"Darwinian Genesis: Variation Under Nature"

Not politics at all, but I had to write this lecture on integrating scientific knowledge with faith...and I really like how it turned out...

.

.

.

For all of us to be here, a nearly infinite number of atoms had to come together to form intricate and cooperative systems in order to create the enigma of Existence. Hopefully for us, these curiously assembled particles will continue on their mission to sustain our life for many years to come. Why our existence and all of its complexity came to be is undoubtedly the greatest mystery that our society has been perplexed over. We as humans don’t like to be perplexed. We like to think we know everything – whether we actually do or not. Don’t deny it, you know it’s true. And in an attempt for us to comprehend Life’s perplexities, we create theories, form religious beliefs, and scrounge for scientific evidence as to how and why we are here at this moment. It is no surprise that people fervently disagree when it comes to questions of the nature of existence – How did the universe begin? Who, if anyone, created the universe? Why are we here? Is there more to existence than we can perceive at this point?

.

No one knows. People may think they know, but these questions are not answerable by anything except for abstract theories that are not grounded in proof, but rather in – as some might say – blind faith. Science admits that there are gaps in our understanding of the universe and its history. Religion either tries to discredit science because of its incongruence with ancient doctrine, or proactively seeks to fill in the factual gaps left in scientific understanding. The fact of the matter is that religion is an entirely subjective school of thought. Beliefs are in no way provable. No one can prove that the Judeo-Christian God exists. No one can prove that Jesus was the son of God. No one can prove that Shiva or Vishnu exist. No one can prove that Zeus, Thor, or forest spirits exist either. We can, however, prove that natural processes such as evolution have contributed at least to the development of the complexity of Life over more than 3 billion years.

.

The existence of evolution is an inescapable fact. More and more scientific evidence is being discovered that further validates what many people still believe to be “only a theory”. In the United States, around 40% of the population does not believe in evolution, but instead believes that the earth was created within the past 10,000 years. “That’s an educational disgrace. A majority of people simply could not believe that if they were exposed to the evidence” (RichardDawkins.net). So what’s the evidence? Radioactive dating of fossils reveals older fossils found in older, deeper layers of rock and sediment. For instance, no mammalian fossil will ever be found in fossil beds older than 300 million years (Madhav Gadgil – The Times of India). Comparisons of fossils over time also show obvious structural similarities in the skeletal structure of related creatures. Considered even more convincing than the fossil record, genetic molecular comparisons between life forms thought to share common ancestry reveal strikingly similar structure of genes. Furthermore, geographic distributions of various fossils correspond to the locations of modern animals with similar structures – providing very reasonable belief for evolutionary ancestry (Dawkins).

.

The source of all of this revolutionary science? The famous or infamous (depending which side of the culture war you are on) Charles Darwin. In his groundbreaking book The Origin of Species, Darwin coins his theory of natural selection. Darwin's evolutionary theory has four main parts:

.

- First, organisms have changed over time, and those living today are different from those that are now extinct. Furthermore, a great many organisms that once lived are indeed now extinct. He asserts that the world is not constant, but continuously changing. The fossil record provided ample evidence for this view.

.

- Second, every organism ever in existence descended from common ancestors by a process of evolutionary specialization and branching. Over time, populations of a common ancestor species split into various new species. If we look far enough back in time, any given two species have a common ancestor. This explains the similarities of organisms that were classified together - they are similar because of shared traits inherited from a common ancestor. This again explains why similar species tend to exist in the same geographic region.

.

- Third, change is incremental and slow, taking place over a very long period of time. This is supported by the fossil record, and is consistent with the fact that no one has observed the spontaneous appearance new species. This gradual, almost constant theory of change is now contested by the fossil record showing episodes of rapid change and long periods without evidence of evolution. This phenomenon that Darwin did not discuss is called Punctuated Equilibrium.

.

- Fourth, and most importantly, the driving force of evolution is Natural Selection – a process that occurs over several generations and results in the preservation of genetic traits which aid an organism in survival.

.

