Thursday, 26 January 2023

Life

"The Snows of Ganymede," VI.

A Planetary Engineer explains:

"'Whole bacteria were assembled long ago. It was just a matter of reproducing and accelerating the chain of physicochemical reactions which led to the first life on Earth.'" (p. 182)

Energized complex molecules changed randomly until one became self-replicating. The Engineer adds:

"'Nothing more than microscopic organisms have been made yet, and I see no reason why humans should ever be produced synthetically even if it is possible. Nature has a much more interesting way of achieving that result.'" (ibid.)

Like the Engineer, I have encountered very strong religious opposition to the idea that human beings could ever be produced synthetically. "God wouldn't allow it!" someone shouted. "Can a thing out of a laboratory ever be holy?" someone else asked. "Life comes from life," a Krishna devotee proclaimed. A Muslim exhibition in Lancaster Library spelt out that Allah created Adam without a father or mother and Jesus without a father. Traditions that have stayed with scriptural fundamentalism have not been able to accept the full implications of scientific discoveries.

8 comments:

S.M. Stirling said...

Human beings -could- be produced 'artificially'; it's just extremely complex and difficult and basically, given current and immediate future tech, not really worth taking any trouble about.

Sean M. Brooks said...

Kaor, Paul and Mr. Stirling!

Paul: The Catholic Church takes science seriously. So don't lump us in with evangelical Protestants and Muslims.

Mr. Stirling: I suspect, however, that some billionaires may well be quietly paying for efforts at getting themselves cloned

Ad astra! Sean

paulshackley2017@gmail.com said...

Sean,

But the Catholic Church is no longer Fundamentalist.

Paul.

Sean M. Brooks said...

Kaor, Paul!

I disagree. The Catholic Church is Christianity at its most fundamental, in the true sense of that word.

Ad astra! Sean

paulshackley2017@gmail.com said...

Sean,

By "Fundamentalism," I meant only scriptural literalism.

Paul.

Sean M. Brooks said...

Kaor, Paul!

I believe, as does the Church, in Biblical literalism, PROPERLY understood. E.g. , the books of Kings is literally a theological interpretation of the Jewish kingdoms. And so on for other examples like the Book of Jonah, a fiction told to make theological points.

Ad astra! Sean

paulshackley2017@gmail.com said...

Sean,

By "scriptural literalism," I mean believing that the universe was made in six days and that Jonah really was inside the big fish. There are literalists in this sense.

Paul.

Sean M. Brooks said...

Kaor, Paul!

I agree, mostly by evangelical Protestants.

Ad astra! Sean