EDUCATION

Science seeks hard evidence

By Moin Rahman

September 5, 2005
President Bush has weighed in on the debate on evolution vs. intelligent design (ID) by stating,
"Both sides ought to be properly taught … so people can understand what the debate is about."

At this rate, it appears that Bush may even endorse the requirement, which casts doubt on
evolution, stipulated by the school district of Cobb County, Georgia. The district requires that all
biology textbooks should be affixed with a sticker with the following disclaimer on evolution:
"Evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. This material should be
approached with an open mind, studied carefully, and critically considered."

Bush has every right to his opinion, but if he thinks that his opinion, which contradicts the
methods of science, has to be made part of the science curriculum, then, "Crawford, we have a
problem."

Of course, this problem can be resolved in a quid pro quo fashion if the president approves the
affixing of stickers to scriptures of various faiths with the following words: "This book contains
material on revelation. Religion is a theory, not a fact, regarding the creation of life and matter.
This material should be questioned, its miracles challenged, and could be rejected for lack of
evidence."

An ironic request like this will remind the president that every issue, including faith, has two sides
to it: That is, those who embrace faith, purely on "faith," without requiring any supporting
evidence, and those who reject faith because it is just a creation myth that was passed on to us
by our ancestors.

It is unscientific for public school boards to require biology textbooks to carry a disclaimer that
encourages students to turn a blind eye to the massive amounts of evolutionary evidence, from
fossils to genetics. Because this evidence, when explained by the theory of evolution, makes a
compelling case for natural selection.

Many school boards across the country are conducting hearings to determine the validity and
veracity of the theory of evolution. These hearings are fundamentally flawed for two reasons: (1)
Questioning a particular theory of science does not occur in school boards, but among scientists
who pursue evidence in the field, conduct experiments in the laboratories and publish findings in
scientifically peer-reviewed journals; (2) Why just pick on the theory of evolution while ignoring
other theories -- such as the theory of relativity, atomic theory, germ theory and heliocentric
theory, among others -- that constitute science?

With regard to the creation of species, the methods of science simply state: Show me either the
evidence for the fingerprints left by the (invisible) intelligent designer or for evolution through
natural selection of random mutations, and I will accept it. And, it has indeed accepted the latter,
which was first proposed by Charles Darwin. In a nutshell, science demands eliciting evidence to
support an explanation (theory) through systematic methods of critical thought and inquiry.

ID conveniently excludes evidence relating to the gradual evolution of species and complex
organs such as the eye through natural selection, and simply concludes that complexity can't
arise without a designer.

If a technologically advanced society places knowledge derived by objective data on par with
supernatural explanations in a science textbook, it will devolve once again into a primitive society.

1
We the people will pay a high price if we are disabled in our quest to be on the cutting edge of
science and discovery, due to a misguided leadership keen on pandering to its base.

Moin Rahman lives in Coral Springs and writes to promote the public understanding of science,
reason and common sense. E-mail ergonomist@aol.com.

Copyright © 2005, South Florida Sun-Sentinel

--------------------
Imagine non-oil alternatives
--------------------

By Moin Rahman

February 18, 2002

The economic powers of the 18th century faced a problem that appeared intractable and defied the best
astronomers and scientists of the day. The problem, in its essence, was simple -- to assist the seafaring ships to
determine their longitude. One has to remember this was in a time before either radio or GPS was invented. The
inability to determine longitude resulted in catastrophes that ranged from ships getting lost at sea to crashing on
rocks, resulting in loss of life and merchandise.

To find a solution to this menacing problem the British parliament passed the Longitude Act in 1714 to welcome
potential solutions. The longitude act proclaimed that a first prize of pounds20,000 (millions of dollars in today's
money) would be offered to anyone who could develop a method to determine longitude to an accuracy of half a
degree. An ordinary carpenter and clock maker by the name John Harrison, from the English village of Barrow,
entered the fray, which also included esteemed mathematicians, scientists and astronomers. Harrison embarked
on an odyssey that tried to link the difference in time from the homeport to the time at local noon on the ship --
obtained with the help of the midday sun -- as a basis to determine longitude. The reason being that every 15-
degree change in longitude translates in a difference of one hour in time due to the Earth's rotation. His idea
was to develop a clock of extraordinary accuracy that would be carried on the ship to show the time in the
homeport. The timekeeper would be such that it would neither gain nor lose time due to the rocking motion of
the ship or drastic changes in weather conditions. Science writer Dava Sobel recounts this fascinating story in
her book Longitude, which was also made into a four-part TV docudrama by Britain's Channel 4.

