Tag Archive for Evolution

guest writer | February 22, 2012
3 comments

What Darwin’s Theory of Evolution and Religion Have in Common

The whole Evolution versus Religion disagreement is a tired one. However, here’s something not many would expect: The Theory of Evolution and religion have something really big in common; something not many people talk about.  Both theories’ (because all religions are theories) become questionable when the Theory of Realism’s flaws become apparent. First, what’s with the controversy between Evolution and religion?  We all know it has to do with creationism versus science, but what are the details?

Darwin’s Theory of Evolution, expressed in his On the Origin of Species, is one that’s influence is still strongly seen in the science and philosophy worlds today. It is one that cooperates with the philosophical theory of realism. It has influenced genetics, cell and molecular biology, and the social and psychological sciences, among others. Darwin basically reaches two theoretical conclusions in his Evolutionary Theory.

First is Natural Selection. After studying nature on the Galapagos Islands, Darwin came to believe that nature does not produce differences within species. Instead, animals’ natures are selected by them, based on what works best for them. So, when there are differences in a species, it is through said species’ natural selections that they differ. For instance, Darwin found that some finches had differing beak sizes. These differences, Darwin believed, were directly related to their differing food sources; some finches needed smaller beaks to consume their food while others needed larger ones, thus their beaks developed according to what worked best for them when collecting their food.

Second is Decent with Modification. Decent with modification is where “survival of the fittest” comes into the picture. Basically, those animals who have the best survival qualities will seek to mate with those of the opposite sex with the best survival qualities. And animals with the best survival qualities will mate more often than weaker animals. Thus, over time, the weak traits of a species will be eliminated entirely.

Religious institutions have a problem with basically every aspect of Darwin’s theory because it contradicts their beliefs. For instance, if Darwin’s Theory is correct, the Christian Bible’s story of Adam and Eve, and the creation of the world, is contradicted. Thus, religious institutions don’t so much voice a problem with Darwin’s theory as renounce it altogether.

Given the feud between the two it’s almost inconceivable that the two could have something in common. In fact, they have something very big in common.  They’re both incapable of conclusively proving either of their theories due to the arguments against the Theory of Realism.

Realism is a philosophical theory that holds that sensory data, i.e. sight, smell, taste, touch, and hearing, is a reliable source to our knowledge. Put less abstract, this theory holds that the world we experience is real. Everything we feel, taste, hear, smell, and see is real. When I bite into a carrot, that carrot is really there and I really taste it.  When I see a train go by, the train is real, I’m really seeing it, and all of the people on the train are real.

A way to express the Theory of Realism is with the movie, The Matrix.  In the computer-generated matrix, the Theory of Realism is false; when Neo goes to work or hacks computers, he’s really just laying stationary while plugged into a machine. However, in the real, non-computer-generated world, when Neo eats the disgusting oatmeal they’re stuck with, he’s really eating it and it’s really there.

Proving the validity of the Theory of Realism in our lives, however, is difficult as there is a debilitating argument against it. It’s called The Brain in the Vat argument; this argument states that we could very well be a brain in a vat (jar), with our brains creating the very world we sense and experience. Thus, the very life we live could be created by our minds, just like Neo’s world in the matrix.

Think about it. How many times have you dreamt something and believed it was real? How many times have you believed that you saw or heard something when nothing was there? Our senses have failed us, and they will continue to fail us. In some ways, the Brain in the Vat argument goes back to Renee Descartes’ Meditations, in which he proclaimed that in eliminating all that he “knew,” the only thing he could be sure of was that he existed; he said, “I think, therefore, I am.” He knew he had the capacity to think, but that was all he could prove. In what sense we exist beyond our thoughts and minds, however, cannot be proven. All we have is empirical evidence to prove our existence beyond our thoughts and because said empirical evidence is gathered through our senses, we must first prove that our senses are reliable. In order to do that, we must utilize our senses and thus, an infinite loop is created.

