Ronnie W. Rogers, “Taking every thought captive…”

I will be gone a few months while on sabbatical and will resume blogging in September.

Recently Doug Gray presented a concise, detailed explanation of Genetic Engineering to the Roundtable in Ethics.  He begins with the scientific research that forms the basis for the current biotechnology, with an explanation of terms and events along the way.  He ends by considering the moral and ethical impact of this genetic altering technology.  This is not a lengthy article, and if you are not familiar with the topic, this would be a good source of information for you.

I.          Background¹

• Gregor Mendel’s work with hereditary traits in plants is credited with the birth of modern genetics, although much of the work documented by Mendel was conceptualized long prior.
• Much of Mendel’s work was popularized by biologists in the early 1900s.  These biologists spoke of hereditary units found on chromosomes of cells (Sutton) and coined the term “gene” (Bateson).
• By the 1920s, much research and publications spoke of “natural” determination of certain traits through breeding experiments.  In addition, genetic mutation using an external agent (e.g. Muller’s use of X-rays) was demonstrated as possible.
• The American Eugenics movement (discussed below) and The Final Solution/Aryan Supremacy in Nazi Germany both applied principles of trait selection through controlled breeding researched through the 1920s.
• Following the discovery of the double-helical DNA structure (1953) and deciphering of DNA’s complete coding sequence (1966), the first recombinant DNA molecules were synthesized in 1972 and allowed for patent by the Supreme Court in 1980.
• Further developments have continued since 1980, including:
  • Synthesis of human insulin using recombinant DNA technology (1982)
  • Gene therapy trials for treatment of Severe Combined Immune Deficiency (SCID) (1990)
  • Human Genome Project – launched (1990), completed (2003), and now data being analyzed (in process).²
• Since the 1970s, the debate has remained ongoing regarding ethical considerations in development and use of genetic engineering with prominent scientists on both sides.  George Wald, Nobel Prize-winning biologist and Harvard professor wrote in 1976, “It (genetic engineering) presents probably the largest ethical problem that science has ever had to face.  Our morality up to now has been to go ahead without restriction to learn all that we can about nature.  Restructuring nature was not part of the bargain … For going ahead in this direction may be not only unwise but dangerous.  Potentially, it could breed new animal and plant diseases, new sources of cancer, novel epidemics.”³)

II.         Eugenics Movement

• As coined by Francis Galton (cousin of Darwin) in 1883, eugenics referred to the efforts to improve the human race by allowing “more suitable” races or traits to prevail more speedily than possible through natural selection.  The term was derived from the Greek roots that literally translated “good” and “generation” and referred to the “science” of heredity and good breeding.⁴
• Influential geneticist and Harvard Professor Charles Davenport stated in his work Heredity in Relation to Eugenics (1911) that the purpose of eugenics was to improve the human race by improving the selection of marriage mates – “to fall in love intelligently.”  It also necessarily involved control by the state of “propagation of the mentally incompetent.”  However, it did not involve euthanizing those already alive.⁵
• Eugenics laws were passed in 32 U.S. states between 1907 and 1937,⁶ and forcible sterilization could be administered for libidinal crimes or undesirable traits such as insanity, feeble-mindedness, or idiocy (as determined by the “appropriate” oversight boards or panels).  Using American law as a beacon, Nazis extended forced sterilizations to those with physical and/or mental defects.  The Final Solution, or extermination of 6 million Jews, was the ultimate result of the Nazis’ application of eugenics.
• Thus, the eugenics movement demonstrated that “science” could be used by those with racist or sociological agendas to promote grievous programs.  More specifically, ideologies of behaviorism, isolationism, and naturalism in the 1920s gave rise to eugenics as a means to accomplish desired social ends.
• Rapidly advancing biotechnology in the late 20^th and early 21^st centuries has given rise to a resurgence of eugenics-style arguments for the betterment of humanity through genetic engineering (defined below).

