|
Perhaps a mere modicum of common sense should suffice in matters of controversy; unfortunately, in a world peppered with persons yearning to be worshipped as the next Einstein, it will not. If the abundant theories of cosmic and human origin were as indubitably obvious as their scientific/philosophic/cultic heroes would have us acquiesce to, then why is there such heated debate in the first place? There are countless examples of self-evident truths in this universe, regardless of subjective differences in opinion or perception. For example, when you are tired, you eventually require sleep. William of Ockham's famous principle (Occam's Razor) has often been cited as a means of impugning the "primitive" idea that an intelligent non-human entity could possibly have produced our physical reality. I submit that this principle is referenced in error. I say this because truly, a simpler explanation for the origin of the universe would be that a superior entity created it, using highly advanced technologies. These necessarily wondrous technologies are becoming increasingly fathomable to us as time passes, in fact. The "creator" explanation certainly takes less time to understand and digest than the multiplicity of statistically improbable factors that would need to be present for random chance and evolution by natural selection to be correct. As to the complexity of the universe, we attempt to parse our beliefs with the available evidence. Unfortunately for seekers of truth, the experts spend way too much time inserting their own agendas into the explanations for the particulars of evidence. How can truth be heard out of a cacophony of subjective, adamantly shouted ideas? It is from the deep well of conjecture that all rancorous debates spring. A well crafted phrase or argument does not eliminate the bothersome fact that for something to be recognized universally as truth, once presented for consideration it must be acknowledged as such by more than, let us say, ninety percent of the adult population. Anything less than that is not fact, but speculation. Speculation is never fact, no matter how intelligently it is argued nor how convincing the circumstantial evidence may seem to be. Ninety percent may even be too low of a figure, but I'm trying to be conservative with my estimate. One could correctly point out to the contrary that before Copernicus, everyone was pretty much agreed that the sun revolved around the earth. However, once the physical evidence regarding the solar system was effectively presented with instrumentation capable of giving accurate measurements, everyone was pretty much agreed that indeed, the earth revolves around the sun. Thus a conjecture remains speculation until undeniable physical evidence is presented. Evolutionary theories have been confirmed as fact by completely irrefutable physical evidence? Hardly. Anyone familiar with the law or statistics, and how they both can be successfully manipulated in multiple directions, knows better than to say that A plus B plus C plus D must always equal 100. This equation could produce a correct statement, but in the real world, it becomes consistently apparent that only a fool would bet the farm on the sum of four (or any amount of) variables, when the quantities themselves are admittedly open to many different interpretations. For example, observe how interpretations of the physical evidence are immediately waved away with impatient disdain when they happen to detract from the currently preconceived notion of human origin. This occurs whenever the "intelligent design nut jobs" suggest alternative explanations for current physical evidence. Think about it; there have been (and still remain) many, many unanswered questions within the theories of evolution, yet we relentlessly keep forging ahead in the same direction, correct or not. To a mind that can't fathom the existence of a cosmic creator, anything that includes the assistance of a so-called higher being is utterly ridiculous. Yet in specific scientific circles, there have been efforts for many decades toward the eventual creation of an artificial (non-human) mind that could potentially dwarf ours someday in the acquisition of knowledge and the ability to process it. How ironic that the "deluded masses" who believe in a non-human god are typically cast as the arrogant ones for believing humans are created in the image of that same god. If we are honest with ourselves, we must admit this: in a universe where humans seem to be able to consistently (eventually) wring forth into reality what once existed only in fantasy, the pool of possibilities must be greater than any one paradigm that is shoved down our throats. Philosophy is a wonderful medium for possibility thinking, but it never has been a way to discover conclusive truth about any big-ticket question. Philosophy seems to serve us as a means to let the mind run free, hopefully to produce ideas that help us make some sort of sense of the universe around us and ourselves. Beyond the personal satisfaction that a particular philosophy can provide, it is neither conclusive proof of, nor a secure foundation on which to build, an entire belief system (although erroneously, the latter seems to be the most common use for it). As any successful litigator would remind us, an argument is only as good as the speaker's ability to convince the audience. Therefore, to choose one philosophy or controversial theory over another is merely a case of individual preference, which, according to some modern circumstantial evidence, apparently hints at being somewhat hardwired from birth. I have listened to both sides of the evolution versus creation argument for as long as I can remember, and to pay proper respect to both concepts, it must be pointed out that proponents of both share the patent on stubborn denial. As long as there are great thinkers who believe in a creator god, and equally great thinkers who vehemently ridicule the existence of a creator god, there really can't be any resolution for all of humanity. As it has been since the beginning, the beliefs we choose to adhere to are a personal matter that extends well beyond whatever evidence there may be. ########################################################## Never let it be avoided or forgotten that whatever we choose to believe about the deeper workings of the universe, it is always a matter of personal preference, not cold, hard truth. Therefore our beliefs are merely philosophical manifestations of our perception of life, and they have never been justification of their own verity. Nor will they ever be, in this collective reality. Thus the phrase "without excuse" carries much more gravity than many would prefer. |