Is Our DNA Sacred?

Lutheran theologian, Ted Peters, answers that question with a clear 'no.'

As part of a lecture series earlier this year at Seattle Pacific University, Peters addressed the issue of embryonic/stem cell research head-on, asserted that all the hoopla over "playing God" is unfounded -- in fact, he sees the Church's condemnation of cloning and stem cell research as indicative of how the "Prometheus myth" has permeated our culture.

"You know the story: Prometheus sees that the gods enjoy the use of fire, so he lights his torch from the sun and brings the fire back down to earth. Zeus punishes Promethius for stealing from the gods by chaining him to a rock, where he endures perpetual pain an suffering."

Peters believes our culture is "riddled with the Promethean myth -- from Frankenstein to "Jurassic Park." Explaining further, he asserts "The perceived danger is that scientists may unlock the secrets of nature and modify them, only for nature to come back like Zeus and chain us to a rock. It's a myth that breeds unreasoned fear... the phrase 'playing God' is not a theological term. It's a secular term, and I think it belongs to the myth of Promethius." Peters goes on to state his position fairly clearly:

"I think that based on reason and understanding we must agree with Craig Venter when he stated at the conclusion of the Human Genome Project, 'Genes can't possibly explain all of what makes us what we are.' In other words, DNA is not sacred."

Peters points to three issues, central to the theological conversation over cloning and stem cell research: Relationship, Origins, and Beneficence.

Relationship
Our value as human beings is rooted in relationship with God, not in a chain of nucleotides that makes up our DNA.

Origins
There's a tendency for humans to look for the value of something in terms of its origins. However, St. Paul writes in Chapter 5 of Romans that our essential and original nature is to be found not in Adam -- out past -- but in Christ -- our future.

Beneficence
Beneificence says, "If you have the opportunity to do good, do good -- and go out of your way to do it." Our responsibility before God is to use our creativity to make the world a better place, and this applies to scientific research which leads to the improvement of human life.

(Taken from a written summary of Dr. Peter's lecture that appeared in Response, Summer 2004, pp. 10-13. You can read an abbreviated version online by going here)

Is Peters right about this? Are the vast majority of statements coming from faith communities (e.g. Orthodox, Catholic, and Protestants), affirming the sanctity of embryos and stem cells, misguided? Is the greater Christian community suffering from a Promethius complex?

UPDATE: On Tuesday, California voters passed Proposition 71, authorizing the State to spend billions of dollars on stem-cell research, while prohibiting funding on human reproductive cloning research.

Comments

[DLE]

Lutheran theologian or not, this argument is a straw man of the highest order.

What Christians are arguing against here is the harvesting of embryonic stem cells from aborted fetuses, not against stem cell research in general. It is a very slippery slope that we must avoid at all cost lest we consume our own young in an effort to live forever.

The argument gets even more ridiculous when it is apparent that adult stem cells operate in the same way as embryonic. Why sacrifice our young on the altar of Molech when alternatives exist, even if they are a fraction more difficult to cultivate?

This whole line of reasoning of using aborted fetuses in stem cell research is abhorrent to me. I believe it should sicken everyone. It is the only reason why Christians would even begin to argue against stem cell research. But given that adult stem cell research exists, and no thinking person--Christian or not--would be against that, why resort to embryonic? Truth is, there is no reason to pursue embryonic stem cell research when the alternative is so readily available.

[Keith Seckel]

DLE said re: the use of embryonic tissue for research: "It is the only reason why Christians would even begin to argue against stem cell research."

I agree.

The abilities of scientists to create and develop will continue. Some say our children now (4+ yrs & older) are the first generation that will see the change of two centuries -- that we are becoming a race of Centenarians because of the advances of medicine re: longevity and wellness. I think that is great -- sorta.

(1) I think DNA is not sacred and we can move forward scientifically on that road. but: if it is at the cost of embryonic life (i.e. either aborted fetuses or perti dish embryos) then the cost is too high.

