Yesterday was an amazing anniversary, in terms of the person involved and his most incredible life work, which caused untold controversy in Victorian times, when first revealed to the world, but has been shaping the ideas of the scientific community around the entire world ever since.

No single person has been as influential about human understanding of life on Earth than English naturalist Charles Robert Darwin – born on 12 February 1809 in Shrewsbury, Shropshire into a wealthy and well-connected family and dying in 1882 -. whose theory of evolution by natural selection is now the unifying theory of the life science.

Darwen explained how the vastly diverse kinds of living things came about, how environmental adaptions occurred, his words the most plausible explanation for the phenomenon of evolution ever recorded. His massive evidence collecting was often based on his own observations and experimentation with natural flora and fauna.

Darwin clearly demonstrated that there is very little real difference between humans and other animals, and that degrees of difference in all things provoked profound reactions, many of which in heated debate to this day. Even were his theory of evolution to be put aside, his lifetime achievements are numerous, doing highly original and brilliant work in fields as diverse as geology, botany, psychology and scientific travel writing among other disciplines.

He was without a doubt one of the most original and influential people throughout science history. One of hisl grandfathers was Josiah Wedgwood – china manufacturer -, the other Erasmus Darwin – a leading 18th century English intellectual. Charles Darwin studied at Edinburgh University – at first for a medical degree – later switching to divinity at Cambridge before, in 1831, joining survey ship HMS Beagle on a 5-year scientific expedition.

Most Europeans of the time believed in creationism and the words of the bible, though Darwin’s reading of  Principles of Geology by Lyell – the author asserting that fossils had to be evidence of ancient life-forms – reinforced Charles beliefs about the animal world. It was the Galapogos Islands where he noticed that individual islands supported their own finches – closely related but subtly different in each case.

Returning to the UK in 1836, Darwin began a two-decade search for the truth, experimenting and observing before, in 1858 jointly announcing – with fellow naturalist Alfred Russell Wallace – their discoveries over 20 years before, one year later Darwin published Origin of Species. This book caused uproar, simply because the contention that humans might just have evolved from apes threatened prevailing society ideas on how the world was created.

The scientist was savagely attacked, by the Church and other scientists, but once he had let his genie out of the bottle, there would never be any going back. He died on 19 April 1882 and was buried in Westminster Abbey, but there is little doubt that, were looking down from on high at the way his ideas have shaped scientific thinking for the last 150 years, he would undoubtedly be extremely pleased.

Is everything in the universe determined by the laws of physics? If this is in fact the case, then there can be no scope for the autonomous exercise of choice, purpose, or responsibility in the universe; nor would meaning be possible. Instead, there would only be the automatic, tautological behavior of automatons (therefore, the lament by the theoretical physicist, Steven Weinberg, about the universe becoming ever seemingly more pointless as it becomes ever more comprehensible, at least to the physicist). Fortunately, the biochemist and complexity theorist, Stuart Kauffman, in his short essay, “The Open Universe”, gives us a good reason for believing that not everything in the universe is determined by physical law. He points, in particular, to evolutionary processes in “the biosphere, the economy, our human culture and perhaps aspects of the abiotic world …”

Why? What is it that distinguishes evolutionary processes from other natural processes?

Kauffmann instructs us that evolutionary processes explore a contingent space of possibilities, which he terms the Adjacent Possible, that cannot be specified in advance of its creation. That creation transpires when a prior feature of an evolutionary process of neutral effect in its environment of origination suddenly acquires adaptive or selective advantage in a novel environment and therefore becomes, in hindsight, a preadaptation or exaptation. Because we are incapable either of specifying all preadaptations or all possible selective environments for them, neither can we specify the Adjacent Possible.

Because we are incapable of specifying the Adjacent Possible prior to its genesis, we cannot even make a probability statement about the future. As Kauffman instructs us (Kauffman 2009): “We do not know the space of possibilities, the sample space, so can construct no probability measure.” This incapacity to construct a probability measure seems to be on firm statistical ground with the distinction, in statistical theory, between risk and uncertainty (Georgescu-Roegen 1971: 122-123): risk for those instances when the exact outcome is not known but does not constitute a novelty and uncertainty for those instances when the outcome constitutes a novelty or previously unobserved, even unimagined or inconceivable outcome.

If not even a probability statement about the future is possible because of inability to construct the Adjacent Possible prior to its emergence, then it must be concluded that even physics is powerless in predicting the course of evolutionary processes. Accordingly, evolutionary processes, by escaping the exhaustive determination of physical law, afford us the possibility of purposeful  lives.

Further, by raising lives above the level of physical or dynamical tautology, evolutionary processes afford the possibility of Meaning to Life in the sense of reading a book that only reveals its message after the entire book has been read and not after only some or most of the pages have been read. As Georgescu-Roegen has pointed out, the “needs generated by evolution” are often so subtle that we are seldom aware of their “influence upon our complex activity,” if we are even aware of their existence at all. In consequence, only after the fact “do we realize why we labored and what we searched for” and subsequently affirm “with Ostwald Spengler that ‘a task that historic necessity has set will be accomplished with the individual or against him’ ” (Georgescu-Roegen 1971: 27).

Accordingly, Georgescu-Roegen was entirely correct when he evocatively praised the transcendence of physical tautology by evolutionary processes as follows (Georgescu-Roegen 1971: 207): “With a life span amounting to no more than a blink of a galaxy and restricted within a speck of space, mankind is in the same situation as a pupa destined never to witness a caterpillar crawling or a butterfly flying. The difference, however, is that the human mind wonders what is beyond mankind’s chrysalis, what happened in the past and, especially what will happen in the future. The greatness of the human mind is that it wonders: he ‘who can no longer pause to wonder and stand rapt in awe’—as Einstein beautifully put it—‘is as good as dead’. The weakness of the human mind is the worshipping of the divine mind, with the inner hope that it may become almost as clairvoyant and, hence, extend its knowledge beyond what its own condition allows it to observe repeatedly.”

(References: Georgescu-Roegen, Nicholas. 1971. The Entropy Law and the Economic Process. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press; Kauffman, Stuart A. 2009. “The Open Universe.”  http://edge.org/response-detail/850/what-will-change-everything )

“The man so busy thinking about what the sentence will say next or how to make the woman in front of him impressed. All it takes skill sense,” says lead researcher Sanne Nauts. These efforts tend to be harder if a woman which assessed very interesting.

Interestingly, these momentary brain deadlock was not experienced by the women. According Nauts, it relates to the theory of evolution. Naturally men have the urge to show the opposite sex that he is the most superior man which can be selected.

The theory was proven by Nauts try through a study involving 71 male and female students which asked to complete a series of simple questions to measure their intelligence. During the charging process about that, either male or female, were told that they were observed by a colleague of the opposite sex.

Although the students did not know what the female students observed of them, in fact it can make them nervous, so their ability to answer questions declined 14 percent. Contrary with the female students, they are still capable of doing his duties despite it said that the opposite sex observed them.

What is so wrong that now you want to push religion in schools? This is not what our forefathers had planned for this country of ours. We have “separation of church and state” for a reason. I also notice that it is Christians who want to push prayer and “creationism” in our public schools. You say we are a Christian nation. I beg you to look up your history. America is supposed to be a melting pot of all cultures! We are supposed to have religious tolerance among all religions granted we aren’t killing one another in the process.

Unfortunately, many Christians I know of today are hypocrites. What happened to “Love thy neighbor?” I have rarely seen any true Christians out in the world. The rest of you spout hatred and use God to justify your hatred. Of course this happens in all religions, not just Christianity.

If you click the link below you will see how far Christians have come in their hatred. Once again it is not just Christians who are spouting hatred, it is other religions as well… Still, what happened to you Christians? What happened that you would willingly partake in the beating of a high school student because she took a religious flag down? Remember we do have “separation of church and state” for a reason!

http://www.examiner.com/atheism-in-atlanta/christians-bombard-teen-activist-with-hate-and-abuse

I also laugh at people who want prayer in schools. If that was the case you would have a lot of different people from different religions praying at different times of the day that would disrupt the education of our students. Do you really want this type of chaos in our schools?

Here is the article for the bill of “creationism.”

http://www.addictinginfo.org/2012/01/15/missouri-gop-introduces-second-creationism-bill-in-state-legislature/?fb_comment_id=fbc_5007063156283_860299_5007063591283

Do you not remember Charles Darwin and his theory of evolution and the evidence he provided? Do you not remember how he was persecuted by teaching evolution to his students ? Do you not want children to think for themselves? If that’s the case you are a fascist!

If you want to teach “creationism” fine but keep it in a world mythology class.

Here is a wikipedia entry on Charles Darwin…

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Darwin

Also, please have a happy Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Day!

All women do is complaining and all men are idiots. Well, that’s how it looks like to a lot of people, but why? Why are woman usually the one cleaning after the man? Why are men such slobs at home in the first place? Why aren’t men romantic? Why do woman nag men to death about not being romantic enough?

These questions have been asked all around the world and since people spoke for the first time. First and foremost you have to understand that the brain has change because of human’s physical traits and evolution. For 100,000s of years women had to stay home to protect they’re child especially when they’re pregnant. Woman wouldn’t want to hunt a saber tooth and risk the life of their unborn child, so they stay home a let the men do the hunting. Only in a proximately 50 years, women were known to go out and take charge in the work force, but there is still evolutionary bits left in woman’s (and man’s) brain that stayed with the humans.

In general when it comes to problem solving, men and women have different ways in viewing things. consciously a woman will ask “How do I solve it?” An example that could be used for 1,000s of years; when a mother’s child gets sick, she needs to find the solution to that problem right away, without asking any other questions.

when problem occurs to men they will first ask “Why should I solve it?” Another example that can be used for 1,000s of years; when men go out to hunt for food and risk their lives, they want to know why instead of how first, to make sure the risk is important and worthy.

In modern times where the differences in roles between men and women had blurred significantly but their attempt to solve the problems has not change, so as they attempt to solve everyday challenges subconsciously the woman will only ask “why?” after their attempt. “Why is this happening to me? Why am I even doing this in the first place?” In that attempt the woman will complain because she doesn’t have the answer that she was asking subconsciously, While men in the other hand will ask “how” after their attempt, usually looking like incompetents.

If you go to a woman’s house usually it will be clean, pretty and with lots of decoration while inside of a man’s house usually dirty and barely any decorations whatsoever. The reason behind that is evolution. Remember that for 100,000s of years the men would hunt while the women would stay home. That has affected both sexes up to even today. Men in general do not like to stay home compared to women (they much more rather go fishing, hunting or go play football) Women in general much rather stay home and read a book. Because of evolution, men are more comfortable to go outside of their environment.

Psychologists at Queen Mary, University of London did a research that shows gay men and straight women share a poor sense of direction. The Sun news site says: “Both (women and gay men) are poor at navigating and rely on local landmarks to get around, the study suggests.

They are also slower to take in spatial information than heterosexual men.

This means driving in a strange environment is likely to be more challenging for gay men and women than for straight male motorists.

Psychologists at Queen Mary, University of London, conducted computer-based tests of spatial learning and memory on 140 volunteers recruited through advertisements in newspapers and magazines.

They showed that gay men, straight women and lesbians navigated in much the same way and shared the same weaknesses.

But there were also differences between gay and heterosexual men and straight and lesbian women.

Previous research had already shown that the male myth of women being poor navigators has some bearing on reality.

Men consistently outperform women on tasks requiring navigation and discovering hidden objects.

Women, on the other hand, are more successful in tests requiring them to remember where objects lie.”

This means the female human learned to organize to their surroundings; the human male did not.

As hunters the men tend to be visualized and be systematic; women (who were left in the village) were socializing, tacking care of the children, and doing whatever they can at home. This can explain why men are not as romantic as women would like them to be. Women sexuality is stimulated on touch, and tends to sympathize when it comes to romance. Men sexuality is stimulated more on visualization, and tends to systemize when it comes to romance. This would explain why men are known to be more sex oriented, and woman to be more oriented towards relationships.

It is common knowledge that men and women are different; these differences have caused a great deal of arguments that has ended in terrible circumstances, all because they do not quite understand each other. Men and women both have they’re strong points and weaknesses but together with two different mindsets, they can complete each other, and lets not forget some of the best romantic literature were written by men, and some of the best world leaders were women, we should never judge anyone simply because of their sex.

The result is the criticism waged by the media and academia.Soon after, the authorities allowed back sites, saying the ban was “one wrote.” But, according to recent media reports, the evolution of these sites are still blocked in schools. The controversy is not just limited to the internet . 

Professor Genuine Tolon, a molecular biologist at Bosphorus University, reviewed the changes that were held in the education of evolution in schools. Tolon said that the theory of evolution increasingly challenged by those who claim the world created by God. ”This section explains how life evolved. This section is really scientific, but after that, began to talk about creation, the view of creation, which should not exist in a scientific book, because this is a religious view, “he said. Tolon said that such a change is increasingly felt by the students. 

“They have sometimes thought that I was trying to teach my own views. But this is not my thinking, because evolution is one of the basic theory, “she said. Mustafa Akyol, a columnist and author of religious issues, said the alternative theories of evolution can be accepted in education. ”There are some scientific facts in nature which points to the existence of intelligent beings who are not part of nature, this may be God’s creatures. 

This does not dismiss the reality could be a reason, just because an explanation is in harmony with religion. I think the objective scientific education must accept the Darwinian theory of evolution as well as criticisms of Darwin’s theory of evolution, “Akyol said. The teachers in Turkey are now getting stuck in the middle of a profound debate. U.S. teachers often complain that Turkish primary science teachers are increasingly being face of intimidation by the ministry of education, local authorities controlled by the ruling AK Party and even the parents are very religious (Islam). 

