This week's topics:

  • Polygany Found to Cause Lower Birthrates than Monogamy
  • AI Chatbots can Allow People to Talk with Deceased Relatives
  • New Tech allows for more Control Over Embryo Selection.

Listener Questions: A Listener shares their experience working in secular spaces and using preferred pronouns. Should christians identify as gay? Are near death experiences biblical?



Episode Transcript

Sean McDowell: [upbeat music] Contrary to what may be expected, a new study reveals that monogamy offers a better path to societal fertility than polygamy. Techno-spiritualism is here, in which we can interact with AI-generated holograms of dead people. And part two of The New York Times' deep dive on the technology and ethics of embryo selection and designer babies. These are the stories we'll discuss, and we will also address some of your questions. I'm your host, Sean McDowell.

Scott Rae: And I'm your co-host, Scott Rae.

Sean McDowell: This is the Think Biblically weekly cultural update, brought to you by Talbot School of Theology, Biola University. Scott, you sent me this first article, and it absolutely blew me away because it so clearly contrasts what I would say is a biblical worldview with an evolutionary worldview. But from this evolutionary perspective, they come to the conclusion that the biblical worldview is actually best, which doesn't surprise me, but it surprises me when people actually kind of admit it and come to that conclusion, so to speak. So let's jump in. This is a Canadian publication, and a lot of the contributors are atheist to this, called Quillette. Fascinating publication. And the title is just "The Problem with Polygyny," and the subtitle's kind of, "Society should favor the tried and true norm of monogamous marriage, which is the most fecund arrangement most likely to produce children in the kind and quantity we need." Now, it starts off by talking about how there's men, Elon Musk and Andrew Tate, who are kind of being known for having a lot of different children through, let's just say, non-monogamous means today. And this raises the question of what is kind of... Is polygyny the future? Well, they also talk about how there's certain cultures worldwide that still have polygyny, some of the contributions of Islam in certain settings towards polygyny. But they say, "While the kind of reproductive strategy can be stable under various conditions that are common among other animals," you see this evolutionary worldview come in, "it makes no sense for species like ours," this is polygamy, "with a long period of immaturity during which parents have to make major investment in time and energy in their children to ensure they survive into adulthood." So they're approaching this question through the lens of what's best for reproduction, the survival of society. That's how they're looking at this question. And they actually [chuckles] say, a direct quote, they say, "For species that operate cooperatively, polygyny is idiotic."

Scott Rae: [laughing]

Sean McDowell: And I loved that line. It kind of made me chuckle. Now, what they point out, a couple other things here, is they say, "The upshot of this realization is that the most successful human societies are those that can produce and sustain lots of human muscle and many human brains. Monogamous societies are better at that because monogamous women have more babies, and those babies are more likely to be healthy." In fact, they actually say, "Monogamous societies run rough sha- roughshod over polygynous ones and eventually convert them to monogamy." Now, here's some of the reasons why: "The social norm that each man can have only one wife remains a huge source of competition between men," and, you know, it's gonna break down, like, social cohesion, so to speak. And it's going to... Monogamy is gonna reduce aggression within a given society, is the way they're looking at it. So they actually point out some of the most, what they consider, you know, monogamous societies, like devoutly monogamous Amish and ultra-Orthodox Jews, have the highest fertility rates. Now, they miss some of the connection between value for family and kids that comes from their religious beliefs, but, you know, we can come back to that.

Sean McDowell: Let's see. They point out... For example, they go to Africa, they talk about the United States, and actually show that those in polygamous, polygynous relationships have less kids, and it has negative effects on society. And the conclusion is, "One of the reasons society should favor the tried and true norm of monogamous marriage is that it's the most fecund arrangement, most likely to produce children in the kind and quantity we need. The future belongs to monogamists. [chuckles] Stable unions based on loving commitment produce more babies, and happier and healthier babies, and a strong basis for social cohesion." Here's the last line, Scott: "In evolutionary terms, monogamists are fit." Your take.

Scott Rae: Well, Sean, I was thrilled to see this- ... Because you're right, Quillette is an entirely secular publication. Lots of atheists. There's no, they have no religious axe to grind at all.

Sean McDowell: That's right.

Scott Rae: In fact, they've... Quillette has actually been very critical in the past of lots of different aspects of religious belief and religious behaviors. And so I would call Quillette, maybe for our listeners who aren't aware of it, I'd s- I'd say it's a, it's a cross between a magazine and an academic journal.

Sean McDowell: That's fair.

Scott Rae: And they... And I think that they do deep dives into these things, and it's, and it's well-respected. And on the surface, this seems to reinforce the biblical notion of monogamy- ... For fertility, healthy families, for children, and for cultures. So maybe, Sean, what I was... When I first read this, I thought, "Our listeners may not be familiar with the term polygyny." And so there... And there are a number of different terms that we've used in past podcasts to talk about these various marital and romantic, relationships. So maybe just to make sure we get all the terms straight, polygamy-... Is the umbrella term for multiple spouses, whether men or women. Polygyny, what we're talking about, is men married to multiple women. And that's specifically what the article's addressing. Polyandry, by contrast, is women married to multiple men, which we have not talked about much, but we have talked about polyamory quite a bit, which is just multiple romantic relationships not necessarily involving marriage or any kind of commitment. So I think just to get, just to get the terms straight with ex- we are talking about polygyny, which is men married to multiple women and having children with multiple women. Now, to think biblically about this, Sean, it seems to me that this is good evidence that monogamy is built in from creation.

Sean McDowell: Amen.

