I had a very interesting thought today, and I want to share it with you. This isn’t based on any scientific evidence, nor am I suggesting that I am right. But perhaps others are thinking the same thing. That Genetic Defects are a part of the evolutionary process and that perhaps they are there to help reduce the number of defects.
I never said it was politically correct. I’m also not forcing you to read on. This is my hypothesis.
Genetic Defects form part of the basic evolutionary process. In all animals, a defect passed down from generation to generation through their genetic make up would result in decreased population. This would be due to more illness within the group. Without intervention, this would over time reduce their numbers substantially to a point where the defect may die out.
What does this all mean?
Well what if the genetic issues that we have today are there to help make the species a stronger group? It could be that these illnesses are meant to reduce the likelihood that it will be passed down to another generation. This could be due to some members of a generation passing away before being about to reproduce, or not having the ability to reproduce. Slowly, those with the genetic issue become fewer and fewer. This seems like evolution at work.
So by studying genetics are we short-circuiting the evolutionary process? Perhaps when people have their children scanned and decide not to continue the pregnancy due to a defect, we are in fact assisting evolution. Perhaps by being able to keep people who have this defects alive and healthy longer we are increasing the time it would take for the defect to disappear naturally. It’s a very controversial subject and trust me when I say I don’t really know where I stand on this.
If we are in fact shortcutting the process, should we be allowed to choose whether we only do it for good reasons? Who decides what the definition of good reason is anyway? How can we really be sure whether we are doing the right or wrong thing when it comes to evolution? Some will say religion, and I think that is important to touch on.
When we are looking at the scientific process, and trying to determine whether it is the ‘right’ thing to do, why are religious moral values trotted out. Surely the last thing that a good scientist is going to do is wonder whether the Spaghetti Monster would want him to do it. So why is it when we start talking about genetic research and stem cell technology do we start looking at the religious moral code to determine where we as a people stand on these issues?
Perhaps it shouldn’t be up to the people. Perhaps it needs to be left up to science to determine which is the right thing to do. Perhaps we need to study these issues so that we can understand them better and make the correct choices for the benefit of all, not the benefit of a few. We don’t need guidance from above to understand that we need to take all the evidence we can and determine bad from good, wrong from right using a sound process.
Using just religious arguments is not using sound evidence and a sound process.
Cardinal George Pell has come out and made it a really Good Friday for Pope Benedict XVI (they need more papal names it seems) and supported his recent comments made to the media. Seems nothing so sinister and isn’t all that surprising, considering his position within the Catholic Church. Until you read into it more. Then you realise that it is disturbing and quite dangerous.
The Cardinal, who sadly I have to admit is an Australian, has come out in support of the Pope’s comments that the use of condoms was actually making the AIDS issue worse in Africa, and not better. Instantly I know that the scientists and politicians of the last 10 to 20 years are wrong and the Catholic Church are unbiased and trusted source of science on this issue. Please.
We should not be quick to judge. We should check whether this is what the Pope really said. Perhaps it is some misquote from a rouge journalist who picked up something he is supposed to have said from an unreliable source. No, it’s a Reuters journalist and it was uttered at a media conference.
“AIDS cannot be overcome through the distribution of condoms, which even aggravates the problems,” he told media persons on March 17 while on his way to Cameroon.
They also reported that the Pope has a better solution for this AIDS epidemic:
According to the Pope, combating the spread of AIDS requires a ’spiritual and human awakening’, friendship for those who suffer, and a ‘responsible, moral attitude toward sex’.
Awesome. A very viable suggestion. We will stop people who are having sex knowing that they might get AIDS by giving them a spiritual awakening. They don’t need to know about AIDS and be told of all the possible ways to help stop its transmission. Just get them to pray that they won’t want to have sex anytime soon.
What needs to be done is that out of touch organisations, who are more concerned about their own pontificating than the wellbeing of its followers, should get a grip and come around to the 21st Century. It isn’t going to go away any time soon. There will be no apocalyptic horsemen, although global warming might make them think they are in Hell anyway.
