I am totally against anyone ever doing this however...
a tiny, tiny prideful part of me is tempted to want it to happen just so I can say, "see, look, a baby human. There's no such thing as neanderthals!"

jez, I could agree with you that that is ONE of the reasons. I'm not sure I'm smart enough to figure out which reason is the "biggest" or the "main".

Your point is right on. It would be horrible. The reason you give is the reason that every major scientific and medical group (and the U.S. gov't and the U.K. gov't) are against it. Because when cloning mammals only something like 1-2% of the clones are successful. And yes, they fail at every stage, and often in unpredictable ways.

Though scientists are disagreed as to whether neanderthal is human or not, the thought of doing this to what even might be a human, is horrendous.

But I also would have issue with it if it were successful, or if the success rate were 100% instead of 1%. Creating a creature which would be unique, alone and a curiosity for our own purposes, is also horrendous.

And we thought society was rough on minorities...wait until there's a minority of one. Yipes.

"That's just so wrong on so many levels."

That pretty much mirrors my reaction.

I can't help but think of the origin of the soul when it comes to cloning humans. Does God create every soul? Are souls pre-existent or is the soul created through the parents (Traducianism)? Either way, this makes the act of cloning humans a heinous act.

I only just stumbled upon this site. This article caught my eye on the front page, but being a few days late to the party, I feel that I might be too late. In any case, I figured input from a scientist might be valuable to your discussion.

Flyaway, sorry to burst your bubble, but "Jurassic Park" does not inform scientists on closing. Moreover, we have very strong DNA evidence of interbreeding between humans and neanderthals. Cloning a placental mammal requires a host to carry it through the pre-birth developmental stages. A fetus (human, neanderthal, sheep, or otherwise) is not a self sufficient animal. It is, in effect, a parasite (the adversarial relationship between mother and gestating child is quite fascinating, and you could learn a lot by reading about the conflict - the mother's best interest is to live to spawn again, while the fetus is best served by surviving to birth - so there are conflicting hormonal signals given, among various other things, to compete for resources - in fact, menstruation being rare among mammals is possibly a protective mechanism against the embryo because menstruating animals are hemochorial). Given the similarities, and the incontrovertible evidence of successful interbreeding between humans and neanderthals, a human female would be able to provide the requisite support for the embryo. We do not currently have the technology to readily provide a synthetic womb, and given the already tricky nature of cloning an extinct species, this would not be the project in which to try such an endeavor.

Flyaway, I will not bother to address your last few sentences regarding your superstitions. I am sure you are aware of their irrelevance in this, and all, matters involving reality.

Tony, since souls are fairytale fiction, your thoughts on the subject are entirely irrelevant.

I would like to briefly discuss interbreeding in relation to speciation, as I feel it is probably not well understood by the crowd here. New species form when breeding populations become separated (that is, they cease or limit interbreeding) for long periods of time. No sexually reproducing species gives birth (or lays eggs, or what-have-you) to an offspring of an entirely different species. Instead, the differences between two species slowly creep in, one by one, in response to pressures from their local environment. Over time, when you compare the two, separate populations, you will find a large number of different traits. When enough differences have accumulated, you have a new species. At any time along the course of the process of speciation, you may encounter instances of interbreeding. As long as the amount of interbreeding stays limited, you still have the potential for the two breeding populations to continue to diverge. In many cases, a trait evolved by one population may be picked up by the other population, and carried forward by both populations, even after they have begun on the path of becoming distinct species.

This is a particularly good explanation of how speciation works, and is especially tailored to this audience, I highly suggest you read it - http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/03/08/elephantine-errors-from-ray-co/

PZ Myers is not a colleague of mine. He is famous for his blog and activism, but I have never personally met him, and we are not in the same field. He wasn't "'defending his scientific honor' by bashing someone who disagrees with him," he was explaining why someone was blatantly wrong by reviewing physical evidence. That person who is blatantly wrong is pushing his incorrect views on other people, and ultimately those views are being pushed on our schools, polluting the minds of the next generation with absolute nonsense. It is a damaging thing that needs to be stopped.