(2) I think there has been far too little research into the cost the planet will pay for our longevity. We've been given rule over creation, but we are not being good stewards if we eat up resources at the rate we currently do. And we are doing an even more attrocious job f it if we keep that rate going, and make it possible for even more of us to do so!

~ Keith

[Justin Baeder]

This is a tough one because stem cells promise to help people with tragic diseases, but at the same time, it's really not beneficial, as Keith says, to just make everybody's retirement and failing-health years, longer.

Is DNA sacred? No, but that's a different question from whether a human embryo - regardless of whether the life or death decision has been made already - is sacred. I would argue that a human embryo, which is not substantively different from a child other than in size and age, is indeed quite sacred, as is all human life.

Having said that, I think the ethics of the stem cell debate depend heavily on whether we're just using cells that the embryos no longer need, or whether we're actually perpetually imprisoning human beings in petri dishes for our own gain, as in the Matrix - except we are the machines. I cannot stomach that kind of society.

[Andii]

" 'Genes can't possibly explain all of what makes us what we are.' In other words, DNA is not sacred."
Quite so, just fyi there are a few articles that point to this at my blog spot which show that genetic determinism is not order of the day:
http://nouslife.blogspot.com/2004/11/humans-chimps-think-different.html
And while not about genetic determinism the following does indicate the role that nnurture does or doesn't play in determining even the physical structure of the brain:
http://nouslife.blogspot.com/2004/11/infant-determinism-is-myth.html

I suspect that the more testing issue over embryo issues is the fact that before the empbryo cells start to specialise [ie while they are yet stem cells] one could be removed from an embryo without affecting the subsequent physical development. It is before this point that identical twins may develop -thus at this point an individual human is not in place. Take that with the sheer amount of *natural* 'wastage' of embryos in this position and there is a strong argument for defining the key point of hominisation as the point where stem cells start to specialise.

Perhaps a bit controversial but consonant with the scientific facts...

[Chris]

QUOTED (from DLE):
"...lest we consume our own young in an effort to live forever.
"

QUOTED: (from Justin):
"perpetually imprisoning human beings in petri dishes for our own gain"

Both these pictures are disturbing.

QUOTED: (from Andii)
" the fact that before the empbryo cells start to specialise [ie while they are yet stem cells] one could be removed from an embryo without affecting the subsequent physical development. "

That's very interesting.

I'm still hoping to hear someone's thoughts on Dr. Peters' "Prometheus myth."

[Andii]

Prometheus myth -glad you reminded us! I for one need to muse a bit more but it certainly is a 'meme' in popular cinema throught the middle and end of the 20th century ... though whether it's really the prometean myth or simply romantic disdain for tchnology and/or proto post-modernism is part of what I'm chewing over. Nevertheless, there is a promethian shape to it. More fundamentally I think that I would actually want to engage with the idea of it being a kind of visceral awareness of the fall -perhaps the Spirit whispers also in our nightmares? The promethian myth somehow makes the gods responsible for the consequences, when we might rather want to say it is our naivety in believing in our own power to control and to do good with our power that is truly to be questioned. The punishemnt is not an arbitrary penalty inflicgted by capricious forces but intrinsic to our own structuring of fallenness. 'God gave them up ...'

[Benjy (groovythpstr)]

I voted in favor of it and I am glad that you shared this article with us. Life is very complex, why do so many Christians try to make everything a black and white issue? It shows they don't understand the complexity of the argument.

By the way, the slippery slope theory is another myth not based on truth.

[Justin Baeder]

Benjy-
I don't think anyone is making a slippery slope article as such. Could you elaborate on what you meant?

[Nathan]

I see elements of the Promethean myth in some arguments, but overall, I think those opposed to embryonic stem cell research base it much more on the cost in human lives - not letting the genetic cat out of the bag, so to speak. That does find its way into the argument, and legitimately so, but the primary motivation is preventing the destruction of human life. I think Mr. Peters may be focusing too narrowly on one aspect of the debate and not looking at the whole of the pro-life arguments.

