There's no getting around that fact that the work of Charles Darwin is immensely influential in our society today. Whether he is actually right or wrong at this point is practically moot. However, the fact that such powerful conjecture exists creates enough of a schism to make really grease the 'science vs. religion' slope. I have studied the evolutionary theories of Darwin in not only this, but other classes as well, and if there is one observation that I can clearly make, it is that there seems to be no unbiased sides in this argument.
Personally, I have very little in the way of religious beliefs. I had no religious background growing up (save for a youth group that I visited sparsely), and in my maturing years have made no strong connections with any religious affiliation – except maybe Pastafarianism, which is a story for another day. If I were pressed on the issue, I would most certainly fall in favor of Darwin's theories, simply because I favor a reality in which we as a race has created what endowments we now posses through our work, sweat and tears, instead of them being righteous gifts presented to us by a higher power. A sort of self-elitism if you will.
But before we can really question whether or not we are evolving or static, we must first realize just what evolution is, or in this case, is considered to be. As a literary major, I find that a large portion of every argument depends on an individuals accepted definitions. In order to argue with one another and actually make any progress, we have to be clear on the ideals that we argue. Let me make a point now; I understand the theory of evolution to be a process of trial and error, through which living organisms mutate and inadvertently become better adapted to life because of it, therefore creating a sub-species which gains dominance in their environment. Looking through the list of required readings, I found myself to disagree with many of the things considered here to be 'evolution'.
One of the most popular articles on this list (in my opinion, at least) is the piece Is Google Making Us Stupid, by Nicholas Carr. In his article, Carr (and several of his contemporaries) discuss the affects they finds use of the internet to cause. Carr himself states that, “the Net seems to be chipping away my capacity for concentration and contemplation” (Carr, Is). He suggests, based on personal experience and similar feedback from several other individuals, that the format of research that the internet provides has caused his brain to become 'habitual'. Effectively, he is now particularly suited to reading many smaller, simpler sources, and has become less adept at analyzing larger, more complex works. While this sounds very probable to me, I am not quite sure why it has been included in a list pertaining to evolution. From what we understand, this affect on Carr's brain is no more that a habit or trained pattern. It certainly isn't a mutating of genes, and it clearly isn't occurring at the suspected rate of evolution, which supposedly takes thousands of years. It raises an interesting point, but I don't consider it to be a relevant argument in this context.
Another article I find question with is titled Get Smarter, by Jamais Cascio. Cascio's piece discusses the explosion of a super-volcano which occurred 74,000 years ago, the after-affects of which threatened to wipe out the homo-sapien population. Similar to Carr's article, Cascio suggests a change in the fundamental activity of the human brian occurred because of this eruption. Unlike Carr, however, Cascio asserts that the decision to enact such change was made voluntarily.
According to Calvin, the reason we survived is that our brains changed
to meet the challenge: we transformed the ability to target a moving
animal with a thrown rock into a capability for foresight and long-
term planning. In the process, we may have developed syntax and
formal structure from our simple language. (Cascio, Get Smarter)
While I can readily back the assumption that environmental adversity caused the need for evolution, I find the belief that homo-sapiens made the decision to evolve quite ridiculous. As I stated before, I believe evolution to be a simple mutation becoming an advantage in later generations due to it's unexpected helpfulness. The idea that a group of people might make a collective decision “get smarter” simply would not work, especially 75,000 years ago. Cascio then goes on to apply this to our current position as a society, saying that we may we need to become collectively smarter to deal with looming disasters. This idea seems more probable in the fact that, as a society, we have the means to tinker with ourselves and possibly create the outcome Cascio suggests. But for a people as primitive as early homo-sapiens, to take such initiative seems to me to be more a question of issue of society and understanding than physical evolution.
But more important than any issue of simple mis-communication is the issue of science vs. religion itself. In the article How to Teach Science to the Pope by Michael Manson, one of the issues covered is that of evolutionary theorist Richard Dawkins opposition to religion. In the eternity of the article, Manson discusses the Pontifical Science Academy, and those strides that they have been making in the scientific world, despite the accepted stereotype of science and religion being at odds with one another. Several scientific ideas that had once been thought to be contradictory of God are now being reevaluated, and while evolution is still disapproved of, it is a science that many are coming to terms with. When addressing he subject of Dawkins and his book “The God Delusion”, astronomer and planetary scientist for the Pontifical Academy Guy J. Consolmagno was quoted in saying, “He has an excellent reputation as a scientist, but he isn’t a theologian” (Manson, How to).
