Researchers have succeeded in sequencing 3.3 million genes from organisms residing in the human gut.

And it appears that each person harbors at least 160 species of bacteria in their gut, far more than originally estimated, according to a paper appearing in the March 4 issue of Nature. The research was led by researchers in China as part of the MetaHIT (Metagenomics of the Human Intestinal Tract) project.
Click here to find out more!

Although this is just the first tiny dent in a mountain of work to be done, the findings should help experts understand both human health and human illness better.

"This is so rich. It could help in so many different ways. It could help us understand diseases like inflammatory bowel disease [IBD], Crohn's and ulcerative colitis. It could help us with problems like malnutrition and obesity. It could help us understand many different metabolic problems from liver disease to kidney to heart disease," said Dr. Martin Blaser, chairman of the department of medicine at New York University Langone Medical Center and a professor of microbiology at New York University School of Medicine in New York City. "This is really a landmark study."

Humans coexist peacefully and sometimes not so peacefully with legions of microorganisms in their gut. An estimated 100 trillion cells make up these microbes. That's 10 times the number of human cells in the body.

"There are symbiotic relationships with these bacteria," explained Dr. Brian Currie, vice president and medical director for research at Montefiore Medical Center in New York City. "They make substances we need ... and there's a body of literature that suggests that the interaction with these bacteria may have something to do with immune modulation as well. It's a largely unexplored area."

Another expert, Jeffrey Cirillo, a professor of microbial and molecular pathogenesis at the Texas A&M Health Science Center College of Medicine in College Station, said that, "basically the gut functions properly because of the large amount of bacteria that are present within it."

"In other words, rather than the gut being controlled by us, it's actually controlled by the bacteria present in it," he said. "There's almost a limitless number of diseases and health characteristics that are affected by what we eat and how it gets digested, and the microflora that are present basically determine how that gets handled. It's a critical component of health overall."

This research team was able to identify and sequence 3.3 million microbe genes from fecal samples taken from 124 Europeans. This is 150 times more microbial genes than human genes.

The participants, from Spain and Denmark, were either healthy or had inflammatory bowel disease.

More than 99 percent of the genes were bacterial, representing up to 1,150 different bacterial species.

Although most of the 3.3 million genes must be shared among individuals, the study authors were only able to show that 38 percent of the genes seen in each individual were shared with at least half of the other individuals sampled.

And while much has been made of "good" bacteria vs. "bad" bacteria in people's bodies, the organisms involved may not be either.

"This may have to do more with proportions. Maybe there is a certain ecological balance of certain kinds of organisms, and disease is not necessarily due to having bad bacteria but an imbalance," Blaser said. "When you take a census and you have schoolteachers, policemen, insurance brokers, etc. That's kind of healthy. But let's say you took a census and everybody was a Wall Street stockbroker. That may be less healthy. The proportions of the different kinds of organisms that are present could be more important."

For instance, patients with inflammatory bowel disease had, on average, 25 percent fewer genes than healthy individuals, indicating that patients suffering from IBD have less diversity in their guts.

"We know that some of these functions are critical for human health and well-being, and these are the first initial baby steps to fully characterize what those are, to get a handle on the diversity," added Dale Hedges, an assistant professor at the John P. Hussman Institute for Human Genomics and assistant director of the Center for Genome Technology at the University of Miami Miller School of Medicine. "As we start to get a better grasp of the genetic diversity in our gut biome, we can start to ask questions about the relationship between the genetic diversity that's existing in our microbiome internally and our susceptibility to different diseases and what the interaction is."
Cirillo is enthusiastic. "A picture is worth a thousand words, and this gives us a picture of what's going on in the gut," he said.

As Temperatures Rise, So Do Cocaine Deaths

New research suggests that cocaine overdose deaths in New York City go up with the temperature: They're more likely when the average weekly temperature goes past 75 degrees Fahrenheit.
Click here to find out more!

The findings, published online March 3 in the journal Addiction, are based on death statistics in the city from 1990 through 2006.

The increase in accidental overdose deaths during warmer temperatures appears to be because cocaine raises body temperature and makes it harder for the cardiovascular system to cool the body, according to background information from the journal's publisher. When using cocaine, people also tend to be less apt to comprehend that they're hot and need to do something to cool off.

