The "Evolution" of Evolution

I've seen the argument enough times to make me want to pull my hair out, and it always goes something like this: "Evolutionary Theory is always changing, and scientists can't seem to figure out what's what. How can we believe something that the scientists don't even seem to understand?"

Let me first debunk this claim/question in a very clear, very unambiguous answer. Evolutionary Theory is not changing, nor do scientists debate about whether or not there's any truth to it. It's nearly 100% universally agreed within the scientific community that Evolution is fact (the word "Theory" is used in scientific disciplines to mean "fact." Many anti-evolutionists claim that it's "Only a Theory" based on their misunderstanding of this word. The word "Hypothesis" means "an explanation that has not yet been properly proven or disproven.")

So where does this argument come from?

While there are many examples, I'll highlight one just to shed light on the source of the misunderstanding; Neanderthal Man.

Neanderthal Man was found in Europe, and we have many skeletons from various parts of the continent. The bone structures are very similar to humans, but are definitely distinctly different and somewhat more "ape-like." When the fossils were first discovered and studied, it was logically assumed and agreed that these must have been human ancestors. Fast forward to the age of DNA. When the bones were subjected to DNA analysis, it was found conclusively that Neanderthal Man was NOT a human ancestor at all. While we do share many common features, Neanderthal Man was actually a branch of the family tree that completely died out. Modern humans did not descend from them. Cro-Magnon Man on the other hand does prove to be an ancestor. Once again, DNA shows this. We used to know only that humans had predecessors that were distinctly different. We could make logical guesses as to which fossils represented those ancestors. Advances in science helped us to pinpoint which fossils actually did represent our ancestry, and which did not.

Anti-evolutionists point and shout "SEE! They thought Neanderthal Man was a human ancestor and now they've been shown that they were wrong! We can't trust anything these guys say! Evolution MUST be wrong." Let me be 100% clear. Scientists were initially wrong about where Neanderthal Man fit into the tree of life. They then corrected themselves. There was NEVER any disagreement about the Theory of Evolution simply because a specific species was temporarily incorrectly categorized.

The specifics of which fossils represent ancestors of which modern animals is a daunting task to say the least. Scientists continue to study this, put the pieces together, and gradually gain a better understanding. In the process mistakes are made, then they are corrected when new evidence shows them to be incorrect. This is science. If we threw out an entire discipline of science every time a scientist or group of scientists found out that a previous assumption was wrong, we wouldn't have modern medicine. "That pill didn't work like they thought it would! Medicine must all be a sham!"

How it works:

Since Darwin first presented his theory, scientists have searched to understand the specifics. Darwin correctly observed that we can breed dogs (and cattle, vegetables, pigs, cats, etc) in a short period of time to create new varieties that hardly resemble the originals at all. By simple selective breeding we have taken the Asian Grey Wolf and created dachshunds, great danes, pit bull, chihuahuas, yorkshire terriers, dobermans, and labradoodles. These dogs hardly resemble each other at all yet we have concrete proof of their evolution from the original wolves. Darwin wondered whether or not the same process that breeders used could also be the cause of the evolution. Obviously in the case of dogs (or cattle, pigs, vegetables, etc) there is an actual breeder involved that is guiding the process. Could there be a similar "guiding force" in nature?

After watching and studying nature for many years, Darwin realized that there does not need to be an intelligence behind the process. Simple reproductive success and survival success will naturally select for those individuals who best possess the ability to survive and reproduce. Depending on climate and natural territory, this could mean very different things. For example, evolution of humans in the area we know as Europe would have favored lighter and lighter skin. This is because humans need a certain amount of direct sunlight for the processing of vitamin D. Without it, many health problems will occur. In Africa (where the original humans evolved), the sun is far more intense so darker skin with natural protections is favored. Those same protections inhibited the ability to process sufficient vitamin D as early humans migrated north. The result? Those with less protection from the sun (lighter skin) actually gained and advantage through their better ability to survive. They passed these lighter skin genes to their offspring, and the process continued for thousands of years.

