Human Clone Births

Linda mandated:

"Don't come along and say, well, if it's regulated and men only use it carefully."

With your permission I'd like to further explore the possibilites of human cloning. Just because mankind perverts technology, does that mean certain forms of technology should be outlawed? All we have to do is recall the Dark Ages and we get an idea of what happens when pastors and politicians prevent advancement.

Nuclear bombs! Bad! Are you sure? Think of how many wars it has prevented. Think of how many democracies were saved and created because NATO and the UN had enough nuclear muscle to talk down aggressive nations, such as the former USSR, and not to mention Iraq.

The biblical principles that Linda cited do not suggest that God wholesale forbids cloning plants, animals or human beings. Most of the food we eat today is the result of hybridization. Many of the animals are the result of specialized breeding. Why not improve the human gene pool through carefully constructed cloning?

P.S. Please resist the urge to bash me because I'm willing to explore this topic. Thanx.

I've had enough science in college to not be terribly concerned about cloning, as I don't see it doing what people in general imagine. Just because we can artificially manipulate some gene's and chromosomes doesn't mean we have the key to life. I don't assume that if I make a clone of myself, that clone will have my own consciousness of being. It is not really a way of being immortal and does not cheat death. We each are given our unique, individual window out in the world. No one's consciousness of being, or window, is shared by another, tho God has each within His all-encompassing, eternal consciousness. This is THE most important concern of humans: whether or not you can be alive forever, or non-existent forever. And cloning seems to point at that, tho only points...does not arrive. I'm not extremely outraged nor impressed other than that the world needs to find ways to restrain population instead of increasing it.

As it was in the days of Noah!!!!!!!!!!!!! Well it is for sure here....

Thank you Linda for your post

Again I have to just sit and shake my head....and say again...you have to be joking...I am sorry you say you are not. God help us all.

Whether it is right or wrong, we should be able to back it up by the Bible and/or the SOP. That to me is a proper response to any topic.

I am aware that the cross-breeding of humans and animals was an abomination as that seems to be clearly stated as Linda posted, but how can we show through the Bible and/or the SOP that cloning is just as sinful?

I understand it to be wrong, however, I must confess that I haven't yet done a thorough study on it so that I can back it up from the Bible and the SOP. If I can be shown differently, then I am open to accepting it differently.

How many of us have studied it thoroughly?

Perhaps, now is as good a time as any to do just that.

Mike: Can you back up what you are saying?

And those on the other side of the issue: Can you back up what you are saying?

Selected Messages Book 3, page 452, paragraph 3
Chapter Title: Appendix C (W.C. White)
REGARDING THE TWO PARAGRAPHS WHICH ARE TO BE FOUND IN SPIRITUAL GIFTS AND ALSO IN THE SPIRIT OF PROPHECY REGARDING AMALGAMATION AND THE REASON WHY THEY WERE LEFT OUT OF THE LATER BOOKS, AND THE QUESTION AS TO WHO TOOK THE RESPONSIBILITY OF LEAVING THEM OUT, I CAN SPEAK WITH PERFECT CLEARNESS AND ASSURANCE. THEY WERE LEFT OUT BY ELLEN G. WHITE. NO ONE CONNECTED WITH HER WORK HAD ANY AUTHORITY OVER SUCH A QUESTION, AND I NEVER HEARD OF ANYONE OFFERING TO HER COUNSEL REGARDING THIS MATTER.

S.D.A. Bible Commentary Vol. 1, page 1086, paragraph 2
Chapter Title: Genesis
18. Amalgamation Brought Noxious Plants.--Not one noxious plant was placed in the Lord's great garden, but after Adam and Eve sinned, poisonous herbs sprang up. In the parable of the sower the question was asked the Master, "Didst not thou sow good seed in thy field? how then hath it tares?" The Master answered, "An enemy hath done this." All tares are sown by the evil one. Every noxious herb is of his sowing, and by his ingenious methods of amalgamation he has corrupted the earth with tares (MS 65, 1899 [published in F. D. Nichol, Ellen G. White and Her Critics ]).

The Spirit of Prophecy Volume One, page 69, paragraph 1
Chapter Title: The Flood
But if there was one sin above another which called for the destruction of the race by the flood, it was the base crime of amalgamation of man and beast which defaced the image of God, and caused confusion everywhere. God purposed to destroy by a flood that powerful, long-lived race that had corrupted their ways before him. He would not suffer them to live out the days of their natural life, which would be hundreds of years. It was only a few generations back when Adam had access to that tree which was to prolong life. After his disobedience he was not suffered to eat of the tree of life and perpetuate a life of sin. In order for man to possess an endless life he must continue to eat of the fruit of the tree of life. Deprived of that tree, his life would gradually wear out.

The Spirit of Prophecy Volume One, page 78, paragraph 2
Chapter Title: The Flood
Every species of animals which God had created was preserved in the ark. The confused species which God did not create, which were the result of amalgamation, were destroyed by the flood. Since the flood, there has been amalgamation of man and beast, as may be seen in the almost endless varieties of species of animals, and in certain races of men.

F.D. Nichol examines closely the "amalgamation" statements by E.G. White in the following link:

http://www.whiteestate.org/issues/amalg.html

Clearly the ability to clone species of plants, animals and humans is a sign of the time. "As it was in the days of Noah." Although it looks as though we have a little ways to go yet before we are duplicating the accomplishments of the antediluvians.

But just as there are good and bad applications of anything, depending on how it is used, so there must be good and bad ways of cloning. Neither the Bible nor Ellen White said cloning technology or amalgamations are wrong in and of itself, rather inspiration condemns the misuse of it.

More good than bad has been done by altering certain plant and animal species. God instructed mankind to, "Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth." Gen 1:28.

The hebrew word Kabash, translated "subdue" in Genesis 1:28 means:

1. to subject, subdue, force, keep under, bring into bondage
a. (Qal)
1. to bring into bondage, make subservient
2. to subdue, force, violate
3. to subdue, dominate, tread down
b. (Niphal) to be subdued
c. (Piel) to subdue
d. (Hiphil) to bring into bondage

The hebrew word Radah, translated "dominion" in Genesis 1:28 means:

1. to rule, have dominion, dominate, tread down
a. (Qal) to have dominion, rule, subjugate
b. (Hiphil) to cause to dominate
2. to scrape out
a. (Qal) to scrape, scrape out

Reference: http://www.studylight.org/isb/bible.cgi?query=ge+1:28&it=kjv&ot=bhs&nt=na&sr=1 [note: click on "Side-by-side]

[ December 31, 2002, 01:38 PM: Message edited by: Mike Lowe ]

Seems I read somewhere that one reason E.G.W. decided to leave out the part about amalgamation was because some understood it to mean animals were crossed with humans. Maybe the evil anteluvians in league with Satan were able to do that via science we have lost. But crossing humans with animals now will not result in a fetus or even fertilization. Nor will the crossing of any widely separated animal kinds near the Genus level. "Each shall reproduce after it's kind" is a very consistent law of nature God set in motion at the Creation. If you allow that one species can change into another, you join with the evolutionists, which E.G.W certainly did not want to do, or even appear to. But variations within the Genesis "kind" are possible, which is why we have all different kinds of cats from tiger to housecat. But Satan, and perhaps wicked scientists before the flood, tampered with genes to make some very radical changes within a species. They were able to take creatures God created and alter them into the carnivores, with carnivore guts, teeth, and instincts. It's really amazing how much an animal brain is like a specifically programmed computer chip. The animal "obeys" it's programming with the same reliability as a computer. I believe Satan, or evil scientists, developed some of God's creatures into T-Rex. If you don't believe in evolution, as I don't, something like that might be how they came to be. I don't believe God would create a man-eating dinosaur. Also, the cave men could have been the result of tampering with human genes to cause a branching off from the nobel Homo Sapiens, in an effort to degrade God's work. They lived at the same time as normal humans, not prior. Most likely Ellen White meant Amalgamation of beast and then the amalgamation of humans. They almalgamated (mutated) beasts to make horrible beasts, and then mutated humans to degrade them in Cavemen types. Amalgamation was probably her word for the current word, "mutation." Nowadays wicked nations and their scientists devise nuclear warheads run by computers, but maybe in the 2000 years before the flood, those superior humans tried to conquer rival groups via the terribly mutated animals they could use against eachother, all under Satan's mastermind. Now, it seems Satan abandoned that and turned to mutating the tiniest creatures into death-dealing agents, in the many bacteria and viruses that keep getting worse and worse. I'm not saying I know a lot, but I'm just trying to reason things out with respect to basic science as well as the Bible story, with emphasis on the Bible.