We need look no further than during human history to be able to observe a microcosm of natural selection. Mankind has become quite adept at speeding along the process of natural selection. Selective breeding could be described as “natural selection on steroids”. Dog breeding, farming, and livestock breeding all exemplify the capacity for major genetic changes over relatively short time periods (hundreds or thousands of years). Consider the fact that a massive Great Dane, a tiny Chihuahua, and the peculiarly distorted English bulldog all share the common ancestor of the domesticated wolf. If these extreme changes in biological form and function have taken place just during the time that humans have been selectively breeding dogs, think about the possible changes in organisms that can take place over millions or billions of years.

.

To many people, myself included, scientific discoveries that validate these astonishing theories are nothing less than awe inspiring. I find that all of the reasons as to why the world is what it is strengthen my faith in God rather than detract from it. It is striking that religion as a whole has not stopped to consider scientific discoveries and say, “Wow, God’s Universe is even better than what we thought! There’s much more than what (insert prophet here) told us about!” Instead they say, “NO! You’re wrong. My god is small and limited. I only believe what this book that was written thousands of years ago says.” A religion that touted the magnificence of the Universe as illuminated by modern science might be able to draw forth an awe that is far beyond that of the conventional faiths. We should celebrate the astonishing miracle of evolution – all of its complexity, mystery, and beauty. “Evolution is within us, around us, between us, and its workings are embedded in the rocks of eons past. Given that, in most cases, we don’t live long enough to watch evolution happening before our eyes.” (RichardDawkins.net)

.

The Nobel Prize-winning physicist (and may I point out – atheist) Steven Weinberg in Dreams of a Final Theory:

.

"Some people have views of God that are so broad and flexible that it is inevitable that they will find God wherever they look for him. One hears it said that 'God is the ultimate' or 'God is our better nature' or 'God is the universe.' Of course, like any other word, the word 'God' can be given any meaning we like. If you want to say that 'God is energy,' then you can find God in a lump of coal."

.

And why shouldn’t God be found all around us – even in a lump of pitch black coal? There is no evidence proving that God does not exist. The sheer chance that gravity, light, matter, and energy come together in such an exact way as to create and sustain Life is almost enough to prove that there IS a divine overseer to the workings of the Universe. Perhaps the Bible is not accurate when examined literally. Perhaps the Tanakh and Jewish teachings are inaccurate as well. Perhaps Hindu or Buddhist traditions don’t have it right either. But it is evident that all mainstream religions share a common message of peace and love. The Archbishop Desmond Tutu once said, "I sometimes wonder how people could ever think that God is a Christian. The spirit of God is wider than any one particular faith." This all-encompassing version of God is much more comforting and easy to accept than the vengeful, demanding god of certain religions. The purpose of religion is to provide a peace of mind for people – not to divide, shun, and condemn them. My personal faith of Judaism stresses the importance of relationships with fellow humans – justice, peace, and respect for all people regardless of their background and beliefs. I remind myself of that lesson with every human interaction that I have.

.

When it comes right down to it, no one knows where Life came from, how it started, or who started it. As of right now, science can only take us so far. One of Einstein's most frequently quoted remarks is “Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.” Beyond the facts of science, there is still ample room for personal faith in God as the creator of the universe and somewhat of a “holy puppet master” – pulling the strings of evolution. Can we prove it? No. Do I believe God exists? Yes. However, to dismiss evolution – or any scientific fact for that matter – is naïve and quite narrow-minded. We should not be afraid of changing our views on faith. We should not live in fear of being sent to “hell” one day. We should not be afraid of differing opinions. We should not be afraid of scientific discovery. And we most certainly should not be afraid of truly acknowledging the complexities of the remarkable Universe that we live in. The world is a beautiful place – driven by natural laws, mind boggling chemistry, and the occasional unexplainable miracle. Ironically, I think the person who best expressed this sentiment is the man himself, Charles Darwin. The conclusion of The Origin of Species reads:

.

"There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved."






Works Cited

Darwin, Charles. The Origin of Species. London: John Murray, Albemarle Street, 1859.

Dawkins, Richard. The Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence for Evolution. London: Bantam Press, 2009.

