Faith or Fact? A Darwin Revelation

When learning about Darwin and his theory of the Origin of Species and its relationship to what is taught in public schools, I started to wonder how my religion fit in context to his theory. Should I believe what he hypothesized? Darwin's theory has a strong basis and makes sense in the course of history. Or should I look to my faith to answer the questions of how I came to be what I am?

Faced with a personal moral dilemma, I decided to find out what I truly believe in. I asked questions such as Science or Religion? Faith or Fact? But I soon realized what I was doing wrong. My revelation was that I didn't have to mark a line where science stopped and religion began. I do not have to take every word of the Bible literally. I can interpret it how I want and live according to my own beliefs after that.

I asked my pastor if I committed a sin if I did not know that I was sinning at the time. He promptly answered "of course not". So if I can interpret my religious book how I feel it is supposed to be seen and I live by its teachings, even if I commit a sin, I am not at fault. I believed what I had done was right.

So when exactly did this revelation hit me? When I was reading Inherit the Wind. Drummond makes a case that God didn't make the sun until the forth day. This means the first three days could have been longer than three actual twenty-four hour days. He says that the fossil that he has in his hand could be over six thousand years old because those first three days could have been ten million years.



This is where I put it all together. If I interpreted Genesis the way Drummond had, I could say that evolution did happen. That both Charles Darwin, and my faith can coexist. God could have made the first organisms and intended them to evolve just as science said they did over the three possibly non twenty-four hour days that Drummond suggests. Darwin's theory is safe, and so is my faith. I can believe both.

What happens when something else comes along and contradicts my faith again? Well, after this revelation, I think I am prepared to go back and interpret my faith in a different light so I can feel that I am not denying the truth while still adhering to my beliefs.

Feel free to post in the comments section!

Appleman, Philip, ed. Darwin. 3rd ed. New York: W.W.Norton, 2001.

Lawrence, Jerome, and Robert E. Lee. Inherit the Wind. Danbury: Dramatists Play Service, Incorporated, 1963.

Sperm, the Beginnings

Ever wonder who discovered sperm?  Well, a man named Antoni van Leeuwenhoek did in the 17^th century.  He developed powerful variations of the microscope and began delving into the micro-world.  He found a vast new land of microorganisms that surround us.  His peculiar interest in ant reproduction led him to ideas of how reproduction occurs in humans.  His discovery challenged the common belief of creationism.  People were taken aback by the radical ideas Leeuwenhoek brought to intellectual circles. 

               For our presentation we plan to demonstrate the existence of microbiology.  By showing our audience a skin sample under a microscope, they will hopefully believe in the existence of microbiology.  This direct approach of proving our idea to the public is the best method of convincing them of Leeuwenhoek’s ideas.  We will distribute hand drawn pictures of sperm to give the audience an idea of what sperm looks like under the microscope in an abstracted way.  

            We are going to persuade our audience that microbiology is significant to understanding how the universe functions.  It gives humans a different perspective on the world that they couldn’t achieve on their own.  Having a clear idea of how human reproduction functions provides more awareness of biological cycles.  Microbiology may lead to explanations of how healing properties work which in turn leads to advances in medicine and health.      

Interested in learning more? 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t_eNmc_gHyE&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBU6-XK2v54&feature=related

Genetic Superbabies: Ethical or Not?

While reading Micheal Manson's "How to Teach Science to the Pope" (found in our course readings), the issue of the ethics behind genetically enhanced food is called into question. This sparked a discussion involving religion, personal morals, and unfair advantages. The topic delved into even deeper ethical territory when in class we discussed the idea of tampering with human DNA to prevent genetic disease, birth defects, and even enhancements such as greater athleticism or intelligence.

Patrick Tucker writes in Genetic Ethics and Superbabies: Drawing the Lines Between Preventing Ailments and..., "Inoculating children in the womb against serious diseases or disorders is not, on its face, controversial. But is manipulating cells to guard against traits that are merely undesirable ethical or unethical? Who gets to draw the boundary?"

His question is one that I find quite intriguing. Who doesn't want to be able to have a kid that could have the genetic potential to be the greatest person on Earth? But does the fact that we can genetically alter our offspring to be the best mean it is alright to do so? Would the idea of survival of the fittest suddenly turn into survival of the ones who have the most money to become genetically superior?

How would we regulate what is considered a genetic fault worthy of correction? For example, a person might consider that having a relatively unattractive child is detrimental to their life experience as a whole. Who is to say that is not true to some extent?

A line has to be drawn eventually. The question is where, when, and what will the repercussions be. Will we become a society of predesigned super creatures? What will happen to the people left behind if we do?

