Le Blog de Doruk Akan

I am a strong believer in evolution through natural selection. This does not however mean I think religion and evolution are mutually exclusive. I do think that religion is silly and unnecessary but I can’t unequivocally state that there is no God. In scientific endeavor, while there is always uncertainty about certain “truths” like evolution, there at least does exist some physical evidence that support the theories, instead of blind faith to support religion. But this is not a post about my religious beliefs or my justification for them. Rather, in this post, I wish to clarify that belief in evolution does not necessarily constitute religion nor does it preclude the existence of a God.

A couple of months ago, the Economist magazine showed the results of a survey comparing American and British attitudes. One question asked, Which explains the origin of the earth? The choices were the theory of evolution, the Bible and intelligent design. The survey was commissioned by the Economist - not formulated by them - but I’m disappointed that such a reputable magazine could make such a glaring mistake. The theory of evolution does not purport to explain the origins of the earth. It doesn’t even purport to explain the origins of life. What’s more disturbing is that 60% of British and 30% of American responses indicated this choice (though, to be fair, there was no none of the above choice). The question and its results reflect a lack of knowledge apropos one of the most important scientific theories in existence.

I am not an expert in evolutionary biology but I enjoyed and studied enough of it to understand the basic idea. Here’s the lowdown. Evolution by natural selection describes a non-random process that tries to explain the progression of life from its primitive forms to the current manifestations. That’s it. It doesn’t explain for example why animals moved from the sea to land. And it most certainly does not explain the origins of life. Scientists may use conclusions from natural selection to help them explore these and other problems but that’s about it. Because of its fairly cosmically limited scope, natural selection can coexist with and does not necessarily replace religion because it does not have the answers to the questions of creation.

That being said, I think evolution (in concert with other sciences) does a thorough job of invalidating organized religions - or at least their scriptures. The fact that the earth is billions of years old and that the universe is heliocentric are two of the major empirical threats to scriptural claims. Furthermore, natural selection confronts a very important concept in religion (at least that of the Western variety): the dominion of man. Knowing that humans are only a recent addition on our fair planet pretty much takes care of that notion. So now religionists can take refuge only in that other major idea: that creation is the work of a greater Power.

The question of creation and its implications, however, is one for another day. So, take heart, o ye believers, and don’t look upon evolution and natural selection as works of the devil (or devils, depending on your particular belief). Sure, you may have to rethink some of the balderdash you’ve been fed by your priests, but isn’t that part of the growing process? I myself think it’s lovely and marvelous that we once shared a common ancestor with Chimpy down at the zoo and even the herbs that spice up our lives. As for the other side, use the theory of natural selection selectively - not as a shotgun approach to tackle all the cosmic claims of religion. Denials can be as narrow-minded as beliefs.

Since I started thinking about this, I’ve run across a couple of interesting links. First, here’s a link to a poll showing that 20% of Americans and even more of other nationalities believe the sun revolves around the earth. Granted, the poll was taken ten years ago but I’m not sure much has changed in the past decade when the knowledge is thousands of years old. And here’s an interesting set of essays concerning the relationship of religion and science.

I had a discussion today about marquee franchises in the NBA and realized it’s a difficult set to define. In fact, it’s difficult in any sport. In football, I think of the Steelers, Cowboys, Redskins, Giants, and Raiders. But cases could be made for the Chiefs, Patriots and Dolphins as well. You could come up with a good set of parameters like history, success, market size, dynasties, players and fan support. But I’m going to dispense with trying to make it scientific because it takes too much effort. Let’s just go with a gut feeling.

In the NBA, there are only two truly marquee franchises: the Lakers and the Celtics. There aren’t any other teams that come close. But let’s talk about that second level, the level where it’s marquee but it’s not sublime. The aforementioned discussion was sparked by my comment that it’s difficult to think of the Knicks as a marquee franchise and, in fact, I had never considered them as such. The indignant reply was - “Well, who would you put above them?” Good question. I guess there aren’t very many teams I’d put above them but here are the ones I’d place on the same level, what I’ll call the non-sublime marquee level.