III.        Genetic Engineering Defined

• Genetic engineering is a broad term that is used to describe an entire category of activities related to the development and application of scientific methods, procedures, and technologies that permit direct identification and manipulation of genetic material in order to alter otherwise inherited traits of a cell, organism, individual, or population.
• For purposes of this discussion, genetic engineering will be said to include the following activities:
  • Genetic Testing/Screening – Use of various procedures (e.g. amniocentesis) to identify any one of a growing number of genetically related disorders (ex. Down’s Syndrome).
  • Gene Therapy – Use of various procedures (most popular is through viruses injecting corrected genes into host cells) to substitute more productive genes in a cell with defective ones.  With somatic cell gene therapy, somatic cells are targeted for replacement as a corrective measure for only the specific patient.  With germline cell gene therapy, defective genes lie in reproductive cells that are replaced with “corrected” ones.  These changes are passed along to offspring.⁷
  • Genetic Enhancement – Efforts to make someone “better than well” by optimizing attributes or capabilities.  The goal is to have genes supplementing or superseding the function of normal genes to provide the desired enhancement (either somatic and germline cells can be targeted).⁸
  • Cloning – Asexual reproduction of an animal or human with the identical genetic make-up of the “parent.”
  • Transgenics – Process of blending genetic material from other species or organisms.  Transgenics allow scientists to develop organisms expressing a novel trait not normally found in the species.  Possible transgenic combinations can be broken down into plant-animal-human; animal-animal; or animal-human combinations.⁹

IV.        Three Frameworks for Consideration

• Deontological – emphasizes what is intrinsically right in a situation as the primary consideration, while costs, benefits, and consequences are secondary considerations.  For genetic engineering, deontological ethics would require consideration of fundamental values such as the sanctity of human life, and individual and/or societal justice.¹⁰
• Teleological – emphasizes the value of the goals or purposes being pursued and the likelihood of bringing about valued or desired ends.  Teleological theories can take one of two courses – classic utilitarianism and Greek (e.g. Aristotle) virtue ethics.  With genetic engineering, the degree to which various processes aim to bring about virtues that lead to happiness (e.g. genetic enhancement) or avoid suffering (e.g. heal disease), then they would be considered ethical.  Genetic engineering intentionally used to develop weaponry or disease would be unethical.
• Utilitarianism – emphasizes the consequences or outcomes either utilizing a cost-benefit analysis or attempting to determine what would cause the greatest good for the greatest number.  At our current time, utilitarian considerations in genetic engineering are dubious at best, as many of the consequences related to gene therapy, genetic enhancement, cloning, and transgenics are not fully known.  In addition, unintended consequences are rarely considered in proactive utilitarian analysis.

V.         Five Factors for Consideration

• Norms – Implied in deontological ethics – does the activity line up with the precepts and principles of scripture?
• Context – Certain activities are appropriate only if undertaken in the proper context.
• Intention – The right intent or motive is required for an action to be pleasing to God.  While this is true, good intentions are not sufficient to make something right.
• Means – The methods or processes to attain a desired result, consequence, or end must be right for the action to be morally acceptable.  Just ends do not justify immoral means.
• Consequences – To some degree considered in the utilitarian perspective.  The consideration here is whether or not all probable or reasonably potential consequences (in all time frames) are acceptable.

VI.        My Position – Genetic engineering, in and of itself, is an amoral form of biotechnology.  However, the research to develop genetic engineering and the use of genetic engineering techniques must be considered as moral and ethical decisions.  The use of genetic engineering in humans is acceptable to the degree that: 1) it does not violate biblical commands, precepts, and principles, 2) it is used exclusively in somatic cells, and 3) it is conducted with the explicit consent of the individual receiving treatment.  While the upside of transgenics provides the potential to benefit humanity, the dangers of potential and/or unintended consequences are so severe that transgenic research should cease until an acceptable legal and ethical framework can be established for research of this type.

• Biblical Support
  • All of God’s creation is good and thus worthy of care and respect. (Gen. 1:31)
  • Man is made in the image of God and as such is esteemed with value above the remainder of creation. (Gen. 1:26-28; Heb. 2:5-8)
  • This value extends to conception. (Ps. 139:13-16)
  • Man’s understanding of God’s creation and ways is limited and warped. (Prov. 14:12)

• Logical Support
  • Much of the “leading edge” research in genetic engineering is conducted under the guise of “betterment” of the human race and preservation of human life.  However, much research is conducted using embryonic stem cells and umbilical cords gathered in a manner inherently inconsistent with the stated goals.  Thus, only genetic engineering research conducted in a manner that does not require the destruction of human life would be logically consistent.
  • The foundational ideologies used to promote genetic engineering stem from naturalism and Darwinian evolution.  However, genetic engineering, particularly germline therapy and enhancement, cloning, and transgenics are directly contrary to natural selection.  Only somatic cell therapy is neutral, or not inconsistent, regarding natural selection.
  • To the degree that somatic cell therapy is obtained via research methodologies that do not violate the sanctity of human life, this therapy may be viewed in a manner similar to prescription drugs, radiation treatment, chemotherapy, or other forms of treatment developed through the use of biotechnology.

