INTELLIGENT DESIGN?

In Kansas, the so called "hayseed state" by teachers and scientists, the State Board of Education is discussing the introduction of a concept called "intelligent design" to take the place of "creationism" in the battle of religion against the teaching of evolution.

Creationism has lost a lot of ground since the "Monkey Trial". It is not science but a religious belief based on the first book of the Bible - Genesis.

Finally people realized that "evolution" is not a theory but a proven fact with more evidenced discovered every day. The "theory" part comes into place when the discussion turns to how evolution took place or more importantly, how it all started. Darwin suggested "natural selection" or "survival of the fittest".

The religious right, desperate to keep God in evolution, has proposed the theory of intelligent design and is pushing to have that theory taught along side evolution in our public schools.

The intelligent design theory maintains that nature in general is just too complicated to have arisen through evolution. This especially applies to living creatures. They propose a deliberate and intelligent design and therefore an INTELLIGENT DESIGNER! They do not say GOD but hey, we all know what they mean.

There is a simply fascinating article titled "Unintelligent Design" by Jim Holt in the New York Times Magazine that details many of the arguments against intelligent design.

I personally believe that until the time when we absolutely know who and how the world and everything in it came to be, we cannot discount a higher intelligence (God) having something to do with it. The point is that whether God had something to do with evolution or not, you cannot deny that we (humans) have evolved from earlier beings.

Jim Holt, in his Times Magazine article takes on intelligent design by pointing out how many things in nature, including ourselves, are not designed well. In fact, some things are downright stupid - male nipples.

He points out that 99 percent of the species that have ever existed on this earth are now extinct. That means they have died out because they were too flawed to survive in our environment.

Some scientists maintain that God was just involved in the very beginning - providing the spark that created the first cell - after that evolution took place without the guidance of God.

Hey, you can come up with all sorts of scenarios BUT they would all be just speculations - theories. Jim Holt reminds us that Pope John Paul II said that evolution has been "proven true" and that "truth cannot contradict truth" and he was no slouch when it came to Christian theology.

So why are some people so totally clueless? You tell me.

Janusz

BUSH: U.S. MISTAKE POST WWII

I was downright shocked when I first read that Bush admitted, out loud, that the U.S. made a huge mistake after WWII by allowing Stalin to enslave millions of people in Central and Eastern Europe for over 50 years.

In case you don't remember, Franklin D. Roosevelt and Winston S. Churchill met Joseph Stalin of the USSR in Yalta, Crimea on the Black Sea. Stalin demanded Europe after the war and basically Roosevelt and Churchill gave it to him. The meeting was called the "sell-out at Yalta".

Historians have argued why this happened. Some say the Allies just wanted peace at any cost, some say they were scared of Stalin's military might and some say Stalin just lied and the Allies were too gullible. Many think Roosevelt felt that the about to be formed United Nations would control Stalin. Boy, was he wrong! Anyway, no U.S. president has ever mentioned the royal screw-up until Bush.

Maybe Bush is the only president that actually had a reason to mention the decision that led to "one of the greatest wrongs of history" - wow!

Bush has actually two reasons to mention this historic blunder. One, he wants to let Putin know that the U.S. will not stand idly by as Russia tries to retain control over its former USSR member countries - like Georgia. Bush is basically saying, we will not make the same mistake Roosevelt did in Yalta.

Bush is also justifying his invasion of Iraq and his policy to bring freedom to the Middle East. Roosevelt agreed to sell millions into Communist slavery just to keep stability in the world after WWII. Bush's rationale is, in his own words, "We will not repeat the mistakes of other generations, appeasing or excusing tyranny and sacrificing freedom, in the vain pursuit of stability".

I have to admire President Bush and his handlers, for having the balls to bring up unpleasant history, even if only to serve their political purpose.

It is time to allow facts of history to come to the surface and not just smile and gloss over them.
The USSR made a deal with Hitler to invade Poland and who knows what else. Once Hitler turned on the USSR, Stalin joined the Allies. Does that make him a friend oe ally or just a smart guy doing what he has to do to win. Putin had the audacity to say that the USSR liberated Europe after WWII. Now that is total bullshit that needed to be addressed by all countries - but they remained silent.

