Bare Bones Biology 103 – God and Creation

Here I am ahead of myself, giving you the transcropt now for next week’s Bare Bones Biology, because they do go together under the topic of religion and science. Where oh where did we ever get the idea that we must choose. I don’t know any basic scientists who believe they must choose between religion and science. Certainly there is nothing scientific proves that humans are omnipotent or omniscient. We have shown in overabundance our ability to function neither rationally nor effectively in our efforts to improve on the way things already were functioning very effectively. So the point is that BBB 102 is certainly a slice of reality as can be easily shown mathematically; that is no reason to doubt the wisdom of BBB 103, below. Probably, if we want to build a truly better human presence, we will have to consider both and find a way to make the work together.

Bare Bones Biology 103 – God and Creation

One of the very best concepts of creation that I have ever read – I love the first part of Genesis in King James version, but let me read this one for you today:

“According to Christianity, every creation in nature is something that was created for or given to us by God. That is the perfect idea of giving. But if you think that God creaed man, and that you are somehow separate from God, you are liable to think that you have the ability to create something separate. Something not given by Him. For instance, we create airplanes and highways. And when we repeat ‘I create, I create, I create,” soon we forget who is actually the Big I (he says Big I when he means God or the universe) which creates the various things. We soon forget about God. This is the danger of human culture. Actually, to create with the Big I is to give. We cannot create and own what we create for ourselves, since everything is created by God. This point should not be forgotten. But because we do forget who is doing the creating, and the reason for the creation, we become attached to the material or exchange value. This has no value in comparison to the absolute value of something as God’s creation. Even though something has no material or relative value to any small I (that would be a person) it has absolute value in itself . Not to be attached to something is to be aware of its absolute value. Everything you do should be based on such an awareness, and not on material or self-centered ideas of value.

“There are perhaps three kinds of creation. The first is to be aware of ourselves. This is the first step in creation. When you are there, everything else is there, everything is created all at once. When we emerge from nothing, when everything emerges from nothing, we see it all as a fresh new creation (every moment new). The second kind of creation is when you act, or produce,or prepare something, like food or tea. The third kind is to create something within yourself, such as education or culture or art, or some system for our society. So there are three kinds of creation, but if you forget the first, the other two will be like children who have lost their parents. Their creation will mean nothing.

“Usually, everyone forgets about the first creation. Everyone forgets about God. We work very hard at the second and third kinds of creation, but God does not help the activity. How is it possible for God to help something that he cannot recognize as part of himself? That is why we have so many problems in this world. When we forget the fundamental source of our creating, we are like children who do not know what to do when they lose their parents.”

This book is copyrighted. The publisher is Weatherhill and I sincerely hope they don’t mind that I have taken out and slightly modified for clarity this bit that begins on page 66 of “Zen Mind; Beginners Mind,” authored by Shunryu Suzuki.

Bare Bones Biology 103 – God and Creation
KEOS Radio, 89.1 FM
Podcast available here or at

Recommended References
Zen Mind; Beginners Mind

Bare Bones Biology 102 – Religion and Science

Where Christianity, and also other religions, seem still to be failing, is in the effort to understand the biological reality of overpopulation. Any religion that is based in love, compassion and kindness, in my opinion, has the deepest obligation to try to understand the ecosystem that gives us life — and our obligation to that life.

Certainly that is the message we get from the native peoples who have spoken out. Oren Lyons (Oren Lyons the Faithkeeper, interviewed by Bill Moyers) a Chief of the Onandaga, most eloquently warned us:

“We are now. Now is us. We’re the seventh generation. I’m sitting here as the seventh generation because seven generations ago there were people looking out for me. Seven generations from now, someone will be here, I know. And so each generation makes sure that seven generations is coming all the time. That’s accountability. We’re accountable. We, you and I, we’re accountable. Yes we are, and they are going to call us. They’re the ones that are going to say, why did you do this, or why did you not do this?” Listen also to NASA scientist Jim Hansen, for the scientific rationale.