• Contextual Support
  • Transgenics can be viewed similarly to the development of nuclear energy that resulted from splitting the atom.  Many scientists working on the Manhattan Project did not intend to develop technology to be used in such destructive weaponry as nuclear bombs.  Rather, they desired to push the universe of scientific knowledge.  However, with new technologies often come unintended consequences.  With transgenics, many scientists are pursuing the leading edge with the same intent.  However, with transgenics, the potential exists for creating reproductive viruses that could destroy significant amounts of plant, animal, and/or human life.  Given that these organisms are created to be resilient, the propensity for adverse effects rises.

  Glossary

  Recombinant cells – result from new combinations of genetic material

  Behaviorism – the theory that human or animal psychology can be accurately studied only through analysis of objectively observable and quantifiable behavioral events, in contrast with subjective mental states.

  Naturalism – a combination of philosophical and theological beliefs that all phenomena and truth is derived from science and the study of natural processes.  Teleological (design and purpose in nature) explanations and revelation are defined as invalid.

  Libidinal – of or related to the libido, which in psychoanalytical terms refers to sexual instincts, desires, and drives.

  Somatic – of the body (already in existence), but not reproductive to subsequent generations (to differentiate from germ cells).

1. Background taken from John Jefferson Davis, Evangelical Ethics: Issues Facing the Church Today. Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company, Phillipsburg, New Jersey, 275-278. [↩]
2. http://www.ornl.gov/sci/techresources/Human_Genome/home.shtml [↩]
3. George Wald, “The Case Against Genetic Engineering.” The Recombinant DNA Debate. Jackson and Stich, eds, 127-128 (reprinted from The Sciences, Sep/Oct 1976 [↩]
4. PBS Online 1998 [↩]
5. Jonathan Marks, Department of Anthropology, University of North Carolina at Charlotte, “Eugenics – Breeding a Better Citizenry Through Science.” Working Paper. [↩]
6. Davis, 277. [↩]
7. Debopriya, Bose, “Gene Therapy Pros and Cons,” http://www.buzzle.com/articles/gene-therapy-pros-and-cons.html [↩]
8. www.genome.gov/10004767. [↩]
9. Linda MacDonald Glenn, “Ethical Issues in Genetic Engineering and Transgenics” ActionBioscience.org., 2004 [↩]
10. Davis, 281. [↩]

The reason secularists continue to seek removal of public expressions of faith such as “National Day of Prayer” or “In God We Trust” is because they have turned the First amendment on its head to mean no public expressions of faith whereas historically it actually protected that expression.

Historically, the First Amendment limited only the federal government with wording like “Congress shall make no law….”  Of course today, secularists seek to label any public expression of faith as a federal endorsement of faith. 

So here is a simple way to distinguish a law from a proclamation of accommodation.  A law requires one to do something or not to do something and violating such law is punishable by the government.  In contrast, a proclamation or recitation does not require anyone to participate, and if they choose not to there is no legal punishment.

Often these terms are used synonymously in order to promote globalism by demonstrating the undeniable and thereby summarily equating all dissenters with flat-earthers. 

The argument conflates globalization and globalism and is stated something like “Globalism is undeniable,” and demonstrates that by banding a few supposed indisputable evidences, e.g. the interconnectedness of commerce, communication, travel, etc.  Thus, the only reasonable conclusion one can infer is that rejection of globalism is the badge of a “sand-dolt” (one who buries his head in the sand).  Therefore, the debate about globalism is over.  The earth is round and GLOBALISM IS! 

I first heard this conflated argument in 2004, and the same sentiment was expressed by someone I met recently. 

Well, let me set the record straight.  Globalization means “to extend to other or all parts of the globe; make worldwide: efforts to globalize the auto industry….”¹ Whereas, globalism means, “the attitude or policy of placing the interests of the entire world above those of individual nations.”² Consequently, one can recognize and even support globalization, our interconnectedness, without embracing globalism, the plan to denationalize the world and replace national constitutions with an ever-burgeoning global constitution. 

This illegitimate conflation obfuscates the distinctions between being “interconnected” and being “intimate”.  By this logic, the global should consume nations, who in turn should absorb states and cities.

