Wednesday, October 28, 2009

SCIENCE II

EVOLUTION VS DESIGN

The reason this subject is even open for discussion is not only because we can’t understand a thing a physicist or professor of math says, but also because humans our very selves are so unlikely. The evolutionists would have it that we, well, EVOLVED here. But if that were the case, wouldn’t we be some of the baddest mothers on the planet? Instead of being so frail we must cover our skin in sunlight, our feet most anywhere, have no natural weapons AT ALL – even our fingernails are worthless as weapons – they break off before they can hurt anyone but ourselves. Our teeth aren’t good weapons, we have no ability to camouflage ourselves, we can’t even outrun a deer, we’re not strong for our size (we should be at least as strong as a chimp, wouldn’t you think? But we’re not…). We can’t be left out in the rain, out in the sun, or out in the cold. If we’re from here, how is it we need vitamin and mineral supplements to survive? A creature living on the savannah, for example, won’t get much vitamin C. Yet doctors and nutritionists insist we must get more than an orange’s worth per day. What?

We are the only primate whose males haven’t a penile bone. Even though primates are shaped a lot like us, they do not have sex face-to-face as we do – nor do most other earth creatures. Earlobes are another mystery – only humans have them. No genetic advantage, they just hang there. They don’t even improve our hearing. One of the serious questions evolutionists have to face are skulls through the ages. The problem is, when you get to homo sapiens sapiens (us), the skulls (which have gradually been getting larger through the millennia) are suddenly smaller, thinner, more frail, and =thwup= have suddenly invented foreheads.

We can’t see in the dark, in the infrared, can’t hear or smell as well as a dog or hear as well as a cat. We’re puny little helpless things for several years after birth – a fact that didn’t improve our chances of survival in caveman days, unlike a cow or a camel, ready to run alongside its mother within an hour. In fact, it’s hard to think of any human survival advantage. You may name speech, and say we can therefore hand down knowledge and work together in teams – but what about before language developed among us? The ability to speak doesn’t impress a lion in the least (or any cat, for that matter).

We have no defensive weapons – nor do we have any defensive tricks. We can’t spray ink, stink or quills. It’s so easy to knock us down that we don’t even need second-party intervention; we trip over our own feet. And why don’t our females have a breeding “season?” Other animals do, because any young born in winter have a lesser chance of survival – and that was true of early humans, too. It’s not as if this has been going on only since fur coats and central heating.

Only our pluck and our willingness to work together does anything for our survival whatever. I’ve seen a cat chase away a dog ten times it’s weight and twice as vicious; that’s pluck. So it’s a Star Trek world, after all. And what’s this thing we have with art and music? How is that a survival trait? Did it get the chicks? Because if so, both Beethoven and Hendrix missed that boat. Along with Van Goh, Janis Joplin, Leonardo da Vinci, Antonio Vivaldi; it doesn’t seem that being in the entertainment industry makes one prone to more reproductive success. Nor, it seems, does science. Yet we simply burst with artists and scientists of every kind, and always have since the caves. And here’s another point – every other animal on the planet is born capable of making whatever shelter it needs, but mankind took quite a while to figure it out. How can we have evolved in a place where we’re the least likely to survive?

A very long time ago some wise men decided we must have been designed to live in a garden. Studying the ancient stories of Sumer, some history buffs believe some Nephilim (also called the Annunaki) came cruising by from the planet Nibiru and created humans as slaves. I don’t want to even discuss Scientology and its alien forebears. But if I were creating/designing a slave, I’d make him very strong – stronger than local primates, certainly, not to mention local predators! Of these two choices, the garden seems just a bit more likely. There is some evidence (albeit slight) that aliens have been (and/or are now) here. But whether we were created by a god or aliens, it would be unconscionably cruel to create a being for gardens and then toss it out into jungles, savannahs and ice floes, where Neanderthals had already claimed the territory (and yes, they were stronger than we were, and every bit as smart, plus anthropologists now believe they also had the gift of speech). The only reason I can think of which isn’t cruel is that these garden-dwellers got lost or escaped by themselves (and found they had to wear clothing in this new, crueler environment). That might just pass as an original “sin” from which all suffering flows.

I don’t believe there is an omni-present God, nor do I believe in alien intervention (though it’s an interesting possibility), nor do I quite buy evolution. I believe it’s a very difficult subject that has yet to be proven to a satisfactory degree. There have to be more than those three alternatives, don’t there?

1 comment:

Darshan Chande said...

Human beings are good for destructing alone. Nothing else.