Raelian Star Wars: The Real Attack of the Clones

2003-03-21

The First Human Clone?

On December 27, 2002, Clonaid CEO Brigitte Boisselier announced the first-ever cloned baby named Eve born to an American woman. On the following day, the New York Post headlines read, E.T. Baby: Sci-fi cult claims 1st human clone. In a set of mocking headlines, Boisselier is pictured, proudly making her claim.

This corporation called Clonaid is a combination of a religious cult and science organization that believes humankind began 25,000 years ago by cloning from extra-terrestrials (Kranes 4). The cult began by a Frenchman named Claude ‘Rael’ Vorilhon in the 1970’s because of an alleged interaction with aliens. Clonaid, the corporate offspring of this cult, now claims it is fulfilling a mission as their ‘creators’ did millennia ago.

Interestingly enough, Boisselier said the corporation would release scientific evidence that the cloning of Eve took place. She also said that there were going to be other births of other cloned babies in the following weeks. This proof that she was willing to offer fell through. Many of those of the scientific community were already skeptical at what the organization’s CEO was claiming, considering the difficulty of genetic defects found in cloned animals and the low rate of success in cloning (Kranes 5).

Cloning and Intelligent Design

Many people agree that these claims are ridiculous, primarily because of the background of their unusual religious beliefs. One thing that these Raelian scientists believe in is Intelligent Design, which is similar to the Biblical worldview. Looking at human anatomy and physiology, one can see the intricate design and how each part is interconnected. In contrast to most of the scientific community’s belief, they see the fingerprints of an intelligent creator or creators (Dembski 54-55). What is the difference between the Biblical worldview and this extra-terrestrial cloning model for human origin? The difference is found in the placing of humankind at the only life-friendly planet we know of, considering water being in liquid form, the earth being the perfect distance from the sun, etc. People might argue just because we might not know of any other planet like ours does not mean that there are no others, but what are the odds that there is? So many ‘coincidences’ require something greater than unintelligent material, or even intelligent material beings. This calls for a being that is extra-creation, i.e. God, who can ordain planetary bodies to be of the right specifications to habit highly complex and intelligent beings like humankind.

Clearly cloning cannot be the beginning of humankind, nor does it seem plausible that humankind could have been spawned from mere matter without divine ordination. But is it wrong to clone a human being? How can we tell? Can a cloned human being grow up to live a normal life? And are they truly human in the sense of being in the ‘image of God’ as the Bible claims in Genesis 1:26?

Biblical Issues

Werner Gitt in his article defends cloning of plants and animals as a benefit to humankind from a biblical perspective. He argues that this is part of the command of God to humankind to subdue the earth in Genesis 1:28. Cloning is natural in the real world, since many plants, such as potatoes, are in fact clones of the previous year’s plant, i.e., when we plant potato tubers of the previous year. This right does not extend to humans, according to Gitt. Since humans are different from animals, the biblical account states there is no right for human cloning. The reasons are threefold: 1) Humankind was created in the image of God and has existence beyond death (Philippians 1:23 and Luke 16:19-31); 2) Humans have the authority to kill animals (i.e. for purposes of food, Genesis 9:2-3), but may not kill other humans (Exodus 20:13); and 3) Humankind is to have dominion over animals (Genesis 1:26), but were never commanded to have dominion over other humans.

Ethical Issues

The Bible seems to have a lot to say against human cloning. For those who do not hold the Bible to any standard of being God’s word or of moral authority, there seems to be common sense that speaks against human cloning. Anyone who can agree that pain, suffering, and death are bad things can agree that human cloning is wrong. As Marsha Kranes wrote in her article, she quoted a reproductive biologist from Johns Hopkins, who said that he would have been surprised if Clonaid succeeded in all of its claims for cloning, considering that they would have to try many times to actually get a human baby (Kranes 5). As already discussed above, there are often defects that arise in cloning. Would we want to voluntarily bring babies into the world that would have such defects? Nonetheless, Sarfati argues in his article that those who hold abortion to be acceptable “have already declared that it is acceptable to destroy one class of human beings for the convenience of others.” Even therapeutic cloning for the sake of curing diseases is not morally right, for one human life is still being sacrificed for the sake of another.

Similar arguments have been made for the case of cloning from a Biblical point of view. There is something else to consider. Gitt rightly recognizes that humans were meant to have two parents according to the original biblical structure of the family. Even if they only have one parent, they came into the world by the union of a mother and a father. Take, for example, the first clone that Boisselier claimed on December 27, 2002. This was a clone of a 31-year-old woman, and thus the baby Eve would not and could not have two blood parents. This has never happened in the history of the world. Jesus Christ was the only one who did not have a human father since Adam and Eve, for Mary conceived by the Holy Spirit (Luke 1:35). The baby Eve, if the story is true, is a demonic mockery to God’s work in humankind and saving work in Jesus Christ. It also adds to the spiritual pride that humankind thrives on today, saying to themselves, ‘we have become like God; we also can create man’ (see Isaiah 14:14).

Animals in Human Form?

Take, for example, what Paul writes in Hebrews 7. He goes at length about how Jesus as high priest is superior to the priesthood of Levi. He also talks about how Levi was in the loins of his father Abraham, paying homage to Melchizedek (7:10). There is a reality of the existence of Levi before he was born and lived within the body of his great-grandfather Abraham when Abraham was in his younger years. The Bible also states that all humankind was in the loins of Adam when he sinned; people being born in the flesh take part in Adam’s sin and are born sinners before they have an opportunity not to sin (Romans 5). This also is seen in Genesis 5, when Seth was born in the likeness of his own father, the disobedient Adam (5:3). Considering these examples, how will the clone relate to the rest of the entire human race? This is my challenge: will clones be in the image of God, like humans were made to be, or are they going to be like animals, but just in human form? This is an issue that much of humanity, including Christians, has not thought through.

Conclusion

Perhaps the Clonaid statements made in 2002 are a hoax, but we know that we have the ability to do such frightening things and it probably is only a matter of time before it happens. We as humans need to be aware that human cloning is going to be an issue of creating humans so that they can suffer. Not only this, we cannot guarantee that they will be anything of what we think of as human, since they are not related to the human race as the standard law of primogeniture, which has continued since the beginning of the world. Wake up world! Do we have any idea what we’re doing?

References

Dembski, William A. and Kushiner, James A. (eds). (2001). Signs of Intelligence. Portion taken from Jay Wesley Richards’ article Proud Obstacles and a Reasonable Hope. Grand Rapids, MI: Brazos.

Gitt, Werner. Cloning: Right or Wrong? (n.d.) Retrieved March 20, 2003, from http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/3946.asp. Orginally from Creation Magazine, Volume 21 Issue 1. Here is the new URL: http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v21/i1/cloning.asp.

Kranes, Marsha. (2002, December 28). Clone Kooks Claim Success. Taken from The New York Post. pp. 1, 4-5.

Sarfati, Jonathan. (2001). First human embryo clone? What really happened, and what are the ethics involved? Retrieved March 20, 2003, from http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2001/1129human_clone.asp. The article is now located here.