And this is what both Darwin and religious theories have in common. They both rely on the Theory of Realism for their theories to be proven true. So, neither can be true until first the Theory of Realism is proven to be true.

 

______________________

Allison Dean is an agnostic who studied Philosophy at the Texas A&M University. She now writes for medical malpractice lawyers and is a guest blogger in her spare time.

Category: Religion, Science | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Astrid Lydia Johannsen | October 19, 2011
No comments

Religion: Adapt or Perish

One of the things I learned about religion while I was at university was how sometimes social change forces the religious to reexamine their tradition. The best evidence of this behavior is actually found in the Old Testament of the Bible. Viewing the Bible as an account of the ongoing history of a people, it’s apparent just how many radical changes the Jews were forced to undergo throughout their history.

Ignoring for the moment the supernatural mythology of the Old Testament and looking at the historical accounts of the Jews, the reader can plainly see what trials and tribulations the Jews experienced. From the forty years wandering in the desert, to the destruction of the first temple and subsequent exile, to the return to the promised land, and more, the Bible is an account of how the god of the Israelites continuously challenged its people and how the people adapted to these experiences.

Rabbi Moses ben Maimon

The most radical change that was forced upon the Jewish people came with the Roman occupation and the destruction of the second temple. The holy of holies no longer existed and the Jews needed to reexamine their practices or perish as a faith. The priesthood ended and the rabbinical era of Judaism began. Throughout the medieval period, commentaries on the Torah, such as the Midrash (linguistically related to the Arabic word madrassa, meaning ‘school’), emerged as a way to reinterpret the laws of Torah in ever-changing contexts of society. These commentaries are akin to the way constitutional amendments help to keep the United States Constitution a continuously living document despite the Constitution having been written well over two hundred years ago.

Opening procession of Vatican II

The first century was a period of radical change. Not long after Roman civilization changed from a republic to an empire, a new faith emerged out of the Levant. At first it coexisted with Judaism, but as its tenets spread into increasingly gentile populations, Christianity eventually broke apart from its early roots to become a completely new faith. The early commentaries that were created around this new faith of Christianity would eventually become what we know today as the four gospels and Paul’s epistles. After the first Council of Nicaea in AD 325 when the diverse traditions of Christianity were all consolidated under one unifying Church, Christianity essentially became a static religion. Commentaries continued to be written about the New Testament, but the forces which drove social and religious change within Judaism over a thousand years earlier were not present in fourth century Europe. Christianity was unchallenged for the most part, and would not be forced to seriously reevaluate its practices until 1517 with Martin Luther’s posting of his 95 theses and the subsequent Protestant Reformation. Catholicism wouldn’t look into itself until the First Vatican Council in 1868, fifteen centuries after the consolidation of Christianity at Nicaea.

In the book that I’m reading, ‘Rescuing the Bible from Fundamentalism’, bishop John Shelby Spong argues that if Christianity cannot adapt its theology and its practices to life in the twenty-first century, the religion will fail. As an atheist, it certainly wouldn’t bother me to see the end of Christianity, but as a realist, I know that there are still a vast majority of people in this world who need some sort of existential comfort in the form of a transcendent god of some kind. Where the danger lies in religion is when it becomes so dogmatic and so inflexible that change is no longer possible. Judaism has demonstrated the ability to adapt to ever-changing circumstances. Christianity however has shown that it is not tremendously introspective of its practices, and is very resistant to change. Much like with Darwin’s theory of natural selection, religious beliefs which refuse to take into account changing social attitudes will ultimately disappear. They must adapt or perish.

Category: Focus on Religion, History, Opinion, Religion | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,
Shawn Witham | September 11, 2011
No comments

Transitional Fossils and Human Evolution

Texas A&M University, an amazing university and one of my past research institutions, has made a significant discovery in transitional fossils during early human evolution. Dr. Darryl de Ruiter and his team of world wide scientists have been studying fossils of an extremely early human form, called Australopithecus, in South Africa. With the discovery of these approximately 2 million year old remains, a portrait of a lineage of human evolution is finally being painted.

