San Juan Mountains

San Juan Mountains
San Juan Mountains: Grenadier Range

Thursday, March 20, 2014

Ukraine Is Not Cuba

I have a question for you today.  What would you do if the following situation were true?  I am going to assume that you are a loyal citizen of the Socialist Democracy of Amerika.  As such you have little to no understanding about anything that takes place outside the national boundary of the SDA.  You believe that foreign countries are basically irrelevant unless it is time to send the military there to kill bunches of dirty foreigners who had it coming anyway.  You sing the National Hymn every time it is played before a football game and it gives you chills when you do. You go to military airshows and it brings tears to your eyes when you think  of all those fighters and bombers shooting missiles and dropping bombs on dirty foreigners that dared to offend us by not being afraid of us.  Yep, you believe in Amerikan exceptionalism.  Amerika can do no wrong because we are Amerika.  Anyone who does not like that can go to hell.
Now imagine this scenario.  What would you do if the Russian government sent spies and various other operatives into Canada with the clandestine purpose of destabilizing the Canadian government and installing a government that would be favorable towards Russia?  As you know, Canada is one of the SDA's greatest partners.  Canada stands with us against evil Russia.  But now, the Russians have infiltrated Canada and they are having great success at drawing the French Canadians to their cause.  English speaking Canadians still support the SDA but French Canadians are now beginning to align with Russia.
Eventually the Russian spies and destabilizing forces are able to accomplish their goal and civil rebellion erupts.  The people are divided between the current English speaking Canadian government which leans towards the SDA and the French speaking Canadians who want to break away and form an alliance with Russia.  But we all know that it goes much further than merely forming an alliance with Russia.  Russian political and military leaders are interested in Canada because of its strategic location next to the SDA.  The goal of the Russian agitation is to eventually be able to place a missile block in the Northwest Territories that would enable them to rain down missiles upon the SDA if they decided to do so. 
As it turns out the English speaking Canadian government ends up being ousted.  Its members flee to the SDA where they find refuge from the chaos.  A new government is established and everyone knows precisely what has taken place.  It is little more than a puppet government for Vladamir Putin.  Clearly Putin has designs on the imperial expansion of the Russian empire.  Clearly he believes he can get away with what he is doing without creating World War III.  In an amazing example of hutzpah he has successfully overthrown a democratic government that was in favor of the SDA and replaced it with a puppet government that will do his bidding.  Meanwhile, those of us in the SDA have been watching what has been taking place.  It is at this point I ask you, fellow citizen, what would you do?
I suspect that most of you would say that Putin's actions are highly provocative and require a strong response.  I would not be surprised if most of you came to believe that a military response is necessary.  You would look over the situation and realize that the most strategic piece of ground in Canada is found within the Northwest Territories where Putin wants to place his missile batteries.  Would you send SDA troops there to protect the NW Territories and thwart Putin's plans to set up an offensive weapons system in our backyard?  What if, to make matters even more interesting, the citizens of the Northwest Territories were overwhelmingly (97% of them in a popular vote) sympathetic to the SDA?  What if those people were begging us to come in and annex the NW Territories and protect them from the new government?  Would you send troops?  My guess is that you would.  And if you did, according to King Obama's view of the world, you would be guilty of egregious violations of international law worthy of sanctions.  If you did you be accused of endangering world peace.  If you did you would be cast as a warmonger by the civilized nations of the world.  How about that?
