Science > God?

VS.

Scientists are crazy God is a large white man in the sky

Has science proven to be better than God? Is this necessarily a bad thing? Can there somehow be a marriage between the two? Will I actually answer any of these questions or just digress into talking about my favorite childhood television and radio shows? Just kidding, we didn't have radio shows when I was a kid.

First, we need to define God: "The supreme or ultimate reality: as A: the Being perfect in power, wisdom, and goodness who is worshipped as creator and ruler of the universe." In other words (mine), that means some dude that may or may not be our reality who is basically the be all end all of everything, ever. It's kind of mind-boggling to think about it, as our tenuous grasps on concepts such as "perfect", and "wisdom", and "goodness" are flawed at best, considering we as a species aren't any of those things. Except me, of course. I'm pretty perfect(ly acceptable looking), wise(assish), and good (at air hockey).

Now, in order to figure out whether or not scientists are playing God, we should first define the phrase "playing God". According to my sources (that hyperlink up there), there are three overlapping meanings:

1.) "The sense of awe rising from new discoveries into the depths of life", which might mean something along the lines of finding a new species of animal (Lizard Man of Scape Ore Swamp mayhaps?).

2.) "...Supposes that scientists are substituting themselves for God. Like Prometheus, scientists are said to be overstepping finite limits; out of pride or hubris they are risking a backlash from nature." This is pretty self-explanatory, scientists are cocky bastards that don't care what boundaries they overstep, even if nature herself tells them to back the (expletive) off.

3.) "...Refers to the sacralization of DNA." Perhaps this definition is against bringing dinosaurs back from extinction to put them into large parks for people to come look at? Although, that could be one hell of a learning experience for any children interested in paleontology.

Allow me to take on those definitions one by one by one, if you will. I don't think "the sense of awe rising from new discoveries" can get anyones panties in a bunch, as that seems pretty harmless. Discoveries are only discoveries, and awe simply means someone like you or me looking at said discovery and going, "No shit..." with eyes wide and mouth slightly open. Hardly a reason to get up in arms if you ask me, unless someone somewhere has something against awe. Which is completely possible.

The second definition is where people of the religious variety get pissy about science like an old person who can't figure out how to make their VCR work. The definition brings up Prometheus , which is kind of funny because he doesn't have anything to do with a monotheistic God. Although, I guess as a metaphor it works comparing Prometheus to scientists, as scientists could be seen as stealing "fire" from God when they cure the flu, or make someones heart beat when it wasn't supposed to, or any number of other evil sciency things.

But perhaps the worst thing about science in light of that definition is that they're "overstepping finite limits", although it is vague in terms of what limits they're talking about. I'm going to make a logical leap here (much like the Bible - oh snap!), and take that to mean that science has overstepped its bounds in terms of the origins of the universe, evolution, and basically anything else that contradicts Genesis, because Genesis does a good enough job of contradicting itself and doesn't need anyone else to do it for him!

Get it? Genesis?

Is this the great evil of science (disproving the Bible, not Genesis the band)? Why people hate it so? Considering the basic tenets of intolerance most religions have subscribed to throughout history (including now - gay rights anyone? No? Alright...), this seems like a logical argument. Science and religion, in this way, are not compatible. My good friend Dr. Richard Dawkins would like to say something now: "The question of whether there exists a supernatural creator, a God, is one of the most important that we have to answer. I think that it is a scientific question. My answer is no."

Wow, strong words there Mr. Dawkins. Any rebuttals from anyone else, anywhere? How about you, Dr. Francis Collins? "Yes. God's existence is either true or not. But calling it a scientific question implies that the tools of science can provide the answer. From my perspective, God cannot be completely contained within nature, and therefore God's existence is outside of science's ability to really weigh in."

Wow, that's a strong argument. And one I would like to expound on, if I may. No objections? Good, here it goes: If God cannot be quantified by scientific study, then why is there still an argument about this? If you believe he can be, as Dr. Dawkins seems to, then it only makes rational, logical, more synonyms for those two words, sense that you cease to believe, or at least revise it. Let's face it, the Earth is billions of years old, not thousands. Genetically it's impossible for us to have come from two people, or one really if Eve was a part of Adam's rib. And Noah's Ark, really? Do I really have to point out the flaws in the story of Noah's Ark? I'll leave that to my colleague Anthony.

So... Where did brown cats come from then?

And of course, there's the argument that science (better sit down for this one) isn't necessarily bad. In fact, it could be more merciful than an already all merciful (if vengeful) God. As Minette Martin says in her article, "Nature is astonishingly cruel. Science, by contrast, has the power of mercy." She later goes on to say, "...Whatever we may think about playing God and defying nature, we are doing it already..."

