| Back OpEd News | |||||||
|
Original Content at https://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_professo_070607_god_2c_intelligent_des.htm (Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher). |
|||||||
June 7, 2007
God, Intelligent Design, Darwin, Einstein, Evolution, Politics, Morality, Cheney/Rove and I
By Professor Emeritus Peter Bagnolo
A history uncluttered by fascistic sexism, fascistic politics, Fascistic Bully-ism, Avaristic profits, selfishness among the sexes, politicians and merchants and those who rise above rank ungifted fools which childishly wish to attempt to run the world by intimidation, whining, uneducated practicing well above their competencies or education, using ignorance, asininities and absurdity to eliminate everything their pea-brains
::::::::
God, Intelligent Design, Darwin, Einstein, Evolution, Politics, Morality, Cheney/Rove and I
A history uncluttered by fascistic sexism, fascistic politics, Fascistic Bully-ism, Avaristic profits, selfishness among the sexes, politicians and merchants and those who rise above rank ungifted fools which childishly wish to attempt to run the world by intimidation, whining, uneducated practicing well above their competencies or education, using ignorance, asininities and absurdity to eliminate everything their pea-brains cannot grasp. A history which examines morality, it's irrelevance to many people and what it all means, to intelligent humankind.
God, Intelligent Design, Evolution, Politics, Morality, Bush and I
His Humble and Sometimes Not So Humble Servant
There are two kinds of people, which hinder human progress on Planet Earth, Males and Females. As to which does, the most damage is left to statisticians, not mortals. Among those genders, however, there is a further breakdown, intelligent and unintelligent people. Under those two categories Further breakdowns include, the intelligent-which are also well educated and those that are not. Among the unintelligent, there are those, which were unintelligent from birth, and knew it, and those, which grew into adulthood and have never recognized that reality. Even further, there are among the unintelligent, those lacking education, and certainly some of those which stopped their education short of their maximum input-output was reached, unfortunately for them and the rest of the world and there are those who were educated beyond their intelligence, unfortunately for them and the rest of the world. They infest both sexes and the media and this website as thy do everything else and they are one of he most persistent and foolhardy impediments to progress on the planet, as persons as diverse in interests as Aristotle, Plato, Socrates, Jesus, St. Paul, and many great scientists, writers, artists, movie makers and professors have also said.
Today, as ever, but more so now because there are more of them, they are clogging up the works and there is no unclogging Drano for which to flush them away, unfortunately for them and u the rest of us. You know the fools I mean. They read an entire book, after a fashion and pick out one item which they in their inevitable lack of reading comprehension, and begin a major campaign about it. I call these people, the IWPFATCE, (Idiots Which Practice Far Above Their Competencies and/or Education). With that as a framework, please go forward if you dare, and please note, I will not be gentle even if this is your first time.
The Spectrum Of Political Hypocrisy
Among presidential candidates, only Rep. Dennis Kucinich and New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson even mention the possibility of cutting the defense budget. Indeed, presidential candidates Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are, at present, competing with each other in their calls for the expansion of the Armed Forces. Both are supporting manpower increases in the range of 80,000 to 100,000 troops, mostly for the Army and the Marines. (The current, Bush-backed authorization for fiscal year 2008 calls for the addition of 65,000 more Army recruits and 27,000 Marines by 2012.)
US defense spending has bopped up and down over the last five decades, and especially after the collapse of the Soviet Empire during. From the end of the Viet Nam disaster to the 1990s, the defense budget took a significant downturn. If we use mid-1990's dollars throughout our discussion, the Defense budget flopped from a high of $376 billion, in 1989 (Reagan/Bush #41), to the balanced budget Clinton years low of $265 billion in 1996. (Compare that to Korea wartime highs of $437 billion (1953), to $37.75 billion in 1968, (Vietnam.)
In the aftermath of 9/11, however, defense boondoggling has mushroomed. In addition, it is just that boondoggling. The entire premise of the "War on Terrorism" is a flaming fraud. It is a kiss-up for defense contractor cash on the Right by all the candidates and on the "Left" by, at least Obama, and Clinton.
