E-mail:
Password:
Aug 25, 2008 at 11:07pm
As the Atheist Blogger says, "When I die, I won't know that I'd been correct all these years."
Hehehe :D
Comments (2) | Post Comment
Aug 23, 2008 at 12:44pm
This is a really great introduction on the concept of Peak Oil- the model that says oil production must eventually decline. I highly recommend watching it!
Chris Martenson on Peak Oil
Comments (1) | Post Comment
Aug 21, 2008 at 10:51pm
According to Pat Carnahan, nobody should make the mistake of voting for a president that doesn't have any faith. Apparently, if our next president doesn't have "Christian values" we are doomed. So what exactly are Christian values?
I think that a lot of atheists would take this opportunity to brand "Christian values" as that which is found in the Bible. Once the Bible is defined as a source for values, nearly anyone can present an argument that it isn't even close to a good guide on morals. There are a lot of nice tidbits in the Bible, for sure, like "thou shalt not steal"- but there are conversely a remarkable number of horrific tidbits as well:
If thou buy an Hebrew servant, six years he shall serve: and in the seventh he shall go out free for nothing. If he came in by himself, he shall go out by himself: if he were married, then his wife shall go out with him. If his master have given him a wife, and she have born him sons or daughters; the wife and her children shall be her master's, and he shall go out by himself. And if the servant shall plainly say, I love my master, my wife, and my children; I will not go out free: Then his master shall bring him unto the judges; he shall also bring him to the door, or unto the door post; and his master shall bore his ear through with an aul; and he shall serve him for ever.
Leviticus 21:2-6
Or:
If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found; Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel's father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife; because he hath humbled her, he may not put her away all his days.
Deuteronomy 22:28-29
One could go on and on and list dozens of horrific passages from the Bible, but that is not the purpose of my entry here. What I want to show, is that arguably, any book that can be proclaimed as a book with great moral teaching should definitely not have anything close to the aforementioned passages. I think that much is clear.
I could stop here and say that the Bible reflects what "Christian values" are- but I don't think it does. Realistically, when you think of Christian values, you aren't going to think of raping women, forced labor, pillaging towns, and stoning people for working on the Sabbath. Although those things are part of the Bible, and thusly, part of the Christian religion (and perhaps on another day I'll argue that those who aren't engaging in such things aren't really Christians at all), I don't think they are part of what most people consider are "Christian values". Actually, I don't think Christian values come from the Bible at all.
Even as an atheist, when I think of Christian values, I imagine a high moral code and a high standard of ethics. Someone who is caring, kind, thoughtful, and follows the golden rule- do unto others as they would have done unto you. Surely, Christian values are to be desired.
However, I think Christianity has unabashedly taken credit for these so-called "Christian values". Rape is allowed in the traditional Christian religion- how could a good moral code come from such allowances? I don't think it can. The Ten Commandments aren't enough- four of them talk about which gods you can and can't worship and how you should worship the one true god. And one tells you not to be jealous- something that no human can avoid. The other five seem like a nice code to live by: honor your parents, do not murder, do not commit adultery, do not steal, and don't lie. Something's missing... Actually, a lot is missing.
Wouldn't you expect a world class code of ethics to say something about respecting the wishes of a woman? (Read: don't rape people.) Or perhaps it might say something about being kind to others, or to invest time in the pursuit of knowledge and to better your person so that you may help others. Or... Well you get the picture.
Are The Ten Commandments awful? No, not really. We can just do a lot better. And I do mean, a lot better.
So the next question is... If part of what makes up "Christian values" involves things like not raping people, and that isn't a clear message in the Bible, where did that value come from if not from The Ten Commandments? This question is not easy to answer, but first, the misconception that The Ten Commandments is where we get all our morals from must be broken.
In comes the Code of Hammurabi; he was an ancient Babylonian King. The set of laws it describes is extensive, and there is nothing in The Ten Commandments that cannot be found in the Code of Hammurabi. This early set of Babylonian laws is just one example of several different moral/law codes that existed before the Bible was ever conceived.
