So, if those who do not believe are correct about there being no God, why should they not do as Cheney/Rove do? What is the reason for not being like our furry and scaly brothers and sisters? If we have no God, then how is our intellect and empathy explained?
In The Darwinian reality of survival and adaptation, much of which I accept, some of which I reject, there is no need in any creature for frills, there is only the need to survive and continue the species or subspecies. But why even that? Where would will come from? Adaptation is the necessity, the driving force of survival by adaptation. Dominance, as we have seen is not the force of eternal survival because we have seen the dominant creatures die off, en masse, as did the dinosaurs, undisputed, unchallengeable rulers of the earth for tens of millions of years, wiped out by a series of seeming, improbabilities, shakes of the dice by an unseen, sightless, dice-shaker, which is sheer Chance, whim, caprice, Blind Watch-maker, no watch-maker, nothing, nihilism, which is the unspoken credo of those like Cheney/Rove... and Pelosi who tolerates and in so doing protects them. A house divided against itself cannot survive, Jesus said that, and it may not have been an original thought even at that time, but ever since both ingenious warriors and peacemakers have latched onto it. Ingenuity is the key word here, which explains the Pelosi loser complex.
As far as Cheney/Rove are concerned there is neither punishment nor reward at the end of a Godless life, so take it all now and the Hell with after death, because that is the end, anyway. However, for some few of us God or no, there is line to be drawn in the sand, and it has been crossed in volume and our leaders have done nothing. How long are we going to suffer powerlessly?
God, Darwin, Einstein, Pete, and You
Above I spoke of Darwinian Evolution, saying much of which I accept, some of which I do not. I do not fail to accept some of it because I believe in God; I began to believe in God because I failed to accept some of it, and could offer no reason and no explanation for the anomalies which I found in Godless Darwinian Evolution. I will not bore you with technical, species-specifics, explanations of the mysteries unresolved, like turbulence, eddies, whorls, certain fish, certain mammals, etc. because that would require an entire text book, for which we have neither time nor space. However, the simplest explanation for my doubts about the idea of Godless, Darwinian quantum evolution, and why I accepted God Included Darwinian Evolution, are these, and please do yourself and readers a favor, do NOT throw at us quick cuts of Wickapedia or other online and mindless snippets asserting and supporting uneducated whims. There is a reason why an education in Cultural and/or Physical Anthropology takes a minimum of 6-10 years beyond high school, the reading, study and dozens of years of field work and understanding, is brutal and vastly time consuming and far beyond what most disciplines require and most people would wish for.
Here are a few of my reasons, for accepting Darwinian evolution in part and rejecting it in part. Godless Darwinian evolution shows some degree of causality-causality eliminates Godlessness. So, it is self-contradictive. Other parts of Darwinian Evolution, display chance, and mixture of chance and causality, and that is illogical. i.e.
Einstein to Bohr, "God does not shoot dice with the universe." Bohr's reply, "Einstein, stop telling God how to run the universe and what to think!"
Einstein to Jung, concerning chance versus causality in Synchronicity, (A) "It is simply God's way of remaining anonymous." And (B) "It is just God's way of letting us know we are not alone."
Further: In Godless Darwinian, evolution survival is the key and adaptation and or dominance is the system. Both appear to be random in one view and causal in another interpretation. Causality indicates a Maker, and to anyone of intelligence and logic, it is a simple geometric theorem. When stuck without an explanation, the PI of Darwinian Evolution is mutation. Here is a common scientific textbook, definition of Mutation:
"Mutation is a permanent change in the DNA sequence of a gene. Mutations in a gene's DNA sequence can alter the amino acid sequence of the protein encoded by the gene. How does it happen? Like words in a sentence, the DNA sequence of each gene determines the amino acid sequence for the protein it encodes. The DNA sequence is interpreted in groups of three nucleotide bases, called codons. Each codon specifies a single amino acid in a protein." *
Source: *The University of Utah, Genetic Learning Center
Notice that while the detailed mechanical chemical, sequencing of Mutation is explained-it is never defined. That is like detailing the construction of a bicycle but not explaining how it came into being, what motivated or catalyzed it's changes, and what or who was it's maker. It says a "Mutation is a permanent change in the DNA sequence of a gene." However, in it's "How does it happen," explanation it fails to explain, "How does it happen," it merely traces the mechanical/chemical change, but there is neither formula, nor source of the action shown nor explained, nor detailed. It appears from the so-called explanation to be an accident, which is inexplicable. Neither I nor Einstein, nor Jung believe in coincidence as accidental.
It reminds me very much of the explanations of Colin Powell and the others of why we must attack Iraq and why the aerial surveillance photos which we saw on TV showed WMD's. Critical thinkers never bought the transparent and faux explanation, and Critical thinkers who have seen aerial surveillance photos in the past, knew they were not in any stretch of the imagination of intelligent, critical thinkers, any sort of evidence at all. Had a student of one of my classes on Critical Thinking shown me such "evidence," as the proof of anything, he would have failed that section of the course and if he had tried to use it as a reason to spend trillions of dollars and murder 675,000 and maim 110,000,000, I would have had him committed to a mental institution or sent him to a home for the mentally deficient. One of my Professors, the later Chancellor of the City Colleges of Chicago, Oscar Shabbat, might have done worse than that, God Bless his brilliant soul.
