Evolution ? how did it become such an industry that it receives
government monies and holds an official place in institutions such as
state parks, zoos, museums, etc?  How did it officially become a part
of textbooks approved by the government to use in public schools? Was
there a law which was passed giving it some kind of special status? I
know about the Butler act of 1925 that opposed the use of taxpayer
dollars for the teaching of evolution. When, where and how did it
become so much the converse in our land?  Thanks.

Dear patmarcum-ga;

Thank you for allowing me to answer your interesting question.

American courts have tried Darwin?s theory of evolution no less than
10 times, including a trial in Pennsylvania as recently as September
2005. This year alone, at least 17 bills challenging evolution's place
in the public school curriculum have been considered in 13 different
states.

In 1968, in Epperson v. Arkansas (1968), the U.S. Supreme Court
overturned an Arkansas state law banning the teaching of evolution.
And in 1987, in Edwards v. Aguillard (1987), it ruled against
balancing evolution lessons by teaching creationism. There have, of
course, been many other similar cases. Here are some of those
historical cases just to name a few:

Smith v. Mississippi (1969-70)

Willoughby v. National Science Foundation (1974) 

Crowley v. Smithsonian Institution (1974)

Steele v. Tennessee (1974)

Daniel v. Tennessee (1975)

Hendren v. Campbell (1977)

Segraves v. State of California (1981)

McClean v. Arkansas Board of Education (1982)

Webster v. New Lenox School District (1990)

Peloza v. Capistrano School District (1994)

Freiler v. Tangipahoa Parish Board of Education (1997)

LeVake v. Independent School District 656 (2001)

Selman v. Cobb County School District (2005)

LIVE SCIENCE
?Anti-evolution Attacks on the Rise?
http://www.livescience.com/othernews/ap_050926_dover_update.html

Over the years it seems that the impact of intellectual influence has
been, in large part, one of the leading factors in the government?s
acceptance of evolution as a viable educational theory as opposed to
creationism (or intelligent design). This, of course, does not take
into account the liberal views of the courts trying such cases since
there have clearly been some liberal justices in the past who have
issued opinions in these matters.

LIVE SCIENCE
?Nobel Prize Winners Speak Up to Support Evolution?
http://www.livescience.com/othernews/_ap_050916_id_opponents.html

So you see the debate continues even to this day and it is no less
hotly debated that it ever was. Historically the United States has had
a long and complex history when it comes to evolution (specifically
where it pertains to ?anti? evolution theories). The debated subject
dates back at least as early as 1924 when the matter came under
scrutiny by the California Board of Education. There seems to have
been somewhat of a hiatus in interest from both proponents and
opposition that spanned 1926 to 1963 (perhaps due to our distraction
from the great depression and wars and other more pressing delimmas)
when the subject one again gained some momentum, catching the
attention of retrospective and introspecitve intellectuals of the
1960's.

ANTI-EVOLUTION AND THE LAW
http://www.antievolution.org/topics/law/

The issue of how and when the government adopted evolution as the
?official? theory is not altogether cut-and-dried. To begin with, the
government hasn?t necessarily adopted this view as the official
government position. There has, in fact, been some legislation to
preserve the views of anti-evolution or non-evolution teachings.
Interestingly the legislation doesn?t some in the way of providing for
equal time, as one would a political issue, rather the intent of the
legislation is to insure a disclaimer that where such theories are
taught that it is also to be made known that no "factual scientific
evidence" supports the theory entirely (whether the theory is
evolution, creationism or intelligent design).

?House Bill 179, introduced in the Georgia House of Representatives on
January 27, 2005, would require "Whenever any theory of the origin of
human beings or other living things is included in a course of study
offered by a local unit of administration, factual scientific evidence
supporting or consistent with evolution theory and factual scientific
evidence inconsistent with or not supporting the theory shall be
included in the course of study."
NSCE RESOURCES
http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/news/2005/GA/161_new_antievolution_legislation_1_28_2005.asp

While at present the Supreme Court ?appears? to be supporting
evolution as the official US government theory, it is in fact merely
defending prior decisions on the matter that were decided over the
years on their own merit. It does appear on its face that the court is
stubbornly holding to evolution as the most likely scientific theory,
but where church and state issues are concerned, there are limitations
to how the court may recognize any particular creationism or
intelligent design concept and make that the preferred (and legal)
theory. As it stands evolution has historically been viewed as a
rather ambiguously interpreted concept that can be legally taught
because it is neither religious nor political. Because there are (in
some people?s view) some remotely plausible evidence to support the
theory of evolution, it?s been taught as a rather non-invasive
?take-it-or-leave-it? approach. This has, to some extent satisfied the
proponents of evolution and leaves the door open to others to walk
away with the right to believe or disbelieve the theory as they see
fit for themselves and their children.

After all, whether evolution is factual or not, neither position is
apparently a life-altering revelation in the government?s presumed
official view (though the religious right would obviously contend that
such a revelation would indeed be life-altering if creationism were
proven true). Creationists will continue to oppose it (presumably)
because it implies that their religious contentions are invalid, which
in turn threatens their core beliefs. Evolutionists will continue to
oppose it (presumably) because they have the right to embrace any
scientific theory they so desire outside of an imposed religious
theory. And finally, intelligent design proponents will continue to
leave the issue open for the possibility that some less understood
entity or action was responsible because they simply cannot, or will
not, accept as fact any other view. Where the government is concerned
each of these positions is equally within a person?s right to believe,
but evolution is the lesser invasive of all (as evidenced by
historical Supreme Court decisions).