The Turkish government dismissed these claims. But a teacher, who asked not to be named, said the harder it is to teach the theory of evolution. For teachers who support the theory of evolution in Turkish schools, they seem to be at the forefront in the debate that continues to dominate the way the country thinks the younger generation. * Description: The Turkish government tried to block the teaching of evolution in schools

Women Need a Reason, Men Just Need a Place

The affair of gender differences is best discussed in generalities, and I’ve accounting accordingly. There are consistently degrees, variations and inconsistencies, which accompany their own ability – if you can’t predict, that candied amative of abstruseness emerges. I achievement you will use these concepts to atom chat with a affiliate of the adverse sex.

How’s your attitude and willingness? Accept you enlisted in the Battle of the Sexes? Are you ambuscade out in Fort Protection? Are you decumbent to authoritative calumniating comments about the added gender? In affectionate relationships, we about become accessible or volatile, and how able-bodied we acquaint will abundantly actuate the superior of our relationship.

Early man, with his top akin of testosterone, had the re­sponsibility of ensuring the adaptation of the species. He bare to “spread his seed” as about as possible, as far as possible, and as bound as accessible to abstain blackmail from predators or enemies. Abreast man’s sex drive aswell ignites instantly, alcove abounding accommodation aural seconds, and can be switched off actual quickly. And he may admiration animal variety, which can be annoyed by abacus adroitness to a austere accord or by agreeable added partners.

Women, with their bottom bulk of testosterone, about accept a lower sex drive and are beneath aggressive, which allows them to accord with the restrictions of evolution and adopting a adolescent to self-sufficiency. A woman’s animal activation rises boring and cools slowly, announcement alleviation and accretion her affairs of conception. While aboriginal man was overextension his seed, aboriginal woman was arresting her nest. A abreast woman about seeks superior rather than abundance and prefers a austere macho accomplice who is able to provide, abnormally during evolution and adolescent rearing.

Creationism is a view primarily held by Christian religions that the world was created by God. This is the theory that is written about in Genesis, where God created all the animals, and then created Adam and Eve. It actually wasn’t until around the 18th century, when scientists started questioning this belief. Religious fundamentalists often take this point of view, because of their literal and close readings of the Bible.

Creationism rejects not only the idea of evolution, but also the studies of fossils and anything else that appears older than the world could possibly be, if God created it as described in the Bible. When presented with this evidence, creationists usually cite that God has put these fake pieces of evidence on the Earth to test our faith, and that those who question this faith by believing this evidence negate the teachings of the Bible and, thus, are not good Christians.

Evolution

The theory of evolution started with Darwin, and has been accepted by many scientists, both Christian and not. Darwin’s theory of evolution reflects the idea that species that survive are the fittest, and those that die out are less than fit for survival. Species continue to give birth, and mutate. Those mutations that better adapt the species to succeed and thrive in the world are accepted and reproduced and the others are rejected and do not show up in the species again. Of course, evolution is said to be at a standstill now, with technology taking over and making it unnecessary for many species – especially humans – to mutate and become more fit for the surroundings.

A Mixture of the Two

Many theorists, scientists, and teachers actually believe that the theories of evolution and creationism can actually coexist. The National Academy of Sciences is quoted as saying, “Today, many religious denominations accept that biological evolution has produced the diversity of living things over billions of years of Earth’s history. Many have issued statements observing that evolution and the tenets of their faiths are compatible. Scientists and theologians have written eloquently about their awe and wonder at the history of the universe and of life on this planet, explaining that they see no conflict between their faith in God and the evidence for evolution.

Religious denominations that do not accept the occurrence of evolution tend to be those that believe in strictly literal interpretations of religious texts.” This shows the attitude that the teaching of the two theories can be combined in public school. This might mean that some teachers teach both sides of the issue without taking a stance. It can also be taught by presenting that the Big Bang could have been caused by divine intervention, and then evolution took over.

Rage, Rebellion, and The World Today

            Today’s world has many problems.  However, the problems we currently face are not new.  Since the dawn of human existence, humanity has dealt with conflict.  Human beings traditionally have problems resolving conflict.  As time goes on, many cultures and groups get more and more stubborn about their views and beliefs.  People’s differences keep getting larger and larger.  I would like to explore this trend.  To accomplish this, I am going to take some of the issues we face today, make some comparisons to other stories, and apply some different points of view.