Everything about mankind is unnatural. In this way we shunned God and the world (universe?) he created long ago. Probably around the time we started using toilets. Man has even been known to change the rate of evolution, if you believe the December/January issue of Discover Magazine and the fact that we've wiped out more than one species of animal singlehandedly. On the reverse side of that coin, as Ms. Marrin points out, "...one could argue that rescuing such (disabled) people from extinction is also rescuing their disability from extinction - a godlike activity, surely." Yet I think you would be hard-pressed to find a religious individual that thinks we should just let people with disabilities suffer for it.

So what was the point of this dissertation? The point is that I'm kind of tired about hearing creationists vs. skeptics/atheists/scientists, or religion vs. science, or God vs. science, or Jesus vs. giant ape men or whatever is top billing this week. Science is not bad, nor does it have to do with God in a direct way necessarily. Tolerance would be a good word here, although religion does not have a good track record under that heading as I pointed out above. They can co-exist, as they do in Dr. Collins life, but need to be kept separate. When they're not you get things like creationism, or that horrible movie Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed. I don't even want to link that one.

Here are some facts to close this out, the universe is 13.4 billion years old, the Earth about 4.54 billion years old, evolution is a real, observable thing, God is not, everything about man is unnatural, and my hands hurt from typing so damn much.

- Craig

P.S. - I know I didn't tackle the third definition, but I don't need to in order to make my point, whatever that was. I don't remember now.

Eff a Pony, I Want a Pegasus for My Birthday!: Cut and Paste Biology

People love their fantasies. Since the dawn of man people have told stories about completely fictional creatures and pretended they were real. There is an entire field of “scientific” study by “scientists” called cryptozoology that focuses on these creatures. Now I’m not talking about aliens, or vampires, or werewolves; that would be ridiculous. I’m talking about yetis, chupacabras, or the Lizard Man of Scape Ore Swamp. Things that can, within the realm of “reason”, exist.

But what if we didn’t have to find them? What if we could make them and then slyly place them in the woods of South Carolina and claim victory? The newish field of synthetic biology (which J. Craig Venter of the J. Craig Venter Institute insists is actually, at the moment, just a branch of molecular biology) is looking to do just that*. In those deep, dark, dingy laboratories of scientists that will eventually be known as evil, they are creating simple life forms from nothing but dust. Right now they’re working on simple bacteria, and viruses (omg viruses, we should all be terrified that one will escape and wipe out mankind!), but in time could be making all the fantastical creatures we hoped for as children.

But first, some explanations are in order. According to this website, the area of study can be defined as “the design and fabrication of biological components and systems that do not already exist in the natural world”. This can also encompass “the re-design and fabrication of existing biological systems”. I can sense what you’re thinking as you’re reading this, because I’m telepathic**. You’re thinking, “Mr. Gusmann, good sir, how can you possibly create a biological component and system that doesn’t already exist in the natural world? To ponder such a possibility would be both blasphemous and ludicrous!”

My answer to that statement would simply be, “Stop talking like you’re from the early 19th century.” However, I would then go on to explain that DNA, the building blocks of any life, is made up of molecules that we know how to make. These molecules are adenine (C5H5N5), guanine (C5H5N5O), thymine (C5H6N2O2), and cytosine (C4H5N3O). We also know how to sequence genomes, and finished up sequencing the human genome earlier this decade. Now adenine, thymine, cytosine, and guanine do an amazing thing when put together - they self-assemble to make a gene. I know, crazy!

So we can make DNA that self-assembles, big deal. What do we put it in? Doesn’t DNA need something to hang out in, like how people need houses (unless they’re homeless)? ‘Tis true, my friend. DNA does need a cell membrane to live in. However, DNA does another amazing thing after it self-assembles, it can also form a primitive cell membrane. If this doesn’t work, well then I suppose we could also put the DNA in another cell’s membrane and watch as it changes the genetic code of the cell. Obviously, as is all things in life, the process is a bit more complicated (and troublesome) than that, but that's the gist of it.

This can lead to a lot of advantages for people, because evolution didn’t give us enough as it is. For example, if we could understand biological design, we can improve it. Imagine a world in which the chair we sit on is made of CO2, or mosquitoes are genetically immune to malaria, or I can have a Minotaur guarding my X-Box 360 when I’m not home. That world would be awesome.

We aren’t even remotely close to any of this right now, and there are a ton of ethical and practical questions that can be brought up. Can we control what we made? What if we can’t? What if this technology gets in the wrong hands? To those who ask those questions I say, “Shut-up. I want my damn Minotaur.” And I want to be able to give at least one of my many illegitimate children a Pegasus for his/her birthday. And I want to see pigs fly. And I want to stop feeling bad when I see cryptozoologist’s panhandling on the street corners for money.

*Not True – At the moment Mr. Venter is focusing on using yeast to help assemble his DNA so he make the first synthetic life.

** Again, Not True – Telepathy isn’t real, nor can it be made real through synthetic biology. However, once we crack the neural code anything can be possible on that front. But that’s an article for another time.

Craig Gusmann doesn't actually have his degree in anything scientific, and probably should not be listened to for anything, ever.