Now, the Bush administration is asking a $650,000,000,000 (billion) a 62.5% increase over the $400,000,000,000 Budget of this year. When was the last time you received a 62.5% raise in salary or bonus in one year? However, even if you eliminated budget for the Afghanistan battleground and the so-called "war" in Iraq (I prefer the words, "slaughter" or Genocide) in 2008, the cost for military is still $510,000,000,000 billion, almost doubling the budget from 12 years ago. The begging question is, why? Where is the enemy? There is no nation on the planet, or coalition of any several nations, which can threaten us and follow-through with a successful, sustained, attack and/or invasion. The premise is ridiculous.
The moral/ethical question is, why waste all that money on methods of killing, when people are without hospitalization, jobs, and food nationwide, to say nothing of worldwide? The larger and hidden question is more slippery and although it is a scientific one which involves quantum physics, it is also a moral question and both converge on whether or not God exists, and if not why bother with morality at all? The actions of Cheney/Rove indicating a non-belief in God belies the "Christian" way to which they pay lip-service.
If there is no God, their actions cannot be condemned, for there is not reason to act in/to what they see as (in) weaker humans (wimps, in Cheney's language) (morality).
If nature is the only example for humankind, in a world lacking a Divine Creator, if the cruelty, blood-letting, devouring of weaker species, example of the animal world and the mindless dice-tossing of a seeming compassionless Universe in which things happen by mere chance or probability, then why feign empathy for one another? Why not, then arm to the teeth and destroy anyone who dares even challenge the right of those consumed by aggression and bloodlust, avarice and hate? If we are going to take the example of Nancy Pelosi and wink at and flirt with mass-murderers and war criminals, why not, then, rather than being hypocrites open the doors of all of the prisons, as I said months ago, and let the most violent men and women go free first?
Had Nancy Pelosi and whoever is supporting her head-in-the-sand attitude been Speaker of the House in the late 1930's and early 1940's by now we would be a nation with four languages in descending order, German, Japanese and a mixture of Italian and English
The beginnings of conscience and consciousness, spring from an awakening in some as morality. Morality in which one extreme is evil, midpoint is sin, and the other extreme being goodness. The Great Victorian era historian and fiction writer H G Wells, whose prophetic, yet atheistic works, predicted not only the current dilemma, (Didn't it used to be spelled Dilemna?) including the publicly proffered sexual freedom, foul language, and wantonness of entertainment and even the invention of film and television, wrote another prophetic book- The Island Of Dr Moreau. In the story the good doctor experiments on wild beasts, through surgery and drugs through which they suffer the horrors which were later unleashed by Hitler's compassionless and sadistic, mad scientists, carves them into human-like creatures, which chant prayers condemning their animal instincts and embracing the good doctor and praising human etiquette, until at last with the help of a scientist with a conscience, also a prisoner, they revert and revolt.
The Cheney/Rove Horror Is A Reversal Of That Story.
Cheney/Rove act like the beast, to which there is no morality, there is just survival and in their case very profitable survival. Thus, they do whatever they see as the fastest way to ensure not merely survival, but eminently prosperous superiority over others. No God? Then there is no need for morality. Do the beasts of the field, which have no reasoning power, have morality? Of course not, then why should man? If you were to ask them privately why the insane dash to steal oil and be so cruel to any in their path, what might their answer be? If they were facing the death, I predicted for months before and finally two days before of Jerry Fallwell, would they repent as I entreated him to do? (Which he did not)? I very strongly, doubt it. What possible excuse could they use for what they are doing? Is it merely the wealth? The survival of a nation, but shorn of it's greatness, it Constitution and Bill of Rights? Why are these humans who shirked military duty like cowards, so inured to killing, mass-murder and mayhem. What drives such beasts, which would soil their underwear, had they to face a Mano-e-Mano armed conflict?
