00-76. South Park, религия и теория эволюции

Darwin, evolution

by

South Park, религия и теория эволюции

Вы, видимо, уже напряглись и приготовились к дозе скучной информации. Однако напрягаться должны только те, кто не привык к стилю мультфильма South Park и языку его героев:

All right kids, it is now my job to teach you the theory of evolution. - Oh boy! - Now I, for one, think evolution is a bunch of bullcrap. But I've been told I have to teach it anyway. It was thought up by Charles Darwin and it goes something like this: In the beginning we were all fish. Okay? Swimming around in the water. And then one day a couple of fish had a retard baby, and the retard baby was different, so it got to live. So Retard Fish goes on to make more retard babies, and then one day, a retard baby fish crawled out of the ocean with its mutant fish hands... and it had buttsex with a squirrel or something and made this - retard frog squirrel, and then that had a retard baby which was a...monkey fish-frog...And then this monkey fish-frog had buttsex with that monkey, and..that monkey had a mutant retard baby that screwed another monkey and...that made you! So there you go! You're the retarded offspring of five monkeys having buttsex with a fish-squirrel! Congratulations! - HEHHH! I can't take it anymore! HAAAAAH! - Yeah? You see? I knew that would happen. Come ohhhn! C-Come ohhhn! Look, kid, for the fortieth time, pacing in front of the store isn't gonna make the Wii come any faster. 

Не уходите из модуля! Впереди – очень серьезные и интересные вещи, причем начинаются они во все том же South Park

Principal Victoria, we are a devout Catholic family! Do you mind telling me why my daughter now thinks she's a retarded fish-frog?! - I told you this would happen, didn't  I? - Mr. Triscotti, I wasn't aware that- We have worked years to instill the teachings of Jesus Christ into our daughter, and in one fell swoop, you try to destroy everything we did! - I hear ya. - Sir, if you don't wish your daughter to learn about evolution, then we can pull her out of class. - You most certainly will! - But Dad, I want to learn everything. - No you don't! Shut up! - Well, I told you. We should leave evolution out of the classrooms. - It has become obvious to me that you don't know enough about evolution to teach it! I'm having you replaced! Mr. Dawkins! - Re-replaced?? - Richard Dawkins is a world-renowned evolutionary scientist. Charmed to meet you. Ms...Shut up, faggot! Principal Victoria, I can teach my own class! - You are to sit in class and help Mr. Dawkins with whatever he needs! - Over billions of years life has evolved from simple one-celled organisms into all the complex life we see around us. - Whatever. - It was changes in hereditary traits that allowed the first mammals to breathe in the air.- Retarded fish-frogs.- Ms. Garrision, I believe that's a gross over-simplification. - Well, you're a faggot! Continue. You see, children, life has the amazing ability to change, to adapt. Like changing us to the point that we walk upright. - So you are saying that we're all related to monkeys. - Well yes, basically, we are. - Do you see monkeys at the zoo?!  They crap in their hands and throw it at people! - Ms. Garrison, this isn't theory, it is scientific fact! - What about the fact that if I believe in this crap, you're gonna go to hell?! Doesn't that bother you a little? - Actually, no. Because I'm an atheist. - Aha! I've got you, you snake in the grass!! I found you out!! -I never covered it up. - And if I'm a monkey, then I might as well act like a monkey, huh?! What on earth are you doing?? Don't ask me, I'm a fucking monkey!! Aaah!- Principal Victoria, I was simply trying to make a point to Mr. Dawkins about the incongruity of some scientific statements. - Mrs. Garrison, I am pulling you out of the classroom. - What? - Principal Victoria, I really don't think that's necessary. This woman is very opinionated but, she does care about her students. - Very well. But there is to be no more throwing of feces. Understood?

Итак, в этом фрагменте упомянут эволюционный биолог Ричард Докинз. Нужно разобраться в его наследии, раз уж он стал персонажем культового мультфильма. Рекомендуем прочесть сначала интервью с ученым: https://inosmi.ru/world/20131030/214310027.html

Если вам станет скучно, обязательно найдите видео про павлина и сопоставьте его смысл с вашим стремлением выучить английский язык.

Но интересное необязательно должно быть веселым:

In an Oxford laboratory of that time was a young biologist. He was forced to abandon his research because of the power cuts. He turned to writing instead and begun to draft a book that was to kickstart an intellectual revival in evolutionary biology - the study of how life has evolved. The book was The Selfish Gene, the writer- Richard Dawkins. It asked the crucial question: where does natural selection act? Is it on species, on groups, on individual animals or at a more basic level still? It was to prove controversial.

Сейчас нужно «въехать» не в язык, а в тему. Главный вопрос – где и как работают механизмы эволюции? Очень интересны взгляды Докинса на отношения между различными особями в процессе эволюции. Включая отношения между людьми. Будет интересно, поверьте, так как можно будет посмотреть на себя со стороны.