Scott Rae: And the desire to stray from that seems to me to be a result of the general entrance of sin. [lips smack] but, it might seem that from an evolutionary worldview, that moves away from monogamy would make some sense because there would be an in- a reproductive incentive for men to have, you know, father as many children as they can. There's just a reproductive incentive in the, in the evolutionary worldview that would motivate that. But I think the article points out that historically there were periods of polygyny, but they, but it didn't stick, and today it only survives in what they call more pastoral society, what we, what in the past we've called more primitive societies, and in some Islamic cultures. [lips smack] now, it- our listeners may be thinking, "Yes, but in biblical times and in the scriptures, there's examples of polygyny, particularly with w- men marrying multiple women." And it's true, it was a thing in Old Testament times, and there were examples of that in the, in the Old Testament world, but it was not nearly as widespread as you might expect. It was not... It was a thing, but not a widespread cultural thing, and the reason for that is because the financial resources needed to maintain very large families, let's just say it was the domain of the very well off, to say, to say the least. That's why I think today you have, the people who are highlighted are people who are in the 1%, like Musk and Andrew Tate and others, who have the financial resources to do that. [lips smack] so I mean, I l- I love what this is affirming. I th- I think it's right, and there are t- incredibly, there are times when things from an evolutionary worldview actually coincide really nicely with what the scriptures are teaching and what I think is built in from creation. And it's true that, you know, there are other parts of creation where monogamy does not seem to be the norm. But among human beings, I think that what this article is reinforcing and statistically showing to be the case, is that monogamy is the norm, and polygyny and other things are aberrations from that. So I found, I found this-

Sean McDowell: Yeah

Scott Rae: ... Very encouraging.

Sean McDowell: Yeah, I was surprised, actually, where the article went. Now, on the biblical point, we've made this before, but it's really important. When you look in the Old Testament, God uses people who are clearly polygynous or polygamous. We see this with David, with Solomon, with Jacob, multiple wives. We just can't confuse what the Bible describes with what it prescribes. I think the Bible's actually very clear that when people step outside of God's design for marriage, [chuckles] like in Jacob, his family was anything but peaceful and the kind of family you would want. His wives are bickering. I mean, it's just-

Scott Rae: Moderately dysfunctional. [chuckles]

Sean McDowell: Yeah, moderately dysfunctional. And the, and the Old Testament doesn't explicitly say polygamy is wrong, but it teaches narratively through the example. David, I mean, his family is a wreck. One of his sons murders one of his other sons. One of his sons tries to steal the throne. It says in 1 Kings that he was not a good father. You can't even do the math, as far as I'm aware, of exactly how many kids David had, and it's just... It, it's a wreck. So the Bible, a l- God uses people that were disobedient, but the Bible is not endorsing that. And in one sense, you know, it shows this power dynamic, that kings and those in power could do this, and those without could not, and it br- it stratifies society into those that have and those who don't. And this article's point is, it actually undermines social cohesion. When the expectation is one man and one woman, there's a kind of equality built in that reduces jealousy and other factors, and society flourishes better, which again, we shouldn't be surprised at, because this is in align with God's design.

Scott Rae: Yeah, I think in the case of Solomon in particular, you're right, like, you're right to point out with Jacob and David, the narrative speaks for itself, and there was, there was no editorial comment needed by the biblical authors to say what went wrong. But in Solomon's case, it does tell us that it was wrong, because he engaged in multiple marriages- ... As a way of cementing foreign alliances for national security, instead of trusting in God to provide for Israel's national security. And as a result, all sorts of idolatrous practices were brought in by means of these foreign wives coming into the country and coming into the kingdom. So that was r- that was a serious problem that the Bible is very clear about. Here's... My, my question, Sean, about this is, you know, the article starts out with someone like Elon Musk, who-... As I told a friend just recently, you need, you need to have a program to tell the players. With Musk's children and the women who he's fathered children by. But is that a, is that a trend or an aberration, do you think? Because it seems, it seems to me the trend seems to be more not having kids, period- ... Than having a lot of them with multiple women.

Sean McDowell: I don't know the answer to that. That's a real interesting question, Scott. I wonder if it can be both in one sense, where as a whole we're seeing less kids later and valuing kids less, but then this article talks about this pro-natalism movement, which is what motivates Elon Musk and a few other people in articles we'll come to, that are concerned about dropping fertility rates that you and I are concerned about as well. But the means by which they go to address it is not only ethically concerning, but [chuckles] this article says actually not going to help. We don't just need babies in terms of quantity, we need quality, and moms and dads invested in their lives to care for them. So Elon Musk, it recognizes a real problem, but the means by which he's addressing it is problematic. Now, with that said, I think we've seen for a while of a lot of men who just will go in and make money, you know, donating sperm, so to speak, and then either there'll be some kind of donor that gives it... And so there's a lot of these babies born without connection to their biological fathers. That's not really anything new, and I think we're seeing that increase on one level. But as a whole, I think you're right that the shift is away from wanting to have kids, thinking that's not what's gonna make people happy. You agree with that, or what's your take?

Scott Rae: I, yeah, agreed. I think we can have both of those things be true at the same time. And I think w- directly, the thing that's not an aberration may be that the people who have the financial resources, the well-off, are having multiple kids with multiple women because Musk and others, you know, it's no big deal for them to support a very large contingent of wives or women and children. Now, to be fair, Musk is not married to all these women at the same time. He may not have been married to some of them in particular. So I think that... Musk, I think, would be more an example of polyamory than of polygamy, to- ... Technically speaking. 'Cause he's not, he's he has not been married... You know, he's not like he has all four or five of these women who he's fathered children by, all who are wives of his, all at the same time. This is not the sort of the HBO series, The Big Love-

Sean McDowell: Sure, sure

Scott Rae: ... Which has all these women under one, under one roof.

