What is Truth - Part 3

So let us move to another matter. How did we get here? Okay, we will start with life itself. For years, countless years, we in the Western World were told that God put us here. Sounds reasonable, until you begin to look in depth. The story, as told in the Bible's Book of Genesis, is simply a reworking of the older Sumerian tale, with a twist. This time, we were told, God created man, stuck him in a Garden and gave him a very strange rule, do not eat the fruit of a tree that will give you knowledge. This is nonsense. If God is to thought of as Father, why would He want you to remain ignorant. Either we are talking about a most unpleasant and irrational God, not a comforting thought, or the story was twisted by the priests who reworked it to make us all feel guilty. All cultures have their creation myths and all are sorely lacking, although this one is about as odd as it gets. So let us look forward.              

When I was a student, and for years after, we were taught that the primordial seas were full of organic chemicals that kept bumping together and, when energy, probably from lightning, struck the water, lo and behold, life emerged. Now, virtually all scientists believe that the odds against this are so unthinkably huge that this did not happen, a position made more solid by repeated and failed attempts to thus kick start life in a lab.    

Francis Crick had a great idea. He was a smart guy; he figured out the shape of DNA. Well, he figured that life came to Earth on meteors from somewhere in the Cosmos. Sounds reasonable. We have strong evidence that simple life can roll itself into little balls, cysts, go completely dormant, survive the harshness of space and then reanimate when conditions were right. Only one problem. All he did was pass the buck. If life came from elsewhere, where? And, more to the point, how did it start there? Again, the sensible thing to do is say, "We don't know," But that is not an option when you are paid big bucks to assure everyone that you do know. Such is the current state of science. They are great at tinkering, making new shiny toys for us all, but if you want answers, run the other way when they speak. They will give answers and they are almost all nonsense.   

To make matters worse, they tell us that life changed, from simple, to us, by means of random mutation and natural selection of the mutations that fit the ecology best. This is total crap. Of course life has changed, we have fossil evidence. Of course an organism unfit to survive will die out. Polar bears would not do well in the Amazon and gorillas would be very unhappy at the North Pole. But random mutation? No way, not when we see that change frequently happens very quickly. Most humans were lactose intolerant until Man started keeping domestic animals. Then we are told, out of the blue, a random mutation changed all of that, all of the very complex nature of digestion and in a few thousand years, a blink in Human history, we were all drinking animal milk (except in Asia where, for some reason, the change never took hold) The odds against that scenario are ridiculously huge plus you have the problem of finding a breeding population to pass on the trait. Random mutation effects the individual, not the population and it takes a very long time for one trait in one person to get passed around and odds are it will die out before it becomes dominant. Again, it seems, by hard evidence, that life forms have changed throughout our history but Darwinian evolution should be abandoned. The only reason it has not is that those who pushed it are too damn stubborn and too in need of funding to admit it. We really do not know what happened in our deep past. Perhaps one day we will but only after we uncover a lot more solid evidence on which we can make assumptions that are valid.