Time Immortal

Joel writes in again with some additional commentary. While I usually excerpt messages in their entirety, I’m going to respond to this one in a more “interlinear” fashion, as it covers several points in brief, and I feel these would be best responded to “in the moment.”

Here’s sort of my point.

I’m not a car guy. If you tell me technical things about your car, I probably don’t care and don’t udnerstand. Mileage, sure, but cam shafts? Nope.

This is a fair enough standpoint for as far as it goes, but there are certain limitations to it as well. I too, O Reader, am not a “car guy” — as long as the car gets up and runs, I’m not all that interested in the technical details of what is under the hood. On the flip side, I am a “computer guy” — I’m obsessive about the ins and outs of computers. I am also a “camera guy” — I’m obsessive about the inner workings of all manner of digital imaging devices, cameras first and foremost. I love Photography.

The astute Reader will note that, in keeping with my interests and areas of expertise, I often discuss computers and cameras on this site. The Reader will also note that I never discuss cars on this site. That is because I do not wish to be caught up in an obvious attempt to exceed my “academic authority”; I don’t want to discuss things I have not made at least some attempt to become familiar with at a level above “basic.”

Reciprocally, if I enter into a discussion about something on another person’s website, I take pains to become familiar with the issue at hand at a higher level than “passing familiarity” — I try to learn at least a few “technical things” before I begin to comment on a subject.

It would, I think, be more than a little boorish and arrogant to enter into a higher-level discussion at The Car Blog without first taking pains to become somewhat familiar with the inner workings of an automobile, or at least the ins and outs of the auto industry. Similarly, it is more than a little boorish and arrogant to enter into a higher-level discussion of religion on a blog that is open about its religious foundation if one is not prepared to discuss, in detail, the distinctions between different Religions or denominations thereof. Especially when the discussion is, in part, about the validity of a religious conjecture and its application to everyday life.

Bitching about Fords because one’s Chevolet blew a gasket is meaningless, silly, and irrational. Bitching about religion without bothering to engage or acknowledge the substantial differences in “technical details” between religions or religious denominations is likewise meaningless, silly, and irrational.

That Joel is opting for an approach which I have just finished describing as meaningless, silly, and irrational is somewhat disappointing, especially because Joel himself seems to be a nice enough guy as far as correspondence goes. One hates to speak in generalities, but this sort of presumptive arrogance — the assumption that one can freely and openly pronounce all manner of things about religion while at the same time refusing to engage such technical details as, say, the differences between the Mu’tazilah and Ash’ari schools of Islamic theology — is something one has come to expect from atheists.

In some contexts, I might care about the distinctions between Mormons and Catholics and so on. For example, if we were debating how best to alter relationships between governments and various christian denominations, the centralized power of the catholic church versus the more decentralized authority of protestants (if I’m getting that
right) might be relevant.

But in the context of this discussion (who proseletyzes and who doesn’t) the various denominations are virtually identical. You all believe in a supernatural sky-god and his divine son. Whether christ rose bodily or only in spirit are not particularly relevant (as an
example).

This is, O Reader, exactly what I’m getting at — the second paragraph, in particular, drips with all manner of presumptive arrogance that describes absolutely nothing about the reality of the situation.

To his credit, Joel does note a key difference between most flavours of Protestantism and Catholicism — Catholic teaching flows through a centralized office of doctrine, whereas Protestant teaching tends not to have any such central doctrinal body.

But any credibility that suggestion might have leant to his argument is all but destroyed by the paragraph following it (to quote XKCD: “while the author’s wildly swerving train of thought did at one point flirt with coherence, this brief encounter was more likely a chance event…”).

It would be enough to simply laugh off as inconsequential any argument that attempts to framework an objection to religion by beginning with the observation that “the various denominations are virtually identical” (despite the fact that in my previous response to Joel, I pointed out how seemingly minor differences between some Christian denominations are, in fact, rather large gulfs of difference when considered in light of what Christ actually taught. Add in even a brief consideration of religious denominations from other, non-Christian religions, and the absurdity of Joel’s claim becomes readily apparent.

