Pages

Wednesday, June 15, 2011

Prophecy Article Today: 3 Article update ”-Koinonia House


  BIBLICAL PROPHECY TODAY NETWORK

 Biblical Prophecy Today   Biblical Prophecy Today   Biblical Prophecy Today   Biblical Prophecy Today

 BIBLICAL PROPHECY TODAY with KOINONIA HOUSE 

 

Every day We Post Perspectives in Prophecy

(BiblicalProphecyToday@gmail.com)

(google: "Biblical Prophecy Today")

NOW ON FACEBOOK PAGE HERE

"Articulating Prophecy Biblically"

 

 Prophecy Article Today  

"Answering the Questions in Prophecy Biblically"

 


**ARTICLES AND COMMENTARY**

THE GRAND CANYON FORMATION - ALTERNATE THEORIES - (Print) 

 

The Grand Canyon is a geological wonder, a vast chasm stretching 277 miles west to east through northern Arizona. The canyon offers one of the best geological cross sections in the world, with nearly 30 distinct layers found from the bottom to the top; its mesas, buttes, colorful slopes and spires illustrate the geological story of the great American southwest. School children are fed a simple tale about how the canyon was formed, but as any honest geologist will admit, nobody knows exactly how it got there. 

The true cause of the Grand Canyon is still hotly debated among geologists, and all recognize there's no solid answer. There are too many missing pieces. The basic park ranger explanation is that the Colorado Plateau - 130,000 square miles covering northern Arizona, southern and eastern Utah, western Colorado and northwestern New Mexico - began to rise up 50-70 million years ago, causing the existing Colorado River to downcut. After millions of years of steady uplift, the Colorado River carved out the Grand Canyon. The higher the plateau rose, pushed upward by magma from deep in the earth, the more powerful the erosional forces of the river proved to be. 

The Colorado River was tamed a great deal when the Glen Canyon Dam was finished in 1966. The dam controls the flow of the river now. The Colorado's flashfloods once carried boulders the size of VW Buses, and it transported an estimated 160 million tons of sediment every year, scouring the canyon bottom. Still, many people consider the vast expanse of the Grand Canyon and despise the Colorado as an underfit river, one that could not have possibly hauled out all the necessary sediment. 

A Few Puzzles:
The simple explanation does have serious geological issues. The Colorado River flows into the Gulf of California – the Sea of Cortez - which contains sediments from geologically young Pliocene layers - not older layers.  It appears that the eastern part of the Grand Canyon is much older than the western part of the Grand Canyon, but nobody knows exactly what happened. 


The western end of the canyon is fairly young. Local sediments come from the Basin and Range area to the west of the Canyon and are from Miocene layers. No river could have carved through there until after the Miocene. There's also no evidence that an older Colorado River ran through the Grand Wash Cliffs at the western end of the canyon. There is therefore an upper Colorado River system to the east that did not originally continue west of the Colorado Plateau. 

Alternate Theories:
The first thought, of course, is that the deposits were carried away by a different route. Perhaps the canyon was carved by a river that flowed down through Marble Canyon through what is now the Little Colorado River, draining into the Rio Grande. According to the theory, another small but steep and vigorous river rushed westward across the Basin and Range. It moved eastward by headward erosion until it ran into the upper Colorado. It "captured" the Colorado , caveman style, and the two married and carved the Grand Canyon in 4-6 million years, dumping into the Sea of Cortez like today. 


There's a problem there, though. The Continental Divide would have prevented the Little Colorado River from reaching the Rio Grande, and the sediment evidence is not there. 

Some argue that the old river flowed south at Peach Springs Canyon, until the river burst through whatever blocked the way to the western part of the Grand Canyon. Some argue that the Colorado Plateau tipped one way and then the other as it rose so that the Colorado River flowed in the opposite direction. Some argue the river flowed underground, or flowed northwest, draining into lakes in Nevada and Utah. 

The deposits to prove these drainage systems haven't been found.  That's part of the problem; there is a lot of data that is just plain missing.

