The Evil of Genetics Revisited
June 20th, 2007 by RT Cunningham
This is a guest author article. I wrote my article about the The Evil of Genetics on my own blog on April 12, 2007.
That article was more of a rant because of the recent news I had heard of scientists genetically modifying rice to include HUMAN DNA. Since then, I’ve had time to sit back and think about genetics in a more rational light.
If you believe in God and the history contained in the Old Testament, like I do, you’ll agree that when God created mankind, he gave us dominion over every lower life form on this planet. We were to use these life forms for purposes such as food, clothing and labor. As time progressed, rules had to be made so that mankind didn’t abuse animals they owned. God gave us every tool we will ever need to put plants and animals to the best use and this includes modern science.
The reality is that we have been genetically modifying food sources for hundreds, if not thousands, of years. Cross-pollination and grafting are two ways that have been used in agriculture for a long time and I don’t see anything evil in this at all. These are fairly simple ways of changing plant properties and behaviors. It’s the source of the “tangelo” and other odd fruit types.
Crops used for purposes other than food, modified by genetics to withstand certain climates and conditions, are not evil either. The problems I have with genetics is when scientists or bioengineers think they can produce something better by mixing things that shouldn’t be mixed. Adding human DNA to any plant or animal to produce something is evil and I will not debate anyone on it. Chimeras, animals comprised of two or more into one, is another evil mix. It’s one thing for it to happen in nature and it’s quite a different thing when it’s engineered.
When we start interfering with natural life, we must maintain the goal of having it benefit mankind. Anything else is our own attempt to play God.
If you're new here, or you just enjoy the content, you may want to subscribe to my Email Alerts or RSS feed. Thanks for visiting!
Email This Post
Related Entries: Wal-Mart Declares War on Organic Farmers | How To Read Slashdot | Top (must have) WordPress Plugins - Part II | Technorati Favorites Exchange from Dosh Dosh |
Posted in: Politics, Health, Food, Bible, Technology | 1,843 time(s) read |
Actually, we were originally designed to be vegetarians and it wasn’t until after the first sin that we either ate animals or used them for labor.
So, in reality, doing either of those things is falling short of God’s original plan.
I just thought I would point that out for the sake of the readers.
Inultus is both correct & incorrect in his comment.
Firstly, he is correct where he states that we were originally given commandment, by God, to eat only plants. And it wasn’t until after the fall of man that God spoke of man using animals for “meat”. (See Gen 1:29 & 9:1-3 respectively)
However, God’s original plan was for man to fall. In explanation, God did not make a mistake or get taken by surprise by mans fall. His plan from the beginning was to show His love for man by giving His only begotten Son to redeem man.
Thoughts or comments on this?
“Adding human DNA to any plant or animal to produce something is evil and I will not debate anyone on it.”
Refusal to debate indicates a closed mind, and a lack of any convincing arguments. I see no reason to give credence to someone who is unwilling to formulate rational, convincing arguments for his viewpoint (particularly a viewpoint founded on superstition).
So it was God’s plan that people die? Don’t agree, but rather than argue theological differences, I’ll list a couple references if anyone is interested.
http://www.bible.org/qa.php?topic_id=54&qa_id=291
http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2464
No…we definitely shouldn’t argue combatively…that won’t do either of us any good. I’ll check out your references. Here’s two more questions for you though while I’m reading over your links.
1. Is the God you believe in inerrant, or is He capable of making mistakes?
2. Did God’s first plan fail, and in doing so force Him to create Plan II?
Good discussion…
Okay, I’ve read the first link & it fully supports that fact that God has only one plan, as I believe. Here is a quote from the first article that supports this stance:
This agrees with what I originally said…that God had ONE plan & He knew what was going to occur.
I’ll now read the 2nd article.
Okay, I have now read the 2nd reference & it too supports the idea that God had only ONE plan, put into motion “before the foundations of the world”. Here is a piece of that article supporting this:
Those are great articles Josh…thank you for posting them.
Well said, Matthew. Just because we can do something doesn’t mean we should. I think overall we’ve overstepped our bounds, and though with good intentions, I don’t foresee it getting better — some parts yes, the kind that truly matters like with medicine and such. But sadly I think the quest to find other types of monstrosities will increase if there’s a buck to be made.
Didn’t I read this post before?
This is part two to RT’s original post…
Perspective is a funny thing. Two people can take the same statement and use it to support differing views.
