__________________________________________________
Archive of Guy P. Harrison's "Worldview" columns previously published in the Caymanian Compass newspaper
___________________________________
Darwin defends evolution
An exclusive interview with the ghost of Charles Darwin
By Guy P. Harrison
It is not every day one gets the opportunity to interview a ghost. Perhaps that is because ghosts do not exist. Real or imagined, however, the chance to fire questions at Charles Darwin is irresistible.
G. Harrison: Are you surprised that your theory of evolution is still being debated in the 21st century?
C. Darwin: No, I’m not surprised, young man. I anticipated controversy. That’s why I dilly-dallied for so long before publishing. My intentions were only to make a contribution to science, but I knew that some would find it indigestible regardless of the evidence for it. Publishing felt like confessing to a murder. My stomach was in knots for half my life because of it. Even my beloved wife, Emma, nagged me to no end about the possible repercussions.
Allegiance to truth was my greatest burden, however. I simply could not ignore the reality staring back at me. Let’s be clear, I did not invent evolution; I merely described it.
Does accepting evolution mean one must reject religious belief?
It depends on the belief but, in a general sense, no it does not. Evolution certainly does not disprove the existence of any god. Also, contrary to a common misconception, evolutionary theory does not address the beginning of life. How life started is an entirely different question. Evolution only describes how life changes over time. One can recognize change via natural selection and still choose to believe in a god. The two are not mutually exclusive. It is important to understand that many religious people around the world have freely accepted evolution as fact. For example, the Catholic Church’s official policy is that evolution is undeniable by the weight of so much evidence from so many sources. Pope John Paul II declared this in 1996. One can be Muslim, Christian, Hindu, Jewish or Buddhist and accept the reality of evolution, as millions currently do.
Proponents of Intelligent Design [ID] say that scientists are unable to explain life fully because it is irreducibly complex. Therefore, an intelligent designer must be involved.
That is absolutely bonkers. Of course scientists haven’t figured out everything yet! We were all in caves picking ticks off one another barely a moment ago! Pointing to gaps in our knowledge is not proof of anything other than the fact that we still have much work to do. Look, science has achieved much within a short time but these ID people are too quick to give up. By their logic, why bother seeking new answers to anything? ID is nothing more than giving up on the search for knowledge.
Anyone whose disposition leads him to attach more weight to unexplained difficulties than to the explanation of a certain number of facts will certainly reject my theory. That is as true today as it was in 1859 when I wrote it.
They say this is a fairness issue in science classes. Why not teach both sides of the issue?
Because they have no evidence. They have as good a case as those who still believe that magic is real. Shall we give magic equal time in science classes too?
But ID is very popular.
So what? Science is not a popularity contest. Conclusions are not arrived at by vote. ID has gained no traction in the scientific community because it has not been proven in the way evolution has. It has only won over those who do not understand how science works. If the ID hypothesis is to prevail, its supporters must collect evidence and publish their findings for the world’s scientists to analyze and challenge. If there is anything to it, the idea will triumph. However, attempting to tear down a well-established scientific theory with a public relations campaign is preposterous.
Does the controversy anger you?
Not really, because it is all poppycock. You see, I don’t think evolution is being rejected in a meaningful sense. Anyone who needs to get something done accepts it. Believe me, your modern pharmaceutical companies don’t deny evolution because they have to come up with antibiotics that work against ever-evolving bacteria. And I see that the American president has promised to spend .1 billion to defend against a possible avian influenza pandemic. Now let’s think about this; he fears a virus that can only threaten millions of people if it were to evolve from its present form into a form capable of human-to-human transmission. Therefore, this President Bush gentleman appears to accept evolution--no matter what he says to the contrary.
Is ID a threat to your theory?
Even if it invades every classroom in the world, it will not change what is real. All those fossils will still have been unearthed. All those genetic discoveries would still have been made. And all those first-hand observations of evolution occurring among the fast-breeding microbes and insects would still have been seen by scientists. Remember, Galileo was bullied and quieted by the anti-science crowd but it changed not one thing in the heavens above us. So too will life continue evolving, whether anyone speaks of it or not. Ultimately, I suppose, it becomes a question of whether we wish to try and understand nature or not.