Sean McDowell: That makes sense. Fair, fair distinction. I... Yeah, so much more could be said about this, but this article, last thing I'll say is, it's very utilitarian, and it's very evolutionary, and there's not the moral component that you and I would wanna add biblically, in the sense that kids have a moral right to a mom and dad being invested in their lives. That's the piece we have to add to this. Katie Fouss has often said, "Look, if you're at a, if you're at a hospital and you look in and there's a bunch of babies that are born, you have the responsibility to take home the child [chuckles] that is yours."

Scott Rae: [chuckles] That's correct.

Sean McDowell: And you know what? That child has the right to be taken home by the mom and dad who is theirs. So I'm glad this evolutionary piece lines up with a biblical worldview. We also have to take it further. I'd... You know, if I had a chance to talk to this author, I'd just kind of say: Does this suggest anything to you about reality, about human nature-

Scott Rae: Mm-hmm

Sean McDowell: ... Beyond just evolutionary fitness? You know, I'd love to have that conversation, but of course, that would, that would take us aside. All right, so this article, Scott, I sent over to you, found fascinating. It's a topic we discussed in the past, a few years ago, w- Ye, Kanye West, I believe... I can't remember how long ago it was, when he was with Kim Kardashian, like, for his birthday, I think it was, she sent some kind of image of a relative giving a message from the grave to him, and everybody was like, "Whoa, with this kind of technology, this is eerily somewhat real." But at that point, it wasn't as real as today, and only people with incredible means could do it. Now, I wanted to talk about this article 'cause we're seeing this shift to this potentially being normative in terms of how we deal with grief. So this is a guest essay called "We're in a New Age of Techno-spiritualism," and listen to the beginning of how this article starts. It says, "An older Korean man named Mr. Lee, dressed in a blazer and slacks, clutches the arms of a chair, leans towards his wife. 'Sweetheart, it's me,' he says. 'It's been a long time.' 'I never expected this would happen,' she replies through tears. 'I'm so happy right now.'" And then it stops and says, "Mr. Lee is dead. His widow is speaking to an AI-powered likeness of him projected onto a wall. 'Please never forget that I'm always with you,' the projection says. 'Stay healthy until we meet again.'" Now, according to this article, this conversation was filmed as a part of a promotional campaign. So this is how they're promoting this new technology for what's called Rememory, an AI tool created by a Korean startup, DeepBrain AI, which offers professional-grade studio and green screen recording, inexpensive, to create lifelike representations of the dead. There's a growing market of AI products that promise users an experience that closely approximates the impossible.... Communicating and even, quote, "reuniting with the deceased." Some other representations, like those offered by Hereafter AI, which is a crazy name, and StoryFile-

Scott Rae: [chuckles]

Sean McDowell: ... Also frames its services as being of historical value. So it can be programmed with a person's memories and voice to produce realistic holograms of chatbots which family members or others can converse. Now, there's a big difference between having a chatbot to learn from, you know, Abraham Lincoln giving a speech, like, in some ways, that's really cool, versus actually talking with a dead person through AI that seems realistic. Obviously, this is nothing new. Thomas Edison tried to use scientific means so he could talk to the dead [chuckles] in the past. This became popular in the 19th and 20th centuries, but AI is enabling an entirely new way to do this. So many of the companies producing these avatars have adopted the language of optimization, suggesting that their tools can help people ease grief or otherwise better process loss by a chance for postmortem conversations and closure. Now, this article lists some of the risks, and since it's here, I'll throw it in, like, which I appreciate. The person says, "You know, the potential risks of AI for grieving are significant 'cause the companies producing them are driven by profit." And this one was kind of eerie to me, Scott, where we've all had some... I have this password app, and all of a sudden it came to me, it's like, "If you wanna keep your passwords, you gotta start paying." I was like, "Dang it!

Scott Rae: [laughing]

Sean McDowell: ... Didn't see this coming. I got baited into this. Now I gotta pay if I wanna use my passwords and add new ones." But what if you do this with a dead one, loved one, who've you've built a relationship seemingly with? It says, "Businesses soon may realize there's even more money to be made by requiring people to pay subscription fees or watch advertisements in order to continue interacting with their dead loved ones' avatars." They also said there might be some people that are created that these companies don't shut down and keep, like, haunting you even after you want them to be gone. [chuckles] I mean, these, like, crazy ideas. So this article also says it might prevent or delay genuine rec- r- you know, genuine reckoning with loss. They wonder if it's allowing people to avoid facing real death. I guess these AI tools for grieving will become al- in- isn't... Okay, let me say it again. How popular these AI tools for grieving will become isn't immediately clear, but they're certain in this article, it's only a matter of time before they're a part of our shared future, especially US, China, and South Korea. There's so much money in their marketing and advancement and development. So they end with this, and I'll, I'll tell you what they said, "As we enter in a new era of techno-spiritualism, the question will not be when optimization culture will come for grief, but rather how we will choose to grapple with it when it inevitably does." What do you think?

Scott Rae: Well, Sean, my first reaction was, you know, to the statement that this avatar made to his wife, that, "I'll always be with you," so there's only one person who's always gonna be with us-

Sean McDowell: Amen

Scott Rae: ... And that's Jesus. Now, we, you m- I'm sure you remember, we talked about this maybe a few weeks ago when we discussed the, a deep fake that was made public about someone's daughter who had been killed w- by a boyfriend who had assaulted her some 20 years ago, and people had resur- has resurrected her, essentially, by using her yearbook picture and recordings of her voice, and this was made public, and the parents were... Needless to say, they were shocked

Sean McDowell: And livid

Scott Rae: ... Dismayed. Yeah.

Sean McDowell: Yeah.