Maybe that’s because it landed him in so much hot water - people who don’t read beyond the title thought that he was suggesting that selfishness among animals and even among humans was natural. - I guess it’s the word ‘selfish’ really, isn’t it? Do you ever feel that your work has been misrepresented, that you’ve been fundamentally misunderstood? - I suppose everybody’s work is sometimes misrepresented. I certainly have almost unbelievably met the misunderstanding of The Selfish Gene: that genes are somehow thought to be consciously selfish little entities. Ah, people have seriously thought that I must have been saying that DNA molecules actually think it out and work out how to be selfish. The selfish gene is not the same as the selfish individual.

Задумайтесь теперь и вы о том, как соединить жестокость эволюционной теории с ситуациями, когда особи жертвуют собой ради сородичей, о чувствах…

Charles Darwin said that life evolves through natural selection that life is a perpetual struggle in which only the strongest succeed. The rest die without bearing offspring. Darwin called it ‘the survival of the fittest’ and it worried even him, because it suggested the nature is fundamentally brutal. Dawkins’s idea was that it wasn’t individuals who were selfish so much as their genes. But coming as it did in an emerging ‘greed is good’ culture that would dominate in 1980s, The Selfish Gene appeared to bestow a biological blessing on greed and individualism. Ironically it was actually opening the door to the opposite – altruism. Dawkins is sometimes associated with selfishness because of the phrase ‘the selfish gene’. In fact, what he was doing was making room in evolution for unselfishness.

Так что Докинз мог бы успокоить неверующего в Бога Дарвина: в нас есть что-то, что противостоит эволюционной жестокости (нашим selfish genes, которые нам постоянно рекомендуют порвать друг друга). Это «что-то» - не вера в Бога. Будем дальше разбираться…

It was actually the great biologist Bill Hamilton who made the breakthrough discovery about altruism in nature. He noticed that many social insects, like ants and termites, will make the ultimate self-sacrifice, will give up their own lives to save the colony. That the colony is made up entirely of siblings, usually sisters, and the siblings are all genetically identical, so even if one dies her genes will carry on. Indeed, according to this view, the individual animal becomes almost irrelevant to the selfish drive of its genes.
In his most recent book - A Devil’s Chaplain - Dawkins plays with the famous quotation from Darwin to hint that nature’s ruthless cruelty is a kind of Devil’s Brew: a hell on earth that only humans can rise above. - Nature really is red in tooth and claw. Nature, the world of Darwinian natural selection, is a pretty nasty environment in which to live. And as a human being I very strongly advocate that if we understand Darwinism we should understand it as an object lesson in how not to live in how not to conduct our lives. It’s a lesson in how life came into being including human life but it’s also a lesson in how we should not behave when organizing our own societies, our own politics, our own models. So, The Devil's Chaplain might conclude, Stand tall, Bipedal Ape. The shark may outswim you, the cheetah outrun you, the swift outfly you, the capuchin outclimb you, the elephant outpower you, the redwood outlast you. But you have the biggest gifts of all: the gift of understanding the ruthlessly cruel process that gave us all existence; the gift of revulsion against its implications; the gift of foresight — something utterly foreign to the blundering short-term ways of natural selection — and the gift of internalizing the very cosmos.

Итак, мы должны сопротивляться тем механизмам, которые создали нас как венец эволюции. Современное общество не должно больше жить больше по эти законам. Если вы помните экономиста Хайека, то он заинтересовался применением теории Дарвина к экономической жизни. Он бы с Докинзом не согласился: «доброта» ведет к кризисам. Как говорил Ницше, «нужно помочь слабым умереть».

Chaplain – это тоже «священник» (priest). Если интересно, сами найдите отличия, но они несущественные.

Интересная фраза – ‘red in tooth and claw’: What's the meaning of the phrase 'Red in tooth and claw'?

A reference to the sometimes violent natural world, in which predatory animals unsentimentally cover their teeth and claws with the blood of their prey as they kill and devour them. What's the origin of the phrase 'Red in tooth and claw'? This has the sound of a proverbial phrase which might come from the Bible or from Shakespeare. Search the Bible for 'tooth' and you'll find little other than 'an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth'. Shakespeare comes a little closer and refers to 'an adders' tooth', 'a serpent's tooth' and even to an animal with claws - 'a mad dog's tooth'.

Как запомнить слово ‘claw’? Так, как это делается только в нашей школе!

