“Playing God”? Human Gene Editing & The Altering of Human Life

Host: Hon. Sam Rohrer

Guest: Patricia Engler

Note: This transcript is taken from a Stand in the Gap Today program aired on 2/12/26. To listen to the podcast, click HERE.

Disclaimer: While reasonable efforts have been made to provide an accurate transcription, the following is a representation of a mechanical transcription and as such, may not be a word for word transcript. Please listen to the audio version for any questions concerning the following dialogue.

Sam Rohrer:

Hello and welcome to Stand In the Gap Today, and it’s also our monthly focus on creation, apologetics, and today on an area of supreme concern as it relates to technology, to biology and human life and more frankly. My special in returning guest today is Patricia Engler. She’s a Christian apologetic speaker for answers and genesis. She’s a host on the podcast Zero Compromise, and she’s also the author of several books, including Prepare to Thrive, a Survival Guide for Christian Students and Modern Marxism, A Guide for Christians In a Woke New World, Patricia holds a BS in general science as well as an MA and bioethics and I believe is still pursuing doctrinal coursework and applied apologetics. So it’s a good mix, particularly for our theme today in a general sense as our nation. And I’m going to say the entire world has increasingly walked away from the God of the Bible, Yahweh that means God as creator, God as judge God as absolute truth, that God, that God of the Bible and as well walked away from God’s written word, the Bible, we are increasingly witnessing human arrogance and pride in full display, the everyday comments in the news and the entire display of arrogance.

We saw recently at the World Economic Forum meeting in Davos by the global political and economic billionaire elite. To me, as I’m watching that whole thing and talk some on this program about it, it confirms to me the view that these people, what our organization, the entire world system, they really think that they are God. And why do I say that? Well, because they demonstrate no fear of God and promise what only God can produce such as peace, wealth, and security and purpose in life. God produces those things, but in their human pride, they also pronounce their plans for the future, always without God, any reference to God, the God of the Bible. And they do it as if they are in charge, because they do, they think they are. These people increasingly, literally say that man can be God. They promise the life of trans humanism.

We’ve talked about that before, where human beings can be infused with technology and merge with ai, artificial intelligence enter a brave new world where we own nothing and are happy. That’s what they say. And herein I believe the ears of all God fearing people should perk up. And the eyes of all of those who believe in Jesus Christ should be wide open. Now today, it’s one aspect of that application of this arrogant attitude of our contemporary world and one application of that’s our focus today. And that’s human gene editing the human ability to now alter the very human DNA and the title I’ve chosen to frame what Patricia and I will talk about today is this playing God, playing God, human gene editing and the altering of human life. And with that, Patricia, welcome back to the program. It’s always a thrill to have you on.

Patricia Engler:

Thanks so much. Great to be back.

Sam Rohrer:

Patricia. You’ve already done a lot of research on this subject. You’re doing additional research on this matter of your human gene editing, and you’ve written a shorter article which people can find on the Answers in Genesis website entitled Biblical Boundaries for Human Gene Editing. You published that first in October, 2023, but since then you’ve been working on updating this material as technology AI and other changes are increasingly impacting and raising the concern, frankly, of human gene editing. So let’s start here if we can. Can you provide just a short definition and description of what is described as human gene editing? What is it in a general sense?

Patricia Engler:

Absolutely. So the gene editing, we’re talking about altering the DNA of a living being. So of course the DNA is the molecule that contains all of genetic information for building and modifying that being. So if we’re talking about humans, that’s the information that has, it specifies all our physical attributes, whether that’s hair color, eye color, and so on. And this DNA, it’s made of basically little molecular letters, little kind of building blocks called nucleotides that are spelled out in the sequence that spells out genetic messages. So when you change that message, you actually change what the gene is being used for to make proteins that do work in your cells. So when you edit a gene, you end up physically changing what’s going on in the cells in your body.

Sam Rohrer:

Okay, great. Again, we’re just giving overviews here, ladies and gentlemen, so stay with us. Another question, what’s the strongest general argument you’ve come across for human gene editing and in your opinion, what’s the strongest argument against human gene editing?

