Since Fukushima, everyone has been talking about rolling back on nuclear because it’s now considered just too dangerous. Why? On the face of it, Fukushima might look like a disaster, partly because it’s inevitably associated with the real tragedy that was the preceding tsunami and also because it reminds us all of Chernobyl. But is that a fair assessment? People keep talking about the Fukushima tragedy. Catastrophe maybe, but tragedy? Tragedy implies heavy loss of life. So far, there are scarcely any reports of lives directly lost from radiation poisoning at Fukushima. It took an 8.9 earthquake/tsunami to lead to a reactor meltdown that has yet to claim lives. While there are many lessons to be learned from this incident, there is also a fact that needs to be finally accepted: Nuclear energy is not nearly as dangerous as people purport it to be.

http://bigthink.com/ideas/24634

Sadly, I think the video is no longer available, but it’s still an exciting discovery, particularly given that the question concerns an idea that forms the basis of my next short story. It clearly beats the mention I received in the fan mail section of an obscure comedy podcast I listen to. It predates it too!

[UPDATE] I found the video on someone’s Dailymotion account. How absolutely thrilling!

So here are my two short stories from Amazon.co.uk or Amazon.com. Hopefully I’ll get some feedback at some point soon.

In other news, I have achieved my goal of getting a TEDconversation debate into the featured list. This was my 4th or 5th attempt. It happened sometime after TED owner Chris Anderson himself commented in my thread! Those were exciting times. The debate  “there is no such thing as free will” is still up (but sadly closed now):  http://www.ted.com/conversations/1107/there_is_no_such_thing_as_free.html

240 comments. A lot of passion and strong opinions. It was an interesting experience. I haven’t had any new topic ideas yet, but it’ll come to me (probably when I’ve got work to do, as always…)

28th of June 2011 update:

The short story book I advertise on this post is no longer available. Stay tuned for a bigger short-story collection coming soon (I’ve got to write them first).

Check out: http://shortscifi.wordpress.com

Of course, I have shared my opinion about varying aspects of animal rights here and there, sometimes saying and thinking certain things that contradicted each other. On one occasion, two years ago, I said to one of my friends that the extension of special rights to apes other than ourselves (Yes. We are not only descended from ancestral forms of ape, we are apes ourselves) should seriously be considered. On the other hand, I have often maintained that animal testing was a necessary evil if it was useful (that excludes animal testing for beauty products and other frivolous forms of entertainment). Unlike everything I’ve written about so far, I cannot say I have a clear-cut stance on this. I must admit, it has been fairly easy to write about things for which I have a definite point of view, particularly things for which the alternative stance appeared to be bigoted and misguided (i.e. gender and sexual preference issues). That is not to say that my point of view on some of the previous issues has not changed. I no longer embrace the view that smoking should somehow be made illegal just because I judge it inconvenient behavior. There are many advantages to keeping dangerous substances legal lest they become more dangerous and lead to unnecessary violence. Substances within the legal realm can be regulated. Furthermore, one should have the freedom to destroy ones health if they so wish. I personally may not smoke and still find it a nuisance having people around me who do, but with time I have tried really hard to think as objectively  as possible about important societal and ethical issues. The point is not that I take radical stances and stick with them, but that when I do change my mind, I don’t spend much time in the undecided zone.

This is different. A mere year ago, I could hardly describe my opinions about the issue a stance at all but more like a default position, what one says about an important subject matter when questioned about it without really having taken the time to properly think about it. The aggressive and almost mindless vociferations of the animal right activists of the P.E.T.A pedigree I encountered at university did nothing to help me on my way. One could even say that their extreme point of view gave me an excuse to dismiss the whole issue altogether as a way for those individuals to justify their time at university. I can’t help but think that I probably wasn’t that much better when it came to the global warming issue back in my first year at university and that in some cases the intransigence with which I presented my views might have been seriously off-putting. Having said that, I have never condoned unnecessarily hostile gestures in the name of environmentalism that could be equated with some of the more atrocious actions of P.E.T.A and their terrorist allies (A.R.M).