What are parallels of the longitude problem of the 18th century to the affairs of a 21st-century America and the
world? American ideas such as its democracy and capitalism are stunning successes. America has landed men
on the moon, and scientific ingenuity has made it a leader in the world of technology and medicine.

However, a lack of progress in the area of self-sufficient energy production has put America in an unholy alliance
with countries that are antipodes to American ideals. To extricate the United States, the onus should be placed
on the president, Congress and the nation's citizens to encourage the invention of a non-petroleum fuel by
creating an "Energy Act."

The Energy Act, in a nutshell, would give out a prize of $1 billion for the inventor who develops a fuel that is
safe, cheap, efficient, non-polluting and small enough even to power a motorcycle.

The billion-dollar prize will pale in comparison with the many million-dollar incentives that may have to be forked
out in the future to capture fugitives such as Osama bin Laden due to our unholy alliances. Or to wage wars that
cost millions of dollars per day to protect our "strategic interests" in the Middle East -- i.e., protect one
dictatorship from another invading despot.

Our chief partner in this unholy alliance is Saudi Arabia, which tramples on almost every freedom known to man
-- freedom of thought, expression, dress, debate and religion (or lack of it). The oil revenues that flow into this
tyrannical land have been used to indoctrinate minds in Saudi-funded religious schools around the world, which

2
in turn export holy war against the so-called infidels.

Our complacency -- which has developed due to the cheap and easy availability of oil from Saudi Arabia and the
OPEC cartel -- has resulted in horrendous loss and pain, as evidenced by the attacks of 9/11.

As a matter of fact, OPEC deserves the attention of the anti-trust law much more than Microsoft, as it combines
all the attributes of a monopoly: artificial shortages created by production cuts, price fixing and political muscling.

The Longitude Act of the 18th century produced a John Harrison, who finally won the prize with his timekeepers,
which passed several sea trials after battling many odds and detractors over a period of 50 years. An Energy Act
in the 21st century, with the right incentive, has the potential to unearth an American John Harrison who can
invent a new fuel to replace petroleum-based fuels.

Some visionaries such as Hermina Morita, a state representative in Hawaii, have embarked on a plan to reduce
the dependency on oil by utilizing Hawaii's plentiful water to develop hydrogen as a fuel source.

GM even displayed a concept car called AUTOnomy, powered by hydrogen fuel cells, at the recent Detroit auto
show.

However, much more needs to be done. The time has come to challenge our nation and its citizens to unleash
the creative potential energy contained in their minds to invent a non-petroleum-based fuel.

The 18th century, due to the needs of the day, created the Longitude Act. President Bush, when can we have
our Energy Act?

An American John Harrison is somewhere out there waiting for this call.

The writer is a resident of Coral Springs. He can be reached at ergonomist@aol.com.

Copyright (c) 2002, South Florida Sun-Sentinel

Visit Sun-Sentinel.com

-------------------
The missing factor
--------------------

By Moin Rahman

February 2, 2004

It is disappointing that not one Democratic presidential hopeful has made a point on a
particular issue that can make them stand apart from the incumbent in the White House: the
promotion of science so that it provides our nation the much-needed intellectual horsepower
to lead the world in new discoveries for the well-being of humankind.

Alas, some of the candidates have forsaken this important issue and are trying to match
President Bush on the very private and personal matter of faith and religiosity.

Our founding fathers and our nation that they founded for us were the products of the age of
reason, enlightenment and science. We, the inheritors of this heritage, continue to be
inventors, innovators and explorers. American inventors have been the frontiersmen of
3
science and technology. They have given birth to the Wright flyer, Model T, the cell phone, the
personal computer and we were the first to put a man on the moon.

The Democratic presidential candidates, who seek a regime change in the White House,
have not yet articulated how they can bring out the pioneering spirit that is intrinsic to every
American. Nor have they expressed their vision to make our country a powerhouse of ideas,
where innovation never ends; where inventions herald new markets and opportunities; where
we not only explore new worlds in space, but also fearlessly explore the frontiers of
knowledge.