And while I'm certainly not as well versed in the science as you are, Andil, I don't think the potential for an embroy to split into twins prior to specialisation is an effective argument against viewing embryos as human life. In fact, it points to the fact that more than one of God's images might be destroyed in such research, making it even more problematic.

Personally, I think life & death is inherently a "black and white issue," and while the debate over this research is very complex, I don't think the opposition is over-simplifying the debate. However, granting that it is a *human* desire to have things simple and straightforward (and not just a failing Christians are especially prone to), why is that a bad thing? If an issue can be simplified so that it can be understood by those who are not technically proficient in the field, why shouldn't it be?

I prefer to think of the "slippery slope" theory in terms of mission creep. Take your social security number, for instance. Originally, it started out as just that - your tracking number for the social security system. But what is it used for now? You can't get a credit card, buy a car or a home, open a back account, get a cell phone (the list goes on and on) without having a SSN. Why? Because the system was poorly designed and the SSN makes things easier for many other institutions, like banks and credit bureaus, who now have a unique government issued ID number for all their customers. What does this have to do with stem cell research? Its human nature to take short cuts, to find the path of least resistance. It is entirely possible, if not probable, that truly therapeutic treatments developed from stem cells might be compromised into less than moral alternatives. It may happen as subtely as it did with our SSN, or it may not, but the potential is definitely there.

[Andii]

I guess I have to reprise this ;-)
"I don't think the potential for an embroy to split into twins prior to specialisation is an effective argument against viewing embryos as human life. In fact, it points to the fact that more than one of God's images might be destroyed in such research, making it even more problematic."

Not necessarily: I suspect that what I'm saying is [and I'm a father of identical twins btw] that the cluster of stem ce;;s is not to be regarded as a human individual. There is no doubt that we are dealing with human cells with the capability of becoming one or more individuals given the right cricumstances but we do need to note that many many of these 'clusters' do not ever reach the stage of implantation in the uterus or even of specialising into organs etc. I think what I'm suggesting -not even arguing yet- is that while sperm nd ova are human cells capable of becoming one or mure human indivudual, we don't accord them fully human status. I guess the refrain of 'every sperm is sacred' haunt me here. It does sem to me that simply having DNA and a capability under proper conditions of becoming a human being do not confer status equivalent to a human being. These pre-embryonic clusters are somewhere between the status of an ovum and that of an implanted and organ-diveryfying foetus. Unless they implant and begin to cellularly specialise they will not become a human being, in this they are like spermatazoa and ova. However they do have the capabilty of doing so and of forming a new and usually genetically unique [barring parthogenenesis and identical twinning etc] individual in a way that a simple ovum, for example doesn't.

So it depends on what you mean by human life ... no-one is defending the necessity to preserve ova, -are they?

In addition the language you use of God's language is problematic too: it kind of presupposes the anwer you come to and as such is a smuggled assumption. Surely the issue is in just what that image consists and at what point ... just stating it like that doesn't actually move us on, just gives the illusion of it.

[DLE]

Here's another thought:

Everything God made was pronounced good. Does this not make it sacred, even in a fallen world? Or perhaps we should think that everything that is redeemable is sacred in the eyes of God. Would this extend to our bodies and to their DNA?

[Justin Baeder]

Andii said "It does seem to me that simply having DNA and a capability under proper conditions of becoming a human being do not confer status equivalent to a human being."

I agree with you this far, but only when referring to separate sperm and eggs. Of course sperm are not sacred. But a fertilized egg is a genetically complete organism - a human organism. You said that it has the capability of becoming a human being - what else does it take? I cannot think of another point at which you could say "There! It just became a human being!" other than fertilization.

[tammy]

it's interesting to note at this point in the comments, that there was a time in church history when people believed that when the mother felt the baby move, it had become a human being.

interesting discussion here.

[Chris]

QUOTED:
"there was a time in church history when people believed that when the mother felt the baby move, it had become a human being."

