Why A Heterosexual, Married, North Carolinian Father Of Three Cares About LGBT Equality

I am a heterosexual, married, father of three, who has lived in North Carolina for most of my life. There have been a few ugly North Carolina moments during the time I have lived here (mostly related to one particular senator who has been in our rear view mirror for quite some time). But the ugliness that took place in North Carolina General Assembly this week was a stark reminder that, while we have made great strides in this state, there are a lot of people who still wish to deny rights to other citizens based on religious beliefs and misconceptions about sexuality and gender.

Unless you were living under a rock the past few days, you know that the NC Senate voted 30-16 to approve a proposed constitutional amendment banning any legal relationship recognition for same-sex couples. The amendment will be on the ballot in May during the Republican presidential primary.

Same-sex marriage, it should be noted, is already illegal in North Carolina. The amendment is simply a push to put the nail in the coffin, making it extremely difficult for same-sex marriages to be legalized in the future.

The issue of same-sex marriage is complicated in North Carolina, as it is in any state. According to recent survey conducted by Public Policy Polling, while most North Carolinians strongly believe that same-sex marriage should be illegal, they also strongly believe that there should not be a constitutional amendment to write that into the constitution. As conflicted as that message may be, it is clear: people may disagree on an issue, but that doesn't mean we should play political football with our constitution.

I've had people ask why I am so vocal about the issue of LGBT equality. Why is a heterosexual, married father so concerned with what gay people can or can't do? I don't have a dog in this fight, do I?

I find those kinds of questions to be puzzling (and telling), as if we should value the rights of one group of humans over any other group, or only be concerned with the welfare of a group to which we belong. As Elie Wiesel said, "I swore never to be silent whenever and wherever human beings endure suffering and humiliation. We must always take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented."

So, anyway, this is why I care (and why you should too):

LGBT people are citizens. I have friends (some of whom were married in other states years ago) who love each other as dearly as I love my own wife (and who have been committed to each other for just as long). It pains me to know that there are people who reject the validity of these relationships, and who wish to deny these couples the same benefits that other married couples are afforded. These committed, same-sex couples are North Carolinians. They contribute to the economy, they pay taxes, and they certainly do not deserve to be treated as second-class citizens by anyone. Just as it is hard to believe that we once denied marriage rights to interracial couples, or voting rights to women and African-Americans, we will look back upon this time with the same disbelief and shame.

Homosexuality is not a choice. Although science has not zeroed in on any one single cause, the growing body of research suggests that sexual orientation is caused by a combination of genetic, hormonal, and environmental influences. The biological factors related to sexual orientation involve a constellation of genetic factors, as well as brain structure and early uterine environment. Homosexuality is so natural, in fact, that it occurs in nature. Still not sold? The following major medical and professional organizations have also concluded that sexual orientation (and gender identity) is not a choice: American Psychological Association, American Psychiatric Association, National Association of Social Workers, Royal College of Psychiatrists, and American Academy of Pediatrics. If you think that all these scientists, doctors, and experts are all part of a conspiracy to advance the homosexual agenda, ask yourself this: at what point in your life did you make the choice to be heterosexual?

Kids do just fine in families with same-sex parents. "All of the major professional organizations with expertise in child welfare have issued reports and resolutions in support of gay and lesbian parental rights" (Professor Judith Stacey, New York University). These organizations include the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, the American Psychiatric Association, the American Psychological Association, the American Psychoanalytic Association, the National Association of Social Workers, the Child Welfare League of America, the North American Council on Adoptable Children, and Canadian Psychological Association. A recent study indicates that kids with lesbian parents may actually do better than their peers. If you are convinced that kids absolutely need one mom and one dad, you're a) forgetting about the many single-parent families in existence, b) equating 'gut feelings' with facts, c) depriving a lot of children a wonderful life with a family, a stable, loving home, and the best opportunities possible.

Religious arguments against same-sex marriage do not pass the Lemon Test, a three-pronged legal requirement which stipulates that a) the government's action must have a secular legislative purpose, b) the government's action must not have the primary effect of either advancing or inhibiting religion, and c) the government's action must not result in an "excessive government entanglement" with religion. I am not sure I have heard anyone make a case against same-sex marriage that did not invoke religion. The second that your argument mentions God, or references a biblical passage, I cannot entertain your argument. As a Humanist, I reject supernaturalism, pseudoscience, and superstition. Your religious arguments against same-sex marriage belong on that heap of nonsense. They have no basis in reality, are not supported by the science, and have no place in legislation. Unfortunately, anti-LGBT legislators cynically take great care to ensure that the language in their legislation is not based on a religious ground -- even though we all know it is rooted in religious dogma. If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck.