Scott Rae: And furious about it. And they were abruptly brought back into their grief at the loss of their daughter. Now, here's my immediate take on this, is that this newest application designed to help someone grieve the loss of a loved one doesn't actually do that at all. And I think the article's right to point out, and I think this is the case in most of these cases, that it actually prevents someone from grieving, and this is the important part, moving on with life after loss. That's the point of grieving, is to enable you to move on. Not to... You don't forget, but you do move on after life. And I think it's hard to mourn a loss that you're actually not experiencing with these because, and here's, here's the point: these avatars, they're not real, and that grieving involves something- dealing with something that's real, not digitally imagined. And that's, I think, the- it's, it has the potential, I think, to be seriously misleading. And I think the idea that it would hook people in for financial purposes, yeah, that's not a stretch at all because I think that's... To see that as the point, I think, doesn't take a whole lot of imagination, and therefore, the wellbeing of the people who are receiving these or who are, who are, purchasing these, I think you're right to point out, is not exactly at the forefront of the people who are putting this service out. Now, the other thing that I- that struck me is it reminded me of a passage in Deuteronomy, and it raises a question. Here's, here's what it's... This is Deuteronomy 18, beginning in verse nine. It says, "When you enter the land the Lord your God is giving you, do not learn to imitate the detestable ways of the nations there. Let no one be found among you who sacrifices their son or daughter in the fire," and here's sort of the point, "who practices divination or sorcery, interprets omens, engages in witchcraft, or casts spells."... Or who is a medium or spiritist, or who consults the dead. Anyone who does these things is detestable to the Lord. Because of these same practices, the Lord will drive you out from the nations before you." Now, here's my question, Sean, is, you know, we haven't made a huge distinction [lips smack] between real pornography and digital-based pornography. Right? I mean, we've basically said that those are- that's probably a distinction without much of a difference when it comes to the morality and how it impacts us. And I wonder if this is the same way. Is con- is consulting with the digital dead on the same moral level as engaging in digital pornography? Now, to be fair, the passage in Deuteronomy 18 prohibits these practices because they were, they were part and parcel of the pagan religion that was all over the land of Canaan that Israel came into. And, you know, some of these practices have been associated with things like witchcraft and sorcery and, you know, the occult in the past. I'm, I'm not convinced that, you know, what we're talking about in this article is necessarily connected to the occult in the same way that, you know, a seance perhaps would be in the past. But I wonder, is there, is there a big difference between a seance in real life and a digital seance? Which it seems to me that's essentially what this is. And I... So I don't, I don't have an answer to that. I'd be really interested to hear what some of our listeners think about this. And Sean, I, you know, I... We had- we hadn't talked about this in advance, so if you're, if you've got the same sort of ambiguity about this that I do, that's understandable. But I'm curious to know, 'cause I know you've s- I know you've thought a lot about the, how we assess digital pornography, and I know you don't see it as hardly any different than the real thing. I wonder if you would consider this somewhat similar to that?

Sean McDowell: [lips smack] That's a great question. That actually went through my mind, and I'm not sure I have that settled in my mind as well. Now, digital pornography, the one distinction is, yes, it harms us the same as, quote-unquote, "real pornography." I think the effect on the viewer, is it the same dehumanizing of an individual or just an image of an individual? Is that sin equal? That's something we can nuance, but of course, those images we could nuance are taken from real people at some point. So does it just push it back a little bit and give us distance, so to speak, so it feels like we're not harming somebody, and the excuse to engage in it? That would be my question. When it comes to this, I don't know where that line between where it's just technology and AI and when it becomes supernatural. And I think there's precedent in the Bible where, you know, even what is it... Is it in, 1 Samuel 32 at the end, with the Witch of Endor is-

Scott Rae: Mm-hmm

Sean McDowell: ... You know, trying to bring up Samuel, and there's a sense where it's like, "Oh, I actually brought somebody up." Like, there's a surprise that this really worked. I think there's a lot of things like tarot cards and a lot of supernatural, New Age kind of practices that people know are... They're, they're tricks. They're mind reading, and they're manipulation. But at times, nonetheless, the supernatural shows up in ways that are not expected. I think that's why we're called to stay away from it. And so in this case, it feels like it's all natural, and we know we're not really talking to the dead. But does this open up a door we shouldn't open up and we should run from? Is it giving a foothold to Satan? I can't fully answer that, but everything the Bible [chuckles] says about running away from the dead and talking to the dead in the way you described gives me huge pause and says, "This is an example where technology could potentially be used in a way that opens up a door for abuse in a way we don't anticipate." I think that's the best I can do right now, that biblically, Jesus, Paul, all the biblical writers would be like, "Run from this. Don't use this," and in part, because we have tools within our faith to deal with grief, right? This is not anything new. So I think of 1 Thessalonians 4:13, where Paul says, "But we do not want you to be uninformed, brothers, about those who are asleep," meaning those who died, "that you may not grieve as others who have no hope. For since we believe that Jesus died and rose again," which we are celebrating this month, "even so, through Jesus Christ, God will bring with Him those who have fallen asleep." What's he saying? He's saying because of the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, we have the tools to address grieving. Now, other human beings help us do this. Prayer helps us do this. Scripture helps us do this. So does AI align with this, or does it thwart it? That's what I lean towards. It really thwarts it, as understandable it is for somebody to say, "Wow, I could have someone that looks and talks like my loved one." Like, that temptation is real. I think Christians should run from it.

Scott Rae: [lips smack] Amen. I concur. I think the idea that it opens, it opens the door to something that, you know, we wanna be really careful about. That, that's, I think, a very appropriate caution on this. And I think in general, I... If it's- if you think this will help you move on with life after loss, I think you're gonna be disappointed.... Because it's just, it's, we c- I can't emphasize this enough, it's not real. [chuckles] That's just, that's the point. It may resemble closely something that is real, but you are not, you are not talking to your loved one. And if you were, from the dead, then I'd have even bigger problems with that. And so st- yeah, I think there's, there's a sense in which simulating something that we would say is biblically problematic, that makes me question whether that's appropriate theologically and biblically as well.