I have repeated many times the apropos words of Val Kilmer in the film Tombstone, in which Wyatt Earp, the winner and survivor of many gunfights with famous gunslingers, is facing a showdown, Mano-e-Mano, with one of the only two men living man he knows he cannot outdraw, Johnny Ringo. (The other is Doc Holliday.) Moments before Wyatt had to make his decision to meet Johnny Ringo in a duel to the death, Ringo has sent the body of a burnt, dragged and tortured Earp deputy dragged to him by a horse.
Here is the approximate dialogue:
Wyatt: "Doc, what makes men do the things Ringo has done?"
Doc: "Where other men have a conscience all he has is a deep dark hole and all the killin' and torture can't fill it."
Wyatt: "But why Doc, what for?"
Doc: "For revenge!"
Wyatt: "Revenge for what?"
Doc: "For bein' born..."
With or Without a God? Cowards, Believers And Regressives
All that matters in the world of the animal is survival, sexuality and power. However, no animal treats it's victims as some humans, humans, who lack courage, mostly, treat others. No animal tortures its victims or it's food sources. The only human beings that ever resort to such tactics are cowards, the mentally ill, and those whose souls are already burning in Hell as their bodies still walk the Earth-truly zombies, truly the living dead.
Without a God, such humans need not treat anyone weaker, intellectually or physically, with anything like respect. Their attitude is, if they get in one's way kill them, and maybe kill them anyway just for sport, or maybe torture them also just for fun. If the have a mate we fancy, take her away and if he interferes kill him. If he has a house, money, power, kill him and take it all, who cares, if there is not God, there is no need for morality. Such humans, under such conditions, then, are no different than the beasts, except that we are smarter, (but from what I can see of the treatment of this life giving planet-it's ambiance/environment, we are not wiser than the beasts, who treat the environment with care and respect) and the beasts are more compassionate, or at least acting out their mindless instincts, excusable because they possess neither reasoning power nor hatred. However, men like Rove and Cheney have minds and the power to reason, why then are they so beastly? That is because either they are insane, or if not then they lack that invisible feature that some deny exists, however, in scientific terms, the negative evidence is overwhelming for that invisible factor being present in some humans, weak in others and totally missing in still others. That is something not found in any organ of the human body, though it is evidenced and conjectured by the human brain, but like two other invisible features of the human creature, one of which they share with the animal kingdom; instinct and one which they share with no other of which we know, soul. (In my anthropological studies, the soul is hinted at with a few other animals, which brain-to-body-mass ratio is equal to or greater than ours, and which give indications and evidence of abstract thinking and morality-the mammals of the sea, Dolphins, Whales, and Porpoises.)
The credo of Cheney/Rove appears to be, we men chose to live like animals, so to our enemies we say, bring them on, we have the largest best warfare personnel and ordinance on the planet and we shall take what we want no matter who has it! Why it seem that almost all other humans are their enemies are inexplicable so far. It cannot be for the survival of this nation, for once, as now, it Constitution and Bill of Rights are gone, what is there to protect? Their physical bodies? Their mere existence as slaves of brutal men and women? That, sans freedom, except in cowards is unacceptable. Those who wish to accept America without it's sacred documentation of who and what we are, are indeed cowards whom I have no wish to protect, do you? Humans who wish to live without freedom are even less than cowards, they are the scum of the earth and they I would never protect. Those humans, are of the one's of which Jesus said, quite plainly, in Luke: 12: 4, Matthew 10:28, "Be, ye not afraid of those who kill only the body, but be afraid of he who can also kill the soul onto Gehenna..." (Hell)
Only cowards-humans who lack a soul would want life under slavery and without our Constitution and bill of Rights, which true believers know to have been inspired by God, for our benefit. Just living, kissing up is no life for a man of woman of courage.