Evolution is not a process of perfecting a form, nor is it a process that is striving to reach a pinnacle (thought by many to be humans). It is a process of very slow, very gradual adaptation that results in changing features and forms. The newer features remain only if they convey an advantage in the specific circumstances in which that organism finds itself. We are still evolving, as is every other organism on the planet. It happens VERY SLOWLY, which is why so many people have a hard time with this fact.

If you have a hard time understanding how something works, but all the world's scientists agree on it, there are only two possible conclusions. 1) All the world's scientists are wrong, and you are right or 2) you need to study more in order to better understand the situation. Which makes more sense to you?

Tukata Guabini Floperta Spopplegonk

Perhaps one of the most confusing yet widespread beliefs held by Christians is that god will occasionally bestow upon a select few the ability to "speak in tongues." Presumably, this phenomenon takes place when a person begins rambling in some foreign language of which he is not familiar. Lamentably, the people surrounding him are also not familiar and cannot translate the babble. True believers hold that this is actually a spiritual language of god and we are simply not meant to understand.

I've only seen video recordings of this, and I have no desire to see or hear more. Interestingly, most modern Christians prefer to quietly ignore this phenomenon and claim that it's only performed by fringe extremists. They generally do not offer explanations for why Paul (the founder of Christianity) accepted it as a real gift from god. In his letter to the Corinthians, Paul explained the rules under which people should be speaking in tongues during services, limiting the numbers to just two "speakers" as long as someone was there to translate. Of course, this contrasts with the modern argument that people cannot understand it due to its supernatural status. Once again, we see theology evolving to stay within the confines of science and knowledge.

Let me explain my concern with this. God, the founder of the universe, the almighty creator of everything, the setter of all the rules, the grand inquisitor nanny, decides to bestow upon a select few Christians (notice that this is specific to Christianity) the ability to speak in a language that neither the speaker nor the listeners can understand. This is a gift? We are told that god hears our very thoughts, so does he need to give somebody this linguistic ability so he may better understand them? Presumably not. Does the holy language pass along new messages and dictations for the people in attendance? Well, no. What exactly is this gift?

What if god bestowed upon me the "gift" of suddenly having the ability to cook inedible, poisonous food? How about the "gift" of being able to sense the presence of a T-Rex? Perhaps I'm just thinking in human terms. Perhaps I need to expand my definition of "gift" from "that which is intended to bring some measure of joy or usefulness."

When people act utterly crazy and unpredictable, we should be assessing their danger to themselves and others. When they act crazy and unpredictable within the setting of a religious service, they are seen as having received god personally. Instead of being helped, they are being envied for their spiritual strength. Others are then encouraged to act similarly bizarre. Humans are attention seeking animals so people continually one-up each other until all eyes are pointed at them. This holds until somebody begins burning their own flesh or playing with venomous snakes thereby garnering the attention for themselves. When does rationality bring everybody down from this dangerous game of "Look at Me!!!!?"

If I were to walk into a pentecostal revival and begin screaming that god has blessed me and needs me to pass along a message of redemption to all in attendance, I would likely be mobbed by the crowd eagerly looking to hear what I had to say. Now, put a few of those people on a sidewalk heading toward a park with their kids. Let me stand on the opposite side of the street and scream the exact same thing. As the rest of the people on the street wonder how to best deal with the raving lunatic (me), would these devout pentecostal Christians once again beg me to tell them the message? Would they feel bad for me or fear me just as the rest of the people on the street do? Jesus spoke to those and worked with those who needed him most, not those who already had their act together. Given this, wouldn't preaching on the street make more sense than preaching in the revival meeting? Wouldn't these devout believers lend more credence to my rantings on the street then?

Speaking in tongues is simply one more example of people engaging in mob mentality. As others behave a certain way, it begins to seem rational. Somebody gets the ball rolling somehow and people continue to escalate the bizarre behavior. We have seen this in religious and non-religious settings time and time again. Many of us have been guilty of succumbing to the influence of passions stoked by a crowd. It's a scary sight and it can lead to dangerous outcomes. We need to see things for what they are, not blindly respect things for what they claim to be. Speaking in tongues may be a harmless, weird way of gaining attention from the gullible. It may also prime people for taking that next step in believing something even more strange. When people are primed to believe anything no matter how outlandish, and they regularly engage in a mob mentality, no good can come of it.