Patricia Engler:

Important question for sure. So starting with the biblical view, the strongest argument is that there are forms of human gene editing that are really helpful for treating diseases. They show really great promise for treating everything from certain cancers. Huntington’s disease, people who have had diabetes cured, they’ve had partially blind people have had their vision loss even restored from what we call gene therapies. They tend to be really expensive and millions of dollars per dose for a patient. But since diseases are part of our fallen world, we can love others by alleviating their suffering and correcting the mutations, the mistakes basically in the DNA that cause these disease diseases. So that’s great from a biblical view, that’s a strong argument for it. But then the strongest argument against it depends on the kind we’re talking about. There’s a lot of suspicious goals for gene editing we can talk about later, but one argument against any kind of gene editing that isn’t meant to correct a disease causing mutation is that biblically we know that our DNA was designed by a all knowing, all wise, all good creator.

So we expect that our DNA is already optimally perfect. And DNA is a crazy complex molecule. So it doesn’t just have one layer of information like a normal sentence does in writing. It can have multiple layers, like a sentence that has many messages depending whether you read it forwards or backwards or every other word. So as Dr. Jonathan Sanford explains in his book, the Gene Gun in the Mystery or Genetic Entropy, the Mystery of the Human Genome, if you change some of the letters in that gene, you could cause what you’re going for, the effect you’re going for on one level, but actually a lot of other unintended consequences because if it’s like a sentence with multiple messages, if you change the message on one level, you’re going to be causing mistakes on other levels. So that is an argument against gene editing is because God made our DNA perfect, if we’re not just correcting mutations but trying to change other things, we’re going to be basically not improving, but doing the opposite, making our DNA worse.

Sam Rohrer:

Okay, excellent. We are only about 30 seconds here, but in the title, I use the phrase Playing God question mark in regard to human gene editing. In short, is there a legitimate concern that those promoting human gene editing may in fact be playing? God,

Patricia Engler:

If we can explain what we mean by playing God, there is. So I use the analogy of let’s say there’s a kid who is pretending to be a police officer. He is playing officer in the sense that he’s trying to take on a role that he doesn’t actually have the authority and the knowledge and skills to perform so he can hurt himself and others. And in the same way, playing God means that we are inappropriately assuming a role that we lack the knowledge, skills, and voids to perform. So if we can explain it in those terms, there can be a legitimate concern.

Sam Rohrer:

Alright, I think that’s excellent. Ladies and gentlemen, there’s a boundary, there’s an authority structure or jurisdictions that are set up by God when we cross them, we’re in trouble. If we stay within them, we’re not. Alright. So in short playing, God could be, maybe we’ll talk about this as we get into the program. Stay with us. We’ll be right back. If you’re just joining us today, I hope that you stay with us. And interesting topic, probably one I would say probably safely say you may have never heard anybody even talk about before, or at least not in the way. I know we’re talking about it today. And that is human gene editing. I think we probably all heard about it. We’re going to go further into detail onto what it is and look at the history of that. Now my guest is ably qualified to talk about this.

Patricia Engler. She’s been with me many times and we’ve talked on different issues. The last time she was with me, we talked about invitro, fertilization, IVF and aspects of that. And that was a well responded to program. This one is connected and you’ll see certain regards, but Patricia, in your 2023 short article entitled Biblical Boundaries for Human Gene Editing, which people can find on the AIG G website@answersingenesis.org. When I was reading that, the analysis was very tight, it was very good. But you began that with the first paragraph. I’m just going to read that because it speaks to origins and history and purposes and goals, and that’s what I’d like to deal with in this subject. But you began your article with these words. You said this quote, genetically modified humans no longer exist only in science fiction. Recent technological advances have ushered human gene editing from the realm of brave new world to the horizon of scientific possibilities. You go on to say in that first paragraph, these possibilities became realities In 2018, fairly recently when Biophysicist Jan, it’s a Chinese name there in famously announced the birth of twins whose DNA, he had modified using the gene editing tool known as crispr. Alright, now with that bit of an introduction, let’s just walk into that. Can you give a short history of human gene editing now, Patricia, its origins and its history.

