April 2, 2017 | David F. Coppedge

Secular Scientists Prefer Humans Extinct

At a recent panel, scientists doubted whether it would be a good idea to revive the human species if it went extinct.

They call themselves experts. In a report on Live Science, Laura Geggel says that five ‘experts’ engaged in a debate about ‘de-extinction’ of animals (resurrecting extinct animals back through genetics). Things got interesting during the Q&A when someone asked about another mammal, Homo sapiens. Geggel describes the response,

If humans were to go extinct, would it be ethical to revive the species, to allow us to live once more on this blue planet?

It’s a tough call, but maybe not, according to a panel of five experts who debated “de-extinction” during the annual Isaac Asimov Memorial Debate at the American Museum of Natural History (AMNH) in New York City on Wednesday (March 29). Astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson, director of the AMNH Hayden Planetarium, moderated the debate, which honors Isaac Asimov (1920-1992), a biochemist and science-fiction writer who famously wrote the “three laws of robotics.”

The only beings that would be able to de-extinctify humans, though, would be mythical space aliens or further-evolved earthlings who understand genetics and know how to perform genetic engineering. What would they do with us low-lifes?

Were another intelligent life to de-extinctify humans, would they put us in a zoo-like environment? For a sentient being, that would be “extremely frightening and scary,” said panelist Greg Kaebnick, a research scholar at the Hastings Center, an independent bioethics research institute in Garrison, New York. “The animal welfare concerns just get overwhelming.”

Kaebnick must have forgotten that some of his evolutionist predecessors did exactly that. In 1904, led by hard-core Darwinian Samuel Verner, evolutionists exhibited Ota Benga, a black man from an African tribe of pygmies (fully human), into a zoo (see report by Jerry Bergman on Creation.com). He was exhibited as a “primitive man” or an “emblematic savage,” scarcely more than an ape, even though Mr. Benga later got married, learned English, was baptized a Christian. The dehumanizing treatment he had received at the hands of evolutionists, however, left him scarred for life, and he eventually committed suicide, Bergman says.

We can tell it wouldn’t be real live African apes that we are familiar with who would bring back humans from extinction. Chimpanzees don’t appreciate Beethoven—or even Justin Bieber, for that matter. Phys.org says that music played to apes, including “work by Mozart, Beethoven, Adele and Justin Bieber,” fell on deaf ears. Contrary to previous reports, “Playing music to captive chimpanzees has no positive effect on their welfare, researchers have concluded.”

Yes, it would be “extremely frightening and scary” to imagine Planet of the Apes soldiers torturing captive humans with Justin Bieber music all day. But we ask, how did ‘animal welfare concerns’ evolve? Is that not a question of morals? If morals evolve, then one could imagine a moral system emerging on Planet of the Apes that considers torturing humans with Justin Bieber as a moral good, in their captives’ best interests.

We bring you these two reports to show how secular, liberal, atheist ‘experts’ have gone completely wacko. They are the intellectual progeny of staunch atheist Isaac Asimov who—having rejected the God of the Bible—created fantasy worlds of his own to sell to the public.

Morality is rooted in human exceptionalism. As Jefferson famously wrote, we are endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights. We are not just mammals, though our souls are housed in physical bodies (very exceptional bodies) that share all the mammal traits. To call the human species ‘just a mammal’ commits the fallacy of reductionism. We humans have intrinsic value not because of our mammalian traits, but because we are eternal souls created in the image of God.

 

Leave a Reply