I feel that, in beginning to find that sort of acceptance, humanity is working twoards a harmony of these two ideas. Earlier in this piece, I said that I was in favor of Dawrin's theories of evolution of religious texts. However, that isn't to say that life itself did not come about because of some higher power. Just because I don't believe in the story of Adam and Eve doesn't mean that a God didn't create some form of life, and then allow for evolution to follow in his wake. I guess what I'm getting at is the fact that, while I don't enjoy the idea of being a faithful sheep to a being greater than myself, I can't ignore some of the amazing complexities that exist in the world around me without wondering if they have an designer. To illustrate this, I present to you the following excerpt from the BBC documentary series Planet Earth.
Personally, I find it astonishing that such basic organisms as molds and fungi could possibly become so varied, without some sort of greater guidance. Even in the example illustrated by Cascio; if not evolution, then what spurred the homo-sapien population to get smarter? I see the merits in evolution, and I certainly believe that it should be considered hard scientific law, but if that means that the possibility of a god is taken out of the picture altogether, then I guess I'm really not sure.
Works Cited
Carr, Nicholas. “Is Google Making Us Stupid?”. The Atlantic. 2007. http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200807/google
Cascio, Jamais. “Get Smarter”. The Atlantic, July/August 2009. http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200907/intelligence
Mason, Michael. “How to Teach Science to the Pope”. Discover Magazine. August 18, 2008. http://discovermagazine.com/2008/sep/18-how-to-teach-science-to-the-pope/article_view?b_start:int=1&-C=
Showing posts with label Charles Darwin. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Charles Darwin. Show all posts
Sunday, November 29, 2009
Darwin, Zombie Apocalypse and Skynet: Yes I am an Optimist.
Darwin got me thinking about a great deal of things regarding our race and our society today. I have done a lot of thinking about our evolutionary track and where we came from and where we will eventually go. Darwin, and especially this class, made me realize a few things about evolution that I never really noticed before.
First off the human race is about as physically evolved as we are going to become. Therefore Darwin’s theory behind physical evolution loses most of its veracity with the human race. Where are we supposed to go from here? How are we supposed to evolve? This question I believe can be most easily answered by taking a new look at evolution, through brain science.
I have come to realize that although we are not physically evolving we are evolving drastically in mental capacity. We have taken the ideas of using tools and brought them to a level that has never been imaginable and these changes are so drastic that technology is changing quicker than we can really follow.
This then brings up another question. If we cannot physically evolve then how are we supposed to adapt to our surroundings? Well this can also be done through brain power through the development of medicines, prosthetics, lotions, or anything you can really think of. Technology has made evolution a thing of the past but what does this really mean for our world?
This is where my real revelation is stated. I have brought the topic up in class several times before but this is honestly where I believe our evolution is taking us. We are on the verge of a cataclysmic disaster that will destroy our world as we know it and it will be caused by our advancements in either technology or medicine. The following is my reasoning.
Throughout our selections we have read from Darwin we have learned a great deal about the general idea behind evolution. We learned about adaptation and how creatures have evolved into what they must to survive in the world today. In class we discussed a lot but they themes remained the same, everything came back to adaptation and the origin of species. The most interesting point I want to look at is that of adaptation.
Chapter 4 on page 111 of Appleman’s book covers natural selection. This chapter is a great base to start off my revelation. The idea that a species can physically evolve, grow more hair, grow larger, or even create weapons to defend themselves is amazing to me. This idea is a great example of the role nature plays in a species. But at some point you have to ask does nature really know what it is doing?
