Ethics Impacted when Creature Plays Creator

As anyone who pays attention to the origins controversy is probably aware, atoms-to-atheist evolution is far more famous than biblical creation science. Evolution is not simply a biological discussion, but a worldview that is diametrically opposed to biblical creation.

Scientists are not ethical monoliths. Some have cheated and committed fraud to advance their careers and profit. Atheists have no consistent moral foundation, and some even appeal to evolution for morality. Humans want some kind of freedom outside of the Creator's boundaries like a goldfish desires freedom outside the tank.

Girl and cyborg, Pixabay / Gerd Altmann (geralt)

Christians hear the word doctrine quite often, but it is not a "religious" word. A doctrine is a set of principles in a framework that is given for belief or practice. There are military, political, and other doctrines. Although it is not likely to be found in a book of Christian doctrines, we need to consider the doctrine of creatureliness. The word creatureliness was not made up by the author of the article featured below.

There is an old saying that has some truth in it: There is a God, and you are not him.

Humans function best when they stay in their environments, and also when they realize that they are not self-created. We need to get in touch with the Creator and follow his guidance in his written Word so we can function in our spiritual environment. Secularists kick at the goads and want to be their own gods. It was not surprising when a scientist ignored ethical limits in human experimentation and gene editing. Secularists need to be lassoed and taught to respect God's framework for ethics and morality.

From gene editing to brain implants to multi-parent embryos, technologies that raise major questions for humanity’s future have been emerging at breakneck speed. Concerns abound that scientists are introducing these questions faster than ethicists can answer them. But what if in Scripture, the answers we need for ethically navigating the biotechnological revolution have been available all along?

Genesis alone contains enough relevant insights to fill entire ethics books, with an especially central teaching being the doctrine of creatureliness. This teaching states that humans are not self-creators but creatures in a given and good (although fallen) creation.2 The following discussion argues that this doctrine not only bears major ethical implications but also offers wisdom for approaching new biotechnological issues in ways that optimize human flourishing. Parts One and Two unpack the doctrine of creatureliness in contrast to evolutionary views. Part Three identifies the scientific, moral, and practical implications of this doctrine. Finally, Parts Four and Five apply the doctrine of creatureliness to ethically evaluate two areas of biotechnology: human enhancement and artificial reproduction.

I urge you to spend about half an hour and read "Why Creation (Really) Matters for Thinking About Ethics."