Eloi and Morlocks

Yes, it's true, everybody. Our worst fears are to be realised. In 100,000 years' time there will be two races of human beings on planet earth, just like H. G. Wells predicted.

Well, this is according to "evolutionary theorist" Oliver Curry at LSE, anyway. Apparently, people will become "choosier" in their sexual partners in the next 1,000 years, which will result in a super-race of beautiful, intelligent 'Eloi' becoming separated from the goblin-like race of 'Morlocks', as the ugly stupid people are taken out of the gene pool and forced by circumstance to mate with each other.

Utter nonsense, of course. Since when have human beings ever not been choosy about who they mate with? (Some are choosier than others - but won't that always be so?) What I like, though, is that it so obviously reflects the subconscious desires of the author, according to whom "Women will develop lighter, smooth, hairless skin, large clear eyes, pert breasts, glossy hair and even features." Phwaor, eh guys? Too bad we won't be around in 100,000 years to appreciate it.

But don't fear, ladies. There's good news for you too. (At least, those of you who end up being Eloi.) Men will "exhibit symmetrical facial features, look athletic, and have squarer jaws, deeper voices, and bigger penises."

We still won't be able to remember to put the toilet seat down, though.

Here's an artist's representation of what we'll all look like in a thousand centuries:



Is it just me, or does this sound like the pipe dream of a mindless snob? "Never mind, in the future, us intelligent beautiful people won't even have to associate with the proles at all!" And you thought Social Darwinism and Eugenics had gone the way of the Dodo.

You've Got to Search for the Hero....

Ok, I admit it. I watched the first five minutes of Heroes last night. But there's still hope. Before it was too late, I realised it was a load of old cobblers and I'd be wasting two hours of my life, and I turned over to watch How to Look Good Naked instead.

What is it about visual sci-fi/fantasy that makes me want to claw out my own eyes? Is it the bad acting? The clunking scripts? The ridiculous stereotypes? The moralising? The idiotic pseudoscience? Yes, it is all of those things, but mostly it's just because I love the genre and what it can do, and I hate to see it brought down by naff things like Heroes.

Anyway. In last night's Heroes, one of the main characters, a professor, made a little speech about cockroaches, in which he outlined the idea that cockroaches are the 'pinnacle of evolution', not humans - because, as we all know, they can live off the back of a postage stamp for ten years and can survive without a head, and other cool stuff like that.

The idea that a university professor - of, apparently, biology, indeed - should spout such drivel is laughable (one of the reasons I switched channels) but it ties neatly in with a Ricky Gervais podcast I was recently re-listening to, in which Ricky made the interesting statement to Karl that "slugs are as evolved as you".

One of the things that people find hardest to understand when it comes to evolution is that everything alive today is as highly evolved as everything else. When it comes to life on earth there is no pinnacle; all species are exactly as 'developed' as they need to be, whether cockroaches, slugs or humans. We've all done what we had to do - we haven't died out yet.

The operative word is 'yet', of course.

Anyway, just think about this next time you step on one of these on a rainy day:

Of Gods, Spaghetti Monsters, and Ham Sandwiches

I heard a programme on the radio recently about a museum, just opened in Kentucky, which is devoted to a creationist view of history; according to its owners, for example, dinosaurs lived in the time of Noah and made full use of the Ark. This is all part of what might be loosely termed the 'creationist fightback'; a movement to put intelligent design on an equal footing with 'real science'.

This coincides with my recent re-reading of Daniel Dennett's book Darwin's Dangerous Idea, an ultra-Darwinist tract whose central thesis is that everything, including such ethereals as human culture or consciousness, has at its base the 'algorithm' of Natural Selection. In it, Dennett devotes considerable space and time to demolishing intelligent design. Noting that the standard theories of how the universe came to existence (that, for example, there was a 'singularity' which suddenly expanded; or that the universe continually expands and contracts), do not provide satisfactory explanations, nor disprove God as creator, he comes up with a way to dissuade us from the belief that God was behind the 'Big Bang'. Using the example of a tennis match, he imagines a dialogue between a creationist and an atheist.

"The universe came from the big bang," says the atheist, serving.

"Ah, but what created the materials for the big bang, and what set it off?" the creationist replies, returning. "That must have been God!"

"There's no proof for that," says the atheist, hitting a backhand. "Even if it was God, what created him? You might as well just say that a giant ham sandwich set off the big bang, and have done with it."

The ball is now firmly in the creationist's court, according to Dennett.

The problem, of course, and the one that Dennett neatly skates over, is that neither position can be proved - and that neither makes any real sense. Either God exists (in which case he has existed for ever) or he doesn't (in which case the universe sprang literally from nothing). Both assertions lead to absurd conclusions. The perfect return for the creationist, coming into the net for a forehand volley, would be: "Yes, and people are free to believe in a ham sandwich, just as I'm free to believe in God, but you then also have to admit that whether people believe in God, a ham sandwich, a giant flying spaghetti monster, or for that matter a quantum singularity (or whatever), the point is that they are believing something. Atheism is founded on faith just as much as theism is."

It seems to me that Christians (theists in general, in fact), don't use this fact to their advantage as much as they should. That is, the central point of all religion is faith; faith that God exists and cares about human affairs even in the face of overwhelming evidence that he doesn't. It's the key theme of the entire Christian bible, from Job to Exodus to the Pslams to Hebrews. Where then does this insistence on competing with scientists on their own terms come from, when it can be easily demonstrated that scientists base their views as much on an article of faith (that the materials making up the universe sprang from a singularity, or are part of an eternally contracting and expanding reality) as do Christians? Why try to prove or disprove things that logically can't be proved, when you could be concentrating on your supposed fortes of faith, hope and love instead (the merits of which are far more likely to win converts than the absurd chasing of an illogical, impossible dream)?

Neither theism nor atheism have anything to recommend them, particularly, in terms of logic. But Christians must surely believe that their faith does have something to recommend it as a way of life, and that is what they should be concentrating on: promoting the way of life, rather than harping on about Noah and the dinosaurs.