A Breached Dam:
According to one theory, two major lakes formed in the so-called Bidahochi Formation to the east of the current day Grand Canyon. The Colorado River overflowed the basins of the Colorado Rockies, filling the vast Hopi Lake and Grand Lake to the east. When the natural dam holding back the lakes broke, they gushed down, tearing out the soft limestone and sandstone layers of the Grand Canyon. With a rupture in the Kaibab Upwarp, the Colorado River changed course and followed the fissure down through what is now the western end of the canyon and south into the Gulf of California. In other words, the Colorado did not really cause the Grand Canyon at all, it merely followed the easiest path down to the Sea of Cortez after the Canyon had been formed.;


The breached dam theory has an interesting bit of support from the legends of the local tribes. More than 500 Native American sites in the Grand Canyon park indicate that significant populations lived in the vicinity throughout history.  In his video Grand Canyon, part of the Great National Parks series, Dan Goldblatt refers to a Navajo legend about the formation of Grand Canyon. In the full story, it rained in the land for many days. It rained so much that waters rose high over the tops of the mountains. After the rain stopped, whatever was holding back the waters broke, and the waters rushed down and carved out the canyon. 

Young Earth geologists like Steve Austin believe that these great lakes were leftover from the Flood of Noah.  When the natural dam that held them broke, the waters ripped through the Kaibab Plateau with a fury. If the lakes were quite large - three times the size of Lake Michigan, by some estimates - the erosion would not have had to take the millions of years that geologists would have expected. 

In the end, the scientists will keep battling it out. Only God knows exactly how that fantastic crevasse in the earth was formed, but every bit of information adds to the tremendous fun of figuring out the mystery.

 

Related Links:

• The Breached Dam Theory - Advanced Creationism
• Sedimentation in the Colorado River delta and Upper Gulf of California After Nearly a Century of Discharge Loss - Marine Geology
• The Grand Canyon as a Creationist Clock - University of South Dakota
• The Mystery Of The Pre-Grand Canyon Colorado River: Results From The Muddy Creek Formation - GSA Today
• The Muddy Creek Formation at the Mouth of the Grand Canyon: Constraint or Chimera? - USGS
• Making Sense of Grand Canyon's Puzzles - The New York Times

 

TORNADOES, SOCIALISM, AND CLIMATE CHANGE - (Print) 

 

Animal rights activists picketed the elephant rides at the San Diego County Fair in Del Mar on Sunday because they said the elephants were being mistreated. People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) and Animal Defenders International (ADI) point to a video of the elephants' being beaten, hooked with bull hooks and shocked. The elephants' owners responded that they themselves are animal activists, and they care about the ethical treatment of their elephants. Elephant co-owner Kari Johnson said the activists "cut the film to take everything out of context and make it look far worse." She said, "PETA doesn't know anything about the treatment of elephants. They just don't want animals in the hands of people at all." 

Save the animals. Save the earth. Somewhere in the middle of it there may be somebody who wants to save the people. We'd hope. 

NASA's website offers of a variety of charts showing basic indicators of climate change. We see rising carbon dioxide levels (100 parts per million since 1950), rising surface temperature levels (.9oC since 1880), shrinking arctic sea ice levels (2 million square km since 1979), and rising sea water levels (20 cm over 130 years). Climate change aficionados trumpet the need to make new laws to clamp down on carbon dioxide emissions, and those who balk and say, "the temperature has risen one degree!" are eviscerated in the media. 

The International Energy Agency (IEA) recently released data that shows a dip in carbon dioxide emissions about the time of the 2008 financial crisis. Since then, though, carbon dioxide levels have again risen, and the 2010 COconcentrations are higher than ever before. (Apparently, the global economy has improved.) The colder winters are blamed on climate change. The tornadoes are blamed on climate change. The humidity on the east coast is blamed on the Gulf of Mexico, which has experienced climate change. 

Despite the haranguing of global warming zealots, climate change talks got off to a sluggish start in Bonn, Germany on June 6. The next Conference of the Parties (COP) in Durban, South Africa is this December, and the two weeks of talks in Bonn are just a precursor.

