From Independence to Tyranny: Downfall of Freedom

IN CONGRESS, JULY 4, 1776

The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America

When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

(Example: Breaking the Shackles that have bound us to bipartisan Israeli Foreign policy)

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. — Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

(Such as the Tyrannical regime of George W. Bush)

He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.

He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.

He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.

He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their Public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.

He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.

He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected, whereby the Legislative Powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.

(Lack of a 3rd party in politics)

He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.

(Immigration reform)

He has obstructed the Administration of Justice by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary Powers.

(Bush Subverting the Supreme Court and the Justice Department)

He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.

He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people and eat out their substance.

He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.

He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil Power.

He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:

(Israel Again)

For quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:

For protecting them, by a mock Trial from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:

For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:

(Cuban Embargo, while Saudis lounge in their oil money)

For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:

(The Income Tax: non proportioned direct tax which is ILLEGAL)

For depriving us in many cases, of the benefit of Trial by Jury:

(Guantanamo Bay and Secret Prisons in Europe)

For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences:

For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies

For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:

(The subversion of our whole constitution by those in power)

For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.

He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.

He has plundered our seas, ravaged our coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.

(We are seriously talking about Bush here)

He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation, and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & Perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.

(Supporting "allies" with appalling human rights records)

He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.

He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our British brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.

We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these united Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States, that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. — And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.

— John Hancock

New Hampshire:
Josiah Bartlett, William Whipple, Matthew Thornton

Massachusetts:
John Hancock, Samuel Adams, John Adams, Robert Treat Paine, Elbridge Gerry

Rhode Island:
Stephen Hopkins, William Ellery

Connecticut:
Roger Sherman, Samuel Huntington, William Williams, Oliver Wolcott

New York:
William Floyd, Philip Livingston, Francis Lewis, Lewis Morris

New Jersey:
Richard Stockton, John Witherspoon, Francis Hopkinson, John Hart, Abraham Clark

Pennsylvania:
Robert Morris, Benjamin Rush, Benjamin Franklin, John Morton, George Clymer, James Smith, George Taylor, James Wilson, George Ross

Delaware:
Caesar Rodney, George Read, Thomas McKean

Maryland:
Samuel Chase, William Paca, Thomas Stone, Charles Carroll of Carrollton

Virginia:
George Wythe, Richard Henry Lee, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Harrison, Thomas Nelson, Jr., Francis Lightfoot Lee, Carter Braxton

North Carolina:
William Hooper, Joseph Hewes, John Penn

South Carolina:
Edward Rutledge, Thomas Heyward, Jr., Thomas Lynch, Jr., Arthur Middleton

Georgia:
Button Gwinnett, Lyman Hall, George Walton

Debunking the Religious Right

Having recently reached the limit of the ignorant barrage of rational thought that the Religious Right attempts to feed people, the importance of unweaving the tapestry of garbage and irrationality that they contrive cannot be overstated. We are constantly being inundated with emotional appeals and fear into believing that the only true path (into understanding the universe and our place in it) is through the miraculous salvation of not only spirituality or religion, but through a specific belief system within those realms. Lately, an opinion by someone among the religious right has surfaced that covers many of the myths and topics that these individuals use to coerce those unsure of their place within the cosmos into the ignorant cover of their specific belief structure. The author's attempts to strike an emotional chord with the reading audience are both transparent and pathetic. I shall attempt to debunk his points paragraph by paragraph and provide a rational means for thoughtful debate and discussion. My retort to his views will be in red italics while his will be in standard type-face. Further, the USA Today article that this opinion was presented in will be shown in bold before the philosophical dissection of his ideas. Finally, a few thoughts of my own will be concluded in blue at the tail end of this essay.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/usatoday/20070416/cm_usatoday/atheismisntthefinalword;_ylt=AskRKopu0v1PYhpNPo4B5Er6B2YD

Oh, for the days when one could safely stroll into a bookstore without tripping over the latest atheist title. Ironically, by writing their tracts, in the long run atheists might boost belief.

It appears that Feder here is threatened by non-religious views. Through this first paragraph it's apparent that he longs for a time when all one would see in a bookstore would be theological books without views that provided him grief. His turn of phrase stating that these books will boost religious belief does not detract from his impression that the world is better off without questioning religious dogma?

My local Barnes & Noble has the following titles on display -Atheist Manifesto: The Case Against Christianity, Judaism, and Islam ; The Quotable Atheist; Letter To A Christian Nation; God: The Failed Hypothesis: How Science Shows That God Does Not Exist; and The God Delusion, which is a New York Times best-seller.

Of the handful of titles he does state, where is the mention of thousands of books that are religious and theological in nature? A few books with oppositional elements to his viewpoint does not result in a conspiracy to destroy his irrational belief structure. It's just a natural progression towards discourse in a topic that contains much animosity and misunderstanding.

Rep. Pete Stark, D-Calif., has become the first member of Congress to announce that he doesn't believe in God. He's probably just looking for a book deal.

Once again, the author feels a threat to his value system by just one individual. What he fails to mention is that there are 534 other members of congress that DO believe in God. Pete Stark just represents .002% of congress, while the same representative group of Americans who are not convinced of God's existence amounts to a conservative estimate of 9%. Just because there's one confirmed disbeliever against hundreds in Congress does not mean he's looking for a book deal. How cynical must one's opinion be that those parties who disagree with views do so because of superficial monetary reasons. What about all the religious ministers driving around in Top-of-the-line luxury vehicles, and wearing expensive Watches, claiming that everyone is created equal? Book deals are not exclusive to the non-believers. There are plenty of religious people who sign for book deals detailing why they have faith, and why they continue to oppose stem-cell research and abortion.

Why the sudden outpouring of atheist advocacy? Perhaps it's a way for the cultural left to assert itself in the face of the religious right. Or maybe it's meant to show that the anti-God argument can be framed more intelligently than in a Bill Maher monologue. Whatever the impetus, as a believer, I welcome the phenomenon. After all, the great enemy of belief isn't disbelief but indifference.

This paragraph I definitely agree with. There has to be debate about this subject, because otherwise, empty rhetoric like this will continue to coerce others into certain belief structures. This topic must not only be framed in context, but rigorously challenged by both sides of the argument.

Let the godless write their books and the faithful answer them. The disillusionment with religion that dominated British intellectual circles after World War I helped to shape the great Christian apologist C.S. Lewis. The surviving son of atheist icon Madalyn Murray O'Hair is an evangelical Christian.

Unfortunately, Feder does not differentiate between those who are confirmed atheists and those who consider themselves agnostic (who don't deny the existence of a higher power, but don't blindly believe in one either). He lumps all the opposition together in an attempt to frighten others into believing that a great scheme of destroying religious discourse exists. It's his attempts that stifle discourse and polarize groups of people.

The books referenced above assert that the debate is over and that atheism has won, but atheists have been saying that for more than 200 years. Since the French Enlightenment, the death of God has been confidently proclaimed. Religion has been made obsolete by egalitarian revolution, industrialism, or science, they insisted. Yet, early in the 21st century, faith endures.

A fallacy present here is oversimplification of facts. He summarizes nearly a half dozen books into a simple antagonistic phrase "the debate is over, atheism has won". Generally, what these books attempt to provide is a thought process based on rigorous science and subsequently a philosophical paradigm shift into understanding the universe without invoking religious dogma. Of course, it's better to read these books, because I'd be committing the same fallacy if I reduce so much literary energy into a summary of my own.

Outlasting the Soviet Union

For 70-plus years, the Soviets tried everything imaginable to kill religion: show trials, mass murder of clerics, confiscations, indoctrination and even attempts to co-opt religious symbols and ceremonies. But belief survived, while scientific socialism is now defunct.

What the Soviets did was replace Religion with a "cult of personality" in the form of "uncle Lenin" or "Papa Stalin". These figures were no different than religious iconographies. They were revered as saviors, just as some religions revere prophets. Upon decease, Lenin was preserved ON DISPLAY for everyone to see and worship.

In China, where communism's war on God continues, the home-church movement thrives. Half a world away, America has the highest weekly church attendance in the industrialized world, notwithstanding attacks on faith from Hollywood, academia and a judiciary seemingly intent on purging religious symbols from public spaces.

The Chinese did to Mao Zedong (Mao Tse-Tung), what the Soviets did to Lenin, and what the North Koreans do to former dictator Kim Il Sung and after his death, his son currently in regime Kim Jong Il (again, "cult of personality").

In the USA - the most science-oriented society in history - Christian bookstores, radio stations and TV programming proliferate. It seems as though a hunger for the Creator is imprinted on the human heart.

