Unnatural Selection VII: The Planet of Dr Moreau

Replacement & Augmentation

There are two types of potential genetic therapy. Those in which defective genes are replaced, and those in which the goal is to add additional qualities to the individual which lie beyond the normal range of genetic variation currently found within human populations.

Replacement therapies could, in principle, be carried out in either germline or somatic cells methods. Somatic cell replacement therapies have already been used with limited success since 1990, as an experimental approach for treating several genetic diseases. Ethically such procedures are no different from other medical technologies that utilize existing systems to shuttle genes into the existing system. Germline therapy is a type of gene therapy where new DNA is inserted into cells using a vector, like a virus and affects subject’s descendants. Germ line therapy is "open-ended" therapy. Its effects extend indefinitely into the future. It is the genetic equivalent of the perfect participle in Greek. The new DNA replaces only faulty DNA to cure genetic diseases but stays in the hereditary offspring. Somatic cell gene therapy would aim to cure a disease only in the patient. The DNA is transferred into body tissues. It specifically targets cells in the body which are not passed on to the person's children descendants.

The ethical and safety repercussions in Germ cell replacement therapies are much more profound and echo in perpetuity. They are technically and legally banned and are technically hazardous at present. In principle the therapy could involve, for example, IVF for parents who are known carriers of lethal genes, followed by genetic surgery of a defective 4-8 cell embryo. In practice, however, there would be little point in carrying out such a procedure, since preimplant diagnosis would be available. In theory it might seem more acceptable ethically to heal the defective embryo. In practice, however, Christians who take an ‘personhood at conception’ view of life in very early embryos (which I do) need to realize that their stance may encourage development of the DNA technology for manipulation of human germ-line cells, which could increase social pressure for the use of additive therapies. For Christians it is a double-edged sword. It cuts both ways.

A futuristic alternative is the screening of sperm and eggs for defective genes prior to fertilization, followed by IVF using only healthy gametes. Such an advance could eventually make ethical discussions about embryos and abortions redundant as the therapy would circumvent the need for abortions due to genetic defects….as there wouldn’t be any.

Additive therapies, whether at the somatic cell or germ-line cell level, are currently coming to the fore in things like CRIPSR. The aim of such procedures would be to add to the individual specific qualities not already encoded by their genome. Additive therapies therefore represent a very different set of goals from those which aim to prevent or cure human disease. Fortunately, the human genome is immensely complex, and numerous genes interact to generate human capacities in ways that we understand only see in a mirror dimly. Sometimes injection of these therapies resulted in nothing more than a bad immunological response in patients. Sometimes, effects are far more profound. In general, this therapy is hotly disputed and rightfully so.

The view on this type of augmentation/manipulation changes almost weekly based on the new emerging and ever evolving CRISPR technology. Not since the atomic bomb has a technology so alarmed its inventors that they warned the world about its use. Many including the inventor of CRISPER called for a worldwide moratorium on the use of the new gene-editing tool CRISPR — that allows humanity to make heritable changes in human embryos. TO literally cut-n-paste the genome. The cheapest, simplest, most effective way of manipulating DNA ever known, CRISPR may well give us the cure to HIV, genetic diseases, and some cancers, and will help address the world’s hunger crisis. The caveat though is that the tiniest changes to DNA could have myriad unforeseeable consequences — to say nothing of the ethical and societal repercussions of intentionally mutating embryos to create “better” humans. This will literally be a step-by-step, case-by-case ethical/theological entanglement.

More importantly, the fact that we are now, with our current genetic aptitude, made ‘in the image of God’ (Genesis 1:26-7) defines what we are as human and how we are quantified. Accepting the term ‘image of God’ to refer to all those equalities which distinguish humans from animals, in particular our spiritual capacity for fellowship with God, the dangers of trying to add to what God has given us become apparent. If we tinker with this we’re in deep trouble. The builders of the tower of Babel (Genesis 11:1-9) in rebellion against God thought that their improved technology would allow them to reach up to heaven using their own human wisdom, but the result was confusion (v. 9). I am beginning to see the same happening with genetics additive therapies absent a theological guiding hand.

The biblical record makes it clear that human pretension to self-grandeur (or self-augmentation) invariably end in disaster. It is vital that we do not misuse God’s good gift of genetic engineering to repeat such mistakes. When man is devoid of God in the overall scheme of things…disaster occurs. When man contributes with their alignment totally to God…God is glorified and blessings occurred. Great things can be done to God’s glory. But the genetic changes should be on a case-by-case basis firmly rooted in biblical/theological ethics not devoid of them. Just as in the time of the Levitical priests and the medicinal effects of obedience to the Law, so too I believe the same principle applies with genetics. If there is a failure to adhere or stay aligned to this created ‘order’ we would enter a period of the Judges or judgment.

