Consequences of the Human Genome Project

[Confused]

In the Feb 2007 issue of National Geographic, an article was written about a conversation between Francis Collins (head of the Human Genome project, author of "The Language of God", and a Christian) and John Horgan (Science writer and author of "The End of Science" and "Rational Mysticism", and an Agnostic). One issue posed went like this:

Horgan: Some scientists have predicted that genetic engineering may give us superhuman intelligence and greatly extended life spans, perhaps even immortality. These are all possible long term consequences of the Human Genome Project and other lines of research. If these thing happen, what do you think would be the consequences for religious traditions?

Collins: That outcome would trouble me. But we're so far away from that reality that it's hard to spend a lot of time worrying about it, when you consider all the truly benevolent things we could do in the near term.

Is this not what Einstein might have thought when he learned what his famous contributions to science led to?

http://www.answers.com/topic/albert-einstein
Einstein played a key role (1939) in mobilizing the resources necessary to construct the atomic bomb by signing a famous letter to President Franklin D. Roosevelt which had been drafted by Leo Szilard and E.P. Wigner. When Einstein's famous equation E mc2 was finally demonstrated in the most awesome and terrifying way by using the bomb to destroy Hiroshima in 1945, Einstein, the pacifist and humanitarian, was deeply shocked and distressed; for a long time he could only utter "Horrible, horrible." On April 18, 1955, Einstein died in Princeton.

For debate:
In the explosion of genetic research now being done, the immediate and future ramifications of such research, is it justifiable to think that the position Collins takes in that the immediate benefits are what is important, not the possible future disasters that could result, such as with Einstein?

If genetic engineering does reach the potentials that some scientists currently believe it could, what would be the ramifications for religious ideology? If science can find a way to alter genetics that may be found to play roles in behavior so as to eliminate the negative traits and enhance the positive traits, it would illustrate the effects of morality as physiological as opposed to theological thereby negating religious morality. Would faith disappear into the night, or would we still find a way to evolve God/religion to fit this new issue to still make Him the reason for it?

[Greatest I Am]

Science will never be stopped and indeed should not be stopped.

Man as always will be the deciding factor as to whether new technologies are used for good or evil.
Probably for both.

The effects on Religion like in the past , will help to further our thinking on good and evil.
Take stem cells. Have they not advanced our thinking on the soul.

Things will progress as they should. Thank God.

Regards
DL

[Confused]

Science will never be stopped and indeed should not be stopped.

Man as always will be the deciding factor as to whether new technologies are used for good or evil.
Probably for both.

The effects on Religion like in the past , will help to further our thinking on good and evil.
Take stem cells. Have they not advanced our thinking on the soul.

Things will progress as they should. Thank God.

Regards
DL

I don't think stem cells are even relevant to the soul. On the contrary, I would say that it is the "religious moral" interpretation of stem cell research that stunted the progress we could make with such research. That would give credence to religion interfering with the advancement of science and the advancement of technology.

[Greatest I Am]

Science will never be stopped and indeed should not be stopped.

Man as always will be the deciding factor as to whether new technologies are used for good or evil.
Probably for both.

The effects on Religion like in the past , will help to further our thinking on good and evil.
Take stem cells. Have they not advanced our thinking on the soul.

Things will progress as they should. Thank God.

Regards
DL

I don't think stem cells are even relevant to the soul. On the contrary, I would say that it is the "religious moral" interpretation of stem cell research that stunted the progress we could make with such research. That would give credence to religion interfering with the advancement of science and the advancement of technology.

Science lives in man's political nature. Religion live in man's spiritual nature.
We tend to believe and strive to keep them separate. I do not think we can. As the lines of these two natures get closer at the end of days, the debates must bring us into a point where only God can keep thing in their proper place.

Everything is relavent to the soul.

Regards
DL

[Ncik666]

I've always believed the only future choice for humankind is genetic engineering. It is unlikely that we will be able to develop in time before a disaster, lets say mars, enough for human life. If we could engineer humans that need less oxygen and are better adapted to extreme temperatures then we could save the human race. Thats a far flung example but you get the idea. The fact that incilin (sp) is usually made from altered bacteria is another example. I see problems but the benefits by far outweigh them.

[Confused]

Science will never be stopped and indeed should not be stopped.

Man as always will be the deciding factor as to whether new technologies are used for good or evil.
Probably for both.

The effects on Religion like in the past , will help to further our thinking on good and evil.
Take stem cells. Have they not advanced our thinking on the soul.

Things will progress as they should. Thank God.

Regards
DL

I don't think stem cells are even relevant to the soul. On the contrary, I would say that it is the "religious moral" interpretation of stem cell research that stunted the progress we could make with such research. That would give credence to religion interfering with the advancement of science and the advancement of technology.