In summary it seems that the government?s safest position is to
defend, not evolution itself, but the EXISTING DECISIONS of the
Supreme Court on evolution matters (in other words, not as the
official theory but as the most legally acceptable of all theories)
until or if such time that the court rules otherwise. In short, it?s
not that the government ever officially recognized evolution, but that
it can, based on non-religious scientific speculation, support
(financially) and further enable (in parks, schools, museums, etc.) a
theory that is neither religious (creationism) nor contrary to modern,
scientific school of thought (intelligent design) and thereby not
prohibited by law.

I hope you find that my answer exceeds your expectations. If you have
any questions about my research please post a clarification request
prior to rating the answer. Otherwise I welcome your rating and your
final comments and I look forward to working with you again in the
near future. Thank you for bringing your question to us.

Best regards;
Tutuzdad-ga ? Google Answers Researcher



INFORMATION SOURCES

Defined above


SEARCH STRATEGY


SEARCH ENGINE USED:

Google ://www.google.com


SEARCH TERMS USED:

EVOLUTION

THEORY

CREATIONISM

INTELLIGENT DESIGN

LEGISLATION

HISTORY

SUPREME COURT

GOVERNMENT

OFFICIAL

POSITION

---

Request for Answer Clarification by patmarcum-ga on 04 Nov 2005 03:01 PST

tutuzdad-ga
Yes, I was satisfied with your answer and I do thank you for your
insightful thoughts, as well as the research of the legal aspects.

I guess what I am now left with is why the government thought they had
to take an official position to the extent of allowing taxpayer monies
to be used to promote evolution in state parks, museums, etc. That
seems to be a different, even more subtle move on the part of the
supporters, and promoters of evolution. My guess is that by
successfully getting evolutionary teaching into to school textbooks,
it opened the door to take it to other public arenas. Thanks again.
Pat Marcum

---

Clarification of Answer by tutuzdad-ga on 04 Nov 2005 06:36 PST

I suppose it can be argued that the government does not necessarily
"promote" evolution insomuch as it publicly "recognizes" it (though an
opposing argument can just as easily be made). What is clear however
is that "seperation of church and state" issues have no impact or
bearing on the concept of evolution. While evolution is considered
politically neutral, legalistically speaking, the concept of
creationism certainly is not.

It was my pleasure. You're welcome.

tutuzdad-ga

It's such a gradual thing...you'd probably do best with a book that
talks about the aftermath of the Scopes trial.  In general teaching
evolution was simply regarded as teaching new scientific knowledge the
same as teaching chemistry or nuclear theory.  Many scientists and
theologians consider evolutionary theory and the Bible completely
compatible.

dear patmarcum-ga

Evolution is not the only thing taught in textbooks and public schools.
The French Revolution is taught in schools. How do you know that the
French Revolution happened ? Perhaps it is simply a myth that has been
perpetuated over the years? So why should tax payers pay  for the
teaching of the French Revolution?

Or the theory of Relativity ? Some people question the validity of the
theory of relativity. But it is taught in the Physics departments of
just about every legitimate university in  the world. Do you think we
should stop the funding for the teaching of relativity just because
some people believe the theory to be wrong?

Or some people believe that 12 men never visited the moon. Should we
stop funding for any program that teaches the history of the American
Space program just because some people choose not to believe it?

Or Some people choose to believe that the Earth is flat. Do we stop
funding for the teaching of basic Astronomy that says the earth goes
round the moon? Or perhaps gave equal teaching time to the teaching of
the "Flat Earth Theory".

Or perhaps World war 2 is a myth. Taxpayers pay loads of commerating
this event (A MUCH MUCH larger industry than Evolution when it comes
to commemorating it)

Evolution is a perfectly respected theory which has been backed up by
many years of verifiable research. It has every right to be taught in
schools along with any other theories that have been established over
a period of time.

I would suggest if you do not like your tax dollars been taught on Evolution,
then you spend the time coming up with an alternate theory which can
be verified by legitimate reserch/observation.

Oh and BTW I am not talking about ID which IS NOT a theory but just an
unfair attempt to rubbish the theory of Evolution.

Regards

DPRK007

Because as an advanced nation, we want our citizens to learn science. 
It is time to put the old myths away.

I suspect that ID believers did poorly in science class and are now
trying to vent their frustrations. Similarly, creationists want to
have the "it's a mystery" box to check rather than learn the
complexities of this branch of science.

I'd love to see this extrapolated to other subjects, such as grammar
and math. When asked to spell "chrysanthemum" it would be nice to
reply, "It's a mystery!"

Just because something is complicated doesn't mean it can't be random.
Haven't you ever had to unjumble Christmas lights?

Evolution holds the position it has because it is the logical and
provable explanation of circumstances.

It is still the " THEORY" of evolution. Consider: The eye cannot
'evolve' . It must be fully complete to even work. And just about
every living thing has eyes. And they all work the same. Points to a
very good engineer. A creator.

The question can be reversed:  why should the government support a
theory based in a religion, especially when the Constitution says it
must not, and various court cases have prohibited other professions of
religious beliefs in schools?

The theory of evolution stands up to the present scientific tests. If
the only refutation of it is a religious belief  - one that is NOT
held by everyone who is a Christian or Jew -  teaching ID in state
schools is the same as have kids start the day by saying the Lord's
Prayer in class.