The stark reality is this. Modern mankind has tried to make science fully independent of God and therein lies our undoing in this ethical quandary. It's why we even ask the question, “Should we? Most humanity realizes that left to their own devices, man is not inherently good. Man needs a chaperone. A Shepherd.  Should it be done? It could be but it needs to be under firm watchful and knowledgeable theological principles. Otherwise, no. Otherwise we will create Nephilim, Frankenstein...or literally…monsters. You see, that’s the main underlying ethical repercussion of germ line / additive gene augmentation. It can no longer be confined to an island in time and place. It will ripple outward indefinitely. The Island of Dr Moreau will no longer be an island…it will be an entire world.

Gazing Into The Void

My theory/thesis is simple. I am writing to show how Hegelian Dialectic is being used to debase morality and destroy a nation. Whether intentional or not the signs of it are clearly in play. For it to have been so effectively implemented reeks of a supernatural impetus but I will reserve comment on its true source. I’ll let you determine that. What I will say is that people have been useful idiots in propagating Hegelian Dialectic unaware and ignorantly. I intend to remove said ignorance in a short and concise post. I’ve posted on this numerous times in the past and it always comes back around as we sink deeper into an immoral abyss.

I thought I was done writing on politics but alas…there is more. I am now dealing with an issue of polemics in this post not politics proper. Not politics itself but how it is being used improperly to achieve an ungodly end. Although I am going to bash liberals, it is my firm belief the conservatives are just as bad. Both are being used as tools in this and both are brainwashed to a greater extent. The flip side to a bad coin is still a bad coin. Christians get sucked in way too deeply when it comes to the Right/Left paradigm in American politics and are usually wrong biblically, ideologically and ethically. The unbiblical and progressive types lean liberal in America. Then again so do many conservatives in self-righteous indignation.

Unfortunately, the Right that has been hog-tied to the Evangelical base since the 1980’s because of the Christian Coalition, Christian Right and other church/state amalgamations. It has become so bad that most cannot see that Christian and ‘political Right’ have become synonymous terms. Due to Hegelian Dialectic the political Right has allowed politics and morality to drift left. So essentially all of the nation has slowly drift towards liberalism and eased or lax social norms.  I adhere to neither side as I now view the American two-party political system as a vast socio-cultural Hegelian dialectic construct (thesis, antithesis, synthesis).

Simply put, the Hegelian dialectics (Greek: διαλεκτική, dialektikḗ; related to dialogue), is at base a discourse between two or more people holding different points of view about a subject but wishing to establish the truth through reasoned arguments. They come to some form of agreement. Dialectic comprises three stages of development: first, a thesis or statement of an idea. Second, a reaction or antithesis that contradicts or negates the thesis, and third, the synthesis, a statement through which the differences between the two points are resolved. The synthesis is always a compromise towards more lax or lenient ideas, morality or ethics…as humans nearly always opt for a path of least resistance to avoid conflict.

Firstly, people need a break from it. I need to make this blog a space for education and evangelism not politics and pundits. A large majority of America is being sucked into is the Hegelian Dialectic of polarizing political thought in the United States.  It is being propagated by the media. The orange is in neither left nor right hand. The Hegelian Dialectic process is the notion that conflict creates history. From this axiom it follows that controlled conflict can create a predetermined history. For example, some government policy discusses 'managed conflict', as it does extensively in its literature, it implies the managed use of conflict for long run predetermined ends—not for the mere random exercise of manipulative control. It is being used to solve a problem or create an end through division.
 

Democracy should work in theory, but it wasn’t necessarily meant to be just a two-party system. The current social/cultural dialectic is inevitably heading towards a toilet even when we have the Right in the driver’s seat as most Republicans are centrists. The centrists are just closeted liberals or more properly: Moderate Liberals. The Right is farther left then the political views of JFK, LBJ and even Carter.

Hegelian dialectic takes this 'managed conflict' process one step further. In Hegelian terms, an existing force (the thesis) generates a counter-force (the antithesis). Conflict between the two forces results in the forming of a synthesis. Then the process starts all over again: Thesis vs. antithesis results in synthesis. It's like two companies with undisclosed common stockholding submitting competitive tenders for a project on a site for which their stockholder has different plans altogether. Whatever the outcome, the stockholder is in beneficial control.

The same is being done with immorality and erosion of morality and ethical norms in the country. In Hegelian philosophy the conflict of political 'Right' and political 'Left', or thesis and antithesis in Hegelian terms, is essential to the forward movement of history and historical change itself. Conflict between thesis and antithesis brings about a synthesis or new historical situation. In our case a new moral low, further debasement or destruction of biblical norm. In the case of society, the abolishment or destruction of morality completely. Immorality becomes the new normal. Confusion of terms is the new normal. The inability to properly define words the new normal. The inability to define gender is the new normal. The inability to define right and wrong. If there is no way to define what is right or what is wrong all we are left with is our feelings. There is no longer correct or incorrect…only 'feelie' subjectivity. Welcome to the United States 2020 both in the churches and general populace. 

