Science and Faith Questions
Fruits and vegetables:
Tomatoes and pumpkins are technically, fruits. They have seeds like other fruits; but most ppl would say they are vegetables, and we generally cook them like that, e..g pumpkins for pies, like sweet potatoes are sweet and ooze caramel when cooked.
But will a tomato ever evolve into a vegetable (having no seeds) on its own, without the intervention of man’s genetic modification of the organism? E.g. GMO.
OR will potatoes ever evolve into fruits containing seeds for plant reproduction?
Human Beings
There is one glaring fact which supposes that natural selection isn’t all it’s cracked up to be as far as theories go. There are many very successful, intelligent, compassionate and kind people who never have children, and there are as many (or more, if you look around, it seems to be the case) examples of people who make lousy parents, who are unsuccessful, or at best mediocre or average, who might not be very intelligent or who are not even kind or compassionate and shouldn’t really be parents.
Some examples of famous people, who didn’t pass on their genes, are….
This means that despite n natural selection, there are people who would make great parents who never have any children. And there are lousy parents , or stupid, sick, extremely allergic, lactose intolerant, high school dropouts, mentally retarded, physically handicapped and others who for good or bad are able to pass on their genes (and have had children).
Does it seem unfair? Not really. This is just what some might call, “the luck of the draw” in some cases, or perhaps it is destiny…
And we have to also consider nurture as well, there are people who can have children, but for some reason or other make bad parents; it isn’t always their fault, or their lack of trying, but they do not get credit for trying, they are not moms or dads of the year, and that’s also why natural selection isn’t perfect. There are always other influences or factors besides natural selection (or the nature part of the equation) which affect the outcome of families with children, and the lives of children in general.
A child could be totally ‘awesome’ but end up an adult who never accomplishes anything and dies without the great successes or name of many others (less worthy people.) Having the best genetic makeup doesn’t guarantee success in life. If someone is born into extreme poverty, there is a likelihood he will never have the same opportunities as kids somewhere else in the world, who are fortunate to be living in the first world.
On the other side of the coin, there are children who are fortunate to be born in the first world, who have all the things they need, and if they are smart and properly nurtured and cared for, guided and encouraged, then they can do great things in the future. Look at the biography of Steve Jobs, for example. While he was adopted, his parents gave him the advantage of a good genetic makeup and then his upbringing helped that along in tremendous ways, so he was able to grow up to be extremely successful.
The theory of natural selection doesn’t seem to adequately account for the likelihood of other life events, or even in the case of the dinosaurs, many questions remain. Of course, it is much easier to study the present than the past. Therefore, it m makes more sense to at least study modern mammals, if we want to understand anything about who we are and where we came from. This is why neuro science for example, can help us answer why we believe in God, even though it can’t answer whether or not God exists. Also, if we know why we believe in God (according to recent science, it is the “god spot”), then it seems that there is less reason for atheists to hate others, or promote a secular or humanistic approach than any others, because, if we are actually “programmed” to believe in God - it is easier from an intellectual perspective, to accept that all humans share this much in common, e.g. the ability to believe. From a purely chemical-neurological standpoint religious faith is something that is present and possible in all humans.
Is it right for ethologists, biologists or others, considering the wealth of knowledge on the effects of brain chemistry on the rest of the person , to then ignore this? Why hate others for something that is really a part of human nature or even biology? Rather, it is imperative that scientists and the science community begins to explore new ways to implement their research other than the push for “evolution” in schools to the extent that communities and children are negatively impacted, or that a grave and destructive precedent is set either way, which seems reminiscent of the past, e.g. church and state fighting for supremacy, such as what happened when the Catholic church used to have the money to have its way in the life of all people under its dominion. The government didn’t tell the Church what to do, but the Church told the government what to do. A quick example is the need for an entire people to convert to the religion which most served the King of England at the time, so he could marry who he wanted to. This was because a Catholic could not have a divorce in those days.
I believe scientists must embrace the natural diversity of human belief, just as they embrace the diversity in all else in nature.
I will point out here before anyone comments that religions spread hate or that Islam is not a religion of peace, that there is plenty of history that proves that Islam and Muslims love peace.
The other thing is, there are more modern examples of science indirectly, causing harm on a large scale to humans as well as the environment, and the less modern, but still unforgettable suffering the Nazis and others like them caused in Europe not only to Jews but to their own citizens, e.g. the orphanages or mental wards which mistreated thousands of children or mental patients, or prisoners, all over the Christian world, as well as modern day China, just to give some examples, and often in the name of science. The Nazis tortured the sick with experiments, and also studied twins in the name of science.
Just the other day someone told me about the practice of feeding sugar or forcing children and the elderly to keep sugar in their mouths, so that the science of tooth decay and ‘cures’ or remedies for that could be found. I can’t say I know if this is true or an urban myth, but it supposedly happened in Sweden.
Readers might like to see the film, The Forgotten Maggies, in relation to this post, about the abuses by both the Church and State in Ireland.
http://www.merdb.cn/watch-2725543-The-Forgotten-Maggies.html
You can see the synopsis at this link.
No comments:
Post a Comment