Linda wrote:

"I find it incredible that an Adventist minister thinks that human cloning is permissible when even secular scientists are pushing for its ban in the US as it has been banned in several other countries!"

Avalee wrote:

"Again I have to just sit and shake my head....and say again...you have to be joking...I am sorry you say you are not. God help us all."

Please, please, please. Can we discuss this topic without condemnation?

Restin, the following F.D. Nichol link answers the questions about E.G. White's use of the word amalgamation:

http://www.whiteestate.org/issues/amalg.html

I agree that cloning humans at this point is premature. Not enough research and experiments with animals have been conducted. However, once the precedures are perfected with animals, I personally don't see why it would be considered unethical or unwise to clone human beings.

Here is an extract from teh F.D. Nichol link I posted above:

Mrs. White says that "since the flood" there "has been amalgamation of man and beast," and adds that the results may be seen in (1) "almost endless varieties of species of animals," and in (2) "certain races of men." There are several important conclusions that follow from this passage:

1. Mrs. White speaks of two clearly distinguished groups that testify to this amalgamation. There are (1) "species of animals" and (2) "races of men." There is no suggestion that there were species part man and part animal. But how could there be amalgamation of man with animal and the result be anything else than hybrid man-animal species? She does not even hint of subhuman monsters or caricatures of man. On the contrary, as just noted, she speaks unequivocally of "species of animals" and "races of men." She does not single out or name any particular race as bearing the evidence of this amalgamation.

2. Mrs. White speaks of the "almost endless varieties of species of animals" that have resulted from amalgamation. Now it has been suggested that Mrs. White in the matter of amalgamation reflected the thinking of those who believed the fiction of man-animal crosses. If we rightly understand that fiction, as it has been wafted through the centuries by the winds of credulity, a few large, mythical creatures of antiquity were supposed to have resulted from a union of man with animals. And these creatures were always supposed to reveal both human and animal features. But there is nothing in the ancient fiction that supported the idea that "almost endless varieties of species of animals" were the result of an unnatural cross of man with animals. Mrs. White is here certainly not expressing an ancient, mythical view. Not even the credulous pagans, wholly devoid of biological knowledge, would have thought of entertaining such an idea. How much more reasonable to interpret the passage to mean that these "almost endless varieties of species of animals" resulted from an amalgamation of previously existing forms of animal life!

3. Mrs. White calls upon the reader to look about him for proof of what she is saying. In other words, whatever this amalgamation has been, its fruitage is evident today. "As may be seen," she says, "in the almost endless varieties of species of animals, and in certain races of men." But can anything be "seen" in our day that would provide support for the ancient myth of beast-men? Certainly there is nothing in the savage races of some remote heathen lands that even suggests a cross between man and animals. And if the most degraded race of men does not suggest such a cross, much less do any species of animals suggest it. But the results of the amalgamation of which Mrs. White speaks "may be seen" by the reader.

Her reference to the amalgamation of man and beast after the Flood is talking about the almost endless varities of species that exist now which did not go into the Ark. Obviously she isn't talking about the high tech kind of cross speciation the antedulivians used to create dinosaurs.

In other words, only a few kinds of canine, for example, went on the Ark. But since the Flood man has cross bred canines, and other species of animals, so that there are numerous new kinds of species that did not originally enter the Ark.

[ January 01, 2003, 12:24 PM: Message edited by: Mike Lowe ]

Wouldn't the donkey (ass) be an example of amalgamation of animals?

Maybe you mean the mule, Daryl?

When species cross, they usually are unable to breed.

I disapprove of cloning for a couple of reasons. Firstly, the reason to clone is a selfish one. It is never for the benefit of the cloned person that they are brought into existence. That in itself isn't enough, as we have children naturally for selfish reasons all the time. But a cloned human can't ever breed or have a normal life, certainly under the technology we have today. Since clones are always female (as far as I know it isn't possible to clone a male), the sterility could be psychologically damaging, particularly if that person's life had not been a happy one otherwise. Knowing they'd been dragged onto the planet with full knowledge of the physical issues for them would be terrible.

The other is our level of research right now. We don't know enough. What we do know is that clones don't live as long as normally conceived creatures. That's a terrible thing to do to a human. If in the future there was a way to alter both these consequences, then what difference would it make to God re the person's salvation, as to the way they were conceived?

I thought the amalgamation thing meant animals were amalgamated, and humans were amalgamated, but not with each other. That's what the White Estate implies. Or have I missed something?

Amalgamation: Ellen G. White Statements
Regarding Conditions at the Time of the Flood

By Francis D. Nichol

(Adapted from his book Ellen G. White and Her Critics, pp. 306-322)

In the summer of 1864 the "Steam Press of the Seventh-day Adventist Publishing Association" at Battle Creek, Michigan, published a three-hundred-page Ellen G. White volume entitled "Important Facts of Faith in Connection With the History of Holy Men of Old." This was the third of a four-volume series carrying the general title of Spiritual Gifts.

In this work the narrative of the early history of the world is presented, commencing with "The Creation" and carrying down to the giving of the law to Israel, these matters, as the author states in her Preface, having been opened to her in vision.

In Chapter 6, entitled "Crime Before the Flood," Mrs. White in describing the deplorable conditions which led to the catastrophic destruction of the world, speaks of the amalgamation of man and beast. In the next chapter there is another similar reference. Occasionally inquiry is made as to just what Mrs. White did write in this connection and what her statements meant, and why they are not found in her later works, now current. Some have linked the amalgamation statements with the memory of ancient myths regarding strange creatures produced by unholy alliance between human beings and beasts, and have asked if the E. G. White statements do not give support to these fables. It is also intimated that they tend toward evolution.

The only passages in Mrs. White's writings that are of interest in this connection are found in Spiritual Gifts, volume 3, already mentioned and republished in Spirit of Prophecy, volume 1, in 1870. The first, in chapter 6, "Crime Before the Flood," is this:

But if there was one sin above another which called for the destruction of the race by the flood, it was the base crime of amalgamation of man and beast which defaced the image of God, and caused confusion everywhere. God purposed to destroy by a flood that powerful, long-lived race that had corrupted their ways before him.--Spiritual Gifts, vol. 3, p. 64.

Chapter 7 is entitled "The Flood," and contains this statement:

Every species of animal which God had created were preserved in the ark. The confused species which God did not create, which were the result of amalgamation, were destroyed by the Flood. Since the Flood there has been amalgamation of man and beast, as may be seen in the almost endless varieties of species of animals, and in certain races of men.--Page 75.

These are Mrs. White's only statements on the subject of the amalgamation of man and beast.

Just what Mrs. White meant by these passages has been the occasion of some speculation through the years, and two explanations have been set forth. Some have held that she taught not only that men and beasts have cohabited but also that progeny resulted. However, those who hold this view have contended that this does not support the doctrine of evolution. The evolution theory depends for its life on the idea that small, simple living structures can gradually evolve into ever higher forms of life, finally bringing forth man.

