Claiming to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles. Romans 1.22, 23

The cataloging of the human genome has occasioned some heady speculations on the part of secular scientists, but none so ambitious or startling as that urged by Adrian Woolfson. Writing in the Winter, 2008, issue of Daedelus, Dr. Woolfson recommends nothing less than wresting the control of life out of the hands of evolution and placing it squarely in the hands of men ("Synthetic life"). Dr. Woolfson is impatient with natural selection as the best way of improving life and leading to new forms of life. And now, with science's ability to analyze and manipulate the genetic code, there are but a few obstacles in the way of man's taking over the creation and control of life from the clumsy and imperfect mechanisms of evolution. Indeed, Dr. Woolfson writes, "The end of natural selection as the principal agent of speciation will be an unprecedented milestone of human existence." He describes mastering the ability to create life as "likely to be the greatest enterprise of the twenty-first century." He insists, "The moment we complete this project, life will become dissociated from the natural evolutionary processes that have shaped it from its inception. New artificial modes of creation will then supplement, perhaps even supplant, such conventional historical mechanisms."

There are only a few obstacles that need to be overcome. First, men will have to become, if not omniscient, at least approaching it. Before this project can commence, it will be necessary to identify every single form of life on earth and map its gene sequence. Given the fact that we still don't know how many species of living things are yet to be discovered, or whether we'll ever be able to say for certain that we have found them all - not to mention the time involved decoding all those genetic structures - this could take a while. Undaunted, Woolfson believes we should press on, taking care to preserve every living species on the planet (and what if there is life elsewhere in the cosmos?) and working hard to "trawl every available niche of the microenvironment, so as to capture as many examples of the different species on Earth as is practically possible." Images of white-clad scientists creeping through dark caves, crawling around on jungle floors, and driving around in bathyspheres dance through my head.

Once we've solved the problem of omniscience, we will need to master omnipotence. This step has two challenges. First, we must create a computer and software smart enough to calculate all the possibilities of life. Woolfson continues, "Following the successful compilation of an extensive, and ideally complete DNA sequence database, we will need to establish a universal algorithmic machine capable of computing the structure and function of any organism from the abstract mathematical notation of its genomic structure." Bill Gates, suit up. Second, we need to figure out how to translate abstract mathematical calculations into flesh and blood: "The next issue to address is whether it is possible to translate the abstract logic of synthetic genomes into the molecular hardware of living creatures." Yes, well, that could take a while.

Two images kept colliding in my mind as I read this article over and over. The first is that of a wild-eyed scientist like the guy in Back to the Future, prattling on about the glories and possibilities of time travel as he paces back and forth in his white coat in what everyone knows is an entertaining fiction and nothing more. The second image was of Steve Martin, doing his famous "How to Be a Millionaire" shtick. That bit begins, "First, get a million dollars." Secular scientists must be getting bored. Or maybe they have too much time on their hands. Having rejected God and His divine sovereignty as exercising any constraints on their imaginations and projects, they now want to throw evolution out of the driver's seat as well. Then science would be in control of life! Imagine the possibilities! Imagine the breakthroughs for good! Imagine the uncountable Frankenstein monsters, created for fun and profit, that would be unleashed on the world. Imagine all this, then pity the poor scientist in his hubris and foolhardiness. The mere idea that men might be able to acquire the kind of comprehensive knowledge and power to be able to become masters of all life reveals much about the self-image of the scientific enterprise. The belief that we should actually seek to do should give us all cause for alarm.

A conversation starter: Some scientists believe they should take over the management of life from the processes of evolution. Is this a good thing? Is this something we should be supporting?

Comments (2)

	1. 05/05/2008 16:22
	ideas do have consequences! This does not seem far removed from the philosophy of Peter Singer, who advocates a similar approach to granting or sustaining life. He has been doing this for 25+ years now, and he is now - gasp! - professor of Bioethics at (historically Presbyterian) Princeton University! But he is taking a utilitarian approach to the matter - as is Dr. Woolfson, it seems.   Isn't this taking utilitarianism and evolution to their logical and atheistic end? Report

Toby Pope

	2. 05/05/2008 20:33
	The True Aim of Ethics Toby:    I agree with you. The end of all utilitarian approaches to ethics is the overthrow of God and the enthroning of man as the director of fate and values. We saw it in the Nuremburg trials, we saw it in the Eugenics movements, and we now see it today. C. S. Lewis in THAT HIDEOUS STRENGTH, wrote about the very utilitarian end that T. M. warns about. The scary thing, is that our science is getting better and better, while Christians bury their heads more and more in the sand of "Biblical ignorance" to modern science. I highly recommend BIBLICAL CHRISTIAN ETHICS by David Clyde Jones. Jones posits, rightly so, that if we base all of our ethical decisions on the first question of the Westminster Catechism (to glorify God and enjoy Him forever), then we will lessen the risk of a purely utilitarian approach to ethics. If we approach all ethical problems with a desire to glorify God, then the ethical approach (be it deontological, subjective, or indeed utilitarian) will be made clear.    For the record - I never had Singer while I was at Princeton. Report

Reuel Sample

Only registered users can write comments.
Please login or register.

Powered by AkoComment Tweaked Special Edition v.1.4.6
AkoComment © Copyright 2004 by Arthur Konze - www.mamboportal.com
All right reserved