To me there is no right or left. Only biblical. This vastly simplifies things for me and allows me to think clearly and objectively. The reality though is there is a manipulation of 'Left' and 'Right' paradigm in America. In truth, Wall Street supports both Republicans and Democrats, as their Australian associates support Liberal and Labor. This is duplicated all over the international field where 'Left' and 'Right' political structures are artificially constructed and collapsed in the drive for a synthesis that results in the destruction of morality and it is called progressive. It is called tolerance. 

In fact, 'Left' and 'Right' are two controlled factions of the same coin. The end net result is removal of God. Removal of morality and eventually the removal of reason as words and their meanings will be removed. Once this happens all discourse ends, and anarchy ensues…and I suspect it is deliberate and part of a great plan. The question then becomes: Who is in the one who orchestrates? What drives it? I think you know. We are now staring into the moral void. We thought we were slipping down the rabbit hole. It turns out it was a cesspool. Left, right and the center shifts farther into the abyss away from God.

Gilded Christians: Christianity As Status Symbol

Charles Spurgeon would be rolling in his grave if he could see the Baptists today....It's the Down-Grade Controversy 2.0. The Southern Baptist Convention is losing its collective mind. This post is going to be a long one so buckle up.

Although I do not know why many reputable churches, pastors and theologians are abandoning sound doctrine left and right lately, I have a theory. I recently read an article from a man named Rob Henderson a PhD candidate at the University of Cambridge. At first, I dismissed the article as intellectual hubris from another Ivy League hack. Then I realized he might be on to something.

His thesis boiled down to the fact that he believed there were status-seeking Americans that had what he called ‘luxury beliefs’. They were beliefs that had become fashionable status symbols. Luxury beliefs are ideas and opinions that confer status on the status seeker on the richer of the social spectrum at very little cost. Meanwhile it takes a hefty toll on the lower class. He borrows the idea from the book The Theory of the Leisure Class by Thorstein Veblen (1899) about the rich of the 19th century’s Victorian and Gilded Age. Henderson didn’t specifically tie the idea to Christianity only to a monopoly in general on ideas and ideologies. I will tie it to Christianity in this article. The idea that belief in a belief only if it brings social gain.

In the past, people flaunted membership in the ‘upper class’ with material trappings. But today, luxury goods are more affordable to the plebeians and working class. Social stratification has lessened. People are less likely now to receive validation for the material items on display. This is a problem for the status seekers or those above the upper-middle class and those who wish to arrogantly distinguish themselves from others. So, how do the ‘well-to-do’ broadcast their high social position? Henderson says the status seekers have detached social status from material goods and reattached it to ideas or ideologies. Specifically, metaphysical beliefs and intellectual leanings. Academia and Religiosity.

Some of those beliefs aren’t just the hipster debutante and trendy religions like Buddhism and Taoism either. I believe the gilded aristocracy invaded the mainline Protestant churches during the last generation and it is now invading the hard-line Reformed churches (especially Reformed with their focus on study and sound formal education). Because the status seeking aristocracy are often also the highest tithers or leaders, they are having a damaging and negative effect in the entire congregations they are associated with. The leaders and highest tithers have the most influence on a church’s theology and doctrine. I believe it is part of what we’re seeing in the Southern Baptist Convention (SBC) right now and other orthodox denominations. In a culture increasingly attaching itself to academia and other earthly status-oriented institutions we see the church increasingly use earthy measures of success and improvement. They use cultural signposts for the measure of their success. I believe that is why we’re seeing the downgrade of the SBC and mainline Christen churches even in my area. They’re using the wrong measuring sticks and abandoning sound doctrine simultaneously.

If the theology of the leadership or highest tither is social gospel oriented, culture friendly or unbiblical… so will be the theology of that church unless sound biblical teachers are either on that church’s board or have the ear of that church’s board. Even if the teaching and leadership is sound, the sheer weight of cultural influence en masse within said church can still have a negative impact. They’re not coming to church to be changed, they’re coming to change the church to what they want it to be. That is why we are seeing the shift in people like Mark Dever, Al Mohler and J.D. Graeer. I believe they’ve been inundated by the power-brokers of culture and politics for so long (Dever is in D.C.) that through attrition they have been worn down to acquiescence. They've switched from the authority of Scripture to there own authority or as the Pulpit and the Pen website states:

 “On one side are theological heavyweights who have pined for the applause and appreciation of a lost and fallen world, who are cloaked in a coat of political correctness, and who in the name of “Gospel” have made progressive talking-points into their own political but pseudo-theological agenda...

...On the other side, which values gospel clarity over fads leading to theological haziness and accolades of the political left, lie very few men of renown."

Henderson also states that people become more preoccupied with social status once physical needs are met. Yet simple observation shows status (respect and admiration from peers) is more important for well-being than economic well-being and status in many cases. We feel pressure to build and maintain social status, and fear losing it. Do we suppose Christians are immune to this effect? I doubt it. When times are good people get lazy. The necessity of sound doctrine seems to dissipate. People aren't dying for what they believe. They go soft. I believe we saw similar things occur in the Victorian Era and Gilded Age around the time of Charles Haddon Spurgeon. Any of his writings about the Down-Grade Controversy or those in The Sword and the Trowel reveal this. Unfortunately, they were harbingers of much darker things that laid right around the corner for the church and the world in general. Liberal Theology, WWI, The Great Depression and even WWII when entire States abandoned God completely like Germany and the Soviet Union.