Dawkins came in at this point to attack the ideas brought up in natural selection but most importantly in the idea of creationism. Dawkins despised creationism and looked at evolution and natural selection as the only true way to understand the world. On page 577 of Appleman Dawkins basically rips apart any idea that religion plays any role in our evolution at all. He essentially is saying that the only correct train of thought is that nature adapts as it feels necessary and we need to accept that for what it is and stop making up a bunch of religious bullshit to explain something that already makes perfect sense. I can understand his frustration in this and his ideas make sense.
Eventually though we get to a point where nature can no longer take over, where the human race will rely just on their mental power to evolve, I believe we have arrived there already. Simply put we have stopped evolving and are now in charge of our own evolution through our fields of science and technology, but this can only work for so long, eventually something will backfire and we must be prepared for that, the root of this failure, could possibly be greed.
Phillip K. Dick wrote a great short story discussing this topic. It can be found on page 145 of the Phillip K. Dick reader and is called to serve the master. It discusses a war that occurred between the robots and the humans and the humans were barely able to survive from these extremely intelligent machines. This story made me think about what were to happen if we were able to make machines that could reconstruct themselves, think and even create on their own authority. That would be a reality that is not too far away and it is scary to think about what could happen if we ever created this technology.
This also reminds me of the article, “Is Google Making Us Stupid”. This article examined the effects on the Google search engine on our general knowledge as a society. Our evolution has not made our society smarter or advanced; it instead has taught us how to search for our answers easier. This is a step in the wrong direction, we rely on a machine to answer our questions, we don’t think on our own anymore, this is the beginning of degeneration in my mind and one that could lead to technology taking over our society before we know it.
The last thing that worries me is our advancement in medicine. We have created medicines that are able to really sustain the majority of human beings on this earth. We are becoming over populated and over immunized and that is going to end terribly. All I can picture is Mother Nature fighting back in one of two ways. The first is Zombies. I know I have mentioned this several times throughout the year but the more I think about our advancements in medicine I view zombies as an ever growing threat that could truly happen. Also with overpopulation come pollution and with pollution comes the end of our resources meaning our earth will simply crumble, both are very real and very scary.
Evolution can only take a society so far but Mother Nature can also only sustain so much. Eventually we will reach an end; there will be some sort of terrible event that will change our world as we know it. This event will surely be brought on due to our “over-evolution” and I’m very interested, scared, and intrigued as to what it will be and how it will come about.
This first video is a clip about how scientifically zombies could actually occur. All of which are based off of some sort of new invention or technology or medicine in our world today, it is a scary thought but the video brings to light some great ideas and even covers some things we already looked at in class. It is surprising to see how exactly this could happen, and also very scary at the same time.
This next video is the beginning of Terminator. I think it is a great example at how we could develop technology that could easily cause our world to fall apart and become overrun by a seemingly innocent or good technology. It is scary to think that such a “good” idea could backfire so quickly. This is just the beginning of a terrible apocalypse; if you haven’t seen terminator the robots become intelligent and take over the human race. It gets ugly……
Works Cited:
5 scientific reasons a zombie apocalypse could actually happen 5 January 2009. Video Clip. YouTube. 29 Nov. 2009
Terminator: The Beginning [Skynet Soldier] 9 April 2009. Video Clip. YouTube. 29 Nov. 2009
Carr, Nicholas. “Is Google Making Us Stupid?” The Atlantic. 2007.
http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200807/google
Darwin, Charles. “Selections from Darwin’s Work.” Pp 67-254 in Darwin. 3rd ed. Phillip Appleman, ed. New York: W.W. Norton, 2001.
Dawkins, Richard. “The Argument from Personal Incredulity.” In Darwin. 3rd ed. Phillip Appleman, ed. New York: W.W. Norton, 2001.
Dick, Phillip K. The Phillip K. Dick Reader, New York: Citadel Press. 1987.
First off the human race is about as physically evolved as we are going to become. Therefore Darwin’s theory behind physical evolution loses most of its veracity with the human race. Where are we supposed to go from here? How are we supposed to evolve? This question I believe can be most easily answered by taking a new look at evolution, through brain science.
I have come to realize that although we are not physically evolving we are evolving drastically in mental capacity. We have taken the ideas of using tools and brought them to a level that has never been imaginable and these changes are so drastic that technology is changing quicker than we can really follow.
