels wary. If there is no God, and evolution is the ultimate highest ideal/truth a species aspires to, if you can quantitatively create “better” and more advanced/healthier/stronger/smarter humans what happens to those who either don’t go along with it, and/or, can’t afford to keep up.

    Thank you for this comment. It is a very succinct summary of what I feel and why I wrote this post.

  44. Bill M wrote:

    Muff Potter wrote:

    Isaac Newton

    Interesting you should mention Newton. I’ve recall he has been devalued by some because of his interest in alchemy.

    In Newton’s time, science and magick had not yet separated.
    Science and pseudoscience were still intermixed.

  45. Adam Borsay wrote:

    hat happens when we create a growing group of “superior” people when they realize that they truly are “better” than other people? AND they have science to justify that belief?

    Herrenvolk und Ubermeschen.

  46. I have two questions about this topic; both are sociological. The first regards epigenetics. Given that gene expression is a function of epigenetics, what is the relative value of seeking genetic enhancement over seeking maximal genetic expression? It seems like the latter would be more healthy – and also orders of magnitude more difficult.

    The second regards something like equal access. We are all aware of the problems with new technology reaching the poor and disenfranchised. We have largely overcome this with, e.g., the internet, through multiple public-access sites and free education and assistance. But with genetic engineering we are talking about permanently affecting human life. So how can we ensure equal opportunity without it turning into social engineering, especially if we are talking about low-information participants?

  47. Hester wrote:

    Twenty plus years after investing heavily in intellectual achievement genetic engineering for your in vitro conceived child he or she is a dropout from your local tech school, not the Harvard valedictorian. Who is liable?

    I can totally see this lawsuit happening.

    I can totally see this situation happening.

    Kid is pressured and pressured and pressured to excel — after all, Mom & Dad paid six-seven figures to give him the DNA to guarantee it — and kid just cracks. As in alky, druggie, slacker, dives into his smartphone and never comes back into Meatspace, deliberately wrecks his life as the only way he can rebel, or “Yeah, sure. Whatever.”

    I mean, today we’ve got kids who grow up with every minute (waking or sleeping) programmed and scheduled — from school to private tutor to soccer league to music lessons to psychiatrist. (“He who dies with the most Overachieved child wins.”) This is just one step beyond that — programming and scheduling and predestining him at GMO conception.

  48. doubtful wrote:

    have huge blind spots (such as frozen embryos).

    There have been some programs such as the Snowflake Project that match available embryos to parents.

    https://www.nightlight.org/snowflakes-embryo-donation-adoption/

    There are a number of problems involved in embryo donation. For example, you have probably heard of lawsuits of ex wives wanting to access their embryos and the ex husbands refusing to allow it, trying to avoid becoming hit up for child support.

    The law is somewhat vague in terms of who owns what,even after embryo implantation. I believe there was one case in which the embryo donor sued for visitation, etc.

    I believe that all people should consider the ethical implications of in vitro fertilization, especially those who believe life begins at conception. How do those folks justify creating a number of embryos and keeping them frozen or even throwing them away and yet oppose such things as pills that prevent implantation?

    The whole thing is messy and I appreciate your question.

  49. @ oldJohnJ:
    Thank you! I have found that, especially with complex posts or lengthy posts, that subject headers help people to understand the jist of the following information. It also helps me when I am reading to make sure I understand what is going on!

    I forgot to ask you if you mind me doing that-along with the occasional bolding of phrases and even some editorial insertions. Sometimes, I just can’t help myself. I went tot sleep last night thinking about a “submission” shot to keep me in line!

  50. Dr. Fundystan, Proctologist wrote:

    I have two questions about this topic; both are sociological. The first regards epigenetics. Given that gene expression is a function of epigenetics, what is the relative value of seeking genetic enhancement over seeking maximal genetic expression? It seems like the latter would be more healthy – and also orders of magnitude more difficult.

    A replacement gene should be subject to the same epigenetic considerations as the original gene. The key to our proper development is getting the correct genes expressed to the right degree in the right places.

    Adding a gene to a genome would appear to be a far more difficult task.

  51. @ Corbin:
    I am so happy that OldJohnJ discovered us a few years back. A friend of mine who used to help us with the science stuff had to move away. But, OldJohnJ showed up and his posts always generate lots of interest. I am grateful to him.

  52. oldJohnJ wrote:

    From St. Augustine ~400AD and paraphrased: When you speak nonsense about what I understand why should I listen to you about things I don’t understand.

    Now that is one great quote!

  53. Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

    In my case, what kept me from cracking up was discovering community in various Fandoms. Where there were others like me but with other interests and passions than “Who Has The Highest IQ”.

    Wow! I never knew that. Could you tell me what it is about those fandoms that make you feel like you belong without the pressure of IQ comparing? I know relatively little about this subject.

  54. Dr. Fundystan, Proctologist wrote:

    So how can we ensure equal opportunity without it turning into social engineering, especially if we are talking about low-information participants?

    For the near future anyway, genetic engineering is likely to be an expensive proposition thus access will be limited by its costs. The danger is the development of an increasingly capable elite. A “vaccine” dealing with very specific genetic defects or enhancements is still in the domain of science fiction.

  55. Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

    Always mobilizing for Culture War Without End, Amen.

    I listened to a lecture the other day given by a pastor who I respect.

    He went through various groups within the panoply of Christendom and how they tend to tip in regards to changing the culture.

    Of course there are the Fundy types who totally ignore the culture and isolate themselves. But, the thing that I had never considered before was the Reformed view that the culture must be transformed. I need to do some more reading on this. However, he linked the reconstructionists directly to today’s Neo-Reformed leaders.Something fell into place for me.I think I understand a bit better.

    Although I have political views and for about 20 years was quite involved in politics, my concerns have definitely done an about face. I have dropped out of thee political scene for the most part and instead want to transform the church itself. I have a silly idea that the church can be loving and not compromise basic beliefs.

    That is why I love the people who come here-that includes you HUG! I see how God moves in very different ways in each of us and I love to learn about the lives of all who come here.

    That has been difficult in the last couple of months due to some big stories. But, I am determined to get back to what I love the most-you guys!

  56. Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

    “Cordwainer Smith”

    As I have often said, I am a fan of science fiction. It helps me to imagine… I have to admit that I kind of like dystopian science fiction the best. It probably has something to do with the dystopian Christian church.

    So, can you recommend Cordwainer Smith?

  57. dee wrote:

    Now that is one great quote!

    This is a well known quote. Collins uses it in his The Language of God book.

    This is your and Deb’s blog. The editing and occasional additions done to my guest posts have improved them.

  58. @ brian:
    It is my hope that OldJohnJ’s posts will open up people to understand that there are some different ways to look at things.

  59. Gram3 wrote:

    big problem for Christians and science, I think, is that the vast majority of people, like me, do not understand the sciences, and we fear what we do not understand and cannot control.

    I absolutely agree. Having been raised in a home in which my father loved to talk about science and medicine and then being married to a guy who did basic research on adenosine receptors before returning to practice, I have been inundated by science.

    I definitely do not understand much of science and math but have learned to trust some folks who I respect to explain it to me in a way that I can get it. For that, I am grateful. Also, my enduring love for science fiction has been of help as well!

  60. oldJohnJ wrote:

    This is your and Deb’s blog.

    Actually, it is as much your blog as ours. I plan to discuss this tomorrow. I sincerely, with my whole heart, mean that!

  61. @ Dr. Fundystan:

    So how can we ensure equal opportunity without it turning into social engineering, especially if we are talking about low-information participants?

    I’ve seen the same concerns expressed by people criticizing folks who are into the Singularity and how humanity will become immortal by uploading our brains into computers. If functional immortality were actually offered, how do you decide who gets it? Does everybody get it? Do only those who can afford it get it? Do only those who “deserve” it get it, and if so how do you assess if someone is “deserving” of that? I’m sure Singularity proponents assume that they would be on the short list, but what happens if the “immortality worth assessor” would rather get paid more by, say, Vladimir Putin or Kim Jong-Un, than upload people like scientists, philosophers or ethicists? The potential for corruption is unbelievable. In other words, functional immortality would probably result in some kind of dystopian hell if it were ever actually made available.

  62. Dr. Fundystan, Proctologist wrote:

    So how can we ensure equal opportunity without it turning into social engineering, especially if we are talking about low-information participants?

    Well, don’t pose that kind of question to the education establishment, especially those in DC, because they certainly have not been able to do it.

  63. There seems to me to be some worry over the question of Christiain input into the ethics of such engineering due to the churches’ reputation for scientific credibility being ruined by ‘Ken Hamism’, for want of a better term. You know, ham fisted in their approach.

    I think you can put the boot on the other foot: Christianty is not intended as a revelation of science, but science of itself cannot decide matters such as whether something is right or wrong, good or bad. Science too has its limitations, and other discplines such as philosophy, ethics and even religion/theology have their part to play here. I would add that just as some Christians can say scientifically inept things, there are plenty of atheists and generally indifferent non-religious people around whose knowledge of Christianity and the bible is itself woefully inept. Take slavery or mixed fibres and shellfish for classic examples of this.

    So whilst believers who have good scientific training might have an uphill battle getting heard, I don’t see why they should be overly intimidated by the surrounding culture’s unrealistic expectation that ‘science has all the answers’. They need wisdom to avoid getting side-tracked into ‘how old the earth is’ when the discussion is about really important ethical issues, such as the sacredness of human life, and when this begins. The age of the earth is irrelevant to this.

    The church and any others of goodwill who have a concern for our future could consistently warn of the dangers or good science getting into the hands of evil men, whether for super-race agendas or simply unethical financial gain and to hell with the consequences.

  64. Hester wrote:

    I’ve seen the same concerns expressed by people criticizing folks who are into the Singularity and how humanity will become immortal by uploading our brains into computers.

    Then what happens to the Meat brain Left Behind?
    Is Max Headroom one and the same with Edison Carter?

    You have not “uploaded your consciousness”, you’ve copied it into a software AI.
    Now what to do with the Original who suddenly discovers he’s still in Meatspace?

    Like a Transporter that’s actually a Replicator that Destroys the original. There’s a sub-genre of Sci-Fi Horror based around where the original survives due to a Replicator/Disintegrator malfunction; the only title I can remember is “Think like a Dinosaur”.

  65. dee wrote:

    So, can you recommend Cordwainer Smith?

    Guy was offbeat and almost poetic, weaving a galaxy of uplifted animal slaves and genetically-engineered hedonist ubermenschen (who used all their advantages to live like Paris Hilton and nothing else) spanning thousands of years. And an Old Strong Religion of a God Nailed High spreading among the “Underpeople” in a parallel to the Roman Empire. (Unfortunately, he died before he could bring the whole series to a climax and his notes were lost.) One of those little-known authors these days, but there was a small-press hardback of ALL his work some years ago and an Internet Search on the pen name should bring something up.