Patricia Engler:

Yes. I found it super interesting researching this because even though human gene editing sounds new, this whole quest to control human goes really far back like millennia. So even the ancient Greeks had ideas about how parents pass traits on to kids. And the pagan philosopher Plato promoted a version of eugenics, which would later be known as that idea that we should improve humanity by promoting the births of people with desirable traits. So then after the rise of modern science, people began collecting better data about heredity and genetics. And then around the mid 18 hundreds, Charles Darwin’s cousin, Francis Galton, formerly coined the term eugenics, proposing that we can further human evolution by encouraging the birth of the fittest possible babies. And then as eugenics caught on, people also tried preventing the births of unfit babies, forcibly sterilizing people, or even as the Nazis did, killing people considered unfit. And then during all this time in the early 19 hundreds, scientists were also racing to find the molecule behind genetic inheritance that led to the discovery of DNA structure. And then from then people began to ask, okay, so by changing DNA, can we edit life itself? So then as scientists began developing new techniques for manipulating genes, that started to look more and more possible, which brought in some other ideas.

Sam Rohrer:

Okay, obviously we’re talking human gene editing, but the editing of genes in plants and animals, that’s also going on and has been going on as well, right? I mean in a broader sense that’s going on also.

Patricia Engler:

Oh, absolutely. Yep, yep. For better crops and all kinds of things.

Sam Rohrer:

Okay, right. Just so you know that we’re talking the same thing when you say genetically modified plants or whatever, it’s the same concept, but we’re focusing on the humans now. Alright, let me go expand upon if you don’t mind the original purpose and the motivation, because that’s always the what is one thing, but the why to me becomes very, very important and has the, I would say the original purpose and motivation, you took it all the way back to Plato, if not before and bring it up today. How has that changed from then along the way to perhaps snapshot of where we are today?

Patricia Engler:

Yeah, here’s where I think it gets really interesting because like you said, Plato, we see the seeds of this idea that you should try to control the future of humanity, improve humans. And actually one of the first biologists after they found the structure of DNA, one of the first biologists to call for sequencing the human genome. So basically figuring out all the DNA in a person. He was a guy named Robert Heimer, if I’m pronouncing that right. And he wrote an article in American Scientist Magazine in 1969. So this is a ways back that now with gene editing, we can take our evolution into our own hands and chart our own destiny for our evolutionary future. And that’s the same basic idea behind that topic of transhumanism you mentioned, and we’ve talked about it previously, this idea that humans should control their own evolution, use technology to transform ourselves, enhance ourselves, make us even post human beings.

And then even some prominent Christian theologians who believe in evolution started picking up these ideas unbiblically and saying that we can use gene editing to advance our own evolution, forgetting the genesis truth, that God made us very good at the beginning and then sin destroyed that perfection. So then the gist here is that while human gene editing is a tool that applies for good purposes, these ideas of eugenics and transhumanism and trying to at least improve, if not perfect, the human race has always been part of the underlying values behind the development of gene editing from the very beginning.

Sam Rohrer:

Alright, let me go further. Let’s just keep expanding this a little bit and then we’ll come back if we have time. Human gene editing appears in my research and what you have written appears to be in two primary areas, one’s referred to as somatic gene editing. Another is referred to as germ line editing. Can you differentiate between these two? And in simple terms, is one better than another or said differently? Is one perhaps morally and biblically permissible while the other one perhaps is not?

Patricia Engler:

Yeah. So yeah, we can talk about this. So the editing somatic refers to the body basically. So we’re talking about altering DNA, that’s just in regular body cells that won’t be passed onto offspring. So just regular cells and say the eyes or the blood cells. Whereas germline editing is DNA, that will be passed on to offspring. So while somatic editing takes place in regular body cells, germline editing takes place in embryos or aches or sperm or the precursor cells that become aches or sperm. And then those edits will potentially affect all future descendants. So there’s a much longer term projection of the effects here. So biblically then, as for which one might be better than the other, somatic editing to correct mutations that cause diseases seems the least controversial from a biblical view because we’re respecting how God designed human DNA very good from the beginning and we’re trying to fix a mutation that has come up since then in our fallen world.