I have not been very sneaky in what I have written above.  Quite obviously I have simply switched the SDA and Russian roles in the Ukrainian/Crimean debate in order to make what I hope will be a dramatic point.  Sometimes it takes dramatic illustrations to get through to SDA citizens.  Since we see ourselves as above sin it is almost impossible to ever admit that we might be wrong and Putin might be right.  Timothy Tribbett of Denver is a perfect example of Amerikan inability to see the current situation from any perspective other than his own.  He wrote this to the Denver Post last week:
"I do not use this word lightly, but I am appalled by the behavior of high-profile national Republicans in criticizing President Obama as he and his team navigate the extremely complicated issue of Crimea and Ukraine.  This is arguably the most critical foreign threat we have faced since the Cuban Missile crisis."  What? Did I read that right?  Timothy truly believes that what Putin has done in Crimea is the direct equivalent of the Cuban Missile Crisis?  Give me a break.
Somehow Timothy manages to get the situation exactly backwards.  The Russians were moving missiles into our backyard when they attempted to put them in Cuba.  President Kennedy told them to back down or face the consequences.  Wisely they decided to back down.  Today the SDA is attempting to move missiles into Ukraine and Putin has told us to back down.  Somehow that becomes equivalent to what happened in Cuba?  I am afraid I find it impossible to see the connection.  In fact, the connection that does exist between these two events equivocates to the Russian response to our destabilization of Ukraine.  Putin has done to the SDA exactly what Kennedy did to Soviet Russia decades ago.  Kennedy, because he was Amerikan, was praised for his courage and bravery.  Putin, because he is Russian, is demonized for his cowardice and imperial aggression.  What hypocrites we are.
I would bet that there would be hardly a single individual among us who would not be in favor of invading Canada to prevent the anti-Amerikan militarization of that country and to protect the pro-Amerikan citizens of that country from a newly installed Russian puppet government.  Anyone who would dare oppose such action would be marginalized and called cowardly.  Yet when Putin does exactly the same thing in Crimea we demonize him.  Why is he evil for doing exactly the same thing we would do if we were in his shoes?  Why is the response of King Obama and his Court not an extreme example of hypocrisy?
Putin did not start this argument.  King Obama and his military henchmen started this fight when they worked to overthrow the democratically elected Ukrainian government and install a puppet government favorable to the SDA.  I believe our King did this for no other reason than personal animosity towards Putin because Putin had showed him up on the global stage in events such as Iran and the Olympics.  Make no mistake, international conflicts have little or nothing to do with  moral principles and everything to do with the gigantic egos of the career politicians who start them.  We started this fight and Putin is not doing anything we would not be doing if he had started the fight.  So why don't we all just cut Putin some slack and mind our own business from now on, eh?