Here, the author speaks in absolute terms. He claims that the US is the most science-oriented society in history. I guess this is why the US Federal Government has yet to sign the Kyoto Treaty, or support Stem-Cell Research, or programs that prove that contraceptives distributed freely work much better then abstinence prevention programs. It's ironic that the leaders of this "science-oriented society" will bend backwards to destroy the credibility of scientists who dare oppose the status quo views held by these environmentally and scientifically ignorant imbeciles.
As for the hunger for a creator, perhaps this has more to do with the brain than the heart. It is shown that there are regions in the Temporal Lobe of the brain that are devoted to feelings of faith and religious euphoria. This does not mean that it's God's will. Perhaps these structures allow for greater cohesiveness in our social system and provided early man with opportunities to tighten the social bonds which in turn resulted in an environment where our genes would flourish.

What would a world without God look like? Well, for one, morality becomes, if not impossible, exceedingly difficult. "Thou shalt not kill" loses much of its force when reduced from commandment to a suggestion. How inspiring can it be to wake in the morning, look in the mirror, and see an accident of evolutionary history - the end product of the random collision of molecules?

The Universe itself is an amazing place with or without religion. Just the fact that we exist is so highly improbably that we cannot fathom a reason for it. Those who take the easy way out either say that God created things that way (where's the imagination?), or what's the point of discerning things if there is no creator. Both views require a strategic shift in thought. Perhaps it's not about what our purpose of existence is, but where our future lies. Not individual futures, but the future of humanity in general.

A universe that isn't God-centered becomes ego-centered. People come to see choices through the prism of self: what promotes the individual's well-being and happiness. Such a worldview does not naturally lead to benevolence or self-sacrifice.

This paragraph also shows the lack of imagination on the author's part. The universe doesn't necessarily have to become ego-centered because there is something more then the self. As I stated before, there's humanity in general. Attempting to further our cultural evolution and our future as a species is not ego-centered. We now realize, through science, that the environment is highly important because this is the only place in the universe where humans exist. This little blue dot is our planet, and is shared by all of humanity, not just one individual. Self sacrifice and benevolence does not come from religion but from a social environment that's furthered through advancement in technology, thought, science, and self-awareness.

An affirmation of God can lead to the Ten Commandments, the Sermon on the Mount and the Declaration of Independence. In terms of morality, a denial of God leads nowhere.

It's funny how a generalized conversation on religion by those with dogmatic beliefs will always switch into a specific religious view. Here, Feder brings up the Ten Commandments and fragments of HIS religious world view. There are millions of other religions and billions of other people in the world who support views that are completely different. Yet, he claims "denial of God lead nowhere". Who's God is he talking about? Clearly it's the Judeo-Christian God, and not that of other unrelated religious beliefs. Morality is present within us, with or without religion. The ancient Romans had strong moral principles (even though when compared to today's world, they may seem barbaric -- who's to say in 1500 years if people view us as barbaric for eating meat, playing violent video games, fighting wars, supporting capital punishment?), yet they were polytheists. They believed in multiple Gods and yet, they had principles that are dictated by culture and society. We have come a long way from our cave dwelling ancestors, in terms of our moral principles, but that's not because of religion but scientific and technological progress.

There are no secularist counterparts to
Pope John Paul II, Mother Teresa, William Wilberforce (the evangelical responsible for abolition of the British slave trade), Martin Luther King Jr., or the Christians - from France to Poland - who rescued Jews during the Holocaust.

Sure there are. What about all the scientists, engineers, inventors, and numerous others who made the world a better place to live, and expanded on our understanding of our place in the universe. Just a few of the examples (not individuals because the advancement of humanity is not based on individuals but on a collective of individuals working either in groups or from the latest advancement of their predecessors in improving our outlook) include Medicinal Advancement, Industrialization, Safety implementation, Alternative Energy, Economic Reform, and Genetic Engineering that allowed for the Green Revolution, which subsequently helped feed millions if not billions of impoverished around the world.

True, terrible things have been done in the name of religion. Terrible things have been done in the name of every noble concept, including love, charity, loyalty and kinship. Yet, the worst horrors of the modern era were perpetrated by godless political creeds. The death toll from sectarian conflict over the ages is dwarfed by ideological violence, from the Jacobinism of Revolutionary France to the charnel houses of communism and fascism.

As mentioned before, most non-religious regimes replaced religious dogma with cult of personality. What they didn't change is the wiring in the brain that allows for faith, whether in a mythical deity that lives in the heavens constantly watching over and participating in our lives, or a deceased all-powerful leader who helped usher in a new age? These deaths would not have occurred had rationalism prevailed and the understanding that all that we have and all that we are is on this little planet. We are all more similar then dissimilar. We may be insignificant to the greater universe, but not to each other or this planet.

This is not to say that atheism leads naturally to guillotines and gulags, but, just as "love your fellow man as yourself" can be corrupted, so too can liberty, equality and fraternity.

Therefore anything can be corrupted, religious or not. This point I agree with.

Signs throughout history

There is no irrefutable evidence for God's existence or non-existence. But, if you look closely, his footprints can be discerned in the sands of time.

This all depends on one's basic starting premise. If one begins a view from a singular perspective, then all the following will support their opinion. However, if one looks at issues like an astronomer observing the universe, then the bias in an opinion is minimized. For example, the Astronomer must first look, and then theorize, and then attempt to validate those theories. That's why most people believed the Earth to be the center of the universe until the Copernican revolution. They started with the premise that the Earth was the center, so anything observed had to be around the Earth, so they had to introduce greater and greater complexity into their beliefs, until the true nature of our place was discovered.

Jews introduced the world to monotheism. They also were the first people to perceive history as linear- an unfolding story moving toward a conclusion. Is it a coincidence that this tiny, originally nomadic people generated the ideas that shaped the Western world, including equality, human rights and a responsibility to our fellow man? Jews are the only people to maintain their identity during two millennia of exile, and then return to their homeland and re-establish their nation.

The world was introduced to Monotheism well before the Jews. Zoroastrians, before the bastardization of the belief structure in Achemenid Persia, was by and large a monotheistic religion. Also, Egypt had numerous monotheists cults, of which the most well known was that of Atun. The Pharaoh Akhenaton himself attempted to supplant the dominant Egyptian religion with that of Monotheism (known now as the cult of Atun-Ra). It's possible that the Jews either adopted the monotheism concepts present in Zoroastrianism, or those found in Ancient Egypt. As an Armenian, I can attest that it is possible to retain national identity without necessarily dominating monotheism. The Armenians exited a good millennia before converting to Christianity, and yet, the language and culture survived. The Jews that did return to re-establish their "nation" where not the Jews read in the bible but largely ethnically Central and Eastern European. The ethnically Semitic Jews of the bible are more closely related to today's Palestinian, and Syrian people, then the European Jews that have settled the land and called it their own, just by chance of their religion (not ethnic heritage).

Mark Twain wrote: "The Egyptian, the Babylonian, and the Persian rose, filled the planet with sound and splendor, then faded to dream-stuff and passed away; the Greek and the Roman followed, and made a vast noise and they are gone; other peoples have sprung up, held their torch high for a time, but it burned out and they sit in twilight now or have vanished. … All things are mortal but the Jew; all other forces pass, but he remains. What is the secret of his immortality?" Had Twain been a believer, he might have answered his own question.

The secret of immortality of the Jews is with the Bible and Christianity. Judaism is progressed through anyone who attempts to read the Bible, and comes away with a history lesson of the people and places of a certain region of the Middle East. My criticism does not lay solely with Jews but religion in general attempting to replace truth with dogma. Many of the stories gleamed from the Bible, in fact, are rooted in myths and legends of not just ancient Semites, but Sumerians, and Egyptians as well.

America's survival and rise to global pre-eminence are equally improbable. Challenging the greatest empire of the 18th century, America should never have won its independence or should have self-destructed during the Civil War.

Improbably doesn't necessarily translate to God's footprints. Just because something is deemed improbable doesn't mean it is impossible. Here, Feder attempts to support a doctrine similar to Manifest Destiny. The nation is what it is because of the belief in God. Well, how about those nations that believed in God, and where doomed to failure? What about those people, such as Armenians, God Fearing Christians, who were brutally massacred by Turks? Where was this God that supposedly blessed so much upon the United States? These thoughts lead to endless speculation as to how God spares some, and allows others to die. The easy answer is that God's will is not well understood, and that things happen for a reason. Well, there are no easy answers, just many questions. Things may happen for a reason, they may not, but it's unjust to assume that because some nations faltered when others succeeded, it was due to their level of generosity and belief towards God.

Alexis de Tocqueville observed that the genius of our infant republic lay not in its farms and workshops but in its churches whose "pulpits flame with righteousness."