As to specific beliefs, as I have pointed out, these are the most important thing at issue in the discussion of who proselytizes, because virtually every Western philosophy proselytizes (including, as I have noted, atheism). Several Eastern philosophies do likewise. And when everyone proselytizes, the issue of who does it becomes less relevant than the issue of what each evangelist is offering — in terms of philosophy, teaching, and doctrine — to those he or she is attempting to convert.

I don’t believe in a “sky god,” for example; I believe in a God who transcends the physical limitations of our empirical Universe. Nor do I believe God is wholly “invisible” any more than I am invisible. That I do not always see God no more means He is invisible than it means that I am invisible because some farmer in Africa cannot see me with his own eyes. If I cannot see God, it is because I lack the capacity to see Him, not because He cannot be seen.

And here Joel again demonstrates the fundamental illogic at the center of his argument, for already he has made an assumption that is incorrect. Were I a Hindu attempting to win a friend over to my faith, I would not regale him or her with tales of a solitary sky god. Hinduism is a polytheistic faith (or, perhaps more accurately, a henotheistic faith); my discussion with my friend would center primarily on the supremacy of Ishvara, but would also verge into discussions of Brahma and Vishnu, and perhaps even into talk of Shiva, the destroyer. We would talk about Dharma, Samsara, Karma, and Moshka.

And even if we only talked about Ishvara and his primacy as God, above other deities, we would still not be talking about a “sky god,” because Ishvara is, alternatively, interpreted as being without a fixed realm of any kind, or as incorporating all creation into his realm (Hinduism, then, also flirts with pantheism and panentheism at times).

Moreover, were a Muslim attempting to evangelize me, he or she would run into a major brick wall by insisting that God is unary and solitary (that is, arguing that there is no God but Allah, and that the Christian Trinity is actually a form of polytheism — that’s something which is specifically stated in the Koran). Muslims say “God is One” while Christians say “God is One but also Three.” It’s not the same thing, despite the fact that from the outside it all looks like monotheism.

To say nothing of the fact that were I not a Christian, my evangelism would have absolutely nothing to do with Christ or the notion that He died and rose from the dead, except perhaps in the sense that I would be attempting to refute that claim.

To briefly summarize, then: we’re not a third of the way through Joel’s one sentence, and already there are gaping holes in the logic.

Continuing on, Joel is right: I do believe in God’s divine Son, Christ Jesus, who died and rose again. Joel seems to dismiss as a minor issue the debate as to whether Christ rose literally or only in spirit, and in so doing betrays his ignorance yet again. For as St. Paul reminds us, if Christ did not literally rise from the grave then the Christian faith is meaningless, and Christians are fools who are to be most pitied. Victory over death in spirit alone is no victory at all.

And were I, a Catholic, attempting to evangelize someone, the literal nature of Christ’s resurrection would be a very big issue indeed, if in fact it came up as a subject for debate. One cannot deny the bodily resurrection of Christ and be a Christian…not, that is, if one is honest with oneself.

*shrug* again, my basic point was, and remains, Christians run the U.S., as a rule, if there’s a crossing of church and state, it involves some flavor of christianity. My atheism may hold all religions in much the same light (at least in that I believe they are
all equally delusional), but its Christianity that most often causes problems here. On a global scale, certainly, in this timeframe, radical Islam is a much bigger threat.

As I have before, O Reader, I observe that in a nation where over 70% of the population is Christian, it should come as no surprise that Christians should have a high level of participation in an elected, ostensibly “representative” government. That’s not to say that Christians “run” America, however…at least, not in the sinister, “implication of looming Christian theocracy” sense of the term that Joel’s statement would seem to be implying.

If one went to Sweden and complained that white people “run Sweden,” or that one’s objection to white people in government was in any way based on the fact that the majority of Swedish politicians were white, one would rightly be derided as a laughingstock. Sweden is a Caucasian nation — it is really only to be expected that its government would have a lot of white people in it.

Similarly, it is meaningless to complain about the quantity of Christians in government in a nation where most people are Christian, unless one is openly advocating that only persons of a secular bent should be allowed to govern a nation. In a nation like the U.S., which prides itself upon its representative democracy, such a notion is unthinkable.

I do, though, believe that all religions should be treated equally. In the U.S., for example, I don’t believe that schools should have Hannukah celebrations but not Xmas ones, etc.

