The Freedom to Believe--A Lie by Bert Thompson, Ph.D.

http://apologeticspress.org/apPubPage.aspx?pub=1&issue=467

The Freedom to Believe--A Lie

by	Bert Thompson, Ph.D.

December 18, 1975. October 6, 1984. December 20, 1996. What do these dates—representative of three consecutive decades—have in common? The answer is that each represents a day in that particular decade on which an eminent evolutionary scientist died. In the decade of the ’70s, it was Thursday, December 18, 1975, when Theodosius Dobzhansky, the world-class geneticist of The Rockefeller University, passed away. In the decade of the ’80s, it was Saturday, October 6, 1984, when George Gaylord Simpson, the renowned paleontologist who served as a professor at both Harvard and the University of Arizona, died. In the decade of the ’90s, it was Friday, December 20, 1996, when Carl Sagan, the acclaimed astronomer and Pulitzer Prize-winning author of Cornell University, passed from this life.

Each of these evolutionists was a multi-talented, highly intelligent individual who was well known and widely respected, both by those within and without the scientific community. Because of their reputations, and the lifetime achievements that in some cases had made their names household words, their passing did not go unnoticed by those involved on either side of the creation/evolution controversy. The evolutionary colleagues they left behind invariably penned glowing tributes acknowledging the tireless dedication that their now-deceased coworkers had demonstrated on behalf of a common cause. Those same colleagues repeatedly emphasized the profound scholarship that these men had exhibited through the years as they promoted and defended evolution; simultaneously, they expressed their deep regret that the concept of evolutionary thought now had lost such remarkable and powerful champions.

Creationists, on the other hand, had a somewhat different reaction. While certainly they shared the grief at the loss of a valuable human life, and while they deeply regretted the various circumstances surrounding the death of each of these men, other feelings could not help but surface as well. For example, it is extremely difficult for those who believe in God, and who accept the biblical account of creation as the correct explanation for the origin of the Universe and its inhabitants, to comprehend fully how intelligent people can accept the naturalistic concept of organic evolution. In fact, one of the most mind-numbing mysteries for those who do not believe in evolution is trying to understand the rationale of those who do. In every decade, whenever an evolutionist of the stature of a Dobzhansky, a Simpson, or a Sagan dies, one of the first questions that comes to mind is this: How could someone who possessed such obvious talent, and such undeniable brilliance, spend a lifetime believing, promoting, and defending a concept as false, and as meritless, as organic evolution?

THE FREEDOM...

The answer to such a question is to be found, at least in part, in the fact that when God created humans, He endowed us with freedom of choice. We often refer to that freedom as “personal volition” or “free moral agency.” The truth of the matter is that God did not create mankind as some kind of robot to slavishly serve Him, without any personal choice in the matter. This stands to reason, considering Who God is. The Scriptures describe God as being, among other things, a God of love (1 John 4:8). But is it not true that love allows freedom of choice. Ask people who are responsible parents. Do they love their children? Certainly. Do they—because of that love—allow those children freedom of choice? Indeed.

God, Who often is depicted in Scripture as a loving Father, is no different in this regard. Even a cursory survey of the biblical text documents God’s desire that man, as His creation, possess, and employ, freedom of choice. For example, when Joshua—who had led the Israelite nation so faithfully for so long—realized that his days were numbered and his hours were few, he assembled the entirety of that nation before him and, in one of the most impassioned pleas in Holy Writ, urged them to employ their personal volition in a proper fashion when he spoke these words:

And if it seem evil unto you to serve Jehovah, choose you this day whom ye will serve; whether gods which your fathers served that were beyond the River, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land ye dwell: but as for me and my house, we will serve Jehovah (Joshua 24:15).

Joshua’s point was clear. The Israelites, individually and collectively, had the ability, and yes, even the God-given right, to choose whether or not they wished to follow Jehovah. As the text continues, it indicates that on that particular occasion they chose correctly.

And the people answered and said, Far be it from us that we should forsake Jehovah, to serve other gods;... And Israel served Jehovah all the days of Joshua, and all the days of the elders that outlived Joshua, and had known all the work of Jehovah that he had wrought for Israel (Joshua 24:16,31).

In the New Testament, the principle is the same. When Jesus condemned the self-righteousness of the Pharisees in John 5:39-40, He made this observation: “Ye search the scriptures, because ye think that in them ye have eternal life; and these are they which bear witness of me; and ye will not come to me, that ye may have life.” The Pharisees of New Testament times possessed the same freedom of choice that the Israelites of Old Testament times possessed. But while the Israelites to whom he spoke chose to heed Joshua’s plea and obey Jehovah, the Pharisees to whom Christ spoke chose to ignore His plea and disobey God.

Two chapters later, when Jesus addressed the Jews in their own temple, the text indicates that they marveled at His teaching (John 7:15). But Jesus demurred, and said: “My teaching is not mine, but his that sent me. If any man willeth to do his will, he shall know of the teaching, whether it is of God, or whether I speak from myself ” (John 7:16-17). Jesus’ point to the devout temple Jews was no different than the one He had made earlier to the legalistic Pharisees. God has imbued mankind with the ability to choose. If a person wills, he can accept God and His teaching, but God never will force Himself on that person. As the apostle John brought the Book of Revelation to a close, he wrote: “he that will, let him take the water of life freely” (Revelation 22:17). The operative phrase here, of course, is “he that will.”

...TO BELIEVE...

But what of he that will not? Freedom is accompanied by responsibility. With freedom of choice comes the responsibility to think carefully, choose wisely, and act forcefully. Freedom of choice always works best when tempered with wisdom and good judgment. For that reason, to use just one example, parents who allow their children freedom of choice do not give them just freedom of choice. Rather, they provide their offspring with rules, regulations, and guidelines intended to help them use that freedom of choice correctly. If the children heed their parents’ admonition, it is likely that wisdom and good judgment will prevail.

In mankind’s relationship with God, it is much the same. In addition to giving us freedom of choice and personal volition, He has provided the rules, regulations, and guidelines that He knew we would need to help us use our personal freedom wisely. When we obey the rules, follow the regulations, and adhere to the guidelines, our lives are enriched. When we disobey the rules, refuse to follow the regulations, and ignore the guidelines, the opposite effect occurs. The Proverbs writer commented on this aspect of human life when he remarked: “The way of the transgressor is hard” (13:15). Jeremiah wrote: “It is not in man that walketh to direct his own steps” (10:23).

Thus, in every human activity the process of recognizing, believing, and properly utilizing truth is vitally important. Especially is this true in the spiritual realm. Jesus tried to impress this upon His generation when He said: “Ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free” (John 8:32). The same principle operates even today, almost two thousand years later. If knowing the truth makes us free, surely, then, notknowing the truth makes us captives of one sort or another. When we refuse to acknowledge, and believe, the truth, we are susceptible to every ill-conceived plan, deceptive scheme, and false concept that the winds of change may blow our way. We become captive to error because we have abandoned the one moral compass—truth—that possesses the ability to show us the way, and thereby to set us free. What we as humans so often fail to realize is that we are not involved in a search for truth because it is lost; we are involved in a search for truth because, without it, we are!

...A LIE...

Some, however, have elected to employ their freedom of choice to ignore or disobey the truth—or both. They are the spiritual descendants of the first-century Pharisees; they could come to a knowledge of the truth, but they will not. Paul said: “Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools” (Romans 1:22). Strong words, those! Why would the apostle use such terms to describe some of the people of his generation? His reason, according to the text that follows, was because “they exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshipped and served the creature rather than the Creator” (Romans 1:25).

Is this not an apt description of the evolutionists of our day? Have they not “exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshipped and served the creature rather than the Creator”? Is this not what evolution does best—exalting the creature over the Creator? And all in the name of “science”? When Paul wrote his first letter to Timothy, he warned: “O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called” (1 Timothy 6:20, KJV). To the Colossians, the apostle to the Gentiles wrote: “Take heed lest there shall be any one that maketh spoil of you through his philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world” (Colossians 2:8).

The simple fact of the matter is that we are responsible for what we choose to believe. Using the personal volition with which God has endowed us, we may choose freely to believe the truth, or we may choose just as freely to believe error. The choice is up to each individual. And once that individual has made up his mind that he prefers error over truth, God will not deter him, as Paul made clear when he wrote his second epistle to the Thessalonians. In that letter, he spoke of those who “received not the love of the truth” (2:10), and then went on to say that “for this cause God sendeth them a working of error, that they should believe a lie” (2 Thessalonians 2:11). What a horrible thought—to go through life with the absolute freedom to believe a lie! This concept is of such a serious nature that it deserves sustained attention.

