"All of the DNA in each of our cells is addressed in the same sense as computer ROM.. is addressed. The exact numbers or names we use to label a given address are arbitrary, just as they are for computer memory. What matters is that a particular location in my DNA corresponds precisely to one particular location in your DNA: they have the same address. The contents of my DNA location 321762 may or may not be the exact same location as your locations 321762 . But my location 321762 is precisely in the same position in my cells as your location 321762 is in your cells... All of us, all human beings, have the same set of DNA addresses, but not necessarily the same contents of those addresses."
Sometimes I wish that all politicians would first understand science before philosophy. It is amazing that 6,706,993,152 people (world's population according to the CIA on June 1, 6:30 pm) share so much. Our outside appearances, our thoughts, our opinions, our so-called 'ideals', mistakes, achievements, failures; everything we're proud of about ourselves are all based on the minority. The major factors are the same. Each cell in our bodies contains the same set of instructions yet they act differently, different parts of the DNA are 'read' and 'processed'. Regardless, they all work together in harmony to keep the body running(most of the time). And here we are, as a species, with the same buildings and factories within us yet with an inability to see through the minor differences in paint color and lighting, and work together to keep this world running. I think that if a person ever wants to see the big picture in any aspect of human society, be it history, politics, law or teaching, he must first look at science. Because science has the power to topple nations and conquer more sans bloody wars and weapons.
Dawkins had made me think for the past week or so that I've been reading his work and question my beliefs and traditions. I've been reading works outside of his book to find arguments against them. I mean, not against evolution but against the idea of a nonexistent God. Yet, all the doors seem to be silent right about now. One argument that I've heard is that it's improbable that complex beings came about from random natural selection. But Dawkins points out that natural selection isn't random but rather it is quite planned (a whole Weasel program concept he has that explains it really well but will totally take me about 30 pages to write out. It pretty much illustrates how randomness can be coupled with cumulative selection for complex beings to arise.) Then, there's the argument that I always hear about complexity itself and how it is improbable that such complex creations can just be created without a guided hand. To that, here's his central argument:
Premises:
1. Humans are complex creatures.
2. For a creature to deliberately design another creature, it must have a greater or equal intelligence level as it.
3. Thus, each created being must have either been created or it must have originated from evolutionary processes.
Premises 1, 2 and 3 infer that:
1. God must be greater or equal in complexity to humans
2. God must have a creator or have originated from evolutionary sources.
Conclusion: The postulation of a creator god is pointless, as it either creates an infinite regress of creators, or requires an evolutionary origin somewhere along the chain.
I'm neither a good enough mathematician to counter the logic above nor a good enough religious philosopher. So, I guess at this point, I'm a little confused. I find everything else mentioned in this book amazing. How small changes over a course of time can lead to so many other changes in the grand scheme of things. How DNA copying and error rates can never be matched by human typists. How 6000 atoms (more than 2000 kinds) make up a "protein machine" that interact and choose the individual characteristics of this chemistry factory- the cell. But every time I read something else, I can't help think about this again. This topic of creationism/deism vs. evolution, a nonexistent but somehow relevant war.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
I really hope you are enjoying that book. It entered my 'instant classic' category on my bookshelf. The passage on beavers (page 192 I believe) is still my favorite). Oh, and do you have speical CIA clearance? Should we call you SAC? Secret Agent Carthi? The world clock is also visible at www.census.gov
Natural selection is powerful. It would seem that what is first needed is that first organic soup. Cumulative selection then can proceed--and as Dawkins shows with the weasel algorithm, it can have almost an immediate effect.
Calling science vs. religion a war isn't as accurate now as it once was, when institutions such as the Roman Catholic church quelled any evidence that contradicted any part of their dogma with executions. However, the battles do rage on, in a relatively less violent way.
I cannot say what caused the first life was on this planet. Was it the primordial soup, was it from an extraterrestrial seeding from asteroids that contained organic matter, was it serendipity of the right molecules in the right place at the right time? The microfossils and comparative genetics do show that it was prokaryotic life first. So I wonder, if a supernatural force did put life on the planet in its own image as many religions claim, would that make god a bacteria? Would that make us supergods or... (wait for it Keith) ...superheroes?
I agree with carthi. I remember in 9th grade biology when i took goldberg's class, how confused i was about religion v. science. i would go home and ask my father (who is very religious) a lot of questions about God and christianity. the only answers i'd ever get were "just dont confuse to do" or "our human intelligence is not capable to understand". At that age i just listened and thought i understood. Then when i walked into Kachadurian's english class in 11th grade the confusion came again. Again i questioned thigns. This time i went straight to the church and asked questions there--i got the same response. I think the concept of religion was first developed because people didnt know anything about their origin at the time. They needed a faith in something. Without belief in something whether it be science or religion, there is really no push to move forward. But today, atleast from my view point,i feel as though religion has become one big commercial. The object is to get as many people as possible. I dont know if thats something i want to believe in...
****"just dont confuse the two"
Yeah, well i don't really see what everybody's problem is. I never went to church, so i only have one side of the story, but i don't get why people just don't make a compromise between the two. Yes, today science is proabaly going to have the stronger argument, simply because new evidence emerges daily to support scientific claims, and people don't look to the church to answer all their questions. Being very secular, i'm just gonna go with the science, but if people want to incorperate their religous views i don't care, as long as they are willing to accept that there is some science, and those of us who go with science need to accept that religion is still a major part of many peoples lives and we have to accept it when they incorperate those views into thier opions. You can have a little of both, but it seams that due to the primal need for conflict between people you have to chose just one or the other.
Well, Merlyn, I'm not ruling out religion. There are many really
really intelligent scientists who are also religious (one of them
being my mom who teaches evolution and speaks of God). Thousands of
years of faith cannot be completely ignored just like that. There has
to be some reason. I'm just looking for a counter argument.
And Mr. Goldberg (when I was little, I wanted to come to America just to see snow and be in the CIA!). I think the image part can be taken figuratively. Perhaps a resemblance in thoughts and ideals (though that's a little scary considering to some people's thoughts!). maybe? I
think even if this battle isn't raging, it's relevant. I mean, I don't think both can be totally right.. or wrong for that matter. But what is truth ultimately?
Dan, I am not saying that it's absolutely necessary to choose one over another but still, both can't be totally right. So how do you choose? There has to be some sort of logic. I don't think the answer lies is within church or secularism. But within something larger.
And I do like this book so far.
The issue, in my opinion, is that religion was originally developed in an attempt to describe some of the fundamental questions that have existed for centuries. Questions like 'Why are we here? What is our purpose?' and other big questions. Given the time period in which most of the big religions were founded, it makes sense that the information they preach is a bit...antiquated. Now that science is so much more advanced, humans can come up with evidence that refutes the facts stated in said texts.
The simplest way to keep everything straight is to look at it like this. Faith with proof is no longer faith and science without proof isn't science.
Well said Matt.
Post a Comment