RSS

II. Creation and the Origin of Man OVERVIEW

28 Mar

babylon

Having done some degree of work in attempting to garner science’s explanation for the Origin of Man, we have thereby encountered for our labors, in science’s answer of “macroevolution” (hereafter “Evolution”) a theory of profound confusion, uncertainty, and fairy-tale-like assertions based on questionable and quite selective evidence.  In this regard, I request everyone new to the discussion become familiar with this particular type of Evolution’s “evidences” and our criticisms of them, outlined in prior chapters. I also encourage anyone who has doubts about what has been said here, or about my handling of the evidence, to do the necessary work themselves, and so check the claims on their own. Seekers of Truth should not be content with hearsay.

Let’s say it again, the healthy skepticism with which we must approach this subject cannot stop at what we ourselves are doing. We do not want to be just another mentally masturbatory science the likes of which are an insult to the comparatively few sincere investigators who have contributed to a more understandable, bearable, and livable human existence.  This “clearing-up” in our own minds of any sensed inconsistencies, omissions, and the like, besides giving us, as we go forward, peace of mind—the kind that comes when you realize you just got something right, or understood something correctly—will also serve the dual purpose of allowing us to refine our understanding and so correct any mistakes we have made.

Having said this, we can move on with clear conscience. To this end, and considering what we have determined to be the presumptive nature and doubtful reliability of  “the science” as it has been presented to us by its practitioners, we would be justified, no doubt, in venturing out into other regions of expertise, in our search to find the Truth about the Origin of Man. Even more than justified, if we also point to the rabid and maniacal attachment which so many “educated people” have made to this current craze of Evolution theory, and if we combine with this the pompous, even laughing mockery on their behalf when someone disagrees or dares to question those theoretical idols at which feet they slavishly worship, it would seem even necessary that we supply other views, not from the scientific field as we understand it, but from other forms of wisdom. That this enterprise, I believe, is True Science, is a complication we will consider here and there as we proceed.

Of those theories that are alternatives to Evolution as explanation for the Origin of Man, the vast majority, if not all the rest depending on our understanding of what the term means, may be called “creation.” Because creation can be imagined as being instigated by not only God or gods, but also by or through forces, spirits, elementals, angels, and even aliens, a wide view of creation would encompass all the alternatives, if not also Evolution itself, as for example is believed by today’s “creation-scientists,” those harbingers of the hybrid theory attempting to reconcile Creation and Evolution.

This being the case, we will define “Creation” as meaning those theories which claim that Man, and indeed the world, has its Origins in the purposeful efforts of intelligences or forces higher or greater than Man.  This being, or these beings, forces, spirits, etc., we will call creators, and when they are expressly meant to signify beings of ultimate divine stature (and so not intermediary), Creator. Creation, then, is to be defined by us as the very general theory that Man was brought into existence as a distinct race, purposefully, and more or less in complete and contemporary form, by a greater intelligence.

I will also differentiate Creation capitalized, the somehow-divine work of fashioning Man, from creation with a small “c”, reserving for this latter process utilized by an artist or inventor, like Dali or Tesla, to produce the Great Masturbator, or the radio. We also mustn’t make too much ado about whether God is one or many; by my definition, God can not only be both one and many, but both one and many at once.

Before beginning in earnest though, we should make some further points that clarify the differences between Creation and Evolution. On the surface, that is in modern discussions, we simplify the debate into the claim that that one involves God and one does not. But when one considers the variants of both schools, and the compromise positions derived from them, we see early on that the distinction can blur significantly. If, for instance, as some histories claim, Man once existed for hundreds of years, but that later on his tenure on Earth he only lived “fourscore and ten,” we have implied thereby an “evolution” of sorts, an altering or changing of Man through the ages. For this reason, we must emphasize that the differences between Creation and Evolution are not so much about whether God or gods (or spirits…or forces…) exist or not, as they are about whether the Origin of Man is preceded by an Idea of Man, with all this latter would imply, not limited to the necessity of an Ideator.

I’ll use one example to try to explain this more clearly. Evolution as understood scientifically claims that Man has evolved over the years. We found no problem with this general claim, as the statures of various peoples existing today,  for example, would alone prove (some would say the itself miraculous) adaptation to surrounding conditions. Evolution also claims, however, that Man the species came from other species, defined today as Macroevolution, which is where we found considerable problems. Now as Man progresses, or, as we suggested, regresses, one could claim that the entire plan is in order of God’s wishes nonetheless, for example, that australopithecus was indeed Man in embryo, as determined by the Creator to arise in this fashion. Thus even in this case the Idea of Man is implied as having preceded Man itself, an idea which presupposes an ideator, a thinker, or a planner. So despite its appearance as an evolutionary (or devolutionary) process, such an elaboration would nevertheless be, in this formation at least, a Creationist theory.

I will not discuss other than in passing much about the current-day hybrid theories attempting to reconcile Creation and Evolution. This is because what is best in these theories, like most things in True Science, are ancient in origin and timeless in character; in short, they have all been said before, and what we have reclaimed today are merely the tatters of a once great and voluminous metaphysical wardrobe.

Next section we will begin wholeheartedly our investigation into the theories about the Origin of Man other than those proposed by contemporary science. We will begin by studying many of the Creation stories as understood by various peoples of the world. Ancient myths, native and aboriginal tales, sagas, stories, and eventually mystic creeds and religions, all will play a part in our investigations. There is such a wealth of information that one man cannot hope to even read everything in his whole lifetime, let alone analyze and compare what he has learned. This being so, we will concentrate our efforts as much as possible to uncovering only those aspects of these doctrines as are conducive to our investigation as to the Origin of Man. That we will need to dig deeper, on occasion, should be expected.

Finally, we need touch upon this concept of “Nature.” Many of solid scientific bent are wont to refer to this concept as something of a natural process. We hold the opposite view, and will remind ourselves throughout this research that Nature is to be understood as a divine concept, in that is operates by laws preordained. We do not advance by calling Gaia Earth, or Atlas Electro-magnetism, or The Spirit of God, Nature. As we will see, these “scientific advancements” are really nothing more than renaming, we know nothing more about them by the neologistic exercise: calling Ganesha “Gravity” is no progress at all. We should be very suspicious, then, when our scientists use this term “nature,” and those like it, in their explanations. Also, the term “myth” will be used not to point to a necessarily untrue story, but rather one which might have some truth to it, if not be as true as any science. These will be important to remember as we continue.

frenchscience

Advertisements
 

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

 
%d bloggers like this: