Forcing Evolution

[dairygirl4u2c]

i agree humans have inherent dignity beyond plants.
i think we could manipulate genes of monkeys etc and determine a way that would minimize bad consequences should we do it to humans.
if it's gonna cause bad consequenes, i'm generally against it. really i'm just talking theoretically, if we knew no bad consequences, then what? you cna't say bad consequences when my qhole premise has addressed that.

i can see if you think some people are dumber and that's just eh way it is... etc. but, at least for preventing diseases and such, isn't that something that we should change? the world is not perfect right now, i don't think anyone can disagree with that. innocent people are born suffering etc. whatever the reason for it, sin etc, it's still not perfect and we can be cocreators to prevent it.
i can understand hte smart and elite stuff just leave it alone, but not wanting to rid the world of suffering through this, if it's started with monkeys and slowly tried out in humans, i don't think is wise. it's in fact, unchristian.

[Paphnutius]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' post='1504374' date='Apr 20 2008, 04:07 PM']i can see if you think some people are dumber and that's just eh way it is... etc. but, at least for preventing diseases and such, isn't that something that we should change? the world is not perfect right now, i don't think anyone can disagree with that. innocent people are born suffering etc. whatever the reason for it, sin etc, it's still not perfect and we can be cocreators to prevent it.
i can understand hte smart and elite stuff just leave it alone, but not wanting to rid the world of suffering through this, if it's started with monkeys and slowly tried out in humans, i don't think is wise. it's in fact, unchristian.[/quote]
This may sound terribly callous, but your argument presumes that suffering is bad and ought to be minimized, if not eliminated all together. While I would in no wise promote causing the active suffering of others, suffering may be redemptive and to the betterment of the individual. No pearl is gained without irritation.

[quote]if we knew no bad consequences, then what? you cna't say bad consequences when my qhole premise has addressed that.[/quote]
Also, what do you mean by "bad consequences?" Are speaking on a physilogical level alone, or also on a social, psychological, or spiritual level?

Edited April 20, 2008 by Paphnutius

[dairygirl4u2c]

i thought bad consequences was defined sufficiently. if it's causing malformed people then that's bad. htings like that. it doesn't have to be a super defined term. i said i could understand the smart v dumb distinction, and if changing that is deemed bad, then sure, whatever.
sure there's probably some things where "bad consequnces" needs defined more. but, the situation has not posed itself that this needs elaborated more, yet. so there's not much to define here so i'm not sure why you ask.

yes, it's terribly callous to not want to rid the world of suffering that comes from being born crippled, if there's no bad consequences to preventing the crippling.
if you're assuming there'd be bad consequencdes, then it's not that terribly callous. i'd call it callosu though if you wouldn't allow a very very small amount of bad consquenes for a large amount of preventing inborn disease.

maybe you know something that's a poentia "bad consequence" that needs discuseed... if that's the case, then bring it up.

Edited April 20, 2008 by dairygirl4u2c

[JesusIsMySuperHero]

[quote name='Paphnutius' post='1504241' date='Apr 20 2008, 01:34 PM']If changes to genes do not happen at the "molecular level," then what is the cause of a genetic mutation? Again, how are you using the word "natural?"[/quote]

Paphnutius, there are small changes in genes, which God used to make certain characteristics appear in our gene pool.

The difference between white skin, and black skin, for instance, is the result of one atom difference in the genetic code of a human being.

But such things don't happen very often, and are the result of a God who cares about us to give black skin to people in Africa to prevent as much skin cancer as possible.

Since God is outside of our world, then anything he does is supernatural. The differences between the races of all animals is caused by God. He didn't cause evolution that all life has a single ancestor.

Therefore, in nature, nothing is changed on the genetic level, except by outside influence. Currently, with the amount of chemicals we are producing in our atmosphere, we are changing our genetic makeup, pretty much in the negative - i.e. more people with Asthma, more people with genetic diseases, ect, ect, ect.

So here's the definitions -

Natural - something regulated by the processes that God sent in motion.
Unnatural - taking control of processes God made, and altering them. That of course will declare that any gene manipulation is against God's will, and if it's against God's will, its sin, and anybody debating this because of the potential 'benefits' are really rebelling against God, and they should be bowing themselves down for God for forgiveness.

