a few thoughts on Kansas, Evolution, and the nature of God

OK, once again, I emerge from my cave to spew forth a few bits of wisdom. Since my last posting, I have faced death, quit my job, and taught a teenager to drive. Surely that entitles me to some measure of, well, something......

I have read with some interest about the various debates around the country regarding evolution vs intelligent design, particularly in the state of Kansas, where the fight is particularly well organized and therefore commanding of more attention in the popular media. The question that bothers me most on this issue is why is it an issue? Surely the dates and places are not significant, (such as the exact date of the creation, or the exact location of the Garden of Eden. What then?

First let me say that I am both a scientist, (in a broad, philosophical sense---more specific claims would surely bring forth certain college professor's waving my academic transcripts, and former co-workers shouting at the tops of their collective lungs), as well as a creationist. I believe that the very scant recitation of the creation in the Book of Genesis is, pretty much, correct, (again, in a broad and philosophical sense). That treatise was written, (or carved into clay tablets) by a man, possibly Moses or one of his contemporaries, (today we call them staffers), recounting the revelation is his or her mind of the creation by an authority that is largely undefined. All things taken in, had this higher authority revealed the creation in terms more familiar to the scientific community, the person, (the revalatee ?), may possibly have attributed the visions to some yogurt or dates that had gone bad, taken two aspirin and let it go at that.

But I digress.

The issues that underly the current debates are these:

First, the nature of God, the creator, the authority that revealed itself in Genesis. One the one hand, (and to the extent that the scientific community will acknowledge this authority), there is a vision of a God whose very will set in motion the events under debate, and allowed them to play out in accordance with the same will that started the physical processes. I think of this as the "hands off" God. On the other (creationist) hand, there is the "hands on" God, who physically constructed the universe, and continues to operate it on a day to day basis. The significance of the differences in these two conceptualizations of God is both simple and enormously complex. It is simple, in that it can be described in a single paragraph in some two-bit blog. It is complex, in that the ramifications of both reach out and touch almost every aspect of our lives. The scientific notion of God relies heavily on ethics and free will, it seems to establish a beginning and end to our lives, but precribes no particular route between the two. The creationist notion of God, however, is a more tightly controlled concept, under which it is possible to be rewarded or punished on a daily basis for behaviors deemed pleasing or offensive. This notion tends to prescribe a definite path between the alpha's and omega's of the human condition.

OK, so what?

The second issue is power. Economic and political. One notion of God relies on the inner soul to find its way, the other, relies on pleasing the higher authority. Nothing wrong with that. but as that authority does not tend to make personal appearances for horse-whippings or pats-on-the-back, it is only human to go with the general concensus of ones peers, and that, is the source of the power. The leaders of these believers are able to exert enormous influence on all manner of issues, from prayer in public places, to tax rates for the various econmic strata. And it is those leaders who are concerned that public education will erode the base of thier influence.

If a person does not believe in a God, or if one believes in the "hands off" notion of God, then that person is not likely to be swayed by the opinions and positions of those who lead. This is true mainly in the theological sense, but it also holds in politics, economics, and numerous other arenas. If one believes in the other notion, (or another, individual notion), that person may be subject to the tides of opinion generated by parties seeking influence in the human realm.

so where do we go from here?

First, if you are not registered to vote, please do so and then devote one hour per week to bothering your elected officials and candidates with your thoughts and ideas. If you do not vote, then shut up and take what you get. I recognize and appreciate the fact that not participating in the established process is a form of expression and I respect that. Realizing that things do not change by osmosis, or just because you have an opinion and more than a little indignation is a natural consequence of that action (or inaction, however you choose to see it). Get used to it. Realize that the war in the mideast is a fact, that we are in it and that there will be consequences for whatever course of action that we take. They may be worth it, or not, but the thing to ask your elected reps (as well as those who want to represent you) is how do they see our goal in Iraq, and what will it take to achieve it, what will it cost in terms of time, money, troops, and yes, lives, and what will it get for the average US citizen? Be sure to ask, "who is the enemy, and how will this effort undermine if not completely defeat them?".

Then there is the situation here in the U.S. Ask your politico's a few general, but probing questions about the state of the economy. A few that come to mind are:

1) what is the amount of the (federal/state/local) budget this year?
2) how much of that figure is collected in taxes, fees, etc, and how much is borrowed?
3) how much of the budget is devoted to defense, domestic, and overseas spending?
4) ask them for a short, but concise explanation of the Social Security issue. if they oblige, ask them how they see the future of the program. One needn't have a rock solid understanding of these issues to recognize when someone is hedging or simply bullshitting them. Either of those reactions will tell you a lot. Read the United States Constitution. If you make it all the way through, and are interested, there are a few good, (short), simple articles referenced on the web that explain some of the intricacies of that document. Ask yourself, how does the situation in this country, as you see it, square with the document that is the basis of all law? If it generates any questions, do not hesitate to write, call, or better yet, ask them in person to your elected leaders, (they'll be around, they are always running for something).

have a nice day.

are you overextended?

That is a term that I use, politely, to describe the predicament that we, the population of, as well as the political entity that is the United States are in right now. I cite the war in the mideast as well as the political climate here at home, the economy in general, the new "energy crisis", and the fallout from Hurricane Katrina.

Where do I start?

