By now you’ve probably heard that actor Kirk Cameron and California-based minister Ray Comfort have been distributing on college campuses nationwide free copies of a new, “special” 150th Anniversary Edition of Charles Darwin’s On The Origin of Species. What makes this edition so special? It must be the 49-page introduction by Comfort, in which the evangelist highlights Darwin’s “racism” and concludes that the most prominent and archetypal exponent of Darwin’s ideas was Hitler.

Among the less ideologically anxious, On The Origin of Species, first published in 1859, is widely considered to represent the foundation of evolutionary biology, which underwrites in one way or another a great deal of modern medicine and has brought fresh, luminous perspectives to the natural and social sciences.

Properly understood, the theory of evolution is less a single world-defining axiom and more an agglomeration of ways of describing natural processes in a coherent and rigorous manner. Like other scientific theories, it is a flexible, open-ended work in progress which, so far, has explained much about the natural world in useful terms and with a great many fruitful applications. The theory of evolution is falsifiable and open to revision, and while healthy revision is ongoing, falsification appears very unlikely to occur, especially given the fact that the entirety of modern genetics clearly supports the basic premises of evolution. This is the definition of a sound scientific theory, and is exactly the kind of thing that vehement ideologues can’t abide, if you hadn’t noticed. The growing pains are apparently unbearable, as the L.A. Times reports:

“All we want to do is present the opposing and correct view,” says actor Kirk Cameron, a supporter, in a video on the website. That view, which both precedes and counters Darwin’s theory in the copies of the book they will distribute, has been penned by the organization’s leader, Ray Comfort. In a 50-page introduction, no less. An excerpt:

Keeping in mind that the most intelligent of human beings can’t create even a grain of sand from nothing, do you believe that the “something” that made everything was intelligent? It must have been, in order to make the flowers, the birds, the trees, the human eye, and the sun, the moon and the stars. If you believe that, then you believe there was an intelligent designer. You have just become an unscientific “knuckle-dragger” in the eyes of our learning institutions that embrace Darwinism. But you are not alone if you believe in God.

The idea being presented is that a framework like intelligent design is unscientific because it disagrees with “Darwinism,” a term which has come to characterize well-educated and productive scientists as members of some sort of fringe cult.

Actually, intelligent design and creationism more generally are unscientific because they propound fundamentally untestable and unfalsifiable premises with origins in mythological literature, not merely because they are wrong.

In the above-referenced video starring Kirk Cameron, the actor explains that his group’s decision to distribute the altered version of Origin came from concern about “what is happening to our country.” They describe a fantastical scenario in which evil atheists with an agenda are actively robbing Americans of their spirituality, and state that “only God can turn sinful men and women toward what is right and good and just.”

The theory of evolution does not really have agendified supporters any more than does the theory of gravity, but the former is more controversial because it specifically places the origin of humanity outside the hands of a clay-molding, life-breathing deity and into the context of natural processes. Fundamentalist creationists are the ones with the agenda, which is to place their “opposing and correct” mythology on an equal footing with scientific rigor in the educational setting, yet they certainly do not stop taking antibiotics or partaking of any other of the many fruits of evolutionary science in protest. When supporters of science and reason in education fight back, they are labeled as soul-robbers and Darwinist inquisitors.

This disparity and the resulting war for the minds of young people everywhere is occurring primarily because of the cognitive dissonance catalyzed when religion and science collide. Some maintain that simultaneously upholding a faith like Christianity and the findings of modern science is no big deal, and, indeed, many of the great scientists in Western history have been Christian people. But, without compartmentalizing the mind and living in two different worlds at once, it is well nigh impossible to believe, as the Bible implies, that the world was created from nothing a few thousand years ago by a paternalistic celestial deity while also understanding the strongly compelling evidence now available to us that the world is actually billions of years old and came about through the same kind of process of stellar evolution that brought into being the many other extra-solar worlds our instruments are beginning to directly observe.

We are living in a time in which the faithful are having to resort to ever more intricate theological gymnastics to justify their beliefs in the face of scientific discoveries to the contrary, and explosions are bound to result—because religion takes unshakable truth as its first principle, and the paradigm of science, which is the discovery of truth through observation, trial, and error, is diametrically opposed. Unlike the fairly militant and snobbish (if perhaps well-intentioned) Richard Dawkins, I do not believe that religion, which I describe as ritualized mythology, has no place in society. I think that psychologists and anthropologists have shown the opposite to be true: religion in one form or another is almost biologically essential to the human organism, which is a primary reason for all the hubbub over the implications of evolution in the first place. People don’t fight for what they feel they don’t need.

What seems certain is that the era of human history in which existing religions can be dogmatically maintained as factual and explained in clean, Augustinian, logical terms is rapidly coming to a close. If we can get through these growing pains, we’ll probably have less intercultural strife and more inner peace. Easier said than done, but: we’ve got to grow up sometime.

Social Bookmarking Links

This comes from a conversation begun on the post, Dr. Watson’s Woes.

Chris wrote,

I’m intrigued though by expressions like ‘evolutionarily inferior’ & the idea that science’s inability to decide if one race is inferior to another represents some sort of moral issue that only theology can resolve. I don’t think it’s that science hasn’t yet come up with subtle enough tests to know whether or not race/species x is inferior to race/species y. It’s more that evolutionary theory and relative values like superiority/inferiority are pretty much unrelated.

