The Briefing with Albert Mohler - Wednesday, August 26, 2026

Episode Date: August 26, 2026

This is The Briefing, a daily analysis of news and events from a Christian worldview.On today’s edition of The Briefing, Dr. Mohler discusses The Economist’s argument for embryo selection on the basis of disease resistance and IQ, how IVF led to the trend of designer babies, and the outsized life and legacy of Dolly Parton.Part I (00:14 – 07:08)We Have Reached the Age of Designer Babies: One of the Most Influential Publications in the World Argues for Embryo Selection on the Basis of Disease Resistance and IQIn praise of designer-ish babies: Couples should be allowed to select embryos on the basis of both disease resistance and IQ by The EconomistThe Next Parenting Trend Starts Before Conception by The New York Times (Ross Douthat and Noor Siddiqui)Part II (07:08 – 17:54)The Slippery Slope of IVF: The Arrival of the Trend of Designer Babies Began with IVF TechnologyPart III (17:54 – 26:14)Dolly Parton Dies at Age 80: The Outsized Life and Legacy of American Country Music Icon Dolly PartonDolly Parton, country music singer and cultural icon, dies at 80 by The Washington Post (Emily Langer)Sign up to receive The Briefing in your inbox every weekday morning.Follow Dr. Mohler:X | Instagram | Facebook | YouTubeFor more information on The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, go to sbts.edu.For more information on Boyce College, just go to BoyceCollege.com.To write Dr. Mohler or submit a question for The Mailbox, go here.

It's Wednesday, August 26, 2006. I'm Albert Mueller, and this is the briefing, a daily analysis of news and events from a Christian worldview. A lot going on today, developments in popular culture, deep issues of moral consequence as well. We'll start with those. You have warnings back in the 20th century in particular from figures as varied as Aldous Huxley and Francis Schaefer. So you're talking about a major non-Christian observer of the culture, and you're also talking about one of the the most insightful Christian observers of the culture with Francis Schaefer. They were both warning about the age of designer babies. And this was really coming up in the very early days of the human understanding of DNA and of the genetic structure and all the rest. I think a lot of people living today just think that's been known for a long time. Basically, we're talking about just a few decades of real knowledge of how the human genetic sequence, the genome, how it all comes together. And And even now, of course, there are all kinds of issues shrouded in mystery. But at the same time, the age of designer babies, which was hypothetical then as a warning.

And by the way, Aldous Huxley feared the day of the arrival of the designer baby out of a humanist worldview. He felt that it would be deeply subversive of human dignity. And by the way, he's absolutely right. Francis Schaefer, as a Christian, very insightfully understood that this is at the basic level of moral rebellion, the creature. trying to take on the role of the creator. And so it is interesting that now all of a sudden we have arrived at the moment when what they had predicted and feared has come to pass. We are now in the age of the designer baby.

Now, I know there are people going to say that's an exaggeration, and it is in one sense. You can't come down to a list of all the demanded attributes and hair color and eye color and all the rest that you might want positively to select. But given the genetic sense, sequencing of the human genome, given the fact that you can now have prenatal, and now even on embryos. That's the whole thing here. You have designer babies, IVF's a part of it, and so you have embryos that are going to be sorted, even right now are being sorted on the basis of perceived

quality. And you also have the ability to select right now, at least through certain firms, for certain kinds of genetic markers that have everything to do with not only the basic questions, say, of the gender, the sex of the baby, but also now having to do with many other issues, including IQ, intelligence aptitude. Now, this is an issue that we need to understand in light of the fact that the economist, one of the most influential news sources in the world. It's kind of a combination of the Wall Street Journal and the New York Times in a magazine context there in Britain. So one of the most establishment and influential periodicals in elite culture that exists on either side of the Atlantic.