It is statements like some found here that point up the depressing
level of science education in our country. Go talk to a third-grade
general science teacher and have him or her explain about the
development of eyes and the differing types of light-sensing organs
there are out there. They sure aren't all the same (look at an annelid
and an eagle).

Once that is done, speak to a fourth grade math teacher about the
definition of a theory. Maybe fifth grade? I can't recall when we got
into theories.

It is amusing that people raise their eyes at evolution, which is at
least backed by science.  What backs creationism?  What facts?  Some
say that becuase the ye or the universe is so complex, that it must
have been spontaneously reated.  well, if that logic is true, then God
cannot exist, because a god must be even more complex than his
creation - so if the creation cannot exist without god, god cannot
exist without being created by a more complex creator...where does it
end?

As for theories, relativity is a theory, too.  A theory is a
scientific statement that has evidence to back it.  Religion is just
what some people believe, no facts - just faith.  In religion, all you
need is faith.  facts are irrelevant.  That's why you can't use
religion to explain science.

Also, I believe the Scopes Trials gave teachers the right to teach
evolution.  Creationism is specific to which religion you're talking
about, and has no proof beyond philosophical argument.  I believe
schools would benefit from a course on comparitive religion.  that
would teach tolerance and show how religion 'evolved'.

If you believe the current New Testament is unadulterated, check out
the Sinaticus Gospels - the first complete collection found around 300
AD.  In it, Joseph is clearly named as the father of Jesus.  In the
Ceutaneous Gospels, the next complete set found 100 years later, the
sentance is subtly altered to state that Mary was the mother of Jesus.
 Over time, the virgin birth story was further clarified.

Also note that NONE of the great wrietrs in the time of Jesus ever
mentioned him, while they did mention other contemporaries - none of
which raised the dead and healed the sick - which I think would have
caused quite a stir.  Jesus isn't even metioned in print anywhere
until more than a hundred years after his death.  Also, if you dig
back further, you wiull find many cultures who had a Jesus-like figure
in their belief system.  You will also find that the deification of a
man was very common, as in the Egyption Pharoahs, Baylonian Kings, and
Roman Emporers, to name a few.

To anyone who bothers to study history, religion, and 'thevolution',
it is obvious that religions are myths, nothing more.  A necessity in
a time when man knew little of his surroundings and was trying to make
sense of his world.  Then as now, the majority of people were
ignorant.  But they still needed answers.  The supernatural and the
occult - be it Mithraism, Gnosticism, Judaism, or Christianity - was
simply a way to find peace through some sort of answer system.  Kind
of like how belief in the Tooth Fairy explains to children how money
gets under their pillow.

Paraphrasing one of my literary heroes, H.L. Mencken, my last words on
the gallows will be to condemn collectivism in all of its forms. In
the continuing struggle between "individualism" and "collectivism,"
you will always find me in the company of the former. I recall a
discussion I had with classmates back in high school, wherein I
uttered what I then considered a cute phrase: "I distrust any form of
organization from two-handed poker on up." In later years, I have
modified the thrust of that comment, coming to the conclusion that we
need one another?s cooperation if we are to live in a condition of
liberty wherein each of us is free to pursue our individual "bliss"
(to borrow from Joseph Campbell). What we have in common with one
another, is a need to come to the defense of one another?s
individuality, a truth now made evident by the police-state hurriedly
being assembled by the Bush administration.

In varying degrees, every political system is collectivist in nature,
each being premised upon the centralization of state authority over
the lives and property of individuals. Communism is only the more
aggressive and far-reaching form of state socialism. But every
political form is grounded in the belief that the state may rightfully
preempt the decision-making authority of individuals.

Most of us have been conditioned to confine the range of permissible
thought about the nature and extent of political authority to an
arbitrary continuum running from the "Left" to the "Right." The
assumption underlying such thinking is that if you are dissatisfied
with a "Leftist" (or "liberal") government?s policies, you can switch
your preferences to "Rightist" (or "conservative") candidates. But
such thinking clouds the fact, as noted by a friend of mine, that the
"Left" and "Right" are but "two wings of the same bird of prey!" All
political groups want power over others, a point noted in Ambrose
Bierce?s The Devil?s Dictionary: "Conservative, n. A statesman who is
enamored of existing evils, as distinguished from the Liberal, who
wishes to replace them with others." An awareness of this fact is
found in the growing dissatisfaction of people with both major
political parties, along with the sense that, no matter who they vote
for, the government always gets elected!

The alleged "polarization" of viewpoints along this political spectrum
does not delude those whose interests are driven more by a desire for
coercive power over others than by any deep-seated philosophic
principles. That so many 1930s Marxists could so easily have become
conservatives by the 1950s, while some "Leftist" radicals of the 1960s
have become darlings of modern neoconservativism, illustrates the
fungible nature of all political systems.

It is an inner need to forcibly control the lives and property
interests of others that motivates men and women of all political
persuasions. Philosophic "principles" or "basic values" are no more to
the politically ambitious than propaganda with which to create and
solidify a base of power. Like commercial advertisers who declare "we
do it all for you," politicians thrive on getting individuals to align
themselves with their (and the state?s) interests. Have any of you
bought into George Bush?s promises of "enduring freedom" ? words not
even he can mutter without breaking into his used-car salesman?s grin?

