He rejected the possibility of divine revelation and flatly rejected the idea of divine judgment and hell. He told The Sunday Telegraph [London] that the God he had come to believe “probably” existed is “most emphatically not the eternally rewarding and eternally torturing God of either Christianity or Islam,” but only God as First Cause of the universe. In other words, Anthony Flew embraced a form of Deism (the belief in a God who creates but then removed himself from creation), rather than theism (the belief in a communicating, ruling, and judging deity).

Mohler ends the article by pointing out a few important observations and lessons from the life of Antony Flew. In my opinion, the most important lesson is this:

Third, the conclusion of Antony Flew’s life must affirm for us the fact that the rejection of atheism does not always lead to an embrace of Christianity. Salvation comes only to those who come to belief and faith in the Lord Jesus Christ — not to those who merely embrace the existence of a divine First Cause. Rejecting atheism is not enough.

Mohler’s comments would certainly be relevant to the rejection of any philosophy or religion. Unbelief in a false deity, system, or worldview does not automatically make a person right with the Triune God of the universe. Jesus says that repentance and belief is necessary to enter of the kingdom of God. Repentance is not only turning away from false religion but turning toward God in faith and belief. It is a reminder that it is not enough to simply refute the arguments of atheism or any other worldview. In the end, the goal should be to win the man behind the arguments.

Can a Christian honestly believe in evolution? Is Christianity and evolution compatible?

We’ll continue the discussion at its original location from last week. Carry on.

Can a Christian honestly believe in evolution? Is Christianity and evolution compatible?

I have heard of several Christian scientists (among others) who believe in evolution in some form. The most prominent person I am familiar with who believes in evolution is Alister McGrath (if I am not mistaken on that point). So it seems that people find some compatibility between the two. Can that be possible? Now it’s your turn…

Voddie Baucham has recently written a quick review of the documentary Expelled which is currently in theaters. As Baucham says, “The movie features intelligent, articulate spokesmen and exposes the blatant, irrational discrimination faced by those in academia who dare to question Darwinian Orthodoxy.” Needless to say, Baucham gives this movie a hardy recommendation. I am making plans to go see it myself in the very near future. I hope you will do the same. More thoughts to come…

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NhmpsUMdTH8]

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qi6n_-wB154]

I have a difficult time deciding how I feel on this issue. As a Christian, I certainly believe that God has given us this planet to exercise dominion within the confines of good stewardship. I am not sure exactly what that looks like practically. There is no doubt that Al Gore has put this whole campaign and issue together in an intelligent way. He has found a way to reach the common person in a language that resonates and moves people to action. However, I wonder how his theories would stand against modern scientific research and scholarship. Since I know that several of my friends work in the field of science, I am curious to hear the arguments for and/or against Al Gore’s theories. So here’s your Monday Muse question:

Is global warming a hoax, an exaggeration, or the real deal?

As always, remember to defend your answer in some form. Happy Monday!

In his State of the Union address President Bush spoke briefly on matters of life and science. He stated his intention to expand funding for new possibilities in medical research, to take full advantage of recent breakthroughs in stem cell research that provide pluripotent stem cells without destroying nascent human life. At the same time, he continued, “we must also ensure that all life is treated with the dignity that it deserves. And so I call on Congress to pass legislation that bans unethical practices such as the buying, selling, patenting, or cloning of human life.”

As in his previous State of the Union addresses, the president’s call for a ban on human cloning was greeted by considerable applause from both sides of the aisle. But Congress has so far failed to pass any anti-cloning legislation, and unless a new approach is adopted, it will almost certainly fail again.

Fortunately, new developments in stem cell research suggest a route to effective and sensible anti-cloning legislation, exactly at a time when novel success in cloning human embryos makes such legislation urgent. Until now, the cloning debate has been hopelessly entangled with the stem cell debate, where the friends and the enemies of embryonic stem cell research have managed to produce a legislative stalemate on cloning. The new scientific findings make it feasible to disentangle these matters and thus to forge a successful legislative strategy. To see how this can work, we need first to review the past attempts and the reasons they failed.

Read the rest of the article to find out exactly how this can work.

Is embryonic stem cell research and its applied results ethical?

Remember to also defend your “yes” and “no” answers. Let the debate begin.

 The Island is not necessarily unique when it comes to the idea of cloning and/or harvesting human beings. There have been several movies, such as The Matrix and Aeon Flux, that attempt to tackle the ethics of cloning while trying to give a peak into the future results of such action. Aeon Flux was a good movie and The Matrix has plenty of material to stimulate thoughtful discussion. However, I think that The Island gives us the realistic picture of cloning and its results on many levels.

