I've read 3 Bibles cover to cover, and, I am a science addict.
I hear often about Creation verses Evolution, Religions seeking to disprove Evolution, and Evolution seeming to represent disproving creation. I would like give some time (though not equal in the stated environment) to discus a third possibility, that both, are describing the truth.
So I would like to introduce a hypothesis inclusive of both, to post the hypothesis, with evidence that supports it, and let that stand on its own merit.
While leaving it open for discussion, of one opposing the other, please post such supporting arguments with out trying to close the discussion, how this may not be the case that both are right, looking for cause to substantiate the hypothesis, rather than only negate it.
Religion and science may have the same origins, both, wanting to understand the truth
I would like to include one of many examples, Adam and Eve.
In the Bibles I've read, Cain (son of Adam and Eve) went out from the presence of the Lord and dwelt in the land of Nod, on the east of Eden. And Cain new his wife.... hypothetically for the sake of question, what if Nod was a human (though perhaps not yet, to Adam and Eve) community, were he met his wife (rather than just married his sister).
I'm entering this, because at what point in the course of human evolution, did someone realize they were not just an animal, but something a bit different, like, no longer a chimpanzee?
Could this not be responsible for the huge proliferation of ancient stories where each claims they are the first people? If all come from a common ancestry, and this lineage is no longer a chimpanzee (or living like one), lacking DNA testing equipment in that time to make such a statement, is it not possible all these different stories of being the first "humans" of our kind, entirely accurate?
To further this, When a deviation of a certain species reaches a certain point, is it not then called a new species? On the earth for the first time? What where the very first of this new species? Or if gradual, at what POINT was it a new species?
Could not humans being self aware, be simply declaring to the best of their knowledge, the truth?
A bird can change color, size etc, from its predecessor, the human, being different not due to feathers but due to brain and hands, could then (aside from the DNA standpoint) change and become a new species, through conscious effort by changing its perspective and then using its hands to change the world to match that. Spontaneously, re-create, what it means, to be a human being, say from being a cave man, to a civilized one, sufficiently to qualify (in their minds) as a new species, from its own perspective.
And again, I'm sure there are plenty of holes in this theory, but that would be against the theory, rather than evidence of its correctness.
Its just that as a peace activist, I tend to look at both sides, and see the common ground.
A holistic perspective, is one that unites the world, rather than divides it. Rather like taking a cave mans stand, taking a step outside of civilization, to see it not in its divisions, but as a whole.
I did not come to the conclusion of a creator, through religion, but it was science and math that has led me to become more, not less convinced. If there is a creator, and the creator is truth, and evolution is truth, who I am I to say the creator, did not also create evolution?
So to me, the study of human evolution, going back millions of years, and that of a creation story saying the first humans where here 4000 years ago, do not dispute each other, other than perhaps the objective view, of the definition.
It is perhaps that Religions, and scientists, could improve their 'interpretations' by studying both, without bias that only one, is the correct one.
This is to give some air time, were so much is 'one or the other' to the possibility, of both, being very highly accurate.
Not looking for an argument, but to open a path to end one, through the truth itself, on the premise that the more we learn about the truth, the more the truth itself becomes self evident, and that it is perhaps our perspective of it, that may need some adjusting, if we accomidate the new information or, possiblities.
This blog is not stating fact, so much as, entering a hypothesis I dont hear very often.
Objective of Peace and clarity through unification, rather than division.
Is it not possible, both, are telling the truth?
Comments
However, having lived with N. American elders (in order to learn to live in the wilds for years without human contact at age 12 through 18) and heard thier stories, like the Hopi, that they came from a cave at the center of the earth, followed the light, were the first people....
Then being here in Alaska (where DNA shows them to have come from) in summer, the sun is always on the horizon, the story of coming from the "center" of the earth, suddenly gained some new meaning to me, and total darkness, rather fits the thousands of year old oral story, going south, following the light, they were the decendants of the first humans, in North America, which were also the decendants, of the first humans.
Enough in common with the DNA trail http://genographic.nationalgeographic.com/ , to make me take a step back and take another look. Not so much at the story, was my perspective being open mided enough to not see where there 'was' truth?
"believed in a divine being"... I dont fit that.. In my effort to see the truth for myself, I chose not to "believe", which entails having conviction in something without substantial proof. That is something that to me would hinder my objectivity, if I believed I found truth, then I'd stop looking and I dont want to do that!
"If" there is a divine being, then if we study the truth without bias (as in "trying" to prove/disprove what we believe), the truth reveals itself, has a chance to speak for itself, without us trying to tell it what it is.
Science has its fringes, but also, a common factor, reality, it is not seeking information on how they are separate, but what they share in common, viewed from a different perspective.
So this is to take a look at what may be seen as opposite information, and question, that perhaps it is not in opposition.
Other than in our perspective, like to "believe" Hopi came from the center of the earth (with no further information), I'd then look no further.
But then, to see where it looks like your standing, in Alaska, with the sun 24 hrs on the horizon. Is not the observer to his/her perspective, standing at the "center" of the world?
Go a few hundred miles south, and you get 20 hours max not 24. How do you hand that information down for tens of thousands of years, that accurately in a story, to someone who has never seen what it is like to stand at the center of the earth, where in winter, there is no light.
Father = spirit = energy
Mother = earth = mass
Life = union of these two.
Some math and science for another example (though off the evolution topic here) how things may just not be so different (what is in common), regarding old stories and natural law.
If natural law as seen by science, could be used to provide proof of the existence of a creator?
I'd create a separate blog on it, unless its relevant to creation + evolution (I'd have to think on the relevance first).
I'd rather focus on 'creation' here, and the stories about it from our ancestors, and what those stories can look like in the light of science, objective of only truth in consideration WITH what we know scientifically about human evolution.
DNA, the path it shows the Hopi took. Christian, how Adam and Eve, could perhaps in a court of law, prove any truth to their cases. Scientifically, factually, but with a slight altered perspective, of seeking the truth and how that might be just the case, from their perspectives, looking both figuratively and literally 'how could' it be true "without" changing natural law or the story, only adding more information.
How could it be truth, the Hopi came from the center of the world?
How could it be truth, they were the first humans here, and the stories came from them?
Even if only a 10 thousand year oral story, that could show a lot of dedication to its preservation from one generation to the next. Of telling their descendants the truth of where they came from (especially considering the DNA evidence, not, contradicting it).
However for me, it just goes Splash! as it falls into the ocean of argument on a multi-faceted topic, .....or two
As a third theory, I suggest they could both be false.....there is as much written about the origins of religion, going back to well pre-biblical times, to Sumer and Gilgamesh, the Anunnaki, which have stories of a a great deluge, possibly as far back as 11,000 B.C.E , which was repeated and copied into Genesis
There is a story that Eve was the first of a new breed of humans and whereas we have his-story, .....
....we seem light on a her-story ;-)
There is also plenty of stuff about showing how the story we are led to believe in, is just an analogy to great planetary shifts over aeons - the great cycle as is told by people like the Mayans
It seems, according to their calendar and many rumours, that we are close to an end of aeon event in December 2012, which will be a great shift in our collective consciousness, so perhaps we'll find out in a couple of years [some just say it's the end of the world]
I too believe in peace and harmony, and wish all believers, unbelievers, non-believers, faith-holders and the undecided about either, any or all hypotheses....be lucky! ;-)
Aitch