While I am a proponent of interconnectedness, I am an opponent of forced intimacy.  Carried out to its logical conclusion, the idea that interconnectedness in some ways necessitates everyone living under the same governance would also require the elimination of neighborhoods since our interconnectedness would demand single neighborhood governance.  In contrast, I would argue that if it is okay for me to be connected with my fellow citizens in Norman without having to give up my home, then why can’t the United States interact with the world and remain a sovereign constitutional republic?

I for one do not want intimacy with my neighbors, and I am still glad we have fences and walls.  I am glad I have windows through which to see my interconnected fellow citizens, but equally thankful for curtains for when I desire to only relish in the company of my chosen intimates. 

Globalists seek to destroy the world’s curtain rods, and make the world one—you know one enlightened, felicitous global family.  Ah yes, a little heaven on earth.  Well, call me a sand-dolt if you are so inclined, but I’ll keep my curtain rods because while I love neighbors be they next door or a Brit, I don’t love them that much.  And while there is much talk of globalism being a little of a heaven on earth, I think we would find, albeit too late, that it would be a lot more like ”HE double hockey sticks.”

1. Random House Unabridged Electronic Dictionary, Version 2.0, copyright 1996. [↩]
2. Ibid. [↩]

My sabbatical began by driving to Seaside, Florida, in order to perform a wedding.  We planned to divide the trip into two days by getting a room for the night in Mobile, Alabama.  Now, for some reason, we decided not to book a room in advance—I guess that decision was made in an adventurous moment of frivolity or dereliction of duty.  Here is a glimpse at our trip to the beautiful Floridian beaches.

In a moment of spontaneity, we were seeking to find a place to rest for the night and actually checked into 3 hotels before finding one that was just right.

The first one was too hard even to the point of not accepting Luna & Lilly (our two long-haired Chihuahuas).

The second one was too soft in that they accepted in their dishabille rooms bugs that were larger and more ferocious than Lilly and Luna.

The third one was just right, accepting the whole family without the uninvited critters and very clean.

Oh well, this is not merely a modern rendition of a favorite fairy tale, but rather a true phantasmagoria at the end of a 900-mile drive.

It now appears wise to take a respite from spontaneous spontaneity lest I need a sabbatical from my sabbatical.

I love to visit England and would be delighted to visit other European countries.  However, this fondness for sojourning in Europe in order to drink from the abundant fountains of history is markedly distinct from a desire for the U.S. to become England’s twin.

If my recollection of history is correct, there was a time when a band of hoi polloi fled the motherland, risking life, liberty, and security, and set sail to pursue a better life on a new continent.  These seemingly insignificant pilgrims and Puritans established a nation that by the grace of God has become the wealthiest, freest, and most powerful nation the world has ever known.

From these humble beginnings, the United States of America has been richly blessed by God and the envy of the world.  Much of the genius of America was/is the antithesis of the institutions of Western Europe.  England and all of Europe believed that centralized government was the hallmark of civilized sophisticates.

In stark contrast, these adventurers sought a world where government’s power was limited to a few essentials and existed for “we the people”.  The oceanic distance between the motherland and their new home was only exceeded in comparison by the religious distance they established between the two.  Even the English language of America is notably distinct from that of our Englander friends.  Freedom, both Christian and political, is the gift of America to the modern world.

Now, with heretofore unparalled zeal, President Obama has taken up the “Europe is grander” baton and leads an omnium-gatherum of liberals, secularists, illegal or unassimilated immigrants, and progressives in their vibrant penchant for Europeanizing America.  I’m quite sure that if they could, they would liefly drain the pond that separates us so that we could all be ideologically and continentally one.

Obama seems quite ashamed of American exceptionality, the blessings granted the world by America’s military might, and our generosity to never-ending world crises, and he is conversely enamored with the idea that government is the best determiner and distributor of wealth.  I know the idea of purchasing governmental security from the difficulty of life at the expense of personal freedom and responsibility is fashionable in Europe, but has he forgotten that our former departure from England was a repudiation of that concept, or is he just as ashamed of our forefathers as he apparently is of us?

The pilgrimatic departure of our Founders shouted to the world “there is a better way”, and the world has taken note, which is evidenced by the multitudes of immigrants from every hamlet in the world forsaking security for the better life with their own pilgrimatic journey.