This then brings up another question. If we cannot physically evolve then how are we supposed to adapt to our surroundings? Well this can also be done through brain power through the development of medicines, prosthetics, lotions, or anything you can really think of. Technology has made evolution a thing of the past but what does this really mean for our world?
This is where my real revelation is stated. I have brought the topic up in class several times before but this is honestly where I believe our evolution is taking us. We are on the verge of a cataclysmic disaster that will destroy our world as we know it and it will be caused by our advancements in either technology or medicine. The following is my reasoning.
Throughout our selections we have read from Darwin we have learned a great deal about the general idea behind evolution. We learned about adaptation and how creatures have evolved into what they must to survive in the world today. In class we discussed a lot but they themes remained the same, everything came back to adaptation and the origin of species. The most interesting point I want to look at is that of adaptation.
Chapter 4 on page 111 of Appleman’s book covers natural selection. This chapter is a great base to start off my revelation. The idea that a species can physically evolve, grow more hair, grow larger, or even create weapons to defend themselves is amazing to me. This idea is a great example of the role nature plays in a species. But at some point you have to ask does nature really know what it is doing?
Dawkins came in at this point to attack the ideas brought up in natural selection but most importantly in the idea of creationism. Dawkins despised creationism and looked at evolution and natural selection as the only true way to understand the world. On page 577 of Appleman Dawkins basically rips apart any idea that religion plays any role in our evolution at all. He essentially is saying that the only correct train of thought is that nature adapts as it feels necessary and we need to accept that for what it is and stop making up a bunch of religious bullshit to explain something that already makes perfect sense. I can understand his frustration in this and his ideas make sense.
Eventually though we get to a point where nature can no longer take over, where the human race will rely just on their mental power to evolve, I believe we have arrived there already. Simply put we have stopped evolving and are now in charge of our own evolution through our fields of science and technology, but this can only work for so long, eventually something will backfire and we must be prepared for that, the root of this failure, could possibly be greed.
Phillip K. Dick wrote a great short story discussing this topic. It can be found on page 145 of the Phillip K. Dick reader and is called to serve the master. It discusses a war that occurred between the robots and the humans and the humans were barely able to survive from these extremely intelligent machines. This story made me think about what were to happen if we were able to make machines that could reconstruct themselves, think and even create on their own authority. That would be a reality that is not too far away and it is scary to think about what could happen if we ever created this technology.
This also reminds me of the article, “Is Google Making Us Stupid”. This article examined the effects on the Google search engine on our general knowledge as a society. Our evolution has not made our society smarter or advanced; it instead has taught us how to search for our answers easier. This is a step in the wrong direction, we rely on a machine to answer our questions, we don’t think on our own anymore, this is the beginning of degeneration in my mind and one that could lead to technology taking over our society before we know it.
The last thing that worries me is our advancement in medicine. We have created medicines that are able to really sustain the majority of human beings on this earth. We are becoming over populated and over immunized and that is going to end terribly. All I can picture is Mother Nature fighting back in one of two ways. The first is Zombies. I know I have mentioned this several times throughout the year but the more I think about our advancements in medicine I view zombies as an ever growing threat that could truly happen. Also with overpopulation come pollution and with pollution comes the end of our resources meaning our earth will simply crumble, both are very real and very scary.
Evolution can only take a society so far but Mother Nature can also only sustain so much. Eventually we will reach an end; there will be some sort of terrible event that will change our world as we know it. This event will surely be brought on due to our “over-evolution” and I’m very interested, scared, and intrigued as to what it will be and how it will come about.
This first video is a clip about how scientifically zombies could actually occur. All of which are based off of some sort of new invention or technology or medicine in our world today, it is a scary thought but the video brings to light some great ideas and even covers some things we already looked at in class. It is surprising to see how exactly this could happen, and also very scary at the same time.