What are the potential consequences of actually believing a lie? An Old Testament example addresses this very issue. In 1 Kings 13, the story is told of an unnamed young prophet whom God sent to deliver a stern rebuke to king Jeroboam for having established idol worship at Bethel. God commanded the prophet: “Thou shalt eat no bread, nor drink water, neither return by the same way that thou camest” (1 Kings 13:9). Yet an older, lying prophet met the younger prophet and said: “I also am a prophet as thou art; and an angel spake unto me by the word of Jehovah, saying, ‘Bring him back with thee into thy house that he may eat bread and drink water’ ” (1 Kings 13:18). The young prophet accepted at face value the older prophet’s instruction—false though it was—and on his return trip home was slain by a lion sent by God as punishment for his disobedience (1 Kings 13:24). The young prophet believed a lie—the end result being that he incurred the wrath of God and suffered the loss of his (physical) life. Pity those today who similarly choose to believe a lie—the end result being that they incur the wrath of God and suffer the loss of their (spiritual) life.

On Sunday morning, September 3, 1893, the late Restoration preacher, J.W. McGarvey, presented a powerful sermon titled “Believing a Lie,” the text of which has been preserved in print. In that lesson, McGarvey remarked:

Notice, now, that it is not a bad man, but a brave and good man, who is thus overcome. Even such a man is not free from danger at this point. Many a man just as brave and true in many particulars, has been led to his own undoing by the belief of a lie.... The fate of the young prophet cries out like the blast of a trumpet to startle us from our fancied security, and makes us look around to see if we, too, are in any such peril (1958, pp. 331,333).

McGarvey’s point is well taken. The young prophet probably meant well in what he did. In all likelihood, he was both brave and good. Furthermore, he may have been convinced that, as he strayed from God’s commands, all the while he actually was engaged in believing and acting upon the truth. But none of this saved him from the fate that awaited him because—regardless of how brave or good he was, and regardless of how much he thought he was involved in believing the truth—he ignored, and disobeyed, the truth God gave him, and ended up believing a lie. As McGarvey went on to say:

The lie which he believed led him to disobey God. His disobedience was the immediate cause, while the belief of a lie was only the remote cause of his death.... You can see now very plainly that this incident happened for a type, as Paul said of many other Old Testament incidents, and that it was written for our admonition. It was written to warn us against the belief of a lie. In view of the solemn lesson now before us, taught both in the Old Testament and in the New, it becomes a question of transcendent importance, How shall we be sure that we are not believing lies...? (1958, p. 333).

Indeed, the fate of the young prophet should make us want to examine our own lives to see if we, too, are in peril of condemnation as a result of having believed a lie. Frequent self-examination of our beliefs, and the evidence upon which they are based, is a good thing, and much to be desired. The consequences of believing a lie are too painful, and too permanent, for us to grow complacent.

But what, exactly, was Paul suggesting when he stated in 2 Thessalonians 2:11 that “God sendeth them a working of error, that they should believe a lie”? Was the apostle teaching that God purposely causes men to believe error?

No, he was not. Paul’s point in this passage was that because God has granted man personal volition, and because He has provided within the Bible the rules, regulations, and guidelines to govern that personal volition, He therefore will refrain from overriding man’s freedom of choice—even when that choice violates His law. God will not contravene man’s decisions, or interfere with the actions based on those decisions. The prophet Isaiah had recorded God’s words on this subject many years before when he wrote:

Yea, they have chosen their own ways, and their soul delighteth in their abominations: I also will choose their delusions, and will bring their fears upon them; because when I called, none did answer; when I spake, they did not hear: but they did that which was evil in mine eyes, and chose that wherein I delighted not (Isaiah 66:3-4).

Concerning the people who refused to have God in their knowledge, and who actually preferred believing a lie to believing the truth, Paul repeatedly stated that “God gave them up...” (Romans 1:24,26,28). In his commentary on the Thessalonian epistles, Raymond C. Kelcy observed:

There is a time in the progression of sin when God gives a man over to that which he prefers. The man prefers a lie.... God gives the man over to the belief of the lie which he prefers. In a sense it might be said that the means by which a person is deceived is God’s permissive agency—not God’s direct agency (1968, p. 157).

There is an exact parallel in the instance of the Pharaoh who battled Moses and Aaron over the release of the Hebrews from Egyptian bondage. Several times the biblical text records that it was God Who “hardened Pharaoh’s heart” (Exodus 7:3; 9:12; 10:1, 20,27; 11:10; 14:8). Are we to understand, therefore, that somehow God caused Pharaoh’s stubborn disobedience? Certainly not. The simple fact of the matter is that God did not cause Pharaoh to harden his heart and disobey, but instead permitted the pagan king’s actions. The Scriptures speak to this point when they acknowledge that Pharaoh himself “hardened his heart” (Exodus 8:15,32; 9:34-35). [See related article, “Pharaoh’s Heart Weighed in the Balance.”] In their commentary on the Pentateuch, Keil and Delitzsch addressed Pharaoh’s hardness of heart, even after he witnessed the miraculous plagues sent by God.

After every one of these miracles, it is stated that Pharaoh’s heart was firm, or dull, i.e. insensible to the voice of God, and unaffected by the miracles performed before his eyes, and the judgments of God suspended over him and his kingdom.... Thus Pharaoh would not bend his self-will to the will of God, even after he had discerned the finger of God and the omnipotence of Jehovah in the plagues suspended over him and his nation; he would not withdraw his haughty refusal, notwithstanding the fact that he was obliged to acknowledge that it was sin against Jehovah. Looked at from this side, the hardening was a fruit of sin, a consequence of that self-will, high-mindedness, and pride which flow from sin, and a continuous and ever increasing abuse of that freedom of the will which is innate in man, and which involves the possibility of obstinate resistance to the word and chastisement of God even until death (1981, pp. 454,455, emp. added).

Pharaoh’s hard heart was not God’s doing, but his own. God’s permissive agency was involved, but not His direct agency. That is to say, He allowed Pharaoh to use (or abuse, as Keil and Delitzsch correctly noted) his freedom of will in a vain attempt to thwart God’s plans. Throughout history, God’s actions have been consistent in this regard. The psalmist wrote:

But my people hearkened not to my voice; and Israel would not hear me. So I let them go after the stubbornness of their heart, that they might walk in their own counsels (Psalm 81:11-12).

In Romans 11:8, Paul (quoting from Isaiah 29:10) stated concerning the rebellious Israelites: “God gave them a spirit of stupor, eyes that they should not see, and ears that they should not hear.”

In every generation, God has granted mankind the freedom of self-determination to be blind to the truth, and in so doing to believe a lie. E.M. Zerr put it well when he said:

The Bible in no place teaches that God ever forces a man to sin, then punishes him for the wrong-doing. Neither does He compel man against his will to do right, but has always offered him proper inducements for righteous conduct, then left it to his own responsibility to decide what he will do about it (1952, 5:159).

CONCLUSION

The world generally looks upon people of the stature of Dobzhansky, Simpson, or Sagan with awe. Their scholarly attainments are many, their academic credentials are impressive, and their world-class reputations are undisputed. They spend lifetimes building legacies that will remain long after they have passed from these earthly scenes.

But when they die, it causes some among us to ponder the point of why people of their intelligence believed as they did. It causes us to question how someone so brilliant could reach the conclusions they reached. And it causes us to reflect on the fact that it is possible to waste a lifetime allegedly searching for truth, all the while remaining firmly entrenched in error.

A few months before he died, and while battling what he knew was most likely a fatal disease with no cure, Carl Sagan granted an interview to Parade magazine, which was published in the March 10, 1996 edition under the title of “In the Valley of the Shadow.” Included in that interview was this statement from Dr. Sagan:

I would love to believe that when I die I will live again, that some thinking, feeling, remembering part of me will continue. But as much as I want to believe that, and despite the ancient and worldwide cultural traditions that assert an afterlife, I know of nothing to suggest that it is more than wishful thinking (1996, p. 18).

How terribly sad. Here is a man who knew—perhaps as well as anyone in the world—how to do exhaustive research. Yet for some reason, he never researched the historical evidence (provided by the resurrection of Christ) for the very thing he admitted he “would love to believe”—life after death.

It is heartbreaking indeed to witness the death of men such as Dobzhansky, Simpson, and Sagan who, by worldly standards, are the very epitome of brilliance and accomplishment. But the great apostle Paul warned:

Hath not God made foolish the wisdom of the world?... Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men. For behold your calling, brethren, that not many wise after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called (1 Corinthians 1:20,25-26).

Later, in his first epistle to the Thessalonians, Paul wrote of those “who have no hope” (4:13). No hope! What a chilling thought—to be endowed with the freedom to believe, only to spend a lifetime believing a lie and end it all with no hope.

REFERENCES

Keil, C.F. and F. Delitzsch (1981 reprint), Commentary on the Old Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans).

Kelcy, Raymond C. (1968), The Living Word Commentary: The Letters of Paul to the Thessalonians(Austin, TX: Sweet).

McGarvey, J.W. (1958 reprint), Sermons (Nashville, TN: Gospel Advocate).

Sagan, Carl (1996), “In the Valley of the Shadow,” Parade, pp. 18-21, March 10.

Zerr, E.M. (1952), Bible Commentary (Bowling Green, KY: Guardian of Truth Foundation).