The research clarifies earlier findings that had linked cocaine overdose deaths to much higher temperatures -- those over about 88 degrees Fahrenheit.

The study estimated that the number of cocaine overdose deaths in New York City would rise by at least two a week when the average temperature is higher than 75 degrees, compared with an average of 75 degrees or lower.

What to do? Air conditioning and special health alerts could help in urban areas where cocaine use is high, the study suggested.

Mesothelioma

Asbestos was one of the most common industrial materials put to use in the twentieth century. It has also proven to be one of the most lethal, as inhaling asbestos fibers can lead to a wide range of pulmonary problems such as asthma and asbestosis - and can also be the direct cause of mesothelioma.

What is mesothelioma? It is a lethal cancer that attacks the membranes around the lungs, the heart and the abdominal cavity. Mesothelioma cancer of the lungs is by far the most common form. Perhaps its most unusual characteristic is that mesothelioma diagnosis usually occurs decades after the initial exposure to asbestos.

It takes years for the asbestos fibers to work their way into those membranes; after an extended presence they begin to cause fluid accumulation and tumor development. However the first mesothelioma symptoms are such afflictions as a persistent cough or shortness of breath - symptoms that are often mistaken for evidence of more common lung problems, which delays the mesothelioma diagnosis even further.

Living With Cancer

Cancer is often a disease that lasts a long time, and people may be treated for it for many years. Sometimes, people close to the patient who were very involved at first grow distant as the treatment continues over the course of months or years. It is understandable that you can become "burned out" when supporting a person with cancer. Still, people with cancer need emotional support throughout the entire course of their illness. Remember that the encouragement and support of those around them can help people with cancer get a new perspective and even have more hope when they feel beaten down by cancer or its treatment. Also, the support of family and friends helps people with cancer try to get on with their old activities and return to as normal a life as their illness will allow. So if you are going to be a support for a person with cancer, try to hang in there for the long term. Being there and then leaving can be very painful for your loved one, and can feel even worse than not ever being there at all.

It is often hard to know if you are crossing boundaries or treating the person with cancer too much like a "cancer patient" and not like your friend or family member. Encourage the person with cancer to let you know if you cross this line. Every person with cancer appreciates the friend or family member who remembers that they used to be a person without cancer -- that they had, and still have, strengths and weaknesses, interests, and parts of life that have nothing to do with cancer. Sometimes being the person in the "cancer patient's" life who remembers the whole person is a special gift.

Work vs. Happiness

What is happiness? Does money necessarily bring happiness? Many people think that when become rich and successful, happiness will naturally follow. But let me tell me tell you that the world is full of very rich people who are as miserable as hell. We have been reading stories about movie stars committing suicides and dying from drugs.

Then what is the key to happiness? I believe that long- term happiness is based on productive work, honesty, and self-esteem. Happiness is not an end; it is a process. It is a continuous process of productive work that makes a real contribution to others that makes you feel like a worthwhile person. As Dr.Wayre wrote, " there is no way to happiness. Happiness is the way". If you wait for certain things to happiness and depend totally on the external conditions of life to make you happy, you will always feel unhappy.

Some may argue that if one have enough money to spend and can live a comfortable life without any real work, why should he have to work to make himself happiness? Yes he may live a comfortable life, but a comfortable life doesn’t mean happiness. I have a female friend who married a very successful businessman. Money is not at all the problem to her. People around her all think that she is lucky. Some even envy her of her wealth. But the fact is that she is far from happiness. She told me that once in a party one of her friend drew a picture of her jokingly: there suddenly stopped a very luxurious car. The door was open. Then came down a Pekinese followed by a well-dressed lady. After seeing that, instead of felt flattered and envied, she got a very strange feeling. She felt that her life was so meaningless and that she almost lost her own her. So she started her own business all by herself. Thou she is now very busy and have to work very hard but she felt most happy.

Long-term happiness is a process of moving towards worthwhile goals and contributing to happiness of others. It does not mean you should give away your own wealth. It means that continuously creating values for others through productive work. It means doing what you love and loving what you do. It mean achieving you goals and challenging yourself to bigger and better things. It means always striving for more, learning and growing. "Doing nothing means death. Activity means life". Find your purpose, set some goals, do what you love and love what you do, work honestly and productively. In the long-term, that is what it is all about.