If variation in a quantifiable and hereditary feature could confer survival advantage (eg peak running speed in cheetahs) then, using this example, a greater number of ‘faster’ cheetahs will survive & reproduce than ‘slower’ cheetahs, other things being equal. But a faster cheetah isn’t in general ‘superior’ to a slower cheetah. Its speed is superior, but that doesn’t make it superior.

Relating this to the human intelligence example, then it is theoretically possible to construct some metric (probably boiling down to = mark attained in an ‘intelligence test’ of a certain specific type) which it might be theoretically possible to establish as hereditary. We might theoretically be able to relate this metric to specific races in a statistically significant way. But in practice it would be fraught with difficulty – particularly in proving it was hereditary enough for ‘evolution’ to be a possible explanation. And even if that hurdle was overcome, we’d still have to map the metric to common/familiar/everyday notions of ‘intelligence’. And even then we would only be able to say one group had evolved superior ‘intelligence’ to another group, not that the first group had evolved to be in general ‘superior’ to the other – ie that relatively higher ‘intelligence’ conferred ‘superiority’.

The point I’m trying to make is that it’s not so much that science is incomplete or leaves the issue of inferiority/superiority in doubt, it’s more that the whole idea of using science to decide whether one group is inferior or superior to another is misguided.

But that doesn’t mean the only alternative is to leap into theism. (I’ll get to this in a minute.)

I appreciate what you’re saying about the possible connection between ‘observable features such as intellectual capacity [and] …ethical ideas such as value and dignity’. I think though that the ultimate reason we don’t send someone to prison for squashing a beetle is not that beetles are ‘lower creatures’, but that we are not beetles. Having said that, the ethics of our relations to non-human organisms is a hotly debated area (see eg Peter Singer on animal rights). If there is a rule of thumb (eg for issues of animal cruelty) the criterion is probably assumed ability to suffer rather than assumed ability to think.

(Sidebar: It is ironic to speculate that, if there were people who actually did derive their ethics from evolutionary theory, they might conclude the penalty for squashing a beetle ought to be more severe than the penalty for homicide, as insects are probably the most evolutionarily successful group of organisms on the planet. They make up more than half of all known living organisms; and in diversity represent over 90% of life forms – beetles themselves accounting for about 25%…)

Great post from Gene Veith in Tabletalk Magazine this month as the world celebrates the 150th anniversary of the publication of “The Origin of the Species.” Gene begins,

Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution was never just about biology. Nor were its consequences just about religion. Rather, the origins and effects of Darwinism were largely cultural and moral.

Darwin’s Origin of Species was published in 1859, which was at the height of the Industrial Revolution and the Capitalist Revolution. The dynamic free market economy, characterized by intense competition in which weak companies went broke and the strong companies thrived, had brought unparalleled economic and technological progress. It was a small step to speculate that animal species compete and progress in a similar way. What Darwin did was to apply the principles of free market capitalism to biology.

Charles Darwin is probably the most influential man in terms of ideas in our time. Interestingly enough Charles Darwin actually started out studying religion at a seminary which taught him “natural theology” and encouraged him to distrust the special revelation in God’s Word.

Read the rest of the article here!  Worth your time!

Friends and colleagues continue to take on the latitudinarian blog Reformed Academic.  John Byl opens up on Jitse Vandermeer’s notion that human suffering and death existed for thousands of years before Adam’s fall.  Jim Witteveen dismantles Freda Oosterhoff’s insistence that young-earth creationism is dangerous for our missionary and evangelistic efforts.  If I can add something to what my colleague writes, I find Oosterhoff’s statement ridiculous, to put it mildly.  When I was a missionary, the people among whom I was working found the Darwinist mythology just as incredible, and even laughable, as I did.  The notion that people are descended from monkeys was just another crazy white-man’s idea.  A vast number of the world’s population would share that sentiment.  Many non-Christians (especially in the two-thirds world) still find a six day creation ex nihilo more credible than Darwinian evolution.   As Jim writes, it’s the cross that they really stumble over.  What’s dangerous is not young-earth creationism, but latitudinarianism.  Follow that route and before long we may not have a gospel for our missionaries to preach.

“After labouring in secret for 20 years, Charles Darwin is almost trumped by the obscure young naturalist, Alfred Russel Wallace, who has been in the southern world of Australasia for almost a decade. Shocked that someone else is drawing the same conclusions, Darwin knows that he must publish his own work post haste. Hooker helps to ensure that Darwin has priority over Wallace, by arranging a joint reading of their theories, whilst Huxley sharpens his beak and claws in readiness to defend Darwin against the Church and scientific establishment Wallace returns to England and immediately joins battle in defence of Darwin. On the Origin of Species is published to acclaim and attack and Darwins allies embark on a bitter and brutal public battle for Darwins idea and the future of science. The battle culminates with the legendary Oxford debate in which Hooker and Huxley go toe-to-toe with the reactionary forces of Church and the scientific establishment. Charles Darwin and his theory of evolution eventually triumph.”

(1/6)

Play all <—+

Playlist <–+

Episode 2

Episode 1

Since we’ve gotten so much interest on our Noah’s ARK – Design Sale, we figured we’d give you guys some more awesome parts to empty your wallets for!

