The Bible And Science

There’s always been this perceived war between believing in science and believing in God as if the two are mutually exclusive. It’s been my opinion that they are not. So, what do we do when science begins to create things or methods that are prohibited in the Bible? It happens more than you think so it’s important to understand the science and know the Scriptures. Science is always changing but the Word of God doesn’t so we need to be careful what our views are when a new procedure comes along especially when it comes to the creation of life. If something new comes along and its ethics are sketchy we need to tread carefully before we accept it and do our due diligence on it before forming an opinion. Such a development is happening now when it comes to what are called designer babies. The concept has always been the stuff of science fiction, but now it’s apparently possible to decide not only the gender of your next child, but also their intelligence and physical features. The unspoken part of all this is that the process also means some potential lives are not selected. And that my friends is where things get more than just messy. How we got here isn’t necessarily important. How we act going forward is extremely important.

As Advertised

I turn to an article on this troubling trend I found from Prophecy News Watch:

"Pick your baby." Until recently, those words belonged to toy aisles and video games. Now they appear on subway walls in New York City--one of the most influential cultural marketplaces in the world--inviting would-be parents to do something humanity has never formally normalized: shop for their child's genetic traits.

The company doing the ads explains their reasoning:

The company behind the campaign, Nucleus IVF+, presents itself as simply offering information. But the glossy marketing and cheerful language obscure a far more troubling reality. What is being sold is not knowledge--it is power over human life, exercised at its most fragile stage. Through its IVF platform, Nucleus allows parents to compare up to 20 embryos using probability models that estimate future height, intelligence, disease risk, and physical traits like eye and hair color. The company emphasizes that these are probabilities, not guarantees. Yet the underlying logic is unmistakable: some embryos are preferable, others are not. And in IVF, the "not chosen" are almost always destroyed. This is not speculative. It is standard practice.

And it’s the so-called “designing” that raises eyebrows:

What distinguishes Nucleus from traditional IVF screening is not just the breadth of data but the shift in moral framing. This is no longer about avoiding fatal childhood diseases. It is about optimization--fine-tuning human beings the way one might configure a device. Two extra inches of height. A few points of IQ. Slightly lower risk of anxiety. A marginally better chance at elite universities. That is not healthcare. That is consumer eugenics, repackaged for a data-driven age.

The Loving Option

Of course, the company is doing their best to put the best possible spin on the it:

The company's founder, Kian Sadeghi, has defended the practice by appealing to parental love. Parents want their children to thrive, he argues. They already push kids toward better schools, better nutrition, better opportunities. Genetic selection, in this view, is simply the next step.

The problem? The selection process:

But there is a profound moral difference between nurturing a child and selecting one child to live while others are discarded based on predicted traits.

Genetic selection has been tried before and we need to learn from our history:

Historically, eugenics has never announced itself as cruelty. It has always arrived cloaked in compassion, progress, and improvement. In the early 20th century, it was framed as public health. In Nazi Germany, it was framed as national renewal. Today, it arrives through apps, probabilities, and lifestyle branding--"Have your best baby."

If you realize the moral dangers alone, you will see why we need to exercise caution:

The New York subway campaign matters because it signals normalization. Subways are not niche markets. They are where ideas go to become ordinary. When commuters see slogans like "IQ is 50% genetic" or "Have a healthier baby," the implicit message is clear: not optimizing is irresponsible. This is where the future becomes especially dangerous. Once genetic selection moves from rare medical necessity to cultural expectation, parental choice quietly becomes parental obligation. Why didn't you screen? Why didn't you select? Why did you allow imperfection?

It is a slippery slope. But in a world that puts so much emphasis on getting what you want the logic can and will be skewed.

Warning Bells

Scientists are already seeing not just moral concerns:

Experts in genetics have already raised alarms--not only about ethics, but about science itself. Complex traits like intelligence, behavior, and mental health are influenced by thousands of genes and environmental factors. Predicting them accurately from embryos is far more uncertain than marketing suggests. Even small errors could result in devastating consequences, including the destruction of embryos based on flawed assumptions.

Another concern is a lack of patience. And a lack of foresight:

Yet history shows that societies rarely wait for perfect science before enforcing social pressure.

If such technologies expand beyond IVF--if prenatal screening becomes more granular, more predictive--eugenic abortion could increase dramatically. We already see this with Down syndrome, where termination rates approach near-totality in some countries. What happens when risk markers for depression, addiction, obesity, or learning differences are added to the list? What happens to children who are born "unoptimized"?

A famous fiction author looked into the future and it speaks volumes to us now if we’re willing to listen:

Aldous Huxley in his famous book, A Brave New World, warned of a world divided not by wealth alone, but by biological class--those designed for advantage and those left to chance. That future no longer belongs to fiction. When companies openly predict that "four out of ten parents" will use genetic optimization to improve college outcomes, the class divide is no longer hypothetical. It becomes structural.

As if we need more reason not to pursue this path, the article explains where this trend is headed:

The deeper danger is cultural. Children risk becoming products, their worth subtly measured against genetic forecasts rather than intrinsic human dignity. Love becomes conditional, even if unconsciously so. Failure becomes a design flaw. This is not empowerment. It is commodification. A society that cannot tolerate imperfection will eventually turn on the imperfect. And a society that teaches parents to rank embryos will eventually teach citizens to rank people.

Below the seemingly innocuous advertising lies a dark future:

The posters in New York may look sleek and futuristic. But beneath the branding lies an old idea with a dark past: that some lives are more worth living than others. Once that idea takes root, history shows it never stays contained. A Brave New World is no longer approaching. It's already being advertised--one subway stop at a time.