More? In Godless Darwinian evolution, survival is best arrived at through adaptation, and for some also domination of a scenario-an area-an environment, and if any part of that environment changes, adapting, at the very least to survive. The tools needed to survive, even to prosper? I am not sure what to prosper means in survival, survival is existence, to exist and continue the species is all that is required of Darwinian Evolution, and until 10,000,000 BP that is all that occurred. However, then some things began to change, slightly. Man is not the only creature to make and use tools, nor is Primates. There are birds and Gulls and others which create and use tools as well, but ot our knowledge, although the tools of men became more and more functional, they also became, in some cases became more and more aesthetic. In the cases of later man, functional art arose, and later art for it's own sake, and music, and writing and story telling. Music, art, story telling and other aesthetic things, at times, at their best cause feelings to arise, inspiration, empathy, sexuality, and simple enjoyment, and more, none of which is a requirement of evolution, survival or dominance, unless one wishes to declare that those aesthetic things are evidence of evolution evolving. That however, is of course a point, but every step of the way, so is the point of divine inspiration. Don't mistake me for a "Christian Right" Fundamentalist Creationist, I accept the current explanations of Big-Bang, though, they like evolution are also theories and we have seen how the best accepted theories of science have changed and the winners changed as well and the losers of science fell into obscurity. IQ-the ability to learn-the Intelligence Quotient requires learning, a thing that the Creationists deny to their "god," but which I do not deny to mine for the God of Peter Bagnolo is a scientist and a scientist learns or falls into obscurity. My God, is Einstein's God-God The Scientist, God the Author of the Laws of Physics, which we have slowly learned, unlearned an adjusted to as they changed and they will continue to change until eventually and finally we have come upon the truth, at which point physical human life in such a world as this, will make sense, because at this point to most, it does not.
Homo Erectus, Neanderthal And Homo Sapiens
More Still? Between 10,000,000 BP and present, there were, at least 12 attempts at something like Homo sapiens from Australopithecus Afarensis to Homo sapiens. Between the non-related by DNA, Homo erectus, Neanderthal and Homo sapiens?
Homo erectus (Latin: "upright man") is an extinct species of the genus Homo. Dutch anatomist Eugene Dubois (1890s) first described it as Pithecanthropus erectus, based on a calotte (skullcap) and a modern-looking femur found from the bank of the Solo River at Trinil, in central Java. (Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
Throughout much of the 20th century, anthropologists debated the role of H. erectus in human evolution. Early in the century, due to discoveries on Java and at Zhoukoudian, it was believed that modern humans first evolved in Asia. This contradicted Charles Darwin's idea of African human origin. However, during the 1950s and 1970s, numerous fossils finds from East Africa (Kenya) yielded evidence that the oldest hominids originated there. It is now believed that H. erectus is a descendant of earlier hominines such as Australopithecus and early Homo species (e.g., H. habilis).
Fossilized remains 1.8 and 1.0 million years old have been found in Africa (e.g., Lake Turkana and Olduvai Gorge), Europe (Georgia), Indonesia (e.g., Sangiran and Trinil), Vietnam, and China (e.g., Shaanxi). H. Erectus is an important hominine because it is believed to have been the first to leave Africa. However, most scholars believe that H. erectus is not the direct ancestor of modern H. sapiens
Neanderthal
Britannica Concise Encyclopedia
Species of the human genus (Homo) that inhabited much of Europe and the Mediterranean lands c. 200,000 – 28,000 years ago. The name derives from the discovery in 1856 of remains in a cave above Germany's Neander Valley. Some scholars designate the species as Homo neanderthalensis and do not consider Neanderthals direct ancestors of modern humans (Homo sapiens). Others regard them as a late archaic form of H. sapiens that was absorbed into modern human populations in some areas while simply dying out in others. Neanderthals were short, stout, and powerful. Cranial capacity equaled or surpassed that of modern humans, though their braincases were long, low, and wide. Their limbs were heavy, but they seem to have walked fully erect and had hands as capable as those of modern humans. They were cave dwellers who used fire, wielded stone tools and wooden spears to hunt animals, buried their dead, and cared for their sick or injured. They may have used language and may have practiced a primitive form.
Homo sapiens
The species to which all living human beings on this planet belong is Homo sapiens. Anatomically, modern humans can generally be characterized by the lighter build of their skeletons compared to earlier humans. Modern humans also have very large brains, which vary in size from population to population and between males and females, but the average is around 1300 cc, which is considerably smaller to that of Neanderthal. Housing this brain has involved the reorganization of the skull into what is thought of as the "modern" appearance -- a high vaulted cranium with a flat and near vertical forehead. The supraorbital torus is lost in most modern humans, and ridging above the orbits in general is very reduced. The widest part of the skull is high on the skull, as opposed to earlier Homo erectus and H. ergaster. The back of the skull lacks the transverse torus of H. erectus and the occipital bun of H. neanderthalensis (Compare the crania of H. neanderthalensis and H. sapiens).