That more or less closely related forms of life may cross and produce hybrids is not questioned by creationists today. That, in the long ago, when virility was greater, and conditions possibly in some respects different, more diverse forms of life might have crossed--such as man and some higher forms of animals--can be set forth only as an assumption. But this assumption has marshaled against it the whole weight of scientific belief today. Of course, scientists have been wrong, at times, in reasoning that all the past must be understood in terms of the processes we now see going on.
We might leave the matter as being beyond the range of investigation or proof. The Bible itself contains some such statements, as all students of the Scriptures well know.
But there is another explanation of these amalgamation passages which is well supported and we believe more satisfying and which avoids any conflict with the observable data of science.

What Does the Word "Amalgamation" Mean?

First, what is the general meaning of the word "amalgamation"? Is it ever used to describe the depraved act of cohabitation of man with beast? No dictionaries we have had access to, not even the exhaustive Oxford English Dictionary, indicate that the term has ever been used to describe this act. There is another standard English word that may properly be used to describe such cohabitation. The primary usage of the word "amalgamation" through long years has been to describe the fusion of certain metals, and by extension, to denote the fusing of races of men. In the mid-nineteenth century the word was commonly employed in the United States to describe the intermarriage of the white and the Negro race.[1]

The long-established meaning of the key word "amalgamation" as the blending of races should weigh heavily in determining the interpretation of the questioned passages.

Second, the whole tenor of Mrs. White's writings provides strong testimony against the claim that she is here seeking solemnly to present as fact some ancient stories about abnormal man-beast progeny. Her writings are not tainted with fanciful fables of the long ago. Rather, they have a strongly matter-of-fact quality to them. If she had been a dreamer and visionary, how frequently might she have regaled her readers with myths and weird stories of antiquity.

What Does the Key Phrase Mean?

The crux of the "amalgamation" passages is this: "amalgamation of man and beast." That statement could be construed to mean amalgamation of man with beast, or amalgamation of man and of beast. In a construction like this the preposition "of" is not necessarily repeated, though it may be clearly implied. We might speak of the scattering of man and beast over the earth, but we do not therefore mean that previously man and beast were fused in one mass at one geographical spot. We simply mean the scattering of man over the earth and the scattering of beasts over the earth, though the original location of the two groups might have been on opposite sides of the earth. In other words, the scattering of man and of beast.

Then why may we not rightly understand this particular grammatical construction in the same way when speaking of amalgamation? If we may speak of a scattering of man and beast without at all implying that scattering started from a single spot, why may we not speak of the amalgamation of man and beast without at all implying that man and beast came together in one place in fusion?

We believe that the meaning of the key phrase in question is found by understanding it to read: "amalgamation of man and [of] beast." Thus the passage would be speaking of the amalgamation of different races of mankind and the amalgamation of different races of animals. The grammatical construction and common usage permit us to understand "of" as being implied.

The Results of Amalgamation

But does simply the amalgamation of different races of men and the amalgamation of different species of animals suffice to measure up to the description of the evil character of amalgamation and the results that followed from it; namely, destruction by a flood? Let us look first at the amalgamation of races of men. Note again the text of the first quotation cited (Spiritual Gifts, vol. 3, p. 64), and observe these characteristics of amalgamation:

1. It was the "one sin above another which called for the destruction of the race by the Flood."
2. It "defaced the image of God, and caused confusion everywhere."
3. "That powerful, long-lived race . . . had corrupted their ways before him."

Two distinct groups of human beings are presented at the opening of the chapter in Spiritual Gifts, volume 3, entitled "Crime Before the Flood":

(1) "The descendants of Seth," and (2) "The descendants of Cain." The two groups were distinct in two marked ways:
(1) The first group "felt the curse but lightly." (2) The second group, "who turned from God and trampled upon his authority, felt the effects of the curse more heavily, especially in stature and nobleness of form." "The descendants of Seth were called the sons of God--the descendants of Cain, the sons of men." Here two races are presented which differ both in moral and physical characteristics.

Then follow immediately these words: "As the sons of God mingled with the sons of men, they became corrupt, and by intermarriage with them, lost, through the influence of their wives, their peculiar, holy character, and united with the sons of Cain in their idolatry."--Pages 60, 61. Next comes a description of their evil course of idolatry, particularly their prostituting to sinful ends the gold and silver and other material possessions that were theirs. Mrs. White then observes: "They corrupted themselves with those things which God had placed upon the earth for man's benefit."--Page 63. From a discussion of idolatry she turns to polygamy and makes this statement: "The more men multiplied wives to themselves, the more they increased in wickedness and unhappiness."--Page 63.

Even in this brief chapter we find sufficient to support the position that the judgment of a flood upon men was because of the amalgamation of races of men. Two races are presented. The amalgamation of the two results in corruption and idolatry, and polygamy only increases the corruption and wickedness. The disputed passage says that God brought the Flood because men "had corrupted their ways before him."

The Divine Image Defaced

Let us now note parallel passages in Mrs. White's writings. In Patriarchs and Prophets, where she writes much more at length on the subject, she speaks thus of the descendants of Seth and Cain:

For some time the two classes remained separate. The race of Cain, spreading from the place of their first settlement, dispersed over the plains and valleys where the children of Seth had dwelt; and the latter, in order to escape from their contaminating influence, withdrew to the mountains, and there made their home. So long as this separation continued, they maintained the worship of God in its purity. But in the lapse of time they ventured, little by little, to mingle with the inhabitants of the valleys. This association was productive of the worst results. "The sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair." The children of Seth, attracted by the beauty of the daughters of Cain's descendants, displeased the Lord by intermarrying with them. Many of the worshipers of God were beguiled into sin by the allurements that were now constantly before them, and they lost their peculiar, holy character. Mingling with the depraved, they became like them in spirit and in deeds; the restrictions of the seventh commandment were disregarded, "and they took them wives of all which they chose." The children of Seth went "in the way of Cain;" they fixed their minds upon worldly prosperity and enjoyment, and neglected the commandments of the Lord."--Pages 81, 82.

Here Mrs. White paints a picture of cumulative wickedness, climaxing in the Flood, and stemming largely from the amalgamation of the "race of Cain" and the "children of Seth." We are using the word "amalgamation" in its proper dictionary meaning, and according to the common usage of the time in which Mrs. White wrote--the intermarriage of different races.

Further on in Patriarchs and Prophets Mrs. White declares:

Polygamy was practiced at an early date. It was one of the sins that brought the wrath of God upon the
antediluvian world. Yet after the flood it again became wide-spread. It was Satan's studied effort to pervert the marriage institution, to weaken its obligations, and lessen its sacredness; for in no surer way could he deface the image of God in man, and open the door to misery and vice.--Page 338.

In a comment on the history of Israel, she observes: It came to be a common practice to intermarry with the heathen. . . . The enemy rejoiced in his success in effacing the divine image from the minds of the people that God had chosen as His representatives.--Fundamentals of Christian Education, p. 499.

Then take this passage from another of Mrs. White's writings:

Unhallowed marriages of the sons of God with the daughters of men, resulted in apostasy which ended in the destruction of the world by a flood.--Testimonies for the Church, vol. 5, p. 93.

Parallel Passages Summarized

Let us summarize: The result of the breaking down of the marriage institution, and particularly the intermarriage between the children of God and the heathen, was to "deface the image of God in man." Further, "Unhallowed marriages of the sons of God with the daughters of men" carried mankind irresistibly forward in increasing iniquity "which ended in the destruction of the world by a flood." Substituting the word "amalgamation" for "marriage" in the above quotations, note the striking parallel to the following statements in the disputed passage: "The base crime of amalgamation . . . defaced the image of God"; and, "God purposed to destroy by a flood that powerful, long-lived race that had corrupted their ways
before Him."

