The Argument

Having just watched a program on Science Channel called The Day the Earth Almost Died, I am struck by the amount of work, serious thought, and search for evidence which has gone into debunking evolution as well as to substantiate it. Until science and evolutionary theory developed sufficiently, religious philosophy ruled the way man saw and, to a large degree, interacted with his environment. If the weather was good, the gods were happy with man. If the weather was bad, the gods were unhappy. Illness was a malady visited on someone who had displeased the gods or spirits. Almost all extremes, even non-extremes, were attributed to the work of displeased or pleased supernatural beings such as gods or spirits. Much of that exists today despite science and its attempt to understand the Universe from its sub-micro sphere to its extra-macro sphere. I think it will be impossible unless we ourselves somehow become as gods, if not gods ourselves--not meaning to be blasphemous. What I'm leading into here is the adamant defense of Christian religious groups in the U.S., if not in other countries, of the idea of a Intelligent Design in the face of all of the data, evidence, and demonstrable proof, as well as probabilities that add up to enough reason, if not proof, of and for the Theory of Evolution.

In the program, "The Day the Earth Almost Died, the planet was rife with life some 40 million years ago, but underwent a glaciation period which destroyed all life except, I believe, some forms in the seas and a single dinosaur species on land. It is believed that all present land forms evolved from that single species of dinosaur which sounds as far fetched as the Biblical theory that the Earth, Heavens, and everything thereon or therein were made by a supreme being within six days, literally. Still, science has more going for it than a single story taken from a book assembled from selected scripts over hundreds of years, if not a thousand or more. Science has millions of artifacts at its fingertips which can be studied in an ordered manner whereas the Book has a number of stories laid out in chapter and verse handed down over the centuries with no real way to verify the veracity of any single event in any single one of them. There also is a lack of a chain of reason additional to the lack of a chain of evidence. So, I have a hard time believing the theory extended by Christians and Jews, possibly Muslims also, purporting to explain the creation of the Universe. Rather, I think there is something somewhere in the middle that both theories ignore because both are so far off center and so bent on proving the veracity of its own area of thought.

What could take the middle position?

It might be the one thing, the one concept that has escaped both fields of thought--that the life force, or God--is the Universe and that It is energy in its purest most sublime and immeasurable form. That It permeates every single atom of the Universe, that even the smallest sub atomic particle is permeated by`It, that It is the Intelligence the Christians crave to prove and scientists are laboring to figure out without knowing that's what they really are doing.

What if?

It is such a simple solution, but the problem is that it requires each side to suspend its beliefs and doctrines at least temporarily in order to entertain a possibility outside of the argument each poses, yet a possibility which unifies both and explains inconsistencies inherent to both. In effect it's similar to welding aluminum and copper. It's the agent which solidifies both concepts and erases the inexplicable contradictions which arise when either tries to defend its stance solely on the basis of its own information.

A unique aspect of "God" is that teat name is unique in English, German, Spanish, and French to the best of my knowledge. It very possibly may be unique in Hebrew and Latin also, though I don't know that for sure. I suspect that the name will be unique in any language but, again, I don't know that. The point here is that the name is given to an object which can not be in any way proven to exist. Effects in what is perceived as reality can be attributed to it and a book, as well as hundreds of thousands of writings, can be pointed to as support for the idea of Its existence. But it can not be physically proven that thing, this object, called God actually has existence. It's just the same as with any fictional character, Cinderella for example. The literature is there telling the story, but there is nothing more than a mental image of this fictional character and possible emotion when thinking of the story. Such is the realm which God inhabits philosophically.

So this uniqueness is what Science has to struggle with while western religion struggles with strict adherence to stories and explanations in a book which developed from the writings and memories of many people over hundreds, if not a thousand or more, years. Why must the two be mutually exclusive? Why not find a way to include the unexplainable in each in a manner that marries them? Why not consider the Creator as the Universe and part of every single particle of it no matter who diminutive no how massive? Why not make it the motivating factor behind the Big Bang? Doesn't this explain the expression, "...Let there be Light. And there was Light?"

How much more light do we need?