A mixed bag

Some good news and bad news regarding the proposed amendment to ban the "desecration" of US flags.

The good news: The bill fell four votes short of the 67 needed for it to pass the Senate--after already passing in the House by a count of 286 to 130--and be sent to the states for ratification.

The bad news: We have 349 Congress-people who don't have the foggiest clue about what the concept of free speech really means.

Personal rejection, venture capitalist gnomes and other absurdities of life

I tend to shy away from blogging about my personal life. I find the idea to be somewhat pretentious and the results seem to be more than a little boring. I certainly don't have anything against pretension--I think a certain bit of pretentiousness is a prerequisite for even starting a blog--and boring is okay from time to time, but the combination of the two? Not good (amusing stories from junior high school being a notable--or possibly notorious!--exception). That being said, I'm going to deviate from my standard operating procedure and write about my life outside of my antipathy towards George W. Bush. Feel free to stop reading now. I won't take it personally; after all, I'm not terribly interested in reading about your life, either*.

Anyway, I mentioned a few months back that I was applying to the University of California, San Diego in order to transfer into their Biological Anthropology program. After many days of nail-biting and eager mailbox-checking, I finally was informed in May that my application was rejected. Today I found out why. As it turns out, I was rejected because of where I was transferring from, or more precisely, where I wasn't transferring from. Apparently the UC system is mandated by the California state legislature to give heavy preference to students transferring from other California states schools and community colleges, and because UCSD consistently has so many applicants coming from these schools, they accept basically no transfer applicants from non-California schools (and they probably just point and laugh at students coming from tiny, Midwestern, evangelical Christian liberal arts schools--thanks, Wheaton!). That's what I was told, anyway.

In one sense, I feel this comes as good news because now my ego can rest assured that the cause of my rejection was not some personal or academic flaw of mine. On the other hand, the news is disappointing because, as the admissions office informed me, nothing I can do will ever get me accepted. It's simply not going to happen. As many Socal surfers are wont to say, "Bummer, dude."

There goes plan A. And plan B. . .well, I'm still working on plan B. I'm feeling kind of similar to the underpants gnomes of South Park, except that the gnomes have both steps one and three of their business plan figured out (to those who do not consider South Park to be an integral part of their lives, the underpants gnomes' business plan consists of the following steps: 1. collect underpants 2. ??? 3. profit), whereas I'm really only solid on step three of my evil plan to become an exotically rich and famous primatologist who takes over the world. My plan looks something like this:

1.???

2.???

3. Become exotically rich and famous and take over the world. Or is it become rich and famous and exotically take over the word? Or possibly I'm suppsed to become rich and famous and take over an exotic world! Who knows?

Apparently I may still need to spend more time working this whole life-plan thing out. I may not know what it is that I'm doing with my life, but at least I now know what the next step is. Oh wait, I haven't the foggiest clue about that either. Okay, I may not know what I'm doing with my life and I may not know what the next step is going to be, but at least I know what the next step isn't going to be! I think I'll take some solace in that. Oh hell, maybe I'll just join the underpants gnomes; I'm sure they have things figured out by now.

*Just kidding, Catherine.

The world is back to normal

That's right, now that I've gotten that brief, aberrational Bush-praising out of my system, I can get back to my regularly schedule government-loathing. It seems that the Bush Administration, not content to spy on Americans using the NSA, has resorted to using the private-sector to violate our civil liberties. See this AP Report for details:

WASHINGTON - Numerous federal and local law enforcement agencies have bypassed subpoenas and warrants designed to protect civil liberties and gathered Americans' personal telephone records from private-sector data brokers.

These brokers, many of whom advertise aggressively on the Internet, have gotten into customer accounts online, tricked phone companies into revealing information and even acknowledged that their practices violate laws, according to documents gathered by congressional investigators and provided to The Associated Press.

Yes, that sounds more like the government we all know and love.

Thanks to Ed Brayton for the heads up.

Hey NSA, read this one!

Anybody who reads this blog knows how much I love to rag on President Bush for being a dishonest, incompetent hack, and for making a general muck of nearly everything to which he puts his hand. Well folks, it's time to buy an industrial strength raincoat and a very large umbrella because the swine are taking to the sky tonight (years from now, I predict that people will remember June 17th, 2006 as The Day It Rained Pig Shit); that's right, I'm about to say something nice about "Dubya."

Not being used to this sort of thing, I'm naturally having a hard time getting the words out, so I'll just say it as plainly as I can: President Bush did something really, really great this week. (I wonder if this means I have to turn in my "Arch Liberal, Destroyer of Freedom and Enemy of Liberty" credentials. I hope not; I think the signed glossy photo of Alec Baldwin simultaneously burning an American Flag and eating pages of the Bible has a high potential value as a collector's item) The Christian Science Monitor has the exciting details:

With the stroke of a pen, President Bush has established the largest ocean wildlife reserve in the world, centered along a string of islands, reefs, and atolls that stretch 1,400 miles northwest of the main Hawaiian Islands.

Other reef systems, such as Australia's Great Barrier Reef, are larger. But only a third of that UN-designated World Heritage reef is protected, analysts say, leaving far more of it open to exploitation.

The move comes from an administration not known as the darling of the environmental and conservation crowd. But it's drawing kudos from a variety of marine-conservation groups. The region's relative isolation has allowed it to retain some of the most pristine coral reefs in the world. The president's proclamation Thursday, which designated the area as a national monument, immediately created a reserve that covers some 140,000 square miles, more territory than all of America's national parks combined.

"This is just amazing," says Ellen Athas, ecosystems-protection director for the Ocean Conservancy in Washington, who served on the president's Council on Environmental Quality under Bill Clinton. "This is an important first step in protecting some of the world's healthiest reefs for future generations."

Way to go, Mr. President! Now if we could only convince you to give a damn about anthropogenic climate change. . .

Get thee gone from the gene pool!*

From the Seattle Times:

A man shouting that God would keep him safe was mauled to death by a lion in a Kiev, Ukraine, zoo after he crept into the animal's enclosure, a zoo official said Monday.

