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

Aliens....

Could some one else be out there in the vast space known as the Universe? Many have speculated that question for long years, and have been backed up by flimsy videos and shoddy interviews from people believing to have seen aliens or "UFOS". Scientists have begun to study this subject more and more, and have been trying to communicate with aliens for the past 30 sum odd years. One man claimed to have seen them when he him self was in outer space. You can read up more on these subjects here:

http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2009/11/better-seti-code/

and

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1037471/Apollo-14-astronaut-claims-aliens-HAVE-contact--covered-60-years.html

The Problem With Worshipping Darwin

Charles Darwin dramatically changed the face of biological science. In fact, he invented a completely new kind of science: the evolutionary kind. All of western civilization knows this. So what’s the problem? The problem is that because this man gave society his ideas, we worship him for it. He is to us as Aristotle was to the natural philosophers, or at least this is true within the average population. Despite advances in evolutionary science, much of society tends to look back to Darwin for knowledge about evolution instead of looking to modern science and this often leads to people not understanding how natural selection actually works.

But before we get into the realm of people misunderstanding the ideas that led from Darwin, let us first look into the problems with misunderstanding the man himself. Our society likes our heroes to be flawless; the most minor of blemishes on their character and all of their previous work is called into question. Darwin has been elevated to Hero status, and the same expectations have been held to him.

A good portion of The Origin of the Species talks about Darwin’s theories and conclusions as they have to do with women. To those of us that know this part of his work, it is clear that Darwin stood in line with his, male, contemporaries at the time in thinking that women were inferior, and that one could prove this scientifically. Evelleen Richards in “Darwin and the Descent of Women” writes that everything that could be seen as supporting sexism or racism now “is either ignored or tortuously explained away and Darwin himself absolved of political and social intent and his theoretical constructs of ideological taint.” It is of my opinion that even if a man is the most corrupt person in all of history, if his theories are logically sound, his theories are logically sound. Darwin’s theories are logically sound in the terms of the time period from whence they came. And even if Darwin were to be quoted as saying “natural selection is a sham,” it wouldn’t affect the theory because the theory is logically sound. Racism or sexism perceived in Darwin’s writing now doesn’t affect the logic of his theories, and it is therefore unnecessary to defend him.

Now we will step back into the problems of understanding natural selection that arise from the worship of Charles Darwin. The chief reason that people don’t buy into evolution and natural selection is that they don’t understand it. Richard Dawkins says in “The Argument from Personal Incredulity” that in many cases people “misunderstand natural selection to be ‘random’ and ‘meaningless’” which it simply isn’t. In fact, natural selection is about as non-random as nature can get. The problem lies in that many people look to Darwin for how the theories work.

Darwin didn’t know about genes, genetics, or DNA. He didn’t know the mechanisms behind inheritance, he didn’t know what traits were being manifested from. We now know that the only random element of natural selection is when errors crop up when DNA is copied and spliced. These are occurrences on the quantum level, where random is the name of the game. Once the traits are manifested, the game changes and everything becomes non-random.

Another pitfall that comes with only looking to Darwin is that holes in Darwin’s theories may not exist anymore in science. Michael Behe is the father of what he calls “irreducible complexity,” the idea of a structure that would be useless if it hadn’t popped into being perfectly formed. Darwin himself says in the Origin that if an irreducibly complex object was found, natural selection would collapse. Behe uses this statement as proof that his examples refute natural selection; that nature requires a “maker.” Even if Behe’s examples didn’t have problems with them, however, his proof wouldn’t be substantial because the “irreducibly complex” problem can be easily solved.

Dawkins gave a wonderful example of how an apparently irreducibly complex system could evolve by evoking the metaphor of a stone arch. An arch, by itself, is irreducibly complex. Take any one stone out of place, and the whole thing comes crashing down. But the arch wasn’t built all at once; it was built supported by a wooden scaffolding, all evidence of which is completely gone. The scaffolding is the support structure that makes the incomplete arch semi-useful. Once the arch is done, the scaffold is broken down, and the arch stands on its own. Apply this to biology. A structure, such as Behe’s flagellum example may appear to be too complex to evolve. However, we do not see the remnants of supporting structures that allowed limited functionality until the flagellum or other structure was completed. Once a fully-functional device is in the gene pool, the supporting structure becomes superfluous and will eventually disappear; an organism without that supporting structure is metabolically superior. This concept of a biological “scaffold” was not surmised by Darwin, and by looking only to him, we miss the totality of evolutionary science today.