Humans who take away the moral reasons for living, our freedom of thought, expression and action, our empathy, our goodness, are the most evil and cowardly, and those who protect them and encourage them are more evil and are more cowardly. Without a soul, a human is merely another animal-a beast of the field. And were I given the choice of which beast, I would become, would I choose to be in the food chain, or in the chain of the hunter? My, and I assume, your courage, and inability to live as a slave would indicate the path of the most free, would it not? I could not be the defenseless victim-the hunted, could you? Just to have existence and nothing more? Freedom is life, life without freedom is the death of the soul of which Luke and Matthew spoke, and that is death while living because the soul is departed from the body. "Give me liberty, or give me death..." Patrick Henry said, because slavery and accepting it is the death of the soul, and those who have tasted both prefer death. There was a man!
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?
Hold that thought for a while and we will come back to it.
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.
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).
The origin of modern Homo sapiens is not yet resolved. Two extreme scenarios have been proposed. According to the first, the distribution of anatomical traits in modern human populations in different regions was inherited from local populations of Homo erectus and intermediate "archaic" forms. This "Multiregional Hypothesis" states that all modern humans evolved in parallel from earlier populations in Africa, Europe and Asia, with some genetic intermixing among these regions. Support for this comes from the similarity of certain minor anatomical structures in modern human populations and preceding populations of Homo erectus in the same regions.
A different model proposes that a small, relatively isolated population of early humans evolved into modern Homo sapiens, and that this population succeeded in spreading across Africa, Europe, and Asia -- displacing and eventually replacing all other early human populations as they spread. In this scenario, the variation among modern populations is a recent phenomenon. Part of the evidence to support this theory comes from molecular biology, especially studies of the diversity and mutation rate of nuclear DNA and mitochondrial DNA in living human cells. From these studies, an approximate time of divergence from the common ancestor of all modern human populations can be calculated. This research has typically yielded dates around 200,000 years ago, too young for the "Multiregional Hypothesis." Molecular methods have also tended to point to an African origin for all modern humans, implying that the ancestral population of all living people migrated from Africa to other parts of the world -- thus the name of this interpretation: the "Out of Africa Hypothesis."
Whichever model (if either) is correct, the oldest fossil evidence for anatomically modern humans is about 130,000 years old in Africa, and there is evidence for modern humans in the Near East sometime before 90,000 years ago. Most found in Europe such as Cro-Magnon date from about 50,000 BP.
If, as most scientists believe (I am but a minor one of them) Homo sapiens, judging by the 1987 Berkeley Studies, is as unrelated to Neanderthal, as Homo-erectus was to Homo-sapiens, then the question which I asked was never answered properly in undergraduate school, is still being debated, from where did Homo-sapiens come?
The unsatisfactory answer I received was, Out of the North.
I asked the seemingly absurd question based purely on logic because there was no time between Neanderthal and the appearance of HS for further natural evolution or for the mutation of an entire organism the size of man. That, however, is the only answer I ever got and it is insufficient for a scientist. Homo sapiens suddenly appeared. Is he still evolving? Perhaps. Will there be a new type Homo-modernis? Perhaps, but not in our lifetime. Is Pete Still inured to evolution and the Big Bang? With certain reservations, of course, at least, until a better explanation comes along... and one will, one always does among scientists. Maybe the next one will be the right one, the end-all, one, and it may be simply a revised version of what we now have.
Research:
"According to Sowa (2000), [2] up until the twentieth century, three assumptions described by Max Born in 1949 were dominant in the definition of causality:
1. "Causality postulates that there are laws by which the occurrence of an entity B of a certain class depends on the occurrence of an entity A of another class, where the word entity means any physical object, phenomenon, situation, or event. A is called the cause, B the effect.
2. "Antecedence postulates that the cause must be prior to, or at least simultaneous with, the effect.
3. "Contiguity postulates that cause and effect must be in spatial contact or connected by a chain of intermediate things in contact." (Born, 1949, as cited in Sowa, 2000) However, according to Sowa (2000), "relativity and quantum mechanics have forced physicists to abandon these assumptions as exact statements of what happens at the most fundamental levels, but they remain valid at the level of human experience."
