Snowfall wasn't much in Rock Springs per se, but up on White Mountain and the surrounding higher areas, a good dusting was to be had. Guess I'm kind of looking forward to winter as the summer and fall have just been exhausting work-wise.
Doing 50-hour field season work weeks has finally taken it's toll on my soon to be 37 year old body (yep, can't believe it, October 14th and I move to within 3 years of the big 4-0 milestone).
The past weekend was nice though, and relaxing. Got some much needed organizing of mountains of paperwork that piled up over the summer. Fun fun! Also made it to the gym after many months of procrastination. Chihiro and I are vowing to do some weight training together at least once a week for the foreseeable future. Wish us luck!
Dad made it through his second round of chemo and seems to be holding up pretty well. His voice even sounds better. Thinking of you, Dad, and wishing you a speedy recovery.
On another note...
Mom and Dad this past week both told me about a debate that was to happen on Thursday, the 4th, with Richard Dawkins and John Lennox, both professors at Oxford University in England.
They were going to be discussing the existence of God, the lack thereof, and Dawkins' new book, The God Delusion. I was somewhat intrigued like a person driving by a highway accident feeling the need to rubberneck. So, I whipped my neck around and downloaded the first segment of the debate from Richard Dawkins' website, which by the way, even with broadband, 10 megabits per second download capacity, took FOREVER.
Got through about 30 seconds and promptly hit the stop button on my Quicktime player.
Don't get me wrong, I love Richard Dawkins and his books have enlightened millions on the theory of evolution and science in general. I even liked his The God Delusion book for the most part. But why he feels like he has to debate other Christians on stage and defend his beliefs is beyond me. And why he has to use the same tired verbage as the intelligent design camp does such as "Darwinism" is even further beyond me. I think the "theory of evolution" should do just fine, and gets rid of the "..ism" which sounds so much less like a scientific theory than the "Origin of Species" author I think would have liked. It's a subtle, but I think, necessary distinction.
I can't take credit for the above thought though. I heard it espoused by Dr. Eugenie Scott who spoke on the Skeptics Guide to the Universe's 42nd episode on May 10th, 2006. Check it out, wonderful podcast!
Anyway, the reason I turned off the debate so quickly was that Dawkins started explaining how he came to "Darwinism" and that "Darwinism" helped him come to grips with how life got here on the planet Earth. Now, again, I really appreciate everything Dawkins has done to bring to light how science is such a wonderful explanatory tool for all of us. What I can't so readily appreciate is the insinuation that evolution can in any way explain how life got here in the first place. I think alot of people miss that subtle, yet again, very necessary distinction.
I interpret Darwin's theory as one that explains how things got to be how they are today through incremental changes in organisms over many millions of years through a process of natural selection. The theory never has attempted to explain how the material of life (i.e. the DNA/RNA) got here in the first place. That question is still open for debate, and yes, if one so chooses, can easily be explained by the supernatural (see Book of Genesis in the Christian Bible and Jewish Torah, as well as countless other sacred texts from other religions that portray a metaphysical creation story).
Which brings me to my next thought. Science and religion, as I see it, really do not need to be at odds with one another. The unnecessary animosity generated between religion and science debates today can, I think, go away in an instant with a few nods to some basic facts about the two camps.
I am referring mainly to the ever present evolution versus creationism/intelligent design debate.
Here are a few more thoughts on what I have managed to surmise from discussions, blogs, articles, forums, books, and the like on the subject:
1. As I see it, science is not in the business of explaining supernatural phenomena such as the existence of God or whether or not he/she/it created the world. Those questions are best reserved for religion and philosophy circles to answer. Science aims to explain natural phenomena. If someone wants to believe in the supernatural and still remain a scientist that is completely and utterly open to that person. Anything that science cannot address is fully open to interpretation as supernatural, or not. I fall in the latter camp of the "or nots" and am perfectly happy with this state of unknowingness that comes with basing your worldviews on the latest scientific evidence and prevailing scientific theories. Others are not so comfortable, and need to have definite answers to all of life's nagging questions coming from a sacred text stating that their God is the best and the brightest. That is perfectly OK too. We live in a free country under a constitution that grants one the right to practice their religion without fear of reprisal or harm.
2. Following on 1. and as stated above, the theory of evolution does not attempt to explain how life began. Noone has a firm grasp of that at the current time. Will science in the future? Maybe. Maybe not. The theory of evolution, as explained in Charles Darwin's "Origin of Species" (which, by the way, if anyone is interested, is available as a free audio book download from LibriVox. By clicking HERE you can download the entire tome and listen to it at your leisure on your computer or MP3 player) attempts to take life from the point at which it began and explain the complexity of life with which we see around us today.
As far as I can see, conflict with anyone's religious beliefs regarding the theory of evolution is self-inflicted. The concept of "God" is fully capable of jumping into the story at the beginning and creating the necessary tools for evolution to work.