Because, after all, after God had created everything, he called it very good. Does anybody here want to be the one saying, I thought we could make things better, and Jesus say - how much better, when I created everything, I said it was very good!

Edited April 21, 2008 by JesusIsMySuperHero

[dairygirl4u2c]

most people say that the bad stuff that happens is largely a result of sin. when God created everything, he said it was good.... but that was before the fall. that was before sin. i don't think i'd say what he made was bad, but there's bad things happening, however you want to describe it.

it's almost like saying you don't want to make medicine because naturally we die anyway. i do realize changing genes is different, but it's similiar enough in my opinion to make the point.

[Paphnutius]

[quote name='JesusIsMySuperHero' post='1504703' date='Apr 20 2008, 09:15 PM']Since God is outside of our world, then anything he does is supernatural. The differences between the races of all animals is caused by God. He didn't cause evolution that all life has a single ancestor.[/quote]I would say that God is also immanent to creation. He is both transcendent and immanent.

[quote]Natural - something regulated by the processes that God sent in motion.
Unnatural - taking control of processes God made, and altering them. That of course will declare that any gene manipulation is against God's will, and if it's against God's will, its sin, and anybody debating this because of the potential 'benefits' are really rebelling against God, and they should be bowing themselves down for God for forgiveness.[/quote]Please correct me if I am wrong, but are you saying that there is a dichotomy between human actions and what is natural? Is it not possible to say that human actions and free will are a part of the "processes that God sent in motion?"

[quote]yes, it's terribly callous to not want to rid the world of suffering that comes from being born crippled, if there's no bad consequences to preventing the crippling.
if you're assuming there'd be bad consequencdes, then it's not that terribly callous. i'd call it callosu though if you wouldn't allow a very very small amount of bad consquenes for a large amount of preventing inborn disease.

maybe you know something that's a poentia "bad consequence" that needs discuseed... if that's the case, then bring it up.[/quote]I asked for a more precise definition because one of the bad consequences could be losing sight of our humanity and dependence upon God. This is not necessarily physiological, so I sought clarification. Perhaps, however, it would be easier to start with a question: Why do you think that suffering ought to be eliminated?

[Archaeology cat]

[quote name='BeenaBobba' post='1503142' date='Apr 19 2008, 05:43 AM']Well, first of all, what are "bad genes"?[/quote]
And if these so-called "bad genes" can be isolated & eliminated, how would it affect other genes?
[quote name='BeenaBobba' post='1503142' date='Apr 19 2008, 05:43 AM']The thing is, I think we're more than the sum of our individual qualities. Human dignity is something that cannot be earned; it just [i]is[/i]. Personally, I don't see the point in creating "superior offspring." I don't think human beings should be characterized as such. I may be smarter than someone who is mentally handicapped, but as a person, I'm not superior to him.
I think so. To me, it seems like an affront against human dignity to assume that some people are inherently superior to others merely because they have more desirable traits.[/quote]
My first thought here was of Khan (I watch too much Star Trek ). But then my serious thought was of my cousin's cousin, Stef. She is the oldest living person with Hurler's syndrome, and she's only alive because she had a bone marrow transplant early on. While I may have a higher IQ than she does, I can't imagine the world without her irrepressible spirit. I am in no way superior to her. In fact, I'm often reminded to have more trust & faith, and to help others without question. I think the world would be a bleaker place without such people.

[praying4carmel]

[quote name='Galloglasses' date='Apr 16 2008, 04:14 PM' post='1500931'

Eugenics.

The master race theory, courtesy of the Nazis.

[/quote]

Actually Hitler got his ideas from the Good Old USA..a shock to many..

[url="http://www.amazon.com/War-Against-Weak-Eugenics-Americas/dp/B000TFWG5I/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1208808132&sr=8-1"]War against the weak[/url]

I thought this book would take off when it was published. Obviously since it's in the remainder bin it Didn't which is too bad.

[Archaeology cat]

[quote name='praying4carmel' post='1505744' date='Apr 21 2008, 09:05 PM']Actually Hitler got his ideas from the Good Old USA..a shock to many..

