Food for The Eagle by Adam Savage

Food for The Eagle

By Adam Savage

Delivered to the Harvard Humanist Society, April 2010

---

• I want to start by saying that, to me, any discourse from me about how one can live a moral existence without religion or the church would sound improperly defensive.
• That there's an opposite to be defended is absurd and based on a provably false premise.
• So let's dispense with that.
• (To be clear: I'm referring to the humanist axiom "Good without God," whereby "good" means morality.
• It's provably false that there exists no morality outside of religion, therefore the statement sounds defensive to me.)
• By what route does anyone come to believe what they believe?
• We all like to imagine that it's based on a set of logical facts, but it's often a much more circuitous route.
• For me it was pretty simple.
• I'm actually the fourth generation in my family to have no practical use for the church, or God, or religion.
• My children continue this trend.

Here are a few things I've learned:

• Prayer doesn't work because someone out there is listening, it works because someone in here is listening.
• I've paid attention.
• I've pictured what I want to happen in my life.
• I've meditated extensively on my family, my future, my past actions and what did and didn't work for me about them.
• I've looked hard at problems and thought hard about their solutions.
• See, I order my life by the same mechanism that I use to build things.
• I cannot proceed to move tools around in the real world until my brain has a clear picture in it of what I'm building.
• The same goes for my life.
• I've tried to pay attention.
• I've tried to picture the way I want things to be, and I've noticed that when I had a clear picture, things often turned out the way I wanted them to.
• I've concluded by this that someone is paying attention—I've concluded that it's me.
• I've noticed that if I'm paying attention to those around me, to myself, to my surroundings, then that is the very definition of empathy.
• I've noticed that when I pay attention, I'm less selfish, I'm happier—and that the inverse holds true as well.
• I think one of the defining moments of adulthood is the realization that nobody's going to take care of you.
• That you have to do the heavy lifting while you're here.
• And when you don't, well, you suffer the consequences.
• At least I have.
• (And in the empirical study I'm performing about interacting with the universe, I am unfortunately the only test subject I have complete access to, so my data is, as they say, self-selected.)
• While nobody's going to take care of us, it's incumbent upon us to take care of those around us.
• That's community.
• The fiction of continuity and stability that your parents have painted for you is totally necessary for a growing child.
• When you realize that it's not the way the world works, it's a chilling moment.
• It's supremely lonely.
• So I understand the desire for someone to be in charge.
• (As a side note, I believe that the need for conspiracy theories is similar to the need for God.)
• We'd all like our good and evil to be like it is in the movies: specific and horrible, easy to defeat.
• But it's not.
• It's banal.
• There's a quote I love: "Evil is a little man afraid for his job."
• I always thought some famous author said it, but I asked my 200,000 followers on Twitter today, and it turns out that Roy Scheider said it in Blue Thunder.
• No one is in charge.
• And, honestly, that's even cooler.
• The idea of an ordered and elegant universe is a lovely one.
• One worth clinging to.
• But you don't need religion to appreciate the ordered existence.
• It's not just an idea, it's reality.
• We're discovering the hidden orders of the universe every day.
• The inverse square law of gravitation is amazing.
• Fractals, the theory of relativity, the genome: these are magnificently beautiful constructs.
• The nearly infinite set of dominoes that have fallen into each other in order for us to be here tonight is unfathomable.
• Truly unfathomable.
• But it is logical.
• We don't know all the steps in that logic, but we're learning more about it every day.
• Learning, expanding our consciousness, singly and universally.
• As far as I can see, the three main intolerant religions in the world aren't helping in that mission.
• For all their talk of charity and knowledge, that they close their eyes to so much—
• to science, to birth control education, to abuses of power by some of their leaders, to evolution as provable and therefore factual (the list is staggering)—
• illustrates a wide scope of bigotry.
• Now, just to be clear. If you want to believe, or find solace in believing, that someone or something set these particular dominoes in motion—
• a cosmic finger tipping the balance and then leaving everything else to chance—
• I can't say anything to that.
• I don't know.
• Though a primary mover is the most complex and thus (given Occam's razor) the least likely of all possible solutions to the particular problem of how we got here, I can't prove it true or false, and there's nothing to really discuss about it.
• If Daniel Dennett is right—
• that there's a human genetic need for religion—
• then I'd like to imagine that my atheism is proof of evolutionary biology in action.
• There may be no purpose, but its always good to have a mission.
• And I know of one fine allegory for an excellent mission should you choose to charge yourself with one:
• Carlos Castaneda's series of books about his training with a Yaqui indian mystic named Don Juan.
• There's a lot of controversy about these books being represented as nonfiction.
• But if you dispense with that representation, and instead take their stories as allegories, they're quite lovely.
• At the end of The Eagle's Gift, Don Juan reveals to his student that there's no point to existence.
• That we're given our brief 70-100 years of consciousness by something the mystics call The Eagle, named for it's cold, killer demeanor.
• And when we die, the eagle gobbles our consciousness right back up again.
• He explains that the mystics, to give thanks to the eagle for the brief bout of consciousness they're granted, attempt to widen their consciousness as much as possible.
• This provides a particularly delicious meal for the eagle when it gobbles one up at the end of one's life.
• And that, to me, is a fine mission.