That’s about as open-minded as anyone could be asked to be; personally, I do see value in people learning about the traditions of other religions. I would agree that all religions should be treated equally, for the most part — I disagree, obviously, that all religions are equal. And for the record, I include atheism in the previous sentence when I say “religion,” because it is as much a metaphysical conjecture as is my own Catholicism.

Sorry if this email seems random, its something of an unfortunate and scattered day here.

I am genuinely sorry to hear that. I will pray that Joel will find the strength to move past the pitfalls and confusion of today, and I encourage the good Reader to do the same.

Since the following no longer contains spoilers — at least as far as Grace is concerned, which is all I was really worried about — I am moving it up to today, so that I can officially say that I’m putting my chips into the pot as far as “final Cylon” speculation is concerned********.

I’ve been kicking around the idea that one of the Adamas — the admiral, Lee, or possibly even Zak (the dead brother) — is the final Cylon. I tend to agree with the analysis at Battlestar Wiki that the final member of the twelve Humanoid Cylons “would probably need to be a more prominent character than those of the Four.” In the Wiki’s analysis, that pretty much limits the field to Roslin, Admiral Adama, Lee, Baltar, and Starbuck.

Of course, I also happen to think that revealing some of the above as being Cylons would also be…anticlimactic, and in some cases just dumb. Take Roslin for example, and the way that Baltar is able to temporarily cure her cancer. It would seem to me that if the introduction of Cylon (or, to be completely specific, humano-Cylon) blood was enough to cure Roslin (albeit briefly), that pretty much cements the fact that she herself does not have anything Cylon about her physiology.

Likewise, revealing Baltar as a Cylon would, given the events in the middle of Season 3 (i.e. Baltar’s own uncertainty as to whether he is human or Cylon, and his desperate quest for answers in this regard), would be a let-down — really, it would seem contrived.

To be fair, I can see the merit of the argument that Baltar could be revealed as a sort of Cylon “Christ”, especially in regard to the prophecy of the First Hybrid in Razor:

The First Hybrid who says his children believe he is a god, makes a prediction about the final Cylon: “…the fifth is still is in shadow, drawn toward the light, hungering for redemption, that will only come in the howl of terrible suffering.” (Razor) This statement, while not concrete, may relate to Baltar. Of the major living characters, he most has begged for redemption, and is most in need of it, and it will indeed be painful for him. While Lee Adama seeks redemption for the Olympic Carrier this has been at best a minor theme in his character. Only Baltar begs for it, and only Baltar has said he would find redemption in learning he was a Cylon.

But equally, I just don’t think it’s Baltar. He strikes me more as a sort of “false prophet,” really — a misguided human demagogue who attempts to take on the mantle of an authority figure (first as a scientist, then as a politician, and now as a quasi-religious guru) in order to advance his own agenda (which, experience shows, typically involves the contents of his pants). I don’t think it’s a coincidence that Baltar’s “saviours” in the last episode of Season 3 were all beautiful women.

And let’s not even begin to discuss Starbuck. Yes, I know she died (or seemed to die) in Maelstrom. Yes, I know she came back in the last episode of the Season 3. Yes, I know she has a destiny. No, I still don’t think she’s a Cylon.

There’s also a logistical consideration that gets in the way of Starbuck’s being a Cylon. One of the things we know about the Final Five is that none of the other seven humanoid Cylons have any clue who the Final Five are. If Kara Thrace was really a Cylon, resurrected and sent back to the Colonials in a captured (and then nicely shined-up) Viper, it stands to reason that when she appeared to Lee, she must have come from one of the nearby Cylon ships (Vipers, as far as we know, do not have FTL jump drives), possibly a Resurrection Ship. It seems pretty incredible to suggest that the Cylons could have built a shipboard resurrection apparatus that included copies of the bodies of at least one of the Final Five and still remained “in the dark” about who the Five were. The only possible dodge that Ron Moore could use here, I think, is to say that the Colonials have somehow gotten very close to the Cylon homeworld, but I don’t think he’s going to go there.

And then there’s the fact that it would just be too bloody obvious if Starbuck were a Cylon. Her “resurrection” is significant, but it’s also a red herring as far as speculating who the final Cylon might be is concerned. Starbuck’s death was a rite of purification that she had to pass through before she could take on the task her destiny had appointed for her (ostensibly, to guide the Colonials to Earth, or possibly to their extinction).

