Another day, another article on whether religion and evolution can coexist. I have never really understood the position of religious scientists who claim that there is no conflict and it is perfectly possible to accept both the theory of evolution and the existence of a supernatural. If you really understand the concept of evolution there can't be any place for an external force who either directed the process or interfered with the process as it went along. Evolution moves forward by the process of random mutation and mixing of genes through reproduction in conjunction with natural selection. How can you believe in this process, but also believe that man was created in god's image so that there was always some directionality to the evolution of humans and a known endpoint? Did god somehow tweak the environment in such a way that there was only one way that evolution could go? Or did he directly interfere with the process? If he was constantly adjusting, why did he stop about 150,000 years ago and then only start to interact with humans 6,000 years ago? It makes less sense the more I think about it!
I've dabbled a bit in genetic algorithms and Artificial Life, so I can sympathise with his job!
Saturday, 13 December 2008
Monday, 8 December 2008
Another facepalm moment
It's a pity that intelligence and education isn't a barrier to reproduction. I think some people are definitely holding this evolution business back...
Religious 'shun nanotechnology'
Are they really that concerned about the
Maybe they are worried about the competition and that some creatures will be worshipping the Great Creator Craig Venter in a few million years.
Religious 'shun nanotechnology'
Are they really that concerned about the
potential to create life at a nano scale without divine intervention
Maybe they are worried about the competition and that some creatures will be worshipping the Great Creator Craig Venter in a few million years.
Sunday, 7 December 2008
Morality
I get really fed up with religious people telling us that the reasons for the ills in today's society are due to our rejection of religion. See today's moan by Cardinal Cormac Murphy O'Connor for example.
The UK is certainly less religious than it used to be, say 50 years ago, and our society is probably worse now than it was then. The problems in the US are a lot worse when you look at measures such as murder, teen pregnancies and drug addiction. Is the US less religious than it used to be? I don't know.
It's interesting that there are studies like those of Gregory Paul that show there is a correlation between sociological problems and religiousness and there is also the work of Phil Zuckerman who has shown that the most stable, balanced, safe, societies are the most secular, non-religious ones such as the Scandinavian countries.
Here's my take on this issue. Societies that have historically had their morality imposed on them from religious authorities have never been forced to think for themselves. It's the equivalent of a parent telling a child to do something 'because I say so'. Once that religious authority loses its influence, then there could well be a loss of moral direction, in the same way as a child might misbehave once a parent loses control.
In a society where morality isn't imposed and could be said to be somewhat subjective, you have to consider for yourself what the consequences of your actions are and take full responsibility for your actions. This internally generated morality will always stay with you.
The UK is certainly less religious than it used to be, say 50 years ago, and our society is probably worse now than it was then. The problems in the US are a lot worse when you look at measures such as murder, teen pregnancies and drug addiction. Is the US less religious than it used to be? I don't know.
It's interesting that there are studies like those of Gregory Paul that show there is a correlation between sociological problems and religiousness and there is also the work of Phil Zuckerman who has shown that the most stable, balanced, safe, societies are the most secular, non-religious ones such as the Scandinavian countries.
Here's my take on this issue. Societies that have historically had their morality imposed on them from religious authorities have never been forced to think for themselves. It's the equivalent of a parent telling a child to do something 'because I say so'. Once that religious authority loses its influence, then there could well be a loss of moral direction, in the same way as a child might misbehave once a parent loses control.
In a society where morality isn't imposed and could be said to be somewhat subjective, you have to consider for yourself what the consequences of your actions are and take full responsibility for your actions. This internally generated morality will always stay with you.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)