So Apt

This is taken from Talking Points Memo by reader SG:

One of the characteristics of privilege is that people without privilege are expected to constantly account for themselves. An African-American in a prestigious job faces accusations of "you're not really qualified; you were just hired to make a quota". A woman who is a victim of sexual assault has to convince others--sometimes, even the police--that she didn't "deserve" what she got. Gay men and lesbians advocating marriage equality have to present an image of perfect loving eternally pair-bonded couples. 

Ignorance is No Defense

Re: Lt. Col. Driscoll's ruling on admissible evidence for Lt. Col. Lakin's Article 32 hearing:

President Obama does not have to show his (hospital) birth certificate. He has not committed any crime. Accusations are not evidence. Suspicion is not proof.

The Courts Martial of the US military have no authority to compel the POTUS to do anything. They can't make Obama do anything. Even if they could somehow compel the POTUS to testify, this would effectively convict Obama for a crime there is no proof he committed--directly contravening the Constitution. President Obama is not the accused: LTC Lakin is the accused.

Side note: It's fascinating to see all these Birthers, who staunchly insist they are protecting the Constitution, demanding all the judges throughout the land ignore the Constitution to force Obama to show proof he is an American citizen--when there is no evidence at all he isn't.

As LTC Driscoll noted, the POTUS never gave LTC Lakin any order. The orders to go to Iraq were issued by the Joint Chiefs of Staff. In point of fact, his orders to go to Iraq were probably issued by his Headquarters. Odds are LTC Lakin knows this, since he went to officer's school where the difference between organizational authority and direct authority were explained to him. I know it was explained to me when I went through Air Force basic training as a slick-sleeve.

All of the people from Hawaii requested to be compelled to give evidence have no bearing on LTC Lakins refusal to obey orders. They were not there when he refused to get on the plane, they were not involved in his decision. Again, accusations are not evidence, suspicion is not proof. LTC Driscoll asked LTC Lakin's defense team to give him reasons, with citations ("scholarly"), to compel such testimony; none were given.

Even if the Witnesses from Hawaii were somehow compelled to attend and testify, they still can't reveal anything about Obama's birth records. To do so would force the witnesses to break the law. And no court, civil or military is going to make a witness break any laws by violating Obama's privacy. The POTUS is not the accused.

There also seems to be some confusion--or willful ignorance--between President Obama and the office of the POTUS. Barack Obama is occupying an office; he is an elected official. The office of President maintains and confers the authority, not the person. The final authority for this Article 32 hearing is derived from the Consitution and the UCMJ, not from Barack Obama or whoever holds the office of POTUS.

LTC Lakin has willingly--even eagerly--put his foot right into a bear-trap. I cannot believe his is so ignorant as not to understand the differences in organizational and direct authority, chain of command, the source of his orders, and the limited jurisdiction of a military court martial. To believe such means he must have slept through all of his classes in officer school. And I do know officers have to pass written tests for their promotions, and he must have passed them because he's a Lt. Colonel in the Army.

It would be better to believe LTC Lakins is simply pig-ignorant. Otherwise we see a crafty and cunning opportunist, who has willingly sacrificed his honor, his career, his compatriots--and his country--for the sake of some immediate gain. I would not be surprised, once this preliminary hearing is over, if LTC Lakin is given the opportunity to resign his commission rather than face a General Court Martial. I hope for his sake he takes the offer.

Things Haven't Changed Much

Obama, Sovern, trustees of Columbia University found guilty.

"On Tuesday, May 18, the jury returned guilty verdicts against Obama, Michael Sovern, who was president of Columbia University during the period of time Obama supposedly attended, and the trustees of Columbia University, on all 17 counts of sedition, conspiracy, fraud and obstruction of justice."

This was done in a church, the ATLAH World Missionary Church in Harlem. The "trial" was presided over by the pastor,  James David Manning.

I just have to put my head in my hands and ask: Do these people realize what they're doing?

Here is a gen-u-ine, deep south, 1920's kangaroo court convened in New York on a set of obviously trumped-up charges against the POTUS, Barack Obama. Waving the 10th amendent around like a protective banner, they have taken the law into their own hands and reshaped it to suit their prejudices. They definitely prove why we need a rule of law, and a judiciary system to protect us from their organized mass hysteria. I find it very significant this was convened in a church, also proving the need for the separation of church and state.

Let's be clear on this: This is not law, it is persecution. This is not justice, but a vendetta. This is not a trial, but a lynching. They are not heroes; they are vigilantes.

"On Monday, May 24, Manning announced, “We the People spoke,” and said he was assembling a coalition to hand over the verdicts to the judiciary of the U.S. Senate, the U.S. Congress, the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the U.S. Attorney General.

Manning also noted, specifically for Sovern and Columbia University, he will be submitting to the New York State Bar, New York Attorney General, New York State Regents and Atlantic Schools Accreditation a demand that their license to operate an educational institution be revoked.

“Perhaps their first response will be to defend and reject."

What are they going to do when they're simply ignored? Saddle up, don white hoods, carry ropes and then gallop onto the White House, waving burning torches?

UPDATE:

Maybe I giving this more credence than it deserves. Dr. Manning's website is looney-tunes. The first thing you see is a baptist minister dressed like the pope--it's all about the incredible and wonderful Dr. Manning. When you read his credo and plan of action it's clear he's "directed by God" to create an ant-like theocratic state. That's what I get for not checking stuff before posting my opinion.

