Assignment #2
By: Ambra Bourne • January 26, 2007
Post 1: “Reaction piece to the expert lecture”
John Maynard Smith and Evolution
Maynard Smith was remarkable for the span of his contributions to biology, including his radical application of game theory to understanding evolutionary strategies, and his clear definition of the major transitions in the history of life. Maynard Smith was always enthusiastic about new data sources and continued to be a driving force in the use of molecular data to answer biological questions, he was one of major figures of 20th evolutionary biology. Maynard was a Professor of Biology at the University of Sussex. He remained active in original research until his death, working on the evolution of animal behavior, and practical issues such as tuberculosis in cattle. This lecture was hard for me to follow, but I was shocked when he said that he was an atheist.
Ken Miller on Intelligent Design
By: Ambra Bourne • January 26, 2007
Post 1: “Reaction piece to the expert lecture”
John Maynard Smith and Evolution
Maynard Smith was remarkable for the span of his contributions to biology, including his radical application of game theory to understanding evolutionary strategies, and his clear definition of the major transitions in the history of life. Maynard Smith was always enthusiastic about new data sources and continued to be a driving force in the use of molecular data to answer biological questions, he was one of major figures of 20th evolutionary biology. Maynard was a Professor of Biology at the University of Sussex. He remained active in original research until his death, working on the evolution of animal behavior, and practical issues such as tuberculosis in cattle. This lecture was hard for me to follow, but I was shocked when he said that he was an atheist.
Ken Miller on Intelligent Design
Ken Miller is a biology professor and is particularly known for his opposition to creationism, including the intelligent design movement. Intelligent design is an argument for the existence of God, based on the premise that certain natural features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause. Some claim that intelligent design is a scientific theory that stands on equal grounds as evolution and faith. Miller raises a question of if we evolved from apes and considered the comparison of chromosomes in the DNA of humans and apes. This comparison made me think if we really have evolved from another mammal or if we were just created starting out as human beings. Miller saw no evidence of design, and their philosophy as to how evolution works is the same, yet Dawkins follows that evidence and declares the world is without a designer and Miller believes there is a designer. Miller apparently, l holds to his religious beliefs on faith, yet also believes to a certain extent of science. His belief is that one cannot choose between faith and science, you need both.
Post 2: “Substantial questions or elaborations or rebuttals to the required reading”
In this weeks reading, The Physics behind Four Amazing Demonstrations was very awkward. It teaches how to perform various demonstrations, mind you demonstrations that can be quite painful in a way that is not painful. The author also explains that in order to catch a person’s attention it is best to use cathy phrases, I think I would have to agree with him on this one.
In the reading, Should Skeptical Inquiry Be Applied to Religion? It talks about how the relationship between science and religion has engendered heated controversy. It has indeed caused a great circus, the belief is that in religion we must believe with no proof, go off the sense of faith, yet in science nothing is assumed without proof, there is no room for faith in science. I feel that there would be chaos if there was faith given in the study of science, everyone would believe in UFO and other mysterious theories. Yet, when it comes to religion without faith, there would be not religion because it is impossible to provide proof of everything that religion advises to have faith on, one cannot prove a miracle, which is the sole meaning of a miracle, something that happens without explanation. Religion has no room for uncertainties, and science has no room for faith.
A transformative UFO encounter is when an individual allegedly sites a UFO, but the encounters are symbols emerging from a separate ground of consciousness, like a dream or other realm of consciousness. The author of the Himalayan Connection does entertain the idea that UFO’s may be real, but as far a sure thing, he feels that the encounters that have happened so far a merely satellites, beam reflections, or other scientific explanation, excluding the possibility of UFOs or extraterrestrials. The author feels that most people that site the UFO have simply been misidentified, but continues to quest for the truth.
Post 3: “Discuss issues or ideas raised in the critical thinking films”
In the reading, Should Skeptical Inquiry Be Applied to Religion? It talks about how the relationship between science and religion has engendered heated controversy. It has indeed caused a great circus, the belief is that in religion we must believe with no proof, go off the sense of faith, yet in science nothing is assumed without proof, there is no room for faith in science. I feel that there would be chaos if there was faith given in the study of science, everyone would believe in UFO and other mysterious theories. Yet, when it comes to religion without faith, there would be not religion because it is impossible to provide proof of everything that religion advises to have faith on, one cannot prove a miracle, which is the sole meaning of a miracle, something that happens without explanation. Religion has no room for uncertainties, and science has no room for faith.
A transformative UFO encounter is when an individual allegedly sites a UFO, but the encounters are symbols emerging from a separate ground of consciousness, like a dream or other realm of consciousness. The author of the Himalayan Connection does entertain the idea that UFO’s may be real, but as far a sure thing, he feels that the encounters that have happened so far a merely satellites, beam reflections, or other scientific explanation, excluding the possibility of UFOs or extraterrestrials. The author feels that most people that site the UFO have simply been misidentified, but continues to quest for the truth.