"Ardi", or, Ardipithecis Ramidus

A few years back, the oldest fossil in the chain of human evolution at 4.4 million years old, “Ardi“ was found and the gates opened for evolutionary floods. It turned out to be a huge discovery (and a slap in the face to creationists), simply due to how old it was…At more than 4 million years old, finding such human like characteristics in something so old, changed the nature of how we view ourselves. However, with the more recent finding of such a transitional species at a more recent time in geological history, the perspective gets shifted once more. Having such similar, yet subtly different features with early Homo humans, we can take a step back and appreciate how we view ourselves…not as a uniquely advanced species, but as another piece of the 5 million year old puzzle.

 

The recent Australopithecus discovery will be published in Science in a series of five academic journal articles. To finish, here is a short interview with Dr. de Ruiter on this discovery…

Texas A&M prof discusses findings of Australopithecus sediba and its relationship to humans

[Original source: http://tamutimes.tamu.edu/2011/09/08/skeletal-remains-prove-darwin%E2%80%99s-theory/]

Category: Science, Science Sunday | Tags: , , , , , ,
Matt Foss | September 3, 2011
2 comments

Why some people don’t accept evolution: a layperson’s perspective

I’ll come right out and say that I am not especially well-educated in science.  I studied the liberal arts in college and never took a course beyond Intro to Biology.  I do think that I gained a fundamental literacy of the science through my minimal classroom study (and copious independent reading as a child), to the point that I can understand what science journalists and bloggers are talking about even without being able to make sense of the raw data myself.

Image credit: Ethan Hein

I do understand, at the most basic level, how evolution works and why it works, even if I can’t wrap my head around the intricate processes that drive it.  I’d be out of my league attempting to teach it to someone or to debate a creationist on it (a position in which we atheists too often find ourselves, as if we’re all PhD biologists in the minds of creationists).

Even as a layperson (especially as a layperson?) I feel that scientific literacy is a vital part of being an informed citizen.  I’m troubled by the widening knowledge gap I see between scientists and everybody else, and particularly by the anti-intellectual sentiment that is rising alongside populism.

Denial in favor of design

To many atheists (and even theists who are skeptics about most everything but gods), it may seem shocking and frustrating that so many people in the United States dismiss evolution as wild conjecture.

When we see the notion of “intelligent design” being taught alongside actual science in biology class as if the two had equal weight, our first reaction may leave a palm-shaped depression in our foreheads (or a forehead-shaped indentation in our desks).

Sure, there are a number of people so hopelessly dedicated to ancient origin stories that they don’t want evolution to be true. It would turn their entire world upside down were they to accept that they are part of a 3 billion year old solar-powered chemical reaction rather than a unique, purposeful creation apart from nature.  It would mean to them that they are no better than their animal kin and take away all incentive for civilized behavior in their minds.

The threat of such a crisis of conscience has been used as an argument against evolution since Darwin first proposed it.  It was used by the prosecution in the infamous John Scopes trial, and even today is rehashed and regurgitated by creationist groups like Answers in Genesis.

I’m not so sure that there’s a way around this roadblock. How does one persuade a person to step over a ledge if said person is utterly convinced that they’ll tread onto a slippery slope?

Framing it like a religion instead of science

There are others still who are taken in by deceitful rhetoric like “evolution is just a theory”, people who don’t believe the science because they don’t understand it.

I suspect that a major reason why people don’t “get” evolution is that they try to understand the theory as something that it’s not: an infallible history that’s conveniently spelled out for them.  Unfortunately, science doesn’t offer the romance or clarity of religious mythology, no matter how badly our human minds want it to (not to say it can’t be exciting in its own right if you embrace your inner nerd, but most don’t).