This next video is the beginning of Terminator. I think it is a great example at how we could develop technology that could easily cause our world to fall apart and become overrun by a seemingly innocent or good technology. It is scary to think that such a “good” idea could backfire so quickly. This is just the beginning of a terrible apocalypse; if you haven’t seen terminator the robots become intelligent and take over the human race. It gets ugly……
Works Cited:
5 scientific reasons a zombie apocalypse could actually happen 5 January 2009. Video Clip. YouTube. 29 Nov. 2009
Terminator: The Beginning [Skynet Soldier] 9 April 2009. Video Clip. YouTube. 29 Nov. 2009
Carr, Nicholas. “Is Google Making Us Stupid?” The Atlantic. 2007.
http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200807/google
Darwin, Charles. “Selections from Darwin’s Work.” Pp 67-254 in Darwin. 3rd ed. Phillip Appleman, ed. New York: W.W. Norton, 2001.
Dawkins, Richard. “The Argument from Personal Incredulity.” In Darwin. 3rd ed. Phillip Appleman, ed. New York: W.W. Norton, 2001.
Dick, Phillip K. The Phillip K. Dick Reader, New York: Citadel Press. 1987.
Darwin vs God
Darwin versus God
When someone tells you something you think something so polar opposite of, it can sometimes shake you to the core, or your world can fall down around you. Such as if you were told you were a mistake, or my personal favorite, when my aunt convinced me in second grade (right after our cloud unit) that clouds were made in factories. This is how many people felt when Darwin started expressing his belief on how we came to be: Darwin’s Theory of evolution.
God’s Creationism theory came from very long ago. It is probably the most famous story in the bible. I remember learning about Adam and Eve in CCD in kindergarten. It is a very famous and believed story in a Christian society. This was most of the people when and where Darwin was. The story goes along the lines that through seven days the world was created. God made the animals, plants, light and finally man. He started with Adam and from Adam’s rib he created Eve. The seventh day was God’s day of rest, when he was finished creating the world. This is where the weekend came from- it was God’s day of rest, and it was also said in the bible that Sunday’s were meant for church and giving the day to God. Many people to this day believe this is how we evolved. However, there are those people who do not believe this biblical story. I can’t help but to think if Darwin hadn’t so bravely expressed his theory many people would be having extreme second thoughts on their own beliefs.
Darwin’s theory is more along the lines of natural selection and the belief that everything was originated from one related or common molecule. “… The birds and the bananas, the fishes and the flowers -- all related. Darwin's general theory presumes the development of life from non-life and stresses a purely naturalistic (undirected) "descent with modification". That is, complex creatures evolve from more simplistic ancestors naturally over time” (Darwin-theory 1). Darwin based many of his beliefs and studies from a five year mapping trip on “the Beagle” collecting specimens. Darwin’s theory came with natural selection which was the theory in which it is believed, if something is not made to survive or not made to perfection it will fail and not be able to reproduce. An irreducibly complex system is one composed of multiple parts, all of which are necessary for the system to function. If even one part is missing, the entire system will fail to function. Every individual part is integral (Behe).
http://vodpod.com/watch/1275125-dailymotion-simpsons-creationism-vs-evolution-a-video-from-piglips-simpsons-darwin-evolution-creationism
I chose this video because to some people it may be a cartoon, but it really it clearly shows the struggle between people because of the differences in their beliefs and the fight they will go through to prove their belief is correct. I personally believe that there is no way to prove one theory or the other and to pick a theory basically is to pick a security. One molecular biologist disproving Darwin’s theory says, “"Although the tiniest bacterial cells are incredibly small, weighing less than 10-12 grams, each is in effect a veritable micro-miniaturized factory containing thousands of exquisitely designed pieces of intricate molecular machinery, made up altogether of one hundred thousand million atoms, far more complicated than any machinery built by man and absolutely without parallel in the non-living world" (Denton 251). You can basically decide how the world came to be on your own. I personally was raised in a very catholic community and my immediate family is very traditional. When I hear evolution it makes sense to me. But I was raised to understand that you can't understand the way God works and we were told the story of creation many many times. It is really confusing for me, I do believe evolution at a scientific point, but sometimes I am guilted into pretending I believe the story of creation. :) Some theories can be scientifically proven wrong but these two theories have such a heated and long battle I personally believe that there will continue to be a struggle and many people may butt heads for thousands more years to come.
Sources:
Behe, Michael. Darwin's Black Box. 1996. Print.
Darwin's Theory Of Evolution. Web. 29 Nov. 2009.
Groening, Matt. The Simpsons, Creationism vs Evolution. Web..
Michael Denton, "Evolution: A Theory in Crisis," 1986
When someone tells you something you think something so polar opposite of, it can sometimes shake you to the core, or your world can fall down around you. Such as if you were told you were a mistake, or my personal favorite, when my aunt convinced me in second grade (right after our cloud unit) that clouds were made in factories. This is how many people felt when Darwin started expressing his belief on how we came to be: Darwin’s Theory of evolution.
God’s Creationism theory came from very long ago. It is probably the most famous story in the bible. I remember learning about Adam and Eve in CCD in kindergarten. It is a very famous and believed story in a Christian society. This was most of the people when and where Darwin was. The story goes along the lines that through seven days the world was created. God made the animals, plants, light and finally man. He started with Adam and from Adam’s rib he created Eve. The seventh day was God’s day of rest, when he was finished creating the world. This is where the weekend came from- it was God’s day of rest, and it was also said in the bible that Sunday’s were meant for church and giving the day to God. Many people to this day believe this is how we evolved. However, there are those people who do not believe this biblical story. I can’t help but to think if Darwin hadn’t so bravely expressed his theory many people would be having extreme second thoughts on their own beliefs.
Darwin’s theory is more along the lines of natural selection and the belief that everything was originated from one related or common molecule. “… The birds and the bananas, the fishes and the flowers -- all related. Darwin's general theory presumes the development of life from non-life and stresses a purely naturalistic (undirected) "descent with modification". That is, complex creatures evolve from more simplistic ancestors naturally over time” (Darwin-theory 1). Darwin based many of his beliefs and studies from a five year mapping trip on “the Beagle” collecting specimens. Darwin’s theory came with natural selection which was the theory in which it is believed, if something is not made to survive or not made to perfection it will fail and not be able to reproduce. An irreducibly complex system is one composed of multiple parts, all of which are necessary for the system to function. If even one part is missing, the entire system will fail to function. Every individual part is integral (Behe).
http://vodpod.com/watch/1275125-dailymotion-simpsons-creationism-vs-evolution-a-video-from-piglips-simpsons-darwin-evolution-creationism
I chose this video because to some people it may be a cartoon, but it really it clearly shows the struggle between people because of the differences in their beliefs and the fight they will go through to prove their belief is correct. I personally believe that there is no way to prove one theory or the other and to pick a theory basically is to pick a security. One molecular biologist disproving Darwin’s theory says, “"Although the tiniest bacterial cells are incredibly small, weighing less than 10-12 grams, each is in effect a veritable micro-miniaturized factory containing thousands of exquisitely designed pieces of intricate molecular machinery, made up altogether of one hundred thousand million atoms, far more complicated than any machinery built by man and absolutely without parallel in the non-living world" (Denton 251). You can basically decide how the world came to be on your own. I personally was raised in a very catholic community and my immediate family is very traditional. When I hear evolution it makes sense to me. But I was raised to understand that you can't understand the way God works and we were told the story of creation many many times. It is really confusing for me, I do believe evolution at a scientific point, but sometimes I am guilted into pretending I believe the story of creation. :) Some theories can be scientifically proven wrong but these two theories have such a heated and long battle I personally believe that there will continue to be a struggle and many people may butt heads for thousands more years to come.
Sources:
Behe, Michael. Darwin's Black Box. 1996. Print.
Darwin's Theory Of Evolution. Web. 29 Nov. 2009.
Groening, Matt. The Simpsons, Creationism vs Evolution. Web.
Michael Denton, "Evolution: A Theory in Crisis," 1986
Darwinian Revelation
Within the past years, I have had a disclosure of great significance to both myself personally, and my perception of the world. This “revelation” of mine had been percolating through the depths of my beliefs for ten years of my life. That is exactly how long I had been involved in mandatory Catholic religious studies. Throughout learning the perceived profundity of my religion, I kept finding myself disagreeing completely with what was being preached. As time continued on, I grew further and further apart from the church. After I had finally finished religious education during my sophomore year of High School, I consistently felt empty.
