Category Archive

If religious knowledge, like any other form of knowledge, develops through a process of falsification, then an immutable religious tradition is unattainable. Cultural continuity, on the other hand, allows a given religion to develop with time–and even acknowledge past mistakes–without forsaking the tradition at hand.

To put it bluntly, classical Christianity is itself now our Old Testament… We have to use traditional Christianity in the same way as Christianity itself has always used the Old Testament. In both cases there is a great gulf but there is also continuity of spirit and religious values… When a Christian sings a psalm he knows there is a religion-gap and a culture-gap, but it does not worry him because he believes his faith to be the legitimate successor of the faith of the psalmist. Similarly, since the Enlightenment there has developed a religion-gap and a culture-gap between us and traditional Christianity, but we may still be justified in using the old words if we can plausibly argue that our present faith and spiritual values are the legitimate heirs of the old.

–Don Cupitt, Taking Leave of God (HT: Exploring Our Matrix)

Present-day fundamentalist theology makes a position of cultural continuity nearly impossible, though strangely enough almost no fundamentalist position (perhaps none at all) has remained constant with time.

Perhaps it’s my upbringing, but I’ve never been a fan of television viewing instead of conversation at dinner. Some of my friends enjoy this practice, though, so I occasionally find myself crowded along one side of a table to find our primary mealtime entertainment in whatever program happens to be on. It’s not even that I abhor television in general; I would just rather spend a meal with friends or family in conversation, discussion, storytelling, or laughter.

I wonder if certain unhealthy relationships tend to last longer because of television as a mealtime entertainer. These meals count as time spent together, but because of the limited degree of interactivity, such a couple could spend an entire dinner without sharing more than a few sentences. Thus, conflict that would otherwise arise through discussion or conversation is avoided and delayed, the continuing lack of communication building toward the ultimate demise.

This is not to say that all television viewing disrupts relationships, but I think in many cases the replacement of interaction with television viewing creates a false sense of relational stability.

I once described civilization as a first-aid kit carried on the shoulders of the naked ape, which was so heavy that it caused blisters on his feet–that required first aid. The naked ape, the human animal, is always trying to get back to its biological norm, but without giving up its new trappings.

–Desmond Morris, The Nature of Happiness

A Valentine’s Day observation courtesy of Rowlf and Kermit.

You can’t live with ‘em, you can’t live without ‘em
There’s somethin’ irresistible-ish about ‘em
We grin and bear it ’cause the nights are long
I hope that somethin’ better comes along

My friend Shawn just started a new blog, Models for Life, where he will discuss sports, climate, politics, and life from a scientific modeler’s point of view. Shawn and I also share many similar research interests, so I’m sure he’ll have some interesting astrobiological tidbits to share.

I took the trek to Punxsutawney, PA Friday night to witness the peculiar American tradition of seasonal forecasting by use of small, hibernating rodents. Phil, the groundhog of infamy, has been providing this service for upwards of a hundred years, thanks to a special elixir that grants him longevity. Though Phil paid our department a visit on Tuesday, for some reason a night-long excursion to see the groundhog in action seemed like a good idea.

The crowd stayed occupied between 2am and sunrise with a combination of classic rock and chants of “Phil! Phil! Phil!” Finally as the sky brightened, the full contingency of the Inner Circle took charge and produced Phil–the prognosticator of prognosticators–from a giant stump in the center of the stage. The senior member of the Inner Circle took Phil into his confidence where, using his special knowledge of groundhogese, he informed the crowd of 30,000 that Phil had seen his shadow and six more weeks of winter would follow.

Though Punxsutawney is touted as the “weather capital of the world”, the flurry of celebration seemed to have little concern for the actual prediction; people were more interested in groundhog veneration than the actual forecast. If deification can be attained by amassing followers, then Punxsutawney Phil is well on his way to godhood.

The stereotypical dirty hippie keeps barefoot to avoid treading on Mother Earth, shoes possessing some sort of destructive power. Though I disagree with the rationale, there is some truth to the power of the barefoot experience. Cultures and religions across the world value bare feet as a sign of reverence or a designation of sanctity.

There the angel of the Lord appeared to him in a flame of fire out of a bush; he looked, and the bush was blazing, yet it was not consumed. Then Moses said, “I must turn aside and look at this great sight, and see why the bush is not burned up.” When the Lord saw that he had turned aside to see, God called to him out of the bush, “Moses, Moses!” And he said, “Here I am.” Then he said, “Come no closer! Remove the sandals from your feet, for the place on which you are standing is holy ground.”
(Exodus 3:2-5)

Temples may require shoelessness prior to entrance, but I think the reason for such a policy has little to do with protection of the sanctuary and more to do with maximizing individual experience.

“Earth’s crammed with heaven,
And every common bush afire
with God:
but only he who sees takes off his shoes.”
–Elizabeth Barrett Browning (HT Whiskey River)

We typically use our hands as primary sensory devices to touch, feel, grasp, and move. Our feet are also capable of similar tasks, yet when encased in shoes and socks we limit our range of possible experiences (although often for pragmatic reasons). When entering a sanctuary, though, shoe removal allows greater participation as both hands and feet explore and experience the surrounding environment.

Instead of protecting the environment from excess wear, the barefoot experience grants us a connection with our environment typically inaccessible in our daily lives. Holy ground does not necessitate bare feet, but the sage would never dream of wearing shoes upon it, for to do so would diminish the experience of the sacred.

People are basically good, evil, greedy, generous, hungry.

Aside from moments after they feast, that is.

Back in State College

Islamic fanaticism is a hot topic today, and Christian fundamentalism is always a news moneymaker, but unfortunately religious extremism knows no bounds. On Christmas day a mob of Hindu extremists torched fourteen churches and damaged several more in the Phulbani district of the state of Orissa resulting in three deaths and many injuries. Many of these people fled for their lives into the jungle and now reside in relief camps, their homes and villages destroyed by the rioters.Government attention to the situation seemed slow in coming, although on New Year’s day the governor of Orissa listened to eyewitness testimonies and assessed the present situation.

Most people do not generally think of Hinduism as a violent faith, but acts such as this illustrate that religious fanaticism knows no bounds. I wanted to comment on this story not only because human rights abuses such as this, though tragically commonplace in the world, are severely underreported by the mainstream media, but also because of my personal connection to this place in particular. My dad and his family grew up in this region, his home church one of those that was torched. The pictures in this post were taken by my uncle who spends most of his year in this region of India with religious groups wherever humanitarian aid is needed.