RichardDawkins.net. Richard Dawkins Foundation. Web. 25 October 2009.

Weinberg, Steven. Dreams of a Final Theory. New York City: Vintage Books, 1994.

"Healthcare: Singapore Gets It"

An interesting Wall Street Journal article on Singpore's excellent healthcare system...



"What Singapore Can Teach the White House"
William McGurn of the Wall Street Journal


Its health care is first class, cheap and market-driven.

Critics of this island-nation often have fun referring to it as the "nanny state" for its laws against spitting, littering, or leaving behind an unflushed loo.

When it comes to health care, however, Uncle Sam has better claim to the nanny title. From our federal price "negotiations" and state regulations to discrimination in the tax code, government distortions prop up a system that puts key health-care decisions in the hands of everyone but the patient. Each new government intrusion, moreover, begets only higher costs—and a call for more intervention to fix the problem.

In Singapore, by contrast, they already have universal coverage. They also have world-class quality care at world-competitive prices. And in a week when White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel is meeting behind closed doors with Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, Singapore's example might have something to teach them about the kind of reform Americans really need.
"When I'm asked to describe the differences between the U.S. and Singapore systems, my one-word answer is 'complexity,'" says Dr. Jason Yap, director of marketing for Raffles Hospital, a leading private care facility in downtown Singapore. "There are so many parties in the American system that do not really contribute to care."

Dr. Yap is referring to the higher costs that come from an American system that depends on regulation and oversight to accomplish what Singapore tries to do with competition and choice. At the Raffles lounge for international patients, he shows me an example of the latter. It's a one-page, easy-to-read list of fees.

At the high end of accommodation, a patient can choose the Raffles/Victory suite for about $1,438 per night. That price includes a 24-hour private nurse, a refrigerator stocked with drinks, and an adjoining living room to entertain. At the other end of the scale, a bed in a six-person room goes for just $99.

As Dr. Yap points out, the actual care is the same whether a patient decides to stay in a deluxe suite or a dormitory-style room. But the choice is the patient's; the financial incentives encourage the patient to think about those choices; and the low-priced options help keep the overall costs down.

This is no accident. Like ours, Singapore's system is a mix of public and private care and financing. Unlike ours, Singapore's system is anchored, as the Ministry of Health puts it, "on the twin philosophies of individual responsibility and affordable health care for all."

"Individual responsibility" is not just a buzzword. All but the abjectly poor have to pay for some of their care, another downward pressure on prices. Perhaps most important, almost all working Singaporeans are required to put money in a medical savings account that they use for out of pocket expenses. It's their money, and they control it. As a result, they are careful about spending it.

"In Singapore almost everyone has to pay something for their care," says Dr. Yap. "When it's your money, you really ask yourself: Do I really need this?"

It seems to be working. According to a Raffles Hospital official, a knee replacement surgery runs between U.S. $12,000 and $14,000. Spinal fusion runs between $10,500 and $14,000, and a heart bypass (coronary artery bypass graft) from $23,000 to $26,500. Conservatively speaking, these prices are less than a third of what the same procedure would cost in the U.S.—that is, when you can even get the price.

As any American who has ever tried to make sense of a hospital bill or haggled with his insurance company over a payment can tell you, even for those who have decent coverage our system can be a bureaucratic nightmare. Singapore's system isn't perfect. It does suggest, however, that the Average Joe stands more to gain from a system where hospitals and doctors compete for patients, where patients have different price options for their hospital stays and appointments, and where they pay for some of it out of pocket.

Yes, a city-state with three million citizens has some advantages over a nation of more than 300 million people in 50 states. Yes, health care in Singapore is hardly the laissez-faire ideal. Still, there's intervention and there's intervention: What makes Singapore's health care work is that it is designed to swim with the market and not against it.

In macro terms, that means Singaporeans spend only about 4% of GDP on health care—against 17% for the United States. At the same time, Singapore scores better than the U.S. on life expectancy, infant mortality, and other key international measures.