  66. dee wrote:

    Wow! I never knew that. Could you tell me what it is about those fandoms that make you feel like you belong without the pressure of IQ comparing? I know relatively little about this subject.

    Common Interest, whether that was various SF authors and their works, Dee & Dee, or various pulp fiction and comics.

    The appeal was that they were as smart as me, yet interested in something more than just Being a Genius(TM). Most of them were unstable (also like me), some were losers, but they were a group and place to BELONG.

    After all those years of isolation as a Giant Brain in a Jar, I had finally found Others Like Me.

  67. dee wrote:

    doubtful wrote:
    have huge blind spots (such as frozen embryos).
    There have been some programs such as the Snowflake Project that match available embryos to parents.

    Some years ago, there was this small-time SF author whose pen name was Simon Lang. (Real name Darlene Hartman; I knew one of her in-laws.) She wrote space opera that obviously started out as Star Trek fanfic, with as much Trad Catholic content as Evangelical content in Conventional Christian Fiction — literally Star Trek with Rosaries and Tridentine Latin Mass. (Weird combination…)

    Anyway, in her para-Trek universe, there was a special Order of Catholic Nuns who would be implanted with these “surplus” frozen embryos and carry them to term. That was their Vocation, to give birth and life to those who were denied it.

  68. Hester wrote:

    I’m sure Singularity proponents assume that they would be on the short list, but what happens if the “immortality worth assessor” would rather get paid more by, say, Vladimir Putin or Kim Jong-Un, than upload people like scientists, philosophers or ethicists?

    I am sure the “immortality worth assessor” would judge Himself as being THE Most Worthy.

  69. HUG, Are you aware of any official or semiofficial RCC statements on genetic engineering? Or have they not progressed beyond their birth control hangup?

  70. oldJohnJ wrote:

    HUG, Are you aware of any official or semiofficial RCC statements on genetic engineering? Or have they not progressed beyond their birth control hangup?

    There are probably some out there, but I haven’t been keeping track of them.

    Can anyone else steer OldJohnJ to an encyclical or Catechism section or Vatican Website that might have that information?

    As for “progressing beyond their birth control hangup”:
    1) Genetic engineering might be classified or associated with birth control in the RCC taxonomy of subject matter, so the two subjects might be blended in encyclicals or Papal statements. I can see how they could be related as two facts of Reproductive Ethics.
    2) And BABBECs (Born-Again Bible-Believing Evangelicals) show no sign of progressing beyond their Evolution hangup, so who are they to talk? We have the Pontifical Academy of Sciences and the Vatican Observatory; they have the Kentucky Creation Museum.

  71. Great post and comment thread.

    On the non-fiction side, I highly recommend The Abolition Of Man by C.S. Lewis. What he wrote then is just as relevant today.

    For fiction, Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World imagines just such a scenario. Everyone has been genetically engineered among five intelligence levels, according to the society’s needs–except for a small population out on a reservation. It’s become a tourist destination for those curious to see how humans used to be. The story explores the discovery of an unauthorized human with the superior genes who grew up on the reservation.

  72. oldJohnJ wrote:

    Sadly, I have pretty much the same feeling, especially since I live in GA and attend a small SBC church that is still in the 20th century.

    Surprised that such a church exists, most small SBC churches are back yet further.

  73. Arce wrote:

    oldJohnJ wrote:

    Sadly, I have pretty much the same feeling, especially since I live in GA and attend a small SBC church that is still in the 20th century.

    Surprised that such a church exists, most small SBC churches are back yet further.

    “Yet further” as in 19th Century, 16th Century, or 33 AD (AKA Christian “Year One of the Hegira”)?

  74. If the cost of such technology came down far enough that the middle class could start to afford it, I can see society splitting over the question.

    “You backwards simpletons are just the old model.”

    “Hey, at least we’re not the result of frankenscience.”

  75. Some things are best not messed with I think, and I’m convinced that genetic engineering is one of them. There was a time when people were starry eyed and completely taken with the promise of nuclear fission as a great boon to humankind. It was only after the genie got fully out of the lamp that it showed itself as a fanged demon. Oppenheimer realized it only too late and he spent the rest of his life trying to put it back into the magic lamp. He lost his security clearance, was accused of being a communist, and wound up on tail gunner Joe’s $hit list in the post war years.
    I’m starting to see a repeating pattern emerge here, much like the decimal expansion of a rational number a/b, where a & b are integers such that b does not equal zero. I hope I’m wrong and that ethics and morality will prevail before it’s too late.

  76. Hester wrote:

    So how can we ensure equal opportunity without it turning into social engineering, especially if we are talking about low-information participants?

    I’ve seen the same concerns expressed by people criticizing folks who are into the Singularity and how humanity will become immortal by uploading our brains into computers.

    There was an episode of the X-Files where a woman with the online handle of Invisigoth, along with at least one other person, were exploring the possibility of uploading consciousness to the internet. The aim of course, being immortality.

  77. Jeff S wrote:

    The answer to human sickness and pain is always first and foremost the Gospel, and secondary to that is the advances we can make through medicine and other human means. However, even medicine is abused quite often because many think it is the cure when it isn’t.

    Argh. I don’t like hearing this at all.

    I’ll be blunt. The Gospel (or what passes for “the Gospel” in so many churches today) did not help my chronic major depression. If anything, the oppression made it worse. I’d also note that the Gospel is no cure for two other chronic illnesses I have: diabetes and GERD. What makes them all of these survivable and livable is scientific researches and advances.

    Religion oversteps its bounds, IMHO, when it says it’s better than and/or a substitute for medical science. Religion can be a help through the peaks and valleys of living with chronic illness. But it’s not a substitute.

  78. mirele wrote:

    Jeff S wrote:

    The answer to human sickness and pain is always first and foremost the Gospel, and secondary to that is the advances we can make through medicine and other human means. However, even medicine is abused quite often because many think it is the cure when it isn’t.

    Argh. I don’t like hearing this at all.
    I’ll be blunt. The Gospel (or what passes for “the Gospel” in so many churches today) did not help my chronic major depression.

    But when All you have is a GOSPEL(TM) Hammer…
    (Especially if you’ve never been in anything like a “chronic major depression” or for that matter anything that Five Fast Praise-the-LOORDs or Memorizing a Verse of SCRIPTURE couldn’t get you out of…)

  79. NJ wrote:

    There was an episode of the X-Files where a woman with the online handle of Invisigoth, along with at least one other person, were exploring the possibility of uploading consciousness to the internet. The aim of course, being immortality.

    Again, would they “become immortal” or just their uploaded Max Headroom copy?

  80. mirele wrote:

    Argh. I don’t like hearing this at all.
    I’ll be blunt. The Gospel (or what passes for “the Gospel” in so many churches today) did not help my chronic major depression. If anything, the oppression made it worse. I’d also note that the Gospel is no cure for two other chronic illnesses I have: diabetes and GERD. What makes them all of these survivable and livable is scientific researches and advances.
    Religion oversteps its bounds, IMHO, when it says it’s better than and/or a substitute for medical science. Religion can be a help through the peaks and valleys of living with chronic illness. But it’s not a substitute.

    I think you misunderstand me (and to be fair, I did not expound upon the thought). I understand COMPLETELY that ‘the Gospel” doesn’t cure depression, and many misuse it to try and do so. It also does not cure a missing arm, a deformed body part, or anything else.

    There are medical advances that, wonderfully, do allow us to address these things with much success.

    What the Gospel does do, however, is allow us to find peace in a world that is full of brokenness, often brokenness which cannot be cured by medical means. If someone loses an arm, that arm cannot usually be replaced. Sometimes the loss can be somewhat mitigated by a prosthetic, but there is a permanent physical brokenness that cannot be fixed with our current medical knowledge. In the past, many things that are now addressable have been out of our reach. There will always be a limit to what we can do to address the pain of life.

    The Gospel is about peace- peace with God, and peace in life. We know that Jesus suffered and God is not ignorant of our pain. We can find comfort in that, and work through the tragedies of life knowing that “It is well with my soul”.

    So when I said “The answer to human sickness and pain is always first and foremost the Gospel”, what I mean is NOT that “the Gospel fixes pain”, but that it offer peace in the midst of life’s greatest storms, especially over the ones for which we have no power.

    I believe it is right and good to do what we can to address the physical and emotional brokenness in this work through science, learning, and whatever other means available to us, but I also believe there will always be a “bridge too far” and problems we will not be able to solve. In that gap we find peace with God.

    People go searching for peace believing that once all of the emotional and physical pain is lifted, they will find peace. I’ve seen it, and I’ve seen it let them down. It’s not to say that if you have peace with God then the pain will go away, but the problem is pursuing removing the pain and expecting to find peace. First, it won’t happen, and second, trying can destroy a person.

    So I do apologizes if you think I was one of those nut-jobs who says “just get Jesus and you will be healed”. I think nothing of the sort, and I know depression is a battle that is not easily overcome just by hitting it with a Gospel hammer.

  81. An obvious question then is what input can or should the Christian community make in this debate? (OldJohnJ is hoping for discussion of the following)

    Given the past performance of the Christian Industrial Complex community, I’d expect more of the same. And I mean BEYOND asleep at the switch.

    As in carrying on with yesterday’s Culture War battles from the Christianese Bubble (“Just like Fill-in-the-Blank”, Except CHRISTIAN(TM)!) until the GATTACA/Singularity/GMO society not only comes (before The Rapture(TM)) but is already a fait accompli, long after they could have given any input into what was happening.

    And then the Evangelical Leaders(TM) will react in the usual Christianese manner: SCREAMING purple-faced with clenched fists like Perry Noble straining on the can behind the pulpit, SCREAMING Denunciations and Last Days and Anathemas and God’s Judgment and End Times and God’s Wrath and SCRIPTURE! SCRIPTURE! SCRIPTURE! SCRIPTURE! SCRIPTURE! like Tony Miano behind a bullhorn, SCREAMING! SCREAMING! SCREAMING! SCRIPTURE! SCRIPTURE! SCRIPTURE!

    And everybody on the outside (all GMOed, of course) will once more be amused at the antics of this latest Lookit-the-Freaks Reality Show. And laugh, and laugh, and laugh….

  82. *
    *
    *
     __

    God being banished to the round file, 
    A requirement of expectant funding, 
    Profound lip service being applied by all the compliant, 
    As dark projects cover the risk.

  83. “Because The Future is where we will be spending the rest of our lives.”
    — The Amazing Criswell (celebrity psychic of the 1950s, now best known for narrating Plan Nine from Outer Space)

    And when you have no future, the future has this way of happening anyway. Without your input. And you WILL find yourself Left Behind(TM).

  84. Jeff S wrote:

    So I do apologizes if you think I was one of those nut-jobs who says “just get Jesus and you will be healed”. I think nothing of the sort, and I know depression is a battle that is not easily overcome just by hitting it with a Gospel hammer.

    Because we have experienced so many of those kind of nut-jobs…

  85.   __

    “Good Stuff In My Father’s House?”

    hmmm…

    Jeff S,

    This is the ‘gospel’ according to God’s Dear Son:

    Those who believe in Jesus, 
    Their sins are forgiven,
    They are promised eternal life, 
    They pass from death to life, 
    God gives them His Holy Spirit as a down payment of ‘wonderful’ things to come, 
    They are supernaturally progressively conformed to God’s image,
    As Jesus prepares a place for them in His Father’s house.

    YaHooooooo!

    “This is my Father’s house…”. 🙂

    hum, hum, hum, hum…

    ATB

    Sopy

  86. @ oldJohnJ:

    Thanks so much for the thoughtful summary. The whole field of bioethics is incredibly fascinating, and I think that Christians can contribute greatly to this discussion if we engage humbly.

    One of my favorite authors Dan Simmons wrestles with these questions in his sci-fi novel series The Hyperion Cantos. They are very compelling, incorporating questions of faith, artificial intelligence, human genetic modification, and the general destiny of the species. He isn’t coming from a Christian perspective as far as I can tell, but the books are brilliant, thought-provoking, and a wildly fun read

  87. @ OldJohnJ:

    Are you aware of any official or semiofficial RCC statements on genetic engineering? Or have they not progressed beyond their birth control hangup?

    I know this wasn’t directed at me, and I’m not Catholic so I wouldn’t know many details, but I know these two things happened in the past few years. So the anti-birth control stance is definitely still in place at the official level.

    http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jan/16/pope-francis-catholic-church-contraception

    http://www.theguardirth control stance is definitely still in place at the official level.

    And as I said before, as a person with high exposure to goofy evangelicals, I see certain folks “discovering” Catholic anti-birth control arguments and starting to use them to oppose homosexuality/gay marriage – and these aren’t just Quiverfull/militant fecundity people either, who were already anti-birth control. I’m worried about what will happen if there’s anything close to even a large minority “latch on” to these arguments in the evangelical/complementarian crowd. The state of sex ed in many of these places is bad enough as it is. If it recombines with the common complementarian teaching that women can never refuse their husbands sex, that’ll make an awful lot of people toxic Quiverfull in all but name. I don’t know how likely this is to happen, though.

  88. __

    “Tomorrows Human Genetic Engineering?”

    Designed
    Perfected
    Controlled?

    hmmm…

    In 1624 Francis Bacon Fortells Genetic Engineering?

    “And we make (by Art) in the same Orchards, and Gardens, Trees and Flowers, to come earlier, or later, then their Seasons; And to come up and beare more speedily then by their Naturall Course they doe. We make them also by Art greater much then their Nature; And their Fruit greater, and sweeter, and of differing Tast, Smell, Colour, and Figure, from their Nature. And many of them we so Order as they become of Medicinall Use. Wee have also Meanes to make diverse Plants rise by Mixtures of Earths without Seedes; And likewise to make diverse New Plants, differing from the Vulgar; and to make one Tree or Plant turne into another… By Art likewise, we make them [Beasts and Birds] Greater, or Taller, then their Kinde is; And contrary-wise Dwarfe them and stay their Grouth: Wee make them more Fruitfull and Bearing then their Kind is; and contrary-wise Barren and not Generative. Also we make them differ in Colour, Shape, Activity many wayes. We finde Meanes to make Commixtures and Copulations of diverse Kindes; which have produced many New Kindes, and them not Barren, as the generall Opinion is… Neither doe we this by Chance, but wee know before hand, of what Matter and Commixture, what Kinde of those Creatures will arise.”

    Taken from ‘New Atlantis’ by Francis Bacon, Lord Verulam, Viscount St Alban. (pp37-38. G. C. Moore Smith Edition, Cambridge University Press, 1929). [According to Moore Smith, ‘New Atlantis’ was first published in 1627, a year after Bacon’s death, and was probably written between 1622 and 1624. The spelling is exactly transcribed.]

    ___
    Reference:

    http://www.sciencegroup.org.uk/ifgene/bacon.htm

  89. roebuck wrote:

    Gram3 wrote:

    They are going to do whatever they can to gain advantage,

    Just like every other nation on the planet.

    I did not realize China held elections for representative government.

  90. Lydia wrote:

    roebuck wrote:
    Gram3 wrote:
    They are going to do whatever they can to gain advantage,
    Just like every other nation on the planet.
    I did not realize China held elections for representative government.

    What does that have to do with nations pursuing their own interests? Do you think that ‘democratic’ nations don’t pursue their own best interests? Do you think the USA is pure and innocent?

  91. roebuck wrote:

    Lydia wrote:

    roebuck wrote:
    Gram3 wrote:
    They are going to do whatever they can to gain advantage,
    Just like every other nation on the planet.
    I did not realize China held elections for representative government.

    What does that have to do with nations pursuing their own interests? Do you think that ‘democratic’ nations don’t pursue their own best interests? Do you think the USA is pure and innocent?

    Of course not. However, I do think people can vote them out of office when they don’t like the direction they are taking. Or have we forgotten that? I sometimes think we have because so many missed it that we allowed 9 UNELECTED judges to “make law”. It seems this has become the normal. That we have no recourse in matters of state.

  92. Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

    Dr. Fundystan, Proctologist wrote:
    Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:
    We have the Pontifical Academy of Sciences and the Vatican Observatory; they have the Kentucky Creation Museum.
    Bazinga…
    And don’t forget the background of the astronomer who first proposed The Big Bang:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georges_Lema%C3%AEtre
    (And I don’t mean Ken Ham…)

    Hey Y’all … Rose Will Monroe (“Rosie the Riviter”) was a Kentuckian, too!! She pre-dated Ken Ham … and the Conservative take over of the SBC. Hmm.

  93. @ dee:
    Thanks Dee

    I do love the fact that you pose questions and posts that are “messy” and then allow for discussion.

    TWW is still one of my favorite sites, for this very reason 🙂

  94. roebuck wrote:

    Gram3 wrote:
    They are going to do whatever they can to gain advantage,
    Just like every other nation on the planet.

    My initial thought was that the Chinese are very successful utilitarians and their dissident voices are not powerful. And I thought that Western nations, while we do want to gain advantage, have some residual Judeo-Christian restraints lingering in our culture. But your comment makes me think again and wonder whether that is really the case or not. I don’t mean by that that whoever does not have a Judeo-Christian worldview is a utilitarian, just so I’m clear. But, outside a J-C framework, what would be the ethical boundary and why?

  95. Gram3 wrote:

    But, outside a J-C framework, what would be the ethical boundary and why?

    While that may sound like a rhetorical question, it is not. I really do wonder how others might think through the implications of this technology outside a J-C framework which is the only one I have. Apologies for being unclear about that.

  96. @ Sopwith:
    I think I see your point, and I did not clearly convey what I was thinking. The emphasis should be placed on “whatever” since the Chinese have repeatedly demonstrated that they are unconstrained by our ethical standards, even when those standards have become somewhat or totally theoretical. This reminds me of the embryonic vs. adult stem cell debate in some ways because that debate exposed some ethical boundaries or non-boundaries.

  97. __

    Gram3,

    hey,

    The question that is being asked is are we unconstrained by our ethical standards as well?

    ATB

    Sopy

  98. @ Sopwith:
    I don’t know. ISTM we should have higher standards, but then I wonder what that might look like and how we draw lines and then enforce those lines. Did we cross the utilitarian line with embryonic stem cells?

  99. “Did we cross the utilitarian line with embryonic stem cells?”

    I have to say, the answer is yes. Fortunately the truth about the utility of adult stem cells has been getting out.

  100. __

    “Did we cross the utilitarian line with embryonic stem cells?” – Gram3

    *

    hmmm…

    Did we cross a line when we spot the atam?

  101. __
    “Did we cross the utilitarian line with embryonic stem cells?” – Gram3

    *
    hmmm…

    Did we cross a line when we split the atom?

  102. Sopwith wrote:

    Did we cross a line when we split the atom?

    I’ll be enjoying heavenly chocolate before that issue is settled. IMO, it is impossible to reasonably sever a decision from the context in which it was made. I believe that question of the U.S. pursuing nuclear weaponry was settled by the Nazi pursuit of such a weapon and the implications of them gaining it. Whether it should then have been used on Japan is yet another question which also loops in the implications of Soviet control of Japan. All of which makes me happy I don’t have to make those kinds of terrible decisions. I’ve had to make some very difficult ones, but not like those.

    Perhaps it is a human fact in a fallen world that beneficial things, like nuclear energy, can also be used for very bad purposes and can also result in tragic accidents.

  103. @ Sopwith:
    As it stands now, I would not put the human genome genie back in the bottle because the benefits of such knowledge can be immense for real people. It is what may lie down the road on the other side of the coin that is frightening.

  104. Gram3 wrote:

    The emphasis should be placed on “whatever” since the Chinese have repeatedly demonstrated that they are unconstrained by our ethical standards, even when those standards have become somewhat or totally theoretical.

    Why should the Chinese be constrained by gwai lo ethical standards?
    They never have been before, why should they start now?

  105. Lydia wrote:

    I sometimes think we have because so many missed it that we allowed 9 UNELECTED judges to “make law”. It seems this has become the normal.

    Of course you know the only reason we have a President and Congress is to appoint Supreme Court justices who then rule the country by five-to-four decree.

  106. Gram3 wrote:

    Perhaps it is a human fact in a fallen world that beneficial things, like nuclear energy, can also be used for very bad purposes and can also result in tragic accidents.

    Like how “Great saints and great sinners are made of the same material”?

  107. I am part of the Huntington Disease Community. HD is an autosomal dominant genetic disorder causing progressive neurodegeneration. Symptoms include psychiatric disorders, cognitive impairment, movement disorder, dysphasia, and debility. The disease is hell for those who have it, for those who are at risk and wondering if they should take the genetic test, and for caregivers. The HD version of the gene that makes the huntingtin protein has an expanded stretch of CAG repeats which makes the protein heavier and stickier and caused dozens and dozens of cellular changes, too many to target with medication. Our first gene silencing trial is coming up this year. In the longer term we are hoping for a technology like CRISPR to edit out the extra CAG repeats.

  108. lydia wrote:

    What are the prospects with this concerning cancer?

    14 years ago I was working late on a computer system for a biotech firm and the leading researcher was enthusiastically walking me through their ideas for such a cure. He believed they were very close to having a way of unmasking cancer cells so the immune system could deal with them. I recall the next day was when the planes were flown into the world trade center.

    Some months later I heard their solutions worked in the lab but broke down in the body. Fourteen years later and apparently they are still working on it.

