The Bible says to not breed two different types of species. The Bible is thought of as inconsistent and one-sided, and also ignorant, whereas science can get away with shoving its book in every classroom and household, demand that because it is "science" it should be regarded as something people should approve of, because it is "fact" or "evident".
While the Bible itself along with the spirit and faith are so prevailently real, however science devilishly rules out spirit, and faith to be anything scientific or real. If science is the study of the world around us, then how is spirit not scientific? You can take x-rays of a fetus and call it science, but you can't take faith and spiritual readings of spirit to be scientific?
And creationists are not necessarily against areas, we are against sins. Jesus died for our sins, and so forgiveness grants a man the freedom to investigate, and lodge himself in places where sin surrounds him (as the entire world is sinful and evil), but to protect and guard himself against the evils.
I suppose it is not ethical to use technologies that "require" and continue sinful and destructive activities, for that would make the object itself an object leading to death (the punishment for sin is death). For if a science was murdering people to put food on your dinner plate, that is clearly bad. The food itself is clearly unacceptable, and also the method of getting it.
However, the world is so corrupt with lies and secrets, and accusers and liars that it is hard to get to the bottom of a matter. One woman could cry rape but that doesn't necessarily mean she was raped. Likewise if you go around accusing people of copying merchandise (such as burning CDs for yourself, or even your own children or maybe your family or friends, who knows) as being a thief, that doesn't necessarily make them a thief. So many technologies and actions aren't necessarily unethical. If a science is unethical then obviously using it would be.
I am still on the edge with the burning CDs thing, as if you pay for something it is yours. To suggest reproducing your own possessions as theft would be enslaving the owner. It would be suggesting their money isn't worth anything, though they paid for it, it is not really their possession anyway, it belongs to the "artist". Give me a break, the time and money belongs to the artist, not the merchandise. You make and sell merchandise for money, and out of your own greed you demand the enslavement of the world in order to keep making money. That is clearly ungodly, and so ethically this technology of burning CDs is okay.
Basically, it comes down to: whose judgement of what is ethical is right? All things belong to God, and God created all men equal. If you pay for something, it is yours. Burning CDs is not assault nor weaponry, and I can't see how it is ungodly to reproduce something you own by means of your own possessions. If a sound belongs to an artist, then that is suggesting technology was created to enslave. If an artist wants to yell "rape", let him be his own object of condemnation to call himself a slave owner.
But about evolutionary biology: all biology belongs to God, so if the world around you is sinning against him, I suppose it would not be wrong to possess the product of it. For if science harms a baby by altering its genes (which neither belong to the alterer, the baby, or the parent), then why should anyone scorn the baby for what it has become? No, the baby itself has a spirit. To suggest because "science" did this, the baby is no longer beneficial to the world is crazy.
Evolution (the evolving principal, not the proposed religion) and biology belong to God. Also technology. And nobody can benefit from anything in life as we all die, and life is rotting. Its the life we enter that is eternal.
If you had built a house in your mother's womb, it would no longer be of value to you. Likewise earthly life is mortal.
™ Version 4.2