The Evolution of an Idea

There once was a population of beings roaming a planet. These beings were called “humans” and they had an insatiable hunger. The hunger was for knowledge, and they searched far and wide for a fruit that would satisfy it. Eventually, through a process of random mutation combined with selective breeding, the tree known as “Religion” produced a fruit that tasted good and filled the void left by the hunger. The hunger begged “where did we come from?” The fruit answered; “A supernatural being created us through his divine powers and inspiration.” It tasted good. The people ate, and in so doing, they spread the seed far and wide.

Eventually a tree known as “Science” began to grow nearby. It fought for the specks of sunlight filtering through the overwhelming canopy of the Religion tree. The fruits were bitter, but far more nourishing. Most humans avoided the bitter fruit in favor of the sweet, juicy flesh of the Religion tree. Eventually though, a small group of humans decided to try this newer fruit out of curiosity. While it didn’t taste very good, they soon felt a new strength provided by the improved nutrition. They grew strong and they realized the new vigor was a direct result of the better fruit. This group became known as “Skeptics.” They tried to tell others, but they were rejected and ridiculed most of the time. Fans of the Religion fruit even took to chopping down Science trees where they found them in hopes of eliminating this tiny competitor to their established food source. The Skeptics continued to eat and gain strength from the new fruit however, and they spread the seed just a bit quicker than the anti-Science people could cut them down. Eventually the Science fruit became a mainstay and the two trees evolved into many subspecies that produced different types of fruit. While people ate fruits from various trees, they tended to stick to the fruits either from the Science or the Religion subspecies.

One subspecies of the Religion tree produced a Creationist fruit. It had a unique flavor and offered specific nutrients that were not found in any Science trees for many, many years. People from both groups ate of this tree and spread its seeds, even though it tasted somewhat strange to the Skeptics. Eventually, one day a white bearded man known as Charles Darwin discovered a young tree with a unique fruit. It had never been seen before. He called this fruit “Evolution.” It tasted particularly strange, but the tree bore the distinct marks of the Science genera, so he knew from where it came. Many curious Skeptics came to try this new fruit and initially agreed that it tasted strange and exotic, but uniquely satisfying as well. They offered the fruit to the Creationist tree fans, but were spurned and shunned. The creationists saw a direct threat to the survival of their favorite tree and they began formulating a plan to rid the world of this competitor. They claimed it was poisonous. They pointed to negative acts perpetrated by Evolution fruit eaters and argued that the new fruits made them do it. They pointed to their own good acts as proof of the positive value of the Creationist fruit. Still, the Skeptics ate and grew stronger yet. The Evolution fruit was once again far more nutritious than the Creationist fruit. They grew strong and spread the seed. The Evolution trees began to fill the landscape. The nutritional needs of the people asked “Where did we come from?” The Creationist fruit answered “A supernatural being created us through his divine powers and inspiration.” The Evolution fruit answered “we evolved through a long process from earlier, simpler life forms.”

Just as the Creationist trees began to dwindle and die off, a random beneficial mutation occurred that produced a new subspecies of fruit known as “I.D.” It tasted similar to the Creationist fruit, but lacked some of the more offensive overtones that people had come to notice. It was still poor in nutrition, but its less offensive taste intrigued many people. It tasted good and it began to spread far and wide. Many people failed to notice the diminished health benefits it offered as compared to the Evolution fruit, but they ate anyway because it tasted good. The I.D. trees began to pop up around the landscape as the older Creation trees dwindled further. For the first time in many years, the Evolution trees faced a real challenge to dominance and survival. Fans of the Evolution trees continued to work hard to spread the seed and nurture the saplings in hopes that people would eventually understand the nutritive value their trees offered. The ID tree fans only saw the Evolution trees as competition that was taking up growing space that should be allotted to their favorite fruits. They planted their own seeds and pulled up the roots of the evolution trees at every opportunity. The nutritional needs of the people asked “Where did we come from?” The I.D. fruit answered “A supernatural being created us through his divine powers and inspiration, we’re just not 100% sure who he is.” The Evolution fruit answered “we evolved through a long process from earlier, simpler life forms.”

One day a comet struck the earth with devastating ferocity. It was known as the Kitzmiller Comet and it shook the foundation of the planet. Animals scattered in fear, as humans scrambled to make sense of it all. The comet blasted a great deal of debris into the air, and the debris rained down upon the plants and animals everywhere. Only the strongest species survived, and the I.D. trees proved to be very weak indeed. While a few struggled along valiantly, the stronger Evolution trees took over much of the landscape and nourished the hungry people. Life was good.

After a short period of time, the I.D. trees underwent another random mutation. This mutation produced a unique fruit that has begun to catch the attention of people everywhere, specifically former fans of the Creationist and the I.D. fruits. While offering little in nutritional value, it tastes good and has signs of increased survivability. There are only a few of the as yet unnamed trees, but fans are beginning to gather around to taste this strange and exotic new fruit. They have begun to spread the seeds and are telling others about the wonders of their new find. The nutritional needs of the people ask “Where did we come from?” The Evolution fruit answers “we evolved through a long process from earlier, simpler life forms.” This new fruit says “we do not know the answer, but evolution is clearly impossible.”

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?"