"The man shouted, 'God will save me, if he exists,' lowered himself by a rope into the enclosure, took his shoes off and went up to the lions," the official said. "A lioness went straight for him, knocked him down and severed his carotid artery."

The Kiev authorities have ruled this a suicide, but I think that there is more to the story. It seems obvious to me that this was no mere suicide, but a propaganda stunt concocted by the Evil Atheist Conspiracy. The poor guy was only a patsy.

*Alternately titled: "In which I show a stunningly offensive lack of sensitivity."

A melodramatic movie review

I lead an exceedingly meaningless and miserable life; so dreadful is it that I am desperately willing to pursue nearly any activity—no matter how inane and boorish it may be—in order to temporarily escape the wretched drudgery of my daily existence. I would like to think that this really isn’t the case, but reason tells me that it must be so, for I can conceive of no other explanation for why I decided to go see the remake of The Omen this past Tuesday night.

To call this movie bad is to do a grave injustice to every truly bad movie that has ever been made. No, this movie was not bad; it was shit, pure and simple. I have watched hundreds of movies in my short life—many of them tremendously horrible pieces of film—but, by any reasonable standard, The Omen has set a new gold standard for ineptitude in filmmaking. It professed to be a thrilling supernatural horror flick, but it was neither thrilling nor horrifying (well, that’s not actually true; I did find myself continuously horrified by the poor acting and wooden writing). Instead, it was scene after disjointed scene of shear boredom and snooze-worthiness.

Let’s get one thing straight: I did not expect this to be a high-quality film. I fully anticipated that it would be a bad movie, but I did expect—foolishly, in hindsight—that it would at least somewhat interesting and mildly frightening. Alas, this was tragically not the case; nothing could have prepared me for the heights of craptitude that The Omen scaled. I’ve felt my heart pound harder while looking at things floating in my toilet, than I did during this movie. Speaking of things seen in a toilet, did I mention that this movie is shit?

Every few minutes I would think, this is the part where things will get interesting! It wasn’t. After a few more minutes I would declare to myself, Aha! Now the movie’s really going to get scary! It didn’t. And finally, as the movie and my hopes for humanity were nearing their end, I whispered in my head, as if in a prayer, I know there’s going to be something really crazy that happens here at the end, something so wildly unexpected that it will make the torturous boredom of the past ninety minutes all worth it! There wasn’t. What a fool I am.

As I left the theater, a few burning questions formed in my mind:

*Why does the son of Satan seem incapable of making any facial expression more startling than a slightly peevish pout?

*Why—Dear God, why?—was Julia Stiles in this movie? She is neither a good actor, nor an attractive looking person. Poor actor + not hot = should not be in blockbuster Hollywood horror show.

*Why does every horror movie made in the past five years use the same old camera tricks? They’re not scary, only boringly predictable.

*Why has President Bush not banished every person involved in the making of this film to the Russian Gulag, where they will spend the rest of their natural lives engaged in back-breaking labor?

As preoccupied as I still am with finding answers to these questions, I find myself haunted by a disturbing fact: I paid hard-earned cash to see this movie and, therefore, I helped to make The Omen happen. This is my fault. Because of me, more films as shitty as this one—my heart quakes at the mere thought of it—will undoubtedly be made. Please pardon me while I go hang my head in shame.

Delayed Reaction

I took a walk to the beach today and, as I strolled, my mind--for reasons it certainly did not see fit to share with me--wandered back into the days of junior highschool. Specifically, I recalled I the stream of insults and cruel taunts that I so often found being flung my way. I suspect that these verbal assaults are something with which most anybody at that age has to contend, but I found them to be particularly vexing. The reason I was so frustrated was not that I was shocked or dismayed by the fact that I was being belittled--to the contrary, at the time, I believed that the cruelty of one’s friends was a given, that it was simply a part of the natural order of things, and I did my best to make peace with this reality--but instead, my aggravation stemmed from the fact that the barbs used against me were always random and nonsensical in nature.

Instead of picking on some quirk of my personality or highlighting a particularly ugly physical feature (and I surely had plenty of both!), my tormentors chose alternatively to make up some unattractive quality out of whole-cloth, assign it to me, and then mock me for it (An especially perplexing example of this occurred after I wore a recently-purchased “Cookie Monster” T-shirt to school. After being spotted in this apparently ridiculous attire, my “friends” permanently labeled me as “a wuss.” To this day, I cannot understand their logic. To me, Cookie Monster is the very embodiment of testosterone-driven machismo: he knows exactly what he wants and he’s willing to consume anything and everything that stands between him and his desire. Cookie Monster looks at rules, restraints, and societal norms and says, “To Hell with that! Me want Cookies!” How he could possibly be associated in any way with “wussiness” I simply cannot fathom).

To me, this seemed egregiously unjust; if I was to be mocked, I wanted to be mocked for something I deserved, damnit! My assailants’ weapons of choice also had the unfortunate side-effect--and this, I suppose, is the reason for which they were chosen--of catching me so off-guard that, in the moment, I was left completely incapable of mounting an effective counter-attack (and, in these kind of situations, being able to react and respond “in the moment” is all that really matters). So, instead of responding, I simply forced a weak, ineffectual smile and pretended that I wasn’t bothered by what they said.

If the fact that, ten years later, I still find my mind drawn back to their taunting is any evidence, it seems to me now that I really was bothered. Perturbed or not, as I walked today, I finally found my voice; As I replayed these conversations in my head I was at last able to fashion a few retorts so sharp and biting that, had I found myself with the opportunity to use them “in the moment” I would have cut my antagonists to bloody ribbons (metaphorically speaking, of course), while at the same time cementing my own status as demigod of coolness. No bully could possibly have stood in the wake of my calm, collected onslaught. Alas, I fear that my new-found parrying skills have come a decade too late, and since I no longer inhabit the halls of junior highschool, they will be of no use except as a means to revel in pubescent glories that might have been. I suppose that I should simply be glad that, as an adult living in a moderately more mature world, I no longer find having a steady supply of cruel come-backs at-the-ready to be a necessity. On the other hand, should I happen upon a person who, in his abounding foolishness, thinks me a bit of easy sport, a patsy upon which he can effortlessly heap brutally absurd daggers, he will find himself sorely mistaken; the gloves have come off and I’m ready to rumble.