So that’s great. You can use germline editing for that as well, trying to fix mutations that cause diseases and that should be good. But there’s a number of other concerns here, especially that the research involved in developing these germline treatments for editing embryos requires or basically is very hard not to harm or destroy embryos in the process of the research to actually develop these treatments when we’re applying them to editing human embryos. And this type of research is already happening even in America. I was just reading about a study that ended up intentionally destroying about 30 IVF embryos that parents had donated to scientific research and we used it for this gene editing research. So the human germline editing raises a lot more questions. So it would be the one that we’d have more concerns about from a biblical worldview or any kind of editing that isn’t just to correct mutations that arise as a result of our fallen world. So that’s a quick synopsis there.

Sam Rohrer:

Okay, that is good. So in reality, what you’re saying now, if I were to take an apply here and we’ll talk about it a little bit more about the plain God aspect, but in that concept is one of those somatic and or the germline more problematic and opens the door for playing God than the other,

Patricia Engler:

It would depend on your goal for it. So in both cases you could be using it for goals that are motivated by the desire to play God in the sense of recreating yourself into something that you weren’t originally designed to be. So some people do try to use that for somatic editing too. Like a millionaire, Brian Johnson for example, he’s a transhumanist. He went to a remote Honduran island and injected himself with the CRISPR gene editing tools in hopes of promoting this quest of his not to die, which goes without desire to try to be like God, get around death. So you can actually use both in ways that would kind of bring up red flags for wanting to play God overall. The somatic gene editing has fewer ethical implications because you’re not using it in ways that affect future generations and you’re using it presumably an adult who’s giving consent for what’s going on as opposed to an embryo who doesn’t and that type of thing. So overall, you can make a better case for somatic gene editing within a biblical worldview, but not if the goal for that editing is in a way that would try to enhance yourself or overcome your own mortality, try to get internalized apart from Jesus, any of those things, both of them you could use in ways that would be consistent with playing God. But so that has less ethical concerns overall.

Sam Rohrer:

Okay, so you’re bringing up there, and ladies, gentlemen, we’ll touch on a little bit more, many, many times it’s not just what is done, but it is why it is done. And that applies to a lot of things in life because the Lord looks at the heart. That’s a little bit of the purpose, that’s a little bit of the motivation. Why are you trying to do what you’re doing? Certainly in this matter of gene editing that comes into it. So today when we come back, we’re going to move to a method of evaluating ethically these decisions. Alright, Patricia, on this program, we take everything as does Answers in Genesis and your approach from the perspective of what we define as biblical worldview. I just simply looking at the world and all that is in it in a way that accurately reflects God’s word and God’s view and his expectations.

But the world system, the political and the world leaders of today, the economic leaders of the day, the kings of the earth concept of Psalm chapter two. And I referred to that generally in the first segment, that when they very clearly and without, I’m going to say without equivocation, do not start with God or end with God’s word, we got an issue. So that’s the exact opposite. What they’re doing is in contrast to what we’re talking about. So it’s no surprise that statements and policies and lifestyles, words and deeds reflect the pursuit of things. The word of God says will be burned up at the time of judgment. I’m talking about those in the world, those things that they are pursuing, those things that they hold up as high priorities. Those things that, like I say, reflected at the world economic forum, there were those that were there among them.

Noah Uval Harari himself, the philosopher for that entire global system routinely talks about we are becoming God. We’ve reached that point. He talks about that. So what I’m saying, ladies and gentlemen, is not just out of my own mind an assumption, they’re actually saying it. It’s really important for us as true believers who fear God to daily recalibrate our thinking. That’s the key word, our thinking, how we approach all things including this matter of technology and human gene editing. And we do it from God’s perspective. So Patricia, in your research you’ve identified, you go through a process and I really appreciate it. You go through a process of establishing kind of like a filter or a grid, put it that way through which someone can ask certain questions and come up with a way of coming to a conclusion that would be biblical, certainly in regard to what we’re talking about, human gene editing, but it would apply as well to other areas of technology.

And I think you’re actually working on a book now, it’s not out, you’re working on it, but I just mentioned it now so people can be aware that goes into all of the things we’re talking about, areas of technology and applies this. But you end up identifying seven Cs as you call them. Let’s talk about them here right now. Would you just get into this and talk about these seven Cs, this grid that you’ve established? And I’m just going to give you the balance of this segment. Just walk through them, lay them out, why you’ve done it and identify them and then what the value is if somebody actually carefully applies them.