Finally, one last thing is missed when we don’t look beyond Darwin when it comes to natural selection. If one were to look at Darwin’s work, they would conclude that the only things that are able to evolve are living organisms. However, this is untrue. Modern science has learned that non-living molecules such as viruses do indeed evolve over time. In fact, theoretically any replicator (such as DNA, RNA, or something human-created) could undergo a form of natural selection and evolution simply through errors in the replicating process. This general knowledge is not only useful in the realms of inorganic life or AI projects, but is absolutely vital in the realms of public health. Knowing how and why viruses and other pathogens mutate is very important. Below is the first of six videos concerning the fight between humans and bacteria and viruses. The video says that such organisms are the only real threat to our species and talks about the downhill battle which humans will certainly lose.

Darwin had no idea about these implications of his theories. Now that we do, it makes little sense to continue looking to the past.

Darwin was an incredibly influential person. He changed the face of all science and rocked old religion to its core. However, the context in which Darwin’s theories and the theories themselves have changed to the point where the Aristotelian worship of the man is hardly necessary. It is time to move on from Darwin and look at the theories instead of the man.

Works Cited

Behe, Michael. “Darwin’s Black Box.” in Darwin. 3rd ed. Philip Appleman, ed. New York: W.W.Norton, 2001.

Dawkins, Richard. “The Argument from Personal Incredulity.” in Darwin. 3rd ed. Philip Appleman, ed. New York: W.W.Norton, 2001.

“Evolution Episode 4: The Evolutionary Arms Race.” Posted by Gravitationalist. .

Richards, Evelleen. “Darwin and the Descent of Women.” in Darwin. 3rd ed. Philip Appleman, ed. New York: W.W.Norton, 2001.

Real Beauty

This video was shown to me last year by my Concepts of Self teacher Professor Wade. It had an immediate reaction on me. At first I wanted to deny the message, to run from the horrible truth. The sad fact of the issue is that it is undeniably true. It tells us that to be perfect, to be wanted, to be better, we cannot be ourselves. Looking back on that ad now through the lens of Darwin, I see a clear evolution of human culture.

How is it that we have arrived at this moment. Where we adore the appearance more than the person? I'll take a jump and say this has been an issue ever since the human race was a patriarchal society. Elizabeth Stanton piece in Darwin(Pg. 426) pushes the idea that this patriarchal society arose from Christian religion. She tells us that women are put into a subordinate role because of the temptation of Eve and the fall of man. Looking at many other religions, women also are cast in the same role. This religious persecution helped men rise as the leaders of humanity thousands and thousands of years ago, and it is only in our contemporary times when women has begun to assert themselves from under the rule of men. Even as the shift was happening it was opposed by some of the most revolutionary minds. Darwin, a brilliant man, made a list of the things marriage would bring him " ... constant companion, (friend in old age) who will feel interested in one, object to be beloved and played with - better than a dog anyhow - Home, and someone to take care of the house ..." (Darwin, 1958:232,233)

"better than a dog anyhow" those words stopped me. He is comparing a loving relationship with his future wife to a dogs companionship.... This kind of thinking arose from his research in evolution. Women being inferior was an absolute for his theory to work. Darwin observed that natural selection only applied to the males because they were the ones in dangerous situations. They fed the family, they found shelter, they are the ones who foughtt for a mate. Females on the other hand did little in the wild, they stayed at the nest, or home and tended to the young. Their only other task was to submit to the male.

Philip K. Dicks story The Golden Man captures Darwin's point of view perfectly. Cris is another step in evolution. Not only can he see into the future, but he is irresistible to women. These two attributes in combination give him the greatest chance of survival. In the story, a brilliant women by the name of Anita Ferris is reduced to a submissive role when she encounters Cris. These Darwinian theories are called into question by Evelleen Richards in her article "Darwin and the Descent of Women". Her opinion on Darwin's ideas was that he was trapped in the Victorian style of thinking when it came to social class and that his ideas of women are needed to confirm his theory.

Women's conditions have evolved radically within the past century. The suffrage movement gave the right to vote. Since that moment women have begun to change society. For the first time in American history a women ran for president. However, mass media often still paints women as objects to only be looked at. This is beginning to breakdown though. I watched a clip of The Incredible's recently. A line by Edna (the costume maker) snagged me, " Super models. Heh! nothing super about them... spoiled, stupid little stick figures with poofy lips who think only about themselves" These small remarks are a simple way to alert people to our adolescent view of women. The video I share with you is part of Dove's campaign for Real Beauty. Instead of finding professional models they are using non-tradition models like normal mothers, to express the opinion that the human race is above this petty beauty contest.

After reading Darwin I can observe this evolution of human culture. Hopefully within this generation the evolution of women's roles will reach new heights and become truly equal. Small steps like Dove campaign are closer to making that dream a reality.

Works Cited
Dick, Philip K. "The Golden Man." The Philip K. Dick Reader. New York: Kensington Corp, 1997. 31-55. Print.

-----. (Nora Barlow, Ed.). 1958. The Autobiography of Charles Darwin, 1809-1882. New York: W. W. Norton & Co., Inc.

"Evolution" No wonder our perception of beauty is so distorted. Dove Campaign for Real Beauty. Dove. Web. 26 Nov. 2009. .
Richards, Evelleen. “Darwin and the Descent of Women.” in Darwin. 3rd ed. Philip Appleman, ed . New York: W.W.Norton, 2001.
Stanton, Elizabeth Cady. “The Women’s Bible.” in Darwin. 3rd ed. Philip Appleman, ed . New York: W.W.Norton, 2001.

The Incredibles. Dir. Brad Bird. Prod. John Walker. Perf. Craig T. Nelson Holly Hunter Sarah Vowell Spencer Fox Jason Lee. Walt Disney Pictures, 2004. DVD.

Darwin Revelation: Creationism vs Darwinism

The ideas that Darwin came up with about how everything evolved had been so revolutionary they stirred everyone. People began refusing the information Darwin was trying to convince them of and were convinced he was wrong. They wanted to continue to believe the story of Adam and Eve in the bible. Darwin transformed their views and made many people question their beliefs. This impact Darwin had over society and his community has formed into what humans know of today. People still, after all these years, pick sides on if they want to believe what they want or believe that science has all the answers.
There are many questions as to which is right and which is wrong. The truth is that there is no definite answer, and there probably never will. No one can prove creationism or even completely prove Darwinism. No one has proof that a higher power in form of a God exists and science is constantly proving itself wrong. “Science isn’t going to answer them, but science, by telling us what is there, causes us to ask these questions. It makes us go back to the seven days of creation—which is poetry, beautiful poetry, with a lesson underneath it—and say, ‘Oh, the seventh day is God resting as a way of reminding us that God doesn’t do everything.’ God built this universe but gave you and me the freedom to make choices within the universe” (Mason, Michael). If anything, science continues to add to our doubt. Science began to make people question their beliefs, and even those who continue to believe in their religion, have to fight against the people who are on science’s side.
Darwin gave an interesting definition to his idea of evolution. “’Evolution‘” in its most basic sense is a simple idea: Change through time has taken place. The universe has a history: The present is different from the past. Physical and chemical evolution include the formation of elements in the nuclear blast furnaces of evolving stars, the formation of galaxies, and the formation of star systems with planets. The earth has changed greatly in the past four billion years; the present is different from the past” (535, Appleman, Philip). He did get this fact correct, things are always changing. The beliefs of his time could differ from today, as well as today could differ from the future. Who’s to say that he found the definite answer? Somewhere down the road, other people might come up with other theories that make sense.
In the short story by Philip K. Dick titled “Tony and the Beetles,” it explains how different living creatures can be and the roles they can take. After finding out the beetles were winning the war against the humans for once, they turned against Tony. “’Get out!’” B’Prith screamed. “’Don’t come back! This is out planet!’” His claws snatched at Tony. “’We’ll tear you to pieces if you--’” (131, Dick, Philip K.). After being friends, the beetles shun Tony after the tables turn. This shows how fast people’s views can change. Along with Darwinism, so many people abandoned their beliefs leaving creationism in the dust.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bE6t9umyoqk