In none of the parallel passages we have quoted, or in any others that might be cited, does Mrs. White speak of the cohabitation of man with beast as being a feature of the gross and dismal picture of antediluvian wickedness that precipitated the Flood. On the contrary, it would appear that she speaks of intermarriage of the race of Cain and the race of Seth, with its inevitable train of idolatry, polygamy, and kindred evils, as the cause of the Flood. And all this harmonizes with the earlier quoted statement in the opening paragraph of the chapter that contains the passage in question.

As the sons of God mingled with the sons of men, they became corrupt, and by intermarriage with them,
lost, through the influence of their wives, their peculiar, holy character, and united with the sons of Cain in their idolatry.--Spiritual Gifts, vol. 3, pp. 60, 61.

As already stated, this introduction to the chapter "Crime Before the Flood" is followed by a recital of the idolatry that grew rampant, the denial of God, the theft, the polygamy, the murder of men, and the destruction of animal life. Then comes immediately the disputed passage, as though summarizing; "But if there was one sin above another which called for the destruction of the race by the Flood, it was the base crime of amalgamation of man and beast which defaced the image of God, and caused confusion everywhere."[2]

One apparent stumbling block in the way of accepting this interpretation of the passage as an intermarriage of races of men and a crossing of different species of animals is the construction of the statement: "amalgamation of man and beast which defaced the image of God." How could the crossing of species of animals do this?

But let us look more closely at what she says. Two results follow from the "amalgamation of [1] man and [2] beast": It (1) "defaced the image of God," and (2) "caused confusion everywhere." We have seen how the marriage, the amalgamation, of the races of men produced the first of the results. Why could we not properly consider that the amalgamation of the races, or species, of animals produced the second, that is, "caused confusion everywhere"? When two related things are described in one sentence, it does not follow that we must understand that all the results listed flow from each of the two.
Second Passage Examined

This brings us to a consideration of the second of the two passages relating to amalgamation:

Every species of animal which God had created were preserved in the ark. The confused species which
God did not create, which were the result of amalgamation, were destroyed by the flood. Since the flood
there has been amalgamation of man and beast, as may be seen in the almost endless varieties of species of animals, and in certain races of men.--Spiritual Gifts, vol. 3, p. 75.

This passage is separated from the first by only a few pages. The intervening pages give the account of the Flood.

Here she speaks of "every species of animal which God had created," in contrast with "the confused species which God did not create." "Confused species" of what? The construction permits only one answer: Species of animal. But an amalgamation of man with beast would produce, not a species of animal, but a hybrid man-beast species, whatever that might be. Mrs. White is here most certainly speaking of "confused species" of animals. And she says simply that such "confused species" "were the result of amalgamation."

Let us summarize, now, by placing in parallel columns the substance of two statements by Mrs. White:

Amalgamation of Man Amalgamation of Beast

The intermarriage, the amalgamation, The amalgamation of "species of of races of men defaced the image of animals" resulted in "confused God. species."

We believe these parallel passages fully warrant the conclusion, already reached, that when Mrs. White said, "amalgamation of man and beast," she meant (1) the amalgamation of races of men, and (2) the amalgamation of species of animals. The first "defaced the image of God," the second "caused confusion everywhere."

Three Important Conclusions

Mrs. White says that "since the flood" there "has been amalgamation of man and beast," and adds that the results may be seen in (1) "almost endless varieties of species of animals," and in (2) "certain races of men." There are several important conclusions that follow from this passage:

1. Mrs. White speaks of two clearly distinguished groups that testify to this amalgamation. There are (1) "species of animals" and (2) "races of men." There is no suggestion that there were species part man and part animal. But how could there be amalgamation of man with animal and the result be anything else than hybrid man-animal species? She does not even hint of subhuman monsters or caricatures of man. On the contrary, as just noted, she speaks unequivocally of "species of animals" and "races of men." She does not single out or name any particular race as bearing the evidence of this amalgamation.

2. Mrs. White speaks of the "almost endless varieties of species of animals" that have resulted from amalgamation. Now it has been suggested that Mrs. White in the matter of amalgamation reflected the thinking of those who believed the fiction of man-animal crosses. If we rightly understand that fiction, as it has been wafted through the centuries by the winds of credulity, a few large, mythical creatures of antiquity were supposed to have resulted from a union of man with animals. And these creatures were always supposed to reveal both human and animal features. But there is nothing in the ancient fiction that supported the idea that "almost endless varieties of species of animals" were the result of an unnatural
cross of man with animals. Mrs. White is here certainly not expressing an ancient, mythical view. Not even the credulous pagans, wholly devoid of biological knowledge, would have thought of entertaining such an idea. How much more reasonable to interpret the passage to mean that these "almost endless varieties of species of animals" resulted from an amalgamation of previously existing forms of animal life!

3. Mrs. White calls upon the reader to look about him for proof of what she is saying. In other words, whatever this amalgamation has been, its fruitage is evident today. "As may be seen," she says, "in the almost endless varieties of species of animals, and in certain races of men." But can anything be "seen" in our day that would provide support for the ancient myth of beast-men? Certainly there is nothing in the savage races of some remote heathen lands that even suggests a cross between man and animals.[3] And if the most degraded race of men does not suggest such a cross, much less do any species of animals suggest it. But the results of the amalgamation of which Mrs. White speaks "may be seen" by the reader.

Darwinism and Creationism

At the time she wrote her amalgamation statement in 1864, Darwin's influence was only beginning to be felt in the world. Until he published his Origin of Species (Nov. 24, 1859), most scientists, and religionists generally, had held firmly to the view that the species are "fixed," that is, they cannot be crossed. Darwin theorized that all creation is in flux, with no ultimate bounds on any form of life. He reasoned that natural law, expressing itself through natural selection and survival of the fittest, causes simple forms to become increasingly complex and to rise constantly in the scale of life, until man finally appears. His theory and the doctrine of the fixity of species could not live together. One devoured the other. To Darwin and those who agreed with him, it seemed that the chief obstacle to acceptance of his theory was the doctrine of species fixity. And to orthodox Christians belief in species fixity seemed absolutely essential to belief in Genesis.

Thus when the battle began between the Darwinites and the believers in Genesis the fighting was chiefly over this question of the fixity of species. Creationists generally considered the term "species" as equivalent to the "kinds," in Genesis, to each of which was given the divine order to "bring forth . . . after his kind." Gen.1:24. Such an equating of "species" and "kind" we now know to be unwarranted.

The outcome of such an uneven fight is known to all. Evolutionists had little trouble in proving that there are "endless varieties of species of animals," if we might borrow Mrs. White's words in her amalgamation statement. And whenever creationists have sought to make their stand on the point of fixity of species, as that term is generally understood, they have been put to rout.

Present-day creationists who have any knowledge of genetics, which treats of the laws governing "heredity and variations among related organisms," fare much better than did their fighting fathers. Genetics shows how endless varieties may develop within certain limits--the limits of the potential variations within the original strain--but no farther. In other words, the simple fact of variations in species does not, in itself, provide any proof for evolution. That much is certain. Thus we may believe in "endless varieties of species" after Ararat without believing in evolution. Mrs. White wrote in 1864 that these "almost endless varieties" "may be seen," though creationists at that time, and for about a half century more, saw no
such thing; they saw only fixity of species. Yet Mrs. White had no leanings toward Darwin's theory. From the outset she spoke vigorously against evolution!

Was It Sin?

Mrs. White describes the "amalgamation of man and beast" as a "sin" and a "base crime," but why should the amalgamation of various species of animals be thus described?