From The Company:

Ark Design’s R8 Wheel is a lightweight one piece design, developed for style, performance and strength. The R8 features eight solid spokes plus a signature “Balance Ring” to provide rigidity for reduce wheel flex and strength from direct impact. The spoke and rim design are specifically developed for large high-performance brake caliper and rotor clearance. The R8 is available in 18 or 19 inch diameter and various widths and offsets to fit numerous cars. Ark Design’s R8 wheel has gone through rigorous quality testing and is JWL (Japan Light Alloy Wheel) and VIA (Vehicle Inspection Association) certified.

Alright now you know the jist of it. Now go to our Noah’s ARK -Design The Sequel sale on EvoXForums and get the details!

Last week I had an epiphany that I don’t want to work somewhere that requires me to disguise my personality.  This sounds like a simple statement–maybe easier said than done.  Fortunately, the twenty-or-so presentations I’ve heard this month about various agencies and companies have shown me that companies do exist out there that seek employees who are comfortable with their individual quirks.  Goodby Silverstein & Partners, Pixar, Google, and Crispin, Porter & Bogusky are just a few of the big names that accept, and even cherish, eccentricity. 

While applying to colleges as a High School student, everyone was overly concerned with meeting expected requirements: 2000+ SAT scores, 200+ community service hours, numerous extracurricular activities, and a GPA as close to 4.0 as possible.  We were all desperately trying to fit the recipe for success in the eyes of college recruiters.  The need to fit this mold of perfection confused me about who I was, and everyone seemed to turn into clones.  Life, inside and outside of academics, became a contest to please authority.  At the age of eighteen we had unknowingly conformed to society’s standards to continuously pursue the modern version of the 1950s nuclear dream.

I found myself in college, stepping outside of my comfort zone and attending a school that was not my first choice.  Rejection is the hardest feeling to endure, something that I learned when a handful of respected universities decided I was not the epitome of perfection.  I questioned myself when I chose my major, Creative Writing, because I didn’t think it would be practical enough to make a respectable living; however, I chased my childhood dream to nourish my inner artist and have not regretted it once.  Emerson College recognized the value of a creative education and allowed me into a program full of students who were already very familiar with Marketing and Advertising.  They took a chance on me and showed me that not everyone prefers the cookie-cutter resume.

In the past people fought to stand out by fitting in to the maximum.  It sounds confusing, but think about it.  Harvard may have accepted someone for being an all-star athlete, or for being the ultimate humanitarian with 500 hours of community service.  To increase the likelihood of acceptance, kids began enrolling in every club possible, sweating over practice SATs, and volunteering at 8am every weekend.  It became necessity to be “well-rounded” but this backfired when everyone became carbon-copies of one another.  How can employers and admissions officers distinguish the truly intriguing student/employee from a pack of sheep?

Here’s where my theory comes in.  Everyone tries to cut through the noise, much like the overflow of advertisements, but this eventually creates an endless buzz of everyone screaming to be heard.  It’s a competition to be the loudest, to be the best, and those people who don’t want to follow the pack in this regard have probably been overlooked.  I think this is changing.  Companies like those previously mentioned (Pixar, etc) actively seek individuals with unique characteristics.  Even the executives of these companies publicly embrace their quirks, some wearing tennis shoes to conferences and swearing in formal settings.  I used to think you had to work your way to the top before you could show your true colors without losing a job or the respect of your colleagues.  Now, I think (or hope) that employers are adopting to accept their employees’ humanness.  Employers will not come find you and you still need to figure out how to break through the noise, but subtlety may be the key.  Rather than pretending to be knowledgeable or interested in the boring shit that I think they want to see, I’m going to be myself and look for a company who appreciates that.

What are my quirks?  In a nutshell:

I’m 21, I’m a gamer nerd, I’m a sorority girl, my favorite food is mashed potatoes, I love going to movies alone, I’m obsessed with pugs, I can’t cook, I live in a constant state of controlled chaos (there is a method to my madness, but you wouldn’t know it if you saw my bedroom), my first job was as a birthday party clown, my favorite animals are hippos, I sleep on a mattress on the floor, if you show me any piece of Godiva chocolate I can tell you what’s inside it, I was born in Texas but I’ve lived in 6 states, relationships with others are everything to me, I have a sweet tattoo, and I love to write.

Hi,

I’m still here.

Has anybody else noticed their dreams are making more sense lately? I wake up remembering more of what I dreamed and haven’t noticed dreamscapes senselessly morphing from one scene to another. I seem to stay in one place that looks a whole lot like some place you might find on earth. I don’t go for a walk in a house and two steps later I’m in a jungle or anything. That used to happen a lot.

-Another thing: Waking up- (I’m working nights this week, so I sleep during the day.) I woke up ‘hearing’ (more like feeling) something very much like a loud television’s audio, muffled through a thick wall. So it sounded like a news announcer with a deepish voice, but you couldn’t make out a single word he was saying. This happens rarely lately, but this is probably the third or fourth time in six months.

—Deej

British poet Ruth Padel shares Charles Darwin’s DNA — she’s his great-great granddaughter.  Inspired by the life of her (relatively) early relative, this descendant of the Descent of Man author pays tribute to him in verse to commemorate the 150th anniversary of On The Origin of Species and the 200th anniversary of Darwin’s birth.  Darwin: A Life in Poems tells the naturalist’s life story in spellbinding odes like “Survival of the Fittest,” which describes his guilt over the death of his 10-year-old daughter Annie, who was the product of his marriage to his first cousin Emma.