And really, I think I’m even going to add at least two of the Adamas to that list as well. I know that Leoben said that “Adama is a Cylon”, but that was well before the writers had decided on who the final Cylon was (and, indeed, well before the search for the Final Five became a significant component of the show’s plot). I think it would be somewhat dramatically compelling if Admiral Adama did turn out to be a Cylon, but at the same time it would also be contrived given both his experiences during the First Cylon War and given the fact that his closest buddy from the war, Saul Tigh, has already been “outed.”

Lee being revealed as being a Cylon would be a bit more dramatic, and certainly would seem to meet two important criteria of the First Hybrid’s prophecy concerning the last Cylon (Lee has a ton of regrets and stabs of guilt — “hungering for redemption” — and has recently set himself on a course that utterly defies everything his father stands for — “still in shadow, drawn toward the light”). Then again, though, more than a few people seem to be guessing that Lee is a shoe-in for the final Cylon, and Ron Moore is (I think) too crafty to let folks off the hook that easily. Additionally, it would be tricky to explain how exactly Lee could be a Cylon, given that the Adama family has a pretty well-known history. Suggesting that perhaps the real baby Lee was switched at birth with a Cylon infant would be one possible explanation…but that raises more questions than it answers. Who carried out the switch? Was it a human or a Cylon? If it was a Cylon, how do the other Cylons not know about (at least) this one member of the Final Five? If it wasn’t a Cylon, what motive did that person have?

Too complicated, kind of contrived, and not the sort of road one wants to wander when one only has one season of episodes left to produce; the final season is a time for tying up loose threads, not picking new ones free of the fabric.

And of course, it would be remiss to not mention the fact that Ron Moore himself doesn’t want to reveal Admiral Adama, Lee Adama, or Laura Roslin as being the final Cylon.

Revealing Zak Adama as a Cylon would certainly be compelling, although I think Zak might be too obscure a character; everyone who knows the series knows that Admiral Adama had a son named Zak, and that said son died, but I doubt many BSG fans would know Zak on sight. The character that is the final Cylon needs to be someone who is instantly recognizable. Even having William Adama exclaim “Zak!” is too much time to waste during the revelation scene — the audience has to know instantly who it is.

Besides, how would Zak even get to the Colonial Fleet in the first place? He’d either have to be waiting for them on Earth (which prompts the question: how?) or he’d have to be on a Cylon basestar, awaiting his moment in the Sun (so to speak). The same logistical objection I have to Starbuck’s being a Cylon I can now raise here as well.

So there’s my lengthy explanation of who I don’t think will be the final Cylon, and especially where Zak Adama is concerned it’s as much a repudiation of my own prior theories as it is a rejection of any of the current theories that are out there. Who then, the Reader may yet be wondering, do I think the final Cylon actually is?

Remember what I said above, how the final Cylon would have to be someone at once instantly recognizable, and also someone whose revelation as a Cylon would be even more dramatic than learning that Chief Tyrol or Saul Tigh were Cylons? There’s only one person I can think of whose revelation would be that dramatic. Briefly, I think it’s Karl “Helo” Agathon. Yes: Helo. The same Helo who fathered a child with Sharon “Athena” Agathon.

And in fact, a goodly number of my reasons for thinking this center around little baby Hera, supposedly special as a humano-Cylon hybrid. If in fact her partly human, partly Cylon parentage makes Hera unique and pivotal to the plot of the series, then the revelation that Nicholas Tyrol is also a hybrid strips that away from her, which seems anti-climactic to me. It doesn’t really make all that much sense to build up Hera’s significance for the better part of an entire season, only to discard it second-hand with the revelation that she isn’t the only one with a Cylon for a parent after all.

Hera is special. But evidently, being a half-human, half-Cylon child is not so special anymore. So why is Hera special? Could she be a child of a Cylon/Cylon union?

“But wait!” the Reader may now be about to exclaim. “Cylons cannot reproduce with Cylons!” In my defence, I would like to point out that we don’t exactly know that Cylons can’t reproduce with each other. All we know is that Cylon experimentation in this area has thus far been fruitless. But fruitless doesn’t necessarily mean impossible.