It’s reasonable to conclude that even Christians are interested in obtaining status or status money and prestige can attain. So too spiritual capital. In truth society is nothing more than a status-seeking pecking order. That pecking order gets carried into the Church (and it shouldn’t). When material goods no longer provide this, where does one turn? They turn to the intangibles. People wish to be surrounded by people just like them—their peers and competitors who are also ‘intelligent’ status-seeking equivalents that they can surpass. They persistently look for new ways to move upward and avoid moving downward in other people’s eyes. Even if it means lying about beliefs or changing beliefs to fit in. Hence the heretical wearing-away of dogmatic doctrinal statements in mainline churches and the illusion of religiosity in many status seekers who could care less about Jesus Christ, His theology and His Church. Perception of how well-off you’ve become financially via your ‘spirituality’ is more important than actually having any material or spiritual indicators of it.

So, since material good no longer is the benchmark for affluence where does one turn? Influence peddling in people’s belief systems, that’s where. Not only do the status seeking class want their kids to be millionaires-in-the-making; they also want them to be the image of moral righteousness. For status seeking social elitists, luxury beliefs offer them a new way to gain status. And downward goes theology and doctrine…

The whole point of status symbols is that they are so often difficult to obtain and costly to purchase. If you continue to change the ‘law’ or ‘doctrine’ so that only you can meet it…you’ve achieved another unattainable symbol.

That’s why heretic mystical belief is often so sought after in circles of religiosity. It is a form of modern-day Christian Gnosticism. The arcane mysterious ‘feelie’ woo-woo Christianity that is peddled by the likes of Beth Moore and Social Gospel adherents. “Listen to me because God talks directly to me!” (but not you). It is the kind of religious prestige/status that can only be gained by having an upper hand on the competition or special ‘hotline’ to the One in charge. That isn’t biblical. God favors no single man over another (James 2). The only one with status over another in Christianity is Christ. God is no respecter of men and their status. The hierarchy is the other way around folks. The last will be first and the first last. Christ emptied Himself, God exalted Him (Philippians 2)

The chief purpose of superfluous heretical ‘luxury beliefs’ is to indicate evidence of the believer’s social class and education. Their ability to peddle influence even in religious circles. Every church has them. Even James recognized this as one of the first writers of the New Testament.

James 2:1-9 My brothers and sisters, believers in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ must not show favoritism. Suppose a man comes into your meeting wearing a gold ring and fine clothes, and a poor man in filthy old clothes also comes in. If you show special attention to the man wearing fine clothes and say, “Here’s a good seat for you,” but say to the poor man, “You stand there” or “Sit on the floor by my feet,” have you not discriminated among yourselves and become judges with evil thoughts? Listen, my dear brothers and sisters: Has not God chosen those who are poor in the eyes of the world to be rich in faith and to inherit the kingdom he promised those who love him? But you have dishonored the poor. Is it not the rich who are exploiting you? Are they not the ones who are dragging you into court? Are they not the ones who are blaspheming the noble name of him to whom you belong? If you really keep the royal law found in Scripture, “Love your neighbor as yourself,” you are doing right. But if you show favoritism, you sin and are convicted by the law as lawbreakers.

We see it constantly in and outside the sanctuary. The status seeker's influence peddling. They advocate for Christians to be ‘woke’. To change their theology to allow for unprotected ‘open borders’, to ‘deliver in love’ (not necessarily truth), push for dubious norms, or uses the term “white privilege” …because it’s what Jesus would do. Admit it, they are engaging in a status display. They are literally 'virtue signalling'. They are trying to tell you, “I am morally and ethically better than you.” They’re attempting to assert superiority over you. In so doing they are causing division and its bad theology. Its not Scriptural at all. Advocating for being ‘woke’ and ‘delivering in love’ is just another way of advertising your membership in the ‘elite’ club. You can then use your status and social connections to get even farther ahead. Meanwhile cutting the divisions in the church even deeper.

Over time, luxury beliefs are embraced down the social ladder—at which point, the upper class abandons its old luxury beliefs and embraces new ones and tithe accordingly. Which explains why the beliefs of the upper class are constantly changing and why churches that constantly try to adapt to them fail. It is a perishable model based on the world.

In the end any church that falls into this becomes obsolete. These luxury beliefs are similar to luxury goods. Attaching status to luxury belief and financial standing means the system is self-limiting to man-made worth. A capricious measurement.  Therefore, there are self-limiting restrictions put on that church right from the beginning. The framework of their own destruction is built right into the edifice. The status seeker flaunts their new belief. It then becomes fashionable among her peers, so they abandon it otherwise they’re no longer unique. Then a new stylish belief arises, while the old belief trickles down the social hierarchy and wreaks havoc. Inevitably drifting into obscurity. So goes the doctrine and theology of the churches. Chasing vanity into irrelevance.