The Economist has come out with a major statement, and it comes basically in an editorial form in which they're saying that they now praise, quote, designer-ish babies. Okay, so you can understand what's going on here. They're not indicating, at least at this point, they're ready to go headlong into the endorsement of all of the possible genetic therapies and sorting mechanisms and all the rest. But the subhead in the article says couples should be allowed to select embryos on the basis of both disease, resistance, and IQ. So there it is. This is part of a package of articles released by the economist dated August the 15th. A lot of Americans are just getting to it. The latest proof of where we are comes with this cover story package as published in London. It is coming now across the Atlantic. And by the way, if anything, the situation is far worse in the United States than in the United Kingdom because in the UK, it is illegal to use some of these sorting mechanisms on children. And so, unbornborn children on embryos. That's really where this is happening. It's at the embryonic level at this point

with the embryos produced by IVF technology. All right. So the economist now comes right out and says that Silicon Valley, here's the subhead in the big research article, wants to reshape the way humans are made. Okay, that's interesting. And so I'm going to give the economist credit for being fairly honest about what's going on here. In the editorial statement, they go right out and say, A couple should be allowed to select embryos on the basis of both disease, resistance, and IQ. They come right out in the major article. Silicon Valley wants to reshape the way humans are made. Okay, let's just pause for a moment and recognize the moral explosion and the moral clarity that comes with that statement.

Here you have technologies and Silicon Valley's at the heart of this because it requires a great deal of computational ability, computational power to get to this kind of medical treatment and research. Silicon Valley wants to reshape the way humans are made. Okay, let's just take that at face value for a moment. Let's just look at those words straightforwardly for a moment. Silicon Valley wants to do what? Reshaped the way humans are made. Okay.

Well, let's just say that that's one of the most outlandish statements we can imagine in any language spoken by human beings. it is one of the most subversive statements when it comes to human dignity and the value of human life that is imaginable. It also represents an almost idolatrous kind of ambitious leap that we actually could have the ability to reshape the way humans are made. Well, of course, there is something real going on here, and a lot of it has to do with the fact that we are looking at the availability through specific mechanisms of sorting embryos that are produced by IVF. And so how are you going to sort them? Now, as I mentioned, you do have the editorial statement more or less. It's in a section of the economist that is called leaders.

It's clearly a leading issue. Couples should be allowed to select embryos on the basis of both disease resistance and IQ, disease resistance. So, in other words, one of the statements is, you know, we can use some of these embryonic genetic research technologies in order to discover which of these embryos might have a greater disposition to some something like, say, type 2 diabetes. And then you would have the argument here, well, of course, you know, if you're a parent, and if you assume you have the sovereign authority to choose among embryos that are produced

in this laboratory setting, which in a consumer context you are told are yours, you have parents who are going to say, you know, if I have to choose and one of the embryos has a greater disposition to type 2 diabetes later in life than the other, I'm going to choose that one. But then, of course, you also have the last words in that claim made by the economist on the basis of both disease resistance and IQ. Okay. So now we're talking about the fact that people want not only a healthy baby, they want a smart baby. Okay, now we are in uncharted territory in moral terms.

You know, it raises a host of issues, by the way, what is an appropriate or acceptable IQ? If we're talking quality control here, what is the... IQ that people are aiming for. And you can just do the math. It's going to mean high IQ, higher and higher and higher IQ, at least in terms of genetic predisposition, and the indications here of that kind of development of intellectual ability. And you can understand. In fact, as a matter of fact, one of the things some of these firms are saying is, you know, don't you want to choose your child in such a way that your child will not be at a disadvantage, say, in the eighth grade?

you know, by the time the child is reaching that age, don't you want someone who's at the front of the class? And of course, this is one of the problems. This is a part of the dystopian analyses of people like George Orwell and Aldous Huxley. They were looking at this and saying, you know, pretty soon you have some kind of claim about a superbreed of human beings. And then very clearly, those who do not meet the definition of this superbreed, they are inferior human beings and basically we need less of them. We should remind ourselves that in one of the darkest moments of the 20th century. And it didn't just begin in the 20th century, but the 20th century brought the age of genocide. It also brought the age of eugenics in which you had many people with

vast cultural power and influence, arguing, as Margaret Sanger would say, we need more children from the fit, less from the unfit. And that was very clearly a statement, we need more children from the right kind of people than fewer children from the wrong kind of people. She defined that socioeconomically, even ethnically. And of course, she was the founder of what became Planned Parenthood. So that's a part of the entire dark story of the sexual revolution, the development of this form of birth control and the role of Planned Parenthood. They have since said that they want to distance themselves from Margaret Sanger. They've taken her name off of things, as a matter of fact.