A public service announcement

I just finished reading Field Notes from a Catastrophe by Elizabeth Kolbert. This is a book that should be reading by, quite literally, everybody. Go to your local library; go to your local bookstore. Beg, borrower, or steal a copy. Do it now; don't wait. Once you're done reading it, loan it to a friend and tell everybody else you know to read it as well. We all really need a wake-up call. Maybe this could be the start of one.

More primate (not monkey, darnit!) business

It may not have trickled its way onto most people's radars, but this provocative story has my corner of the internet all a-buzz:

Humans, chimps may have bred after split

Boston scientists released a provocative report yesterday that challenges the timeline of human evolution and suggests that human ancestors bred with chimpanzee ancestors long after they had initially separated into two species.

The researchers, working at the Cambridge-based Broad Institute of Harvard and MIT, used a wealth of newly available genetic data to estimate the time when the first human ancestors split from the chimpanzees. The team arrived at an answer that is at least 1 million years later than paleontologists had believed, based on fossils of early, humanlike creatures.

The lead scientist said that this jarring conflict with the fossil record, combined with a number of other strange genetic patterns the team uncovered, led him to a startling explanation: that human ancestors evolved apart from the chimpanzees for hundreds of thousands of years, and then started breeding with them again before a final break.

''Something very unusual happened," said David Reich, one of the report's authors and a geneticist at the Broad and Harvard Medical School.

The suggestion of interbreeding was met with skepticism by paleontologists, who said they had trouble imagining a successful breeding between early human ancestors, which walked upright, and the chimpanzee ancestors, which walked on all fours. But other scientists said the work is impressive and will probably force a reappraisal of the story of human origins. And one leading paleontologist said he welcomed the research as a sign that new genetic information will yield more clues to our deep history than once thought.

''I find this terrifically exciting and important work," said David Pilbeam, a Harvard paleontologist who was not part of the Broad team.

Aside from the fact that the headline is technically not true--neither humans nor chimpanzees as we know them were around at the time of this alleged breeding; it would be more accurate to say that members of the lineages that eventually led to modern humans and chimpanzees may have interbred after these lineages split (Alas, accuracy is once again sacrified in the name of sensationalism)--this is a fascinating story. Rather than offering my own under-informed opinions, let me point in the direction of two immensely more-qualified resources on this controversial topic: the fascinating commentary of science writer extraordinaire Carl Zimmer and the tempered criticisms of John Hawks, a Professor of Anthropology at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. Unless your curiosity drive is malfunctioning--in which case you should seriously consider taking it into the shop--and you are somehow already bored by this fascinating topic, check out the posts by these two writers; they're delicious brain-food.

Oh, and if any kind, Nature-subscribing Samaritan who stumbles onto this blog feels a pressing desire to email me (someotherguy86@gmail.com) a copy of the paper, I certainly would be obliged; I'd love to read this one.

Score another point for our knuckle-walking friends

From ABC:

Apes Shown to Be Able to Plan Ahead

WASHINGTON May 18, 2006 (AP)— They don't bring along an umbrella or sunglasses that might be needed later, but researchers say apes, like people, can plan ahead.

Both orangutans and bonobos were able to figure out which tool would work in an effort to retrieve grapes, and were able to remember to bring that tool along hours later, researchers report in Friday's issue of the journal Science.

In a series of laboratory tests the apes were shown the tools and grapes, allowed to retrieve grapes, and then removed from the area where the treats were available.

They were allowed back from one to 14 hours later and most were able to bring along the correct tool to get the treats, report Nicholas J. Mulcahy and Josep Call of the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology in Leipzig, Germany.

The researchers said the finding suggests that planning ahead arose at least 14 million years ago, when the last common ancestor of bonobos, orangutans and humans lived.

While the findings do not necessarily imply that the apes are able to anticipate a future state of mind, they are nonetheless groundbreaking, Thomas Suddendorf of the University of Queensland in Australia said in a commentary.

"By identifying what capacities our closest living relatives share with us, we can get a glimpse at our evolutionary past," Suddendorf said.

Frankly, apes are simply so incredible that I constantly find myself baffled by the shear number of people who react with vehemence against the idea--well supported though it may be--that humanity is related to these stupendous creatures. I know I'm delighted by the mere thought of it!

On other hand, I'm wildly confused about why ABC chose to file this story under "Politics." Weirdoes.

Disenchanted with U.S. Government, young man threatens to join “lunatic fringe”

Carlsbad, CA. (Reuters) -
In this wealthy bayside community unknown for its seditious and rebellious spirit, one reporter has learned of a young man who is fed up with the status quo. Preferring to go by the pseudonym, S.O. Guy, this 23 year-old voter has decided, once and for all, that he and the Federal Government are--as he put it--”on the outs:”

“I know that in some relationships, both parties are able to work out their differences and come to some sort of workable agreement, but, in this case, I just don’t see how the Feds and I could work out even an amicable separation, much less a solution to keep us together.”

He takes a long drag on a foul-smelling cigarette and states, “I wouldn’t say that I hate the Bush Administration or Congress. No, I think it would be more accurate to say that I loathe them both with the fire of a thousand suns. For that reason, I think it would be best for both of us if we went our separate ways. I’d love to end our relationship with a nice ‘it’s me, not you,’ but c’mon, we all know that it’s really them.”

“It’s not that I like the idea of joining a third-party like the Libertarians or the Greens; I think that many of their policies are misguided and their leaders are just bat-shit crazy, but I’ve come to the point where policies that are only misguided and crazy seems like a distinctly positive step away from the misguided, crazy, deceptive and corrupt line that this present government is towing.”

