When Man Has Power To Create Life....

This is a continuation from last week's article; "Synthetic DNA and The Image of The Beast".

From Faith Science;

Is Synthetic Life Morally Acceptable?

After President Obama issued his statement in response to the big announcement from J. Craig Venter Institute, Craig Venter was asked to testify before the US House Committee on Energy and Research. Of course, he provided all the right answers about the benefits of synthetic life, but it does take a high level of naïveté to not see where this is going. For every lofty intention that’s portrayed before the public, there’s some ulterior motive brewing beneath the surface. Guest columnist for Christian Post, R. Albert Mohler Jr gave a stirring analysis of this issue in the article “Has Man Created Life?”

Venter, never one to underplay his achievements, described the transformed cell as “the first self-replicating species we’ve had on the planet whose parent is a computer.” He added, “This is a philosophical advance as much as a technical advance.” But what kind of philosophical advance? Writing at The Guardian [London], Andrew Brown described “this moment of complete victory for materialism,” noting that atheists would point to the announcement as evidence that there is no need for a divine Creator. David Baltimore, another influential scientist, described Venter’s achievement as “a technological tour de force,” but rejected the claim that Venter had created life. “He has not created life, only mimicked it,” he told The New York Times. On the other hand, University of Pennsylvania bioethicist Arthur Caplan described the achievement of Venter’s team as “one of the most important scientific achievements in the history of mankind.” He told The Financial Times: “Venter’s achievement would seem to extinguish the argument that life requires a special force or power to exist.”

—“Has Man Created Life?” by R. Albert Mohler Jr, president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary and guest columnist for Christian Post, Friday, May 28, 2010

When a man makes a genome and puts it in a cell, does that disprove God’s existence? Who made the man and who made the cell? So why would anyone claim this as a victory for atheists? That’s the vitriol that fills the atmosphere with each announcement like this. People with an agenda that opposes God use anything they can to fuel their disgust for all things godly. Mohler was able to capture in his article the attitude that accompanies synthetic biology. Some of the fiercest critics of the Christian faith are not research scientists, yet they conveniently use scientific research to make a case for what they believe.

Everything is pure to those whose hearts are pure. But nothing is pure to those who are corrupt and unbelieving, because their minds and consciences are corrupted.
Titus 1:15–16 nlt

Based on the Bible, morality is judged solely by intentions. For instance, the same nuclear technology that was developed to produce sustainable, clean energy was also used to create nuclear weapons. Technology is neither good nor bad. The people who use it are the standard bearers of morality. Yes, there are tremendous potential benefits to humanity, but when DNA can be written on a computer to control life, who is going to determine the content?

At some point, this process will be replicated worldwide, just like DNA cloning, and there will be no way to control what direction it takes. The purpose of scientific publication is to share the stepwise approach to research findings so they could be replicated and proven to work. Once the process is out there, other scientists can follow the steps and get comparable results. Instead of repeating the same research, other scientists build on what’s been published and take it to another level. Synthetic life in a bacterial cell has already been announced, so it won’t be big news anymore. They have no choice now but to take this a step further.

The new “synthetic biology” epitomized by the Venter Institute’s work—in essence the ability to design new genetic code on computers and then “download” it into living organisms—heralds a new era of potentially transformative technology innovation. As if to underline this, the US House
of Representatives Committee on Energy and Commerce heard testimony from Craig Venter and others on the technology’s potential yesterday—just days after last week’s announcement. But the technology also raises serious ethical and safety concerns: Is it right and proper to meddle with the fundamental basis of life? What happens if the technology gets into the
wrong hands? And what might occur when synthetic life meets the natural world?
—“The Future Safety of Synthetic Biology” by Andrew Maynard, Director of the Risk Science Center at the University of Michigan School of Public Health published by the Institute for Ethics and Emerging Technologies on May 28, 2010.

Do you want to know what will happen when the technology gets into the wrong hands and synthetic life meets the natural world? Read the book of Revelation. In Revelation 13:11–18, a man will have the power to give life and will use it to wreak global havoc. We can pray, fast, fill out petitions, write letters to Congress, march in Washington, and do whatever we can, but it will not be stopped. The federal government won’t stop it, scientists won’t stop it, and God won’t stop it either. We just have to deal with it. Until then, let’s remain sober concerning the future while we consider the potential benefits of synthetic biology.