Other Title: Rosie the Riveter U.S. National Archives' Local Identifier: NWDNS-179-WP-1563 From: Series: War Production Board, compiled 1942-1943 (Record Group 179) Created by: Office for Emergency Management. War Production Board. (01/1942 - 11/03/1945) Coverage Dates ca. 1942 - ca. 1943
Synthesizing Life to Mimic the Creator
Recent headlines like “
Scientists Create First 'Synthetic' Cells”, “
U.S. scientists create the first artificial life” and “
A step toward artificial life; man-made DNA powers cell” all report of what J. Craig Venter is presenting as a “
land mark achievement”. Venter, a genome pioneer, has synthesized a goat germ genome, 1.1 million “letters” of DNA, and has transplanted it into a “close cousin” living cell of another species. The transplanted genome is said to “booted up” the cell to produce proteins that are only found in the copied germ. This is similar to what was accomplished a few years ago when Venter transplanted the genetic code (genome) of a goat germ (bacteria) and turned it into a cattle germ (another kind of bacteria). The significant difference of what is happening today is that Venter has assembled or synthesized a genome from left over DNA laboratory fragments as opposed to simply copying a genome to transplant into another living cell, etc. In light of this, it appears, we are getting one step closer to creating life. In regards to Venter,
The Daily Mail reports, for example, “the path is open for him to alter the 'recipe' to create any sort of organism he chooses.” Oxford University ethicist, Professor Julian Savulescu states “'He is not merely copying life artificially or modifying it by genetic engineering. He is going towards the role of God: Creating artificial life that could never have existed.'
Benefits from Synthesizing Life
Potential legitimate purposes that could possibly stem from synthesizing cells ranges from an ability to produce clean bio-fuels; benefit healthcare via producing medicines and vaccines as well as benefiting the environment, for example, by creating bacteria that can consume carbon dioxide or toxic waste. Ethicists, on the other hand, foresee potential downfalls or a Pandora’s Box, if you will, that can be derived from synthesizing life. As a precaution per unforeseen dangers that may result from synthesizing life, President Obama has directed for the
Presidential Commission for the Study of Bioethical Issues to study the matter at hand. At the same time as this, others note potential havoc that may be waiting to happen if genetically engineered germs accidentally find their way out of labs and into the world, not to mention potential havoc genetically engineered germs may pose if they or this technology falls into the wrong hands and is used as a weapon.
“Creating Life” is Ambiguous
“Creating life” is an ambiguous phrase to say the least. The ability, for example, to create life from literally “nothing”, in the same manner as God, is far from man’s “creating life” abilities. Irrespective of front page headlines espousing scientific breakthroughs or ethicists proclaiming from the roof tops that we are approaching the roles of God, the ability to create life is not really news at all; it was given in the garden. Man is made in the likeness and image of God and in so doing, he was given dominion over “every living thing that moves on the earth” along with the command to “Be fruitful and multiply” (
Genesis 1:28). God is sovereign and if we are making strides in bio-engineering it is only happening through God’s will. As Paul would say a ‘la
1 Corinthians 4:7, what are we bragging about? We only have what we have received. That is not, however, to say that we have been given permission to be careless with this technology, etc. It is to say, however, that in no way does Venter’s accomplishment suggest that we have unlocked the secret to creation and have elevated ourselves to god-like status in that we can create whatever we want at will. Not all scientists, for example, have the opinion that Venter’s accomplishment is the “land mark achievement” that some have made it out to be. From the
Seattle Times, we read;
“Some scientists said that aside from assembling a large piece of DNA, Venter had not broken new ground.” To my mind Craig has somewhat overplayed the importance of this," said David Baltimore, a geneticist at the California Institute of Technology. He described the result as "a technical tour de force," a matter of scale rather than a scientific breakthrough. "He has not created life, only mimicked it," Baltimore said.”
Baltimore is not alone in his assessment of the magnitude or lack thereof pertaining to Venter’s work. Scientists also say that Venter’s work is more of a technical accomplishment than anything else. To put things into perspective, it is pointed out;
“the new cell can be viewed as an organism with a synthetic genome, not as a synthetic organism.” With this in given light, it appears that the media itself may be guilty of playing on the all too ever ready sentiments of the secular post modern evolutionary worldview mindset that is “wanting” or awaiting for the day when we can claim a role that is one step closer to that of God – please refer back to the headlines as noted earlier as a sample of how the media is doing this, etc. Venter himself, however, has admitted we haven’t gotten to the point of being able to assume the roles of God;
'We have often been asked if this will be a step too far,' he said. 'I always reply that - so far at least - we are only reconstructing a diminished version of what is out there in nature.' - Venter
So as it is, we are taking what is already available in nature and assembling building blocks according to the prescribed guidelines that are intrinsically interwoven into the fabric of nature. In other words, we are using material that God has made and are rearranging it according to the rules that God has put in place to make a different variety of a “kind”. It is important to emphasize that we are making different varieties of a kind and NOT new kinds the same as evolution teaches. All Venter is doing, for example, is converting one kind of bacteria into another kind of bacteria. Coming forth from their own kind is completely Biblical and does not violate the Biblical account in Genesis where we are told that animals came forth from their own kinds. Evolution, on the other hand, teaches that through that magical element of “time” that a “kind” can be converted via evolution and formed into another or different “kind”. If Venter, for example, had mimicked evolution instead of what we really observe in nature; instead of seeing one kind of germ being changed over into a different kind of germ, we would see a germ transformed and changed, for example, into a complex amino acid. In other words, we would see one kind (a germ) changed over into a different kind (a complex amino acid); but this is not what he did and already I have seen a comment on another blog saying how Venter’s work was going to “debunk” the Creationist’s “heresy.