But the fact remains that that is the argument. And as I said, it's just very, very dark. But this is what we're looking at. you are looking at the argument that, you know, the people who are behind this are saying, we don't want to require parents to follow this kind of protocol or to have babies this way or to use our services, but we do want to make it available for those parents who choose. Well, right now, by the way, that's for parents who choose and have a great deal of money and very low levels of ethical concern.

So let's just think about this for a moment. The companies, by the way, include nucleus, orchid, and heresite. So those are three of the first. that are offering the kind of embryo analyses and sorting and ranking that you do have people using. And by the way, none of these firms will actually give their numbers, but the bottom line is it is growing fast. And you can look at the advertising. And the advertising itself is very slick. You know, why wouldn't you want a healthy baby? Why wouldn't you want the healthiest baby? It's also very interesting. Ross Douthed at the New York Times did a very lengthy conversation with

the Nur Siddiqui, who is the founder and the leader of the group known as Orchid. And she goes on saying, you know, this is all about her choice. We're not going to force this on people, but you are forcing it on the entire society. And you're forcing the entire society to come to terms with the use of this kind of technology. And it is very clear that it's going to be not only from the fit and the unfit, it's going to come from the prosperous and the less prosperous. And eventually you can just see where this goes. It does meet the kind of technocratic utopian visions of so many people in Silicon Valley.

Okay, while we're talking about eugenics, you can say it's positive and negative. You say we want more of these we judge healthy and we want fewer of those we judge unhealthy. When it comes to genetic issues like this, right now most of it's negative in the sense that parents are getting a ranking of the embryos according to the technology currently available from these companies. And they're making the decision, okay, we're going to choose this embryo. and not the other. Now, when you hear Nour Siddiqui and others talk about this, you know, one of the interesting things is they just talk about the human embryo as if it's a thing like a consumer product. And you know what? And you say you're choosing to transfer or to choose to implant

this embryo, you're saying not another one or in most cases not other ones. And so Ross doubt that to his credit raises the issue, the moral status of these. embryonic human beings, and it's clear that in the eye of this firm, there is no inherent value. There's no human dignity. There's no particular value of human life. And so, you know, let's just move on and turn this into a consumer-directed enterprise. But, you know, as Christians look at this, it's a level of complexity that requires us to take it apart kind of level by level. Let's understand that none of this will be possible if you did not have the development of in vitro fertilization, IVF, often referred to early as test two babies. So, in other words,

this is the genetic analyses that is undertaken by laboratory located embryos. And again, the dignity of human life is undercut by the fact that some are going to be judged acceptable. The vast majority, we now assume, are going to be judged unacceptable. And they will simply be stored indefinitely and discarded. They'll simply decay in terms of biblical theology of human dignity. This is simply horrifying. But it's also very, very interesting. go back to that statement when it comes to that leaders column that appeared in the economist,

quote, couples should be allowed to select embryos on the basis of both disease, resistance, and IQ. Couples? What kind of couples? And why couples? When you talk about the consumer, eventually you get down to the consumer as an agent of one, just one person. And that's exactly what's happening here. There's no legal requirement in most jurisdictions that there be any kind of couple whatsoever. And by the way, couple here clearly doesn't mean necessarily. a man and a woman who are a married couple. It just means a couple is a consumer unit. And that's one of the reasons why you have to add the other level of surrogacy and all the rest in order to have two men who may have some kind of wedding certificate from certain kinds of jurisdictions. And they'll show

up and say, we're married, we're a couple. Of course, they can't produce an egg and they can't carry a child in terms of gestation and pregnancy. They can't give birth to a child. So they hire a surrogate mother. All of this just gets so morally complex. I just want to point to the fact that we need clarity. And the biblical clarity comes down to the fact that the Creator gave us the gift of human reproduction within the context of marriage, a man and a woman coming together and put that in the context of marriage as a covenant and then said to the couple, the man and to the woman in that covenant, be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth. And so that is where this is intended to come. So in Christian worldview terms, when you alienate from that original context, you bring on moral