I know Ray is rather stupid, but who knew he could be that stupid.

So what I learned from your post is that scientists demonizing their opponents seems to be par for the course.

and is especially tailored to this audience, I highly suggest you read it

Why, because Ray Comfort is a respected evangelical, Christian and us Christians need a good beat down?

I honestly didn't know anything about Ray Comfort. In my quick search, I read about his credentials quickly (nothing about banana's) and based on PZ Meyers attention to defend himself, I thought Ray Comfort must have been a worthy opponent. If Ray Comfort is so stupid than PZ Myers should not have given 'air time' to Ray in his blog.

Calling people stupid to make your viewpoint look better is not going to convert anyone though.

Good point about the comparison of gravity and evolution as being accepted within our education system but isn't gravity currently visible? There is something obviously happening in this area even though we may not know why. Evolution is attempting to define the origin of life which no one has witnessed nor has anyone observed a transition of species (macro evolution). Well, I realize I'm out of my league with you and I'm probably spitting out the same, what you would consider 'bunk' as any other religious person, so I understand if you don't reply.

Also, so what if people believe in fairytales? Are you trying to help people/society evolve to the next level? I personally went through a little bit of depression a few years back (mid-life crisis) and part of it was because the big picture wasn't going my way (as if life is some sort of Super Bowl). Not that I want the conversation to head in this direction but this constant attacking of Christianity and religion adds to the stigma of atheism: They are always tearing down religious people. Atheism does not affirm anything, it simply tries to refute persons (religions) who affirm God.

Anyway, I too appreciate your contributions and viewpoints. I would love to understand your opinion on many topics that are posted here.

Hey Abhorred, good to hear back from you,

I like to point out the comparison between evolution and gravity, because they are both readily apparent, and both have been demonized by the church.

Yes. In our church the other night we had a big revival and our preacher, after removing his straw hat and mopping his brow with an enormous handkerchief, exclaimed "I do declare, we have GOT to quit allowing those seklar hoomanists to teach our kids that they stick to the earth! Everyone knows that we all are floatin' out in space, just the way God done intended! Heah!"



I have to admit, I have no idea when in church history anyone has questioned gravity. Perhaps you're talking about the heliocentric theory, or that the earth's a sphere, or something?

Meanwhile, religions are all full of holes, and to those of us willing to look objectively, it's quite obvious. I find myself wanting to say, "well, if it makes you happy, fine." And I probably could leave it at that, except for the fact that religious views are pushed upon people, hold back knowledge (the Dark Ages set us way back, as a civilization), cause major problems throughout the world, and are not just some benign opinion.

Two things to point out: I mentioned this above, but atheists, at least in my experience, tend to have a very simplistic view of the way the mind of someone of faith works. One example of this is the idea that our faith is so flimsy that it's amazing it stands up at all. In my opinion (and it's just an opinion) the vast majority of atheists know about as much about Christianity as I know about Buddhism. Meanwhile, a guy like me thinks about it all the time, and reads about it, and reads the Bible, and - yes - wrestles with the questions and the difficulties that come with it. All the time. And yet I believe it to be true.

On a final note: yes, religions have certainly caused problems. Normally when discussing Christianity, though, people tend to reach into the dark ages or the inquisition (in other words, things that happened centuries ago) for examples. Now, no one on this site will claim that Christianity is perfectly practiced or followed, anywhere. There are terrible things that still happen, and certainly quite a number of dumb/unwise things said and done by those of us who claim the faith.

But how about atheism? You don't have to go back more than 60 years or so to uncover absolutely awful things done in the name of atheistic states like China or Russia. "For the good of the nation", of course. I've spoken with Crimean Tatar young people who get quite emotional when discussing the great deportation that Stalin put their grandparents through following World War II, in which vast numbers of them died and all of them lost their homes and their country. There are hundreds of millions of people who died at the hands of regimes built upon atheism.