How does this quote provide legitimacy to the religious point of view? Just because one digs enough and finds a quote to support their view by a person of fame in history does not make that quote absolute. I'm sure many quoted Hitler before his true brutal nature was realized or currently quote Machiavelli who's doctrine was to effectively and violently suppress individual liberties (this from a Christian). Further, billions thought the world was flat, but you don't hear quotes from many of the Popes and religious figures who believed the Earth was the center of the universe quoted in that context. The issue with Tocqueville is that he may have provided the infant American republic with some legitimacy but if he knew what we know today, would he have quoted the same? This was at least 200 years before the proper application of the scientific method (When it was in its infancy). Moreover, how would all of those famous dissenters against progress and supporters of religion view the world with the knowledge, education, and framework that modern science provides?

Atheists are free to disbelieve and to try to propagate their disbelief in books and other intellectual forums. But saying the debate is over doesn't make it so. A bit of humility might make their case more convincing. Then again, humility is itself a religious concept.

Again, Feder attributes human characteristics as the domain of Religion. Humility does not need a religious explanation. Humility can come from realizing one's insignificance in the vast expanse of the universe, and at the same time, elevating the significance that human beings and the planet Earth has on us as individuals. Where is the humility from the religious point of view? In Feder’s case, believing that Judeo-Christianity is the one true path, while others, although carrying positive messages, cannot compare to the splendor of his archaic dogma? Isn't this arrogance? Questioning everything and not taking anything for granted come closer to humility then an unalterable believe in a system that is not well understood. Granted, Feder may believe he hears God, sees God in everything, just as a Buddhist may feel one with the Buddha, but this does not make either's point of view any more valid.

Don Feder is a former syndicated columnist and author of Who's Afraid of the Religious Right?

Having thoroughly destroyed the weak philosophical arguments and tactics that Feder uses to establish his point of view, a new paradigm must be exapted to explain the nature of the universe without necessarily incorporating faith (especially concrete, organized faith like the one Feder attempts to defend).

In terms of probability, any number of faiths have a greater then zero probability that they have some aspect of the universe correctly interpreted. This does not mean that having a non-zero probability, which is infinitesimally small, will be the defining view. There are many mysteries to the universe to be explained, and more questions then there will ever be answers. We, through evolutionary processes, have evolved brains that act on reason, beyond just blind instinct. We are able to ask questions of our environment, create tests to validate them, and subsequently attempt to discern our place in the universe. In other words, we RATIONALIZE the world around us, and a natural byproduct of that is to explain things we don't understand as religious guise. Before we understood evolution, there had to be a reason why there were so many different species (because God wanted it that way). Before modern Cosmology, there had to be a reason why the Earth was in the center of the universe (because we're special in God's eyes -- so much for humility). As science and technology progressed, we were able to reduce the effect that religion had over our daily lives. Comets did not foretell disaster, the Earth is not the center of the universe, all creatures on Earth are linked through a common ancestor, the actual age of the planet is 4.6 billion years, and it is possible to reach the heavens. Furthermore, we now realize that diseases are not caused by evil, or other people's influence, or the devil, but by microscopic organisms, or pathological changes, or metabolic dysfunction, or any number of concepts only recently (within the last few hundred years) discovered.

One major problem with Feder's Arguments would be the complication should extra-terrestrial intelligent life every be discovered. In fact, even the discovery of microscopic non-sentient organisms would shift the paradigm to more rational thought. How would Feder's myopic and arrogant view that his faith is the truest be retained, when a civilization outside of Earth is discovered. The Bible never mentions extra-terrestrial environments. If God was truly behind the Bible, then where is the mention of the true nature of the universe? Where are the planetary surfaces, or galactic super clusters, or even just the Earth's core? There is little, if no real science in the Bible, and should there have existed a creator that would have created the universe as we know it, then he most necessarily could have found a way to explain some of it. Feder, like others, will take these examples as tests of faith. Maybe, in their thinking, God is tricking us into believing that the universe exists as it does, when in fact it's all a ruse. Well, I'm sure that's good and well for him, but it doesn't work for rational thought. Further, even with such views, he will continue to take medication provided him from the benefits of ingenuity, and science. He will continue to drive cars that could not have been made possible with just sitting around and absorbing faith. Of course, for every argument I pose, he will have a counterargument regarding God's absolute authority. He will say that God gave us brains to create such masterpieces of technology. Well, if God gave us brains for that, then we can also alter DNA sequences, and through genetic engineering, create life forms that would never have naturally existed. This, for people like Feder, would be crossing the line. Yet, where does he draw the line? Perhaps certain forms of genetic engineering will benefit mankind, perhaps cloning will? His views are not based on rational thought, and all is needed, is the exaptation of God into the argument. Well, if his understanding of the Universe was greater, perhaps his need for summoning this mythical being that exists in the heavens directing his and all our lives, would not be as forthcoming.

The need for Vigilance in Science

In science, contrary to popular thinking, many hypotheses are incorrect. In fact, considering all the published papers, most of the ideas presented will eventually turn out to be substantially false. The importance of these ideas, even those that will become false, comes from the rigorous testing methods that can prove the veracity or errors present in the initial hypothesis. As a tool, the scientific method can become useful in assessing the likelihood that a given theory can be upheld with incoming data. Science therefore, must be supported through experimental means, beyond theoretical assumptions. The tools at our disposal, are far numerous to count. As an example, computer simulation can be a powerful determinant when it comes to proving certain hypothetical claims. Further, numerous analytical techniques can correlate data into a comprehensive understanding. When considering evolutionary theory, Natural Selection remains supported through hundreds of different methods present at a scientist's disposal. Through molecular genetics, radio-isotopic analysis, taxonomy, paleontology, comparative anatomy, and numerous other converging fields, the Theory of Evolution through Natural Selection is not only supported, but strengthened and refined. With the development of newer tools and even more specialized techniques, specific details can emerge and add to the mountain of data already present.

Having been exposed to the thrills and rigor of evolutionary theory, it's striking that as comfortable as one becomes with a given subject, the likelihood for a breach in upholding the standards practiced at first, increase rather substantially. Since the field of evolution is so vast, theories abound in a seemingly chaotic fashion. Some remain conserved from the moment of inception, and others are as likely to change as autumn leaves in temperate locales. It seems as though some theories are presented just to strengthen the opposing argument while others are just like small stepping stones, aiding to an all encompassing bigger picture. With so much mercurial transition, the danger of complacency increases in a staggering manner. Certain theories seem logical, and therefore, so intuitive that they are grasped as though they were proven with little doubt. These are "fashionable" ideas that can vary from replicable and probable, to absolutely impossible. An example is the radiation of mammals during the Cretatious/Tertiary era (approximately 80 million years to about 40 million years ago). It was long assumed that before the extinction of dinosaurs as well as 75% of other organisms on Earth, mammals were simple, shrew sized animals living nocturnally and barely scraping through an existence. Further, it was only after the K/T (65 Million years ago, otherwise known as the end of the Dinosaur Age) extinction event that mammals had the freedom to radiate and fill various ecological niches. As intuitive as this theory may seem, it has recently been proven largely false. As it turns out, through molecular analysis (of various mammalian DNA), it turns out that most modern mammals had 2 major radiation events where they evolved into numerous species. The first was well within the Dinosaur age, at about 80 million years ago, while the second event was well after the extinction event, dating to approximately 55 million years ago. Those mammals that did radiate directly after the K/T extinction were eventual evolutionary dead ends. They have left no known modern ancestors. The Mammals that exist on Earth today are a result of the aforementioned radiation events, and not the latter that lead to the post-extinction radiation. With the molecular data pointing to these two dates, the challenge now falls upon the paleontologists to match the fossil record with that of the molecular evidence. What this new finding means is that although early mammals were indeed the size of shrews, they were genetically very diverse. They went through two periods of explosive diversity, followed by slower evolutionary changes. Although this new data increases our understanding as per the dates of the events, theories as to why these occurred when they did are now being published. What lead to these two periods of radiation? Was it subtle changes in the Earth's climate? The configuration of the continents? The diversity of flowering plants, or insects, or items that were consumed by mammals?

Having spoken of the dinosaur age, certain assumptions of fossilizations must also be disassembled. It was long thought that fossils could not preserve any genetic material for tracing. Until recently, most paleontologists expected fossils older then 50,000 years to have very little chance of preserving any observable material. They assumed that mineralization of the tissues would be complete, and no actual tissue could be left preserved. Even insects fossilized in amber were thought to mineralize from the chemicals present, and have no usable tissue remaining. The assumption was proven wrong when a paleontologist by the name of Mary Higby Schweitzer of North Carolina State University and colleagues, recovered what seemed to be actual tissue from a Tyrannosaurus Rex sample. As it turned out, this fossil was preserved in sandstone, and even delicate details were present. With further processing and new molecular imagine techniques, some actual collagen (connective tissue) was recovered for DNA analysis. As it now turns out (with further independent verification required), T-rex was closely related to modern day Chickens. Birds therefore, are a direct descendent of a meat eating, bipedal, therapod dinosaur.