The Start of New Trends
I found it odd to see such a churchy word like “heresy” used in the context of biology. Given that evolution is a religion, however, it completely stands to reason as to why or how a traditional theological term can and will be used in the context of biology. Don’t be surprised if this trend starts to catch on and traditional theological terms start to become as much of a staple in the realm of biology as they already are in theology and apologetics. If this does happen, however, remember you heard it here first.
Another trend that may be on the horizon is patenting new life forms. This may sound crazy but before you dismiss it, please consider that Venter has already applied for patents pertaining to his work. This in of itself isn’t really all that unusual considering that he has, through his company Synthetic Genomics,
$40 million dollars invested in research per se. Venter, however, has recently acquired a contract with Exxon to make biofuel from algae. The bacterium that Venter’s team has worked with, however, is not suitable for biofuel production and the team will be moving on to “more suitable organisms”. In the comment section below the article that mentions this deal, a gentleman makes an observation and concludes that since Venter “removed” genomes and has made it different from the original species that it could be classified as a new species. Also given that the organism that Venter created also has the ability to self-replicate, it may reasonably meet guidelines and be considered to be a “new life form”. If (and this is a big “if) the powers at be deem it appropriate to classify Venter’s production as a “new” species and considering that said organisms that Venter produces are manufactured per his patented work then Venter may very well be able to patent the “new species” he creates. This is all very speculative and by no means am I a patent lawyer so there very well could be instrumental aspects pertaining to this that I’m not aware of that could make the whole proposal null and void. If it becomes possible to make a “new species”, if you will, then I don’t know why organisms can’t be classified as a commodity the same as any other “recipe” that is created and associated with a brand and marketed accordingly. Given the context of Venter and his contract with Exxon, the organisms created for the production of biofuels for Exxon could possibly carry an associated trademark and differentiate it from other organisms that a competitor, for example, may use for their biofuels in the future.
Reasons to Create
As it stands today, only time will reveal what God will ordain and will allow to take place with Venter’s work/production of “synthetic” life. It is interesting to note of motives involved and how they play out accordingly. Before the creation, however contrary to popular belief, God was completely satisfied within Himself. God is in no need of anything and did not create the universe, the heavens, earth and man because He was lonely and needed a companion. The Triune God is eternal, He is love, and He is I Am. If it is fair or accurate as to give a reason as to why God created life, we can say per scripture that He did so that He may be our God and that we may be His people and that He does according to what pleases Him according to His will after His own council and with this, He so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son so that who ever believes in Him would not perish but have everlasting life (
Leviticus 26:12;
Ephesians 1:5,
1:11;
John 3:16). To sum everything in a brief but concise statement; God created life out of love.
As mentioned earlier, man was given the ability to create life in the Garden. It is only recently with the advent of technological advancement along with scientific understanding that man has been able to branch out and create life via the prowess of his intellect and technological savvy. Unfortunately, however, man’s intentions with creating synthetic life aren’t as righteous and holy as God’s reasons. Although there are potential benefits with creating synthetic life that can be found in and through the creation of new biofuels, medicines as well as possible solutions to cleaning up the environment, not to mention the healthy profit that may be acquired through return on investment (ROI); there are also reasons that are more self-serving based in pride and arrogance. Futuristic benefits are only briefly mentioned in all of the pieces I read while researching Venter’s work. The real emphasis, however, is placed on the implications of what has actually happened through the creation of synthetic life. With Venter’s accomplishment of producing an organism with a synthetic genome; we see desires of wanting to debunk creationism, hope that Venter’s work will promote evolutionary “beliefs”, hopes of assuming a larger role in the Universe – most notably acquiring the ability to take upon the role of God and assume a larger role as a “creator”. Venter’s work inspires some of us perhaps to the point to where we may want to proclaim;
'I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will make myself like the Most High.' –
Isaiah 14:14
If we continue to pursue with the creation of synthetic life and do so in a manner that does not glorify God but to do as such so that we are to be glorified then we are in essence denying God and have become like our father the devil by and through the desires we have to exult ourselves and rob Him of His glory;
"You are of your father the devil, and you want to do the desires of your father. He was a murderer from the beginning, and does not stand in the truth because there is no truth in him. Whenever he speaks a lie, he speaks from his own nature, for he is a liar and the father of lies." – John 8:44
Conclusion
The truth is that God is the one and true creator. If we create anything it is because its ability has been given to us along with the materials to do so. We are using material that God has made and are rearranging it according to the rules that God has put in place since the beginning according to His sovereignty. Stripping a cell of its DNA and substituting it with a makeshift strand you made from various fragments you had in a lab is far from creating life in the same fashion as God – the true creator of life. The stories pertaining to Venter’s work are quick to shout of the accomplishment, benefits and implications that we can derive from Venter’s work but isn’t so quick to point out and highlight the scientists that are out there telling us that we may want to use our inside voice because Venter has only mimicked life and hasn’t really created a synthetic organism but an organism with a synthetic genome. There is a huge difference between what has actually happened and the hope of what might happen. We should continue to put our faith, trust and hope in the Lord God almighty and cease with trading the truth for a lie and use all of our efforts, for whatever they may be, to glorify God.
May it all be for His glory,
WCD