  109. Gram3 wrote:

    the Chinese have repeatedly demonstrated that they are unconstrained by our ethical standards

    About ten or twelve years ago I remember the one incident that an internet firewall was compromised was also at a genetic engineering firm. It was traced back to an ip address in China and one enterprising person on our side took a circuitous untraceable route to hack into their system and reformat it. I did the easy tracing part but someone else did the hacking, it was above my skills.

    It was explained to me that China would steal technology and wouldn’t abide by patent laws.

  110. Sopwith wrote:

    Did we cross a line when we split the atom?

    With the bomb came an astonishing ability to destroy. With genetic manipulation comes a wondrous ability to create. Which contains the greater hazard?

  111. __

    “Abstaining From Morality?”

    hmmm…

    Bill M wrote:

    Sopwith wrote:
    Did we cross a line when we split the atom?

    *

    “With the bomb came an astonishing ability to destroy. With genetic manipulation comes a wondrous ability to create. Which contains the greater hazard?” -Bill M

    *
    Bill,

    hey,

    Respectfully, you might want to ask Monsanto executives that question.

    ATB

    Sopy

  112. Bill M wrote:

    With the bomb came an astonishing ability to destroy. With genetic manipulation comes a wondrous ability to create. Which contains the greater hazard?

    Both technologies are double edged swords. Besides bombs, nuclear energy has given us our only always on source of clean energy. Nuclear waste disposal is a political, not a technological problem. Genetic engineering’s initial appeal is therapeutic but weapons are certainly not out of the question.

    In a culture that has banished our primary source of morality, the Ten Commandments, from public display where will the motivation to use only the positive aspects of genetic engineering come from?

  113. I hear people talking about “our” ethical standards. Who are the persons behind the pronoun “our?” I can guarantee you that white middle class american protestant heterosexuals who may go to church on Sunday (to arbitrarily define a group) do not all have the same ethical standards, much less some larger group out there. The people in my former SS class did not all have the same ethical standards. I am saying that I do not think there is such as thing as “our” ethical standards. Just hunkering down with those who may agree on this or that and publicly stating that thus and such is morally right or wrong will not win the day. And may be in error as to what is right and wrong.

    Time was when the predominant thought among some christians was that any kind of pain relief during childbirth was forbidden by scripture. Queen Victoria and chloroform beat that back a tad. Time is now when some folks still forbid blood transfusions on biblical grounds. And don’t forget those who refuse/forbid any and all abortions including to save the life of the mother. Now that we can keep parts of bodies functioning with mechanical help the issue of how long and under what circumstances to do that is a discussed issue-think vegetative state. There is no agreement on this.

    So I am saying there is no consensus and no such thing as “our” ethical standards in this matter.

  114. @ oldJohnJ:

    We need people like you to keep speaking up. I am not even close to a scientific mind. But I have actually had non-believers accuse me of “hating science” simply because I say that I am a Christian. Nothing could be further from the truth (in my case). It saddens me that Christians are seen in this light. But I understand how we can be seen in this way, because so many have all but said that science is wrong.

    Take carbon dating, for instance. I was always taught that it was guesswork dreamt up by scientists who wanted to disprove a young earth. It was easy for me to accept this without question when I was younger, simply because millions of years was impossible to comprehend. Then I saw how it has been used in the case of Richard III (how the initial results showed that the skeleton was too old to be RIII, until adjustments were made for his probable consumption of seafood). DNA evidence and carbon dating as well as the curvature of the spine and the place where the skeleton was found proves this was RIII beyond a reasonable doubt. So carbon dating is accurate. But some say not for millions of years, because the Bible and young earth. So they say the flood could have skewed the carbon dating in that the firmament was broken. Fair enough, but not proven as far as I know.

    What I am saying is this: Facts are facts. If God is immutable, then why do so many of the non-scientific Christians try to disprove scientific facts (or better put, simply deny them)? Wouldn’t the proper interpretation of these facts give us more insight into the Creator? Is God big enough to handle our academic findings or isn’t He? Many non-scientific Cristians seem to think He isn’t, IMO. I’d rather give Him more credit than that.

  115. Adam Borsay wrote:

    I do not think there is any “stopping” the coming custom genetic era. While I do not grasp the depth of this subject, there is a part of me that feels wary. If there is no God, and evolution is the ultimate highest ideal/truth a species aspires to, if you can quantitatively create “better” and more advanced/healthier/stronger/smarter humans what happens to those who either don’t go along with it, and/or, can’t afford to keep up.

    This would be more than just racism parading around as genetic superiority. It would be scientifically driven and measurable qualitative differences. Would an insurance company want to insure some genetically inferior person who is more prone to get sick, or, only want to cover those with certificates of genetic modification? Would jobs and schools care as much about the individual in front of them, or be looking mainly for those who are scientifically created to be more likely to succeed?

    What happens when we create a growing group of “superior” people when they realize that they truly are “better” than other people? AND they have science to justify that belief?

    This has overtones of darkness, some type of genetic armegedan is coming.

  116. One more thing this morning before I venture forth into a changing world out there. There are among us those who are declaring that the time is coming when ‘christians’ will not be able to own a bakery/ florist ship/ photography business or will not be able to work for the government. This hijacks the word ‘christian’ as something which can only be applied to those who agree that certain kinds of cake baking and flower selling and filling out of forms are inconsistent with a christian ethical standard. This kind of thinking will tear us apart and make us turn on each other under the idea of ‘I am more righteous than you.’

    So the plumber can say to the electrician, ‘I am more righteous than you’ because I think thus and such about cake baking, never mind that neither of us is doing it and never mind that there are arguments to be considered on both sides of the issues and never mind that ‘divide and conquer’ is a great trap we must not fall into.

    I think this is something we must guard against-labeling people as not really even christian unless they think whatever about whichever specific current issue. There are ideas that lie in the realm of heresy and the line of apostasy, but not everything that comes down the road qualifies for that degree of variance.

  117. Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

    These Built-to-Order Enhanced Uberkids are going to need help. Not Intellectual help to excel, but emotional and social help to survive. I’d be surprised if the number-one cause of death among them ISN’T suicide

    This really struck a chord with me. Full disclosure: I am average IQ, so I am not relating to being a high IQ child per se. But I have been above average in analyzation and problem solving, as well as having musical talent on multiple instruments.Because of this, I was pushed beyond the breaking point at my former church to accompany, arrange and solo every Sunday. Not as a member of staff, but a volunteer (15+ hours a week plus the service times).

    If I were to undergo genetic engineering, I wouldn’t request a higher IQ, I’d request a higher strength agains my chronic depression. I would request a lower cholesterol count. I would request a greater desire to eat healthier.

    If I were to genetically engineer the leader I was under in the church, I would make it so his brain registers and understands the words “no,” I can’t this week,” “I need a break,” etc., etc., etc. He never got the message until I said, “I’m leaving.”

  118. mirele wrote:

    I’ll be blunt. The Gospel (or what passes for “the Gospel” in so many churches today) did not help my chronic major depression. If anything, the oppression made it worse. I’d also note that the Gospel is no cure for two other chronic illnesses I have: diabetes and GERD. What makes them all of these survivable and livable is scientific researches and advances.

    I have also lived with chronic depression for decades. Plus, chronic migraines, and fatigue. I am now on four different medications that have drastically improved my quality of life. I’m also out of church for now, hoping to find a fellowship that doesn’t try to eat me alive (whether they mean to or not-part of it is due to my own health issues).

    I have said a prayer for you.

  119. @ Bilbo Skaggins:
    Bilbo Skaggins wrote:

    why do so many of the non-scientific Christians try to disprove scientific facts (or better put, simply deny them)? Wouldn’t the proper interpretation of these facts give us more insight into the Creator? Is God big enough to handle our academic findings or isn’t He? Many non-scientific Cristians seem to think He isn’t, IMO. I’d rather give Him more credit than that.

    My Updated and Likely to Change Version, Genesis 1, the first several verses: In beginning, God created the laws of physics which underlie all other science. God then said let there be matter and there followed a big bang as the cosmos expanded. And God said, That is good. And God observed the ongoing changes in the cosmos, resulting in the formation of stars, planets and other objects and their interactions, And God said That is good.

  120. @ Okrapod:
    That is true to a great extent. However, ISTM that prior to Roe and the embryonic stem cell debates, there was a consensus, not universal agreement but acceptance, that human life is set apart from other forms of life and has greater dignity. Those from a Judeo-Christian perspective hold that dignity comes from being made in the image of God. Certainly not everyone thinks/thought that, but it was largely accepted. Now, for whatever reason, that is no longer assumed to be true in the wider culture. In the new way of thinking about the nature of humanity, what are the constraints, if any, on engineering the human genome? And why should lines be drawn at any particular place?

  121. Okrapod wrote:

    There are among us those who are declaring that the time is coming when ‘christians’ will not be able to own a bakery/ florist ship/ photography business or will not be able to work for the government.

    I haven’t heard people say that someone who bakes a cake for a gay wedding is less “Christian” than someone who refuses to do so. What I have heard are people who are greatly concerned that they will not be permitted to refuse to bake a wedding cake for a gay wedding. Not that they will refuse to serve gay customers, but only that they wish to not be involved in an activity which offends *their* conscience. The coercion is not coming from the Christian bakers or florists but is rather directed at their conscientious reservations which we used to respect.

  122. Gram3 wrote:

    I haven’t heard people say that someone who bakes a cake for a gay wedding is less “Christian” than someone who refuses to do so.

    I should have also said that I would not be surprised to hear such, since Christians are like other people in our desire to think we are better than others even when we don’t think we think we are better than others. And that attitude may not be declared but may be simply assumed by some.

  123. @ Okrapod:
    I am more concerned that disagreeing with those sorts of things will be considered hate speech or worse. We have already gone down that road. Jerks, sadsacks, right, left, rich, poor should have free speech and the freedom of conscience.

  124. Gram3 wrote:

    The coercion is not coming from the Christian bakers or florists but is rather directed at their conscientious reservations which we used to respect.

    And isn’t the coercion not aimed at the Christians themselves, so much as at the God these believers represent? This may not be consciously being done, but I think it is there in the background. They cannot actually get at God, so they go for the next best thing. The irony is that the God they fear and loathe has absolute control over their destiny, there is nothing they can do about it.

  125. @ Bill M:
    Wow. I am hoping there is a cure out there. The way things are going i fear there won’t be much incentive to seek one.

  126. Bill M wrote:

    Gram3 wrote:

    the Chinese have repeatedly demonstrated that they are unconstrained by our ethical standards

    About ten or twelve years ago I remember the one incident that an internet firewall was compromised was also at a genetic engineering firm. It was traced back to an ip address in China and one enterprising person on our side took a circuitous untraceable route to hack into their system and reformat it. I did the easy tracing part but someone else did the hacking, it was above my skills.