Mason, Michael. "How to Teach Science to the Pope." Discover Magazine. August 18, 2008. http://discovermagazine.com/2008/sep/18-how-to-teach-science-to-the-pope
Tucker, Patrick. "Genetic Ethics and Superbabies: Drawing the Line Between preventing Ailments and..." The Futurist. January 1, 2008. http://www.allbusiness.com/medicine-health/diseases-disorders-infectious/6201461-1.html

Comments? Feel free to leave one in the comments section!

Shared Beliefs: Our Connected Society is Mixing Ideas of Science and Religion

In class we read about cosmology in today's culture. In Cosmology and 21st-Century Culture Allan Burch talks about how science has created a story of the origin of the universe (the big bang theory) and how it was created by "a collaboration of people from different religions and races all around the world..." (Burch) This idea reminded me of an article I came across some time ago about how science and religion can come together. Peter Wilby wrote an article called Religion and Science Do Mix in which he describes how religion should be taught in schools in ways where students can understand certain aspects of subjects better. For example, Wibly explains:

"Children should learn how Darwin developed his theory, how it was later tested and elaborated, how and why the Victorian churches opposed it, the spiritual anguish of many Victorians, and how some people, in defiance of evidence, have recently invented intelligent design to rescue a lost cause."

I believe that in today's world, our ideas are capable of being spread so quickly, that our beliefs in how the world began, or our concept of good and evil as well as many other things are being mixed. We now have people who are consider themselves a certain religion, but don't follow all of their practices. Some people pick and choose which parts of a religion they like best and they live by them. (I have one friend in particular who admits to doing this.)

Even religions try to explain themselves around popular beliefs. Wilby explains how the Church of England says that nothing in Darwin's theory of evolution "contradicts Christian teachings".

I think that our society is so well connected, that individual establishments that provide a foundation of beliefs such as the creation of the universe and what is right and wrong are starting to become less popular. Instead, people seem to want to pick and choose between them all (science included) and form their own cosmogony and ethics.

Sources:
Burch, Allen. "Cosmology and 21st-Century Culture." Sciencemag. Vol. 293, September 7, 2001. www.Sciencemag.org.

Wilby, Peter. "Religion and Science Do Mix." New Statesman September 18 2008. http://www.newstatesman.com/society/2008/09/schools-religion-science.

Comments? Questions? Feel free to use the comments section!

Energy...From Space!

The most abundant energy source that the Earth has at its disposal is the sun. But the conditions for collecting sunlight are not always ideal. Cloud coverage and the number of hours of daylight are just a few of the problems with collecting and using solar energy to its full potential. However, soon those obstacles may be overcome.

A new technology has been developed which allows us to transmit energy via radio waves across long distances. The benefits? Satellites could be used to collect pure sunlight 24/7 and beam it right down to Earth to our homes. To top it all off, its 100% green renewable energy.

This technology could be used to transmit electrical energy to third world countries that do not have the infrastructure set up to distribute energy to homes. Emergency areas where the existing infrastructure has been destroyed can use this method of distributing energy as a temporary substitute.

The potential benefits of further developing and using this type of energy are very promising. Soon we may not even have to have power lines directing energy into our homes.

Sources: CNN.com, NYTimes.com

Comments? Questions? Feel free to use the comments section!

"Mad" Scientists and the Unreasonable Fear of the Large Hadron Collider

I was browsing the internet earlier today when I came across a blog article that I found a bit worrying.

In the past, we have discussed where we get our news from and if the source is reliable. I am disappointed to say that one of my most trusted tech news sites, CNet.com, is spreading ideas that I find ignorant through people who contribute to popular blogs on their website.

Apparently, Chris Matyszczyk of CNet.com's Technically Incorrect is afraid that the LHC is going to destroy our world. In the post he specifically refers to the scientists as "mad" without any evidence other than the clever youtube video rap that scientists made.

Earlier in the year we discussed the common view of scientists in today's society. Many of the perceptions that we came up with were common stereotypes that scientists were "mad" or crazy in some way. Matyszczyk's post contributes to these stereotypes and further perpetuates them.

However, there is one piece of good news from this blog. It seems that Matyszczyk's readers are much more up to date and reasonable with the information about the Large Hadron Collider. Many comments accuse Matyszczyk of being ignorant and spreading uninformed ideas about the LHC to scare the public.

I know that CNet.com itself is not responsible for the blog content on its site (only the actual news) but it still worries me that this piece of media was so massively spread via their website. I truly realize now how having multiple sources of news can help a person fully understand all sides of the story. If I had taken this post at face value, I would have been a very poorly informed individual indeed.

What are your thoughts? Feel free to use the comments section!