Перейдем с самой идее сотворения всего живого:

Internalizing the cosmos? If you didn’t know Dawkins was an atheist, you might think he was a deeply spiritual man; may be he’s both. But he certainly a stickler for logic and rationality. He believes only science can enable us to discover truth about the world. There’s no room for a creator here, no room for a grand designer as he made abundantly clear in his 1991 Royal Society Christmas lectures. - This is a flatfish, a halibut. Its ancestors once swam normally in the water like a normal fish does. Like that. But the ancestors of the halibut settled down on the bottom of the sea one side down. They lay on the bottom of the sea and then now a modern flatfish moves along like that. You’ve probably seen them doing it. But when it did that the ancestors found that one of its eyes was looking straight into the sand. Only the other one was looking up. And so gradually in evolution the other eye, the one that was looking into the sand, migrated round the side of the head and came up to the top with the result that the scull of the halibut is now extremely distorted object. And anybody who was going to design the flatfish wouldn’t do it that way. You do it like a skate which is another kind of shark which is also the flatfish and it flattened itself, its ancestors flattened itself by go onto its belly. So that both its eyes were looking up so it had no need to do any kind of distortion. But by some kind of historical accident the ancestors of the halibut and the sole and the plaice all did by lying on their side and that meant that they had this distortion. So this is an imperfection in design. Which is just a kind of thing you’d expect to see if these creatures had evolved. But is very much not the kind of thing you’d expect to see if these creatures have been created.

Flatfish и halibut – это «камбала» и «палтус», соответственно. Разницы почти никакой (разве что размер и насыщенность жирами). Похоже, что halibut – просто разновидность flatfish

Чтобы вы не думали, что «не боги горшки обжигают», т.е. составители этого модуля тоже имели проблемы с написанием транскрипта, посмотрите на источник их мудрости:

Итак, если мир создан, то он должен быть совершенным. Одной рыбки с изуродованным скелетом достаточно для того, чтобы опровергнуть веру в supernatural. Но этого мало – нужно еще заполнить тот вакуум, который образуется, если убрать из «уравнения» жизни общества то, что традиционно делала религия.

This question of design is crucial. We all know by simply looking at the clock that it had a designer, a maker. There’s no way it could have just sprung into existence all on its own. So many people look at life on Earth and say: surely it too must have had a designer. Dawkins thinks: not. In his book, The Blind Watchmaker, Dawkins argues that life is the result of blind chance, of random genetic mutation and natural selection over millions of years. God is simply unnecessary. - What I wonder is whether you’re being little bit unfair on religion. Surely it also serves a really crucial purpose in terms of creating a code of conduct, a code of ethics. That if we are going to do as you ask to contradict our genes, to act against our genes, we really do need guidance as to how we treat each other. Isn’t that role of religion in practice place? - It seems to me that the enterprise of science is to try to understand and that injecting a supernatural intelligence as a deviсe for explaining something, as a deviсe for kidding yourself that you understand, is really to inject something that defeats the object of the whole exercise. We’re all trying to understand what’s going on, the mechanism, the cogwheels that are actually causing the world of life whatever the case to be the way it is. I’m all for codes of conducts, I’m all for codes of morals, I’m all for moral philosophy, ethical philosophy, political codes, legal codes, which guide our lives and which are probably not directly following from any kind of scientific principles. I’m all for that. If you want to call that religion, then that’s your privilege. I would not call it religion because I think it’s misleading. Because to me religion carries a whole lot of other baggage which is not moral philosophy and not legal codes, not codes of conduct, but which is belief in the supernatural.

Как видите, мораль может существовать и без Бога. Можно быть высокоморальным человеком без веры в неизбежное наказание за плохие деяния.

Richard is one of the most spiritual people that I know. This might sound surprising, I mean it, of course, entirely in a normal religious sense, but his feeling of all-on wonder and humility ah… in the face of natural world is something I feel can only to be described as spiritual. If you are a lover of truth then it’s very painful to see people’s minds being fettered by ideas based purely on tradition and on faith and on revelation to an individual which is then passed on through sacred text in the  whole ream of disciplines and prayers and so on and all that that builds up out of it . And Richard feels very deeply against that kind of fettering of the mind. Especially the poisoning of children’s minds at an early young age when they will accept anything and everything. - Does science spoil our love of nature? Dawkins would say emphatically ‘no!’. Our understanding of how the world works actually enhances our appreciation of it. His book Unweaving the Rainbow got its title from a poem by Keats asking for the secrets of nature to remain as secrets and not be explained and demystified. The book like so much of his writing is peppered with literally illusions and poetic references that begs the question: is there something unique about him as a science writer?

To fetter - : to restrain from motion, action, or progress («сковывать», в т.ч. буквально)

Ream - : 1) a quantity of paper being 20 quires or variously 480, 500, or 516 sheets 2 : a great amount —usually used in plural reams of information (в общем ТОМА)

Richard Dawkins is now working on his next book – a further exploration of the evolution, another work of popular science. Explaining it to me I found him yet again drawn to poetic and even religious words and expressions. -  It’s a history of life written as a pilgrimage to the past, a pilgrimage to the origin of life, a pilgrimage to retrace your ancestors all the way back to the origin of life. - Pilgrimage, chaplain, cosmos. I came away from my meeting more confused than enlightened. The stickler for science who loves religious imagery, the man who seeks morality yet hates faith. Like a moth to a flame he seems endlessly drawn to the very things – spiritual and irrational that he says he hates. Since The Selfish Gene was first published the world of evolutionary biology has moved on. Some scientists now believe there’s more altruism in nature than Dawkins suggested, that animals can be nice to each other in wider groups not just among the immediate family.

