Friday, November 18, 2005



Beyond dishonesty, there is a logical fallacy underlying the position of those who advocate “Intelligent Design” in the science curriculum of public schools. The dishonesty is their failure to advocate creationism in a straightforward manner. The fallacy is the assumption that Darwinian theory posits a point of origin on earth or in the universe. The very concept of evolution assumes that something existed in order to evolve.

There is no inherent conflict between theories of evolution and the postulates of creation; they are mutually exclusive. The real question is whether one believes in a god of chaos, senselessness, dispersion and chance or a god of order, discipline and law.

I will leave it to others to determine where the various gods – Buddhist, Christian-Judaic, Islamic, Hindu, Zarathustran, Copernican, et al – reside on the continuum between random chance and order. I would only note that the theory of relativity does not allow absolutes in time and space. Therefore, to postulate a point of origin is in conflict with Einstein’s most substantial contribution to scientific theory.

If we allow the creationists to proceed on a path traditionally reserved to scientists, we may find that relativity is called to question and, therefore, nuclear weapons do not exist and Einstein, himself, was nothing more than a mythological being from an alternate universe of pure fantasy.

I am not opposed to discussing “intelligent design” or creationism in the public schools but it should fall under the heading of comparative religions or universal mythology (depending on your persuasion), not under the discipline of science.

Every individual has a right to believe in anything but no one has a right impose a belief that two plus two is less than four.

[See The Albion Monitor or for the latest Jazzman Chronicle: The Woodward Gambit.]

Wednesday, November 16, 2005

TARGET SYRIA: The Hariri Assassination

The investigation into the assassination of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri must go beyond the standard suspicions. Faced with compelling evidence of high-level involvement (i.e., the operation was well planned, well connected and financed), United Nations investigators naturally assumed that Hariri’s political enemies in Syria were responsible.

Maybe they are right but they could very reasonably be wrong as well.

All criminal investigations must begin with the question: Who stands to gain?

Take a hard look at the aftermath of the Hariri assassination and ask yourself: Who gained?

Syria, whose political support in Lebanon is substantial, was forced to withdraw its troops. It faces sanctions from the United Nations and its leaders must be subjected to public scrutiny. In the balance, America and her allies stand poised for military intervention, expanding the war in Iraq.

Who stood to gain from the Hariri assassination: Syria or America? Who has the intelligence and security connections to pull off such an operation? Who has the power and the pull to direct the investigation away from their door and direct it to their enemy?

One must wonder why CIA operatives in the region have not been questioned along with their Syrian counterparts.

American forces have been fighting at the Syrian border for more than a year. Covert operations inside Syria and Lebanon can safely be assumed and cross-border commando raids are a documented fact (NY Times).

Anyone who would sincerely be surprised at America’s hand in a targeted assassination for strategic advantage has not studied the history of covert operations.

[See the Albion Monitor for The Woodward Gambit, a Jazzman Chronicle by Jack Random.]