The Value of Human Suffering by Wayne Jackson, M.A.

http://apologeticspress.org/apPubPage.aspx?pub=1&issue=468

The Value of Human Suffering

by	Wayne Jackson, M.A.

It has been said that there is no greater education than matriculating through the University of Hard Knocks. One thing is certain; many who have passed through the crucible of suffering will acknowledge that they have found themselves infinitely better for the experience—bitter though it may have been. Robert Browning Hamilton expressed this thought so wonderfully in verse:

I walked a mile with Pleasure
She chatted all the way,
But left me none the wiser
For all she had to say.
I walked a mile with Sorrow
And ne’er a word said she;
But oh, the things I learned from her
When Sorrow walked with me!

Atheism, of course, alleges that the problem of human suffering represents one of the more formidable arguments against the existence of a powerful and loving God. It is not my intention to respond to that baseless argument here; I have addressed it elsewhere in detail (see Jackson, 1983). At this point, it will suffice simply to say at that God has, as an expression of His love (1 John 4:8), granted mankind free will (Joshua 24:15; cf. Isaiah 7:15). That free will enables human beings to make their own choices. Foolish choices can have devastating consequences (e.g., suffering). Thus, the responsibility for unwise choices is man’s, not God’s. The problem of human suffering is not irreconcilable with the love of a benevolent Creator. In this article, we will limit our discussion to the benefits that suffering can provide—if we are wise enough to learn the lessons.

First, suffering highlights the fact that we are frail human beings; that is to say, we are not God. Some, however, have no greater ambition than to be their own God. They are “autotheists”—self-gods. They imagine that they are accountable to no one higher than themselves. To borrow the words of the infidel poet, William Ernest Henley, they are the masters of their fate, and the captains of their souls! These rebels submit to no law save the self-imposed law of their own arrogant minds. But when we humans suffer, we are forced to focus upon our own weakness. There is no remedy within us (see Job 6:13). It is hard to be haughty when you are hurting. Pain can be humbling; it can slap smart-aleckness out of us, and open our hearts to greater vistas.

Second, suffering can draw our interests toward the true God. When one is in a state of anguish that offers little respite, the natural inclination is to turn toward a higher source for help. Only a deliberate and forced stubbornness can quench that urge. When we are hurting, the “God of all comfort” (2 Corinthians 1:3) is waiting to help. Joe, a personal acquaintance of this writer, was taught the gospel of Christ and happily embraced it, being united with the Lord in baptism (Romans 6:3ff.). For a while, this likable gentleman in his mid-forties struggled to remain faithful against the powerful, negative influences of a family that had zero interest in spiritual matters. Finally, he drifted away from conscientious service. Then, Joe suffered a severe heart attack. He hastened back to the Savior and maintained a contented fidelity until, some months later, his spirit slipped quietly away into eternity. Suffering can get our attention! David once wrote: “In my distress I called upon Jehovah, and cried unto my God” (Psalm 18:6).

Third, suffering can assist us in seeing sin in all of its hideous gruesomeness. The Bible clearly teaches that this planet has been heir to suffering as a consequence of man’s sin. This principle is set forth clearly by Paul in his letter to the Roman saints. He affirmed that “through one man [Adam] sin entered into the world, and death through sin, so that death passed to all men, because all sinned” (Romans 5:12). At the beginning of human history, sin, in a manner of speaking, was “crouching at the door” (see Genesis 4:7); when grandmother Eve (and subsequently her husband) opened that door, horrible effects were allowed to descend upon their offspring (Genesis 3:22). And so death—with all its attendant evils—entered the human environment as a result of man’s rebellion against his Creator. When we suffer, it ought to be a sober reminder of how terrible sin is. While we cannot escape the physical consequences of sin’s high price, we can refresh our souls in divine forgiveness. When that is done, life becomes immeasurably easier.

Fourth, suffering aids us in seeing the real worth of things. When one passes through the experience of intense suffering, and perhaps comes to the threshold of death, the entire world can take on new meaning. The singing of the birds is more vivid than it ever has been. A fresh spring day makes the soul ecstatic. Family and friends take on a new preciousness. Christopher Reeve, who starred as “Superman” in the movies, was involved in a life-threatening accident, and discovered that in real life he was not as invincible as the character he portrayed. In recent interviews, Mr. Reeve commented that since being paralyzed, he has discovered a new zest for life. Indeed, suffering can provide a sharper vision of life’s priorities. As the poet John Dryden expressed it: “We, by our suff’rings, learn to prize our bliss” (Astraea Redux). He that hath an ear, let him hear what suffering whispers to the soul.

Fifth, suffering prepares us to be compassionate to others. There is an old adage that says, “Do not judge a man until you’ve walked a mile in his shoes.” I suggest another proverb: “One cannot comfort effectively until he has lain in the bed of suffering.” That may be a bit of an overstatement, but it contains a grain of truth. In the second chapter of Hebrews, the writer effectively argued that Jesus Christ, as our High Priest, is qualified to “succor” (ASV) or “aid” (NASV) those who are tempted. How is that so? Hear him: “For in that He Himself has suffered, being tempted, He is able to aid those who are tempted” (Hebrews 2:18, NKJV). The song lyric, “Are you weary? Are you heavyhearted? Tell it to Jesus; tell it to Jesus,” is wonderfully meaningful in light of this passage. It has been said that the difference between “sympathy” (from the Greek syn—with, and pathos—feeling) and “empathy” (en—in, and pathos) is that in the former instance one “feels with” (i.e., has feelings of tenderness for) those who suffer, whereas in “empathy” one almost is able to “get inside” the friend who suffers—because the one doing the comforting has been there!

Sixth, suffering sharpens our awareness that this Earth is not a permanent home. Peter sought to encourage early Christians (who were being persecuted) not to despair, by reminding them that they were but “sojourners and pilgrims” upon this Earth (1 Peter 2:11). The ancient patriarchs “confessed that they were strangers and pilgrims on the earth” and so they looked for “a better country, that is a heavenly [one]” (Hebrews 11:13-16). Paul reminded us that “the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory which shall be revealed to us-ward” (Romans 8:18). It is not the will of God that men live upon this evil-plagued planet forever. We never will be “at home” until we are with the Lord (2 Corinthians 5:8), and suffering helps make us “home sick.” Henry Ward Beecher once said: “God washes the eyes by tears until they can behold the invisible land where tears shall come no more.”

Seventh, suffering enhances our ability to pray. Praying is an instinctive human response to severe hardship. But effective prayer is a learned exercise. On a certain occasion during His ministry, Jesus was praying. After He had finished, one of the disciples requested of Him: “Lord, teach us to pray, even as John also taught his disciples” (Luke 11:1). These Hebrew disciples had been praying all their lives; yet, they observed something in the intensity of Jesus’ prayers that sent them “back to school.” With Calvary ever looming before Him, Christ plumbed the depths of prayer. Note the following: “And being in agony he prayed more earnestly; and his sweat became as it were great drops of blood falling down upon the ground” (Luke 22:44). A song suggests: “Pray when you’re happy; pray when in sorrow.” One should pray frequently, and in all moods; under the burden of suffering, however, one will learn how to pray as he never has prayed before.

Eighth, suffering tempers the soul and helps prepare it for eternity. Peter wrote:

[N]ow for a little while, if necessary, ye have been distressed by various trials, that the proof of your faith, being more precious than gold which is perishable, even though tested by fire, may be found to result in praise and glory and honor at the revelation of Jesus Christ (1 Peter 1:6-7).

Just as precious metals are purified by the heat of fire, so life’s trials in general, and suffering for Christ in particular, build strength into the soul. Character does not happen by accident; rather, it is built! Out of the fires of suffering, the human spirit may emerge as precious as gold and as strong as steel.

Ninth, suffering nurtures the noblest virtues of which mankind is capable. Reflect for a moment upon the quality of courage. Civilizations universally perceive “courage” to be one of the prime traits of humanity, and, by way of contrast, cowardice is considered to be utterly reprehensible. Courage may be defined as the ability to act rationally in the face of fear. If, however, the human family were immune to hardship, danger, suffering, etc., there could be no “facing” it, hence, no courage. When we sit down to a delicious dinner with friends and loved ones on a balmy autumn evening, no courage is needed. Courage arises in the presence of danger. There are certain qualities that we simply cannot possess in the absence of hardship. Ralph Sockman wrote: “Without danger there would be no adventure. Without friction our cars would not start and our spirits would not soar. Without tears, eyes would not shine with the richest expressions” (1961, p. 66). And what of “patience”? John Chrysostom (347-407), one of the most influential figures among the “church fathers” of the post-apostolic period, described patience as “the mother of piety, fruit that never withers, a fortress that is never taken, a harbour that knows no storms” (as quoted in Barclay, 1974, p. 145). But could there ever be “patience” in the absence of difficulty?