In the last few months however, with the aggressive voices of the fanatical no longer polluting my ears and the more balanced and varied views offered by Radio France Inter’s “Vivre avec les bêtes” (Living with creatures) accompanying my daily journeys to-an-fro university campus, I have developped quite an interest in the animal condition. Credit must also be given to shows such as Jean-Claude Ameisen’s “Sur les épaules de Darwin” (On the shoulders of Darwin); which gently reminds me how closely tied we are with the rest of the animal kingdom, sharing similar senses crucial to the feelings of pleasure and pain, and Mathieu Vidard’s exceptional “La tête au carré” which occasionally deals with the ethical component of science to which I have payed little or no attention before.

So what has fundamentally changed in my position? As I have said, my views here are a work in progress. What has evolved here are not so much my views themselves but my awareness of the issue. The fact of the matter is, animal ethics has forced me out of my comfort zone and into a realm where many approaches  (which seem more or less equally valid) present themselves to me. None of them have so far taken me in completely. But I do find myself agreeing with the idea of a gradualist approach to animal rights. I mean by this that we should not think of animal rights in terms of one set of rights for all non-human animals but a set of varying rights specific to sets of species. After all, the human animal has its own set of laws. We do not want animal rights to be another reaffirmation of the ‘there’s us and there’s them’ syndrome. If we take the view that a gradualist approach to the question of animal rights is the way forward, then the fate of other apes than ourselves should be our greatest concern. How far we can allow laboratory testing in this case should be of vital concern, much more so than with mice.

Alternatives to animal testing exists and they should be actively pursued whenever possible. With our newfound genome sequencing abilities we should now be able to learn a lot more from the studies at the non-invasive genotype level rather than the occasionally invasive phenotype level. This is not to say that the animal testing era has come to pass, far from that, just that we must consider the many options that exists first (all of these options providing similar quality of data and research so as to not stymie the progress of science) instead of taking animal testing as the default position.

I haven’t got much else to bring to the table, as I’m still uncertain where I stand on the issue overall. I could probably give my opinion on specific examples, but would the accumulation of these opinions make sense altogether? I’m not sure. The important message here is that what I’ve heard in recent times has got me thinking and I no longer take a fatalistic approach to the subject. It’s taking a while to decide, but in a way I take comfort in this. It proves to me that I’m truly thinking about these issues seriously instead of blindly following a tendentious collective hysteria like some of my friends sadly have. One thing I will not do is let myself go overboard with this issue. I’m certainly not going to become a vegan and you will never see me encouraging blood being thrown on kids at Disneyland (fucking P.E.T.A scum). But a transformation is ongoing. Ethics in general and animal rights in particular, have become new areas of interest for me.

We have come so far since that time, does it still make sense to believe in a God in our day and age?  Would Newton still have been religious in a time where evolution has been shown to be the means by which all life arises and grows to reach more complex forms by totally natural means?  Surely, he would have been forced to concede that human beings are in no way separate from the animal kingdom, that what separates us so neatly from other species today is merely the fact that all the other vaguely human forms that make the chain from Man to any other species have long gone extinct. If one understands evolution correctly, one can clearly see that there is no definite moment when an individual can be called the first Man rather than anything else in the same way that you could never be  exactly sure at what exact point a few grains of salt became a pile of salt. But then, if there is no definite first Man who would be the first soul bearer? If there was a soul bearer, why would his immediate parent not be endowed with a soul himself? after all, parent and child would be so similar, the differences between them would be literally indiscernible.

Does it still make sense to believe in a God in our day and age, with the knowledge that astronomers such as Edwin Hubble, Fred Hoyle or George Gamow have provided us with? We now know how insignificantly small our planet is when compared to the vastness of our own galaxy which contains billions of star systems.  But this is only in our galaxy. There are more galaxies to be found in the cosmos, separated by vast expanses of void. We’re not talking about hundreds, neither are we counting in millions or restricting ourselves to a mere few billion, the astounding number of galaxies we do not have the privilege to call our own is well beyond the hundreds of billions figure. Carl Sagan’s famous billions & billions. Most, very probably devoid of life, but because of the sheer number of galaxies, some indubitably endowed with a life promising to be so different from our own. One just has to listen to the Carl Sagan’s exquisite monologue on The Pale Blue Dot that our planet appears to be from Saturn’s vantage point, to fully appreciate how very little of the cosmos cares for our existence. How we stand alone in the vast cold space. In Carl Sagan’s words: “on a mote of dust suspended in a sunbeam”. And to think that the Universe has fared pretty well without us for 13 billion years is yet more humbling.