Tammy, this got me thinking something I've often pondered: from God's perspective, do we have greater responsibility for issues we acquire greater knowledge about? In other words, can it be said, "the more we know, the more responsible we are?"

btw - why haven't you commented on my EC'05 post? ;)

[Benjy (groovythpstr)]

Someone asked why I commented on the slippery slope. It was in response to the very first person that posted a response, and I wanted to point out the fact that the slippery slope argument is a fallacy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope

[Andii]

Responding to Justin: " You said that it has the capability of becoming a human being - what else does it take? I cannot think of another point at which you could say "There! It just became a human being!" other than fertilization."

As I said in previous comment-postings: it requires that the cells implant in a uterus [and many don't -so-called 'natural wastage'] and that they start to specialise to become organs etc. Without these things they're 'just' a bunch of cells capable of becoming many things including placenta or several individuals [as in co-clones -usually called identical twins].

Personally, in the light of all of this I would say "There it just became a human being" at implantation and when the stem cells begin to specialise into one [or more] individual organism. Until then youmight have to say "There! it may become one or maybe two human beings, some of it will be placenta or it may simply not do any of those things and be 'flushed out'..."

[Chris]

QUOTED:
"I wanted to point out the fact that the slippery slope argument is a fallacy."

Benjy, quoting from the wikipedia source you referenced for us:

The slippery slope argument may or may not involve a fallacy. See the discussion on the two interpretative paradigms below: the momentum paradigm and the inductive paradigm. However the slippery slope claim requires independent justification to connect the inevitability of B to an occurrence of A. Otherwise the slippery slope scheme merely serves as a device of sophistry.

Seems that whether one uses the "slippery slope" device, or whether one labels it a "fallacy," one must provide convincing evidence.

[Nathan]

Andii -

"...what I'm saying is [and I'm a father of identical twins btw] that the cluster of stem ce;;s is not to be regarded as a human individual. There is no doubt that we are dealing with human cells with the capability of becoming one or more individuals given the right cricumstances but we do need to note that many many of these 'clusters' do not ever reach the stage of implantation in the uterus or even of specialising into organs etc..."

So we have contingent humans, then? One could easily push this argument out to any point, as some have done. It is a not actually a human being until the mother has reached the Nth trimester, since there is the possibility of miscarriage. It is not actually a human being until it is delivered alive, since there is the possibility of a still birth. It is not actually a human being until it has survived for X number of days, because of the possibility of SIDS. It is not actually a human being until it has individuated, because of the possiblity of....If we define human based on a future possibility, why should we stop at implantation in the uterus or specialization of the cells since there is still a great deal that could "naturally" go wrong after that point? Further, what does the somewhat tenuous existence of a fertilized egg in a woman's body have to do with embryonic stem cell research? In research embryos, they have absolutely no possibility of becoming anything other than fodder for experimentation - either to be cultivated or destroyed. How does the elimination of any possibility of even becoming human (as you define it) factor into your thinking?

"In addition the language you use of God's language is problematic too: it kind of presupposes the anwer you come to and as such is a smuggled assumption. Surely the issue is in just what that image consists and at what point ... just stating it like that doesn't actually move us on, just gives the illusion of it."

I don't think the language I borrowed from the Bible presupposes my answer. I think the fertilized egg is, in fact, a tiny little God-image, and thus worthy of defense and preservation. But as you can see, I came to the conclusion that the embryo is a God-image quite apart from some "smuggled assumption." I agree very much that the issue is when that image exists, and to a lesser extent, what that image consists of.

[Andii]

Hey Nathan, you're coming over as if you think that I'm strongly advocating soemthing that I don't think I am advocating. I'm more tentative than you seem to think on this. I used to believe very strongly that human life begins at conception. Now I've found out more about the processes of it all I'm way less sure and exploring how it looks. I think I'm now at a place where I don't think that we can really talk about distinctly human/imaging God life until implantation and the start of cell specialisations. The reasons for this are that until then we may not have a human being at all. The alternative seems to me that we commit oursleves to finding ways to save the myriads of ferilised ova that are routinesly being lost simply as 'natural wastage'.