[url="http://www.amazon.com/War-Against-Weak-Eugenics-Americas/dp/B000TFWG5I/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1208808132&sr=8-1"]War against the weak[/url]

I thought this book would take off when it was published. Obviously since it's in the remainder bin it Didn't which is too bad.[/quote]
I hadn't heard of that book, though I did know about the eugenics movement in the US. Quite sad.

[Galloglasses]

Why hasn't Planned Parenthood's damning links to Nazi Eugenics not made international conscience yet?

[dairygirl4u2c]

i still don't think "bad consequences" was that poorly defined. i think the ocntext i wrote it in indicated that i didn't think infringing on human dignity was a bad consequence. but anyway.

suffering should be eliminated because God probably does not enjoy us suffering or think it necessary, completely. There may be good things that can come of it, but like giving glory to God when a blind man see as Jesus says. but, i inherently simply don't think God thinks we should suffer. the world is full of bad stuff medically and physically etc that we as humans fix. inhernet dignity of a human is a consideration but i simply don't think it is being infringed, but in fact respected and glorifed by us with our God given power preventing God's creatres from needless and unjust suffering.

looks like we'll just have to agree to disagree as to the human dignity stuff.
i'd also point out... if the bad consequences are very very small, then how is that much different than guinea pig humans in other regards? i don't think it's much different.
but, anyways, my thread is mostly about speculating on this assuming there's no bad consequences so.

now... some suffereing like laboring to become proficient at something, or any suffereing that exists can be meritorious. but needless suffereing not so much. yes, we culd get into what's needless and what's not. cause some people might think there's not point suffering to learn etc. i'd probably disagree, but i think i laid out the general enough parameters to say things like being born with diseases is not cool and should be fixed.

[CatherineM]

I suffer with pain everyday of my life, and barring a miracle, will for the rest of my life. I don't think my suffering lessons the gift of my life. My husband's great-grandmother and mother both had schizophrenia, and he was diagnosed at the age of 30 with it also. If there had been a test for it in vitro, I guess his mother could have aborted him. That would have been a bummer for me.

[JesusIsMySuperHero]

[quote name='Paphnutius' post='1505592' date='Apr 21 2008, 11:48 AM']Perhaps, however, it would be easier to start with a question: Why do you think that suffering ought to be eliminated?[/quote]

Actually, this may surprise many here, I don't want to do anything to bring suffering to an end.

Right now, suffering is a consequence of our sinful natures.

To 'correct' genes to lessen suffering of others is wrong. If God wants to make blind men see, he will. If God wants deaf children to hear, he will. Man shouldn't be involved, because the more we get involved, the less room God has to work in.

Men, in our infinite wisdom, think they can make a world better than God has, then let them, and they will reap the consequences of their actions. Remember the old proverb, the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

I am kinda reminded about I am Legend.

A woman and her researchers find a cure for cancer, a cure far more deadly than cancer, kills billions, mutates most of the suvivors, and there are only pockets of hope through out the world. The road to hell for sure.

That could happen, if we don't start thinking, God made the world the way it is, and we shouldn't mess with it.

Remember, plagues and famine are suppose to kill 1/4 of all human life. Is the I am Legend plague in our future? Time will tell.

[rkwright]

[quote name='Paphnutius' post='1505592' date='Apr 21 2008, 11:48 AM']I would say that God is also immanent to creation. He is both transcendent and immanent.

Please correct me if I am wrong, but are you saying that there is a dichotomy between human actions and what is natural? Is it not possible to say that human actions and free will are a part of the "processes that God sent in motion?"

I asked for a more precise definition because one of the bad consequences could be losing sight of our humanity and dependence upon God. This is not necessarily physiological, so I sought clarification. Perhaps, however, it would be easier to start with a question: Why do you think that suffering ought to be eliminated?[/quote]

pap what a great surprise to see your name around again! I look forward to reading more of your posts!

[dairygirl4u2c]

just so people are clear, i am not advocating aborting or killing after birth etc, as some people are saying.

just picking what sperm fertilizes what, or manipulating the genes etc.