People in China are protesting because Japan denies they did anything "bad" during WWII. The Germans are the only ones that know the fucked up really bad in starting WWII.

Right now, I am giving President Bush a thumbs up for what he did and I agree that it is smart foreign policy.

Janusz

BUSH'S JUDGES

The Democrats are preventing President Bush's nominees for Federal Judgeships from getting confirmed - oh my!

Are we so stupid that we have forgotten how the Republicans blocked President Clinton's nominees for judicial openings? Or are we selectively stupid - only if it hurts OUR nominees.

My suggestion is real simple - Republicans should allow some Clinton nominees in and Democrats should allow some Bush nominees (actually the Democrats have allowed many Bush nominees already).

Allow the Democrats to question, filibuster and try to block appointment of Republican nominees who's knuckles drag on the ground.

Janusz

DRUNK DRIVING!

Recently, we had a horrific accident in Farmington Hills, a community in the Metro Detroit area.

A really drunk man (0.45% alcohol) in a very large SUV hit a mother taking her two sons to the dentist; she was making a left turn, he was going 75mph, he did not even hit his breaks. All were killed.

In Michigan, we do not seem to punish drunk driving in such a way that people would think twice before they got behind the wheel of a car after drinking.

I am no angel, in my younger years I did drive after drinking. I am thankful for never hurting any innocent people. Now with age and hopefully a little more wisdom, I feel our laws need to change.

In the recent case, the man should be charged with second degree murder not driving under the influence. He should spend most of the time left in his life behind bars - period.

More importantly, Michigan laws should be much stricter for early offenders in the hope of teaching them never to drink and drive.

First offence, take their license away for a few months. Have them pay a hefty fine and have them visit a counselor. Second offence, take their license away for a few years, huge fine, time behind bars, alcoholism treatment. Third offence, throw the book at them.

I have seen strict laws work in Europe where people take taxis to parties and take the designated driver policy VERY seriously. It can work here.

Janusz

NATIONAL DAY OF PRAYER?

Recently, a city within the metro Detroit area, Troy, had to deal with a dilemma involving the National Day of Prayer. This day was designated by Congress sometime in the 1950s as a special day set aside for all Americans to pray for the United States.

In the city of Troy, a VERY diverse community, a Christian group asked the City Council for permission to hold a prayer meeting at the Veteran's Plaza. The same group has been supposedly doing this for the last 10 years.

This year, a interfaith group of Hindus, Muslims and other non-Christians asked to join the group in celebrating the NATIONAL DAY OF PRAYER observance.

The Christian group said no. They were not going to pray to someone else's stinkin God.

The City Council thought about it and decided to let the Christians have their way - by a slight majority. Many letters to the editor were written and the NEWS even wrote an editorial which I feel did not go far enough in addressing the real issue.

Our Constitution specifically mandates a separation of Church and State; government will not endorse any specific religion - "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...".

The Troy City Council, by allowing ONLY the Christians to have a special session on PUBLIC PROPERTY, basically endorsed THAT religion as special and lumped all other religions into an interfaith group. To me, that is ENDORSING a specific religion over others by giving that religion preferential treatment and therefore in violation of the U.S. Constitution. I assumed the Troy City Council knew better but I was wrong.

Even if the Council did not know any better they should have respected the DIVERSITY of the Troy population; the people that vote for them.

Obviously, the Christians have no sense of NATIONAL as in we are all Americans. They are arrogant and plain stupid. They don't even follow what Jesus has taught. Jesus rebuked a Pharisee as a hypocrite for praying in public so others could see him. Jesus said you should pray to the Father in secret...".

So why do these so called Christians demand to pray on public property and in public? Can't they pray in their homes, their Churches, in the park, etc. Does their God hear their prayers only when they are said on public property?

These so called Christians want power. They want to tell us what is right and what is wrong, how we should behave, what clothes we should wear, what TV shows we can watch and what music we can listen to. Is this a free country or what!

Remember that our Founding Fathers foresaw this very danger of a theocracy (government by religion like Iran) and that is why they wrote the Constitution the way they did. Do not let these so called Christians defile our Constitution.