Please allow me to add one more thing, lad. I wish for your readers to know that I would happily jettison my beloved theory of evolution the very moment that I am shown convincing evidence against it. I am not blindly loyal to any theory--not even my own. My loyalties are with reason and evidence. I don’t want to win a debate; I want to know what is real. I only wish these ID people felt that way.
Newton and Einstein seem to get a lot more respect from the public than you do these days. Do you feel slighted?
Not at all; why would I care? I’m dead.
This column was published in the Caymanian Compass on 23 November 2005.
_________________________________________________________
Listen to the prophets in lab coats
Want to know the future? Forget magic and start paying attention to scientists.
By Guy P. Harrison
Climate change, tsunamis, bird flu, rising sea levels, super hurricanes, dying coral reefs, and other similar big stories are all over the mainstream news media these days. Certainly they are all worthy of coverage but the it-came-out-of-the-blue tone of the journalists and the slack-jawed surprise of readers and viewers is bewildering. None of these things should be a surprise because scientists have been screaming about them for years. Why, for example, was anyone shocked when a hurricane caused the levees around New Orleans to fail? For years, scientists repeatedly warned anyone who would listen. Nonetheless, many people, even some in high places, were amazed that such a thing could happen. US Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff called the disaster “breathtaking in its surprise.” In an interview a few days after the levees broke, President Bush revealed that he doesn’t pay much attention to scientists either. “I don’t think anybody anticipated the breach of the levees,” he said. Well, nobody anticipated it except for a bunch of scientists. But who listens to them? A 2001 article in Scientific American (“Drowning New Orleans”, by Mark Fischetti) could not have been more clear about the danger of a hurricane-related flood swamping New Orleans. Now, four years later, after Hurricane Katrina struck and the levees crumbled, Fischetti looks like a psychic. But he didn’t use magic to tell the future. He relied on something that works: science. An excerpt from Fischetti’s article: “New Orleans is a disaster waiting to happen... A direct hit is inevitable. Large hurricanes come close every year.” A National Geographic article (“Gone with the water”, Oct. 2001) published a year before the disaster, was also prophetic: “The chances of such a storm hitting New Orleans in any given year are slight, but the danger is growing. Climatologists predict that powerful storms may occur more frequently this century, while rising sea level from global warming is putting low-lying coasts at greater risk. ‘It’s not if it will happen,’ says University of New Orleans geologist Shea Penland. ‘It’s when.’” Okay, being president of the United States is a big job and maybe it doesn’t leave much time for reading magazines, but wouldn’t you think that at least one aide who has Bush’s ear is skimming through Scientific American or National Geographic every now and then? Remember the Indian Ocean tsunami in December 2004? That massive wave of death destroyed numerous communities and killed more than 200,000 people. Terrible as it was, however, it should not have been a surprise. Consider these lines from a 1999 Scientific American article (“Tsunami!”, by Frank I. Gonzalez): “Tsunami researchers and emergency response officials agree that future destructive tsunamis are inevitable.” There is a pattern here. Scientists publish articles in journals or magazines that most of the world’s people--including most of the world’s leaders--do not read. Then, when the very thing that scientists warned us about happens, millions stare at their televisions and newspapers in stunned disbelief. “How can a wave kill that many people? Who could have ever imagined such a thing?”
What’s next? If you have an interest in what may be coming our way next, then buy a subscription to New Scientist. If you don’t want to be caught off guard by tomorrow’s headlines then visit a good science-news web site every day. Scientists are always ahead of the game so it makes sense to listen to them. More than 25 years ago they said that the atmosphere was warming and there would be serious consequences. These people have crystal balls that actually work. If a supervolcano obliterates a big chunk of North America or Asia tomorrow morning, feelings of terror would be understandable, but not surprise. Scientists told us years ago that supervolcano eruptions will happen sooner or later. Same with an asteroid strike. Scientists have been chattering away for years now about the threat of drinking water shortages in many parts of the world. They predict it will reach crisis levels in coming decades, causing severe hardships and even the outbreak of wars as a result. When it happens, be concerned, but, please, do not act surprised. Most people just don’t give science enough credit for its accuracy and reliability. It’s not perfect but it is obviously a superior source of information. Who, other than a scientist, can predict something as complicated as an eclipse, for example? Astronomers--not astrologers--can foretell them thousands of years in the future, even down to the second. Science works. That’s why you don’t mount a magic carpet when you want to go to Miami for a shopping trip. Instead, you get on an airplane--a product of science--and eat peanuts until you land. The benefits of science surround us. We don’t think about it much, but our homes, cars, offices, televisions, radios, kitchen appliances, computers and many other indispensable pillars of modern culture trace their origins to science. None of these things were conjured up by wizards. Not a single one.