Note first that Mrs. White, in the chapter "Crime Before the Flood," is using the word "crime" as loosely synonymous with "sin." The key word before us, therefore, is "sin." And what is sin? It is transgression of the law of God. This is often restricted in theological thinking to violations of the Ten Commandments, the moral law. That Mrs. White frequently uses the word "sin" in a much larger sense, as including any violation of so-called natural laws, is evident from an examination of her writings. The reason she does this is that she declares that these so-called laws of nature are as truly an expression of the mind and will of God as are the Ten Commandments. For example: "It is just as much sin to violate the laws of our being as to break one of the ten commandments, for we cannot do either without breaking God's law."--Testimonies for the Church,vol. 2, p. 70.

Now let us turn to the Bible record of the condition of the whole created world, man and beast, before the Flood: "And the Lord said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them." Gen. 6:7.

Why should the Lord repent that He had "made them," the beasts and birds and creeping things, as well as man? In a few verses farther on is found the answer:

"And God looked upon the earth, and, behold, it was corrupt; for all flesh had corrupted his [A.R.V. their] way upon the earth." Gen. 6:12.

"And all flesh died that moved upon the earth, both of fowl, and of cattle, and of beast, and of every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth, and every man." Gen. 7:21.

The Plan of God for Eden

When God first made the world He placed upon it a wide variety of animals and plants, distributed over hills and valleys, on sunny plain and in shady dell. The picture was one of beauty and harmony in diversity. We can, of course, only conjecture as to details of the Edenic world. The record declares that God commanded that each form of life should bring forth "after his kind." Gen. 1:24.

And the fossil records bear silent testimony that between the major forms of life there appear to be no intermediary forms. There are sharp gaps instead. Whether the Lord designed that His perfect earth should also preserve distinctions between the more closely related forms of life, we can only venture a guess. But if He placed all these more or less closely related forms upon the earth, it would seem a reasonable assumption that He did so as an expression of His divine conception of what a perfect world should be like.

We think this is even more than a reasonable assumption in the light of specific counsel later given to Israel, as God sought to set up in this sinful world a government according to the plans of heaven. Through Moses God said to Israel:

"Ye shall keep my statutes. Thou shalt not let thy cattle gender with a diverse kind; thou shalt not sow thy field with mingled seed: neither shall a garment mingled of linen and woollen come upon thee." Lev. 19:19. (See also Deut. 22:9-11.)

Satan and the Animal Kingdom

The Bible presents a picture of a controversy between God and the devil that starts with the beginnings of our world and covers everything that has to do with our world. That Satan, as a free moral agent, has been allowed of God to roam the earth and use his diabolical skill in creating disorder and destruction, the Bible amply testifies. The first instance of Satan's attempt to bring disorder in our world was his speaking through an animal, a serpent. And though Satan was the instigator of the serpent's wily words, the Lord included the serpent in the judgments meted out at the fall.

Where the Scripture record is so brief we must be slow to dogmatize. But we may find in the fact of Satan, his evil purposes, and this specifically mentioned instance of his control of a member of the animal kingdom, a strong suggestion that the animal kingdom has suffered from his diabolical cunning. We cannot believe that in Eden there were blood-thirsty beasts, ill-tempered, snarling, and vicious. All believers in the Bible grant that these evil changes in the beasts were the result of sin. But how could a beast, which does not have a moral nature, and therefore has no knowledge of sin, be changed in nature by the entrance of sin into the life of Adam and Eve? The Christian mind will not permit the idea that God so changed the animals. In the fact of Satan, whose domination of the serpent is recorded for our learning, is surely
found the only real explanation of the sorry change that came over the animal kingdom. Part of that change, we believe, was the confusing of the species, the blurring of a wondrous picture of divine harmony in diversity.

A Belief Consistent With Scripture

We grant that this belief as to the cause of the confusing of species cannot be supported by a clear text of Scripture. We affirm only that this belief is consistent with such scriptures as discuss those earliest days. And nothing more than this need be affirmed in order to protect the belief from being lightly dismissed by any Bible believer, as an unreasonable explanation.

It is evident that on this view of the confusion of species in the animal kingdom we find a satisfying answer to the question: How could the crossing of different forms of animal life be described as sin? Was sin involved in the activity of the serpent? We all answer Yes. But we immediately think of Satan. Even so with the crossing of animals. Any and every move to mar God's original, orderly plan can be described only as sin.

Mrs. White Focuses on Satan as Evil Power

One cannot read far in Mrs. White's writings before becoming aware that she views the whole drama of our world from its earliest days onward as a great struggle between God and the devil.[4] Mrs. White pictures Satan as stalking over the earth, bent on disorder and devastation, even as the Bible pictures him. It is true that she did not specifically refer to Satan in the amalgamation statements in Spiritual Gifts. However, another reference to amalgamation discloses her views as to the cause of certain of the changes that took place in our world after Adam and Eve fell. The statement reads:

Not one noxious plant was placed in the Lord's great garden, but after Adam and Eve sinned, poisonous
herbs sprang up. In the parable of the sower the question was asked the Master, "Didst not thou sow good seed in thy field? how then hath it tares?" The Master answered, "An enemy hath done this." All tares are sown by the evil one. Every noxious herb is of his sowing, and by his ingenious methods of amalgamation he has corrupted the earth with tares.--Selected Messages, book 2, p. 288.

This statement, viewed in the setting of the whole tenor of Mrs. White's writings which attribute to Satan the active responsibility for all evil in our world, fully warrants us in concluding that she attributed to Satan the "confused species" of animals. Hence she would most certainly describe these "species" as a manifestation of sin, even as she could properly speak of the appearance of insensate but "noxious, poisonous herbs" as an exhibit of the activity of the "evil one." Thus her amalgamation statement regarding "sin" is consistent with all that Scripture has revealed of earth's early days, in terms of the interpretation we have given to the key phrase, "amalgamation of man and beast."

Statement Not Found in "Patriarchs and Prophets"

We come now to the consideration of the fact that the amalgamation statements were not incorporated by Mrs. White in Patriarchs and Prophets, now current, and the natural inquiry as to why these statements do not there appear. Some have conjectured that these two statements have been purposely suppressed.

The fact that a passage is not retained in later publications, or that a particular book is not republished, is not in itself valid ground for assuming that suppression has occurred. The groundlessness of such a suggestion is made transparently clear when we give these pertinent facts in the case:

From 1858 to 1864 there appeared from Mrs. White's pen four small volumes carrying the general title Spiritual Gifts. With the exception of volume 2, which is largely autobiographical, and the latter half of volume 4, the volumes present a portrayal of sacred history from the creation to Eden restored.

From 1870 to 1884 she brought forth four larger volumes, under the title The Spirit of Prophecy. These volumes cover more fully the subject of man's religious history from Eden to Eden. In large part the material in Spiritual Gifts, except the autobiographical volume, is reproduced in The Spirit of Prophecy. Often the text of the former is exactly reproduced, chapter after chapter, in the latter. In some instances there are deletions, and often there are additions. Adetailed study of the matter reveals that here apply the principles by which an author, in bringing out a new and more complete treatment of a theme, may properly add or subtract or revise. The two amalgamation passages appear verbatim in The Spirit of Prophecy, in volume 1, published in 1870.

How easy it would have been for Mrs. White to drop out the amalgamation passages in the 1870 edition. The passages had already raised questions, as is evidenced by the reference to them in Uriah Smith's work, Objections to the Visions Answered, published in 1868. That was the time to "suppress" them if she cared to do so. But two years later she reproduced the chapters containing the passages, so that both the passages and the context remain the same.