   

   

The rebuilding process will be slow, but if anything good can come from such senseless aggression it will be a stronger sense of community among the churches and villages of Phulbani.

From the afterward in The Calvin and Hobbes Lazy Sunday Book (1989):

Long ago the Sunday comics were printed the size of an entire newspaper page. Each comic was like a color poster. Not surprisingly, with all that space to fill, cartoonists produced works of incredible beauty and power that we just don’t see anymore, now that strips are a third or a quarter of their former size… All the things that make comics fun to read–the stories, the dialogue, the pictures–have gotten simpler and simpler in order to keep the work legible at smaller and smaller sizes. The art form has been in a process of retrograde evolution for decades. For those of us trying to return some of the childhood fun we had marveling at comic drawings, the opportunities today are discouraging.

I like to think that Bill Watterson is pleasantly surprised with the flourishing success of web-based comics. The economies of newspapers may have drained comics of their original unrestricted creativity, but the free expression of the Internet provides an outlet for even the most underrepresented comic artist to showcase the full extent of their work. The full-featured Sunday comics of Watterson’s youth may never make a resurgence, yet I think the movement toward online consumerism will revive the spirit of Watterson’s vision in a way almost unthinkable when he wrote those words nearly twenty years ago.

This place is magical.

Dear Friends / Family,

It’s that time of year again! What a wonderful year it has been for all of us. The whole family has had a great year, full of memories and adventure. Where should we begin to recount how very blessed we have been? We have never done a Christmas letter before, but fortunately there are letter-writing tools available for people like us.

To start off, ______Deb___________ has been very involved in:
     ___ the mafia as a money launderer
     ___ restoring peace to Iraq
     _X_ starting a homeless shelter for abandoned and battered cats
     _X_ playing extreme Scrabble
     ___ empathizing with the warming globe
     _X_ scratch and sniff lottery, but not for the money

Meanwhile, in ___Pennsylvania_____, ______Jacob_________ has been pursing:
     ___ world conquest
     ___ perfecting sleek and discreet flossing technique
     _X_ an enriching career in hydrotherapy
     _X_ rehabilitation of glue-sniffing ants
     ___ moderate success in minimal endeavors occasionally
     ___ study at the Palestinian glass-blowing institute

And last, but certainly not least, _______Luke_________ has enjoyed living in _Scotland & Minnesota_ while succeeding in:
     _X_ teaching mute people how to walk
     ___ further developing fungus taxonomy
     _X_ acquiring a wide variety of superpowers including, but not limited to:
          ___ infrared vision
          ___ super strength
          ___ the ability to melt
          _X_ an uncanny ability to talk to fish, although they don’t usually talk
                 back
     ___ continued development of Opti-Grab™ technology
     ___ being macho
     _X_ selling glue to ants

In short, we could not have possibly asked for a better year. Some people wish for a perfect life; we lived it, and we are so blessed. We could go on, but we are sure your lives are so much fuller than ours—and so busy too. We only wish that we could have shared each special moment with every one of you.

Sincerely / Love / Affectionately / Yours,

_______Deb__________     _______Jacob________     _______Luke_________

The tremendous success of the Wikipedia project is familiar to regular Internet consumers, but the project is not without its critics. Though many people voice concern or dissatisfaction with the open content encyclopedia, the critics I tend to run into seem to be older and infrequent Internet users who raise two primary objections:

1) Why would anyone freely contribute without motivation?

2) Won’t the intent of malicious users detract from accuracy?

Thus far, the success of open content (as well as open source) projects stands in opposition to these objections. Granted, some degree of moderation occurs to prevent large-scale corruption, but as a whole open content seems to work. The objections above, at least for some people, may stem from particular assumptions about the typical behavior of human beings–whether religious values or secular perceptions–but widespread use of the Internet provides a different perspective regarding human nature. Regarding the concerns above:

1) Human beings are not exclusively motivated by greed. Other factors (the quest for knowledge, the desire to share) often achieve greater importance, even if these factors do not translate directly to an accumulation of wealth.

2) People are not inherently malicious. Though malicious individuals exist, they are the minority of a genuinely good population.

Of course, the sample space of open content users does not encompass the entirety of humanity; perhaps chaos would ensue if everyone on Earth were given Internet access and free reign. Nevertheless, I am optimistic that collaborative Internet initiatives will play an important role in shaping a culture previously defined largely by corporate and religious dogma.

University education in the United States stands among the finest in the world. The faculty of these institutes have generally earned their positions through talent and work and represent a diverse body of experts and intellectuals; some may fall prey to the aloof professor stereotype, but across the system there are certainly many active, informed, and realistic members of the academic community. Additionally, university faculty are often well-networked, extending into the realms of business and politics.

Many members of the academic community appear well-suited for the responsibilities of political power. Why, then, is there such a small influx of academics to national politics?

My NaNoWriMo novel is finished, and I am quite pleased with the result. The story Inhabitants of Eternity is a journey of philosophical and spiritual ideas set in the context of near-future scientific discoveries. In particular, the Terrestrial Planet Finder mission will be capable of observing terrestrial planets around other stars, which includes the ability to determine the gases present in the atmosphere. It is conceivable, then, that in the next century we will observe a planet that, at a distance, looks nearly identical to our own life-filled world. Though we have continually been pushed into mediocrity by the discoveries of astronomy and cosmology, Earth is still the only inhabited planet that we know of, and so the uniqueness of Earth’s phenomenon remains a steadfast truth for many people. Set in the near future when this mission first starts surveying the skies, Inhabitants of Eternity explores the implications of such a discovery on both religious and secular thought.

The story takes place through a series of dialogues that explore our conception of knowledge, the implications of biological evolution, the likelihood of extraterrestrials, and the relationship between religion and science. The main character is also a dreamer, which provides a unique setting for his own exploration of these personal and profound ideas. I have written several essays that touch on some of the themes in this story, but I until now I had not outlined the totality of these thoughts into a single work of discussion. I certainly learned a lot from this process, and I am looking forward to what the eventual finished work will look like. I like to give my writings time to ripen, so I will likely not start revisions until January or February; revision seems most beneficial with a fresh look at the manuscript.

For thus says the high and lofty one
     who inhabits eternity, whose name is Holy:
I dwell in the high and holy place,
     and also with those who are contrite and humble in spirit,
to revive the spirit of the humble,
     and to revive the heart of the contrite. (Isaiah 57:15)

Consider religion generally as any cosmic mythology that provides purpose and meaning.