Why do people still seek out psychics, astrologers and other charlatans in the hope of glimpsing the future? Only science offers credible clues to what tomorrow has in store for us. Given the superior track record of scientists when it comes to figuring out events of the past, present and future, it is difficult to understand why the world doesn’t pay more attention to them. Clearly they are an undervalued resource; for the real prophets wear lab coats, and we ignore them at our own peril.
This column was published in the Caymanian Compass on 9 November 2005.
_____________________________________________________________________
What really kills Caymanians?
Dramatic threats such as hurricanes, terrorism and the bird flu should not lead us to ignore everyday dangers that are much more likely to get us.
By Guy P. Harrison
I cradle the tiny bird as gently as possible. It has been abandoned and its wing is broken, so I’m determined to do what I can to help it survive. A week later, however, I’m dead. It turns out that a virus from the bird found its way into my body and killed me. Oops. I’m reading a great book at 30,000 feet and looking forward to arriving at my destination. Without warning, however, a terrorist with a divine mandate detonates his plastic-explosives-filled teeth and kills me. It happens so fast that I don’t even have time to sigh. Call me wild and crazy but I don’t lose much sleep over scenarios like those described above. Yes, I try to stay informed about dramatic threats such as terrorism, natural disasters and exotic viruses but I prefer to worry about things that are much more likely to kill me.
I suppose it is just human nature to fear the spectacular and ignore the subtle, regardless of how many more body bags the latter may fill. If one wanders through the African bush at night, for example, horrifying thoughts of being eaten alive by a lion will probably haunt each step. More likely, however, it will be a microscopic virus delivered through a mosquito’s schnoz that will do the attacking. We would all be wise to be aware of this tendency to look for danger in the wrong direction. It is, of course, sensible to take note of all credible threats to our lives and health, but it is a mistake to obsess on a few low-risk dangers while ignoring the high risk ones. Consider all the noise and excitement about terrorism since the 9/11 attacks. One might think American civilians are being slaughtered by the thousands every day given all the money and attention that nation now dedicates to fighting terrorism. But wouldn’t it make sense for them to devote more attention and money to things that kill more Americans than terrorism? The regular flu virus kills 36,000 Americans per year.
Approximately 40,000 Americans die in automobile accidents each year. Cigarettes whack a staggering 400,000 Americans every year and obesity claims a similar number of victims annually. If George W. Bush really wants to save as many American lives as possible, he might consider declaring war on public sneezing, tobacco, refined sugar and reckless drivers in addition to terrorism.
Eating your killer. Great-tasting garbage, cleverly packaged and marketed as food, is one of the most common and deadly health threats in the Cayman Islands. Greasy foods, candy and sugar-filled drinks may be enjoyable but they also slap layers of unhealthy lard upon our bodies. They may even kill us when too much of of the stuff is consumed over too many years. It’s weird but many of us really do eat our own killers. The human mind naturally lusts for sugary high-fat foods and the food industry is eager to sell them to us. It’s a bad combination and, according to the death toll in developed nations, it’s a bigger threat to us than all that scary stuff they show on the evening news. Stop obsessing over al Qaeda, hurricanes and bizarre diseases and start worrying about that poison crud on your plate that you call a meal. On any given day, George Town Hospital doesn’t see many people who were injured by terrorists or infected with the Ebola virus. They do, however, do a brisk business in treating people who made bad choices in what they ate, drank and inhaled over many years. Based on the stats, we should fear Twinkies far more than suicide bombers. Stay vigilant, for those Skittles in your cupboard are much closer to you than a sick duck in Kowloon. Poison in the air kills 3 million people worldwide each year (World Health Organization). Caymanians come in contact with a high number of toxic chemicals, airborne and otherwise, at work, at home, at school, and even in the womb. Some of these substances potentially can cause cancer years down the road. We should not allow ourselves to be uninformed or passive just because some threats are quiet, invisible and not immediately harmful. As a society, are we worried enough about toxins in our environment?