Does Absolute Understanding Exist?

An elephant was brought to a group of blind men who had never encountered such an animal before. One felt a leg and reported that an elephant is a great living pillar. Another felt the trunk and reported that an elephant is a great snake. Another felt a tusk and reported that an elephant is like a sharp ploughshare. And so on. And then they all quarreled together, each claiming that his own account was the truth and therefore all the others false (traditional parable).

None of the accounts that the blind men made about the nature of the elephant are absolute truths, nor are the accounts false. An absolute truth, or one that is true for all, can not be achieved because of the constant motion of circumstances of who said it, to whom, when, where, why, and how it was said. Instead of absolute truths, the concepts or beliefs that the blind men claim are viewpoints that each one clarifies the nature of the elephant.

Everybody has learned to see things from his or her own sense of reason and logic. The many things that people experience throughout their lifetimes, help to determine the judgments toward the different issues and objects that they encounter. Because individuals has his or her own sense of reason and logic, the perceptions that people encounter are ultimately true, and not false. Life does not contain one truth for any idea or object, but truths can be found in one's perception. It is difficult to determine that anything is the absolute truth. One should not prove that any object contains a true meaning, but should develop conceptions surrounding the object.

Attempting to prove anything then would be difficult, if not impossible. Our senses from smell to values to reality may differ from person to person. What may be true to one person may be different for another. Because everybody has different perceptions about life, it is difficult to weigh the content of any concept. Every account, of its own, is formed to be the truth of the one individual who assumes it. The variety of concepts may have the virtue of being considered. This is how people develop a deeper sense of understanding for all objects.

Truth is achieved through the concept and not the object itself. Because many individuals hold different perceptions, they have many truths to consider, or not to consider. For example, it would be impossible to determine, whether or not, the cutting of trees is either "good" or "bad." One might have the conception that cutting trees destroys homes for birds and other animals. Another person might have the conception that cutting trees is necessary to satisfy the need to provide homes for humans. Whatever concept is understood from the object, may be the truth. Just because there may be other viewpoints to this situation, does not mean that there has to be false statements. The tree can be used for many uses from medicine to paper to boats and none of these views would be wrong. The tree remains to be a tree, but the values of the tree can differentiate, depending on who is using it.

The conception of God, or the non-conception of God, is another issue that many people make the mistake of trying to prove. A well recognized philosopher, Soren Kierkegaard states, "For if God does not exist it would of course be impossible to prove it; and if he [or she] does exist it would be folly to attempt it." Demonstrating the existence or non- existence of God only produces reasons for belief, not the actual proof that God exists. Kierkegaard also claims, "...between God and his works there exists an absolute relationship: God is not a name but a concept"( Kierkegaard 72). The relationship between man and God is a concept. A person with belief in God, cannot prove its existence through his or her own relationship with God. Kierkegaard adds again, "The works of God are such that only God can perform them" We have no basis of proving God's works, nor do we know what kind of works God uses on different individuals. Yet, some religious groups have made the mistake to try to enforce their own religion upon different individuals. Some religious groups claim that their religion is the only "true" religion, which is very untrue. This may be a reason why religion has been a major factor in previous wars and movements. The attempt to follow one truth, instead of freely allowing individuals and societies to follow their own truth, has led many people into frustration and hostility.

All concepts are so dynamic that the truth that one believes may appear to be self-ironic. A person may believe that television promotes violence in kids, exposes the use of profanity, and stupidity. Another person my believe that television may be educational because the exposure of all these problems will form into understanding. Although both may be perfectly true to each other, the two issues are found to be to be contradictory. The disagreement does not make the other statement false, but establishes another truth.

If each of the blind men spend less time on proving his own account and spend more time understanding the different truths that exist, they may discover that all perceptions of the elephant can be taken into consideration. The men may discover that the elephant is a great living pillar, a great snake, and like a sharp ploughshare at the same time, or at different times. The blind men may even come to the conclusion that the elephant may be neither of these. The opinions of the blind men may be constantly in motion because of the acceptance of the many viewpoints that currently exist and may exist in the future. Although the elephant may stay the same, opinions about it may change and adapt.