NYT Opinion Wrong

Well, it looks as though my new tactical approach to this blog has opened to me a world of possibility. I recently read through this New York Times opinion piece by none other than the well respected Nicholas Kristof, as I shook my head time and time again. Here is yet another perfect example of trying to fit a square peg in a circular hole.

Would You Let This Girl Drown?

Ancient scientists and astronomers were hopelessly wrong when they tried to explain the patterns of the planets because they started with the incorrect assumption that the planets, stars, sun, and moon revolved around the earth. Once scientists corrected this, the planetary orbits made perfect sense. Mr. Kristof similarly falls short because he analyzes this problem within the framework of modern society. We need to go back in time many, many millennia.

Mr. Kristof highlights a very interesting phenomenon. Why are we willing to help one person, but not many? Don't the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few? Unfortunately, he completely neglects to consider where our sense of morality, compassion and empathy comes from. Perhaps he, like most of the world believes that our sense of morality comes from the text of an ancient book written by people who themselves did not realize that the earth revolves around the sun. This is just conjecture on my part, as I do not know of Mr. Kristof's beliefs.

We evolved our moral sense within the social framework of a band of 150 - 200 people. Our goal was to survive and reproduce. The best way to do this was to help the group survive, and to ingratiate ourselves to the others within the group. This was our extended family, and most to the people within it were probably relatives of some degree. The group was our support system and it was all we needed to be concerned with. Live happily and productively within this societal structure. Make others happy, and help them. This leads to better chances for survival, mating, and passing on your genes. Really folks, that what it all boils down to.

Imagine you are living within this group about 30,000 years ago. You are walking through the woods one day and you see a child in distress. What do you do? If you have compassion for the child, you would help however you could. You would then gain favor with the parents and family of that child as a result. Perhaps the next time the father killed a boar, you would be included in the resulting feast to the exclusion of somebody who could have, but did not help. Compassion for individuals wins friends and compatriots. These friends help to secure your place in your group, insuring better chances for survival and reproduction. Your offspring would have a high likelihood of inheriting your compassionate traits, thereby increasing the overall level of compassion within the human race.

Understand that these acts of kindness are not done under these circumstances just to gain favor. Did our ancestors eat food because they understood its nutritive value? No. They ate because they were hungry. The nutritive value was just a nice benefit. How about sex? Were they consciously trying to create children? No. They became sexually aroused and followed their instincts. Did the person who helped the child do so just to gain favor? No. He did so out of an emotional instinct. The family favor was just a benefit, just as were the nutrition from food and the children from sex.

So, what about compassion for victims of genocide or mass famine? Think about it for a second. Back in the day, if you had any first hand knowledge of mass famine or genocide, you would have been one of the victims. There is not much chance to pass on any compassion to your offspring when you are dead. These emotions didn't develop because they wouldn't have been helpful to personal survival. Helping one person reaps rewards. How about helping large groups of people? Well, it just didn't happen. How would you have approached a mass tragedy? We didn't have technology or ability to deal with such things, so appropriate emotional responses never really developed.

I've spoken to this point before and I'll do it again. We no longer live in bands of 150 - 200 people, but our emotions are still stuck in that dynamic. We need to use logical thinking to overcome these emotional deficits. We can only do this once we understand why we have these deficits in the first place.

Mr. Kristof speaks of poor salesmanship on the part of humanitarians. Perhaps he's right, but until humanitarians understand that we will always respond emotionally to the face of a single suffering child, and rarely to the explanations of mass tragedies, the poor salesmanship will continue. Stop throwing big numbers at us and start showing us the single faces of the afflicted, along with their names and a description of their home life and family. That will speak to the emotions our ancestors passed along and it will open our wallets much more effectively.

Explaining Racism

As with all things in science, proper solutions and answers can only be found if the underlying foundation of the original problem is properly understood. For example, an unconscious man is brought quickly into the emergency room of a hospital with clear, severe ankle trauma. The ankle is swollen and is turning black and blue. At this juncture it would be absolutely critical for the attending doctor to know which of these two scenarios played out prior to the ankle problem.