Tenth, suffering separates the superficial from the stable. Paul cautioned the Corinthian saints against building up the church superficially. Some folks are of the “wood, hay, [and] stubble” variety, while others exhibit those qualities of “gold, silver [and] costly stones” (1 Corinthians 3:12-15). Saints of the latter category endure; those of the former do not. Why so? It simply is because the two groups are tested by “fire” (hardships), and that testing fire separates quality converts from those who really are not serious about their Christian commitment. Jesus once spoke of those who receive the gospel impulsively, and, for a while endure. Eventually, though, “tribulation and persecution” arise, and rather quickly the superficial fade away (see Matthew 13:20-21).

And so, while no one actively seeks suffering in his life, honesty compels us to admit that hardships do have value—great value. Certainly, the existence of suffering is not a valid reason for rejecting the Creator.

REFERENCES

Barclay, William (1974), New Testament Words (Philadelphia, PA: Westminster).

Jackson, Wayne (1983), The Book of Job—Analyzed and Applied (Abilene, TX: Quality).

Sockman, Ralph (1961), The Meaning of Suffering (New York: Women’s Division, Christian Service Boards of Missions, The Methodist Church).

Cloning--Scientific and Biblical Ramifications [Part I] by Bert Thompson, Ph.D.

http://apologeticspress.org/apPubPage.aspx?pub=1&issue=469

Cloning--Scientific and Biblical Ramifications [Part I]

by	Bert Thompson, Ph.D.

On April 25, 1953, James Watson and Francis Crick published a scientific paper describing for the first time the intricacies of the DNA molecule. For their attainment, they received the Nobel Prize—and initiated a biological revolution. The elucidation of the molecular biology of the gene clearly ranks among the greatest scientific achievements of all time. Because of this discovery, a new age has dawned—the Genetic Age.

In the opinion of many scientists, the last great revolution in science was the coming of the Nuclear Age. Nuclear technology tends to be viewed as either the most powerful industry for human benefit—or the most dangerous tool for human destruction—ever available for mankind’s use. With the development of genetic engineering, the potential for controversy is even greater because in their experiments scientists no longer are dealing with merely inanimate nature, but instead with human subjects—and the consequences are far-reaching indeed. Some have made comparisons between current advances and those that led, little more than a generation ago, to the dropping of the atomic bombs over Nagasaki and Hiroshima. Science fiction writers have created, in the true tradition of Dr. Frankenstein, modern-day monsters ranging from potentially killer microorganisms to duplicates of Adolf Hitler. Some among us see the immediate demise of the human race; others see, and tremble before, the prospect of a Huxlian Brave New World that promises the complete and utter dehumanization of mankind. What, then, is the truth of the matter?

Today the citizens of most civilized countries are better fed, better clothed, and healthier than they have ever been. Transportation, educational, medical, industrial, and even recreational facilities are vastly improved, compared to those of previous generations. Prospects for the future, then, should be brighter than ever. But are they?

While no one knows exactly what the future will hold, there are growing indications that much of it may not be for good. The fact is that mankind has become more smug as scientific knowledge has increased. Humanity has drifted farther and farther from God, and progressively attempts to cut itself loose from the moral and ethical standards found within God’s Word. It certainly is safe to say that the average person of our day knows far less about the Bible than the common man of a half-century ago. What will happen, then, as science accelerates, while man’s relationship with, and knowledge of, his Creator degenerates? The possibilities are staggering. And the frightening thing is that now we are confronting situations we thought only future generations would have to face.

GENETIC ENGINEERING—AN OVERVIEW

In the past, genetic engineering generally was looked upon as an area of science dealing with the substitution of new (“improved”) genes for old (damaged) ones. But to the man on the street today, it means far more than that—something like conjuring up DNA monsters, or cloning world-renowned figures such as Hitler, Churchill, or Stalin. In this article, the term will be used in its broadest sense to include any form of artificial reproduction or genetic manipulation. Among some of the questions to be considered are these: (a) how extensive is our current reproductive technology; (b) how is it being employed presently; (c) what are the scientific and biblical ramifications; and (d) what should be the Christian’s response to the use of this technology?

The motivation behind much genetic engineering research is commendable. Scientists are anxious to alleviate human suffering by the correction of genetic or behavioral defects, therapeutically control and rehabilitate those who are dangerous to society, and improve the general functioning and future potential of the human race. Few would argue with the goal of helping people function better. Even opponents of human genetic engineering would concede that most scientists are not attempting to be malicious or oligarchical elitists.

We must remember, however, that even scientists are not completely free of the desire for power. Further, some scientists work on underlying assumptions that suggest: (a) we can do better than nature (or as the Christian would say, better than God); (b) we are responsible to no higher Being than ourselves; (c) economic value is the final test in considering what should or should not be done; and (d) the end justifies the means. Clearly, the potential for a very real and very serious problem exists. Should this attitude become dominant, there may be no effective barrier against irresponsible uses of genetic engineering.

As we examine the concepts behind genetic engineering, we must distinguish between various types of genetic research. The first has to do with modification, which involves making minor changes in an existing structure by splicing in new genetic material, or by altering the material already present. Generally, this type of procedure has as its goal the improvement of an organism, or the prevention or cure of disease. Few would oppose such uses of genetic engineering, as long as scientists follow proper guidelines.

A second type of genetic research relating to both animals and humans centers on procreation. Currently, for example, technology that once was available only for use in animals now can be employed in humans, allowing people to reproduce when previously they were unable to do so.

A third, more controversial, type of genetic engineering centers on the creation of new life forms. Some scientists see the day approaching when we shall go beyond small-scale genetic modification to produce more novel living beings. This is a drastic departure from conferring a specific trait on an existing organism, or genetically modifying an organism so as to give it a healthier or longer life. One writer has referred to this as “engineering the engineer,” as opposed to “engineering his engine” (Kass, 1971, p. 779).

A BRIEF HISTORY OF GENETIC ENGINEERING

Historically, experiments intended to alter human life began in 1970 when Stanford Rogers, a physician and biochemist, attempted to introduce into his patients a gene for production of the enzyme arginase. The patients’ systems were incapable of manufacturing the enzyme—a factor that eventually would cause their deaths. Dr. Rogers injected his subjects with a virus that can produce the enzyme, in the hope that the virus would infect their DNA. Subsequently, the host’s immune system would destroy the virus, yet leave behind the gene for arginase production. The experiment failed, resulting in a swift outcry of criticism from the scientific community.

In July of 1980, a more extensive experiment was attempted by Martin Cline, then head of hematology and oncology at the University of California at Los Angeles. Working with him was a team of Israeli medical doctors, headed by Eliezer Rachmilewitz of the Hadassah Hospital in Jerusalem. Patients under the care of Dr. Rachmilewitz had a rare but fatal disease known as beta zero thalassemia. Dr. Cline injected their bone marrow with a new gene, in the hope that it would be able to correct the defect in the patients’ immune systems.

Such was not to be, however. This experiment failed as well, and cost Dr. Cline his job and research grants. Few in the scientific community, at this early stage in the history of genetic experiments, were willing to put their professional careers on the line. With human lives at stake, the risk was too great. Fewer scientists still were willing to forgive those who tried—and failed.

It appeared, then, that whatever benefits might accrue to humanity from biotechnology would come onlyindirectly. Indeed, early successes in the field of genetic engineering seemed to confirm that fact. By the early 1980s, business ventures had been formed for the specific purpose of advancing and investing in various kinds of genetic research, the offshoots of which certainly would benefit mankind. Compounds such as interferon, and even insulin intended for use in humans, soon were being produced by genetically altered bacteria. Eventually, human growth hormone was added to that list. People were benefiting, indirectly, from genetic engineering.

By the late 1980s and early 1990s, however, the benefits derived from genetic engineering no longer were indirect. Advances in the field were arriving at breakneck speed. Hardly a day passed that scientists from one corner of the globe or another did not announce yet another breakthrough that conferred additional genetic blessings on humanity. For example, an article on “Conquering Inherited Enemies” in Timemagazine announced:

Genetic engineers at a handful of U.S. laboratories are getting ready to embark on the first trials of human gene therapy, a revolutionary approach to conquering inherited ailments. Employing the subtlest available techniques of recombinant DNA, the scientists will attempt to inject healthy copies of the affected gene into the bone marrow cells of a victim of a genetic disorder. If all goes well, the good genes will begin producing enough of the missing enzyme to cure the disease. That will be cheering news for the hundreds of thousands of patients who suffer from the 3,000 known genetic disorders (Angier, 1985, p. 59).

Just five years later, another article in Time reported the epochal events surrounding the treatment of a little 4-year-old girl.

Last week, on the 10th floor of the massive Clinical Center of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) in Bethesda, MD, the still unidentified child assumed a historic role. In the first federally approved use of gene therapy, a team of doctors introduced into her bloodstream some 1 billion cells, each containing a copy of a foreign gene. If all goes well, these cells will begin producing ADA, the essential enzyme she requires, and her devastated immune system will slowly begin to recover (Jaroff, 1990, p. 74).