Darwinism and Materialism

Most people think the theory of evolution was first proposed by Charles Darwin, and rests on scientific evidence, observations and experiments. However, in the same way that Darwin was not its originator neither does the theory rest on scientific proof. The theory consists of an adaptation to nature of an ancient dogma called materialist philosophy. Although it is backed up by no scientific evidence, the theory is blindly supported in the name of materialist philosophy.

This fanaticism has resulted in many of disasters. That is because together with the spread of Darwinism and the materialist philosophy it supports, the answer to the question 'What is a human being?' has changed. People who used to answer: 'Human beings were created by God and have to live according to the morality He teaches' have now begun to think that 'Man came into being by chance, and is an animal who developed with the fight for survival.' There is a heavy price to pay for this great deception. Violent ideologies such as racism, fascism and communism, and many other cruel world views based on conflict have all drawn strength from this deception.

This article will examine this disaster Darwinism has brought to the world and reveal its connection with terrorism, one of the most important global problems of our time.

The Darwinist Misconception: 'Life is conflict'

Darwin set out with one basic premise when developing his theory: 'The development of living things depends on the fight for survival. The strong win the struggle. The weak are condemned to defeat and oblivion.'

According to Darwin, there was a ruthless struggle for survival and eternal conflict in nature. The strong always overcome the weak, and this enables development to take place. The subtitle he gave to his book The Origin of Species, "The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection or the Preservation of Favored Races in the Struggle for Life", encapsulates that view.

Furthermore, Darwin proposed that the 'fight for survival' also applied between human races. According to that claim, 'favored races' were victorious in the struggle. Favored races, in Darwin's view, were white Europeans. African or Asian races had lagged behind in the struggle for survival. Darwin went further, and suggested that these races would soon lose the 'struggle for survival' entirely, and thus disappear:

At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes … will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilized state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the negro or Australian and the gorilla.

The Indian anthropologist Lalita Vidyarthi explains how Darwin's theory of evolution imposed racism on the social sciences:

His (Darwin's) theory of the survival of the fittest was warmly welcomed by the social scientists of the day, and they believed mankind had achieved various levels of evolution culminating in the white man's civilization. By the second half of the nineteenth century racism was accepted as fact by the vast majority of Western scientists.

Darwin's Source of Inspiration: Malthus's Theory of Ruthlessness

Darwin's source of inspiration on this subject was the British economist Thomas Malthus's book An Essay on the Principle of Population. Left to their own devices, Malthus calculated that the human population increased rapidly. In his view, the main influences that kept populations under control were disasters such as war, famine and disease. In short, according to this brutal claim, some people had to die for others to live. Existence came to mean 'permanent war.'
In the 19th century, Malthus's ideas were widely accepted. European upper class intellectuals in particular supported his cruel ideas. In an article titled 'The Nazis' Secret Scientific Agenda', the importance 19th century attached Europe attached to Malthus's views on population is described in this way:

In the opening half of the nineteenth century, throughout Europe, members of the ruling classes gathered to discuss the newly discovered "Population problem" and to devise ways of implementing the Malthusian mandate, to increase the mortality rate of the poor: "Instead of recommending cleanliness to the poor, we should encourage contrary habits. In our towns we should make the streets narrower, crowd more people into the houses, and court the return of the plague. In the country we should build our villages near stagnant pools, and particularly encourage settlements in all marshy and unwholesome situations," and so forth and so on. [3]

As a result of this cruel policy, the weak, and those who lost the struggle for survival would be eliminated, and as a result the rapid rise in population would be balanced out. This so-called 'oppression of the poor' policy was actually carried out in 19th century Britain. An industrial order was set up in which children of eight and nine were made to work sixteen hours a day in the coal mines and thousands died from the terrible conditions. The 'struggle for survival' demanded by Malthus's theory led to millions of Britons leading lives full of suffering.

Influenced by these ideas, Darwin applied this concept of conflict to all of nature, and proposed that the strong and the fittest emerged victorious from this war of existence. Moreover, he claimed that the so-called struggle for survival was a justified an unchangeable law of nature. On the other hand, he invited people to abandon their religious beliefs by denying creation, and thus aimed at all ethical values that could prove an obstacle to the ruthlessness of the 'struggle for survival.'

The dissemination of these untrue ideas that led individuals to ruthlessness and cruelty, cost humanity a heavy price in the 20thcentury.