So I will today give a very Bare Bones outline of the implications of world wide overpopulation, in my personal opinion and my professional opinion as a basic research biologist and geneticist. This is one of those tragic situations where the needs of level three (ecosystem) health conflict with the needs of level two (the health of the human population, and or economics, depending how one looks at it) which also competes with needs at the individual level (the health and welfare of individuals and their families). That’s exactly what happens when resources are not sufficient for the need –when, as in the graph, the food needs of the population are greater than the carrying capacity. In the case of the reindeer in this small area the result took place in a space of about 20 years, a little less. As is true for us on earth, the reindeer did not have access to food from any other place. I don’t like it any more than you do, but I challenge you to address this issue seriously, and prove that I am wrong before you settle back into denial mode.

Human populations world wide are now about at or somewhat above the carrying capacity of the earth, and our population is still growing. Our current solutions to this problem are 1) to destroy the earth, air and water of our home planet, and 2) to kill off millions of people, as we have been doing in wars all during the last century and this. Neither of these solutions is rational, because first they cannot be sustained and second, we now have the technology to provide a kinder future for our billions and for our host planet.

Our immediate action should be to make family planning available to everyone who wants it, worldwide. There is an unmet need of about 215 million couples. I am told by people in the field that many women who want contraceptive help — to pretect their own welfare and that of their children — are unable to get it. I do not understand why we believe that contraception is immoral but war, genocide and preventable starvation are not, especially as reduced populations would have less incentive to war and genocide; and even if these figures are off by a million or so, which I doubt, the implications for improving our biological sustainability are obvious. What we are doing instead is “educating women” while reducing availability of funding for family planning. This reminds me of the “abstinence” solution of one of our recent presidents, and I suspect it is based on that philosophy. It didn’t work even here in a country where contraceptives are readily available.

Our biological problem is that food for all living things comes from and is created inside of the ecosystem (by photosynthesis) and we have no other source for food and no firm expectation of finding any. As a result, we are killing off other species (using the food they need and poisoning them with herbicides and pesticides at high levels) in our efforts to make more food for ourselves. As a result of that, the ecosystem is becoming LESS HEALTHY and therefore less able to make our food, and also it is becoming LESS RESILIENT (think climate change) and therefore more likely to become uninhabitable for humans.

Meantime people keep asking why there are more and more poor and suffering in spite of our efforts to prevent this. The answer is that the only thing that CAN prevent an increase in need is to stop killing off other species (resilience) and to restore the balance between supply and demand (sustainability). The only way that humans can restore the balance is to reduce our population. We cannot make more food for ourselves because of the law of thermodynamics, which I can’t explain in one sentence, and even if we could make more food, we still would be destroying the resilience of the earth ecosystem. That is, its ability to stay healthy and make our food, our water, our air and our soil, which we cannot get from any other source .

Sometimes we wonder if these corpo-politicos understand what they are doing. Apparently they do. I have a recording of a young man who was raised and trained in one of the biggest of the big oil companies and who recently presented his opinion in an open hearing about whether or not one of these big pipelines would be built. His concluding sentence echoes the precautionary principle:

“If on one hand you had an unpredictable path that leads into a new dream, and a new way of life for all of mankind, and on the other hand you had another path that leads to the slow, inevitable decline of a civilization, which path would you choose?”

Bare Bones Biology 102 – Religion and Science
KEOS Radio, 89.1 FM
Podcast available here or at

Recommended References

Oren Lyons the Faithkeeper, interviewed by Bill Moyers.

NASA Scientist Jim Hansen
Nasa scientist: climate change is a moral issue on a par with slavery

Precautionary principle

Oil executive son’s powerful testimony at Enbridge Northern Gateway pipeline joint review panel (includes transcript) Lee Brain, son of an oil man, receives a standing ovation and brings a crowd to tears after delivering powerful & inspirational testimony in front of the Northern Gateway Pipeline Joint Review Panel in Prince Rupert on February 18, 2012.