Having earlier delved through the confusion that abounds in mammalian diversity, other aspects of evolutionary theory are just as difficult to understand. The former example (of mammalian radiation) provided the fallacy of "compound intuition". The next example will shed light on the fallacy of "convergent observation". Certain parallel behaviors that we observe in nature can seem to have a common root. A common fallacy is to assume that perhaps those behaviors share a genetic basis. In fact, what we observe can in fact be due to convergent evolution that uses an optimal survival strategy. It will become apparent that an organism doesn't necessarily need a specific "gene" for useful strategies to perpetuate its survival. For example, just as a tropical fish will flee into a small crevasse in coral to escape a predator, an arctic lemming will dive into a small hole to do the same. Although these two strategies seem similar superficially, the organisms do not share a "flee into a small hole" gene. Their strategies are the optimal best to ensure survival therefore they remain within those organisms. The genetic tools they use to escape are completely different, even though the end result ensures survival. Similarly, genes that control social organization among species can vary greatly. The same optimal survival strategy that dogs use in pack situations, ants use in colonies, and naked mole rats use within their own hierarchy is similar to those of our own species. Organizing into cohesive social units furthers our chances of survival, although the genes that govern this behavior are completely different. Moreover, similar convergence in evolution can be found in the development of the eye. As it turns out, the ancestors of various modern species evolved eyes completely independent of each other. The eyes of the box jelly fish, or the mantis shrimp, are completely different then that of human eyes. Yet, in an organism's development, some genetic sequences that govern the placement of the eyes are very similar (hox genes for example). This similarly however, does not mean that there is a genetic link between the development of the eye in these organisms. What actually happens is that the environment dictates the advantage of a sensory organ for sight, and as certain evolutionary trends evolve, gene sequences are used that are similar between these organisms for the same function. To simplify, if jelly fish and humans both use the "Z" gene for eyesight, it doesn't necessarily mean that they both had a common ancestor that used the "Z" gene for sight. At some early phase of development, the ancestors of jelly fish and humans acquired a certain gene sequence ("Z") that independently resulted in governing the development of the eye in these two organisms. If looked at superficially, it would seem to some that this ancestral organism (Concestor, using a word invented by Richard Dawkins-- one of the most well known evolutionary biologists) had used the "Z" gene for eyesight and then the branch the lead to the jelly fish/human split acquired this characteristic. In reality, the Concestor passed on the gene first, and then some time later, the progenitors that resulted in jelly fish acquired the usage of the gene for eyesight, just as those early organisms that resulted in humans did independently as well. Naturally, this is an oversimplification, because the common ancestor between what later became humans and jelly fish existed over 500 million years ago.

Finally, after Gregor Mendel's legendary experiments with peas and genetics, followed by the discovery of the actual carrier molecule for those genes (DNA), many geneticists felt that soon, genetic inheritance would be completely uncovered. It was assumed that within a few decades after the initial discovery of DNA, all would be known about genetic inheritance. As it turns out, those assumptions could not have been more wrong. As we've come to realize, genetic inheritance isn't as simple as once was thought. The simple assumptions that the interplay between dominant and recessive genes, along with the sexually selected genes determined inheritance. It was also thought that each gene coded for a single protein, but as our understanding of molecular biology and chemistry improves, we now know that things are far more complex than assumed. The same genes can code for various different proteins if they are placed different locations with different activator sequences. Other genes code for nothing but unused DNA. Furthermore, the concept of imprinting greatly compounds our understanding of Mendelian Inheritance. With mammalian imprinting, the male or female parental genes can disable the other partner's and as a result, the offspring will only retain one copy of that gene. In other words, the gene becomes useless because it's function is blocked by one of the parents. Although some traits can easily be explained through Dominant and Recessive genes, other traits are a result of the complex interplay between numerous genes and imprinted genes within an individual. In fact, even environmental changes can determine the expression of certain genes. Not only genes in an existing individual, but the changes in certain sequences can effect individuals many generations down the line. For example, under the newfound field of epigenetics, scientists are realizing that obesity can alter genes in such a way that many generations of descendents can be effected by Diabetes, among other medical ailments. In essence, the processes are so complex, that it could take hundreds of years to decode the workings well.

In essence then, science will always shift in new directions, with additional information arriving. Observation is thus, the most important trait in science, and as we invent new tools to further our observation, and then theorize and explain those observations, our understanding of the universe will continue to grow. As certain theories are invalidated, our understanding strengthens because now we can rule them out. Further, even more questions will arise, as some of those are answered and others discarded. This is ultimately the beauty of science. Errors will always be useful because they help focus our understanding and strengthen or weaken existing theories. Science is therefore alive and will evolve with our progress. As an example, before the car existed, the wheel must have been invented, followed by the cart, carriage, etc. Similarly, incremental steps are so important, that we cannot take them for granted. After all, a ladder can't be climbed by great leaps, but step-by-step (of course, occasionally, you can take two or three steps up the rungs, but you also risk falling, just as is done in science). Thus, most apparent breakthroughs are not enormous leaps but lead to rapid descent followed by yet another surge towards the top. Therefore, with vigilance comes momentum and progress.

The Rifle Shot that Blew my Mind

Having just seen the Oscar winning movie Babel, a few realizations of human nature, and our consequences on the fabric of the world come to mind. Without spoiling too much of the movie, the whole movie can be summarized as consequences from actions that seem trivial and insignificant at first which can subsequently snowball into complex and intertwined larger problems. A "causality cascade" as I will call these types of events can occur without anyone's knowledge, and with no determined directionality. In the movie, an avid hunter from Japan leaves behind a rifle in gratification for the good job his Moroccan guide did providing him with optimal hunting locations. This rifle, eventually getting in the hands of mischievous children, leads to a shot on a tour bus, that snowballs into a causality cascade, eventually resulting in a complex interwoven story of how separate lives can combine through a rather insignificant event. Had the hunter never made it to Morocco, or had the rifle never exchanged hands, or any number of other scenarios, the actions that resulted in tragedy and loss would never have occurred. All of these events, therefore, transpired without any predetermination in the part of the people involved at the fate of their lives. Events such as these are nothing new to philosophers and even scientists have mathematical equations describing these cascade events known as Chaos Theory.

A causality cascade could be anything that snowballs into something larger. In effect, it's like an uncontrolled chain reaction with no predetermined intention. When an atomic bomb undergoes fission, the neutrons in the atoms start a cascade chain reaction effecting others exponentially until the immense powers of those nuclear reactions are released. In this instance, there is a clear predetermination as to what the subsequent result will be. The neutrons do not undergo uncontrolled chain reactions like the causality cascades, because the end result is a mushroom cloud, and everything must result in precise timing. Causality cascades on the other hand, as already mentioned are not predetermined, and are extremely uncontrollable. Events can effect other events in such ways that could never be imagined, because there are an infinite amount of possible outcomes from each event. Chaos theory attempts to describe these events, whether they involve atoms, computer generated fractals, or even human actions, into a mathematical model that attempts to predict various probabilities on possible outcomes. At the point of infinite variation, it's impossible to predict exactly how an event that is so complex will turn out, yet there are events that can be more likely to occur then others. It's similar to quantum effects* on atoms. It's impossible to predict the exact location of an electron orbiting an atom because measuring and observing the location of the electron forces it to change, and alter its initial state. Therefore, the best one can hope for is to determine a probability of where the electron may be. There is a chance that the electron itself can be found at the other end of the universe, and with trillions of electrons, it's very likely that one may end up there through some complex quantum effects. Yet, through probabilities, the electrons are more likely to be found in certain regional distributions, and the greatest amount will be found in certain areas orbiting atoms. Taking this in mind, it's possible through causality cascades to have a butterfly flapping its wing in Mexico, effecting the weather to the point of a hurricane developing in the Indian Ocean. The displaced air molecules from the butterflies wings can convert into a type of chain reaction and eventually lead to enough "momentum" building in the changes of air flow to feed a system over the Indian Ocean, resulting in a Hurricane. The probability of this specific event may be extremely low, but with all the air molecules, and all the small effects of butterflies, birds, dragonflies, and other such causational events, the probability that these can cascade into a large scale atmospheric event is almost certain. There is no way to predict which specific butterfly can cause it, but it's possible to predict the probability that these small scale events have in effecting larger ones (100% since all larger events start with smaller ones that cascade).