The link above is to a video located on YouTube about evolution and Darwinism. It states that “people want to be their own gods” (youtube). They are saying that people who supported Darwinism wanted to be right so much that they created evidence that was not valid. They drew pictures of a human fetus in multiple stages and renaming them to be different animals to show we arrived from the same common ancestor. If these images are fraud and there is no way of proving creationism, then there is no proof for either argument. Creationism and Darwinism will remain just an argument. No one may ever know which is right, but these findings, in both situations, has been very important for human societies. They have brought up more questions, which may lead us toward to right answer in the future. Finding out where we came from didn’t end with Darwin, it only began.

Bibliography
Appleman, Philip. “Darwin: On Changing the Mind” in Darwin. 3rd ed. Philip appleman, ed. New Yo: W.W. Norton, 2001.rk

Dick, Philip K. The Philip K. Dick Reader, New York: Citadel Press. 1987

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

"YouTube - Creation in the 21st Century - Facts vs. Darwinism 1 of 3." YouTube - Broadcast Yourself. Web. 27 Nov. 2009. .

My Darwin Revelation

“The human brain is just an outdated computer that needs a faster processor and a bigger hard drive.” (www.theatlantic.com) My revelation came when the topic of evolution was brought up in class. With the little information that I was taught about in private school and public school I was not able to form an opinion of my own until this heated topic came up in the classroom this semester. “’Will you honestly tell me (and I should be really much obliged) whether you believe that the shape of my nose was ordained and ‘guided by an intelligent cause?’’” (Appleman 601) The idea of intelligent design was thought up by Michael Behe and this theory is just one of many that I have found intriguing and actually made me want to take a side on this continuous argument in science. “The ideas of ‘creation science’ derive from the conviction that God created the universe-including humans and other living things-all at once in the relatively recent past.” (Appleman 617) The thought that everything is pre planned and organized before we, as humans, could have any affect on the outcome is just mind boggling to me. As a student that is now in college and went through high school biology and chemistry classes, I was never really taught much about the theory of evolution and how it is contemplated over constantly. No one can really claim anything yet and it always turns out to be science versus religion in this never-ending argument. I found this conversation to be the most interesting one that I have had in a classroom because there are so many varying opinions and everyone has done their research to back it up, yet there is still that constant conflict of who is right and who is wrong. I do not believe in the idea of intelligent design because I am a strong believer in the process of natural evolution.
This leads me to the article that was assigned to us previously. This article mentions, “ I think I know what’s going on. For more than a decade now, I’ve been spending a lot of time online, searching and surfing and sometimes adding to the great databases of the Internet. The Web has been a godsend to me as a writer. Research that once required days in the stacks or periodical rooms of libraries can now be done in minutes. A few Google searches, some quick clicks on hyperlinks, and I’ve got the telltale fact or pithy quote I was after”. (www.theatlantic.com) After many years of evolution, I believe that humans have become numb to the idea of researching beyond a website. Instead of someone being asked a question and researching it fully by talking to others and/or reading a piece of text, we can now type our question in via google.com and the answer will magically appear instantly in front of us. I believe that this has made humans lazy but not stupid. We are still gaining the knowledge that we learn from the internet but instead of retaining it or writing it down for later usage, we just keep it for the moment we need it and then discard of the “unnecessary information” when it is no longer needed. “The Internet, an immeasurably powerful computing system, is subsuming most of our other intellectual technologies. It’s becoming our map and our clock, our printing press and our typewriter, our calculator and our telephone, and our radio and TV.” (www.theatlantic.com)
However, this article on theatlantic.com states that “ fill with quote”.

All of these thoughts to come mind when I think of the process of evolution now because without humans being able to grow and become more knowledgeable about the world we all live in we wouldn’t have gotten as far as we have. Even though I do not believe in the ideas of intelligent design, that could change in the future because all I need is hard proof and that is what the science side of this argument has given me. Even though humans have grown in intelligence levels, I think that technology will hurt us more in the end than to help us. I doubt that it will happen any time soon but I see it happening already. Machinery has been taking over jobs in the hospital and in the factories all around the United States and of course, all around the world. A person using Google.com to help answer their questions is just the beginning of how lazy humans may possibly become. I hope that I am wrong in expecting this for future generations but with all of the reading and research that I have done, I feel that this is in the future for humans.