As Shindler concluded in his first paper on "The Down Grade" in Spurgeon’s The Sword and the Trowel….

"…. it is all too plainly apparent men are willing to forego the old for the sake of the new. But commonly it is found in theology that that which is true is not new, and that which is new is not true”

Unnatural Selection VI: Genetic Ethics

Ethical Implications of Application

The next two posts identify some of the weightier ethical issues arising from the application of biohacks to humans – the detection and cure of disease. There are about 5,000 different inborn diseases which are due to genetic mutations. It is speculated that we all carry at least one lethal gene, but fortunately most of our genes come in pairs and usually both members of the pair need to be defective for a disease to develop.

Genetic Screening

The earliest immediate practical application of the genome tinkering is likely to be an increase in the number of tests available for screening defective genes. But as Jesus asked the cripple at the Pool at Bethesda…

"Now a certain man was there who had an infirmity thirty-eight years.  When Jesus saw him lying there, and knew that he already had been in that condition a long time, He said to him, “Do you want to be made well?” John 5:5-6

Do you want to be made well? That is a really heavy question that warrants deep examination both theologically and ethically.

Mass screening has usually been counterproductive, unless a population has a very high prevalence of a defective gene. More usually screening is carried out for families where a risk of genetic disease is already established. Different ethical issues are raised depending on whether screening is prenatal or postnatal.

Prenatal screening of fetuses via Amniocentesis can involve abortion, a thorny question about which Christians have disagreements with the culture and even their own brethren. Prenatal screening does not necessarily depend on genetic engineering and has been carried out since the 1970s. Typically it is offered to a pregnant mother in cases where both parents are known to be heterozygous (‘carriers’) for a specific lethal genetic disease. This means that any child born in that family has a 1 in 4 chance of being affected by that disease. Tests are carried out using a tiny sample of cells obtained from the fetus. If the fetus is found to carry disease, then the pregnancy may be terminated. Such terminations comprise less than 3 per cent of abortions performed annually. Although I am not going to argue the abortion issue, I needed to raise the topic of Amniocentesis and similar screenings. Should they be done?

Ethical issues are also raised by preimplantation diagnosis (PD). As with other forms of prenatal diagnosis, this procedure is usually carried out when both parents are known carriers of a lethal disease. PD involves in-vitro fertilization (IVF)[9] followed by growth of the embryo to the stage at which it contains 4-8 cells. One or two cells can then be removed without damaging the embryo, and defective genes identified. Clearly defective embryos are discarded and only the healthy embryo is implanted in the mother. Only a few hundred PDs have been carried out so far, but this number is likely to increase markedly as more DNA tests become available.

The procedure has the great advantage that it avoids the need for aborting an affected fetus post-implantation, as required by current prenatal diagnostic procedures. In assessing the ethical implications involved, it should also be kept in mind that more than 80 per cent of all embryos fail to implant following IVF or natural fertilization. Some of these embryos demonstrate severe chromosomal abnormalities, apparently ‘nature’s way’ of preventing the birth of children carrying genetic defects. It could therefore be argued that in PD, human intervention is merely refining this natural process of viable embryo selection.

Postnatal screening raises rather different issues. Where prevention or treatment of diseases is possible, there seems every reason to proceed. Every baby born in the UK, as in many other countries, is screened for the genetic disease phenylketonuria. If untreated this disease results in severe mental retardation, but once detected is easily prevented by minor dietary adjustments. This is a good example of a genetic outcome being radically altered by a small change of environment. Knowing that defective genes are present can enable affected individuals to change diet and lifestyle in attempts to counteract their effects. Is this unbiblical?

Where no treatment is available, different issues arise. Receiving general information about the genetic basis for human disease is very different from the momentous implications of hearing that you personally carry a defective gene. For example, Huntington’s Disease develops in people aged 40 to 50. After some years of increasing loss of motor control, death occurs 10-15 years after the first onset of symptoms. A DNA test can now tell a person at risk that they carry the defective gene. Some might conclude that such information is too heavy a load for anyone to bear. However, Christians in particular might view the situation differently. Knowledge that one is under a death sentence by carrying a lethal gene could enable a choice not to have children and the pursuit of a different life path. Utilize their remaining time in pursuit of spreading the Gospel perhaps??

In postnatal screening two urgent ethical issues arise. First, screening may lead to people having information about their lives about which they can do nothing. The right NOT to know one’s genetic errors is as important sometimes as the right to know. Second, screening may create an inferior subhuman classification of carriers of deleterious genes. A form of diagnostic eugenics. Those who are carriers are then marginalized from the benefits of society. They likely wouldn’t be able to obtain mortgages or life insurance. Christians though, will need to view all people as having equal value, irrespective of their genetic inheritance, and should press for insurance practices which allow the equitable pooling of risk.