God’s plan was for His world to glorify Him (I think we can all agree on that). He did not WANT us to choose disobedience, but he allowed it even though he didn’t have to. In that sense, His plan was not for us to wave our middle finger at Him.
Did he still use it to fulfill His original plan? Yes.
Nuff about that though.
To address another issue, if cross-pollination produces mutations, can we still say it is not evil?
yeah…nuff about that!
That is a good question Josh. What do you think RT? I would have to say that if it happened in nature, it would be “natural”, but if it produce in a lab to give us watermelons with no seeds, then it may be crossing the line
Sorry for the delay in responding. As you already know, I was bedridden for a couple of weeks and didn\’t get on much.
I think every individual has to choose where the line is crossed when it comes to nature versus the lab. For example, even though seedless naval oranges exist, some people still prefer the kind with seeds.
I enjoyed RT\’s original post on this issue and this follow up is a considered balance to it.
I agree with RT that human DNA should not be mixed with any plant or animal.
The engineering of human DNA to combat disease is something that I think will challenge us ethically more and more in the future. On the surface I am ok with this in principle but have deeper concerns. Who will decide what is acceptable in this field? Eradication of certain diseases would be a good thing but at what cost.
I am by no means an expert in this area and therefore don\’t have any answers even to my own questions. Just a simple guy pondering some huge issues. Sorry for taking this outside of RTs core idea.
I agree as well, we should not tamper with DNA engineering. It all goes back to right & wrong.
If you use the bible as a guide to right & wrong, then you have something to base your conscience on. If you don’t use anything, then it’s a free-for-all & you get to do anything you feel like…this seems to be where our country is heading…however unfortunate.
Sadly, it’s this “me” attitude that we see all too often these days. It’s about “me” not having what “he” has, or making “him” taking the blame instead of “me”.
I guess we can only do what we do in our own lives & hope that we can affect some people positively
Nah, we should start the Crusades, part Deux up and then we can affect some people for sure!
I won’t subscribe to the “bible” stuff - I had my fill of God in Catholic grade school, and the true church has enough Jesuits to argue rings around anything you try to prove… But seriously:
The problem with any moral decision from modern science involving human life is “when have you crossed the line”? When is a person so dead that you can “turn off” life support? Abortion is an easier (?) decision because there is no chance a 3 or 4 month fetus is a viable separate human (yet!). When the line is fuzzy, you don’t want to get too close to it.
So at what point when you add human genes does something become sufficiently human? When is it still “not human”? Does an ape with 49% human genes now become something we can use for cheap labour, then just kill because it’s cheaper than layoffs? Does a plant with a few pig genes still remain kosher?
This ignores the possible threat from genetic modification; will inserting the wrong gene cause medical problems for food we consume? Mixing things that would be vioable without genetic manipulation (seedless watermelon?) is fine, but creating chimeras that could never happen otherwise is adding another level of stress to our environment.
PS. Humans were not just plant eaters. We are omnivores, our teeth prove that. Australopithecus started by chasing other scavengers away from carcasses. We graduated to cooking because it softens raw meat the same as partial decomposition from “aging”; yum!
Thanks for the comments MD…Catholicism would give me a “fill” of it too…
Good post there Matt. Here’s my two cents worth, and it’s short and sweet. The Holy Bible clears up many of the debates about genetically modified organisms where it simply states in Leviticus 19:19
“You shall not let your livestock breed with another kind. You shall not sow your field with mixed seed. Nor shall a garment of mixed linen and wool come upon you.” New King James Version
The mention of linen mixed with wool for garments was possibly referenced for the purpose of ceremonial garments needing to be pure, but I also can’t help from thinking that it serves as a demonstration that an animal seed is not to be mixed with a seed from vegetation.
Mixing any type of dna from an animal - human or otherwise, would be mixing the seed and only God knows the consequences to our health by doing so.
Either way it makes it clear that we are to not “modify” organisms. That one scripture is all I need as proof.
The K.I.S.S. rule applies, yet man always has to complicate things by steering away from what the commands for life are.
Keep It Simple Stu…….
Thanks Tammara. If only the bible ruled the hearts of men!
Yes, and I just realized that your friend RT posted that article for you, so hats off to him for a good one!
[…] Follow-Up Article: The Evil Of Genetics Revisited […]
Yes we have dominion over things on earth. But of course we should also consider that we must not alter some of those that are not meant modifying.Sometimes its better to follow the rule of nature because modifications might result to bad consequences that will harm us in the future