Janusz

BUSH'S SOCIAL SECURITY PLAN

President Bush had a very long press conference recently where he again pushed his plan for allowing private retirement savings accounts within the Social Security System. In a nut shell, a wage earner can elect to divert part of his Social Security wage deduction into a private fund that the wage earner could control, i.e. invest in his choice of investment products.

What would the Bush plan do for the Social Security System. Bush says the system is in trouble. How would his proposal get the Social Security System out of trouble. Well, by his own admission, it would do nothing to save the SS System. In fact, it would actually hurt it by diverting funds out of the system. So why is he pushing it? I can only speculate because no one has come up with a valid reason.

If we look at the Chile plan which included private retirement accounts, we now know that the system failed because the workers opting for the plan did not realize the great amount of retirement money that would go to plan brokers as commissions. The UK had a similar experience. So is that what Bush wants - make Wall Street billions in commissions? Maybe.

Workers today can join a 401(k) plan at work which takes pre-tax money and invests it according to the worker's wishes. Workers can also contribute to IRA (Individual Retirement Accounts) if they have no pension plans at work. The money contributed to these IRA accounts can then be deducted from one's taxes. Even if you have a 401(k) at work, you still can contribute to an IRA account. You cannot deduct the contribution from your taxes but the interest that investment makes is tax free until you start using it at retirement.

With these retirement options, why is Bush pushing another option; one that can hurt the Social Security System for millions of retirees.

Our Social Security System means one thing to our workers: a guaranteed retirement plan. They can count on that money when they retire come hell or high water. It is automatic. It is not a lot but it comes every month.

This plan cannot just go on forever. Adjustments have to be made. Retirees are healthier and living longer therefore collecting benefits longer. As baby boomers retire, there will be less younger workers to support the retirees. What this means is that more money will be going out than coming in. Once that starts happening it is only a matter of time before the money runs out.

One thing to remember; Social Security is NOT in any imminent danger of collapse. Economists say we can keep going without any changes till about the year 2052. That is a long time from now.

Adjustments made today can extend that trouble free period much longer. One adjustment has already been implemented - raising the retirement age. Since we are healthier and live longer, this makes a lot of sense.

Another adjustment is to raise the cap on wages that can be taxed. Right now the limit is $90,000. Why not increase that gradually to say $120,000 or more. I would not increase the actual tax rate since I feel it is high enough right now.

Bush is starting to favor a plan where SS benefits will be determined based on a person's wealth - the richer, the less SS benefits you are going to get. Well I think that is a bunch of bullshit. A person pays into the system all his or her life only to see their contributions go to someone else? No way. I want what is rightfully mine and that is not greed, it is fairness.

I urge all voters to contact their elected representatives to tell them to make sure Bush does not tamper with the Social Security System. His motives are very suspect. He needs money for his IRAQ war and he is willing to do basically anything to get it.

Janusz

Blaming the "UNINSURED"

My local Sunday paper contained more columns by people blaming the medically uninsured for all our healthcare problems.

I agree that these so called uninsured do use the emergency room (very expensive) for all their aches and pains and leave without paying. The hospitals / clinics are forced by law to offer treatment, even at no charge.

Patients with health insurance are billed excessively just to cover the costs of treating the uninsured. Insurance premiums just keep going up and up.

So who are these dastardly uninsured that are causing all these problems in our health care system?

Well, we know that they are too wealthy to apply for MEDICAID and too young to be on MEDICARE. They obviously do not receive health insurance from their employer and obviously do not purchase health insurance on their own.

A recent study by Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan found that out of 1.1 million uninsured in Michigan, 176,000 lived in households with an income of over $75,000 and 187,000 live in households with annual incomes over $50,000.

Many of the uninsured are 19-25 year olds that are no longer covered by their parent's health policies but cannot afford to buy their own coverage and feel that they are young and healthy enough not to need any health coverage (which age group has the most accidents).

I feel one reason why the uninsured do not purchase health insurance is that the only insurance policies available are VERY EXPENSIVE. This is because our State government has some stupid law that forced insurance companies to offer only policies that covered basically everything thus expensive!