Happiness is contagious. Really. It's true. And guess what else? Acceptance of LGBT folks helps protect against depression, substance abuse, and suicide. Why in the world would anyone want to cause suffering in others? If the answer lies in your religion, then you need to re-evaluate your religion. Its ancient morality is flawed at best. Societies which embrace human reason, ethics, justice, and the search for human fulfillment are statistically happier societies. According to Gallup data, the happiest nations were Denmark, Norway, Sweden, and the Netherlands. These countries are among the least religious in the world. Coincidence? I'm not asking you to discard your religion. Just keep it to yourself, your family, and your congregation. We'll all be happier if you do.

Definitions change. Society evolves. I keep hearing over and over that "we can't redefine marriage." Well, why not? We have been redefining marriage throughout history. In fact, marriage pre-dates recorded history. The Bible (which is often used to defend the 'one man'/'one woman' definition) is full of polygamous marriages. There is also a long history of recognized same-sex marriages all over the world (including, but not limited to: Egypt, Greece, Rome, Japan, India, England, Italy, and North America). Over the course of history, marriage has meant different things: Love, the granting of property rights, or the protection of bloodlines. In some cultures two men and two women have been allowed to marry. People have historically married for many different reasons: legal, social, economic, spiritual, libidinal, and religious. So stop it with your 'sacred institution' argument and open up some history books. When you say that the Bible is clear about homosexuality, you must also admit that it was also very clear about how to treat your slaves, and the uncleanliness of women during their menstrual period. Listen. Society evolves. Sometimes we leave behind the Bronze Age mentality of the men who wrote the Bible. You want your marriage to be a religious, strictly bible-based marriage? That's fine. Nobody is stopping you from having one.

Don't we want less government intrusion in our lives? It's interesting that most of the people who support the ban on same-sex marriage also seem to be interested in less government intrusion. They want the government out of their health care. They want the TSA to keep their hands off their junk. They want less regulations on corporations. They worry the government is going to take away their rights: to bear arms, to speak freely, to practice their religion, to say 'Merry Christmas,' and to choose what kind of light bulb they use in their houses. They are furious when the government tries to tell them what they shouldn't eat, where they can or cannot smoke, or how much gas their car can guzzle. And these same people want the government to restrict the rights of someone else. They want the government to tell them what they can or can't do with another consenting adult. How do you reconcile your belief in a small, less intrusive government with your approval of legislation intended to restrict the rights of taxpaying citizens and to control who they should and shouldn't love? It's absurd. You want deregulation? Let's deregulate marriage.

I am a father of three beautiful boys. They are all young enough that they have not shown any definitive signs of sexual orientation one way or the other. Chances are, they will be heterosexual. Of course, there are studies indicating that the more older brothers a boy has, the greater the probability is that he will have a homosexual orientation. This is related to the in-utero maternal immune response, which increases with subsequent sons. Of course this is only one of many studies dealing with the hormonal factors associated with sexual orientation, but my point is, if any of my sons were gay, that's perfectly okay. We would accept him for who he is, and love him just the same. I don't worry about that. What I do worry about is this: if I did have a gay son, how could I explain to him that people don't want him to have the same rights as everyone else? How can I explain to him that if he wants to grow up, buy a home, and start a family, he might need to move to a state that doesn't reject him? How can I explain that people believe he is an abomination whose perverted lifestyle will lead him to an eternity in hell? How would I feel if my son killed himself because he was bullied, maligned, ridiculed, and made to feel as if he had no place in society? The only way to avoid any of our children going through this is to send a clear message that people are different and that's okay. Some families just have one mom, or one dad. Some have a mom and a dad. And some have two moms or two dads. And maybe if our state's leaders stop sending the message to our children that they are unwanted, maybe we can save the life of a child. Isn't that worth it?