To answer the question: "Where do we get our morals?" I ask you to imagine a world where we didn't live by the set of values you envision when you think of "Christian values". What would it be like if everyone thought it okay to rape other people? Or kill people? Or steal other's property? Could the human race exist? I say absolutely not. Our moral code exists today in the fashion it does because we otherwise could not co-exist: our morals have simply been passed through the natural selection filter. People who are genetically more like to rape and kill others are (or were) at a severe selective disadvantage- whereas the people who are more likely to get along with the rest of the species, are going to have a selective advantage over those that don't.
Can it really be that simple? Maybe my answer isn't the answer- in fact, it probably isn't the entire picture. But I do know one thing; we do not get our morals from Christianity; we simply have far more sophisticated morals than that which is brutally described in the Bible. Even if one could somehow show that we did get our morals from the Bible, then we must regress back to earlier codes of law that are vastly similar- very little of Christianity is original.
I then ask- if our morals are formed separate from a 2,000 year old piece of allegorical literature, is it not possible for an atheist to have so-called "Christian values"? In fact, I would far rather our elected representatives have no faith at all; as it is an extremely strong indicator of sufficient critical thinking skills. Now that is a desirable trait in a leader. To say that someone who has no faith also does not have "Christian values" is a blatant lie, and a dangerous exercise in mendacity. It carries with it the supposition that all good morals come from Christianity, and as I have shown, that is a fallacy.
And of course, for the proverbial nail in the cofin:
The government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion.
That's from the 1797 Treaty of Tripoli, signed into law by John Adams and approved unanimously by Congress.
Comments (9) | Post Comment
Aug 21, 2008 at 12:27am
Go back to 1984- Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD) pushed to have the National Minimum Drinking Age Act passed. The meat of the act simply states that the national minimum drinking age should be 21, and any state that doesn't pass legislation corresponding to this national policy will lose 10% of its state and highway budget.
You heard that right- that means the drinking age of 21 is individually enforced by each of the 50 states because of a threat to withold funding. (The constitutionality of such a thing is questionable at best; I personally agreed with Justice O'Connor in South Dakota v. Dole.) As a consequence, drinking laws in each state vary. For instance, consumption of alcohol in Massachusetts is not prohibited at any age, whereas Vermont specifically prohibits consumption of alcohol by underage persons. In fact, in Massachusetts, parents or guardians can legally give alcohol to their underage children, and an of age spouse can legally give alcohol to an underage spouse. There are small caveats to each though, for instance, parents can't purchase alcohol for their young ones and send them off to a party- their children must drink with supervision.
Anyway, the core reasoning behind raising the drinking age from 18 to 21 was the increase in drunk driving accidents. Of course, MADD was the one pushing this logic- the supposition that people from age 18 to 21 are causing most of the drunk driving accidents. A quick visit to MADD's web site displays a nice graph that shows alcohol related deaths are down since 1982, and non-alcohol related deaths are up. That must be because of the drinking age!
Wrong. Their nice graph shows a correlation between the drinking age and alcohol related deaths. Correlations show nothing but a relationship- even an uncaused relationship. For example, murder rates go up during the summer but so do ice cream sales- would anyone really suggest the two are directly linked together? That's a correlation. Sure, my example is a bit extreme, but it shows one very important thing: a correlation is proof of nothing. One very common correlation is the price of gas compared to President Bush's term in office- but one could look at the price of gas compared to when the Democratic majority was obtained in 2006 and the price of gas now and be just as shocked. The fact is, a correlation exists, but it doesn't mean any complete cause and effect relationship can be justified by it. Correlations are a very nice way to fallaciously support a cause- it is trickery at its best. Don't get me wrong though, correlations are a great way to observe relationships between two related things, but one must be careful in deriving cause and effect relationships from correlations.