Though religion and society often clash today, religious thought serves as an expression of culture.

The Dust Bowl of the 1930’s provides a stark example of climatological impact on human settlements, with considerable and memorable devastation of agriculture, economics, and daily life. Drought in the Great Plains, however, is not an uncommon occurrence; in fact, there is even some degree of cyclicity to these drought patterns in the United States. The extremes of the Dust Bowl were certainly pronounced due to several other factors, but the possibility of extensive crop failure is an inherent risk of living in such an environment.

Given these inherent environmental risks, it is no wonder that the many of the indigenous people groups of this land chose a nomadic lifestyle. By developing permanent settlements in high-risk areas we are almost inviting disaster to strike. We can certainly take preventative measures to protect ourselves, but we cannot prevent the recurrence of dangerous environmental conditions. A nomadic lifestyle, on the other hand, takes advantage of an area when it is safe and fruitful; at the same time, nomads do not become attached to a particular region, allowing them to avoid the constant barrage of negative impacts that accompanies permanent settlement–especially in environmentally variable areas.

From this week’s Postsecret:

—–Email Message—–
Sent: Sunday, November 04, 2007 3:21 AM
Subject: re: our kids don’t know we’re poor

Once I was driving up Pacific Coast Highway on my way to work on a movie set at a mansion on the beach in Malibu. It was a nice day and there was a clunker of a car driving next to me with all the windows open. It was a ‘poor’ Mexican family. They were all smiling and singing. The father looked kind. The kids looked happy. I saw them and hoped that someday I would be have a rich life like that.

This reminds me of another famous passage on the riches of poverty:

Then Jesus said to his disciples, “Truly I tell you, it will be hard for a rich person to enter the kingdom of heaven. Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God.” (Matthew 19:23-34)

Matthew’s Jesus seems to emphasize the ‘Kingdom of God’ almost as a movement that is realizable here and now, if we only let it–perhaps to be found in the slums, cars, and boxes of the poor yet fulfilled. Money can’t buy everything.

I read Michel Foucault’s The History of Sexuality: An Introduction a couple weeks ago (upon recommendation from a friend), and I was astonished at the depth to which his analysis cuts. Some of our most routine behaviors, for example, perpetuate an artificial sexual construct that exists for reasons we rarely question.

While at the store this afternoon, I overheard a mother shopping with her ~3-4 year old daughter: “You have to choose one for your bed. Which do you want, the kitties or the princess?”

I looked over at the shelf of blankets. There were over half a dozen various designs, but for simplicity the mother narrowed her daughter’s choices to two. Yet the specific choices of the parent–a young girl should like either kittens or princesses–perpetuates the artificial cultural gender binary. Children are socialized at a young age to learn that certain objects and behaviors are either masculine or feminine, and by adulthood few of them realize that it is nothing more a social construction.

I’m not usually a huge fan of YouTube blog entries, but I couldn’t resist posting this gem from my childhood. I saw this music video/PSA (which apparently is the Barenaked Ladies) while watching Saturday morning cartoons one day, and I was never able to find it again until now! What could be more perfect than the combination of racial tolerance and extraterrestrials?

Last night in Seattle before heading back to State College.

Is fame by itself a worthwhile pursuit?

In academia, some faculty members seem bent on making their name as prominent as possible in their field, in order to achieve greater recognition. Yet fame as an objective in itself can lead to a situation where it is the only product of research efforts. A large number of publications may produce name recognition among peers, but unless the publications are also of high quality this only marginally benefits the community at large. Questionably ethical practices can also arise from the sole pursuit of fame: a single study with significant and useful results can be split into several segments–a practice known as salami slicing–in order to maximize name exposure.

Is there any purpose in this type of empty fame–aside from the quest for immortality? There is no shortage of examples for individuals who gain fame by virtue of their brilliant ideas, but I am inclined to think that most of these people did not seek fame in and of itself.

It’s incredible to think about how dependent many of our culture’s assumptions are on television for survival.

As I was retrospectively thinking one day, I remembered Carol Kendall’s The Gammage Cup. I first discovered this book in the fourth grade. The storytelling was fantastic, but I also remember being intrigued by some of the messages of the book–issues such as authority, conformity, and expression. I re-read the book a year later, enjoying it as much as the first time, and then it somehow ended up in a garage sale and disappeared from sight.

I just finished reading the book for the third time in my life (which for me is rare for any book), confirming my suspicions that I took to heart some of the themes Kendall brought out in her novel. As children the simple fact that our view of the world is limited allows our imaginations to think of worlds that might be, to examine things we do not yet take for granted–and to laugh about the absurdity of it all. A brilliant piece of cultural satire, Kendall’s novel touches some profound questions of society, religion, and being alive. This book certainly helped guide my thinking and critique of the world, which I’m certain was no mistake on the part of Carol Kendall:

Children are a marvelous audience…they remember what they have read! Sometimes they remember it all their lives!

Sometimes I think it’s easy for us to forget that we are part of a food chain. Granted, we have no predators and are therefore at the top of the food chain, but this position relies on an intricately connected system of support that allows organisms to persist. If the bottom collapses, though, the reprocusions will be felt all the way up through the top.

Part of this forgetfulness stems from the change in food production with the advent of civilization. Nowadays most people have no direct role in food production as these jobs are left for a small group of farmers, breeders, and herders, and even modern farming practices–which reserve land exclusively for human use–obscure our place in the food chain. Conversely, the hunter-gatherer way of life exposed most of the tribe to the process of collecting food–in land that was shared for food by humans and other creatures–emphasizing that our food comes from living creatures, who in turn get their food from living creatures, and so on. This realization is easy to escape when perusing a supermarket; but it is nearly impossible to avoid on the hunt.

The division between culture and religion is more nebulous than it often appears.

And in many cases, cultural zeal outweighs religious zeal.

One of the defining traits of our species is what we call intelligence and self-awareness. Too often, though, these traits are cited as a defining separation between man and beast; that is, owing to our intelligence we have somehow transcended the animalistic level.

Ignoring for now that this view presumes no other significant life forms other than animals and humans, this still ignores the notion that human intelligence–just like any other trait–developed over time with selection effects. Intelligence makes us superior to lizards in the same way that wings make birds superior to us. We value intelligence only because we posses it. And since our culture has lost a connection with the community of life, we often interpret this value as superiority at best–and a mandate to dominate at worst.