Does it still make sense to believe in a God in our day and age when information is so readily available? when the geographical barriers between cultures that led us to keep other religions but our own, out of the mind, do not exist anymore? This is a time when, unless in denial, we must concede that most religions are in fact, as convincing as each other. Undoubtedly, back in the days before airplanes and the Internet, it would have been so easy for one to revel in his own religion and wave off all other religions as small insignificant cults. In the light of recent events, such as the radical Islam September 11 attacks and our own; partially driven by Christian fervour, retaliation in Afghanistan and Iraq (why Iraq?) and with globalisation in mind, it is clear that our planet is too interconnected for religions to ignore each other any longer. Christianity may have the most adherents, reaching up to 2 billion, but can it still, in our time, will itself to ignore the 4.5 billion people who don’t share that belief in the holiness of the Christ? Not to mention that these 2 billions are further divided into smaller sects such as Catholics, Protestants, Latter Day Saints, Jehova witnesses, Westboro Baptist Church…the list goes on. As we look back at the vast history and prehistory that precedes us, with the knowledge we have of past religions, prospering for a time and then fading away, becoming mythology in some cases, is it so hard to see this happening to the beliefs many hold as true today? Did the Romans and Greeks and Norse not hold on to their beliefs as strongly as modern man does cling to his Christianity, his Islam, his Hinduism? Do we learn nothing from the sudden emergence of Scientology? Are we too blind to see in the burgeoning cult, a mirror held to the monotheistic religions, as if to say: “Look at this, this very improbable fantasy tale that many people so readily dismiss today. Give it a few thousand years, and it will be treated as fact, and people will know in their heart that it is true and that everyone else is misguided. They will say to you that they don’t believe that it’s true, they KNOW that it’s true”.

So why believe in a God? is it to fulfil a need for wonder and awe? The Universe supplies enough wonder without branching into the supernatural. Just think of the awesome fact that almost every single element that constitutes your body was forged in the heart of a star so tantalizingly bigger than our own Star. Think of the dizzying fact that in order for you to exist, every single one of your ancestors, all the way down to LUCA, a few billion years ago, had to successfully survive and reproduce. The sensation that one feels when they believe they are in communion with God can easily be recreated by the sheer wonder that one feels when staring at the magnificent captures of nebulaes that Hubble has to offer. To think that these giant clouds of gas span over distances of a few hundred million years is truly a powerful idea capable of eliciting powerful emotions.

Truly, I wonder, how is it possible to believe any sort of God or Gods exists? Just think about it. If God existed but somehow disappeared tomorrow, what would actually change in the world? There would still be many good and evil deeds, lives of comfort and lives of suffering.Would anybody really notice? Probably not, nobody questioned whether God had disappeared in dire times such as the 2nd World War and its Holocaust. However bad things get, people believe, which says a lot about the irrationality of such beliefs. Would people continue praying, convinced their prayers don’t go unnoticed, even when life has treated them badly? Would anybody truly feel his disappearance? Of course they wouldn’t, because no one truly is in contact with God. Not even the Pope in Rome who clearly serves his own ridiculous Conservative views, in contradiction with the scientific knowledge which exists in our culture. So how would that “tomorrow” be perceptually different then the day before? It wouldn’t. Simply because it is “tomorrow”, always was, always will be.

It’s typical for believers to try and fill every gap there is in our scientific knowledge with God. Carl Sagan describes this progressively limited Deity as the God-of-the-gaps. The genesis of life was one of those gaps that was asking to be filled. Ever since Darwin’s theory took over Paley’s intelligent design hypothesis in the minds of people, making the mythical watchmaker a blind one, the life genesis mystery was the last place in Biology to be available to be filled with a puddle of wishful thinking. The idea was that God didn’t make every living organism, but did make the first organism so that millions of years later, with 90% of the species ever to have existed extinct, we would emerge. Well, scratch that. Confirming what most scientist believed and what, to be honest, a lot of people expected, life has been shown to be able to emerge spontaneously. Not a big surprise given that Chemistry teaches us that different molecules of matter interact with each other and make other molecules of matter. If you had already thrown out the idea that human being had souls, then why be surprised that life emerged from basic laws of physics and chemistry like the rest of matter?