In the analysis for “The Farm”, the writers at Battlestar Wiki note the following:

• Love serves as a theme in this episode. First, we find out how important love is for the Cylons: it is considered essential for Cylon procreation. In the first episode, Number Six asked Dr. Baltar several times if he loved her. Number Six also said that “God is love”. That was after she tried to conceive from him. Love is also the reason Sharon aids Helo and the reason Helo accepts her help. Also we hear that Starbuck was abused as a child. In the last episode she said that everyone seems to fight to get their old life back and she fights because it’s all she knows how to do. In this episode she seems to develop affections to Anders. Will Starbuck find ‘reason’ in love? Commander Adama tells his subordinates that he loves them. He asks Chief Tyrol if one could love a machine. Ultimately, Commander Adama weeps over Galactica-Sharon’s body because he loved her
• Number Six mentioned that “procreation is one of God’s commandments” in the first episode, “33″. This could mean that the Cylons are trying to procreate out of a feeling that they are sinning by not being able to have children on their own

If love is such a necessary component of Cylon procreation, it stands to reason that it makes rather a lot of sense why the “in the lab” results of procreation experiments amongst the Cylons all came up negative. When one is reduced to taking a clinical approach to such things, or when one acts out of fear that by not acting one is committing a sin, one’s actions are not motivated by love. Guilt? Yes, probably. Inquiry and curiosity? Most assuredly. But love? No, probably not.

Now, we know based on the events of the first season surrounding baby Hera’s conception that the “love” necessary in a sexual union does not have to be bi-directional. The Reader may recall that while Helo very genuinely loved Sharon Valeri, the Sharon that he impregnated was (at the time) working for the Cylons and was, we can assume, very likely acting not out of love, but out of a Cylon scheme. Is it possible that Helo, ignorant of his Cylon nature and ignorant of the difficulties of Cylon/Cylon procreation surrounding the issue of genuine love, acted out of genuine love and was able to impregnate Sharon?

“But wait!” the Reader may now be about to exclaim. “What about the odd fetal blood work? Doesn’t that cement the fact that Hera is part human and part Cylon?” And I will grant that it is true that Hera’s blood, as discovered by Dr. Cottle and Dr. Baltar during the debate over whether or not Sharon’s pregnancy should be forcibly terminated, has some unique properties. But it’s those very unique properties that make me doubt that she is in fact a half-human, half-Cylon child.

Baltar explained fairly plainly that human blood contains antigens, and that Hera’s blood contains no antigens at all. We can perhaps infer that she got this from her Cylon mother…but then, that doesn’t make sense, because one would think that Baltar’s Cylon detector would have been a lot less complicated if all Cylons had antigen-free blood. Moreover, wouldn’t Dr. Cottle have noticed something “damn odd” about Sharon’s blood work? And wouldn’t an injection of Sharon’s own blood have been sufficient to cure Roslin’s cancer in that case? I think we can safely conclude that Sharon’s blood is not as easily distinguished from human blood as in the example Baltar draws for Admiral Adama.

There is something special about Hera’s blood that her parents lacked. But how can that be? If neither her father nor her mother had antigen-free (or “damned odd,” to use Cottle’s term for it) blood, where did she get it from? What if the unique structure of Hera’s blood is analogous to, say, the way that Frank Herbert’s Bene Gesserit breeding program and the ultimate goal of the Kwisatz Haderach? What if, because of the union of two Cylons and the emergence of a pregnancy from that, a special category of being was created that did have truly antigen-free blood (among other differences)? What if that’s the real reason that the Cylons were attempting to breed? What if that’s the real reason Virtual Six, the image of Six that Baltar keeps seeing, called the child a “miracle from God?”

THe above becomes especially important when one considers, again, the presence of Nicholas Tyrol, the Chief’s son. It stands to reason that if Nicholas was the same manner of being as Hera (that is, half-human and half-Cylon) that his blood would have similar properties; Dr. Cottle was on New Caprica during the time that Cally was pregnant, and would almost certainly have given the pregnant woman a good standard of care, including fetal blood work. Failing that, he would have likely done as much once Nicholas was born, and realized either way that baby Nicholas also had something “damned odd” about his blood. That, in turn, would have cast suspicion on either Chief Tyrol or Cally as being possible Cylons. And yet, none of these plot threads came up in the third season of BSG.