Discussions about how to deal with climate change just do not inspire great excitement. The countries that are the worst polluters don't want to do anything about it, because changing direction would mean hurting their industries. Carbon dioxide levels may be up, but that doesn't mean that anybody's economy is stable. 

Saving the earth has long been the religion of certain groups of people. They approach the salvation of the planet with the relish of a Pentecostal, insisting that if something is not done about carbon dioxide emissions now, we are all going to hell in a handbasket. 

Justine McGill wrote in The Sydney Morning Herald on June 10: "If the message of climate change is that we are sinners, responsible for a massive crime against humanity and the environment, then it is little wonder that some people react by rejecting climate change as fiction, and others become fervent in declaring their exemplary willingness to make personally purifying sacrifices to atone for it." 

The green movement might get along faster if legislators put aside the need to use the environment as a means to gain control of the world. It is a perfect excuse for shackles. We all need to live on this planet; there aren't any other ones ready to move to. We are all culpable for the destruction that we cause. However, as President of the Czech Republic Vaclav Klaus warned "environmentalism with its 'Earth First' arguments represents 'Leviathan Two' [and is a] menace which may become even more dangerous than old socialism." 

Mr. Klaus noted that socialistic environmentalists support "an old doctrine which is based on the wrong conclusion that the more complex the world is, the more government intervention, regulation and control [is required]." 

Ed Feulner writes in The Washington Times, "Indeed, 'green' has become the new red." 

We all want to avoid massive state control in the name of the environment. We want to avoid the treatment of human beings as parasites who have no real business existing on the planet. 

At the same time, the very first job that God gave to humankind was to take care of a Garden. God told Adam to manage things, and if God watches every sparrow that falls (Matt 10:29), it is likely He did not intend for Adam to destroy everything he touched. We do need to manage things well. 

Deforestation of the rain forests really is a problem; once the trees are gone they don't grow back. The high rainfall in the Amazon region leaches all the nutrients out of the soil, quickly making the ground useless for crops and leading to desertification. That's a problem. As we noted last week, water use is a problem. We need to manage our water resources wisely, or we're going to be in trouble. It's something we can all pay attention to without having to be strong-armed by a global government system. 

The U.S. Department of Justice on Monday announced that Hecla Mining Co., of Coeur d'Alene, Idaho, will have to pay $263.4 million plus interest as part of the cleanup of the millions of tons of toxic mining wastes that were released into the South Fork of the Coeur d'Alene River in the Silver Valley over the years. The lawsuit has been going on since 1991. Hecla wasn't the only culprit. The EPA has been trying to clean up the Silver Valley since the 1980s, and anybody who drives through that part of Idaho understands why. The world's longest gondola climbs up to the Silver Mountain Ski Resort over Kellogg, Idaho, and the first part of the journey sweeps over what has been the most ugly, brown, dead valley you'd ever want to see. Since several of the mines and the smelter near Kellogg shut down, the air has cleared and trees have finally started to grow back on the barren mountainsides. That's good. 

There needs to be some balance. We do not want the environment to become our god or an excuse for socialistic control. However, we need to be wise about our stewardship of resources; we want to have healthy forests and clean air and water to drink in a hundred years. We need to make wise management choices, caring for both humans and elephants. The needs of ravens do not supersede everything else, but God does care about them too (Luke 12:24).

"Thou art worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honour and power: for thou hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they are and were created." - Rev 4:11

 

Related Links:

• Climate Change Indicators - NASA 
• Hecla Will Pay $263M To Settle Case - AP
• Animal Rights Activists To Protest At San Diego County Fair Today - City News Service 
• Climate Change Issue Bothers Believers And Pagans Alike - The Sydney Morning Herald 
• Slow Start to Bonn Climate Talks Gives Way to Progress - ICTSD 
• Vaclav Klaus' Life Under Communism Informs His Appreciation Of Freedom - The Washington Times

 

ISRAEL VS. THE BULLIES (Print) 

 

It appears that President Barack Obama did not mean what he said in his speech at the annual meeting of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) on May 22. That is, he didn't mean any of the things he said on Israel's behalf. In that speech, for instance, Obama had declared that Israel could not be expected to negotiate with Hamas until Hamas decided to give up its goal to destroy Israel. 