See cause and effect in Hindu and western philosophy.
Cheney/Rove, see it as relatively easy to defeat pious men and women-because they will either hesitate or refuse to seize and use the means which Cheney/Rove quite easily, without qualms seize, and use. Am I saying that only believers are moral? No, there is great evidence that the opposite is often the case; I am saying that, not everyone is bright and not everyone is docile. St. Paul and Jesus indicated, in coded language, in parables, in similes, and the former aggressively, the latter subtly, that intellect is a strong prerequisite for complete understanding. Even if they had not, it is certainly the prerequisite for almost everything else in life, but they did, and why not, it is the truth. Paul said more than once, for people to know their limitations. Only a fool does not.
People lacking intellectual tools fail at most things, which require intelligence, if nothing else, The Peter Principle taught us that, but certainly climbing the grade ladder throughout school was no subtle reminder.
Throughout history, humans with mild manners, the Clark Kent's of real life, unless they had a hard inner core and displayed other vast resources, were coaxed, bullied, intimidated, or destroyed, by humans that are more aggressive. The only escape for those not of homicidal tendencies was their intellect and their other resources. Often, as we have seen, homicidal types infest churches and governments, but never before have there been several things which showed up recently and formed a coalition; so many not so bright people, so many people of homicidal tendencies, so many avaristic people, so many lacking true morality, in both parties, and so many God-damned fools. The result, many homicidal types in churches and in government, browbeating more benign types, not-so-bright-types, and just plain lazy types, who simply chose not to vote.
I asked Google and others the following question: What Was The Largest Base of Non-Voters, In The Elections of 2000 & 2004? Several sites gave the same answers. Here is one of them.
July 25, 2004
Single women aren't married to voting booth
San Antonio Express-News
Melissa Fletcher Stoeltje
"First it was the soccer moms. Then the security moms. Next came the NASCAR dads.
Now the hot new catchphrase percolating in politics is "women on their own."
The phrase refers to the estimated 22 million unmarried women who sat out the 2000 election. They represent an electoral behemoth that could clinch the 2004 vote if its members would only show up at the polls, analysts says.
Those who track such data note that if unmarried women had voted in 2000 at the same rate as their married peers, 6 million more votes would have been cast in that election, including 200,000 in Florida (which Bush carried by 537 votes)."
April 24, 2006
Women's Voices. Women Vote. Selects First Four States for 2006 Turnout Efforts
Unmarried women's turnout jumped 13 percent in WVWV's "final four" states in 2004. Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, Washington to be targeted for registration and turnout efforts
Melissa Fletcher Stoeltje
According to the Current Population Survey, November 2004 Supplement, there are hundreds of thousands of unmarried women in WVWV's first four targeted states who are either unregistered or who did not vote in the 2004 election.
A state-by-state breakdown follows:
Michigan:
1,735,495 unmarried women
503,857 unregistered
177,189 registered, but did not vote in 2004
Ohio:
2,053,296 unmarried women
701,963 unregistered
162,268 registered, but did not vote in 2004
Pennsylvania:
2,200,607 unmarried women
736,526 unregistered
209,402 registered, but did not vote in 2004
Washington:
981,586 unmarried women
302,408 unregistered
87,698 registered, but did not vote in 2004
My question to above is, why did these people not vote? Look at what their non-voting has cost in lives alone! Add that to those who reject abortion, many former Democrats, affected by the abortion issue, which many conservative Protestant Churches rallied against and pope's letter to all American Bishops, reminding them that voting for a candidate which supports, or does not condemn abortion faces defacto excommunication, sent a good 10,000,000 Judeo/Christian votes over to Bush and you see the reasons there are 675,000 dead and 1,100,000 maimed Iraqi's, and American's. In 2006, however, the horror of the war and the Katrina episode, galvanized voters of conscience into voting for a good many Democrats, to little avail, as the Democrats have, so far betrayed those who gave so much, and asked little other than to regenerate the Bill of Rights and the Constitution and end the war and in stead of using the lately added trillions of dollars to authorize more killing and maiming, instead of sending Jimmy Carter and others over to officially make peace with the Iraqi Patriot-"Insurgents."