Wednesday, March 19, 2014

MyRA Malarkey

King Obama, while delivering his State of the Kingdom speech to the citizens of the Socialist Democracy of Amerika about two months ago, declared and decreed that the SDA tax code needs to be changed and forced to adopt another tax qualified retirement plan which he has dubbed the MyRA.  Here, in part, is what our King had to say:
"I will direct Treasury to create a new way for working Americans to start their own retirement savings, MyRA.  A Social Security check often isn’t enough on its own, every American should have access to an automatic IRA on the job, so they can save at work just like everyone in this chamber can.  MyRA is a new savings bond that encourages folks to build a nest egg. MyRA guarantees a decent return with no risk of losing what you put in.”
King Obama's proposal for a new qualified retirement plan that goes by the ridiculous name of MyRA is a solution in search of a problem.  Let's think about it for a bit, shall we?
Here are some of the specifics of the proposed MyRA plan:
  1. The total amount that could be invested in any year is anywhere from $1 to $15,000/person.  The maximum of $15,000 is much higher than the present limit for Individual Retirement Accounts but lower than the limit for most 401k, 403b and Simplified Employee Pension Plans.  
  2. Like all qualified plans, the MyRA would accumulate tax deferred and only be subject to taxation at the time of withdrawal.  
  3. Unlike most qualified retirement plans, the MyRA would not permit a current year tax deduction for the amounts contributed to the plan.  In this sense it is similar to a Roth IRA with one huge difference -- the Roth IRA is not taxable when distributions are taken out while the MyRA would be subject to taxation at the time of withdrawal.  
  4. Employers would be forced to enroll all employees into the company MyRA plan whether the employees wanted to participate or not.  Then, after being forcibly enrolled, the employee has to complete paperwork with his employer to "opt-out" of the plan to keep some of his pay from being confiscated by the plan.  
  5. Unlike typical qualified retirement plans, the investment options for MyRA contributions are restricted to one type -- a Treasury note specially created for MyRA accounts. Based upon statements made by the supporters of the King's plan it appears as if the Treasury notes will pay roughly the equivalent of the present 10 year note.  As of today that is 2.7%.
There is so much wrong about the proposed MyRA it is hard to know where to begin my critique.  Still, I will try.   The biggest question is this, why do we need another tax qualified retirement plan?  Why is this nothing more than King Obama vainly attempting to leave some sort of legacy that he can write about when he is sitting around writing his presidential memoirs years from now?  There is nothing that the proposed MyRA can do that the existing retirement plans cannot do better.  Conversely, there are many things about the MyRa plan which are much worse than the current qualified plans.
As is usually the case with Executive Orders issued by the King, this plan singles out employees at the expense of the self-employed citizens of this land.  If the MyRa plan is so good, why should only those people who are employed by someone else be permitted to have one?  Why should there be such blatant discrimination against the self-employed?  Could it be due to the fact that self-employed individuals overwhelmingly tend to vote Republican?  Just wondering.  No matter though, conservative self-employed people would not want anything to do with this new government enforced plan.  I am sure the fact that they have been excluded from it is causing them to breath a collective sigh of relief.
