CNN profiles an “age management” doctor and two of her clients from Atlanta. These are people who do not believe, in the words of the American Academy of Anti-Aging Medicine (A4M), in “the arcane, outmoded stance that aging is natural and inevitable”.
And how does CNN start its article, posted on Holy Saturday?
Clothia Roussell draws inspiration from the prophets. “I’ve read in the Bible how we’re supposed to live to see 120, and those prophets lived to be 400 or 500 years old,” said the 49-year-old homemaker.
Where in the Bible does it say we’re “supposed to” live to see 120? Moses died at 120, but the Psalmist says “The days of our years are threescore years and ten; and if by reason of strength they be fourscore years, yet is their strength labour and sorrow; for it is soon cut off, and we fly away” (Psalm 90:10).
Highlighting the fact that these two people base their hopes of living 500 years on something they perceive as biblical, CNN equates quackery with Christianity. These things tend to come out around Easter: consider the NY Times article from this past Tuesday: “Did the Red Sea Part? No Evidence, Archaeologists Say.” It’s all a hoax. And just in time for Easter and Passover!
Back to anti-aging: the Gerontology Research Group is another organization in desperate need of a reality check. They describe themselves as “Physicians, Scientists, and Engineers dedicated to the quest to slow and ultimately reverse human aging within the next 20 years.” Twenty years! That means that if I get on board now, I’ll not age past 55 years. But when the process reverses, does that mean I’ll eventually revert back to my adolescent, childhood, and embryonic stature, gradually devolving to a single-celled organism and ultimately separating into egg and sperm? And what happens to children born 20 years from now? If the aging process is reversed, will they even be able to mature in the womb? Or start as oldsters and work their way back to infancy?
Suffice it to say that I don’t think this “reversal” of the aging process has been thought out. They also haven’t recognized that their website is every bit as subject to the aging process as humans are—the thing still uses frames and cheesy animated gifs:
But it should not be surprising to learn that the GRG is also anti-Christian: Their website shows Richard Dawkins autographing his then-latest book, The Ancestor’s Tale, on Good Friday, 2005. A long quotation, but worth the time:
The introduction of Charles Darwin’s Theory of Evolution followed by its elaboration by modern biologists, who have rationalized it in a manner to be consistent with the Laws of Physics and Chemistry, is spiritually liberating. And why is that? We no longer have to search out God’s intent for mortal humans (Thy “will” be done on Earth as it is in Heaven.) which is such a frustrating business, since He has revealed so little evidence for His purpose, or having to listen to the admonitions of those self-appointed prophets who seek to speak for Him (the clergy/ruling-class, who fabricated the notions of sin and guilt, acting largely out of self-interest to maintain their social status). Instead, we can come to appreciate that our “human condition” is in no way sacred — that it was, in fact, thrust upon us without our consent. Therefore, we can change it if it suits our own purpose, in the same fashion as wearing clothing when it’s cold or putting on a pair of spectacles when our vision becomes impaired with old age without fear of untoward consequences in the “afterlife.” So, this argument is liberating in the sense that the fatalistic dogma of nearly all religions regarding “heaven” (and “hell”) and/or reincarnation can now be ignored with impunity.
Where they cook up the idea of “spirit”, which they certainly need before they can talk of something being “spiritually liberating”, is something they leave unexplained. I’m looking forward to checking back with these people when I’m an old man, to see how they’re progressing. Oops, I meant, in 20 years, when they’ve recreated human nature and rewritten the laws over which we have no control.