Вы не поверите, но есть мнение, что интерес к английскому языку, как и вообще сам факт владения родным языком в основе своей имеет … увеличение шанса спаривания. Культура служила тому же – удовлетворению полового влечения.

It was always the most fundamental mystery. Where do we come from? Why are we human? Why do we wonder why? - When we talk about evolution the question of WHY is problematic because evolution is not goal-directed. Evolution is a great big experiment. - Evolution describes change over time in descent of modification of species, but there's no overall arching plan in which humans were inevitable.  - One of Darwin's points was to show that changes can be wrought through ordinary processes of sexual selection. It all came down to sex. 
The theory of evolution is brutally simple: more young are born, more plants sprout than can survive. And offspring are by nature always a bit different from their parents. A mutation can be a fatal defect. Once in a great while that mutation results in a slightly better chance for survival and reproduction. Survival means the change is passed on in the genes. We cannot actually see plants and animals evolving, we only see the most recent result.
To understand evolutionary distances we have to go to yeast and bacteria to find things that are really different from the human genetic code. - Three and a half billion years ago the first DNA molecules began to replicate building in complexity but based on a simple four-letter code, four amino acids. Those four acids in endless combinations controlled all of life then and they control all life now. All species in existence today will continue to evolve and may eventually blink out. But the four-letter code of DNA will continue forever. 

blink out – исчезнуть, вымереть

Нужно заметить, что эволюция сознания самого Дарвина от ортодоксального христианина до передового мыслителя и ученого не была мгновенной. Потрудитесь прочесть до конца эту длинную цитату:

До и во время своего многолетнего путешествия на корабле "Бигль" с 1831-го по 1836 год Чарлз Дарвин был религиозным человеком. Этот факт он сам признавал в своих "Воспоминаниях о развитии моего ума и характера", написанных значительно позже, в основном с 31 мая по 3 августа 1876 года. Позже он дополнял текст, в том числе в 1879 году добавил раздел о религии, дав ему название "Религиозные взгляды". В этом разделе Дарвин писал, что во время плавания он был настолько ортодоксальным верующим, что над ним смеялись некоторые офицеры за его цитирование Библии как последней инстанции в вопросах морали. В 1836 году у Дарвина появляются некоторые сомнения, в частности по поводу того, что "Ветхий завет — с его до очевидности ложной историей мира, с его вавилонской башней, радугой в качестве знамения... и с его приписыванием богу чувств мстительного тирана — заслуживает доверия не в большей мере, чем священные книги индусов или верования какого-нибудь дикаря". Но, как писал Дарвин, он "отнюдь не был склонен отказаться от своей веры" и даже мечтал об открытии рукописей, которые "подтвердили бы все, что сказано в Евангелиях". В то же время ему "становилось все труднее и труднее придумать такое доказательство, которое было бы в состоянии убедить" его. В результате, утверждал Дарвин, "понемногу закрадывалось в мою душу неверие, и в конце концов я стал совершенно неверующим". Сам Дарвин не уточнял, когда именно это произошло, отметив лишь то, что происходило это медленно. Отношение Дарвина к религии менялось в течение нескольких лет после путешествия, в основном в 1842-м — 1844 годах, когда он интенсивно работал над первым наброском эволюционный теории. Окончательный разрыв Дарвина с религией произошел в 1851 году после смерти любимой дочери Анны. В это же время он утверждается в своих размышлениях о естественном эволюционном происхождении человека. Если предположить, что отказ Дарвина от карьеры священника "не был отказом от Бога, по крайней мере, сначала", что Дарвин все же оставался верующим человеком и "у нас нет права, пренебрегая реальными фактами и личными свидетельствами самого Дарвина, причислять его к лагерю безбожников", как писали некоторые авторы, тогда по меньшей мере трудно объяснить целый ряд фактов его жизни, его поступков и высказываний. Когда капитан "Бигля" Р. Фиц-Рой рьяно выступил против основного вывода эволюционной теории Дарвина, настаивая на несомненности библейского сказания о сотворении мира, Дарвин заметил: "Жаль, что он не предложил своей теории, по которой мастодонт и прочие крупные животные вымерли по той причине, что дверь в ковчеге Ноя была сделана слишком узкой, чтобы он мог пролезть туда". В письме к своему другу, американскому ботанику Аза Грею от 20 июня 1856 года, т.е. еще до опубликования "Происхождения видов", Дарвин писал об идее сотворения видов: "Говорить, что виды были сотворены так-то и так-то, это не научное объяснение, а лишь благочестивый способ утверждения, что это есть так-то и так-то". В письме к другому своему другу, знаменитому английскому геологу Ч. Лайелю от 2 сентября 1859 года Дарвин писал о его колебаниях относительно эволюционной теории: "Не принимайте поспешно предвзятого решения (подобно многим натуралистам) идти только до известного пункта и никак не дальше, потому что я глубоко убежден, что, безусловно, необходимо или идти со мною до конца... или же придерживаться особого сотворения каждого отдельного вида". А в письме от 17 июня 1860 года он утверждал: "Ни один астроном, показывая зависимость движения планет от тяготения, не считает нужным сказать, что закон тяготения был предназначен, чтобы планеты следовали по тем путям, по которым они следуют. Я не могу поверить, чтобы в строении каждого вида было хоть на крошку больше вмешательства Творца, чем в движении планет. http://humanism.su/ru/articles.phtml?num=000747