When asked whether the thought of a Democratic take-over of Congress in the next round of elections might possibly assuage his angry attitude, Mr. Guy looked pensive for a moment and then replied, “I’ll admit that the thought does give me some pleasure. I’d weep with joy to see Bush and his congressional cronies forced to take some real, honest-to-goodness responsibility for the myriad of disasters they’ve created in the past few years; I’d love to see them all run out of Washington on their hands and knees, but let’s be honest, are the Democrats really much better? Sure, they’re all about criticizing the President now that it’s politically expedient to do so, but where were they when he had a ninety-percent approval rating, when we needed them most? Where were they when the USA PATRIOT Act was passed or when Bush got the go-ahead to attack Iraq? With an administration like ours, we need an opposition party that’s willing to stand up for it’s so-called convictions on a daily basis, not simply when the last year of each election cycle rolls around and it becomes convenient for them to exercise a little chutzpah. To me, the Democrats all seem like cowards, except for that Senator Feingold from Wisconsin--that guy has balls the size of cantaloupes.”

On the topic of his immediate plans, the young Californian said, “Well, I definitely see myself wallowing in apathy for some time, but after that, if things haven’t improved, I suppose I’ll register with the Libertarians. I’m not happy with the idea, but I’ve had just about as much government intrusion as I can stomach. Besides, if they succeed in getting marijuana legalized, that’ll make things interesting, right? If I get tired of the unfettered capitalistic ways of the Libertarians, I can always balance things out with the Greens and their watered-down socialism. The way I see things, I’ve got plenty of options, but unless I see major changes, neither the Republicans nor the Democrats have any picture in my future. I’d rather be a part of the irrelevant, lunatic fringe than a part of the problem.”

When asked to comment on this development, President Bush was indignant: “I don’t see why he’s blaming me for any of this. I just do what Dick and Karl tell me to do.” After being pressed to elaborate on this comment, Bush, overcome by a strangely blank and absent look, mumbled something under his breath that sounded distinctly like “Don’t mess with Texas” and wandered off to find some brush to clear.

Random Tolkien Quotation

"Hill. Yes, that was it. But it is a hasty word for a thing that has stood here ever since this part of the world was shaped."

-Treebeard, The Two Towers

English Writing Assignment #4: Research Project

The Evolving Religious Views of Charles Darwin
At last! After countless months of constant effort and toil, I had finally succeeded in acquiring a human cloning machine and the necessary genetic information to run my experiment. The story of how I managed to get my hands on such marvelous materials is a fascinating tale; unfortunately, it is also a tale that is outside the scope of what it is to be written here. I will say only this: certain national and international authorities—if they were made aware of what I had done—would no doubt be very unhappy. At the moment, the thought of future trouble mattered little compared with what was now in my possession: a sample of Charles Darwin’s DNA and the means to bring him back to life!

As I gazed at my astounding piece of technology like a king surveying his kingdom, I felt a riotous laugh begin to emanate from the back of my throat. I shook it off; this was no time for “Mad Scientist” theatrics. I had to keep my mind focused on the task at hand. Wasting no more time, I began to operate my machine. As I worked, I contemplated exactly what it was that I wanted to discuss with Darwin. Already well-versed in his scientific theories, I had no desire or need to talk about biology. No, I was much more interested in hearing about the man’s religious opinions. Even now, more than 100 years after his death on April 19th, 1882 (Clark 196), the significance of Darwin’s ideas was still felt like an unending echo in the halls of philosophical thought. The man had irrevocably changed the world, and I was determined to learn more about the religious views that underlined his work. He had lived in a heavily Christian society—had he himself been a Christian? What were the factors and experiences that shaped his beliefs? These were the questions on which I hoped to shed some light.

A few hours later, my experiment was complete. Lying on a cot next to my machine was a perfect replica of Charles Darwin as he was before his death. I had only to flip one more switch and he would awaken; I proceeded with eagerness. Immediately, he took a long and startled breath. As he blinked his eyes, I saw in them a mysterious spark of consciousness that had been absent just a moment before. I led him over to a table and, after offering him a cup of tea, I began our dialogue:
David Carlson (DC): Mr. Darwin, first let me say that it is an honor and a pleasure to meet you. I have the utmost respect and admiration for your work. In all honesty, I consider you to be one of my personal heroes.

Charles Robert Darwin (CRD): I thank you for your kind words, although I fear that having met me, you will come away with an altogether less impressive feeling about me. Be that as it may, I am happy to talk with you. What is it that you wish to discuss?

DC: What I’m most interested in talking about today is religion. Specifically, I’m hoping that you can explain to me what kind of religious beliefs you held during your life and, if possible, what factors influenced these opinions.

CRD: I will be happy to oblige you, but I fear that this topic is complicated to such a degree that I may have some difficulty giving you a straightforward answer. Perhaps you could start with a more specific question?

DC: Of course. Why don’t we start at the beginning? Could you explain to me what kind of influences your family had on your early religious development?

CRD: Certainly. My family came from a Nonconformist background and attended a Unitarian chapel, but, due to the social pressures of the time, we were also active in the Church of England (“Darwin’s Views on Religion”).

DC: Could you elaborate more on Nonconformists and Unitarianism? I’m afraid I’m only vaguely familiar with these terms.

CRD: Nonconformism was a 19th century Protestant Christian movement which emphasized freedom of thought and dissent from the “doctrines or practices of the established Church of England” (Britannica 754). Unitarianism, a part of the greater Nonconformist movement, was (and is) a Protestant sect that placed heavy emphasis on the use of reason and on moral living. Famous for denying the Trinity, Unitarian theology held that God, by nature, was a single person and viewed Jesus as human, not divine (Britannica 137). Compared to the Anglican Church, Unitarianism was much less formal and dogmatic. My father often joked that Unitarianism was simply a “featherbed to catch a falling Christian” (Browne 12).

DC: Thank you for the clarification. Please continue.

CRD: After my mother died when I was eight (Clark 6), my sister, Caroline, took responsibility for my religious instruction. She made sure that I learned the Bible and, favoring Anglicanism over my mother’s Unitarian roots, took me to St. Chad’s, the Anglican Church at which my siblings and I had been baptized (Browne 21).