No longer, then, are the potential benefits to humanity from genetic engineering merely indirect in nature. We have moved past the point where people enjoy longer, healthier lives simply because they can take insulin or interferon produced by genetically altered bacteria. Now people themselves are part and parcel of intricate laboratory experiments—experiments that, we are told, will bode well for humanity in both the near and distant future.

THE CURRENT CONTROVERSY OVER CLONING

Genetic engineering (in animals or in humans) potentially can take place: (a) before conception; (b) atconception; (c) prenatally; and (d) postnatally. I have dealt with each of these in an in-depth fashion elsewhere (see Thompson, 1995). For the purposes of this article, however, I would like to restrict the discussion to genetic engineering that occurs at conception.

Discussions of reproductive technologies occurring at conception usually include: (1) cloning; (2) artificial insemination; and (3) in vitro fertilization (IVF). Of these, I will limit my comments here only to cloning.

The English word “clone” derives from the Greek klon, meaning a sprout or twig, and in science refers to an asexual process of reproduction resulting in an exact genetic duplicate of the original. Cloning is quite natural for many of Earth’s life forms. For example, when the amoeba reproduces by splitting into two parts, it is cloning itself. In essence, then, cloning is a way to grow many identical cells or organisms from a single ancestor. However, most plants and animals reproduce sexually—a process that requires a contribution of genes from both the male and female of the species. Therefore, any attempt to clone such organisms, including humans, must involve sophisticated technology. In the science fiction version of cloning, a body cell (also known as a somatic cell) is used to make a copy of an individual. But cloning of relatively complex creatures, such as mammals, for example, usually must begin with an egg, or perhaps even a fertilized egg. Only then can scientists make copies of one unique set of genes.

In one technique known as nuclear transfer, an unfertilized egg is taken from the female, and its nucleus is either destroyed (e.g., by radiation) or removed. The nucleus from a body cell then is placed in the egg, which, when implanted in the uterus, behaves as if it has been fertilized, except that all of its genetic information has been derived from a single individual rather than a pair of parents.

This type of cloning possesses potential benefits. Its greatest value, however, is not as an alternative means of reproduction, but as a powerful laboratory research tool, especially in developmental biology. Cloning can aid in the study of nuclear differentiation by helping scientists to better understand how an embryonic cell becomes a nerve cell, a blood cell, etc. It also can be very helpful in the study of immunology and organ rejection. Additionally, cloning can be used with great benefit in medical research. For example, it can be used in the study of cancer, and also can be used in the study of the aging process.

During the 1950s, F.C. Steward of Cornell University demonstrated how to clone certain plants, and produced carrots by the thousands through such a procedure (see Steward, 1970). In 1952, Robert Briggs and Thomas King of the Institute for Cancer Research in Philadelphia cloned a leopard frog (see Briggs and King, 1952). Since then, carrots, tomatoes, fruit flies, and even frogs have been cloned. The successes (and there were many) were the result of painstaking research carried out using embryonic or neonatal somatic cells (viz., non-adult cells). By the late 1970s, scientists lamented that, in spite of numerous attempts in laboratories around the world, “...no one has yet shown that it is possible to clone a mammal by using a body cell nucleus from an adult” (Lygre, 1979, p. 41). Something—no one quite knew what—seemed to make the somatic cell of the adult an unlikely candidate for cloning procedures. However, investigators did not abandon their efforts, and attempts to clone organisms using adult somatic cells continued at an unprecedented pace.

Clement Markert of Yale University perfected a method that allowed researchers to remove one set of chromosomes—either those from the sperm or those from the egg—just after fertilization. Through biochemical means, the remaining set could be made to double, producing an egg with a double set of the sperm’s (or egg’s) chromosomes. Since the same number of chromosomes as found in a fertilized egg then was present, embryonic development could begin. Peter Hope and Karl Illmensee at the Jackson Laboratory in Bar Harbor, Maine employed this technique in mice, and produced seven offspring, all females. While it is true that none of the seven was a clone of the genetic parents, if the same procedure were repeated on those seven mice (retaining the chromosomes of their eggs), their offspring would be clones.

The first clones of large animals were produced by S.M. Willadsen (1986), who transferred a single cell from an 8-cell sheep embryo to an unfertilized egg whose nucleus had been destroyed. Three of the four reconstituted embryos transferred to ewes’ oviducts developed into lambs that were genetically identical.

But what about attempts at human cloning? Landrum Shettles reported in the American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology that he personally had cloned human embryos to the blastocyst stage (the point in early development where the whole embryo has the appearance of a hollow sphere; see Clark, 1979, p. 99). As one writer summarized the experiment:

According to the report, he had removed the genetic material from a human egg cell and replaced it with the nucleus of a human spermatogonium, the precursor of the sperm cell. Because the spermatogonium contains a double set of chromosomes, it is a complete blueprint for the individual. The egg was fertilized, cell division began, and three days later the embryo was at the morula stage, its cluster of cells ready for implantation. If the paper was true, then it meant that the first glimmering of a human being had already been cloned (Kahn, 1988, p. 164, emp. added).

The operative phrase here, of course, is “if the paper was true.” Most scientists working in this field did not believe that it was, and remained skeptical of Dr. Shettles’ experiment. Why? “Shettles never presented evidence that the egg was enucleated, ...nor did he use genetic markers that would have proved that the sole parent of the embryo was indeed the transplanted spermatogonium” (Kahn, 1988, p. 164).

In 1978, science writer David Rorvik authored, and the J.B. Lippincott Company of Philadelphia published,In His Image: The Cloning of a Man. The book reportedly told the story of a 67-year-old eccentric millionaire who had himself cloned successfully, and spawned a serious scientific controversy since it was published as nonfiction. Most scientists dispute claims such as those made by Rorvik and others in regard to the cloning of humans. In its publication, ASM News, the American Society for Microbiology stated:

Four eminent cell biologists have testified before congress that adult cloning of humans has not been and may never be achieved because of biological barriers. They also called David Rorvik’s book, In His Image: The Cloning of a Man, a fictional work replete with scientific errors (1978, p. 334).

One scientist suggested concerning Rorvik’s work: “His book sets new standards for the label ‘nonfiction’ ” (Lygre, 1979, p. 41). In 1981, U.S. District Court judge John Fullam ruled the book to be fiction (Fullam, 1981, p. 2-F) and, several years after its publication, Lippincott publicly acknowledged the book as a hoax.

To some, however, the idea of human clones is not beyond the realm of possibility. Several years ago, Kimball Atwood, professor of microbiology at the University of Illinois, stated that humans could be cloned “within a few years” (as quoted in Rorvik, 1969, p. 9). Nobel laureate James Watson later predicted:

...if the matter proceeds in its current nondirected fashion, a human being born of clonal reproduction most likely will appear on the earth within the next twenty to fifty years, and even sooner, if some nation should actively promote the venture (1971).

To date, there is no credible evidence that humans have been cloned, in the traditional sense of the word.

But who can know what the future may hold in this regard? For example, in October 1993, at a meeting of the American Fertility Society, two Americans, Jerry Hall and Robert Stillman, touched off an unexpected controversy when they presented a research paper on IVF procedures. At the time, Dr. Hall was the director of the in vitro laboratory at George Washington University; Dr. Stillman headed the University’s IVFprogram. Starting with 17 human embryos ranging from the two-cell to the eight-cell stage, Hall and Stillman used new technology to multiply the embryos from 17 to a total of 48. News magazines and major city newspapers heralded the landmark event with feature articles. The New York Times published a front-page article under a headline that screamed, “Scientist Clones Human Embryos, and Creates an Ethical Challenge.” Newsweek and Time both prepared cover stories on the Hall/Stillman experiments (see Adler, 1993; Elmer-Dewitt, 1993).

The controversy caused by the Hall/Stillman experiment was due, in large part, to the fact that human embryos were involved. However, it is important to note what the experiment did, and did not involve. First, the experiment did not involve the type of cloning of science fiction fame—in which genetic material from a mature individual is nurtured and grown into a replica of the original. Second, the experiment did not involve the cutting and splicing procedures by which DNA strands from cells are mixed and matched. In some instances, to mention just one example, molecular biologists have inserted human genes into theDNA of bacteria to produce insulin in large quantities. But the Hall/Stillman experiment did not involve this kind of genetic engineering.

Hall and Stillman were searching for a way to make IVF more successful. A woman in which only a single embryo is implanted has somewhere between a 10 and 20% chance of becoming pregnant, if all goes well. But if that single embryo could be cloned into three or four, the chances of a pregnancy would increase dramatically. These two researchers were not trying to produce cloned embryos that would be implanted into a potential mother. Instead, they were working with abnormal embryos resulting from fertilization of an egg by multiple sperm cells, and which therefore would not live more than a few days at best.