Memories of Montgomery 1963 / 1968

You had to smell the fear. Real, palpable fear from the whites all around me. I was living in an all-white neighborhood and attending an all-white school; and everybody was worried. Worried the marches and riots would come "here."

But most of all they were scared: scared that blacks would have the same civil rights, the same legal protections enjoyed by middle-class whites. Own the same kind of homes, attend the same kind of schools, hold the same kind of jobs. Practice the same professions. You could see it in their eyes, hear it in their voices when they talked about it. It would be the end of the white race.

The history of what happened, the reasons people of color marched, the harsh reprisals against them--including torture and murder--gives the lie to the Libertarians and their opposition to civil rights.

Make no mistake: the Libertarians you see on television and on the internet, these "Tea-Partiers," are Bourgeoisie who have hijacked anarchist terminology to justify their yearnings to restore and maintain the status quo. They are not interested in freedom, they are not motivated by any belief in human dignity, but seek instead money and power. Their credo is "I'm free--too bad about you."

Libertarians oppose laws against discrimination because these laws prevent discrimination. No fancy explanations are needed. People marched in Alabama for civil rights against a system that was formed against them, economic, legal, social and political, to make them sub-human. They marched because they had no other redress. Their only hope was make enough of a stink of fear and hatred so the federal government would step in and protect them from the local governments that created the problems in the first place.

The values and principles espoused by Libertarians were not available to people of color. They had no self-determination. The private institutions and businesses Rand Paul says we had no business regulating were sheltered and protected in their discrimination by their local governments. When civil rights protesters boycotted the lunch counters, the police responded with dogs and firehoses because the businesses were losing money.

The basic causes of prejudice and bigotry have not been addressed--often not even acknowledged to this day. Libertarianism does not address those causes of fear and hatred; instead offers only an alternative based on an ideal form of Individualism. This was of no help whatsoever to King, Sutherland and the other organizers of the civil rights marches of Birmingham.

Creationism <> Evolution

I chose to reply to this letter here, as I'm tired of having to register at every website just to comment.

The full text of the letter is here. The passage in question is:

Why can't science be a way of figuring out "how God does it" instead of man thinking he is so smart? God once answered a man who questioned Him, saying (Job 38-41), "Who is this that darkens my counsel with words without knowledge? Brace yourself like a man; I will question you, and you shall answer me..."

First of all, we must address the profound ignorance embodied in this letter, the simple (and perhaps willful) failure to understand the difference between Science and Religion. Here are the definitions from the Merriam-Webster website:

• SCIENCE
• 3 a : knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through scientific method b : such knowledge or such a system of knowledge concerned with the physical world and its phenomena.

• RELIGION
• 1 b (1) : the service and worship of God or the supernatural (2) : commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance.

Science expands our knowledge through the study of natural forces.

Religion provides comfort and personal insight through the worship of a diety considered the source of all things supernatural.

• SUPERNATURAL
• 1 : of or relating to an order of existence beyond the visible observable universe; especially : of or relating to God or a god, demigod, spirit, or devil
• 2 a : departing from what is usual or normal especially so as to appear to transcend the laws of nature b : attributed to an invisible agent (as a ghost or spirit).

The essence of the supernatural is it can't be explained by anything we know or experience. If it were natural, we could explain it readily through observation and experimentation.

In the supernatural there is nothing we can observe, measure or replicate. The supernatural has not and will not ever contribute to human knowledge.

Science was never intended to explain the creation mythology of any religion. Science is neither superior nor inferior to any system of religious belief; the two are not related in any way.

There are many who prefer to apply a religious gloss to the results of science and comfort themselves with this. But such a varnish never really explains anything significant.

• IGNORANT
• 1 a : destitute of knowledge or education ; also : lacking knowledge or comprehension of the thing specified b : resulting from or showing lack of knowledge or intelligence.

Ignorance means we don't know. "Dividing the light from the darkness" explains without really explaining anything. Since the forces and processes involved are divine, they are supernatural, so there is nothing to observe, measure, record or replicate. The biblical account of creation remains simply words on pages with no examples anywhere we can point to and say, "This is how it was done." The evidence for creationism does not exist: there is nothing to explain. Even after centuries of theological study, the answer is still, we don't know.

And we need explanations badly. Our studies of purely natural processes are revealing powers and forces that make any god look like a wet firecracker. Any creation mythos pales to insignificance to such processes as compressed forces suddenly expanding to the size of the universe in about a tenth of a second (the "Big Bang").

The study of Creationism squanders time, energy and resources better applied elsewhere to solve the many problems we face as living organisms, a species and as individuals.

You think the military hasn't dealt with this before?

Headline: "Tea Party Movement Spreads To Military"

These military "Oath Keepers" are swimming with sharks without a lifegaurd.

Doesn't anyone remember the Vietnam War? All those military types who suddenly became conscientious objectors? They refused their duty assignment ("Failure to Go"), were court-martialed and kicked out.

Here's how it's going to happen today. Our good NCO here is going to have a file opened on him by his First Shirt, and the first thing going into it will be a Letter of Reprimand. This will lay the groundwork for future disciplinary action.