Basic things. 

Now, the White House is pressuring Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to go to the bargaining table with Israel's enemies, as they are, to keep the UN from declaring a Palestinian state in the fall. And yes, Obama still wants Netanyahu to agree to use the 1967 borders as a starting point. 

Obama's proposal in his May 19th speech had suggested that Israel and a Palestinian state should exist side by side based on the 1967 borders with mutually agreed land swaps. The issues of Jerusalem and refugees were not the immediate concern and would be addressed later. 

The Palestinians have agreed to return to the peace table on the basis of Obama's proposal, according to Palestinian envoy Saeb Erekat. And why not? The US moved a lot of negotiation ground in their favor. 

Netanyahu, though, flatly rejected the idea that Israel should accept the 1967 borders as a basis for negotiations, and the Obama administration and much of Europe have been miffed ever since. 

According to an inside Israeli source, the US is frustrated with Netanyahu's stand. On Friday, The US National Security Council's Middle East head, Steve Simon, told American Jewish leaders that the US expected a reply from Netanyahu in one month regarding the Obama Administration's proposal to restart talks. One European diplomat sided with the US saying, "We want to hear Netanyahu say he's willing to negotiate on the basis of Obama's speech and that he'll discuss borders based on the 1967 lines with land swaps." 

The whole thing is ridiculous. The Palestinians are in no position to start talks. Fatah is still in a unity government with Hamas. Hamas is a terrorist group that would like nothing better than to beat Israel to death with a fiery cosmic cricket bat. After Hamas won parliamentary elections in 2006, the Quartet (the US, Russia, the European Union and the UN) gave Hamas three conditions to be allowed to be a part of the game; recognizing Israel, renouncing terrorism and accepting past peace accords. Hamas has done none of the above, and Israel therefore has no reasonable negotiating partner. With whom do Steve Simon and these European diplomats expect Israel to drink tea and chat? 

According to Obama's own words less than a month ago, Israel should not be expected to enter into peace talks right now. Obama told AIPAC on May 22 that Israel could not be expected to negotiate with Hamas if Hamas did not even recognize Israel's right to exist. In his speech, Obama said, "We will continue to demand that Hamas accept the basic responsibilities of peace, including recognizing Israel's right to exist and rejecting violence and adhering to all existing agreements." 

Hamas not improved in the past three weeks, and now Mahmoud Abbas and Fatah have turned their backs on the Oslo Accords. In a sudden reverse, the Obama Administration appears to be pressuring Israel to sit down with people who won't stick to past agreements and don't recognize Israel's right to exist. The President is in fact handing the Palestinians a huge gift by making the 1967 borders the beginning ground for negotiations on the weak argument that it's necessary in order to stop the UN from declaring a Palestinian state this fall.

Did the United States lose veto power in the UN? Did we miss that somehow? 

Jennifer Rubin quoted a GOP advisor in The Washington Post as saying, "If the administration really wanted to, it could pressure the Quartet to formally oppose the Palestinians' unilateral move at the U.N. and nip the whole issue in the bud in a long weekend. Clearly, they would rather use this situation to box Prime Minister Netanyahu into a false choice between unilateral statehood and '67 borders. The Congress will reject this false choice and so should the PM." 

In the meanwhile, Netanyahu recently returned from a visit to Rome, where Italian premier Silvio Berlusconi had already agreed to stand with Israel against any UN resolution to create a Palestinian state by fiat. At a news conference, Netanyahu spoke directly to the real issue - the UN resolution. He pointed out that such a move by the UN would be counterproductive. 

"First, it would violate the agreements between the Palestinians and Israel but it would also harden the Palestinian position because if the UN General Assembly adopts the Palestinian positions in advance of negotiations why should they negotiate?" Netanyahu said. 

"Peace will only come from negotiations. It will be a negotiated peace. It cannot be imposed from the outside, not by any power and certainly not by one-sided UN resolutions," he said. 

Netanyahu's office said it was "unaware of any American pressure or ultimatum." 