            The main topic I intend to investigate is the idea and act of rebellion and insurgency.  The reason being is that these two actions create and account for a lot of the conflict we have dealt with throughout history.  I want to look at some of the differences in beliefs that lead to these rebellions, which in turn often lead to war.  Another aspect I would like to discuss is the mindset and values of some of these rebelling groups.  To help me understand this, I am going to use some of the ideas, teachings, and philosophy of the American author, Joseph Campbell.  Campbell’s argument that the same mythological themes occur in every culture and society goes to prove that while some human beings look different and hold different beliefs, we all face the same problems.  So, in other words we are not all that different from each other.  If all people could understand that and put aside some of the small issues that cause us to wage wars, we might have a more peaceful world all together.  All it would take is the some application of mythical knowledge.

            The role of the hero in all conflicts is very important.  I am going to explain my definition of what a hero is and how Campbell views a true hero.  Every culture and society has its own set of hero’s.  One cultures hero can easily be another’s enemy or basis of fear (Campbell 156).  Campbell uses the phrase, “focus of consciousness”(P. 156).  This means that depending on your mindset, values, and beliefs, a particular person’s view of a hero is going to vary.

 I myself have had the unfortunate chance to witness insurgency first hand and in it’s most violent forms.  I was in the United States Marine Corps and my unit was sent to Iraq three times in four years.  Each tour lasted seven months.  What was quite interesting is the fact that when we arrived in Iraq, we were received as liberators.  We spent the first seven months there with only a few random attacks.  We were replaced, sent home and five months later hurried back into county because the insurgency had reared its head to the fullest.  We had experienced a one hundred and eighty degree turn in the attitude of the population.  The extremists had used the transition in the government as a way to seize power, or at least attempt to.  The used intimidation and money to control the neutral populous, and the supporters of United States were threatened or even killed in some cases.

            What I would like to discuss, is the origins of these extremist movements.  I would like to look into their cause and ask why they do what they do and feel the way they feel towards the West.  To discover the cause of this great rift, which now stands as one of today’s most important issues, we must go back to the initial conflict.   Most scholars will agree that many of the hurt feelings come from a religion and culture that spent centuries setting the standards for the rest of the world.  It was when the rest of the world started catching up and the leader started to fall behind.  This obviously created a deep seeded resentment or jealousy toward the rest of the world.  The former leader I talk about is Islam. Islam as a religion and a culture.  The followers were once Christianity and the rest of the world.  There came a point in time when Christianity caught up and overtook Islam in the major developments of Humanity.

            The major developments that Islam failed to keep up with were things such as; political freedom and respect for human rights, economic development and advancement, stress on literacy, educational and scientific advancement and job creation.  All these items are vital to advancing culture (Lewis 152).  When Islam started loosing its grip on human achievement, they tried desperately keep up.  The three components they focused on and failed at were military, economics, and politics.  They became increasingly humiliated due to repeated defeat and some countries fell into a state of external economic aid, or the dependence on a single resource.  This resource in most cases was oil (Lewis 151).

            When a certain people gets put down so hard after being on top for so long, it starts getting to your confidence.  When you loose your confidence, sometimes you lash out because it is the only reaction you have left.  Some will say that the decline of Islam and the Arab States was not a result of internal inefficiencies, but because of the vast growth and gain of fortune in the West (Lewis P.155).  However the majority will go on to explain a history of economic and political mistakes.  These mistakes include; political oppression, lack of separation of church and state, exploitation of natural resources by Europe, and the inability for some to accept modernarity.  Some will blame the Middle-Eastern decline on a more obscure reason such as inbreeding due the cousin marriage, or even the presence of the goat constantly chewing bark off trees and eating the grass turning the Arab States into unfertile dessert (Lewis 157).

The view from the West is that the reason for the decline of Islam is the lack of freedom and the presence of oppression (Lewis 159).  I have seen with my own eyes, women afraid to look up in fear of being beaten.  If a woman is caught talking to a man who is not her brother, father, or husband she will be beat by her brother, father, or husband.  If a woman is accused of adultery she will be murdered by her family or husband. I doubt this is true in every Islamic State, but in the more fundamentalist countries this is found to be normal.  Some husbands and fathers are so concerned about their women’s faces being seen that they must wear a complete face mask covering even their eyes. When we westerners look at this we don’t understand.  To those in the Middle-East, this is normal.  This is how they have been raise for centuries.  It is ingrained in their culture and heritage. 