Over a much longer time period than intended, I sketched out some of the primary scientific challenges to a common cultural worldview in our modern global society. The Copernican Revolution placed our planet in a typical galactic environment, and the discovery of fossils shattered the notion that life on Earth was permanent. The Darwinian Revolution placed humans in the same biological arena as the animals, and the realization of human-induced climate change make this assertion even more apparent.

The modern global culture is resistant to the full implication of these ideas, since acceptance would require a behavioral change. Humans are not the masters of the world but are a single organism on the planet, subject to the same environmental pressures and feedback as any other creature. Yet the lifestyle of the modern global culture is one of consumption; the rate at which resources are used increases with time. The ideas sketched above imply that no society can biologically claim to supersede the biosphere–that is, all creatures are a component of the community of life.

The modern global culture insists on living above the biosphere, yet because we are a part of this system it is biologically disastrous for our culture to maintain the status quo.

The theories of Copernicus and Darwin are not shocking to most people today, even though the implications of Darwin’s ideas are knowingly or unknowingly rejected at times. Today global climate change has taken the stand as the “controversial” scientific theory. The perceived controversy does not stem from division within the scientific community, though, but instead from the implications of accepting human alteration of the biosphere.

The global cultural worldview was shaken by the heliocentric and evolutionary theories because they challenged the notion that humans are not subservient to the biosphere but instead are masters of the world, whether by superior intellect or divine providence. Global climate change has taken this challenge one step further by showing our culture that consumption without regard can have real and lasting impacts on the biosphere. And in spite of the superior intellect that supposedly makes us “greater than the animals”, there is no obvious technological solution to a human-induced alteration of the climate system. It is much easier to try and explain any and all climate effects as “natural variability”, because acknowledging human-induced climate change implies that people are part of the biosphere. Just as Darwin’s ideas suggest, people are simply one of many animal species on the planet. And like any other species, natural selection is always in effect to remove harmful individuals–and species–from the gene pool in order to maintain the community of life.

Done with the semester and finally getting back to exploring some Big Ideas in science.

The specific criticisms of evolutionary theory by opponents has changed over the years, but the basic premise for the opposition has not. The debate is often separated into the “science vs. religion” groups, but–especially when Darwin published his ideas–this opposition is more fundamental than a religious objection.

The discovery of fossils caused people to realize that organisms were not permanent players in the arena of life; life has remained present on Earth, but organisms have come and gone. The idea of extinction shook a basic premise of a prevailing worldview, but Darwin’s idea took this realization to a new level.

With the Origin of Species, Darwin did more than provide a mechanism for speciation: linking together all organisms on the planet led to the conclusion that humans are animals as well! We are the member of a species, subject to the same selection effects as any other living creature. We may have heightened reasoning abilities compared with fish, but that does not isolate us from the rest of the community of life. Religious objections were specific, because humans were “made in the image of God”, but non-religious objections had similar reasons. Humans were assumed to have a special status, whether divinely ordained or intellectually grasped, and evolutionary theory challenged this fundamental assertion. The world did not belong to human beings, but instead humans were part of the world. This was one of the greatest paradigm shifts since the Copernican Revolution.

My brother sent me this in an email yesterday.

I was reading Economics: A Very Short Introduction, and I found a part that made me think about global warming. I was watching CNN, and they were saying that the biggest producers of CO2 etc. are the ones who feel the ramifications the least. Coupled with that I found this quote:

“In contrast to poor countries, agricultural output is a small fraction of national income in the rich world. The share of agriculture in GDP is about 25% in the poor world; less than 5% in rich countries. Less than 10% of the population in rich countries live in rural areas. In contrast, more than 70% of people in poor countries live in villages; which gives rise to the thought that people in poor countries mostly work in economies that draw their production inputs directly from Nature–they are ‘biomass-based’ economies. Ecology is of direct concern to the world’s poor, in a way it isn’t to the world’s rich.”

The discovery of fossils on a large scale gave rise to the idea of extinction. Somehow, the imprints of non-existent creatures were in the geologic record. Barring supernatural influence, it soon became clear that these creatures lived long ago–before humans, even! This is not surprising news today, but at the time it was a revolutionary discovery. The prevailing worldview assumed human civilization had always existed in some form; this idea was present in the Christian theology of the time, but non-Christian views of the world also shared similar assumptions.

Look backward, there was a thriving community of life long before humans ever appeared on the planet. And looking forward, the discovery of fossils foreshadowed the eerie possibility of human extinction. Humans were thought of as different from the rest of life, though, so the ramifications of this conclusion did not fully set in until the ideas of Charles Darwin.

In 1725 in Würzburg, Germany, Dr. Johann Beringer made a startling discovery. Occasional fossils had been found earlier, but only now were geologists and natural scientists locating large quantities of fossils that questioned their view of the world. Organisms were not known to go extinct, but scientists were finding organisms in rocks that were not observed in the present.

Beringer believed that a perfect Creator could not make an imperfect creation, so it was impossible for fossils to be the remains of extinct life. Fossils, he reasoned, must have been placed by God in order to test mankind’s faith. Unfortunately for Beringer, not everyone shared his opinion. He soon became the victim of a famous geologic hoax, where he came into possession of a vast number of fossils such as those pictured below.

For about a year, Beringer collected these fabricated fossils and wrote a book describing his findings. Soon the fossils took more esoteric shapes, such as shooting stars and Hebrew scripts. He even discovered the name of God among the fossils, confirming his theory! Finally, he discovered a fossil with his own name on it; Beringer then realized that he had been the victim of an elaborate and extended hoax.

While we cannot fault Beringer for pursuing his beliefs, his famous lying stones remain in Würzburg as a testament to the pursuit of a fallible worldview.

The realization that the Earth is not at the center of the Solar System or the Universe is known to modern minds, but when Copernicus published his ideas they were not received with enthusiasm by everyone. Historically, the Catholic Church was the primary antagonist against a heliocentric view of the Solar System. Some of the basis for the Church’s opposition is the literal interpretation of certain Biblical passages to infer a physical cosmology. Religious doctrine only provided a vehicle for expressing distaste for the idea, however; if Biblical influences had not been present, other oppositions would have arisen. The problem is not religious but cultural.

Around 10,000 years ago in the Fertile Crescent, a group of people began practicing totalitarian agriculture. That is, they farmed and created surpluses, and they used the land to the exclusion of other organisms. With the food surpluses came rapid population growth that led to expansion–expansion not only of people, but also of ideas. Totalitarian agriculture spread from the Middle East, and along with these farming practices came a new worldview: the people of this culture assumed 1) they were the most superior creature, and 2) they knew the one proper way that people should live. As this culture continued to spread over the years, this centrism continued to develop; after all, if they had not found the right way to live, then why were they so apparently successful?