A report titled Politics and Science in the Bush Administration, prepared for Rep. Henry A.
Waxman, D-Calif., paints a stark picture of how science, an objective enterprise, has been
twisted to accommodate the policies of ideologues and social conservatives. Political
interference with science to clear the way for policy-making has resulted in misleading
statements by the president and suppression of agency reports, among other things,
according to the report. Some examples include the deletion of information from the Centers
for Disease Control's Web site pertaining to the use and efficacy of condoms (to please the
right-wing constituencies); and the modification of findings on key issues like global warming
and workplace safety (to protect the economic interests of large corporate supporters of the
president).

When freedom of inquiry and presentation of objective facts is squelched, all the key
ingredients that make a nation flourish in a 21st century economy -- such as innovation,
invention and exploration -- are jeopardized.

President Bush's re-election-year "vision thing" -- to go back to the Moon or put humans on
Mars -- sounds hollow when the underpinning commitment to science in areas relating to
everyday living are undermined by his administration.

But are the Democrats ready, or even willing, to take on the president who has a proclivity to
promote faith over fact and revelation over reason? For instance, the Bush administration's
nominee to chair the FDA's Reproductive Health Drugs Advisory Committee, Dr. W. David
Hager, is a conservative religious activist and a prime example of these misplaced priorities.
Hager's published advice to women who suffer from premenstrual syndrome includes prayer
and Bible-reading.

A citizenry that is scientifically literate, whose curiosity is stoked, has the potential to unleash
new ideas and help itself. New ideas can create new products and with them new jobs. These
new jobs can outnumber and outpace the jobs that are currently being exported to low-wage
countries.

Pushing the knowledge frontier can lead to cures for diseases that afflict us; make us
independent of foreign oil; foster our interconnectedness as a species and make us look
beyond our parochial affiliation to religion or race; and inform us with factual evidence on how
to protect and thrive on this pale blue planet that we call home.

It is time that the Democratic presidential rivals, Messrs. Dean, Kerry, Edward, et al., speak
up on this matter.

4
The only president in our history who was a scientist, with a profound sense of curiosity and a
deep commitment to science, was Thomas Jefferson. I sincerely hope that he does not turn
out to be the first and last such president.

Moin Rahman is a human factors engineer and writes

on science and current affairs.

He resides in Coral Springs and can be reached at ergonomist@aol.com.

Copyright (c) 2004, South Florida Sun-Sentinel

Visit Sun-Sentinel.com
------------------------------------

Can ergonomics help to investigate human performance in government?

August 2005

By Moin Rahman

The U.S. government has now all but conceded that Iraq didn’t have Weapons of Mass Destruction
(WMDs) prior to the war. This was based on the investigations conducted by the Commission on the
Intelligence Capabilities of the United States Regarding Weapons of Mass Destruction, which was
made up of a distinguished group of experts appointed by President Bush.

The Commission did a thorough job of investigating the intelligence failures on several fronts.
However, I feel that it could have done more to understand the underpinnings of human decision
making processes in government (career intelligence analysts and elected representatives), and to
determine their role, if any, relating to intelligence failures? Can the science of ergonomics,
particularly those areas of ergonomics pertaining to human information processing, be utilized in
investigations that have to account for human performance?

Former CIA director, George Tenet, pointed out that intelligence is “almost never completely wrong or
completely right.” Because of its nebulous nature, “intelligence” has the superficial appearance of
being an exact science; however, as we ergonomists know, Signal Detection Theory (SDT), can be
used to understand how humans process information – and make decisions – in a world that is inexact.

SDT explains how humans’ process information in an uncertain world when there is a need to separate
wheat (referred as “signal”) from the chaff (“noise”). Ergonomists utilize SDT to understand human
decision-making capabilities in control rooms, radiology departments, etc.

For example, when a radiologist looks at an X-ray and correctly identifies a tumor (signal) it is called a
“hit”; if he fails it is called a “miss”. However, if he falsely concludes that there is a tumor – say due
to the fuzziness of the picture – it will be labeled as a “false alarm”. Alternatively, if he correctly
rejects a mass that is an integral part of a healthy organ, it will be called a “correct rejection.” The
accuracy of the two correct decisions (hit and correct rejection) may also be affected by prior
knowledge of the radiologist. For example, if the radiologist was aware that the patient was referred
because of possible cancer, the radiologist is likely to lower his threshold – or “decision criterion” in

5
SDT jargon – for detecting a tumor. This may result in the radiologist wrongly concluding a normal
mass (noise) as a tumor (signal).

