The humanzee; imagination gone wrong

A major concern of the decades to come will be that of genetic engineering. We might be able to get better look at this if we consider one of the more extreme of the projects some people have in mind.

Quotes and comments;
1. 'Even the progressive Scotsman newspaper seemed alarmed at experiments being proposed to breed human-animal chimeras. Dr. Callum MacKellar, from the Scottish Council on Human Bioethics, warned that little is stopping rogue scientists from inseminating a chimpanzee with human sperm in an attempt to produce a “humanzee.” After all, they’ve bred a liger (lion + tiger) zorse (zebra + horse), wholphin (whale + dolphin), lepjag (leopard and jaguar), and zonkey (zebra + donkey). The attempt of mating a human and an ape may not work, but it is within the range of possibility the offspring could be born alive. “Dr MacKellar said the resulting creature could raise ethical dilemmas, such as whether it would be treated as human or animal, and what rights it would have.” [1.]

- My immediate thought (or fear almost) was 'if this succeeded, would it disprove the biblical account of creation? I don't know the answer to this question. I can't imagine such an experiment working however. If apes are (as I believe) a separate kind I can't imagine this will work. I don't think 'inventions' such as the liger prove anything more than that these were originally one kind. (Having said that, these 'creations' don't exist in the wild as far as I know, as it's man who likes playing these kinds of demented games, not the animals involved. Man is ever the pervert, and has a fatal twist in his spine.)

- I remember reading of one fool who thought a 'humanzee' would be great; it would be a way to spit on creationists. (I suppose he meant it would disprove Genesis.)

2. 'Consider the statements of Professor Hugh McLachlan, professor of applied philosophy at Glasgow Caledonian University's School of Law and Applied Sciences. He couldn’t find an ethical pole star to prevent it. “If it turns out in the future there was fertilisation between a human animal and a non-human animal, it’s an idea that is troublesome, but in terms of what particular ethical principle is breached it”s not clear to me,” he said. “I share their squeamishness and unease, but I’m not sure that unease can be expressed in terms of an ethical principle.” [2.]

- That eloquently expresses the bankruptcy of the Materialist and the Evolutionary worldview. These people have no idea how to answer ethical questions. They can't answer them because they have no foundation for doing so. In rejecting god they reject ethics.

- For an answer we can go back to Genesis. God brought all the animals to Adam to have him name them; 'and he found none that was a suitable partner for him.' Here we see why these experiments are wrong. God made Adam a suitable partner in Eve. Although modern experiments wouldn't (I assume) use human victims, like experiments that took place in the early decades of the twentieth century did. This would be adultery, if nothing else.

- "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.'' (Would men like to have this done to them? Obviously not; therefore it's wrong to do it.)

- Is there a direct injunction against this in the Bible? I can't think of one. The laws against 'mixing' come to mind... but I don't see anything there really. I guess you could say there's a law against mixing seeds, but again I don't think there's anything solid or applicable.) (I have to admit to a fascination about these laws against mixing, but I won't bother anyone with that here.)

- Has man turned science into a god by doing this? Is this a rejection of god in that it's really an attempt to disprove genesis; no matter what the 'scientists' might say. (Any rejection of God comes under the injunction of not worshipping other gods.) Is this idolatry? I would think so.

- I think a good case could be made for saying there isn't a law against it; or that the only law against it is that it's insane.

- The bible tells us to praise god in all we do, to be thankful in all we do; to be grateful always... I think the humanzee enterprise would violate all of these commandments.

- We're told to glorify god in all that we do; that wouldn't be the case here. Man is trying to play god... and trying to bring glory to himself, not to god.

- The whole subject of genetic engineering, is a major problem for people in our day, and it's just coming into focus. If the progress in technological innovation continues... it's going to be a Huge problem. The trouble is that tech is run almost entirely by materialists, and they have no way of addressing the problem. The answer as I see is Creation; the fact God created the world and all that's in it. Man was giving the task of protecting what god had made. (To 'keep' the garden means to protect it, in the sense of guarding it against intruders and against harm.) Man still has this task. He is not only to protect the world but to protect god's image in the world. In regards to the subject at hand I see this to mean we are to protect the creation against those who would do unnatural things with it. (eg. trying to create humanzees) I think it's utterly wrong to create new life forms (ie. new kinds of beings) I think any 'humanzee' would be a violation of man's duty to protect the creation. (Man is to be a steward of the creation; not a usurper of the creation.) I draw a line between trying to undo the harm done by mutation, and the engineering of new products. (e.g. through gene splicing) There is no need to do engineer new products; this is a project meant to create money and fame. There is absolutely no need to do any of this.

- In my opinion materialists don't have ethical principles for anything; principles that are founded in reality. (The hint is the word principles; not moral absolutes, not truth, etc. No one has to obey a principle; this amounts to violating opinion.) The physical universe can't provide moral truths, so the materialist, if he's honest to his worldview, can have nothing to say about ethical matters. (In reality there are no ethical concerns, if all is matter; as you can't make the jump from matter to morals. Moral law isn't physical, therefore it doesn't even exist to the consistent materialist. He sits there and scratches his chin, but that's as far as he gets. (In a recent book an author asked, ''Why are some educated, intelligent people 'fundamentalists?" This gives you a hint.)

- We see here an illustration of why man needs a transcendent source for his conduct. While I think it's true that there is no direct injunction against such things as manufacturing a 'humanzee' it is still clearly wrong from a biblical view. (I've given the reasons above.) If you reject biblical Christianity then indeed you are left without any real reason to oppose such things. As I've said before, there's a terrible price to be paid for rejecting God and His word.

Notes;
1.Darwinian Ethics Launch Unexplored Blessings or Curses; Creation/Evolution Headlines; 04/30/2008
2. 'Half man, half chimp - should we beware the apeman's coming?' By Jenny Haworth
3. The tales of Cordwainer Smith are filled with such abominations as the proposed (drooled over) humanzee. They feature cat people and dog people and many others. (The collection called 'The best of Cordwainer Smith' is one of the most disturbing books I've ever read.) I don't think he approved of any of the engineering he described, but I do think he saw it all as inevitable. Sadly I tend to agree, but who can say; men actually migth become wise enough to reject such a temptation as this.