The first blow to this worldview was the relocation of Earth from the center of the cosmos to a rather unremarkable location. It was not a terminal blow, for the culture was able to continue growing and expanding. But it was the first of many signs that the culture had adopted a fatal worldview.

Certain ideas are unpalatable to some people. Criticism of these ideas is often attempted in a logical or scientific framework, but opposition to the idea is often more fundamental than a disagreement in methods. Over the next week or so, I will devote separate entries to each of the four ideas listed below. Some of these ideas carry more modern dissenters than others, but the collective significance of these four ideas is important in understanding our place as part of the community of life.

1) Copernican Revolution - we are not the center of the Universe

2) Discovery of Fossils - extinctions happen

3) Theory of Evolution - we share ancestors with other creatures

4) Global Climate Change - we are capable of altering our environment

The notion of the individual soul has persisted since the Greek philosophers and is taken for granted by many (most?) people of our culture. From an individualistic salvationist point of view, this makes sense: each person has a unique spiritual entity that can be saved or damned.

If human beings are in fact gifted with a separate spiritual entity, we arrive at a question: at what point in evolutionary history did the soul become part of an organism? Perhaps we could extend the notion of a soul to all living creatures, so as not to be anthropogenic. This brings us further along the line of questioning: what constitutes an individual organism? Plants, animals, and fungi all share a recent ancestor when comparing to the biological tree of life. Are individual bacterial cells considered individual organisms capable of possessing a soul? Can a bacteria collective contain a soul? At which point in the evolutionary tree did it become possible for an organism to have a soul?

We may like to think of ourselves as individual beings, but just like every other species on this planet we cannot survive apart from the community of life.

People often refrain from change until the status quo results in definite disaster. For example, a faulty structure may not be repaired until a passing storm destroys it, confirming the suspicions of instability, but too late for action.

The concern over global climate change cannot be as relaxed, though. If nothing is changed and scientific predictions end up being accurate, then we’re in serious trouble. There’s no rebuilding after a storm in the case of catastrophic global climate change. On the other hand, if people do act globally to the point that threats are averted, no one will believe it! If we are successful in combating mesopogenic climate change, many people will believe climate change was a hoax to begin with.

The Y2K scare is an excellent example of this. Many people today are still convinced that Y2K was a baseless scare without any significant consequences. In reality, government and industry spent tremendous amounts of time and money to fix critical systems in order to avoid disaster. Nothing happened when the clock struck midnight precisely because we had sufficient preparation.

Hopefully disaster is not a prerequisite for change, but in any circumstance the skeptics will never be satisfied.

Foresight’s only as far as you can peer into the past. –Mad at Gravity, “Historypeats”

Why are we the only culture that treats food as a commodity to be bought and sold?

Language reflects the way we think, but it does not necessarily constrain us from thinking in new ways. There is a problem, though, when trying to express a foreign idea in an unsuitable language. Languages evolve quite rapidly, so they are well-suited to express the most commonly held current worldview; implicit assumptions in a language thus make it difficult to formulate a new worldview into words.

This does not mean that new ideas and new worldviews are never formed, of course, for paradigm shift has certainly occurred in the past. Part of the challenge of introducing new ideas is transcending the implicit language barrier of any human culture. Metaphor, simile, and storytelling are excellent vehicles for communicating ideas that are not easily framed in a culturally-dependent language. Conveying ideas via story is more difficult than direct expression, but sometimes direct expression is not possible.

Language is often an excellent indicator of thought patterns for a society. Implicit in any language are certain assumptions that people often take for granted.

I have commented on the use of the words anthropogenic and natural as they relate to human activity in the world. Since the distinctions anthropogenic vs. natural and anthropogenic vs. non-anthropogenic both carry unspoken assumptions, I present an alternative word.

Mesopogenic effects are caused by human societies who trace their agrarian roots to the Agricultural Revolution ~10,000 years ago in the Fertile Crescent. Today, this includes nearly every human society that practices a non-sustainable type of farming known as totalitarian agriculture.

Thus the distinction becomes mesopogenic vs. non-mesopogenic. An increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide from fossil fuel consumption is mesopogenic. The rise of atmospheric oxygen in the late Archean was non-mesopogenic.

Of course, I don’t expect anyone to adopt this termonology; I just thought I should present a positive definition instead of several negative ones.

The prefix anthro- is a qualifier used to encompass all humans. Anthropology is the study of people–any group of people. Anthropomorphism is the assignment of uniquely human traits to non-human creatures or inanimate objects. These are traits that all humans share such as complex speech, complex emotions, and the ability to tell stories.

When discussing anthropogenic effects on, say, the climate system, the consistency breaks down. Anthropogenic climate change is a phrase used to denote the effects of fossil fuels and industry on climate; however, there is one important fallacy in labeling industrial effects on climate as anthropogenic: only a single culture of humans is responsible for this industry!

Ten thousand (and more) years ago there were many human cultures around the world. One particular culture in the Fertile Crescent developed a type of farming known as totalitarian agriculture–a non-sustainable type of farming that allowed this culture to expand. As this culture expanded, it encompassed surrounding cultures–even sailing across oceans and assimilating strange new cultures! Today this culture is the largest human culture in the world, but it is still not the only one. The aboriginal people groups in New Guinea, the Bushmen of the Kalahari, and the Yanomami of the Amazon are examples of cultures that do not stem from this Mesopotamian-based culture.

Thus, to say that industrial effects are anthropogenic is a fallacy. Humans are not responsible for any effects of industry; humans of this culture instead are responsible. This may seem like an insignificant distinction, but consider the examples of anthropology and anthropomorphism (and other uses of the prefix anthro-)–these terms are used to be inclusive of all of humanity, not just a particular culture.

It is true that over 99% of the world’s human population is part of this Mesopotamian culture, but this is not a reason to ignore other cultures. Labeling industrial effects as anthropogenic suggests that the problem is with humans. When we realize that these effects are not a product of all humanity, however, we then see that the problem is cultural–a problem with our culture.

The world will not be saved by old minds with new programs. If the world is saved, it will be saved by new minds–with no programs. –Daniel Quinn, The Story of B

Recycling is a program. It is well-intentioned, and it has positive outcomes; but recycling will not change the world. The world is changed with new minds. The Agricultural Revolution had no programs nor did the Industrial Revolution, but these changes of worldview were immensely successful in our culture. The open source movement is an interesting example of new minds with no programs.

