For years, and everyday in the last year, we have been being told to “Follow The Science!” In this last year the line has been that all the government measures have been ONLY following the science and or experts (read scientists). But, where did all this blind zealot faith in science come from? The foundation of science was not blind faith but ever present skepticism. However, the tower of science has become blind obedience with absolutely NO boat rocking. I have written on this shift previously, so I will try to not repeat myself, at least too much here, since this is more about someone else’s argument against scientism, specifically, material scientism.
I have long questioned the absoluteness of DNA, largely because if you do read the reports about the breakthroughs you can see holes so large that jumbo jets can be flown through them. Primary to me is how small the samplings are to “prove” a DNA trait, not to mention that the sample populations cannot be determined to be pure to begin with. Add to this the zealot dogma of science as being all-knowing and scientists as being infallible deities. The cult of science can be likened to Middle Age Catholicism in which neither the Church, nor her ‘holy men’ could be questioned or challenged.
Christopher points out that even in their labs they have tunnel vision, forget looking at the whole world with open eyes. This inability to even allow questions that might have physical, tangible, answers to exist and to crucify any one displaying such blatant impropriety has limited and distorted our understanding and knowledge of all things. Christopher points out that science has become a religion of materialism that only the physical attributes have value and, so much so in fact, that they are the only value.
We are being feed lines by the experts about everything about us and regarding us is “in the DNA”. The problem is that the research consistently fails to support that absolute and yet science still beats that drum so loudly as to drowned out anyone pointing that out or questioning it. Ironically, we used to consider those that could not understand the things that they could not see for themselves to be ignorant, currently we do not question those that will not attempt to understand anything they cannot see in their petri dishes.
Christopher presents valid arguments against the scientism of today. The work can be a challenging read, especially considering the author’s abusive love of the apostrophes. You will come across sentences that you have to decipher. Here’s your key….if the ‘s blows your mind, drop it and or add in ‘has’, that should make those sentences readable. In spite of the proof errors the information is worth the time.
I believe in dragons, unicorns, fairies, and mermaids; not to mention, giants and elves, trolls and shape-shifters, heroes and demons. I also believe in places like Atlantis, Mu, and Punt. As I have stated before, I believe that we have barely scratched the surface of knowing, much less, understanding our own history. And since we do not know everything, how can we say with certainty that certain things never existed or claim without absolute proof that we understand the languages, words, and symbols handed down to us by our ancestors.
Simply put, We Can’t.
I know that admitting to believing in all the things listed above and more, most would consider me at least silly, if not a full fledged nut job. But, why? Because some teacher in some classroom told you that something didn’t exist. What was their proof? In most cases when we are told that something does not exist, the proof provided to support their claim is that there is no proof. Forgetting that the absence of proof does not in and of itself provide proof of nothing.
Ironically, history has taught us time and time again, that not believing in something, just because there is NO proof is usually a good way to have to eat your beliefs in the end. Mountain gorillas, rhinos, ‘hobits’, and komodo dragons all turned out to be real creatures and not just myths and tall tales to regal listeners! In addition we now have the physical remains of such legends as Homer’s Troy and the Vikings’ Vineland (Newfoundland) and the Bible’s Jericho. Yet, still we are more adamant than ever about our disbelief in things we have been taught don’t exist.
As part of the argument that these places and stories cannot be true, we are told that ancient peoples were superstitious, unknowing, scared lesser peoples that through their imagination created fantastical stories to explain things in nature that scared them and that they were unable to understand scientifically on such an evolved intellectual level as us today. The contradiction with this concept, is the following: first, it takes an intelligent mind to imagine and create, not the mind of a simple creature that is incapable of understanding the world around them; second, it tends to be the less intelligent mind that cannot fathom things beyond their understanding, that cannot accept those things as real that they cannot see and touch and feel for themselves. Thus, their argument falls flat when we remove our desire to believe that we are superior to those that came before us.
Part of the challenge of being able to access with as little bias as possible those people and places and events that came before us, is to overcome the arrogant belief that we in our current form are the best, smartest, most advanced we have ever been. For even recent history teaches us that empires rise and fall and that great persons gain great status and then fall into obscurity. Life nor history is a straight line always leading to better and higher success.
I believe that it is the mission of those that most consider to be crazy or ‘out there’ to continue to provide the means by which we can truly seek the truth and then know and understand where we have been, where we are, and where we are going.
Where did we come from?
How did life start?
What is the origin of man?
These are questions that have been pondered by man since the beginning. One answer, the workings of evolution, was proposed by Charles Darwin in his On The Origins Of Species. There are an unknown number of different life forms currently sharing this planet. And there have been an even larger number of unknown species that have roamed the lands and seas in the epochs of the past. To date there have been 1.5 million species cataloged and a best guess estimate of up to another 8 million that have not been cataloged. These numbers only look at current species and not at previous inhabitants of the planet. And everyday, scientists predict that species that have not even been ‘discovered’ are going extinct at the hands of man.
While the actions of man are a whole ugly 50 gallon barrel of worms, we will leave it for another day. Today we are exploring the pondering of where we (all life) came from. And to that means the generally accepted and propagated fact is that all life emerged from the primordial ooze. Once emerged the fact of natural selection took over and brought us to today. Now, before you die hard evolutionists want to start screaming that evolution has been proven over and over again and thus is FACT. I counter you; not, that some aspects of evolution are not true, but, that evolution as presented by Mr. Darwin is only part of the story, and honestly, he did not get it all right, but, he was on to a few pieces of the puzzle.