All political systems are dependent upon the generation of mass-minded
thinking, to persuade each of us to lose our sense of individuality
and responsibility in the collective herd. We condition our minds to
accept identities for ourselves, to think of ourselves not as
self-directed, self-responsible beings, but as members of various
groups, whose interests are not only mutually exclusive, but
antagonistic. Whether we identify ourselves by race, religion,
nationality, lifestyle, ideology, economic interests, gender,
geography, or any other category, we put ourselves into a state of
conflict with others. Political systems then promise to protect us
from "them," and most of us are too dull to recognize that our alleged
"protectors" are the very ones who induced us to play the games that
now threaten us! If you haven?t yet figured out that the events of
9/11 and their aftermath are but extensions of the decades-old
politicogenic conflicts manufactured by political systems, then you
have been watching too much cable television!

Look at the consequences of losing our sense of individuality in
collective herds. Events in your daily life should confirm to you that
individuals are generally more decent, peaceful, cooperative, loving,
and humane than are political collectives. It should be clear to you
that all political systems depend upon a modus operandi that is
completely contrary to what most of us experience with other
individuals; methodologies that none of us would tolerate from
friends, associates, or even strangers. Politics attracts and
mobilizes the basest qualities of humanity: a penchant for coercion,
intimidation, warfare, and deceit; a willingness to destroy others;
and an obsession with forcibly controlling the lives of others.

I once defined "government" as "a system of murder, rape, extortion,
coercion, theft, intimidation, and terror, the absence of which, it is
said, would lead to disorder."

If you doubt this characterization then confront these hard facts:
during the 20th century, governments managed to kill 200 million men,
women, and children in wars, genocides, and other acts of formalized
violence. During that same century, how many people were killed by
individuals acting without political authority?

The 20th century revealed to us how easily the "dark side" of our
unconscious minds can be energized toward violent and destructive
ends. Nazi Germany, Stalinist Russia, and American lynch mobs
demonstrated how easy it is to manipulate herd-oriented people. It is
the individual who is difficult to control.

Just as we try to ignore the presence of a naked man at a social
gathering, most of us tend to consciously repress the uncomfortable
truths about the nature of collectivized systems. In the aftermath of
September 11th, most of us have learned to recite the state?s
catechism that these attacks had nothing to do with policies or
programs of the American government, but were simply peevish acts
carried out by men who envied our way of life! That these men came
from a part of the world that has become an abattoir produced and
directed by various political systems, influenced by a mix of Jewish,
Islamic, and Christian doctrines, with costuming (and armaments)
provided by the United States, seems not to have tweaked the
consciousness of most.

Still, there are inner voices within each of us that insist upon
reality. Our emotions, intuitions, and dreams, are some of the more
familiar ways in which our unconscious mind ? which, if nothing else,
seems to have our survival as its central concern ? endeavors to
communicate with our consciousness. I suspect that many of us become
angry at the opinions of others that contradict our own, not because
we know them to be false, but because we fear that they may be true. I
will receive more hostile e-mails from this article than I would from
one in which I developed the thesis that 2 + 2 = 5, or that the earth
is, indeed, a flat monolith supported by a turtle. "Pay no attention
to that man behind the screen," intoned the Wizard of Oz as Toto
exposed to his friends the fraud that had been perpetrated upon them.

Our obsession with collectivism ? whatever form it may take ? is
destroying both the quality and the existence of human life. While we
are social creatures, and need one another?s cooperation in order to
survive, we are also individuals who require mutual respect for the
inviolability of our respective interests. Only the individual is able
to generate thoughts, to be creative, to reproduce, to sense pleasure,
to love, and to have transcendent experiences.

The fate of all humanity is in the hands of individuals. If mankind is
to extricate itself from the destructiveness of collective systems,
you and I must begin to question the collective thinking through which
we participate in such madness. There will be no White House
conferences, or legislative hearings, or Supreme Court opinions to
help us, for these are only expressions of the problem we must
overcome. In words attributed to Albert Einstein: "The significant
problems we face cannot be solved at the same level of thinking we
were at when we created them."

For the same reason that only you and I can protect ourselves from the
attacks of others ? our delusions about police "protection" to the
contrary notwithstanding ? only you and I can alter our personal
consciousness. You and I can either choose to rethink our sense of
"who we are" ? and, in so doing, withdraw our energies from collective
identities ? or simply content ourselves to sit back, as most
journalists seem inclined to do, and observe the collapse of society
and the destruction of tens of millions of more lives.

Such an undertaking will be neither as lonely nor futile as you might
imagine. Consistent with our politicized conditioning, we have been
trained to think that only by acting collectively, can we accomplish
worthwhile ends. But events are demonstrating to us that collective
thinking and behavior are destroying us. It is to you and me that
attention must shift if we are to reverse our present course.

Great music and other artistic expressions, inventions and
discoveries, and other creative acts and ideas, have always come from
individuals. The "butterfly effect" of which students of chaos speak
informs us that localized acts can, through being reiterated back into
a system, produce global consequences. Lest anyone doubt this, recall
how nineteen men, armed only with cheap box-cutter knives,
precipitated the events of 9/11 and their aftermath. If individuals
can act for destructive ends, isn?t it possible for you and me to act,
individually, for peaceful and constructive purposes?