Yes, some very bad and very dramatic things are lurking out there in our world and we can’t ignore them. But let’s make sure we don’t forget that a few bad things are right here too. They are in our homes, stalking us right now. A seductive cigarette, a merciless candy bar and a psychopathic hamburger may be sneaking up on you right now—and they mean to kill. This column was published in the Caymanian Compass on 26 October 2005.
__________________________________________________________
No way to treat family
The world’s wild apes may be gone within 50 years
By Guy P. Harrison
First the good news: We are learning more about apes these days than ever before. Genetics, fossil discoveries, and behavioral studies continue to shed light on them. The more we learn, the more we are able to appreciate apes as thoughtful, creative and special creatures. Never before have there been so many reasons to respect and protect apes.
Now the bad news: They will all be dead soon.
We are killing apes and destroying their habitats at such a fast pace that scientists predict they may be extinct in the wild within 50 years. Within 50 years. Hunting and habitat destruction in Africa and Asia are the primary reasons for the apes’ rapid decline. Poverty is the driving force behind this tragedy, say experts. Horrible as it may be, however, I cannot focus condemnation on a man who fires arrows into the chest of a mother chimpanzee and sells the meat to care for his impoverished family. I prefer to blame our pathetically imbalanced and disjointed world for failing to provide that man with an option other than killing apes. Poverty not only destroys people, it destroys nature as well.
Who are the apes? Last month, scientists who mapped the chimpanzee genome announced that chimp DNA is 96 percent identical to human DNA. Even as we are killing them, apes draw closer and closer to us. We now know that the genetic difference between a rat and a mouse, for example, is 10 times greater than the genetic difference between a chimp and a human. To be clear, this new discovery does not mean that chimps are 96 percent human. They are a separate species and there is a lot of difference in that four percent. Obviously, however, we cannot deny that chimps are our kin. Only a couple of weeks ago, researchers announced that they had observed gorillas in the wild using tools. Previously, chimps, orangutans and bonobos (pictured at bottom right) had been observed using tools but gorillas never had been. Now we know that all apes are potentially capable of using tools in the wild. I have never forgotten my own awakening to ape intelligence many years ago. As an employee at Busch Gardens I was able to come in close contact with chimpanzees there. I thought I knew a lot about apes but was surprised to discover just how intelligent and emotionally complex they are. There was brightness in their eyes, curiosity in their actions, and gentleness in their touch. They revealed themselves to be something far more than “just animals.” It was difficult not to think of those apes as people once I got to know them and they got to know me.
Relax. Whenever ape and human comparisons come up some people are sure to feel uneasy about it. However, the final elimination of wild apes within our lifetime is an issue of compassion versus indifference, not creationism versus evolution. It should not matter if one is a religious fundamentalist who throws darts at Darwin’s portrait or a science-loving heathen with a crush on Louis Leakey. The kinship between humans and apes is obvious and undeniable. For the moment, let’s ignore the debate over whether this connection is the work of an intelligent superbeing or the blind tinkering of natural selection and recognize that we are closely related to apes anatomically, genetically and behaviorally. One way or the other, these chimpanzees, bonobos, gorillas and orangutans are fellow primates, our extended family, and as such deserve better treatment.
Make love, not war. My favorite ape (other than us) are the bonobos. They play, share freely, and they have sex more frequently than we say hello. Females take the lead in bonobo society while males, perhaps tranquilized by the constant sex, never seem to have any time for fighting and killing. Chimpanzees, on the other hand, show some disturbing similarities to the worst in us. They can be viciously territorial and murderous. Meanwhile, bonobos live in peace and offer us a quiet yet powerful example of another way. We are not bonobos and cannot live like them, of course. They do, however, show us that total peace is indeed possible for a primate society. There is another way other than the bloody path of the chimp and the human. The bonobo example is a living image worth preserving, if only so that we may aspire to it. This column was published in the Caymanian Compass on 19 October 2005.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The scientist who said ‘no’
A funny thing happened to Joseph Rotblat on the way to the bomb. He heard his conscience.
