Wolf-ish?

I have contended that science, when it comes right down to it, is a study of the creation of God, including the laws of the universe that He has set in motion. Science is not a license to "play God" or an excuse to reject Him. Be encouraged by the words of Psalm 8:
(1) O Lord, our Lord, How excellent is Your name in all the earth, Who have set Your glory above the heavens!
2 Out of the mouth of babes and nursing infants You have ordained strength, Because of Your enemies, That You may silence the enemy and the avenger.
3 When I consider Your heavens, the work of Your fingers, The moon and the stars, which You have ordained,
4 What is man that You are mindful of him, And the son of man that You visit him?

The Baptist Paper related recently that "Colossal Biosciences announced...the birth of three wolves that have been genetically engineered to resemble the extinct dire wolf. The wolves – Romulus, Remus and Khaleesi — mark what TIME Magazine calls the 'de-extinction' of a species unseen for reportedly '10,000 years.' The company used preserved DNA, genetic engineering and surrogate dog mothers to produce the wolves. While many scientists seem excited about the latest news, critics — one in particular Christian leader — noted this news should raise red flags."

That leader to which that paragraph referred is Albert Mohler, president of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Kentucky, who "addressed the news on his podcast 'The Briefing.'" The article said:

He specifically questioned the scientific validity of the wolves but also addressed the ethical and theological implications. “You’re not restoring creation,” Mohler said. “You’re engineering something artificial and calling it nature.”

Mohler also noted, “You have an engineered animal you call dire wolf, but even some other scientists are saying that’s not really a dire wolf. It’s dire wolf-ish.”

The Baptist Paper article also notes:

Among Christian concerns are tampering with God’s design, the unpredictability of reintroducing engineered animals into ecosystems, and a worldview that views humans as intruders rather than caretakers of creation. “This is not science fiction,” Mohler said. “This is human arrogance clothed in lab coats.”

Ken Ham of Answers in Genesis provided more details on the procedure at the ministry's website. He then noted:

Researchers claim the birth of these pups means they are “effectively for the first time de-extincting a line of beasts whose live gene pool long ago vanished.” In the evolutionary worldview, this extinction took place some 10,000 years ago at the end of the supposed last ice age.

Now, in a biblical worldview, dire wolves didn’t live that long ago. They likely went extinct sometime after the post-flood ice age less than 4,000 years ago. Many creatures—including the woolly mammoth that Colossal is working to bring back (apparently they’ve edited 25 of the 85 genes necessary and are “on track” to implant embryos in elephant wombs by late 2026)—went extinct after climate conditions wildly changed after the ice age ended and the glaciers retreated to their current location.

Ham also noted: "And gray wolves and dire wolves belong to the same kind, the dog kind. They’re both varieties that descended from the two representatives of their kind that went aboard the ark." He relates:

Now are dire wolves really back? No, not really. These aren’t dire wolves, they’re what we could call “GMO gray wolves.” They’ve been tweaked to have some of the features scientists think the iconic ice age predator had, but they aren’t true dire wolves as many, many more differences would genetically separate the two species. The story is definitely overhyped!

He also shared:

As humans, we’ve been given dominion over creation and we’re to care for it, wisely stewarding creation for God’s glory. That includes careful research into the delicate balance of ecosystems before releasing—or sort of rereleasing—new species (there are currently no plans to release the “dire wolves” into the wild). It will be interesting to see how this technology is used—we hope it will be used with wisdom and care for God’s creation.

But, a Washington Times article details where this could be heading, and regarding Ham's word of caution, it seems to do nothing of the sort.  It states:

In Austin, Texas, the Los Angeles Project is preparing to debut fluorescent pet bunnies. These bunnies are genetically engineered using a jellyfish gene that causes them to glow under ultraviolet light.

The company, co-founded by biohacker Josie Zayner and biotechnology entrepreneur Cathy Tie, uses CRISPR, a gene-editing tool that acts like molecular scissors, to insert the jellyfish’s bioluminescence gene.

The article goes on to say:

Glow-in-the-dark rabbits are only the beginning. The bioengineering firm plans to produce cats that don’t trigger allergies, jackalopes, dragons and unicorns.

“As a human species, it’s kind of our moral prerogative to level up animals,” Ms. Zayner told Wired magazine.

Colossal also used CRISPR to re-create the dire wolves, The Hollywood Reporter said. Scientists extracted endothelial progenitor cells, which line blood vessels, from living gray wolves and edited 14 genes in the cells’ nuclei to match ancient dire wolf DNA, Time reports.

The Times stated: 

“There’s a risk of side effects that are severe,” Columbia University bioethicist Robert Klitzman said of the dire wolf project in a Time interview. He said gene edits can have unintended effects and cloning is rife with complications.

Albert Mohler and Ken Ham both refer to our role as humans and our relationship with the rest of creation.  Mohler said that we are "caretakers," Ham said we are given "stewardship" over creation for God's glory.  When we begin to talk about designer animals and manipulating DNA, that doesn't sound like good stewardship to me.  We don't have a "moral prerogative to "level up" animals, as this so-called "biohacker" said.

And, the hype is just that - as Ken Ham notes, there is not a new species being created here - Mohler calls these animals "wolf-ish."  But, it is dangerous when you begin to think about where this manipulation could be leading and how some so-called "scientists," backed by big-money grants, are "playing God." 

We have to consider our own responsibility over creation - and over all that God has entrusted to us. We can think more deeply about what it truly means to be a steward.  We should always be seeking out the Biblical path, in order to do the will of God and bring glory to Him. When we think we know better than He, we will certainly face the consequences of our fallacies.