> Let's put it in a different light. Let's say that after the genome
> has been sequenced, and after many studies have been done,
> science shows that a minority group, as a group, are more prone
> to violence and less likely to be above a certain level of
> intelligence because of the frequency of certain alleles they possess
> as a group. Science also develops very robust models showing that
> if we forcefully sterilize members of this group who carry certain
> genetic markers, in a few generations, the incidence of violent
> behavior will be significantly reduced and IQs will be increased.
> Just pretend that this is what science shows. Should religion
> change to support plans of forcefully obtaining genetic
> profiles and then implementing forceful sterilization?
> Science might be able to tell us what can be done, but does
> it tell us if we should do that which can be done? No.
Now let's examine another possibility. As a result of studying these
alleles, it has been possible to engineer viruses that will mutate and
destroy the violence alleles while inserting intelligence alleles into the
genome. Similar robust studies show that these viruses will be every bit as
effective as forced sterilization. Should religion change to support plans
of "genetic tampering to improve the species" and then implementing those
plans? Science might be able to tell us what can be done, but does it tell
us if we should do that which can be done? Again, the answer is no. Science
only gives us choices of what could be done; it is religion and moral and
ethical philosophy that helps us determine which choice is the best choice.
Kevin L. O'Brien