By Guy P. Harrison
The passing of Sir Joseph Rotblat leaves the world to make its way with one less decent human being. Rotblat cofounded the Pugwash Conferences in the 1950s to be a regular opportunity for the world’s leading thinkers to gather away from the spotlight and informally discuss ways of nurturing peace throughout the world. He won the Nobel Peace Prize in 1995 for this work. While most will focus on his honors and accomplishments, I prefer to remember him for a single decision he made back in 1944. During World War II, Rotblat was a leading scientist in the Manhattan Project, America’s all-out bid to invent the atomic bomb. Initially, the Polish-born scientist felt his participation was a moral responsibility in order to prevent Hitler from getting the bomb first and winning the war. Rotblat eventually learned, however, that the Germans were no where near success. There was no threat of the Japanese getting the bomb either, so Rotblat suddenly realized he was unable to personally justify further participation in the Manhattan Project. Showing remarkable courage and independence, he listened to his conscience and walked away.
When atomic bombs fell on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945, Rotblat was so horrified that he committed the rest of his life to pushing for nuclear disarmament and world peace. Rotblat never tired of this mission. Just this year, for example, at the age of 96, he issued a strong statement on the 60th anniversary of the bombing of Hiroshima:
“The original nuclear weapon states not only hold on to their nuclear status, but seek to augment their nuclear armory. Other states seek to acquire nuclear weapons to deter an attack from others that possess them. Carried to its logical conclusion, this would mean that every nation will acquire its own nuclear weapons.
“This is no way to run the world. Imagine a world governed forever by mutual fear. Surely, that is not a world in which any of us would want to live, yet it is the way the politicians are taking us.”
Rotblat stressed to me in a 2003 interview that the world’s scientists must take more responsibility for their work. He believed they need to think deeply about the dangers of some research to humankind. Rotblat called for a universal scientists’ pledge to “do no harm”, something similar to medicine’s Hippocratic Oath. It would, he said, at least give scientists some small sense of responsibility. It would be beneficial if this one scientist’s act of moral strength will be remembered and honored far into the future. Back in 1944, Rotblat swam against the surging tide of current events. He was neck-deep in difficult times, when fear and anger were on the march like never before. However, he found the courage to rise above it all and do what he felt was best not for an army or a nation, but for a world. Scientists are, of course, smart people. While I understand the “us” versus “them” dynamics of the real world that leads to arms races and defensive concerns, I cannot help but feel disappointed that so many scientists are not smart enough to recognize that their talents would be better utilized serving life rather than death. It is sad that on the passing of Joseph Rotblat there are still thousands of scientists out there working hard to produce a better bomb, better germ or better chemical weapon.
If only they could hear their conscience and walk away, just like Joseph Rotblat did.
This column was published in the Caymanian Compass on 21 September 2005.
_____________________________________________________________________
Christmas is a time for love
By Guy P. Harrison
“Hush now!” screams the mother. “If you ask for that doll one more time, I’m going to lose my mind. It’s too expensive; $400 is way too much for a doll.”
“But mummy, I really have to have it, please," whines Roxanne.
The bright and beautiful 10-year-old Grand Cayman child makes good grades and generally steers clear of trouble. Her perspective on Christmas, however, needs some work.
“Mummy, it’s all I want. If you don’t get it for me I’m gonna be so upset. It will ruin my Christmas!” The mother shakes her head in disgust. “Have you given any thought to getting presents for your brother and sister?” she asks. “It seems like you only care about yourself this year.”
“But Mummy, it has eyes that cry and a nose that runs! It can even wet its diaper and poop too. Best of all, if you shake it hard, it throws up. It’s the best dolly ever!” The mother rolls her eyes and fades away to another part of the house.
Miss Anne, the family’s helper, saw it all from the kitchen. She approaches Roxanne and gently explains that her mother is right.
“Christmas is a special time because it is a time for love,” says Miss Anne. “It feels good to do nice things for other people. It’s even better than getting a present yourself.”