And poetry isn’t the only lyrical form inspired by Darwin’s theories.  Science historian Richard Milner punctuates his lectures with Jimmy Durante-style tunes about Darwin’s findings.  It’s all a part of his effort to humanize him: “Everybody has to find their own Darwin,” says Milner.  “He’s so large, you can find yourself in him.”

- Jordan Sayle

“As my friend Matt Ridley has written, ‘Most scientists are bored by what they have already discovered. It is ignorance which drives them on’, Mystics exalt in mystery and want it to stay mysterious.” Richard Dawkins ‘The God Delusion’ (p. 151f, Black Swan 2007 edition)
“If the history of science tells us anything, it is that we get nowhere by labelling our ignorance “God”.“Jerry Coyne, US geneticist, reviewing the legally discredited ‘creationist’ theory of Behe.

As science continues, decade after decade, to fill more and more of the gaps in our knowledge, there is less and less space for the mystical explanation and the supposed ‘divine hand’. The process of cumulative human knowledge based on massive observation and experimentation – instead of superstition and speculative theology – has continued since earliest human history, when the actual causes of some natural phenomena began to be understood. In the last century it has been progressing geometrically and shows no sign of slowing down.

Creationism – the belief that the world was created by one or more intelligent beings (usually God, spirits or deities) – was almost (though not entirely) universally believed before European science and philosophy progressed. The creationist belief came under strong attack, particularly after Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution began to become widely accepted by world scientists and intelligentsia. This theory is so many-sided, so empirical – and has developed and been reinforced by leaps and bounds at an ever-increasing rate that so-called ‘unknown’ factors over which religionists can enthuse are fast narrowing down to a very limited scope. Playing on the fear of a Divine Creator whose plan has produced such a dreadful natural order – red in tooth and claw – and a world history which is often like a series of calamitous hells is less and less convincing and effective.

Is religion necessary to humanity? To have faith in a being who does not exist cannot be fruitful in the longer term or genuinely.  It may certainly have a temporary – or quite extended – uplifting or consoling effect on people. Yet it is really then an expression of ignorance, and hence cannot be fruitful for humankind and whatever future it may have.

Therefore, I disagree strongly with Voltaire and his by now well-outworn old saw, ‘If God did not exist, we would have had to invent him’. That may be a historically correct statement. It may well be what actually took place in the past of humankind.

The reasons for supposing the benevolent existence of a caring God are very many and powerful, not least the need of adults to assuage anxiety and fear about existence and death, of suffering and possible ‘punishment over and above that exacted on virtually every human being one way or another by the environment (or for the weak-mind, a hell run by demons or a devil).

Beliefs in supernatural phenomena and beings has most often been due to sheer ignorance of causes of what are natural phenomena and events. The sense of being looked after by an omnipotent protective parent is natural and all but unavoidable for children to survive until adulthood, but many cannot make the transition and find some other imaginary being as a substitute – angels, spiritual beings of all conceivable (but unobservable) description and not least the most often vague catch-all belief in ‘God’. Such conceptions formed and became ritualised and a part of a primitive developing culture, and remained in the long run (though constantly modified in the transition of cultures – even beyond recognition). When alternative understanding could arise (i.e. science and all that it increasingly implies), many of these superstitions were shed up to an including the keystone idea of the traditional mainstream beliefs – an all-powerful, all-knowing God creator (and destroyer). The idea of such an insuperable (and often most fearful) being could be used to control others. This reached its apex in early priesthoods which also later gave rise to the idea of God descended into human form (Rama, Jehova, Jesus, Roman and Eastern emperors… and many more since).  Naive belief in a strong, determined and clever person as being holy, divine, or even God Himself in human form is actually very common in history. Today there are plenty who profess to be holy, divine and even God Incarnate, and they usually have large followings. Failing that, people are raised (or raise themselves) to the status of God’s Messenger, or God’s Mouthpiece, or God’s Representative on Earth (e.g. not forgetting the Catholic Pope as ‘Vicar of God’, meaning ‘deputy’).

Here are some photos from the Origin into schools outreach at U.C. Berkeley. Sponsored by Living Waters, this outreach provided 190,000 copies of Darwin’s Origin of Species (with special introduction by Ray Comfort) to 100 top campuses in the US. Our team of 30, led by Daniel Beaudoin of NorCal Seedsowers, passed out 2000 copies of this special 150th Anniversary edition.

Students were very happy to receive this free copy, since the bookstore sells it for $29. Many students said since their professors quote from it often, they were planning on getting their own copy. The special introduction features the biography of Darwin, the history of evolutionary theory, Intelligent Design vs Evolution, information on DNA, Darwin’s beliefs concerning God and Atheism, some comparative worldview and of course a Gospel message concerning sin, death, accountability to God, and forgiveness through faith in Jesus Christ.

There was a campus protest going on (of course!) regarding the student fee hike. On the fringes of the crowds we were able to hand out books and have conversations with students away from the noise. The Atheist club students were following us around, handing out their literature to everyone who took our book. We had some rather civil and productive conversations with them also. All in all many seeds were sown and we are very thankful.