risk. And in this case, the moral risk is very advanced, and it is daunting indeed. We're talking about a lot of moral risk here. We're also talking about turning not only these children, these embryos, and let's refer to them as children, that's what they are meant to be. When you look at these children, they're going to be selected by the preferences of their parents. parents. And right now, you'll notice they're not saying you ought to be able to choose on the basis of gender or sex. But you know what? The reason they're not saying that is because it's politically unacceptable. But there's nothing inherent in this technology that keeps the couple or an individual,

you know, again, in the surrogacy market and all the rest from simply saying, you know, we want a boy or we want a girl, deal with it. And they can choose accordingly. It's one of the easier things that can be figured out in terms of this kind of genetic investigation and sampling. really is a very, very sad tale. And I'm talking about it with this kind of urgency today, because it's not that all of this just came up out of the blue, never been heard of before. We've known a lot of this is coming. Orchid, you know, again, Nour Siddiqui, was in a long conversation with Ross Dalford at the New York Times sometime back. But when the economist of London comes out in favor of, quote, designer-ish babies, we're in a different moral world.

That's just something we need to recognize. I want to draw. attention to this because this is a very dangerous moral world in which human dignity is undercut, subverted. It is being denied in many cases, denied outright when it comes to all the embryos that would simply be considered unacceptable. We're not at this point looking at a technology that enables people just to have a checklist and they say right now, we want a baby designed to our specifications. Here are all the specifications. As I say, a lot of it right now is negative in terms of They do not want this showing up as a genetic indication or a genetic fact. They want something very different.

But, you know, it's also interesting that there are admissions that this is basically a screening service. Screening human embryos. The acceptable, the more acceptable, the less acceptable, the not acceptable. I also just want to point to how this kind of argument progresses. At this point, the argument in the economist is that consumers, The Economist is very interesting. It has for a long time kind of put together a very clear commitment to free market economics with also very liberal social positions on abortion, same-sex marriage, and all the rest.

I don't think, by the way, that's a stable platform, but that's what they've been trying to hold together for some time. They come right out and they say that this is the time to affirm the legitimacy of designer-ish babies. They did put an ish on it. but I just want to point out to the editors of the economists and to all who are listening, that ish will go away very fast. Christians have better respond to this new challenge with the full measure of biblical conviction and moral gravity. Otherwise, it's not just that these things will continue in the society without any

kind of critique or pushback or Christian worldview evaluation. The bigger problem is that Christians will be seduced by the very same kind of argument and logic. I honestly fear that such a seduction is not only possible, but it actually is spreading among some who consider themselves Christians. I'm going to suggest they very quickly rethink these issues in biblical terms. And we need to look at this picture and understand something big has happened with this development in this one magazine. At one time, it just represents in some ways what I think in the future will be seen as something of a before and an after. God help us.

Next, I want to turn to what a lot of Americans are talking about right now, and it emerges as a major news story yesterday, and that is the death of Dolly Parton, identified by the Washington Post as country music singer and cultural icon. She died yesterday at age 80. She was born January 19, 1946, near Sevierville, Tennessee, into a context of a very large family. She was one of 12 children and an incredible level of poverty. And so there's a very large family. She was one of 12 children. And so there is no doubt that Dolly Parton represents one of those stories, basically mostly in the 20th century, of someone who was born in the midst of crushing poverty, who nonetheless made her way into national celebrity. And I think it's fair to say Dolly Parton really worked her way into the American heart, not just the American entertainment context. And that's partly because she had an outsized personality.

There's simply no doubt. And she also appeared most of the time rather joyful. And she, of course, was funny. In fact, she was unusually funny for an entertainer. She could laugh. She would laugh at herself. And, of course, there are things I'm not going to discuss on the briefing. But I'll simply say she brought not only very clear talent when it came to music,

something that came through her family. As she said later, her family didn't have toys. Her family didn't have hobbies. They did have some musical instruments. And clearly, one of her most important musical instruments was her voice, which was an astounding voice, not only in terms of recording, but also just in terms of conversation. And she was involved as an actress, of course. She later was in 9 to 5 with Jane Fonda and a host of others. She brought kind of a mild feminism in an age in which she was very, let's just say, even in an exaggerated way, female.