Your efforts will be energized by influences which, as collectivized
people, we have long forgotten: [1] first, the demands of life,
itself, will support you. Like flowing water, life has a way of
insisting upon its own expression. Just as a dammed-up river will
eventually surmount, circumvent, or overpower barriers to its free
movement, life has a way of insisting upon conditions necessary to its
vitality. Belief systems, no matter how staunchly defended, are
ultimately no match for the forces of life, a truth made evident by
the collapse of the Soviet Union. When biology confronts ideology, it
is best to put your money on biology.

[2] The second energizing source is one which, alone, will motivate
your initial efforts, and which will then begin to intensify itself
exponentially: the rediscovery of the human spirit. It is not to
church doctrines or rituals that I refer, but to your experiencing an
inner sense of connection with all of existence. Because such
transcendent needs and experiences are unavoidably individual in
nature, their expressions have a way of helping us withdraw from the
lifeless and divisive collective systems that disconnect us from one
another and keep us in our state of perpetual war.

We are discovering from many sources, of which the Internet is but one
example, that our world is becoming increasingly decentralized. Our
needs for both individual liberty and social cooperation are moving us
in directions in which our connectedness to others is finding
expression more in horizontal rather than traditional vertical forms
of organization. It is not "terrorism" that underlies the Bush
administration?s war against the American people, but the
institutional order?s reaction to the continuing collapse of
centralized systems of authority.

It is the desperate effort of established political interests to
maintain their waning power that is driving efforts to expand police
powers, incarcerate men and women without benefit of trials, deploy
the military to control the American people, and to build
concentration camps for "enemy combatants" who, in this day, have
become us all. In order to accomplish such ends, the state must
intensify its efforts to collectivize our thinking so that we will
become a manageable herd. Its success in doing so can be partially
measured by the flags flown from cars or homes by the "booboisie."

But if we are to avoid the destructive and dehumanizing consequences
of collectivist behavior, we must turn to that one person who has
always been the source of the creative energies upon which mankind has
relied: the individual. You will find him or her outside the citadel
of the state, not attacking it, but quietly walking away from
it.Paraphrasing one of my literary heroes, H.L. Mencken, my last words
on the gallows will be to condemn collectivism in all of its forms. In
the continuing struggle between "individualism" and "collectivism,"
you will always find me in the company of the former. I recall a
discussion I had with classmates back in high school, wherein I
uttered what I then considered a cute phrase: "I distrust any form of
organization from two-handed poker on up." In later years, I have
modified the thrust of that comment, coming to the conclusion that we
need one another?s cooperation if we are to live in a condition of
liberty wherein each of us is free to pursue our individual "bliss"
(to borrow from Joseph Campbell). What we have in common with one
another, is a need to come to the defense of one another?s
individuality, a truth now made evident by the police-state hurriedly
being assembled by the Bush administration.

In varying degrees, every political system is collectivist in nature,
each being premised upon the centralization of state authority over
the lives and property of individuals. Communism is only the more
aggressive and far-reaching form of state socialism. But every
political form is grounded in the belief that the state may rightfully
preempt the decision-making authority of individuals.

Most of us have been conditioned to confine the range of permissible
thought about the nature and extent of political authority to an
arbitrary continuum running from the "Left" to the "Right." The
assumption underlying such thinking is that if you are dissatisfied
with a "Leftist" (or "liberal") government?s policies, you can switch
your preferences to "Rightist" (or "conservative") candidates. But
such thinking clouds the fact, as noted by a friend of mine, that the
"Left" and "Right" are but "two wings of the same bird of prey!" All
political groups want power over others, a point noted in Ambrose
Bierce?s The Devil?s Dictionary: "Conservative, n. A statesman who is
enamored of existing evils, as distinguished from the Liberal, who
wishes to replace them with others." An awareness of this fact is
found in the growing dissatisfaction of people with both major
political parties, along with the sense that, no matter who they vote
for, the government always gets elected!

The alleged "polarization" of viewpoints along this political spectrum
does not delude those whose interests are driven more by a desire for
coercive power over others than by any deep-seated philosophic
principles. That so many 1930s Marxists could so easily have become
conservatives by the 1950s, while some "Leftist" radicals of the 1960s
have become darlings of modern neoconservativism, illustrates the
fungible nature of all political systems.

It is an inner need to forcibly control the lives and property
interests of others that motivates men and women of all political
persuasions. Philosophic "principles" or "basic values" are no more to
the politically ambitious than propaganda with which to create and
solidify a base of power. Like commercial advertisers who declare "we
do it all for you," politicians thrive on getting individuals to align
themselves with their (and the state?s) interests. Have any of you
bought into George Bush?s promises of "enduring freedom" ? words not
even he can mutter without breaking into his used-car salesman?s grin?

All political systems are dependent upon the generation of mass-minded
thinking, to persuade each of us to lose our sense of individuality
and responsibility in the collective herd. We condition our minds to
accept identities for ourselves, to think of ourselves not as
self-directed, self-responsible beings, but as members of various
groups, whose interests are not only mutually exclusive, but
antagonistic. Whether we identify ourselves by race, religion,
nationality, lifestyle, ideology, economic interests, gender,
geography, or any other category, we put ourselves into a state of
conflict with others. Political systems then promise to protect us
from "them," and most of us are too dull to recognize that our alleged
"protectors" are the very ones who induced us to play the games that
now threaten us! If you haven?t yet figured out that the events of
9/11 and their aftermath are but extensions of the decades-old
politicogenic conflicts manufactured by political systems, then you
have been watching too much cable television!