An uninsured person would be more apt to purchase a insurance policy if it was affordable and offered options from basic coverage to super deluxe. Also policies for healthy 19-25 year olds that reflected the fact that they ARE young and healthy and were cheap, cheap.

Even with affordable, smart policies some if not more of the uninsured would still say, hey, I can get health care for free by just going to the ER.

Well, here is where we need some balls - MAKE HEALTH COVERAGE MANDATORY. Yes, just like you need auto insurance to get a license plate, you will need health insurance to see a doctor or you will be directed to a special clinic where you will be treated and then arrested - or something -don't have that part quite figured out yet.

Janusz

GM's HEALTH PROBLEM

GM has just confirmed that the cost of health care is a real crisis for them. Costs are expected to increase 7-8% to 5.6 BILLION. They just posted a HUGE loss for the quarter.

Excuse me if I don't cry but they did create this crisis with their eyes wide open and now they want help. GM and the unions want the federal government to step in and make the problem go away by instituting a national health plan - not so fast. That is a subject for another blog. Lets see what can be done.

The UAW said that they are unwilling to re-open their contract; as expected. GM has historically given the unions everything they desired just to keep them from striking. They are now paying for that corporate idiocy. I hope the hundreds of lawyers on the GM payroll are going over that contract with a fine-tooth comb to see if they can spot any holes in it.

1. Health coverage for retired GM workers needs to be brought into reality. Currently they are covered by Medicare as well as private insurance. They need to be switched to a "Medicare Plus" plan offered by local HMOs. In this plan, Medicare covers most of the costs with the "Plus" coverage kicking in to cover the rest. Drugs and office visits should have at least a $10 deductible.

2. Move UAW workers into the white-collar health plans. Currently, what UAW workers receive as health care coverage is downright obscene, wasteful and in no way realistic. Their plan is unsustainable in today's economy. UAW workers basically contribute 7% towards their health coverage; that is a joke. White-collar workers contribute 27%. Both groups of workers should be placed into the 30% contributing rate. Co-pays, deductibles and premium contributions should be instituted at once.

The above are not really sacrifices; they are a dose of reality the rest of us in the country are dealing with.

GM also needs to stop quarterly stock dividend payments. If this is a real crisis lets behave accordingly.

GM is responsible, first, to its stockholders (owners) and they must not forget that. The UAW needs to protect its members and their futures and therefore needs to work hand in hand with GM to guarantee the health of the corporation.

Asian companies are kicking our asses. They have the luxury of avoiding all the historical mistakes we have made in this auto industry but we are Americans and we need to show the world that we invented the modern auto industry and we can re-invent it if need be and the need is REAL.

Janusz

Janusz 

Kilpatrick - Worst Mayor!

Time Magazine has recently designated Kwami Kilpatrick, Detroit's Mayor, as one of the worst mayors in the country.

Kilpatrick was on the fast track. Young and hip-hop, family in politics, brash and arrogant, articulate and really, really full of himself. Mayor to Governor to Senator to President?

All Kwami had to do was handle this mayor gig and solidify his reputation as a can-do politician. Well, he blew it.

He appointed his cronies from the hood to important positions and was surprised when they turned out to be real hoods and quite incompetent.

He surrounded himself with an elaborate security force and fired anyone that suggested after hours improprieties.

He purchased a luxury vehicle for his wife with city money but denied it until he could not deny it any more. This at the time the city is laying people off because of lack of funds.

Our daily newspapers document the millions of dollars lost by the city because of plain ole' incompetence; forgetting to file something on time, forgetting to spend allocated money on time, etc.

The big picture reveals a city in shambles, no one really in charge and no real future. Another election will bring in new faces but will that save the city? I don't think so. The bureaucracy that has been embedded in the city since Coleman Young's days will not leave and politicians do not have any political balls to throw them out.

No, Detroit needs a dictator or at least be placed into receivership under the guidance of a professional.

This professional would outsource all city work to private contractors. All administrative posts would be filled by competent professionals not political cronies.

The City Council would be dissolved. A new advisory City Council would be elected on a "ward system" basis and not "at-large". It would not have any powers accept advisory. It would have a bare-bones budget.

The city budget would be balanced and remain so as a legal requirement.

In time, city dwellers would reap the rewards of such a drastic move; they would actually have dependable services and lower taxes.

In time, an elected official could be re-introduced into city government but with restrictions - you do not want to go back to the ole' days again.

Is this scenario realistic? NO. Our Governor doers not have the political balls to place the city into recievership even if it is the right thing to do and for the benefit of the people. Detroiters would call this a racist move trying to deprive them of their freedoms. So there is no hope?
Probably.

I was raised in Detroit and still say I am from Detroit when I travel BUT I am disgusted with the city and more and more look on it as a joke. If the citizens re-elect Kilpatrick, the joke gets sicker.

Janusz

Why Ratzinger?

I was surprised at the election of Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger of Germany as the next Pope but I should not have been.

A key feeling among the Cardinals, I think, was to give the legacy of Pope John Paul II a chance to continue to work its magic without jumping into a young Pope eager to also make his mark on the world. I guess they wanted a rest period of sorts.

The new Benedict XVI is 78 and definitely a staunch conservative. He will not rock the boat and at 78, he probably will not reign for a very long time - they hope. He looks pretty fit to me and very mobile.

Pope John XXIII was 77 when he came to the Papacy and he instituted Vatican II in his short time in Office but Benedict XVI is not John XXIII and would prefer to leave things the way they are, in fact, maybe tighten the screws a little more.

Catholic liberals are disappointed as they should be but hey, when things start falling apart maybe even these aging conservatives will agree that things need to change.

Janusz

The Polish Pope is Dead.

As a Polish-American, I was very proud to hear that a Polish cardinal was named Pope; the first non-Italian in some 400 years.

The fact that he was fluent in many languages, athletic, good looking and willing to travel all over the world, made me even prouder.

To me, his crowning achievement was being instrumental in the eventual demise of Communism. He not only freed his own people but also the countless millions suffering under the control of the USSR regime.

His willingness to visit Catholics all over the world changed how people perceived the Pope and the Papacy. The Papacy was no longer just a "European" institution. He became known as a Pope of and for, the people, especially the young who treated him like a Rock Star.

Pope John Paul II reached out to other religions, especially Judaism. Coming from Poland, he knew, first hand, what happened to the Jews in Poland under the Nazis; he lived in the Auschwitz vicinity near Krakow. He was painfully aware of the prevailing view of Poles, Catholics, Christians - that the Jews were Christ Killers and therefore somehow deserved the holocaust.

During WWII under Pope Pius XII, the Papacy came under extreme criticism for appearing to side with the Nazis against the Jews by not condemning the wholesale slaughter of the Jews. Even the city of Rome, the actual Vatican sector, is accused of not providing shelter to the Jews living within its confines.

Pope John Paul II tried to repair the damage between the Catholics and the Jews. In his last will and testament, the Pope mentions only two men; one, his personal secretary and the other, the Rabbi of Rome who welcomed him into the Roman Synagogue, early into his Papacy.

Pope John Paul II (Karol Wojtyla) was no John XXIII; he was conservative to the core. He believed in tradition and felt his main job was to maintain that tradition. He believed that deviating from tradition, rocking the boat in any way, only weakened the Church. He appointed like-minded individuals to positions of power in the Church.

He had a long reign (26 years) and therefore had some impact on the Church, Catholics and on our society in general. His impact will be debated but definite positives and negatives are quickly emerging.

To me, one very large negative was his lackadaisical handling of the priestly sex scandal. The scandal was mostly an American problem but only in that the crimes of priests in other countries have not yet been exposed.

The Pope, at first seem to doubt the validity of the accusations. Later, when forced to address the problems, he mumbled something about the need to protect the children. He flat out dropped the ball on this one and as the leader of the Church, dropping the ball was not permissible. To me he was out of touch. Maybe too full of tradition and not enough of reality.

His second negative, according to me, was his refusal to address the realities of contraception. We are not talking about abortion, we are talking planned parenthood as opposed to having all the children God intended you to have until you finally die in childbirth or you and your children starve to death because you cannot support all the kids God is blessing you with.

He banned the use of condoms as means of contraception, helping to spread AIDS and ironically, increase the number of abortions performed in the world. A majority of American Catholics just smile at this official stance of the Church on contraception and do what they feel is only sensible and rational. I don't see how they can suffer the hypocrisy.

Not allowing priests to marry is again the result of his blind devotion to tradition even though priests did marry in the past according to Church history. Priestly marriage was banned to prevent leaving Church money and property to the priest's heirs. The Church could have simply banned the heirs from inheriting Church property. Other religions, including Christian Orthodox , have allowed priestly marriage from the beginning without any problems.

The official Church position against priestly marriage is that the priest has to devote his entire being to the service of God, Church and his flock; there is no room for a family because that would detract him from his mission. I am afraid that argument does not hold any water; the Church already allows married priests with families (converts from other religions) so it can not be a critical factor.

Allowing priests to marry may have helped keep the Catholic Church from being a favorite destination of pedophiles. Some may scoff at this rationale but statistics do not lie and please remember we are only hitting the tip of the iceberg and what about the centuries we will never know anything about.

Women as priests? This was true in the early history of the Church. In fact, women bishops were very important to the growth of the early Church. It did not take long for men to get the upper hand and put women in their place.

The fact that Jesus had twelve male apostles means absolutely nothing in the tradition of having priests be only of the male gender. The male dominated Church made the rules and created the traditions. Who was present when Jesus died on the cross - only his female followers. Who did the resurrected Jesus appear to first - not to no stinkin males.

Most Biblical scholars agree that Paul's letters Timothy 1&2 as well as Titus were not written by Paul but by some later author of one of the churches. The author used Paul's name to grant "authority" to his own views about Church organization. The author insisted that women be silenced and brought under control.

Tradition yes but with modern scholarship debunking that tradition, change could be scripturally justified. Yet the Pope chose to keep the false pretense alive and he was reported to be quite a Biblical scholar himself.

Let us see what the new Pope will bring to the table. He needs to bring something because the Church is running out of priests and it is running out of credibility.

Janusz

Goodbye Terri Shiavo

I was relieved to hear that Terri Shiavo finally died. I felt sorry and embarrassed for her, her husband and her family. I also felt sorry and embarrassed for the United States.

I don't think any of us know the whole story behind this case. We certainly do not know all that went on between the husband and Terri's family during the last 15 years. I am pretty confident that their contact with each other grew more and more acrimonious as time went on and eventually ended in deep, deep resentment and hatred towards each other.

One good result from this regrettable case is that Americans learned that they need to think about their eventual aging and death now - even if they are young. Terri was 26 when she had her accident, an age when people do not have death, accidents or debilitating diseases on their minds. People need to have a "Living Will" giving "Power of Attorney" to a selected individual to handle their medical affairs when and if they become incapable of handling them. I don't think any of us would want to end up like Terri.

Terri did not leave a written will or statement about her wishes if she should become incapacitated. Her husband remembered a conversation with her when she mentioned to him that she would not want to be kept artificially alive. We have to take his word on this but he supposedly has witnesses that can verify the conversation took place and what was said.

United States law appears to side with the husband in cases like this. I am both a husband and a father and I can empathize with both sides BUT if both sides really care and love the person in question and want what is best for that person, there really should not be any sides.

Terri has been in her vegetative state for 15 years. Initially, the husband made every effort to help her even taking her to California for some experimental treatments. He eventually became convinced there was no hope left for her based on medical evidence. I think all can agree that after 15 years there was no hope of any meaningful recovery. Obviously, Terri's parents did not agree.

Were the parents deluding themselves about her chances of recovery? Were they irrational? Did they doubt the medical evidence? Did the fact that she could breath on her own and open her eyes, give them false hope? Did their hatred for her husband make them oppose anything he wanted to do?

Did the husband's hatred for the family induce him to make decisions that would hurt them? His decision to bar the family from Terri's room in her last moments and his decision to bury her ashes in a secret spot so the family could not visit them, was it just plain revenge for the trouble they have caused him?

One thing is certain, the politicians, especially the Republicans, behaved reprehensibly. They knew full well what our laws state and yet they tried to override them instead of amending them through due process. They threatened judges that did not agree with them with voting them out of office. They made inflammatory speeches accusing the Democrats of murdering Terri.