The Role of Darwinism in Preparing the Ground for World War I

As Darwinism dominated European culture, the effects of the 'struggle for survival' began to emerge. Colonialist European nations in particular began to portray the nations they colonized as 'evolutionary backward nations' and looked to Darwinism for justification.

The bloodiest political effect of Darwinism was the outbreak of World War I in 1914.

In his book Europe Since 1870, the well-known British professor of history James Joll explains that one of the factors that prepared the ground for World War I was the belief in Darwinism of European rulers at the time. For instance, the Austro-Hungarian chief of staff, Franz Baron Conrad von Hoetzendorff, wrote in his post-war memoirs:
Philanthropic religions, moral teachings and philosophical doctrines may certainly sometimes serve to weaken mankind's struggle for existence in its crudest form, but they will never succeed in removing it as a driving motive of the world… It is in accordance with this great principle that the catastrophe of the world war came about as the result of the motive forces in the lives of states and peoples, like a thunderstorm which must by its nature discharge itself. [4]
çýýÖÖçþIt is not hard to understand why Conrad, with that ideological foundation, should have encouraged the Austro-Hungarian Empire to declare war. Such ideas at the time were not limited to the military. Kurt Riezler, the personal assistant and confidant of the German chancellor Theobald von Bethmann-Hollweg, wrote in 1914: 'Eternal and absolute enmity is fundamentally inherent in relations between peoples; and the hostility which we observe everywhere… is not the result of a perversion of human nature but is the essence of the world and the source of life itself.'

Friedrich von Bernardi, a World War I general, made a similar connection between war and the laws of war in nature. "War" declared Bernhardi "is a biological necessity"; it "is as necessary as the struggle of the elements of nature"; it "gives a biologically just decision, since its decisions rest on the very nature of things."

As we have seen, World War I broke out because of European thinkers, generals and administrators who saw warfare, bloodshed and suffering as a kind of 'development', and thought they were an unchanging 'law of nature', The ideological root that dragged all of that generation to destruction was nothing else than Darwin's concepts of the 'struggle for survival' and 'favored races'.

World War I left behind it 8 million dead, hundreds of ruined cities, and millions of wounded, crippled, homeless and unemployed.
The basic cause of World War II, which broke out 21 years later and left 55 million dead behind it, was also based on Darwinism.

The Fruit of 'The Law of the Jungle': Fascism

As Darwinism fed racism in the 19th century, it formed the basis of an ideology that would develop and drown the world in blood in the 20thcentury: Nazism.

A strong Darwinist influence can be seen in Nazi ideologues. When one examines this theory, which was given shape by Adolf Hitler and Alfred Rosenberg, one comes across such concepts as 'natural selection', 'selected mating', and 'the struggle for survival between the races', which are repeated dozens of time in The Origin of Species. When calling his book Mein Kampf (My Struggle), Hitler was inspired by the Darwinist struggle for survival and the principle that victory went to the fittest. He particularly talks about the struggle between the races:

'History would culminate in a new millennial empire of unparalleled splendor, based on a new racial hierarchy ordained by nature herself.'

In the 1933 Nuremberg party rally, Hitler proclaimed that "a higher race subjects to itself a lower race… a right which we see in nature and which can be regarded as the sole conceivable right."

That the Nazis were influenced by Darwinism is a fact that many historians accept. The historian Hickman describes Darwinism's influence on Hitler as follows:

(Hitler) was a firm believer and preacher of evolution. Whatever the deeper, profound, complexities of his psychosis, it is certain that [the concept of struggle was important because] … his book, Mein Kampf, clearly set forth a number of evolutionary ideas, particularly those emphasizing struggle, survival of the fittest and the extermination of the weak to produce a better society.

Hitler, who emerged with these views, dragged the world to violence that had never before been seen. Many ethnic and political groups, and especially the Jews, were exposed to terrible cruelty and slaughter in the Nazi concentration camps. World War II, which began with the Nazi invasion, cost 55 million lives. What lay behind the greatest tragedy in world history was Darwinism's concept of the 'struggle for survival'.

The Bloody Alliance: Darwinism and Communism

While fascists are found on the right wing of Social Darwinism, the left wing is occupied by communists. Communists have always been among the fiercest defenders of Darwin's theory.