Let's consider the situation in Louisiana and Mississippi. There will a lot of finger-pointing and scapegoat creating in the coming months, so I will not delve too deeply into that at this point, but I am shocked that the region was apparently so ill-prepared for this event. Was this a matter of complacency, faith in the economy and federal government to recompense for losses, or did the people just have too much on their collective minds to take substantive preventive measures in the days and hours before the storm?

After it hit, and when the extent of the havoc was beginning to unfold, the reaction of the people was simply incredulous. Apparently, some exercised a bit of common sense by moving to what were believed to be safe havens, while others simply waited for someone to bail them out. A third group saw it as opportunity, imposing a situation of anarchy on the area and using it as a cover to loot and plunder. At one point, there was even sniper fire on victims and rescue workers in the area, prompting the federal government to send it battle-hardened troops to secure the area. Battle hardened? These troops were recently in the mideast and were exposed to dangerous situations, but why is that necessary here? Those agencies charged with managing emergency situations such as these were caught completely off-guard, and a few higher ranking officials only "learned" of the situation three days after the storm tore through the area. What were they thinking, what were they doing, and when were they doing it? This is not a welfare effort, it is what this these agencies are in business for.

Let me move on, I am rambling.

The economy was already circling the drain before the cost of fuel went through the roof. The sudden rise in fuel prices, and the subsequent hit dealt by the above mentioned storm has put individuals, families, businesses and all other entities on very slippery footing. Many people feel that they are already stretched to the limit, the additional pressures have merely pushed them that much further towards the edge, (whatever or wherever that might be). I believe that this pressure brought about a sense of systemic failure in New Orleans and that led to the anarchy that now rules that city.

The war in Iraq may almost be over. If it is, we have lost. Though we may stay on for a while, the public, and therefore the Congress will not support the effort as it is now, a plan that is not a plan and without strategy. Further attempts at pacifying the insurgency are futile in the absence of a coincident plan to make secure the general population of Iraq. (That effort used to be referred to as the battle for the hearts and minds of the citizenry). There is no confidence in the President and his cabinet. The conflict may continue, but the White House will pay a heavy political toll for each and every day that it drags on, as will the opposition party for every day that goes by without them presenting a better plan, (besides simply pulling out). This is the time for leadership, not nit-picking or rhetoric, and it is nowhere to be seen, on the right or left.

I was able to catch some of the Al Franken show this past week, and was both impressed and depressed by it. The show was well thought out,and moved right along. Trouble is, it dealt with issues in a hindsight mode. The criticisms that I heard were really well spoken, and lacked much of the usual shrillness that often accompanies political discourse. The thing is, it was all forensic. The show, Mr Franken, and the guests did a good job of pointing out how we got to the point where we are in Iraq, but without acknowledging that, in fact,that we are there, and what should be done from this point. Anybody can see that. Many do not, but it is not because the data is not there. What we need from Air America and other pundits are specifics on what we can do, and what those steps will accomplish.

The Doonesbury strip that appeared on Sunday, Sept 4 was worth reading. Gets right to the heart of a particular issue, (not to mention echoing my own sentiments).

Soylent BSE?

I have seen a couple of news articles reporting on theories that Bovine Spongeform Encephelopathy and its human-affecting cousin, Crutzfeldt-Jakob disease, may have originated in animal feed that contained human tissue, imported from India, Pakistan and Bangladesh in the early 1980'.

The theory, noted as "controversial", (ya think?), in the UK Daily Mail, the Guardian and others, reports thatthere was a steady market for tissue, some apparently harvested from human bodies disposed of in the rivers of those counties, that was used in the manufacture of animal feeds in the UK. The article notes that the practice was very common from the late 50's through the 70's, and may continue yet today, and the the theory is that the condition we refer to as "mad cow disease" may have been caused by feeding cattle tissues that contained the early variant of Crutzfeldt-Jakob, a disease that appears in the human population sporadically.

Whether or not the theory holds, the fact that human remains are used in something as mundane as cattle feed is quite disturbing. It may be blurred by the origins of the protein, (halfway around the world, in places usually not afforded a lot of significance, in a sort of "what we don't know" kind of rationalization), but it makes one wonder what else we don't know. Is my Purina dog and cat chow safe? If this is a common practice, pray tell, what are the sources of protein produced domestically? Does the US import such proteins from abroad, and if so, from where and in what quantities? If ever there was even a hint that human tissues were being knowingly imported, or even harvested domestically, the uproar would drown out, at least for a time, all other issues that dominate our national mindset. If it were to become an issue, one would be forced to evaluate our political leaders and the myriad special interest groups that regularly hold forth on their positions on this question. I wonder how, say,Pat Robertson would react? Or perhaps John Kerry?

This issue deserves some investigation. Whether or not that will happen remains to be seen,and if it does happen, it will be in the UK, not here in America. But watch and listen to what is said, and not said, when those issues come up in the congress and the various federal and state agencies, as well as those special interests involved in the industry. We, in all liklihood, will never get a straight answer on this, it will be left to the individual to read between the lines and make a decision.

Salad anyone?



update 1:

there is a firm in the New York City area, that appears to be using cadavers from various funeral homes as a supply for bone, skin and other human tissues, apparently for transplant purposes.

it has been alledged that the firm pays the funeral business for access to the bodies, and then sells the harvested tissue. published figures might lead one to see quite a profit margin.

what is disturbing, is that the records of these transactions are at best murky, and sometimes non-existent, and when they do exist, they appear to be falsified with respect to the consent of the families as well as the age and health of the deceased.

more on this if and when we hear about it.