The US and Europe may be miffed, but Prime Minister Netanyahu is doing a good job of standing his ground. He has some bullies to stand up to, and he needs to continue to do so solidly and wisely. We pray that the God of Israel will continue to protect him and direct him and give him true wisdom.  We pray the Holy Spirit will give the leaders of Israel direction and guidance as they navigate the dirty waters of international politics.

 

Related Links:

• Netanyahu Under Pressure to Accept Obama's Peace Plan - Palestine News Network 
• Netanyahu Warns Palestinian Bid For Statehood Could Harm Peace Efforts - Haaretz 
• Obama Bullies Israel; So Much For Promises At AIPAC - The Washington Post
• U.S. Pressuring Netanyahu To Accept Obama's Peace Plan - Haaretz 
• Fatah Nominates Fayyad To Lead Unity Government, Hamas Rejects - English.news.cn 

 Yes! Jesus is Coming!


 

Thursday, June 2, 2011

Prophecy Article Today: “Cyborgs of 2011” -Chuck Missler


  BIBLICAL PROPHECY TODAY NETWORK

 Biblical Prophecy Today   Biblical Prophecy Today   Biblical Prophecy Today   Biblical Prophecy Today

 BIBLICAL PROPHECY TODAY with KOINONIA HOUSE 

 

Every day We Post Perspectives in Prophecy

(BiblicalProphecyToday@gmail.com)

(google: "Biblical Prophecy Today")

NOW ON FACEBOOK PAGE HERE

"Articulating Prophecy Biblically"

 

 Prophecy Article Today  

"Answering the Questions in Prophecy Biblically"

Cyborgs of 2011



The future is closing in. We would never have fathomed 25 years ago having need for an entire four gigabytes of memory, and now we carry around this massive byte-prowess on a flash drive hooked to our key rings.  Beyond mere computer memory, the stuff of science fiction is seen with increasing frequency.  Sure, Luke Skywalker lost his hand and received a life-like prosthetic 31-years-ago, but that wasn't real. Mark Hamill the actor didn't actually get a bionic hand. It was just a movie.  That sci-fi dream, however, may be getting closer to coming true.  Between new robotics and medical technology, people are finding machines that can return to them abilities robbed from them by severe injury. Just like Luke Skywalker's prosthesis or Iron Man's suit, humankind is making greater personal use of mechanical parts to replace lost limbs. 

Bionic Hands:
While visiting his childhood home of Serbia a decade ago, "Milo" skidded off his motorcycle and slammed into a lamppost, severely injuring his shoulder. Ten years and several surgeries later, Milo finally was given some ability to move his arm, but the 26-year-old man's right hand remained paralyzed. After Viennese surgeon Professor Oskar Aszmann hooked up Milo to a hybrid bionic hand, though, giving him a "test drive", Milo decided to have his useless physical hand amputated and replaced with a prosthesis. 

This particular prosthesis, however, is no normal plastic limb; it truly verges on science fiction. Manufactured by the German prosthetics company Otto Bock, Milo's bionic hand can actually pick up signals from the brain and use them to pinch and grab. The sensors which pick up the signals do not even have to be directly attached to nerves. They can pick up signals from nerves in the forearm just by being placed on the skin above. The same movements in Milo's real hand would have been sparked by the same nerve impulses that now control the prosthesis. 

"The operation will change my life. I live 10 years with this hand and it cannot be (made) better. The only way is to cut this down and I get a new arm," Milo told BBC News prior to his surgery at Vienna's General Hospital. 

Milo is not the first to take this bionic leap. A 24-year-old Austrian named Patrick was the very first to have Professor Aszmann amputate a useless hand and replace it with a bionic one. A year later, Patrick can tie his shoelaces and open a bottle, a joy after having had three years without the use of his hand because of a work-related injury.

"I can do functions which I did with my normal hand with the prosthetic arm," he said. "I think it was very cool - I did not do things with my hand for three years and then you put on the new hand and one moment later, you can move it. It's great." 

The hands are limited in what they can do. There is so far no individual finger movement, for instance. The new hand Patrick is testing has six sensors instead of two, which the manufacturers say will give him a greater range of movement. 