For instance, drunk driving laws have become increasingly less tolerant. Could this not also be the cause for a reduction in alcohol related deaths? Or perhaps the better education given to students at college campuses? My point is that there are a plethora of reasons why alcohol related deaths may have gone down- MADD is trying to take all the credit with the drinking age being set at 21. What MADD is doing is great though- they are raising awareness about a dangerous drug, and trying to save lives. I think that can be accomplished better if the age were reduced.
Until recently, the drinking age debate has been dominated by claims that lowering it again will increase drunk driving. It wasn't until 2004 that the just retired President of Middlebury College in Vermont, John McCardell Jr. wrote a letter to the New York Times proclaiming "the 21-year-old drinking age is bad social policy and terrible law". He lated continued to say, and I agree with him, that "this has nothing to do with drunken driving. If it did, we'd raise the driving age to 21."
John McCardell Jr. is now at the forefront of the Amethyst Initiative where 119 colleges and universities from around the United States haved signed on with the pronouncement that "21 is not working". If you're in school, check out the list to see if your president has signed on.
One must wonder- if all of these presidents of colleges and universities are coming out and dissenting from the 21 drinking age policy, then there must be something to it. Keeping the drinking age at 21 encourages irresponsible drinking; since drinking is illegal for underage persons, they will be far more apt to keep their drinking habits in hiding. Instead of drinking alcohol just being another one of those "coming of age" deals, it becomes a rebellious social vice that's nearly impossible to resist- specifically on college campuses.
In fact, the United States has one of the highest drinking age requirements in the entire world. Only a handful of countries share this with us, while the vast majority have the drinking age set at 18, or even 16. With such a low drinking age, a beer or a glass of wine is casual at the dinner table- the rebellious and illegal allure is immediately taken away at this juncture, and removes a lot of the irresponsible drinking going on at college campuses. If we are introduced to alcohol at a younger age, we have time to process the practice instead of going head-over-heels crazy as soon as we enter a college campus. This, I believe, is precisely one of the biggest reasons why there are so many alcohol related incidents going on at college and university campuses nationwide.
I for one applaud the presidents who have signed the Amethyst Initiative- they are advocating an informed and dispassionate debate. By no means does anyone want drunken driving to increase (actually, I think drunk driving laws should be far less tolerant than they are today), nor are we "throwing in the towel"- but one must look at historical precedent: the Prohibition. The Prohibition caused far more problems than it solved, and was nearly single-handedly responsible for a dramatic increase in organized crime. Quite simply, it was an unenforceable law- similar to the drinking age set today. It is a law that is evaded countless times over and over again, and detracts from a more open discussion with young people about alcohol and how to use it responsibly.
Comments (6250) | Post Comment
Aug 18, 2008 at 01:13am
According to Ken Ham at AiG, we "new atheists" are coming after your children, liberties, and faith- simply based on the supposition that the atheistic minority in the world is growing. Apparently, the reasoning behind all of this is lurking in the evils of a generation exposed to a secular education, and thus, we crazily build our thinking on reason. Lunacy I tell you, lunacy!
Oddly enough, the article goes on to claim that "evolutionary indoctrination" has created generations that doubt the Bible. Does anyone else notice the glaring misuse of the word indoctrination here? Indoctrination means to educate one to accept an idea uncritically. Not only is doubt and criticism a necessary part of science, and is in this sense paradoxically used to characterize a scientific education, but it is used as grounds to explain doubt in the Bible- as if a Bible education wasn't indoctrination! The very essence of Biblical education is to accept the Bible's record uncritically, as the word of god. Hmmmm...
Atheists "derive their own worldview from the theory of evolution."
Not only does Ham claim atheists hate some sort of non-existent anthropomorphic personification, but he claims that we derive a worldview from the Theory of Evolution. Again, we visit a trip to the dictionary: atheism says nothing about worldviews, and neither does evolution. Some atheists might have an anarchist worldview, or even a marxist worldview. Atheism is not a worldview, and neither is evolution.