The fact that employers would be required by law to enroll all their employees betrays the mindset of our King and his Court.  It is expected that the mandatory enrollment percentage will be somewhere around 3% of compensation.  Now why should a person be forced to participate in a retirement plan against his will?  The answer is simple.  Our King believes that people are really stupid.  Given the fact that he managed to get elected to the office of King for two straight terms, I will not dispute his belief about the vast majority of the members of the voting public.  But King Obama goes further than his simple belief in the stupidity of the masses.  He also believes the masses need to do what he considers to be the best for them.  Remember, this is the same King who has proposed taxing other retirement plans into oblivion whenever they reach some magical number that he considers to be "sufficient" for us.  If you should be so unlucky as to have scrimped and saved and invested into quality investments for most of your adult life you could find yourself being penalized for your frugality by the tax on IRA accounts that exceed our King's announced maximum.  But all of that is a different issue.  For our purposes here it is enough to recognize that our King knows better than we do and we had better submit to what he says, or else.
Without a doubt the worst part of the MyRA plan is the fact that there is only once choice of investment for the plan.  You will be required to buy MyRA bonds from the Treasury.  This is a horrible idea for several reasons.  Let me give them to you:
  1. There is a reason why Treasury bonds are known as "certificates of guaranteed confiscation."  Treasury bonds do not yield a real return.  By that I don't mean that the return you see on your statement is unreal.  I mean that after adjusting for inflation the rate of return on your bond will be negative.  This is always the case with Treasury bonds.  So if you want to invest your retirement funds into an investment that is guaranteed to give you a long term negative real return, go for it.  Just don't come crying to me when it comes time to retire and you have nothing to retire on.
  2. Is it possible that King Obama could have an alternative agenda by requiring that all MyRA contributions end up with Treasury?  Is it possible that King Obama sees this enormous reservoir of funds sitting out there in the business world and has decided to force all employers to take 3% of all compensation and move it to the Treasury in  order to fund government programs?  Remember, when an investor purchases a government bond he is loaning money to the government.  What does government do with those funds?  It spends them on boondoggles, welfare and warfare.  Why should you be forced, through a retirement program, to pay for the government's wasteful programs?
  3. Our King knows his subjects.  He knows exactly what to say to get them to bow down and worship him as a benevolent and compassionate King.  Notice how often he refers to his Treasury notes as "guaranteed" and "safe."  Real investors in the real world realize that nothing is ever guaranteed and nothing is ever safe.  There is risk in everything.  As I already wrote, the biggest risk with the MyRA Treasury note is the fact that it will realize a negative real return.  But that does not keep our King from seeking to pander to the investment fears of the ignorant masses in what will undoubtedly be a successful attempt to convince them that government is safe and the free market is dangerous.  The opposite is true, of course.  But it is very good propaganda.
  4. One thing almost universally ignored by all the poor souls who make the bad decision to invest in Treasury securities is the fact that Treasury has only two ways to pay interest on your investment.  For you see, unlike businesses in the free market that realize real profits by selling things to people that they want at a price they are willing to pay, government does not produce anything but headaches and heartaches.  There are only two sources of funds for the government to pay your interest and you fund both of them.  Treasury will either pay you back with money from taxes it has collected from you or it will pay you back with money it has created out of thin air (inflation).  Those are the only two sources of income for Treasury.  Why would any investor in his right mind agree to purchase an investment if he knew in advance that the interest on that bond would be paid either by first stealing some of his income and then giving it back or by printing it up in someone's basement?  Yet investors flock to the guaranteed payment promises and security of Treasury securities.  Go figure.
I haven't heard much about the MyRA since the speech.  Maybe Ukraine and disappearing airplanes have put it on the back burner.  Better yet, maybe our King just threw it out there looking for a response and when his announcement was generally ignored he made the wise decision to drop it.  I don't know.  Time will tell.  

