Of Monkeys And Men

Evolution is one of the most important concepts in understanding the human species and its place in the universe. I am simply amazed that we are still debating evolution, a process that has never been credibly challenged scientifically since Darwin literally wrote the book on it in 1859. Imagine a child, an overweight, not particularly attractive child, crying, snot bubbling out of his piggy little nose, sticking his fingers in his ears and screaming, trying to drown out his older sister who is telling him there is no Santa Claus. That stupid fat little baby is the United States of America.

I'm not going to into why Intelligent Design is magical realism posing as science, or why evolution is the only consistent way to explain the development of mankind on Earth. I would like to focus on two points that have enraged me about the evolution vs. magic debate. One is how the latest "I.D." movement is just a well financed PR campaign by an All-Star Squad of Rich Republican Assholes (sorry if I'm being redundant). The other is the infuriating assertion than the teaching of Intelligent Design in the public schools needs to be protected by the First Amendment. But first the rich assholes...

The Discovery Institute, the main proponent of teaching Intelligent Design, is a Republican front, funded by such right-wing low lifes as Richard Mellon Scaife, who endeavored at great expense to prove the startling accusation that Bill Clinton cheats on his wife. The Discovery Institute (does anyone hear "Ministry of Truth" when they read that?) spends millions of dollars to fund "research" into I.D. and to lobby states and school districts to teach "the controversy" about evolution. Let's be clear - there is no fucking controversy about evolution. Or to put it another way, there is JUST as much controversy about two other factual assertions, that cigarettes cause cancer, and that the Holocaust occurred.

I use those two examples because tobacco companies and Holocaust-deniers, like evolution-deniers, can find scientists that back up their ridiculous assertions. With enough money thrown around, I bet I can get some unscrupulous PhD's to say almost anything. If flat out bribery doesn't work, there is always some willing egotist who craves the fame that comes with being a "maverick" who bucks the establishment. It is easier to make waves and generate sales by being in the wacko minority opinion. That is why any crazy theory can get published: "The Nazis didn't kill any Jews," "Lincoln was gay," or "ass-raping aliens are kidnapping people" - best-selling books have been written on all three of these subjects. Who wants to be the two millionth biologist to say "Darwin was right" when you can be one of the lucky 50 stooges that says, "I.D. is a valid viewpoint. Check please." Hell I'm tempted to get a PhD in Intelligent Design from Bob Jones University and get a gig on Fox News too. I want one of those new bad ass Mustangs. They're sweeeet!

This leads me to my second point of irritation about this whole disgusting I.D. mess. This irritant is the belief that the First Amendment protects the teaching of I.D. in schools. When I ponder this concept, I feel my head is going to spin around like the Exorcist chick. If you see a little news scrawl that says "South Carolina man spews green vomit and dies," you will know it was because someone used "First Amendment" and "Intelligent Design" in the same sentence once too often.

The First Amendment to the United States Constitution is one of the greatest things ever written, in my opinion. So much suffering in our nation and around the world would disappear if everyone could just let everyone say and believe what they want. I don't want to make I.D. proponents disappear, or make them shut up, or lead them into re-education camps where their genitals will be shocked with car batteries for days on end. No, no, no. I might fantasize about it, but I don't truly wish it. Everyone has the right to be a dumb ass, and that goes for a neo-Nazi or an I.D. extremist just as much as for my angry, bile-spewing self.

But here is the thing...the First Amendment has limits. We've all heard Oliver Wendell Holmes's too-often-quoted quote about yelling fire in a crowded theater, but there are other examples of how the First Amendment is limited, such as libel and child pornography. But that is on another planet from this debate. When talking about a school curriculum, I don't even think the First Amendment applies.

Actually, using the First Amendment as an argument is a crass, devious ploy to turn one of liberalism's greatest weapons against itself. But like much of Orwellian Republican sophistry, you can cut to the truth of the matter - arguing that Intelligent Design should be taught in science class is like arguing that 2+2=5 is a valid mathematical concept. If something is just fucking wrong, factually wrong, it needn't be discussed in a school. Bringing up I.D. in class would just be white noise, clutter to distract the students from the truth these conservatives so detest. The Onion newspaper had a brilliant parody of this whole ridiculous concept, when it reported that Christians wanted "Intelligent Falling" to be taught as an alternative to gravity.

