A good while ago on the Brights’ forum someone asked why genes replicate. There were a number of replies describing how the first self-replicating molecules might have turned up, the start of evolution. The poster replied with “Yes but… why? What is the purpose?” Confusion ensued.

There are a number of ways to answer “Why do genes replicate?”. One might say, “Because they can.” Or, “Because otherwise they wouldn’t be genes.” Or, “They just do. If they didn’t, we wouldn’t be here to talk about it.” Essentially, the question is impossible to answer, because - unless you believe in destiny or god or something - there is no purpose.

Eventually, the topic starter understood our confusion, and his own. If you have grown up believing in god, if you’ve always been surrounded by people assuming everyone and everything in the world has a reason for being there, you might unwittingly be applying that assumption on everything yourself. And that can make it very difficult to fully grasp evolution.

Genes replicate for the same reason mountains are eroded by water. It’s a physical process that happens if the conditions are right. There is no ultimate purpose to it; the water has no reason to erode the mountain, it just does. Genes don’t replicate because they want to stay in the gene pool, it just so happens that those that replicate better stay in the gene pool longer.

In short, a gene’s gotta do what a gene’s gotta do. That’s really all there is to it.

evolution, genes, natural selection

Lately there’s been a bit of a fuss over a Swedish artist who had the gall to draw another Mohammad caricature. The drawing I’ve seen, portraying the prophet as a roundabout dog, is really rather ugly and I wouldn’t blame galleries for not displaying it for that reason, but obviously the issue is more complicated than that. The drawings have been refused by two art galleries and only the second claimed it was because of the art itself rather than security issues.

Now, one may have many things to say about that, but for most of us with a secular perspective, the main problem is that regardless of how ugly your drawing is, you should have the possibility to hang it on a wall in a gallery without suffering threats to your life (or the gallery). The artist, Lars Vilks, has suffered some threats after posting some of his controversial art online, and while it’s understandable that galleries would not want to take the risk that people get hurt … it shouldn’t have to be this way.

Anyway. Journalists aplenty have commented the whole deal and they all say “Oh yes, someone has to show these drawings, we have to protect freedom of speech!”, but the newspapers are all conspicuously free of Mohammad caricatures. Finally, the recently established group Sekulära Muslimer i Sverige (”Secular Muslims in Sweden”) together with the muslim magazine Minaret decided to arrange for the pictures to be shown, as well as inviting the artist to a “conversation”. Vilks agreed, and I thought, hurrah, this is truly wonderful news!

Except today on the radio, a journalist claimed that Minaret has backed off and decided not to participate after all. I have so far been unable to find any information to substantiate this claim but if it’s true, well … I really don’t have any comments.

The whole thing is just a testament to the sad state of freedom of speech vs freedom of religion in Sweden, and probably the rest of Europe.

islam, freedom of speech, mohammad caricatures