Если вы перейдете по приведенной ссылке, то увидите тревожную статистику начала века вокруг обсуждаемой здесь темы. Мракобесие набирает силу: «Церковь вызывает доверие у 68% опрошенных. В то же время только 24,4% считают эволюционную теорию доказанной и столько же, 24%, высказались за креативную теорию. При этом 34,5% думают, что современная наука не в состоянии ответить на вопрос о происхождении человеческого вида. Разумеется, цифры очень разнятся и, по меньшей мере, нуждаются в грамотных, научных комментариях. Некритическое их использование, особенно в СМИ, может привести лишь к печальным и даже тяжелым последствиям. Так, в 2005 году существенная часть, 36%, респондентов высказалась за запрет публичных выступлений против религии; 17% за то, чтобы противникам веры не позволялось преподавать в университетах и, наконец, 22% — за то, чтобы написанные "безбожниками" книги изымались из библиотек. Против каких-либо ограничений в преподавании эволюционной теории и пропаганде естественного происхождения человека выступают 69,5%. 20,4% против преподавания дарвинизма в школе, 17,3% полагают, что преподавание дарвинизма следует не запрещать, но сильно ограничить, 7,3% выступают за безусловное исключение теории Дарвина из школьных учебников, и, наконец, наиболее радикальная часть российского общества, составляющая 4,8%, даже требует ввести запрет, вплоть до уголовного наказания, за распространение такой "порочной", по их мнению, теории как дарвинизм».

Сейчас тучи над здравым смыслом сгущаются еще больше. Кстати, этот этап были в США. Вернемся к Дарвину пока:

He had made one of the first connections when he visited pigeon breeders. If God had created every form of life on the face of the Earth why was man able to breed such an odd assortment of variations? We have some 200 well known and accepted breeds of pigeon. Some of them are very, very attractive; some of them are almost ugly. But everyone to their own type and beauty is in the eye of the beholder, of course.  As Charles Darwin witnessed what domestic breeders could achieve, guiding the shapes of animals to benefit the beholder's eye he became convinced that over time environmental pressures might be having a similar effect selecting traits for survival that would benefit not the beholder but the animal and plant species.

beauty is in the eye of the beholder – это очень часто используемая пословица

Итак, Дарвин задумался о том, что люди научились придавать голубям черты, которые ‘benefit’ глаз смотрящего. А как насчет ряда бесконечных изменений, которые делают сильнее саму породу? Да, они беспорядочны, так как беспорядочны внешние условия, но кто сказал, что не может быть тупиковых путей? Мысль довольно простая, но высказал идею эволюционных изменений Чарльз Дарвин:

Origin of Species by natural selection was published in November 1859. It sold out immediately. Conservative church officials were outraged, but many intellectuals embraced Darwin's dangerous idea. Thomas Henry Huxley, a noted zoologist, defended Darwin from attacks by the church. - Huxley’s life was changed when he read the Origin of Species in 1859 and he recorded in his memoirs that his first thought on reading the book was: “How incredibly stupid of me not to have thought of that myself!”. And I thought:  “This is a song cue if ever I heard one”.  Richard Milner should know he has written a musical about Charles Darwin.
Of course! Of course! It must be so. I should have seen it long ago. It was adaptive radiation that produced the mighty whale. His hands have turned to flippers and he has a fishy tail.  Selection made him streamlined for his liquid habitat. Why didn’t I think of that?! There was an ancient mammal that could hop and leap around. With webbing twixt these fingers he could fly right off the ground.  And so this bouncy creature evolved into a bat. Why didn’t I think of that?!