With this laughable craziness, I went on to explore another aspect of the web site- its claims of creationism as an applicable theory to explain our origins. I almost didn't want to include this in my entry, mainly because it seems like overkill, but AiG actually reduces the argument to a straw-man claiming that the difference between creationism and the Theory of Evolution is the interpretation of facts. Well then, if that's the case, I should just develop my own canon to explain our origins and I should be on track to the truth that characterizes the Bible! Oh wait...
Actually, the Theory of Evolution is a body of scientific information that combats subjectivity, and fights against individual "interpretation". The point of science is to discover objective facts through questioning and experimentation. If, as Ham claims, everything is simply reduced to the point of interpretation of facts, then nothing is really true at all- or rather, everything is true. Let evidence do the talking- not us.
The only thing science advocates (if anything at all) is to doubt everything- there is no "agression" as Ham claims, but rather, a world that is on track (I hope) to becoming a place where believing in an anthropomorphic personification will be embarassing; just like believing in Zeus, Ishtar, Ra, Thor, or leprechauns, or Santa Claus, or fairies is embarassing today. I for one, look forward to that day- it isn't something to dread, but is a pinnacle that is to be reached to further human civilization, and even ensure its own existence.
Aug 17, 2008 at 06:29pm
According to a recent Zogby poll, 56% of all likely voters want Bob Barr to participate in the presidential debates this fall, and 46% want Ralph Nader to participate as well. Bob Barr is a Republican turned Libertarian, and is now the Libertarian Party nomination.
Even though Bob Barr has suspisciously turned Libertarian from Republican, what would the debates be like if he were there to show citizens that Barack Obama and John McCain are fundamentally not different at all?
Imagine Barack Obama and John McCain squabbling over semantics like welfare, and state sponsored health care- when Bob Barr presents a solution that seems unknown or unexplored to most citizens; get rid of it! Realistically, Bob Barr probably wouldn't have much airtime, but it's what he represents which is important: small government. To provide an alternative, and admittedly more sensical approach to government than both Obama and McCain, would be a refreshing experience.
Unfortunately, it seems, this will never happen unless enough pressure is put on the Commission on Presidential Debates, which seems quite possible with opinion polls putting Bob Barr at 6% of the popular vote. Either way, the CPD is a private non-profit entity and it seems quite anti-democratic when legitimate third-party candidates cannot participate in the debate. Actually, it's border-line censorship if you ask me.
There are three scheduled presidential debates- will we see two candidates bickering about how to further increase government, or will we see the modern liberal and neo-conservative ideologies exposed for their striking similarity?
Comments (6) | Post Comment
Aug 12, 2008 at 11:30pm
My vote doesn't matter. One vote can't make a difference. My state always votes for the Democratic Party's candidate. Both of the politicians are the same. I'm not interested in politics. I don't pay attention to the news. I have to work. I'm at school and can't make it home to vote. I don't know the differences between the candidates. I like to let other people decide. I'm not registered. I don't care.
What do these statements have in common? They are just some of the excuses people use not to vote. How many of them are acceptable? NONE.
This is perhaps one of the saddest truths about the citizens of the United States; many of us just don't bother to vote. Actually, only 64% of U.S. citizens voted in the 2004 Presidential Election. Granted, it was up from the Presidential Election before that; but only 64% of the entire U.S. population voted. That means 37% didn't vote.
Okay, maybe I'm being overly verbose. I'm just trying to drive home the insanely pathetic voting figures. So what should the percentage be? At least 90%. There is absolutely no question in my mind that every single citizen in this country should be voting- no matter what. (The other 10% is to account for legitimate excuses; like hopsitalization, or mental illness.)
When it all comes down to it, voting is the only power preserving our freedom (and perhaps trial by jury). If nobody votes, then we have no freedom. Public officials no longer have to answer to their constituency, and they are no longer "public" officials, but rather, individuals with unchecked power. The three branches of Government may have checks and balances, but those checks and balances rely on the most fundamental system of checks and balances: democracy. The people. The power of the people to choose representatives to act on their behalf. Without this very crucial and key point, we no longer have a democracy; but rather, some other variant like an authoritarian state (we're heading in that direction any way though).