All day long we passed students reading the intro to the book. This one was sitting but most were reading it while they were walking. Most people were glad to get the book. We told everyone this edition had a special intro with discussion on the Creation/ Evolution debate. I only observed one person who was angry that it was a “Christian thing”; that man threw the book down on the ground in disgust. There were several young students who were interested in finding out what exactly was in the introduction, and this led to opportunities to share the Gospel with a few who were genuinely open and interested in hearing.

Adam passing out books and witnessing to students.

Jared passing out books and witnessing!

Via SEK, John Wilkins speculates on a world without Darwin.

Recently we at The American Catholic have debated, over the course of 140 posts, the topic of evolution. It doesn’t surprise me that a topic as controversial as evolution would generate so much discussion, but I do believe there is something missing from it, and which is partially addressed by fellow contributor Darwin Catholic.

What I notice, first of all, is that the comments fall into two categories: those in vigorous support of the theory of evolution, and those who just as vigorously reject it. In my view neither group is taking an approach to the question that I think is appropriate for Catholics. The problems with those who reject evolution are more obvious – the Church has declared that there is no necessary conflict between the theory and the faith, provided that philosophical materialism is removed as the only possible foundation for the theory. This is a good thing, for the scientific evidence for evolution is quite strong. While it is difficult for some opponents of the theory to think of it apart from materialism, I do believe it is possible.

The problems with some of those who support evolutionary theory, however, also need to be addressed. The very first problem is that “scientific consensus” is not a divine stamp of approval with the word “Truth” on it. We have an obligation to take the discoveries and claims of the scientific community seriously, but we do not have an obligation to defend them as if they were the dogmas of the Church.

Secondly, about those dogmas – they are, in the eyes of atheist scientists and intellectuals, as absurd, unscientific, and worthy of ridicule as the theories of young-earth Creationists. From where they place themselves, at the height of the intellectual summit of humanity, all non-materialist suppositions are nothing but insignificant specks on the landscape below. You will not be more respected by them on the whole because you reject YEC if you still believe in transubstantiation.

Thirdly, and this is the most important point, a person does not need to accept the theory of evolution to be a good person or a good Christian. It works the other way around as well – a person who accepts it is not necessarily a bad person. To read and hear the two sides argue, however, one would hardly know it. YECs are convinced that Darwinists are pawns of a scientific conspiracy to undermine the faith, while Darwinists look at YECs as if they were hillbillies from the Dark Ages. This hostility boils into conflict to the point where one’s position on evolution almost becomes more important than one’s position on the basic tenants of Christian morality.

For my part, though I believe that the evidence for evolution can be reconciled with belief in God and the teachings of the Church, I also understand why so many people reject the theory. At the bottom of it is a rejection of the materialism that appears to be the necessary support for the theory, a materialism which, to quote the Catholic Encyclopedia, “has shown God the door.” Consequently man is reduced to an animal with no greater value than any other animal. It also doesn’t help that totalitarian movements of the left and right have drawn, and continue to draw, inspiration from Darwinian evolution. This shouldn’t discredit the theory, but it should provide us with a reason to approach it with more caution. If God has been shown the door, so has any objective foundation for human dignity.

In the end, when Christ returns to judge the living and the dead, Matt. 25 tells us that we will be judged on the basis of how we loved or failed to love the least of our brothers. There is nothing in there about our stance on the scientific controversies of the day. And I find it hard to take seriously a strenuous rejection of YEC by anyone who believes in a virgin birth, walking on water, multiplying fish and bread, spontaneous healing, raising a man from the dead, angels, demons, the parting of a sea (is that one still acceptable?), and so on, and so forth. At the very least, those who support Darwinian evolution can listen to what a YEC has to say without implying or declaring that they are an imbecile or an idiot.

It would also help if YECs would stop asking “show me the evidence” – it isn’t the burden of someone on a blog to bring you up to date on all the latest or even the first discoveries. Read a book and learn to use Google.

The Spaceship Earth

As humanity has extended its reach the planet has seemingly shrunk giving rise to the concept of ‘Spaceship Earth’. If you have to go journeying through the cold, black void you really couldn’t really do better then our 6 star vessel. This baby comes equipped not just with the essentials (forests to produce oxygen, fungi to break down dead things etc) but with all manner of lush, decadent add-ons that have snuck into existence.

Creatures like the blue whale, snow leopard, giant salamander and lantern fish reveal the mad exuberance that the life-process is capable of.

Japanese Giant Salamander

From a species perspective, our home is the whole planet and we are nestled within a complex global ecosystem. So it may not come as a surprise that the term ‘ecology’ (coined in 1873 by the German zoologist Ernst Haeckel) is derived from Okologie, from Gk. oikos “house, dwelling place, habitation” + -logia “study of.”

Assuming humans can grow up and stop crapping all over the play pen, our home, Spaceship Earth could provide for our physical needs for 2.3 billion years (until the sun goes red dwarf on our collective asses). This may be enough time to develop intergalactic travel allowing our descendents to go and find fresh pastures. Luckily, there is so much going on aboard our mother ship we are unlikely to get bored over this vast stretch of time. However, in case we do nature abounds with a range of powerful and magical compounds that offer a means to radically change our perspectives. That’s right! Spaceship Earth provides for our mental and spiritual wellbeing as well as physical. Psychedelic compounds are produced by nature in a vast array of forms on every continent.