"if God wants us to see, he will" is the kind of stuff that people who were against medicine said, or things that involve guinea pigs, or hybridzation of plants and animcals etc. this arguemnt isn't that strong, in my opinion. unless it's connect with the inherent value that we simply shouldn't mess with genes. standing alone that argument in quotes doesn't do a whole lot. but, an inherent value is important.
also, i think pap was speaking to me and not jesusrocks... cause he had quoted me.

Edited April 22, 2008 by dairygirl4u2c

[JesusIsMySuperHero]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' post='1506066' date='Apr 21 2008, 07:33 PM']just so people are clear, i am not advocating aborting or killing after birth etc, as some people are saying.

just picking what sperm fertilizes what, or manipulating the genes etc.[/quote]

That is completely wrong!

As a born again believer who understand that the world is already Very Good, though stained by sin, any picking and choosing of what sperm fertilizes what egg is completely wrong.

dairy, I am going to throw the gloves off. Are you really a Christian?

If you can't accept how God has created the creation, than go ask him to fix it! Don't spread anymore rebellious, Satan spawned Eugenics ideas here!

Do you want to be one of the people Jesus says, I made everything very good, how much better did you want it?

[Paphnutius]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' post='1506001' date='Apr 21 2008, 07:22 PM']suffering should be eliminated because God probably does not enjoy us suffering or think it necessary, completely. There may be good things that can come of it, but like giving glory to God when a blind man see as Jesus says. but, i inherently simply don't think God thinks we should suffer. the world is full of bad stuff medically and physically etc that we as humans fix. inhernet dignity of a human is a consideration but i simply don't think it is being infringed, but in fact respected and glorifed by us with our God given power preventing God's creatres from needless and unjust suffering.[/quote]I think one ought to note that God Himself suffered on the Cross. I hope that it did not sound as though I think God enjoys our suffering, but that suffering is often an instrument of grace as it traditionally has been. In [i]De Veritate[/i], St. Anselm makes an interesting point that whatever is right now is as it ought to be, for God permits it to exist. This does not mean that what exists now exists in its final or ideal state. Also, while we do attempt to eliminate a lot of suffering as a society (social programs as well as medicinal advances), one ought to be aware of motivations and intentions. If one is eliminating suffering simply for the sake of being relieved, then I think that something is awry. Remember, that the good of an action comes from the end, the means, and the intention. Evil is from any defect among these.

[quote]now... some suffereing like laboring to become proficient at something, or any suffereing that exists can be meritorious. but needless suffereing not so much. yes, we culd get into what's needless and what's not. cause some people might think there's not point suffering to learn etc. i'd probably disagree, but i think i laid out the general enough parameters to say things like being born with diseases is not cool and should be fixed.[/quote]While we would likely disgaree on what is needless and what have you, I think that it is the sufferer who largely decides what is needless and what is not.

rkwright, it is good to see you too!

jesusismysuperhero, I am sorry if it sounded like that question was directed to you, but thank you for answering.

[JesusIsMySuperHero]

[quote name='Paphnutius' post='1506088' date='Apr 21 2008, 07:53 PM']jesusismysuperhero, I am sorry if it sounded like that question was directed to you, but thank you for answering. [/quote]

Hey, I know it wasn't really directed at me, but I can't stand any kind of thinly vialed evil ideas.

The fear of the Lord is to hate (don't hate, appreciate) evil, and I can't stand thinking about is it okay to mess with God's creation. The people who think they can create something better are probably going to unleash a plague that will kill 1/4 of the people of the world.

[Paphnutius]

[quote name='JesusIsMySuperHero' post='1506104' date='Apr 21 2008, 09:10 PM']Hey, I know it wasn't really directed at me, but I can't stand any kind of thinly vialed evil ideas.[/quote] "Thinly vialed evil ideas?"

[JesusIsMySuperHero]

[quote name='Paphnutius' post='1506107' date='Apr 21 2008, 08:13 PM'] "Thinly vialed evil ideas?"[/quote]

Whenever people talk about 'eradicating' genetic diseases, it is all about Eugenics. What diary is really saying is she is for Eugenics. I don't like that.

She is present sugar coated poison. Tastes sweet, but it is poison and will kill people.