Tuesday, March 18, 2014

Homeless Person Or Simply A Bum?

It is interesting to watch how language changes over time.  When I was growing up, admittedly a very long time ago now, nobody was ever referred to as being a homeless person.  That is not because there were no people who did not own homes.  Just like today some people owned homes and other people rented the places in which they lived.  Some people lived out of trailers and other people would move from public campground to public campground in order to reduce the costs associated with maintaining a domicile.  I remember living in a pop-up trailer in a public campground for an entire month at one point in my childhood.  It was one of the best months of my childhood life.  Nobody thought much about it and every person was pretty much free to live as he saw fit.  Then Lyndon Johnson's Great Society came along and everything changed.
Johnson, along with the majority of the citizens in the blossoming Socialist Democracy of Amerika who voted for him, believed in the god-like powers of the state.  He believed, in direct contradiction to the words of Jesus, that the federal government could eradicate poverty forever.  All that was required was to have the correct elitists at the helm of an enormous federal bureaucracy that would steal money from the rich in order to give it to the poor.  In order to accomplish his goals it was necessary to create plenty of propaganda in support of his programs.  One of the items on the list of important propaganda points was the need to cast people who had heretofore been called bums as victims of social injustice.  Although Johnson's Great Society programs failed miserably, his radical transformation of the English language was extraordinarily successful.  We no longer have bums in the SDA.  Johnson has indeed successfully eradicated all of them.   Everyone previously called a bum has been magically transformed into a homeless person. Perhaps even more importantly, every bum/homeless person finds himself in that condition exclusively as a result of social injustice perpetrated against him by rich people.
Nancy Peters of Denver wrote a letter to the editor of the Denver Post a couple of days ago.  Her letter is a perfect example of how the old topic of bums being rousted from public property has become a new discussion about the moral claims bums have on my money.  Here is some of what she wrote:
"Thanks to reporter Colleen O'Connor for bringing attention to the nationwide trend of passing laws which criminalize acts of survival conducted in public spaces by people without houses....When one city gets tough on people without houses, these people often move to another city in an effort to survive.  As a result there is a general toughening up everywhere, forcing homeless people to break the law in an effort to survive."  Wow!  Did you get all that?  We have a class of citizens in the SDA now known as "people without houses."  These poor folks, through no fault or responsibility of their own, find themselves trying to "survive" in "public spaces."  Since it is apparently hard for people who do not own homes to survive in public spaces they are being "forced to break the law in an effort to survive."  The SDA has created an entire class of lawbreakers who are being forced, quite against their will, to break the law in order to extend their miserable lives.  Who could have known?
The simple fact of the matter is that most people previously known as bums and now known as people without houses are in their sorry financial, cultural, social and, quite frequently, spiritual condition as a direct result of choices they have made throughout their lives.  A short list of those bad and sinful choices includes making the decision to drink to excess on a regular basis, making the decision to use drugs to the point of mental and physical impairment on a regular basis, making the decision to get pregnant outside of marriage, making the decision to accept a welfare check rather than seek for employment, and making the decision to blame others for their wretched condition and deny any personal culpability whatsoever.  In short, bums are bums because they want to be, not because they have been forced into bumhood against their will by evil rich people.
The Bible says that if a man will not work, neither shall he eat.  That sounds fair to me.  God does not allow for the modern concept that people who choose not to work have a moral claim on the money of those who do.  Quite the opposite is the case.  If a man will not work he will go hungry.  He might get very hungry.  He might actually die of starvation.  He might actually expire of starvation in a public square.  And God says that all of this is the way it should be because no bum has a moral claim on the property of anyone else.  Nancy Peters has a different view.  She believes she is wiser than God.  Here is how she would solve the problem of "people without houses":
"But, what if, instead of following this get tough trend, Denver became known as the city that created real solutions to homelessness by providing the variety of permanent housing options and supportive services which unhoused people need to be successful?"  Capital idea Felicia!  Let's think about this for a moment, shall we?
Who is going to pay for the free houses "Denver" decides to give away?  Who is going to decide who gets a free house and who does not?  What is going to prevent people from neighboring states from flocking to Denver in order to obtain a free house?  As people arrive in Denver in droves seeking their free home who is going to pay for the construction of additional free homes to cover the shortage?  Nancy does not even consider these questions, much less make any attempt to answer them.  So I will.
The taxpayers of Colorado would be forced to pay for the free homes.  Like everywhere else in the Socialist Democracy that means the upper 49% of the income population will have their money stolen from them to build houses that will then be given away to politically connected individuals.  A group of grotesquely overpaid bureaucrats will be charged with handing out the free houses.  It will take no time at all until graft and favoritism run amok and the free houses will quickly be distributed according to the whims of sinful people bent on feathering their own nests from the public trough.  Once Denver becomes know as the place where a bum can get a free home the number of bums will dramatically increase.  People, like me, who used to pay a mortgage will make the entirely rational decision to become a bum in order to get a free home.  The statistics will show a huge jump in the number of homeless people.  In a very short period of time there will be far more applicants for free homes than the actual number of free homes.  Meanwhile, the bums living in the free homes will destroy them.  Slums will be created.  Before a decade can pass Denver will become known as the city that used taxpayer dollars to create crime infested slums all in  the name of giving people who don't own homes a place to put their heads at night. Can anyone disagree that this will be the inevitable outcome of giving free houses to bums? 
Here is the bottom line.  Government has no business being involved in wealth transfers to bums.  All wealth transfers to bums are immoral activities for which all of those who participate in them will be eventually judged by an angry God.  God hates theft in all its forms.  God hates thieves in all their forms, including bums and the bureaucrats who pander to them. 
Do you have a soft spot in your head for bums?  Well go ahead and give them your money if you wish.  It should be a free country.  Anyone who wants to support bums should be free to do so.  If you want to create a foundation to build homes for bums, good for you.  Have at it.  I will not stand in your way.  Just don't inform me that the electorate has voted and decided to take more of my money and spend it on building homes for bums.  I will not stand for that.

