Jump to content

Evolution: A Gobal Challenge


Recommended Posts

I love optimistic scientists, and that title certainly fits this son of the famous Leaky family.

http://www.msnbc.msn...cience-science/

I have my hopes that he will turn out to be right, we need something that everyone can agree on. But evolution is the current red flag in Christian culture, and probably other religions that depend upon a "Holy Book" to do their thinking. I guess it takes an athiest to have a complex thought.

The truths in evolution have no place in a body of thought established by religious men who were quite ignorant of the world around them. The same holds true in our modern age where these latter day religious folk embrace that ancient ignorance and hold it forth as gospel (love those religious metaphors).

We are going to have to see a rise in secular thought, and perhaps the establishment of athiest doctorine in our educational systems for this kind of science to take hold. Of course Professor Leaky hints that if we ignore these evolutionary truths that we may not learn the lessons soon enough to save ourselves. Only up side to that is we can hope the next batch of creatures to populate planet Earth won't have to start off reading religious fables and may just stumble on the truth.

Link to comment

I respect Dr. Richard Leakey for his moderateness in accepting that people have many disparate views on religion and faith. Whatever we think of various religions or the lack of religion, these systems do provide comfort and structure and guidelines for those who believe in them. Religious faith does not preclude being scientifically minded or believing the theory of evolution. Evolution is not a perfect theory, but it's the one that best fits what we know. Rather than attack religions, why not rest on the strength of the scientific method and let the data and the theories speak for themselves?

The real key is not so much the ability to use science, as it is the ability to rise above our differences, including differences in beliefs and opinions, in order to work together. If our species cannot overcome its destructive urges, either of other life and other things or of itself, then we won't make it. Our species has to survive long enough that enough of its people evolve better ways to avoid indiscriminate mass destructive tendencies. If we don't, then some other lifeform will take our place someday.

Climate change, ecological change, and evolutionary change are unavoidable. But our species has the ability to use technology to adapt to what is in the environment, and to adapt a shelter from the environment to create our own environments. The key there seems to be to learn how to work in harmony with the larger global system, instead of against it or outside of it. -- The one thing I miss most, being so far inside the city, is the presence of nature, green, growing, living things and animals. It is arrogant of us to assume that we can build massive enclosed structures that are impervious to, and beyond or outside of, the global environment. Even an enclosed system has to interact, to exchange with the global system. Even a space station or space vehicle needs to import goods, at least initially and again at intervals, with a livable planet.

I think our species is capable of adapting, we just don't see how the overall climate may shape us. People get hung up on whether our species will go extinct. It's likely that some portion will survive, even if there is a massive climate change or axis shift, or massive environmental impact or bio-/chem disaster or even conventional or nuclear war. Some portion of our species would likely survive and adapt to whatever happens to the world. The planet becomes hotter? It was likely hotter in ancient (prehistoric and early historic) times, and much hotter during the age of the dinosaurs. Humans survive in the deserts, forests, and jungles, and have for thousands or millions of years with almost no technology. Likewise in arctic and polar conditions like the last ice age. Changes to deal with heat or cold would happen.

I respect also Dr. Richard Leakey's optimism in saying we can make it if we want to and if we work at it, if we overcome our shortcomings. I respect too that he's warning us that evolutionary changes and extinctions both are commonplace, and therefore, we have to learn to adapt.

There are times I grow impatient or disillusioned, and become cynical, pessimistic, and misanthropic about humankind. It seems we can be so mean and hateful and hurtful to our fellow human beings, whether they are right here with us or next door or in some other country. We can do such short-sighted things that harm the other creatures we share this planet with, and hurt our environment and the planet itself. Yet the forces of nature are so powerful and inexorable that our entire species is prone to whatever nature dishes out.

I have lived through weeks, nearly two months, of what it is like when the force of nature slams into the fourth largest city on the planet in one of the most technologically advanced and wealthiest nations on the planet. The result was simple: An entire region of the state, not just that city, was thrown from the 21st century straight back into the 19th century overnight, and stayed that way for nearly two months. People didn't revert to savagery or chaos for the most part, but there was the presence of police and military, to keep that from happening. It gives you a new appreciation for the rights of citizens to bear arms, too. -- If you're wondering what I'm talking about, it was Hurricane Ike, a very, very real thing. -- Something as simple (or complex) and as powerful as a major hurricane and tornadoes, took out a large swath of one of the most advanced areas of our planet, for months. We've seen that happen with the tsunami that struck Japan too.

