Tuesday, 18 January 2011

Why the Christian god is man made #6

First, what if humans (homo sapiens) aren't the final stage or the ultimate in a plan? What if we are still evolving? (a lot of evidence points to our constant evolution, of course over a longer time period than we can personally observe). If we are still evolving, what happens when we reach the point where the humans of today cannot interbreed with the humans of the future (re. creatures, because we don't know what they'll be)? The marvel of evolution will continue long after we go extinct as a species. In fact the species that look upon the dying sun, in about a billion years hence, will be as different from us as we are from bacteria. The world is coming to an end, but our species will not be the ones to witness it.

Second, what about the Neanderthals? According to the best research these creatures were biologically almost identical to modern day humans. A few aesthetic differences and a larger brain (significantly larger) are among the disparities. Further along in the research you'll find that Neanderthal burial sites leave traces of rituals. What does this mean? In anthropology, whenever we find a primitive human culture that puts ritual among the activities surrounding fellow species' death we concurrently find traces of beginnings of religion. By all accounts these Neanderthals had some semblance of religion in their lives. Some have even speculated (with good evidence) that Neanderthal cultures possessed the idea of god. So with their bigger brains they quite likely were smarter than us. What if they had the idea of a god they thought was real? What if they worshiped a god who created the universe and Neanderthals were the pinnacle of creation? All these Neanderthals are dead now. All of them have gone extinct. Along with them fell their religion and concept of god. Their god did not save them. Their god did not come back. Their god was shown to be imaginary by the most destructive and ultimate method possible: complete annihilation of the believers.

Yet life goes on, evolution moves unconcerned and blind onto a new project. The primates that did survive the climate changes were a small insignificant species called homo sapiens. It did not need to be this way. Neanderthals could have survived past whatever destructive event caught up with them. They did not have to go the way of 99.99% of every species that has ever existed. Indeed, our own species came very close to this ignominious end as well (some estimates put us at the maximum of an unconnected group of 1000, others still lower).

My point is that the intellectual position that holds humans as god's penultimate creation is surely indefensible by any reasonable means. None of the evidence so far collected supports this stance. It could be that we are, it could be that evolution is Lamarckian, but a virgin birth is more likely than that.


Anonymous said...

There is no proof and will never be any proof that shows the conclusion of us "evolving". Why? Simple no one has or ever will be around long enough to witness it.
So that rules out that we somehow evolved over time and punctuated equilibrium - if this is so 'true' (or another excuse for evolutionists because they couldn't prove we evolved over time) why hasn't it happened yet...?? They only give people two options when there is clearly a third - that we don't evolve.

Damian said...

Hi Anonymous,
I believe that you might be mistaken in your understanding of evolution and am willing to have a conversation with you about it if you are willing as well (and if Nathan is happy for us to do so on his blog of course).

The only thing I would ask is that we both agree to be polite and that our goal should be truth above all else. (It would be nice to know your real name but I understand if you wish to remain anonymous).

Let me know if you are keen to discuss your views on how the world works. I'll keep my eye on this thread for the next couple of weeks in case you respond.


Anonymous said...

I thought i was being polite...?
And yes I do wish to remain anonymous. I do believe that the goal should be truth, but thats not always the case in this little 'discussions' is it? I have absolutely no time arguing for agruements sake.

But I would like to hear your answer for my previous comment.


Damian said...

Hi again Anon,
I'm not sure what happened there but I continued to check well past the date that shows up on your comment. Perhaps you've only just been released from some spam-purgatory by Nathan?

Regarding the 'polite' comment, I wasn't intending that to mean that I'd perceived you as impolite; just that these kinds of conversations tend to become confrontational and rapidly become fruitless. Something for us both to watch out for.

After reading your initial comments about evolution I can't help but wonder whether we might have very different understandings of how the process of evolution by natural selection works. I think it would be a good idea if you outline how you understand it to work (as scientists claim it, not necessarily as you believe it of course)