Monday, March 17, 2014

"Cosmos" Is Pure Propaganda

I watched the new television series entitled "Cosmos" last night.  It is on the Fox network and it is being promoted as a dazzling and uplifting scientific description of the origin and history of the universe.  Man was I disappointed.  The entire one hour episode was nothing more than one extended commercial for the religion known as evolution.  Fox should have at least put a disclaimer at the start of the show informing viewers that what was to follow was an elaborate description of a religious belief system and that the goal of the show was to gain converts to the religion of evolution.  In my case, it didn't work.  I remain a creationist.
Now let me make some very forceful statements right up front.  The show depicted my ilk, creationists, as anti-scientific neanderthals with nary a rational or scientific thought to be found anywhere in our small capacity brains.  Nevertheless, despite the fact that the writers of Cosmos have declared war on the Christian doctrine of creation I do not believe that they should be arrested or fined for what they have done.  Clearly the people behind Cosmos are creationophobic.  The speech that emanated from their mouths was vitriolic and hateful.  That speech was directed towards those of us who believe in creation and it was designed to demean, demoralize and depress those of us who do not agree with their position on the origins of the universe.  Despite all of this, I do not believe they should have their right to free speech taken away.
I am not calling upon my congressman to enact legislation to criminalize speech that advances a creationophobic world view.  I am not asking the media to publicize the plight of those of us who are being persecuted by creationophobes.  I am not asking government for special protection from those who disagree with me nor am I demanding that those who disagree with me be silenced.  If I ask a photographer, who happens to be a creationophobe, to shoot some pictures of God's creation and he refuses to do so because I am a creationist, I will not sue him.  I will not take him to court and attempt to force him to serve me.  I will grant him his wish and leave him alone.  If I am seeking to hire the services of a baker who will bake a cake for me depicting one of God's beautiful mountains I will not sue him for refusing to serve me because he is a creationophobe.  I will just find another baker.
I also want to make it very clear that despite the fact that some of my most cherished personal beliefs were viciously attacked on national television for one full hour last night I have not developed any suicidal thoughts.  I know people are pointing at me when I walk down the street and saying nasty things about me because of my beliefs.  But, strangely, I have not had a single thought about killing myself because other people do not agree with me.  Now that we have all of those items out of the way, let me tell you about the show.
Last night's episode was dedicated to the doctrine of natural selection.  Natural selection, in evolutionary theology, is one of the two drivers of biological change.  The other is genetic mutation.  Both doctrines were presented last night.  The show began by telling me about dogs.  Who does not like dogs?  They are man's best friend, aren't they?  According to the narrator all of the different varieties of dogs we see today descended from one common, wolf-like, ancestor.  There are hundreds of different types of dogs today.  Therefore, the narrator informed me, it necessarily follows that evolution is true.  Otherwise there is no way to explain the variety of dogs that exist today.  No attempt was made by the narrator to distinguish between micro-evolution and macro-evolution.  I will do that for him here.
No creationist denies micro-evolution.  Micro-evolution is simply that process whereby different types of the same species come into existence in adaptation to their environment.  It also includes all human caused changes in specific characteristics.  The reason we have so many varieties of dogs is due to the fact that human beings have bred dogs for different characteristics.  Selective breeding allows for the creation of new types of breeds of dogs.  But they are all dogs.  Selective breeding of two dogs never brought about the existence of a cat or an oak tree.
Macro-evolution is an entirely different matter.  According to the tenets of macro-evolution it is possible, with sufficient time and the proper ordering of genetic mutations, for a dog to become a cat or for a turtle to become a human being.  It is this doctrinal belief that contrasts so starkly with the Christian doctrine of creation.  The Christian doctrine of creation affirms intra-specific change but denies inter-specific change. 
After allegedly proving the doctrine of macro-evolution by using an example of micro-evolution the narrator went on to give other examples of micro-evolution that allegedly prove the doctrine of evolution.  He told us about polar bears evolving from brown bears.  He showed images of owls, bugs and beetles that have evolved to adapt to their environments as those environments underwent significant changes.  No creationist denies the veracity of any of the examples presented in the first half of the show.  What we deny is the conclusion the narrator drew from his examples.  After showing a half dozen examples of micro-evolution the narrator looked sternly into the camera lens and informed me that the doctrines of evolution are as powerfully scientific fact as the truth of gravity.  Anybody stupid, foolish or Christian enough to deny the obvious truths of the religion of evolution is clearly so stupid he would also deny that gravity exists.  That is what I was told.  Still, I was not offended.  I did not call the police.  I am not writing a letter to my legislator asking for protection from this hate-speech.