Sean McDowell: I mean, gosh, my mind's just reeling. Like, what if I could have an AI representation again of Abraham Lincoln, and I could have a conversation with Abraham Lincoln? Like, that educational tool would be amazing, but that's different than a known loved one I'm grieving their death of. That seems to make the difference here, and I know I'm not really talking [chuckles] to Abraham Lincoln, obviously.

Scott Rae: Right.

Sean McDowell: So we just gotta make some of these nuances. But I think this article's right, that this technology is here, and it's coming, and it's going to be accessible to everyone in a short matter of time, and we're gonna have to think and act biblically about it. Okay, so there's a three-part series that's right in your lane, Scott, on embryo selection, and there... This is a long article, so I'll try to keep it as distinct, as I can. We did part one last week. There's this, a business called Orchid that screens embryos' DNAs for hundreds of conditions, which can be traced to single variants. The company goes further, offering what is known as polygenic screening, again, we talked about last week, which gives parents what is essentially a risk profile on each embryo's propensity for conditions such as heart disease, which the genetic component is far more complex. Today, it's an expensive procedure, often to patients primarily undergoing IVF, but also, but not always, infertile couples seeking treatment. One line in this that jumped out to me about somebody says they envision the future where sex is for fun, but embryo screening is for babies. It's going to become insane to not screen for these things. So in other words, like there's pressure in certain places like Iceland to screen for babies with Down syndrome and not give birth to them. It's going to be looked down negatively, according to this article, for those who don't embryo screen and bring a child into the world that has one of these kinds of conditions, apparently. Now, these things per- preserve- presumably refer to conditions like obesity and autism, but also things like intellectual ability and height. In the US right now, people can already select embryos for eye color choice, sex selection. That's already happening. But they a- they say the results are probabilistic, not so much with sex selection and with, eye color, but with some of the health conditions, they're more probabilistic than they are something that they can control. Even with IQ screening, they say it's not quite as clear, like how do you control IQ of 69 versus 78? You know, it's much more complex. People are moving that direction. One of the things that kind of amazed me in this, Scott, is that one survey in 2022 of Americans said 4 in 10 Americans were more likely than not to use such technology if it would slightly increase their child's [chuckles] likelihood of getting into a top college. So we're at a point where this technology is emerging. It's getting cheaper and cheaper, but it's finding a receptive audience amongst a lot of Americans who want an edge for their kids to succeed in the way they think that they should succeed. There's a lot of concerns raised in this article. It says, "Giving parents the illusion of so much control, these technologies could lead to viewing embryos as a consumer product, while overemphasizing the role of genetics in life outcomes." That's a concern you and I would both share, that it makes our offspring into things that we want to use and optimize, and reduces human beings down to our genes rather than our environment and relationships and being made in the image of God. Now, these articles don't surprise me. This couple who's been using this, at one point, they created 30 embryos and are deciding which ones to insert or not. They, they make the case that screening could be a boon for public health by lowering healthcare spending on heritable diseases, and more controversially, for social ills such as violent crime and raising society's overall IQ. How could it reduce violent crime? Well, more girls might be chosen, and since men do more crime, it results in less crime. Now, we can come back [chuckles] to why these are crazy claims, but the article says, we can't forget that eliminating certain diseases results in eliminating people. Now, it- last thing I'll say here, there's so much in this article, is at the end, what's kind of amazing to me is that this technology now allows people, when they're selecting these embryos, to have, like, video footage given to them on a thumb drive, which just feels so, like, just... I don't even know the word for it, like, sanitized in a way it's not supposed to be, to watch these embryos from the earliest stages divide and begin to grow. Like, you can watch that. And one girl says, she said, "It felt like it was a baby. It was a baby. It wasn't just a group of cells to me."... That's what she said! And then the author of this went back and figured out that although she had a lot of embryos created, she was able to find the one that, quote, unquote, "became her daughter." And then she goes back and look at the early stages and was like, "This wasn't just cells. This was actually my daughter." So I mean, there's so many directions we could go with this, Scott, but give me, [chuckles] give me your take.

Scott Rae: Well, for one, the point you just raised was one of the first things that stood out to me- ... Is this is, this is one of the areas that I think supports something I've been saying for a long time, that technology, more so than philosophy, metaphysics, morality, or the law, is, I think, the best hope for society recognizing the value and the moral status of the unborn. This- and this is another good example of this. You know, it's, it's not an accident that the person in this article made the connection between what they were seeing on the screen of their embryo maturing and, you know, the kids that they envisioned having, or if they already had kids through IVF, the kids that... They know there's continuity between those embryos in the lab [chuckles] and the bouncing baby boys or girls that they're holding in their arms. That, that's undeniable, and that's why, Sean, that there is such ambivalence among couples who utilize IVF and have leftover embryos about what to do with them. You know, 'cause they know. In fact, most couples do not discard them. They keep them in storage indefinitely until they end up just, they stop paying the storage fee. But they're-- they have huge ambivalence about this, and that's not, I think, not surprising at all. Despite the industry's best efforts to conclude that these are just clumps of cells, our intuitions tell us, I think, something a little bit different if we are th- if we are this close to the technology. Now, let's, let's be clear for our listeners about what's happening here, 'cause this is a big change in how we do genetic testing and screening. In the past, we-- you would only screen for things with which you had a history in your family.

Sean McDowell: Oh, good point.