I soon realized that I had been neglecting to embrace the studies of one of the most pivotal individuals science had ever witnessed. The name of this individual was Charles Darwin. His similar experiences pertaining to his reluctance to thrust forth his findings into the crux of 20th century beliefs directly related to how I felt about my own convoluted beliefs.
As a student, Charles Darwin had little guidance as to what career path was destined for him. He eventually attended Cambridge, with the intent of studying for the ministry. He soon found that his interests laid more within the Entomology category, rather than Theology. (1-3, Appleman)
Darwin then was given the chance of a lifetime: Be part of a 5 year journey aboard the ship Beagle, exploring various naturalist venues around the world. This trip established in Darwin an outstanding ability to observe and document, which he was known greatly for. (3-4, Appleman) Darwin’s education and his expedition aboard the Beagle can be viewed symbolically as my own personal religious education journey: We both found ourselves within environments we couldn’t possibly be satisfied with, until we realized that there was something entirely else more enthralling.
But what exactly was the root of my issues with the Church? I consistently pondered this question over and over, as my family became dismayed with my lack of “confidence” in religion. The only comprehensible point I could fault for my lack of faith was the stubbornness which inevitably lingers within religion’s core. A fantastic example of this I found was within the article “How the Teach Science to the Pope.” This article explores in depth the various issues and consequences surrounding science and religion. While I read, I found an interesting passage. This passage illustrated how the Catholic Church administers science to its liking through the use of a league of scientists known as the Pontifical Academy of Sciences.
“…the purpose of your academy is precisely to discern and to make known, in the present state of science and within its proper limits, what can be regarded as an acquired truth or at least as enjoying such a degree of probability that it would be imprudent and unreasonable to reject it.” In the pope’s eyes, the academy is an instrument that teases scientific fact from fiction.” (Mason)
I immediately recognized with this statement, and had to laugh at the notion that the religion’s own scientific wing could only do what the Church deemed was important. Therefore, The Pontifical Academy of Sciences, in itself, was completely pointless, and failed to strengthen any possible new scientific findings the Church deems “unnatural.”
Another example of the perceived stubbornness of religion in general comes from the short story “Exhibit Piece” by the author Philip K. Dick. This story illustrates the day of 20th century historian George Miller in a future setting. Miller is responsible for creating and caretaking an exact replica of a 20th century scene. Miller soon becomes trapped within this exhibit piece, and refuses to be coaxed out of his dream world. (155, Dick) This relates to the stubbornness of religion through representation. The 20th century exhibit piece is an embodiment of religion in general. Miller symbolizes individuals within religions who continually refuse to change their ways out of pure tenacity. The story clearly illustrates (through representation) how future ideals often become drowned out through stubbornness and what some call “faith.”
Darwin has undoubtedly influenced my personal beliefs pertaining to religion. It’s unfortunate that science and religion has become such a convoluted and hot button issue in our society, and I wish I had learned more about Darwin earlier in my academic teachings, but that’s a whole other debate…I must also declare that these are my own opinions and experiences which the work of Darwin has aided in surfacing. Furthermore, let it be known that I’m not here to jab or point fingers at the integrity of religion, I only speak what I feel. I have no intentions of “representing” the views of every agnostic, atheist, ect. populating the universe.
This video demonstrates the issue of Stem Cell research, which is just one of the many issues which surround religion and science. The video also shows how The Pontifical Academy of Sciences is governed completely by the church, and is therefore restricted to researching only what's considered ethical by the church.
Appleman, Philip. “Darwin: On Changing the Mind” in Darwin. 3rd ed. Philip Appleman, ed. New York: W.W. Norton, 2001
Mason, Michael. "How to Teach Science to the Pope | Human Evolution | DISCOVER Magazine." Discover Magazine. 18 Aug. 2008. Web. 26 Nov. 2009. .
Dick, Philip K. The Philip Reader, New York: Citadel Press. 1987.
Rome Reports. "Stem Cell Research Against Human Dignity." 1 April 2009. Video Clip. YouTube. 26 Nov. 2009
I soon realized that I had been neglecting to embrace the studies of one of the most pivotal individuals science had ever witnessed. The name of this individual was Charles Darwin. His similar experiences pertaining to his reluctance to thrust forth his findings into the crux of 20th century beliefs directly related to how I felt about my own convoluted beliefs.
