Creation: The United States is STUPID

So, yeah. A British film about Charles Darwin starring Paul Bettany (the albino from Da Vinci Code) will not be shown in the United States for reasons you can probably already guess:

US distributors have resolutely passed on a film which will prove hugely divisive in a country where, according to a Gallup poll conducted in February, only 39 per cent of Americans believe in the theory of evolution.

What is most bizzare is that the movie focuses upon the internal conflict Darwin experienced between his faith and his work. So a movie that might provide a sensible insight into contemporary issues in the United States of Retardation will be neither shown nor viewed because "ZOMG EVOLUTION".

It's really quite a tragety, though. I mean, this would have provided a delightful distraction for Glenn Beck and the FOX News crew. Schools in the south and midwest could have used this as another sign of the "War On Jesus", or whatever the fuck they call it now. This could have sparked a brand new debate in the south and brought about a few more laws which require the teaching of Creationism in the classroom. And shitheaded cockgobblers could have had something new to protest after getting their flu shots.

But what saddens me the most is that this looks like a really good movie. So to watch it I'll have to order it from another country; but I have no desire to pay the required shipping fees.

It is the year 2009. And after 150 years we are still arguing over Darwin's finches. Because, of course, Jesus made every single one of the little fuckers. And H1N1. Remember how Jesus made H1N1? Yeah. Hopped right on the Ark with Noah and his labradoodle.

Fuck Shitting Damn It All.



edit my mikey:

Very Interesting Rocks

Let's take the Darwinian account of evolution seriously and think of human beings as one of the current products of a process of genetic mutation which started billions of years ago. Let's assume that the only difference between a human being, a beagle, and a geode are their bio-mineral compositions and the electro/chemical processes which occur between the various minerals of which they are composed. Let's abandon the notion of an eternal soul or an estrangement between a human being and the natural world. Let's view the entirety of existence as one continuum of minerals, electricity, and change over time.

How does one think about one's self within that framework?

I can understand maintaining ethical views if one disengages one's self from the nature world and posits a distinction between human beings and nature. I can understand living in the world if I am somehow a character within a setting; I am an entity and this world is a stage within which I can act as a free agent. But evolution destroys that distinction. Within the evolutionary viewpoint there is no distinction between myself and anything else.

Moreover, there is no "I" but rather there are simply value-neutral bio-chemical reactions occurring. To speak of "I" is to posit a collective where, truly, there is no collective. "My body" is aided by "my liver" where "my liver" is a posited amalgamation of particular bio-chemical reactions. But each of these collectives only exists from a certain point of view. From the perspective of my liver the smaller reactions of its particular components work to aid the whole of the liver. From the perspective of my commonly understood self my liver works to aid the whole of my body. Within the environment et. al. I am a chemical process which combines oxygen with carbon to make CO2, which ingests particular biological materials and secretes others. I am simply a part of the evolutionary process of change. Depending upon the perspective various units or "wholes" can be posited, but truly there are simply chemical reactions between particular minerals. Taken further there are only quarks or strings or whatever the smallest building block happens to be. That's all there is.

I do not know how to engage with reality as an agent, as an entity, once I realize that, truly, I am not an agent or an entity but rather that which I maintain to be my "I" is a particular grouping of bio-chemical processes. I am akin to a flame set upon a BIC lighter; I am what occurs when these chemicals and organic materials are amalgamated in this manner. There is no "I". Reality is simply bio-chemical-electrical reactions between microscopic particles.

How can there be love in the evolutionary worldview? How can there be friendship in the evolutionary worldview? How can there be an I or thou within a narrative of reality the characters of which are minerals and the actions of which are all chemical/electrical/thermal reactions? How can I be a person when, according to evolution, I am simply a very interesting rock?

That is the problem I have with empiricism understood from the scientific perspective. The final chapter of the story science tells after embracing the theme of evolution is simply reactions between microscopic particles; there are no human beings in science qua science. Love and friendship and compassion and empathy only occur within a narrative which posits human beings as separate and distinct from nature. I can only care about you within a narrative in which there is an I and a you. Science is not that narrative; science destroys that narrative.

What is the case? Is it the case that reality is a bio-chemical processes between microscopic particles or is there an I, a thou? It cannot be both; these stories are incompatible. So which is it?

I know that I want there to be an I; I want there to be some particular thous. But is there an I? Are there thous? Is there actually an I or is "I" an illusion, a fabricated amalgamation of some mess of chemical reactions between particles? When magnesium is burnt a particular sort of flame results. Is care, is empathy, is love simply the same sort of thing as that flame? Are emotions simply the result of particular chemical reactions understood from a particular perspective? Is consciousness simply the result of certain chemicals and minerals arranged in a certain manner?

What is the phenomena of life if reality is simply chemical reactions between particles?

Evolution: Cancer and Genetic Disorders

I've been watching House a lot over the past few weeks. As I've listened to their method of diagnosis and read about the terms and diseases they discuss a question has formed. So, let's talk about what a few words mean.

Evolution: While the definition of Evolution is articulated differently depending upon the particular source of the definition its core is that "Evolution" is the concept of replication with change. A species or class or type changes over time, mutates over time, and those changes and mutations are passed along through various particular manifestations of a species or class or type via, in biology, its genes.

Cancer: Cancer is the term used to denote a class of malignant Neoplasms or "growths". While Carcinogens promote the propagation of Cancers a particular organism's response to exposure to a carcinogen will be influenced by that particular organism’s inherited traits of susceptibility, its genes.

