Design

In Genesis chapter 1, we see the wonderful truth that all humanity was created in the image of God.
26 Then God said, "Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth."
27 So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.

There is a Latin phrase, "imago dei," that means "in the image of God."  If we regard every human being as having that divine connection, then that would govern how we treat that individual. Certainly, as pro-life Christians, we believe that life begins at conception and the life of an unborn child should not be terminated.  But, this concept will also influence our relationships with all others and views on the moral issues of the day.  If we respect life - all life - then we will develop a sense of compassion consistent with the view of Scripture.

+++++

The Bible tells us that we are created by God in a unique manner, and each human being has the mark of God, bearing His image. Psalm 139 states:
13 For You formed my inward parts; You covered me in my mother's womb.
14 I will praise You, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made; Marvelous are Your works, And that my soul knows very well.

In the realm of genetics, the future is now, and it is certainly scary.  The Daily Mail reports that recently, scientists "used gene-editing to cut out DNA from a fertilised egg. The embryo then repaired itself, replacing the mutated material with healthy cells."

The story reports that: "The technique worked on three quarters of the 58 embryos it was tried on. It has the potential to revolutionise medicine and could lead to the eradication of inherited diseases such as cystic fibrosis and breast cancer."

Of course, this development does not come without warning, with some expressing concern that "it might also open the door to ‘superior designer babies’, with genes modified to improve physical appearance, strength or even intelligence."

The article states:

The breakthrough was led by scientists from Oregon Health and Science University in Portland using the gene-editing tool Crispr-Cas9, which works like ‘molecular scissors’.

In the study, the embryos, none of which were allowed to live beyond 5 days, possessed a mutant gene which causes heart failure later in life, such as in the case of a 23-year-old soccer player.  The article says:

At the time of fertilisation, they applied the gene-editing tool that acts like a pair of precisely targeted genetic scissors.

Once the defective elements of the gene had been snipped away, the embryo’s own cellular repair systems replaced them with healthy versions.

The researchers reported that 42 out of 58 of the embryos had been correctly fixed so that they no longer carried the heart failure mutation, which normally has a 50 per cent chance of being passed on and can lead to sudden death.

The Daily Mail provides this analysis:

This raises the prospect of genetically engineered ‘superheroes’ made to be more athletic or extra intelligent at the request of parents.

Scientists say that designer babies are a step closer following the breakthrough. But the researchers have edited only a single gene so far, using a technique which has still to be proven to work in babies rather than just embryos.

The article sidebar does point out that "Traits such as intelligence and strength are determined by multiple genes, meaning superhero children are not likely to happen soon."

Of course, that doesn't mean they won't quit trying.  Also, since the embryos were destroyed in the process, that already raises pro-life concerns.

John Stonestreet actually commented on this type of activity in a Breakpoint commentary last year. Responding to a Nobel Laurete's description of the possibilities as "really exciting," Stonestreet says:

And another word for it would be “troubling.” Not because using technology to potentially prevent serious illness is a bad thing, but because of the historically proven reality that we most likely won’t stop there.

He contends: "While we can all get behind eradicating terrible genetic disorders like Tay-Sachs and Cystic Fibrosis, the fact remains that 'editing out inheritable traits from the human population' is in fact what the eugenics movement was all about."

It has been dubbed "newgenics" by Edwin Black, according to Stonestreet, and:

Scientists like the Nobel Laureate Joshua Lederberg and evolutionary biologist J.B.S. Haldane maintain that what Haldane called “positive eugenics” was different because “No living person would be eliminated from the gene pool.” Instead, “society could guide human development by eliminating negative traits and encouraging desirable ones through genetic engineering.”

Phrases like “no living person,” “negative traits,” and “desirable [traits]” strongly suggest that the sanctity and dignity of all human life doesn’t play much of a role in “newgenics.” “Positive eugenics” is at odds with the idea that there’s “a moral, social and physical advantage in allowing diversity to flourish within the human gene pool.”

 Ray Bohlin of Probe Ministries warned back in 2000 that:

What should concern us more than the advent of biotechnology is the growing popularity of a totally secular and naturalistic worldview. Naturalism contends that humans are just complicated animals. The end result of this assumption is that ethics becomes an exercise in simply determining what works, not what is right.

Biotechnology is powerful, indeed, but we cannot put the genie back in the bottle. Therefore we must engage the discussion as to how this technology can be used to cure disease and not become another snare to degrade and dehumanize people’s lives.

I would contend that this sounds like that people are attempting to play God by manipulating the genetic code of a human being.  Bohlin addressed this in his piece:

For some Christians, however, the notion of playing God carries a pietistic view of God’s realm of activity versus that of the human race. In this context, playing God means performing tasks that are reserved for God and God alone. If this is what genetic technology does, then the concerns about playing God are justified. But what is often being reflected in this perspective is that God acts where we are ignorant and it should stay that way.

He adds, "The point was made that technology itself is not evil. Any technology can be used to further God’s purposes or hinder them. People make those decisions, not technology."

There are plenty of implications of the use of technology, with seemingly good effects possible, but one that can be used to attempt to supersede the role of God.

For one thing, if you believe life begins at conception, then you have to be troubled by the nature of this experimentation.  Because these embryos who are the "subjects" of these experiments will have no future - in the study I referred to, all lost their lives.  Research is one thing; if it leads to genocide, then it is unacceptable.

Stonestreet and Bohlin point out that the nature of the research is determined by the worldview of the people conducting it.  This is critical to note, because scientific discoveries may face ethical challenges; technology can be used for good or evil - we have to be discerning about matters of worldview before we rejoice about advancements. Technology can be used for God's purposes or to further humanity or it can be used for counterproductive activities.

A huge consideration here:  If you agree that each of us as "fearfully and wonderfully made," then you have to reason to what extent one should attempt to manipulate the genetic code of a person.  Sure, there will be health advances that can be beneficial in treating disease and improving the effects of disabilities.  But, there are concerns that must be addressed before we cross the line into trying to override God's handiwork and to perpetrate humanity's harm - we musn't "play God;" rather we submit to His principles.