Patricia Engler:

Yes, absolutely. And I’ll caveat just to start that. Usually when the answers in Genesis speaker is talking about seven Cs, we’re talking about what we call the seven Cs of biblical history, which is seven principles throughout the Bible that kind of go through the big picture of biblical history, the gospel from Genesis to Revelation. So this is a different set of seven Cs, but it’s still sort of on brand in that sense. It is seven truths about humans that we find first in Genesis and then through the rest of scripture that all begin with the letter C. So if we use technology in line with these seven Cs, these seven truths about humans from Genesis, that means we’re actually able to use technology in ways that support human flourishing rather than undermining human flourishing because we’re making decisions that actually line up with the truth about how God created us.

So that’s a little bit of background. So I’ll just go through what these seven fees are and then if you want to unpack any of them or talk about specific ways they apply in more detail, we can absolutely do that. So for starters, the very first truth or see is that we are primarily created beings, creatures rather than self-creators. So since we didn’t create ourselves, we didn’t just evolve without a creator, we don’t own ourselves, we don’t have absolute rights to recreate ourselves however we want to or to try to define who we are, our own identity or our own nature to define our own meaning and truth and ethics to chart our own destiny in that sense. And we can recognize that we’re not on our way to becoming something else like Transhumanist Day. We’re already the completed workmanship of a God who loves us and knows everything and we’re morally accountable to him.

So these are all truths under that first sea that we are created beings. And so we want to use technology in line with that truth instead of in ways that try to go beyond how God made us. So then the second C is that we’re costly beings made in God’s image. So that means every single human being has inherent value and that shapes our ethical responsibilities toward other people. We can’t harm or kill obviously other image bearers or devalue them. So that rules out any kind of use of technology, including gene editing that would harm or devalue image bearers, even human embryos, living human individuals. And we want to prevent harm where possible by asking how might this use of technology affect other image bearers as individuals, as a society, as families, as communities. And that’ll help us think through kind of the risks and benefits of new technologies, including human gene editing.

So that’s the first two, the third one kind of a funny word, but humans are corporeal, which just means that we have bodies we’re embodied as well as in soul. And all throughout scripture we see this. We have material and immaterial components that go together and both matter and even the gospel, the fact that God’s son, Jesus took on human flesh and died a physical death and rose bodily from the dead so that we too can have the bodily resurrection as one Corinthians 15 talks about, reflects the importance of the body’s role in God’s design for humans and how he designed us to interact with the world through the body. So these are all things we want to keep in mind when thinking about technologies like gene editing that have a real impact on the body. Fourth, the fourth C is that were contingent, we’re finite beings who depend on God for our existence.

So we’re not God unlike what you were saying about transhumanists and people like Professor Noah, Val Harari there and Adam and Eve learned that the hard way, if we think we can improve ourselves to try to become like God on our own effort, we not only deceive ourselves, but end up really hurting ourselves. So then fifth, moving right along is the truth that we are communal in a sense that we are relational beings, hardwired for relationships with God and with other people. We see that right from Genesis where God said it’s not good for the man to be alone. So he defined the institutions of marriage and family and meant for humans to live in community horizontally and vertically in relationship to him. So we want to ask how do our uses of technology affect our relationships in families and friendships and communities, parents relationships to kids?

That’s a big one in human gene editing because if it’s an application like parents doing germline editing to try to create enhanced babies or designer babies with customizable traits changing their eye color or that type of thing, that raises a lot of questions for how is that going to impact human relationships and parents’ views of their kids maybe as customizable products instead of as God’s handiwork who he it together for his purposes. So these are all things to think about under the truth that we’re communal. Then the sixth one is that God called humans to specific vocations that he designed humans to fulfill, starting with be fruitful, multiply, fill the earth and have dominion over creation. It’s almost in a sense of building God’s kingdom, which then later commands in scripture like the great commission go and make disciples. That’s also a human specific task.

So we want to ask how does technology integrate with these tasks and how does it affect them? How can we use it in ways that support rather than undermine or supplant our ability to perform these tasks? And again, for human gene editing, a big application of that would be looking at the effects of gene editing on the vocation of parenthood in terms of is it right for parents to have genetic control over their kids and what sort of effect is that going to have? So then the final one, which is a big one, is that unfortunately humans are corrupted because of sin. In our fallen world, humans tend to use even good tools for sinful purposes. And even our best uses of technology can have unexpected negative consequences because of our fallen world. So we need a lot of wisdom to have biblical boundaries and be using wise decisions in terms of biblical principles as we make decisions about technology.