In his address to Congress last month, President Obama complained that "we spend one and a half times more per person on health care than any other country, but we aren't any healthier for it." That's a good point. And the lessons Singapore has to offer suggests that what Americans need most in Washington today are fewer closed-door meetings and more open minds.





Wall Street Journal Website:
http://online.wsj.com/

"Hassling the Huff / War: What is it Good For?"

I have an idea for how Joe Biden can capitalize on all the attention, and do what generations to come will always be grateful for: resign.

... Biden has become the chief White House skeptic on escalating the war in Afghanistan, specifically arguing against Gen. McChrystal's request for 40,000 more troops to pursue a counterinsurgency strategy there.

... Biden speaks up at an international security meeting at the white house:

"Can I just clarify a factual point? How much will we spend this year on Afghanistan?" Someone provided the figure: $65 billion. "And how much will we spend on Pakistan?" Another figure was supplied: $2.25 billion. "Well, by my calculations that's a 30-to-1 ratio in favor of Afghanistan. So I have a question. Al Qaeda is almost all in Pakistan, and Pakistan has nuclear weapons. And yet for every dollar we're spending in Pakistan, we're spending $30 in Afghanistan. Does that make strategic sense?" The White House Situation Room fell silent.

It's been known for a while that Biden has been on the other side of McChrystal's desire for a big escalation of our forces there ... So if the president does decide to escalate, Biden, for the good of the country, should escalate his willingness to act on those reservations.

What he must not do is follow the same weak and worn-out pattern of "opposition" we've become all-too-accustomed to, first with Vietnam and then with Iraq. You know the drill: after the dust settles, and the country begins to look back and not-so-charitably wonder, "what were they thinking?" the mea-culpa-laden books start to come out. On page after regret-filled page, we suddenly hear how forceful this or that official was behind closed doors, arguing against the war, taking a principled stand, expressing "strong concern" and, yes, "deep reservations" to the president, and then going home each night distraught at the unnecessary loss of life.

Well, how about making the mea culpa unnecessary? Instead of saving it for the book, how about future author Biden unfetter his conscience in real time -- when it can actually do some good? If Biden truly believes that what we're doing in Afghanistan is not in the best interests of our national security -- and what issue is more important than that? -- it's simply not enough to claim retroactive righteousness in his memoirs.

Though it would be a crowning moment in a distinguished career, such an act of courage would likely be only the beginning. Biden would then become the natural leader of the movement to wind down this disastrous war and focus on the real dangers in Pakistan.

- Arianna Huffington of The Huffington Post



Oh, Arianna Huffington. Can I call her Huffie? Great. I love Huffie, and read her blogs / watch her on CNN all the time. But, this is probably the dumbest idea she’s ever had. Biden resigning? Noble? Sure. Striking? Sure. Smart? No.

The Vice President only really has two jobs – to break tie votes in the Senate, and take over after the president kicks it…he’s not exactly a pivotal figure in policy making.

After Dick Cheney running the country with his hand up President Bush’s backside for 8 years, we may all have forgotten that the Vice Presidency is traditionally a do-nothing job.

It’s not like Barack has to turn to Joe Biden and ask for permission before he makes decisions.

The Vice President disagreeing with the decisions of the White House shouldn’t make much difference at all in the courses of action the President takes.

I’ve become bored with this blog topic… I’m tired of war anyway. If I had things my way, we’d bring all of our troops from around the world back home – no military bases abroad or anything. Policing the world has gotten to be a bit much for the country to deal with. Chasing the Taliban around the Middle East isn’t exactly working out for us. And in case anyone hasn’t noticed, the national debt as of October 19, 2009 at 11:20:36 PM EST is:

$11,959,366,151,888.69

That’s over 11 trillion dollars folks. War is expensive. We don’t have that kind of cash lying around. (which is why we just keep printing more…)

So I say we “pull a Ron Paul” and just leave the rest of the world to its own devices and sort out our own problems here in the USA. Oh how I like that Ron Paul. Paul for Pres 2012!

.

.

.

.

.