Up to this time Mrs. White had been writing quite exclusively for the church. The next step was the planning of books that might be sold to those outside the Seventh-day Adventist church, even to those who might not have any religious background or connection. Naturally, included in such a plan would be the desire to give an appropriate emphasis to certain truths that distinguish the preaching of the Advent movement. Now, even as a minister, turning from his congregation to address a mixed multitude, would quite change his treatment of a subject, by addition, subtraction, or revision, even so would a writer. In 1890 the great subject of man's early history, which is the theme of Spiritual Gifts, volume 3, and Spirit of Prophecy, volume 1, was covered in a new way in the book Patriarchs and Prophets, prepared for sale to the general public. This is one of a set of current works which cover the religious history of man from
Eden to Eden, and known generally as the 'Conflict of the Ages' Series. In each volume of the series the field is covered in an amplified and sometimes new way, and no pretense is made of reprinting an earlier work. It would be just as consistent to contend that the whole four volumes of The Spirit of Prophecy have been suppressed as to contend that a certain five sentences--the total involved in the amalgamation passages--have been suppressed.

In this connection we remind the reader that the four volumes of Spiritual Gifts, which are the original source of the amalgamation passages, are currently available in a facsimile edition.

_______________________________

[1] The Century Dictionary, edition of 1889, says, under "Amalgamation": "2. The mixing or blending of different things, especially of races." The idea of the blending of races, as one meaning of the word, seems to have faded out of some dictionaries, probably in view of the fact that the term "hybridization" is now generally used to denote fusion, or crossing, of living things. However, the 1949 printing of Funk and Wagnalls New Standard Dictionary says, under "Amalgamate": "3. To form into a compound by mixing or blending; unite; combine; as to amalgamate diverse races. Used specifically, in the southern United States, of marriage between white and black persons." A Dictionary of American English (Oxford University Press, 1938-1944, 4 vols.) says: "Amalgamate, v. (1797-, in general sense.) Of persons: a. To combine or coalesce, esp. by intermarriage. /b. (See quot. 1859) ... 1859 BARTLETT 8 Amalgamate ... is universally applied, in the United States, to the mixing of the black and white races. "Amalgamation. (1775- in general sense.) /The fusion of the white and black races by intermarriage."

[2] Some might contend that the construction of this sentence indicates that the writer is listing a new crime to the series, something in addition to the unholy marriages, idolatry, murder, etc. We do not believe that such a conclusion is required. It is no unusual thing for a writer to list a series of items, and then, in conclusion, focus upon one of them, with some such introductory phrase as, "If there is one item above another . . ." Nor do we believe that any special weight should be placed on the fact that in thus recapitulating, the writer amplifies on the particular point under discussion, as though the very focusing on it seems to draw the writer's mind to a related thought. This, we believe, is a wholly reasonable way to
view the construction before us. Mrs. White returns, in the last paragraph of the chapter, to focus on the main cause of the Flood, as earlier set forth in the chapter. In so doing she expands a little to include the related "confusion" in the animal kingdom that had resulted from the entrance of sin into the world.

[3] In the middle of the nineteenth century, when some dark recesses of the earth had scarcely been touched by explorers, strange stories were often told as to the kind of savages who dwelt there. Probably some who first read Mrs. White's amalgamation statements unconsciously allowed these strange stories to determine their interpretation of the passages. Needless to say, now that all the savage races are fairly well known, the testimony of those who have come in contact with them is that though they may be depraved, they are exceedingly human in every respect, and need only the opportunity to acquire the white man's habits and vices! Mrs. White does not comment on the phrase, "certain races of men." She gives no details as to how the races intermingled after the Flood, nor does she say that such postdiluvian intermingling was a "base crime." We need only to note that she makes the simple statement that "amalgamation" produced "races of men," not races part man and part animal.
[4] A four-volume work by Mrs. White, published between 1870 and 1884, entitled Spirit of Prophecy, carries the secondary title: The Great Controversy between Christ and Satan, not to be confused with the later work Great
Controversy, which is an expansion of the fourth volume. In the first volume the two amalgamation passages are reprinted in their original context.


Ellen G. White Estate Homepage

Selected Issues Regarding Inspiration and the Life and Work of Ellen G. White

Zyph, you raise an interesting and obvious point about the salvation of cloned human beings. Does God consider a cloned human a human being or not? Since God is the author of life then every living thing upon the face of the earth is of God.

We cannot create life. Only God can do that. Only God can bestow the breath of life. "Let every thing that hath breath praise the LORD. Praise ye the LORD." Psalm 150:6. If cloned humans are capable of prasing God then they are capable of being saved in His everlasting kingdom. And if they are able to experience salvation then how can cloning be wrong?

Again, I would like to reiterate, I believe at this point in the game of life it is too premature to clone human beings. Not until the process and procedures are perfected do I believe it is safe to consider cloning humans. And even then it may not be the best thing for humanity?

Thank you, Charlene, for posting all that most interesting and enlightening information here.

This information makes much better sense than the actual cross-breeding of man and animals with one another.

Getting back to the donkey, or mule, or ass. Are they not all referring to the same animal that Christ rode upon?

Daryl,
1 donkey + 1 horse = 1 mule

Donkeys and horses are closely related and they can be bred together. A mule is the result and is usually sterile, though there have been a few exceptions.

A topic in the Natural Health forum, Genetic Engineering and Cloning gives specific information about cloning including some graphics depicting how it is done.

Main Entry: 1mule
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Old French mul, from Latin mulus
Date: 13th century
1 a : a hybrid between a horse and a donkey; especially : the offspring of a male donkey and a mare b : a self-sterile plant whether hybrid or not c : a usually sterile hybrid

mule
the hybrid offspring of a male ass (jackass, or jack) and a female horse (mare). The less-frequent cross between a female ass and a male horse results in a hinny, or hinney, which is smaller than a ...

Main Entry: don·key
Pronunciation: 'dä[ng]-kE, 'd&[ng]-, 'do[ng]-
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural donkeys
Etymology: origin unknown
Date: circa 1785
1 : the domestic ass (Equus asinus)

Main Entry: 1ass
Pronunciation: 'as
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Old English assa, probably from Old Irish asan, from Latin asinus
Date: before 12th century

1 : any of several hardy gregarious African or Asian perissodactyl mammals (genus Equus) smaller than the horse and having long ears; especially : an African mammal (E. asinus) that is the ancestor of the donkey

It's ironic that this topic is focusing on jack asses!?

You are so right Mike.

Here's another related subject I've been wondering about. In regard to the carnivorous beasts such as Tyranosaurus Rex, Saber-tooth tigers, Dire Wolves, etc., how many of those species have actually been proven to exist by actual fossil remnants? The evolutionists have everyone believing there was a dinosaur age where the earth was filled by millions upon millions of those kind of animals. They tell of tar pits and rock strata containing bone fragments. But, as Creationist we don't necessaily have to follow blindly their conclusions. They discover a few skeletons and use that for a springboard for seeing a whole world full of them, killing and being killed, with little Cavemen scurrying around trying not to be devoured. Maybe the antedeluvian world only had a few of those T-Rexes. Granted, the world then may have amassed a confusion of species, but maybe the gigantic, terrible, man-eating dinosaurs were made thru genetic tampering by Satan or scientists. Maybe they were delibetely made so as to destroy whole villages or nations. Maybe there were not millions of them as the evolutionists picture, but only several hundred or so. Who knows for sure? As Christians I think we have a right to question a lot of stuff foisted upon us by National Geographic and Smithonian, and all those evolutionists. Does anyone have any facts on exactly how many carnivorous dinosaur skeletons, or fragments, have actually been found, that can be proven?

It seems that Ellen White's comment about the "confused species" which did not enter the Ark (because they weren't a part of God's original creation) is referring to the dinosaurs. The antediluvians must have figured out how to manipulate the DNA of animals in order to create dinosaurs.

Also, I've visited some of the dinosaur national parks around the USA and it is pretty clear that there were a whole bunch of dinosaurs roaming the globe. I have no problem envisioning thousands of them living before the Flood. Apparently, there was a whole lot more habitable real estate back in those days. So there would have been plenty of room for thousands of those huge toothy reptiles.