If our NCO recieves orders for Iraq and refuses to go, he will also be Failing to Obey a Posted Order or Regulation (this is known as "Failure to Go.") His CO will then tell him to report for departure. If our NCO refuses, he is not disobeying an order from his Commander in Chief, he is disobeying an order from his direct Commanding Officer.

Our NCO is now in hot water indeed. It's no longer political; it's now very military and is called Insubordination. At this point his First Sargeant and his CO will be fed up with him, and will just want to get rid of him. We are now looking at the likely possibility of an Article 15--at least--where he will be reduced in rank, his pay deducted, and de-selected for re-enlistment. He will be relieved of his duties and given some dead-end position where he will be probably counting marbles or something equally meaningless. And all of this without fanfare.

At this point our NCO's career is over. He can mouth off all he wants, but it means nothing. He's no longer in a position to influence his subordinates--he has none--and his compatriots are going to steer clear of him like a Jonah.

His supporters outside of the military, who have little or no real political influence, will likely make him a martyr. But the folks in the military, in the Marine Corps, they will know the real story, and what our NCO really represents: Oath Breaker.

Elements of Hope

Once the outrage over the ridiculous statements and claims of the irrationalists and obsequious co-religionists has cooled, it's possible to step back to look things over—and find some measure of hope.

We cannot truly address their stupidity, delusions nor willful ignorance. These are decisions the creationists and co-religionists have made, and they will never change them. The best focus of our free-thought is the ever-expanding frontiers of physics, biology and psychology.

But we may take solace in how the Internet is enabling our erstwhile opponents to not only shoot themselves in the foot, but also to reload and do it repeatedly.

The greatest mistake the irrationals have made is to forsake secrecy, to seek external validation, to parade their cause before an amused world.

The Internet provides us with the means to see how truly insane they are, to watch them do and say the same things over and over again while they expect different results.

This self-exposure, (while satisfying their need for persecution as a form of validation), has done them more harm than any possible good they could wring from it. Their "good-old-boy" networks are illuminated in all their smarmy operation: their intentions to divide and conquer, to paralyze our system of government through bribery and coercion, to segregate and oppress people of our many cultures, to rape and to kill as their passions suit them, to enslave women and children for the greater glory of their diety—all, all are fully revealed.

The greatest threat we have now to our society, our culture—our very civilization—is once more the irrationals scurry back into hiding, withdraw from the public eye and turn their churches once more into little hells on earth.

A Coin Under the Tongue

You have to step back a little to see just what is happening.

The damage to the Bill of Rights done by Mainers is a sign and symptom of a much greater malady. Fed on religious propaganda, frightened by ludicrous claims of a corrupted educational system teaching "homosexual marriage" by a platinum blonde waving her TV remote to control the needed talking heads. Claims with no truth to them whatsoever.

The Xtian faith is dying. Only weathered bones and rags of flesh remain of their crucified savior, still nailed up on the cross on Golgotha. It's so simple: in their efforts to ensure the second coming of the christ, they've killed him off instead.

Lie. That's all it takes. Lie until your tongue turns black, and then lie some more. The most effective political technique our Xtians have found is to bear false witness, to violate the 8th commandment in the name of Jesus. Take something their Xtian leaders know is not true, and blow it all out of proportion. Sow fear and panic amongst the faithful so they will rush to the voting booths and destroy our basic freedoms and heave a sigh of relief that now two guys can't walk down a street holding hands.

But it's so easy to do that, isn't it? By now the church members will believe anything they're told as long as it comes from the pulpit and has a snippet of bible verse to back it up.

But these injuries are just signs of a huge beast thrashing about in it's death throes and wounding innocent victims as it flails about. Like dinosaurs with their primitive brains, the Xtian faith will take a long time to die, perhaps years.

But the cancer of spiritual rot is slow and sure, vexing and oppressing their fellow men and making miserable the lives of it's faithful--until finally they, too, turn on each other and rend themselves apart. History is certain; we've seen this before.

And so the faithful embrace new religious fads and think they have revived the Xtian faith--only to descend into the dark madness of political tyranny while the graven images of Baal wait, patiently, for their new worshippers....

Seeds of Disaster

Conservatives are so busy sabotaging every little thing Obama does while trying to recreate a utopia that never was that they're ignoring the future.

Forget the projected costs to our economy for taking care of the elderly and other right-wing deceptions. What about our children?

Children growing up without proper healthcare, unable to afford needed checkups and immunizations. Growing up with "pre-existing conditions" that could have been prevented before they were five years old.

Eventually they will have to be covered in some way. Usually through their employers, who will have to pay more for a workforce who will be less healthy than their parents. Memo to employers of all sizes: Your HMO is not your friend. Not when they're fighting healthcare reform over the loss of projected higher profits. Profits extorted from you. Obama is not raising your costs.

Less healthcare when they're children means more--much more--middle-aged and elderly who are less healthy than their parents. The cost to the government will be staggering. This is not voodoo economics healthcare-style but plain common sense: Sickly children = sickly adults = sickly seniors = increased government spending.

There is no yardstick to measure the impact of missing healthcare because the problem will get worse. Sickly people without healthcare will have children, and these children will be even worse off. (Word: epidemics.)

This cuts across all barriers, all classes, all races. People shouting asinine slogans and waving placards blaming Obama for a conservative mess over 20 years in the making are helping no one--not even themselves.

