Date: Sat, 17 Jan 1998 21:30:04 -0500 (EST)
From: Rob Sheldon
To: wldmailbag@aol.com
Subject: Letter to Editor on issue "25 years"
Dear World Magazine,
Thank you for having the courage to devote an entire issue of WORLD
to the embarassment of abortion. Thank you for searching long and hard
for hope in a generally hopeless situation. I was touched by the last
two lines of the feature article. Hope always is small, otherwise it
would be arrogance. So I was discouraged when the articles on the future
of the human race were so pessimistic: abortifacients, syringe
abortions, in vitro fertilization, human cloning... But it was the
article on "reprogenetics" that finally set my blood boiling.
As Christians, we are on theologically thin ice when our strongest
objection to a technology is that "human beings try to become
their own creators". I have heard that argument in countless forms
decrying electricity, automobiles, airplanes, and birth control to
name a few. In such statements it is nearly impossible to separate
reactionary traditionalism from genuine Biblical objections. But the
Bible does speak out on eugenics, and we need never relegate this
topic to the "Biblical gray areas" of the lost ground department.
Eugenics is
absolutely nothing new to the human race or otherwise. Our tools
may have gotten more sophisticated, but it's the same row we've
been hoeing for 3000 years. All types of dogs, from St.Bernard's to
chihuahuas are the same species, because they can interbreed and
produce fertile offspring. The reason they look so different is purely
a result of controlled breeding. The exact same biology holds for
humans, whose differences (Negroid, Caucasian, Mongoloid) are
perhaps more due to geographical separation than to controlled
breeding. However, this was not true in the Amorite kingdoms of the
Middle East circa 1200 B.C. e.g., Og in Bashan.
In those kingdoms, a warrior/ruling class was established in which
controlled breeding must have been mandatory. These were the
Anakim (also known as Rephaim, Emim in Moab, Zanzummim in
Ammon). The trait which apparently was the object of breeding
was height. There are a number of traits that suggest breeding was
ongoing (rather than a spontaneous mutation, or "sport"). The
clincher for me was 2Sam21:20 (repeated in 1Chron20:26, NIV)
"In still another battle, which took place at Gath, there was a
huge man with six fingers on each hand and six toes on each
foot--twenty-four in all. He also was descended from Rapha."
Such inherited defects are well-known among highly interbred
populations. Note that Gath, the home town of Goliath as well,
was under the domination of the Phoenicians, or Philistines, who
were not an Amorite people at all. So it appears that this trait was
not just an accident of genetics, but an ongoing breeding effort
sustained by recent conquerors.
Why would human breeding be desirable? One doesn't have to go
back to 1200 BC to read all sorts of experts reporting on the the
advantages of good breeding. "The Bell Curve" is one such modern
example, one can also read about the Aryan myth used in Nazi
propaganda or the efforts of the eugenics movement in the 1930's here
in America. Be it intelligence, blond hair, or great stature, there is
probably someone who thinks one should breed for it. In the case
of the Amorites, it produced military superiority in hand-to-hand
combat, which was of great value in terrain where chariots could not
be deployed. (Which raises the question of why the Philistines, who
relied heavily on chariots, kept alive a breeding program for giants.
Did they have grandiose plans for subjugating the mountain tribes?)
The Holman Bible dictionary identifies these Anakim with
the Nephelim, the progeny of the "sons of God" who married the
"daughters of men", based on Numbers 13:33. Even if true (and
it has the ring of fear propaganda about it) this does not
preclude breeding. Often breeders (the Idaho russet potato comes
to mind) rely on accidental mutations that they then attempt to
introduce into the gene pool. However one cannot keep a viable
breeding effort going without both producing abundant offspring,
and carrying out various hybridizations such as back-crosses
(where 1st generation is crossed or mated with the 2nd generation
to increase the likelihood of transmitting desirable traits.)
So the first objection raised to breeding humans is that it violates
sexual taboos against polygamy, incest and the like. Which raises the
question, why did God give through Moses such explicit commands
about sexual taboos? Some commentators argue that every culture has
such taboos because of the inherent dangers of inbreeding (sterility,
fatal and debilitating mutations etc.). But if one cares little for the
failures of the method (witness dog breeding for example) this is hardly
a drawback. Even if abortion or infanticide were illegal, still one
could imagine a society that bore the cost of failed breeding
experiments if only to reap the benefits of a successful breed. But
perhaps Moses' commands were not so much intended to prevent the
failures, but to prevent the successes. If God expressly wanted to
prevent His people from engaging in eugenics, what commandments would he
give that would prevent it? (Much the same as asking, if the US wanted
to prevent Iran from making a nuclear bomb, what technologies would it
regulate?)
But then what is the danger in eugenics? We have several examples
in history to learn from. The hemophilia of the royalty of Europe was a
minor expression of such inbreeding. One might also look at the caste
system in India, as well as the Anakim of Palestine. In all these cases,
I would argue that eugenics destabilizes society, despite the claims
made otherwise in "Brave New World". Most significantly it promotes
continual warfare and a fascist mentality (or otherwise what would a
warrior class do?). It promotes the subjugation of the majority of the
population in a feudal society and it denies one of the fundamental
tenets of democracy, that all men are created equal. Ultimately, one
might argue that it hinders the progress of science and the liberation
of the Holy Spirit. It is a classic Mephistophelian deal with the devil.
Therefore it comes as no surprise that the Israelites were commanded to
annihilate the Amorites, down to the last man, woman, child and donkey.
I have long struggled with this overly severe demand for total
destruction. What kind of God would destroy innocent babies, original
sin or no? But exactly this approach is taken by the Africans toward the
Ebola virus: the sick family is quarantined in their hut and food placed
at the door. If the food is not eaten, the house and all its inhabitants
are burned to the ground so to stop the spread of this incurable and
fatal plague. If God demands this approach toward the Amorites, it must
be more than a degraded culture (for presumeably children could then be
re-educated and redeemable), it must be a lethal virus, a dangerously
degraded gene pool. (There's a close connection between viruses
and genes, which I relate to the doctrine of original sin.)
God refers over and over to the sins of the Amorites and the tendency
for the Israelites to imitate their disgusting practices. I have
commonly seen these practices explained as child sacrifice and temple
prostitution. The coincidences with America today are staggering. I have
not yet seen in America the support of eugenics, but your article pushed
me over the edge. When the US supports this perversion of God's
creation, perhaps then, as the Amorites before us, our sins in God's
sight will be complete. May God deliver us and America from such a day!
TOP
r*bs@rbsp.info
(Due to spammers, delete asterisk)