The most sensible explanation for the demise of the Middle-Eastern culture is the lack of separation of church and state or the lack of secularism.  Centuries ago, there were civil wars to push the Islamic State into a religious organization (Lewis 99).  These failed attempts pushed some Muslims into an aggressive rebellion or a passive dislike toward the people who were forcing it.  There were also attempts to push state onto religion, but this was less frequent.  The success of Christianity can be directly accredited to secularism, the separation of civil and cannon law.  This is not existent in the Muslim world.  The fact that any aspect of life can be outside of religion is not within their capacity (Lewis 100).  Another difference in the two religions is the constant exaltation and lack of suffering of Islamic icons as oppose to the constant suffering and overcoming of hardships that most of Christianity’s have had to face  (Lewis 101).  One of the biggest conflicts arises from the fact that in the Muslim world there is only one law, the law of God.

The excessive disregard for political and religious freedom created many tyrannical governments.  Hardship and oppression pushed the Islamic people into an even bigger psychological dilemma.  Now in present day you have rebellious groups who have spawned as an outcry against their oppressors, and have turned their cause into a holy war.  Many of the leaders of these movements are hailed as heroes.  Some are in some peoples eyes, but many of them are not in it for the greater cause, but instead for personal gain.

A true hero is someone who is dedicated to their cause.  His journey is about personal sacrifice for the success of their cause.  The person must have moral values and know what is right and wrong.  The quest must be for the something they truly believe in.  The example I would like to use for this is the story of Moses.  Moses endured self sacrifice, pain, agony, and the fear of an uncertain future all to bring the word of the Lord to his troubled people.  On the flip side of this point is the story of the fake hero, or the hero of the day.  This person undergoes his quest for either personal gain or the gain of his followers (Campbell 155).  He contributes nothing to the benefit of humanity.  He only sees inward where the true hero looks at the grand scheme.  Two examples of this scenario are Adolph Hitler, and Osama bin Laden.  These two individuals had their hero’s journey, but how does it serve humanity?  Their goals are self centered and are only for the benefit of themselves and their followers.  They may believe that they are on a quest for the greater good, but they look inward.  There is no moral value here.  Their journey thrives from evil rather than honor.

There was a point in my life, about four years ago, where I had an urge to make a difference in this world.  I needed self-accomplishment.  This urge led me to join the United States Marine Corps.  That same urge also landed me three tours to the war torn country of Iraq. I will not go into detail about my experience just yet but I will say this; it was unfortunate that I had to endure what I did, but it was extremely fulfilling.  I had done something that a lot of people wouldn’t do.  Now whether it served the grand scheme, I do not know.  But that was my personal hero’s adventure.

As you can see, the hero’s journey can come in many different ways shapes and forms.  It is our job as the human race to determine the true heroes from the fake.  It is our duty to make the judgment if ones quest is for the benefit of humanity, or for personal gain.  Only then will the true heroes go down in history as legends and examples to live by.

“Mutants, since the discovery of their existence, they have been regarded with fear, suspicion, often hatred. Are mutants the next link in the evolutionary chain, or simply a new species of humanity fighting for their share of the world?  Either way, it has been a historical fact; sharing the world has never been humanity’s defining attribute” (X2-X-Men United)

The X-Men Trilogy is an excellent portrayal of the hero’s journey from both sides of rebellion.   There is Magneto, who is involved in his hero’s adventure to make mutants the elite race on the planet Earth.  On the flip side are Dr. Charles Xavier and the X-Men whose journey involves stopping Magneto’s rebellion and co-existing peacefully with the human race.  The previous quote is from Dr. Xavier.  He truly believes that co-existence will benefit both humans and mutants.  He has dedicated his entire existence to this cause.  This is very bold because he is facing a scared human race in which some refer to mutants as a problem, or an illness.  This is how one doctor in the movie described it, “These so-called mutants are people just like us.  Their affliction is nothing more than a disease; a corruption of healthy cellular activity.”(X-Men 3: The Last Stand)

The major advocate in “solving the mutant problem” (X2: X-Men United) is Dr. William Striker, a military scientist who is obsessed with mutant control.  Virtually having mutants serve humans as slaves.  His obsession derives from the fact that his own son was a powerful mutant who could create illusions in another persons mind.  His illusions were so powerful that he caused his own mother, William Striker’s wife, to commit suicide.  Striker embarks on a personal selfish hero’s adventure to control the mutant race.  This forces Magneto and the do-good X-Men to unite for a short time to overcome this threat to all mutants.

              Xavier and Magneto have been friends since they were children.  When they became teenagers is when they realize that they have vastly different opinions on the mutant situation.  Magneto is convinced that living in harmony with humans is impossible and that war is inevitable.  In my opinion Xavier has this same opinion but decides to dedicate his whole life to preventing it. Magneto eventually becomes convinced that the only way to survive is to take over the World and make mutants the supreme race.