As in the above example, SDT provides a scientific framework to dispassionately analyze problems
relating to inherent biases in human decision making processes.
Thus SDT is an ideal tool to determine whether intelligence analysis and subsequent decision making
followed optimal paths. Because it is known that intelligence analysts have to work in a complex,
confusing, and demanding environment. For instance, overlooking some features (terrorists’ activities
leading to 9-11 attacks) or falsely concluding speculation as fact (Iraqi WMDs) can have severe
repercussions.

SDT is also of equal value with regard to the consumers of intelligence, including the ultimate decision
makers. In this context, one may be interested in determining whether the U.S. government’s decision
criterion was affected by extraneous events (obfuscation tactics of Saddam Hussein, terror threats, and
actual terrorist attacks).

In closing I argue that SDT – one of the many tools in ergonomics’ took kit – should have been utilized
in the investigations relating to the WMD intelligence failure. This would have been valuable in
providing an unbiased perspective to the investigators regarding the (human) performance of
intelligence analysts and that of key decision makers.

Moin Rahman is a Principal Human Factors Engineer at Motorola in Plantation, Florida (USA) and
his interests encompass human information processing, science and current affairs.

The above was published in The Ergonomist. A publication of the Ergonomics Society (U.K.).
www.ergonomics.org.uk

-----------------------

Shuttle findings can guide us on security

By Moin Rahman

September 8, 2003

The Columbia accident report published Aug. 26 was the second of two investigative reports this year
seeking the causes behind the terrible events that scarred our nation. The first one, of course, was the 9-
11 congressional investigation report published earlier this year. Fortunately, in the Columbia report no
pages were redacted.

These two reports exemplify the democratic process on which our country is founded. I would like to
connect these two dots -- the Columbia report to the 9-11 events -- in an effort to bring out the
"science" in the term "political science" that governs our country and our dealings with the world.

The Columbia accident report states that "rockets, by their nature, are complex and unforgiving
vehicles." The space shuttle during lift-off is powered by solid rocket boosters producing over six
million pounds of thrust and requires over 500,000 gallons of liquid hydrogen and oxygen to power it.
The shuttle, with the astronauts, is piggy-backing on a combustible missile and it is indeed an

6
inherently risky venture.

The Columbia report gives a vivid play-by-play description of the events leading to the accident, from
well before the creation of the space shuttle program to the craft's final disintegration during re-entry.
The physical chain of events began innocuously, with a foam strike that damaged the leading edge of
the left wing 81.7 seconds after launch. The damage on the left wing was directly responsible for the
disintegration of the shuttle during its re-entry into Earth's atmosphere.

What also is of interest is the fact that the accident investigation report moves on from the reasons
behind the physical cause of the accident and delves into the organizational causes of the accident. It
appears that NASA, as a complex organization, had to juggle and struggle with conflicting goals of
cost, schedules and safety -- and in this struggle, safety lost out.

The chain of events regarding cost-cutting -- which compromised safety -- is captured in what the
report had to say: "NASA remained a politicized and vulnerable agency, dependent on key political
players who accepted NASA's ambitious proposals and then imposed strict budget limits. Post-
Challenger policy decisions made by the White House, Congress and NASA leadership resulted in the
agency reproducing many of the failings identified by the Rogers Commission" (set up to investigate
the Challenger accident).

This is where I draw a parallel between NASA, a scientific establishment, and the institutions that
govern our country, which are responsible for the well-being of its citizens.

The 9-11 congressional investigation met its objectives of determining the causes behind intelligence
failures that led to the attacks. However, there is also a longer-term interest our government should
have in preventing the falling of the first domino, which sets off cascading events that lead to either the
next 9-11 or space vehicle crash.

In retrospect, it has become clear that the first domino that led to 9-11 fell with our embrace of Islamic
radicals more than 20 years ago in order to oust the Soviets from Afghanistan.

Furthermore, our business dealings with countries such as Saudi Arabia result in our sacrificing our
moral principles regarding freedom and human rights in exchange for crude oil. In the process, we
conveniently turned a blind eye to another export from Saudi Arabia to the rest of the world, including
American shores: a virulent and violent strain of Islam.

One might call this a case of conflicting interests similar to the one experienced at NASA. In hindsight,
a wrong foreign policy is "inherently risky" -- similar to the shuttle on a rocket -- and the wrong
choices can result in the physical disintegration of American institutions and deaths of Americans.

On a tactical level, similarities regarding key decision-making abound between NASA and the foreign
policy wing of our government. The decisions that are made today could have a cascading effect in 10,
20 or 100 years from now. So why not take a page out of the book of the Columbia accident report and
find out if any parallels can be drawn regarding the safety and security of our citizens and country?