1) He was hiking though nearby backwoods (which are known to be ridden with rattlesnakes), when a sudden sharp pain hit his ankle preceded shortly by a rattling, hissing noise.

2) He was playing a football game after doing too many shots of tequila and was tackled by three drunken friends at once, which resulted in a cracking noise in the ankle area.

All too often, societal ills are diagnosed by people with far too little understanding of the history behind such problems, and therefore do not truly understand the problems and cannot come up with coherent solutions to them.

Take Astronomy for example. Prior to the realization that the earth actually orbits the sun along with the other planets, Astronomers took great pains to construct mathematical models and calculations that explained the movements of the other planets. In their worldview the other planets revolved around the earth, so this was the basis upon which they began their calculations and explanations. It should come as no surprise that the orbits of the planets seemed very, very odd and elaborate models were developed that charted their orbits complete with mini-orbits, twists, loops, and other strange behaviors. All of this was necessary to show why they did not seem to be making a direct path across the sky as one would logically expect. Of course, once Galileo pulled back the curtains to reveal our true place in the universe, everything fell into place mathematically, and scientists were able to move forward with the correct understanding of how the solar system works. Sure, it took a lot of time, patience, and blood to get there, but we got there. Well, almost.

Now consider that we humans are descendants of a common ancestor to all living things. More recently, our ancestors spawned the bipedal great apes. Move further forward in time and you have societal evolution of human beings.

Anthropologists and evolutionary biologists estimate that humans banded together into tribes at some point, with the estimated maximum number of tribe members at about 150 - 200. Once a tribe got too large, it would split into two tribes, each going their own way. Critics of evolution will argue that people have benevolent instincts, and that Darwin claimed that only the most bloodthirsty, aggressive killers would be favored by natural selection. This is simply not true. Evolution favors those with the best ability to survive and reproduce. It doesn't strain the intellect to understand the survival advantage given to societies vs. individuals. Working and playing well with others conveyed a huge advantage, and the aggressive sociopaths were weeded out by organized groups. There is strength in numbers, and people with the best ability to work well in groups gained huge evolutionary advantages from those numbers.

So, you are living within a tribe in ancient Northern Africa, and you suddenly see a group of individuals who are not a part of your group. First off, how do you know they aren't a part of your group? Well, the 150 - 200 maximum limit insured that everybody knew everybody. You thought your hometown was small? In addition, the members of the other groups probably looked a bit different, spoke differently, acted differently, and wore different clothing, if any. So, here we have new visitors who are difficult to understand and do not fit in with your group. What do you do? Well, at the very least, you treat them with severe caution in defense of your own group. You watch them like a hawk, and potentially even kill them just to be on the safe side. At the very least, you let them know under no uncertain terms that they are simply not wanted.

Treating these intruders with compassion would have given no evolutionary advantage. In fact, it would have exposed your own group to an unnecessary and potential threat. Over time, the groups that excluded outsiders gained an advantage over those who did not. The instinct to be wary of those who speak differently, look different and act different was born and reinforced over many millennia.

Do I condone racism? Absolutely not. But I do understand where it comes from, and why it is so pervasive in our world. We have intellectually evolved well beyond the days of small, traveling bands. We have NOT emotionally evolved past this point though, and it is important to realize this. Desires and emotions evolved with the intent of helping our 150 person in-group gain an advantage over any out-groups. Understanding that racist feelings have a natural basis can help us to laugh them off and realize how useless and outdated they are.

I can almost hear the religious folks now pointing out that I am justifying racism. Hopefully they'll lose interest quickly and go back to reading their bible verses. You know, like Genesis 17: 12-13?

Childhood Teachings

Many people find it odd that I would attend religious services once in a while as a non-believer. The truth of the matter is simple. We live in a society that is permeated by belief, and I accept that I am the exception, not the rule. My wife grew up in a Jewish home, albeit not a very devout one. Her family and friends all reached the age of 13 and were Bar or Bat Mitzvah. It is a very difficult idea for her that our sons would not undergo the same rites of passage. As much as it is difficult for me to go along with this, I strive to be practical. Practicality calls for compromise.