The message is simple: human beings are not nearly as powerful as we think. We are vulnerable to our own messes and we are supremely vulnerable to the global environment and to evolution. The message is even simpler: Adapt or perish.

Link to comment

I have my hopes that he will turn out to be right, we need something that everyone can agree on. But evolution is the current red flag in Christian culture, and probably other religions that depend upon a "Holy Book" to do their thinking. I guess it takes an athiest to have a complex thought.

I hope you realise how offensive this paragraph can be. There are many Christian cultures where evolution is not a red flag - Australia, UK, and New Zealand, to name just a few. There are also many Christians capable of complex thought - Albert Einstein being an excellent example. I'd like to personally think I'm also capable of complex thought, though some may disagree :icon1:

I think you are using a circular definition - it's the Christian groups that don't think for themselves (a subset of all Christian groups, and, in my opinion, a minor subset) that have trouble with evolution. Being more blunt, it seems to be largely an American trait - I can't think of any significant Christian group outside of the USA where this is a problem (though I'll concede that some African Christian groups may also be in that group).

Link to comment

Part of the problem, it seems to me, is that Evolution means two different things.

Type 1 evolution is the development within a genus over time of new characteristics or enhanced characteristics. An animal whose survival depends on being able to run fast is likely to evolve powerful legs simply because the most likely members of each generation to survive long enough to reproduce are the ones that can run fastest - and they pass their genetic makeup to their offspring. There is plentiful evidence of this in the fossil record and elsewhere - the cold virus is forever evolving, which is why even after building up antibodies to last year's cold, you can still catch this year's.

Type 2 evolution is the origin of species, the arrival of life in its most primitive form in a primordial soup, followed by the appearance of single celled organisms which evolved into multi-celled organisms and ultimately into the vast panoply of life we see today. This is more contentious, there isn't a convincing body of evidence, and the religionists are entitled, if they wish, to reject it.

Leakey is arguing that we need to take evolution on board because until we do we are not going to be prepared to deal with new threats to life, or deal appropriately with global warming, and the human species may become extinct. It's what I've called Type 1 evolution that he is arguing for here, disease viruses do evolve and we need to get up to speed tackling new ones as quickly as possible.

However the problem here is that far too many people are ideologically against evolution (because their priest has told them to be) and rant against it without any real understanding of the subject. Their priest has told them, perhaps, that evolution contradicts their religious book, such as the bible, so they reject it obediently. However it's type 2 evolution that contradicts their belief about the origin of life, whereas it's type 1 evolution that it's necessary for them to embrace if they are to get behind efforts to combat global warming, etc. And they'll never understand the difference if they won't even investigate what evolution is.

Link to comment

Thanks, Bruin. Technically, type 2 evolution is only theoretical. That's an assumption/hypothesis, but as the theory of evolution doesn't actually comment on the origin of life, then it should be kept separate from a discussion on evolution. However, I can certainly understand why people conflate the two issues - evolution of species and the origins of life.

Link to comment

I hope you realise how offensive this paragraph can be. There are many Christian cultures where evolution is not a red flag - Australia, UK, and New Zealand, to name just a few. There are also many Christians capable of complex thought - Albert Einstein being an excellent example. I'd like to personally think I'm also capable of complex thought, though some may disagree :icon1:

I think you are using a circular definition - it's the Christian groups that don't think for themselves (a subset of all Christian groups, and, in my opinion, a minor subset) that have trouble with evolution. Being more blunt, it seems to be largely an American trait - I can't think of any significant Christian group outside of the USA where this is a problem (though I'll concede that some African Christian groups may also be in that group).

Sadly, Graeme, here in South Australia we always seem to have had an active minority of Christian fundamentalist bigots. My theatre group and I picketed a Church of England church back in 1969, because they picketed our theatre that was producing a play which they didn't approve. Constantly I seem to have been subjected to Christians of varying flavours determined to convert me. They have verbally attacked me in my home and at my places of employment with their anti-evolution propaganda . That is unacceptable, as is their insistence that evolution is a lie and Darwin, an agent of the devil, and of course, with their ever present obsession that all matters sexual are a sin...which, they emphatically, are not!