1. Philadelphia 76ers - They’ve been around for a while (started as the Syracuse Nationals), won two titles in two different eras, and have had five of the true greats in or close to their primes (top 30): Wilt, Julius Erving, Moses Malone, Charles Barkley and Allen Iverson.

2. Detroit Pistons - They’ve also been around for a while (started in Fort Wayne) but they’re harder to justify since they haven’t had success until the 1980s. But the sustained success of that Bad Boys team and the current team are such (despite “only” three titles) that they must be considered a marquee franchise.

3. New York Knicks - One of only two teams to still be in their original city (Celtics are the other one), the teams is blessed with being in the largest market in the country. Two titles and a dearth of world-class players speaks against them but you can’t deny that most people think of them when you think marquee or that I can’t think of who else to put here. I think they have had maybe one legitimately top 30 player in Walt Frazier.

A note on Patrick Ewing: one of the most overrated players in league history. During the prime years he played, here are the other centers I would have rather had on my team: Olajuwon, David Robinson, Alonzo Mourning, Shaq and Rik Smits. Well, maybe not Smits, but the point is I never thought Ewing was that great in the pros.

There are plenty of original teams that have had so many bad years you can’t consider them marquee: the Kings, Hawks, Wizards and Warriors. Then there are two teams that have had plenty of recent success that you might consider the marquee but really aren’t.

1. Chicago Bulls - They lay claim to six titles, the greatest player ever and a large market. But because of a relatively poor history, you never get the feeling that Chicago is a basketball town. It’s more of a football and baseball town. You’d have to consider them because of Jordan if nothing else.

2. San Antonio Spurs - The most successful franchise in the last decade, the Spurs don’t have much history to speak of. Originally an ABA team, they did have one of the all-time greats in George Gervin but would never be successful in the post-season. It’s hard to consider a small-market team with a decade of success as marquee, especially when you’re not sure how the fans will react when the wins eventually dry up.

This is the first entry in a three-part series on religion. The topics have no relation to each other but are things that have come to mind recently. In this here post, I want to address one of the major problems I’ve always had with religion. Currently, I have no ties to religion beyond the purely academic but this problem was one of those things that perplexed me when I was of a more impressionable age.

What I speak of is the sheer number of very different religions. It’s a pretty simple and obvious problem but one that seems to elude discussion. Most discussions I’ve had concern whether God exists with the assumption that it is the Christian God. This makes sense since over here in the US most people are Christian so that’s what’s on the plate. But that’s not the issue. The issue is what to make of the handful of major religions and dozens of other religions. Which is the right one?

I took a gander at the Wikipedia article on religion and it tells me that the so-called Religions of the Book (Judaism, Christianity and Islam) are practiced by about 50% of the world. Even if we lump those relatively similar religions together we are confronted with over three billion people who believe in something very different. And let’s not forget the hundreds of dead religions. For me, intuitively, the preponderance of religions is an argument against the validity of a single one.

I guess now that I think about it that’s a pretty obvious conclusion. But it’s still interesting to think about. I keep imagining a meeting between the Pope and the Dalai Lama where the two are civil on the mortal world but on the astral plane each thinks the other is completely wrong. I’m not too well-versed on the specifics of Buddhism but the Pope must certainly think his counterpart has booked a flight to hell since you can’t enter heaven without accepting Jesus Christ as your savior, etc. That means at least 67% of the world’s living population will be denied passage into paradise upon kicking the bucket - and that’s probably a low estimate considering the schisms and isms and latter-day saints of the carpenter’s religion.

What to make of all these choices? Well, you can hope you picked the right one and shake those pom-poms until the day you die. Or you can just say it’s all a crock and call it a day. I think all these choices show the absurdity and futility of it all but then again I count comic book characters among my heroes. It probably just comes down to how you were raised, which is another issue altogether.

So I wonder how Islam fits into the world-view of Jainism and if Peter, Paul and Mary ever imagined anything like Shintoism. Most religions address other beliefs if they came before - usually by decrying them as false - but of course fail to mention what might come after. Can non-believers be condemned for their ignorance or for simply living before the “truth” came to light? If you’re a true believer, let me know what you think of all this. I hope someone comments because there’s nothing more depressing than a plea for comments without any replies. However, I rest secure in the knowledge that I’ve had record-breaking traffic recently though it’s mostly been for misspelled searches of Scarlett Johansson.

