An acid test for religious proclivities -- which may exist covertly or subconsciously -- needs to avoid direct engagement with issues of religious contention like evolution and embryonic development. The test should instead be a thought-experiment about fully mature potential-human beings that scientists could actually bring to life based on current knowledge and technology. Here it is:
Imagine that human and chimp cells isolated from early embryos are brought together to create a mixed-species chimeric embryo. If the embryo is allowed to develop to term, a healthy partial-chimp/partial-human child could be born with any proportion of chimp and human cells (from 1% to 99%) in each tissue and organ. The question I posed to Francis Fukuyama is whether he thought every one of these individuals could be definitively classified either as a human being or as a non-human being; the alternative idea is that no sharp line exists anywhere along a continuum from chimp to human (and, by inference, between embryo and child), even though the extremes clearly fall into two different categories.
Fukuyama's response was that each adult chimera had to be a human being or a non-human being because there was no such thing as a partial human adult. This answer reveals the Judeo-Christian intuition (conscious or subconscious) at the core of a person's belief system; it is fundamentally in opposition to post-Darwinian scientific understanding. But it's not just themselves that some neocons are fooling; it's independent supporters of biomedical research, like Brian Alexander, who think it's mostly just politics.