I’ve already drifted too long from the point I was intending to make, the one I’m hinting towards in my title: the idea that without God we have no morals. Of course I’d just be tempted to point towards a country with a prominent number of atheists (like Sweden, or my own, France), but then I’d get some sort of answer in the lines of  “well, our society reflects religious morals and applies them into law”. But that’s forgetting all the farfetched laws that exist in the Bible and that nobody follows. So how do we know which laws to follow in the Bible? Do we chose which ones to follow and which ones not to? Yes. But what do we base that choice on…mmmmh…maybe some pre-existing morality inherent to us ? Well, so much for the idea that the Bible is our source of goodness. Although, to be fair, our society does very much reflect our religious heritage. How else could you explain why gay rights are still so limited, even today?

Well you may now challenge me to explain where these inherent morals come from. Simple, they evolved. In the context of evolution though, the concepts of morality come under different names. The most obvious one is altruism. The kind of altruism you find in Humans and other primates. One of my friends has suggested that chimpanzee might have God in their lives too (we just don’t know it) and that would then explain why they also appeared moral. The only useful information I get from that kind of pathetic argument is that my opponent is clutching at straws at this point. But to make him happy, I’ll point towards a dumber animal that shows a primitive form of altruism: social ants. Come to think of it, the example I’m about to use is readily applicable to most living species on Earth. A common claim is that, without moral being delivered by the divine, there is just no way we could have morals and therefore if God didn’t exist, we should be killing, stealing and generally being an ass to everyone else. In fact, evolution favors certain kinds of altruism. Take a population of animals divided into two groups, those who help each other and those who don’t (Take in account that whether they help each other or not is not a conscious choice of theirs but a product of their evolution, in this example they can’t swith). Let’s say that those animals have a capacity to remember who was helpful and who wasn’t and bear a grudge. Say that these animals become incapable to fend for themselves for whatever reason at given points in time. Altruist individuals will initially help everyone. Selfish individuals will help no one but let others help them. From a utilitarian point of view, the selfish life looks like a good life, since you do not waste energy and time on others but let others waste time and energy on you. However, as I have stated earlier, those animals have some form of memory and can bear a grudge. When an altruist discovers that his services are not being reciprocated, he will boycott helping the selfish individual in future. As a selfish individual’s entourage slowly discovers his selfishness, that individual is left with no one to support him through his hard times, neither his altruist or selfish peers will come to help. So while altruists continue getting occasional help in their hard times when they are lucky to be acquainted with other altruists, a selfish individual gets no help and therefore suffers a greater chance of dying. Thus the altruistic mode of life comes on top of selfishness, a position that is more prone to lead to death of the individual. This is but one, in a vast amount of examples in which altruism is favored. In nature, we tend to see a lot of cooperation within species and even in between species (most notably symbiosis, where two animals of different species are so bent on helping each other they evolve to become inter-dependent on each other).

So clearly, many facetes of what we call morality and what scientist interpret as altruism, empathy and the like, can be explained through our evolutionary heritage. But even without going as far as showing it in evolutionary terms, the idea that without God’s judgment we would go around killing people is slightly strange. Sure it sounds valid to many, but if you really think about it, you’re much better off coming to an agreement with someone not to try to kill him in exchange for him not trying to kill you than attempting to kill him. That way, not only are you saving time and energy and possibly your life, but you’re also saving yourself from the risk of being wounded and therefore being killed by the next freak that showed up at your doorstep or your inability to feed yourself. Clearly, if you think about it really hard, an amoral humanity where everyone went around killing each other for sport would have its population diminished by some ghastly amount. But, evolution favors genes that can be passed on successfully from generation to generation. Would the previously described scenario be an ideal one for this trend? Of course not, most people having perished under someone else’s hand, would dissapear leaving no genetic trace. But say in this horrible, horrible world, a bunch of people decide to cooperate, helping their wounded and being assured that they will get the same treatment. Because of numbers they are stronger and their individual chances of surviving are augmented. Not to mention that, being in a little community of their own, they can reproduce more easily. So while others mutually erase their genetic material from the world, the cooperating people successfully thrive and rebuild a society. Of course, this is never going to happen, because we already are the cooperating beings. And many species of animals nicely cooperate with each other regardless of whether they belong to the same family or not. Just look at those voracious lions, satisfying their hunger by eating a bunch of gazelles. It would probably be easier to just jump on another Lion and eat it, that would save an individual a lot of time. But it just doesn’t happen for all the reasons I’ve stated.