As for Albert Einstein, quote Wiki:

"Albert Einstein's religious views have been studied due to his sometimes apparently ambiguous statements and writings on the subject. He believed in the god of Baruch Spinoza, but not in a personal god, a belief he criticized. He also called himself an agnostic, and criticized atheism, preferring he said "an attitude of humility."

It is true that in Australia we are very tolerant of other people's beliefs, but that tolerance has been gained with much sacrifice of individual freedom of thought. Religious indoctrination has been a strong force in the public and private eduction of youth for at least the first 30years of my life. Intelligent rejection of dogma has come slowly and tentatively. Whilst much progress has been made with large parts of the population exiting the formal organisation of the churches, there is, in our governments (both major parties) a strong pro-Christian element still seeking to impose its superstitions and myths on the people.

Our Aussie Prime Minister, a confessed atheist, cannot get beyond the religiously induced repression that marriage is between a man and woman. It is this kind of covert influence from religion that must be cast aside if each and every human being is to find the freedom to evolve their individual higher intuition and intellect. Evolution is not static, it is a process whether in the species or the individual. Religion, with its fixed notions of origin and morality, constrains our perception of reality, and diminishes our potential fulfilment.

My views are fairly aligned with Professor Richard Leakey's, as reported in the link that Chris posted above. At the emotional level, there is little harm in the comfort that many find in the peaceful aims of their religion, but where the religion conflicts with reality, or attempts aggressive power over others, then religion must be made to yield, less the individual adaptation and evolution be repressed once again. Globally, there are many anti-gay, anti-LGBTQ religious influences as evidenced by the recent laws passed or being proposed in Russia. For further influences of religion on human rights restrictions, that affect LGBTQ people, look at this list of countries yet to legalise homosexuality activity; in nearly every case opposition to same sex relationships is manipulatively supported by religion.

As I stated in my recent column, "Religion’s attempt to abusively control the human intellect must end."

Link to comment

I hope you realise how offensive this paragraph can be. There are many Christian cultures where evolution is not a red flag - Australia, UK, and New Zealand, to name just a few. There are also many Christians capable of complex thought - Albert Einstein being an excellent example. I'd like to personally think I'm also capable of complex thought, though some may disagree :icon1:

I think you are using a circular definition - it's the Christian groups that don't think for themselves (a subset of all Christian groups, and, in my opinion, a minor subset) that have trouble with evolution. Being more blunt, it seems to be largely an American trait - I can't think of any significant Christian group outside of the USA where this is a problem (though I'll concede that some African Christian groups may also be in that group).

I am sorry for any offense, Graeme, nothing was intended as an attack on personal belief. I do agree that the American brand of Christianity has become the most offensive and bears no relationship to the teachings of Jesus Christ as suggested in the Bible…in fact quite the opposite.

I will admit to being an atheist and find little credibility in the teachings of the Bible or other holy books from the past. But religion is a personal choice that ought to remain just that…personal. When it becomes the basis for rules that govern me then I dissent as any intelligent person must before all freedoms are made subservient to a god-head which I don’t believe exists.

A short list of current American transgressions that make me wonder just when Christianity was hijacked by the fanatics in this country. The results leave no doubt that religion and politics should never be served on the same plate, it just isn’t Kosher:

The politicians in the State of Kansas have passed a bill that bans Sharia law. I guess we can thank the Christian god that Kansas is now safe from an Islamic takeover. I doubt if we will ever see a bill that bans any of the laws set forth in the Old Testament. Wouldn’t that be fair and equitable? Everyone eats shellfish at Red Lobster and adultery seems to be a national pastime.

Churches are collecting money with the specific purpose of funding the anti-gay marriage proposals in the State of Maine. Nothing new here, churches have always supported most of those “Family” named groups that are so vocally anti-gay. But now they are doing it openly and advertising that the money will directly impact American politics. I guess they feel that the Constitution is just a list of suggestions.

Students in the educational system are being suspended for openly supporting gay causes like marriage and the Day of Silence. School administrators have responded either with confusion about a student’s right to free speech, or the Christian line about homosexuals being the root of all evil.