As an aside, I’ll finish with my top four defunct deities that I wish were still here. They would be Ishtar/Astarte, Osiris, Apollo and Aphrodite. As for those who can remain in their graves, I don’t have a top (or bottom as it were) four but instead I’ll just nominate the entire Aztec pantheon. Those gods were some brutal sons of bitches.

My last post was so successful that now I feel pressure to update in ever more clever and ingenious ways. That’s one way to explain my lack of posts for the past two or three weeks. Another is the sometimes lack of time and the pursuit of other activities when I do have time - like realizing the cheap RAM I got doesn’t even fit my computer and trying to talk myself into shelling out a couple Franklins for something compatible.

Then the other day I was looking at Dave’s blog and saw a great album cover by some guy named Big Bear. This reminded me of all the old No Limit album covers and the post practically began to write itself. I mean, all I have to do is post the pictures and hilarity ensues. My favorite part of researching these images was reading the user reviews on Amazon. You’ve got to wonder about people who claim C-Murder’s album is a hip-hop classic. Of course, I’m not without blame myself. Of the following albums, I bought the last one and I think I owned a couple more. I have nothing to say for myself but - Ohhhh, it ain’t my fault…

One of my favorite arguments from religionists is the complexity argument: how could something as complex as a human be created by anything other than an omnipotent source? It’s an intuitive argument, certainly, because many people have difficulty wrapping their minds around the possibility that humans and cows share a common ancestor, let alone the possibility that humans and the common houseplant or that humans and the fungus growing on their shower walls have a common ancestor.

Well, first of all, if we’re talking complexity, let’s set matter straight. Humans might have cows beat on brains but cows definitely take the cake on stomachs. (By the way, while looking for information cow stomachs, I stumbled across this wonderful site http://www.doesgodexist.org/ with the delightful Pragmatic Man’s Proof of God. Weird how it also has an article on cow stomachs and it’s fourth or fifth in Google rankings.) But all shenanigans aside, the important factor here is time. Given enough time, random mutations would lead to humans and when we throw selective forces into the mix that time frame is shortened. A few billion years should do the trick. Maybe that’s the problem - a billion years is pretty hard to wrap you mind around too.

But why only consider complexity when simplicity is so much more appealing? If there were a higher being, surely it would take good design principles into account. Humans have poor usability: most can hardly take care of themselves. That’s why I think simple creations are more indicative of an ineffable force than anything else. Take mountains for example. They’re just big piles of rocks. It’s a really simple design but still so important to ecosystems, climates and nature paintings. That’s just brilliant.

But I’d like to reserve a few words for my favorite simple creation: eggs. If it weren’t for eggs - and I’m talking about your garden-variety, unfertilized hen eggs - the world of food and hence the whole world would be a poorer place. Everyone knows eggs are delicious scrambled, as an omelet, hard-boiled or soft-boiled. But if it weren’t for eggs, we wouldn’t have dessert as we know it - or good fried food - or even the brilliant but underused carbonara sauce. And that’s just the tip of the egg. Such a simple design - a yolk, some albumen and a hard shell for protection - with such widespread influence must surely prove the existence of God. That’s right Kansas, I’m on your side and you can thank God for eggs.

It’s been almost a week since Fenerbahce crashed out of the Champion’s League but the pain has subsided enough to write about the experience. I think on the balance of play Fenerbahce deserved a goal but Chelsea edged it just as they edged the tie. In truth, I’m not sure if Chelsea were really that troubled. They were able to sit back after the early goal and when Chelsea defend with ten or eleven men, that wall is near impossible to break. But Fenerbahce proved their worth and now anything less than the knockout stages in Europe’s premier competition should be counted as failure.

Meanwhile, they have to concentrate on matters back home. The race for the Turkish title is steaming hot and includes an Anatolian team at this late stage for the first time that I can remember. It is one of several intriguing races going down to the wire. The Greek title won’t be decided until the last match day, Roma keep applying pressure on Inter and Lyon can’t seem to shake off Bordeaux. The Spanish, German and Portuguese races were finished a long time ago and we can now pencil in Manchester United as English champions since Chelsea drew at home against Wigan today.