Method by which Stillman and Hall produced twin embryos from a single embryo (after Kolberg, 1993)

The experiment involved allowing the single-cell embryos to divide into two cells, and then separating them. To do this, the outer coating around the cells (known as the zona pellucida) that is essential to the embryo’s proper development had to be removed. Once the cells had been separated, an artificial zona pellucida had to be created to take the place of the original one that had been destroyed. Hall and Stillman developed an artificial zona pellucida from a gel derived from seaweed. Once the artificial coating was replaced, the cells began to grow.

The experiment, so far as Hall and Stillman were concerned, had been a success, and was repeated numerous times, producing 48 clones in all. But none of the clones lived more than six days. A detailed description of the process used by Hall and Stillman was published in Science News (see Fackelmann, 1994a). While many praised the novel experiment, criticism from some in the academic and scientific communities was quite strong (see Fackelmann, 1994b). Unfortunately, the headlines in newspapers and magazines were not always representative of the actual facts. Humans had not been cloned. While we cannot condone the manner in which the Hall/Stillman research was carried out (i.e., accepting the inevitable death of living human embryos as the by-product of a scientific experiment), at the same time it is important that we understand exactly what the new technology allowed scientists to do, and that we not overstate the case regarding what was accomplished.

[to be continued]

REFERENCES

Adler, Jerry (1993), “Clone Hype,” Newsweek, pp. 60-62, November 8.

Angier, Natalie (1985), “Conquering Inherited Enemies,” Time, pp. 59-60, October 21.

ASM News (1978), (Washington, DC: American Society for Microbiology), p. 334, July.

Briggs, Robert and Thomas J. King (1952), “Transplantation of Living Nuclei from Blastula Cells into Enucleated Frog Eggs,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 38:455-463.

Clark, Matt (1979), “Clones Again,” Newsweek, February 12.

Elmer-Dewitt, Philip (1993), “Cloning: Where Do We Draw the Line?,” Time, pp. 65-70, November 8.

Fackelmann, Kathy A. (1994a), “Cloning Human Embryos,” Science News, 145[6]:92-93,95, February 5.

Fackelmann, Kathy A. (1994b), “University Probe Faults ‘Cloning’ Research,” Science News, 146[25]:406, December 17.

Fullam, John (1981), as quoted in “Clone Deemed a Hoax,” Dallas Times Herald, p. F-2, March 22.

Jaroff, Leon (1990), “Giant Step for Gene Therapy,” Time, pp. 74-76, September 24.

Kahn, Carol (1988), “Double Takes,” Omni, 11[1]:58-65,164, October.

Kass, Leon (1971), “The New Biology: What Price Relieving Man’s Estate?,” Science, 174:779-788.

Kolberg, Rebecca (1993), “Human Embryo Cloning Reported,” Science, 262:652-653, October 29.

Lygre, David (1979), Life Manipulation (New York: Walker).

Rorvik, David (1969), “Cloning: Asexual Human Reproduction,” Science Digest, pp. 7-9, November.

Rorvik, David (1978), In His Image: The Cloning of a Man (Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott).

Steward, F.C. (1970), “From Cultured Cells to Whole Plants: The Introduction and Control of Their Growth and Differentiation,” Proceedings of the Royal Society [B], 175:1-30.

Thompson, Bert (1995), The Christian and Medical Ethics (Montgomery, AL: Apologetics Press).

Watson, James (1971), “Moving Toward the Clonal Man: Is This What We Want?,” Atlantic, 227:50-53.

Willadsen, S.M. (1986), “Nuclear Transplantation in Sheep Embryos,” Nature, 320:63-65.

Cloning--Scientific and Biblical Ramifications [Part II] by Bert Thompson, Ph.D.

http://apologeticspress.org/apPubPage.aspx?pub=1&issue=470

Cloning--Scientific and Biblical Ramifications [Part II]

by	Bert Thompson, Ph.D.

[EDITOR’S NOTE: Part I of this two-part series appeared in the May issue. Part II follows below and continues, without introductory comments, where the first article ended.]

As a result of the success of recent experiments in genetic engineering, the cloning of humans is on the minds of many, both among the general populace and with in the scientific community. In the past, the cloning of humans was a subject best discussed within the genre of science fiction novels, not scientific journals. When scientists, or science writers, did discuss the possibility of human cloning, their comments usually went something like this:

This is far beyond the reach of today’s science. There is a vast difference between cloning an embryo that is made up of immature, undifferentiated cells and cloning adults cells that have already committed themselves to becoming skin or bone or blood. All cells contain within their DNAthe information required to reproduce the entire organism, but in adult cells access to parts of that information has somehow been switched off. Scientists do not yet know how to switch it back on (Elmer-Dewitt, 1993, p. 66).

In this statement, Philip Elmer-Dewitt, a writer for Time magazine, echoed what seemed to be a commonly-shared view among the researchers involved in genetic engineering. No one had been able to clone mammals using adult somatic cells, because for some unknown reason a great portion of the DNA in those cells had been “switched off.” But, as the old saying goes, “That was then; this is now.”

“HELLO, DOLLY!”—
THE STORY OF AN “UDDERLY INCREDIBLE” LAMB

What a difference four years makes in science! In the Table of Contents of the February 27, 1997 issue ofNature (the official organ of the British Association for the Advancement of Science), there appeared what seemed at first glance to be an innocuous article titled “Viable Offspring Derived from Fetal and Adult Mammalian Cells” (Wilmut, et al., 1997). That article, however, announced the results of scientific research so significant that it not only would make history, but change forever the way scientists viewed cloning in both animals and humans.

Researchers from the Roslin Institute near Edinburgh, Scotland had accomplished what almost everyone in the scientific community thought to be impossible. Headed by embryologist Ian Wilmut, Scottish scientists produced a lamb using genetic material from the mammary cell of an adult ewe. The young lamb, named Dolly, did not owe her existence to a procreative act occurring between a ram and a ewe. Instead, Dolly was the result of a laboratory exercise in cloning. When her existence was announced, the entire world gasped—first in disbelief, then in amazement! As Time put it, the Scottish researchers had succeeded in

...scoring an advance in reproductive technology as unsettling as it was startling. Unlike offspring produced in the usual fashion, Dolly does not merely take after her biological mother. She is a carbon copy, a laboratory counterfeit so exact that she is in essence her mother’s identical twin (Nash, 1997, p. 62).

Technique used by Wilmut, et al. to clone a sheep. Their breakthrough involved starving body cells of nutrients, thus interrupting the normal cycle of growth and division. In this quiescent stage, the cell can be “reprogrammed” to function as a newly fertilized egg (after Travis, 1997, 151:215).

Here is what Dr. Wilmut did to make Dolly a reality. As noted earlier, embryonic cells are easier to use in cloning experiments than adult somatic cells because they are, for the most part, undifferentiated. In other words, they have not matured to the point where they have been able to carry out the instructions contained in the DNA within their nucleus that direct them to become skin cells, brain cells, eye cells, etc. In its young, embryonic state, an undifferentiated cell can become any other cell in the body, because it has the capacity to activate any given gene on any given chromosome. Non-embryonic somatic cells, however, already have carried out their DNA instructions, and as a result are differentiated (i.e., in their mature state, they have become hair cells, muscles cells, nerve cells, etc.). As a result, huge portions of the DNA instructions have been “deactivated,” so that mature cells can carry out their particular function(s). Thus, much of the information coded within the DNA of adult cells no longer is accessible, having been “turned off ” at maturity because it no longer is needed by the cell.

In the past, most scientists involved in the broad area of genetic engineering thought that the differentiation process was irreversible. However, Dr. Wilmut and his coworkers disproved that idea by devising a way to “reactivate” the portions of the DNA molecule that previously had been deactivated, thus making adult somatic cells candidates for cloning.

First, the team of Scottish scientists searched for a mechanism that would allow them to arrest the normal cell cycle (i.e., the process through which all cells go as they mature and prepare to reproduce themselves). They surmised that this might be accomplished by starving cells of the nutrients they normally would need to grow. Some of the cells chosen for the experiment were from the udder of a Finn Dorset ewe. Once deprived of these critical nutrients, the mammary gland cells fell into a sort of “suspended animation” (what, in live animals, would resemble hibernation), a state in which they remained for one week.

Second, using the procedure (discussed previously in this series of articles) known as “nuclear transfer,” Dr. Wilmut took an unfertilized oocyte (i.e., an egg cell) from a Scottish Blackface ewe and carefully removed its nucleus, leaving the remainder of the cell (cytoplasm, cell membrane, etc.) completely intact (see Stewart, 1997). Then, he took the quiescent mammary gland cell, placed it next to the oocyte, and gently applied short bursts of electrical current, which prompted the egg cell to bond with the somatic cell and absorb its nucleus (containing a full complement of chromosomes) as its own. As a result, the egg cell possessed the number of chromosomes it would contain if it had been fertilized by the male’s sperm. The biochemical activity usually associated with a zygote (the cell that results when sperm and egg combine) then began to occur.

Third, after one week of carefully-monitored growth, the laboratory-engineered embryo then was inserted into the uterus of a surrogate ewe, to see if it would implant successfully and grow to term.