Am I Advocating ID-Intelligent Design?
I certainly am, not! Not in the sense that God supposedly made all things by hand, in seven days, 4004 years ago at 9:00 AM, sometime in October. I am a scientist, though because if many years of sabbatical years of entrepreneuring and teaching in a tenured system, have taken larges bites out time spent studying I am back studying again in Retirement. What I advocate in this article is purely a perspective of God, Master Physicist/Mathematician, Jump-Starting the universe through His own created laws of Physics, of which, I, like Einstein stand in awe.
Let us look for a moment at realities and the invisible world, perhaps two separate things, perhaps not. Einstein argued against the efficacy of a system which was supported by no underlying causality- a quantum based upon... nothing, massive chaotic, probability factory which at any given moment could as easily go one way as another and with neither macrocosmic, or microcosmic stability. Causality equaled, in Einstein's mind, order and order-God. Einstein, and oddly enough independent of him, I, argued the same cause and in exactly the same way, re: since logic in the manner of experiences, as Einstein said, "The very fact that the totality of our sense experiences is such that, by means of thinking, it can be put in order, this fact I one that leaves us in Awe, the eternal mystery of the world is it's comprehensibility." When his old pal Maurice Solovine told him that it was strange that Einstein considered the comprehensibility of the world, "...a miracle or an eternal mystery..." Einstein's answer was a classic, he said that one expects a chaotic world which is incomprehensible and continued that that is precisely the weakness of positivism and professional atheists. In other words, the mystery and the miracle is that the world is comprehensible.
If one believes that God exists, and that He has a moral imperative, even if it is nor defined in and/or by a personal manifestation, that, then, is at least, an incentive for acting in a moral manner. Those who do not believe refute and often insult belief and believers. Now, it is certainly true that God cannot be seen. It is also true that so far, God's existence cannot be proven. For that matter neither can (I am a Cultural Anthropologist) the theory, and it is still a theory, most of which details, few laymen are aware, it is not a field that easily lends itself to a quick Wikipedia down load to prove anything if it were, the years of study needed at the Undergraduate, Graduate and post-graduate levels would be unnecessary.
The Visible and Invisible World's
Moreover, neither is it possible to prove, beyond doubt, the theory of Quantum mechanics, the quanta, Tachyons, and many other theories. Other theories thought to be gospel have come to the fore, with brilliant humans and women supporting them, and they have faded, even though some were brought forth by geniuses like Newton, Galileo, and others of great repute.
Let us look at other matters, other existing things we can neither see, smell, touch, nor hear.
Show me the anatomical reality of the mind. Show me the physical place where one can find the residence within the human body of the skill of composing, painting, or performing. If one sliced open the core of a chunk of coal two hundred fifty years ago, show me where in the coal was the presence of making electricity, or in water, before the two were shown to be a catalyst in heating, lighting and running appliances.
If one slices open the human brain, show me the thoughts, the future paintings, music, composing, the ingenuity, the IQ, Show me the physical dwelling place wherein by cutting, we can find and dissect the mind and the thoughts can be exposed. In years gone by such things were thought to dwell in the heart.
How many humans can hear the frequencies, which some animals can hear?
Show me the human who can see what the hawk can see. Why when one man (as I did as a young man) has 20/10 visions and can read a newspaper across a room, do others doubt until it is proven? How is it that one man, an artist, can see subtle colors others, even when having them pointed out to them not only cannot see, but deny another can see it also?
How is it that one man can tell the spin on a baseball, and even, as a few others and I could, see and recognize the spin, which tells the direction and type of pitch, and others cannot? How is it that also some can see the blur of red and blue colors, which it the logo and signature of the Commissioner of baseball, and others cannot?