            I think that in the X-Men Trilogy, Magneto has good reason to create a rebellion and eventually start a war.  It is his belief that humans pose a threat to the well-being of mutants.  Essentially, his personal hero’s journey is to save his race.  I can justify this as being a hero.  His intentions aren’t based on evil, they are based on survival.  His methods resort quickly to violence, but if he feels that violence is what it’s going to take to save the mutant race then I cannot fault him on his methods.

Make no mistake my brothers, they will draw first blood.  They will force their cure upon us.  The only question is; will you join my brotherhood and fight?  Or wait for the inevitable genocide.  Who will you stand with?  The humans, or us. (X-Men 3: The Last Stand)

As you can see from this quote from Magneto, he feels extremely threatened by humans.  When a person feels threatened the natural reaction is for them to lash out.  Magneto does just that.  He lashes out on the human race.  He feels that war is inevitable and he doesn’t want to wait for the humans to make the first move.  Magneto has a just argument, and he believes in his cause.  In my opinion, his dedication is great enough to sacrifice even himself for the cause of mutants.  Based on this, I believe that Joseph Campbell would be supportive of Magneto.  He meets the criteria of a hero.  Now, Magneto certainly is not a hero to the X-Men or the human race, but he is certainly a hero to his mutant followers.  Just like Campbell says, “Whether you call someone a hero or a monster is all relative to where the focus of your consciousness may be” (P. 156).  The “focus of consciousness” for Magneto’s followers is right along with Magneto’s own “focus.”  This is why they view him as a hero.  The X-Men and human beings have an entirely different “focus.”  This is why they consider Magneto a “monster,” in Campbell’s words.

When an individual acquires great power, the use or misuse of that power is everything.  Will it be for the greater good, or will it be used for personal or for destructive ends?  Now this is a question we must all ask ourselves. Why? Because we are mutants. (X-Men 3: The Last Stand)

            In this quote, Dr. Charles Xavier is teaching a class to his mutant students.  He is expressing the fact that while many mutants have a significant advantage over humans, they must only use their powers to serve humanity.  They must sacrifice their own desire for power and wealth and put the benefit of the world first.  Campbell would back this up strongly, he states, “a hero is someone who has given his or her life to something bigger than oneself” (P. 151). I believe that this is precisely what Xavier is saying to his students.  While Magneto is only looking to glorify mutants, Xavier has the best interest of all beings in mind, human and mutant.

As far as William Striker is concerned, he is on a quest based on personal feelings to “solve the mutant problem,” (X2-X-MEN United).  Thus not making him a true hero. I feel that Campbell would argue that Striker’s cause has nothing to benefit the greater good of humans and mutants.  Stryker has not, “given his or her life to something bigger than oneself.” (Campbell P.151)  He is making no sacrifices for his cause, and his cause does nothing to benefit the greater good.  All he wants is to enslave mutants because of a personal vendetta he has against them.  This does not fit any of the criteria given by Joseph Campbell to be a true hero.

            Rebellion: armed opposition to an established government or other authority by a portion of those subject to its jurisdiction. Examples of rebellions are the American Revolution, Shays’ Rebellion of 1786 in Massachusetts, the Whiskey Rebellion of 1794 in Pennsylvania, and the secession of the southern states from the Union that led to the American Civil War. Revolution has been defined as a rebellion that is successful in overthrowing a government. The terms rebellion and insurrection are frequently used synonymously, although insurrection may connote opposition with a less organized plan or purpose. (Rebellion)

Insurgency: the state or condition of being insurgent; 2.insurrection against an existing government, usually ones own, by a group not recognized as have the status of a belligerent; 3. rebellion within a group, as by members against leaders.  (Insurgency)

Louis David Riel: (1844–85), Canadian insurgent, born in Manitoba, of French, Irish, and Indian stock. In 1869 when the Canadian government purchased an extensive territory from the Hudson’s Bay Co., settlers of French-Indian ancestry in the area revolted under the leadership of Riel. The insurgents feared the Canadian government would pose a threat to their interests and land rights in the region. They captured Fort Garry at Winnipeg and established a provisional government. At the approach of a British expeditionary force, however, Riel evacuated the fort and escaped from the country. In exile he began to have spells of megalomania that verged on insanity. For a time though he enjoyed some peace in the western U.S., where he married and became a citizen. In 1884, however, friends convinced him to return to Canada to take charge of a new insurgency movement. The following year he led a wide but unsuccessful rebellion against Canadian rule in the Saskatchewan area. He was subsequently captured, tried for treason, and executed. Later generations have accepted Riel as an authentic Canadian hero who fought for the rights of western Canada and for its native-born inhabitants. (Riel)       

