By now we've all heard many stories about the debate over the theory of evolution and its place in education. Much of what passes for a 'debate' over this issue is foolish, simplified, and too narrow in focus.

Here are, as I see it, the essential points about evolution and its place:

Evolution, as a process, is fact. Simple genetics describes processes happening all the time in nature where genetic traits shape the nature of offspring. This process is observable and is not at all speculative. My favorite way of explaining this is simply: do you believe that when two red-headed people have a child, that the child will always be red-headed as well? Yes? Then you believe in evolution. Science has proven how genes and dominant and recessive traits work, and over the course of time this process translates into evolution. It cannot not result in evolution--evolution is simply the cumulative outcome of all the various genetic mixes that are happening all the time.

The theoretical extension of evolution is not the same thing as the process of evolution. To scientists, as to everyone else, the origin of life is a mysterious subject which has been examined since the dawn of civilization. Scientists, observing the realities of genetic evolution & mutation and the fossil record of humans and other species, reason that since evolution is happening all the time, to step backward toward the dawn of life means to step backward through the evolutionary process. Evolution happens continuously, so to speculate about early humans, scientists logically reason that however things began, they began at the far end of the thousands of years of evolution that has happened since.

The theory of humankind's origin and evolution is precisely that--a theory. Any scientist worth their salt would say, of course it is--everything in science is at most a theory, even things we consider to be unshakably true in everyday life. The sum effect of many years of research and study has taken certain ideas about the origins of humankind--that we evolved from more primitive primate-like lifeforms, and that we share evolutionary connections with the primate family--past the point of being mere hypothesis and into the more solid--but still ultimately open-ended--realm of a theory. Once something is considered a theory in science, it typically moves into a phase that is more concerned with refining and explaining why and how the theoretical process works than with questioning its very validity--but it never becomes unquestionable or beyond doubt. There are no closed doors in science.

The theory of evolution is the theory currently accepted by the scientific world as the most plausible. This doesn't mean that every scientist agrees with it, simply that the theory has not yet been proven false by experiment and that the evidence observed and experimented with to date has made the current theory of evolution and natural selection the leading explanation of these issues. There are many scientists who, by virtue of their personal religious beliefs, believe that life on Earth has different origins than this theory describes. But removed from any belief system, removed from any preconceived notion of how things began, looking only at the physical evidence, this theory is the one which has held up the best under all forms of scientific scrutiny. Impartial religious scientists can look at this in a detached way and simply say, 'while I do not believe that the origins of life are random and explained by this theory, I acknowledge that the current state of our scientific observation doesn't suggest another explanation stronger than this one.' And there is the key.

Teaching or acknowledging the theory of evolution does not invalidate other ideas. When a student is taught the theory of evolution in school, they aren't being taught that their religious belief is wrong and that this one scientific theory should replace their beliefs. Instead they are simply being taught about the scientific process--that this is how science looks at a problem, and that after looking at the problem, this is the best explanation science can give. There is a world of difference between saying, 'this is the truth' and 'to the best of our ability to reason and experiment, this is what the scientific community at large believes to be the most plausible explanation for the physical phenomena we have observed.' The latter is what teaching the theory of evolution means. The student learns about how the scientific method works and what its distinct reliance on physical phenomena alone produces. The student doesn't learn the ultimate answer to life, the universe, and everything (we of course know that is '42'), but very simply this: what a finite number of scientists, observing a finite amount of physical evidence, deduce from that evidence.

Learning this theory is a starting point, not an end. Learning about the theory of evolution can be seen in two ways: as part of a passive education that involves simply being told what one is to believe or take as fact; or as part of a process that provides one with the tools that one needs to understand the context for scientific inquiry. It's my personal belief that many of the critics of the teaching of evolution theory approach education the first way--as simple indoctrination. But any honest education, just like any honest science, is about giving everyone the tools they need to think critically and act in an informed manner. Knowledge of what the theory of evolution is and how it was arrived at gives the student a starting point for understanding and critical evaluation of all science and its interrelated theories.

The only people who need fear the teaching of evolutionary theory in schools are those who believe either the students are not smart enough to form their own opinions on what they learn, or that they should only learn one small, narrow set of ideas and never be exposed to any others. This approach disrespects both the students and the integrity of the ideas--be they religious or alternate scientific notions--that the evolutionary skeptics seek to protect.

Labels: Culture

Thinking about Christmas shopping, or other gift-giving, these days? For anyone looking for something creative and meaningful to give this holiday season, there's a brilliantly original web site out there which can help.