And one boundary that is really helpful, and we can come back to this later, but it comes from this fact that we’re corrupted because we’re in a fallen world. We rightly use technology in ways that mitigate the falls effects like curing diseases and trying to make life easier in our fallen world. But we don’t want to use technology including gene editing in ways that mirror the causes of the fall. Whether that’s being discontent with how God made us wanting to try to become like God, try to improve ourselves or gain superior knowledge just like in the Garden of Eden, apart from God’s terms or by breaking his authority or rebelling against his authority, breaking his commands. This is all mirroring the causes of the fall. And as I mentioned with the millionaire Brian Johnson, you see this type of reasoning playing out in some people’s approach to gene editing with Johnson, literally trying to become like God become immortal by editing his own genes to try to cheat death. So that’s a really brief overview of the Seven Cs, but an article on our website, seven Genesis Truth for Thinking About Any new technology, unpacks that in a lot more detail and provides a table of questions that people can use in regards to applying these to specific technologies which would include editing of the human genome.

Sam Rohrer:

Well, Patricia, you got it all in ladies and gentlemen, you probably didn’t write them down. Get the program again, listen to it. The transcript will be available and you can go back and look at it. But here they are again, created beings, costly beings, C old beings, human contingent beings, dependent on God, communal beings made to have fellowship and community. We are called with a purpose, God’s purpose, but we are corrupted according to sin. So this whole approach starts with God from his perspective. This is a biblical worldview. When we evaluate things in that perspective, it really does help us to come to the right conclusion, stay with us, we’ll finish with some biblically based guidelines now for not playing God. Alright, as we go into our final segment now, ladies and gentlemen, again, I referenced in that last segment if you weren’t able to join us from the beginning of the program, and I know how it is listening to programs.

You may be in the car right now or you may be doing other things, but you can always go back and find this program on Stand in the Gap radio.com, that website and just look there. The whole archive of all of our radio programs, this Today program as well as the Stand in the Gap weekend program, as well as the minute programs, they’re all them there as well as tv. You can find all on that site or on our Stand in the Gap app. And if you have not downloaded that, it really is a very, very, very convenient way to access all of the things that are on our site. A lot of resources on there, but all of these archive programs are there. And on this daily program, you will find when you bring it up, you will find their access to a transcript, which then you can just bring up and read or you can print it out however you want to do it.

And it’s really handy, I found to take an look at that, have it in front of you and go back and then listen to the program itself and kind of compare. It’s a great way to take notes, particularly on programs like this that have some real specificity as a part of it. Now, Patricia, as we wrap this up here, I’d like to now bring what we’ve presented into a practical summary and application. There’s been a lot we’ve covered, and again, some may not have caught the entire thing and certainly not been able to remember all the details, but the expansive advances that you’ve referred to, and we talked about the history and the origins in segment two in human gene editing. The technologies involved in that, particularly in recent years, it truly demands that Christians and all of those who fear God know how to respond to these things when they come along, not just in a general sense, but specifically and then know where to draw biblical boundaries. I would use the phrase erect biblical fences to keep us from jumping those fences and embracing what the world has established as good, in fact when God may have declared it the exact opposite. So there are reasons for that. Now here, I’m going to start with this. Can you provide a summary, first of all, of what we’ve discussed to kind of summarize the big picture of what we’ve talked about, and then I want to end up with looking at some foundational principles next.

Patricia Engler:

Yeah, sure thing. So to summarize, ultimately, human gene editing technologies that we’ve talked about can be a promising tool depending on how we use them. A promising tool for mitigating the effects of the fall by curing certain diseases, although unfortunately, that can be very, very costly in terms of millions of dollars. So there’s some stewardship applications there, but this is also a tool that applies to a lot of more questionable purposes and goals as well. So for example, if the goal is to try to improve on God’s design for us or become something other than he designed or try to engineer genetically perfect designer babies that parents can customize like consumer products, hopefully it’s clear that these are all morally concerning. And these human gene editing technologies don’t just have moral concerns, but also some practical ones in terms of say, their effects on how parents view children if they are being used for those germline or the editing of human embryos applications.