The Red Devils put in a less-than-impressive performance against Arsenal in an important home tie but still earned the full three points. Meanwhile, Arsenal’s loss meant the only trophy in north London this year belongs to bitter rivals Tottenham. What happened to a season that began so brightly for the Gunners? I think the media have got it right for once. Sure, injuries and bad fortune played their part but the primary factor was the thin squad depth. When you compare their roster with Manchester United and Chelsea, you can begin to see the problem. Trying to win on four fronts and contending with the brutal English calendar will tire your players out. Arsene Wenger prefers to eschew major rotational policies (save for the Carling Cup) but the consequences are evident as his team is unable to deal the killer blow late in matches.

Arsenal have often been criticized for pretty passing with no result. While it delights neutrals such as myself, it’s hard to win results when you try to beat teams on style alone. I think one thing that the current Arsenal squad misses is toughness. When you look back at the ‘Invincibles’ in 2004 or even further back to the defense Wenger inherited from George Graham’s squad, there was a spine that seems to be lacking in the current side. It’s hard to be tough when your captain cries after a game (even if we cut him some slack because of Eduardo’s injury earlier, it’s a pretty juvenile response). Anyway, this is getting too long so I’ll end with one of my favorite Arsenal moments: Martin Keown taunting Ruud van Nistelrooy after a missed injury-time penalty in that unforgettable 1994 season. The pictures are hilarious.

I’ve done a little thinking about the Olympic protests the past few days and I can’t make up my mind on what I think of them. One moment I decide to condemn them, the next I say full speed ahead. My general disposition, though, is negative and I’ll try to articulate my reasons. There are two major problems with the protests: the protests become the news at the expense of the original issue; and the behaviour of aggressive and violent protesters alienates the viewing public.

Buried within reports of diverted routes and Gordon Brown’s reluctance to actually touch the torch lies the Tibet situation. While I would have expected protests anyway, recent violence in Tibet turned them into a major event. Unfortunately, it’s the protests that are the major event and not the grievances they purport to protest. I follow the news pretty closely but I am little more educated about Tibet than I was a couple months ago. That’s a sign that the protests are failing.

How much more effective could the protests have been? Perhaps part of the blame lies with the media for emphasizing the disruptions along the torch route but the news corps have always been a convenient punching bag. Much of the real problem lies with hooligans who attack torch-bearers and their security with reckless abandon. In reality, it is them, not the peaceful protests, that lead to route changes and news coverage. There is a similar precedent with animal activists and anti-globalism protesters. I think one major reason animal rights activism gains little traction is because of the guerilla tactics of groups like PETA and anti-whaling groups. When the protesters become the news for the wrong reason, people cease to care about the issue in the first place.

Switching gears a little bit, it’s interesting how Tibet has been the spark for the protests instead of China’s other well-publicized human rights situations. It shows how important celebrity and public opinion are in international politics. Tibetans have always been in the American consciousness over other oppressed peoples because of the popularity of Buddhism and the celebrity of the Dalai Llama on this side of the Pacific. In the case of the European protests, I can’t speak much to their mindset but I do know they protest for anyone and anything. Tibet stirs up more anti-Chinese fervor than any other issue, be it Darfur, lead paint, or currency devaluing.

In my opinion, though, the protests miss a couple of important points when they call for Tibetan independence. First, there are many problems inherent in the potential independence of a small, mixed-ethnicity region. I’ll discuss this in more detail in another post but as an example look at the problems in Kosovo. Second, there is a convenient selectivity of facts. I’m not going to sit here and pretend that Tibetans haven’t been oppressed for decades but the knife should cut both ways. The reality that Tibetans participated in sickening violence against ethnic Chinese seems to have escaped many reports. I wonder if it would make a difference if this were more widely publicized.

Finally, I want to say a few words about the possibility of boycotting the Olympics or at least the Opening Ceremonies. In practice, politics and the Olympics have always been inseparable. However, the threat of boycotting the Olympics should and will be an empty one. Should the London Olympics in 2012 be boycotted because of England’s involvement in the Iraq war? Of course not. The ramifications of inserting such drastic political measures into an event that should promote humanity and togetherness would be dangerous. I’m guessing the boycotts of the 1980 and 1984 Olympics weren’t too helpful in any attempts at peace. Wounding the pride of a future superpower by boycotting its showcase event would do more harm than aid. I think private citizens, such as Steven Spielberg who decided against working with the Olympics in protest of Chinese policies in Sudan, could be much more effective than political entities.