Our actions on a daily basis will therefore, inevitably lead to an infinite number of causality cascades, some which we consider good, and others which we consider bad. For example, perhaps giving the right of way to a driver waiting on a busy free-way onramp, will result in that driver's awareness of others, and through due course and time, this will cascade into good will spread upon numerous individuals, perhaps cascading into someone's life being saved. In the same token, it's also possible that cutting somebody off, will result in the driver's behavior to become erratic, and through numerous other chain reactions, one of the angry drivers along the way will do something rash enough to cause an accident and involuntarily take a life. Finally, a third possibility is that what one perceives as a positive event can become negative to others. For example, taking the same driving scenario mentioned, perhaps suddenly breaking to avoid large debris on the freeway may be beneficial to the individual driver, and the avoidance a positive event, yet, the reaction may cause more disastrous results to drivers following behind. It may be a positive event to one life, but its negative impact may be felt by dozens of others following behind. In another example, if a small child was choking on food particles, and one were to assist in saving the child's life, it would definitely seem like a positive event. However, what if this child in turn became a Tyrannical leader who's path of destruction lead to the death of millions, wars of aggression and perpetual hostility? Then what seemed like a good deed, could in fact have been a great disservice. If one knew ahead to time, that said child would turn out to be Hitler, the morality of the situation would definitely be difficult to assess. These scenarios show the complexity of causality cascades, and how their effects cannot be trivialized or minimized. There is no way to avoid effecting events along the chain when one has no predetermined notion as to what will follow. Yet, there are scenarios high in probability that are more likely to occur when one analyzes the events thoroughly and attempts to discern some form of causality.

Having defined and explained causality cascades, one need look no further then those individuals in prominent positions of government to realize just how much power they have over events that effect every individual's life. The causality cascades that you or I are able to initiate in our lives are infinitesimally small, compared to those that Bush, as well as other "leaders" are capable of. Bush's decision to launch an aggressive war on Iraq leads to the destruction of an infinite amount of lives, over such flimsy reasons as weapons of mass destructions. When the excuse for invasion failed to materialize, other excuses such as freeing the Iraqi people, or spreading democracy in the region were provided. Ultimately however, countless lives have been directly changed on account of specific actions taken without much consideration to possible outcomes of events. The civilian lives that have been taken in Iraq as a direct result of these actions, along with the billions of lives in the world that have changed, are the result of one man's determined and faulty mind. When we elect those who are supposed to represent the people, we rarely consider just how much power we are providing them. These people shape the future of the world. Going back to Bush's example, not only did his invasion cost over 3200 American soldier's lives, it also cost over 100,000 Iraqi civilian lives, and indirectly, the infinite lives of those who would have been born had their predecessors not have been killed. Perhaps one of those soldiers would have fathered (or mothered) a child who would have discovered the cure for AIDS. All of these potential human beings will never exist because their parents were killed as a result of a few poor decisions. What would the world have been like if Gandhi's father was killed by the British? Or how different would civil rights in the United States have been had Martin Luther King's mother been lynched? What if Philip of Macedon, Alexander the Great's Father, been killed in an intradynastic feud? All of these questions become obvious when we realize that each person has the potential to influence countless other lives, either positively or negatively. Most of us influence lives completely oblivious to the chain of events that unfold, but other's have so much power, that their decisions determine the course of human history a thousand fold as compared to ours. Although we are all able to determine the course of history because just being alive and interacting with the world changes the causality of the situation, the scale at which we do it can differ. Those who hold the reigns of authority have the power at larger scales then others. We are enabling them to determine the fate of the world, and are oblivious to the nature of their capabilities.

Ultimately, causality cascades can be found in the same uncertain philosophical grounds as notions of morality such as good and bad. Attempting to define causality cascades as good, and other's as bad can seem like a moot point, considering our ignorance at the ultimate effects our actions may take. However, just being aware of the profound multilayered interactions of our lives can be illuminating in itself. Knowing that defining such events as good and bad can become a lesson in futility, the act of defining cannot be completely dismissed when taken in an attempt at furthering our thinking. The traits that have allowed human beings to transcend simple instinctual urges, and have allowed us to pause and reflect, are thus furthered with the knowledge and questions that we ask about our nature. Causality cascades are an important aspect of self definition and growth because we have the heightened senses to be capable of the awareness of our actions and the possible consequences they may entail. Yet, just because the potential exists for such deep introspection, the application of it is based on an individual basis. Most of us have the tools to further our understanding of the universe and ourselves, but because of various barriers and filters (Such as certain religious beliefs, cultural nuances, social standing, and serendipity of living comfortable enough lives to be so introspective), many are not able to exercise such potential. The most unfortunate side effect of this wealth of potential, is that those who should be required to tap these tools within us live their lives thirsting for material gains, power control and petty squabbles that don't matter much to the greater world. By this, I mean the elected "representatives" of the world. How long will we allow these bickering, selfish, self absorbed, narcisstic, and ineffective individuals ruin our futures before we stand up and fight? We are lead to believe that the most important things in life are acquisition of wealth, and superficial trappings of civilization, when in fact, we're ignorant of the greater good that society can offer. We are so entrenched in our immediate lives, that we're ignorant of the greater potential for humanity. We watch news to uncover updates on Anna Nicole Smith and Paris Hilton, when in fact, we should be concerned about the advancement of our species and the survival of our planet. In the end, the future of the world will rest with how we define ourselves, and come to understand the consequences of our actions upon the planet. Just like a butterflies wings, small effects can have enormous unintended consequences. We are all small effects, but we're not inconsequential. After all, causality cascades cannot rule out the potential for even one human being (further reducing that idea, such cascades cannot even rule out the behavior of an atom, but with human beings, our actions can be consciously analyzed, and reflected upon).


*Quantum Theory in Physics describes the interaction and effects among subatomic particles.

Charles Darwin: Myth from Reality

Through countless conversations with most intelligent people who are not well versed in topics of Evolutionary Biology, I have come across a thread of resistance because of who they think Charles Darwin Represents.

To many, Charles Darwin is an antagonistic entity, bent on destroying faith, and relegating mankind to nothing but oblivion. Some philosophers, having absorbed evolution and natural selection have become Nihilists, envisioning no purpose in life, and exhibiting the lack of hope associated with their lack of faith in anything. It's easy to fall prey to hopelessness when one's faith and beliefs are shattered, but as I have attempted to explain in my previous essay, just because we find ourselves insignificant to the universal order of things, it does not mean we are insignificant to each other. What matters is our relationship to those around us and our world. The Earth is our only home, and every human being who has ever existed was born here (paraphrasing Carl Sagan). Perhaps one day, there will be other worlds to inhabit and other places humans will be born, but until that day is here, our planet is the most significant thing in the universe because it is tied to our existence.

What Charles Darwin uncovered, was the process through which we came to exist on this planet that has and will, for the foreseeable future, be our home. The process of Evolution through Natural Selection has existed on Earth for Billions of years. In fact, it's possible that life on Earth in its infancy was seeded from perhaps rudimentary amino acids, or even something as complex as bacteria, from outside our planet. Yet, this does not change the fact that for at least the last 3.5 billion years, organisms have evolved to inhabit every corner of our planet. Darwin is vilified for any number of reasons, but all he did was uncover a process that had existed with or without his scientific contribution. Darwin did not invent Evolution because it had existed before him. Many religious extremists will deny these facts, but that is in large part to their ignorance as it pertains to science, and biology. We don't celebrate Charles Darwin's discovery because it destroys the faith in some people, but we celebrate it for helping us better understand the world that we live in. When Newton and subsequently Einstein described the laws and function of gravity, they only helped uncover forces that had existed since the dawn of the universe. Scientists are ultimately detectives who after coming across clues and evidence, eventually build a better picture of the world to help solve certain mysteries. We should appreciate the fact that those very same evolutionary processes that help a dolphin or bat to echo-locate, or a snake to swallow pray larger then their heads, also helped shape and force our minds to communicate through language. We can't fall into the trap of expecting a miraculous or divine process to suddenly develop language in an upright largely hairless ape. We were lucky enough to be shaped by our environment to communicate effectively and intelligently with each other. We can convey such complexities through words alone, that in of itself, is an amazing development. Just because it's amazing however, does not make it miraculous. It's true that some aspects of this development are still uncertain, but through rigorous testing, simulating and understanding, we will get that much closer to perceiving these natural processes.

Philosophical Musings from An Agnostic Perspective

One danger in expanding one's view of the universe, is the troublesome aspect of insignificance. When one looks at the grandeur of the universal; at its utter vastness, we are confounded, and forced to find words to describe the length and breadth. We use words such as Infinite, and Boundless, with distances in the light years and parsecs. We cannot fathom the expanse of it all, and yet, it is all around us. We are barely able to come to terms with our place in the order of things without including religion to uncover some significance of our being. Looking at something in such magnitude, it is no wonder that many are forced to concede to some unattainable, omnipresent force that keeps some form of order. We cannot believe just how insignificant our existence means to the universe, so we invent concepts to inflate our egos and put ourselves on pedestals above other creatures. We are so convinced of our own superiority, that once the reality of our place in the universe really sinks in; once the insignificance of our lives in the universe may mean to the rest of the universe, we become nihilistic entities, giving up on what should be the most amazing realization. The universe does not need human beings to function as it does now, so we aren't important to its composition, but what we forget is that our sentience gives us the ability to probe the vastness of it all.