For millennia indigenous peoples all around the world have ceremonially and recreationally ingested Mother Nature’s finest and reaped a range of benefits. From San Pedro using shamans, Ayahuasca drinkers in the Amazon, the Mazatec who use hallucinogenic mushrooms, and the Huichols who use Peyote; hallucinogenic plants have been used as religious sacrament, healing medicine, and spiritual guides. The Aztecs called them “the flesh of the gods” and Siberian shamans used them to enlighten their path to the spirit world. In Europe the psychedelic experience was extremely common, whole communities would trip out when their crops where infected with Ergot.  and Celtic warriors are known to have consumed a psychedelic potion derived from mushrooms before entering into battle.

In the preliterate world entheogenic substances were an important part of everyday reality and were highly respected for their ability to bring forth the divine. Often entire tribes would partake in rites and rituals used as an initiation into adulthood, for healing, to help guide the community in the decision process, and to bring the direct religious experience to anyone seeking it.

Maya Mushroom Moon

The potential of these compounds is broad and mysterious. Shamens who use Ayahuasca in the Amazon report being able to enter new worlds and dimensions beyond our own. In his extraordinary book The Cosmic Serpent Jeremy Narby presents the case that Amazonians’ encyclopedic, specific knowledge of pharmacology derives not from arduous testing of thousands (millions) of species of plants  (there may not have been enough time for this to have worked) but from direct communication with the plants themselves whilst in hallucinogenic trance.

A record of ancient hallucinogenic mushroom cults symbiotic relationship with fungi is found in prehistoric rock art in the Sahara Desert dating back to 9000-7000 B.C.  However, it is highly likely that humanoids will have used psychedelics for far longer than this. Given the long and illustrious ethno-botanical relationship of humankind with naturally occurring, hallucinogenic compounds the modern taboo and laws against ingesting them seem retrograde at best and at worst a deliberate, self-induced lobotomy on our collective mind. Indeed the industrial decimation of the biosphere, genocide of indigenous tribes and homogenization of culture may be more closely linked to our collective denial of Dream Time then we might think. Terence McKenna, in Whole Earth Review (1989) writes:

“Re-establishing direct channels of communication with the planetary other, the mind behind Nature, through the use of hallucinogenic plants is the last, best hope for dissolving the steep walls of cultural inflexibility that appear to be channeling us toward true ruin. Careful exploration of the plant hallucinogens will probe the most archaic and sensitive levels of the drama of the emergence of consciousness.”

This is in stark contrast to the drugs currently prescribed by contemporary doctors in the US, which are designed precisely to normalize behavior and maintain the ‘walls of cultural inflexibility’. For example, the noisy, impulsive, outspoken (fun) kids in school are labeled as having ADHD and placed on Ritalin. Ritalin aka Methylphenidate’s pharmacological effect on the central nervous system is almost identical to that of cocaine and may prevent free thinking children from asking pesky questions like ‘why are we being taught this bullshit’. Ritalin is currently prescribed to approximately six million people in the US. 75% of these are children, with boys receiving Ritalin about four times more often than girls.

Pill Head

In the United Kingdom the use of antidepressants increased by 234% in the 10 years up to 2002.^[28] In the United States a 2005 independent report stated that 11% of women and 5% of men in the non-institutionalized population take antidepressants.^[29] For severely depressed people these interventions may be useful. However, for many it may avoid proactively making the changes to their lives which are necessary to improve well being for example, seeking out meaning in life, finding creative outlets and connecting with others on a profound level. Most worryingly of all is the prospect that it is precisely the materialist, atomized dystopia we have created that causes depression which has now led to the new profitable industry of corporations reducing the symptoms with their synthesized chemicals. In this Brave New World the people lulled into their Soma-like druggy happiness will never stand in between an ancient woodland and a JCB saying ‘the line stops here… we don’t need any more roads, malls or car parks’. We can drug ourselves happy while we pave over paradise. It is either nonsensical or purposely repressive to treat natural psychedelics like other drugs. McKenna again:

“The pro-psychedelic plant position is clearly an anti-drug position. Drug dependencies are the result of habitual, unexamined and obsessive behavior; these are precisely the tendencies that the psychedelics mitigate.”

Furthermore, our governments seriously endanger the wellbeing of young people by automatically banning anything non-corporatized and failing to accurately communicate the relative risks. Professor David Nutt was recently sacked as the chairman of the government’s drugs advisory panel for saying that taking E was no more dangerous than riding a horse. This may rankle Middle England but if your child is determined to get high wouldn’t you rather they were taking E then a harmful drug like crack or smack?!

From the paucity of information emerges worrying trends. Kids in the UK are increasingly turning to Ketamine for their high which is cheap and readily available. What these kids do not know is that regular use attacks their bladders and they may end up needing a catheter . Prof David Nutt, suggested that Ketamine should be upgraded from a class C drug due to the harm it can cause users but since the government sacked him this is unlikely to happen. Meanwhile, naturally occurring magic mushrooms are rated as a class A drug whilst being non addictive with widely reported beneficial effects.

