The Morality Of Stem Cell Research

In light of the suffering endured by beloved celebrities such as Christopher Reeve and Michael J. Fox, many Americans have been swayed as to the propriety of stem cell research as a potential cure for alleviating some of the most horrible conditions imaginable such as paralysis, Parkinson’s, and cancer. However, as with many of the other things set before him promising comfort and prosperity, the believing Christian must weigh the costs and benefits on the scales of Biblical truth before he can either accept or reject what this technology may have to offer.

Thus far we know the following. Medical science has determined that stem cells posses the potential of being altered into other kinds of cells. This could potentially make them useful in curing various kinds of diseases.

The controversy arises over the source from which these cells are harvested. One possible source are mature stem cells obtained from adults. This extraction does not harm the donor. The drawback is, however, that it is believed it may not be possible to manipulate mature stem cells into becoming the different kinds of cells doctors and scientists may need to treat all the conditions begging for medical attention.

On the other hand, it has been suggested that stem cells obtained from embryos may be a more fruitful source. These may prove easier to alter since they have not yet matured. The main drawback, however, is that the embryo must be destroyed in order to obtain the stem cells for research and experimentation.

This debate has become one of the foremost issues in contemporary American politics as both sides make a number of compelling ethical claims. On the one hand, advocates of embryonic stem cell research often suffer from afflictions those of reasonably good health cannot possibly understand at this given point in our lives. It is only natural that they and their loved ones would want research into what could be the most effective cure. Yet on the other hand, there are concerns about the destiny of the embryo from which the stem cells are taken since the fertilized egg is a self-contained genetically distinct living human organism.

The foremost ethical principle bearing on this dispute is the sanctity of human life. Interestingly, in this case the principle is being invoked by both sides of the debate. Thus, one almost needs the wisdom of Solomon in attempting to apply the concept in a judicious manner.

Since the suffering are beings made in the image of God, medical science does have a duty to do what it can to ease the misery of the profoundly ill. That said though, society in general and the medical establishment in particular must go out of its way to defend innocent human life that cannot protect itself.

It is against the law to destroy an eagle egg which is essentially an unborn eagle. Then why should it then be permissible to kill an unborn child since it is a principle Biblical in origin traditionally accepted throughout Western society that a human being is infinitely more valuable than any animal? For if His eye is on the sparrow, then I know He’s watching me.

Furthermore, with all the efforts by activists lobbying for funding for embryonic stem cell research, it is doubtful that most of the public is being told the entire picture regarding these developments in medical science.

According to columnist Charles Krauthammar, who is himself a paraplegic and a trained physician, in a column from October 15, 2004 titled “Anything to get elected” posted at Townhall.com claims of those such as John Kerry and John Edwards that hold out the hope of such miracle cures only if Americans vote for the right candidates, “In my 25 years in Washington, I have never seen a more loathsome display of demagoguery.” Krauthammar goes on to point out that it could be another generation before scientists are anywhere close to finding a cure for paralysis and that NIH stem cell researcher Ronald McKay has admitted that “stem cells as an Alzheimer’s cure are a fiction but that people need a fairytale.”

Furthermore, even if embryonic stem cells prove more malleable than their adult counterparts, we might not like the results. According to a LifeNews.com story by Steven Ertelt titled “Embryonic Stem Cell Research Causes Tumors”, University of Rochester researchers found that, while stem cells injected into the brains of rats to ease the symptoms of Parkinson’s did help a number of the rodents, a number of the cells began growing in a manner that would have led to tumors.

Apart from the harm that might befall the recipients of the procedure, it would still remain morally dubious even if it returned the patients to robust health and vitality. Writing in another column entitled “Stem Cell Miracle?: An Advance This Side Of Bush’s Moral Line” appearing in the January 12, 2007 Washington Post, Charles Krauthammar admits that, even though he himself supports abortion and does not believe life begins at conception, he is leery of what may result should some kind of restriction not be placed on embryonic research. Krauthammar warns, “You don’t need religion to tremble at the thought of unrestricted embryo research. You simply have to have a healthy respect for the human capacity for doing evil in pursuit of the good. Once we have taken the position of many stem cell advocates that embryos are discardable tissue with no more intrinsic value than a hangnail, then the barriers are down. What is to prevent us from producing not just tissues and organs but humanlike organisms for preservation as a source of future body parts on demand?”

