Artificial humans vs. Christianity
 

Two atheist scientists create an artificial person. The DNA is unique, the genotypes and phenotypes are perfectly sapien. The person grows, learns, and behaves as the same rate as a normal person, and exhibits perfectly human qualities to all that observe it.

If we are able to create people through means that are perfectly scientific and controlled, would this conflict with the nature of reality as put forth in the Bible?

Re: Artificial humans vs. Christianity
 

You would not actually be creating anything. You would be compiling something. To create you need to do it from nothing. Why complicate the hypothetical of creating a human? Create matter from nothing is all you have to do.

RJT

Re: Artificial humans vs. Christianity
 

[ QUOTE ]

If we are able to create people through means that are perfectly scientific and controlled, would this conflict with the nature of reality as put forth in the Bible?

[/ QUOTE ]

no

Re: Artificial humans vs. Christianity
 

[ QUOTE ]
You would not actually be creating anything. You would be compiling something. To create you need to do it from nothing. Why complicate the hypothetical of creating a human? Create matter from nothing is all you have to do.

RJT

[/ QUOTE ]

If we are talking abuot the God I think we are. Did God create adam and eve out of thin air or dust and a rib? If the OP and his cronies "compile" a human I'd imagine it would make christians uncomfortable.

Re: Artificial humans vs. Christianity
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You would not actually be creating anything. You would be compiling something. To create you need to do it from nothing. Why complicate the hypothetical of creating a human? Create matter from nothing is all you have to do.

RJT

[/ QUOTE ]

If we are talking abuot the God I think we are. Did God create adam and eve out of thin air or dust and a rib? If the OP and his cronies "compile" a human I'd imagine it would make christians uncomfortable.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you are asking a non-rhetorical question, the Biblical version of man’s origin talks about being formed from “the clay of the ground” and from “…one of his ribs …then built up into a woman the rib that he had taken from the man.” (Genesis: Chapter 2).

Whether the origin of man is literal (some believe) or allegorical (many view it to be) is not really the important issue as I see it.

Even if (hypothetically) we can make man, the more important question (to me) is - should we? Science is at the stage now when these types of questions become very relevant and, as I see it, should seriously be discussed. (I have no idea how much discussion is actually going on. I hope/assume in at least ethics classes at universities it is. I‘m talking here more about genetic research in general.) The last time that questions like this where discussed perhaps was after the fact, i.e relative to “The Bomb”.

Hardly ever does it seem that new science/technology considers the ramifications of what it “creates”. Certainly no one discussed what would happen to our lives when we invented the automobile. (This probably isn’t the best example.) And I am not saying that we should have even discussed it. But, certainly no one imagined the ecological effects it would have on us. Of course, “we” would have still “decided” to produce it. We do reap what we sow is basically my point. That just because we can do something, it should not automatically be assumed that we should do it.

A question that comes to my mind is why one would even want to “create” a human. For the same reason as Mallory, “because it (the science) is there”? chez here talked about Religion being about man’s vanity. I see Science often being more about man’s vanity than Religion. I think many despise (the idea of) God not because they hate (it) Him; but, because they hate not being Him.

RJT

Re: Artificial humans vs. Christianity
 

Interesting thoughts. I agree that discussion needs to be had about these issues. I can hypothetically see reasons for cloning body parts, as there is a shortage of organ donors and complications from using a body part that isnt yours. However, I agree that science might be about vanity at times, and I can't see a reason to clone or create a whole human.

Re: Artificial humans vs. Christianity
 

You are off the subject. The question is whether such a man made human would have a soul. Yes or no.

Re: Artificial humans vs. Christianity
 

How is this different from when people make new people the old fashioned way? One way we use some elements in a lab, in another we use elements in our bodies.. Seems like there isn't a theisticly relevant difference. Maybe I am missing it?

Re: Artificial humans vs. Christianity
 

[ QUOTE ]
You are off the subject. The question is whether such a man made human would have a soul. Yes or no.

[/ QUOTE ]

The question is similar to the questions “can God create a rock so big He can’t lift it” and “can God make a circle a square”. The question is absurd on its face.

Answer the question “can man create anything” and you have your answer.

Re: Artificial humans vs. Christianity
 

Hmpoker,

Just out of curiosity, why did you pose the original question with “two…scientists” instead of just one? For that matter, why the qualification of “…atheist scientists”?

RJT