Christian pastors in North Carolina, and other states such as Texas, have suggested that homosexuals ought to be rounded up and placed in concentration camps until they die. I could go on, but these are only a few topics from the past months’ worth of anti-gay behavior here in the US of A.

I would argue that human-kind cannot know the face of a God that is touted so much as the reasoning behind the hatred which has run rampant in American religious thought. Religion does have a place for those who wish to believe, but it is the ignorant perception of that deity which allows so many fools to imagine they speak for Him.

Albert Einstein was neither a Christian nor an atheist. But he perceived that there was a higher power that set the course of our universe. “Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.” There is no question of his intelligence in that statement, but Einstein was a humanist and for that he should be applauded.

America is currently in a struggle between those who believe their sense of morality trumps the need for freedom of thought. This attack on reason manifests itself in the suicides of gay youth, the bullying of homosexuals, and the violence that simmers just below the surface.

My distain for this current form of Christianity is tempered by the understanding that Islam is a greater threat to them than any gay marriage. The battle of the Holy Books has more of a potential threat to humanity than anything else. The Christian Crusade in the Middle East will not be confined to that region this time. The Islamic response is terrorism by the few in the name of the many...and of course, Allah.

I just hope we get the chance to participate in the next level of evolution.

Link to comment

I think that saying Christians in this country don't believe in evolution is akin to saying birds can fly, or leopards have spots. Some do, of course. Some certainly do.

There are certainly Christians who do believe every word of the bible is true, but it's a small portion of the entire group of people here who call themselves Christians. Most Americans who call themselves that do accept evolution. They don't make nearly as much noise as the other group. Fundamentalists seem to be on the rise, but I think it's because they feel empowered at the moment. But for every funadamentalist church you'll find on the corner, there'll be two or three more down the block that don't preach such extreme views.

C

Link to comment

But it's the minor fundamentalist religions that are having so much influence on the politics in the US and quite frankly there is a large contingent of these people who are Republicans. That is disturbing that so few are affecting so many with such ignorance...in my opinion.

Link to comment

I am sorry for any offense, Graeme, nothing was intended as an attack on personal belief. I do agree that the American brand of Christianity has become the most offensive...

Compared to what? Extremism in any religion, anywhere in the world, is bad and wrong. Trust me, gays in the mideast and Israel don't have a good time in certain cities. Christianity does not have a monopoly on stupidity.

I waver between being agnostic and vaguely believing in something. I think I'm in the Fox Mulder category -- "I want to believe" -- but I haven't had a lot of evidence. I've often felt that just because you believe in evolution doesn't mean that it, too, couldn't have been part of a master plan. There's too many coincidences for me to believe life was totally an accident; there's too much intelligent design for me to buy into that.

But: you can always make the argument that ancient aliens were responsible, ala 2001 and the upcoming Prometheus. Not necessarily "THE God," but "A god."

Note that there are very kind, inclusive churches that are very open to gay people and have very forward thinking, science-friendly beliefs. I'm not necessarily part of them, but they are out there.

Link to comment

Religion isn't the problem. Extremism, and all that goes with it, is the problem. Today, not accepting the obvious fact of evolution is akin to denying gravity, and has little or nothing to do with your spiritual beliefs. However, certain groups, whatever holy book they follow, seem downright fixated on cramming their brand of belief down everyone else's throats, whatever the cost and whatever the other people's beliefs. That's the crux of the issue for me.

As for the origin of all life, originally, that isn't covered by evolution. That's a separate thing, called abiogenesis.

Link to comment
Guest Dabeagle

I think religion is the problem. Religion does say tons of nasty things, it also has some decent things - for example when the bible was written the people who adopted it lived in the desert climates. It forbade eating pig and, guess what? Pig meat would make you pretty sick if it was in the heat. Good rule. Want to grow your clan? Gays make that harder, may as well get rid of 'em. Religion believes these things came from their god, who had no idea we silly humans would invent refrigeration and have an overcrowding problem.

Link to comment
Today, not accepting the obvious fact of evolution is akin to denying gravity, and has little or nothing to do with your spiritual beliefs.

My favorite are the die hard conservatists who insist that the Earth is only 5000 years old. :blink:

Link to comment

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...