Unfortunately, for the replication to occur, scientists had to assist the splitting of the RNA pairs by adding enzymes to their environment. Now scientists have been able to achieve synthetic life that self replicates. They did this through several complex procedures, and they used an already existing cell structure. While not creating life completely from scratch, we are so close we can taste it, and we are doing it without magic or god.

http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2010-03/bending-morality-magnetism

To deal with these challenges and issues I turned towards evolution. The reason I did so is because if any state of mind exist it first (as shown by a plethora of evidence) must have evolved that way.

Darwin himself tried to tackle this issue by explaining it in two stages. The first stage is derived from the evolutionary benefit of caring for young and community as displayed by birds. Baby birds are defenseless for the early part of their lives and the mothers have evolved over time to care for their young. I assume that the reader understands evolution and understands how that process occurs and how a mother would evolve to care for her offspring. If you have any questions regarding this process please contact any SHAFT council member or myself. This care of infants as explained by Darwin developed an us and them mentality.  With the onset of mammalian life even more complex communities formed. In these communities creatures evolved in some cases to put the good of the group in front of the good of the individual such as in the example of meerkats.

Darwin then argues the second phase after the development of community is the development of the conscience. Here is where the debate becomes sticky and please rather than focus on semantics of how the idea is conveyed, try and see the general direction of the argument. The development of the conscience wasn’t an event that happened all at once. Rather it evolved over time. When creatures of the Homo genius began living in groups, a form of social Darwinism took place.

Now I know that the term Social Darwinism throws up big red flags screaming Nazi and robber barren. This is not what I am referring to, what I am referring to is that groups who had tendencies, through random mutations that were then spread throughout the communities which were beneficial, allowed said communities to thrive in their environment.

Early communities were relatively isolated and so tendencies (not ideas) spread throughout the community. These thriving communities then started competing with other communities and those communities that had tendencies to build a stronger and safer community out-competed those who did not have those abilities (whether in war or just out breeding). As the cognitive power of human ancestors increased so did their capacity to develop complex ideas based on and around already present tendencies. Once again these things are going on simultaneously and over millions and millions of years.

To put the whole idea into a nutshell, tribes or familial groups that had certain stronger traits such as don’t murder family members, flourished in comparison to familial groups that weren’t nearly as strong. Some scientist has even argued this as one of the basic advantages the homo sapiens had against homo erectus.

Notice that the evolutionary views of morality existed only towards members of the family or community. Even the Israelite rules of moral law only applied to conduct towards other Israelites. I contend that as time moves and as we become more connected with the rest of the world then the scope of what humans choose to include in their families grows.

This is evident throughout history and even religious text. So where before in early society it was only bad to kill people in their immediate family it later became bad to kill others in the same nation and now it has developed over much of the world (excluding the middle east who are behind) to include the entire human race. This view also helps explain why there exist war. This explains also why humans for a long time in the worlds history justified slavery. Some are further along in this viewing transition than others, but I contend the evolutionary morals were only directed towards “family.”

This brings us to the realm of debatable moral rights and problems. Moral issues such as abortion and assisted suicide, have no obvious evolutionary background and/or benefits. I call these issues useful evolutionary byproducts, as compared to the non-useful byproducts such as the human tailbone. I use the example of murder because it is most easily identified as wrong.

Now that people in the civilized world have come to the point where we see all humans as family, we have conflicting interest invested in both sides of the assisted suicide and abortion debate. On one side our now well developed trait of not killing other members of family says, “No we mustn’t kill any other human because they are all a part of our families.” On the other side of the coin people have also developed the trait of not wanting family members to suffer and or go through an avoidable ordeal. Thus these two communal beneficiary traits come into conflict with one another causing an indirect evolutionary byproduct.

In conclusion, I admit that science doesn’t know everything, but as in Zeno’s paradox it does get closer and closer without ever reaching the absolute (this is what I love about science, it’s open to the new). I contend that for every question in the universe if we but look there is a scientific and logical process through which it comes about. So instead of filling every gap of knowledge with theos, take that gap as an opportunity to find out the why.

Their stories forced me to look back on my own Exodus from the Mormon Church, and how I was treated in a similar fashion.  As I was in the process of leaving I went through a stage where I didn’t believe that the church was true, but I thought that the organization was excellent. In my mindset as long as the church was doing good it was okay to be a part of it. This route seemed easiest because of the immense social pressure that is placed on being a peter priesthood Mormon boy (that and I was in the bishopric) . Upon further meditation I realized that the church controls every aspect of a person’s life: what to wear, what to eat, who to marry, how to have sex, what to study, how to vote . . . this list goes on and on.

During this process I came across this video, and in it I saw all the eerie similarities between “cults” and the church. The scariest parts are the tools that they use on the new recruit . These methods can almost be taken directly out of the LDS missionary hand book Preach My Gospel.

What similarities do you see in this video and the LDS church? What’s the difference between a cult and a religion–is it just size and acceptance? To me they all seem to be the same.

The New York Times recently released an article stating that the state of Washington had a total of 36 legal assisted suicides since the passing of its legislation last year.  I personally applaud Washington State for having the courage to allow people dignity and ease of pain. When I debate people on this subject they commonly refer to suicide as being murder of one’s self. The dogma of Dante’s Divine Comedy and its circle reserved in hell for those who leave life on their own terms has entered the collective consciousness of the religious right and made its way into politics.  The best argument I have heard against religious claims came from a PBS documentary on the subject. Watch and share your thoughts and feelings on the sensitive issue.

Known by many names: Satan, Lucifer, Beelzebub, The Great Serpent/Dragon , the Morning Star, The Fallen One, and the Prince of Darkness, has played a central role in the development of the major three religions and thus the history of the world. Satan’s roots began in the Torah and are of particular note in the Book of Job. Hebrews didn’t see Satan as an evil demigod but rather saw him as a prosecutor of the law. For all intents and purposes the Hebrew word from which Satan is derived literally means adversary or prosecutor. The Hebrews viewed Satan as an agent for God who held the power of good and evil. Just as prosecutors are agents of the state. He was merely fulfilling his duty as prosecutor when he accused Job of being pure only on account of being spoiled by God.

Israel was constantly being conquered by other neighbouring kingdoms and as a consequence their theological beliefs came in contact with other religions and philosophies. The concept of two opposing powers one good and one evil or a heaven and hell were borrowed from Zoroastrianism. The idea of an individual embodiment of said evils was most likely derived from Hades the lord of the underworld and the pantheon of the Romans. The influences of the ancient philosophers are all throughout the father of Christianity (Paul)’s epistles. Once the bible was organized the vivid descriptions of an evil beast that tempted Christ and was said to come forth in the end of days captured the imagination of priest who then expanded upon his evil characteristics leaving us the popular view of Satan that exists today.

There is much harm caused by a belief in Satan, not only does the superstitious notion cause people to suppress themselves it can also cause a mass paranoia. My ancestors the Putnams accused several people of an alliance with the dark one in Salem Massachusetts. During the 1980’s tons of taxpayer dollars went towards an FBI investigation of rumoured satanic sacrifices. It is a means of terror used to keep people in backwards ideologies and in cultish behaviors. It is my hope that such dangerous views can be abolished with the realization that Satan to the authors of the ancient Torah was none other than God having his agents represent himself.