The narrative of Darwin on his epic odyssey through the harsh environment of the Galapagos, suddenly experiencing a “eureka!” moment as the idea of natural selection dawns on him, is false.  It is nevertheless taught that way to schoolchildren to make the subject more fun (the same goes for the myth of Newton and the falling apple revealing to him the concept of gravity).

On the Origin of Species was a breakthrough 150 years ago, but it isn’t a sacred text.  A century and a half of new discoveries have rendered it obsolete, and the biologists of the 2160s will likely say the same about our most cutting-edge scientific literature today.

Unfortunately, people don’t seem to want an amendable explanation that says “We can’t know for sure, but this is what most probably happened based on what we’ve found so far.”  It doesn’t satisfy that desire for certainty that nags at all of us.  It leaves room for doubt, and makes many people uncomfortable.  No, people want an ironclad explanation that says “We know that this is what happened, for these irrefutable reasons.”

Science can’t offer that.  It’s driven by uncertainty – that’s what leads to new discoveries and new questions to be answered.  Until the American public learns to accept that, how can we expect them to accept evolution?

Category: Science | Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,
Alvaro Prieto | September 1, 2011
No comments

Republican Science, Evolution, and Facts

 

Rick Perry - Photo by Gage Skidmore

 

Did you know that the Republican party is the more scientific party? That is what Austin Casey, from The Daily Reveille, is claiming.

He writes in his article To the Point: Believing in evolution doesn’t make you scientific about Republican candidate Jon Huntsman. (Yes, that’s the same guy who tweeted “To be clear. I believe in evolution and trust scientists on global warming. Call me crazy.“)

Casey begins by criticizing Huntsman for “portraying himself as the rational candidate.” I’m not quite sure how being rational is bad, but apparently it is…

He then mentions that Huntsman’s talking about science and evolution does not mean he understands what science is. (How does that work exactly?) But it gets better. Since Rick Perry, a creationist Republican candidate, “acknowledges the holes in evolution theory”, he has a better understanding of science than Huntsman does! Apparently, as a non-scientist, having doubts about evolution is better than trusting the scientific consensus[1][2][3] about it.

Huntsman has faith in scientists, Perry has faith in the Bible. I don’t know about you, but I trust real people, using the scientific method, much more than a book written long ago with no evidence behind it.

Another statement made by Casey, which I thought was kind of funny, is “Believers in evolution cling to the theory like babies to their moms, but most are so scared of hearing a different interpretation of evidence they refuse to listen to any skepticism.”

Unfortunately for Casey, that is not the case. Show any good scientist proper evidence that contradicts any part of evolution, and they will incorporate it into their model. As far as I know, no evidence has been presented that disproves evolution. Casey claims that one weakness in evolution is that there is no evidence of a single mutation providing beneficial genetic information. From what I understand, he means that no life form has mutated into something better. Again, Casey is wrong. Some might say that we have not observed evolution happen, and only rely in the fossil record, but scientists have observed bacteria evolve in the lab.

Casey doesn’t stop there though, he tells us about facts. He writes, “We are all familiar with the law of gravity, but we can’t claim it’s a fact,” and states that evolution will never be a fact. His reasoning is: “… consider walking into a room and seeing a lit candle with matches next to it. It seems as though someone lit the candle with the matches, but it is impossible to be sure how the candle was lit because you weren’t there when it was.” How do you come up with facts then? From his logic, facts can’t come from observation. I’m not quite sure how else to get facts- oh wait, they’re in the Bible.

Last time I checked, investigators have solved crimes and mysteries (with a high degree of certainty) without having been there when the event happened. Scientists will never tell you they are 100% certain of something. They might only be 99.999% sure, but like Phil Plait mentioned in his “Final Epsilon” presentation, for all practical purposes we can round up and consider something a fact.