Thus, why now instead of all Europe looking to the U.S., are so many in the U.S. looking to Europe as the model of exceptionality?  The European ideas esteemed by President Obama include parasitical socialism, military weakness, border vulnerability without the U.S. military protecting them, Darwinian secularism, economic decline, and subjugation of nationalism to globalism under the governance of the United Nations or the European Union or some such denationalizing watchful eye.

I suggest that although the United States is clearly not the empyrean where God dwells, it is as our forefathers believed a little closer than Europe. We dare not take for granted what cost others so much, lest our children awaken in a land we know not.

Without a doubt, you are familiar with Hitler’s attempt to produce a better race by elimination of those with “inheritable undesirable traits”, which is known as negative eugenics whereas encouraging reproduction by persons with “inheritable desirable traits” is referred to as positive eugenics. 

Well, Darwinist were promoting and practicing the same thing in the United States in the 1930s.  The following reminds us of how dangerous applied Darwinism is and that the United States is not immune from the degrading animalism of Darwinism if we continue by public policy denying the sacredness of every human life.

Eventually “…government-sponsored sterilizations took place in thirty states, and 46 percent of the operations were performed on those classified as ‘feebleminded.’”¹ John West notes, “Many states began to employ sterilization as an important tool to eradicate poverty and reduce welfare spending.  In Virginia, state authorities raided welfare families in rural mountain communities and took the women to be sterilized at a state facility.”²  Others were labeled forcibly sterilized, for ignoble reasons, such as stealing the inheritance of Ann Hewitt, prejudice toward the Kallikak family, and Carrie and Doris Buck as well as others.³

Sir Francis Galton claimed that humans could control the untamed force of evolution by “encouraging the reproduction of the fittest specimens of humanity…and preventing that of the unfit”⁴ which was called positive eugenics.  Galton said, “What nature does blindly, slowly, ruthlessly, man may do providently, quickly, and kindly.”⁵ Galton declared, that eugenics “must be introduced into the national conscience, like a new religion…[it has] strong claims to become an orthodox religious tenet of the future.”⁶ 

As for Darwin’s view concerning how the sympathy of civilized society had mitigated the wonder of natural selection, he opined, “We civilized men, on the other hand, do our utmost to check the process of elimination….There is reason to believe that vaccination has preserved thousands who from weak constitution would formerly have succumbed to smallpox.  Thus the weak members of civilized societies propagate their kind.  No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of man.  It is surprising how soon a want of care, or care wrongly directed, leads to the degeneration of a domestic race; but, excepting in the case of man himself, hardly anyone is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed.”⁷

Darwin says, “The aid which we feel impelled to give to the helpless is mainly an incidental result of the instinct of sympathy, which was originally acquired as part of the social instincts…”⁸  He further states, “Nor could we check our sympathy, even at the urging of hard reason, without deterioration in the noblest part of our nature.”⁹  Hard reason says that this sympathy is deleterious, because he said regarding natural selection, “And as natural selection works solely by and for the good of each being, all corporeal and mental endowments will tend to progress towards perfection.”¹⁰  Consequently, we can’t stop it even though reason and the path to perfection demands it, and it thwarts the noble work of “natural selection” which produces, “the most exalted object which we are capable of conceiving, namely, the production of the higher animals…”¹¹

He talks about the surgeon knowing that he is “acting for the good”, but in light of the perfect being reached through natural selection, is it fair to ask, what good, good for whom, temporary or ultimate good….He says that to “intentionally…neglect the weak and helpless” can be only with “contingent benefit” and even that brings “overwhelming present evil.”¹² What evil?  His conclusion, “We must therefore bear the undoubtedly bad effects of the weak surviving and propagating their kind; but there appears to be at least one check in steady action, namely, that the weaker and inferior members of society do not marry so freely as the sound; and this check might be indefinitely increased by the weak in body or mind refraining from marriage, though this is more to be hoped for than expected.”¹³   Note that he says the weak surviving produces “bad effects”, whereas Christianity would say the opposite.  However, he is heartened that these “hereditarily inferiors” are less likely to marry as the fit, thereby giving the secularist some hope, and hopefully they will refrain all the more, but that is just Darwin’s wishful musings.