DC: It sounds like Caroline had a large impact on your early religious formation.
CRD: She did, indeed. When I was a bit older and away attending school in Edinburgh, she wrote to me, encouraging me to pursue my faith, specifically emphasizing the importance of regular Bible-reading and scriptural meditation (Burkhardt 36-39). Later, as I began to make my way in life, the beliefs that I held were , at root, the beliefs that had been imparted to me by Caroline (Adon 64).

DC: Earlier, you mentioned your formal education. How did your schooling affect your religious beliefs as a young man?

CRD: In 1828, at the behest of my father, I began to attend Cambridge University; the eventual goal was for me to become an ordained into the Church of England (Bowlby 94).

DC: You, an Anglican priest? I would never have guessed it!

CRD: I had some reservations about the idea, myself. I was not sure that I could honestly proclaim my belief in all the creeds of the Church of England (Bowlby 90), so “I read with care Pearson on the Creed and a few other books on divinity; and as I did not then in the least doubt the strict and literal truth of every word in the Bible, I soon persuaded myself that our Creed must be fully accepted” (Darwin 57). Nevertheless, some misgivings about the Anglican Church remained with me, but, this was the path that my father wished me to tread, so, deciding to take the “line of least resistance” (Bowlby 94), I obeyed his wishes.

[Darwin then paused to take a sip of tea, and I feared that he had grown weary of this subject, but just as I prepared to ask him a new question, he continued with his explanation.]

CRD: While at Cambridge, I was exposed to the philosophical writings of William Paley. These writings—including Evidences of Christianity and Natural Theology—seemed to be wonderful and impressive in their logical power and, at the time, I was fully persuaded by the arguments Paley presented (Darwin 59). The goal of Paley and other natural theologians was to “use the characteristics of the external world to establish the existence of a divine creator, and to provide proofs of his benevolence, wisdom and power” (Browne 52). As a believer and a budding scientist, I saw natural theology as firm foundation on which to base my future investigations and I was enamored with the idea that “the study of nature [was] a divine quest: a romantic exploration of forces, powers, laws and truths that appealed to [me] at the deepest imaginative level” (Browne 130).

DC: If I remember my history properly, you joined the crew of a ship called the Beagle in 1831 (Bowlby 125). Were you able to complete your ordination before you left to see and study the world?

CRD: Actually, no; despite my father’s wishes, I eventually decided against a career as a clergyman (Browne 321).

DC: Was this decision based upon a change in your religious beliefs?

CRD: No, my religious beliefs in those days had not been lost or altered to any large degree. I simply found that my interests were leading me in the direction of science. This was not a rejection of Christianity—I still held to the natural theological beliefs that I had found so persuasive during my time at Cambridge—but was simply a change in vocational goals (Browne 321-322).

DC: Despite your career change, it sounds to me like you were a very devout believer during this time. Did your experiences on the Beagle serve to change this?

CRD: Before I answer your question, let me clear up a misconception: while my views at the time were quite orthodox—so orthodox that my acceptance of the literal truth of the Bible became, at times, an amusement to many of my Beagle shipmates (Darwin 85)—it would not be right to say that “religious sentiment was ever strongly developed in me” (Darwin 91). For the most part, I followed the beliefs that were common in the predominantly Christian society I lived in, but, to me, religion was more about the acceptance of intellectual truths than it was about devotion (Keynes 47). So, despite my orthodox beliefs, devout was never an accurate description of my religious state (Bowlby 228). Getting back to your question about my time on the Beagle, I would have to say that, while my beliefs at this time began to change and slacken somewhat, they were not in a state of complete wavering. I slowly came to believe that the Old and New Testaments could not be taken as literal, authoritative historical documents. During this period, it was also starting to become difficult for my developing scientific outlook to accept any idea without evidence. I began to question the existence of miracles and had difficulties with the idea that unexplainable phenomena should be accepted simply on authority. Despite all of these doubts and shifting views, I still attended church services regularly while on the Beagle and considered my faith to be genuine, if conflicted (Browne 324-326).

DC: I think I can see where this line of thought may be leading. Did you end up losing your faith? If so, when and how did it happen?

CRD: I did end up rejecting the Christianity, but how this came about is not an easy matter to explain. My religious faith was something that I was very reluctant to give up, but despite some effort on my part to maintain it, my beliefs gradually left me (Desmond 623). I have already told you of the niggling doubts I had developed about accepting divine revelation and miracles, but these uncertainties were only the beginning. In the years following my return to England, while I was beginning to fashion theories from the observations and evidence collected during my voyages, my newly forming views on the nature and origin of species—including humans—led me “along the path of disbelief” (Browne 397). Contrary to my earlier views, I was beginning to regard the marvelous adaptations found in nature—which Paley had attempted to use to prove the existence of a benevolent God—as the products of natural selection, not divine design (Darwin 87). My thinking was beginning to change radically; in one moment of mischievous materialistic musing, I even speculated that affection and belief in God were simply products of purely natural forces (Desmond 250). As my doubts about Christianity grew, “I found it more and more difficult, with free scope given to my imagination, to invent evidence which would suffice to convince me [of the truth of Christianity]. Thus disbelief crept over me at a very slow rate, but was at last complete (Darwin 86-87). I realize that this is rather long-winded and convoluted answer to your question, but such is often the case with the truth. If you really must have a more simple answer, I will say this: I finally gave up my belief in Christianity in 1849 because I could find no evidence to support it (Keynes 134).

DC: Would I be correct in concluding that this disbelief is the position on which you settled?

GRD: Yes, after I finally rejected Christianity, I never again wondered if this decision had been the correct one (Darwin 87). In all honesty, “I can hardly see how anyone ought to wish Christianity to be true; for if so the plain language of the text seems to show that the men who do not believe, and this would include my Father, Brother and almost all my best friends, will be everlastingly punished. And this is a damnable doctrine” (Darwin 87). Although I have heard it said that, while on my deathbed, I repudiated my evolutionary ideas and converted back to Christianity, this is only a legend; there is no truth to it (Clark 198-199).