One of the recommendations of the Columbia accident investigation board is as follows: "Establish an
independent Technical Engineering Authority that is responsible for technical requirements … build a
disciplined, systematic approach to identifying, analyzing, and controlling hazards throughout the life
cycle of the shuttle system … The Technical Engineering Authority should be funded directly from
7
NASA Headquarters, and should have no connection to or responsibility for schedule or program cost."

Likewise, we need an independent foreign policy authority, with no vested political or financial
interests, to guide our government and inform the public. This will provide the desired checks and
balances and ensure that everybody is informed as to what the stakes are. This authority would be
responsible for putting into plain language the investments in lives and dollars and to project various
possible outcomes from situations such as current-day Iraq or Afghanistan. For example, the neocon
view that seems to have led us into war in Iraq could have been challenged and we would also have an
opportunity to learn the negative outcomes.

In a time when we are plagued with foreign policy "accidents," we more than ever need someone to tell
us -- with an independent voice and authority -- what the country and its elected representatives are
signing onto. In these troubled times, when it comes to safety of the citizenry and homeland security,
"Failure is not an option," whether it be today or 20 years from now.

Moin Rahman is a human factors engineer and writes on science and current affairs. He lives in Coral
Springs.

Copyright © 2003, South Florida Sun-Sentinel <http://www.sun-sentinel.com>

--------------------
Has reason left public life?
--------------------

By Moin Rahman

November 8, 2004

As a protagonist for science, reason and common sense -- and thus, a supporter of John
Kerry, who best represented my values -- I am baffled with the re-election of George W. Bush.

Exit polls show that moral values trumped all other issues such as war, the economy and
terrorism. Bush supporters, turbocharged by the morality factor, simply outvoted the
supporters of Kerry. This was best summarized in a Bush supporter who said on NPR "I am a
Christian, and I support someone who stands for what the Bible says."

I am disheartened by the fact that the America that I came to as an immigrant, which I
thought represented the apogee of the Age of Enlightenment, is in free fall.

Morality, a core issue for Bush supporters, actually hit rock bottom in Bush's first term. Here
are some examples: The president led us into an unjust war in Iraq based on false premises,
resulting in thousands of American and innocent Iraqi deaths; he allowed Halliburton to milk
taxpayer money by awarding it no-bid contracts; he turned a blind eye to the Geneva
conventions, which led to the abuses in the Abu Ghraib prison; and he distorted scientific

8
facts to support the administration's policy on pollution, global warming and birth control, to
mention a few.

The closeness of the popular vote in the presidential election (51 percent to 48 percent)
resonates with John Edwards' "two Americas." In computer jargon, a binary America of 0 and
1 can be interpreted in more than one way: a moral America vs. an immoral America; a faith-
based America vs. a fact-based America; a Scripture based America vs. a science-based
America. The two Americas -- 0 and 1 -- appear to be mutually exclusive in the current
political environment.

President Bush decries "activist judges" who re-write the Constitution rather than just
interpret it. But Bush has turned out to be an "activist" president who managed to divide the
nation and conquer the presidency. He irrevocably split the nation asunder with his proposed
constitutional amendment banning gay marriage.

As partisan as he is, it is difficult to see him as a president of one nation that ensures liberty
and justice for all.

The intensity of the presidential campaign reached unusually acrimonious heights and turned
out to be a civil war of ideas that pitted the Bible-based moral heartland against the rest of the
blue nation that stood for reason, modernity and progress. The end of this civil war on Nov. 2
resulted in at least two states ceding from the (George Bush's) union in the war of ideas --
with California voting for stem cell research (Proposition 71) and Florida voting "yes" to raise
the minimum wage (Amendment 5), neither of which received Bush's endorsement.

Democrats ponder, as they recover from this loss, on how to win the confidence of the red
heartland. There is talk that they can do it by adopting (right-wing) Republican values that
center on bringing faith into government, opposition to gay marriage and abortion, and
perhaps even replacing evolution with creationism in schools.

If Democrats adopt this strategy of changing their values to court the red heartland, they have
failed us -- the other half whose beliefs are founded in the Enlightenment principles of
science, reason and common sense.

To resurrect America to its proper place as a beacon of enlightenment and a vanguard in

science and technology, it behooves the Democrats to change the values of the red states. It
is the democratic duty of the Democrats to convince and educate the red states that morality
and ethics are not determined by old-time religion, but that fact-based science can show us
the way.