Graduating Cyborg: 
On the other side of the world, paraplegic Austin Whitney recently used an exoskeleton to walk across the commencement stage at UC Berkeley and shake the hand of Chancellor Robert Birgeneau, to the ecstatic cheers of the crowd. 

"Ask anybody in a wheelchair; ask what it would mean to once again stand and shake someone's hand while facing them at eye level," Whitney said. 

Four years before, shortly after graduating from high school, Whitney had gotten into a car after having a few drinks and ended up pancaked into a tree, his spine severed above his hips. After his accident, Whitney stopped drinking and now tours high schools to tell his story. 

After transferring to UC Berkeley from a community college, Whitney found a robotics team already in place busily designing exoskeletons. The research started as a Defense Department project to help soldiers carry heavy loads. The research has gone on to develop exoskeletons for people who cannot walk, and last October their company Berkeley Bionics unveiled E-Legs for use by rehabilitation centers. 

The exoskeleton Whitney wore to his graduation is not up to Iron Man capabilities yet. It requires a walker or crutches, and without a miniature Tony Stark arc reactor to power it, a power pack. However, Whitney was instrumental in testing the machinery and offering suggestions for its improvement, and it gave Whitney the opportunity to walk across that stage for his diploma. 

Twenty-five years ago, everyday computers were slow and klunky. Today, we can slip a computer massively more powerful than a Commodore 64 into our jacket pockets, guaranteed that it has thousands of times more memory than the 64 kilobytes of that home computer of the 1980s. The bionic efforts of today are still slow and klunky, but they offer a technology in the future – perhaps not so distant – in which paralysis need not be permanent. Whether for good or otherwise, the human mind may one day directly control machines with finesse.

Related Links:

  •   Exoskeleton Lets UC Berkeley Grad Take A Huge Step - San Fransisco Chronicle
  •   Bionic Limbs Are No Longer Science Fiction - ABC12
  •   Bionic Hand For 'Elective Amputation' Patient - BBC News


 Yes! Jesus is Coming!


 

Wednesday, June 1, 2011

Prophecy Article Today: “(UN)NATURAL: THE ETHICS OF TRANSGENICS” -Steve Elwart


  BIBLICAL PROPHECY TODAY NETWORK

 Biblical Prophecy Today   Biblical Prophecy Today   Biblical Prophecy Today   Biblical Prophecy Today

 BIBLICAL PROPHECY TODAY with KOINONIA HOUSE 

 

Every day We Post Perspectives in Prophecy

(BiblicalProphecyToday@gmail.com)

(google: "Biblical Prophecy Today")

NOW ON FACEBOOK PAGE HERE

"Articulating Prophecy Biblically"

 

 Prophecy Article Today  

"Answering the Questions in Prophecy Biblically"

 

(UN)NATURAL: THE ETHICS OF TRANSGENICS

by Steve Elwart, Senior Analyst Koinonia Institute
  

And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so. And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

Genesis 1:11,12 (KJV)

God is the author of all life. It was He who created every kind of thing, living and non-living. He designed every living thing, using the building blocks of DNA. This begs the question, “Is it right for Man to be modifying God’s design with Genetic Engineering (GE)?”

Some would say that using biotechnology to modify the basic components of human life is an abomination. Using Genetic Engineering (GE) to alter a species is a violation of God’s order of things. Others would say that GE is actually complementing God’s design, something Man has been doing for thousands of years.

What Is Genetic Engineering?

Genetic engineering is the collection of techniques used for different purposes: to isolate genes; to modify genes so they function better; to prepare genes to be inserted into a new species; and, to develop trans-genes.

The process of creating a transgene includes isolating a gene from the tens of thousands of other genes in the genome1 of a species. Once that gene is isolated, it is usually altered so it can function effectively in a host organism. That gene is then combined with other genes to prepare it to be introduced into another organism, at which point it’s known as a transgene.

A transgenic organism, sometimes called a chimera,2 is one that contains a transgene introduced by techno-logical methods rather than through selective breed-ing.