When it comes down to it, people who choose not to vote are relying on other people to preserve their freedom. That is precisely what it translates to. The illusion that a single vote doesn't make a difference is enforced with hindsight- a quick glance at the number of votes shows that a single vote is a nearly infinitely small percantage of the total electorate. In this narrow view, a single vote doesn't make a difference. The key point here is that if everyone thought this way, then there are no votes! What does this mean? It means that the people who think a single vote doesn't make a difference pass the responsibility of preserving their own freedom to other people who do vote. Freedom is not free.
Voting is a cherished right and a required responsibility; it is part of what it means to be a citizen of the United States, and even more than that, part of what it means to be a part of a well-functioning republic. After all, as Patrick Henry said:
The Constitution is not an instrument for the Government to restrain the people. It is an instrument for the people to restrain the Government.
With the mentality that some people have, in that they don't carry a responsibility to vote, the Constitution as an instrument can no longer be used. It is a flute with no musician. A drum with no drum sticks. A clarinet with no reed. A body of people with no power.
Comments (13) | Post Comment
Aug 12, 2008 at 07:06pm
Just wanted to drop a note to let you know that I've added the Atheist Blogroll, which contains more than 750 active blogs written by atheists or agnostics. Tons of great reading!
The 25 most recently updated blogs are posted on the sidebar to the right.
I've also added a "Settings" link in the top navigation bar- you can now change your account settings. As well as subscribe to email alerts whenever a new entry is added.
Comments (2709) | Post Comment
Aug 10, 2008 at 03:46pm
The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.
The Sixteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution allowed Congress to impose a tax on income. From my perspective, an income tax is similar to the Government owning a piece of you. We all survive by the whims of our income- it is our lifeline, our source of food, shelter, and water. An income is what you get in a trade where you offer your time and services. Your income is but a temporary unit that you hold in exchange for your own survival.
To tax that is to tax your person. It is a recognition by the Government that they own a piece of you.
Federal income taxes were first instituted during the Civil War; during which, and understandably so, our nation spiraled into debt. Other various income taxes were laid thereafter, until Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co. ruled such taxes unconstitutional. It was then that language and support began for the passage of the Sixteenth Amendment, which was ratified in 1913. What a big year!
This is an extremely large issue, it involves a distinction between direct and indirect taxes, apportionment, and even an argument that says the Sixteenth Amendment was never ratified. However, I'm going to skip most of that- I am focusing distinctly on an income tax. A tax of your person.
I feel obliged to say that I am not against tax; actually, I am of the strong opinion that government cannot operate without tax. It is a necessary resource from the people by the people. Taxes must be collected so that a government can operate and protect the people and their respective rights, as well as enforce the law.
In 2002, the citizens of Massachusetts got a referendum to end the State Income Tax on the ballot- it failed with 45.3% of the vote. This year, on the November 4, 2008 ballot, there will be another referendum of the same nature, supported by the Committee for Small Government.
The Small Government Act to End Income Tax will completely abolish the 5.3% flat rate income tax in the state of Massachusetts by 2010 if it passes. This will effectively reduce the State budget levels by 39% (or $11 billion), and working people will retain, on average, $3,600 a year of their wages. In other words? Our state budget will return to the level it was at all the way back in... Are you ready? 1995.
I've already discussed the matter with a plethora of people, and most agree with the principle of the resolution, but fear that the State will make up for losses in budget in other places (such as taxes on real estate, or higher sales tax). This is a complete fallacy; the amount of taxing the state would have to do to make up for this kind of loss in their budget would be monumentous. Thusly, it would be under the complete scrutiny of the public; making them far more difficult to pass.
A vote to end the Massachusetts State Income Tax isn't only about saving money; it's about sending a message that Big Government is bloated, creates more problems than it solves, and lends to irresponsible spending practices. If you're a Massachusetts citizen, Vote YES on Question 1 on November 4, 2008!
