Since the dawn of time, science has been in the minds of men. In the story, Frankenstein, by Mary Shelley, Victor deals with the creation of life as opposed to "Arks and Genetic Bottlenecks" by Harold J. Morowitz which denies the scientific validation of Noah's Ark. Science, in most cases, has interfered with human lives, especially in religion in the aspect of human cloning. In reality, it is not just a question of science, it is a matter of science versus religion. How far will science go to allow human cloning which is a test of people's religious beliefs? Both Frankenstein and "Arks and Genetic Bottlenecks" provide readers with some similar and some different answers.
First, Frankenstein, and "Arks
…show more content…
Bob Lanza discovered that by the assortment of genes or the removing of genes within an egg and replacing the genetic material with that of the donor, his/her genetic information will be copied thus providing a clone of the person or animal whose genetics were used. This is one main point of how the two stories tie together, because, by implication, Morowitz argues that two of each species in Noah's Ark should not have had enough genetic diversity to survive and populate the earth. So, it is a scientific impossibility.
The two stories are also similar in the fact that they go against some religious beliefs. In Frankenstein, Victor creates life out of dead flesh, which to some is as though he is playing God. In one scene in the Frankenstein film, Victor is seen attaching a whole arm after applying chemicals and electricity, it moves thus giving it life. This can be compared to when God created Adam and Eve and then breathed upon them, giving them life. Similarly, in "Arks and Genetic Bottlenecks," Morowitz tries to scientifically prove Noah's Arks when Christians believe it out of faith and do not really need a scientific explanation. Christians believe in God being a miracle worker and his work and word (the bible) is all an act of believing through faith. The fact that Morowitz wants to scientifically prove the strong genetic alleles of animals is irrelevant to the fact that