Disputes over access to healthcare are meaningingless when we are faced with no healthcare available. Or even worse, healthcare denied.

The political leaders opposing healthcare reform know this. They have to in order to oppose it for reasons having nothing to do with the common good, reasons having nothing to do with the future of the American people.

A + B = ?

There are times I think of remaking this blog into one titled "AayPlusBeeEqualsSee."

I have spent my whole life using Critical Thinking. The nice thing about CT is it doesn't require any degrees to know how to use it.

Most CT is simple. I've found a good rule of thumb for critical analysis is A + B = C. Applying this to the statements of people and organizations is very pragmatic.

Take for example the recent mass hysteria about Obama addressing our nation's school kids and "indoctrinating" (their word, not mine) them into being socialists. Or at least planting the seeds of Obama's "socialism" in their minds.

So we have: Obama (A) + Addressing school kids (B) = (C) Socialism.

Since C is made up of A and B combined, inverting this equation shows:

C = A + B, or A = C and B = C. (This is straight Algebra.)

With C = Socialism, socialism--or some form of it--must also present in both Obama (A) and our school kids (B).

A quick examination of both shows neither have anything to do with Socialism: Obama has never espoused Socialism during his political career and to do so in the Oval Office would be worse than foolhardy. (A search of "obama socialism" results in hundreds of entries who claim Obama is socialist but offer little or no reliable evidence. If Conservatives do it, it's "capitalism." If Obama does it, it's "Socialism.")

The idea of our nation's school kids as fertile ground for socialist contamination is not just ridiculous but appallingly ignorant. Children are not socialists from the cradle; they have to be told to share their things. For more on this, see my post Have Faith in Our Young.

In light of this the term "socialism" has no meaning. It is not a menace nor a threat, just a handy label to defame our elected President with.

Have Faith in Our Young

In regards to all the recent hysteria of our chief elected official addressing our nation's school kids about the importance of education and the need to study hard (which, by the way, helped propel a man of color into civic duty and finally achieve the oval office) and thus through some nefarious charisma indoctrinate our children into a socialist mania.

Parents of America, you may heave a sigh of relief. Your kids, the ones you have to stand over with a club to get anything done, are not so easily swayed. These are the same kids who won't do their chores, won't clean up after themselves, won't do their homework, insist on watching the very TV shows you forbid them to watch, playing with the other kids you tell them not to play with and going places you specifically tell them not to go to.

Against these determined efforts to assert their independence and do things their way, what chance does Obama's svengali-like socialism have?

Your kids are so busy deprogramming themselves not to believe what you tell them is true, they're going to apply this same ruthless skepticism to anything a senior elected official is going to tell them.

Your children are not living in cocoons (unless you're trying to put them in one) so they probably know all about it already. They're googling with their smart phones, the home PC, their school laptops, the library computers. They're checking the news feeds to find out what all the fuss is about. They're social networking the heck out of it and Twitter is keeping their little fingers a blur on their phone keypads.

And if a scheming Obama chortles with glee at the chance to slip in healthcare while addressing our nation's young--it's waaay too late. Chances are your kids already know a lot about it. After all they have to sit at the dinner table night after night and listen to their elders hold forth on it and argue it back and forth. So they already know amongst themselves that some of their parents are against healthcare reform for this and that reason.

So our kids get together and put their heads together and draw their own conclusions. So by the time Obama speaks to them, our school kids are ready and waiting--their minds already made up.

We as parents have not fully realized the effect of the Internet on our children. Parents will watch the news channels on TV and sit and argue about what may happen or could happen. Our children are doing searches on the Web, and learning all about it instead.

Made You Look...

I think it would be a lot of fun at a Democratic town-hall meeting when all the elderly club-wielding (they're called "signs") gun-toting fundies-from-out-of-town-trucked-in-on-the-Republicans'-nickel mob the event. And I'd stand near the front and shout, "Hey, somebody dropped their copy of The Turner Diaries!" And see how many people stop and look around on the floor—while the news-media cameras are rolling.

The Heat of the Kitchen

There are certainly many opinions and viewpoints about Sarah Palin's abrupt resignation as governor of Alaska. I've lived in Alaska and I can tell you the one thing Alaskan's have little respect for is someone who quits when the going gets tough. Consider also her reasons for quitting: Ethics complaints and the media.

Ethics complaints are the price of doing business in Alaska. Aside from mineral and hunting issues, the governments in Alaska are small ones, perfect breeding ground for partisan politics. In essence, her reason for quitting are not political, but personal.

This begs the question: How important was the role of Governor to Sarah Palin? By all appearances, taking into account her actions after being tapped by McCain for VP, it was not very important at all.

Conservatives everywhere can heave a sigh of relief: Sarah Palin has committed political suicide. By quitting when the going got tough, there is no longer the danger of her splitting the Republican party in 2012.

(Thank goodness we found out how she felt about the First Amendment before she held high government office. As long as she's the one using it everything is fine—including personal attacks on her opponent's family members. But when someone else uses the First Amendment she's all outrage and legal threats.)

She'll certainly still be the poster girl for 6000 year-old cavemen and the neo-cavemen who want to return us to the Stone Age under the guise of patriotism. Photo-ops, interviews, junkets to other states—oh, yes, life is good.