All of this may sound quite simple, but it is not. Dr. Wilmut’s success came only after a long string of failures. In fact, he reported in his article in Nature that out of 277 eggs fused with udder cells, he and his team were able to produce only 29 embryos that survived more than six days. Of those 29, all died before birth except Dolly.

CLONING—WHY BOTHER?

To the uninitiated, all of this may seem at best much ado about nothing, or at worst a complete waste of time, effort, and money. Why go to all the trouble and expense to clone an animal, when normal reproductive processes can produce an animal without all the fuss? “Just let nature take its course,” some might say.

There is much more to it than that, however. Cloning has the potential to make animal husbandry more effective and efficient. Imagine (to use just one example) the plight of the dairy farmer searching for a way to breed cattle that produce better milk in greater quantities. If he could isolate one or more cattle that consistently produced more, and better, milk than all the others, he could have them cloned, thus guaranteeing whole herds of the highest quality milk-producing animals.

In addition, cloning has the potential both to reduce human suffering, and to extend human life. Suppose (again, to choose just one hypothetical example) that scientists were able to discover a mechanism by which they could genetically alter chimpanzees so that portions of their immune systems, or products manufactured by those immune systems, were indistinguishable from those found in humans whose own immune systems were diseased or damaged, and thus incapable of fighting off disease to sustain life. These chimpanzees then could be cloned so that as many copies as needed could be produced, thereby ensuring life-saving animal products in an endless supply for use in humans.

Further, cloning has the potential to enlarge our knowledge about how cells differentiate and reproduce. Using the information gleaned from the study of the cell during cloning, scientists believe they could learn more about why cancer cells grow out of control, or why birth defects occur. In short, cloning does hold forth immense potential in many different areas and, used properly, could offer tremendous benefits to mankind (see Scientific American, 1997).

The operative phrase, here, however, is “used properly.” With cloning, as with many of the technologies offered by modern science, there can be serious scientific and biblical ethical implications. Rarely is the technology, in and of itself, morally objectionable; instead, it is the use of the technology that makes it so. Part of the problem is the fact that science itself is not equipped to deal with moral issues. There is nothing within the scientific method, for example, that can dictate whether nuclear energy should be used to destroy cancer cells, or entire cities. That is a judgment far beyond the scope of science to make.

Unfortunately, once the technology is made available, there are those who are prepared to employ it, regardless of any ethical problems that might be associated with it. Since many within the scientific community either do not believe in God, or do so only accommodatively, they neither are interested in, nor restricted by, the guidelines and principles set forth in His Word. As a result, in their eyes the simple fact that the technology is available is reason enough to use it. Within the scientific community, this is referred to as the “technological imperative”—whatever can be done should be done!

WILL WE BE ABLE TO CLONE HUMANS?

In regard to cloning, the most pressing questions on almost everyone’s mind are: (a) why would anyone want to clone a human in the first place; (b) if attempts at cloning humans are successful, would a clone be an exact duplicate of the original; (c) will we eventually be able to clone humans; and (d) most important, would humans produced by cloning possess a soul?

Why would anyone want to clone a human? First, parents might want to clone a child as a “replacement” for one that had died. Second, parents might want to clone a child to provide compatible organ transplants for a diseased relative. [There have been cases of women wanting to become pregnant so they could abort the child to provide fetal brain cells for transplantation into a relative (e.g., a parent suffering from Parkinson’s Disease).] Third, individuals might want to have themselves cloned to guarantee immortality—if not in soul, at least in body. Fourth, some may desire to clone a human simply for the prestige and adulation that inevitably will result from having accomplished what no one else has been able to do. A Nobel Prize can provide a very strong incentive indeed!

If attempts at cloning humans are successful, would a clone be an exact duplicate of the original? A clone would be an exact genetic duplicate of the original—the word “genetic” providing a critical distinction. Merely possessing identical genes does not guarantee identical people. Ask anyone with identical twins. In fact, twins would be more alike than clones for the simple reason that the twins would have shared the same environment, upbringing, etc. People are more than merely a “bag of genes.” Each of us is the end-product of many different external forces that influence us from cradle to grave. Our personalities and attitudes are formed by parents, friends, teachers, daily routines, societal interactions, and many other factors that affect us during our lifetimes.

Will we be able to clone humans eventually? That remains to be seen. No scientist can answer that question, for to do so would be to possess the ability to predict the future—something neither a scientist, nor science, is equipped to do. Furthermore, there are too many unknowns. We do not know if human adult somatic cells will respond the same way adult somatic cells from sheep responded. We do not know if the process used to produce Dolly (nuclear transfer) would work in humans. And so on.

However, if the question were reworded so that it asked, “Will scientists attempt to clone humans?,” I think the answer would be “yes.” An analogy might be helpful. When mountaineers are asked why they ascend a challenging (and often life-threatening) mountain, they routinely respond: “...because it’s there.” Some scientists likely will take the same approach. When asked why current technology should be used to clone humans, they will respond: “...because it’s there.” One writer has suggested:

...it is not a question as to whether we will attempt to clone a human being or not. Many technical hurdles will have to be overcome first before we can attempt to produce cloned humans, so they say. But if the moral and ethical scientists want to wait, or even shrink in fear from such an undertaking, there are many in the world who have the financial means, who do not have any scruples or reservations about cloning humans. What about them? (Sinapiades, 1997, p. 6, emp. in orig.).

I believe it no longer is a matter of if attempts will be made to clone humans using this new technology, but only when. Eventually some scientist, or group of scientists, will yield to the temptation to apply the Scottish scientists’ methodology to the human race.

If (and this is a big “if ”) scientists are successful in cloning humans, the most pressing question then becomes—will the people so produced possess a soul? Much of the debate occurring today (especially in religious circles) centers on this question. For example, three staff writers for U.S. News & World Reportposed the question, “Would a cloned person have its own soul?,” and answered it as follows: “Most theologians agree with scientists that a human clone and its DNA donor would be separate and distinct persons. That means each would have his or her own body, mind, and soul” (Herbert, et al., 1997, p. 63).

In addressing what at the time was the unlikely possibility of the cloning of humans, Gish and Wilson asked: “What do we say, then? Would a clone be truly human? The answer is that, indeed, he would be human, for its life came from human life even though in a manner different than is usually the case” (1981, p. 174). In addition, they noted, the cloned human “is already alive, responsible to God for his actions, needing to preserve his own body against sickness, to see that he is properly fed, and all the rest. Each clone would have its own individual responsibility, its own soul” (p. 172).

I concur with such an assessment. In James 2:26, James made this observation: “The body apart from the spirit is dead.” The point, of course, was that when the spirit departs the body, death results. But there is an obvious, and important, corollary to that statement. If the body is alive, it must be the case that the spirit is present. This is a biblical principle that cannot, and must not, be ignored—especially in light of the present controversy. The simple fact of the matter is that if (again, a very big “if ”) scientists succeed in cloning living humans, those clones would possess a soul.

But only God can instill a soul. It is He Who “giveth to all life, and breath, and all things” (Acts 17:25). It is only “in Him” that “we live, and move, and have our being...” (Acts 17:28). The real issue is not whether man is intelligent enough to clone a human, but whether or not—should that eventually happen—God will choose to instill the lifeless creature in the laboratory with a soul. This is a question no one can answer.

SHOULD WE CLONE HUMANS?

Very often it is the case that with increased knowledge also comes increased power. And with increased power comes the potential for misuse or abuse of that power. The question, “will we be able to clone humans?” is not the same question as “should we clone humans?” The first is a question to be answered by an appeal to science; the second is a question to be answered by an appeal to the Word of God.

Oddly, at times those who do not believe in God or His Word as an objective moral standard seem to understand the ethical/moral issues better than some Christians. For example, long before the technology was available that could lead to human cloning, evolutionist Gunther Stent of the University of Southern California stated: “The idea of cloning humans is morally and aesthetically completely unacceptable” (as quoted in Howard and Rifkin, 1977, pp. 125-126). Compare that with the comment of Christian ethicist Randy Harris of David Lipscomb University: “Although there has been a good deal of rhetoric on the evils that are just ahead, I have yet to hear a cogent ethical argument as to why even the cloning of a human would be wrong” (1997, p. 16).

There are, in fact, several “cogent ethical arguments” that can, and should, be made against the cloning of humans, only two of which I would like to mention here.

Cloning’s “Failures” Represent Dead Human Beings

It is one thing to attempt—and fail—277 times using sheep cells in an attempt at cloning. Sheep are animals that do not possess souls, and that are not made in the “image and likeness of God” (Genesis 1:26-27). But it is quite another thing to try—even once—and fail in an attempt to clone a human. Embryos are living human beings! [On occasion, pro-abortion forces often argue that embryos within the womb are “not living.” If that is the case, then leave them alone. This, of course, is hardly an option, because in nine months the end-result is a human baby—something impossible to explain if the embryo was “not living” to begin with.] A laboratory littered with dead and dying sheep embryos is one thing; a laboratory littered with dead and dying human embryos is quite another!