    It was explained to me that China would steal technology and wouldn’t abide by patent laws.

    This is more of what I was talking about. And not a good idea they own lots of assets in our country. But there will be many who think such an opinion is hate speech and painting all Chinese with a broad brush. Sigh. Makes any discussion increasingly difficult.

  127. @ Ken:
    I personally don’t think most of them really think that way. That is why I focus on the legal/political.

  128. Ken wrote:

    They cannot actually get at God, so they go for the next best thing. The irony is that the God they fear and loathe has absolute control over their destiny, there is nothing they can do about it.

    To the extent that all who refuse to bow the knee to their Creator make themselves god, then what you said may well be true. I don’t actually know people who are gay *and* who want to coerce others. The only gay people I know have respected me just as I have respected them. However, in every group of people, there are absolutitists and totalists, and the ones who have made their goal the subjection of everyone else to their way of thinking are certainly totalists. I don’t know how to get along with any kind of totalist in a pluralistic society, including in some respects the church itself.

  129. oldJohnJ wrote:

    In a culture that has banished our primary source of morality, the Ten Commandments, from public display where will the motivation to use only the positive aspects of genetic engineering come from?

    “When ‘what is right’ has been completely deconstructed, ‘What I Want’ will still remain.”
    — C.S.Lewis(?)

  130. Bill M wrote:

    With the bomb came an astonishing ability to destroy. With genetic manipulation comes a wondrous ability to create. Which contains the greater hazard?

    That is an interesting question. The ability to split the atom has had some very good consequences. There is much disagreement about whether the bombs at Hiroshima and Nagasaki were overall a net benefit to humanity. That is a horrible thing to even think about because there were/are real people who were harmed.

    We effectively weigh the value of some human lives against others. One can make an argument that the atomic weapons possessed by both NATO and the Soviet Union prevented *both* a nuclear war and another conventional war between the parties. The consequences were made too horrible to implement. Not saying it did, but it may have. And I say that as someone who would have been obliterated by the Missiles of October before I had a chance to duck and cover because we were that close to Cuba and were a nuclear target.

    Similarly, we should desire to cure people of genetic diseases, some of which like Marsha said about Huntington’s, are truly awful. Will we heal many but stop short of germline modification? I don’t know, but I suspect not because humans are fundamentally economic creatures in a fallen world.

  131. Gram3 wrote:

    another conventional war between the parties.

    Obviously, the war in Viet Nam was, at least in part, a proxy war, so there’s that.

  132. Gram3 wrote:

    I don’t know how to get along with any kind of totalist in a pluralistic society, including in some respects the church itself.

    Yes, this is key. And why I focus on the law making process. We are a nation of laws to obey, not humans to obey. And making laws is a messy business. There is a ton of evidence in the NT by the way Jesus operated in that culture as a Jew that He was totally ok with a pluralistic society. Also known as a composite society. What makes it more difficult for us to map is the fact that in our day and time we are supposed to be the government. We have a vote whether we are Christian, Jewish, Muslim, atheist, etc.

  133. Bill M wrote:

    My generation, has been described as the generation without a future because of the scare of nuclear war in the 50s and 60s. I was at least one that wondered if I would get married, have a family, figuring there was a chance we wouldn’t make it. One of our neighbors in the 60’s built a bomb shelter. I don’t recall if I was ever part of one of the duck and cover drills but I certainly recall a mention of it in grade school.

    I remember the Duck & Cover drills; especially the ones during the Cuban Missile Crisis where we also had to wear (fireproof) ID dogtags during the drill and the teachers would open all the windows in the classroom to their fullest.

    I remember the 1000% probablility of human extinction before the year 2000 in the Inevitable Global Thermonuclear War. I remember Hal Lindsay adding a Christianese coat of paint to Inevitable Global Thermonuclear War and offering a magical escape route before it could personally happen to you (just say the Magic Words and keep your nose sequeeky-clean…) I remember the After-the-Bomb sub-genre of SF and its Inevitable Global Thermonuclear War, the change in direction in SF from Bright Futures to Dark Futures — No, DARKER!

    Dee, this was a major reason Star Trek (one of the last of the mass-market SF Bright Futures) was such a hit it became a mass movement. Coming on the air three-four years after the Cuban Missile Crisis, Jim/Spock/Bones showed us a future where we didn’t blow ourselves up in Inevitable Global Thermonuclear War but instead Boldly Went Where No Man Has Gone Before. When everything is Grimdark and Crapsack and It’s All Over But The Screaming (Am I Not Edgy?), you grab for any Hope you can find. Whether it’s a white starship on its five-year mission in a Bright Future, cartoon ponies galloping in from their magical land, or a Chicago machine pol who gives a benevolent expression while intoning “Hope! Change! Hope-Change!”

  134. Okrapod wrote:

    Time was when the predominant thought among some christians was that any kind of pain relief during childbirth was forbidden by scripture.

    I’ve always been astonished at how Scripture can be misused to silence the human conscience and moral compass within when it screams NO ! ! !

  135. lydia wrote:

    I am more concerned that disagreeing with those sorts of things will be considered hate speech or worse.

    These have become little more than silencing tactics. Universities bill themselves as places of free inquiry but are instead places with speech codes.

    As you say later “Makes any discussion increasingly difficult.”

  136. lydia wrote:

    I am more concerned that disagreeing with those sorts of things will be considered hate speech or worse. We have already gone down that road. Jerks, sadsacks, right, left, rich, poor should have free speech and the freedom of conscience.

    Which is precisely why the Founders of our Nation wisely ensured that the spheres of religion and government remain separate and that neither is allowed to meddle in the affairs of the other.

    It’s important to remember that these protections go both ways. Preachers will be never be compelled by force of law to perform same sex unions in their places of worship if their conscience forbids it, nor will their free speech rights to preach against homosexuality from their pulpits ever be infringed. Not on these shores not ever.

  137. Bilbo Skaggins wrote:

    Take carbon dating, for instance. I was always taught that it was guesswork dreamt up by scientists who wanted to disprove a young earth.

    Radiometric Dating is a mature discipline firmly based on physics. An excellent review of the subject is: Radiometric Dating A Christian Perspective, Dr. Roger C. Wiens at http://www.asa3.org/ASA/resources/Wiens.html
    The the ASA is the American Scientific Association composed of science professionals who are Christians. A link to the organization is on the TWW home page. Wiens also disposes of a number of the YEC objections to radiometric dating. There is a brief author bio at the end of the document. If you have further questions post them as comments here or on the open discussion thread.

  138. *
    *
    *
    ___

    The Ten Commendments are still on ‘Our’ Nation’s Capitol walls…

    hmmm…

    Cheeeeeeeeeeese !

    Sure.

    There is still ‘hope’. that the image of God in Man will prevail as season longer, the Spirit of God being still present as a down payment to Jesus’ church, of promised wonderful  things to come.

    Jesus is on His throne, (as wel) waiting for His Father to make His enemies a footstool for His feet.

    Yep.

    Does that include ‘architects of very bad science’ ™ ?

    You Bet!

    The effectual fervent prayers of the Godly availeth mucho! (remember dat, huh?)

    Pray the ‘Lord Of the Harvest’ as well , that He would raise up laborers for His fields, those fields being white with harvest!

    blink, blink,

    ATB

    Sopy

    🙂

  139. Muff Potter wrote:

    It’s important to remember that these protections go both ways. Preachers will be never be compelled by force of law to perform same sex unions in their places of worship if their conscience forbids it, nor will their free speech rights to preach against homosexuality from their pulpits ever be infringed. Not on these shores not ever.

    I am not at all worried about the free speech of preachers. How about the free speech and freedom of conscience for bakers, florists, government workers, etc. Censoring takes many postures.

    Are we to become a nation of no opinions except those that are deemed politically correct at the time? How is that not like the churches we discuss?

  140. Bill M wrote:

    These have become little more than silencing tactics. Universities bill themselves as places of free inquiry but are instead places with speech codes.

    Yes, I am quite familiar.

  141. Okrapod wrote:

    Time was when the predominant thought among some christians was that any kind of pain relief during childbirth was forbidden by scripture.

    And wouldn’t one reason for this taking so long to change is the idea that one does not disagree with the spiritual or political authorities?

    I have even heard some very creepy teaching on this from Paul Washer. About how those cries are needed and good to show us how fallen we are.

  142. Anyway, to allay fears that Potter is ‘derailing’ the topic of the thread in any way, or that he might somehow be a fearful Luddite huddling in his cave at the prospect of a new and emerging technology (genetic engineering), let me say this:
    My fear is that the proper safeguards in the handling of this new technology may be eroding. I say this because in my opinion science is amoral and capital has no scruples. If there’s money to made in them thar’ double helix strands investor confidence will find a way to do it while throwing prudence to the wind.

  143. Muff Potter wrote:

    My fear is that the proper safeguards in the handling of this new technology may be eroding. I say this because in my opinion science is amoral and capital has no scruples. If there’s money to made in them thar’ double helix strands investor confidence will find a way to do it while throwing prudence to the wind.

    And what is worse is that we won’t have a say in how genetic engineering is used because of unrepented opposition to other aspects of science.

  144. Muff Potter wrote:

    Preachers will be never be compelled by force of law to perform same sex unions in their places of worship if their conscience forbids it, nor will their free speech rights to preach against homosexuality from their pulpits ever be infringed. Not on these shores not ever.

    Lydia wrote:

    I am not at all worried about the free speech of preachers.

    So far there is free speech on a lot of subjects as long as the preachers are in their pulpits. However, several military chaplains have been in trouble for things which were within the limits of traditional christianity, except they were military chaplains.

    At the same time there is the issue of political speech in the pulpit and whether the IRS will crack down on it with the procedures it already has in place but has not been using. Now that gay marriage is a political issue and a civil rights issue with the supreme court behind it I am not sure that such a crackdown would not come if it became politically expedient to do so.

  145. Now let me say that I do hope that you all do not think that ‘science/technology’ and ‘medicine’ operate with clean hands in all aspects but that now that might change with the newer technologies. Please, already. There have always been problems and problem people and money to be made and mini-empires to be built and corruption to be dealt with. We do not go back to pre-scientific revolution days and we do not limit medicine to herbs and incantations because of it.

  146. Okrapod wrote:

    Nuclear waste disposal is a political, not a technological problem.

    Disagree. Nobody wants to live next door to the byproducts of nuclear waste. Why only this morning I read an article in the Guardian about Runit Dome in the Pacific, which is a waste site from US nuclear tests. The dome is deteriorating (it was completed in 1979) and radioactive waste is beginning to leach out. There is concern this waste could be spread far and wide by a major storm or by the effects of global climate change causing a sea level rise.

    http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jul/03/runit-dome-pacific-radioactive-waste

    And of course if people aren’t aware over the struggle to keep the Chernobyl site capped and clean up Fukushima, there are those as well.