Genetic Disorder: A Genetic Disorder is a detrimental abnormality in a particular organism which results from an abnormality in its chromosomes or genes.

Here's my poorly worded, unnuanced question: Are not Genetic Disorders and Cancer particular manifestations of the core concept of Evolution? Are not Genetic Disorders and Cancer the result of that which occurs in the process denoted by the word "Evolution"?

For the moment let's abandon the social implications or understandings of these concepts and rather assess these concepts without bias. The idea of Evolution is that fundamental structures of life change over time. For example, the finches Darwin observed are said to be related but not identical. Each particular manifestation of a finch was an example of a modification to the larger category of "finch". How are Genetic Disorders and Cancer in human beings not the human equivalent of a change to beak structure?

Evolution is not sentient, not a god-esque force in Nature making decisions and assessing merits. Evolution is change; unbiased, unencumbered change. Darwin noted that species which evolve to have characteristics which are detrimental to survival die off whereas species which evolve to have useful characteristics thrive. But evolution does not make a conscious decision of "detrimental" or "useful". Evolution is merely change. Reality is where those characteristics play themselves out and "detrimental" or "useful" is observed based upon the impact a particular mutation has on an organism's survivability.

When you think about it? Cancer and Genetic Disorders are instances of Evolution, of that tendency for mutation which is a fundamental component of life within this reality. Treating Cancer, treating Genetic Disorders, is really an attempt to treat Evolution. Yes, in some instances doctors treat the result of evolution. But in others? They are attempting to treat evolution itself, to take particular biological instances of Huntington's Chorea and somehow modify these results of Evolution to not have that which they have evolved to have.

While we could focus on the boring, arbitrary conversation of whether or not treating these "diseases" is right or wrong, beneficial or detrimental, it would be more interesting to assess whether or not I am correct. Are Cancer and Genetic Disorders part of the process of Evolution? Are not these changes and mutation merely the result of the facticity of the reality in which we live, that fundamental process which occurs in the reproduction of the species? Evolution is replication with change. Are not Cancer and Genetic Disorders little more than that replication with change? Are not Cancer and Genetic Disorders the sorts of things which occur through Evolution?

Evolution: A Glimpse at Truth

Evolution is not a sentient force enacting its will on reality. Evolution has no end goal, no purpose, no intent. When we anthropomorphize Evolution, when we talk about Evolution as if it were a thing which intentions we fundamentally skew the entire concept of Evolution and allow for morons to portray Evolution as something with which one could disagree.

It's a fairly simply situation to understand. When the language used to discuss Evolution denotes the idea of a "design" onto Evolution then Evolution becomes a "designer", a thing, which then allows for other fabricated "designers" to be included in the conversation; we allow a false equivalency. But the problem is not limited to "design" language. See if you can find what is incorrect with these two sentences from the Wikipedia entry:
"The first is natural selection, a process causing heritable traits that are helpful for survival and reproduction to become more common in a population, and harmful traits to become more rare. This occurs because individuals with advantageous traits are more likely to reproduce, so that more individuals in the next generation inherit these traits."

Do you see how those sentences compacted the situation? How "helpful for survival and reproduction" were crunched together when, really, the traits are separate and distinct? Look at the second sentence. It is not the case that "individuals with advantageous traits are more likely to reproduce". Rather, individuals with traits which behoove reproduction are more likely to reproduce. Individuals with traits that behoove survival are more likely to survive.

The problem is that scientists are not equipped to deal with semantics, are not capable of articulating a message. But in a much larger sense the majority of human beings are not capable of identifying the problematic nuances of language. Here is a quick example: We cannot answer the question "Why is the sky blue?". We can answer the question "How is the sky blue?".

But getting back to evolution, the thing that most pisses me off is the self-centered way people discuss evolutionary changes over time. I'm sure you've heard the evolution of the eye argument, founded on the idea that the eye is so complex that it could not have happened by accident; it had to be designed. The problem with this view, as with many critiques of evolution, is that they view the way things are as some goal which evolution had to reach; they maintain the position that evolution was working towards developing eyes and no amount of random change over time could result in that desired end.

Which, as you can probably guess, is FUCKING STUPID and indicates a fundamental misunderstanding of what the fuck we're talking about. Evolution was not pondering reality, decided that sight would be keen, and so fumbled and tripped its way towards developing eyes. Eyes were a mutation, sight was a mutation within the string of happy accidents which is reality. Things which mutated to have sight were able to fucking trounce sightless things. Therefore, etc.

The only explanation I can think of for why this language problem exists within discussions of Evolution is that to maintain it one must acknowledge that reality has always been a happy accident, that permanence is an illusion and change is the way things are, in a very odd understanding of what "are" means. To have an accurate and correct understanding of Evolution one must accept that fundamentally this, the way things are, is all just something that happened as a result of these random mutations. We, You, I do not exist as a result of our needing to exist and some design for our existing. We're just something that happened. We're not engaged in an evolutionary arms race, developing and changing to accommodate an innate desire to one up other beings. We're just the result of a bunch of mutations. We exist within an infinite expanse of time containing a nigh-infinite universe with nigh-infinite stars around which orbit nigh-infinite planets. When you think about it that way, apply evolution, and abandon a self-centered viewpoint? You begin to understand what reality is all about.

And very few people want to accept that.