How is it that of two humans, same weight, same build, same height, same eyesight, very similar musculature, same strength ability to lift weights, and one can regularly hit a 100 MPH fast ball, safely and often farther than seems possible, while the other cannot even make contact with the ball? The one that hits the ball has 20/10 vision, superhuman reflexes and superhuman eye-hand coordination that is how. It has little to do with size, weight or how many biscuits one had for breakfast
How is it that of two people, one can score incredible scores on an IQ test, placing s/he in the top ¼ of 1% of the brightest people on the planet, and the other far down the list, to the Bush level and still the lowest one becomes president? What does that say about the American voting election system?
How can one person read Shakespeare or the bible and comprehend them completely, and yet hundreds of others, reading the same material take away only, if that, a cursory, surface level of incomplete understanding, missing entirely the hidden meanings, but thinking then, that they know Shakespeare and discuss it with an air of knowledgeability?
Where is the physical location in the human body where intuition, which allows one person to continuously make correct decisions in investing or other business, military, decisions, while another cannot at all?
How is it that one person can teach and make complex material clear consistently, and have his students come away convinced s/he is a Great Teacher, while others fail to make the same material clear and are seen as poor teachers? Where and what is the physical organ wherein those skills can be found?
There are special skills sparingly doled out to very few. In a painting class I took, each student was asked to describe through and by their painting of the model, the colors they saw in the complexion of the model and her clothes. Of forty-three students, only seven were capable of seeing the complete color spectrum and only five were able to do an anatomically and color correct, portrait of her. Why could not the others see the colors or get a likeness that was anatomically correct? Where is the physical location of the organ that allows such a thing?
There are many things some of us can neither see, hear, smell, nor touch, that are none-the-less, seen, heard, smelled, or touched by others. In addition, there are things none can see, hear, smell, or touch, that have been, nevertheless, proven to exist yet are missed by a great many.
How have some wo/men made consistently, pin-pointedly accurate predictions-predictions pooh-poohed by "experts," things against the grain, that are seldom easily recognized, things no one else or, at least, few could see in advance, even occasionally?
We can say of many of the above, that there is things we cannot see, smell, hear, or touch, but which manifest themselves in other ways, which give strong evidence of their existence. We know of the existence of Genius, because it manifests itself in great paintings, music, writing, filmmaking and in and through many other arts and disciplines. We can also say the same about a presence makes itself manifest to some few, but not to a great many others. Plato said that knowledge is like a stream of consciousness that flows through the universe and some very few have the apparatus to tune in on it and know what the vast majority cannot know or even guess. The quantum may or may not qualify as such a vehicle for knowledge, and what I in school called the Conductus, but which was found to be, at least a theoretical possibility, with the same properties to which I gave the Conductus, the Tachyon, which never travels below, but always above, light speed, as I predicted, comes in and out of vogue among astrophysicists. The tachyon also qualifies in being able to travel to and fro and perhaps, certainly, laterally in time, and is the most excellent "Conductus" for premonition, post-monition and Present-monition, for those so gifted as to tune it in. Sound weird? So, to me does the accepted "Spooky action at a distance," of dual particles, entropy, mirror planets, Shrödingers Cat, Black Holes, related Particle Entanglement, eleven dimensions, space without and edge, end or beginning, light bending, flattening, shrinking, and agelessness at light speed (What happens above light speed, regressing in age, thinning to the shape of a toothpick, disappearing or stretching?)
Is The Following Possible?
To contain even light (traveling at 186,000 PS) a Black Hole's (BH) gravitational strength must exceed the speed of light's speed strength. To accomplish that it must have a total gravitational power that exceeds also the entropic distribution or deterioration of the universe around it, or become a universe unto itself (or is it already one?)