At the end of the day, it just makes sense. Ask yourself what you are worried about if same-sex marriage is legalized. Whatever your answer is, ask yourself if you really believe what you just came up with. Homosexuality is not going to spread. It is not communicable. Society is not going to turn into a Lady Gaga video. Most gay couples I know are just as boring as you and I. They sit on the couch and watch television. They work at the post office, the hospital, the grocery store, and at real estate agencies, just like heterosexuals do. They eat out at restaurants and shop at Target. Many have pot bellies and don't have much fashion sense, just like me. They own pets, and go to church. They volunteer, sing Christmas carols, and buy Girl Scout cookies. What are you afraid of? What is going to change by allowing these people to commit to one another and enjoy the benefits that you and I enjoy: tax breaks, insurance breaks, bereavement leave, medical leave to care for a sick partner, domestic violence protection, visitation of partner in the hospital, burial determination, medical decisions on behalf of partner. Really sexy stuff. You and I take these things for granted. Nobody wants to go through life not knowing how they will deal with some of these difficult moments in life. Imagine if you were denied any of the above rights when the time came for you and your spouse to exercise that right? I'll tell you what it would feel like. It would feel like you were a second-class citizen.

So, if you're a North Carolina citizen, and you care about equality, please make yourself heard. Whether you're straight, lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, or queer, speak up. Educate yourself about the May amendment vote. Donate, volunteer, tweet, post Facebook statuses, blog, talk to your churches, your neighbors, your friends and relatives. Help them understand the science behind sexual orientation, and help them understand the importance of voting on May 8. 'Like' the organizations that are working to fight this amendment, and stay informed (EqualityNC, HRC). Repost articles and blog posts to keep friends aware.

There is a lot of work to be done. There are many things each of us can do. But we can't be indifferent.

"There may be times when we are powerless to prevent injustice, but there must never be a time when we fail to protest." - Elie Wiesel

Michio Kaku: What Physics Can Do For You

"If [your great-grandparents of the year 1900] could see you now, with iPads and iPods and satellites and GPS and laser beams, how would they view you?," asks Michio Kaku. "They would view you as a wizard or a sorcerer. However, if we could now meet our grandkids of the year 2100, how would we view them? We would view them as gods."

Via The Big Think:

From the standpoint of our agrarian ancestors, the marvels of the post-Industrial world would appear to be sorcery. (What would a Renaissance man make of a vending machine, let alone an Ipad?) Kaku predicts that likewise, the people of 2100 will have harnessed "the power of the gods" by present day standards, defeating barriers like age and distance. "We will have that flying car that we’ve always wanted to have in our garage," he says.

But the most interesting places in the universe are beyond the reach of Einstein's equations, says Kaku. He's searching for "An equation like E=mc². That equation is half an inch long and unlocks the secret of the stars. Why do the stars shine? Why does the galaxy light up? Why do we have energy on the earth?" These are the questions we can still only dream of answering.

Michio Kaku is a smart guy. He's a theoretical physicist, a professor, an author, a speaker, and happens to be the co-founder of string field theory.

He's also very good at explaining science to people who aren't quite as smart, like myself.

In the latest online course offered by The Floating University (a new media venture with the aim of democratizing education), Kaku serves up a lecture called "The Universe in a Nutshell: The Physics of Everything."

The course description:

What if we could find one single equation that explains every force in the universe? Professor Michio Kaku explores how physics could potentially shrink the science of the big bang into an equation as small as e=mc2. Physics powers every electronic device in your living room, underwrites every technological breakthrough, and thanks to advances in string theory, could allow us to escape the heat death of the universe, explore the multiverse, and unlock the secrets of existence.

In a profoundly informative and deeply optimistic discussion, Professor Kaku delivers a glimpse of where science will take us in the next hundred years, as warp drives, teleportation, inter-dimensional wormholes, and even time travel converge with our scientific understanding of physical reality. While firing up our imaginations about the future, he also presents a succinct history of physics to the present.

How did Halley's Comet manage to start the British Empire in 1066 and lead to the most important publication in human history in 1682? What are the four ultra-powerful forces that dictate all observable phenomena in the universe and how did we find them? How is 96% of matter in the universe undetectable? And why is the emergent field of string theory turning everything we thought we knew about physics upside down? In under an hour, Professor Kaku makes a compelling case that physics is the key to pretty much everything.

See below for an excerpt of his lecture. Visit The Floating University to subscribe and view it in its entirety.

Are You A Young Earth Creationist? Take The Quiz!

Are you a Young Earth Creationist? In case you're unsure, you may want to answer the 9 questions below, which Creation Ministries International put together to help "ascertain whether your future pastor, youth group leader or Bible College principal takes a straightforward view of Genesis."