And also because if we use them to try to improve ourselves, we know that God already designed this perfectly. So that is going to backfire. So as I mentioned with the germline editing, there’s a couple of different types of human gene editing that have different moral applications and implications. So the one that we talked about is somatic gene editing, which just affects regular body cells, and that seems to be the least controversial biblically when we use it for medical purposes. Curing diseases, say trying to restore the vision abilities of people with partial blindness and so on. So that’s somatic editing. And then you have germline editing, which is you’re actually affecting the genes of embryos or eggs and sperm and therefore future children and even future grandchildren. So this raises some extra questions because of the long-term implications and because embryos can’t speak for themselves and because the research involves basically destroying or harming a lot of human embryos. So biblically we can’t justify that.

Sam Rohrer:

So that

Patricia Engler:

Is a more conclusive argument there.

Sam Rohrer:

Okay. Alright, so that’s good. So you’re actually drawing the line somewhat short term as in able to address something like diabetes or if that can be done or eyesight, whatever, that does not translate into altering children or grandchildren down the road. The long-term parts of what you’re talking about, anything of that flavor obviously crosses the line, becomes a potential problem. Now in remaining minutes here, you and I were talking separately about the necessity and the need for actually coming up with a grid principle, so to speak. And in the last segment you actually worked through the seven Cs, but in this final part right here, are there other principles that you would identify that would help to measure and to determine whether or not the application of technologies, like in this case, human gene editing to help determine whether or not it is permissible or even wise? And that’s another one for participation. So give some concluding thoughts on that.

Patricia Engler:

Yep, yep. To summarize a few key boundaries, one would be that we don’t want to use technology like this in any way that would harm or devalue God’s image bears. So that’s why one reason why germline editing is ruled out is because as it currently stands, that destroys a lot of embryos. So that’s one concept. Second foundational principle that we mentioned earlier as well, is that boundary between mitigating the effects of the fall and mirroring the causes of the fall. So in this case, using gene editing to correct mutations and cure disease is mitigating the effects that’s on the good side. But then trying to enhance ourselves, take evolution quote into our own hands, become like God overcome death that’s mirroring the effects or the causes rather of the fall. So that’s a second boundary, and I unpack this more in the answers and Genesis article, but that boundary rests on another boundary that God’s word gives us.

And that’s the difference between therapies which cure diseases or prevent diseases. Basically restore and preserve health versus enhancements, which is trying to go beyond how God designed this. And that boundary rests on having a biblical rather than an evolutionary view when society rejects that boundary. You don’t have a way to prevent the slippery slope from, say you start with even a good application of gene editing, say preventing a disease in an embryo. Perhaps if you legalize that and you don’t have the biblical worldview to distinguish therapies and enhancements, you could very easily read into other more questionable applications like the designer babies and the eugenics and those types of things. So that’s an example of even what we would consider a good use of gene editing, like curing the disease in an embryo by correcting a mutation could be unwise to legalize because without that biblical worldview in society, you don’t have the safeguards to prevent slippery slopes into more concerning things like eugenics and designer babies. So these are a few basic biblical principles that are helpful for thinking through these topics, and there’s a lot more breakdown of that on the website as well, the Biblical Boundaries for Human Gene editing article on answers and genesis org.

Sam Rohrer:

Alright, answers and genesis.org. Ladies and gentlemen, you can find the article, but biblical guidelines for human gene editing and a whole lot of additional material. But as we’re at the end here, let me just throw this in again, from a biblical worldview, a believing perspective, whether it’s a believer who’s dealing in biology technology, or I’m going to say in the political realm or in the economic realm, a believer, this is what my experience has been, must start with God’s word and say, what is God’s design for what I am doing? And then look to biblical principles about whether or not I have the right authority to do what I’m doing, or am I crossing the line and stepping into what God has retained for himself. That is why it’s so important to think biblically because obviously the consequences are not good if we violate that. So thanks for being with us today, and Patricia Angler from an Answers and Genesis, always a pleasure to have you with us. God bless you and what you’re doing there.