I just created a new page - check the tabs up top - that compile embedded youtube videos of classic football matches. It’s a work in progress so check back often if you’re interested in such things. If you’re not, well, I suppose you’re missing out on one of life’s finest creations.

The gray clouds loomed ominously but I didn’t care. The weather was stunning and so was my companion. We strode into Pike Grill, her with some trepidation at its seediness and myself with the confidence of a big, bad motherfucker. It was a small place. A steel bar dominated the view and one patron nursed his drink like a mother badger. He didn’t look up. In the corner two fat men sat in jovial company. They gave us a glance and I returned it full of trouble. The lone waitress was startled.

We sat at a table with a view of Wilson Boulevard. Cars drove past with purpose. A single menu lay on the table, its pages graced with pictures of Bolivian dishes. Our waitress didn’t speak a lick of English. My companion spoke a lick, a single lick, not even enough to reach the center of a Tootsie Pop, of Spanish. This lick and the help of the English-speaking chef was enough to order a steak and chicken dish with a starter of plantains.

As we munched on salted corn kernels, an old Caddy - its insignia torn off years ago - roared into the tiny lot. A single man came out of the car. He left the engine running. In his right hand was a nine-millimeter with a meter-long silencer. Its twin lay nestled in his left hand. He was a badass. He ignored everything but the man at the bar.

“Prepare to die.” The man at the bar was still except for his hands, which played sensuously with the liquor before him. The badass was completely still except for a single vein throbbing angrily on his forehead. As a new song began its rhythms and the fat men laughed, the man at the bar, suddenly, turned, a gun in his hand. A single shot through the head ended his life and the badass left the restaurant, his mission accomplished.

The rhythms were intoxicating and the food came out. My chicken was decent but failed to reach the heady heights of the Peruvian joint down the street. My companion’s steak was excellent, and the spicy chimichurri a perfect complement, like my companion’s beauty to my swagger. With relish, we finished the food. The price was fair. I paid the bill and tipped our server. She spoke her only English words (”Bye Bye”), the man at the bar was gone and the fat men laughed.

I love sports. As Fenerbahçe proceed further into the Champion’s League, every subsequent game becomes the most important game in their European history. Today, they taught Chelsea a lesson in finishing with a 2-1 victory. Watching the game on a choppy German feed on the Internet, I felt queasy at the end of the first half. An own goal had Chelsea ahead and the London club with negligible tradition and history could have had a couple more. The beginning of the second half was more of the same until a cameo by little-used Colin Kazim-Richards inspired Fenerbahçe to score twice in the final half hour. A tough test lies ahead in London but Fenerbahçe must be buoyant having won playing sub-par football against a team playing strong football.

Chelsea must wonder what happened as they failed to kill the tie when they had the chance. It shows the difference between them and the other English team that buys titles - Manchester United. One has a manager who gives his team a killer instinct and the other has one who seems like a small fish in a big pond. In any case, I despise both teams as they prefer to spend for their success rather than develop talent. Quick quiz: how many English players did the four English quarter-finalists field? 13. Out of about 50 total. That’s pathetic and helps explain why the English national team is so bad.

Meanwhile, Fenerbahçe continue to show steel and determination that was missing for so many years. As recently as last year, I would have expected them to fold and concede after going behind but they’ve now shown in three straight European games that they have the mental strength to overcome setbacks. My confidence is sky-high as they’ll welcome back Roberto Carlos and Gökhan to their starting eleven in the return leg. There’s no way they’ll play this poorly again and I expect a positive result despite Chelsea’s supposedly formidable record on a home field filled with band-wagon fans. Yaşa Fener!

Here’s Deivid’s incredible goal - Fener’s second - making amends for his earlier own goal. Watch with the sounds on to get a flavor of the passion of European football. I still go delirious every time I see this and it’s been about twenty views already.