Comments (3) | Post Comment
Aug 6, 2008 at 10:28pm
An interesting video, that I find highlights some of the "finer" points of religion:
Interestingly enough, the preacher isn't too far from the truth- Muhammad was indeed a pedophile. He married Aisha- a young muslim girl no older than seven. The marriage was then consummated when she turned nine.
Sadly enough, the quote near the end of the video, "I won't kill people for talking about what I believe in. I'll just disagree with them," is not as widespread as one would like. Christianity and Judaism have had the added benefit of being "modernized"- they are not without their acts of atrocities in the name of Jesus and Yahweh. Of course, proselytizing your religion on the corner of the street isn't much better. (It seems like this video is completely anti-Islam; I'm trying to extend it to show that it's really anti-religion.)
The very last quote of the video; however, seems to suggest that Christianity and Judaism are innocent of these sort of acts: "When is the last time you saw a suicide belt on a Jew, Christian, or an Atheist?" Clearly they haven't heard of Joseph Kony, who wants to establish a theocracy based on the Ten Commandments in Uganda, or the Jewish Defense League. Obviously, the presence of Islamic Terrorism is more rampant- but there still exist terrorist organizations and other violent conflicts involving Christianity and Judaism.
Post Comment
Aug 1, 2008 at 11:56pm
I just finished reading The Blind Watchmaker, and it is an excellent layman's overview about the intricacies of the Theory of Evolution. This reading actually followed a reading of The Origins of Life: From the Birth of Life to the Origin of Language, which described, in far greater detail, major transitional points in evolution's history. In retrospect, I should have read The Blind Watchmaker first, as it would have set a context with which to better understand The Origins of Life.
This is the second book by Richard Dawkins, an evolutionary biologist, that I have read (the first of course being The God Delusion), and he is a fantastic writer, with a great command of the English language, and a natural knack for breaking down complex ideas.
Before reading The Blind Watchmaker, I would have considered myself to have a general understanding of the Theory of Evolution- probably better than most. More recently though, certain questions had been forming in my mind, and I left it up to trust that evolution explained them; questions such as how exactly a new species formed from an existing species (this is called speciation), and what kind of mechanisms were at work when a "mutation" occurred. As it turned out, these weren't so much questions, but rather, road blocks on my part of some concepts behind the Theory of Evolution. I found it hard to visualize, over a long period of time, how exactly a new species was formed; did two similar species cross-breed, and out-popped a new species? Or did one single mutation constitute a new species? And if so, how did this new species pass on its genes to a next generation if there was only one of them? (These ideas of mine have been perpetuated by the attitude exemplified by the irrelevant question, "What came first; the chicken or the egg?")
It turns out, on this particular point, I was approaching the solution in the wrong way. What really happens, for example, take Species A. As time goes on, there are bound to be migrations by certain groups of this species, or perhaps, geological events separate Species A into two separate groups (don't forget, we're talking on the time scale of millions of years). Incidentally, the two groups that form, from say, a geological event (like a newly formed river), completely separate themselves from a mutal environment. Thus, one might say, they have two different environments, and are thus exposed to two different filters of natural selection. Slowly but surely, one group of Species A slowly changes into a new species, uncreatively called Species B. It isn't so much a sharp change, like my aformentioned questions indicated, but rather, single beneficial mutations (determined by the environment) are passed through this divergent population.
As Dawkins put it, you can look at speciation from Species A to Species B as a continuum. It's difficult to recognize any single point as a definitive indicator of a new species, so classification is concentrated on the end result (clearly, there are large enough differences between say, a lion and a tiger to constitute the existence of two different species). To continue with Dawkins' comparison, when enough time passes by, Species A and Species B may meet again- but they cannot breed (perhaps a liger or a mule are adequate comparisons for why there can be no successful breeding), and thus, we have two distinct species.
After reading this book, I feel myself able to nearly make the generalization (generalizations are good for certain things, like determining a cultural outlook- but they only indicate trends, not a rule) that anyone who rejects Darwin's Theory of Evolution, or favors another theory, simply has not invested the time to understand exactly what evolution is all about.
