Cloning does not infringe on the Creation. Evolution, development of knowledge, trying all ways are the laws of nature. After the world and its laws were Created, they were left to develop on their own. Cloning is a natural product of our knowledge and, as every empirical act, does not cross the laws of nature.
If people could create other souls through conception, why not through cloning? Both processes equally accord to the law of nature and, consequently, with the will of the Creator. Moreover, conception originated in Eden because the humans obtained the forbidden knowledge. Much more they could use the legally obtained knowledge for proliferation through cloning.
The technology opens many odd perspectives, of which cloning is not the most controversial. Why enjoy life instead of electrically stimulating the joy centers in brain? Why eat instead of receiving the nutrients intravenously? Why sleep instead of restoring the chemical composition of vivacious brain? We cannot stop the unknown by rejecting it.
Suicide does not contradict natural and religious principles. A person dies from prolonged heavy pain even if his vital organs are not damaged. When sufferings are unbearable, brain commands to cease. That is essentially suicide.
If subconscious suicide is natural, conscious is even more so. Besides, the decision to commit suicide is often irrational – thus also subconscious.
People like to watch meaningless TV programs, read stupid books and newspapers to fill the time, instead of silently contemplating. Reasons for this habit can be several. One is that the brain, its conscious part, needs to be busy (and these modes of time-wasting occupy it) but not overloaded (and people seek easy, no-brainwork-required information flow). Another is perhaps the need for induced feelings: by drugs, reading or watching, creating sort of pseudo-reality with intense and unusual events.
Waiters were good and calm when class distinctions were fixed. They knew they cannot expect more and were content with serving without comparing themselves to their masters or clients. Socialism with the notion of equality made the service indecent. In capitalist countries, waiters know they have equal possibilities with others and are not offended by their job, being able to change it.
The artists of socialist realism made ugly paintings by making the Renaissance style just a bit more realistic. Symbolists emasculated the art by driving it over the edge. Does the impressionism take the place of the Golden Section between realism and symbolism?
Parallel evolution may obviate the need for the incredible 20^141 mutations in the globin protein. However:
- if evolutionary conditions are very harsh, as atheists suggest to discount non-optimal combinations, then the protein would not have survived some evolutionary stages. In other words, a protein with say, 60% similarity to globin (one of the intermediate evolutionary stages) is likely not sustainable, and cannot live and propagate. Evolutionary theory does not explain how is that ALL intermediary stages from ground zero to globin proved livable and sustainable. You don't expect a person without legs and hands to propagate well, but atheists make essentially that assumption about intermediary evolution stages of proteins.
-if, on the other hand, evolutionary conditions are not very harsh, and intermediary (inefficient) forms survive and propagate, then we should expect much larger diversity of proteins than we actually see. If globin was necessary and useful even at the intermediary evolutionary stages, then we expect to find many different globins now. That is not the case.