Start providing the right sort of education to all people around the world about the dangers of AIDS. Be sensitive to their backgrounds and current education levels so that they can understand what they are being old. Provide good quality condoms only and provide them for free so that everyone has some. We shouldn’t be making money out of fighting an epidemic.
Edit: You can here his media stop in this AFP video on YouTube. It seems AFP won’t let you embed their videos, even if you are a paid affiliate. And I’m not even close to that.)
At work the other day, we were discussing a colleague’s new man. He has told her he is an atheist, and so my interest piques. Another one pipes up, declaring that you have to believe there is something out there, even if you don’t call it God. I reply that I’m quite happy believing that there is nothing else but science involved. Again I’m rebuffed, and reminded that our moral conscious is derived from the Ten Commandments.
For those playing along at home, the Ten Commandments are (from Wikipedia, accessed 22-02-2009):
a list of religious and moral imperatives that, according to Judeo-Christian tradition, were authored by God and given to Moses on the mountain referred to as “Mount Sinai” (Exodus 19:23) or “Horeb” (Deuteronomy 5:2) in the form of two stone tablets. They feature prominently in Judaism and Christianity.
Obviously I’m wrong! How could there possibility be no God since Moses came down from a mountain and brought two stone tablets bearing His inscription? So I countered with the argument that perhaps the Ten Commandments were written with the current moral code of the time with additional items for religious reasons. They wondered about this and thought it might be so. But there was still definitely something there!
So to this end I left the conversation as they started to talk about the first person’s man and his beliefs. I think she is probably agnostic anyway so it should work out if he doesn’t mind. At least he might have a chance to give her the facts as he seems them.
I also find it strange that just because I don’t believe in there being a creator and a omnipotent God, people don’t understand that I can enjoy reading of the pomp and ceremony that is found in religions. Religions are very fascinating to me and provide an insight into the human mind unlike any other.
I don’t begrudge someone having their belief system. You may choose to be a Christian, Jew, Muslim, Buddist, Hindu, Hare Krishna, Jehovah’s Witness or whatever it is you wish to believe in. I guess I’d even say that if you want to be a Scientologist, I can’t stop you – although I would recommend it. Just don’t try to paint me with the same brush.
I believe in science and I have belief in human beings. I know that in each of us is a moral fibre, handed down from generation to generation. We can’t leave it up to another being or higher power (or even politicians and priests) to tell us what is right and wrong. It is up to all of us, the entire community, to teach kids the right way to live. You can differ on the finer points but still know what is wrong and what is right. That is where morals come from, not religion or stone tablets.
FRANKFORT, Ky. (AP) – A group of atheists has filed a lawsuit in
Kentucky seeking to remove God from the state’s homeland security
detail.
American Atheists Inc. filed the lawsuit in Frankfort on Tuesday, claiming Kentucky violated the Constitution by enacting a law in 2006 that stresses God’s role in protecting the state.
Of particular concern to American Atheists is a clause that requires the Office of Homeland Security to post a plaque that says the safety of the state “cannot be achieved apart from reliance upon Almighty God.”
…
(Copyright 2008 by The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved.)
Read the comments. It’ll make you chuckle. I particularly liked this one:
Posted by: shelia Location: pikeville,ky on Dec 5, 2008 at 05:18 AM People better WAKE UP . When We remove GOD from our lifes There is no life left .. Wake up AMERICA who you think made this place we call AMERICA …GOD did and you want to throw him out of it .. Who do you think you are .. We better run this person out of AMERICA cause …. THIS person is fron the devil for sure
I’ve been reading Richard Dawkins’ book The God Delusion. And no, I don’t make no money from that link. The book has really opened my eyes to the world. I come from a Christian background but have been a “non-believer” for a while now.
The God Delusion is taking me in another direction. It shows you the arguements that have been used throughout the ages to defend religion. It gives you thinks to think about while giving referenced facts balanced against the opinion of an emminent Atheist.
It’s Christian-view focus worked well for me due to my background. My wife has said previously it helped her see that she wasn’t alone in the world view. It certainly opened my eyes. Wide open.