Recently, we attended a Friday night concert at our Temple. An outside musical group came in to lead services in a lively, exciting fashion. The music played, people sang, and it was an uplifting experience for many of the people there. I fought the urge to wince many times, but I maintained a polite demeanor throughout. In fact I even managed to bite my tongue during a particularly despicable exchange as we left the sanctuary. 

A woman was walking next to me, still riding the endorphine high she had experienced during the service. She looked to me and remarked, "wasn't that wonderful?!" with a broad smile on her face. Not wanting to appear as the resident Grinch, I replied, "um, sure, yeah." 

"It's so great to see so many children here too, isn't it?" she continued.

I maintained silence at that remark, while she appeared to have inferred an agreement by my blank stare.

She shook her head in wonder and continued, "it's so important to get 'em while they're young."

To a true believer, this may seem to be a sensible statement. To somebody like myself, it sums up the main reason why the world is so hesitant to turn it's back on religion. I picked up my pace and walked ahead so I wouldn't have to reveal my disgust so clearly.

When I was a child, I asked my father why the moon had phases. He replied very quickly with an explanation that the hidden part of the moon was shadowed by the earth, which is why we cannot see it. Instead of asking how the earth would cast a crescent shaped shadow during fuller moon phases, I accepted that his explanation was fact, and I resolved to better understand one day how the spherical earth could cast a non circular shadow. In my first year in college, I took an Astronomy class from a professor who was internationally respected, and had indeed written the very textbook used by many Astronomy professors around the world. He quickly glossed over the very obvious fact that the moon's phases were caused by the angle of the sun's light shining upon it as seen from our perspective. Dumbfounded, I actually summed up the nerve to raise my hand in order to correct this professor on his misunderstanding. In retrospect, the ensuing exchange should have been far more embarrassing than I felt it to be at the time. How was it that I was so convinced that my father's explanation to my childhood self was absolutely correct, even though I found immediate problems with it as a child? On top of this, why would I have assumed even for a second that my father's explanation was the correct one in contradiction to this respected Astronomer on such an elementary question? My father was in marketing, and had no science background beyond high school.

As children, we believe what we are told by our elders. It's that simple. In our cave dwelling days, this would have been a critical aspect to survival. The natural rule of thumb would have been "believe what your parents tell you without question." Why is this? Well, the children who unquestioningly believed what their parents told them were far more likely to avoid the crocodile infested waters and lion scoured savannas. They were more likely not to eat the deadly berries from certain bushes, and less likely to poke at the snakes slithering along the ground. The children who decided to test out the teachings of their parents generally did not live long enough to reproduce to pass along that skeptical default mindset. While this tacit acceptance of parental teachings had a clear survival advantage, it also has significant drawbacks that come along for the ride. Children cannot distinguish between which teachings they should believe and which they should not, so "Don't swim near those crocodiles" sounds just as plausible as "dance around the fire just like this in order to make it rain."

At dinner a few years back, a friend brought along his new girlfriend to meet the rest of us. She was a delightful and intelligent woman who we all took an immediate liking to. As a professional, college educated person, she was exactly the type you would think would have a rational mindset. A few days later, I commented to this friend on how much we all enjoyed meeting his new love interest. After thanking me, he mentioned that something about her seemed a bit odd to him. When I asked what he was referring to, he explained that every night before bed she placed a cup of sand on her bedroom window sill. I had no response, as this did in fact seem to be an odd behavior. Then he proceeded to explain.

"Before a witch enters your room as you sleep, it is obliged to count every grain of dust or sand on the window sill. By placing a cup of sand there, the witch will pass by your room so as not to be stuck there indefinitely counting the grains of sand. It's essentially a guard against witchcraft." Look it up folks. This truly is a belief held by many people. 

If this intelligent woman continued to believe this tale well into adulthood, how much harder must it be for so many others to let go of beliefs that are constantly reinforced by millions of other devout followers? As long as the religious can still "get 'em while they're young," I predict that rationality will have little hope of prevailing in the near future.