Вернемся в США. 20 век…

But in the schools in Kansas there is a raging argument. The theory of evolution is the focus of a major battle. - I think the reason that evolution was looked at as because of the way it was addressed in the national standards: like it was a fact, like it was beyond question, like it was beyond investigation. No, I think the evidence is lacking to say that it's a fact. - Evolution did happen, there is a body of knowledge that says millions of years ago the species split and we are… We’re mammals.  We’re part of that system. - The political fight in Kansas is just a recent skirmish in a drawn-out conflict. In the century and a half since Darwin published his theory, and there has been a seesaw battle over the teaching of evolution in American schools. The Scopes Trial in Tennessee in 1925 focused world attention on the war between science and the Bible. The press immediately headlined it “The Monkey Trial”. -  Quiet, children! It’s not King Kong, it’s Mr. Ape - symbol of the Monkey Trial. - John Scopes have been charged with teaching evolution that man had evolved from lower animals, and idea that had been banned as a subject in the schools of Tennessee. He was convicted, fined and later the conviction was overturned.  42 years later the law was overturned. 

«Обезьяний процесс» имел место и в России (2006 год), но там слишком подозрительно «видны уши» фирмы, занимавшейся рекламой и пиаром. Поищите информацию сами, если интересно.

Дарвинизм критикует не только церковь, так как он подрывает основу их бизнеса, но и так называемые приверженцы креационизма, которые верят в Intelligent Design и требуют отношения к дарвинизму как к гипотезе, а не как к установленному факту. Возражать им трудно.

- Science is the one story which is unique because there's evidence for it. There's no evidence of any of the other creation myths, beautiful and poetic as they are. Science is the one that has the evidence going for it. - But finding the evidence in evolution can be very difficult at times. In the case of a giraffe it seems obvious. Each intermediate stage leading to a longer neck would have brought continual survival advantage as the animals nibble leaves from higher and higher up the trees. Understanding how other animals developed is often much harder. An angler fish goes fishing for its meals by boding a bait-like blob on an appendage sticking out of its head. Curiosity can be fatal. But how could this have resulted from incremental stages in evolution? Half a pole on the top of the head would not seem of much use. -This objection that what advantage would the intermediate stages have, is the oldest one in the book. What the fishing rod that sticks out from the top of the angler fish’s back is … It's a modified spine from the dorsal fin. - Over millions of generations mutations leading to a loose spine would have attracted hungry fish in the dark murky water and thus the angler equipped with a spiny pole would have survival advantage. However creationists argue that such an explanation is not science.
Everyone is basing his or her life on unprovable assumptions. Evolutionists, for example, have an assumption that the laws of nature that we study can give rise to living systems. - Most creationists will agree that there is a process they term microevolution: viruses, beetles, weeds. But they refuse to accept that the same science also applies to big complex organisms.

Странная публика – креационисты. Они пользуются всеми благами биологической науки и медицины, но отказываются ‘to accept that the same science also applies to big complex organisms’.

Они вступают в дискуссии по поводу длинной шеи жирафа, придумывая причины ее появления, хотя все очевидно, если помнить, что вовремя поесть – непременное условие выживания. Но самый главный их аргумент – это появление глаза.

How did such a complex organism as the eye develop? Was there a guiding intelligence behind it all? Evolutionary scientists like Richard Dawkins say: absolutely not. - When people have actually done calculations on how long it would take to evolve even something as legendary complicated as an eye, it's turned out that it would take a time so short that you could scarcely measure it on the geological time scale. - Dawkins points to the fact that some primitive cells were sensitive to light. They could tell night from day. To better sense motion groups of light-sensing cells gradually evolved into eye pits. Later a transparent lining which might have evolved originally for protection could have developed over many generations into a primitive lens across the top of the pit. More eons and the result – a sophisticated eye such as that of the rare Galapagos hawk.

To tell night from day – «отличить». Важное слово – lining (что-то вроде «подкладки»). С этим словом есть очень важная идиома - every cloud has a silver lining. Это не совсем «нет худа без добра», так как то, что никто не погиб в результате оползня, не совсем то «добро», к которому привыкло русское ухо. Или тот факт, что Гитлер не уделял достаточного внимания разработке ядерного оружия. Смотрите коллекцию

No matter how dark the cloud, there’s always a thing silver lining. - There is a faint silver lining in all of this - the disaster’s providing a unique opportunity for scientists. – The silver lining though … The one silver lining in this ah…is that thirteen members of this Council supported the resolution.

Кстати, у автомобиля «обшивка» - это lining.