            Louis David Riel believed that what he was doing was right.  His dedication to creating a sovereign state for his people, the Métis, was his hero’s adventure.  As he was viewed as a hero by some, he was viewed as a traitor by the Canadian government.  This goes right along with Campbell’s theory a person can be a hero to one group, but an enemy to a different group. (P. 156)  Riel believed that the Metis deserved to have a government of there own.  He belived in his cause and his people believed in him.  The Canadian government however, saw him as a threat to the country of Canada.  Riel can be compared to Magneto in X-Men.  Magneto is viewed as a hero by his self-created “brotherhood” of mutants.  However, in the eyes of the United States Government, Magneto is deemed the enemy.  To them he proves to be a serious threat to humanity.  On the other hand, Magneto views humans as a threat to the well beings of mutants.

Revolution: forcible, pervasive, and often violent change of a social or political order by a sizable segment of a country’s population. Revolution is the most extreme political option of a dissenting group, a course taken generally when more moderate and legal attempts to achieve recognition or reform have failed. Even when fomented by a political minority, revolutions usually reflect a general climate of discontent. Whether occurring spontaneously, which is rare, or through careful planning, revolutions depend for their success on crucial timing, the fostering of popular support, and the nucleus of a new governmental organization. In modern history, perhaps the most important revolution, in terms of its contagious effect on other nations, was the American Revolution, although some historians would define it as a war of independence rather than a revolution. A war of independence is an armed struggle by one nation against an alien colonial power; it need not lead to revolutionary changes but only to an indigenous government in a sovereign state. (Revolution)

Revolution is another word that fits into this category.  Whether it is the Russian, French or even American Revolution, it is a part of human existence.  The bottom line is that when a certain group, faction, or race is unhappy and they have the resources revolution will occur.  It starts as a small festering cause-Insurgency.  After it gains some steam and support it will be come organized and eventually officially recognized-Rebellion.  If the rebellion increasingly becomes more and more successful, and gains recognition by the right supporters you will have a revolution.  When a revolution develops it typically ends up in one of three situations; the first being a coup d’eat, which simply means that the group creating the rebellion and revolution seize governmental control.  This usually happens by force, militarily.  The second outcome of a revolution is the destruction of the rebellion.  This will occur when the government simply arrests participants or defeats them through military action.  When the revolution is unsuccessful it is usually named a revolt.  The third and most unfortunate situation that will occur in the case of a rebellion or attempted revolution is a full scale war.  This requires the rebelling faction too have the military strength to keep up with the government it is rebelling against.

            In the X-Men Trilogy, it is obvious that Magneto’s “brotherhood” is the rebelling faction.  They are rebelling against the United States government and even more importantly, human beings as a whole.  Every rebellion needs a hero of some sort.  Whether he is a true hero who cause is to benefit humanity as a whole, or a fake hero who is only a hero to his followers.  Hero’s are found in every race, country, and group.  Like I said earlier, we are not all that different.  Whether it is human beings and mutants, or Christians, Muslims, and Jews.  We all face the same issues and have the ability to live in harmony.  Some just need to realize what we have in common.  That common ground is myth.  The stories that we grew up on, the stories that teach virtues and morals, are common to all cultures.  The characters may be different, and the stories may seem to change, but across the board, the themes are the same.  As soon as we all open our eyes to this, we can live in peace and love our neighbors.  Until then, humans will continue to struggle.

Works Cited

Campbell, Joseph, and Bill Moyers.  The Power Of Myth.  pp:151-160  New York: Doubleday, 1988.

“Insurgency.”  Dictionary.com.  Based on the Random House Unabridged Dictionary, Random House, Inc. 2006.  07 Nov. 2006.  <Dictionary.com>

“Riel, Louis David.” 2006.  The History Channel website.  15 Nov. 2006.  <www.history.com/encyclopedia.do?articleId=220704>

”Revolution.” 2006.  The History Channel website.  15 Nov. 2006.  <www.history.com/encyclopedia.do?articleId=220582>

X-Men.  Dir. Brian Singer.  DVD. Twentieth Century Fox, 2000.

X2: X-Men United.  Dir.  Brian Singer.  DVD. Twentieth Century Fox, 2003.

X-Men 3: The Last Stand.  Dir. Brett Ratner.  DVD. Twentieth Century Fox, 2006.

Lewis, Benard.  What Went Wrong?  The Clash Between Islam and Modernity in the Middle East. pp: 99-165. New York:  Perennial, 2002.