In brief, a chimpanzee doesn’t need God to be good to his peers and neither does a human being. And calling upon the 5 most horrible atheists in history is a weak argument. You’ve heard that one before haven’t you, the Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot thing…and you spend the first 5 minutes explaining that Hitler didn’t show any sign of atheism and how the people who participated in the genocide like Goebbels were religious. There’s a reason that the belt of SS soldiers said “God is with us”, it wasn’t just fancy dress. But we don’t blame Goebbels religiosity to the massacre because there is no correlation. Same with atheism, the fact that Stalin or Mao were atheist is as much to the point as the fact that they were both born in December. However, where there is correlation (and this is probably the reason why the prior shit argument even surfaced to start with) is in the massacres that are done clearly in the name of religion. The crusades is the prime example. Can we think of something more recent? Islamic terrorism. You can also bet there are a few people in Iran who are really suffering right now from “God’s moral code”. And is it moral for the Pope to promote unrealistic demands of abstinence, at the expense of people who could hardly no better, causing many preventable deaths? Which raises an interesting question for Catholics, if God’s morals are so solid and the Pope supposedly talks to God, how come some people disaprove the new Pope so much? Sounds like in fact no one is really convinced by their own stories to me or they aren’t actively trying to think about how it all doesn’t make sense. Come to think of it, the latter option is probably the most valid. However, living in denial can ever do so much…

Please give me a nice rating

So this is basically some of the reasons that push me as far as wishing for a ban on smoking. I have a lot of friends who support this idea, but it’s safe to say that most people would just find this position shocking. Why ? why have I been branded as intolerant for that view ? Is it not true that, in addition to beeing detrimental to the user’s health, it is also detrimental to other people in that person’s close entourage? I could begin to understand it if it had a long term benefit on the user and only posed a short term problem for others. That’s why I don’t like analogies between smoking and the pollution generated by cars for example. Cars are useful. They get you to places very fast (although, I would of course encourage taking the train if possible) and the generated pollution is only but an unfortunate by-product (also, I might add, the exhaust pipe is not pointed at your face). In cigarettes, everything is an unfortunate by-product. No true beneficial purpose is served (you could argue that it provokes temporary relaxation, but at what cost ?). It is often said that if cigarettes had been invented today, they would have been made illegal because of the fact that they are substantially worse than some of the drugs that are, in fact, illegal today. Isn’t that revealing ? It’s another one of those cases where something has existed for so long in our society that is has sunk into general acceptance (this quite nicely makes reference to some of my earlier posts).

Many have argued that it would be quite foolish to make cigarettes illegal because people would still smoke, but they’d do it illegally. The thing is, if it were illegal, it wouldn’t be done out in the open but quite probably in the comfort of one’s home in total discretion. Not in my face. (Maybe a good compromise would be to make it legal to smoke in your own home, I would dread the effect on the other members of the family though).

Some of Durham's Humanist Society members with Richard Dawkins

It is quite interesting to look back and reflect on how short a period it was between the time I first heard about Richard Dawkins and the first time I got the honour to be in his presence. The first exposure I got from this great man was through a University friend, Laurence Dawson, who was reading his very last book, the highly controversial book “The God Delusion”.  At that time, I was quite convinced that this would be the kind of book I’d never really bother reading. I was already an atheist at the time, but I wasn’t particularly interested in atheism itself, I was just one of those people that simply couldn’t be satisfied by religious beliefs. Also, having lived in a truly secular country (France) where religious people kept to themselves (albeit the very occasion intolerant Catholic namely one who’d make uneducated remarks such as “I hate Muslims for copying everything from Christianity” and would write on her pencil case “long live God” and “long live the king” [what king ?]), I wasn’t really bothered by religion. France is one of those countries where you don’t have to fake church attendance to get into a good school, because of France’s strong stance on state/church separation (maybe there’s a correlation to be found here with the fact that France has a majority of atheists ?). I later re-discovered Richard Dawkins as an evolutionary biologist and from there, my interest in his work started to grow quite rapidly. The pivotal moment that turned me into a unconditional admirer of the Oxford Professor was when I read “The Selfish Gene”. It was such a wonderful piece of writing that it renewed my interest with the field of Evolutionary Biology. There is so much more to say about the theory of evolution than what is taught in high schools in France (although I wouldn’t be surprised if I heard that this particular chapter of biology was explored in more depth in the French educational system than it was in the UK’s or the US’s). Professor Dawkins was truly a man that knew his subject. In the midst of this newfound interest however, I also started paying more attention to his other message, the one that underlined his strong atheistic stance. At that point in time, intelligent design was creeping its way into the spotlight (and into classrooms), revealing America’s deep ignorance on so simple a theory. I was also taken by surprise by the lengths at which the Christian Union in Durham would go to be heard not only by their own adherents, but by everyone. The provocative “Know Truth” slogans seemed to multiply over a special week that apparently was set up every year. I could easily understand why some of my University friends seemed so hostile towards religion (note I say religion rather than the religious individuals themselves) and the exasperation started to grow on me too. This did eventually spur me on to read “The God Delusion” which turned out to be quite a good read (although it doesn’t beat the genius of “The Selfish Gene” in my opinion). Before Dawkins is blamed for my more radical view of religion, I’d like to point out that I was already generally more outspoken about religion before I even bought the book. It was the plain fact of living in a country where religion still meddled with other non-religious people’s lives and hearing people honestly state their opposition to gay rights that got me started (not to mention the growth of ID on the other side of the Atlantic). The book served only as an amplifier of that opposition. I’ve also read the “the Blind Watchmaker”, another great book (although “The Selfish Gene” remains THE favorite) which ultimately would become the book in my collection that would bare the signature of the author himself.