Darwin expresses his dismay and discouragement because, in comparison to how very scrupulous a man is about the pedigree of his livestock, when it comes to his own marriage, “…he rarely, or never, takes any such care.  He is impelled by nearly the same motives as the lower animals, when they are left to their own free choice…”¹⁴  Of course, marriage in Jewish and Christian traditions is an exalted spiritual covenant between the two and God.  With regard to how the “inferiors” should approach marriage, he says, “Both sexes ought to refrain from marriage if they are in any marked degree inferior in body or mind; but such hopes are Utopian, and will never be even partially realized until the laws of inheritance are thoroughly known.  Everyone does good service who aids toward this end.  When the principles of breeding and inheritance are better understood, we shall not hear ignorant members of our legislature rejecting with scorn a plan for ascertaining whether or not consanguineous marriages are injurious to man.”¹⁵ 

Not only is physical or mental deficiency reason to not marry, but he also said, “All ought to refrain from marriage who cannot avoid abject poverty for their children, for poverty is not only a great evil, but tends to its own increase by leading to recklessness in marriage.  On the other hand, as Mr. Galton has remarked, if the prudent avoid marriage, while the reckless marry, the inferior members tend to supplant the better members of society.”¹⁶  In absolute contradistinction, the Bible and many other religions assign no evil to poverty.  Oh well, the Darwinian Decalogue says, Thou shalt not marry if you are physically or mentally weak and/or unable to provide…enough Darwin dollars.  The connection between Darwin and Eugenics and science is undeniable.  But there is more.

Eugenicists were serious about their hereditary hypothesis. Edwin Black explains, “Eighteen solutions were explored in a Carnegie-supported 1911 ‘Preliminary Report of the Committee of the Eugenic Section of the American Breeder’s Association to Study and to Report on the Best Practical Means for Cutting off the Defective Germ-Plasm in the Human Population.’  Point No. 8 was euthanasia [negative eugenics, control birth positive…].  The most commonly suggested method of eugenicide in the United States was a ‘lethal chamber’ or public, locally operated gas chambers.  In 1918, Popenoe, the Army venereal disease specialist during World War I, co-wrote the widely used textbook, ‘Applied Eugenics,’ which argued, ‘From an historical point of view, the first method which presents itself is execution . . . Its value in keeping up the standard of the race should not be underestimated.’  ‘Applied Eugenics’ also devoted a chapter to ‘Lethal Selection,’ which operated ‘through the destruction of the individual by some adverse feature of the environment, such as excessive cold, or bacteria, or by bodily deficiency.’”¹⁷  Yes this was happing in the United States under the auspices of a science-based solution to societal ills.

Black goes on to say, “In 1934, as Germany’s sterilizations were accelerating beyond 5,000 per month, the California eugenics leader C. M. Goethe, upon returning from Germany, ebulliently bragged to a colleague, ‘You will be interested to know that your work has played a powerful part in shaping the opinions of the group of intellectuals who are behind Hitler in this epoch-making program.  Everywhere I sensed that their opinions have been tremendously stimulated by American thought . . . I want you, my dear friend, to carry this thought with you for the rest of your life, that you have really jolted into action a great government of 60 million people.’  That same year, 10 years after Virginia passed its sterilization act, Joseph DeJarnette, superintendent of Virginia’s Western State Hospital, observed in the Richmond Times-Dispatch, ‘The Germans are beating us at our own game.”’¹⁸

Benno Müller-Hill author, Murderous Science, Institute of Genetics, Cologne University, Germany said of Black’s book, “Edwin Black has again written a unique and important book.  Until now eugenics in the US and in Germany have not been analyzed together.  One assumed they had little in common.  This was not so.  Their joint past was bloddy and their future is disquieting.”¹⁹