Look at the consequences of losing our sense of individuality in
collective herds. Events in your daily life should confirm to you that
individuals are generally more decent, peaceful, cooperative, loving,
and humane than are political collectives. It should be clear to you
that all political systems depend upon a modus operandi that is
completely contrary to what most of us experience with other
individuals; methodologies that none of us would tolerate from
friends, associates, or even strangers. Politics attracts and
mobilizes the basest qualities of humanity: a penchant for coercion,
intimidation, warfare, and deceit; a willingness to destroy others;
and an obsession with forcibly controlling the lives of others.

I once defined "government" as "a system of murder, rape, extortion,
coercion, theft, intimidation, and terror, the absence of which, it is
said, would lead to disorder."

If you doubt this characterization then confront these hard facts:
during the 20th century, governments managed to kill 200 million men,
women, and children in wars, genocides, and other acts of formalized
violence. During that same century, how many people were killed by
individuals acting without political authority?

The 20th century revealed to us how easily the "dark side" of our
unconscious minds can be energized toward violent and destructive
ends. Nazi Germany, Stalinist Russia, and American lynch mobs
demonstrated how easy it is to manipulate herd-oriented people. It is
the individual who is difficult to control.

Just as we try to ignore the presence of a naked man at a social
gathering, most of us tend to consciously repress the uncomfortable
truths about the nature of collectivized systems. In the aftermath of
September 11th, most of us have learned to recite the state?s
catechism that these attacks had nothing to do with policies or
programs of the American government, but were simply peevish acts
carried out by men who envied our way of life! That these men came
from a part of the world that has become an abattoir produced and
directed by various political systems, influenced by a mix of Jewish,
Islamic, and Christian doctrines, with costuming (and armaments)
provided by the United States, seems not to have tweaked the
consciousness of most.

Still, there are inner voices within each of us that insist upon
reality. Our emotions, intuitions, and dreams, are some of the more
familiar ways in which our unconscious mind ? which, if nothing else,
seems to have our survival as its central concern ? endeavors to
communicate with our consciousness. I suspect that many of us become
angry at the opinions of others that contradict our own, not because
we know them to be false, but because we fear that they may be true. I
will receive more hostile e-mails from this article than I would from
one in which I developed the thesis that 2 + 2 = 5, or that the earth
is, indeed, a flat monolith supported by a turtle. "Pay no attention
to that man behind the screen," intoned the Wizard of Oz as Toto
exposed to his friends the fraud that had been perpetrated upon them.

Our obsession with collectivism ? whatever form it may take ? is
destroying both the quality and the existence of human life. While we
are social creatures, and need one another?s cooperation in order to
survive, we are also individuals who require mutual respect for the
inviolability of our respective interests. Only the individual is able
to generate thoughts, to be creative, to reproduce, to sense pleasure,
to love, and to have transcendent experiences.

The fate of all humanity is in the hands of individuals. If mankind is
to extricate itself from the destructiveness of collective systems,
you and I must begin to question the collective thinking through which
we participate in such madness. There will be no White House
conferences, or legislative hearings, or Supreme Court opinions to
help us, for these are only expressions of the problem we must
overcome. In words attributed to Albert Einstein: "The significant
problems we face cannot be solved at the same level of thinking we
were at when we created them."

For the same reason that only you and I can protect ourselves from the
attacks of others ? our delusions about police "protection" to the
contrary notwithstanding ? only you and I can alter our personal
consciousness. You and I can either choose to rethink our sense of
"who we are" ? and, in so doing, withdraw our energies from collective
identities ? or simply content ourselves to sit back, as most
journalists seem inclined to do, and observe the collapse of society
and the destruction of tens of millions of more lives.

Such an undertaking will be neither as lonely nor futile as you might
imagine. Consistent with our politicized conditioning, we have been
trained to think that only by acting collectively, can we accomplish
worthwhile ends. But events are demonstrating to us that collective
thinking and behavior are destroying us. It is to you and me that
attention must shift if we are to reverse our present course.

Great music and other artistic expressions, inventions and
discoveries, and other creative acts and ideas, have always come from
individuals. The "butterfly effect" of which students of chaos speak
informs us that localized acts can, through being reiterated back into
a system, produce global consequences. Lest anyone doubt this, recall
how nineteen men, armed only with cheap box-cutter knives,
precipitated the events of 9/11 and their aftermath. If individuals
can act for destructive ends, isn?t it possible for you and me to act,
individually, for peaceful and constructive purposes?

Your efforts will be energized by influences which, as collectivized
people, we have long forgotten: [1] first, the demands of life,
itself, will support you. Like flowing water, life has a way of
insisting upon its own expression. Just as a dammed-up river will
eventually surmount, circumvent, or overpower barriers to its free
movement, life has a way of insisting upon conditions necessary to its
vitality. Belief systems, no matter how staunchly defended, are
ultimately no match for the forces of life, a truth made evident by
the collapse of the Soviet Union. When biology confronts ideology, it
is best to put your money on biology.

[2] The second energizing source is one which, alone, will motivate
your initial efforts, and which will then begin to intensify itself
exponentially: the rediscovery of the human spirit. It is not to
church doctrines or rituals that I refer, but to your experiencing an
inner sense of connection with all of existence. Because such
transcendent needs and experiences are unavoidably individual in
nature, their expressions have a way of helping us withdraw from the
lifeless and divisive collective systems that disconnect us from one
another and keep us in our state of perpetual war.