Now, will that happen again once atheism is once again the norm? Well, I hope not and I certainly don't think that your normal atheist has anything like that in their mind or heart. But once you've removed God, human nature being what it is, something else always (and I mean always) takes it's place. Whether in benign ways - wonder at the universe, for instance (I've heard atheists describe their awe of the cosmos in ways that can only be described as worship), or worship of the state, which usually ends up very, very bad.

Now, truth is what's important. If what we believe as Christians is untrue, it doesn't matter how much good or ungood we have accomplished. I would just call for an even-handed assessment. It's common (and cliche) to describe all the bad things that religion has caused (and generally this works best if you include all religions) without taking some time to learn about the good that has been done, and is being done all over the place, in the name of Jesus.

Thanks Abhorred,

I think you dismiss the atheistic drivers of atrocity bit too easily. If humans are more temporary than the state, the state has more value than people. Atheism is a large driver of marxist-lenninism. The state (or something else) becomes god in the absence of God. Always. Always. It can also happen when good faith is twisted. Witness the national Christianity of the Nazis.

On another note:
Isn't there some Godwin's law variant having to do with the flying spaghetti monster? :-)

Our faith is based on the incarnation, at a historical time and place, in the physical realm, of Jesus Christ, and his death burial and resurrection at a specific point in history. There is evidence that can be evaluated and accepted or rejected for that.

You ask me how I know he lives. He lives within my heart.

On the contrary, we accept the theistic drivers of atrocity too easily.

Few people care enough to stay awake though the complete explanation behind why they're burning people.

Jez,

Is this complaint specific to Christianity, or to religious belief in general? An honest question.

You will not find an argument here that religious belief has been behind a lot of stupid and awful happenings. But to lump all religions together is to form an argument that I'm not taking part in :-)

Your third paragraph is one I tend to agree with. A key component of our faith is the view that people (meaning, you, me, everyone) are naturally sinful and capable of all sorts of terrible things. The only deliverance from this "body of death" is faith in Jesus and his death, burial and resurrection.

Regarding the atrocities of that most atrocious of centuries, the 20th, I have found that atheists have a blind spot to the things done by atheist governments. I'm not trying to be unfair - ideology drives action. Yes, Christians can be stupid and awful. But a Christian who actually believes what Jesus taught is not going to commit genocide. Human nature being what it is, a person who rejects any notion of an outside standard for morals is - in my opinion - more in danger of unmooring themselves from compassion in deference to whatever is driving them forward, be it nation or cause or whatever. Everyone worships something.

Christians believe all sorts of impractical things, such as the value of every human being. Of course, many atheists also believe that people are valuable, and lead upright and moral lives. But if we are all just clouds of atoms, the value of the human being is set on far shakier ground.

What happened in atheist, communist Russia and China (and still happens, today) is not an anomaly. It is one natural destination (I'm not saying the only natural destination) of atheist thinking.

On another note:
Isn't there some Godwin's law variant having to do with the flying spaghetti monster? :-)

Regarding the atrocities of that most atrocious of centuries, the 20th, I have found that atheists have a blind spot to the things done by atheist governments. I'm not trying to be unfair - ideology drives action. Yes, Christians can be stupid and awful.

But a Christian who actually believes what Jesus taught is not going to commit genocide.

Hello Abhorred,

A few more notes. I don't expect us to get anywhere, but here goes:

In any case, atheism was not a driving factor in such bad human behavior.

Anyway, there seems to be an urge among religious people to look for atrocities to blame on atheism, to even the playing field for the actual blood on the hands of religions.

There are millions of atheists in the United States, and many more around the world, including many in governments in other countries. Nothing bad has come of that.

atheists aren't advocating rounding up all the superstitious among us.

It is only a matter of time before the first world nations are all atheistic majorities. And, in my opinion, the world will be better for it.

If you really believed what was in the bible, you would be advocating for the stoning of adulterers. People pick and choose the convenient parts, or the manageable parts. If one is interested in committing genocide, they could certainly find parts of doctrine to support them, and ignore the contradictory parts.