Re: [asa] Can we create life?

I think the notion of "creating life" is more specifically "creating life *ex
nihlo*." Cloning is not the creation of life ex nihlo. Therefore, I don't
think cloning relates to YEC doctrine in this way. Obviously, even YEC's
believe that new "life" is created by natural insemination and birth, and
I'm guessing they have no problem with the fact that human life also comes
into existence through assisted reproductive technologies.

The problem has more to do with what is colloquially referred to as "playing
God" -- that is, manipulating the natural development of life. Even here, I
don't think most Christians of any variety think it's* automatically* wrong
to manipulate nature. The question is the use of cloning and other
reproductive technologies to engage in eugenics, which involves the
destruction of human life that is deemed socially undesireable. (This is no
far-off fantasy -- people use assisted reproductive technologies right now
to select for various characteristics, including gender).

On Nov 27, 2007 5:24 PM, Jon Tandy <tandyland@earthlink.net> wrote:

> Many quotations could be given on the YEC view, showing the idea that
> "any science which contradicts the 'clear teaching of scripture' is
> incorrect, because God's revelation is true, but man's knowledge is
> limited." The Bible says that people (and life itself) is created by God.
> If that's the case, then it should be impossible (from a feasibility
> standpoint, not a moral one) for us to artificially create life, whether by
> artificial insemination, cloning, etc.
>
> When Christians oppose cloning, they do so on a moral basis: "This
> shouldn't be done because..." (it devalues human life, it opens the door to
> all sorts of nasty behaviors such as eugenics, it puts the power of life or
> death in the hands of people for selfish or other motivations, etc.) In
> other words, the opposition to cloning is a moral opposition to "creating
> life", something that's technically possible but not morally acceptable.
>
> But to be consistent with the YEC message, shouldn't the response to
> cloning be, "The science of cloning (or artificial insemination) is false,
> because the Bible says only God can create life. Either we admit the
> possibility that humans can create life, or we accept the infallible
> revelation of God in scripture which says only God can make things alive --
> it's one or the other. Therefore, it's wrong for Christians to oppose the
> practice of human cloning, because doing so affirms an anti-Biblical
> possibility. Instead we should be affirming the truth of the Bible by
> opposing the mistaken claim that cloning is possible."
>
> Am I drawing a logical and consistent analogy?
>
> Obviously, you won't find Christians opposing cloning because it's
> scientifically and Biblically impossible, because the facts are that science
> has already done it. It would be laughable and an embarrassment to oppose
> cloning as an impossibility, when everyone know that it's already been
> demonstrated. My point is, if other things have been reliably demonstrated
> scientifically (old earth, fossil record, etc.), would it be equally
> laughable to deny those things based on a certain interpretation of
> scripture? Is this a valid line of reasoning (or, substitute a solid
> firmament or an earth-centered universe as other equally demonstrated facts
> which modern Christians accept uncritically)?
>
> There are other unrelated questions that come up, which I know have been
> discussed before. Can humans really create life? What does it mean to
> create life? How does a test tube baby or cloned individual (assuming human
> cloning should ever become a reality) become a "living spirit" if created
> artificially by human processes? Where does the "image of God" come in, if
> the conception process doesn't come through natural processes?
>
> Do these questions lead to a more evolutionary view of humanity,
> suggesting that humans develop what we would call "spiritual
> characteristics" (morality, conscience, religious awareness) through more
> natural and cultural influences than from a divine insertion of a spirit
> into a body? Or does God supernaturally grant a spirit to human embryos
> (assuming a dualistic body/spirit theology), regardless of the process of
> their formation?
>
>
> Jon Tandy
>
>

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Tue Nov 27 17:54:32 2007