The pinnacle of the show was the explanation of the evolution of the eye.  The creationophobic narrator went to great lengths to point out that creationists like myself have frequently used the eye as an example of something that could not possibly evolve.  Due to the enormous complexity of the eye it is generally held by creationists that a creator must be posited to explain its origination.  The narrator excitedly informed me that such was not the case.  Indeed, the evolution of the eye is easy to understand.  He then proceeded to show me how my eye came to be.
Apparently some bacteria were floating around in some primordial sea when one of them underwent genetic recombination and reproduced.  In this particular case, however, when the genes recombined there was a mistake and a mutation occurred.  This mutation directly impacted the development of that bacterium in that one of its cells suddenly became "photosensitive", whatever that means.  The first problem with this view is that bacteria reproduce via binary fission and not genetic recombination.  The "offspring" of bacterial reproduction is always genetically identical to the parent.  But we will ignore this inconvenient truth for now.
Hundreds of millions of years go by and the offspring from this particular bacterium has undergone hundreds of similar genetic mutations.  The bacterium now has about a hundred photosensitive cells on its body.  Somehow, through nothing other than random chance, all of those photosensitive cells happened to come into existence right next to each other.  Imagine that.  At this point the narration about the bacterium stopped and the story resumed with a worm.  Somehow the bacterium evolved into a worm and, of course, this worm had a bunch of photosensitive cells clumped together on its head.  Then, I was informed, the worm's head underwent a series of genetic mutations that resulted, after hundreds of millions of years, in the worm developing a cavity into which the photosensitive cells sank.  The graphic being displayed during the explanation of this process showed two eyes being created, oops, sorry, I mean randomly evolving at the same time.  How the worm was able to pull off genetic mutations resulting in two symmetrically placed eyes evolving at the same time was not explained.
Now that some photosensitive cells had been placed into a cranial depression we jumped to some sort of fish-like creature.  The fish creature continued to evolve.  It was all very clear on the computer generated graphic on the television show.  Millions of genetic mutations taking place over hundreds of millions of years all teleologically worked together to create a cornea, lens, aqueous humor, optic nerve and brain that allows any creature with an eye to see stuff.  How these entirely random genetic mutations managed to work in perfect tandem with each other was not explained.  How this series of eye-creating genetic mutations just happened to take place in both male and female samples of the same species was not described.  How those newly eyed creatures happened to find each other and reproduce was not mentioned.  But the computer graphics were pretty cool and I was almost persuaded to convert to evolution.
Undoubtedly the most bizarre part of the show took place on two separate occasions when the narrator turned to the camera to inform us of something he believed to be most significant.  As he began to speak his eyes filled with mist and he then proceeded to inform us that he feels so "special" because he is the current end product of the evolutionary process.  He waxed eloquent about what an honor it is to be a part of a family tree that shares ancestry with bacteria, frogs and oak trees.  Maybe I am missing something here but I just did not emotionally connect with him.  I have a hard time getting all choked up about the alleged fact that my existence is the result of a completely random series of meaningless events over billions of years on a planet that has eternally existed.  I have a hard time conceiving where the concept of "honor" even comes from in the evolutionary system, much less feeling that emotion as a result of being a part of the process.  If everything that exists, including you and me, is the end result of genetic mutation and natural selection of eternally existent matter taking place over billions of years, where can we possibly get the idea that any of this is anything more than a cosmic accident?  Where do concepts like honor, morality and love come from?  There is no evolutionary explanation for any of the higher thoughts of human beings. 
I will answer that last question for you.  We get the idea that we are not a cosmic accident because we are created in the image of God.  That is where morality comes from.  But, because of both original and actual sin, we hate God and do everything we can to suppress that truth about Him and ourselves.  Instead we create alternative religions like evolution in a vain attempt to explain how things came to be without being forced to acknowledge that God exists and has made a moral claim upon our lives.  Still, we can never run away from the truth.  We all know, if we sit quietly for a moment or two, that we do have meaning and purpose in life.  We also know that the doctrines of evolution do not give us any basis for that belief.  So what do we do?  We make them up and assign them to evolution anyway.  We make the decision to worship the creation rather than the creator and we become irrational evolutionists.  It is not logical, but it is true.  And that is exactly what Cosmos is designed to do.  It is nothing but evolutionary propaganda.