1. John G. West, Darwin day In America: how our politics and culture have been dehumanized in the name of science (Wilmington, DE: ISI Books, 2007), 141. [↩]
2. West, Darwin day, 140. [↩]
3. West, Darwin day, 142-143. [↩]
4. Christine Rosen, Preaching Eugenics: Religious Leaders and the American Eugenics Movement (Oxford: University Press, 2004), 5. [↩]
5. Rosen, Preaching Eugenics, 5. [↩]
6. Rosen, Preaching Eugenics, 5. [↩]
7. Charles Darwin, Descent of Man and Selection in Relation to Sex, (originally published 1871: reprint with introduction published New York: Barnes & Noble, 2004), 111. [↩]
8. Darwin, Descent, 111 [↩]
9. Darwin, Descent, 111. [↩]
10. Charles Darwin, On the Origin of Species By Means of Natural Selection, (Originally published by John Murray, London, in 1859:  reprint with introduction by Michael T. Ghiselin, Mineola, NY: Dover Publications, Inc., 2006), 307 [↩]
11. Darwin, Origin of Species, 307. [↩]
12. Darwin, Descent, 111. [↩]
13. Darwin, Descent, 111-112. [↩]
14. Darwin, Descent, 556. [↩]
15. Darwin, Descent, 556. [↩]
16. Darwin, Descent, 556-557. [↩]
17. http://www.waragainsttheweak.com/offSiteArchive/www.sfgate.com/index.html; Eugenics and the Nazis, San Francisco Chronicle November 9, 2003 by Edwin Black [↩]
18. http://www.waragainsttheweak.com/offSiteArchive/www.sfgate.com/index.html; Eugenics and the Nazis, San Francisco Chronicle November 9, 2003 by Edwin Black [↩]
19. http://www.waragainsttheweak.com/historians.php [↩]

Darwin says, “The aid which we feel impelled to give to the helpless is mainly an incidental result of the instinct of sympathy, which was originally acquired as part of the social instincts…”¹  He further states,“Nor could we check our sympathy, even at the urging of hard reason, without deterioration in the noblest part of our nature.”²  Hard reason says that this sympathy is deleterious, because he said regarding natural selection, “And as natural selection works solely by and for the good of each being, all corporeal and mental endowments will tend to progress towards perfection.”³  Consequently, we can’t stop it even though reason and the path to perfection demands it, and it thwarts the noble work of “natural selection” which produces, “the most exalted object which we are capable of conceiving, namely, the production of the higher animals…”⁴

He talks about the surgeon knowing that he is “acting for the good”, but in light of the perfect being reached through natural selection, is it fair to ask, what good, good for whom, temporary or ultimate good….He says that to “intentionally…neglect the weak and helpless” can be only with “contingent benefit” and even that brings “overwhelming present evil.”⁵ What evil?  His conclusion, “We must therefore bear the undoubtedly bad effects of the weak surviving and propagating their kind; but there appears to be at least one check in steady action, namely, that the weaker and inferior members of society do not marry so freely as the sound; and this check might be indefinitely increased by the weak in body or mind refraining from marriage, though this is  more to be hoped for than expected.”⁶   Note the he says the weak surviving produces “bad effects”, whereas Christianity would say the opposite.  However, he is heartened that these “hereditarily inferiors” are less likely to marry as the fit, thereby giving the secularist some hope, and hopefully they will refrain all the more, but that is just Darwin’s wishful musings.

1. Charles Darwin, Descent of Man and Selection in Relation to Sex, (originally published 1871: reprint with introduction published New York: Barnes & Noble, 2004), 111 [↩]
2. Darwin, Descent, 111. [↩]
3. Charles Darwin, On the Origin of Species By Means of Natural Selection, (Originally published by John Murray, London, in 1859:  reprint with introduction by Michael T. Ghiselin, Mineola, NY: Dover Publications, Inc., 2006), 307 [↩]
4. Darwin, Origin of Species, 307. [↩]
5. Darwin, Descent, 111. [↩]
6. Darwin, Descent, 111 -112. [↩]

Recently I was asked a series of questions regarding the application of Christian principles in the area of entertainment.  Although these are neither exhaustive nor thorough, I hope you find them helpful.

Q: More and more we see the church looks like the world.  One area is entertainment – the music we listen to, the movies we watch, or the music or movies we allow our children to listen to or watch.  Do you have specific Scripture regarding the criteria for evaluating the movies that we should watch? 

A: Yes, all scriptures that speak of pure thinking, focusing on what edifies….. 1 Corinthians 14:20; Phil 4:8; 2 Peter 1:5-10 relate to this.

Q: I can think of a couple of overarching Scriptures regarding where we allow our minds to dwell, immorality regarding sexual scenes, and our own use of cussing.  Regarding cussing, I know verses regarding us cussing but can’t think of any specifically directed towards “hearing” cussing and avoiding it – i.e. in movies. 

A: Eph 5:4 deals specifically with speech, and as far as hearing…the aforementioned verses apply as well as all verses that speak of what to learn, teach, e.g. Proverbs…and of course we were saved from that kind of thinking, so it is absolutely incongruent to surfeit in that kind of thinking again (Ephesians 4:17ff) and we are told to “renew our mind” (Rom 12:2; Eph 4:23).  We are not to be conformed to the world, which is impossible to avoid if we feed on an unfiltered diet of the world’s music, literature, entertainment… 

Q: Can you point me to more specific verses about avoiding hearing cussing?