The principles of the open source movement are simple: free exchange of information, no monopolizing an idea, encouraged cooperation, and so on. What is interesting is that this was not a dogma at the time the movement started (nor has it ever had a single discernible leader). The open source movement began with changed minds. When enough minds changed, larger projects were possible. The open source movement never reverted to evangelism–because a program would be useless. People might choose to change their minds when they understand what the movement means (although they may understand and choose not to agree). In this way the movement grew, developing in ideas and even producing products. But the products are the fruit of a more fundamental energy: the movement of changed minds.

Are morals absolute or are they culturally dependent? There is no simple answer to this question, but I had a thought regarding stealing in particular.

Stealing is a culturally determined moral issue. Not all cultures value the concepts of property or ownership. For example, Native Americans did not consider land to be a commodity that could be bought, sold, traded, or owned. The sale of Manhattan Island for a few beads does not reflect the naivete of the people living in the Americas, but simply indicates the indigenous people did not share the European’s concept of ownership.

The beginning of the movie The Gods Must Be Crazy illustrates this point with the Bushmen of the Kalahari. With no unique possessions that could be owned, the Bushmen have no need for the concept of ownership. In the fiction of the movie, the introduction of a Coke bottle poses a problem for this people now, since there is finally an object that can have an owner.

In any case, stealing is only an issue when ownership is of value to a society; and since not all societies value ownership, stealing cannot be absolutely immoral.

This post is related to an earlier entry I made regarding the Biblical Leavers.

Gathering Mana (Exodus 16:4-5)
Then the LORD said to Moses, ‘I am going to rain bread from heaven for you, and each day the people shall go out and gather enough for that day. In that way I will test them, whether they will follow my instruction or not. On the sixth day, when they prepare what they bring in, it will be twice as much as they gather on other days.’

Storing Mana (Exodus 16:17-20)
The Israelites did so, some gathering more, some less. But when they measured it with an omer, those who gathered much had nothing over, and those who gathered little had no shortage; they gathered as much as each of them needed. And Moses said to them, ‘Let no one leave any of it over until morning.’ But they did not listen to Moses; some left part of it until morning, and it bred worms and became foul. And Moses was angry with them.

The Israelites are specifically commanded not to store food but rather to rely on God for a daily source of food. Why is there a commandment against food storage? This goes back again to the contrast between those who practice totalitarian agriculture and those who do not (Takers and Leavers). God favors those do not take these matters into their own hands–the person who stores food is in effect saying, “The gods have sent us enough food for today, but will they do so tomorrow? Let us store extra food so that the gods will have no control over us!” In the midst of a totalitarian-agriculture Mesopotamian world, the Israelites were susceptible to the temptation of storing food; but the God they worshiped certainly did not hold the same ideals.

Artists, engineers, soldiers, and kings are not a result of extra time due to the benefits of agriculture. Rather, the Mesopotamian culture was accelerated through a path of technological development because of the large populations they generated. Non-Mesopotamian cultures have developed technology, but the pace of development is much slower. They do not have less free time; there are simply fewer people and therefore less combined free time. The population explosion in the Mesopotamian culture resulted in a greater number of people doing science/art/etc., but this was not because each person had extra time. Thus, totalitarian agriculture (or any agriculture, for that matter) is not a prerequisite for technology. Technology may develop at a slower rate, but agriculture is not a prerequisite.

With regard to life in the Universe, it may be that a lifestyle akin to totalitarian agriculture does not develop very often. This does not mean that no communicable civilizations exist, though. The Mesopotamian culture’s worldview (that humanity is above Nature) is a destructive one, akin to a self-annihilating civilization as SETI describes (one with a low value of L in the Drake Equation). Therefore, the detectable, communicating civilizations will take similar paths to the non-Mesopotamian cultures; this will provide ample time for the civilization to adapt and gradually incorporate technology into their lives, avoiding unfortunate consequences. These types of civilizations will be long-lived (high value of L in the Drake Equation) and able to develop communication projects similar to SETI and other efforts.

In other words, the Mesopotamian-worldview may accelerate the pace of technological development, but it will ultimately lead to the demise of the civilization. Conversely, non-Mesopotamian-worldviews will lead to steady technological development and eventually result in stable (not necessarily perfect) civilizations capable of communicating.

Life in the Universe lives on.

Rewind back to the time of the Agricultural Revolution. There are humans living all across the globe in a variety of climates. One particular culture in Mesopotamia, however, decided to live differently than all the other global human cultures. This group of people did not simply practice agriculture–rather, they practiced totalitarian agriculture. This came from (and reinforced) the mindset that this particular group of humans were above the world of Nature and need not be subjected to Nature’s Law.

This radical transformation in worldview from the rest of humanity led to many unique (and sometimes dangerous) developments by this culture. Among these are the development of philosophy and modern religion. Philosophical questions arose because of the assumption that humans are above Nature; this led to discussion of cognition, self-awareness, afterlife, ethics, morality, and other such questions.

In this light, it makes sense that people not originating from this Mesopotamian culture would not have developed the field of philosophy–they did not assume that humanity is above Nature, so these questions would never have been relevant. What about science? Why did non-Mesopotamian cultures never develop science? This question bothered me for awhile until I realized that science is historically a branch of philosophy (natural philosophy, to be specific). In other words, although the scientific framework deals with understanding the natural world, separated from speculations of meaning and purpose, it has its origins in philosophy. This scientific view developed out of the questions of meaning and purpose, so even though this is no longer the case, we can see why non-Mesopotamian cultures did not develop science. Without the worldview that humans are above Nature, there is no obvious path leading to science. There may exist such a path, but unfortunately the prevailing Mesopotamian culture expanded with such rapidity that we may never know.

Religion and philosophy provide a lens through which people view the world. Especially where organized religion is concerned, there is a fundamental order to the Universe that is expressed through a particular spiritual revelation (whether this be a holy text, a prophet, enlightenment, continuity of tradition, or any number of additional contributors). Furthermore, because this worldview follows from this spiritual/religious revelation, and because the spiritual revelation is assumed to be completely accurate (since it came from God/the gods/a higher power), it follows that a religious system should be able to address any and all questions posed it. After all, a complete worldview will be able to address any question of the world.

Are there any dangerous questions?