“Really? I’m not sure I believe that, Anne.”“It’s true, sweetheart. I would never lie to you. Giving to others is the best feeling in the world.” Miss Anne is a hard-working 42-year-old Jamaican. Her beautiful dark skin seems far younger than her years. Her tired eyes seem far older. That Caymanian term “helper” is a small word but it says a lot. Miss Anne is the family’s house cleaner, cook, clothes washer, and childcare worker. She works six days per week for $800 per month.
Her home is a feeble wooden shack in George Town. A bed takes up most of the cramped single room. The contents include little more than a framed photo of her son, a Bible, five dresses and one pair of shoes. She pays $500 per month in rent and wires most of whatever is left over to Jamaica to pay for her 9-year-old son’s food, clothing and school fees.
Every day after work Miss Anne jams herself into a minibus for the long ride home. It’s always packed tight with the tired and sweaty bodies of Cayman’s hardest working people. Every day, she stares out the window hoping to forget the fatigue and loneliness.
Miss Anne’s love for her son is unusually strong; it has to be because of the distance. Jamaica may be close to Cayman on a map, but for Miss Anne it feels like the other side of the galaxy. Somehow her love makes the distance barely tolerable but a painful knot in her stomach is always there, nonetheless. She endures it all because she believes Cayman dollars will help her son escape the prison of poverty he was sentenced to at birth.
Miss Anne’s son is a little boy with a big dream. On his seventh birthday, he declared to anyone who would listen that he would be a doctor one day. Miss Anne promised on that same day that she would do everything in her power to make his dream come true. Six months later she was alone in Grand Cayman. The boy makes excellent grades and is always a perfect gentleman in class and elsewhere. Maybe he really can make the great leap from slum to medical school. Miss Anne certainly believes he can.
“Honey, let’s go ahead and get her that doll,” the mother says to Roxanne’s father. “It’s expensive, so we’ll just get her that and nothing else, okay? If that doll is not under the tree, she’ll be heartbroken.”
“But $400 is ridiculous to pay for a doll,” he grumbled. “It’s probably just $50 in Miami.”
“Come on, honey. She really wants it.” “It’s crazy,” he says, “but all right.”
“Miss Anne, why are you crying?” asks Roxanne.
“Oh, where did you come from? It’s nothing, dear. I’m just feeling a little bit sad today.”
“Why, Miss Anne?”
“I miss my son. Christmas is just a week away and I’m sad that I won’t be with him. I love him so much.” “I don’t understand, Miss Anne, why don’t you just go and see him?”
“It’s not that easy, Roxanne. Airfare is expensive. I don’t have enough money.”
“But that’s not fair,” says Roxanne. “You work so hard and you love your son so much. It’s not right.”
Anne forces a smile, hugs Roxanne and walks into the kitchen to begin making dinner for the family. It is just seven days before Christmas and under a tree rests a baby-faced toy with extraordinary excretion abilities. Stoically, it waits for Christmas morning and liberation from the box. But it never happens.
“Where is your present?!” screams the mother. “What have you done with it? Your present is missing.” Terrified, Roxanne looks down at the floor, wilting fast under the barrage. She is silent but obviously guilty of something.
“I know exactly what you did, young lady. You took it and opened it, didn’t you? You couldn’t wait seven more days? That’s it; you get nothing for Christmas this year. I hope you are happy! Now go and get the doll so I can return it to the store!”
“I can’t, Mummy,” mumbles Roxanne.
“Why not?!”
“Uh, because I already returned it and got the money back for it,” confesses Roxanne. “I’m sorry but I had to because--”
“Hush your mouth! You have gone way too far this time, young lady. Go to your room and don’t come out until your father gets home. You are in big trouble!”
On the way home that evening, Miss Anne’s minibus passes a boy riding his bike. He is happy and full of life, just like every little boy should be.
Silent tears roll down Miss Anne’s face. She reaches into her handbag for a tissue but discovers an envelope.
She finds $400 and a letter inside.
Dear Miss Anne,This money is for you to buy a plane ticket so you can go to Jamaica and see your little boy. You will be his best Christmas present ever. You should be with him because, like you told me, Christmas is a time for love. Thank you for working so hard all the time for us. I don’t know what we would do without you. After school you are the only one there to be with me and you cook the best meals ever. I’m sorry I have never really thanked you, so THANK YOU!
I love you and Merry Christmas. Roxanne
--------------------------------------------------------------------