Post 3: “Discuss issues or ideas raised in the critical thinking films”
OTTO AWARD: ELEVEN & CONFERENCE PRESENTATION Sections 3 & 4
The film eleven was extremely harsh, it was about a group of people that went on a spree of racially motivated violence in which having killed people out of revenge. It teaches that taking the law into your own hands is not necessarily the right way to do things. The goal of the group was to rid the world of terrorist threats, so they set out to rid the world of all Muslims by killing them. How asinine is this? I feel that the author of the film was trying to convey this to all the people that would watch it, that it is completely and utterly foolish to target a group of people because they have some bad seeds. It is nothing more than a hate group, the leader of the group lost his dad to terrorism, in return he became the same group that took his fathers life, he became part of the same group he was trying to get rid of, yet he changes nothing, his dad will still be gone, there will still be terrorist, and there will be a large amount of innocent people that would have lost their lives. The creation of this group will not be successful in completing its purpose because there will be an abundant amount of innocent people that will suffer, and these acts of killing all Muslims will not even rid the world of terrorist threats, the bottom line is that you cannot rid evil with evil.
I found this presentation very interesting, there were a number of opinions that all made sense, yet were so diverse. Joan Roughgarden promotes acceptance through learning, I enjoyed listening to Roughgarden’s speech, because she motivated me. Roughgarden asks, and tries to answer, all the big questions about sexual diversity among humans and animals. She talked about people in gender sexuality society and sex roles. Roughgarden argues that principal elements of Darwinian sexual selection theory are false and suggests a new theory that emphasizes social inclusion and control of access to resources and mating opportunity. Neil deGrasse Tyson argues that Roughgarden for using citing sexism influence to generalize what needs to be fixed with science, but feels that she is only looking at the smaller scope, yet needs to look at the broader scope of science.
Dawkins feels that religion is overtaking science and that evolution is under threat because of religion. Dawkins argues that religion is very similar to child abuse in that a child’s parents mold in their brains their religious beliefs, which results in the child believing in something with no proof. Dawkins states that there are many people that do not believe in religion, yet believe in the belief of religion which is the group of people that are too intelligent to believe. I thought that this was very interesting, I never thought of belief in that sense before and I feel that is an excellent way to interpret how one feels that does not believe in religion. Carolyn Porco stated that religion and belief in God are two very different meanings. After the unsuccessful endeavor to practice the religion she was born into, Catholicism, she turned to science.
The film eleven was extremely harsh, it was about a group of people that went on a spree of racially motivated violence in which having killed people out of revenge. It teaches that taking the law into your own hands is not necessarily the right way to do things. The goal of the group was to rid the world of terrorist threats, so they set out to rid the world of all Muslims by killing them. How asinine is this? I feel that the author of the film was trying to convey this to all the people that would watch it, that it is completely and utterly foolish to target a group of people because they have some bad seeds. It is nothing more than a hate group, the leader of the group lost his dad to terrorism, in return he became the same group that took his fathers life, he became part of the same group he was trying to get rid of, yet he changes nothing, his dad will still be gone, there will still be terrorist, and there will be a large amount of innocent people that would have lost their lives. The creation of this group will not be successful in completing its purpose because there will be an abundant amount of innocent people that will suffer, and these acts of killing all Muslims will not even rid the world of terrorist threats, the bottom line is that you cannot rid evil with evil.
I found this presentation very interesting, there were a number of opinions that all made sense, yet were so diverse. Joan Roughgarden promotes acceptance through learning, I enjoyed listening to Roughgarden’s speech, because she motivated me. Roughgarden asks, and tries to answer, all the big questions about sexual diversity among humans and animals. She talked about people in gender sexuality society and sex roles. Roughgarden argues that principal elements of Darwinian sexual selection theory are false and suggests a new theory that emphasizes social inclusion and control of access to resources and mating opportunity. Neil deGrasse Tyson argues that Roughgarden for using citing sexism influence to generalize what needs to be fixed with science, but feels that she is only looking at the smaller scope, yet needs to look at the broader scope of science.
Dawkins feels that religion is overtaking science and that evolution is under threat because of religion. Dawkins argues that religion is very similar to child abuse in that a child’s parents mold in their brains their religious beliefs, which results in the child believing in something with no proof. Dawkins states that there are many people that do not believe in religion, yet believe in the belief of religion which is the group of people that are too intelligent to believe. I thought that this was very interesting, I never thought of belief in that sense before and I feel that is an excellent way to interpret how one feels that does not believe in religion. Carolyn Porco stated that religion and belief in God are two very different meanings. After the unsuccessful endeavor to practice the religion she was born into, Catholicism, she turned to science.
No comments:
Post a Comment