Goodgifts.org connects simple monetary gifts from you to a wide variety of specific, tangible benefits all over the world. Of course, donating to charities is always a good idea, but the clever twist offered by this site is to tell you exactly what you're paying for. For example:

• $26 to clear 10 square meters of minefield
• $34 to set up a fishwife in business in south India
• $34 to protect 250 sloth-inhabited trees in eastern Brazil
• $43 to buy a baby-care kit for a refugee family
• $43 to buy a donkey plow in rural Sudan
• $43 to protect an acre of rainforest
• $46 for a cataract operation for a needy child
• $60 to buy a bicycle for a midwife in a developing country
• $77 to for two months of soap-making training in Sierra Leone
• $86 to reunite an abducted child with their family in the Congo
• $94 to set up a bicycle taxi business in Rwanda
• $94 to buy a rocket launcher to be turned into farm tools and school bells
• $129 to buy a flock of ducks or chicken for a war widow in Sierra Leone
• $163 to completely outfit a car & bicycle repair shop in Africa, which will employ several people
• $214 to buy a camel for a Saharan African nomad
• $300 to buy a water pump for a village of 250 people
• $4,300 to preserve 100 acres of rainforest and give your own name to the reserve

These are only a selection of the many gifts available. All are provided through recognized charities and are guaranteed to direct 100% of your money to the specific item or service you select. Well worth checking out and passing along to friends, churches, or other community groups who are looking for ways to help those in need.

Labels: Culture

The folks at AdBusters are admirably pushing a very admirable idea--declaring November 25, the day after Thanksgiving, as 'Buy Nothing Day'. The idea is that for this day, we are to not participate in the economy, not fall for the marketing gimmicks and sales that run so much of our consumptive lives. It's a venture with a noble aim and I support their pursuit of it.

(As an aside, I do think the overall approach of AdBusters is a bit questionable; to me they're an example of the message being communicated in a method [obtuse, artsy abstraction] wholly inappropriate for its most important potential recipients [the regular, non-artsy people actually fueling the corporate marketing machines]. And you have to chuckle at a group proposing Buy Nothing Day whose own web site features their merchandise available for purchase on the home page. But their hearts are in the right place, and more power to them.)

But as attractive as that idea might sound, here's my proposal: perhaps we could instead make the day 'Buy Something Meaningful Day'. By the same logic that voting is better than not voting, spending money on things which enrich our lives is arguably a better form of encouraging social change than is dropping out.

So instead of getting groceries at Wal-Mart, we can buy fresh produce or free-range turkeys at the local farmer's market or natural foods store. Instead of buying decorative gifts at the mall, we can go to the colorful locally-owned stores downtown that sell local artists' work. Instead of eating at a large chain restaurant, we can go to a local place, whether an exotic vegan cafe or a working-class greasy spoon. Instead of going to Barnes & Noble, we can explore the invitingly labyrinthine locally-owned bookstores. Instead of shopping at the massive Bass Pro Shop, we can buy our hunting, fishing, and camping gear at the smaller local store that's been serving the community for many years. Instead of standing in the cold to rush into some department store at 6am in a frenetic bid to grab the cheapest crap possible, we can move more slowly and thoughtfully and buy goods that are of better quality from local businesspeople who truly care about what they sell.

As admirable as it is to stand apart altogether from the economic machine, I'll choose instead to cast my vote for the elements of my local world that I want to see flourish. So today I'll be heading downtown to the Beaux Arts Bizarre to check out the works of many local artists and eating lunch at the deliciously vegan Main Squeeze cafe. And I know I won't be alone.

Labels: Culture

From a conversation with my parents over Thanksgiving dinner today came the following list of recommendations for government reforms. If they make sense to us (my largely conservative mom, my self-professed non-political dad, and yours truly, the self-professed progressive avenger), then I'm guessing they'd make sense to a lot of regular people all over the country.

• Ban all monetary gifts to legislators from lobbyists and PACs (because money isn't speech, and those with money shouldn't have greater access than those without)
• Ban all private money in elections (for the same reasons, and to level the playing field to allow true diversity of positions and background in candidates)
• Restrict campaigning to the two months leading up to elections (to eliminate the absurdly high costs of running for office and help keep elected officials focused on real business for a larger percentage of time)
• Implement instant-runoff voting in all state & federal elections

These of course are only a few of the vast number of reforms our elected government is desperately in need of, but these things alone would make a spectacular difference. If we're truly interested in perpetuating our ideals of a representative democracy, these proposals aren't so radical at all.

Labels: Politics

The reliably intriguing Orion magazine's current cover story is a fascinating look at the real losers in the battle between conservation and development: indigenous people. It's well worth your time to read.

This story exposes a sad byproduct of the ongoing effort to protect the natural world from abuse and overdevelopment. So much of the world's natural resources are being consumed and destroyed at unsustainable rates and in woefully irresponsible ways, and the result is two camps which take extreme positions on the issue. The consuming corporations, driving themselves on a mad path into unsustainable growth for the sake of unlimited profit, demand unlimited access to and use of natural resources. Environmental groups, seeing the truly natural & untainted parts of our world diminishing rapidly, are compelled to take an equally strong and often absolutist stance at the opposite end of the spectrum, just to slow the devastation.