Yes, I believe there are. A dangerous question is one that has an attainable answer, but following the answer to its logical conclusion results in the collapse of the worldview in question. The existence of dangerous questions does not mean religious systems will immediately fall; instead, it predicts strong reactions, turmoil, war, anger, and resentment, followed by patchwork attempts and sometimes ignorance. Of course, any religion will claim there is no such thing as a dangerous question. After all, the religious worldview is sufficient to address any issue imaginable. But such questions do in fact exist.

So what questions are dangerous, then? For now, I’ll leave that as something to ponder…

Here’s something I don’t understand: what exactly does it mean to own land?

In order for a commodity to be sold, there needs to be a buyer and a seller. Well, who is selling land? I suppose ultimately land is considered to be owned by the government, and the government then decides how best to split up the land among smaller districts and eventually individuals and families. But how did the government gain the right to own land? Perhaps it is reasonable to allow for the government allocating plots of land to individuals–certainly a remnant of the transition from a nomadic to agrarian lifestyle. The problem, then, is the precise meaning of “ownership” in this context.

When a human owns land, what rights does this entail? If a plot of land is owned by a family, does this simply mean that other humans are not allowed to live on this land without permission? The fact that property is build upon, changed, landscaped, and sometimes abused suggests land ownership is more than separation. If there are squirrels or rabbits in an owned property, does the family have the right to shoot these creatures, even if not for food? What if dolphins lived in owned property–would recreational hunting still be okay?

Although there may be a need for humans to separate into their own little plots, I see no basis for the concept of ownership akin to “mastery”. We may draw arbitrary lines to keep our human neighbors away, but we often forget that we share this planet with a nearly innumerable host of other creatures, and it would be ridiculous to think that we could obtain absolute ownership of any part of this planet.

If you’ve read Ishmael then you’ll know that the story of Cain & Abel is an excellent example of the Leavers versus the Takers (which is sometimes characterized as hunter/gatherer versus farmer, although this is not the only difference). Although Jesus himself was a Taker (being a Jew in Roman-controlled Israel) some of his teaching and philosophy certainly appears to be otherwise. After all, Adam, Eve, and Abel were all hunters, gatherers, and herders–agriculture (and the subsequent so-called “rise of civilization”) is part of the curse.

The Curse: farming instead of hunting/gathering (Genesis 3:17-19)
And to the man he said, “Because you have listened to the voice of your wife, and have eaten of the tree about which I commanded you, ‘You shall not eat of it,’ cursed is the ground because of you; in toil you shall eat of it all the days of your life; thorns and thistles it shall bring forth for you; and you shall eat the plants of the field. By the sweat of your face you shall eat bread until you return to the ground, for out of it you were taken; you are dust, and to dust you shall return.”

The Preference: herding over farming (Genesis 4:2-5)
Now Abel was a keeper of sheep, and Cain a tiller of the ground. In the course of time Cain brought to the LORD an offering of the fruit of the ground, and Abel for his part brought of the firstlings of his flock, their fat portions. And the LORD had regard for Abel and his offering, but for Cain and his offering he had no regard.

The Revolutionary: Jesus sends out his followers as gatherers (Mark 6:7-11; also Matthew 10:5-14 and Luke 9:1-5)
He called the twelve and began to send them out two by two, and gave them authority over the unclean spirits. He ordered them to take nothing for their journey except a staff; no bread, no bag, no money in their belts; but to wear sandals and not to put on two tunics. He said to them, “Wherever you enter a house, stay there until you leave the place. If any place will not welcome you and they refuse to hear you, as you leave, shake off the dust that is on your feet as a testimony against them.”

If you look to your left, you will notice a cheerful greeting for a perhaps unfamiliar holiday. In an effort to brighten each and every day with global holiday goodness, I have set up a script to query the Earth Calendar every day and provide a celebratory wish from some part of the globe. Today, among other things, is the Haitian celebration of Agou.

Isn’t it nice to know that each and every day someone is celebrating something? It’s a good excuse to take a break from work, at least…

One behavioral characteristics of the “development” of primates (including humans) is the designation of a lavatory site outside of the camp; that is, the separation of waste management from the rest of the society. Whether the reasons be social, hygienic, or something else, there seems to be at least a moderate correlation between so-called “intelligence” and the use of a lavatory outside of the main camp. (I would take issue with this as a sign of “intelligence”; rather, I would say it simply suggests a trend toward a particular social structure.)

In the modern day and age, it is interesting that the lavatory has progressed back into our camp–or buildings and houses. The outhouse on the edge of the farm has been replaced by plumbing systems that achieve the same sanitary function. Yet the designation of the lavatory as a place outside of and removed from society has been replaced by the modern bathroom, a specific place within a house or building, but one given much more care and decoration. Some modern cultures still retain a sense of “outside seclusion” when it comes to bathrooms, even with indoor modern plumbing; but in the United States and many European nations (and elsewhere) there is seemingly a shift in the attitude toward waste management. If social separation from the waste process is a sign of intelligence, then perhaps we are taking a step backwards…

“But…how much does it cost? It won’t be free forever.”

I have been faced with similar responses when discussing the merits of Linux, the Mozilla projects, and other open source software. The cynics are usually middle-aged businesspeople–or their children–who have succeeded financially only because good were not given away. The fact that a modern free webbrowser can rival (and exceed) the capacities of a commercial Microsoft one is a mystery to many–corporate types, but others as well.

The difference is only partially an issue of money. In many ways, it is more of a difference in worldview. The traditional businessperson sees a group of potential consumers; these consumers can be provided with a product for a profit. In other words, this is a client-server model, where services and payment are expected and immediate.

The open source movement, on the other hand, functions more as a community. People contribute what they desire and are able; this may be the development of a Linux kernel, beta testing of new software, or helping out on a public forum. What about those who contribute nothing? Well, since the functionality of the community is of higher priority than profit, there is nothing that mandates participation from everyone/anyone. But it comes with a safeguard, too: if everything is automatically free, there is no problem with would-be freeloaders–that’s the whole point! And if someone wants to take open source software and develop it for profit (which happens), there is often a branch that continues to develop under open source guidelines.

This is not really a culture of generations, although it may seem that way at times. Really, this is a culture of the Internet. Because information is readily and globally available, and because people can communicate with little regard to physical boundaries, the open source movement was able to take form–and this foundation is a means for insuring the continuation of the movement.

Pre-agricultural revolution, most people spent their time hunting and gathering food–there were not really any other professions. As tribes became less nomadic and began to grow their own food, it became possible for a smaller group of people to produce enough food to sustain many more. This allowed for “non-essential” (or “non-farming”) professions, such as soldiers, politicians, doctors, and artists.