Any account in the book of Genesis of the Christian Bible or Jewish Torah regarding creation should be able to square with the theory of evolution and the current science of the day. Many of these sacred texts have numerous interpretations, and as such there is sure to be one that works for those interested in holding true to science and religion at the same time.
On another somewhat related note, I love reading about science and the history of science.
My friend Steve gave me his copy of Bill Bryson's A Short History of Nearly Everything back in July and I absolutely love it! Bryson's way of describing huge numbers, big concepts, and the vast and important history of how we know what we know gives one reason to pause, as well as chuckle. Steve, if you're out there reading this, hope to finish it this week and get it back to you. Thanks again for a great read!
I'm also reading about the intersection of science and religion via two magazines, Skeptic and Free Inquiry. Both have excellent contributions from the leading scientists and secular humanists of the day. And as an aside, the Free Inquiry magazine also hosts an excellent weekly podcast called Point of Inquiry. If you are in any way interested in these issues as I am, would love to hear your comments on these various alternative media outlets.
Thanks for checking in and I hope to hear from you out here in the blogosphere, a great place to be!
Drew
7 comments:
if you believe in primordial soup then everything springs from evolution
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller-Urey_experiment
So, is there a God or not? Dammit, Drew, I don't need babbling philosophical musings! I need answers!
And if there is a God, please tell me he is a white elderly grandfather type with a long, flowing white beard. If he's not, I shall have to become a nihilist. Either that or a Presbyterian, and I don't know which is worse.
Thanks, Moi, for your comment on the blog and for sending that link.
I was aware of the Miller experiment, but I have to say that even given the existence of proteins coming from this laboratory electrified "primordial soup", we still haven't shown scientifically how life began here on the planet. We still need to show the genesis of nucleotides and their subsequent coagulation into double helixes as well as their assembling into protocellular structures. I still maintain that this fundamental origin of life question remains open to science for an explanation. Hence, those who ascribe supernatural reasons for the existence of life on the planet still have this option open to them. At least at the current time they do. Tomorrow, may be a different story. I personally think that one day abiogenesis will prove true. The mechanism is probably stranger than I can ever suppose. Again, thanks so much for your comment and hope you will continue to comment on my posts.
If there is a God, and I can't say for sure there isn't, hence the agnostic part of me, I hope he/she/it is white and nerdy like Weird Al. If only all deities could put together a hilarious 3 minute bit like that guy! Oh well, will keep on dreaming. My personal opinion is the flowing white beard prototype is so last millenium. What happened to just staying misanthropic? Forget nihilistic Presbyterianism. Misanthropy is where it's at!
All the big words make my brain hurt.
ok i'll bite.
here is the thing... people always talk about darwin... but wait - there's way more to evolution than darwin. Darwin recognized that multiple species - IE the finches on the galapagos - probably evolved from a common ancestor - and PS he did so with another scientist jointly. BUT he had no idea HOW. others like mendel brought the actual MECHANISMS to light that result in evolution - aka the passing down of ALELLES. This understanding coupled with detailed phylogenetic studies, technology such as PCR for DNA analysis, etc ALL play into understanding these mechanisms. IF you consider this, there's no room for creationism UNLESS you are ONLY considering the very first organism(s) that ever existed on this earth / in this universe. Why? because these mechanisms are denied by most (not all) creationists.
for instance - many creationists accept microevolution - that maybe a species can change and adapt over time but it's still the same species but deny the possibility of macroevolution - that buildup and drift in alelles over time can result in reproductive barriers resulting in speciation... there are some creationists who believe the earth IS really thousands and thousands of years old...and some who still believe it's a mere baby (the earth). ... bla bla bla.
in short it seems like true intelligent design advocates argue that things are so complex (to grossly simplify) that there MUST be some sort of design intent behind them. "ie the hand of god" While the theory of evolution suggests that things became increasingly complex over time - many many many thousands or years, via processes of speciation.
i think that this argument becomes simplified when there's really a lot more there. and that both sides need to get their stories straight :)
and as for how did life first get here... whoever said that everything needs to have a beginning and an end? maybe it's just beyond our comprehension right now but it's always been around in some way shape or form - and NO i'm not saying some work of divine creation, i'm saying that time, beginning and ends of completely human constructs that allow us to make sense of things that might otherwise, not be comprehendable give our current level of understanding and technology. Maybe the story of life on earth is like one really really long polymer... just keeps going and going.. and going.
ok let's see who i pissed of.
the end. :)
Thanks for biting,Chaya De Cacao!
That's got to be one of the most succinct posts on the theory of evolution I've seen. Wish I'd composed that one or something like that one first, and saved space on the blog ;) Appreciate the comments and would like to address them more when I get a chance this evening. Thanks again!
Post a Comment