Going back 500 years, even learned theorists had mostly thought the Earth to be the center of the universe. After Copernicus, we came to terms with the sun being the center of our planetary system, yet the downgrading was just beginning. Soon, we realized that the solar system was but one of billions in our own galaxy, and less then 100 years ago, we came to know (thanks to Edwin Hubble) our galaxy, the Milky Way, to be one of Billions. Not only is the sun an ordinary star, but the galaxy that we live in is not much different then millions of others. Our sun is about half way away from the center of the galaxy, rotating every 250 million years or so around the center, and for most of Earth's existence, life was oblivious to all of this. Therein lies the kernel of philosophical salvation. We as human beings, may be insignificant to the universe as a whole, but we are significant to each other. Just as an ant may seem insignificant to human beings, its existence within the colony is more significant then its existence to us. Thus, existence itself is a relative concept. The trend towards nihilism is easily reversed when we realize just how fortunate we are to contemplate our place in the vastness of the universe.

Before delving into the improbability and wonder of our existence, an important clarification must be made. I am not leading up to a support in existence of some sort of deity, or supernatural force. It may seem that way at first, since we're trained to automatically assume that anything improbably must be a result of something beyond ourselves, but in this case, this is not the conclusion I am achieving to reach. As a functional agnostic (separate from the philosophical agnostic, which is an actual belief structure), I am neither in support or in denial of the existence of what some may call God, others the Holy Spirit, or whatever unseen force may be guiding things. My goal is to highlight just how amazing our universe is, and how we must embrace the existence of other's like ourselves who can similarly appreciate it.

In order for our atoms to have formed in the manner in which they did, our Universe had to have the right physical qualities to ensure our existence. The strong nuclear force, holding the intrinsic properties in our atoms (Quarks) together, must be the specific field strength that it is. If it differed by even a millionth, our universe would not be able to form the stars that eventually formed the heavy atoms that resulted in our bodies. There are thousands of other physical qualities that must be as specific as they are for our universe to resemble what it does today. Had the matter in the beginning of our universe not won out over anti-matter, there wouldn't be anything to build atoms with. Consider the fact that matter just barely edged out anti-matter during the initial stages of the universe's growth. Only 1 particle of matter out of a million was able to escape the mutual annihilation to eventually dominate the battlefield. Furthermore, had the laws of expansion been any different (Hubble's Constant), the universe would collapse on itself or expand out so quickly, there would be no time to form the matter in which we see today. Similarly, changes in the gravitational force, or the electromagnetic, would equally alter the universe in which we live, making life all but even less possible.

Coming back down to Earth, even the process of evolution, if changed at any link along the chain, would not result in human beings dominating the planet today. Indeed, we are fortunate enough to be here contemplating our existence, considering all the possible outcomes where homo Sapien would not have evolved to consciously dissect the physical world, and attempt to find the processes that resulted in our being. As an example, had dinosaurs survived the cretatious/tertiary extinction event, mammals would have probably remained in their small nocturnal states. Had a supernova exploded near our system 500 million years ago, perhaps the first multicellular organisms would have been wiped away, and life would evolve in a different manner. There are just so many possible thought experiments to go through, and all of which yielding to the conclusion that our existence, though not impossible, is quite near improbable. Had the clock been turned back to the first instance of Universal expansion, things would certainly have turned out differently. The probability of humans re-evolving as we have would be next to near impossible. Our lives are indeed special, and although compared to the vastness of the universe, we may not make much of an impact, we certainly effect the bearings of others like us. We are in effect, relatively important to each other, and should people sheathed in anger, just pause and appreciate the improbability of our existence, they would come to realize how to treat others. Although war is a product of our inherent genetic predisposition for territorial supremacy (among many other genetic causes), we have culturally evolved through philosophical thought, ethical and moral progressiveness, to understand the consequences of our actions, and think beyond our cold genes. We realize how important the environment is in shaping our genes, and ultimately, with prime importance, we know that cultural growth can extend beyond our genetic tendencies.

If more people strived to understand the physical nature of our universe, we would realize that although our position in the vastness of this infinite structure is infinitesimally small, our relation to each other is equally as vast. Perhaps one day, the human race will be in position to extend our influence beyond just our own planet, but those days will be forever lost when we continue destroying each other, and lying to ourselves about the nature of things. It may be easier for some, without a solid background in the sciences, to sit at home and decide that the diversity of the species on earth, and the beauty (from our perspective) of the universe, have a divine cause, then to look at the majesty of life and the universe and realize the physical processes that shaped it. Let us not take credit away from the physical forces of nature that helped shape our being, when it's easier to decide that just because we don't understand the physical world, it needs a supernatural explanation. To some, not enough has been explained to appreciate the beauty of the physical world as it is without resorting to some paranormal or supernatural belief. Yet with enough knowledge of the workings of our universe (without the meddlesome nature of religion), we may come to appreciate our fellow human being more then religion has allowed us to do. After all, religion in context of culture and evolution is a unifying force in grouping human begins within extended clans. Once we realize this, and move beyond religion and into the realm of what we can scientifically test and validate, people will become more appreciative of others. It is my experience, that those involved in the field of sciences tend to be the least socially judgmental and the most accepting of individuals. I am not discounting something beyond our physical world, but since we cannot test or validate the existence of that, then they stay in the realm of philosophy and belief. Beliefs can be shattered (such as the world is flat), but physical truths cannot (such as the laws of gravity). It's possible for scientific theories to be invalidated, or refined, but ultimately, there are physical laws that exist which we must uncover. With beliefs, they don't function in that manner. There are 6.2 billion people on the planet all with different sets of beliefs, and although groups of those people can be placed together along similar beliefs, each individual is ultimately an island in what they believe. Some grouped closer then others, but just because there are majority beliefs, don't necessarily validate those. If as an hypothetical example, 2 billion people today believed that the Earth was still flat, that would not necessarily make the Earth flat. With the physical world, it's not majority belief, but the uncovering of what the actuality is. There are physical truths that are unalterable. The same physical principles that govern the nature of our sun, are the same all across the universe. We can be certain that those physical laws apply the same everywhere. The speed of light should invariably be the same here as it should be 50 quintillion parsecs away in any direction. The properties that govern stellar evolution should be the same all across the spectrum. Similarly, closer to Earth, evolution as a process should function the same now as it did billions of years ago (with random mutations, and natural selection: aka survival of the fittest). That's the beauty of the universe; the mysteries left to uncover that allow us to understand aspects all across the infinite expanse.

The Next Possible Terror Event

Thinking of the unfavorable response that the current Bush Administration has received in their handling of Iraq, Afghanistan, foreign, as well as domestic policy, something substantial and unbelievable must occur to keep them in power. In this case, when I say "them", I mean the Neo-conservatives who have distorted the constitution and run amuck with the power that they've managed to extract from the Judicial, Legislative, and of course, the Executive Branch of government. Only now has this unilateral power surge started to wane. Yet, those with vast control of power cannot readily allow the reigns to weaken.

With the 2008 Presidential Elections fast approaching, the Neo-conservatives must devise a new strategic plan to cope with the possible shift in power. Naturally, the best course of action is for another planned terror event to scare the public, and enable the Fascists in disguise (Neo-Cons) to continue dominating American, as well as the worldwide political landscape.

Of the various scenarios that can possibly occur, I have come up with one that will not only allow the Administration to extend their Illegal war outside of Iraq, but to also quell Domestic policy regarding Illegal Immigration and resolve the Border Fence issue. What I envision is a "terror attack" on one of the Nuclear Power Plants. I don't believe the attacks will be done for success as much as national fear. A truckload of explosives with the potential of mass destruction is all that will be required. Of all the Nuclear reactors, I believe San Onofre:
(http://www.sce.com/PowerandEnvironment/PowerGeneration/SanOnofreNuclearGeneratingStation/default.htm?goto=songs), in Southern California, will be one of the prime target. Considering the short distance to the "porous" Mexican border, and the population density of the region, San Onofre should be avoided in the first half of 2008. Since the National Elections (Presidential Included) will be in November of 2008, the staged event, in order to be most politically effective, would probably happen 6-9 months prior to the Elections.