That would seem to suggest, to me at least, that humano-Cylon children are not really all that special, nor does it suggest to me that there is anything particularly unique about their physiology. And I think don’t think Ron Moore overlooked, by accident, the fact that Tyrol’s being outed as a Cylon would have undercut Hera’s significance if she were in fact a human/Cylon hybrid. I think that Nicholas Tyrol is a vehicle for a subtle clue that Moore is giving to the audience: Hera is significant, but half-human, half-Cylon children aren’t.

And the only way I can think that he can make Hera significant is if she is neither a human child nor a humano-Cylon child; she can only be significant if she is the offspring of two Cylons: Sharon and Helo.

Which could explain Number Three’s surprised exclamation when she meets the Final Five and looks upon the face of one of them: “You… forgive me… I had no idea.” That’s not merely an excited outburst caused by having seen one of five forbidden faces — that’s genuine surprise at something she didn’t think was possible. We know that, as , the Threes came face to face with Helo once before. Could Helo have been the face that she saw?

At this point, we should ask what the nature of the Humanoid Cylons is, and what Ron Moore’s intent as a writer was when he created that plot idea:

The idea was that these models of Cylon were sort of developed out of their own study of us. The Cylons on some level looked at humanity and said ‘You know what? There’s really only twelve of you.’ If these are the twelve, and sort of if you look at them they each represent different archetypes of what humanity is.”

So what traits have we seen manifest in the Cylons presently known, and what trait(s) are still missing?

• In the Threes, we see a calculating duplicitousness, a manipulative behaviour that sees even fellow Cylons as tools to be used. There is also a religious streak to the Threes that draws its inspiration from experiences of the divine
• In the Fives (the Aaron Doral model), we militant fanaticism, and a willingness to resort to anything, from deliberately sowing confusion to outright suicide bombing, “for the cause.”
• In the Sixes, we see two almost competing ideas. On one hand, this model seems to rely very heavily on sex and seduction to advance its goals, but on the other hand it is very intensely religious about them, and a real focus on the concept of revelation and personal communication with God’s will
• In the Eights we see the soldier and spy, the sabotage expert and the “field operative.” These models are also regarded as defective for their ability to love selflessly. All business, these ones…but with one key weak spot. She’s the woman who could have everything and be anything…and who would let it all go for love
• In Simon, we see an intellectual and possibly a scholar
• In Leoben, we see the mystic and the prophet, and also the model most obsessed with the idea of procreation. At Batttlestar Wiki, he is likened to the serpent in Genesis, tempting with knowledge and half-truths and then sitting back and enjoying the show as the chaos that comes with having that knowledge takes its toll on humanity
• In Cavil, we have the single-minded, sardonic, atheistic “strongman.”
• In Tigh, we have the flawed man, the hard drinker and the coward
• In Tyrol, we have the “everyman” — proud but competent, agnostic but also inexorably tethered to the faith of his past
• In Anders, we have the jock, but underneath that exterior there’s a man who both hates what fates have befallen him and a man who realizes when a job needs to be done, and who jumps at the chance to do it
• And in Tory Foster, we have the consummate career girl; all business, but coming apart at the seams and not above a little casual hookup. At the same time, she too is willing to cheat and manipulate, cajole and barter, in order to achieve her goals

When I look at that list (and yes, some of it is just speculation on my part), what I notice as being missing is someone who is genuinely humble, the “good man” who tries, at every turn, to do the right thing. Helo’s sense of right and wrong is second to none in the series, even if his standing up for what is right poses, to him,, a genuine risk.

To enumerate just briefly:

• He gives up his seat so that Baltar can escape the colonies
• He goes out of his way to make Sharon feel at ease when they find the bomb shelter in the café
• He can’t bring himself to abandon Sharon after it appears that she has been captured by the Cylons
• He refuses to let Starbuck kill Sharon when the former returns to Caprica to retrieve the Arrow of Apollo. He later defends Sharon from Lee Adama and President Roslin as well
• During the trek to the Tomb of Athena, Helo cares for Sharon and is obviously in love with her. When she asks for his trust, he gives it, despite his reservations
• When the crew of Galactica ostracizes him, Helo keeps to himself quietly, sharing his time only with Starbuck and spending every free moment visiting Sharon in the ship’s brig. He nevertheless does not give up hope, even going so far as to suggest the use of carbon composite for the hull of the stealth ship that Chief Tyrol’s deck crew builds
• He rushes to intervene when Sharon is attacked and nearly raped
• When Roslin and Dr. Cottle stage their duplicitous exchange of Hera for a dead baby, Helo stands by his wife and attempts to console her, despite the obvious grief he himself feels
• He steps into the XO’s role when Adama has to send Tigh away
• When Adama and Roslin decide to attack the Cylons with biological warfare, Helo intervenes and kills (by sabotaging the atmospheric system in the brig) Cylons infected with a virus that is deadly to them
• He is Adama’s “voice in the wilderness” when another doctor begins to exterminate Sagittaron patients
• He senses that “a storm is coming” just as the Fleet is about to jump to the Ionian Nebula

There’s a lot there, but the general picture it paints is of a man who tries his level best to be selfless and humble, caring and giving — all traits that are, more or less, missing from the current crop of features evident in known Cylon models. If we can take Ron Moore at his word that each Cylon acts out a human archetype, Helo becomes an even better prospect for being the final Cylon, because he is perhaps the most unique character in the series for how he constantly strives for what is righteous and true.

Now, what do we know about the final Cylon? Most of our clues come from the utterances of the First Hybrid, which read (in part) as follows:

The denial of the one true path, played out on a world not their own, will end soon enough*. Soon there will be four, glorious in awakening, struggling with the knowledge of their true selves**. The pain of revelation bringing new clarity and in the midst of confusion, he will find her***. Enemies brought together by impossible longing. Enemies now joined as one****. The way forward at once unthinkable, yet inevitable. And the fifth, still in shadow, will claw toward the light, hungering for redemption that will only come in the howl of terrible suffering. I can see them all. The seven, now six, self-described machines who believe themselves without sin*****. But in time, it is sin that will consume them. They will know enmity, bitterness, the wrenching agony of one splintering into many******. And then, they will join the promised land*******, gathered on the wings of an angel. Not an end, but a beginning.

The final Cylon is “hungry for redemption that will only come in the howl of terrible suffering.” Now, we’ve discussed some of what Helo has done that is righteous, and that he has always tried to do what is right. Like every human being, he has failed on some accounts. Here’s a short list.

• He has to gun down a civilian in order for Sharon’s Raptor to be able to take off and escape the Colonies
• He abandons, and then later shoots Sharon when he first realizes what she is
• He murders an officer. Even though the guy was about to rape Sharon, Helo is still a military man, and can appreciate the gravity of his action
• To prevent genocide, Helo has to kill several Cylons. I think Helo is righteous enough to realize that even though he prevented a greater evil, the lesser evil was still just that — evil
• He has to summon the ability to kill the mother of his child when he learns that Hera is still alive and on one of the Cylon basestars
• And really, it was only because of his actions in the first place that Baltar survived and became the menace that he did

I think this last point may be the most significant. As yet, we haven’t seen much of Helo’s reaction to what Baltar has become, but I don’t think anyone, especially Ron Moore, has forgotten Helo’s initial role in ensuring that Baltar escaped from Caprica alive. I think, in the coming season, we’re going to see Helo struggle immensely with this, torn between his desire to always do what is right (and saving Baltar was the right thing to do) and his regret at the destruction that has been visited upon humanity because of the choice he made. I think, especially as Baltar’s influence as a quasi-religious figure grows during the progression of the fourth season, we’ll see Helo suffer terribly for the choice he made — maybe even to the point of losing some or all of his loved ones. Sharon Agathon might not survive the fourth season, after all******.

I realize that suggesting that Helo is the final Cylon puts me in a definite minority, and I realize that I’m putting myself at risk of having any number of BSG fanatics (that is, people more fanatical than myself) swoop in with various bits of evidence that I’ve missed so as to refute the points I’ve made here. And that’s fair, if it happens; I could easily be wrong about all this. But for what it’s worth, I think that Helo is the most probable choice for the final Cylon. And I do believe that his revelation as such would be way more dramatic a thing than any of the Adamas, because it would change not only our perceptions of who Helo himself is, but of who his daughter is and why she really is so significant to the Cylons and to the Virtual Six that only Baltar can see, who claims to be an “angel of God.”