What was not created by God was a "tare" and these were instigated by Satan. This would apply to the toothy giants as well.....i would think


Manuscript Releases Volume Sixteen----PG- 247

"Christ never planted the seeds of death in the system. Satan planted these seeds when he tempted Adam to eat of the tree of knowledge, which meant disobedience to God. Not one noxious plant was placed in the Lord's great garden, but after Adam and Eve sinned, poisonous herbs sprang up. In the parable of the sower the question was asked the master, "Didst not thou sow good seed in thy field? From whence then hath it tares?" The master answered, "An enemy hath done this." [Matt. 13:27, 28.] All tares are sown by the evil one. Every noxious herb is of his sowing, and by his ingenious methods of amalgamation he has corrupted the earth with tares."

Does this passage suggest that man created the dinosaurs?

The Spirit of Prophecy Volume One, page 69, paragraph 1
Chapter Title: The Flood
But if there was one sin above another which called for the destruction of the race by the flood, it was the base crime of amalgamation of man and beast which defaced the image of God, and caused confusion everywhere. God purposed to destroy by a flood that powerful, long-lived race that had corrupted their ways before him.

Avalee, you're funny. Thanx for the good insights. I also suspect the reason the dino's didn't make it one the Ark is because they weren't part of God's original creation.

I also suspect that post-Flood mankind has been unable to duplicate dinosaurs, thus they haven't roamed the earth since before the Flood. So, all the tracks and bones found here and there are from before the Flood.

But now that we are learning how to clone animals it may not be very long before dinosaurs begin showing up again. And then we will able to say - It is now as it was in the days of Noah.

A couple of comments on this interesting subject:

a) Donkey, mule, ass: This is a hybrid, and it is not a clone. Hybrids often can not reproduce. Clones are expected to reproduce.

b)As a member of a hospital ethics committee that deals with issues of medical ethics, I can clearly state that I do not believe that any member of our committee would agree to experiments with human cloning in our research center.

c) Species: As one who has a strong background in the biological sciences, I can not believe that EGW used the word "species" in the same sense of a scientist. Species is an artificial word that was contrived by the taxonomists. Ellen White was not a scientist. We can not expect her to use scientific words with the 21st Cent. scientific meaning.

d) It appears to me that some here believe that genetic manipulation is immoral, on both the plant level, and the animal level. Also, that some believe hybridization of plants to be immoral. Again, genetic manipulation is not cloning. While I respect their postion, I am astounded that some would think that the production of a hybrid species is immoral. If this is immoral, what is your ethical obligation in regard to the use of that hybrid species. Do you eat corn? It is likely that the corn you eat is a hybrid species. Do you plant hybrid flowers in your garden?

e) Some so-called diseases are genetic in origin. The only cure (not treatment) is likely to be genetic. Is it immoral for humans to attempt genetic manipulation to cure a disease? I remind you that genetic manipulation is not necessarly cloning.

=====

I assume that reming is actually intended as remind? - Daryl

[ January 03, 2003, 07:29 PM: Message edited by: Gregory ]

I stand corrected. I just looked for further information on the subject of the ability to reproduce. In that case, as soon as scince is regularly producing healthy offspring by this method - and I'm not sure that's yet - then there is no reason to be against the procedure. My only reservation - and there may be answers to this already - is that if a clone comes from the one parent, is there more likelihood of the kinds of effects seen when closely related humans produce offspring? Oh, and I was wrong on two major counts. They can produce males from cloning, if they use the cells from a male. Fascinating stuff.

Hybridisation is not genetic manipulation. Genetic manipulation alters the structures that exist naturally. But the conversation was about two different things - cloning, and whether EGW's writings were talking about cross-breeding humans with animals.

I fully support all genetic investigation to cure disease, but I don't want to eat what may have been turned into non-food by a scientist.

As part of our SS discussion this past Sabbath, we discussed this cloning issue. The discussion leader posed the question, "Will God allow human cloning?" with the intent of exploring class member's perceptions of the moral implications of human cloning. Among the various ideas that came out is one that I would like to float here in order to take some of the heat of Mike.

Consider that at creation God did the first combination human cloning/genetic engineering. Eve was taken from Adam and replicated into a female which would have required some genetic manipulation to change the gender of Adam's clone. This would further support the original creation thesis of God to create male and female in the image of God, separate distinct beings that are one. A significant element of "in God's image" is the creative/re-creative desire and ability. Consider that procreation is modified cloning, rather than taking DNA from one donor it is taking DNA from two donors to create a copy of the two donors. But human cloning is far more common than we think - identical twins are exact genetic copies sharing the same DNA - and naturally occuring with the apparent blessing of God. And finally consider the possibility that the Trinity of the Godhead may represent divine cloning - One God in Three beings.


Tom

Ahem...Excuse me... Did that last post leave everyone speechless? Baffled? Frightened? Concerned? Apathetic? Angry? Amused? Confused?

Just wondering....

Tom

It's a conspiracy Tom!

I thought so!

Tom

Well, have we arrived at a confusing conclusion to this topic, meaning that there isn't any clear answer from the Bible/SOP?

Daryl:

There are many areas of life where one does not find a clear statement. In such cases, one can best search for Biblical principles and then seek to find an application for our present life.

There are even times when it appears that all possible responses are outside of God's will, that there is no response that clearly lies within the will of God. In such cases, one can chose to do nothing. But, many of us believe that God calls us to intervene in the world of sin, and that it is outside of God's will to simply ignore, and that God has placed us in the position so that we might act. In such cases, I will suggest that one can only do what appears to best lie within the will of God, as applied in this world of sin. That answer is not always easy.

This thread began on human cloning. I am going to clearly state where I am, which will respond to some of the points others have stated, and with which some will disagree.

I do not believe that human cloning is a violation of the will of God, or against Scripture. I have studied enough human biology to believe that cloning a human, or any other animal, is NOT creation in any sense. God created life original, unborrowed, and underived. Cloning begins with already created genetic material. God created that. We do not create when we take material already created by God and allow it to come to develop into the creature God instructed it to become. God is the life-giver. We are not.

At the same time, I believe that there are clearly enough ethical reasons that tell us we should not attempt, at this time, to clone human life. It is wrong to do so now. These reasons are strong enough that one does not have to believe in God to see that one should not now attempt to clone human life.

Daryl:

I am saying: Whether or not one beleives in God, there are enough ethical issues raised by cloning a human that seccular people can very well understand that it should not be done at this time.

An atheist bragged to God that he could create a living human being out of clay. So, he fashioned clay into the shape of a man, and just as he was about to make him come alive God sent lightning from above and the clay disappeared. The atheist protested. But God responded, Get your own clay.

Then, you are saying that it is presently also against the will of God.

By the way, this is Daryl posting under Gracie's name.

[I have removed the content of this post. After giving it second thoughts, I have decided that, at this time, I will make no comment regarding Daryl posting under the name of a woman--Gregory.]

I don't want to detract from this important topic, however, I am wondering what you actually said, if anything.

Tom

Are you sure that the Genesis account of the creation of man, and woman; Adam and Eve, can be clearly shown to be a case of "genetic engineering?"

I would like to see if you can support your remarks with a good Biblical/scientific basis if you are willing.

I would like to respectufully suggest that "genetic engineering" of any kind - even the most advanced ever attained unto, or that will be reached in the future; is very neanderthal technology to The Lord God Almighty.

Why would God need something so behind the times, compared to His knowledge, and wisdom, and power?

Is it reasonable for us to expect that God was limited to genetic engineering to create Eve? That could make Him susceptible to the same mistakes that may have already ocurred, or that will ocurr as a result of this little megabyte of technology. (God has Gigabytes of technology).

