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)