Regardless, some should be allowed to choose to do nothing or know nothing. Purposely chose genetic ignorance. By not choosing, they chose anyway. To answer Jesus’ question, “Do you wished to be healed?”

Some people's answer will be no.

Unnatural Selection V: Objections to Genetic Biohacking, Part 2

[Continued from Part 1]

Genetic Engineering Is 'Playing God'

The term ὕβρις ‘hubris’ was used in Greek philosophy to refer to the supposed impiety involved in delving into the realms of god(s). It describes a personality of extreme or foolish pride or dangerous overconfidence (ironically like Satan). This pride is often in combination with arrogance. It typically describes behavior that defies the norms of behavior (challenges God) by violating the natural order.

The Greek word for sin, hamartia / ἁμαρτία, originally meant "missing the mark” or “error" so poets like Hesiod and Aeschylus used the word "hubris" to describe transgressions against the gods. A common way that hubris was committed was when a mortal claimed to be better than a god in a specific skill or attribute… which is tantamount to...a sin.

Similar ideas are apparent in some contemporary genetic thinking which views nature, specifically genetic as sacred and therefore inviolable. In other words, its uninfringeable or unchallengeable. You can’t touch it. However, the biblical doctrine of creation has clearly demythologized nature of these semi-divine Hellenistic overtones and given humankind earthly dominion over creation and a very specific mandate to care for the earth (stewardship) and its biological diversity (Genesis 1:28, 30; 2:15-20), a mandate that, if anything, was made even more explicit after the Fall (Genesis 9:1-3).

We are called not to ‘play God’ but to be responsible stewards of all that God has given. 

A Christian who finds scientific knowledge and medical knowledge in their repertoire has quite a different fear to contend with. To those that much is given much will be expected. Not the fear of having used said talent incorrectly but rather the fear that his God should judge them guilty of neglecting their steward’s responsibilities by failing to pursue the use of his/her gifts. Gifts used in opportunities for good that may be created by new developments like genetics and medical discoveries. We should approach such responsibilities not with the hubris and arrogance implicit in the phrase ‘playing God’, but with prayerful concern that we should be responsible earth-keepers under God.

The applications of genetic modification to farming provide good examples of what such stewardship can involve. About one-third to one-half of all agricultural production world-wide is lost to pests and diseases, and there is enormous scope for GMO to render crops resistant to pests, drought and frost, to improve yields and to enable food to be produced in harsh environments. Meanwhile there are millions starving on the continent of Africa annually. The central Christian concern should be to utilize the new technology to feed a hungry world and to distribute its benefits more equitably. Is there a risk using GMO? Yes. They risk of dying from starvation in Africa without it is far greater. Until you walk a mile in another’s shoes…

Doctors, scientists, biohackers and those that will allow for the ethical use of genetics modification for the betterment of humanity that are seeking to stave of crippling diseases and starvation are certainly not playing God in the ‘traditional’ sense. Instead I believe they are answering their charge to be good curators/keepers of the Earth and be ‘Good Samaritans’. Like it or not we are our brother’s keeper (Genesis 4:9). We are responsible spiritually to God for other people.

Has it ever dawned on those venomously stonewalling genetic medical uses that you are potentially causing suffering to other Christians unwittingly (and non)? We “sit together in the heavenly places…” (Ephesians 2:6). “If one member suffers, all the members suffer with it…” (1 Corinthians 12:26). If you allow physical selfishness, mental ignorance by refusal to educate yourself, moral insensitivity, or spiritual weakness, everyone around you suffers.

Genetic Engineering Will Remove Suffering Needed for Character-Building

This one kind of goes along with the previous. Some fear that biohacking will ultimately remove the opportunity for moral growth which is demanded for caring for the sick and disabled. There is also an essence added to a human being that only can be added through suffering and trial. Those that have gone through suffering understand this. Those that have not, I feel sorry for. There is no substitute for toiling and the sense of accomplishment it rewards. To overcome. I believe this is overstating the case though. Genetics will not trump suffering and disease completely. This is likely a mis-framing of the context.

This fear is based on an exaggerated view of the scope/potential of genetic manipulation and biohacks. The most that genetic manipulation can achieve is to generate some useful new drugs and remove some lethal genes from human genomes. Even if all this were achieved, it would be a negligible proverbial drop in the ocean of human suffering. Why did Jesus’ heal? Jesus did not leave human diseases untouched to preserve the moral benefits that caring for the sick might generate. Jesus performed miracles and drove diseases out as a demonstration of the kingdom of God (e.g. Matthew 9:35; Luke 9:2; 10:9). They were literally signs. One of the words in Greek in the Gospels for miracle is σημεῖον / semeion or literally a sign. A sign of what? A pointer or sign to the Kingdom. He was healing to heal per se but rather to point people to what a mattered. The promises an power of God.

We do not know whether any diseases Jesus healed had a genetic basis. That isn’t the point at all. The Bible is not a book of medicine but rather of Salvation.  Regardless, the Gospel record certainly provides no basis for genetic passivity. As members spliced into God’s new family we were/are called to identify with Christ in his work of liberating creation ‘from its bondage to decay’ (Romans 8:21). We are to use our gifts to do so too. To move the Kingdom forward. I am convinced this includes healing via genetics.