In a special meeting of Tom DeLay and other conservatives in Congress, his real intentions were caught on tape. DeLay thanked God for sending Terri to the Republicans so they could use her to damage the Democrats. They saw Terri as a political football to be used in this great political opportunity. So much for the sincerity of their intentions.

Many good people have disagreed with what happened to Terri. They did agree that life and death decisions should only be made by the people closest to Terri.

Maybe once a person turns 21 they should be legally bound to produce a living will. You can always change it as your life situation changes but at least you would not become a Terri Shiavo.

Lets talk EVOLUTION

There are ever increasing efforts in this country to somehow prohibit, minimalize, discredit or counter the teaching of human evolution to our young in science class. Evolution being the study of how humans began and evolved from the earliest possible time to the present.

The impetus behind these efforts is of course religious, more specifically Christian. These Christians somehow view the teaching of the evolutionary process as a threat to their belief system, more specifically the creation story in the Christian Bible.

The problem here is that there are Christians that do not take the Bible literally and there are Christians that do. Both groups are devout Christians, they just have their own form of Christian belief. In fact, there have always been many "Christianities" throughout history and that is true even today.

I will not get into whether the stories in the Bible are factual or not, that will be a subject for a later blog but for now we will concentrate on those fundamentalist Christians in the U.S. that absolutely oppose the teaching of evolution to their young and for that matter, our young, since it appears, they have the clout to impose their views on all of us.

Their argument is that Darwin's Theory of Evolution is just that; a theory. Actually, this is true. Darwin published "On the Origin of Species by Natural Selection" in 1859 as his theory. Let me make this perfectly clear; the theory part of his work is in the "Natural Selection" and not on evolution.

Darwin postulated that species evolved by the natural selection of the fittest which meant that the species most adapted to their environment would survive and the species not adapted to their environment would perish and become extinct.

A crude example would be, lets say, between two small animals of the same species living on the plains. Some animals had short legs and could run only slowly while other animals had long legs and were very swift of foot. These animals were the favorite food of a larger animal

According to Darwin's theory, the slower animals would perish because they could not outrun the predator while the faster animals would survive because they could. Therefore future generations of the small animal would tend to have long legs because they were the product of a male and female with long legs. I hope this makes sense to you.

What makes this a theory is that it has not been proven that natural selection or survival of the fittest is what controls the evolution of species. Some in the field today have proposed a "chaos" theory saying that it is all random chance as to which species survives and which does not.

Evolution itself, the fact that we and other inhabitants of this earth, did evolve from previous versions, is not a theory, that is a FACT. How do we know this? We have proof. We have bones, we have eggs, we have imprints, etc. We can date them with the carbon dating process. We now have a lot more scientific equipment and methods to help us in dating our finds.

So I hope I have made it clear that "evolution" is not a theory but Darwin's natural selection mode of evolution is a unproven theory.

In the United States, a majority of the population believes that God created us in our present form. This belief negates the evolutionary process and stipulates that we are direct descendants of Adam and Eve who looked just like us.

A smaller percentage of the population believes in the evolutionary process BUT believes the process was guided by God.

Only a small percentage of the population believes in the evolutionary process without any involvement of God.

Getting back to the topic at hand; teaching evolution. I feel the subject of evolution MUST be taught in our schools as a valid and documented scientific process otherwise we are keeping the FACTS away from our children and therefore, willfully misguiding them. How that evolution developed and is developing can be taught as a theory; all current theories should be taught.

Creationism is not a science but a religious belief. No one knows exactly how the world began, how the world was formed and how life started. Here, injecting God and creationism would not be out of the question but that should be left to the churches and is not a subject for science class; it cannot be proven, ever. It most definitely should come up in a class on world religions.

A new effort to inject some form of creationism into the evolution discussion is called "Intelligent Design". This theory basically states that living creatures are just TOO COMPLICATED AND INTRICATE to have arisen through simple evolution; there had to have been an intelligent designer to have created all of this.

This argument allows evolution to be viewed as fact but injects God as the designer of this evolutionary process. In a nut shell, this Intelligent Design theory can be countered with existing, totally unintelligent design in nature. I will give you male nipples as an example - I have many, many more examples of gross imperfections in nature.