Let's be clear - science and human reason are under assault by the Bush Administration and the Christian wing of the Republican Party. Casting doubt plays right into the hands of those that would ban stem cell research, or deny global warming. In Republican doublethink, the good scientists, the ones that advocate peer review, that propose and test falsifiable hypotheses, THEY are the narrow minded people, THEY are the bigots. It is the same mentality that allows zealots to say "Christianity is under attack" when just under 80% of Americans are Christian. Trust me, if you guys are under attack, we atheists are doing a really shitty job. Next time you feel oppressed as a Christian, take out one of those little green slips of paper that say "In God We Trust," and shove it.

Iran And The Bomb

Iran announced it was resuming uranium conversion this week. The International Atomic Energy Agency has given a September 3 deadline for Iran to stop doing this or face possible Security Council sanctions. The United States is also keeping military options open, with or without UN authority. Yet despite President Bush's warning that "all options are on the table" for dealing with Iran, the reverse is actually true. Iran will become a nuclear power and there is virtually nothing that the United States and the European Union can do about it.

Why is this? For one, Iran is playing its cards well. It can claim that its uranium processing is for peaceful nuclear power plants. All signatories of the Non-Proliferation Treaty have the right to develop atomic energy for their energy needs. This requires enriching uranium. Unless Iran announces publicly that it is doing so for nuclear warheads, it is hard for the West to make a clear case. Iran will do nothing of the kind, of course, and will be happy to keep the West talking.

Also the very unfairness of the Non-Proliferation Treaty can be used by Iranian leaders to manipulate Third World opinion in their favor. The NPT says that only five states can have nuclear weapons (U.S., Russia, China, Britain, and France). Any country locked out of the Nuclear Club can reasonably ask: "If nuclear weapons are truly to be used as a defensive deterrent, shouldn't any state that CAN make them have them? Why should these five nations be granted a monopoly?" India, Pakistan, and Israel have already made their choice, opting out of the NPT, and wield nuclear arsenals. All three are in Iran's neighborhood, of course.

Then there is the religion angle. Without incontrovertible evidence, an attack on Iranian nuclear facilities by the United States would be a PR bonanza for Islamic extremists: "The United States has attacked three Muslim nations in five years! Can anyone doubt America is at war with Islam?" The entire Middle East would explode with anti-American hatred and violence.

The military option is just not credible. Iran has many nuclear facilities spread out over its territory (it is four times bigger than Iraq). It has a strong military that has not been starved for equipment like Iraq's was. Although the US would quickly achieve air superiority, that would not be enough to ensure Iran's nuclear weapons program was destroyed. How many "boots on the ground" can America commit? Over 138,000 troops are tied up in Iraq, plus commitments in Afghanistan and South Korea. The United States troop strength is at its breaking point. Would Bush be willing to start another Middle East conflict while popular support for the Iraq War is at new lows? Good luck selling that plan.

Iran can also fight back with asymmetrical warfare. Iran is the main benefactor of Hezbollah, the grimly effective terrorist organization responsible for the Beirut Marine barracks bombings, two US Embassy bombings, and the kidnappings that led to the Iran-Contra fiasco. If Hezbollah bomb-makers aren't already aiding the Iraqi insurgency, they would be after the US attack on Iran!

Even economic sanctions against Iran are doubtful. Security Council sanctions would not survive a Chinese veto. Last year, China signed a $70 billion oil agreement, and a $20 billion natural gas agreement, with you-know-who.

All of this makes me think Iran will develop nuclear weapons. This inevitability does not have to be viewed as a global crisis. Iran is slowly evolving, in fits and starts, from a theocracy to a democratic Islamic state. Not an open society, especially for women, but not the jihadist bogeyman Americans have hated since 1979 either. Many will try to demonize the Iranian regime as "crazy" and unpredictably dangerous but like the Soviet Union before it and North Korea right now, even "evil" nation-states seek their own survival. An Iranian state would follow the rules of Mutually Assured Destruction just like everyone else.

Welcome To Bowden Busts Loose

My original BlowdenBlog site is about popular entertainment. This blog, Bowden Busts Loose, is intended to be a more serious opinion column like you'd find in a newspaper, with more profanity.