YouTube Video

The link above is a video that I found on YouTube.com and it shows how technology is being used i nthe classroom. It is interesting and gives a positive spin on the turnout of technology and its great uses. I chose to use this because it shows that technology is taking over hard text books in the classroom and in the world around us. The high school that I went to my freshman year was going completely digital the following year with smart boards and no more text books being brought into class. I think that this is a great eye opener for those who look down upon technology in the future but it also shows how much we, as students and as people, rely on it in the end.



Works Cited
Carr, Nicholas. “Is Google Making Us Stupid?” The Atlantic. 2007. http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200907/google

Cascio, Jamais. “Get Smarter.” The Atlantic, July/August 2009 http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200907/intelligence

Dorit, Robert. “Review of Behe” in Darwin. 3rd ed. Phillip Appleman, ed. New York: W.W.Norton, 2001.

National Academy of the Sciences. “Frequently Asked Questions about Evolution and the Nature of Science.” In Darwin. 3rd ed. Phillip Appleman, ed. New York: W.W.Norton, 2001

"YouTube - Technology In the Classroom." YouTube - Broadcast Yourself. Bennettlucky. Web. 27 Nov. 2009. .

Technological Darwinism

We are in an age in which technology is advancing at an exponential rate. We buy state-of-the-art computers only for them to be out of date within two years. In the time it takes for a two-year contract on our cell phones to end, phones have moved from being able to double as a music player to the iPhone, a multi-touch, multi-feature, superphone. This computer revolution is key to most of the convenience we take for granted in this day and age. There is no longer any need to go to the bank to take out money, we have debit and ATM cards for that. Shopping no longer needs to be done in the store since now you can do it online and have it shipped to your house in just a couple days. In the same way Darwin's theory of evolution has been twisted to create “social darwinism”, a sort of “technological darwinism” can be argued. Technological Darwinism is the idea that technology will continue to evolve to provide convenience while older technology becomes obsolete. Right now we are a very internet-dependent society. When we have a question, we no longer go to the library but to Google, Youtube or Wikipedia.

While studying Darwinism in Scientific Revolutions, I realized that the exact same thing happens with technology but at a much faster rate than the evolution of species. This rapid pace that computer technology is accelerating at is causing a split in how people see it. People are either scared or excited at this. For example, take Nicholas Carr's article in The Atlantic “Is Google Making Us Stupid?”. In his article, he discusses that the convenience that Google gives us makes us think less and therefore we are not learning like we should be. Famous author Philip K. Dick also had similar fears about the negative effects of the convenience that technology gives us. In his short story “Pay For The Printer”, Dick outlines a society in which humans have a alien race known as Biltongs duplicate things for us, eliminating the need to know how to create them ourselves. When the Biltongs no longer work, however, humans are left in a desperate state of unknowing. Dick warns that scenario is possible if we rely fully on technology to do everything for us.

Not everyone is scared of this revolution, however. Jamais Cascio writes quite the opposite in his recent article “Get Smarter” also written for The Atlantic. His article states that the computer revolution can be quite good for us. He argues that we have a great deal of information now at our disposal and the diversity of the information can be great for us and since it's not going away, the best we can do is try to “strengthen our fluid intelligence”. He believes that as technology becomes more sophisticated and complex, we will as well which I'm sure Darwin would consider a step in terms of human evolution.

The video link below shows the evolution of the cell phone and how it evolved from it's public debut in the early 1980's and what changes (mutations) in design the cell phone has gone through.

Works Cited

Carr, Nicholas. "Is Google Making Us Stupid?" The Atlantic. 2007.

Cascio, Jamais. "Get Smarter." The Atlantic, July/August 2009.

Dick, Philip K. The Philip K. Dick Reader, New York: Citadel Press. 1987

The Evolution Of Cell Phones [video] . (2008). Retrieved November 23rd 2009.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JcnXOhrmDB8