The belief that DNA and evil are associated is an example of a dangerously ignorant hubristic belief.
The Telegraph newspaper has an interesting article asking if evil is due to DNA. This is the sort of question people waste life over, abstracting complex problems down to simple questions that crime is due to defective DNA resolved by ingesting a magic pill.
If I owned a slave today, I would be considered evil, in ancient times most people would have seen my slave ownership as good, a sign of my wealth. The idea of good and evil is subjective based on a set of rules. Today the rules are that slave ownership is evil, thus those that participate in that practice are evil. Truth is relative, in the West most people have no issues over the drinking of alcohol, but in Islam it is considered evil.
Since it appears that good and evil is based upon subjective judgements based upon a set of rules which differ between historical eras and culture, it is irrational to attribute evil to DNA. Ask yourself is there a non-drinking gene, or a vote Communist gene in people’s blood? If such DNA exist, who has the claim of authority to define that the vote Communist gene is good or evil?
Adam Lanza shot to death a group of children, he is considered evil because many perceive that murder, especially of children, breaks a rule, thus it is evil action. Some people further try to explain away an act of child murder as a defect in the DNA, a safe alternative to other less palatable truths that society may have had a part to play in it. What is the difference of Lanza killing children and the drones that President Obama sends to Pakistan that also kills innocent children? President Obama some might argue is no different to Adam Lanza, both result in deaths of children, both are indifferent to the results they brought about, yet one is considered evil and one is good. How can one scientifically measure the individual who kills in the act of robbery and one who kills as a soldier on behalf of their nation?
This ignorant belief that subjective values can be determined by DNA is a dangerous slippery slope. Adam Lanza is autistic, does this mean all autistic people should be regarded as potentially evil, to be locked away, or even euthanised? How quickly can a simple idea that a subjective value is attributed to a certain pattern of DNA escalate to defining everything by DNA, and then ultimately defining whole races of people as evil with the unfortunate consequences as the Jews suffered under the Nazis?
There are three alternatives to DNA I offer for why people act in manners contrary to a rule which would label them evil. The first is mental illness brought about by stressful circumstances such as many war veterans might suffer in war. The second is alcohol or drugs impairs the mind. The third is upbringing where the individual suffers an abusive background and whose mind is polluted by violent television, poison in, poison out.
It troubles me when science adopts an ignorant hubristic belief in an idea, blind to the alternatives, the irrationality of the belief held and the consequences of harm that the belief would bring to others. Believing that evil and DNA are associated is a dangerously ignorant hubristic example of such beliefs.