“There is grandeur in this view of life” - Charles Darwin wrote at the end of Origin of Species. From so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been and are being evolved. Sexual selection is wild and unpredictable. Two species of birds in the Galapagos provide an example. The red-footed booby has evolved red feet because the female boobies over millions of generations have chosen that color. It’s the same idea but a different color in the case of the blue-footed booby. 
- The fact that sexual selection is unpredictable that it’s hard to model and it’s hard to go back in time and say ‘why did happen in this way and these particular species?’ has given nightmares to biologists. - So when you ask a question like ‘why humans have such a complicated language?’, there isn’t an answer to that. We can talk about how we use it, what kind of mental machinery we need to generate it, how we compare to other species and so on. But when it comes to evolution there’s not t not an answer of why and answer of yes or no or an answer of a specific goal.
…more than necessary. Tis (it is) my life’s blood and you are my muse. Nay, I cannot be thy muse though I greatly admire thy (your) poetry and thy wit. Human language enables us to talk about the past and the present and the abstract and yet it is layered over a more primitive emotive language that we do share with the other animals and the other primates. - If they say every great artist must suffer, then me being married to my wife should make me the greatest artist ever lived! - Why did humans evolve the ability to use complex language? Some evolutionists suggest we need to look more closely at the theory Charles Darwin first proposed more than a century ago. Sexual selection. The idea that organisms compete to attract mates.
After all, sex is as important to the long-term survival of a species as our fleet feet, sharp claws and powerful jaws. Sexual selection helps explain the ornate feathers of a peacock. - Peacock’s tail is not a survival benefit. It makes a peacock more vulnerable to getting eaten by tigers. But it’s attractive to a peahen and that is enough for it to evolve. - Miller and other evolutionary psychologists proposed that sexual selection was central to the development of the human intellect, our ability to create music, art and poetry. They theorize such abilities evolved not to increase the chance to survive but to increase the chance for a mate. Human intellectual expression serves as sexual ornamentation – our version of the peacock’s tail. - With music you see the clearest analogies to other animals – bird song, a whale song evolved to attract mates, and all the complexity and creativity that you’d there, is there because of sexual selection. Human music isn’t that different. 

Хвост павлина – не самый удобный элемент сопротивления хищнику, но он привлекает самок. Поэтому красивый хвост важнее, чем “sharp claws, powerful jaws and fleet feet”.

Возможно, что вы не знаете слова ‘fleet’ в значении «очень быстрый» (главное значение – «флот»). Кстати, есть интересная идиома - ‘fleet of foot’ – способность быстро бегать. Пример: “Frederick, who was notably fleet of foot, outran all the other boys and won the prize”.

You look at that fantastically elaborated gift that we have for language and for understanding each other, for empathizing with each other’s turns of mind. What drove that? It’s as fantastic as a peacock’s tail at least, and maybe it was sexual selection that drove it. - Even when friends get together to gossip there may be a connection to the way our brains evolved. - I’m not! I swear to God!- Gossip clearly is not just the culture invention because it’s so universal across all known cultures throughout history. People have always recognized that humans are just highly talkative animals and if you give them any opportunity to talk to each other then they will. - This guy looks at me and says: are wearing a slip under that skirt? - No way! - Yeah. And I told him it was disgusting and then he started laughing and making tongue gestures. - Like what!? - But if you look at what kinds of things people talk about when they’re gossiping, lot of it is information about other people. Are they in a relationship? What is their personality attributes? Are they reliable and moral characters?

Эта мысль самая интересная: «humans are just highly talkative animals»!

Наши «великие и могучие» языки – всего лишь перья из хвоста павлина, согласно этой логике!

Можем ли мы управлять эволюцией?

… important for all of us to have some kind of working knowledge of what evolution is, how it works, what DNA is, how DNA is connected with behavior? We really do now have the prospect of holding our own evolution in our hands and making the decisions that always before have been made by windstorms, and climate changes, and volcanoes. All of that now becomes possible for us and at a level of control that was never possible before.

Посмотрите теперь дискуссии в современном американском обществе по поводу intelligent design:

I’ve been listening this debate and thinking: I believe in God, I believe in the first chapter of the Bible as the explanation for creation in my own religion, but I get uncomfortable when I start hearing people tell me what they think should be taught in our schools. And I feel like in a way I’m almost in the Middle Ages… and Copernicus and Galileo … the Earth is round and it does go around the solar system and religious belief said: no, is doesn’t. And we have the same kind of… and you can’t take it out of the context of what we’ve been debating. We have literally had a hard time passing in the House stem cell research that could have untold benefit, because some people’s religious beliefs don’t want us to move forward with what is sound science. I think God gave us the intellect to discern between sound science and religious dogma. – Let’s have a robust national debate at the higher education institutions. I hope they will hold seminars and have the best people … pushing and discussing Intelligent Design, best evolutionists in the world having great debates and discussions. I think we would all be illuminated by that. - Isn’t it the responsibility of parents to make arrangements with their school to allow their children to be excused from traditional science classes and then take up the responsibility providing their own teaching of divine mind infinite intelligence, divine design, etc.? - Chris Chase, what do you think of that? - Absolutely. It is the role of the parent; it’s not the role of the government to get involved with these issues. I’ve heard a few references what we believe because it’s in the Bible, we choose to believe because it’s in the scriptures. And I don’t have a problem with that except their belief of what’s in the scriptures, their belief of what’s in the Bible may be different than my belief of what’s in the Bible, what’s in the scriptures. And our Founding Fathers recognized when people came to America they wanted to practice their own faith whether are other people telling them what it had to be. I get very nervous hearing some of the dialog tonight about people’s belief what they think is the source of creation and they need to impose it in our schools. - No, I just wanna say that the Bible defines and describes creation. God created the entire universe in six 24-hour days. If you look at science you see intelligence. Why are the evolutionists so panicked over the fact that someone might teach that behind creation is intelligence? - No. I’m not panicked at all. I think science teachers have, you know, very good sense about what needs to be taught in a science class. And I’d like respond to something that dr. Richards said a minute ago: he says that the Discovery Institute isn’t really asking of Intelligent Design to be taught. That is precisely what they want.  The reason that science is taught the way it is because it reflects the methodology of science. Scientific methodology simply cannot reach God – that requires a faith commitment. And so.. If you put God into a science class as a scientific explanation you simply are confusing children about the nature of science. There’s nothing wrong with people adopting a religious… a comprehensive religious view to understand the world, but there is a great deal wrong with introducing that as a scientific explanation to children in a science class. That’s the role of the church and the role of the family. It’s not the role of the science teachers – they enough to do just simply teaching science as it should be taught.