This possibility has been explored in a number of imaginative contexts such as “Gene Rodenberry’s: Earth Final Conflict”, where one episode depicted human bodies not quite allowed to develop consciousness kept in a state similar to suspended animation until their organs were needed. In “The Island” starring Ewan MacGregor, clones were kept in a guarded facility until their parts were needed by their genetic progenitors.

The fundamental guiding principle of medicine is to do no harm. That lofty ideal ought to apply to both the patient seeking services as well as the individual from which the cure could very well be extracted.

By Frederick Meekins

There are answers if you know where to look for them JOIN the Faith in Jesus Network

Minding The Times: An Exposition On Postmodernism

One might say the future is here --- and we might want to send it back for a refund. Having waited years and wondering at times whether mankind would even survive to see the day, the world now finds itself on the other side of a new millennium. In some ways, it is everything optimistic futurists dreamed of in terms of faster modes of transportation, improved forms of medicine and almost instantaneous global communication. However, one would hardly consider it the quaint but technologically sophisticated world of George Jetson whose most formidable challenges consisted of navigating Mr. Spacely's fickle temper and making sure Rosie the robot maid stayed adequately oiled. Instead, inhabitants of the early twenty-first century worry if their children will even return home alive from school in the evening or how much longer they have until turbaned fanatics turn the accumulated glories of Western civilization into a smoldering atomic wasteland.

Somewhere along the highway leading from intentions to actuality society seems to have taken a wrong turn and gotten lost along the way. When finding oneself in unintended surroundings while road-tripping across the country, one pulls over to the shoulder of the road to look at a map to determine where one's navigation went astray. Likewise, when a culture begins to display signs of being out of kilter, the time has come to examine the sociological roadmap in terms of the philosophies, beliefs, and ideas individuals use to live their lives and those in authority employ to oversee events.

The observer of intellectual trends might note the contradictory nature of today's philosophical scene. For while proponents of the status quo purport to be characterized by a considerable latitude of conscience, such professed flexibility ultimately turns back on itself and bears down harshly upon any dissident daring to question the system's most cherished assumptions. The prevailing outlook can be characterized as a pragmatic Postmodernism.

Postmodernism can be looked at as a worldview holding that truth as an objective overarching reality does not exist and is instead a subjective linguistic or conceptual construct adopted by an individual or group for the purposes of coping with existence. As such, no single explanatory narrative is superior to any other. In light of such characteristics, Postmodernism is pragmatic in the sense that ethical propositions are judged by how well they work rather than how they stand up to standards of right and wrong. Postmodernism is relativistic in that each propositional expositor is self-contained since it is inappropriate for an individual to judge someone else or another group by the standards to which he himself subscribes. James Sire notes in The Universe Next Door that to the Postmodernist the use of any one narrative as a metanarrative to which all other narratives must submit as to their authenticity is oppressive (181).

As is deducible from its very name, Postmodernism is more a response than a set of original insights. Sire argues, "For in the final analysis, Postmodernism is not 'post' anything; it is the last move of the modern, the result of the modern taking its own commitments too seriously and seeing that they fail to stand the test of analysis (174)." In other words, Postmodernists are basically Modernists having grown tired of maintaining the illusion that things such as values still matter even when the issue of God does not. Therefore, one can gain significant understanding into the Postmodernist mindset by examining the outlook's Modernist roots and where these systems ultimately diverge from one another.

As a derivative of it, Postmodernmism shares a number of assumptions with its cousin Modernism. Thomas Oden observes in Two Worlds: Notes On The Death Of Modernity In America & Russia that both outlooks embrace autonomous individualism, reductive naturalism, and absolute moral relativism (33-35). Both systems are naturalistic in the sense that in them all reality is reduced to and originates from physical components; nothing exists separate or independently of matter. As such, man is an autonomous being since, without God, man can rely only upon himself and his institutions to provide purpose, guidance, and meaning for his life. Since this is the case, all ethical and social thought is predicated on finite human understanding and therefore subject to revision in light of changing circumstances or the accumulation of additional data.