    Back in the early 1980s, when I was in college, I went to a fascinating lecture by a professor of linguistics from another university who had been contracted by the Department of Energy to come up with signs for the then-proposed “waste facility somewhere in the barren Western US” (this was before the designation of Yucca Mountain). Basically, what the DoE wanted was signs that would contain symbols to stand the test of time–something you could put up in 2040 and it still be relevant and warn people off in 12040. This guy came to the conclusion that there was no sign, no symbol that would stand the test of time and his suggestion was that instead of going with signs, that the government set up a sort of “nuclear priesthood” with a story about how you didn’t want to be wandering around in the 8040 version of a nuclear repository because it was still quite dangerous!

    The government did not go for that, of course. Instead, it’s my understanding the designers of Yucca Mountain (or maybe it’s WIPP after it gets sealed) plan on building all sorts of booby traps designed to keep the people of future millennia away from the nuclear waste.

    And we should not underestimate the impact of nuclear waste of all types. I remember reading about the Goiania, Brasil, accident of 1987, where an old radiotherapy machine was left behind after a private hospital moved. Anyway, the upshot was a portion of the machine–including the radiation source–was stolen from the vacant building and hauled away by a couple of scavengers. I won’t go into detail (Wikipedia does that just fine) but there were four deaths, a couple hundred people confirmed to have been exposed over 112,000 people got screened (presumably walking in front of another person with a Geiger counter. The capsule containing the radioactive material was apparently 2 inches by 1.8 inches and contained 93 grams of cesium chloride. The Wikipedia article has geolocation links to the locations where the source radiation was taken–if you look at the picture of the first place the capsule was taken, it’s been entirely bulldozed and sealed over with concrete.

    No, it’s not just a political issue, it’s also a public health issue.

  147. Okrapod wrote:

    Time was when the predominant thought among some christians was that any kind of pain relief during childbirth was forbidden by scripture.

    Wow, I honestly thought that was an L. Ron Hubbard thing. Or maybe he just brought it back. Scientologist women are supposed to engage in “silent birth,” so that the baby doesn’t have its engrams restimulated by mother’s yelling.

  148. mirele wrote:

    Okrapod wrote:

    Time was when the predominant thought among some christians was that any kind of pain relief during childbirth was forbidden by scripture.

    Wow, I honestly thought that was an L. Ron Hubbard thing.

    No, it was mainstream Christian.

    When anesthetics were first introduced, many clergymen preached against using them to alleviate labor pains. It was Rebellion against God, who saith “In Pain Shalt Thou Bring Forth Children.”

    Queen Victoria broke the ice on that one, when she used anesthesia during one of her births. If Her Majesty the Queen, Supreme Head of the Church of England, could…

    And I understand Ben Franklin took similar flak when he invented the lightning rod, thus Rebelling against God Who Sendeth Lightning to Punish Sins.

    With this sort of track record, who’s going to take seriously Christian Leaders (these days being grim-faced older white men in $500 suits) pronouncing Man Was Not Meant To Know about ANYTHING?

  149. AnnaA wrote:

    Headless Unicorn
    P.S. Anyone in this massmind ever heard of the name “Cordwainer Smith”?
    I ran across him when I first started reading sci-fi, and still have some very battered books. But his worlds are very scary about the way people treat others who are not people.

    Remember the direction of this thread.

  150. oldJohnJ wrote:

    And what is worse is that we won’t have a say in how genetic engineering is used because of unrepented opposition to other aspects of science.

    When you have no future, the future still has a way of happening even if you opt out of having any input or influence on it. And you WILL find yourself Left Behind, just not in the way you thought.

  151. Lydia wrote:

    Are we to become a nation of no opinions except those that are deemed politically correct at the time? How is that not like the churches we discuss?

    At which point, the only way to have freedom of speech is to take over the System in a coup, put yourself on the Iron Throne, and make sure NO opinions other than YOURS are ever uttered.

    “Some will ask whether what we do is legal. Before that can happen, make sure WE are the ones who define what is legal and what is not.”
    — L Ron Hubbard

  152. Muff Potter wrote:

    Which is precisely why the Founders of our Nation wisely ensured that the spheres of religion and government remain separate and that neither is allowed to meddle in the affairs of the other.

    Because the Reformation Wars, Calvin’s Geneva, and Cromwell’s Commonwealth were still fresh in their minds.

  153. Okrapod wrote:

    Now let me say that I do hope that you all do not think that ‘science/technology’ and ‘medicine’ operate with clean hands in all aspects but that now that might change with the newer technologies.

    That’s not what I think which is that some people will do what they want to do for their own benefit regardless of whether that harms anyone else or not. Physician or businessman or anything else.

    You made a very good point about the military chaplains. And you made a good point about “whose” ethics which I think I missed on the first go-around. Ethics are personal, and ISTM that decisions about how groups are going to act when they affect others need to be made in a collaborative fashion. I think there are lots of advantages to that approach, including the idea that the ethical guidelines produced by that process are not covertly the view of a particular interest group.

  154. Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

    Remember the direction of this thread.

    Since I live in a bubble, how will we define what a “human” is if the genome is altered, particularly in the germline? What if genes are added or deleted for some reason either good or bad? Are we, as Jeff S said, making a somewhat arbitrary distinction? Would this be a high-tech variation of racialism?

  155. Sopwith wrote:

    In 1624 Francis Bacon Fortells Genetic Engineering?

    Thanks for this. I missed it the first time through the comments. A few are genuinely ahead of the curve. Some of the rest of us struggle to keep up. Far too many don’t even know there is a curve.

  156. As I understand it, there are now people who specialize in medical ethics. The first time I read about a medical ethicist being consulted about a clinical trial, I found myself disagreeing with him.

    It was an early gene therapy trial. An eighteen year old with a milder form of a potentially fatal disease was recruited. His disease was under control but the idea was that he, more fortunate than younger children with the more severe and fatal form, could help save their lives.

    The medical ethicist believed that it would be too psychologically coercive to offer the trial to the parents of dying children. He reasoned that they couldn’t really give informed consent since they would grasp at any hope. So the decision was made to recruit adults with the milder form of the disease.

    I saw it differently. The sicker children and their parents had little to lose IMO and could certainly have been offered a chance to participate in the trial. In contrast, I felt that some coercion was involved in recruiting the young man on the grounds that he was one of the ‘lucky ones’ whose disease could be controlled. He died as a result of the trial.

    It is not that I am right and the medical ethicist is wrong, it is that with all the goodwill in the world, I don’t see how we could develop a system of ethical thought that applies to all the medical decisions that will be made as we take a leap into the dark.

  157. mirele wrote:

    Wow, I honestly thought that was an L. Ron Hubbard thing. Or maybe he just brought it back. Scientologist women are supposed to engage in “silent birth,” so that the baby doesn’t have its engrams restimulated by mother’s yelling.

    Seriously? That would be my bubble! The Puritans were horrible about this. Any attempt to alleviate pain during childbirth was considered a form of witchcraft and punished. And the irony is that women often turned other women in who were making “concoctions”.

    They saw the pain in labor as “deserved” to remind women of their fallen nature and punishment by God. This is why when I hear guys like Paul Washer make similar pronouncements, it gives me chills. Too bad he won’t get the option to forgo pain management during surgery. :o)

  158. Muff Potter wrote:

    nor will their free speech rights to preach against homosexuality from their pulpits ever be infringed.

    I expect, in view of the Oregon bakery case final ruling, that this will be tested. The bakers are not permitted to publish their reasons for refusing accommodation, namely a religious objection to participating in activity which violates their religious conviction rather than a blanket refusal to serve customers based on their sexual orientation.

  159. @ Marsha:
    That is a great example. I agree with your position, btw. Another fight was over hospice philosophy and palliative care which might, in effect, hasten death which is inevitable due to irreversible conditions. My grandmother died of bone cancer in a religious hospital and was denied adequate pain relief. I believe that was a common practice at the time due to morphine’s respiratory effects. Now it is considered more humane and more Christian to alleviate pain at the expense of shortening a life by a bit. These are really difficult questions.

  160. mirele wrote:

    No, it’s not just a political issue, it’s also a public health issue.

    Ummm. I did not say anything about nuclear waste. I can’t find who said that, but it was not I.

  161. @ Gram3:

    Can you provide a link which shows that their right to free speech and press has been infringed? If it’s indeed true, then such a court ruling needs to be struck down and overturned.

  162. Gram3 wrote:

    My grandmother died of bone cancer in a religious hospital and was denied adequate pain relief. I believe that was a common practice at the time due to morphine’s respiratory effects.

    Back in the day this varied with different hospitals/ religious affiliations. It was not culture wide to deny pain meds but I did run into it during my internship in one situation only.

  163. @ Muff Potter:

    There is an article in the daily signal. IMO you have to go to right wing pubs to get this sort of information some times. Apparently they had already done the interview before the court order of silence.

  164. mirele wrote:

    Nuclear waste disposal is a political, not a technological problem.

    Yes I said this, not okrapod and I’ll stick with it. Chernobyl appears to be a Not Invented Here political failure while Fukushima is an improper siting failure. I can’t speak to the Pacific bomb test site. The Three Mile Island meltdown did not release any significant radiation even though it was an economic disaster.

    The biggest political failure regarding nuclear energy here in the US is the closing of the Yucca Flats long term disposal facility before any use of it was made.

    Of course, the eventual end result of nuclear energy political or technical failures is the same.

  165. @ Muff Potter:
    I found out about it by just checking the status of the case. I had no idea the final ruling came down. There are a number of links if you search. Many of them quoted the actual ruling and the relevant Oregon law, so I assume it is legit. I imagine the speech aspect will be challenged, and it is interesting that speech cannot be tolerated in a case that is about tolerance.

  166. Muff Potter wrote:

    Can you provide a link which shows that their right to free speech and press has been infringed? If it’s indeed true, then such a court ruling needs to be struck down and overturned.

    There’s a ton of links about it on the internet.

    The bakers were given a gag order by the judge.

    There are several blogs and news outlets carrying the story. Here is just one:

    State Silences Bakers Who Refused to Make Cake for Lesbian Couple, Fines Them $135K
    http://dailysignal.com/2015/07/02/state-silences-bakers-who-refused-to-make-cake-for-lesbian-couple-fines-them-135k/

    Snippet:

    In the ruling, Avakian placed an effective gag order on the Kleins, ordering them to “cease and desist” from speaking publicly about not wanting to bake cakes for same-sex weddings based on their Christian beliefs…
    “The Commissioner of the Bureau of Labor and Industries hereby orders [Aaron and Melissa Klein] to cease and desist from publishing, circulating, issuing or displaying, or causing to be published … any communication to the effect that any of the accommodations
    … will be refused, withheld from or denied to, or that any discrimination be made against, any person on account of their sexual orientation,” Avakian wrote.

