Monday, February 18, 2008

War vs Natural Selection

This is one on religion. There are no arguments against the existence of any sort of god or gods in here, just statements of fact on the nature of religion and science. To any friend who would get pissed off at reality and by extension at me, don't read on.

I think it could be argued that the only people who do not believe in evolution are those who don't actually understand it, often because they do not bother to. Creationists who try to sway minds by sprouting out rubbish such as 'the eye could not possibly have evolved by chance' (or the wing, or the...whatever) should stop coming up with crap and pick up a proper book on the subject instead. It takes great minds entire books to explain evolution, and they think they can argue against it after only reading a short summary paragraph written by someone else who doesn't understand it? Anyway, evolution by natural selection is the exact opposite of chance. Random mutation leads to unrandom selection, keeping in mind that 'unrandom' does not automatically mean 'concious'. Without any evidence for their own beliefs, and without any evidence against that of evolution, creationists tend to go for one last pathetic 'argument' against science and evolution, something along the lines of 'even scientists don't agree with each other, so how can it be true?'





There is religion, and there is science. One is based on rational thought, and one is not. I probably don't have to spell out which is which. But the fact of the matter is that yes, there is dissension in the ranks of scientists. There is disagreement over specific details (not over the theories at large, but over the little details that the general public wouldn't understand without research anyway), and creationists often try to blow this out of proportion. While they do this, they seem to completely ignore the fact that, while there is disagreement within science, there is far more disagreement within religion. Both between religions, and within them, and there's not a single scrap of evidence for any one religion, or any one interpretation of a specific religion, to be considered superior. Even so, a scientist would NEVER claim that the lack of proof for God's (or Zeus's, or Ganesh's) existence automatically translates into proof FOR evolution, but this is EXACTLY what the creationist argument turns out to be. They not only postulate that disagreements between scientists over the finer details of evolution are equal to a denial of evolution itself, but they seem to think that this would also be an argument FOR creationism.

Scientist A: Hmmm, I think the human ancestors lost their hair because it made them more prone to overheating.
Scientist B: No, no, no, I think it was to do with sexual selection.
Creationist: Ah HA!!! A difference of opinion! I knew it! Well, I would have intrepeted whatever you said to fit in with my beliefs anyway, but now I don't have to because you don't agree!!! Evolution is FALSE!!! GOD EXISTS!!!

Anyway...


Yes, it could easily be said that there is a war going on between Science and Religion, but only metaphorically. However, it can be said LITERALLY that there is war WITHIN religions. It could and has been easily argued that there is still war amongst religions in modern times, but no matter what your viewpoint, there have unarguably been wars amongst religions in the past. One of the key contributing factors towards the religions that dominate today is that those who won the religious wars in the past were victorious. If they hadn't been, there would almost definately be a different set of religions dominating today, which is a sobering thought as advocates have always declared the truth of their own religion above all others, without even the slightest bit of superiour evidence. It is one specific-religion-that-has-no-evidence-for-it against another specific-religion-that-has-no-evidence-for-it against another, and another, and another, the wars being both metaphorical and actual in different times and places. You'd think that those who argue that science is weaker because scientists have differing opinions would remember this, but that is apparently too much to ask. Not only do they ignore the hypocritical nature of their argument, but they seem to be blind to the fact that it doesn't even apply to science in the first place!





There is disagreement amongst scientists, but that is the very nature of science. If there was no disagreement, then everything would just be taken on faith, the beliefs that scientists brought are brought up with being the only thing that they will believe at all, but then they would no longer be scientists practising science, they would just be members of another religion, and other people with better minds would just carry on with science but call it something else. If all scientists agreed with everything just like that, there would be no improvement to our understanding of the universe at all, and it is understanding that has given us the light bulb, medicine...everything modern that is designed by humans that we take for granted, basically. And the fact is that, although there is disagreement amongst scientists, unlike religion is is NOT analogous to war, but is far closer to a form of Natural Selection. Science may have discovered Natural Selection, but Natural Selection was working on science long before its own discovery.





Basically, natural selection (I think it's meant to have capitals, but whatever, fingers getting tired of reaching for the key!) works on all organisms of all species, plant, animal, bacteria, whatever, by killing off anything that doesn't have what it takes to survive in the world before it can reproduce and pass on its genes, or at least last long enough reproduce as many times as the stronger rivals in its species. Basically, those genes that tend to make stronger animals survive, and those that don't tend to perish due to the altercations of the gene pool. The strong live. The weak die. This is the process that got us here. This will have told you absolutely nothing about evolution unless you already understand it, because there is far more to it than that and it is all remarkable and beautiful stuff, but that is the basic premise. Now, to apply it to science. There are a great deal of scientific hypothesis and theories at any one time, and as I have already shown, this is far from a weakness of science, and it far from makes it a great self-contradictory jumble (as you find in any holy book you could mention). It isn't a bad thing, because all of these theories don't last! Scientists continue to study the world, and it is only those theories that best fit the evidence, and survive the falsification tests that are inflicted upon them, that survive. The Natural Selection of Science combs out the theories that are too 'weak' to survive, and only the 'strong', the best, the ones that explain the most and can lead to the most further discovery survive. In some cases, there are wars amongst scientists (well, at least in the sense that there is argument and bitterness between opposing colleagues, but there is little or no death and destruction as a result, a scientific war is just an immature, bitchy contest between two scientists, there's nothing like the destruction or body count that takes place in a religious war), but these are arguments between men, not between knowledge and theories. The men may fight, but the theories themselves will have to be tested for their WORTH, unlike...you know.



In conclusion, I still beleive that of the three sibling religions that were each derived and made up from each other; judaism, christianity and islam, christianity is probably the most moral and worthy. Despite other problems that the others share, christianity at least doesn't enforce circumcision upon infants (which is far worse for the girls in the thankfully few muslim societies that practice it). Also, christianity tends to treat women with the respect they deserve, even if the bible doesn't. Fortunately, the concept that God went through all animals in existence as possible companions for Adam before finally SETTLING for woman, (apparently because they're the lowliest?!) is one that christianity has largely left behind in modern times. anyway, this is for you, maynard! na na na na, na na na na, hey hey hey, goodbye! na na na na, na na na na, hey hey hey, goodbye!

3 comments:

cmaynard said...

O'really! Once again a nice summary and I tend to agree with you. Nice parallel between NS and science in general. It is true and works well enough on a non-specific level. No arguements from me, my dear friend. Keep up the posts.
All we need now are some bible bashers to read your post and make some foolish comment so we can abuse them! Mwhahahaha!

sez said...

Well, I read it, sort of. I'm not going to comment though. Mostly because I didn't actually read it all.

Oh please, abuse away.
Dumb Christians, they can't even read writing.

michael said...

why would i abuse you for that? you simply followed my request for any friend who would get pissed off by it to not read it. a little too late though, i think. i didn't insult anyone but creationists, and being that you believe in evolution (which you have told me), you are not one of them.