In a smaller tribal setting, the artists would have achieved at least a small amount of fame (which is also a function of their talent). Because these tribes were small, it would not have been difficult for the artist’s work to be appreciated to some degree. As cities and civilizations grew, food production increased in efficiency and the number of non-farming professions adjusted accordingly. Nowadays, with cities containing millions of people, it is interesting that the community of artists has grown tremendously in number while their prominence has diminished so that only a few individuals are recognized by the rest of the community. The early artist was a member of a tribe; today, artists have formed their own tribe. Within large cities there will certainly be sub-tribes that form, to mimic the ~200 person tribes of long ago; but it is interesting to note that while the early tribes had a resident artist, today the artists often form a single tribe of their own.

And, of course, you can substitute a number of things for “artist” in the above discussion.

Why do we consider fireworks to be festive and celebratory? Let’s take a stab at it.

The original, primal origin is found in the tribal human hunt. When these early plains-dwellers defeated their prey and returned home triumphantly, both the participants and spectators celebrated–not only because of the food acquired, but also because of the more general victory over an adversary. The hunt was perhaps equally valuable as a social tool as it was a food source, and the remnants of the excitement in such a primal hunt is still visible in modern athletics and other competitions.

The firework is essentially a destructive device, given its explosive nature. The act of exploding mimics the sense of victory gained over prey in the hunt (although prey very rarely explodes). An exploding object is completely and utterly defeated, having been fragmented and dispersed. The parallel with the hunt and/or war was made more apparent with the introduction of explosive weaponry. In celebration, fireworks are (generally) not used to cause actual harm, but they take on the role of pseudo-enemy. As the device explodes in the night sky–often with patriotic colors–the crowd cannot help but applaud at the ritualistic defeat of a foe.

This is a bit of a continuation on the observation of human harmony vs. discord with nature. At the most fundamental level, many (most?) types of agriculture fall into the second category: the assertion of humanity’s dominance over the land. (Of course, I do not mean to say that farming is inherently evil.) The earliest human ancestors were hunter-gatherers, a style that intuitively blends with the rest of nature. The agricultural revolution is often marked as the dawn of civilization, but it is equally important to remember that the introduction of agriculture was not a “Eureka!” moment; rather farming slowly was adapted into people’s lives, some cultures making it more dominant than others. The hunter-gatherer tribe that dabbles with a bit of farming still seems to be living in a harmonious relationship with the land. The problem comes not with the practice of planting and harvesting, but with the implementation.

The lifestyle of the hunter-gatherer automatically implies harmony with nature because their very survival is dependent upon nature providing useful plants or plentiful game. The addition of supplemental farming can maintain this human-nature relationship (after all, squirrels store enough acorns to last the winter). However, once human tribes began growing more food than they needed, they began to put themselves at odds with nature. Before, nature provided and nature took away. Now, with large-scale food production, humans no longer had to succumb to nature. (Notice that squirrels do not store more food than they need to last the winter.) Surplus food production led to increased population, which, as the story goes, gave birth to civilization.

So do we all quit our jobs and go collect berries? Well, probably not. But there is a disconnect between humanity and nature that has existed for at least 10,000 years and is manifest in everything from food production to building construction. I think it is possible to reclaim the healthier relationship with nature in the modern era without reverting to the hunter-gatherer lifestyle, but like any paradigm shift it will not come easy.

I’ve had my share of aerial city views: Sears’ Tower, Hancock Center, Empire State Building, St. Peter’s Cathedral, Eiffel Tower. All of these times I was impressed with the beauty of the city, the dazzling of the lights, and the expansiveness of the buildings. However, very recently when I was at the top of the Kuala Lumpur tower I had a very different experience. I looked out into the city, lights on display, and thought to myself: this is not really beautiful at all.

Now, I do not mean to say that I found the sight ugly or distasteful. But what struck me was the celebration of human achievement, dominion of urbanization over the natural world. In once sense there is beauty in the products that were built from human ingenuity, but at the same time there is a sense of discord between humanity and nature as our structures impose upon the land. This is not to say cities, civilization, or technology are evil or ugly–I happen to be a fan of all three. It is certainly possible for human cities and technology to coexist with the rest of the biosphere, and ideally humanity will reach that state soon. However, for whatever reason my sense from the KL Tower was not one of serenity but one of struggle. Human achievement has certainly been amazing at times, but to bask in our own glory is perhaps the first sign of delusion.

(Hello from Kuala Lumpur)

Many indigenous people groups are in danger of extinction, simply due to the spreading of agriculture and technology. Some of these people choose to adapt to the “modern” lifestyle, but others strive to maintain their ethnic and cultural identity, even if it seems a bit misplaced from a Western view. But inevitably, these cultures and people groups will disappear.

The loss of a culture is almost always sad, but this notion made me think in an evolutionary sense of protecting one’s genetics. In the case of a “doomed” people group, continued isolation will only lead to the dwindling and ultimate disappearance of a genetic pool. However, by intermarrying and possibly losing much of their cultural identity they would at least maintain genetic continuity in the increasingly global human gene pool. Again, I do not find cultural assimilation very tasteful or useful at all. But for example, in the case of China and Tibet, it is interesting to note that China’s attempts at encouraging intermarriage between Chinese and Tibetans is a double-edged sword: it will be successful in eliminating the Tibetian culture, but it will ensure continuity of the Tibetan genes. And from an evolutionary viewpoint this genetic continuity is a success, at least in one way.

This is a continuation of yesterday’s post, so be sure to read it first.

Today, let’s go back 650 million years in Earth’s history. Using our time machine, we end up on a late proterozoic beach and wander around a bit. Eventually, we spot a creature–a jellyfish–floating in the water, and (as in all good science fiction) this jellyfish is able to speak with us. Suppose we were to ask this jellyfish our question: “how did things come to be?”. The response might be something like this:

How things came to be
Once the Earth cooled down, oceans began to form. Soon after this, conditions allowed for the formation of amino acids and proteins that developed into more complex molecules and then into living cells. For over a billion years this life remained simple single-celled organisms. But eventually some of the cells began to form multicellular systems and increase in complexity. Certain cells took on specific functions so that the organism would be able to have unique abilities for metabolism and motility. And finally, after millions of years of evolution, finally jellyfish appeared!

Using this as an example, hopefully it’s a bit more obvious that I’m not looking at the data/theory being presented, but rather the way in which we tell the story.