Ken Miller on Intelligent Design- Unaware of who Ken Miller was, but being aware of the title and then informed of his religious affiliations my expectations were low! To make matters worse, or more challenging I became more dreadful upon gazing the numbers at the bottom of the video screen 1:57:16! So, I decided to view this video and not the seemingly more interesting one, or so I assumed, to get the torture over with. However, this video turned out to be one that not only had me fooled, but, it gave me insight into the mind of a truly objective esteemed scientist, and it is a video that I plan on viewing with my wife tonight!
Miller gives us a highly objective look at why evolution is a credible scientific theory. This theory even today is having to overcome many biases that are unfounded within their scientific bases. Intelligent Design (I.D.) is the new moniker of the prior labeled hypothesis of Creationism, a hypothesis that suggests that a creator engineered and crafted the world and all it’s inhabited life forms therein. Although, having been able to provide some seemingly plausible argument with relative scientific basis, intelligent design has according to the present science community in the audience, as well as on-stage lost any of it’s legs that it might have had to stand on. Just within the last decade many arguments such as the split chromosome between primate DNA and ours showing a direct link, as well as the disproving of other equivocal discoveries that I cannot remember at the moment.
What deserves recognition in every facet of this video and to Ken Miller’s overall credibility is his objectivity in his chosen field of discovery when considering his faith. He (Miller) really puts to ease a fear and annoyance driven into me by his account of the cases concerning this issue in the public school system in the recent Pennsylvania, Georgia, and Kansas cases. His projections, news of further progression in the exploration of evolution, as well as his non-emotional approach to science is a sigh of relief!
John Maynard Smith on Evolution- It wasn’t until the last 20 minutes that this interview caught my attention. The topic of evolution as a Marxist view, or having a link to this ideal is one that I’ve been with in the past 12 months. Although, I haven’t viewed it in such terms, I have been looking at it and it’s process in a naturalistic manner that perhaps some could, if so pressed, deem as such. Fundamentally, I think evolution to be a process that, in fact, weeds out. When looking back into history, anthropology, biology and real life in real time (people watching) I feel that the process and it’s direction is clear! Any type of weakness can be a potential factor in the elimination of ones blood line. Although, some weaknesses are more costly than others. Our main objective in the fundamental sense is to survive, bread and further our blood line. The key factors that underline this objective are the natural ability to survive, the ability to learn to survive, natural appeal to the opposite sex, or a learned ability to appeal to the opposite sex for breeding. To put it bluntly, there must be a need for you and your blood line. Is that to say that there isn’t a need for certain individuals of people in the world, or that their continued existence is obsolete? Yes. Is this a view stemming from an extreme form of elitism? No, at the moment, and in this wrinkle in time I have little reason to be needed in society and the great cycle of life. I am fairly intelligent and physically pleasing to the opposite sex, but in the current cycle of human evolution I am missing one key ingredient- economic status! According to the Discovery Channel documentary The Science of Sex Appeal, a conducted research study had concluded that women are more attracted to money and ‘toys’ (cars and income were the prime example) rather than his looks, which slams the door on delving deeper to scan for internal qualities such as intelligence. The “hunter and gatherer alpha theme” still at large, but with a no less evolved theme.
Fortunately for me, I came across a female that was drawn to my physical appearance and my will to succeed which is, more or less, based on a promise to provide for her brood. However, there are a select few who weren’t, genetically speaking, so fortunate. Those who aren’t so attractive tend to breed with other less attractive people, thus, producing more unattractive off-spring having to endure the same challenges, or they don’t have chance to breed in time (biological clock), or at all. People with low levels of intelligence tend to have lower paying jobs, less drive, and poorer diets which make them more prone to illness such as diabetes. You can also tell a poor diet on a persons skin and physique whether thin or fat, thus, making them less appealing to a higher quality mate, or possibly any at all. They also tend to live undesirable neighborhoods pitting them with higher prospects of various addictions, disease and sudden circumstantial death. Sexual abuse seems to be more prominent among these individuals. Once upon a time in our human history humans lived shorter life spans, thus, breeding and marriage were permitted at a younger age, where it was typical for an older man to wed and breed with a girl of an adolescent age. Today, with advancement in modern medicine and possibly human evolution, we now live longer and therefore breed a bit later which is also due in part that we have found (I haven’t confirmed this) that child birth at is more dangerous for a female of that age. Today, we have evolved and such practices are now deemed morally wrong, inappropriate and criminal. It is possible that those desires live on in genes and those who carry them actively are being weeded out in society through isolation, public scrutiny, jail-time, murder and few if any attempts to breed with a fellow human being of an appropriate physical breeding age.
I think where this becomes political is when you get away form the naturalistic process, and you begin to see some of what appears to be blatant attempts from man to take it upon himself to weed out those that he may not deem worthy of survival and biological continuance. I do believe this happens and I thoroughly opposed. This is where Darwinism, in my personal philosophy becomes depressing and seems to convey little to no true meaning to the life or the human race. Man should never take it upon himself to conduct such tyranny. Nature and the will of man on his own existence can do that on his own. While, I’m not stating that all people have hope, I am stating that some, even most do if they see the big picture and desire the change to progress and make their mark on the world for years to come, possibly throughout the existence of mankind.
-Jeremy Watkins (Mircelous Grimm)
No comments:
Post a Comment