This relationship between Darwinism and communism goes right back to the founders of both these 'isms.' Marx and Engels, the founders of communism, read Darwin's The Origin of Species as soon as it came out, and were amazed at is 'dialectical materialist' attitude. The correspondence between Marx and Engels showed that they saw Darwin's theory as 'containing the basis in natural history for communism'. In his book The Dialectics of Nature, which he wrote under the influence of Darwin, Engels was full of praise for Darwin, and tried to make his own contribution to the theory in the chapter 'The Part Played by Labor in the Transition from Ape to Man.'

Russian communists who followed in the footsteps of Marx and Engels, such as Plekhanov, Lenin, Trotsky and Stalin, all agreed with Darwin's theory of evolution. Plekhanov, who is considered as the founder of Russian communism, regarded marxism as 'Darwinism in its application to social science'.

Trotsky said, 'Darwin's discovery is the highest triumph of the dialectic in the whole field of organic matter.'

'Darwinist education' had a major role in the formation of communist cadres. For instance, historians note the fact that Stalin was religious in his youth, but became an atheist because of Darwin's books.

Mao, who established communist rule in China and killed millions of people, openly stated that 'Chinese socialism is founded upon Darwin and the theory of evolution.' [12]

The Harvard University historian James Reeve Pusey goes into great detail regarding Darwinism's effect on Mao and Chinese communism in his research book China and Charles Darwin.

In short, there is an unbreakable link between the theory of evolution and communism. The theory claims that living things are the product of blind chance, and provides a so-called scientific support for atheism. Communism, an atheist ideology, is for that reason firmly tied to Darwinism. Moreover, the theory of evolution proposes that development in nature is possible thanks to conflict (in other words 'the struggle for survival') and supports the concept of 'dialectics' which is fundamental to communism.

If we think of the communist concept of 'dialectical conflict', which killed some 120 million people throughout the 20thcentury, as a 'killing machine' then we can better understand the dimension of the disaster that Darwinism visited on our planet.

Darwinism and Terrorism

As we have so far seen, Darwinism is at the root of various ideologies of violence that spelled disaster to mankind in the 20thcentury. However, as well as these ideologies, Darwinism also defines an 'ethical understanding' and 'method' that could influence various world views. The fundamental concept behind this understanding and method is 'fighting those who are not one of us'.

We can explain this in the following way: There are different beliefs, worldviews and philosophies in the world. These can look at each other in one of two ways:

1) They can respect the existence of those who are not one of them and try to establish dialogue with them, employing a humane method.
2) They can choose to fight others, and to try to secure an advantage by damaging them, in other words, behave like a wild animal.

The horror we call terrorism is nothing other than a statement of the second view.

When we consider the difference between these two approaches, we can see that the idea of "man as a fighting animal" which Darwinism has subconsciously imposed on people is particularly influential. Individuals and groups who choose the way of conflict may never have heard of Darwinism and the principles of that ideology. But in the final analysis, they agree with a view whose philosophical basis rests on Darwinism. What leads them to believe in the rightness of violence is such Darwinism-based slogans as;

'In this world, only the strong survive',
'Big fish swallow the little ones',
'War is a virtue',
and 'Man advances by waging war'.

Take Darwinism away, and these are nothing but empty slogans.

Actually, when Darwinism is taken away, no philosophy of 'conflict' remains. The three monotheistic religions that most people in the world believe in, Islam, Christianity and Judaism, all oppose violence. All three religions wish to bring peace and harmony to the world, and oppose innocent people being killed and suffering cruelty and torture. Conflict and violence violate the morality that God has set out for man, and are abnormal and undesired concepts. However, Darwinism sees and portrays conflict and violence as natural, justified and correct concepts that have to exist.

For this reason, if some people commit terrorism using the concepts and symbols of Islam, Christianity and Judaism in the name of those religions, you can be sure that those people are not Muslims, Christians or Jews. They are in fact Social Darwinists. They hide under a cloak of religion, but they are not genuine believers. Even if they claim to be serving religion, they are actually enemies of religion and believers. That is because they are ruthlessly committing a crime that religion forbids, and in such a way as to blacken religion in peoples' eyes.

For this reason, the root of the terrorism that plagues our world is not in any of the monotheistic religions, but is in atheism, and the expression of atheism in our times: 'Darwinism' and 'materialism'.