Sadly someone will talk her into forming an ultra-conservative "Cow Moose" party—if someone hasn't already. Teddy Roosevelt she is not.

But now the movers and shakers of the Republicans will hesitate—hesitate—when her name is put into any hat. After all, she quit once. So what's to keep her from doing it again?

Me Caveman; You Post-Modern

The perplexing question of why supposedly rational people believe Evolution is the source of all our social ills cannot be answered if you look at it rationally. A sane, sensible explanation is not forthcoming. The key to answering this is simple: if you discard the rational (as they have) then you're left with the irrational.

---

They're cavemen. Not cavepeople, but cavemen. Cave-dwelling, hunter-gatherer culture and society. Males go out and find food. Females raise babies and prepare food.

Cavemen worship the great thunder-god Yah. Since He's a thunder-god on the top of a mountain he's naturally the god of war. Invade another tribe's area, loot them completely and return home with the spoils to celebrate. Other tribes are not human, so we can do what we want with them: take them prisoner, torture them and then torture them again.

Above all, Cavemen want to return to the time of Cavemen. When their whole tribe was united together against other tribes, cavemen acted like manly cavemen, worshipped the great thunder-god Yah and women would fuck and make more Cavemen. It was so because Yah said it was so.

Now in the midst of great changes and advances in science, medicine, communication and world culture, Cavemen shamans have risen up and said, "This bad! This no Yah! Is not tribe, is not money—is DARWIN!" And all the Cavemen howled and beat their clubs against the ground. And the shamans sent runners to other Cavemen tribes who spoke around the campfires of the evil sorcerer DARWIN who opposed the great thunder-god Yah.

And so the Cavemen turned to their shamans for guidance. And the shamans said: "Yah has spoken! Yah made the world. To question Yah is taboo! The Great Stones are Yah's word! If any say is not Yah, beat them with clubs!" And the Cavemen held their clubs up high and chanted, Beat them with clubs! Beat them with clubs!

So the Cavemen went unto the schools and said, "DARWIN is not Yah! Yah made world! You teach DARWIN we beat you with clubs!" And the Cavemen held their clubs up high and chanted, Beat you with clubs! Beat you with clubs!

But the lawgivers of the people rebuked the Cavemen. "By the rule of Law, our Constitution, you cannot teach Yah in the classrooms."

And the Cavemen replied, "Law is bad! We no follow law! Law is Great Stones! Worship Yah in classrooms!"

But the shamans conferred with one another and then said to the Cavemen, "The lawgivers say no Yah? Then no say Yah to them—no say Yah to anyone! Say Yah only to other Cavemen at Cavemen campfires. Yah is BIG secret! We trick them so they not teach DARWIN. We tell all DARWIN is bad, DARWIN is weak. Trick them all!"

So the Shamans and the Cavemen spoke of The Maker, very smart, very clever. "You see world is big and confusing," they told the lawgivers. "You no understand, we no understand, must be BIG brain to make all. Made all around us all at once! BOOM! Is life. Is world. You see; Big Brain Maker did it all."

But the lawgivers were not fooled and they told the Cavemen, "Your 'Maker' is just another name for your great thunder-god Yah. Don't waster our time with your silly little tricks."

And the Cavemen howled with fury and pounded their clubs against the ground. The not-Yah secret was so good, such strong magic! Why didn't it work?

But the Shamans were not deterred. "Keep Yah big secret still. No say Big Brain anymore. Tell them DARWIN bad. Tell them DARWIN bad because DARWIN is DARWIN, and DARWIN is always bad. Make like DARWIN very bad man, hates Yah. Tell them DARWIN made Evolution, but Evolution is BIG mistake, full of holes. Is crazy thing cause not Yah."

And the Cavemen once more spread the word of the Shamans, and the tales grew in the telling. "DARWIN make our daughters big-bellied cause DARWIN make our daughters fuck." "DARWIN makes our little ones say Yah is bad!" "DARWIN turns our boys into girls and our girls into boys so they don't make more Cavemen." "DARWIN make females disobey males." "DARWIN makes our females abort babies so DARWIN can eat them! DARWIN really likes to eat babies!"

---

And so this is what it has become: a select group of Cavemen who seek to destroy our culture, our civilization, our very society, in order to save it for their great god Yah.

Adios Darwin-baby

Suppose—just suppose—we tossed Darwin's Theory of Evolution out the window. What, then, are we left with?

Creationism, many would say. And that's what creationists want us to think.

(They probably won't say Intelligent Design. With Darwin's Theory gone, there's no longer a need for the ruse of ID and so everyone involved would speak openly of Creationism.)

Not quite. We're still left with Evolution. Darwin didn't invent Evolution. It was already widely accepted in the scientific community that creatures on Earth were evolving through a process of mutation. What no one could agree on was how. Darwin solved that puzzle with his theory of Natural Selection. "Survival of the fittest."

So the baby isn't thrown out with the bathwater. Worse, we have to change it's diapers. Evolution is still functioning right under our very noses.

So, we have to get rid of Evolution itself. Is it that easy? Sure, we slap a gag rule on the classrooms, insist "Evolution is a theory, not a fact," and other forms of propaganda. Darwin's face appears on the video screens and the students scream abuse and hurl spitwads at it.