DC: I realize that this may be a difficult topic for conversation, but could you tell me what kind of impact the death of Annie, your daughter, in 1851 (Britannica 997-981) had on your religious views?

CRD: As I have told you, my faith, by all reasonable standards, had ended two year previously, but Annie’s death was a resounding and painful punctuation to that ending. After she died, I could no longer believe in any sort of sense of cosmic justice, and the emptiness of Christian belief became evident to me (Desmond 384-387). I began to view God—in whose existence I continued to believe—not as a being of endless benevolence, but as a “shadowy, inscrutable and ruthless figure” (Keynes 243).

DC: It seems to me that an experience as traumatic as the death of a young child could very well drive a person to atheism; after rejecting the existence of the Christian God, did you ever give up your belief in the existence of any sort of deity?

CRD: I can say that I have “never been an atheist in the sense of denying the existence of a God” (Desmond 636). There seem to be some good arguments to be made for the existence of God—not the least of which being the “extreme difficulty or rather impossibility of conceiving of this immense and wonderful universe [. . .] as the result of blind chance or necessity” (Darwin 92). But at the same time, the conclusion that the origin of the universe must have some sort of intelligent First Cause has been, at times, difficult for me to fully accept. While we seem naturally inclined to accept the First Cause argument, I feel that there could be good reasons why the intuitive expectations of our brains—which developed over time from a much more primitive state—should not necessarily be trusted as accurate guides in these matters (Darwin 92-94). For this reason, I fear that the question of God’s existence may remain permanently unanswered and that I “must be content to remain an Agnostic” (Darwin 93-94).

DC: Mr. Darwin, I want to thank you for your willingness to share your thoughts with me. I can see now why your views on religious matters have been referred to as “complex and ambiguous” (Miller, 287), but I feel that I now have a better understanding of your views and how they came to be what they are. Based upon what you have told me, it seems that your religious beliefs evolved quite a lot over the course of your life; equally, it appears that your scientific outlook played a large role in shaping the course of this evolution.

CRD: Yours seems to be a fair assessment of the matter. I did not go about my life’s work with the goal of discrediting religion, but in the end, I was forced to give up my Christian faith based upon my perceptions of the scientific evidence (Clark 57). I am truly glad if my explanations have been of some assistance to you; although, I must admit to being rather mystified at your interest in these matters, as I have always felt that my personal beliefs were “of no consequence to any one but myself” (Desmond 635).

DC: If I could just keep you for another moment, I would like to ask one final, self-indulgent question. Having returned from the grave, you must know the answer: Is there life after death?

CRD: Ah! If I could be granted any wish, it would be the chance to stay here and write a book answering that very question. What a commotion I could make! The controversy that Origin stirred would pale in comparison to what I could say now! Alas, there are some things that simply cannot be comprehended by living minds. Besides, my time has passed. For now at least, the great mysteries of life will have to remain mysterious.
After Darwin finished saying this, we both knew that our conversation—and his short return the land of the living—had come to an end. I led him back to his cot and, as I reversed the procedure, I saw again that fleeting glimmer of consciousness in his eyes and watched it disappear as I pulled the last switch. Could human consciousness be merely the natural product of an incredibly complex brain, or was there something far more incomprehensible at work? To this question I had no definite answers. I only knew that a great man was gone.

Works Cited

Adon, Cyril. Charles Darwin. New York: Carroll and Graf Publishers, 2002.

Bowlby, John. Charles Darwin: A New Life. New York: W.W. Norton & Co., 1990.

Browne, Janet. Charles Darwin: Voyaging. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1995.

Burkhardt, Frederick and Sydney Smith, Eds. The Correspondence of Charles Darwin.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1985.

“Charles Darwin.” The New Encyclopedia Britannica. 2005 ed.

“Charles Darwin’s Views on Religion.” Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. 16 Feb. 2006.
Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. 12 April 2006.
.
Clark, Ronald W. The Survival of Charles Darwin. New York: Random House, 1984.

Darwin, Charles. The Autobiography of Charles Darwin: 1809-1882. Ed. Nora Barlow.
New York: Harcourt, Brace and Company, 1958.

Desmond, Adrian and James Moore. Darwin: The Life of a Tormented Evolutionist.
New York: Warner Books, 1991.

Keynes, Randal. Darwin, His Daughter and Human Evolution. New York: Riverhead
Books, 2001.

Miller, Kenneth R. Finding Darwin’s God: A
Scientist’s Search for Common Ground Between God and Evolution. New
York: HarperCollins Publishers, 1999.

“Nonconformist.” The New Encyclopedia Britannica. 2005 ed.

“Unitarianism.” The New Encyclopedia Britannica. 2005 ed.

A theoretical physics joke

Q: What does one Zombie M-Theorist say to the other Zombie M-Theorist?

A: "Branes! Must have Branes!"

....

Well I thought it was funny.

The GPL Manifesto

It rained again recently. As is often my habit after a hard shower, I took a walk to my favorite gastropod-observing slab of sidewalk. I was not disappointed; the snails were out in full force, frolicking in their wonderfully slimy fashion upon the wet concrete. My heart was contented by this happy sight.

A few hours later, I returned and my life changed irrevocably. Instead of a sea of snails moving lazily across the walkway and grass, I found a graveyard of broken shells and crushed bodies; every last snail was dead, killed by the brutish, bustling feet of negligent humans. My mind was overwhelmed by the shear destruction that had taken place in such a small amount of time.

Over the coming days, I struggled hard to discern the meaning of this molluskan holocaust. I searched my soul, desperately seeking some small sense of solace in the face of senseless tragedy. For a long while, no answers were forthcoming—I saw in this design only the hand of the pitilessly indifferent universe. No cosmic justice for my lost friends could be found. It was then that I realized my mistake. The universe was not responsible for this tragedy! No, this was the work of humans, specifically human feet. I knew then that if justice was what I sought, it would have to be justice of my own making. As I pondered this thought, I vision came to my mind and I knew what my next step would have to be.

