RE: Endgame (Was RE: [asa] Jerry Coyne's ...)

To direct and speed-up biological evolution, I think the best thing would be to manipulate the DNA for better brains. We all know that some people have better functioning brains than others- some are smarter and more aware than others. If the brain structure is analyzed/identified/understood, and how it could be better improved by fixing errors, then maybe the smartest of us now will be like the dumbest of us in the future- in other words- our brains genetically engineered to surpass modern humans just as humans surpass the ape brain today. If we can figure out how to do that in the next 1,000 years, we could enjoy the fruit of that for the remaining few million years (if the Lord tarries). Of course, in reality, there's no end to it- humans would be directing their own evolution up until the last minute, until the Lord says "Time's up!"

...Bernie

-----Original Message-----
From: gmurphy10@neo.rr.com [mailto:gmurphy10@neo.rr.com]
Sent: Friday, January 30, 2009 2:29 PM
To: asa@calvin.edu; Dehler, Bernie
Subject: RE: Endgame (Was RE: [asa] Jerry Coyne's ...)

Certainly we can to some extent direct the course of human evolution, & have been trying to do so for quite a while. Plato's suggestion for the Guardians to manipulate secretly the results of competition for breeding is one example, & I've been told that in some Australian tribes the elders do just that. Of course being able to understand & impact the genome directly increases the possibilities greatly.
That doesn't mean that our society in general has any better understanding of what future humans _should_ be than Plato!

The phrase "playing God" is really pretty empty of serious theological content, as Ted Peters argues in his book with that title. It generally functions as a stop sign for people who are uncomfortable with particular technologies. The idea that we are to exercise _responsible_ (N.B.) dominion over creation means that in an important sense we are supposed to "play God" (though the phrase isn't ideal). The real question is, what God should we play - the One revealed in Christ or one of the more popular idols?

Phil Hefner's concept of the human as "the created co-creator" can be hgelpful here - if used with care. Not everything we can accomplish can be called "co-creation" in the sense of cooperating with God in creation. It's only that if it's in accord with the will of God for creation. & again that will & purpose for creation is revealed most clearly in Christ.

In addition, we should try to avoid getting sucked in by science fiction & a lot of pop speculation in which the future of humanity is seen as _individual_ superhumans with bulging skulls, super powers, &c. There's a lot to be said for Teilhard's idea that the future of evolution is a corporate entity, what Paul spoke of as the Body of Christ.

Shalom,
George
 

---- "Dehler wrote:
> Suppose it is possible to further direct human evolution by way of genetic engineering. Would Christians oppose that on grounds that "we shouldn't play God?" Non-Christians could say it is not "playing God" but "playing human."
>
> Think about the explosion of technology in just the last 50 years. If we take care of this planet and the Lord tarries, humans can stay on earth for a few million more- until the Sun dies out. Given the progress of humans in the last 50 years- just imagine what will be accomplished in the next 50, 100, 1,000, or 10,000 years!
>
> ...Bernie
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: gmurphy10@neo.rr.com [mailto:gmurphy10@neo.rr.com]
> Sent: Friday, January 30, 2009 9:16 AM
> To: asa@calvin.edu; Dehler, Bernie
> Subject: Endgame (Was RE: [asa] Jerry Coyne's ...)
>
> Bernie et al -
>
> 1st, the sentence of mine you quoted should have read:
>
> "I am no expert on the biology but on general principles we CAN'T say that the "movie" of evolution would be completely different if it were run again (a la Gould's "Wonderful Life" analogy) since we in fact only get to watch one showing of it."
>
> Then on your points. To start with, even on a Barthian view the "endgame" isn't simply humanity but humanity indwelt by God (i.e., Christ), & Eph.1:10 & Col.1:15-20 suggest that the endgame is in fact that union as a way to reconcile "all things" to God.
>
>
> & humans being created in the image of God (whatever that means, & there is more than one possibility) doesn't necessarily exclude other species bearing the divine image, either independently of us or perhaps mediated through the Incarnation.
>
> Shalom,
> George
>
>
>
>
> ---- "Dehler wrote:
> > George said:
> > "I am no expert on the biology but on general principles we can say that the "movie" of evolution would be completely different if it were run again (a la Gould's "Wonderful Life" analogy) since we in fact only get to watch one showing of it."
> >
> > We are assuming humans are the "end-game." What if biological evolution isn't done yet- what if we are like monkeys compared to the next creature which may (or is) emerging? And what about humans creating their own evolution with modern science- directing the human genome by writing into it once it is more fully understood?
> >
> > Once scientists can write DNA, will Christians be the first in line trying to hold back scientific advancement because we are "made in God's image?"
> >
> > ...Bernie
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
> > "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
>
>
>
> To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Fri Jan 30 17:40:09 2009