LOL So I'm wrong, but you, of course, are right. Got it.
"I might as well see every single person who is evangelising, preaching, witnessing, etc. as being selfish bastards tryign to bribe their way into heaven"
See what you want. You've obviously put human beings above God anyway.
"People made the same complaint throughout all of medical history. Would you turn down a blood transfusion?"
A human being willingly giving a pint of blood to help another human being is a far cry from 'creating' new creatures that never existed before, only to kill them. Apparently you can't see the difference.
"Besides: if you can create an entire human, ostensibly for transplant purposes, why give it a brain *at* *all*?"
So you'd be okay with cloning human beings without brains?
> So I'm wrong, but you, of course, are right.
I know scientists. The idea that they do what they do to "set themselves up as God," "usurp the Creator," or any similar foolishness, is just ludicrous. They do science to get paid, they do it from curiosity, they do it from the hope to help mankind (or critters, depending), they do it to gain personal fame, they do it to score with the chicks (a decidedly unsuccessful strategy, generally). But the scientist who tries to replace God largely exists only in cheap monster movies.
> A human being willingly giving a pint of blood to help another human being is a far cry from 'creating' new creatures that never existed before, only to kill them.
What, you mean like how we've genetically modified crops, in order to eat them; have bred more docile cattle, in order to eat them; created fatter sheep and pigs, in order to eat them? Humans have been creating new forms of life for 10,000 years in order to kill and eat them.
> So you'd be okay with cloning human beings without brains?
Turn it around. What arguement can you come up with regarding the unethicalness of that? Don't just give me "it's sick and evil..." reason it out.
If something is helpful and is not unethical... then I'm generally ok with it.
And I'm still waiting for an answer to this one:
---
> It is an attempt that will fail, of course. No one can usurp God.
Umm... it has *already* succeeded. Read the article, there are a number of successes already. What does that imply?