The contingency argument opens up to a slippery slope in the other direction: the possible future of any sperm or unfertilised ovum is that it could become a human being ... I can't see how that can avoid the 'every sperm is sacred' scenario. Monty Python may have been joking about that, but they had a point.

I'm afraid that using the term 'image of God' in the way that it was certainly did come over as a power-play: wheeling out the big holy words to mean what you wanted to prove in a context where potentially the meaning of those big holy words was the issue at stake. As such it looked like a [no doubt unintended] attempt to short circuit the issue by presupposing the answer in the terms of the argument. Sorry: but I can't see how it can be seen otherwise. I'm not cross about it and I'm not being aggressive just telling it how it looks from here. It's unconvincing and if you want to convince me or someone who thinks a bit like me, then you will need to step away from those big holy words until we know how we are using them and are agreed about that.

Anyway you do grant that you used the word to describe what you *think* is the case. I was concerned about the way they seemed to be deployed as if the terms ended the argument.

[Fr. Jim Rosselli]

PROMETHEUS is the Greek mythological figure
who tried to steal fire from the gods. For
this he was sentenced to be chained to a rock for eternity with birds pecking at his liver. His crime was "hubris," or offending
against the gods by way of presumptive pride.

THE GREEK AND ROMAN MYTHS tell us almost
nothing about God, because the Greeks and Romans had no revelation of Him: pagan
religion was a combination of magic, dealing
with demons (who impersonated the "gods")
and philosophical guesswork.

The result was the human drama, complete with its grandiosity and pitfalls, projected onto the supernatural beings they
formulated and their interactions with their
heroes. "Pitiable indeed are the heroes,"
opined one philosopher-poet, "for they have
gained the attention of the gods."

So, from the myths we learn, not of the Divine, but of the human condition. The
Prometheus Myth could be capsulized as,
"Pride goeth before a fall."

MODERNISTS.

In dealing with this essay, we need to
draw the distinction between Christians
and Modernists.

While he may belong to a church that calls itself Lutheran (I'm betting he belongs to the ELCA), this fellow is mnost certainly not a "Lutheran Theologian." He nowhere
suggests Lutheran (or any other Christian) doctrine, anthropology or worldview. What
he is, is a desconstructionist philosopher
who identifies himself with a church that has "Lutheran" in its name.

Modernists are not Christians. They do not
believe in the historicity, accuracy or
authority of the Christian Creeds, confessions or Scriptures. Rather, they
metaphorize all of these, adapting them to
the demands of the spirit of the age.

To a Modernist, all Christianity is simply
an updated version of ancient mythology--
good human guidance, to be considered
seriously, but nothing more.

MODERNIST VS. CHRISTIAN MORALITY

Modernists reject an actual Fall from Grace
as (of course) a myth. This is handy for them., because they don't actually believe in a vicariously-atoning Crucifixion or a
physical, historical Resurrection, either--
not to mention a Virgin Birth.

What Modernists do believe in is the
"god of history." By this they mean that,
since God works in history, whatever's going
on at the moment is indicative of what God
wants. That means that there "must be" a way
of adapting to the morality of the age.

Christians, on the other hand, know that
the Fall was real; that the Virgin Birth
is indicative of the activity of the Holy Spirit in the Birth of the Messiah; that
there was an actual Crucifixion, Resurrection and Ascension by means of
which Heaven is once again opened and we
are redeemed.

We know that history is the product of the actions of fallen and sinful human beings,
and that what is happening at the moment among men is never prima facie evidencve of what God wants; that God has revealed a
morality to us which is His Desire for us,
which is for all men of all ages in all
cultures under all circumstances.

ABORTION. MODERNISM, MOLECH AND STEM CELLS

Modernism serves the spirit of the age, whom the Bible tells us is demonic. The
Bible also defines all the "gods" of the
nations as demons.

One of these is Molech, the Babylonian/
Canaanite god to whom infant sacrifice was made.

Now, the fact of the matter is that fetal
tissue is utterly unnecessary for the
harvesting of stem cells. Umbilical cord
blood yields stem cells that are at least
as good, if not better. Medical journals
report enormous successes in the use of
cord-blood stem cells.