We are discovering from many sources, of which the Internet is but one
example, that our world is becoming increasingly decentralized. Our
needs for both individual liberty and social cooperation are moving us
in directions in which our connectedness to others is finding
expression more in horizontal rather than traditional vertical forms
of organization. It is not "terrorism" that underlies the Bush
administration?s war against the American people, but the
institutional order?s reaction to the continuing collapse of
centralized systems of authority.

It is the desperate effort of established political interests to
maintain their waning power that is driving efforts to expand police
powers, incarcerate men and women without benefit of trials, deploy
the military to control the American people, and to build
concentration camps for "enemy combatants" who, in this day, have
become us all. In order to accomplish such ends, the state must
intensify its efforts to collectivize our thinking so that we will
become a manageable herd. Its success in doing so can be partially
measured by the flags flown from cars or homes by the "booboisie."

But if we are to avoid the destructive and dehumanizing consequences
of collectivist behavior, we must turn to that one person who has
always been the source of the creative energies upon which mankind has
relied: the individual. You will find him or her outside the citadel
of the state, not attacking it, but quietly walking away from it.

xbrittanyx, will you marry me?

markvmd-ga,

Perhaps your proposal of marriage should be directed toward Butler
Shaffer, who wrote the text that was posted by xbrittanyx without
attribution.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/shaffer/shaffer25.html

Pinky, how do you do it?!  Don't tell me.  ;)

Markvmd,  yes, check out Shaffer's site.  There is a nice picture of
him and an email address.  And while I am here, let me tell you that
one of my pet peeves is about people closing questions that have
received a comment without acknowledging it.  (another wink,  ;)
Cheers, Myoarin

Whoa, Schaffer got a killer 'pee! I'm guessing a salt-and-pepper
version costs extra. Hm, his bio says he's married. Figures. The good
rugs are always taken.

Hey, his snipe at "flags flown from cars..." D'you suppose he means my
beloved Quakers flag? He's probably a Brown grad. Or worse, Stanford.

Myoarin, I am sorry. I closed the question (and two others) without
checking for comments. I know of no other way to express my
appreciation for your input other than to say here (and elsewhere, if
you like) that your comment was insightful and helpful, and that I am
enjoying your answers and comments (among others, e.g., pink and
tutuz) around the Google Answers milieu.

Dear Patmarcum

In addition to the Court rulings TUTUZDAD supplied above, you may be
interested in the latest ruling from Judge John E Jone III.
Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District), 

You can access the ruling at the following link
http://blog.sciam.com/index.php?title=threw_the_book_at_em&more=1&c=1&tb=1&pb=1


>The proper application of both the endorsement and Lemon tests to the
facts >of this case makes it abundantly clear that the Board's ID
Policy violates >the Establishment Clause. In making this
determination, we have addressed the >seminal question of whether ID
is science. We have concluded that it is not, >and moreover that ID
cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus >religious,
antecedents.

>Both Defendants and many of the leading proponents of ID make a
bedrock >assumption which is utterly false. Their presupposition is
that evolutionary >theory is antithetical to a belief in the existence
of a supreme being and to >religion in general. Repeatedly in this
trial, Plaintiffs' scientific experts >testified that the theory of
evolution represents good science, is >overwhelmingly accepted by the
scientific community, and that it in no way >conflicts with, nor does
it deny, the existence of a divine creator.

>To be sure, Darwin's theory of evolution is imperfect. However, the
fact that >a scientific theory cannot yet render an explanation on
every point should >not be used as a pretext to thrust an untestable
alternative hypothesis >grounded in religion into the science
classroom or to misrepresent well->established scientific
propositions.

>The citizens of the Dover area were poorly served by the members of
the Board >who voted for the ID Policy. It is ironic that several of
these individuals, >who so staunchly and proudly touted their
religious convictions in public, >would time and again lie to cover
their tracks and disguise the real purpose >behind the ID Policy.

>With that said, we do not question that many of the leading advocates
of ID >have bona fide and deeply held beliefs which drive their
scholarly endeavors. >Nor do we controvert that ID should continue to
be studied, debated, and >discussed. As stated, our conclusion today
is that it is unconstitutional to >teach ID as an alternative to
evolution in a public school science classroom.

>Those who disagree with our holding will likely mark it as the
product of an >activist judge. If so, they will have erred as this is
manifestly not an >activist Court. Rather, this case came to us as the
result of the activism of >an ill-informed faction on a school board,
aided by a national public >interest law firm eager to find a
constitutional test case on ID, who in >combination drove the Board to
adopt an imprudent and ultimately >unconstitutional policy. The
breathtaking inanity of the Board's decision is >evident when
considered against the factual backdrop which has now been fully
>revealed through this trial. The students, parents, and teachers of
the Dover >Area School District deserved better than to be dragged
into this legal >maelstrom, with its resulting utter waste of monetary
and personal resources.


The judge has said far more eloquently than I ever could why evolution
MUST be taught in schools if the United States is to remain a serious
country in Science and Technology. Furthermore he has exposed
proponents of ID for what they are i.e. a bunch of liars who will tout
their religious convictions in public but will utterly mislead
innocent Parents and Children that ID is a serious science.