Like most current Nuclear Generating Plants, the actual reactors in San Onofre are housed in thick, reinforced concrete to contain a moderate sized meltdown. These concrete casings are generally too strong to be substantially damaged, but the potential impact of an attempt at damage will suffice for the mass hysteria of the public. After the incident, fear will grip many Americans, and we will be reminded of the porous nature of the border. We will find that these "terrorists" probably arrived through the border illegally, and therefore, we must reinforce and expedite the current security fence. Not only will Domestic Policy become malleable as foreign policy was under the Bush Administration, but we will also come to realize that the terrorists were funded by Syrians, or even possibly Iranians. Considering that Iran would be a likely scapegoat, and doubt would surface, Syria is probably a better patsy for the terrorists. Realizing that they "came" from Syria, we would launch political initiatives to coerce Syria into allowing us on their soil to search for evidence. Naturally, Syria would deny these incursions, and the US would launch an air campaign against a few targets on Syrian soil. Naturally, this would infuriate the region, with the hope that Iran would become involved. Once Iran's support for Syria becomes evident, the Administration will finally be able to quell their perceived enemies there as well. Thinking that they're making the world safer for American and subsequently Israeli greed, there would be no stopping the inevitable.

Naturally, this scenario is somewhat of a slippery slope, but the possibility that this can become reality is enough to be concerned. In a previous article, I had stated that diplomacy is the only recourse in this situation, yet, every possibly scenario planned by the current Administration purposely attempts at circumventing and ultimately impeding diplomacy. The possibility that multi-level talks with Iran and Syria may prove fruitful are not seriously on the Administrations agenda because it would upset the Israeli's, especially the Israeli Lobby in America. Since politicians think first with their pocket books, and very distantly for the national interest, it is but inevitable that the contributions they receive from the Israeli lobby should remain a primary source. A solution to all of this, as I've explained before, would be the end to political contributions. Politicians should NOT be swayed by special interests, and the only way to maintain honesty is to prevent them from making any money. Politicians should instead, live in Dormitories in the Capitol, and be present for at least 90% of their sessions. They have an important job to do, and they mustn’t be distracted by prestigious vacations but must work like the rest of us.

In the next blog, I shall attempt to expand on the idea of the steps to take for an honest congress. The system cannot remain as it is, because these politicians are far removed from mainstream thinking. This is why the thought that they can easily be swayed by special interests on the event that another possible terror incident is revealed, is frightening to say the least.

Why I Blog

Throughout the course of human history, there have been many breakthrough moments in culture and thought. Through the last 10,000 years, most of us have gone from primitive agricultural and pastoral lives to the modern world we see around us. We have developed tools to probe the universe with, technology to travel interplanetary distances, communication to interconnect the globe, and the knowledge and accumulated wisdom of millennia.

In times past, technological breakthroughs were slow in development, and diffused at a glacial pace. The means of communication that we've grown so accustomed with were virtually unheard 150 years prior to our current generation. Communication by horse lead to communication by train, then telegraph, telephone, internet, etc. These rapid communication advancements have allowed for a great deal of shared information and development. With the world literally at our fingertips, we have built a complex interconnected web of information and knowledge. Prior to this vast information basin, advancement often met a brick wall and resulted in numerous dead ends. During the Chalcolithic (Copper) Age, human beings had begun to smelt copper, out of the minerals that had been present in surface rocks. The discovery, eventually heralding the Bronze age, although rapid by geological standards, was slow compared to the power of communication in the present day. It took well over a thousand years for the process of smelting copper and then bronze to spread from Anatolia and the Near East, to Greece, Central and Western Europe, Northern Africa, and Asia. The process developed over time to involve various techniques and methods to achieve the temperatures needed to melt metallic minerals into their purer forms.

The greatest amount of accumulated knowledge occurred during the advent of the Written Age. Writing has to be one of the most important tools in the human arsenal for communication. As more of the general public began to become literate, a larger amount of people were able to contribute to the pool of ideas and technology. Advancements began to proceed at paces only dreamt of centuries earlier. Before literacy crept upon the general populace, many ideas now proven correct took a back seat to wild theories. The microscopic structure of the world was initially defined by many theories and ideas, yet, the most applicable was that of Democritus, who was one of the first to theorize about the existence of the atom (over 2000 years prior). It's specifically because of the written knowledge passed down to us that we're aware of Democritus' near prophetic theories. The possibility that other philosophers and theorists had explained the existence of the atom before Democritus cannot be eliminated. Chances are, others may have had similar ideas, but because of the difficulty in transmitting the information (even through writing), those records have not survived to the present day. Even with the idea of the atom, it was Aristotle's view of the four elements that stalled many aspects of science and technology for well over 1500 years. Another applicable example, involving the theoretical and influential world of Greeks, and that of our own Modern Age, was Medicine. Although highly advanced during the Greek Era, it wasn't until Galen's written texts (Roman Era) of human anatomy that the Zenith of Medicine was thought to have reached. He was so convinced of his theory’s superiority, that he said any further work in the area would be an insult to all of humanity. Galen wrote texts with pictures and anatomical features that he thought described human beings. The studies he used was that of other animals, since dissecting a human being was considered forbidden. Modern Anatomical Medicine didn't really advance again until Andreas Vesalius (mid 1500's), a headstrong and anti-authoritarian anatomist began to challenge Galen's work. Due to the religious restrictions on the treatment of corpses, the Middle Ages saw very little breakthroughs in human anatomy. Thanks to the partial liberalization of religious restriction and the allowance of executed criminals to serve as cadavers, Vesalius was able to determine anatomical features missing from Galen's written accounts. With the pace of Medicine advancing again, we were finally able to delay, and to some extent control, the greatest force of nature. Death, having been a foe that seemed inescapable was suddenly becoming less of a concern. Although unavoidable, we were finally able to diagnose, heal, treat and cure diseases, and the agents (parasites, bacteria, viruses, fungi, etc.) which often brought about an "untimely" demise.

However, through fires and various other catastrophes, many ancient written records, that could have provided us with a greater amount of historical data and knowledge, perished. Even with the possibility of written information being destroyed, the chances for technological advancement were greater then if those records had never been produced. Some that were destroyed found audience in other languages, the translation having come down to us, even with the original having been eliminated. Written information for most of its inception was also heavily biased. Often times, the records that reach us have been those of the victor, and our attempts at consolidating history can be marred by inaccuracies. Yet, even with biased historical records, a lot of context could be revealed, and a greater objective understanding of the forces involved could become apparent.

Compared to the geological time frame of Modern Homo Sapien evolution (about 200,000 years), the lives of individual humans is but a mere blink of the eye. Billions of human beings have come and gone, variations in climate has existed, new species have evolved and become extinct, and yet, our experiences with time allow for more of the same to happen. Just as the fossil record is written in the very ground (land and sea bed) that once occupied all the animals that ever existed on Earth, the record of human achievement is written in the books and knowledge that has also accumulated chronologically. Even our genes don't really matter, because over the course of a few generations, they are diluted to some random genetic consistency very different from our exact sequences. What survives past one's lifetime are thoughts and ideas. Naturalist, and one of the leaders of modern day Evolutionary theory, Richard Dawkins has explained this cultural trait, similar to genetic code in evolution, as a "meme". A meme, just like a gene, is a snippet of information that is able to replicate and transfer its information to the next generation. In terms of a gene, it's the gene's ability to generally out compete other genes and transfer it's information to the next generation. Meme's function very similarly, but the replicating information is not nucleic acids (like DNA and RNA in genes), but thoughts and ideas. Those thoughts and ideas that out compete others to remain in circulation are the successful ones; not unlike survival of the fittest under Darwinian Natural Selection. A great tool to help perpetuate those memes that are truly beneficial is science. Through critical thinking and the scientific theory, scientifically relevant memes can be tested against others, until one that is superior to others can be produced and replicated. Eventually, further additions will help focus the meme into more and more specific information. It's as though a beneficial mutation in DNA will result in advantages that can be focused to near perfection. The Eye is an example of a structure, that through a half billion years has evolved from a disk of light sensitive cells, to the variation we see in all the creatures today.

Having digressed far from the title heading, if it hasn't become apparent already, I must explain my humble reasons for blogging. Long after we're all dead and gone, few of us will have any individual impact on the future of the world. Although we're all contributing to greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere, and our massive ecological footprints, taken together, contributes in exhausting the raw materials of the Earth, our individual achievements will become just a passing whisper in time. Our atoms will eventually disperse back into the universe, and our individual being will have vanished. As bleak as all this sounds, it may be that only the information and knowledge we leave behind will survive in some form into the future. It is our duty and obligation, having come this far, through countless near misses with fate (extinction events such as asteroid collisions that paved the way for us, or minor climatic changes that resulted in our enlarged brains and eventual cultural growth and sentience, even personal brushes with fate such as car accidents, stupid juvenile snowboard tricks to impress the girls, that trampoline accident when you nearly severed your head, etc), to further our knowledge base and expand beyond individual capacity. If all the information that human beings had collected was somehow preserved, then life would not be in vain. How many people lived through life, with all the information spinning in their heads, died having left nothing for other's to feed off? No matter how much one writes, or attempts to present collected and gathered information in various perspectives (some perhaps never thought of before), there will always be a residual amount lost. Even with this loss, the possibility that some of these theories, thoughts, and ideas will help to perpetuate certain necessary meme's (whether to create new ones or strengthen and elaborate upon existing ones), remains a prime reason for attempting to pass on as much accumulated knowledge as possible. After all, attempting to quench one's thirst for knowledge can never be fully satisfying, unless it's processed and released.