Even though the Modernists sought to set out on their own without holding God's hand, many of them endeavored to maintain a system of behavioral standards and social norms reflective of the Judeo-Christian ones embedded in the cultural consciousness but now resting on an alternative foundation. Rather than seeing the niceties governing civilized conduct as arising from the character of God and discoverable through the study or application of His Holy Word, these courtesies were seen as coming about through the unfolding of trial and error, a process most akin to biological evolution. While most Evangelicals are aware of the links between Darwinism and Nazism and Communism (both vile forms of totalitarianism), most are not as cognizant of the links between this theory of origins and what many would consider stereotypical British traditionalism. Alister McGrath writes in Intellectuals Don't Need God & Other Modern Myths, "Darwinism achieved popular success in England...because Darwin's ideas happened to coincide with advanced Whig social thinking relative to matters of competition, free trade, and the natural superiority of the English middle class...Darwin's science provided a foundation for Victorian liberalism (161)."

It did not take long for the hopes, dreams, and promises of Modernism to break down and disappoint many of its enthusiastic adherents. Psalm 127:1 says, "Except the Lord build the house, they labor in vain that build it: except the Lord keep the city, the watchmen waketh but in vain (KJV)." Instead of utopian brotherhood as promised by Marx, millions found themselves enslaved behind the Iron and Bamboo Curtains. Instead of the sexual liberation promised by the likes of Freud, for tossing aside restraint and embracing the wilds of passion, just as many found their bodies rotting under the curse of diseases unheard of just a few decades ago. Still others discovered that a life of constant entertainment was not quite as entertaining as originally intended. As John Warwick Montgomery so eloquently summarized through his courses in Apologetics at one time offered through Trinity Theological Seminary, in the nineteenth century God was killed and in the twentieth century man was killed.

Thus, with the realization that finite man was incapable of establishing any enduring standard, the Postmodernist decided that the best that could be hoped for was a kind of compulsory hypertolerance all must ascent to and embrace in order to be recognized as full members of the community. Not unlike the Roman Empire where citizens and subjects were pretty much free to practice whatever religion they wished so long as there was room enough within their beliefs for the emperor as an object of worship, those existing under hypertolerance's prevailing rule find themselves free to believe whatever they would like provided they are publicly willing to admit that what the next fellow believes is just as valid, no matter how strange or unorthodox it might seem to be.

Such an approach of live-and-let-live might work between neighbors who agree to keep their differences on their own respective sides of the fence for the sake of community tranquility. However, there are instances in life where matters cannot be glossed over simply by closing the door behind you and retiring to your living room, especially when how controversial issues are approached will end up impacting the way in which people live.

After all, the idea of absolutist tolerance exists for purposes beyond mediating athletic rivalries among coworkers and arbitrating those heated debates as to whether chocolate or vanilla is the better flavor of ice cream. The concept, to the Postmodernist, becomes the central organizing social and cultural principle. Harold O.J. Brown notes in The Sensate Culture, "...postmodern man is beginning to create for himself a world filled with...all manner of beliefs that would have been dismissed as absurd superstitions only a few years ago (55)."

Since Postmodernism seeks to rest asunder traditional dogmas and orthodoxies, it inevitably ends up emphasizing outlooks and perspectives not regularly brought before the public's attention. Sometimes this can be beneficial in the sense that information once overlooked is brought to light that provides a more fully-orbed picture as to what really happened such as when historians expand the scope of their research outward from diplomatic or military concerns to embrace the social realm as well. However, the approach has often sparked more trouble than what it is worth in terms of the conflict that has arisen and the rights that have been trampled upon as activists jockey for position in this moral and intellectual free-for-all.

It is this propensity for Postmodernism to deny the existence of established objective truth that makes the system so dangerous. However, it can also be this aspect that works out to be the Christian's unwitting ally in the apologetic struggle.

To the Postmodernist, what we construe as knowledge is in reality mere interpretation; the fact is, facts do not exist. Chuck Colson writes in A Dance With Deception: Revealing The Truth Behind The Headlines, "The carelessness about factual accuracy didn't come out of nowhere. It came from a shift in educational theory...Educators began to downplay facts and focused instead on changing students' values to solve social problems (47)."

The result of this has been the ascension of increasingly bizarre academic theories and assertions more about promoting trendy causes than expanding the horizons of human understanding. For example, one Feminist professor contends that Beethoven's Ninth Symphony is actually about pent-up sexual energy that "finally explodes in the...murderous rage of the rapist"; others of similar mind oppose the scientific method as an approach to acquiring knowledge, claiming the method is based on the subjugation and control of sexual domination (Colson, 55).