This also could be a plausible idea except I would question the "intelligent" part but definitely, God could have designed the evolutionary process - but again, it could never be proven.

I do not wish to denigrate anyone's religious beliefs and as I have mentioned above, it is not out of the question that God could have played a role in evolution. What I object to is the determined efforts of a small group of fanatics that is making regular, intelligent Christians look bad by denying obvious reality; evolution cannot be denied.

Ten Commandments' Issue

Here we go again - the Ten Commandments are again in the news. The Supreme Court is taking up the issue, the Alabama granite commandments are touring Michigan and our governor, Jennifer Granholm has suddenly become a Republican wannabe and is promoting all sorts of religious issues.

It appears that Americans of today, have no idea why our Constitution demands "Separation of Church and State" and why our Founding Fathers insisted on that separation.

Not to insult anyone's intelligence but let me try to explain it as simply as I can.

Early settlers of America, in many cases, were willing to relocate to an unpopulated country that they did not know much about, because of religious persecution in their mother country.

In those historic days, many countries had "State Religions"; official religion of the government. Anyone not belonging to the state religion would be persecuted or discriminated against to the point that the lives of these dissenters from the state religion, were made hard if not unbearable and most of all, they could NOT practice their chosen faith.

Our Founding Fathers, knowing all this, determined to create a government that would NEVER have a state religion and therefore would NEVER persecute anybody for their religious beliefs.

They chose to insure this by creating a constitutional separation between Church and State.

The U.S. Constitution bans the government from creating or even endorsing a specific religion. In this way, all religions are welcome and all Americans can practice whatever religion they desire.

Is it not ironic that in 2005, Christian Americans want to establish Christianity as the state religion. Many if not all American Christians will deny this. They will also say that they don't see how government endorsement of the Ten Commandments can be misconstrued as favoring one religion over another.

Many American Christians feel that the Ten Commandments are universal; accepted by all humanity and are not strictly associated JUST with Christians.

Well, there are Jewish versions of the commandments, Protestant ones and Catholic/Lutheran ones. They do differ.

All other religions do not subscribe to the Ten Commandments but have their own sacred books/literature/commandments - so THE Ten Commandments are viewed as ONLY belonging to either Jewish or Christian religions.

So IF our government adopts the Ten Commandments, they basically are endorsing either Judaism or Christianity and all other religions are officially UNENDORSED.

As far as the Ten Commandments holding universal values accepted by all - all you have to do is read "Thou shall have no other gods before me". Since the original Ten Commandments were given to Moses who accepted them in the name of the Jews; the Jewish god is the ONLY god you can worship - according to the Ten Commandments.

Do you see now how having the Ten Commandments displayed in government buildings is indicating a preference for a specific religion?

Some Christians say that the Ten Commandments represent history and should be displayed as a historic document. Fine, but make sure you display, in the same space, the historic documents of ALL religions.

As for the argument that our country was founded/based on the Ten Commandments and the principals it represents - NOT SO. Our legal system is based on the English Magna Carta. Remember slavery was legal and women could not vote - principals?.

I hope this little essay helped you understand the opposition to displaying the Ten Commandments in government offices.

Also remember, our Founding Fathers were "deists", i.e. they believed in a higher power but NOT in any one religious doctrine.

Bush and Social Security

I am puzzled about Bush's push to reform our Social Security program. I smell a rat because I don't trust President Bush and suspect his motives.

1. Social Security is not in any imminent danger of collapsing so why scare Americans into thinking it is.

2. Why push for a "Private Social Security Account" when we have 401(k) and IRA plans to help us save for our retirement.

3. Why not increase the base salary on which Social Security taxes are levied. This small change could guarantee the viability of the program for even a longer period of time.

4. Allowing "private" accounts would take out billions of dollars from the Social Security Program and endanger the program itself and therefore future retirees. Does Bush want to do this? Why?

5. Is Bush being paid by Wall Street firms who stand to make billions in commissions IF the private account option is passed?

6. I am 57 and getting scare Bush is out to jeopardize my well being. I think others should be scared as well. I encourage all to email their Congressmen and women and tell them you are scared about your future.