Scott Rae: And you would only-- and that's why the screening was not super expensive, because you were only looking for one or two particular genetic glitches. Today, it's screen-- you're screening your n- you're screening 99% of your genome, is being screened, which I think for adults, it would... Is a great thing, and I'm convinced that this will soon be affordable for adults, so that in e- in all of our medical records, we'll have a complete scan of our, of our genetic code, which is great for health reasons for us. Because, Sean, you may-- say, for example, you have a something in your history that has- gives you greater risk of heart disease. You know, I can tell, I can tell lots of people that eating cheeseburgers and fries is bad for you, but for you, given your genetic predisposition to heart disease, that's really bad for you, and something you should avoid like the plague. And there are lots of other things that are like that. And so that's one thing that's changed, is this now we're looking at the entire genetic code. But here's the other thing that's changing. With that, we are testing for more than just what I would call single gene links, which, for the most part, if you have that link, you're gonna get the disease. Now they're testing for what I, what I call predispositions, which is, what's the risk of you getting this particular disease? And those risks, Sean, they are all over the map. And some... You know, and, for example, the article points out, I think really insightfully, that this doesn't take into account anything about environmental factors. Because somebody who's got a predisposition to lung disease, in the '60s and '70s, when cigarettes were everywhere, the risk of them seeing that genetic predisposition actually come to reality were a lot higher today when through the, you know, through the education as we've done about smoking, that person may never come into co- may ever come into contact with a cigarette. And so that predisposition is some- might be a lot less relevant than it would've been 50 or so years ago. So it's, it's just a big change, and what this means is that perfectly healthy embryos are being discarded today for- ... Simply for elevated risks of some things that you don't want or even for traits that you don't want. And we'll get into sex selection here in just a minute. I got a lot to say about that, too. But the ch- here's, here's how I summarize the change that the article points out. The change is from having the healthiest children we can have to having the best children we can have. And that's where we come from using screening to give us a leg up on preventing disease, to using screening to help us select traits and enhance otherwise, and, or to select out traits that have nothing to do with contracting disease or preventing it. [lips smack] and that's-- this is, that is really something I think [chuckles] to be concerned about because the era... I mean, this is one more step that leads us to the era of designer children being upon us. Because, Sean, if we have this genetic information in embryos, there's no reason why if the technology develops sufficiently, we can't s- we can't specifically not just select-... But change some of the genetic code in these really, in these really early embryonic stages. And I think the expect- the article is right to point out the expectations on this about, for parents will, I think, soon be too intense to resist. And I've even heard the phrase thrown around that parents who don't select out these embryos or don't do what they can to give their kids the best genetic chance at a successful life are guilty of parental negligence.

Scott Rae: And the corresponding thing to that is that children actually may have a claim against the parents for a right of theirs being violated. This is in the whole heading of what's called wrongful life lawsuits, that f- up to now, have not had, not gained much traction, but, you know, there are a handful of places where the door seems to be open to that. So there's just... I mean, there's just so much to say about this. But let me just... A couple things theologically, and then I wanna hear your take on this.

Sean McDowell: Yeah.

Scott Rae: I think selecting for sex and selecting for traits, I think under- clearly undermines the biblical notion of children as a gift. We've said this before when we talked about sex selection. You know, Psalm 127 is very clear that children are God's good gift to be received open-handedly, to be held loosely, and to be received without expectations. And that's my concern, is about what are parents expecting when they choose sex or traits or think they can get a smarter child or get into an Ivy League college? You know, those are a series of expectations that I think sometimes violate what I would call a child's right to an open future, to where the pa- the job of the parents is not, is not to overly dictate what that child's future's gonna look like, but leave that open for the giftedness that God's built into those children to emerge in ways that may be the best indicator of their flourishing. The other thing on this, just, I think it, when it calls, selecting for traits in general, the Scripture, I think, suggests that there are certain givens of life that we have, that come not from the Fall, but from being created creatures with built-in limits. And I, and there's... I think there's a, there's a difference between using medicine and technology to overcome the effects of the entrance of sin- ... You know, disease, the, you know, things like that. I'm less concerned about that, as long as we're not throwing away embryos, and... 'Cause it's, it's super easy, Sean, as you know, we can, we can eliminate, we can eliminate all kinds of diseases if you give us the freedom to eliminate those who suffer from it. You know, [chuckles] there's no, there's no great virtue in that. But I think there are just certain things that are, that are givens. Our mortality is a given. You know, aging is a given. Some of the losses that come with aging are just, they're givens of life. Our, our sex is a given that's part of God's creation, and I think some of those things are things we ought to just, we ought to accept and live with and, using the resources that we have, flourish as best we can this side of eternity. So, I mean, my... I got a lot- there's a lot more to say about this, but that's probably enough for right now.

Sean McDowell: Oh, that's great stuff. Really, really helpful insight, Scott. You know, in some ways, what this technology is doing is trying to counter the effects of the Fall, [chuckles] which is understandable. It's affected our bodies. It's affected creation. It's affected us in every facet of what it means to be human. So we want to use technology to resist that, but there's a, there's a place where it goes too far, and this is where we're start to seeing it go too far. Would you say, in the way it's being used right now in the US, sex selection and eye color... I think there's a lot of people, even Christians, who would say, "As long as we're not destroying embryos," and maybe you can't select it right now without destroying embryos. In principle, if somebody could do those without destroying an embryo right now, would that be wrong?