It is, of course, an awful irony that the US which leads the world in corporate drug pushing (which is now so out of control that we are seeing widely reported sex reversal in frogs as an effect of drugs in the environment ) also leads the world in the ridiculously named War on Drugs. The War on Drugs seems to exist mainly to mask the U.S. counter-intelligence and paramilitary presence abroad and contribute to the cyclic creation of a permanent underclass.  Whilst their government fights an endless war with another fabricated, intangible enemy millions (70 % non-white) of Americans waste their lives incarcerated in dehumanizing prisons.

Sheriff Arpaio Prisoners

In the UK some enterprising people found a legal loophole allowing them to sell fresh magic mushrooms.

Camden Mushroom Company

As recently as 2005 the EcoHustler would stroll down Portobello road and visit the Camden Mushroom Company and enjoy regular trips with close friends. These happy, fun times in the park came without a hangover normally accompanied with profound insights and plentiful giggling.

On discovering the legal loophole enabling good citizens to legally trade these highlights of nature’s bounty a dark and evil force was again extended from the government and within 2 years the good times were over. The 2005 Drugs Act labeled mushrooms a class A drug (like crack cocaine and heroin) with a 7 year jail term for possession.

This draconian step feels like a totally disproportionate intrusion into my life. On whose authority do these law makers act? What right do they have to ban us from intimately connecting with nature and extending our own conscious reach? Making something illegal that grows out of the ground is exactly the kind of perverted authoritarian distortion you would expert from leaders who think they can persuade the people you can bomb a country to avoid a war.

Dark and Evil Force

Are these law makers the same people who lied to take the nation to war wasting billions of our tax pounds to invade and control a distant sovereign state illegally? Are they the same people have spent all our money bailing out banks in what has been termed the greatest swindle of all time with money that should be paying for the transition to a sustainable society? Are they the same people who finally lost any moral credibility and were been rumbled with their hands in the till ?  If so I will defer to my own moral judgments rather then following knee jerk laws written by suited, drab, automatons operating in parliamentarian bubble.

Houses of Parliament

As the human species grows up there will be an ever growing range of narcotics knocking around. Those who seek to control the supply would be better off regulating and raising tax revenue rather then banning with all the subsequent problems of drugs being controlled by the black market and global underworld. Decriminalization and regulation is the only way to control drugs and protect the young. Furthermore, if the government is going to regulate drugs why not do so according to the harm they cause as established by scientists?

Whilst the government sorts out its perverse legislation the good citizens of this country needn’t worry. They can ban but they can’ exterminate. So in the mean time the rest of us can head out to those special patches in the English countryside where our slimy mushroom friends push their pretty heads out of the dark Earth and together celebrate the mad journey us life forms are on. It is a difficult thing for many people to get their heads around, but the fact remains home is a giant spaceship with a rejuvenating supply of psychedelics on board. Let’s enjoy the trip!

ALMOST everyone already knows the news, but here it is in case you missed it: Darwin first edition goes under the hammer in Oxford. One excerpt:

A FIRST edition of Charles Darwin’s Origin Of Species which languished for years in an Oxford toilet will go under the hammer tomorrow.

Christie’s auction house said the book, left, which is estimated to go for up to £60,000, was bought by a family for a few shillings in a shop in the West Country 40 years ago.

A spokesman said the book had been kept on a bookcase in the guest lavatory at the family’s home in the Oxford area.

What can we add to this? We knew the creationists would be getting their jollies from the situation, and sure enough — here’s an article from a blog run by the Palm Beach Post about this hot new source of creationist humor: One-liners for rare bathroom book. We’ve had to clean it up a bit:

One-Liners:

1. Or maybe it was Darwin’s little-known Origin of the Feces.

2. Brings new meaning to the words “going apes**t.”

3. Creationists will say it’s a sign from above that evolution is a lot of c**p.

4. For the person who found it, it’s a case of monkey see, monkey dough.

Maybe you can come up with better one-liners. Feel free to chime in.

The Palm Beach Post is asking for more of the same. Isn’t journalism wonderful?

In conclusion, dear reader, we admit that this post isn’t about very much, but when dealing with creationists we must be compassionate. They’re living in the Final Days of this sinful world, and they need to get their fun while they can, wherever they can find it.

Copyright © 2009. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.

• • • • • • • • • • •

. . Permalink for this article

Blogs seem to become more and more popular to distribute knowledge and information among ecologists. Here’s a nice one which is the official blog of the “Methods in Ecology and Evolution” Journal. This journal has recently been added to the already prominent rooster of the British Ecological Society. However, the blog also covers articles in other journals.  For me especially interesting is the summary of recently published articles on phylogenetic comparative methods.

Mesdames, êtes-vous incommodées par des bouffées de chaleur?

Dr. Julien Lévesque, chiropraticien — La ménopause. Au fil des années, le corps ne cesse de se modifier et de se transformer. Cela fait partie de notre évolution bien que plusieurs personnes s’en passeraient bien. À partir de la mi-quarantaine, le corps féminin exprime une série de symptômes qui est spécifique à la ménopause. Trois phases se succèdent; la pré-ménopause, la ménopause et la post-ménopause.

La transition vers la ménopause, c’est-à-dire la pré-ménopause, peut se reconnaître aux signes suivants: chaleurs, sensibilité des seins, accentuation du syndrome prémenstruel, diminution de la libido, fatigue, règles irrégulières, sécheresse vaginale et inconfort pendant les relations sexuelles, fuites urinaires, changements abrupts d’humeur, etc. La sévérité des symptômes et leurs conséquences sur la qualité de vie peuvent être en étroite relation avec le niveau de stress et l’état de santé général.