You wouldn't want your child to learn actual facts would you? Heavens, no.

From the introduction to the quiz:

CMI periodically receives requests for us to identify Bible colleges/seminaries that believe/teach a straightforward reading of Genesis. We also know of pastoral search committees lamenting that they would not have selected certain candidates if only they had known in advance of their compromise (long-age, or theistic evolutionary) stance on Genesis.

For a number of reasons, CMI does not provide a list of ‘young-earth’ theological colleges, nor do we get involved in church staffing matters. However, in response to such enquiries we have prepared the following questionnaire to meet an evident need.

Please feel free to reference CMI's explanatory notes for each question.

Good luck!

1. SIX DAYS 

Do you believe that God created the earth and universe in six ordinary-length (earth-rotation) days?

☐  Yes

☐  No

_____________________________________________________________________

2. AGE OF THE WORLD 

Do you believe that the earth and universe are only thousands (not millions or billions) of years old, as measured by Earth time?

☐  Yes

☐  No

___________________________________________________________________

3. THE FIRST HUMANS 

Do you believe that Adam and his wife Eve were the literal, historic ancestors of all (other) people who have ever lived?

☐  Yes

☐  No

_____________________________________________________________________

4. ADAM AND EVE’S ORIGINS 

Do you believe that Adam and Eve had no physical parents, but were created directly by God; Adam from the actual dust, and Eve from the actual flesh and bone of Adam’s side?

☐  Yes

☐  No

_____________________________________________________________________

5. HUMAN DEATH 

Do you believe that human physical death began only after Adam sinned?

☐  Yes

☐  No

_____________________________________________________________________

6. CARNIVORY 

Do you believe that all animals were originally created vegetarian?

☐  Yes

☐  No

_____________________________________________________________________

7. SUFFERING IN THE FOSSIL RECORD 

Do you believe that fossils showing evidence of bloodshed and suffering (e.g. half-eaten prey, dinosaur cancers,) could not have been formed before Adam’s Fall led to the Curse?

☐  Yes

☐  No

_____________________________________________________________________

8. GLOBAL FLOOD

Do you believe that the Flood of Noah covered the whole globe? 

☐  Yes

☐  No

_____________________________________________________________________

9. THE SUPERNATURAL POWER OF JESUS

Do you believe that after Lazarus was physically dead for days, Jesus miraculously caused him to regain physical life? 

☐  Yes

☐  No

If you answered 'No' to any of the above questions, you have nothing to worry about. Wait -- I mean, you failed.

Herman Cain's Ghastly 9/11 'Tribute'

If you thought that Herman Cain had lost his mind earlier this week when he dropped a 3 1/2 minute western-themed 'ad' on us, his latest video will leave you with no doubt whatsoever.

God Bless America: A 9-11 Tribute from Herman Cain is probably about the most tasteless thing we've seen so far in the run-up to the Republican presidential candidate nomination, and there have been some doozies.

I'm not sure what he's trying to do here. His ghoulish gospel singing is terrifying enough without draping it over scenes of planes repeatedly crashing into the World Trade Center, the Pentagon devastation, and the shrieks and cries of horrified onlookers.

Replaying the deaths of thousands of American terror victims in a campaign-produced video is not a tribute. It's exploitation.

Herman Cain is apparently without a soul.

Two Ad Agencies Compete To Win 'End Of Religion' Campaign

On The Australian TV show The Gruen Transfer, there is a segment of the show called The Pitch in which ad agencies compete to win a specific campaign. Each campaign is suggested by viewers, and are often fantastical and humorous, but never dull.

'The Gruen Transfer' is named after "Victor Gruen, the guy who designed the very first shopping mall. The term describes that split second when the mall's intentionally confusing layout makes our eyes glaze and our jaws slacken... the moment when we forget what we came for and become impulse buyers."

And such is the idea behind 'The Pitch.' Can advertising be successful in selling us on ideas that are essentially un-sellable, such as bottled air, a ban on swearing, or moving the country's capital to a new location?

The below pitch requires the competing agencies to sell consumers on the idea of abandoning religion altogether. It's interesting that this particular pitch is something that we have seen in reality (although not on any mass scale, and certainly not on national television) via organizations such as the Center For Inquiry and the British Humanist Association. I'm not certain that this particular pitch is quite as fantastical as bottled air.