Some of this might be cute for a good laugh if it confined itself among a few lunatic professors who were trotted out before the students for an occasional lecture or to write articles for publication in journals barely read by anyone. Like most thinkers, Postmodernist scholars hope to exert influence over minds other than their own. Postmodernists, however, want to do more than alter the focus of classroom textbooks. Dr. James Kennedy warns in Character & Destiny: A Nation In Search Of Its Soul, "In fact at the bottom of the 'change' movement is a deep desire to dismantle this nation and to sever average Americans from their heritage of faith and freedom (74)."

It is said nature abhors a vacuum. Something will eventually step in to take the place of something else that has been removed.

In the film "The Neverending Story", the amorphous adversary known as "the Nothing" operates on the assumption that those without hope are easy to control. Postmodernists might claim to be creating a community of tolerance and inclusion free of artificial hierarchies, but end up imposing a regimen more doctrinaire than anything even the most tightly-wound Fundamentalist would devise.

This is because of what Francis Schaeffer termed "sociological law", defined in A Christian Manifesto as "...law that has no fixed base but law in which a group of people decides what is sociologically good for society at the given moment and what they arbitrarily decide becomes law (41)." This principle results in a mass of seemingly contradictory policies that are unified only in their opposition to the divine order of innate human dignity. The individual is reduced to the level of a mere cog to be tinkered with to improve the engine of the overarching societal machine.

For example, in the name of elevating minorities, certain programs such as campus speech codes and preferential employment practices turn around and infringe upon the traditional rights of those just as innocent as those these convoluted regulations claim to protect. Conversely, those justifying this social manipulation by such utilitarian standards could just as easily alter their position and justify the wholesale slaughter or detention of entire ethnic groups as in the case of Nazi Germany.

According to the Washington Times, Professor Noel Ignatiev of Harvard argues for the abolition of the White race. So long as Western institutions continue to embrace such blatantly pragmatic standards, one can no more count on the U.S. Supreme Court to uphold the precepts of liberty in the end than the Chinese Community Party since, no matter how much we try to dance around the issue, both ultimately draw upon the principle of the state as the final authority. They only interpret it differently at this given time.

The human mind and spirit cannot endure for very long the chaotic vacillation of such lawlessness before the individual eventually cries out for answers to the extremes of licentiousness and total control. Throughout much of the Modern Era, the Christian apologist could appeal to a shared respect for historic and scientific fact common to both Christianity and commonsense realism. Today, the Christian must first reestablish why anyone ought to believe in anything at all and then assert how the Biblical approach provides the best possible explanation for the condition in which man actually finds himself and the facts as they are rather than how he might like them to be.

The apologist must begin this process by exposing the intellectual and moral bankruptcy of the Postmodernist system. James Sire writes in The Universe Next Door, "If we hold that all linguistic utterances are power plays, then that utterance itself is a power play and no more likely to be more proper than any other (187)."

This claim by Postmodernists that all utterances are merely power plays fails the test of systematic consistency where a philosophical proposition must square with the external world as well as logically cohere with the other statements comprising the set of beliefs under consideration. But more important than the sense of satisfaction resulting from the discovery of this contradiction allowing for a degree of one-upmanship in the battle of ideas is the realization that this contradiction exposes the unlivability of a particular worldview.

Big deal, the Postmodernist might quip in response to this inconsistency since they are not known for their devotion to logical argumentation. Try as they might to gloss over this oversight with platitudes honoring the glories of relativism and tolerance, Postmodernists still deep down possess that human yearning for a universal justice. Romans 2:14-15 says, "Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law, since they show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts..."

It might not be fashionable to contend that there is no such thing as right and wrong and often believing such is even an occupational requirement in certain academic and governmental circles. But when it comes down to it, no one really wants to be treated as if that was the case. C.S. Lewis was fond of noting that those among us preaching the loudest in favor of relativism would cry bloody murder just like the rest of us if egregiously wronged. Just see what happens the next time the faculty nihilist is denied tenure when up for review.

Once it is established by our own existential makeup that there is something to right and wrong beyond the whims of those strong enough to have their way with the weak, it needs to be highlighted where these standards come from. John Frame in Apologetics To The Glory Of God writes, "Now, where does this authority of the absolute moral principle come from? Ultimately, only two kinds of answers are possible: the source of absolute moral authority is either personal or impersonal (97)."