Finally, Casey closes with a great statement:
“The Republican Party doesn’t need a candidate like Jon Huntsman, who has no clue what science is and refuses to accept that alternative explanations to evolution are plausible. It needs candidates like Perry who would allow the freedom for true scientific inquiry.”

I think Huntsman’s stance on science is much better than Perry’s. He trusts scientists to do their job, and does not pretend to know better. Perry, on the other hand, has decided that the majority of scientists are wrong and he is right, with nothing but a Bible to prove it.

Category: Current Events, News, Opinion, Science | Tags: , , , , , , ,
Daniel Sprockett | August 21, 2011
2 comments

Remember: Not All Primates Are Monkeys!

Every year my research group take a trip together, and this year we decided to travel to the Cleveland Metroparks Zoo. I hadn’t visited this zoo since I was a teenager, so I was really looking forward to it.

The Cleveland Zoo has been in its current location for over 100 years, and boasts one of the most diverse collections of primates in North America. Fortunately, I work in Kent State’s Anthropology Department, and many of the people I was traveling with are primate experts. This meant, of course, that the primate exhibits ranked #1 on our list of things to see.

It was strikingly apparent, however, that despite the enthusiasm of the other visitors, most of them had real trouble identifying even the most basic differences among primates.

For example, I saw one child watching an animal climb a tree and heard him ask if it was a squirrel. This was a forgivable mistake, since he was around 4 years old, and the animal in question was about the size of a large squirrel. However, what really struck me was his mother’s reply. “No, it’s just a monkey,” she said dismissively, despite the fact that display was clearly labeled Mongoose Lemur (Lemur mongoz).

Not a squirrel! A Mongoose Lemur (Lemur mongoz) at the Cleveland Zoo. © Daniel Sprockett 2011

I understand that the average person is not an expert in primate taxonomy. But this mother would have never told her child that a that a lion was a cheetah, or even a tiger. Despite their superficial similarities, it is obvious that these animals are fundamentally distinct. Parents know that even young children are capable of telling them apart. People don’t use their names interchangeably simply because they are both big cats. So why is it acceptable to use the name “monkey” for all primates?

Lets take a look at when these examples actually diverged from each other. Lions, cheetahs, and tigers all belong to the family Felidae, which first arose about 25 million years ago. According to the Time Tree of Life, a website that gives approximate divergence times for various groups of organisms, lions (Panthera leo) and cheetahs (Acinonyx jubatus) diverged about 9.4 million years ago. Lions and tigers (Panthera tigris) are actually two species in the same genus, and only diverged about 3.7 million years ago. In fact, lions and tigers are so closely related that they can even form hybrids, know as a liger (if the male is a lion) or tigon (if the male is a tiger). Yet these two species of cat are almost never confused.

Lemurs, on the other hand, are drastically different from other primates. They are classified as a suborder of primates called strepsirrhini, which forms its own branch of the primate family tree. Lemurs diverged from other primates around 77.4 million years ago, and began evolving separately when they became geographically isolated on the island of Madagascar. The other major lineage of primates is the haplorhines, which includes platyrrhines (New World Monkeys) and catarrhines (Old World Monkeys and Apes).

As you can see in the figure above, the word “monkey” doesn’t refer to a single group of animals. All monkeys share a common ancestor, but that ancestor gave rise to more than just monkeys. Evolutionary biologists describe this type of pattern as being “paraphyletic.”

A Bornean Orangutan (Pongo pygmaeus pygmaeus) reflects on life at the Cleveland Zoo. © Daniel Sprockett 2011

Later that day, I was taking this photograph of a flanged adult male orangutan when I overheard a child ask if these were the chimpanzees. “No,” her dad replied, “chimps are monkeys.”

Now, I know that lemurs are not the most well-known primates. In fact, the only famous lemur I can think of is King Julien XIII, the ring-tailed lemur voiced by Sacha Baron Cohen in the Dreamworks movie Madagascar. But that excuse goes right out the window when you begin talking about apes. Apes are by far the most well-known primate group – you literally see them every day!