In Their Own Words XLII: A Vast Unseen Force, Part 2

In my last post I ended pointing towards Aristotle's philosophical Unmoved Mover or what is called the/a Primary Cause. Philosophically the unmoved mover moves other things, but is not itself moved by any prior action and is necessary so not to cause a fallacy of logic called an Infinite Regress or causal change forever backwards in time (ad infinitum). Said another way, the Unmoved Mover is essentially a rudimentary cosmological argument, or an argument that draws the conclusion that God has to exist by necessity. 

Everything in the universe needed to be put in motion/created by something that itself didn’t need to be put in motion because it always was in motion or couldn’t be moved (God). If the cosmos had a beginning, Aristotle argued, it would require an efficient first cause.  

This Aristotelian concept had its roots in cosmological speculations of the earliest Greek philosophers and became highly influential and widely drawn upon in medieval philosophy and theology. Thomas Aquinas, for example, elaborated on the Unmoved Mover in the Quinque viae. The Quinque Viae (Latin: Five Ways) are logical argument for God’s existence. Aquinas stated these things and are essentially a logical defense and reasoning for God’s existence.

(1) The argument from "motion"

(2) The argument from causation

(3) The argument from contingency.
(4) The argument from degree.
(5) The argument from final cause or ends (or the design/teleological argument).

The first proof or number (1) The Argument from Motion…is God. God, an infinitely powerful being was/is the only One capable of something this large. These things move and are moved by a unique being capable of putting them in motion and/or keeping them in motion. You see… Aquinas did not think the finite human mind could know what God is directly. Therefore, God's existence is not self-evident to us. So instead the proposition God exists must be "demonstrated" from God's effects, which are made known to us (Romans 1:19). Forces we can observe. Forces like the one newly out of ‘Science’ in the news this past week. Science…which is still baffled by its enormity and complexity.

So enormous and so complex…that the Bible already had an answer to it millennia ago. (Sarcasm intended). In truth, as a Christian I’m here to tell you what this force or these forces are very plainly as if it hasn’t already become self-evident already. It indeed is a ‘force’ to not a thing per se like dark matter as the Bible clearly states that things in the creation ‘hang on nothing’

He stretches out the north over the void and hangs the earth on nothing ~Job 26:7

I have officially dubbed them GLOBs (Galaxy Linkage Observed Biblically) Yes, my tongue is planted firmly in my cheek. So, what are these GLOBs or forces at work? They are divine forces and are spoken (pun intended) of in the Bible multiple times just in case we miss one. God literally spoke/speaks things into existence.

And God said, “Let there be lights in the vault of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark sacred times, and days and years, and let them be lights in the vault of the sky to give light on the earth.” And it was so. God made two great lights—the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars. God set them in the vault of the sky to give light on the earth, to govern the day and the night, and to separate light from darkness. And God saw that it was good. And there was evening, and there was morning—the fourth day. ~Genesis 1:14-19

“By the word of the Lord the heavens were made, their starry host by the breath of his mouth. He gathers the waters of the sea into jars he puts the deep into storehouses. Let all the earth fear the Lord; let all the people of the world revere him. For he spoke, and it came to be; he commanded, and it stood firm. Psalm 33:6-9

In the past God spoke to our ancestors through the prophets at many times and in various ways, but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom also he made the universe. The Son is the radiance of God’s glory and the exact representation of his being, sustaining all things by his powerful word. After he had provided purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty in heaven. Hebrews 1:1-3

So, there you have my complete synopsis folks. God, Jesus the Son. The Unmoved Mover who created all things and sustains them through the power of His words. From the scale of the universe and galaxies down to the scale of molecules and atoms, the pattern is the same. Mostly uniform but with occasional interruption that implies something acted upon them.

I agree in principle that there is clearly something underlying these movements. I just don't agree that it is purely physical. I believe it includes metaphysical. I do not preclude the possibility of direct intelligent interaction in our universe by an otherworldly force. Namely the God of the Bible. You would expect having had a Cosmos created by One Being and ‘held together’ by that Being that it would behave as if it is part of a ‘system’ being 'interacted' with and ‘held together’ by not just something but Someone. You would think.

But perhaps just calling it ‘hydrogen vapor filaments’, ‘dark matter’ or calling it ‘magic’ is more pragmatic or helpful? Whatever it takes not to acknowledge God as Creator. For me it's Occam’s Razor folks. Sometime the simplest answer is the correct and most profound answer. God’s voice. God’s words. God’s omnipotence. God's actions. Nothing more is needed.