This means that the ethical framework of the universe either arose within its own structure on its own or through the conscientious ordering of a higher organizing mind. Since we ourselves possess consciousness, by default the source of this moral order would have to be aware since it is impossible for the unaware to give rise to the aware or even to establish an ordered universe since that which is not guided and directed is haphazard and random.

If the Christian has been successful up to this point, the Christian has aided the Postmodernist in realizing that there is purpose and direction in life. The next step in the process involved proving to the Postmodernist that the Christian faith is the correct system of thought and meaning. Now the Christian can reintroduce a more traditional apologetic since the Postmodernist is now capable of stomaching objective fact.

The task of the Christian Apologist is to show the unbeliever that the Christian faith is the most viable religious option. This is accomplished by emphasizing the validity of the Biblical account. The first hurdle to overcome regards the historical legitimacy of the Gospel records. To accomplish, Winfried Corduan provides the following checklist of questions in No Doubt About It: The Case For Christianity: "(1) Are the accounts written by people closely associated with the event? (2) Are our present versions of the Gospels what the original authors wrote? (3) Are the accounts so biased as to be unbelievable? (4) Do the accounts contain impossibilities (186)?"

By answering these questions, it is discovered that the Gospels are remarkably well off. The Gospels are themselves written by eyewitnesses or contain the testimony of eyewitnesses. Corduan writes, "Matthew and John were disciples...Mark was a native of Jerusalem and present at the Gospel events...and reported the reminisces of Peter. Luke...was not a disciple...Yet tells of the research he did (189)."

Regarding the quality of the Gospel manuscripts, so many have come down to us in the present day with so few variant readings that there is little chance of some textual huckster committing documentary fraud without someone catching wind of it. As to the matter of bias, while the Gospels and the Bible were written to advance a certain perspective the same as any other book, it is remarkably blunt in cataloging the shortcomings of its most beloved protagonists. Most memoirs and autobiographies go out of their way to cast their subjects in the most favorable light possible even at the expense of factual accuracy.

Lastly, as to whether or not the Gospels record impossibilities is a matter of preconception in the mind of the beholder. One can either maintain the Humean notion that miracles do not occur because miracles do not occur or abide by the canons of historical research and accept these extraordinary events as they come since the rest of the document passes muster.

Since the Gospels are deemed as historically reliable, it would follow that those studying these document should look to those spoken thereof in its pages to provided the content and meaning of these events addressed. After all, the Founding Fathers are still looked to as important sources for interpreting the U.S. Constitution and for what was intended for the early American republic.

Likewise, to comprehend fully the significance of Jesus, the sincere student of history ought to consider what this historical figure said about himself. Jesus says in Matthew 12:39-40, "A wicked and adulterous generation asks for a miraculous sign. But none will be given except for the prophet Jonah. For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of a huge fish, so the Son of Man will be three days and nights in the heart of the earth." From later passages detailing the Resurrection, we see that he carried through on this promise.

In Matthew 16:13-17, Jesus asks His disciples who they think He is. Peter responds, "You are the Christ, the Son of the Living God." Jesus did not chastise Peter for idolatry; instead he ratified the Apostle's assertion by replying, "Blessed are you, Simeon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven."

An apologetic designed to address the concerns raised by Postmodernism presents a number of possibilities as well as challenges to the Christian seeking to reach those trapped by this subtle but pervasive mindset. Crafting an apologetic addressing the spirit of the age to an extent makes the evangelistic task somewhat easier.

Postmodernism already wrests asunder most metaphysical pretensions as linguistic obfuscations protecting the powerful. Therefore, the Postmodernist has already done a portion of the Christian’s work by exposing the invalidity of most intellectual systems. The Christian can therefore rush in and expose the contradictory nature of outright nihilism without first having to tear down incorrect theologies and the faulty ethics arising from them. As a result, the Christian can then show how the alternatives found in the Bible strike the proper balance between the liberation and conformity tearing at the heart of contemporary culture and individual well-being.

However, these characteristics can also serve as drawbacks when employing an apologetic addressing Postmodernism. Even though the Apologist does not have to deconstruct (to use a term popular in Postmodernist circles) faulty conceptions of God when dealing with these thinkers, the Christian has to take the time to reestablish why anything matters at all. With those hovering around the periphery, it might be relatively easy to lure them back onto the solid ground of commonsense founded on Christian absolutes; however, those at the heart of this movement churning out its lies and deceptions will be considerably harder to convince and will continue to ensnare unreflective minds.