God's Top Ten Rules, with special guest Salma Hayek.

The Ten commandments are held up as god's supreme laws to live by. He apparently whittled down all potential rules to the ten most important, and we are to hold these sacred and obey them above all others. Kind of cool actually. The concept is great, and it plays well into our modern, short attention spans. It's so cool in fact, that we fail to actually analyze and think about them in a more critical way. Here's my cursory attempt to do just that. How many can you remember? What are their lessons for life? Here they are in a nutshell:

1) I am THE God. Don't even think about any others.

2) Don't worship any idols or other Gods.

3) Don't misuse my name.

4) Observe and honor the sabbath

-Okay, so here we are. Forty percent into God's Top Ten List of rules to live by, and all we've heard is how important it is to prostrate yourself and worship the creator and publisher of these rules. 

5) Honor your parents.

-Um, okay, good advice but is it really worthy of being in the top ten? Shouldn't rules abolishing slavery or rape be a little higher up on the importance scale?

6) Don't kill.

7) Don't commit adultery

8) Don't steal

9) Don't lie about your neighbor

-Okay, so now we finally get into some of the real meaty rules. All good, but once again... Is cheating on a spouse really more terrible than pedophelia, torture, rape, slavery, cannibalism, etc.? Lying about your neighbor is also somewhat unsavory, but in the top ten?

10) Don't be jealous of your neighbor's stuff, including his wife.

Let me tell you something here and now. If Salma Hayek and her French Billionaire hubby moved in next door to me (suspend disbelief for a second, okay?) I'd be powerless to not envy both his stuff, and his wife. Notice also how the "neighbor" referred to is clearly male. In other words, the wife is property, not qualifying as a neighbor herself. Back to my assured envy though. Who exactly would I be hurting? Apparently, kidnapping their young child would be preferable to secretly watching Salma sunbathe in their back yard.

In the immortal words of Seth Meyers on Saturday Night Live, "Really God? Really?"

The Prosecution Rests

The spiffy prosecutor stood and smiled as he prepared for opening arguments against Cletus Biffman, a man accused of a hate crime for murdering an open homosexual three weeks prior. Jay Comfort had been the lead prosecutor for several months and this was his first widely publicized case. His new assistant, Curt Camryn was a former teen idol who had dedicated the past ten years of his life to getting bad guys off the street since leaving Hollywood. Mr. Comfort began his arguments to the judge and grand jury.

"The victim Charles Danforth was a well know activist for gay rights here in New York City. He was found dead with a stab wound to the chest on 43rd street just one month ago. Less than one week later, our diligent police detectives picked up Mr. Biffman just two blocks from the scene of the crime. Mr. Biffman openly displayed a tattoo on his chest that reads "Kill All Fags."" To the surprise of the judge and jury, the dashing prosecutor then sat down and smiled.

The judge spoke. "Um, Mr. Comfort. Do you have anything else to add?"

Surprised, Jay rose slowly and responded. "Such as?"

"Well, how about some evidence?"

Startled, the prosecutor looked to his sidekick and they began murmuring together frantically. He then rose and spoke again.

"Well, Your Honor, we believe the case is self evident. Not only did Mr. Biffman openly display such a message across his chest, but he was only a few blocks away from where the crime took place. In addition to that, Your Honor, we did a recent poll of the citizens of our good city, and over 80% believe that Mr. Biffman is the perpetrator of the crime." He then smiled and sat once again.

"Yes, well while I appreciate the fact that people may believe in Mr. Biffman's guilt, isn't it true that he was arrested in a very public display with the Police telling the newspapers "we've got our man?" In fact, that was the exact headline in three major newspapers just two days ago, was it not?"

"Well, yes your honor. And just think of how dismayed and upset the people will be if he is not locked up for this."

"Perhaps they will be dismayed and upset, but that still isn't evidence that he actually committed this crime, is it? I mean, do you have anything concrete here?"

Again, shuffling of papers and frantic, mumbled discussions went on for a minute before the prosecutor spoke again.

"Your honor, Mr. Biffman has been known to make anti-gay slurs many times in the past. But, I'd like to make this even more clear."