And so she was a cultural puzzle for an awful lot of people because she was not about to hide her femininity. She, I'll just say, exaggerated it. And that to, you know, an awful lot of cultural attention. But at the same time, she also was an advocate in her own mind for the advancement of women. Remarkable career. And we're talking about the fact that her mother's father was also a Church of God, a Pentecostal preacher. And she had part of that cadence. She had a lot of that background.

Later in life, she would say she had a very deep, saturated understanding in the Bible and the stories of the Bible. She herself was often described by a publicist as a Christian. But in terms of her understanding of Christianity, in her own words, she said she was more spiritual than religious, which is another way of saying, I think Christianity was a big part of the background of how she saw the world and the narratives and the music she sang. But she was not very explicit, let's just say, in terms of her Christian testimony and basically avoided references of any substance here throughout her life. Dolly Parton's husband of almost six decades died last year. He was not very much a part of her public persona.

He was back there, and yet he basically was involved in his own businesses. He didn't want anything to do really with the musical side of the equation, but he appears to have supported Dolly Parton in her endeavors, which eventually, of course, led not only into a vast entertainment empire, but also to what I guess is best described as a tourist attraction and an amusement park and related hotels and all the rest. There in Sevillaville, Tennessee, and near Gatlinburg. It's an amazing story. And there are so many things for us to consider. For one thing, you have the sexualization of the culture. Dolly Parton, she helped push that. own unique way. And she made that a part of her personal brand. She was, as the Washington Post says,

an unlikely feminist heroin, but that's basically what she became. It is interesting that I think it was her larger persona, obviously her music ability, it was her outsized celebrity and personality matched to what I think is kind of a southern charm and also just a she was smiling a lot. Even though she had endured a lot of hardship in her life. particularly in her early life. And even though the life of this kind of entertainer musician itself is very hard, she basically was able to communicate a pretty positive and affirmative persona. And I think the American people really take to that.

There are a lot of things we have to think about in worldview analysis, the power of popular culture, the power of music. And by the way, her music is more complicated that people might think. She really came to public view in 1967 on Porter Wagner. program. And she was basically known as a country music singer. Some of her music, particularly her early music, was fairly dark, having to do with brokenness and sin, brokenness in families, and deep crushing poverty and a sense of loss. Some of her songs are very haunting in that way. But of course, she also was known for pop music hits that made history. She was one of the most decorated and

awarded musicians of her time, and there's no doubt that she will have a place in music history in the United States. You know, one of the interesting things to think about in all of this is that when you have such a huge personality, like Dali Parton, such a huge brand, there are so many different dimensions. And, you know, at least a part of what she represents is kind of what the old Marxist talked about is the commodification of culture. I mean, not only was she involved in so many different areas of the culture, but it was all turned into a money-making enterprise, and not only that, but a big one. Dali Parton was known, especially in her part of the country, for works for literacy among children, getting books into the hands of children and other philanthropic endeavors.

Again, just a very interesting moment in American history, one of the most outsized personalities of the last century, someone who helped to define country music in terms of its move. from something that was regional to something that was national, to something that is now international, as it became a larger part of pop music and the pop music culture. We also just have to say, again, there were big moral concerns about the basic impact of the way Dolly Parton lived her life, built her brand,

and shared her persona. It was a matter of marketing, but as Christians understand, marketing can never be ultimately separated from morality. But finally, this does, also just underline the fact that we live in a culture in which popular culture is just massively massively influential. It's almost impossible to calculate the impact of popular culture. And the culture that is now around us all the time. When Dolly Parton started, you had to go hear

her sing. Eventually, you could buy her records. Eventually tapes and CDs. You could eventually stream her music and listen to it whenever you wanted. And that's one of the big lessons, a reminder to us that now popular culture is not here and there. It's everywhere all the time. Dali Parton understood that and her lifetime helps to tell that story. It's also very interesting that in the major obituaries about Dali Parton, there is uncertainty about exactly how many relatives she has. Part of that was being one of 12 children, but it's also because Dali Parton, was pretty much a brand as an individual. That's telling as well.

Thanks for listening to The Briefing. For more information, go to my website at Albertmohar.com. You can follow me on X or Twitter, but going to X.com forward slash Albert Moller. For information on the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, go to sbtsd.u. For information on Boyce College, just go to voicecollege.com. I'll meet you again tomorrow for the briefing.