  167. @ HUG:

    the change in direction in SF from Bright Futures to Dark Futures — No, DARKER!

    This reminds of something my dad has said for years: that if LOTR had been written in the 60s or 70s, Frodo would have succumbed to the power of the Ring, and Sauron would have taken over Middle Earth forever and killed everyone.

  168. Hester wrote:

    @ HUG:
    the change in direction in SF from Bright Futures to Dark Futures — No, DARKER!
    This reminds of something my dad has said for years: that if LOTR had been written in the 60s or 70s, Frodo would have succumbed to the power of the Ring, and Sauron would have taken over Middle Earth forever and killed everyone.

    DARK!!!!! And EDGY!!!!!

    Problem is, when Everything Is DARK!!!!! And EDGY!!!!!! there is no Dark & Edgy. It’s what’s NORMAL.

    Kind of like the official schooling in Interstellar, where the Moon Landing is a Hoax, There Is No Hope, Earth is Dying, Humans Should Just Accept Soon Inevitable Extinction (for their Sins against The Plaaaanet?), AND DON’T YOU DARE DO ANYTHING TO SOLVE THE PROBLEM OR GIVE ANYONE HOPE!

  169. Okrapod wrote:

    @ Muff Potter:

    There is an article in the daily signal. IMO you have to go to right wing pubs to get this sort of information some times.

    Because to mainstream media, it’s Not News.
    (OOOOOO! LOOK! IT’S KIM KARDASHIAN!!!!!)

  170. Lydia wrote:

    They saw the pain in labor as “deserved” to remind women of their fallen nature and punishment by God. This is why when I hear guys like Paul Washer make similar pronouncements, it gives me chills.

    Again: Does God ever do anything other than PUNISH PUNISH PUNISH PUNISH PUNISH?

    Too bad he won’t get the option to forgo pain management during surgery. :o)

    Of course not. He’s Male.

  171. @ Okrapod:
    I believe the judge construed their interview about their situation as “advertising” their intent not to accommodate, and the Oregon law has a provision that businesses cannot advertise that they do not accommodate protected classes.

  172. Can any of our scientists say whether there is a grand ethics board of some kind for research and how it is constituted? Or is regulation left up to the feds? I’m wondering who will or can decide what is permissible and what is not, and I don’t know how that process goes.

  173. Gram3 wrote:

    Can any of our scientists say whether there is a grand ethics board of some kind for research and how it is constituted? Or is regulation left up to the feds? I’m wondering who will or can decide what is permissible and what is not, and I don’t know how that process goes.

    There is no “grand ethics board” making ethical decisions about what research can be done. In the USA the FDA has considerable clout about what can be practiced which provides some practical constraints on research. Self policing by researchers in a field can provide restraint: the Asilomar I conference and the call for a second one. Funding agencies can limit who gets funded. Journal editors can choose what to publish. The scary part of CRISPR based genetic engineering is how effective it appears to be and that it can be done by relatively small groups. It does not need national laboratory scale facilities. The first published human embryonic genetic engineering experiment using CRISPR was done at a Chinese university barely three years after the technique was first published.

  174. __

    “…What Can Be Practiced (r) ?”

    hmmm…

    Old JohnJ,

    “What is the average ‘profit’ represented by a cubic centameter of genetic material at an average height of  0.0254 meters above a surface of a scientific lab table?”

  175. Sopwith wrote:

    “What is the average ‘profit’ represented by a cubic centameter of genetic material at an average height of  0.0254 meters above a surface of a scientific lab table?”

    I don’t have an answer for this. I doubt a person has as much as 1 cc of genetic material. Whatever it is worth, aggressive lawyers will substantially increase it’s value. Ask Monsanto.

  176. __

    “Hail to progress?”

    hmmm…

    oldJohnJ,

    hey,

    …it was a humorous play on a  previous posted article of yours here @ TWW.

    (grin)

    A very crude illustration of “profit motivates scientific discovery”, and that – sometimes with disastrous results.

    Gump.

    ATB

    Sopy

  177. I finally decided to add my 2 cents worth. I’m not overly concerned about the future possibility of human genetic engineering. I think we have bigger problems to think about like climate change, clean water, the 6th extinction, etc, etc.

    By the way, we didn’t invent genetic engineering. There are four Hebrew words used in Genesis for creation. Each has a different meaning. Adam was molded like clay from the dirt. I personally think that means God wanted something different for the messianic line he was preparing. Human beings had already been created on the 6th day (however long that was and by whatever means it happened). I believe the reason that Genesis 1 and 2 are so different is that Genesis 2 is the “eighth day” or the first day of the new week. God genetically engineered Adam and then the animals that Adam was supposed to name and domesticate. Then God cloned Eve(yes, a different Hebrew word was used). Finally when “all flesh was corrupted” except for Noah’s line a huge flood but not a world wide one happened to keep the “corruption” from spreading to the rest of the human race.

    Of course, Genesis could just be a story or poetry or a myth and you can just ignore my 2 cents.

  178. __

    “Reseting The Complexity?”

    hmmm…

    Is it time to re-write the rules acknowledging  how much more complicated genetic systems are than the legal regulations, and the enteprising corporations that have written them, give credit?

    ATB

    Sopy

  179. @ oldJohnJ:
    Thanks, OldJohnJ. I expect that means we will rejoice with the good and try to figure out what to do about the bad that comes of this.

  180. By the way, I am against GMOs because we do not know what the unintended consequences will be. That includes human GMOs. Our children’s children’s children will bare the brunt of what we are doing right now. But I suspect it will happen anyway if the other issues that I mentioned above don’t kick us back to the stone age.

    In case you didn’t catch it above, I am an old earth creationist. I think such a creative, long lived being would be very involved in their creation. It wouldn’t hurt my feelings, though, if evolution was/is one of God’s creation tools.

  181. __

    “Genetic Engineering (GE) And Health?” 

    hmmm…

    Did you know (for example) that food allergies have dramatically increased, with almost five million children today suffering from them?

    huh?

    Did you know  also that Research exposing the health repercussions linked to ‘genetically modified foods’ (r)  is mounting as well?

    What?

    A simple Internet search found the following links:

    http://no-patents-on-seeds.org/sites/default/files/news/report_future_of_seed_en.pdf

    http://www.no-patents-on-seeds.org/

    http://www.theecologist.org/News/news_round_up/625294/revealed_how_seed_market_is_controlled_by_monsanto_syngenta_bayer_dow_dupont.html

    http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2012/01/the-very-real-danger-of-genetically-modified-foods/251051/

    Profit is as profit does?

    Could b.

    So much for your ‘brave new world’ ™, huh?

    (sadface)

    Sopy

  182. @ Muff Potter:
    I hope to read up on it. I was wondering if the court was gagging an incorporated business. The whole thing is disturbing g and sounds like ruling by technicality to shut up free speech.

  183. __

    “A Genetic Bridge Too Far… Perhaps?”

    hmmm…

    “You’re probably familiar with South Korea’s glow-in-the-dark cats 

    (if not, here’s a video, plug this into YouTube:

    South Korea’s glow-in-the-dark cats 

    *

    I kid you not, they’re genetically modified cats with fluorescent pigmentation in their skin that causes them to glow red under UV light. The researchers then cloned them, successfully carrying the fluorescent gene to the next generation of kitty clones. For better or for worse, it looks like genetic engineering is here to stay, which begs the question: 

    Q. How will we know when we’ve gone too far? 

    Q. What’s the line between scientific progress and irreversibly changing the DNA of a life form?

    __
    Reference:
    http://raptureforums.com/forums/threads/pandoras-box-genetic-engineering.100012/

  184.   __

    KnostroData?” ™

    “…what can be practiced?”

    hmmm…

    In a dark carvout, 
    Advancement in human genetics long shares existence,
    Complete with current promising samples,
    Restance to scientific progress is futile?

  185. @ Sopwith :

    I think you bring up a good point Sopy. At what point do the risks of this new technology start to outweigh its benefits? Novelist David Mitchell deals extensively with this question in his book Cloud Atlas. In it he describes a bleak future dystopia (ironically in Korea) based on genetic engineering.
    I thought the film version made by the Wachowskis (of Matrix fame) was quite well done and sobering too.

  186. Bill M wrote:

    My generation, has been described as the generation without a future because of the scare of nuclear war in the 50s and 60s. I was at least one that wondered if I would get married, have a family, figuring there was a chance we wouldn’t make it. One of our neighbors in the 60’s built a bomb shelter. I don’t recall if I was ever part of one of the duck and cover drills but I certainly recall a mention of it in grade school.

    I was part of many duck-and-cover drills back in the day. It was ghastly & horrible. I woke up screaming in the middle of the night every time we had one…..
    We were all marked by those days, & I know that I carry the scars even now. (Which is probably why I shy away from most science fiction. Once was more than enough). Star Trek has always been a passion; I think its hopeful view of the future got me through my teens & twenties).
    .

  187. Jeff S wrote:

    So, this is probably a surprising thing for me to say, and might anger some people, but from my perspective the question is not when human life begins, but at what point pre-born human life is valued the same as born human life. Most prolife abortion arguments assume they are the same, but I don’t think you can make this argument from scripture. At least, I don’t think it’s iron clad.

    Simply put, scripture doesn’t seem to give us the point that human life becomes valuable, but there is some indication (to me) that early pre-born life is not considered as valuable as a born human: Numbers 5, where it seems that an abortificant is given to a woman accused of adultery. Now that’s an interpretation, but in my mind it is the clearest reading of the text, and absent any other information, it calls into question the idea that life at conception is considered by God to be as valuable as a newborn baby.

    I’m not saying I’m pro-choice, but I am trying to be reasonable about how much the pro-life (or “life begins at conception”) position can argue from scripture.

    But to the overall point, mucking with human beings and trying to perfect them is probably inevitable, but it’s terrifying. The answer to human sickness and pain is always first and foremost the Gospel, and secondary to that is the advances we can make through medicine and other human means. However, even medicine is abused quite often because many think it is the cure when it isn’t.

    This is where I find myslef also. Its not a comfortable spot.

  188. Bill M wrote:

    My generation, has been described as the generation without a future because of the scare of nuclear war in the 50s and 60s. I was at least one that wondered if I would get married, have a family, figuring there was a chance we wouldn’t make it.

    Note that BillM is describing “I had no future” in terms normally associated with Rapturitis/Left Behind Fever.

    A couple years ago, I had an epiphany:

    All Hal Lindsay (and his descendants the Left Behinders) did was take the surrounding culture’s trope of Inevitable Global Thermonuclear War(TM), give it a Christianese coat of paint, and add a magical escape route (The Rapture) before anything bad could personally happen to you (if you just Said the Magic Words).