Как и было обещано в начале модуля, возвращаемся к South Park

Картман не смог дождаться начала продаж новой игровой приставки, поэтому попросил его на несколько недель заморозить, но про него забыли. Разморозили его через 500 лет, когда с религиозными распрями на Земле было покончено. Правда, шли непримиримые войны между разнообразными атеистами:

You must understand, children that we are dealing with VERY large numbers here. -That's my man!- So, evolution doesn't even happen by chance. It is, in fact, bound to happen. - That's right, kids. And so you see, there is no God. - Careful darling. The school board doesn't like it when we - Well there could still be a God. - What?! Couldn't evolution be the answer to how and not the answer to why? - Uh oh, retard alert! Retard alert, class! Do you believe in a flying spaghetti monster too, bubblehead?! - I wasn't talking about spaghetti. - Come on, you. You're gonna have to sit in the dunce chair! - Ms. Garrison, I'm not so sure what you did in class today was right. - What?? - But Dick, you told me the world would be a better place without religion. - Yes, but to be so bold about it. - I've just never seen a woman with such... balls. – What’s  life...If only you were an atheist. - Well... Well, you know, I'm... I'm open to stuff. - Why is someone as outspoken as you given themselves over to the whole God thing? - Oh I'm not... I'm not totally into the whole God thing. I just...I just think, you know, you can't disprove God. - Well what if I told you there was a flying spaghetti monster: Would you believe it simply because it can't be disproven? - You're right. It's so simple! God is a spaghetti monster. Oh thank you, jeez! My eyes are opened! Hey everyone, I'm an atheist! Really?? Oh that's wonderful! No, I totally get it now! Evolution explains everything! There is no great mystery to life, just evolution and God's a spaghetti monster! Thank you, Richard! - You're so welcome! - Would you like tuh...head over to my place for dessert?

Про Flying Spaghetti Monster все очень серьезно: эта «религия» возникла в Канзасе в 2005 году как противовес внедрению креационизма в противовес дарвинизму. Считалось, что теория Дарвина – это не доказанный научный факт, а гипотеза, поэтому креационизм как гипотеза тоже имеет право на то, чтобы преподаваться в школе. Тогда учитель физики Бобби Хендрикс предложил считать еще одну гипотезу достойной внедрения в школьную практику – веру в то, что мир создан Летучим Монстром из Спагетти:

Приверженцы пастафарианизма требуют, чтобы фотографии в паспортах и водительских удостоверениях были вместе со священным для них предметом – дуршлагом:

Священный рисунок

На нем изображен Творец и те, что он сотворил – ‘the trees and the mountains and the midget’

В России РПЦ зарегистрирована официально: https://lenta.ru/news/2013/07/16/pasta/

Think about it, Richard. With your intellect and my balls, we can change the future of the world. Can you imagine a world with no religion? No Muslims killing Jews, no Christians bombing abortion clinics. The world would be a wonderful place... without God. You're the smartest man on Earth, Dick. With me by your side, there's no stopping you. - My young friend, you were unfrozen for a reason. -  Lots of people froze themselves in cryogenic labs and we don't unfreeze them. But you... are special. I know I'm special. - This isn't news to me. - You lived in a time when a great event happened. A glorious event that finally made all religion obsolete. Now, the entire world is atheist. - And this gives me a Nintendo Wii how?- We believe that somebody you knew in your time was the person who first started our wonderful group: The Unified Atheist League. - Who?-  What in Science's name was that?! Oh no! It's the United Atheist Alliance! Oh Science, help us! Science damn you, Unified Atheist League! - Who are they?? - The Alliance Atheists. - We're at war with them. - No! - Jesus Christ! - Hahahaha, you believe in a supernatural being. - Oh my Science. I'm just a little boy from the past.

Главное, чтобы теперь, услышав про Intelligent Design, не думали, что это название фирмы, занимающейся интерьерами…

Специализируемся на развитии навыков говорения и понимания реальной речи на слух. Используем только оригинальные материалы.