A: Aforementioned verses and remember that Christianity is more about do than don’t; hence, we are to shed things that retard our growth in godliness (Hebrews 12:1).

Q: For example, if Martin Luther cussed during his lifetime, and it was depicted in a movie about his life, is that acceptable? 

A: At times cursing, murder, stealing may be something that we can see or be exposed to as Jesus was as He lived life and befriended soldiers, etc. who usually do not clean up their language for anyone.  Sometimes, the overall theme or message is much more important than a particular word.  For example, John Wayne saying a curse word in a 4 hour movie about something positive may be okay whereas a movie that depicts Christ disparagingly without a curse word may be absolutely off limits.  Also, is it a documentary or a sensual movie?  Generally documentaries seek to reveal what is necessary to convey reality about the person or…whereas other genres seek to entice, extol the baser elements of man, and make money at any cost or push an agenda.  Gratuitous language is immediately shut down by me. 

Q: At what point does it become unacceptable (quality or quantity of words)? 

A: I simply ask, does the movie, music, art, etc., aid me in my Christian walk, being a pastor, thinking godly, and or loving God more and “letting this mind be in me which was also in Christ Jesus…” (Phil. 2:5). 

Q: Same scenario, but the movie is a slapstick comedy? 

A: Low level of tolerance because one way for Satan to lower morals is to get you to laugh at it first and then accept it; thus, I watch Mayberry, Newhart, etc., which shun billingsgate.  This is not because I do not think some of the moderns are funny, but I refuse to jeopardize my spiritual walk by digesting Augean vulgarities in order to laugh. 

Q: I’m just trying to better prepare a defense of God’s truth.

A: For that I commend you.  I do think that many who seem very serious about Christ are far too lenient about the standards they apply to their personal holiness—intake and behavior.

Darwin is often presented as a simple scientist, with no axe to grind, to wit no preconceived ideas tainting his conclusions, and simply following the facts to wherever they lead.  The following are a few quotes that may call that noble description into question.

Darwin said, concerning man’s origin and descent, “The main conclusion…is that man is descended from some less highly organized form.  The grounds upon which this conclusion rests will never be shaken, for the close similarity between man and the lower animals…are facts which cannot be disputed.”¹  Now whether one believes that is true or not, they must admit that it cannot be proven; however, Darwin’s diaphanous veil of science cannot hide his faith in naturalism, for surely all can see that his absolute surety that his conclusion will never be overturned is anything but science, which by nature is open-ended.

Of man’s creation, Darwin notes,  “He who is not content to look, like a savage, at the phenomena of nature as disconnected, cannot any longer believe that man is the work of a separate act of creation.”²  So all of the intellectuals, the evidence that man was created, is summarily dismissed as “savagery”.  On what does he base this?  Well similarities, the idea of natural selection (NS), and the commitment, which he mentions regularly regarding NS, “if one will accept evolution.”  Of course, if you accept by faith his premises, then some of what he says may follow, but he did not, nor have Darwinists today, proven the premises upon which their naturalistic worldview stands or falls.

He states, “…man is descended from a hairy, tailed quadruped…”³  Man, advanced from “semi-human condition to that of the modern savage….with savages, the weak in body or mind are soon eliminated; and those that survive commonly exhibit a vigorous state of health.”⁴  Again he says we “will feel no doubt that all the races of man are descended from a single primitive stock.”⁵

Of course these are ideas that he sought to promulgate in order to prove naturalism.  Darwin’s belief in God, which he briefly mentions as the creator who breathed the first life into…is actually irrelevant.  The reason is that Darwin sought to explain all of life apart from God, other than the absolute beginning, in a way that absolutely excluded God. 

Darwin, as his successors, still confuses philosophical and religious assertions with science, which they disdain unless they are the ones making them.

1. Charles Darwin, Descent of Man and Selection in Relation to Sex, (originally published 1871. Reprint with introduction published New York: Barnes & Noble, 2004), 544. [↩]
2. Darwin, Descent, 546. [↩]
3. Darwin, Descent, 548. [↩]
4. Darwin, Descent, 111. [↩]
5. Darwin, Descent, 148. [↩]