In this movie, clones are created as insurance policies for individuals. Some of the people purchasing these clones have severe if not fatal health conditions. The clones that are created from the purchaser’s DNA give them exactly what they need by way of transplants. For these set of clones, they are created for the purpose of harvesting their organs. Other clones are created to be surrogate mothers for women who cannot have children. For a couple who cannot have a child naturally, a clone is created to carry and birth a child for them. Once a clone has served its purpose, it is terminated or killed. Of course, each sponsor is told that the clones do not reach any level of consciousness but remain in a constant state of vegetation. Since they are not “living” beings, it seems completely rational. No harm, no foul. However, the organs would not live and grow properly in a state of vegetation so the company had to secretly bring each clone to full consciousness and thus created an underground society of clones hidden from the rest of the world. The clones are told that they are the remaining human survivors from a worldwide contamination. However, there is one island that has been preserved and a lottery takes place each week to extract one clone from the underground society so that the island and eventually the earth can be repopulated. Once the clone is swept away to “the island,” he/she fulfills his/her purpose and is killed.

Now, several questions come to mind throughout this movie. Are clones human? Do clones have souls? What about people who can’t afford a clone? (Note: clones in this movie cost approximately $5 million) Is a clone’s status as a human being dependent on whether or not he/she is conscious or in a vegetative state? How about that same question as it relates to humans? Is it truly ethical to harvest human beings? What are the real motives behind cloning?

Answering the last question, the doctor who developed this technology says he has found the fountain of youth and path to immortality. HE did. Maybe his motives started out being pure. Maybe he wanted to help people who were hurting and dying. There is certainly nothing wrong with that intention. But then sin twisted things up for him. This doctor wanted to play God. He wanted to be God. With the ability to prolong lives and cure terminal diseases, he would be the most powerful man on the planet. Whether you believe cloning is ethical or not, sin always lurks at the doorstep waiting to overtake even the purest intentions the minute we open the door.

There are several concerns I have with cloning. First, it seems to be an attempt to play God. The root of this technology can be the lust for power. Many people might argue that cloning would help save lives. Again, the intention might be noble. But if life is created, who assigns value to that life? If it is truly a living person that is created, even at the beginning stages, who decides that the clone is less human than anyone else? Who decides that it is ok to harvest clones for their parts with no regard for the humanity of the clone? Second, there is nothing wrong with prolonging life. I am thankful for modern medicine. However, no technology can deny the inevitable. Death comes to us all. It is the result of sin. There is no science that can counter that result. The only hope we have in defeating death is repentance and belief in Jesus Christ. Jesus died on the cross and rose from the grave to defeat death and render us clean before the judge. So if denying death by science is the motive, to create the fountain of youth and live forever, then it is misguided. Ultimately, a discussion concerning clones must lead itself back to greater concerns about the current issue of embryonic stem cell research. The questions that I asked earlier do not only apply to fictional movies or fantastical scenarios, but must be applied to current research and scientific testing as it relates to embryonic stem cells. We could carry this discussion on much further but I fear you may be reaching your limit.

So…go rent this movie. It really makes you think about the issues of cloning and embryonic stem cell research. Though The Island is a futuristic fiction, when does fiction become reality? Time may tell.

From a Christian worldview, the field of “wet artificial life” seems to be an attempt to not only play God but to replace Him as well.  As Bedau says, “Creating protocells has the potential to shed new life on our place in the universe.  This will remove one of the few fundamental mysteries about creation in the universe and our role.”  There are many men in the sciences, such as Richard Dawkins and Peter Atkins, who would delight in any field that helped them eliminate the notion of God.  If men can create human life from scratch, what need is there for a “celestial dictator?”  As a Christian I am concerned by this endeavor not because it disproves God in any way but for the potential corruption of such technology and the unknown consequences it may yield.  All man’s attempts at playing God and being God thus far have failed miserably.  Why?  To the core of our being we are flawed and sinful human beings.  God is perfect and we are not.  He is the Creator and we are the created.  Though many scientists would debate this last point, I reference Alister McGrath in saying that Christianity makes the most sense of what I see in the world around me. 

It is possible that we may see the lines of morality stretched by this endeavor under the guise of advancement, preservation, and human evolution.  Who defines what is moral to an atheist or unbelieving scientist?  If morality is determined by each individual based on his or her preference within a postmodern world, then what keeps scientists from trying to create a “perfect” or flawless line of human beings?  And if such human beings can be conceived ideally, will that effect the value of “imperfect” human life?  We are already seeing the effects of such lines of thought in assisted suicides and abortions based on predicted birth defects.  Again, a major concern in this discussion is the fact that scientists cannot predict the effect that such a “creation” may have on our world.  Many people also neglect the factor of man’s naturally wicked heart that yearns to twist even the best creations into deceitful or evil tools for obtaining fame, fortune, or power.

So, are you ready for artificial life?  Be afraid, be very afraid.

McGrath vs. Dawkins Part 1
McGrath vs. Dawkins Part 2

A documentary called “Root of All Evil?” was also filmed recently.  In a portion cut from the documentary, Dawkins interviews McGrath and poses many questions concerning religion and science.