What this means is that the fetal stem-cell
furor is a scam, just another way to
justify the slaughter of babies in the womb.
It is a demonized position, driven by the
spirit of the age to inspire homage and sacrifice to Molech.

Remember that there is a spirituality of
the infernal. It is a real spirituality,
because demons are real spirits. It reflects a higher order of creation than ours, for demons are angelic beings and
angels are a higher order of creation than we are.

This infernal spirituality evokes the worst
in us, and defies God at every turn. God
calls us to chastity, protection of
the innocent and the safeguarding of life.
The spirit of the age calls us to depravity,
the murder of the innocent and the deepising
of human life, for it is made in God's image.

THE DENIAL OF THE SACRED is an essential
part of Modernism. It is consistent that
this "theologian" would deny the sacredness of human DNA, because DNA conveys to us
our essential human characteristics, and
these characteristics are God-created.

To deny the sacredness of our DNA is to deny
the inherent sacredness of the human being
and thereby God's Personal activity in the
creation of each and every person.

BY extension, to do so suggests yet another
justification to sacrifice infants to a
demon god who has not slept since the day
he was cast from Heaven, and will not sleep until the very real, non-metaphorical and--
terrible for the spirit of the age and his
disciples to contemplate--utterly non-
mythological return in Glory of our Lord, God and Saviour Jesus Christ.

A holy and blessed Christmastide to all,

V. Rev. James Rosselli
Dean for the United States
Orthodox Church of Canada

[Peter]

"DNA is the genetic code from which an animal or person is formed. The physical features of the entire individual are encoded in the DNA before it is formed. Consider Psalm 139:16, which is part of a passage beginning in verse 13 that describes the formation of a person in the womb: "Thine eyes did see my substance, yet being unperfect; and in thy book all my members were written, which in continuance were fashioned, when as yet there was none of them." How is it possible for one’s members to be fashioned when they do not yet exist? The answer is that they are formed in the DNA before they are formed bodily." The ESV renders that verse "Your eyes saw my unformed substance; in your book were written, every one of them, the days that were formed for me, when as yet there were none of them." I'm not sure I see the connection, but I do agree that the Bible is scientifically accurate. The Bible speaks about the earth being suspended in space, describes the hydrological cycle and describes earth as being round long before anyone confirmed these as true."
http://www.challies.com/archives/000660.php

[Peter]

"The hinge to this passage is "kowl"; which means "all of them" or every one"
The passage reads like this: "Your eyes saw my embryo/substance and on your book all of them ["kowl"] were written. In the continuance of days ['yowm'] were they formed."
If "kowl" is referring to the days rather than our substance, then it would be appropriate to translate this passage with a reference to the book containing our days. But the antecedent [prior context] is our bodies, NOT our days. Verses 13, 14, 15, and 16 all have as their subject matter the formation of our bodies in the womb. Therefore the psalmist, when saying "kowl--all of them" is most certainly referring to the subject of the last 4 verses...our bodies."
http://www.eadshome.com/DNAPsalm139.htm

[Ray]

Fr. Jim,

That would have made Chrysostom proud. Too often Christians agree to speak in non-Christian 'realism' imagery. We forget that sacrificing infants to appease the gods of prosperity is a known theme not only in Promethues, but in our own story.

[Peter]

"the Bible has quite a few instances of God killing born children. Does this justify our committing infanticide or even killing adolescent children? No, but it does
show that God gives life, and only he can determine if it is to be taken away. We are not to take the place of God, as we do with abortions. That is the true blasphemy as far as the Bible is concerned, the soul and the flesh are complementary aspects of a unified being, they are not separate. Accordingly, the bible says Adam "BECAME a living soul", not "WAS GIVEN a living soul". Man does not have a body, he is a body. Man does not have a soul, he is a
soul. The unborn child is a body, and a soul, which has a personal relationship with God, as evidenced by scripture."

http://www.abortioninfo.net/facts/religionessay1.shtml