The elements of this education consist of critical thought, skepticism and a quest to challenge
the status quo -- which can also make us competitive in the global marketplace. If not, not
only our children will be left behind, but we as a nation will be left behind as we watch
Singapore become the hub of stem cell research and Japan the powerhouse in hybrid and
hydrogen fuel-cell powered cars.

Our president is famous for having used his "gut" or "instinct" to make decisions and "pray
over it." It is hard for me to comprehend how such a person can reach across to those of us
who believe in making decisions based on facts that are derived from a self-correcting
9
mechanism such as science and a relentless curiosity that knows no bounds.

But I take heart that America, as an idea, is so resilient that it can absorb the shocks of a
divided nation and will not succumb to the hijacking of the intellect, if the second Bush term
turns out to be identical to that of the first.

Moin Rahman lives in Coral Springs and writes to promote the public understanding of
science, reason and commonsense. He can be reached at ergonomist@aol.com.

Copyright (c) 2004, South Florida Sun-Sentinel

Visit Sun-Sentinel.com

--------------------
Free thought is best weapon
--------------------

By Moin Rahman

December 3, 2001

The United States' war on terrorism is only half the war if it does not seek to eliminate its cause. The cause -- or
the other half of the war -- is against ignorance and illiteracy, which together make an intoxicating "faith-based"
cocktail that attracts an eager cadre of martyrs.

In fact, the latter half is more significant of the two and let me explain it with a simple analogy. To cure a disease,
say heart disease, doctors employ a double front: one to cure the symptoms (shortness of breath, hypertension)
and the other to root out the cause (often in diet and exercise). The latter, if successful, can cure the disease
forever. Similarly, if the root cause of faith-based terrorism, ignorance, is cured we might be rid of the menace
forever.

The short history of the Taliban and their cohorts has shown that they were straight-A students of seminaries
and religious schools based in Pakistan. The curriculum of the schools was entirely devoted to scriptures and
religion, a system of thought which blossomed among our ancestors as complex mythologies to bring either
warring tribes together or promote a new morality based on the classic carrot and stick model.

No wonder these students and their "guest" have hollered time and again that they will not let infidels on Islamic
territories and the Holy Land. Their ignorance has blinded them to the fact that the crucible of all humanity is
really east Africa. Their idea of a Holy Land is as myopic as their knowledge of history, anthropology and biology.

Ignorance is sometimes an unfortunate and inevitable manifestation of theocracies or regimes that shun
common sense in favor of systems founded on revelations and miracles, which have to be promoted by faith.
They make it a crime for citizens of their countries to exercise basic human rights, including the right to think or
uphold intellectual independence from official dogma. This is in total contrast to democracy, which separates
state and church functions. It encourages critical thought, argument and debate, and the most cherished values
can always be challenged. It is not frozen in time.

The war against terrorism is only half-done if America declares victory after apprehending the perpetrators and
dismantling their financial and logistics network that supported them. More importantly, it should make the effort
to clean up the breeding grounds of terrorism by giving an opportunity for children and adults alike to let their
intellect breathe freely and to unshackle their minds from ancient mythologies.

10
In other words, help them build the institutions that will bring democracy and human rights, and educate them on
topics that range from political science to the science of life itself. By doing this we will give a chance to the
invisible Thomas Jeffersons, Susan B. Anthonys and Carl Sagans in these societies to bloom and to reach out
for new frontiers.

Isn't it time that they also are given life, liberty and pursuit of happiness? Don't they have every right to know that
they are on one of the many branches in the tree of life that arose out of a common ancestor more than 3 billion
years ago, and are genetically related to the flat worm, to the apple tree and the ape? That all humans belong to
one species of primates and that nature does not distinguish the non-believers from the believers? That the
mutual attraction between the sexes is something natural and normal? That pair bonding involves courtship,
love and mutual affection among many species, including humans? That men and women have the right to
mingle and dress in a manner they deem to be fit and appropriate?

Eventually when common folks fall in love with the wonder and splendors of their own lives on Earth and
celebrate it with knowledge and freedom to think and express themselves, they will be repulsed by faith-based
carrots such as a paradise with its 72 virgins that await a holy martyr.

It will be a lasting cure for "faith-based" terrorism, as there would be no one to recruit in a society that is
informed and inspired by knowledge, particularly of the scientific kind.

The author is a resident of Coral Springs.

Copyright (c) 2001, South Florida Sun-Sentinel

Visit Sun-Sentinel.com

11