So, then, is the BH after its Cheney/Bush act of consuming everything in it's path, The Universe, containing all that not exists, crushed down into a universe eating point? If so, what of the Tachyon, which exceeds light speed at all times and is theoretically capable of time-space travel backward forward and conceivably sideways, thus exceeding our "Flatland" four dimensional human capable-visual model? The Tachyon by so exceeding Light Speed, by what factor I do not know, easily breaks free of the BH and in so doing may yet return in it's to, fro, sideways meandering and thereby blast the bejeepers out of the BH, Big-Banging it into a new Universe, and guess what, it matches the ANCIENT Hindu model of the expanding/contracting universe on it's never-ending cycle.
The term photon was introduced for quanta of energy of the electromagnetic (EM) radiation. Einstein defined the quanta as indivisible packets of light. An Irreducible complexity of form and substance, a duality of wave and particle, which duality is now in question.
In space, things we would call ludicrous, ridiculous, or fantasy may be in fact, what we call reality. The flip side of Einstein's causality, is Bohr's version of the Quantum, a nihilistic, crap game in which any and everything happens by mere chance, at the whim of a sightless, non-existent non-watch-maker, in which free will does not exist and everything in the universe is a moment-to-moment, flip of the coin in a Hell of inconsistency whereupon nothing can be counted. A sort of Macrocosm of the political reality in which microcosm is politics in America.
This bald-faced waste, has the words of Jesus ringing in my ears, "I was hungry and you gave me to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me to drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, I was naked and you gave me clothing, I was sick and you took care of me, I was in prison and you visited me."
Now, he said recently to me and others, in a dream, "I was hungry and you gave me sand, fire and smoke to eat, thirsty and you gave me bloody sand to drink, I was well and you made me sick, sick and rather than visit me, you bomb barded my home with fiery missiles, killing my family at dinner, I had clothing and you burned them right off my back, and made me naked, I was free and you imprisoned and tortured me. You were a stranger and you murdered everyone I ever knew, mother, father, brothers, sisters, old young, my child and my pets, and you poisoned the sand, the air, and me with DU-238, and with it, you also poisoned my food. And for that I have cursed you and the curse will fill you all with fire and sand, save my Chosen few, the 36 and their immediate families. Shalom."
Neo-cons, war profiteers, and hardliners of all stripes still argue that the "enemy" we face is an invisible evil genius directing his hoards into a political religion known as; "Islamofascism." The small group calling itself Al Qaeda, exists in the form developed by the Neo-cons only in their minds and those of the Military Medical Industrial Complex, it is pure and simple P T Barnum Bullshit! We are not only in no more danger than the US was in from 1935-1945, but far less. Germany and Japan had first class navy and air force and Germany had missiles, now that was real danger. Billions, no, trillions have been wasted to mass murder for two reasons, to steal oil and anything else carpet-baggers could get their hands a upon, and to satisfy an Inquisitional Hatred of Muslimism by idiots who can no more understand the bible than they could Shakespeare of the Constitution and Bill of Rights. What should be the punishment for those who altered our two most sacred documents? Exile? Should we punish those who do not vote? Should political candidates be given IQ tests and Psychological tests and have those results released for all to read or shall there be a minimum tolerance level of each for government service? Should people who are extremely naïve' or gullible, to be trusted/allowed to vote? Who would do the testing? Or should everyone be allowed to run and vote regardless of point of view, intellect, or lack thereof as now, or degree of gullibility?
COMMENT:
Those whose majors were either Anthropology, Archeology, Astrophysics or any other major science, and taking into account each generation of scientists who thought they had truth nailed, but later were upended by other scientists, who thought they were right, only to also later be upended, by younger Turks, being "Right" is then, generationally meaningless
If the seemingly plausible meanderings of men from Newton, to Einstein, to Hawking, have taught educated men and women one thing, it is that there may well be no "reality" no basis for concrete permanent right or wrong. Chaos in the Quantum is stated by some, by others "God would not shoot dice with the universe," Meaning that we probably say that only because we have not yet seen the eternally long first ripple of the repeat rhythm end, so we know not the pattern, sounds as feasible as anything I have heard. Besides, if someone venturing a guess, which has no advanced matriculation in any of the above areas, why would anyone put credence in their opinion?