    As well as spawning an “It’s All Gonna Burn” indifference, it started a form of Grinning Apocalyptism I described as “Christians For Nuclear War.”

    All the apocalyptic movies indicates more than a passing interest in genetic research. Hopefully more wise voices like OldJohn in the Christian community can speak out and set the tone before we hear from the Driscolls.

    You can tell what’s worrying a culture by looking at their Dystopian and Apocalyptic fiction.

  189. Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

    You can tell what’s worrying a culture by looking at their Dystopian and Apocalyptic fiction.

    I distinctly remember hearing Papa Chuck say it’s all gonna burn during one of his rapture fevered messages at Calvary Chapel Costa Mesa way back in the day. The future is a kind of set futility, the only thing you can do is get right with the Lord so you don’t wind up cast into the lake of fire along with the beast and the false prophet. Everything is per the Lord’s blueprint (2 Peter 3:10).

  190. The two names most associated with the CRISPR breakthrough are Jennifer Doudna and Emanuelle Charpentier, the authors of the SCIENCE review article cited in the post, who were awarded the Breakthrough Prize ($3,000,000 each) for their part in inventing the CRISPR/cas9 techniques: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/12/science/jennifer-doudna-crispr-cas9-genetic-engineering.html?emc=edit_tnt_20150511&nlid=52632430&tntemail0=y&_r=2 There is some fine irony here. Perhaps complementarianism works to the advantage of science by guiding women into fields other than church work.

  191.   __

    The scripture declares that death came by one man, Adam (Rom 5:12).

    Q. Does the theory of theistic evolutionary process challenge the bible’s position?

  192. __

    “R U Rich Toward God?”

    Muff,

    hey,

    I will say to my soul, ‘Soul, you have many goods laid up for many years to come; take your ease, eat, drink and be merry..?

    hmmm…

    Who is the man who stores up treasure for himself, and is not rich toward God?

    What?

    Isn’t it a good idea to get right with the Lord, regardless of what the future may hold?

    ATB   🙂

    Sopy

  193. __

    Jesus states that He believed and placed trust in the prophet Moses’ testimony, Yet Moses wrote of a six day creation period, placing his Genesis testimony in direct conflict with the established testimony of modern science, and those who practice it. Were Moses and Jesus respectfully uninformed, or possibly some other?

    ATB

    Sopy

    — 

  194. __

    Jesus states that He believed and placed trust in the prophet Moses’ testimony, Yet Moses wrote of a six day creation period, placing his Genesis testimony in direct conflict with the established testimony of modern science, and those who practice it. Were Moses and Jesus respectfully uninformed, or possibly some other?

    — 

  195. @ Sopwith:
    Sopy, I believe God speaks only truth. When the truth is beyond what those who hear it can understand He speaks allegorically. What He spoke through Moses was in a language and at a level appropriate to Moses’ (and Jesus’) time. Present science affirms there was a beginning to the universe: the big bang theory. It also says that there will be no end to the universe: we are not simply part of one of an infinitely repeating series of universes. Our universe is a singular event. When the universe ends it will be at God’s command. The poetic nature of early Genesis can accommodate this picture.

    The unity between the sciences that give the very ancient age for the universe and the technologies that support conversations like this has been previously mentioned.

    I apologize for taking so long to answer. I’m not completely happy with the way I phrased my answer but it will have to do.

  196. __

    “A Room With A View?”

    hmmm…

    oldJohnJ,

    hey,

    Thank you for sharing your science view and belief system. Thank you as well for placing your ‘trust’ in Jesus, He is certainly ‘good for it’!

    ATB

    Sopy

  197. @ Bilbo Skaggins:
    Unfortunately, I firmly disagree. I suggest that you separate your belief system (whatever it is) from science, and science from your belief system. I think that it is the most healthy way to live and enjoy your life.

    It is very easy to communicate and share your thoughts and imagination about things that we do not fully understand and give names, descriptions to them based on the things that we know, but until we do not completely understand them, they are like a mystery. The main role of any scientist is to be skeptic about everything unless there is peer-reviewed, reproducible evidence, and even in those cases, proofs can be changed as new evidence is discovered. Take for example the first scientists, the astronomers. From the beginning they had a very solid notion that the Earth was the center of the Universe. They based their conception of the Cosmos based on their limited tools to observe it and this conception permeated through every corner of civilization over time. But even the notion by the time of Christopher Columbus that the Earth itself was flat, were not changed until new evidence prove them wrong, but the change, the paradigm shift was not as easy as we can speak about these changes today. Put yourself in the shoes of those who during the history of humankind have have the courage, the passion, the strength and love for understanding and exploring the world inside and outside of us, the humble scientists looking for answers to their observations, and once they discover that they are in clear opposition to what everyone else believe, you, in those shoes, decide to challenge the status quo, even chastised as blasphemous because you have solid evidence to prove it and to share your findings with anyone to disprove it, in which case, you will humbly accept.

    Using this media to communicate (the Internet, the World Wide Web), and any other thing that you use, wear, eat or drink without crediting the science behind it, I think is incoherent, a hypocrisy, as well as if you add that your supreme religious figure was behind a discovery. And, it is my main problem with religions of any kind that I have study and personally tried: they all try to convert, to add you to their ranks based on the rewards that you will get in this life or after, that you will be protected now and after, and so on and so forth. In reality, what I see, is that they need you to pay a tribute based on ignorance, a threat, a lost of opportunity, an impossible to prove benefit after life or just companionship so their leaders and their infrastructure can be sustained. And then, just to finish, you have so many religions in antagonistic competition. Although all of this and much more is sad about religions, science and scientists have existed, exists and will exist always looking for answers, opening the doors to new discoveries and creating the roads for new opportunities for humankind. As scientists, we do not see religion as an enemy as much as religions see science as an inconvenient need if not as an enemy to their growth, or permanence.

    As we changed our conception of our beautiful planet to be the center of the Universe to humbly be just another planet revolving around our Sun, and society, in general, learned and adapted as well, religions have not; e.g., the conception of Heaven in Christianity. Unfortunately, the end to all religions as we know them is getting closer and closer: they either adapt or they will perish. Some of them are adapting and flourishing, some are not and decreasing their numbers of followers dramatically, and some new religions are expected. These changes are hand in hand with genetic engineering, mutations and change: some changes can occur driven by human intervention, others occur by errors during replication to produce a positive or a negative mutation. Would you intervene to adapt your religion as fast as you can, or would you wait for it to occur alone?

  198. Karl wrote:

    But even the notion by the time of Christopher Columbus that the Earth itself was flat, were not changed until new evidence prove them wrong

    Slightly tangential, but I’m afraid this is a myth. So much so that it actually has a name (the Flat Earth Myth – wikipedia.org/flat_earth). There is abundant evidence that medieval Europeans knew the earth to be a sphere, a fact accepted empirically by Aristotle many centuries previously. Columbus undoubtedly faced many obstacles in funding his expedition, but the belief that he’d fall off the edge was not one of them!

    Ironically, the early Greek thinkers such as Pythagoras believed the earth to be a sphere at least partly on philosophical grounds – Pythagoras reasoned that a sphere was the most perfect shape and therefore that the gods would obviously create a spherical earth. So you might say they got lucky, or were right for the wrong reasons, but they set about measuring it anyway – as you would. Eratosthenes is believed to have measured the circumference of the earth in around 200 B.C. and probably came up with a half-decent answer. (Probably, because he gave the answer in stadia and it’s not certain exactly how long a stadium was.)

  199. @ Karl:
    The 1978 Nobel Physics Prize (Penzias & Wilson) was for experimental evidence, the 3 degree Kelvin background cosmic microwave radiation, confirming the Big Bang, the birth of our universe. The actual observations were made in the early 1960s. The 2011 Nobel Physics (Perlmutter, Schmidt & Riess) was for astronomical observations indicating the expansion of universe is accelerating, not decelerating. Thus our universe had a moment of creation but does not appear to have a built-in end. In particular there is no support for either a steady state cosmology existing in its present form for all time or an infinitely repeating cycle of universe creations and deaths. The universe is a single unique event. This suggests there is something “outside” of the observable universe as the cause. Rationally what might it be? Given the pedigree of the references this is about as good experimental evidence that science can provide. Definitely strong empirical evidence. I think it is only in question to the extent that science is never finished and there may be some new physics discovered. If the YEC community would get over their infatuation with the Jewish calendar they might realize there is significant scientific support for a created universe.

    I’ve made similar comments more than once here on TWW, primarily in regard to YEC comments. I think the other end of the theological spectrum needs to examine the preconceptions in light of current cosmology.

  200. @ Karl:

    Are you sure that you are not getting the concepts of good and evil confused with the ideas and methodologies of science and those of religion? The idea of the hero scientist and the villainous religionist is an extremely limited concept. Just as limited as any concept of the hero religionist and the mad scientist. Any idea that all that ‘science’ does is for the good of humanity and all that ‘religion’ does is to the detriment of humanity does not really hold up since both are subject to being either good or bad for humanity based on their applications to circumstances. The misuse of religion gave us the inquisition and the misuse of science gave us Hiroshima. Neither misuse however completely made either the philosophy and methodology of science nor the insights of religion totally bad stuff. In my field (medicine) enormous progress has been made in the recent past, but right now we have a viral video of the latest horror in the abortion industry. In religion we have the good and the evil in the recent martyrdom of the coptic christians; religious belief which inspires barbarity and religious belief which inspires courage to the death. So is ‘science’ good or bad; and is ‘religion’ good or bad?

    In my thinking both can be paths to some truths, but what people then do with that is quite another matter. This must not get confused-that truths on the one hand and people on the other hand are not interchangeable concepts.

    Karl, you were quite forthright so let me be also. You do not sound like you have a sound academic background in science ( based on the obvious observations of both Nick and OldJohnJ ) and you sound like you don’t have much of a background in religion based on the fact that your problems seem to be mostly about the people involved and not about the philosophical assumptions and pragmatic applications of religion. If you are satisfied with where you are now in relation to both science and religion then that certainly is your choice. If I am incorrect then I apologize.

  201. Sopwith wrote:

    Isn’t it a good idea to get right with the Lord, regardless of what the future may hold?

    Respectfully Sopy,

    I will eat my bread with joy and drink
    my mango juice & Perrier with a merry heart,
    for God has already approved what I do.

    My garments will always be white and my head
    will lack no oil.

    I will enjoy life with the wife whom I love
    all the days of my vain life which the Almighty has given
    me under the sun, because that is my portion in this life
    and the result of my toil under the sun.

    Whatever my hand finds to do, I will do it with gusto for there
    is no work, or thought, or knowledge, or wisdom in Sheol where I am going.

    Ecclesiastes 9:7-10