It is in the campaign against this ongoing subversion that the Christian waging a defensive action to preserve the remaining shreds of moral sanity can get bogged down and neglect the distinctives of the Christian faith in favor of a less offensive set of principles common to various religions and ideologies shocked by the ethical brutality of the contemporary era.

Of the crop of books over the past few years by figures such as Bill Benet, Robert Bork, and James Q. Wilson that bemoan the decline in social morality, Hugh Hewitt writes in The Embarrassed Believer: Reviving Christian Witness In An Age Of Unbelief, “But there is no apologetic content to these writings. And they are mute on the ultimate question, they are ineffective. In fact, they might actually be harmful (154).” The Christian accomplishes little of lasting impact if the message is watered down to attract allies or spends inordinate amounts of time addressing the symptoms of the disease rather than the cause.

Ephesians 6:12 says, “For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities and powers, against spiritual darkness in high places.” The Christian is involved in a grand spiritual conflict all around him. As in all wars, weapons and tactics change over time as each side engages in a spiraling exchange of point/counterpoint as each side tries to best the other.

In the Modern era, the Christian utilized an apologetic appealing to a common respect for objective factual knowledge shared with the broader culture. However, in the change to Postmodernism, the Christian has had to alter the apologetic to show how life without objective truth is unlivable. From that point the Apologist can go on to show how what Francis Schaeffer termed “true truth” indelibly points towards Christ.

By Frederick Meekins

There are answers if you know where to look for them JOIN the Faith in Jesus Network

Doctor Who Tackles Transgenic Menace

As culture passes through various stages of technological development, the science fiction of a particular point in history often reflects the concerns regarding the horrors discerning intellects at the time feared could possibly be inflicted upon the earth should what is then considered new knowledge get out of hand. For example, throughout the 50's and 60's, speculative literature often focused on the impact of radiation as embodied by the origins of Spider-Man, the Incredible Hulk, and the Fantastic Four. 

Though these characters still remain at the forefront of popular culture, in some instances their origins have been slightly reinterpreted to reflect the concerns of the new generation of authors putting their own creative spins on them and to capture the imaginations of a contemporary fan base. For example, in the Spider-Man films, the arachnid conveying its abilities to an unsuspecting Peter Parker is no longer just an average one accidentally bombarded with radiation but rather one deliberately tinkered with at the genetic level that somehow escapes lab captivity.

Though tastes in entertainment may differ on both sides of the Atlantic, it is pretty safe to say that Doctor Who is a venerable sci-fi icon among fans irrespective of their country of origin. Even though I myself am a relatively new fan as classic episodes use to air well past midnight on the local PBS affiliate when I was a youth, much of the appeal of the crumble-coated space-fairing time traveler has been because of the unique manner in which the show's creators project ethical concerns against unique cosmic backdrops and circumstances.

For example, one episode of season three of the revived series dealt with the frustration those of us dwelling in urban areas have to contend with in the form of what seems to be unending traffic congestion. In this story, commuters on what was a second earth set millennia in the future literally spent much of their lives in contraptions that looked like a cross between a flying minivan and a cramped apartment where it could literally take years to travel just a few miles.

Tucked away between that amusing tidbit and a complete singing of "The Old Rugged Cross" that was rendered with such seriousness that one could see tears in the eyes of the characters was another narrative detail that just jumped out at the viewer in tune with where science and philosophy might be headed if concerned people of common sense don't soon put a stop to it. Though the geriatric lesbian couple was shocking enough, their risqué union seemed outdated and quaint in comparison to that between two of the other commuters the Doctor came across.

For in one of the vehicles was a regular looking human woman who was married to an individual half human and half feline in his physiology. As unsettling as that was, viewers were in for an even bigger surprise when the husband beams with pride to the wife and asks her to let the Doctor see the babies. The doting mother returns with kittens that sound like they are meowing “momma”.

The scene alone served as a startling warning of the future we might have to confront if a growing number in the Transhumanist movement have their way. For those whose news diet consists primarily of what gutter Lindsay Lohan puked in the night before, Transhumanism is the movement hypothesizing that human beings must move beyond the limitations inherent to our physiology if we are to proceed to the next stage in our development as a species. Transgenics would be a subset of this movement believing this goal is best accomplished by incorporating characteristics of other organisms into the human genome by essentially engineering an amalgamation on the molecular level of two distinct species.