Scott Rae: In... Yeah, I think in most cases, I think it undermines the notion of children as a gift. I do have... There's an exception to that, because w- there are about 300 or so genetic diseases that are sex-linked. Things like hemophilia, for example. And some of them are real, are deadly diseases. And I think selecting for sex is fine if you want to do an end run around, some of those sex-linked genetic diseases, but I would do it differently. There's a way to select for sex with- that doesn't involve aborting fetuses or discarding embryos. You c- it's a preconcept- a sperm-selecting technology called MicroSort. I keep, I keep, I keep wanting to call it Microsoft, which is not true. [laughing] but if you, if- let's just google MicroSort, and it's a... There are two different ways to select for sperm, but essentially it gives you about an 85 to 90% likelihood of getting this, the sex that you desire. So if that, if the intent is to circumvent a clear sex-linked genetic disease that you have a history of in your family, I think that's okay to use MicroSort for that purpose. Otherwise, I'm just, I'm so cautious, Sean, about the expectations that go with a s- a preference for sex that is strong enough to spend the kind of money that's necessary to do the kinds of selection that this article is talking about.

Sean McDowell: The money, and like the article says, turns a child into a product with built-in expectations. That's where it becomes problematic.

Scott Rae: The, the expectations, I think, are unavoidable- ... If you're going to those ex-

Sean McDowell: Yeah

Scott Rae: Those extents to pull that off.

Sean McDowell: I mean, even eye color, you're selecting for this child what you think is best, and that's built into their bodies. That, you know, that's on what we might consider the more innocent level, but it's still of the same spirit in doing so, and I think I agree with you, it should be avoided. There's one line at the end of this is a more general point that I wanna just highlight, that I love the author point this out, and by the way, I've been [chuckles] critical of the New York Times a lot, but this op-ed raises a lot of the right questions. Doesn't always land where we would want it to, but raises the questions about the status of the unborn, but it also makes this point. Second-to-last paragraph, the author says, "I am not convinced that not using sex- such technologies leaves one untouched." And I think that's right, that technologies are not just tools that we use interacting in the world. Those tools affect us, and using such a tool to select the embryos that we want, she's now looking back on this going, "Oh, I hadn't thought of this," and if she's saying at five mo- you know, at five days, "These are the embryos that became my daughter, and that really was my daughter," that raises the question of the other embryos and their status-

Scott Rae: That's exactly right

Sean McDowell: ... That is lurking within this article as well. Now, we want people to think of that, obviously, 'cause they are human beings. But I think this is just a huge, a huge experiment in unintended consequences we don't even know yet. Like, the idea we're gonna reduce crime by minimizing the number of males is ridiculous. We had a gender- we have a gender imbalance in China of the opposite, of not enough women, and the amount of problems that created, that was never foreseen by the Chinese government, and they're still trying to correct for it. Well, that's what's going to happen here. So when everybody has money at stake in something they personally want, they make the kind of arguments that will allegedly benefit society. I think these technologies will have far more negative impacts. In five, 10, 20 years, we look back and go, "Oops, didn't see that one coming," which means when we move away from God's design of seeing kids as a gift, like you said, there's unintended consequences.

Scott Rae: Yeah. One final comment on this.

Sean McDowell: Sure.

Scott Rae: I think having the, having the information is one thing. What we've emphasized here is what you do with that information is what counts morally and what people are culpable for. Having the information, I think, is in most cases, a case of no harm, no foul, as long as you can resist the temptation to actually do some of these things with it that we find problematic.

Sean McDowell: Well said. Well, let's take some questions.

Scott Rae: Yeah.

Sean McDowell: As always, have some great questions, and this first one is more of a comment, and I'm gonna read it. "I've had two extensive conversations with Preston Sprinkle and Tim Muehlhoff about using preferred pronouns," and this individual wrote in, and he said, "Sometimes what gets missed is the voice of those of us who work in secular spaces and regularly interact with members of the LGBTQ community, outside of Christian spaces. My coworkers use pronouns that don't match their biological gender, and so I provide, quote, 'pronoun hospitality.' They are not only believers but openly anti-religious. If I refuse to do so, I've seen it happen, this would put up walls of bitterness and anger. In my experience, the daily grace I extend towards people through pronoun hospitality has reduced their skepticism towards Christianity." This individual has seen some people come to church as a result of it, and, "Thanks for letting me share my perspective." Not a question. In some ways, people can go back to my lengthy conversations and listen to the two of them. I don't have a ton to say here other than I'm not sure the results of this are what should decide whether we use pronouns or not. I can point to a lot of results and examples of not doing so in settings, having good ends as well, so it has to be the principle and the biblical precedent to me, but I wanted this individual to be able to share his perspective 'cause it's very thoughtful. Thanks for listening. This is more of a question. It says, "I'm thinking through Preston Sprinkle's position on whether Christians should identify as gay." Again, this is a conversation-friendly debate he and I had. "Is the terminology that refers to post-fall sinful conditions and sins, gay equals same-sex attraction, pedophile equals sexual attraction to minors, alcohol equals alcoholic, someone addicted to alcohol, also bad like the post-fall conditions and sins? Where's the cutoff when referring to or identifying with a terminology? If I'm allowed to call myself gay when I'm same-sex attracted, then, for example, should I call myself a pedophile when I'm attracted to a minor? This seems to separate the terminology from sin itself. How do we approach this?" Okay, a ton to be unpacked here I can't even remotely do a justice to, but I would say there's a difference between saying, for example, somebody who uses alcohol appropriately and somebody who abuses it. Recognizing that one person is an alcoholic is not saying, "This is a part of my identity I wanna lean into." It's recognizing a fault and something that doesn't line up with God's design that I want to get right in my life. The issue for me that I laid out in my conversation with Preston is that when it comes to same-sex attraction, some people argue that there's more to it than just sexual attraction.... I'm not convinced you can come up with certain s- common list of criteria that people with same-sex attraction have that other people don't have necessarily in certain circumstances. But I don't think you can take away from calling oneself a gay Christian, that it entails minimally same-sex attraction, and that does not line up with God's design for how we are supposed to live. So while the term may be more than that, it's no less than that, which is why I think we shouldn't lean into that part. We should go the opposite direction as we do with other desires that don't line up for how God wants us to live and not make them a part of our identity. Your thoughts, Scott?