I’m not the only one that feels this way. Anthropologist Holly Dunsworth recently recounted some of her negative experiences attempting to educate zoo visitors on the differences between apes and monkeys:

Apes are gibbons, siamangs, orangutans, gorillas, chimps, and people. We apes don’t have tails and we have big brains and advanced cognitive skills among other traits. Monkeys have tails (even ones that look tailless have little stubs) and most have much smaller brains (an exception being the capuchin).

Apes and monkeys are separate categories of animals. This is why calling an ape a monkey sounds absolutely crazy and that is why some people just can’t help themselves and morph into prickish pedants around ignorant zoo visitors.

So the next time you visit a zoo, please remember: not all primates are monkeys!

Category: Science | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Ellen Lundgren | August 6, 2011
One comment

Saturday Morning Cartoons – Belief in Evolution Versus National Wealth

via Calamities of Nature. More reasons why I want to move to Europe/Scandinavia.

 

 

 

 

 

Category: Saturday Morning Cartoons | Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,
Shawn Witham | July 20, 2011
No comments

Evolutionary Theory: Proof of Creation and the leading cause of Sex, Lies, and Depression…

…according to Christianity’s leading fake scientist, Dr. Jason Lisle.

In 2004, the University of Colorado at Boulder, one of the nations top physics institutions, gave a PhD to this man, Answers in Genesis’ pseudo-astrophysicist Dr. Jason Lisle. Six years later, Clemson University’s local youth church group invited Dr. Lisle to give a lecture on creationism (aka, The “God/My-imaginary-friend did it” hypothesis), with the not-so-humble title, “The Ultimate Proof of Creation”. Yeah, Yeah…we all know the reasons why creationism is bull**** science. However, very few of us have ever actually witnessed what occurs during one of these lectures cough::sermons::cough.

The good news (there’s not much): The weeks leading up to the event, us physics graduate students at Clemson did our best to gather friends and professors to come to the event, which to our surprise, not a single professor devoted time to attend. Every one we talked to said the same thing, “Come on guys…you know this isn’t worth your time.”, or, “Haha, who is this guy? An astrophysicist? Yeah right, he can’t possibly be a legitimate scientist and present this is an honest way.” They couldn’t have been more right. I made an announcement to my students in all of my classes to attend…some laughed, some looked extremely curious and skeptical at my intentions, and some just kept texting (you get used to the inattention after a while), and other grad students made similar announcements with similar outcomes. Finally, and this is stating the obvious, there was no “Ultimate Proof of Creation”…

Worldviews

Dr. Lisle's presentation of opposing biblical and evolutionist worldviews.

The bad news: Little did we know, as our soon-to-be argumentative tongues were choosing our seats, we were attending a church service. Dr. Lisle started the presentation with none other than a statement of “worldviews”. This is a scientific, proof-based presentation. I have attended conferences, thesis defenses, guest speakers, and never have I heard an introduction about opposing worldviews and their relevance to doing science. He spoke first about how his worldview comes from biblical “truths” and the inability to separate his scientific ideas with his biblical understanding. He then went on to explain the “secular and evolutionist” worldviews, which leads to pornography, sex, lies, and depression. At this point, about an hour into the presentation, Lisle has given absolutely no reasons for why and how our universe has been created by an intelligent, Christian-based designer. Once he was finished attacking the conventional, universally accepted truth of evolution and big bang cosmology with emotional and non-relevant arguments, he went on with his “proof”. His final hour of speaking, he presented an extremely fallacious and disingenuous explanation of geology, biology, and astrophysics; all of which were presented in such a way that excluded major details, fuzzy facts that didn’t seem to make sense to the non-scientist, and the all too familiar “god of the gaps” argument. By the end of this two hour presentation, he went into a final chance for people to see the light and be saved. Of course, this salvation comes from understanding biblical concepts, accepting imaginary and ancient saviors, and buying his two books that were offered in the lobby.