Proponents of this ontological melding will respond that the family in this episode of Doctor Who was depicted in such a positive light that Transhumanism could easily be seen as a benefit or as at least ethically neutral. However, despite dancing gingerly around the topic in one episode, producers were more blatant in their concerns in the next.

In the episode "Daleks In Manhattan", the Doctor and rebound companion Martha Jones travel back to the Big Apple of the Depression Era. Here they encounter a bit of a mystery intertwining missing transients from a Central Park Hooverville and the construction of the Empire State building. From that point forward, the story begins to parallel events and developments here in our own time more than most of us would be willing to admit.

The Cult of Skaro (think the Dalek version of the Free Masons or Illuminati in that it has been alluded to that this group exists above and beyond the normal authorities of this species in order to facilitate long term reflection regarding galactic domination) co-opts the construction of the Empire State building to use as a genetics research facility. As part of their experiments, the Daleks kidnap the nearby homeless and meld the dimwitted among the captives with porcine DNA to create a hybrid slave race similar in appearance to Jabba the Hutt’s Gomorrean guards in “Return Of The Jedi” or the things that ran Bespin’s carbonite freezing chamber in “The Empire Strikes Back.”

Eventually, the Doctor stumbles upon these pigmen. Interestingly, the pigmen are told by their Dalek overseers to take the Doctor and the captives of higher intelligence to the TRANSGENIC laboratory.
While one may come across science fiction stories where some lunatic tries to create some kind of abomination by fusing together disparate species, seldom has one heard the word “transgentic” bantered about that freely. Viewers then learn that the pigmen are not an end in themselves but rather tests to work the kinks out so that the Daleks might merge with human victims since it has been concluded that such a step is necessary to bring about the next stage in Dalek evolution. From the process emerges a cycloptic monstrosity that even the other Daleks turn against as the result was anathema even anathema to their worldview of destruction and conquest summarized by their Naziesque catchphrase of “EXTERMINATE. EXTERMINATE.”

All well and good for a Friday night's entertainment, but what does this have to do with real life, the unsuspecting might ask. Quite a bit, actually.

For starters, along the fringes, one hears accounts of individuals abducted by nonhuman entities (the origins of which is not relevant to this line of argumentation as one band of researchers sympathetic to this reality claims such beings are biological hailing from elsewhere in the universe while another claims these beings are actually non-corporeal or the offspring of the biological and non-corporeal) for the purposes of amalgamating distinct orders of life.

And even if one does not buy into speculation regarding intelligent life beyond our own, one has to bury one's head deep in the sand to avoid talk these days about proposals to join man and animal on a genetic level. Not long ago, one could easily dismiss such conjecturing as the hyperactive imagination of those who have spent too many hours watching the Sci-Fi Channel. Now though, one sees an increasing number of credentialed scientists with the financial backing of industry, academia, and government that can actually ruin innocent human lives openly discussing these kinds of experiments that will potentially result in hybrid entities such as mice with physiologically human brains and human beings with the wings of birds.

Use to be one would imagine the likes of Dr. Frankenstein prowling around in some dank laboratory or at some ultrasecret government facility. However, now such advocates of deliberate biological deviancy proudly herald their position and hold conferences at prestigious universities where they act like you are the sicko if you don't have a smile plastered across your face about the plans for a generation of intentionally disfigured children.

Now one doesn't even have to turn to obtuse scientific journals printed in exceedingly miniscule typeface read only by a handful of eggheads that have not seen a hairbrush in years. One only needs access to a mainstream newspaper.

According to the Washington Post in a June 24, 2007 piece titled "Making Manimals" by Slate.com correspondent William Saletan, at the moment most efforts at joining human and animal DNA are reasonably modest such as transplanting baboon hearts and pig valves into human subjects in order to keep them alive. However, it would not take too much effort beyond what is possible now to dramatically expand the scope of these endeavors.

Saletan writes, "To make humanized animals really creepy, you'd have to do several things. You increase the ratio of human to animal DNA. You'd transplant human cells that spread throughout the body. You'd do it early in embryonic development so the human cells would shape the animals architecture, not just blend in. You'd grow the embryo to maturity. And you'd start messing with the brain. We're doing all of these things."