Transgenics

Transgenics allow scientists to develop organisms that express a novel trait not normally found in the species; for example, a type of rice known as golden rice has elevated levels of vitamin A. Scientists have also developed sunflowers that are resistant to mildew and cotton that resists insect damage. Possible transgenic combinations can be broken down generally into three categories:

1) plant-animal-human combinations;

2) animal-animal combinations; and

3) animal-human combinations.

An example of a plant-animal-human transgenic combination would be one in which the DNA of mouse and human tumor fragments is inserted into tobacco DNA. The harvested plants contain a potential vaccine against non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma.3

Other transgenic plants have been used to create edible vaccines. By incorporating a human protein into bananas, potatoes, and tomatoes, researchers have been able to create prototypes of edible vaccines against hepatitis B and cholera.The vaccines are proving to be successful in tests on agricultural animals and humans.

GE in the Supermarket

Recombinant DNA technology, or gene-splicing, has been used for a number of years now to supplement our diets. Most of the corn, soy and canola grown in the U.S. is genetically engineered with molecular techniques.

More than 80% of the processed food in our super-markets contains ingredients from genetically engineered crops. In North America alone, there are currently more than four dozen GE foods and crops being grown. Consumers have eaten more than three trillion servings of food that contain ingredients from genetically engineered plants.

The Chinese are investing heavily into biotechnology research to increase their crop yields. The government has focused on their internal priorities to in-crease domestic yields at lower costs to farmers.

Genetically engineered pest-resistant cotton, for ex-ample, comprises nearly half of all cotton grown in China, and the savings in pesticide and fertilizer applications have cut costs by 28 percent and raised the average small farmer’s annual income by $150, according to a study conducted by researchers from the University of California at Davis and the Chinese Academy of Sciences.

Dangers of GE

The problem with GE is that this biotechnology can quickly run afoul of the Law of Unintended Consequences. GE foods are viewed by many as inherently unpredictable and dangerous for humans and for the future of sustainable and organic agriculture. As Dr. Michael Antoniou, a British molecular scientist points out:

...gene-splicing has already resulted in the unexpected production of toxic substances...in genetically engineered bacteria, yeast, plants, and animals, with the problem remaining undetected until a major health hazard has arisen.

Opponents fear GE foods could trigger the emergence of new diseases due to the use of viruses and bacteria to modify some GE foods. These new diseases could be resistant to antibiotics. GE foods:

• Raise the risk of developing cancer;

• Trigger food allergies as a result of a food that causes allergies in some people being placed in an-other organism;

• Harm the ecosystem by removing a pest that could be an important source of food for another animal; and

• Can be toxic to an organism and lead to its extinction.

It took a Chernobyl in the Ukraine and a Fukushima in Japan for people to understand the unrealized dangers in nuclear energy production. Is it possible that the ecological implications of genetically modified organisms will remain unaddressed for many years and that only God’s design itself—not its scientists’ perceptions—will one day reveal the true impact of GM organ-isms on the environment?

Recent experiments in the UK have shown that the GM crop plants tested for survival in the wild were no better adapted than non-GM crop plants. However, there is some concern that transgenes in GM plants may spread to other wild plants and create weeds that are more difficult to control.

This danger has been recognized. It is considered unwise to introduce herbicide tolerant genes into rice where red rice is a weed and into sorghum where Johnson grass (Sorghum halepense) is a weed. Outcrossing to these important weed species could invalidate the use of herbicides to control them.

Higher Life Forms

While there are concerns about genetically engineering crops, there are further concerns about genetically engineering higher life forms.

This year, scientists have successfully introduced human genes into 300 dairy cows. The result has been for the cows to produce milk that have the same properties as human breast milk.

Researchers believe that the milk from these cows will serve as an alternative to human breast milk and baby formula, which is seen as inferior to mother’s milk.

 

The genetically modified cows are not without problems. Researchers accept the fact that the technology used to genetically modify the cows can affect the development of the cloned animals. In this case, the cows suffered a 38% mortality rate within six months of their birth.