As a student, Charles Darwin had little guidance as to what career path was destined for him. He eventually attended Cambridge, with the intent of studying for the ministry. He soon found that his interests laid more within the Entomology category, rather than Theology. (1-3, Appleman)
Darwin then was given the chance of a lifetime: Be part of a 5 year journey aboard the ship Beagle, exploring various naturalist venues around the world. This trip established in Darwin an outstanding ability to observe and document, which he was known greatly for. (3-4, Appleman) Darwin’s education and his expedition aboard the Beagle can be viewed symbolically as my own personal religious education journey: We both found ourselves within environments we couldn’t possibly be satisfied with, until we realized that there was something entirely else more enthralling.
But what exactly was the root of my issues with the Church? I consistently pondered this question over and over, as my family became dismayed with my lack of “confidence” in religion. The only comprehensible point I could fault for my lack of faith was the stubbornness which inevitably lingers within religion’s core. A fantastic example of this I found was within the article “How the Teach Science to the Pope.” This article explores in depth the various issues and consequences surrounding science and religion. While I read, I found an interesting passage. This passage illustrated how the Catholic Church administers science to its liking through the use of a league of scientists known as the Pontifical Academy of Sciences.
“…the purpose of your academy is precisely to discern and to make known, in the present state of science and within its proper limits, what can be regarded as an acquired truth or at least as enjoying such a degree of probability that it would be imprudent and unreasonable to reject it.” In the pope’s eyes, the academy is an instrument that teases scientific fact from fiction.” (Mason)
I immediately recognized with this statement, and had to laugh at the notion that the religion’s own scientific wing could only do what the Church deemed was important. Therefore, The Pontifical Academy of Sciences, in itself, was completely pointless, and failed to strengthen any possible new scientific findings the Church deems “unnatural.”
Another example of the perceived stubbornness of religion in general comes from the short story “Exhibit Piece” by the author Philip K. Dick. This story illustrates the day of 20th century historian George Miller in a future setting. Miller is responsible for creating and caretaking an exact replica of a 20th century scene. Miller soon becomes trapped within this exhibit piece, and refuses to be coaxed out of his dream world. (155, Dick) This relates to the stubbornness of religion through representation. The 20th century exhibit piece is an embodiment of religion in general. Miller symbolizes individuals within religions who continually refuse to change their ways out of pure tenacity. The story clearly illustrates (through representation) how future ideals often become drowned out through stubbornness and what some call “faith.”
Darwin has undoubtedly influenced my personal beliefs pertaining to religion. It’s unfortunate that science and religion has become such a convoluted and hot button issue in our society, and I wish I had learned more about Darwin earlier in my academic teachings, but that’s a whole other debate…I must also declare that these are my own opinions and experiences which the work of Darwin has aided in surfacing. Furthermore, let it be known that I’m not here to jab or point fingers at the integrity of religion, I only speak what I feel. I have no intentions of “representing” the views of every agnostic, atheist, ect. populating the universe.
Youtube Video:
This video demonstrates the issue of Stem Cell research, which is just one of the many issues which surround religion and science. The video also shows how The Pontifical Academy of Sciences is governed completely by the church, and is therefore restricted to researching only what's considered ethical by the church.
Works Cited
Appleman, Philip. “Darwin: On Changing the Mind” in Darwin. 3rd ed. Philip Appleman, ed. New York: W.W. Norton, 2001
Mason, Michael. "How to Teach Science to the Pope | Human Evolution | DISCOVER Magazine." Discover Magazine. 18 Aug. 2008. Web. 26 Nov. 2009. .
Dick, Philip K. The Philip Reader, New York: Citadel Press. 1987.
Rome Reports. "Stem Cell Research Against Human Dignity." 1 April 2009. Video Clip. YouTube. 26 Nov. 2009
Sunday, September 6, 2009
Charles Darwin And The Tree Of Life
I found this video on Digg.com it's an animation of Charles Darwin's theory of evolution. It's quite good, enjoy!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)