Yet when hauling out the mural of evolution and burning it into the back of the schoolyard we're still left with Biology. We try to assemble a new mural of life on Earth and there's this big piece of the puzzle missing—and no one can explain why. There is no alternative explanation. (Note: "God" explains nothing.)

So we have to find an answer, an explanation that makes sense. That means Science. And Science means asking questions. And here's a big clue: "Biology" does not mean "begat."

So we get rid of Biology. We open up the high school yearbook and find a bunch of smiling faces under "First Year Creationism." Evolution is a dirty word scribbled on the bathroom walls. There is still Science to contend with.

The Science with a capitol "S". Brain-child of the ancient Greeks, bastard step-child of the Dark Ages, re-born in the Renaissance, clothed in the Age of Reason and finally finding a home with Sir Issac Newton. Now it's a tough old bastard and getting it out of the schools is going to be a long, hard fight. There will be blood, trust me.

See something odd or remarkable. Ask a question why. Suggest a possible answer. Re-create the conditions. Duplicate the event. Record the process and the results. Compare the results to your possible answer. Revise the possible answer to meet the results. Welcome to Science. It's that simple.

Because it's so simple and so thorough there's no way to stop it. Ask the question, "Why do creatures mutate in the wild?" and the whole facade comes crashing down. Six days and then kick-back gives no explanation, no insight.

But, say, we get rid of Science. Nobel laureates languish in prisons. Stephen Hawking appears on national TV to renounce Science and repent of his heresy. (Except it didn't go very well. Stephen managed to override the pre-scripted recant programmed into his voder and made a passionate speech defending Science and freedom before he was yanked off the air. His current location is unknown.) OK then; problem solved.

Not quite. There's still Nature to contend with. You know, Nature? As in war, famine, pestilence and death? The four reasons we need Science like right frickin' now? (And we have religious leaders who want to ride them right into a theocracy?)

Feynman said that Nature won't be fooled. Neither can it be ignored. And Hurricane Katrina is a perfect example of what happens when we ignore the data, when we don't use the science providing the data.

Take the final step: Remove Nature from the school curriculum. Except it's not a school anymore. So let me ask again: What, then, are we left with? Many would answer, "God." And that's indeed all we have left. A religious seminary, with the students eyes firmly fixed on heaven while the world all around them degenerates into a living hell.

It's strange how Darwin's Theory, reviled as the ultimate materialist philosophy, has such devastating spiritual consequences should we reject it. Perhaps it's because in the rejection we willingly embrace ignorance, turn our eyes away from a truth about ourselves—the knowledge we need so our people do not perish.

Piled Higher and Deeper

During the development of nuclear physics one question haunted physicists: Could a nuclear chain reaction be sustained? Yes, there had been bench-top reactions but they were to study what particles were being emitted when atoms were split.

Predictions from existing theories were uncertain; either a chain reaction would exhaust itself and slow down to a halt, or else the reaction would immediately "wildcat" and surge out of control--with disastrous results.

By 1942 one successful experiment to create a chain reaction had been done at Columbia University. But that was to initiate a chain reaction on a large scale. Once initiated, it was halted.

Now with the pressure of the second world war and fears over NAZI "hard water" experiments, the question of a sustainable fission reaction was vital. Physicists lobbied President Roosevelt to create a nuclear weapons program, but Roosevelt and his advisors were not convinced a nuclear weapon could be created--nor would even work.

Enrico Fermi had a simple solution: Build a reactor and create a sustainable nuclear chain-reaction. With limited federal funding the physics department of the University of Chicago stacked a giant cube of graphite bricks interspersed with small globes of uranium fuel.

After careful manipulations of the control rods, the first self-sustaining nuclear chain-reaction was created December 2nd, 1942. It ran for 28 minutes and then was shut down by inserting the safety control rods.

All of this, the construction, the operation of the power pile, the timing of the sustainable reaction were exactly calculated by Enrico Fermi. Observers and co-workers were astonished at Fermi's ability to accurately predict every phase and step of this operation through the manipulation of his slide rule.

The formula crucial to his calculation's was the Special Theory of Relativity first proposed in 1905 by Albert Einstein. E=MC² predicted atomic energy, demonstrated how a nuclear fission chain-reaction was possible and showed how much energy was needed to initiate this chain-reaction.

In order for this formula to work, in order for Fermi's pile to be successful, in order for a sustainable nuclear chain reaction to take place C², the speed of light squared, had to be a constant. Were C² a variable, Fermi's calculations would have been useless. No atomic energy, no power pile, no sustainable chain-reaction, no Manhattan Project, no atomic bomb. No Cold War, no nuclear medicine, no X-rays, no CAT scans.

With the speed of light proven a constant instead of a variable, radioactive half-life decay is also established as a reliable scale of measurement. With this the existence of the Earth is shown to be measured in the billions of years, not mere thousands.

Day after day the overwhelming evidence for the evolutionary development of the Earth and its lifeforms accumulates. The speed of light not only helped us unlock the atom, it shines a light upon the vast scale of time we developed from--and have inherited.

The re-insertion of the control rods ended the chain-reaction, proving we could both initiate and control this incredible power. We held the reins in our hands; we could stop it, shut it down. No such ability, no such predictions have arisen or will ever arise from a religious text. The assertion the whole of our universe and the power it contains can be comprehended through a set of ancient tribal laws and myths is not just delusion, but madness.