The Russia and Syria Blame Bandwagon

Considering the blatant speculation and misinformation spreading through the American media establishment, it's no surprise that so many people have already passed judgment and guilt upon notable entities within recent years. I shall present two examples that clearly illuminate the acrimonious reactions present. However, because of our increased information onslaught, many important items are easily forgotten when another equally if not more compelling item is presented. The information I will present will involve some historical background to counter the overexposure and public weariness of occurrences with significant notoriety.

Due to the bombardment of a certain high profile story in recent news, my first case will involve Russia -- more specifically the Russian President Vladimir Putin. In two separate incidents spanning just over two years, the burden of guilt lay heavily on the Russian Secret Service, and ultimately, Putin. During the Autumn of 2004, Ukraine was undergoing an election to determine the direction of its political future. The two candidates in question were involved in a tightly contested battle, differing on many issues, but highlighted by the candidate's foreign outlook. Viktor Yushchenko, having held the position of Prime Minister previously, and his rival, Viktor Yanukovych, the outgoing Prime Minister, were primed for a heated election. Yushchenko was showing hostility towards Russia (Ukraine's primary arguable ally) and initiating closer ties to the West, while Yanukovych attempted to forge even closer ties with Russia, both economically and politically. Yanukovych was declared the winner initially, but due to a high level of election fraud the voting results were overturned and once the dust settled Yushchenko was ceremoniously declared the winner. His victory, signaled a radical shift in policy away from Russia, hailed as the "Orange Revolution" throughout the Media. Through all this, Yushchenko was undergoing mysterious physical changes to his skin, which eventually lead to the discovery that he was poisoned by a heavy dose of Dioxin (a toxic organic compound). Considering his opposition to Putin, the blame for the poisoning fell upon Russia's Secret Service, and ultimately Putin. With months of investigation and countless inquiries, the true perpetrators of this crime have remained a mystery. There are no paths leading to even to the remotest shred of evidence linking Putin and Russia's spy services to this case.

The Second case involving a Media Blitz against Russia and Putin occurred with the radioactive poisoning death, in London, of the former Russian spy Alexander Litvinenko. His gruesome death from radiation poisoning expeditiously circulated around the world. The attention caused from the nature of this act cannot go unnoticed. Polonium 210, the highly radioactive substance used is not the most efficient method of assassination. For one thing, it leaves a detectable trail of radioactivity, and with a half life of about 4 months, it degrades quickly, releasing enough radioactivity to leave a trail. Furthermore, Po 210 is not a common substance, and must be produced and used within a short period of time. In this instance, the rumors linking Litvinenko's death to Putin are more substantial, considering his public announcement of Putin's guilt in the matter. Alexander Litvinenko was one of Putin's most vocal critics, yet, rationalizing his attention grabbing death and linking it to Putin is a reach. Putin used to be one of the most up-and-coming KGB spies during the Soviet Union, and his methods of dispatch would be a lot more subtle. A death like this will only draw attention to the situation, and unlike fictional spies like James Bond, a true intelligence officers primary duty is to remain covert. Actions and even consequences must remain covert, so as not to draw any attention.

To understand Russia's role, one has to dig a little deep and reason who has most to gain for the developments. In Litvinenko's death, Putin loses a critic, but at what price? The finger of culpability is pointing towards him, and his political life will be marred with the linkage to this death. There is no long term benefit for Putin or Russia in such a high profile death. Speaking of the same, Yushchenko's Dioxin poisoning was also quite high profile, yet subtler. It is possible that there was a possible linkage to Russia, but that angle was downplayed, considering the lack of evidence. In this instance, the West also had something to gain by publicizing the poisoning of Yushchenko. The Orange Revolution was considered to be a political shift in climate away from Russian influence, and by "martyrizing" him, the ill will towards Russia would grow profoundly. In both cases, the West could be equally as culpable as Russia, if not more. One final food for thought, a possible link connecting Litvinenko to Israel has been downplayed by every Media organization (http://www.debka.com/headline.php?hid=3540). There is valid justification for attempting to gather further evidence in this case before rushing to judgment on the blame train.

Having spoken of Russia already, it's best to begin dissecting the Second major entity blamed with no substantiation. In this instance, Syria will present as the second example of the absurdity and misinformation associated with media rumor mongering. To be more specific, there have been 2 assassinations of anti-Syrian individuals in the Lebanese government with the blame falling on Syria's supposed involvement. On the day of February 14, 2005, former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri was assassinated in a vehicular explosion when 1000 kg of TNT were detonated as his convoy was driving. Without any direct proof, the blame for Hariri's assassination fell upon Syria. The reasoning was that Hariri was anti-Syrian and pro Western, so his assassination would quiet a vocal critic of Syria and Syrian Influence. The benefit to Syria however, was far outweighed by the reality of the post-assassinated situation. A lot of pro-Syrian sentiment in Lebanese political circles began to wane, with more and more of the public demonstrating for the ouster of Syrian troops. Naturally, within months of the assassination, not one Syrian troop remained in Lebanon. With Syria gone, the "Cedar Revolution" had started to flower, and all would be well in Lebanon. As with most things, instead of improving for the good, with Syria gone, Israel did not have time to blink before they were ready to bomb and reoccupy Southern Lebanon. Although the reason for invasion involved the alleged "cross-border" raid into Israel by Hezbollah militants to kidnap Israeli soldiers, Israel's response was unbelievably brutal. Besides the US' support for Israel's actions, the UN and most countries were highly of Israel's bloody escalation. It seems as though Syria's withdrawal lead to greater problems in Lebanon then solved. Yet, to this day, the facts of the matter have never lead anywhere in Syria's direction and, by and large, the only people still entertaining the thought of Syria's direct involvement are Israeli, American, and anti-Syrian Lebanese politicians.

The blame directed towards Syria had just about run its course when suddenly, another assassination of a high level Lebanese official took place. Pierre Amine Gemayel, an anti-Syrian proponent was attacked by a well armed group in November 21, 2006. Again, the finger points to Syria, thanks in large part to anti-Syrian sentiment. The possibility of Syria being involved in this case, like the previous cannot be completely excluded, but the fallout directed towards Syria does not result in any benefits. Sure, an additional voice of Syrian opposition was silenced, yet, at what cost? Syria, like Russia, has the aura of blame cast upon itself, and in no way improves the political situation and stability. In regards to who has more to gain, it's those who are being mobilized into building a great deal of anger and hate towards Syria. Lebanon is nearing the brink of civil war, with Israel and the US backing anti-Syrian sentiment, and Hezbollah, backing anti-US and anti-Israeli sentiment within Lebanese borders. Under the current administration and Israeli doctrine, a divided Lebanon entrenched in civil war, destabilizing the region, and resulting in further polarization of the world, is better then a Lebanon with Hezbollah (Which Israel itself created by occupying Lebanon in the first place). It comes down to the fact that it doesn't matter how badly the rest of the world is jeopardized, as long as Israel and the Neo-Cons are happy.

Ultimately then, politically motivated assassinations gain more anger and hate, further mobilizing the opposition, and do greater harm then good. Properly conducted assassinations do not appear as such, and tend to stay under media radar. In order to fully understand events unfolding in the world, it's best to understand the issues, and reason out the scenario. It's best to start asking questions by inquiring as to Who has the most to gain? Do the benefits of such acts outweigh the consequences? Is the act so visible and shocking as to garner greater attention on itself and it's supposed perpetrator? Why is the Media so compliant in chasing after rumor and suspicion, instead of exercising objectivity and reasoning? These are the types of questions that must be answered to fully comprehend an issue. Political powers, although dense at times, and frequently conflicted, are not stupid. These are people who have built careers in manipulating others, and developing a sense of self-preservation. They fight and claw to remain in power, and visible acts such as the ones explained in this blog (among countless others) only do more damage. It's amazing how many parallels can be drawn between the events that transpired towards anti-Russian crowds, and those with anti-Syrian affiliation. Thoughts and conflict, skepticism and critical thinking are tools that help navigate through these troubled waters.

Regardless of how the Influentials (such as the media, the elite, politicians, etc.) attempt to distort reality, the truth is there to be uncovered. One is not a conspiracy monger when deciding on gathering information with a skeptical mind. As thoughtful as my humble blogs may be, I hope that every individual reading can look at the facts and use their own judgment to reach a conclusion. Perhaps those conclusions are different then mine, and perhaps they are complete polar opposites, but as long as the facts are properly analyzed, there will always be room for debate. That's what leads to understanding and advancement.