Now, not to offend or leave out the other side, the creationists. If one studies the myths of creation, a large number of them speak of either God, a god, or a specific god, such as Zeus, creating man from dirt, mud or clay from the earth. That all creatures were created in their current ‘state’ and that man is the chosen species. When discovering other myths from various cultures we also hear of different kinds of man or man-like species that have come and gone. There are also myths that tell of even different times of our own mankind with regard to our life-spans, our sizes, and other physical features. While both camps seem mostly unwilling to even look at the other point of view, I would argue that they both are equally wrong and equally right!
After everyone gets over being mad at me, do yourself and mankind a favor and continue reading.
So let’s now look at the real facts. Both sides have ‘life’ coming out of mud or a puddle or pile of dirt. Sounds like the same thing to me. Both sides have ‘different man-kind’ living at different times in our history. Both sides have man ‘changing’ in some way or ways over time. As we can see if you strip away the division we can find that the basics, the foundations of both sides are basically the same.
Yet, we can also look at each side and find some pieces that each builds on that are not solid in their own right. The creationists are unwilling to accept that some of their myths have time-lines that are not accurate. Another fact that is somewhat challenging to prove, in most myths are the outside influences of deities, demons, and others. While it is true that the devil is in the details; sometimes, the trick is to understand just what the details are defining. Also, there should be understanding of the story-teller and the listener to the story. Think of how you might answer the same question posed by a child and by an adult. Something that we have lost in our modern era is that actual art of story-telling and thus it creates confusion and lack of understanding. It is like reading a epic in a language that you have elementary knowledge of.
Then there are the Darwinists, who claim that we all progressed from the same single-celled one in a google chance amoeba. Which would actually mean that there were by the science numbers up to 10 million of those similarly luckiest single-cells, which would actually make them utterly common and thus should have been replicated by now, by those same scientists. The most basic concept of natural selection that is those species that do not adapt die off and that each species always adopts the genes that make them the strongest. That supposition suggests that we should actually have fewer species now than we do and it also suggests that we should basically only have ONE of each different species. Now before you get your safety goggles all steamed up; yes, I know that I am over simplifying the process…but, bear with me the simplicity helps limit the discussion to a starting point.
But the biggest issue with evolution is that we do not seem to be able to find the missing links that prove the jumping of species.
What I mean is that we do not have any of the missing links that supposedly had to exist to make life on earth a single tree of life instead of a forest of life. Evolutionists can in some species follow, for example all dogs and wolves and other canines back to a possible ancestor, they have yet to get the canine and feline back to the same ancestor. All of the ‘original’ ancestors are theorized not discovered and cataloged. Most importantly, the scientific definition of what makes us ‘man’ or different from animals has to keep changing. Man is defined by culture, but what is culture? It was the use of tools, but there are other animals that use tools; it was the use of language, but numerous animals use vocalizations to communicate which is the accepted definition of language.
Yes, there some features that all or groups of species have in common, but that in and of itself does not support evolution in its totality. Just as the differences do not in and of themselves disprove evolution for creationism. This is a story that cannot be told until both sides admit they do not know the whole of the story and that both sides have pieces of the puzzle if they will work together we will be able to put the whole thing together sooner.
OK so life got in the way of my writing last week; don’t you really dislike that when it happens, I know I do. That also means that my flow was seriously interrupted with mandatory writing assignments instead of my writing for pleasure and fun. But, with a little inspiration and guidance from a couple of my really awesome supporters, I am back. And I am excited to get back in my flow again. So I thought this might be a great time to maybe share part of my inspiration for this project.
I have always had a love for history. Maybe it was because history was important to the adults that were around me when I was little. Maybe it is because of my extreme curiosity. Or maybe it was that some of the things that my teachers stated as facts did not seem to add up or fit together nicely or logically. Whatever the reason or combination of reasons, here I am eyes deep in exploring and discovering as much of the truth of history as I can and sharing my journey with you. It is my wish that together we can discover the wonder that is our beginnings and journey from our current place in time and space all the way back to that wonder.
If it took hundreds of millions of years to look anything similar to our current form and many millions more to learn to walk upright and these are scientific absolutes then how did civilizations like Ancient Egypt and Sumeria suddenly spring forth as fully functioning civilizations with language and writing and technology and religion and culture? It would stand to reason that while one advance can lead to the next advance, there is no logic that our ability to evolve, which scientists still tell us is an epic long steady process that once in a while can be jumped by a genetic mutation, suddenly became instantaneous about 5,000 – 6,000 years ago. A process that still seems to be at light speed compared to our ‘uncivilized’ growth.
How is it that civilizations across the world, with no supposed connections, due to their primitive cultures and technologies, have similar ‘myths’ about world events from prehistoric times? Or that they use similar symbols on their pottery or rock painting or other artistic expressions. Anthropologists will tell you that it is just part of the natural process of cultural development. That statement seems to imply that we are identical in our thought process that we are not individual. It basically says that each individual human would reach the same conclusion and only that conclusion. If that is the case then it would make the study of anthropology kinda unnecessary since all cultures just follow a step by step map of cultural development without variation and cannot have any other truth that does not fit their mandated flow charts. It would also seem to demean our diversity of today. What if the truth were something very different?
Why does there only have to be one place that man evolved? Why does there have to be only one way that man evolved? Why does there have to be only one migration pattern? Why does our history have to be only 5000 years old? Why does stone age man have to be ‘barbaric’ or ‘uncivilized’? What makes us superior to neanderthal? What makes us ‘civilized’? What makes us technologically advanced? It is my belief that our prehistoric ancestors have not been given their due. There are new discoveries that seem to support my opinion and pushes at the ‘facts’ of mainstream history and the approved ‘story of man’.
It is these questions and more that ignite my curiosity and fuel my desire to explore the stories and ‘facts’ and attempt to decipher the truth from the misconceptions. I hope that you enjoy the journey as much as I do.