Most rejections of Darwinism (synonymous with the Theoy of Evolution), are based on arguments from personal incredulity. Popular examples include assuming that their own dignity has been insulted at the suggestion that we descend from lowly primates, or incomprehension of how we can go from single-cell organisms all the way to the unimaginable complexity that is human life.
The key then, is to ask- can you imagine a single-cell organism changing slightly for the better? Can you then imagine this new creature changing slightly again, for the better? The second part of this thought exercise is that, given enough time, could it not be feasible for such a thing to continually change, for the better, all the way into what we see in life around us today? The problem behind understanding this, is really, all about the time scale. The amount of time it takes for evolution to work its course, to result with something like us, is incomprehensible to us (ironically enough, this is the fault of natural selection- we have no intrinsic need to comprehend time scales that big, but rather, we understand time scales in the range of a few decades perfectly well).
The second problem a lot of people seem to have with Darwinism is its suggested "randomness". In fact, there is really nothing random at all about Darwinism. During reproduction, there is a given chance, that the copying of DNA will malfunction. This isn't some sort of magical phenomenon, but is a real tangible event (an example of a cause of a mutation is interference from electromagnetic waves, like x-rays or ultra violet radiation). These are random in a sense that we don't know exactly how they will change, but non-random in a sense that they invariably will happen. In fact, most mutations are harmful to life, and thus, organisms with such mutations will inevitably die (or die more quickly).
When I speak of mutations, I don't mean the sort of mutations that make us grow four arms instead of two arms and two legs, but rather, far more subtle mutations, that on its surface, are probably too insignifcant to notice on their own accord. One example of such a mutation, perhaps, would be the evolutionary step in which primates developed the ability to see the color red. This particular mutation, had it not been helpful, would have invariably died out. Interestingly enough, the types of leaves that are most beneficial to such primates are colored red- the color is an indicator of a young leaf that is far more nourishing than an alternatively older leaf.
The real problem here, is not any number of supposed holes in the Theory of Evolution, but the consistent rejection of the theory on no grounds based on sound reason. Even great minds such as Ron Paul have rejected Darwinism on the grounds that it is "just a theory". Interestingly, gravity is also a "theory". Unfortunately for the word "theory" it is used in two different contexts, one of which is essentially degradational to the other.
In casual conversation, I may use the word "theory" to describe an idea I conjured the night before. In the scientific world, and in the sense that it is used to describe both evolution and gravity, its definition is more along the lines of "an accepted body of knowledge". Usually, a theory gains ground by its ability to make predictions (like evolution has- for instance, what we should expect to find in the fossil record, and of course, gravity- we don't see objects randomly moving about space). Theories, in scientific terminology, are constructed in order to explain, predict and master phenomena and make generalizations about observations and consists of an interrelated, coherent set of ideas and models. A theory, in scentific terminology, is not something to "accept" or "deny" or "believe in" on your own personal accord (unless you can provide ample evidence against it), but rather, it is quite simply, something to believe.
In order to debunk prognosticated complaints that evolution somehow commads bias, like for example, an ideology does, Darwin exclaimed himself:
If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.
As of yet, no example has been found. Imagine that. If one single counter-example could be shown, the entire theory, which has been on solid turf for well over a century, would completely and utterly break down. That's science.
On a brief digressionary, I must note that Darwinism, as it relates to anything other than the evolution and adaptive complexity of species, is an entirely different subject (for instance, social darwinism). It has no real relevance to the Theory of Evolution, other than an extremely convenient metaphor.
I would say that if you find yourself thinking that life is too complex to have evolved on its own, and some intelligent designer either has to start it, or assist it; then I would implore you to read The Blind Watchmaker. Dawkins can convey the ideas of Darwin infinitely more elegant than I am able.
The theory is so elegant, and so simple- but yet, so incredibly powerful. Humility is inevitable when contemplating its simultaenous gradeur and brilliance; and yet, stupefying, upon the realization that we are here, as a result of a process that started nearly 3.8 billion years ago.
« Newer
Older »