My opportunity to meet Richard Dawkins came when I joined the Durham Humanist Society. Noticing in first year that the Humanist Society was gathering dust, Laurence and I set out to create our own society, the Rationalist Society. However, to my great delight, the Humanist Society did pick up in my second year at University and I immediately joined, leaving my plans to found my own society behind. Little did I know at the time that I would have the immense pleasure to witness and be part of the creation of the National Federation of Atheist, Humanist and Secular Students Societies which emcompassed 11 societies from different Universities and that at its inauguration in London, I would meet my mentor. I obviously always clung to the hope that we would one day get Richard Dawkins to speak in Durham, but even by my most optimistic predictions, I didn’t really expect him to show up anytime soon. I obviously let out a very vocal burst of excitement when I discovered that I could be part of a trip to London that could very potentially result in seeing the legend in the flesh.There was no doubt as to whether I was going or not. I was going.

And so I went there, I met him. We were in quite a small comittee, things were quite casual. A lot of students conversed quite freely with him. I cannot boast to have said very much to him, being the shy person I am. I did manage to get him to sign my book and participate in our society picture (I got some of my words mixed up on that second request). But what’s important for me is that I got to see him and tell him how much I admired his work. And it has to be said that, for someone who is asked to sign so many books every five minutes, he’s quite a nice person. And now I get to show off my picture with Dawkins and make some of my friends jealous.

It would be all well and good if “Intelligent Design” just kept to its domain (theology ?), but now it is attacking the US’ science classrooms. Evolution is being questioned. Now of course, the theory of Evolution is science. Therefore you would expect it to be checked and re-checked again, new evidence would be added here and there, new observations…in a sense, the theory itself evolves. But to question the theory altogether on the basis of a “theory” that has no sound scientific grounding, that is a serious insult to the concept of science itself. The theory of Evolution is a FACT. We can observe (and by observe I mean, by indirect evidence, not with our eyes) what the theory predicts. DNA clearly shows that all species have one common ancestor (often called ‘LUCA’) that was the first to carry DNA. Fossil records show different species lived at different times (such times that drastically contradict Biblical times) and seem to follow a pattern of emergence and extinction. We can sometimes find the common ancestors of some species (The famous transitional fossil of the Archaeopteryx is proof enough of the link between dinosaurs and birds).  Even in our modern societies we can observe the mutations that participate in evolution through the genetic diseases some people carry or the emergence of ever stronger and vicious bacteria and viruses.  If viruses and bacteria weren’t changing all the time, we would have eradicated the ones that cause morbidity.