Though the author will admit to the general public what is going on, instead of condemning the things such practices might lead to, he turns around and condemns those condemning this technology by casting suspicions on them as those Evangelicals the Washington Post likes to categorize as "poor, uneducated, and easy to command."

Saletan concludes his remarks by saying, "If you want permanent restrictions, your best bet is the senator who tried to impose them two years ago. He's the same presidential candidate now leading the charge against evolution; Sam Brownback, a Kansas Republican. He thinks we're separate from other animals, 'unique in the created order'. Too bad this wasn't true in the past --- and it won't be true in the future."

If that is how the elites of the scientific establishment are coming to feel, that should give all of us hayseeds that happen to think there is something special about the human race cause for concern. For although Saletan and others like him try to make a laughing stock of those opposed to the hobo stew of species amalgamation by insinuating that, as with evolution, only buffoons oppose the process, they are approaching a truth that defenders of this technology may not want to touch. That truth is of course being that without evolution as an operational paradigm (as it is not an established fact at the macro level) transgencis would not be morally permissible.

For if human beings are not "unique in the created order" as the transgenic evolutionists who now hold sway in the halls of corporate, academic and government research now argue, then why should human beings be granted any special rights at all? And in some circles, we probably have even fewer rights as some of the shrill harpies in the animal rights movement who go into apoplexy over a smashed eagle’s egg are often the loudest banshees for the right to hack human babies to pieces.

Initially, these technologies and procedures will be marketed under the banner of medical progress and those opposed will be castigated for their lack of sympathy for the suffering just as those opposed to embryonic stem cell research were cast as being opposed to Superman ever walking again as in the case of Christopher Reeve. Saletan writes, "We're not doing these things because they are creepy. We're doing them because they are logical. The more you humanize animals, the better they serve their purposes as lab models of humanity. That's what's scary about species mixing. It's not some crazy Frankenstein project. It's the future of medicine."

However, it is not like this is where researchers will stop their work out of some reverence for the well being of human beings made in the image of God as this ideal has already been held up for condemnation and ridicule. As even someone as sympathetic to this research as Saletan writes, "When Stanford first head of the proposal for humanized mice brains, they were grossed out. But after thinking it over, they tentatively endorsed the idea and decided that it may not be had to endow mice with some aspects of human consciousness or some human cognitive abilities.” The British Academy and the U.S. National Academy of Sciences have likewise refused to permanently restrict the humanization of animals.

Thus, once the urge to use this technology for legitimate medical applications has reached its limit, there will be little there to prevent its use just a little more and then just a little more. After it is used to bring a handicapped or diseased person back to normal, what is to prevent it from being used to make a perfectly healthy person better beyond what a rational person steeped in Judeo-Christian morality would conclude were God’s initial intentions and specifications?

For example, successfully transferred neurons from an animal to help the paralyzed? All well and good, but if someone does not put a foot down somewhere, what is to prevent the Pentagon from calling up soldiers given the charge of an electric eel?

Ghouls in lab coats want to create such creatures no doubt so the can carry out Dr. Mengle-like experiments. Saletan writes, “Imagine that: a hominid brain network you can treat like a lab animal because it is a lab animal.” The same thing use to no doubt be said about Jews and Black folks in decades past with atrocious consequences.

It is claimed in a New York Times article by Nicholas Wade titled “Chimeras On The Horizon” that, given the 20-day gestation period of a mouse compared to the nearly nine months a human being is baking in the oven, it is doubtful human cognitive abilities would have time to develop. But how can anyone be absolutely certain? To this day, despite the number of books on the subject containing five inch words no average person could possibly pronounce, scientists and philosophers are still not sure of the exact link between the brain and mind, this conundrum so perplexing that it is called the mind/body problem.

In the Wade article, Richard Doerflinger of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops provides probably the soundest advice: “If something were half human and half animal, what would our moral responsibilities be? It might be immoral to kill such a creature. It’s wrong to create creatures whose moral stature we are perplexed about.”

Many times, the unaware viewer sits back and thinks many of the things seen in science fiction could never become a reality. However, if things continue on their current pace, it won’t be long until such tales join the historical chronicle of what has already transpired rather than as a depiction of where things might be headed.

by Frederick Meekins