Welfare Myths, Christian Charity, And The Insanity Of Welfare Drug Screening

There is a strange phenomenon occurring in conservative circles. It's a growing chorus of resentment towards the recipients of welfare (I've touched upon this phenomenon recently). This resentment is characterized by the assumption that welfare recipients are lazy, good-for-nothing, baby-having, divorced, drug and alcohol-abusing, freeloading minorities who are gaming the system (like raccoons). There is growing applause for Florida Governor Rick Scott's welfare drug-screen measure, which requires that applicants pass a drug test prior to receiving welfare. The eradication of welfare entirely is a common rallying cry for Libertarians and the Tea Party.

One of the most disturbing elements of this resentment is that so much of it seems to be coming from people who identify as Christians. While it is difficult to know what Jesus would say about government welfare assistance, we can assume that he would frown upon his followers' insistence that we turn our backs on "the least of these."

I'm no theologian, but Matthew 25:34-36, Mark 10:21-22, Mark 12:41-44, Luke 14:12-14, and Luke 12:16-21 seem pretty clear on what Jesus might have thought about welfare, if he had lived in an age when societies are as vast and complex as they are today, and when the kindness of strangers on the roadside is not a scalable solution.

The chorus being sung by so many self-proclaimed Christians is drowning out the cries from atheists and humanists who can't believe what they're hearing from the faithful. I am not claiming that there are no non-believers who also call for welfare drug testing, or the end of welfare (or that there are not many charitable Christians who denounce such thinking), but I am saying that a plurality of non-theists and humanists adhere to a secular moral code that can in no way justify this thinking -- thinking that is clearly not in any way aligned with Christianity.

In my many discussions with people of faith who hold these anti-welfare/pro-drug screening views, nearly all of them relay anecdotes (often secondhand) that perpetuate the above characterizations of welfare recipients. These anecdotes are broadcast by talk show hosts, pundits, politicians, columnists, bloggers, and anyone with a Facebook account. These anecdotes help to paint a picture, but the picture is for the most part, pure fantasy.

To be fair, nobody is denying that there are documented instances of welfare abuse. You will find some level of abuse in any system that distributes goods and services. What is unforgivable, however, is the gross mis-characterization of welfare recipients, and the charges that have been leveled against them, by so many Americans, many of them religious.

Let's take a look at the myths.

Most people believe that the majority of welfare recipients are non-whites who stay on welfare for years at a time. The reality is that whites form the largest racial group on welfare; half of all welfare recipients leave in the first two years, over a quarter are off of welfare in 2-5 years; and teenagers form less than 8 percent of all welfare mothers. 43% of welfare households have one child. Only 10% have 4 or more children. only 28% of welfare recipients are divorced or separated. only 9% are unemployed or disabled. (Data is from Overview of Entitlement Programs, Committee on Ways and Means)

Next, let's take a look at some of the findings in a report (pdf) by CLASP which clearly show that drug screening of welfare applicants is wasteful, unproductive and unsustainable (not to mention crass and presumptive):

"Since few substance abusers are identified in tests, but many are tested, the cost of catching a drug abuser may run between $20,000 and $77,000 per person."

"In another study, drug use was as prevalent among employed TANF recipients as among the unemployed. This is also true of the general population, as most drug users have full‐time employment."

"No study has shown that denying assistance facilitates substance abuse treatment. On the contrary, the most effective drug treatment programs show that TANF recipients require additional support. Transportation, housing and child care support help parents overcome barriers to successful program completion. Denying access to benefits will increase barriers to economic advancement and family well‐being."

"In 1996, the National Institute of Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism found that “proportions of welfare recipients using, abusing, or dependent on alcohol or illicit drugs are consistent with proportions of both the adult U.S. population and adults who do not receive welfare. Furthermore, Michigan, the only state to have imposed random drug testing on TANF beneficiaries, found that only 10 percent of recipients tested positive for illicit drugs, with 3 percent testing positive for “hard” drugs, such as cocaine. These rates are consistent with its general population. While other studies show that TANF recipients are somewhat more likely to have tried illicit drugs or have substance abuse disorders than the general population, the fact remains that a large majority of recipients do not use drugs."

Regarding gaming the system:

'To help overcome the former problem of unemployment due to reliance on the welfare system, the TANF grant requires that all recipients of welfare aid must find work within two years of receiving aid, including single parents who are required to work at least 30 hours per week opposed to 35 or 55 required by two parent families. Failure to comply with work requirements could result in loss of benefits.'