The late Stephen Gould once dedicated a whole book called “Rocks of age” to the fact that religion and science were supposedly, as he called it, NOMA (Non-overlapping Magesteria).  This means that they both had their own separate bit of the world to, dare I say, explain. A typical expression of this is to say that science answers the question ‘how ?’ and religion the question ‘why ?’. In other words, religion answers question ‘why am I here ? (what is MY purpose ?)’. Clearly those are arrogant questions whose answers find disillusionment in science, even though that is not the intention of science (although it is true that science often acts as an ‘eye opener’). You’re here because Evolution amounted to you, and no, there is no damn FUCKING purpose to life. People just can’t compose with the absence of meaning of life. At best, I suggest that ’42′ is the meaning of life, the universe and everything (or Douglas Adams’ way of showing how petty a question this is).  Now that we have found that religion answers nothing, lets come back to our NOMA. Like Richard Dawkins, the ever famous biologist and fervent atheist (writer of ‘The God delusion’ which I am currently reading), I certainly never believed that religion and science were NOMAs. If you just look at all the things that religion and science disagree about and the constant censorship that religion has tried to impose upon science, you cannot believe NOMA for one second. NOMA is obviously a non-confrontational way of attempting to reconcile religion and science (a reconciliation ordained by  scientist, Gould being an agnostic biologist). But both concepts tread on each other’s turf. Science because it can’t help it, religion because it feels threatened (rightly so for its myths are being rebuked). And now, Religion leads the ultimate assault on science. And unfortunately this time, its working well.

So goodbye to NOMA. Religion is awarely and violently stumbling over science territory. There is no reason for science to be apologetic to religion as it clearly wants to replace the more ‘theistically unpleasant bits of science’. In a word, religion wants to control the ‘why’ AND the ‘how’. although of course, Intelligent Design doesn’t give any concrete answer. Simply that GOD made it, with some hideously subjective arguments. How plainly stupid it is to say “This is so complex, it HAD to be designed !” That just clearly shows how impressionable humans are and at the same time, its an easy way to flatter ourselves, the very complicated ones. All of a sudden, a “HAD to be” is as good as the “IS” of science. and might I add that it is such an easy conclusion when you can just look around you to find self-gratification ? Any idiot can look out his window and say “its so complex and looks like a highly intricate design”. But that is so subjective. An alien life form that had a look at our society would possibly be utterly shocked at the sight of a cat, as the cat would be so utterly bizarre from its point of view as the alien life form might be to us (if indeed we have the tact to recognize that it’s even alive !). It’s a question of familiarity really.

There is also a theory including the perfect shape and constitution of a banana, designed for human consumption. It’s grotesque. I leave up to you to find it. But just to show quickly how we are not a manifestation of a designer, here are some imperfections in the human body: Our blind spot in each eye, the fact that guys have nipples, our appendix (that thing that so many people remove anyway). surely the perfect designer would not be so negligent. Furthermore, if all complexity needs a designer to account for it’s harmonious complexity, who is the designer of the most complex of these entities ? God ! who created him ? and who created the one who created him ? clearly, we would get a paradoxical line of creators creating each other. Because, saying that God is outside the Universe is a shit argument (or that he is ‘Holistic’, thus playing on words and dismissing the problem at hand).

Why should I even bother, smart people will read this and nod in agreement while a fundie will skim through it and babble something stupid and in the same breath, say something that clearly indicates he hasn’t read it through.

Most Creationist don’t know what they are talking about when they speak of evolution. Where they see a system that is pure chance and improbability, we see natural selection at hand. where they see irreducible complexity, we see different stages (While they see a whole eye formed by chance, we see the careful evolution of a photosynthetic cell into different types of eyes, with various degrees of complexity and usefulness [half an eye is better than no eye at all !]). but the fact is, totally ignoring the instructions of the secularist founding fathers, the US has become a big sectarian state. And democracy prevails in a wicked twisted way as the people are ultimately asked what they want to be taught (or brainwashed with) as though they carried the scientific knowledge. They stand on the opposite side to science. 90% of religious Americans in the US, but only 8% or the like, among the ‘elite’ scientist of the same country (all of which would never dare support ID for they are scientist 1st !).

People who don’t know science should not be trusted with science. If the people decided, the earth would still be flat and at the centre of the universe. Not because it’s true, but because it’s appealing.  It’s the narcissism of human beings that drags us towards the centre. Science pushes us off our ‘superiority’ pedestal. And after all that, scientist are called the ‘arrogant lot’. I beg to differ.

But there is hope…Barack Obama, even though he has his own religious views is profoundly anti-sectarian. Is this were ID starts backing up ? After all, George Bush’s administration can easily be blamed for emphasizing religion and encouraging ID. Maybe. The fight is hardly over…