Critics of the technology are very concerned that the cause of their deaths are unknown and there are no estimates to the risks of whatever killed the cows being passed onto the humans that drink the milk. Helen Wallace, director of biotechnology monitoring group GeneWatch UK, said:

We have major concerns about this research to genetically modify cows with human genes. Ethically there are issues about mass producing animals in this way.

A Slippery Slope

Besides the obvious clinical problems with GE in plants and animals, there are ethical ones as well. Many people ask where all this will lead. A major objection to Genetic Engineering is that once you design a new genetic makeup for plants and other forms of life, there is no logical place to stop.

Even if the intent at first is to correct a genetic defect, once that is done, there is no logical reason to avoid using this technology for eugenic5 purposes. Few would disagree that diabetes, cancer and sickle-cell anemia are diseases worth eradicating, but what is to keep us from saying that color blindness, left-handedness, or small stature are “disorders” to be corrected by GE?6

Modifying God’s Creation

There is the moral question of whether man has the right to tamper with the natural order of things. God gave man dominion over “fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.”7 The question today, though, is does that give Man the right to modify God’s creation?

One of the greatest fears raised about genetic engineering comes for the concern for those who do not “measure up” in the Brave New World. If we can modify children to avoid certain inherited traits, will those same traits become future liabilities?

Will having red hair (or no hair for that matter) make you a “second-class citizen”? Will people with be-low average IQs now be expendable? Will they be forced to undergo forced sterilization as has happened in the past? Above all, who will be given the authority to decide these things? Will we cede these choices to the government as we have so often recently? These are very disturbing and very real possibilities.

While sounding like something out of science fiction, these types of decisions are being practiced today in regard to the unborn among us.

 If an unborn child has a debilitating genetic defect, the mother is strongly encouraged to abort the child. Not only can pressure to abort be applied by the doc-tor and the family and friends of the pregnant woman, but social sanctions can be imposed to do the same.

Professor Allen Verhey, who teaches Christian Ethics at Duke University, wonders if health insurance plans in the future will refuse to pay for the care of a Down syndrome child whose problems could have been predicted and prevented by abortion.

Suggestions along this line are already being made and are a real danger in socialized medicine.

In support of such policies, in January 1978, Sir Francis Crick, codiscoverer of DNA and a Nobel laureate, was quoted in the Pacific News Service as saying:

...no newborn infant should be declared human until it has passed certain tests regarding its genetic endowment and that if it fails these tests it forfeits the right to live.8

Another issue concerns the “dignity of persons.” GE involves experiments and procedures that can be detrimental to the health and even life of an individual. It is therefore argued that any procedures that would violate the freedom, dignity or integrity of persons are wrong.

Examples of these procedures would be the commercial use of embryos, the mixing of human and non-human genetic material, and cloning. As theologian Carl Henry says about appropriate uses of these technologies:

Whatever tends to overcome what would be deterioration in the created order and seeks to restore what God purposed in Creation is on far safer grounds than all kinds of novel and experimental enterprise.9

These procedures can tend to dehumanize Man by reducing him to nothing more than a complex of chemicals. Even now, unborn children are called “tissue.” They are no longer recognized as human beings.

Also, as we learn more about the architecture of man, we find that our physical makeup is governed by more than a single gene that can be turned on or off like a light switch. They are complex in and of them-selves and are dependent on a host of environmental factors.

A Call for Ethics

So where does this leave us in regard to the morality of Genetic Engineering? As in many things, some uses of GE may be moral and others immoral. The technology per se is not immoral any more than the Inter-net or television is immoral. It is Man’s use of it and his motivation that is at issue.

If we attempt to thwart God’s power for our own personal gain, then the use of genetic engineering cannot be condoned. Also, for whatever reason, if the use of the technology is for eugenic purposes or to create biological weapons, it is clearly immoral.

As Christians we must be the “Watchmen on the Wall” in regard to the use of this technology. We should question—loudly—technology and techniques that might lead to hasty or untested results. We need to provide a moral compass to assure that the results of genetic engineering do not degrade the integrity of Man nor make a mockery of God’s creation.<<<

* * *

Any questions or comments can be directed to:

Steve.Elwart@studycenter.com.


 Yes! Jesus is Coming!