Questions

Since the beginning man has struggled with the notion of being alive... so many fundamental notions are begged of the very idea that we are alive. Why, what purpose could we possibly serve? Is it our place to actualize our desires, or is there more to be accomplished? If there is, what is expected of us, and more fundamentally, Whom is busy doing this expecting? This is a very dangerous line of thinking, as one would reason very clearly that if there were a clear cut set of expectations of our behaviors, would those not be very clearly outlined in the world around? This might be the case as early man clearly noticed animals around him nourishing and protecting their young as well as themselves, and basic animal instinct tells us our own needs clearly, we feel hunger pains, and deduce the time for nourishment has come, feel exhaustion set in, feel discomfort in our surroundings and through that sensation develop the drive for shelter from those discomfort... the discovery of fire and clothing are clearly an extention of this. As we mastered the basic practice of these solutions we were graced with free time which is a very dangerous thing. Here, I adopt a notion i was first enlightened to by the author Douglas Adams (May he rest in peace). We looked at the world around us and noticed how it seemed to be in many ways tailored to our needs. The animals and plants that fed us so well, the mild weather etc. This led to the notion that it seemed to fit us too well, so that it was not coincidental, but designed to fit us and our needs. This arrogant and self absorbed notion gave birth to the creator myth, the notion that this world was designed to fit us. This conclusion can probably explained by the fact that we were in possession of very little scientific knowledge at the time, and that our observations about the world around us were not cataloged and shared effectively. Our knowledge was, essentially limited to our first hand observation, and what little information that we could share with those around us was not subject to scientific analysis, as the scientific method was not even conceived of for thousands of years hence. It was all downhill from here for many thousands of years. We actually came upon the notion at some stage that exploring the mystery of our own existence was a crime against the creator. This notion held in western cultures till after the Dark Ages. Thankfully, at the end of this period, human curiosity again took hold and we once again began to explore the nature of things around us, and not long later, the evolutionary nature of life was beginning to be understood. It was probably understood on a very small scale, noticing changes in plant life, and, that when encouraged, these changes would occur on a much grander scale and faster pace. From here some brilliant mind put the proverbial two-and-two together, much to the dismay of many religious authorities of the time, and pathetically enough to this day...

Here I digress to a point which has much troubled me and I would like to take a moment to explain my grievance to the reader to see if they may reconcile or correct my assumptions on this point... It would seem to me that the notion of biological evolution is not a contradiction of the principle of Omnipotent design, rather, an all powerful being would have no problem conceiving of a plan so brilliant and subtle as the evolution of life from one seed, if you will. However many religious types decry this theory, why is it necessary to belive that we as a species were simply brought into existence in our current form whatever number of years ago fits the culturally preferred dogma? If, As I have been told many times over my life, all things are possible in god, why then would one then deny that the being would seemingly lack the foresight for such a plan, or consider it beneath His/Her place atop the existential totem? I would assert the existence of such a delicate and statistically unlikely process is rather a powerful argument for such a being to exist. After all, the odds of life rising are so unfathomable-ly small that a "helping hand" would push this process into a more likely context. Furthermore, evolution is not theoretical, its existence is un contestable. The only arguable point of the whole issue is whether or not we are descended of the same root as other modern primates, a claim i have my own doubts about. There are many other possibilities for our genesis, yet those arguing against the idea point to the lack of the so called missing link as as proof the whole process is nonexistent. Hardly true, as any one familiar with the scientific method will tell you that the lack of solid proof for one aspect of a notion dose nothing to disprove the veracity of a claim in general. If the reader questions the veracity of this claim, consider one key piece of evidence. As we know from ample archaeological evidence, our human predecessors had no written language in their early times, and probably no spoken language to speak of as well, a least for a short period of time. Only when our ancestors had developed privative cooperative society enabling us to divide labors of day to day life that we had the time to pursue leisure activities such as art and the written word. Thus, only when we had evolved as a society were we enabled to make improvements of a meaning full nature upon our intellectual pursuits. Thus, only as our roles within a society became enfranchised in a pattern of organization were we able to advance intellectually. This is evolution, not on a solely biological scale, but changes in the creative thought centers in our minds certainly played a major role in such developments. After all, in the earliest stages of our existence, we consumed little complex protein, and our brain was, to excuse a simplistic metaphor, under-fueled. After we had mastered the earliest forms of agricultural cultivation, we were enabled to better our hunting practices and to properly prepare meat for our safe consumption. This led to a veritable explosion in the complexity and makeup of our minds, which in turn led to a sudden ability to create more complex and efficient societal structures. This evolution in the purest form possible.

To return to the point at hand, i have a great deal of difficulty understanding, why, in the face of a preponderance of evidence to the contrary, people still cling to the outmoded notion that humanity has existed unchanged, and in its current form since our placement on this earth by the god of cultural choosing. It certainly appeals to the self centered nature of humanity, yet it is starkly unimaginative for a race that is obviously capable of creative problem solving. Why are we so hesitant to embrace the notion that we are not as we once were? I find Hope in the notion that on a biological as well as cultural level, we are fluid and capable of improvement, given resources and time. Yet, many decry such a notion, and approach it with hostility. Are we afraid to admit that we are not inherently perfect? Are we afraid simply of what the potential for betterment means? Most importantly, whereupon did we develop the notion that science and faith can neither prove nor disprove each other, and thus should never be combined? This is obviously a fallacy, because while Science cannot actually disprove the existence of a creator/god, it can certainly debunk most if not all of the tenants of a major religion, and handily so. Not, of course, referring to the moral ideals of a faith, as most of the Ten Commandments (To adopt and handy example) deal not in issues of fact, but relative human morals. I seek not to disprove the notion that killing is wrong, but rather issues such as the time-frame these texts present for existence. The genealogies of the bible would suggest that this earth is less than 5000 years old, but we know factually that this is not the case. Yet, in the face of such simple flaws, people still cling to these texts as, no pun intended, the gospel truth. Why do we afford such protection to faith, but we extend these preservations to no other schools of thought? I feel that it is simply because man has built his "Creator" in his image. People fear admission of mistaken thoughts. God, certainly would not, as, if he did exist, many of these issues would reflect on the mistakes of his fallible followers and not him, but, people know this and still admit nothing. This leads a logical observer to the conclusion that people do not like their faith to be tested scientifically, simply because they KNOW it will not pass the test. People at large fear the notion that we are but a product of nature, because it doesn't fit the self centered notion that our lives have a deep hidden and mystical meaning or purpose. Why must we be the experiment of a being we cannot fully conceive. Furthermore, why would a being who would, by definition, know the outcome of any test, still subject us to it? Any omnipotent being would know all that will ever exist, thus, our existance itself defeats the notion of the "Test of Life". And this god would not bother to allow us the opportunity to take a test of which he already knew the outcome of out of compassion or fairness. These are flawed, relative human and imperfect notions, which, again by definition, would not apply to an all knowing being. Fair is un-quantifiable, and relative, and relativity exists only in a limited perspective. A god, is by definition, and unlimited perspective. Furthermore, if this being operated on a basis of compassion, he would certainly not allow us to kill in his compassionate name. He would easily stop such endeavors, and would be bound by the nature of his being to do so. Unless god is imperfect, petulant, sadistic, unimaginative and cruel, these flaws would not be so. And if he is such a thing, why would one ever continue to grant him worship?