Posts
1. Jerry Coyne, Why Evolution Is True, pages 55-62:
Coyne talks about vestigial body parts. These are body parts that remain in an animal in some form, yet they do not have the use that they had for the animal’s ancestor. For example, Coyne states that whales have “a vestigial pelvis and leg bones”, even though they don’t walk on land. For Coyne, this indicates that the whale has ancestors that did walk on land, and it is inheriting vestigial pelvis and leg bones from them.
Another example is the small wings of an ostrich. Ostriches don’t fly, so why do they have wings? For Coyne, the answer is that their ancestors did fly, and the ostriches are inheriting wings from their ancestors. But there are two important points that Coyne makes:
First of all, vestigial body parts are not necessarily useless. As Coyne points out, creationists argue that vestigial body parts perform an important function—even if we don’t yet know what that is—and so they must be the special creation of an intelligent designer, rather than some useless fluke that an animal inherited. But Coyne argues that vestigial body parts aren’t necessarily useless; rather, they don’t perform the function that they had for the animal’s ancestors. For example, an ostrich gets some use out of its wings: it uses them for balance, it displays them when it’s attacking you, etc. But it doesn’t use its wings for what wings are usually for: flying.
Second, Coyne attempts to explain why the ostrich has small wings. His answer is natural selection. On page 59, he states:
…flight is metabolically expensive, using up a lot of energy that could otherwise be diverted to reproduction. If you’re flying mainly to stay away from predators, but predators are often missing on islands, or if food is readily obtained on the ground, as it can be on islands (which often lack many trees), then why do you need fully functioning wings? In such a situation, birds with reduced wings would have a reproductive advantage, and natural selection could favor flightlessness. Also, wings are large appendages that are easily injured. If they’re unnecessary, you can avoid injury by reducing them. In both situations, selection would directly favor mutations that led to progressively smaller wings, resulting in an inability to fly.
Here, I’m puzzled, with the same question that baffled me when I wrote the post, Evolution with Purpose?, Lamentations Contradicts Jeremiah?, Ann Coulter Praises a Democrat, Bruce Cohen on Theodicy. If there’s a bird on an island with large wings, with which he can fly, would that characteristic inhibit his survival? Why would it? Granted, he doesn’t need large wings on the island, but how would his wings inhibit his survival? They’re unnecessary, not deadly. So why would the birds with large wings die off, to be replaced by mutated birds with small wings? This is where I’m confused.
2. I finished Robert Heinlein’s Stranger in a Strange Land last night. Then I read the wikipedia summary and saw that I didn’t follow the plot all that well. Oh well. I encountered some interesting discussions among the characters!
Here are two quotes that stood out to me. The first is on page 490. The second is on page 502.
“…The faith I was reared in didn’t require anybody to know anything. Just confess your sins and be saved, and there you were, safe in the arms of Jesus. A man could be too stupid to hit the floor with his hat…and yet he could be conclusively presumed to be one of God’s elect, guaranteed an eternity of bliss, because he had been ‘converted.’ He might or might not become a Bible student; even that wasn’t necessary…and he certainly didn’t have to know, or even try to know, anything else…”
I like the sound of this “Christianity”. Jesus loves me and will take me to a good afterlife, and that’s all I need to know.
Yet, it’s good to know something:
“But goodness alone is never enough. A hard, cold wisdom is required, too, for goodness to accomplish good. Goodness without wisdom invariably accomplishes evil.”
So I need wisdom. I can get that from the Bible and other people. But I also feel that the Bible and other people can confuse me, too!
3. John Wooden passed on recently. He was a legendary UCLA basketball coach for many years, and he led his team through numerous victories and championships.
I first heard of him from my Grandpa Pate. My dad and I went to Grandpa Pate’s house, and Grandpa had a tape (or maybe it was a DVD) in which John Wooden was sharing his wisdom with an audience. It was touching to look at the audience, and to see a mother hoping that her son would get something from this wise old man!
One of Wooden’s gems that sticks in my mind is that we should be eager, not willing. That’s why I don’t use the word “willing” all that much! But, then, I get confused: was Jesus eager to go to the cross, or only willing? I think he was eager to save us, but he wasn’t looking forward to all the pain he would experience at his crucifixion.
I also liked the documentary of Wooden, which showed Wooden giving a stern lecture to this sportscaster I don’t like. This sportscaster was playing for UCLA at the time. I didn’t like him because he always defended the Lakers when they were playing the Indiana Pacers, in a season when the Pacers were actually pretty good. Plus, this sportscaster came across as cocky! But Wooden gave him a good lecture! Maybe Wooden—a Hoosier in terms of his roots—foresaw that this guy would trash the Pacers years down the road!
I found other things to like about John Wooden as I read articles about him. After his wife died, he visited her grave-site every month. He formed relationships with his players, teaching them to become better people, not just better basketball players. And he was devout. He didn’t drink or use profanity. Although my Grandpa defended Bob Knight one time, he said that Knight wasn’t in the same category of class as John Wooden!
I’m not much of a sports fan, but I’m a fan of great men. R.I.P., John Wooden.