Sources:

Enrico Fermi (Wikipedia)

The First Reactor (Dept of Energy)
Note: There is a link at top left of page to download a 6meg PDF file.

An excellent overview and history of atomic physics is the book The Making of the Atomic Bomb by Richard Rhodes.

Cheating at Hopscotch

The study of Evolution is now so vast and in-depth (itself a refutation of any mythology) it's opponents are now able to hopscotch their way through, picking an ambiguity here, a disputed detail there and a freely mis-quoted extract or two just to liven up the mix.

Presenting such generalities as facts to a mostly untrained audience makes their con game easy. Since they are generalities they must be refuted in detail, requiring an expertise most people don't have. And whose eyes tend to glaze over when presented with a 1040 tax form.

There is a vast difference between the innocent uneducated and the willfully ignorant. Such people as Jonathan Wells trade on this ruthlessly, with self-serving questionnaires like 10 Questions Every Student Should Ask Their Biology Teacher. Many teachers who teach biology are teaching it as a secondary class. Asking them to be fully conversant on prehistoric atmospheric oxygen levels, a highly specialized piece of knowledge, clearly shows this is a test designed to fail most biology teachers. (And how the hell is this even relevant to a junior Biology class? This is a matter of biogenesis, taught at the college level.)

Even if these "10 Questions" were true--which they are not--Evolution would still exist. Darwin's theory could be disproved and Evolution would not vanish like a soap bubble. We would be left with a phenomenon in nature with species adapting through a process of mutation, with some mutations severe enough to give rise to a new species. This will not and can not go away. The stasis of the Bible is shattered with every fresh observation of evolution in Nature.

Let's Review

With all the hoopla and noise surrounding the efforts to suppress or outlaw the teaching of Evolution, a summary of the main points would be helpful:

1. Evolution does not address the origins of life.
   1. Organisms mutate to adapt to changes in their environment.
   2. Thus a new species can arise from existing species.
   
   
2. Evolution does not address the existence of any god.
   1. The existence of a Creator cannot be proven nor disproven using evolution.
   2. Evolution is a mechanism, not an intelligence.
   
   
3. Evolution is not a "religion" within science.
   1. This is a creationist myth:
      1. Creationists call it Darwinism to make it sound like a cult.
   2. Religion operates on faith; Science operates on facts.
   3. Study of Evolution does not require atheism.
   
   
4. Evolution occurs whether we "believe" in it or not.
   1. It is a process occuring in nature.
   2. Evolution was accepted by scientists long before Darwin, but what "triggered" it was not known.
   3. Darwin proposed changes in the environment favored a process of "natural selection."
   
   
5. Darwin did not "invent" evolution; evolution is a natural process.
   1. Discrediting Darwin has no effect on Evolution, nor on Darwin's Theory.
   
   
6. Evolution is a fact; Darwin's theory explains how it works.
   1. "A set of simple statements predicting a broad range of responses."
      1. The Book of Genesis does not qualify as a theory.
         1. Nor does the Gospel of John.
   
   
7. Evolution is widely accepted by the scientific community.
   1. There is no "controversy." (Creationists wish there was.)
   2. There are arguments about how evolution works, but not about it's existence.

Vaporware

Creationism is not the only myth we can subject to critical thinking. Take ghosts, for example:

1. If ghosts are the spirits of people who have died and thus returned, then why aren't they everywhere?
   
   
   
   1. Millions die every year.
      1. In a couple of decades there would be billions
   2. "Spirits" are considered eternal.
      1. So we should be hip-deep in them. (And we have no way to get rid of them.)
   3. Only a handful of sightings per month.
      
      1. Most are readily explained.
   
   
2. If ghosts are the spirits of the dead who have returned to fulfill a mission or purpose, then why aren't they?
   
   1. Say one percent of 1,000,000 have the "will-power" to return; thus at least 10,000 every year.
      1. Yet all they can do is appear and disappear, drift around, and speak through mediums.
      2. Otherwise they are firmly nailed to one location and can't leave it.
   2. Incidentally, if they have returned to watch over and protect us, why aren't they?
      1. Standing in line at a mac-fast-food joint.
         1. Noooo! Don't eat that--it's bad for you!
      2. Filing an income-tax return.
         1. Noooo, don't file that! The IRS will audit you!
   
   
3. If we see a ghost at one location, why don't we see them everywhere?
   
   1. Ghosts don't obey the laws of physics.
      1. So they're not restricted to space and time.
   2. The place haunted is "special" due to a traumatic event.
      1. Traumatic is determined by the person going through it.
         1. Yet there are no ghosts haunting street corners or intersections.
   3. The place is haunted due to "special" geophysical forces.
      1. Even with a restricted combination of these "special" forces, we're looking at thousands of potential locations scattered across the globe.
         1. So we could go ghost-hunting with Google Earth.
         2. And all these "special" locations are conveniently on dry land.
            (I don't include the Devil's Triangle 'cause that's aliens, not ghosts.)
      2. If these combined "special" forces are geo-magnetic, then re-creating them in a lab will produce ghosts.
         1. We could go from bench-top to full-scale industrial ghost production.
   
   
4. So we can conclude these basic Ghost Guidelines for the future:
   1. People do not return from the dead.
   2. Ghosts have no reason to come back.
   3. Ghosts are not everywhere thus they are nowhere.