This is what I know now: The time for pondering—of querying the universe in a futile attempt to the answer to the eternally unanswerable question, “Why?”—is over. There can be no answers except for what we make for ourselves, and I have chosen this tragedy to be the last, the one that will put a stop, once and for all, to the endless genocide of snails by careless human feet. To this end, I have formed The Gastropod Protection League (GPL). Our mission is captured by a simple motto: "We seek, by all means necessary, to remove the boot of indifference from the backs of the innocent."

GPL will have one main one goal, pursued using two distinct strategies. The goal is the protection of all Snail-kind by the banishment and destruction of all hard-soled foot attire. Our logical is simple: people step on snails because the sole that they wear protect them from feeling the true sensation of murder. Remove the shoe, and we will remove the destruction—for no one will again step on a snail once they have to feel slimy, crunching horror of their actions.

Our first strategy is that of political activism. We will lobby Congress, form Political Action Committees, organize protests, and call for work stoppages in the name of our cause. We will not stop until an Amendment is made to the United States' Constitution, banning all forms of footwear with rigid soles. Progress on this front will be slow and difficult. Of this I have no doubt. But if our cause is to have any lasting impact, we must have the power of legal force. In time, I am convinced that the American people, ignorant and selfish as they may often be, can be convinced of the wisdom of the changes we seek to implement.

Our second and most immediate strategy is one not of words, but of actions. We will form a paramilitary wing of GPL whose sole purpose will be the removal and destruction of as many pairs of shoes as possible. While our lobbyists and activists make changes to the law, this group will make changes on the ground. Let the purveyors of destruction know this: Your shoes are no longer safe. Your pumps, tennies, heels, high-tops, cross-trainers, wing-tips, flip-flops, and steel-toed boots have become our targets. When you wake up in the morning and find your Doc Marten's missing, you will know that we have been there. We will leave no calling-card save that of an empty-shoe rack, but this alone will be enough to get our message across.

This is my mission and these are my plans. I make no secrets of my tactics because I have justice on my side. To those reading this who envision this justice as I do, I say to you that, if you are willing to do all that is necessary to protect our shell-excreting friends, you will find a welcome place at my side in the Gastropod Protection League . Our goals will be achieved; nobody will stand in our way. I only pray that every action we take may be a small answer to the endless cries of "Why?" that, to this day, continue to emanate from the tiny lips of the dead and dying.

A "Devotional" from Edward O. Wilson

Periodically, my friend Shane posts quotes from various writers and thinkers as devotionals on his blog. In this spirit—by which I mean to say that I’m ripping off his idea—I present this “devotional” from the concluding paragraphs of Edward O. Wilson’s The Diversity of Life:

The evidence of swift environmental change calls for an ethic uncoupled from other systems of belief. Those committed by religion to believe that life was put on earth in one divine stroke will recognize that we are destroying the Creation, and those who perceive biodiversity to be the product of blind evolution will agree. Across the other great philosophical divide, it does not matter whether species have independent rights or, conversely, that moral reasoning is uniquely a human concern. Defenders of both premises seem destined to gravitate twoard the same position on conservation.

The stewardship of environment is a domain on the near side of metaphysics where all reflective persons can surely find common ground. For what, in the final analysis, is morality but the command of conscience seasoned by a rational examination of consequences? And what is a fundamental precept but one that serves all generations? An enduring environmental ethic will aim to preserve not only the health and freedom of our species, but access to the world in which the human spirt was born.

Intelligent Design and Christian Theology

Threads from Henry's Web has an interesting post on Intelligent Design and Christian Theology. Here's an excerpt:

In talking to Christian groups, I frequently find people who are shocked that I don’t support ID. “How can you not believe the universe is designed?” they ask. My answer is that I don’t accept ID precisely because I believe that the universe is designed. However it is disguised, however many chapters of mathematical formulas are provided, however many pious statements are made (whenever someone is not trying to pretend this is not theology), ID does not prove, and is not attempting to prove that the universe is designed. It is, in fact, attempting to prove that some elements are more designed than others, i.e. when we deal with specified complexity as a test of design, it means that we distinguish things that could happen randomly, and things that happen by design. Right or wrong, evangelical Christians are generally very uncomfortable with things that happen randomly. They are not looking for Paley’s watch on the seashore to prove that the watch is designed, but rather to prove that everything is designed.

That's a perspective I don't see too often. Very interesting.

No love for atheists

Atheists identified as America’s most distrusted minority, according to new U of M study

MINNEAPOLIS / ST. PAUL (3/20/2006) -- American’s increasing acceptance of religious diversity doesn’t extend to those who don’t believe in a god, according to a national survey by researchers in the University of Minnesota’s department of sociology.

From a telephone sampling of more than 2,000 households, university researchers found that Americans rate atheists below Muslims, recent immigrants, gays and lesbians and other minority groups in “sharing their vision of American society.” Atheists are also the minority group most Americans are least willing to allow their children to marry.

Even though atheists are few in number, not formally organized and relatively hard to publicly identify, they are seen as a threat to the American way of life by a large portion of the American public. “Atheists, who account for about 3 percent of the U.S. population, offer a glaring exception to the rule of increasing social tolerance over the last 30 years,” says Penny Edgell, associate sociology professor and the study’s lead researcher.

Edgell also argues that today’s atheists play the role that Catholics, Jews and communists have played in the past—they offer a symbolic moral boundary to membership in American society. “It seems most Americans believe that diversity is fine, as long as every one shares a common ‘core’ of values that make them trustworthy—and in America, that ‘core’ has historically been religious,” says Edgell. Many of the study’s respondents associated atheism with an array of moral indiscretions ranging from criminal behavior to rampant materialism and cultural elitism.
Edgell believes a fear of moral decline and resulting social disorder is behind the findings.

Fascinating. Disgusting.