Yours Truly

DPRK007

Charles Robert Darwin
Origin of Species
VI. Difficulties of the Theory 
Organs of Extreme Perfection and Complication 
   "TO suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for
adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different
amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic
aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I
freely confess, absurd in the highest degree. When it was first said
that the sun stood still and the world turned round, the common sense
of mankind declared the doctrine false; but the old saying of Vox
populi, vox Dei, as every philosopher knows, cannot be trusted in
science. Reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a simple
and imperfect eye to one complex and perfect can be shown to exist,
each grade being useful to its possessor, as is certainly the case; if
further, the eye ever varies and the variations be inherited, as is
likewise certainly the case and if such variations should be useful to
any animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of
believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural
selection, though insuperable by our imagination, should not be
considered as subversive of the theory. How a nerve comes to be
sensitive to light, hardly concerns us more than how life itself
originated; but I may remark that, as some of the lowest organisms, in
which nerves cannot be detected, are capable of perceiving light, it
does not seem impossible that certain sensitive elements in their
sarcode should become aggregated and developed into nerves, endowed
with this special sensibility.

  In searching for the gradations through which an organ in any
species has been perfected, we ought to look exclusively to its lineal
progenitors; but this is scarcely ever possible, and we are forced to
look to other species and genera of the same group, that is to the
collateral descendants from the same parent-form, in order to see what
gradations are possible, and for the chance of some gradations having
been transmitted in an unaltered or little altered condition. But the
state of the same organ in distinct classes may incidentally throw
light on the steps by which it has been perfected.

  The simplest organ which can be called an eye consists of an optic
nerve, surrounded by pigment-cells, and covered by translucent skin,
but without any lens or other refractive body. We may, however,
according to M. Jourdain, descend even a step lower and find
aggregates of pigment-cells, apparently serving as organs of vision,
without any nerves, and resting merely on sarcodic tissue. Eyes of the
above simple nature are not capable of distinct vision, and serve only
to distinguish light from darkness. In certain star-fishes, small
depressions in the layer of pigment which surrounds the nerve are
filled, as described by the author just quoted, with transparent
gelatinous matter, projecting with a convex surface, like the cornea
in the higher animals. He suggests that this serves not to form an
image, but only to concentrate the luminous rays and render their
perception more easy. In this concentration of the rays we gain the
first and by far the most important step towards the formation of a
true, picture-forming eye; for we have only to place the naked
extremity of the optic nerve, which in some of the lower animals lies
deeply buried in the body, and in some near the surface, at the right
distance from the concentrating apparatus, and an image will be formed
on it.

  In the great class of the Articulata, we may start from an optic
nerve simply coated with pigment, the latter sometimes forming a sort
of pupil, but destitute of a lens or other optical contrivance. With
insects it is now known that the numerous facets on the cornea of
their great compound eyes form true lenses, and that the cones include
curiously modified nervous filaments. But these organs in the
Articulata are so much diversified that Müller formerly made three
main classes with seven subdivisions, besides a fourth main class of
aggregated simple eyes.

  When we reflect on these facts, here given much too briefly, with
respect to the wide, diversified, and graduated range of structure in
the eyes of the lower animals; and when we bear in mind how small the
number of all living forms must be in comparison with those which have
become extinct, the difficulty ceases to be very great in believing
that natural selection may have converted the simple apparatus of an
optic nerve, coated with pigment and invested by transparent membrane,
into an optical instrument as perfect as is possessed by any member of
the articulate class.

  He who will go thus far, ought not to hesitate to go one step
further, if he finds on finishing this volume that large bodies of
facts, otherwise inexplicable, can be explained by the theory of
modification through natural selection; he ought to admit that a
structure even as perfect as an eagle?s eye might thus be formed,
although in this case he does not know the transitional states. It has
been objected that in order to modify the eye and still preserve it as
a perfect instrument, many changes would have to be effected
simultaneously, which, it is assumed, could not be done through
natural selection; but as I have attempted to show in my work on the
variation of domestic animals, it is not necessary to suppose that the
modifications were all simultaneous, if they were extremely slight and
gradual. Different kinds of modification would, also, serve for the
same general purpose: as Mr. Wallace has remarked, ?if a lens has too
short or too long a focus, it may be amended either by an alteration
of curvature, or an alteration of density; if the curvature be
irregular, and the rays do not converge to a point, then any increased
regularity of curvature will be an improvement. So the contraction of
the iris and the muscular movements of the eye are neither of them
essential to vision, but only improvements which might have been added
and perfected at any stage of the construction of the instrument.?
Within the highest division of the animal kingdom, namely, the
Vertebrata, we can start from an eye so simple, that it consists, as
in the lancelet, of a little sack of transparent skin, furnished with
a nerve and lined with pigment, but destitute of any other apparatus.
In fishes and reptiles, as Owen has remarked, ?the range of gradations
of dioptric structures is very great.? It is a significant fact that
even in man, according to the high authority of Virchow, the beautiful
crystalline lens is formed in the embryo by an accumulation of
epidermic cells, lying in a sack-like fold of the skin; and the
vitreous body is formed from embryonic sub-cutaneous tissue. To
arrive, however, at a just conclusion regarding the formation of the
eye, with all its marvellous yet not absolutely perfect characters, it
is indispensable that the reason should conquer the imagination; but I
have felt the difficulty far too keenly to be surprised at others
hesitating to extend the principle of natural selection to so
startling a length."
http://www.bartleby.com/11/6004.html