Artificial "Life"?

Scientists believe that artificial life is possible within five years. From the New York Times:

Laboratories across the world are closing in on a "second genesis" -- an achievement that would be one of the greatest scientific breakthroughs of all time.

Prof David Deamer, from California University, said although building a new lifeform from scratch is a daunting task he is confident it can happen in five to 10 years.

He said: "The momentum is building -- we're knocking at the door."

A synthetic, made-to-order living system could produce everything from new drugs to biofuels and greenhouse gas absorbers.

Opponents of the controversial research claim the technology could lead to machines becoming "almost human".

I found this story especially interesting in light of Darrell's post yesterday, as well as the recent story of a fertility clinic offering designer babies.

A few things jumped out at me as I read this. First, these scientists must have some kind of God-complex to believe they actually can (or even should) create life. Second, in order to create even a single living cell, they must first start with organic building blocks. So, in reality, they aren't creating anything; they are merely altering existing living material. Third, you and I both know that any "life" generated through these experiments will be held in higher esteem than the human embryos already being sacrificed in the name of science.

Therein lies the irony. On one hand, attempting to "create" artificial life is deemed a worthy cause, and any success would most certainly be heralded as a breakthrough. On the other hand, deliberately destroying human life through experimentation is considered noble because it's for the "greater good," whatever that may be. (As Darrell pointed out, it's very difficult to escape the comparisons with Nazism when discussing these kinds of issues.)

In a worldview that believes it is possible to make moral judgments without an absolute moral standard, these are the kinds of glaring inconsistencies that arise. Sadly, too many people are willing to just live with them rather than try to resolve them.

Stem Cells and the Mythology of Science

While Americans increasingly distrust and detest the politicians and assorted babblers among the chattering classes, they are prone still to swallow the mythology of science. According to the purveyors of this myth with science all things are possible. Sickness, disease, even death can be abolished. Life can be created along with new organs, arms and legs grown by these magicians in lab coats. All that’s needed is your tax money and a complete lack of scruples.

On March 9th, President Obama issued an executive order allowing federal funds to be used on the experimentation of babies. This represents the complicity and imprimatur of the United States in the Mengelesque destruction of life in the name of “science” (Yes, I’m aware that Nazi references are typically out of bounds as a tool of debate. But do you have a better name for this?).

It may sound strange, but this mindset is a product of Darwinian presuppositions. Evolutionists are attempting to reverse God’s order in creation. The orthodox Christian affirms that a sovereign, omnipotent God created the universe. Evolutionists turn this on its head by insisting that an autonomous, omnipotent impersonal force, i.e., chance, led to the development of a new sovereign god—the scientist. While initially enthroning blind chance and cosmic purposelessness the evolutionist eliminates God and by default man evolves toward divinity. No longer constrained by a transcendent law man is then beyond good and evil, beyond morality and therefore can justify murder in the name of science.

The Super Bowl Commercial You Weren't Allowed to See

You didn't see it because NBC refused to run it. One viewing of this powerful and ironic video and you'll understand why.

John Piper Addresses President Obama on Abortion