The best thing about California

When it rains, instead of having sidewalks and streets covered by worms—as is common in the midwestern states with which I am most familiar—we get sidewalks and streets covered by snails. And, as everybody knows (well, they should know anyway), snails kick ass. Most pro-Caifornia propaganda is centered upon the ocean, the weather, Hollywood, the economy, and the smug sense of self-superiority that people seem to get by calling themselves Californians. These things are all well and good, but I think more focus should be placed upon our wonderful and enormous populations of snails. You can keep the traffic, the pollution, the Hollywood politicos and the "Two-Buck Chuck," but give me the gastropods!

In praise of a master

I’m rather proud of myself at the moment. This week I accomplished a major undertaking: I finished reading The Structure of Evolutionary Theory by the late Stephen Jay Gould. I had been reading this 1300+ page tome for quite some time (I refuse to say precisely how long because I like to think of myself as being a fast reader, but the speed at which I read this book was anything but fast) and now I’m finally done. I’ll present a short summary for those people who, unlike me, are not interested enough—or not insane enough—to spend countless hours reading dense discussions of obscure evolutionary topics.

At its most basic, The Structure of Evolutionary Theory is an epic summation of the ideas and concepts that Gould spent most of his well-celebrated career researching and discussing. In particular, he presents three central features of Darwinian theory that he feels are in need of revision:

1. The individual organism as the sole unit of natural selection—in other words, the idea that natural selection focuses only upon the differential reproductive success of individual organisms in shaping the history of evolutionary change. Gould contends that natural selection works at a hierarchy of levels—from the gene to the clade (groups of species)—and that the various levels of this hierarchy must all be recognized as “Darwinian individuals” (a concept that he differentiates from individual organisms). He especially focuses on natural selection working at the level of the species where he feels that differential levels of birth (speciation) and death (extinction) hold strong sway over long-term evolutionary trends. He bolsters this concept with evidence from the theory of punctuated equilibrium—a controversial and contentiously debated paleontological concept developed by Gould and Niles Eldridge in the 1970’s which states that, based upon the evidence of the fossil record, the fate of most lineages throughout geological time is primarily that of stasis (ie. little evolutionary change). It is their belief that most long-term evolutionary change takes place through comparatively quick (in geological terms) events of speciation. To Gould, since most species seem to primarily exhibit stasis throughout their “lifetimes” and speciation events are therefore responsible for most lasting evolutionary change, natural selection working at the species level becomes a topic of paramount importance.
2. The supremacy of natural selection over internal constraint. Gould presents a long-standing argument between two competing camps of evolutionary biology: the structuralists, those who believe that internal are responsible for most evolutionary change, and the functionalists (also known as adapationists) who believe that natural selection is the main force responsible for evolutionary change. It is Gould’s belief that the modern Darwinian consensus is too focused upon natural selection as an all-powerful force. He uses evidence collected from recent discoveries in the field of Evolutionary Developmental Biology (lovingly known as “Evo-Devo”) to show that internal forces of development are important for both setting limits to evolutionary change and also for channeling change in particular directions. With this in mind, he cautions researchers against assuming a priori that all well-functioning organismal characteristics are adaptive features shaped soley by the power of natural selection.
3. The extrapolation of small changes over enormous amounts of time to explain all long-term trends. Gould states that it has been all too common for both biologists and geologists to succumb to the temptation to explain long-running trends simply using small, presently observable changes. It is Gould’s belief that not all trends of macroevolution (change above the level of the species) can be adequately explained simply by microevolutionary change (change at or below the level of the species) extrapolated over tens or hundreds of millions of years. He also states that the same principle applies to geologists who attempt to explain all geological trends using small, gradual changes. Gould particularly focuses on the extinction of the dinosaurs which was formerly thought to have happend gradually, but is now considered by most paleontologists to have happened relatively quickly due to the catastrophic impact of a giant meteor hitting the earth. Gould uses this highly relevant example—without the demise of the dinosaurs, mammals (including humans) would most likely never have come to dominate the world—as evidence that sometimes macroevolution and large-scale geological change are best explained by forces other than extrapolated short-term changes. He especially hightlights what sees as the potentially important roles that catastrophes and unpredicatable contingencies have had to play in shaping the history of life on earth.

I must admit that I, with my complete lack of formal evolutionary training, often got bogged down by and had a difficult time completely comprehending the minute details that Gould uses to support his arguments, but I do believe that I was able to grasp the major points he attempted to make. While I certainly think that the book was at times overly self-indulgent and could definitely have benefited by a less lenient editor, I certainly don’t begrudge Gould the opportunity to present us with his magnum opus just as he wants it. By all accounts, Gould had a exemplary career and if he, as the most public voice for evolutionary biology for the past thirty years, wants to be a little self-indulgent with his final work, who am I to gainsay him?

Time and again, I was amazed at Gould's ability to thoroughly examine the logic of an idea. He has the enviable ability to truly understand the implications of the concepts with which he works. He seems to be able to take an idea, examine it with a fine-toothed deductive comb, and then bring forth a treasure of interesting and important ramifications. Interestingly, this is something that he often praised Darwin for, and I can’t help but feel that he deserves no less praise. Apart from Gould’s ability to think, he is simply a brilliant writer. While much of the book is written in a fairly technical (and verbose!) style, every now and then one of his characteristic flourishes of beautifully striking prose shines through. The final pages, in which—after spending hundreds of pages explaining why he feels that some of Darwin’s ideas are fundamentally deficient—he rejoices that the field of evolutionary biology has as its primary (or at least most important) founder a man as fascinating in character and powerful in mind as Charles Darwin, are especially evocative.

Its astounding how much you can learn about the inner workings of a person’s mind after reading 1300 pages of their thoughts and ideas. After I finished the book, I was struck by a sense of sadness and finality. Because The Structure of Evolutionary Theory was Stephen Jay Gould’s last major work before his death, when I reached the end, I felt almost as if I was saying goodbye to a friend. But what a way to go! Goodbye, Dr. Gould. Your writing has has been (and continues to be) an inspiration to millions and I fear that we will not see your equal for many years to come. You are missed.