So, found this today: http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/books/reviews/the-m...
... and while the whole thing is absolute rubbish, here's the line I keep coming back to: "Nowadays it is leading gung-ho industrialists to suppose that we can and should re-create our crops and livestock (and even, perhaps, ourselves) by "genetic engineering"." ... yes, and? Is that a bad thing?
@Diana: The skim reading I did of this hack job brought my eyes eventually to the remark that "any theologian" could educate Dawkins on the true nature of the "miracle." I can do that myself, in 20 words or less, on behalf of Dr. Dawkins: "Ever heard of post hoc reasoning?" To explain (if necessary): when one prays and there is a phenomenon that can only be explained by the prayer, you might have a miracle, but if the "result" is that your prayer is "answered," you only assume "God" heard the prayer, while there could be any number of explanations why the result came about.
If the result does not come about, you say that "God" had some other thing in mind for you, and anyway he works in mysterious ways.
You keep using that word... :P
And yes, I agree.
Genetic engineering sounds wonderful to me. I don't think it will be long before we will re-create crops, livestock, and ourselves into much better organisms than evolution has done. That is, unless religious nutters are able to get their way.