Ask any knowledgeable ethicist, Christian or otherwise, and he or she will confirm that basic medical ethics requires that in any experiment, the subject must know the risks and give “informed consent.” In the case of cloning, however, the tiny embryo being produced (and that more often than not will die) can do no such thing. With cloning—if the success rate of the Scottish scientists is taken at face value—the failure rate will be staggering.

Basic medical ethics also requires that the experiment be to the subject’s benefit. Laboratory procedures for cloning humans scarcely would be to the benefit of the cloned embryos. Scottish scientist Wilmut and his colleagues saw 277 of the embryos they had produced perish before they saw a single one live. What if the same failure rate held true for the cloning of humans? Or, for the sake of argument, suppose that somehow the failure rate could be cut in half (in other words, out of 277 attempts, “only” 139 human embryos died in the process)? Would that then be ethically and morally acceptable? It would not! Producing human embryos—with the full knowledge that many more of them will die than will live—is indeed (to quote evolutionist Stent) “morally and aesthetically completely unacceptable.” Medical ethicist Paul Ramsey has suggested that we cannot even develop the kinds of reproductive technologies being discussed here “without conducting unethical experiments upon the unborn who must be the mishaps (the dead and retarded ones) through whom we learn how” (as quoted in Restak, 1975, p. 65).

Human life, as a gift from God (Acts 17:25), is sacred. The Proverbs writer observed that “there are six things which Jehovah hateth; yea, seven which are an abomination unto him: haughty eyes, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood” (6:16-17). Yet there is a tendency to ignore these divine principles, and to view human life as that which may be destroyed capriciously. Should Christians consider laboratories teeming with the dead and dying human embryos that resulted from failed attempts at cloning to be a “cogent ethical argument” against such procedures? Or should they instead, to use Leon Kass’ words, simply “leave it so that discarding laboratory-grown embryos is a matter solely between a doctor and his plumber” (as quoted in Restak, 1975, p. 65)?

Further, in examining the ethical issues surrounding procedures such as these, the implications of the various technologies must be acknowledged. For example, if cloning were possible:

1. It could be used to provide children for unmarried people.
2. Parents could pre-select the sex (and many other attributes) of their child(ren).
3. Women’s liberation would be complete, since no male would be needed. The old Cockney saying, “It takes a man to make a girl,” no longer would be true.
4. Large batches of human clones could be made for statistical studies.
5. Clones could be produced in order to harvest “spare parts” for transplants (e.g., bone marrow, organs, etc.).
6. People enamored of their own importance could ensure that exact genetic replicas of themselves were brought into existence via cloning—by tens or hundreds if they so desired.

If we scrutinize the alleged benefits of human cloning, there is less here than at first meets the eye. Producing people for spare parts, or to use as guinea pigs, is repugnant. David Lygre wrote: “The current risks of abnormality and our reverence for human life should rule these experiments out” (1979, p. 44). Indeed they should.

Cloning Circumvents God’s Plan for Reproduction

In a series of articles authored some years ago, Wayne Jackson remarked that these scientific experiments “strike at the very heart of God’s arrangement for human reproduction within the circle of the family unit and all that this involves” (1979, 15:3; see also Jackson, 1994, pp. 27-36). The use of such things as donor sperm, donor eggs, surrogate mothers, and cloning stand in stark contradistinction to God’s divinely designed plan for the home. While many things, biblically, could be said about God’s design of the home, one thing is clear. It is through the family unit (which includes both a husband and wife in the procreative act) that God intended for children to be brought into this world. According to divine design, marriage is to precede the bearing of children (1 Timothy 5:14). And it is not by accident that Moses recorded: “And the man [Adam—BT] knew Eve, his wife; and she conceived...” (Genesis 4:1; emp. added). Jack Evans correctly observed that God’s

...spiritual law says the oneness of the flesh can be approved only by Him in the marriage of the male and female who are producing another part of their flesh (Hebrews 13:4; I Corinthians 6:16; 7:1-5). Thus, the Bible teaches that the male and female producing the offspring of the one flesh, according to spiritual law, must be married to each other. ...It is obvious that marriage precedes bearing children. Thus, if the female bearing the child is not married to—is not one flesh with—the male in the reproduction process, they violate God’s spiritual law (1987, p. 358).

God’s plan is that children be produced through the husband and wife via their “one flesh” covenant. The world often forgets that childbearing never was intended to be an end within itself, but is part of a much larger plan.

Any action that ignores, or nullifies, God’s plan for the home, and reproduction within the framework of the home, must be avoided and opposed. Cloning does just that. It circumvents the principle of a husband and wife becoming “one flesh,” and through that procedure bringing children into the world. The family unit was planned to provide an atmosphere of love and trust (Proverbs 15:17; 17:1), which would create an ideal environment for spiritual growth. To ignore these truths is to miss the real meaning of the divinely planned family, and the procreative acts that God placed within that family unit.

CONCLUSION

Each day brings exciting new scientific discoveries. Improved techniques block pain and prevent suffering. New medicines cure or prevent diseases. Advancements in knowledge and methodology continually work to mankind’s benefit. As Suzuki and Knudtson concluded:

There is no reason to fear the stunning new conceptions of human hereditary disease now emerging from genetics research. In fact, we can rejoice that this new genetic knowledge is certain to improve the prevention, detection and treatment of many previously untreatable genetic disorders. At the same time, each of us shares responsibility for ensuring that techniques allowing the manipulation of the human genome are never exploited for arbitrary and self-serving ends or in ways that fail to consider the potential long-term consequences of large-scale genetic repair on human populations (1989, pp. 206-207).

Certainly, the faithful child of God may support many scientific advances that cure disease, alleviate suffering, and make life better. But the Word of God is the criterion against which every advance must be measured. The end does not always justify the means.

REFERENCES

Elmer-Dewitt, Philip (1993), “Cloning: Where Do We Draw the Line?,” Time, pp. 65-70, November 8.

Evans, Jack (1987), “Is Surrogate Motherhood Sinful?,” Gospel Advocate, 129:358, June 18.

Gish, Duane T. and Clifford Wilson (1981), Manipulating Life: Where Does It Stop? (San Diego, CA: Master Books)

Harris, Randy (1997), “Will There Ever Be Another You?...Ewe?,” Christian Chronicle, 54[5]:16-17, May. [Harris is one of several scientists, theologians, and philosophers whose positions on cloning are presented in a special two-page spread, edited by Lindy Adams.]

Herbert, Wray, Jeffrey L. Sheler, and Traci Watson (1997), “The World After Cloning,” U.S. News & World Report, 122[9]:59-63, March 10.

Howard, Ted and Jeremy Rifkin (1977), Who Should Play God? (New York: Dell).

Jackson, Wayne (1979), “Ancient Ethics in a Modern World,” Christian Courier, 14:41-47; 15:2-4,6-8, May/June.

Jackson, Wayne (1994), Biblical Ethics & Modern Science (Stockton, CA: Courier Publications).

Lygre, David (1979), Life Manipulation (New York: Walker).

Nash, J. Madeleine (1997), “The Age of Cloning,” Time, 149[10]:62-65, March 10.

Restak, R.M. (1975), Pre-Meditated Man (New York: Viking).

Scientific American, “Special Report: Making Gene Therapy Work,” 276[6]:95-106.

Sinapiades, Mike (1997), “Cloning, Clowning, or What?,” First Century Christian, 19[2& 3]:6, February/March.

Stewart, Colin (1997), “An Udder Way of Making Lambs,” Nature 385:769,771, February 27.

Suzuki, David T. and Peter Knudtson (1989), Genethics (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press).

Travis, John (1997), “A Fantastical Experiment,” Science News, 151:214-215, April 5.

Wilmut, Ian, A.E. Schnieke, J. McWhir, A.J. Kind, and K.H.S. Campbell (1997), “Viable Offspring Derived from Fetal and Adult Mammalian Cells,” Nature, 385:810-813, February 27.

---

Cloning Links

In addition to part one of the current article, other references to cloning are available on our Web site

• Wrong is Always Wrong.
• Clinton: No Creation of Embryos for Research.
• Is There a Place for Science and Faith in a Postmodern World? [This has a brief mention of cloning toward the end of the article.]

---

The following articles are available off-site. We do not necessarily endorse the material you find at these links. They are provided for information purposes only.

Roslin Institute. Information from the Scottish research center that cloned Dolly. Salon. Interview with Ian Wilmut—one of the principal scientists who cloned Dolly. Genomics. Comprehensive links to scientific, legal, and ethical issues. Sponsored by Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, and the American Institute of Biological Sciences. Reason Magazine. Favors few restrictions on cloning humans. Yahoo! Cloning Update. Links to news reports and other sites on cloning.

Dolly, the Finn Dorset lamb, and her Scottish Blackface surrogate mother (Roslin Institute)