Voici quelques signes et symptômes spécifiques à la ménopause;

Les bouffées de chaleur: Il s’agit du symptôme le plus fréquent, dû à l’arrêt de la production d’estrogène par les ovaires. Les bouffées de chaleur se manifestent par une sensation de chaleur parfois accompagnée d’une rougeur de la peau, qui commence au niveau du visage et du cou, puis s’étend vers le thorax et les épaules, et éventuellement se généralise. Chez certaines femmes, les bouffées de chaleur s’accompagnent de sueurs intenses (notamment des sueurs nocturnes). Elles sont sans danger mais peuvent être très incommodantes.

- Les troubles vaginaux: La carence en estrogène peut rendre la paroi vaginale plus fine, plus sèche et moins “élastique”. Les rapports sexuels peuvent ainsi devenir inconfortables.

- Les troubles urinaires: Le contrôle de la vessie peut être moins bon, ce qui peut provoquer de petites fuites urinaires, en particulier lors d’efforts (éternuements, rires, etc.). Il est important de s’occuper de ce problème d’incontinence dès qu’il apparaît afin qu’il ne s’accentue pas.

- La prise de poids: Souvent, au moment de la ménopause, les femmes prennent du poids et trouvent qu’il est plus difficile qu’auparavant de perdre ces kilos. La ménopause entraîne une modification dans la répartition des graisses : elles s’accumulent plus fréquemment au niveau du ventre qu’au niveau des cuisses et des fesses.

- Les troubles du sommeil (insomnie; difficulté à s’endormir ou longues épisodes de réveil au cours de la nuit).

- Les changements d’humeur, l’irritabilité, l’anxiété, les affects dépressifs.

- Une diminution de la libido

- Modifications de la peau; la structure et la texture de la peau sont influencées par les hormones sexuelles et par des modifications biologiques plus générales liées au vieillissement. Après la ménopause, la peau devient plus fine et plus fragile.

Comment votre chiropraticien peut-il vous aider?

Votre chiropraticien peut vous aider à diminuer ces symptômes par les conseils alimentaires, les ajustements chiropratiques, l’écoute et par la communication. Par exemple, si vous voulez réduire la fréquence et l’intensité des bouffées de chaleur, il faut réduire la consommation de viandes, d’alcool, de caféine et privilégier des produits laitiers faibles en gras. De plus, si vous voulez réduire l’intensité du stress dans votre vie, réduire les tensions musculaires et augmenter votre niveau d’énergie, les ajustements chiropratiques Network sont une solution très efficace et naturelle. Si vous avez des questions, parlez-en avec votre professionnel de la santé en chiropratique et il se fera un plaisir de vous venir en aide.

Le Dr. Julien Lévesque est chiropraticien à la Clinique MainTenant située au 1477 boul. St-Joseph Est, Montréal, (Québec) H2J 1M6. Vous pouvez communiquer avec lui au  514-910-7644. Si vous désirez en savoir s’il peut vous aider et sur sa pratique, visitez www.chiroenergie.ca.

Me gusta mucho ir de compras, para los libros. Otras personas les gusta jugar al golf o caminar pero yo prefiero leer.

En una tienda de libros a veces pienso que sólo estoy mirando, pero siempre existe la posibilidad de que voy a encontrar algo bueno. En la librería Scheltema in Amsterdam he encontrado mi libro favorito del 2009: Los diez grandes inventos de la evolución por Nick Lane.

Nick Lane es bioquímico y profesor honorario del University College London. Como Ian Stewart escribe, este libro es un escrito fascinante y hermoso que cuenta los grandes misterios de la vida. Este es un ejemplo de por qué me gusta ir de compras para los libros. (Lo he leído en el inglés)

Los Diez Grandes Invenciones de la evolución son el origen de la vida, la creación de ADN, la fotosíntesis, la evolución de las células complejas, sexo, movimiento, vista, sangre caliente, la conciencia y la muerte.

¿Qué vosotros gusta para comprar, y también qué es lo que odias?

What has happened is that Cass Seltzer has become an intellectual celebrity. He’s become famous for his abstract ideas. And not just any old abstract ideas, but atheist abstract ideas, which makes him, according to some of the latest polls, a spokesperson for the most distrusted minority in America, the one that most Americans are least willing to allow their children to marry.

This is a fact. Studies have found that a large proportion of Americans rate atheists below Muslims, recent immigrants, gays, and Communists, as “sharing their vision of American society.” Atheists, the researchers reported, seem to be playing the pariah role once assigned to Catholics, Jews, and Communists, seen as harboring alien and subversive values, or, more likely, as having no inner values at all, and therefore likely to be criminals, rapists and wild-eyed drug addicts.

“As if,” as Cass often finds himself saying into microphones, “the only reason to live morally is out of fear of getting caught and being spanked by the heavenly father.”

But is there a heavenly father? Billions believe so. But are these beliefs justified? Let’s find out.

There are many arguments for believing in god.  Here, 36 of the most popular and long-lasting ones are dismantled and discredited. Scroll down the article to begin reading the most common ones.