Biochemist Fazale Rana’s boyhood hopes to become a major league baseball player ended when he moved up to the Babe Ruth League and discovered he couldn’t read the code.
The “code” in Rana’s case was the indicator in the third-base coach’s stream of signs to him just before he stepped into the batter’s box. Among much else, the coach’s signs were meant to ensure batter and runner were on the same page when the next pitch was thrown.
Gene-editing or altering DNA to achieve a desired change in the characteristics of a person yet to be born, is a technology that holds both great promise for bettering the human condition and of creating, unintentionally or otherwise, bio-monsters capable of unimaginable horror.
Molecular biologist Anjeanette Roberts points out on the Reasons to Believe blog that gene-editing has made big strides in the past six years, highlighted most notably in the recent case of a Chinese biologist who claimed to have altered successfully the genomes of three babies born of IVF processes to make them resistant to HIV. It appears his claims, however, were in error.
Even so, such developments pose huge ethical, political, technological and regulatory questions that sooner or later will have to be addressed by Congress, the courts and federal policymakers in the executive branch.
Philosopher Kenneth Samples gives the answer AND poses a huge question about chance and design
“Advancements in science, technology, and medicine over the last century or so have benefitted virtually all people. Scientific progress has lengthened human life spans and improved quality of life.
“These great strides prompt a provocative question: Why does science work? That is, why is the scientific enterprise so effective in delivering critical, reliable information about the natural world that can inform and benefit humankind?
“I have posed this question to many scientists I’ve met through the years. The answer I usually hear is something along this line: ‘It just does. Science is unique. It works.’
I think the reason that most scientists struggle to tell me exactly why science works is … Go here for the answer.
When Stephen Hawking wrote his best-selling “A Brief History of Time” in his quest to do away with God, the renowned Cambridge mathematician had to invent a second kind of time, which he called “imaginary” time.
The imaginary time was a necessary posit because Hawking knew that if there is the time we know of as part, present and future, then there must be a beginning of time and that means in turn there must be a creator of time. But that creator is exactly what Hawking wanted to do away with.
Dr. Hugh Ross is an astro-physicist, not a mathematician, but he and Hawking both wrote best-sellers on multiple aspects of the God question. Ross also is the founder of Reasons To Believe (RTB), an excellent apologetics think tank with an emphasis on relating faith and science.
“That God created the time dimension of the universe implies that he could create other time dimensions. Therefore, God could operate within as many time dimensions as he chooses,” Ross writes today on the RTB web site. If you have time — no, not a joke — I heartily encourage you to give a read to Ross on God and time.
The answer begins with understanding what it means to live outside of time
Astronomer Hugh Ross says the question of “who created God” is the query he is most often asked on social media. That’s understandable as every human being at one time or another likely has wondered the same thing.
“Every atheist scientist I’ve ever debated publicly has raised that issue,” Ross explains in a recent interview on Reasons to Believe. “There is a fallacy there. They are assuming that God is constrained in time like the universe is and all life in the universe.”
Ross notes that “any entity that is constrained to a single dimension of time, where time can’t be stopped or reversed, at some point must have a beginning or a creation event.”