Science lives in man's political nature. Religion live in man's spiritual nature.
We tend to believe and strive to keep them separate. I do not think we can. As the lines of these two natures get closer at the end of days, the debates must bring us into a point where only God can keep thing in their proper place.

Everything is relavent to the soul.

Regards
DL

Ok, I humored your last post. Now, if you care to actually address the OP question, great. If you want to analyze it using pure rhetoric or philosophy with no real foundation in science, go to the philosophy forum and start a new thread.

[Confused]

I've always believed the only future choice for humankind is genetic engineering. It is unlikely that we will be able to develop in time before a disaster, lets say mars, enough for human life. If we could engineer humans that need less oxygen and are better adapted to extreme temperatures then we could save the human race. Thats a far flung example but you get the idea. The fact that incilin (sp) is usually made from altered bacteria is another example. I see problems but the benefits by far outweigh them.

Given the nature of our society to take positive advances in science and technology and turn them into negatives that are used against humanity, can we really say that the positives will far outweigh the negatives in the future. Did the positives outweigh the negatives for the discovery of splitting atoms that led to the atomic bomb. How about the alternate fuel sources discovered leading to the nuclear warheads or nuclear reactor disasters that have occurred?

[Greatest I Am]

I've always believed the only future choice for humankind is genetic engineering. It is unlikely that we will be able to develop in time before a disaster, lets say mars, enough for human life. If we could engineer humans that need less oxygen and are better adapted to extreme temperatures then we could save the human race. That's a far flung example but you get the idea. The fact that insulin (sp) is usually made from altered bacteria is another example. I see problems but the benefits by far outweigh them.

Given the nature of our society to take positive advances in science and technology and turn them into negatives that are used against humanity, can we really say that the positives will far outweigh the negatives in the future. Did the positives outweigh the negatives for the discovery of splitting atoms that led to the atomic bomb. How about the alternate fuel sources discovered leading to the nuclear warheads or nuclear reactor disasters that have occurred?

I would say that even the splitting of the atom has saved more lives over all, than what the a bombs has taken. Yes a lot of lives were lost but who knows what wars we would have fought without the threat of mutual destruction.

Further, x-rays have saved how many. Irradiated food will feed how many, etc.

Regards
DL

[Confused]

I've always believed the only future choice for humankind is genetic engineering. It is unlikely that we will be able to develop in time before a disaster, lets say mars, enough for human life. If we could engineer humans that need less oxygen and are better adapted to extreme temperatures then we could save the human race. That's a far flung example but you get the idea. The fact that insulin (sp) is usually made from altered bacteria is another example. I see problems but the benefits by far outweigh them.

Given the nature of our society to take positive advances in science and technology and turn them into negatives that are used against humanity, can we really say that the positives will far outweigh the negatives in the future. Did the positives outweigh the negatives for the discovery of splitting atoms that led to the atomic bomb. How about the alternate fuel sources discovered leading to the nuclear warheads or nuclear reactor disasters that have occurred?

I would say that even the splitting of the atom has saved more lives over all, than what the a bombs has taken. Yes a lot of lives were lost but who knows what wars we would have fought without the threat of mutual destruction.

Further, x-rays have saved how many. Irradiated food will feed how many, etc.

Regards
DL

So the ends justifies the means?

[Goat]

I've always believed the only future choice for humankind is genetic engineering. It is unlikely that we will be able to develop in time before a disaster, lets say mars, enough for human life. If we could engineer humans that need less oxygen and are better adapted to extreme temperatures then we could save the human race. That's a far flung example but you get the idea. The fact that insulin (sp) is usually made from altered bacteria is another example. I see problems but the benefits by far outweigh them.

Given the nature of our society to take positive advances in science and technology and turn them into negatives that are used against humanity, can we really say that the positives will far outweigh the negatives in the future. Did the positives outweigh the negatives for the discovery of splitting atoms that led to the atomic bomb. How about the alternate fuel sources discovered leading to the nuclear warheads or nuclear reactor disasters that have occurred?

I would say that even the splitting of the atom has saved more lives over all, than what the a bombs has taken. Yes a lot of lives were lost but who knows what wars we would have fought without the threat of mutual destruction.

Further, x-rays have saved how many. Irradiated food will feed how many, etc.

Regards
DL

So the ends justifies the means?

I would say that no.. it has nothing to do with ends and means at all, but rather knowledge is a tool that can be put to good use, or it can be put to bad use.

A hammer can drive a nail into a board to build a house, and it can be used as a blunt trauma instrument against someone's cranium. The hammer does not care, it just is.