Huffie's Entire Article:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/arianna-huffington/why-joe-biden-should-resi_b_320929.html

"To Arms"

A 22-year old student at Citadel got lost while looking for a doctor’s office. He drove slowly in an attempt to get his bearings, and his sluggish speed angered the motorist behind him. The police reported that when the student pulled into a parking lot to refer to a map, the enraged follower pulled in as well and got out of his car wielding a baseball bat and loudly berating the man about his driving. The student swiftly pulled a Glock 23 pistol from his glove box and showed it to the assailant. The baseball enthusiast, apparently no longer angry, put his hands in the air, returned to his car and drove off. (The Island Packet, Bluffton, SC, 08/09/08)

An 85 year old Pennsylvanian great-grandmother would seem easy prey to a home invader. But Leda Smith had one tool that allows the weak to defend themselves – a firearm. According to the police, Smith bravely went straight for her .22-caliber revolver and foiled the would-be robber by holding him at gunpoint while forcing him to dial 9-1-1 and report himself to the police. (Associated Press, 08/19/08)

A Connecticut resident, James Galvin was awakened by the terrified cries of his sheepdog. Galvin peered out the window, and saw his dog being chased around the yard by a 150-pound bear. Grabbing a firearm, Galvin ran outside. When the bear saw him, it stood up, and then bolted straight for him. Galvin was forced to shoot the bear, saving the lives of himself and his dog. (The Hartford Courant, Hartford, CT, 08/14/08)

A homeowner of Bradley County, Tennessee, arrived at his house to witness an intruder slipping out from under his garage door with his power tools and rifle. The man quickly trained a pistol on the thief, holding him until police arrived. Sheriff Tim Gobble praised the homeowner’s decisive action: “I love it when a homeowner catches a criminal while protecting his property. That’s the best example I can think of why an armed citizenry is the best defense against crime. Part of our job is to back up citizens protecting their property, and I am proud of this homeowner.” (Chattanoogan.com, Chattanooga, TN, 08/08/08)



Like in these anecdotes, firearms are used over 2 million times a year across the United States for protection. The mere presence of a firearm, without a single shot being fired, is often enough to deter a criminal from taking further action. An armed citizenry allows people to defend their lives and property without having to waste critical minutes waiting for police assistance. It is surprising to me that many people in the United States seek to abolish citizens’ right to bear arms.

It is understandable, however, when we take into consideration the two very different gun cultures in the United States.

We have the large cities where gang violence is present, and guns are used for the senseless killing of other human beings every day. In this culture, the symbolism of a gun connotes only suffering and death.

Contrarily there are typically more rural areas where guns are used for sport hunting, target shooting, and personal defense. In this culture, guns are meant to be handled with due caution, but are effective tools for both enjoyment and defense when necessary.

Looking at the gun rights issue from a Constitutional standpoint, it is difficult to validate a case for banning citizens from responsibly toting firearms.

The Second Amendment:
“A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”

By definition, a militia is an army of citizens. According to the Second Amendment, as citizens we have the right “to keep and bear arms” in order to secure our freedom. It does not limit the right to the military; it is the “right of the people”.

It is unconstitutional to ban Americans from bearing firearms, but regulation is perfectly acceptable and required by the Second Amendment. Appropriate licensing and background check programs should be enforced rather than revoking people’s right to defend themselves. Banning guns will only prevent law-abiding citizens from obtaining weapons; criminals will still have access to guns, and will certainly obtain them. (Kind of like alcohol Prohibition of the 1920’s and the now repealed 18th Amendment? I think so.) If anything this will cause a greater crime problem than before.

In closing, I would like to echo the words of Sheriff Gobble and assert that an armed citizenry IS the best defense against crime. We cannot allow our Second Amendment right to be infringed upon by narrow-minded interest groups. The US citizen should educate himself or herself on gun safety and be proud to exercise the option of responsible gun ownership.


Introductory anecdotes credited to the “Armed Citizen” journal published by the National Rifle Association.



The United States Constitution:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.overview.html

National Rifle Association (it’s not just for rednecks, you know):
http://home.nra.org/

"A Follow-Up / Kudos to the President"

After the topic of last week's post I'd just like to say that President Obama gave a wonderful speech to the Human Rights Campaign gala tonight. Hopefully he'll follow up on those promises and push Congress for equal rights legislation.

