*In the Bible, God does leave specific commandments against interspecies breeding. A man laying with a beast (cow, goat, etc) is automatically stoned to death. God has ordained that a species remain within the bounds of his own species. Hence, it is clear that any attempt to transcend a species by genetic engineering would be a violation of this directive, whether a natural process or an artificial process is used.*
Going back to the Bible for moral guidance is a stretch. The operative phrase is “Commandments against intersperses breeding”. Genetic engineering is not sexual breeding. It is a software operation were sub-elements of genetic code are fabricated from 4 bottles of chemicals, then these sub-elements are assembled by software into progressively larger units until the entire genome is built. How can simple chemistry procedure be a sin? On Fri, Aug 3, 2012 at 9:16 PM, Jojo Jaro <[email protected]> wrote: > ** > Axil, since you are asking an ethical question that delves into religion > and the Bible, I will answer an answer from the Bible > > In the Bible, God does leave specific commandments against interspecies > breeding. A man laying with a beast (cow, goat, etc) is automatically > stoned to death. God has ordained that a species remain within the bounds > of his own species. Hence, it is clear that any attempt to transcend a > species by genetic engineering would be a violation of this directive, > whether a natural process or an artificial process is used. > > So, to answer your question clearly and unambigiously, genetic engineering > is wrong from a Biblical standpoint. It is one thing to develop genetic > drugs to cure genetic diseases, it is another thing to modify the human > species into something else thru a manipulation of its DNA. > > > As for your question on whether a "created" human, ie. a clone of some > kind, would have a soul, I am not sure. But I would tend to believe NO, it > does not. The Biblical narrative of man's creation by God says that God > formed man out of the dust of the earth and then breathe into him, and thus > man became a living soul. Man could possibly form another man via genetic > engineering but without God breathing into him, he would not be a living > soul. > > > > Jojo > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > *From:* Axil Axil <[email protected]> > *To:* [email protected] > *Sent:* Saturday, August 04, 2012 8:59 AM > *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:The Fallacies of Darwinian Evolution - Basic > Definitions > > In the context of intelligent design, the interesting question from an > ethical standpoint is as follows: > > If God's plan of creation is embodied in human DNA, is it a sin for man to > modify it in order to correct flaws in it or to improve the human species > as a general principle? > > Is creation of a new type of human or another species a violation of > God's plan? If humans are genetically modified to breath the Martian > atmosphere and to endure the low gravity conditions, are they conceived in > sin. > > Craig Venter creates synthetic life form > > > http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2010/may/20/craig-venter-synthetic-life-form > > Has Craig Venter sinned against the plan of God? > > > Julian Savulescu, professor of practical ethics at Oxford University, > said: "Venter is creaking open the most profound door in humanity's > history, potentially peeking into its destiny. He is not merely copying > life artificially ... or modifying it radically by genetic engineering. He > is going towards the role of a god: creating artificial life that could > never have existed naturally." > > > This is "a defining moment in the history of biology and biotechnology", > Mark Bedau, a philosopher at Reed College in Portland, Oregon, told Science. > > If someone creates a man from scratch, does that created man have a soul? > > On Fri, Aug 3, 2012 at 8:13 PM, Jojo Jaro <[email protected]> wrote: > >> ** >> Cool!!! Won't be long now until we get a complete catalog of each and >> every DNA sequence of each and every living plant and animal. When we have >> this, it would probably is a new dawn in the study of species. No longer >> will we be dependent on classification based on gross physical >> characteristics. This new "Genetic" definition of a species will clear up >> a lot of misunderstandings and I predict will finally discredit this idea >> of species evolving from another species, ie. Darwinian Evolution. >> >> >> Jojo >> >> >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> *From:* MarkI-ZeroPoint <[email protected]> >> *To:* [email protected] >> *Sent:* Saturday, August 04, 2012 8:04 AM >> *Subject:* RE: [Vo]:The Fallacies of Darwinian Evolution - Basic >> Definitions >> >> JoJo wrote:**** >> >> “It won't be long now when we will have the ability to very rapidly and >> cheaply sequence each and every DNA for all animals and plants.”**** >> >> **** >> >> Already here… **** >> >> http://www.nanoporetech.com/news/press-releases/view/39**** >> >> **** >> >> **** >> >> **** >> >> >
<<image001.png>>