"Yes, please do." the judge responded.

"Mr. Biffman either committed this crime, or he did not commit it. We can agree on that much, right?"

"Where are you going with this?"

"With only two possibilities at hand, we can start with the reasonable assumption that there is a 50% chance he is guilty of this crime. Once we understand that, we can then add in the facts of Mr. Biffman's tattoo, his proximity to the crime scene, his known anti-gay slurs and the public opinion to arrive at a 93.4% likelyhood that he is indeed the killer."

The judge stared back blankly, prompting the prosecutor to continue.

"AND, Your Honor, just think of the peace of mind the people will have when they know that a scourge like Mr. Biffman is taken off the streets for good. I'd also like to quote a former Police Commissioner who stated clearly that "people with hate filled tattoos are no good, and will probably end up in jail for something or another anyway."

After a long pause, the judge spoke.

"So let me get this straight. You want us to lock up a man because it will give people peace of mind, and because some former police commissioner once said something that happens to seem relevant now. In addition, you are arguing that there's more than a 90% chance of his guilt based on starting with a 50% chance of his guilt because he either did it or didn't? Couldn't we apply that same logic and say that there must be a 50% chance that either you or I committed this crime too?"

"Please Your Honor, let's not make a mockery of things here. Of course you or I didn't do this. Nobody believes we would have ever done such a thing."

"So, because people believe it or were led to believe it, you surmise that the likelyhood starts at 50% and goes up with every other factor worked into the equation."

"It's simple mathematics. It is irrefutable scientific proof. He's our man."

Jay and Curt sat and smiled at the grand jury. They had to see the obvious, didn't they?

Dear Mom & Dad

My childhood was filled with wonder, pain, love, happiness, sadness, loneliness, warmth, caring, teaching, fear, and many other emotions and experiences that range the entire spectrum of the human experience. For that, I thank you.

With the exception of the first grade, I spent my entire pre-college education in Catholic schools where I was taught that a man walked on water, was born of a virgin, died for our sins, brought a friend back from the dead several days after rigormortis had set in, and rose from the dead himself. If one is to also believe the Mormon account, he apparently rematerialized in North America soon after to save the souls of the Native Americans, but that was kept a secret until Joseph Smith somehow figured it out several thousand years later. We learned that the earth was created in six days and that eating a small, tasteless cracker under proper circumstances was the equivalent of sacred cannabilism. We learned that dressing a woman in all black and white and demanding that she abstain from normal human relations is NOT a good way to foster happy, optimistic, positive role models for children. If my tone does not sufficiently contain enough sarcasm, allow me to unabashedly say that I do not believe in these holy myths any longer, though it took me many years of painful soul searching to reach this conclusion. I still love you.

I recall learning to suppress a gag reflex as a priest shook a cannister of burning incense nearby while chanting mystical dogma. The smell still lingers in my mind as a horrific experince. We knelt, prayed, asked for forgiveness for our mortal sins, accepted that we were lowly creatures admittedly unworthy of god's attention, while asking for this attention anyway. We learned that hell is a place for those not sufficiently devoted to constant subservience, and that it is an eternity of pain, misery, lonelines, and horrific agony. We learned this while we were still too young to think critically. If any of us were precocious enough to question any of the teachings, we were quickly taught that such analysis would not be permitted. Independent thought was stomped out of our malleable minds. I still love you.

I was never touched inappropriately by a priest, nun, or any other authority figure. I was never rapped on the back of my knuckles by a teacher. I do not specifically recall experiencing any of the commonly heard indignities that so many of my fellow Catholic schoolchildren seem to have endured. In all, great efforts were made to make the Catholic experience a positive one. I was proud to have been born into a Catholic family, as I clearly had the good fortune to have been selected as one of the people to be blessed with the one true faith, while many of my little friends had no hope of finding salvation.