But no human interaction with the world exists in a vacuum, and whether it's the pollution and habitat destruction of commercial development or the cultural and economic limitations imposed by conservation, there is always an effect when we seek to manipulate the way of things. Though I favor the environmentalist side of the debate in virtually all cases, issues like these highlight the need for an overarching look at how we can better relate to the land as something we're all connected to--something we all have a right to interact with and use, but which we don't have a right to destroy or abuse.

Labels: Environment

Firstly, I must mention that this post is inspired by a very serious issue that should demand our attention: a mining-law revamp that was slipped into the House budget bill by two Republican representatives. I urge everyone to learn more about this issue and to contact your local senators to encourage them to oppose adoption of this proposal (and to contact your local representatives to let them know you don't approve of this type of behavior).

Says Amanda Griscom Little in the above-linked story from Grist magazine:

It would allow the Interior Department to sell tens of millions of acres of public lands in the American West -- including more than 2 million acres inside or within a few miles of national parks, wildlife refuges, and wilderness areas -- to international mining companies, oil and gas prospectors, real-estate developers, and, well, anyone else who's interested ... [the proposal] would not require buyers to prove that mineral resources exist beneath the property they want to purchase, nor that they use the land for mining ... And since the land would be privately owned and no longer under federal jurisdiction, it would be immune to environmental reviews ... or public input on development plans.

Though the measure's sponsor isn't publicly commenting about it, the measure's stated goal of economic help and deficit reduction is thin at best and the cost--the potentially irreversibly destructive use of our public lands--isn't worth it.

Thinking about this issue, I've pondered the more general concept of what it means to 'use the land'. Notions of 'the land providing for us' and the Biblical references to man having dominion over the wild things are pervasive underpinnings for our American views on land use, but things like this mining measure, to my mind, put a perverse twist on such hallowed ideas.

To me, 'using the land' is a two-way relationship, where the land's natural resources give us food, shelter, and energy, and we in turn care for the health of the land both to sustain its productivity and out of simple respect for its inherent value. But more and more we see commercial development that uses land for little more than a horizontal surface which can be paved over and stacked with generic, wasteful, polluting attractions which stand apart from their surroundings in every sense (physical, visual/aesthetic, spiritual). I believe there must be a tipping point at which we have to take legal and legislative measures to enforce the boundaries of a respectful relationship with the natural world.

If you agree, please contact your congressional representatives and let them know how you feel. (For those interested in thinking more about the issue of relating to the land, I recommend reading the works of Wendell Berry, the most insightful curmudgeon I've yet seen on these issues.)

Perhaps the question, at the end of the day, can be put this way: is the world something we take from, or live in?

Labels: Environment

The current going rate for various government positions, according to New York Representative Major R. Owens:

Congressional seats: $2 million
Senate seats: $10 million
New York mayor: $100 million

And we've of course seen the cost of successfully running for president climb over $200 million in the last election.

Dismaying indicators for a supposedly democratic society.

Labels: Politics

Being a recognized green-type by people I know, I'm often called on to give explanations for my environmental positions or to answer questions about effective choices (that's a nice way of saying that people sometimes try to stump or challenge me). Since talk of sustainable, ecologically responsible living can easily get preachy (and because I'm a far-from-perfect sort who can use reminders about the best things to spend or not spend energy and worry on), here are a few delightfully quick and informative guides from Grist magazine to help anyone make good environmental choices in their own daily lives.

• A Consumption Manifesto: How to streamline your life and still enjoy the heck out of it
• The most common questions & answers about making eco-responsible choices
• A day in the life: responsible choices from waking through the end of the day

I recommend these guides as intelligent, whimsical, and encouraging resources for helping us all make the right decisions and address the things we can change right away.

Labels: Environment

Back from several days in Portland, Oregon, to visit dear friend Tris and his milieu. The trip was full of obstacles, from a flight change on the way up to chilly, rainy weather and a persistent cold which dogged me from my second day there. But of course it was worth it, to see the many faces I hadn't seen in ages (Dr. Lass, Connor, Luke & family) and to have the chance to work again with Tris & Connor. Finally, after a grinding acoustic stint on 12-string guitar and hurried rehearsals for an impromptu full-band show, I started to feel some of that old magic come back--the energy that informed my old bass lines in the days of Neuman Rael and the more inspired moments of the first Dissident 27 CD. Rhythm started clicking, interactions with Connor's shifting beats became active, and space and percussiveness turned wet clay into percolating, punchy creativity. In the midst of feeling crummy & cold, this energizing force was another reminder of the value that music brings to my life.

My gratitude for Tris & Stephanie's hospitality. Other highlights: great food (from Thai to diner), a fruitful trip to magnificent Powell's bookstore (since 1971, just like me), the ultra-mercurial Dodge Dart (a sedan version of the old green van from high school, I tell you!), and season four of Curb Your Enthusiasm.

Labels: Life, Music