If you’re somewhat in tune with how science is done and the tactics that are used by religious people, you probably already see why this is absolutely bogus (ie, opinionated science, emotional arguments, presenting science in a false manner, and so many other things…), but I would like to point out a few things. First, how in the world did this guy get a PhD in astrophysics from such an awesome university? And second, is this guy being serious, or is he just trolling the Christian community because he sees an opportunity?! I think both of these questions go hand-in-hand. Of course, universities can’t help what their students go on and do once they are finished. I’m sure Colorado sees this, and gives themselves a massive facepalm, but in reality, there’s nothing they can do. He did sound, meaningful science when he was there and produced novel physics in his thesis. Which brings me to the second point: is he serious? After he was finished with his sermon, he did not accept any questions in an audience wide Q&A format, but he did however allow audience members to come on stage and talk to him privately. Naturally, a group of us confronted him.

The confrontation: The group that I attended the presentation with and I met with him on stage, in his low-key, personal discussion. As we were questioning him about the basic physics that he skipped over and should have known (after all, he does have a PhD in physics), you could see it in his face that he knew what he was doing. He knew he was being dishonest with presenting the information. You could sense it in his eyes that he joined us in our frustration…I think he too was frustrated that he couldn’t say to us, “You know guys…you’re right. It’s all ridiculous. It’s all smoke in mirrors. But, honestly, I get paid. These people are so clueless, they’ll believe anything. I can say whatever I want, stick some tag words in it, and they eat it up.” Sadly and obviously, this wasn’t said and he stuck to his earlier words with an anti-scientific, somewhat creepy, conviction.

The moral of the story: Dr. Jason Lisle is a terrible, frustratingly disingenuous scientist. Politically incorrect, but very relevant link.

Category: Science, Science Sunday | Tags: , , , , ,
Nicholas Smedes | July 15, 2011
2 comments

Cruelties of the Creator: An Essay Describing If God Exists For the Sake of His Reputation it Would Be Better If He Did Not

I’ve heard many cases brought forth against the Creator. Many are familiar with arguments, especially one put forth by Greek Philosopher Epicurus (341 BCE – 270 BCE):

“Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God?”

A lot of the arguments are centered on human interaction with God or contradictions in the Holy Text. I’ve noticed that there are few arguments brought up about the other cruelties stemming to animal to animal interactions. Charles Darwin made an observation about many of natures cruelties one quote is:

“I cannot persuade myself that a beneficent and omnipotent God would have designedly created parasitic wasps with the express intention of their feeding within the living bodies of Caterpillars.”

Anyone can easily find a video of this on YouTube or Google search it is quite the sight to see. Other cruelties within nature include cats playing with their food before eating it. Breaking the legs of the prey (usually a mouse) and allowing the prey to limp just enough away to think it has escaped then the cat with pounce and do the whole process over again. Killer whales play with their food similar to that of the cat, but with seals. Killer whales will drag a seal out miles away from the shoreline and begin to hurl the seal up in the air before submerging under water and drowning the seal then beginning to devour the seal.
These cruelties extend to fungi as well. The Cordycept is a unique fungus found in parts of central Asia. What is interesting about these fungi is that they creep into the bodies of insects and replace the host’s tissue eventually affecting the behavior of the host. The infected host will be forced to climb up to the tops of branches finding an advantage spot that will be the best location to finish killing the host and sprouting spores that will be able to spread to start this whole process over again.

Chimpanzees, our closest relatives, have been observed by many researchers as committing major massacres. Chimpanzees form tribes and go to war with neighboring tribes. Rape, murder, cannibalism, and infanticide are common practices within these territorial disputes.