As I watch my two young sons grow and develop minds of their own, I have consciously decided to spare them this experience. I don't know when it all happened, but I did realize at a certain point that my ingrained belief system simply does not hold up to any sort of critical thinking. I had to let go and accept that I was wrong, my teachers were wrong, my priests were wrong, the nuns were wrong, the multi-billion dollar organization known as the Catholic Church was wrong, my understanding of "Atheists" was wrong, Pat Robertson in wrong, the Muslim Mullah's are wrong, the Talmudic Scholars are wrong, and yes Mom and Dad, you were both wrong. I still love you.

As I do my best to raise my children to be good people capable of thinking for themselves and positively contributing to society, I do so with the intent of being right, and of teaching them what is right. To do this, I need to constantly accept that I could be wrong, and to challenge myself to point them in the right direction, no matter what that may be. They may grow up as scientists, mechanics, scholars, plumbers, or anything in between. If they do so of their own free will, and without the burden of eternal consequences weighing down their every decision, I will be happy. It will have been right.

Does constant selfishness make for a happy experience and existence? My experience tells me no. I have good friends because I treat my friends well. I make new friends because I treat strangers well too. I do this not because it is commanded by a deity, but because it makes me happy to share my happiness with others, and to share in their joy as well. I run a successful business because I realize that treating employees and clients with respect, dignity, and fairness will result in good work and happy customers. I donate some of my earnings to those less fortunate because it makes me feel good to know that I can help. Whether or not this is demanded by god is irrelevent to me. It makes me happy, it makes others happy, and it hurts nobody. If I am a godless heathen for acting in such a way, so be it.

I strive regularly to do what's right because this is what makes for a happy, contented existence here on earth. I want my children to learn that selflessness, charity, hard work and friendly positive interactions with others will also make them happy, healthy, and fulfilled. There doesn't need to be a promise of paradise or fear of hell to move me in this direction. This is simply what is right.

Here's the thing though. When you were bringing me up, you also did what you believed was right. This was what you were taught, and this is what you believed. You thought that this belief system was what we needed in order to be good people, so you taught it to us. You believed that the fear of god was what drove people to positive action and you wanted us to be good people. You loved us unconditionally, and you did all the things you thought were right. For that, I love you, I thank you, and I hope you will always know how proud I am to have been raised by wonderful parents such as you.

You Can Call Me HAL

One of the more common recurring themes we see in science fiction is the sudden sentience of man made machines, and the aftermath that occurs from their self awareness. The Terminator series paints a dire picture of an upcoming apocolypse and humanity's struggle to prevent it. The Matrix series plays on this theme also as man fights against far superior computers that man origionally created, then lost control of. Perhaps the best known example to many people of a slightly earlier generation would be HAL, the supercomputer in 2001 a Space Odyssey. HAL's self awareness and seemingly intelligent thoughts send chills up the spine of any viewers.

Human beings are often describes as the "Perfect Machines." While I'd dispute this assessment, primarily based on an abundance of medical issues we regularly encounter as a direct result of evolution's shortcomings, it seems to fit well into this analysis.

Evolution occurs on the genetic level, not on the species level. This is an important concept to understand, and it's one that most people seem to miss. We have evolved as beings specifically to carry those genes that are best suited to give us the characteristics that will help us to survive, and therefore pass along those genes. If the gene is designed to give us a slightly bigger nose, and therefore allows us to sniff out a prowling predator before our friend Og is able to, we have a better chance of surviving and passing along that big nosed gene. If a similar genetic mutation causes our noses to become correspondingly less sensitive, we're at greater risk of becoming cheetah lunch. It doesn't take a geneticist to see that this particular gene mutation will probably not make it in the long term.

Standing back for a second, we can now see that human beings, as well as fir trees, chipmunks, mushrooms, and turtles are all complex machines that were "designed" by the evolution of these genes. We are the supercomputers that were created by the genes. We are also sentient, and we now understand our creators and can make decisions independent of their wishes. We can choose to not pass along our genes simply by adopting a lifestyle that does not include progeny. We can medically preserve the health and reproductive success of people who would otherwise be unlikely to survive in a more natural setting. We can essentially subvert the intent of our genetic creators. We ARE the suddenly self aware, creepy decision makers that now hold the very survival of our makers in the palms of our hands.

It's a little more fun to be on this side of the equation, isn't it?