In Their Own Words XLI: A Vast Unseen Force, Part 1

So, I recently read an article that at first intrigued me (actually, its title did) but then deeply saddened me as some of these articles have a habit of doing. Intrigued because I thought it was going to be some foray into inductive reasoning that someone did giving them a profound new insight of the cosmos (κόσμος) that no one had made before. I love when people take adventures intellectually and God rewards them with gems of knowledge. Instead of revealing something heretofore unknown in the article...I just see a mind-boggling godless ignorance. Again, I feel compelled to give a biblical take on it because…well…it’s what I do. The original article resides here:

There's Growing Evidence That the Universe Is Connected by Giant Structures
 

The exact quote in the article stated:

“But despite their differences [galaxies], and the mind-boggling distances between them, scientists have noticed that some galaxies move together in odd and often unexplained patterns, as if they are connected by a vast unseen force.” ~ Becky Ferreira

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Edwin Hubble, the man for which the famous Hubble Space Telescope was named. Well, he’s suddenly relevant again 66 years after his death. He was an astronomer whose work helped define our modern Cosmology which is the study and understanding of the universe. Hubble helped astronomers see that we live in an expanding universe, one in which every galaxy is moving away from every other in what appeared to be a uniform expansion onward/outward.

Any introductory book about cosmology or galaxies, will now likely include something called Hubble’s Law or Hubble’s Constant. It states that, “…the more distant the galaxy, the faster it is moving away from us.” This concept is at the heart of our modern cosmology in which the entire universe – space, time and matter – is thought to have been born in a Big Bang. Hubble's Constant is fundamental to Cosmology the way evolution is to Biology. If it is undermined, all of cosmology has to be essentially reformulated as the cornerstone has been pulled out from underneath it. I digress... It is a universe expanding or moving outward uniformly and this assumption has held sway for 90 years. 

Modern science seems to now differ in that view. There is growing ‘evidence’ and it is now believed that the universe is connected by an enormous, mostly unseen structure. Scientists are finding that galaxies can move with each other across huge distances, and against the predictions of basic cosmological gravitational models. Our Milky Way is one of hundreds of billions of galaxies strewn across the universe. Despite the distances between them, science has just recently noticed that some galaxies move together in unexplained patterns independent from gravitational effects. Uhhhh, so much for the uniform expanding universe model as explanation for galactic movement by Hubble.

In the past it has already been observed that galaxies within a few million light years of each other can exert effects (gravity) on each other in predictable ways. Scientists are now observing these mysterious patterns between much more distant galaxies that transcend those local interactions. It's as if there is a quantum entanglement taking place. That is why science believes there are unseen structures or a force at work in the universe. Scientists have yet to explain them or even properly name them as this is such a newly observed phenomenon.

So using logical reasoning alone here....

If everything was moving in the same direction and at Hubble’s constant, the universe would be, well, uniform. It’s not. In other words, at the interstellar level everything isn’t moving synchronously in the same direction (expanding universe) as mindless object(s) would if force was applied to it. Instead, it appears some things are moving  ‘together’ in a cellular way contrary to logic and force. That means another force needs to have acted on these objects contrary to their initial impetus (Newton's 1st Law of Motion). What's more interesting is they are moving attached to some but not to others nearby. That means they needed to stop and change direction independent their neighbor. Their inertia is stopped and a new force applied. They (or it) move the way ‘it’ wants autonomously…. in sovereignty. Sovereign as if its steering itself or being steered independent to the rest of created neighbors. Let’s just call it for what it is. We are seeing a modified teleological (design) argument for the existence of God. 

It is literally the Watchmaker Analogy with with the hands on the watch moving backwards. Not only was there intelligence in the creation of the watch putting it in motion but something is also, at times (pun intended) moving the hands backwards. Cellular, autonomous, sovereign, non-uniform, independent movements. A universe that is filled with a pattern or structure dictated by physical laws…except…when its not.

Exceptions of non-uniform movement in an otherwise uniform universe governed by uniform laws. 

Non-uniform movement that manifests signs of intelligence. The movement therefore appears symbiotic or interdependent and cellular in some instances as if driven by a sentient motor. Like a living intelligent being. Am I saying these structures are alive per se? Not at all. What I am saying is the forces behind them is. That the vast distances between celestial objects is not complete vacuum and galaxies are not wholly isolated from one another. To a omnipresent, omnipotent, timeless entity everything in existence is the eternal 'here' and 'now' in both space and time (the Quantum Entanglement). 

Also, calling these structures invisible is a misnomer. They are likely not structures at all. They're spiritual. They are forces at work like gravitation (but not gravity as science would’ve determined it). A cosmic web or system. Symbiotic. Lifelike in its interactions. Like there is sentient intelligence behind its movement but also governed by physical laws. At work in them all is a force or forces which cause the movement.

I guess I’ll just come right out and say it. What we’re seeing here is the unseen hand of the Aristotelian Unmoved Mover (ὃ οὐ κινούμενον κινεῖ) or 'that which moves without being moved'. Science totally discounted the metaphysical and the end result has been disastrous for explaining these phenomena. Sound logical philosophic reasoning points me immediately to an answer...

God.

[See next post: In Their Own Words XLI: A Vast Unseen Force, Part 2 for conclusion]