Scott Rae: Well, other than the fact that this was your conversation with Preston, and I'm happy [laughing] to let you, to let you deal with the fallout from it, [laughing] I, you know, I think... I do think there's a fair distinction between the desire and the behavior, and that the behavior, although we admit the desire is not the way God intended and is, I think, a, an example of the, you know, the sexual wiring that's gotten misconstrued as a result of the general impact of sin. But for the, for the most part, that's, that's not chosen, and the behavior is what's chosen and therefore what we are morally culpable for. I'm not sure that affects how people refer to themselves. I know alcoholics, you know, in AA meetings don't have a problem with referring to themselves as alcoholics. In fact, that's really part of the program. But I think your point, I think, is well taken, that I would not wanna identify with something that I think is contrary to creation, creational norms or things that God has set out in his Word. So I would, I would share the same caution, that I think- ... That you've raised.

Sean McDowell: We don't have time to discuss this here, but there is an open debate about the moral culpability of same-sex attraction, whether or not we have-

Scott Rae: Right

Sean McDowell: ... To repent of that because that comes from someone's heart, from someone's character, from their fallen nature, and I'm not uniquely picking on [chuckles] this sin. That is not my point. It just happens to be the topic of conversation, and whether or not we need to repent of that because it comes from our heart and broken character, we don't have to answer that now. Maybe that's a conversation we come back to, but that's lurking behind this-

Scott Rae: Fair enough

Sean McDowell: ... As well.

Scott Rae: Yeah. Another- ... Another story for another day.

Sean McDowell: We'll cross that bridge in due time. That'd be a fun, friendly debate to have. All right, last one says, "In 2 Corinthians 5:8, Paul says that to be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord. At the same time, some Christians have claimed to see dead loved ones. I don't see anywhere in Scripture where loved ones who have gone to be with the Lord can come back to or be seen in any way. Could you please help by giving me your thoughts on that? And if there is Scriptural evidence for seeing dead loved ones, can you provide it?" What's your thoughts on this one, Scott? I'm actually really curious.

Scott Rae: Yeah. Well, this is a feature of some near-death experiences. That, you know, and I, and I have no reason to be skeptical about near-death experiences. I think many of them, I, are very reliable, and they see things that, yeah, you- nobody else in the room has seen. Whether that inc- I mean, it does include seeing dead loved ones. Whether or not that's the real thing or not, I don't know the answer to that. And what this person has asked for particularly are biblical evidence for seeing dead loved ones. The only one I can think of, Sean, is what you referred to earlier in this episode- ... From the end of 1 Samuel, with the case of Saul, but that was something that, God was clearly displeased with, and involved a, you know, a pagan practice. So I wouldn't, I wouldn't count that. Other than that, I can't think of any place off the top of my head where the Scripture validates that... Something that is morally correct, where you are, where you are seeing dead loved ones.

Sean McDowell: That's a fair point. So because I've done so much research and writing on the resurrection, there is a common occurrence of people whose loved ones pass away, and they talk about seeing them, having a conversation with them shortly after their death, and then these kind of appearances disappear. Now, just because there's not an example of this in the Bible doesn't follow that it's necessarily unbiblical and necessarily false.

Scott Rae: True.

Sean McDowell: Now, this is often used as, by critics to just say, "Look, maybe the appearances of Jesus were like this," but what's interesting about this is the whole point is when people have these appearances is they know the person is dead. [chuckles] That's the whole point.

Scott Rae: Right. That's right.

Sean McDowell: That they're living past the grave, but they haven't come back to this life and say, "Touch my hands and touch my feet. I am alive," in the way that Jesus did. So it can't be used an example to explain away the appearances of Jesus. So for me, these are not like ghost-type stories that we often hear of. You know, when the person talks about seeing dead people, I couldn't help of think of what I consider one of the greatest movies of all time, The Sixth Sense. Incredible 1999 film that is so unbelievable on multiple levels. I watched it recently with my kids, and watching it as a parent- ... Was somewhat harrowing, seeing this young boy who's just seeing supernatural phenomenon, and at some point, he's like, "Do I lie to my mom so she loves me and stays in relationship with me, or say the supernatural phenomena that I've really seen?" A lot of people are caught in that bind, and so I think near-death experiences are real. I'm open to these kind of brief visitations after somebody dies, not in the way of being a ghost that's, like, haunting somebody to right some wrong. I think we need to listen to people and always bring back and say, "Okay, does this line up with Scripture?" And give people space to share. So that's my quick take. Anything you wanna jump in and add on that one, Scott?

Scott Rae: No, that... No, that's good stuff. Probably, that's probably another story for another day as well.

Sean McDowell: Well, I'm looking forward to next week. This is obviously Resurrection Week, and, at least kind of the Easter season we're leading into, and so we're gonna have at least one story on the historical Jesus. But this has been an episode of the podcast Think Biblically: Conversations on Faith and Culture, brought to you by Talbot School of Theology, Biola University. We have master's programs, in-person and distance, theology, Bible, apologetics. I'd love to have you in class. Ethics, Old Testament, New Testament, marriage, on and on. To submit comments or ask questions, which we deeply appreciate, please email us at thinkbiblically@biola.edu. Please take a moment to give us a rating on your podcast app. Seriously, every single one helps expand our reach and help more people think biblically. Taking three minutes would be a small way you could say thanks if this podcast is helpful to you. We appreciate you listening, and we'll see you Tuesday when Scott and I have a conversation together about the state of apologetics, what issues are coming in, how do we do apologetics and evangelism effectively today? In the meantime, remember to think biblically about everything. [upbeat music]