With these few cruelties I bring forth and this is just a few of the vast many of cruelties that are committed in the Animal Kingdom. Like Darwin I wonder why a creator would design such sadistic torturers within the animal population. Designing such anguish and then making it possible that these animals have nervous systems that can sense these pains and afflictions. Where in these few examples is the benevolence others speak of when the Creator is brought up? Are they blind from their own indoctrination, or is ignorance bliss, or is it they refuse to seek criticisms? How can a God be self-proclaimed as good when His own creations suffer while others commit acts of hate? I see how Epicurus would say what he said.

Only in the light of an unconscious natural force as Evolution could possibly explain these atrocities. The driving force of Natural Selection a survival of the species that is most adaptable to change means the continued existence of that species. The cruelties we assess in the animal kingdom are our own labeling. For animals are not conscious of these acts of aggression. There is no legal system to judge animals for their crimes upon each other. The animals are doing what their instincts tell them to do to, survive. If a Creator does exist then it was His own conscious design to make animals instinctual to commit immoral deeds. Only in the light of Evolution by Natural Selection can these cruelties be understood as instinctual mechanism for survival. Mechanism that evolved over a long period of time, not meticulously thought out and purposely designed to be cruel and malicious. I finish with a quote from French author Jules Renard that inspired this essay:

“I don’t know if God exists, but it would be better for His reputation if He didn’t.”

Category: Religion, Science | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Brett Helzer | July 10, 2011
2 comments

Communicating Science: Dr. Nye, or How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love Science

In the beginning, there was nothing. Then a voice broke through the silence and the darkness: “Science Rules.”

The Science Guy

Bill Nye, the Science Guy

That’s how it all began for me. Having my father hook up a VCR, throw in a tape, mess with the tracking a little, and soon I was basking in the wonder that is early nineties edutainment: Bill Nye the Science Guy. Watch this, and tell me it doesn’t spark a sense of nostalgia:

Bill Nye Intro. So rad!

When someone asks me, “What started you down the path to become an engineer?” I never hesitate when answering: Bill Nye. He had a very unique way of presenting things, dressing up fairly advanced science in crazy 90′s style graphics and skits. Because of Bill I knew, in the fourth grade, about light years, plate tectonics, pangaea, and how big our solar system is.

I think what was most appealing about the guy was his ability to reach a wide variety of age groups. I, as a fledgling scientist at age 8, could sit down with my father in front of the TV, and both of us could learn something new. It’s safe to say that without Bill, I would be a much different person today.

Carl Sagan

Carl Sagan, one of the great communicators

This is one thing I think that the scientific community at large is lacking at this point in time. That is, someone that gets the children of today excited about science. In the 1980′s, we had Carl Sagan and The Cosmos, which is still one of the most watched PBS shows in the world. In the 1990s, we had Bill Nye the Science Guy, which ran for 5 years, and is still being used in some schools as educational programing. Additionally, starting in the 1980s and ending just a few days ago, the NASA space shuttle missions made people excited for space exploration, with the launch of the Hubble Telescope which took magnificent pictures of far off places, the construction of the International Space Station, and the prospect of a manned mission to Mars.

But now, as Sagan has passed away; as Bill is really no longer in the public eye; because of budget cuts the space program and NASA have an uncertain future; what is there to excite children nowadays? I think the most excited anyone got because of science in the last few years was because of Pluto’s reclassification as a dwarf planet, which seemed to outrage many people for a few weeks before everyone kind of forgot about it.

Astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson

We need these great communicators of science. We need a new Sagan, a new Nye, someone who can get kids to learn and have fun doing it. We need someone who can take what is happening in the scientific world today, and relate it to our daily lives, to show how all this research benefits the common man. More scientists like Neil deGrasse Tyson, an astrophysicist and current host of NOVA scienceNOW on PBS. (If you are unfamiliar with him, here is a leacture he gave called God of the Gaps. Quite the amazing fellow.)

So what, dear readers, do you think? Who do you think is filling a role today as a great communicator of science? Who inspired you while you were growing up?

Category: Opinion, Science, Science Sunday | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,