Tom, the comparison you made between cloning and Eve being made out of Adam's rib is very insightful. Even the fact that God made Adam out of soil, instead of speaking him into existence out of nothing, is noteworthy. And then that all of us are a mixture of our parents' DNA is more than interesting.

So what if we as humans figure out a way to borrow upon God's original design and creation to produce people out of people. Of course we need to wait until the procedure can be done safely before we start cloning humans.

The question is, how will we ever know when it is actually 100% safe to do so?

Look at the mutant births that have taken place as a result of the wrong use of other things such as chemicals, drugs, etc.

In medicine nothing is ever 100% safe. Medicine balances the treatment risk with the harm that will come if there is no treatment.

Does cloning humans come under medical research?

If so, then what is the purpose of cloning humans?

To provide us with an organ bank?

I should hope not!

That would be like taking my life so that one of my organs can be used to save somebody else's life.

Cloning humans is medical research because it creates [Folks, don't get theological with my wording here. I do not intend it as such.] a new human being. That human being will require medical care, and will carry during it's life the effect of potential genetic conditions caused by that cloning process.

No reputable person has ever suggested that humans should be cloned to serve as an organ bank.

What would be achieved by this cloning of a new human being?

Genetic information?

DNA information?

What?

This is obviously way beyond me field of understanding.

Daryl:

None of your specifics would be acomplished by human cloning. All of those could be studied by other methods. As I have said, ethically it is inappropriate to clone humans at this time.

I have nothing against cloning animals. [NOTE: If you raise esoteric issues such as attempting to clone a dinasaur, we are dealing with an aspect of cloning that I do not discuss here, which would raise ethical issues. So, I do not give approval to all animal cloning.] In animal cloning we can learn everything that our present level of knowledge will allow us to appropriately use.

The philosophical drive behind much discussion of human cloning, from the non-scientist, is simply a desire to obtain immortality. Please note I do not attribute that to all scientists. But, it is the reason for much of the non-scientist interest.

Of course we cannot achieve immortality without access to the tree of life, but if cloning can someday enable us to live to a healthy 200 plus that would be awesome. I can appreciate spending 100 years in retirement!

No, Mike, you would be expected to work untilyou were 150.

100% safe is a standard that would require us to forgo most everything we do. And also consider that under the best of circumstances normal reproduction is not even 100% safe.

As I recall, Some of these same concerns were expressed in the early days of invitro fertilization, etc. Recall the scifi speculation that some day we would not need a human and that babies would grow to term in a test tube, there would be baby factories, made to order babies, etc.

I think we tend to get carried away with going down the scifi speculation track. That train left the reality station a long time ago.

Tom

I just thought of something else that could also open up another can of worms.

What about the methods used to make medical advances?

Look at what Hitler did in the name of medical advancement.

Look at what is happening today to mice, cats, dogs, etc. in the name of medical research.

It could be that this cloning is the lesser of these other evils that are being committed, and all in the name of medical research.

Daryl:

I have read some of what Hitler did in the name of medical research. I have talked to other people about those "experiments". It is that history that has had a part in developing the ethical protocols that we have today. Such would never be allowed today. Also, I have been told that nothing of any real limportance came from those "experiments".


If you really knew about the etiical protocols applied to the use of animals in research, . . .
I am not certain as to what you mean by your comment about animals.

By the way, I have walked in to an animal surgical suite where a pig was being operated upon. I have been there. I have seen it. They are treated humanely.

I was referring to the testing of drugs on animals to see if it is safe for humans.

How many cats, dogs, etc. have died a horrible death on account of drugs being tested on them.

I am under the assumption that it is still happening today.

If I am wrong, then I will be happy to accept the fact that I am wrong.

Daryl,

To keep some comparative perspective, the treatment of animals for medical/scientific purposes is far more humane than what happens in the name of food. A visit to a slaughter house could help convince many toward a veggie diet. Or just take a look at the conditions under which many of these animals are raised to maximize growth and being fattened for slaughter. And for those who are not vegan, visit a mega-dairy where the majority of your milk comes from, or a egg producing factory and consider how inhumane this may be. Most people would be nauseated and appalled. The lab rats have it lucky! And let's not forget the fate of most animals born in the wild, the majority of which never survive infancy. Nature in this sinful world is exceedingly cruel to animals, many of which starve to death, are killed for food by humans and other animals, etc. But I think a more compelling concern is man's inhumanity to his own kind. Our pets and farm animals have better living conditions than a very large percentage of humanity. It is all a matter of perspective.

At least look at the potential positive benefit derived from research and consider whether as an alternative to testing on animals we could tolerate some of the early medical/scientific testing to be on humans. Would you rather have a surgeon learn and develope new techniques on a pig or you?

Tom

There is a big difference between scientific research, and animals used by cosmetic companies.

It's the lessor of two evils, which is inevitable in a sinful world. Consider all the suffering God endures for the good of mankind knowing it is He who keeps things alive until death overcomes the victim. Remember how God used sickness to prevent Sister White, and countless others, from going astray?

Can we as humans sit idly by as disease runs rampant claiming the lives of millions when we have the knowledge and ability to create effective cures? So what if a few animals must suffer or die in the process; yes it's sad, but in the long run it is best for mankind, a worthy sacrifice. It is our moral duty to invent new ways to ensure the survival of the race.

I just saw on the TV news last evening about how cosmetics are being tested on animals.

The question remains as to the effects human cloning will have on the human clones themselves.

Things like this makes me long even more for the 2nd coming so all this misery can come to an end.

The potential of cloning is to procreate people without certain evil propensities. Of course, we will always have to resist our sinful flesh nature, and dependence upon the Holy Spirit will always be necessary, but cloning could greatly subdue some violent traits making it easier to be kind.

While it is true that a cloned Hitler might turn into a Helmit Schmidt (Chancellor of West Germany, 1974-1982), it is also true that a cloned Helmit Schmidt might turn into a Hitler.

Greg,

Quite true! Naturally occuring clones, identical twins, grow up to be distinctly different people. Despite being genetically identical, those differences begin showing very early. The reason, of course, is that experience, perception, environmental influences, etc., cannot be duplicated identically, even in two identical humans raised together. Just consider the difference of perception between your two eyes. The left and right eye do not see identical images. If they did you wouldn't have binocular vision and depth perception. And if you close one eye for a few seconds, the memory history recorded in your brain is slightly different for that eye from that of the other eye. Now separate that into two independently functioning humans and you greatly magnify those possibilities. Accumulate those little divergences of experience over a lifetime, multiplied by all the senses and the cumulative effect on cognition, emotion, judgment, etc. and the differences become profound. And because our life experiences and behaviour have distinct physiological effects, the physical similarities of identical twins gradually diminish over time. Have you ever noticed and wondered why older twins look less alike than younger twins? Or how the inverse sometimes happens with a closely bonded married couple who after sharing a lifetime of experiences gradually look and act more alike as they get older? (Something to think about in the spiritual lesson of that!)

The very same would be true of clones. It would be impossible to take Ted Williams' DNA and create a human that would replicate what the original Ted Williams achieved, that of being a great baseball player, because it is impossible to recreate his lifetime of experience. Life and time do not remain static and cannot be repeated, so creating and maintaining absolute carbon copying of any lifeform would be impossible. The dynamic environmental and internal influences for each life molds each toward infinite diversity. Just consider the tremendous diversity of human life on earth today, realizing it all started with two humans that may well have been genetically identical (even if they were not, it is still amazing!) except for a minor xy chromosome manipulation that made their self-replication possible.

Tom

Hopefully, if cloning is ever perfected, they will be able to isolate good and bad propensities so that they can create better people. In reality though I doubt enough time remains between now and when Jesus returns for scientists to perfect the science of cloning. So for now, and as always, we'll have to rely on the old fashioned, time tested way of resisting our sinful flesh propensities - Trust Jesus.