Darwin yes, but a revelation?

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=

Alchemy: A Dangerous Science

Alchemy is known today as the beginning of chemistry as we know it, as well as creating the first real advancement. The science of alchemy had two goals. The first was to take any common element (iron, copper, lead, iron, etc...) and transmute them into gold. This was known as the Philosopher's Stone and was well sought after by many chemists in many different countries and continents (though mainly Europe and Asia). The idea of having a nearly limitless amount of gold was too good to pass up for most who heard about it and readily dove into the science of Alchemy. The other main goal of Alchemy was to create what is known as an “elixir of life” which would grand the drinker eternal life. Going by the Emerald Tablet, which gave instructions to create both the stone and the elixir. Even though all attempts were failures, Alchemy still contributed to various scientific fields.

Paracelsus (or Philip von Hohenheim) made many large advances in the medical field, all of which can easily be construed as alchemy because they deal with chemical imbalances. He believed that people needed to balance their body (a microcosm) with their surroundings in nature the macrocosm), and that most physical illnesses could be cured through chemical means. He is also considered the father of toxicity, in that he theorized that poisonous substances are so only when taken in correct amounts, and that any and all substances can be dangerous if overused (i.e. overdosing).

Caveman Science Fiction

This is the latest comic from Dresden Codak. I thought it was kind of relevant.

Just an interesting video

This video isn't particularly prevalent to anything, and it's a couple years old now, but it's got some very interesting information about society and our trends, so I figured I'd post it.

daVinci - Engineer, artist, and now, surgical robot

No, I'm sorry. This article isn't actually about Leonardo daVinci. This isn't even a post about the Renaissance. In actuality, I've chosen to do my "What's news in science" report on robotics in the medical world. Surprise.
The medical term Minimally Invasive Surgery is, as described to me by Wikipedia, a surgical procedure that while not as complex or risky as open surgery, still requires an incision. These new methods are preferred by both doctors and patients because they tend to produce less scarring, while still being just as effective, and have become increasingly popular, particularly in the last decade. However, in order to be so minimally invasive, a tremendous amount of skill and dexterity is required, and any error can easily prove much more grave than the initial action. That's where technology comes in.

Since 1988, robotics have been used to aid in the precision of such surgeries.Because there is always the possibility of human error, the use of robotic assistants can make for a steadier, more precise hand. According to the article "Surgical Robots Operate With Precision" from Wired.com, Brian Daives, of the Imperial College in London, manufactured the first robot assistant capable of removing soft tissue from a patient, and according to the article, "with a fair bit of autonomy."

The latest focus of this trend is a machine called the daVinci Surgical System (see visuals above).

The newest 2009 model, as shown in the picture and video,is comprised of four intricately positionable arms, each with a small pair of grasping pincers, no bigger than human fingers. Three arms carry specialized surgical tools (which are replaced every 12-15 uses to ensure tools are sterile), while the fourth carries an endoscopic camera with which the surgeon surveys their work. Positioned at a console away from the patient, surgeons can control the movements of all arms from a high definition, three-dimensional interface. The arms allow them to do any and all maneuvers necessary - each "arm" has seven degrees of freedom, which according to the video allows for more than even the human wrist - and because of their size can be easily insert through very small incisions. The "stirrups" for the surgeons thumb and forefinger also actively ratio the movements into micro equivalents, allowing for a much smaller chance of dexterous error. Mary Spiro, of Examiner.com, reflects on the remarkable nature of this ability; "Compare this minimally invasive surgical method to more traditional surgical techniques where a large incision is made and flaps of skin and tissue must be pulled aside so that the surgeon can gain direct access and you start to appreciate what the da Vinci has achieved" (Spiro).

So what does technology like this mean for the future? Well, from a medical standpoint, we can confidently say that with increased precision comes increased surgery survival rates. This is great news for patients whose surgeries are often avoided, due the the complexity of certain areas believed to be 'inoperable'. But in the same sense that every issue is a double edged sword (not to be cynical or anything), better medical care will always mean more people surviving in a world that is already dangerously close to overpopulation. However, there is another obvious implication staring us in the face, and that is the eventual superiority of robotic labor and ability. Sarah Pearson is the curator at the Hunterian Museum of the Royal College of Surgeons of England, which according to Wired.com will be an exhibit concerning medicine and robotics. According to her interview; “Industrial robots appeared in factories in the early 1960s and robots have become an important part of space exploration. But robots have been comparatively slow to be used in medicine because surgeons haven’t felt comfortable with them” (Ganapati). Intuitive Surgical, the company that produces the daVinci, refers to their product as a "mind-slave", that it is a tool simply to assist the surgeon in their duties. The video above makes very careful mention that the systems many "redundant" safety measures ensure that all movement of the machine is dictated by the operator. While this may be true for the future, the ever expanding world of robotics and interest in Artificial Intelligence are powerful omens for what possibilities the future may hold. While it is true that medical treatment is quite a different issue from, say, an automobile assembly line, it is the very nature of technology to lighten the workload of humanity, and from what popular sci-fi culture has been telling us, robot doctors don't seem all that far fetched.

For more information on the daVinci Surgical System, you can visit the Intuitive Surgical homepage.

Ganapati, Priya. " Gadget Lab Hardware News and Reviews Surgical Robots Operate With Precision." Wired.com 11 sept 2009: n. pag. Web. 14 Sep 2009. .

Spiro, Mary. "Surgical robot translates surgeon's touch into precise movements." Examiner.com 09 sept 2009: n. pag. Web. 14 Sep 2009. .

Pretend to be a Time Traveler Day

I just wanted to let everyone know that Dresden Codak's brainchild, Pretend to be a Time Traveler Day, is going on this Saturday, September 12. Although the main event is going to be in Portland, OR, everyone is invited to join in on the fun. Here's a link to Dresden Codak's site for more information, and check this out to see some of what they've done in the past!

Where do you stand?

My topic for the first week of the blog is not so much current events, but rather a question for debate. I found it quite interesting, so I thought I would share it with the rest of you. As many of you probably read, one of my favorite works of science fiction is the webcomic Dresden Codak, by Aaron Diaz. I would like to point your attention to a mini series within the comic, entitled Hob. If you'd like to read the entire series (its about 27 pages) is starts here. However, if you'd rather skip the build-up, you can jump right into the meat of the story, which starts around page 8. But for the sake of this post having some meaning, let me paraphrase:
Time traveler have come from a distant future in which technology has evolved into a single planetary conciousness, a "mother" who humanity worried was slowly stealing both their and their world's prupose of meaning. In order to rewrite this terrible fate, they have sent Hob, a robot containing a guide post for their wormhole travel, to start recolinizing an earth in which A.I. is outlawed. However, protaganist Kimko Ross (devout robotiscist) sees the eventual extinction of humanity as inescapable step in the evolutionary process, and attempts to thwarts the time travelers attempts at destroying Hob's potential links to "mother".
Now, the content of the comic is interesting enough, but the main conflict is a topic which particularly interested me, and is in fact the question I wished to extend to you. If the trends of evolution do eventually point to the end of humanity, and life as we know it, would you fight for your existence, or resign to your genetic destiny? Now this is not suggesting that we simply die out and allow machine to take over. In the story, Kimiko is of the opinion that, as a race, we should sacrifice our humanity to integrate ourselves into the machine world. By contrast, the time travelers see a robotic existence not as a paraigm shift of our race, but a dying out, and struggle to cling to their believed superiority and purity. But what do you think?