I know that none of the above provides a solution to the problem of a small number of people gaming the system, but I believe it illustrates that there are a lot of myths and misunderstandings about welfare recipients that have been fueled by the media, by our own stereotypes, and anecdotes we hear, and do no reflect reality.

Since Gov. Scott's welfare drug-screening program began in July, only 2% of those screened have tested positive. Two. Percent.

According to the Tampa Tribune, not only is the effort not yielding results, it's also costing taxpayers an arm and a leg:

FL Gov. Rick Scott

Cost of the tests averages about $30. Assuming that 1,000 to 1,500 applicants take the test every month, the state will owe about $28,800-$43,200 monthly in reimbursements to those who test drug-free.

That compares with roughly $32,200-$48,200 the state may save on one month’s worth of rejected applicants.

Net savings to the state: $3,400 to $5,000 annually on one month’s worth of rejected applicants. Over 12 months, the money saved on all rejected applicants would add up to $40,800 to $60,000 for a program that state analysts have predicted will cost $178 million this fiscal year.

So, when we extract the bullshit mythology, this is what we're witnessing today in America:

God-fearing patriotic Americans have simply had it with these mostly white, working, married, adult US citizens, who need temporary assistance with basic needs until they can through a difficult time. They're so pissed off about it, they're willing to fork over an additional $178 million so that they can ensure that their money is not going to 2% of them.

These people want a smaller government that spends less. They want government out of their lives. And to accomplish this they want to pay the government hundreds of millions of dollars to collect Americans' urine in a cup.

In 2009, a California man was arrested outside a Yolo County market with a $3.99 bag of Tillamook shredded cheese in his pants he had not paid for. Due to California's three strikes law, the judge sentenced him to seven years and eight months in jail. It costs taxpayers between $50,000 and $100,000 a year to keep a man imprisoned.

Sometimes the solution is worse than the problem.

'The Magic Of Reality': Richard Dawkins' Science Book For All Ages

No matter what you think of Richard Dawkins, he has an extraordinary gift for explaining science's complexities in a way that anyone can easily understand. I credit him, along with Jerry Coyne, David Sloane Wilson, and others, with helping me (an English major who did never had much interest in science, and who can't recall hearing about evolution in school) to really grasp the complexity and beauty of evolution.

After several wonderful books written for adults, including The Selfish Gene, The Greatest Show on Earth, and The Ancestor's Tale, Dawkins has undertaken the task of writing a sprawling, 272-page, illustrated science book for all ages. The book is called The Magic of Reality: How We Know What's Really True.

As the father of 3 very curious young boys, I'm excited to get a hold of this book. It seems perfect for reading and discussing with children, and for keeping readily available for those times when kids ask questions about how things work. I've been disappointed with much of the books presently out there for kids about science, specifically those that address evolution (with the exception of Daniel Loxton's wonderful illustrated book, Evolution: How We and All Living Things Came to Be). Dawkins' book will be a welcome addition to our shelves.

From the publisher:

Magic takes many forms. Supernatural magic is what our ancestors used in order to explain the world before they developed the scientific method. The ancient Egyptians explained the night by suggesting the goddess Nut swallowed the sun. The Vikings believed a rainbow was the gods' bridge to earth. The Japanese used to explain earthquakes by conjuring a gigantic catfish that carried the world on its back—earthquakes occurred each time it flipped its tail. These are magical, extraordinary tales. But there is another kind of magic, and it lies in the exhilaration of discovering the real answers to these questions. It is the magic of reality—science.

Packed with clever thought experiments, dazzling illustrations and jaw-dropping facts, The Magic of Reality explains a stunningly wide range of natural phenomena. What is stuff made of? How old is the universe? Why do the continents look like disconnected pieces of a puzzle? What causes tsunamis? Why are there so many kinds of plants and animals? Who was the first man, or woman? This is a page-turning, graphic detective story that not only mines all the sciences for its clues but primes the reader to think like a scientist as well.

Richard Dawkins, the world's most famous evolutionary biologist and one of science education's most passionate advocates, has spent his career elucidating the wonders of science for adult readers. But now, in a dramatic departure, he has teamed up with acclaimed artist Dave McKean and used his unrivaled explanatory powers to share the magic of science with readers of all ages. This is a treasure trove for anyone who has ever wondered how the world works. Dawkins and McKean have created an illustrated guide to the secrets of our world—and the universe beyond—that will entertain and inform for years to come.