Great job Mr. President.




(working on a new post for tomorrow or Monday...)

"Equality, The Constitution, and Penguins"

Yeah, you read it right...



Lately there has been much discussion over the hot button issue of gay marriage. 6 states currently allow same-sex marriage: Connecticut, Iowa, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, and Vermont. Due to a ballot referendum in Maine, the right to marry may be revoked; in New Hampshire, gay marriage will come into law on January 1st, 2010.

Progressive? Promising? Do we have a long way to go? Have we barely scratched the surface? Are those darn gays eroding the moral fiber of our nation? Is the nation going straight to hell, without passing go, or collecting our $200?

Depending on who you ask in this country, you’ll get all kinds of answers to those questions.

An April 2009 poll by ABC News found public support - 49% - for allowing same sex marriage in the United States ahead of its opposition - 46% - for the first time. Those with no opinion on the matter were at 5%. In addition, 53% believe that gay marriages performed in one state should be legally recognized in other states.

Among Democrats, 62% are in favor of gay marriage.

Among Republicans, 74% are opposed to gay marriage.

Among Independents, 52% are in favor of gay marriage.



Just for the record, I support the right of gay marriage and equality 100%. So here are my top ten reasons that gay marriage SHOULD be legalized nationally…

1. Denying homosexuals the right to marry is a violation of 1st Amendment religious freedom.(Traditional Judeo-Christian religious values of heterosexual marriage are imposed upon the gay community.)

2. Marriage benefits (such as joint ownership, medical decision-making capacity, spousal inheritance laws, etc.) should be available to all couples.

3. Homosexuality is a popularly accepted lifestyle with evidence proving biological causation. (Homosexuality is even observed in nature – I know you’ve seen those gay penguins…yeah)

4. Denying these marriages is an example of the tyranny of the political majority over the minority. Thomas Jefferson explains this essential principle of American democracy: “All, too, will bear in mind this sacred principle, that though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will to be rightful must be reasonable; that the minority possess their equal rights, which equal law must protect, and to violate would be oppression.”

5. This is the first time in the history of the United States that civil rights have EVER been legally taken away from a group of people as is the case of California and potentially Maine.

6. It has no effect on the rights of those who are against gay marriage. (The great Wanda Sykes says it best: “It’s very simple. If you don’t believe in same-sex marriage, then don’t marry somebody of the same sex”)

7. The only thing that should matter in a marriage is love and commitment.

8. Adoptions should increase since gay couples cannot procreate.

9. It reinforces family values for the homosexual community.

10. Denying people the right to live equally violates the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment, as well as infringes upon their endowed right to pursue happiness.



Religious and conservative groups counter all of these arguments with nothing but huffing and puffing with their fire and brimstone about “family values” and Biblical rules on sexuality and marriage.

I know plenty of gay families, who have wonderful home lives and well adjusted, emotionally healthy children. Studies show that supportive, loving parents are necessary for their children’s healthy psychological development, and that gender and sexual orientation have no adverse effect.

And for the religious argument … “Freedom of Religion” does not give you the right to impose your beliefs on other people. Period. Separation of church and state is a core principle of our nation and should not be trampled upon.

In closing, I urge everyone to vote for equality if given the opportunity by referendum or initiative. Take into consideration your elected officials’ stances on gay rights. And remember that gay rights are unalienable HUMAN rights that our government cannot deny.

Homosexual people are not second class citizens.



Wanda Sykes on Gay Marriage:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1IHdaJOZe7E

Gay penguins!:
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/unleashed/2009/06/gay-penguin-dads-in-german-zoo-hatch-chick.html



Organizations I Support

National Equality March:
http://equalityacrossamerica.org/blog/?page_id=19

No H8 Campaign:
http://www.bouska.net/noh8/

Human Rights Campaign:
http://www.hrc.org/

"A Shout-Out to the Fan"

Thank you, Josh Jones, for being my first and only follower thus far.

That is all.