Category Archive

As a continuation of yesterday’s discussion, I created a simple graphic to illustrate the relative timescales of significant (to us) events in our cosmic history. The two inner squares show the Cretaceous-Tertiary Extinction (65.5 Ma) and Emergence of Homo (2.5 Ma) (Ga = gigaannum = 1 billion years; Ma = megaannum = 1 million years). Any events more recent would be smaller than a pixel.

I wonder how many galactic empires rose and fell in the blue area, before our own place in the galaxy even began to take shape.

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)

Once again we come to October 23rd, wherein we observe not one but two holidays. In addition to the 6010th birthday of the Universe, today is also Mole Day.

So whether you’re a chemist or a creationist, there’s cause for celebration!

Awhile back I wrote an essay on the loss of hair in human evolution. There are a few plausible reasons as to why humans became naked, but there is no strong evidence to prefer any of the ideas.

I wonder, though, what the impact on modern collective thought would have been if humans had not lost their hair. The theory of evolution repulsed many people because they did not want to draw a connection between humanity and animals–after all, humans were a status above the animals. Yet eventually sufficient evidence accumulated to suggest that humans indeed were closely related to the other great apes on the planet. Among the great apes, though, we physically stand out because of our nakedness. If we had retained our full coat of hair, would our perception of relationship to the animal world have been greater? Might this have been enough to avoid the idea of human-animal separation to begin with?

Perhaps not–but then again, hairlessness was specifically noted when Adam was becoming fully human:

They heard the sound of the Lord God walking in the garden at the time of the evening breeze, and the man and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the Lord God among the trees of the garden. But the Lord God called to the man, and said to him, ‘Where are you?’ He said, ‘I heard the sound of you in the garden, and I was afraid, because I was naked; and I hid myself.’ He said, ‘Who told you that you were naked? Have you eaten from the tree of which I commanded you not to eat?’ (Genesis 3:8-11)

A Native American creation story as featured in the documentary 500 Nations.

God created the Indian country, and that was the time this river started to run. Then God created fish in this river and put deer in the mountains. Then the Creator gave Indians life. We walked, and as soon as we saw the game and fish we knew they were made for us. My strength, my blood is from the fish, from the roots and berries and game. I did not come here; I was put here by the Creator.

It was brought to my attention that the Creation Museum in Petersburg, KY has now been open for one month. I’ll limit my commentary and simply feature some excerpts from the Creation Museum brochure. Let’s dive in.

So, what is the Creation Museum all about?

The Creation Museum presents a unique and unparalleled experience, a walk through time portraying significant, life-altering events from the past, illuminating the effects of Biblical history on our present and future world.

Sounds exciting! What can I expect to see there?

Walk through the Garden of Eden. Introduce yourself to our chameleons. Examine bones, the clutch of eggs from a dinosaur, an exceptional fossil collection, and a mineral collection. Enter the Cave of Sorrows and see the horrific effects of the Fall of man. Finally, see the sacrificial Lamb on the cross, and the hope of redemption.

A walk through the most important events in the 6000 years of human history–great! But what about science and discovery today?

Each seat is a rocket launching pad in our Stargazer’s Planetarium. Prepare for lift-off. The Digistar3-SP2 digital projector showcases a spectacular spaceflight, a thrilling 22 minute ride billions of light years away to the vast outer regions of our universe. Breathtaking images and inconceivable distances make this cosmic journey under the dome a fully engaging experience.

And animitronic dinosaurs to boot! Certainly a place the whole family can enjoy. But wait a minute–will I have to sit through a preachy sermon that tells me I’m going to Hell unless I convert?

The Bible speaks for itself at the Creation Museum. We’ve just paved the Way to a greater understanding of the tenets of creation and redemption. Our exhibit halls are gilded with Truth, our gardens teem with the visible signs of Life. (Emphasis in original.)

Sounds like quite the adventure. I know that if I am ever near the viscinity of the Museum, I will certainly make the effort to take a tour (really). The brochure leaves me with one question, though: how can young-Earth creationists talk about objects being billions of light years away? Then again, maybe the Creator simply made it look as if celestial objects are billions of years old. Tricksy.

Case #1: A member of civilization prepares for a visitor by taking time off from work. When the visitor arrives, they will relax, explore, and eat. The food they eat has been accumulated from worldwide sources, whether in restaurants or cooked in the home.

Case #2: A hunter-gatherer prepares for a visitor by changing very little. When the visitor arrives, they will relax, explore, and eat. They will go out and eat from the the best trees, lakes, woods, and other sources of nearby food–with plenty of time for other things each day.

In case #2, the visitor gains the experience of his guest’s lifestyle by actively participating in one of the only regular activities of the host’s daily life. In case #1, the host and visitor are able to spend time together, but the demands of civilization and work necessitate a limited visit duration and an artificial adjustment of daily life.

My first attempt at spoken word, inspired by an older entry.

When I grow up, I want to pick berries
Where the food that I need every day is outside
Just a stroll through the woods every morning and evening
To fill up my belly with what I can find

I won’t need to go to the grocery store
Where everything comes so neat in a can
Canned tomatoes and peaches and cherries and salmon
And little white cheeses in red waxy cases

Instead I’ll just climb up a tree
Grab an apple or two
Maybe find some sweet honey
Or else dig around in the dirt
Tasty shrooms all around
And maybe some truffles
Or the fish in the lake
Or the deer in the woods
Or the squirrel in the tree
Cause some people like squirrel!

But they won’t let me, they tell me I can’t
Have to get me a job, have to get me a car
There’s no place left in the world I can go
To live out my dream of living the hunt

When you go to the city
It doesn’t look pretty
For miles and miles there’s people you see
And it’s not that I don’t like to see all the people
But I’ve seen the real jungle
It’s got no concrete

I’ve been to the plains of the great Seringetti
So close to the place that our species began
Not just people around them, but all sorts of creatures
A modern-day density could not be found
No grocery stores
No streets full of people
Just a tribe
And a hunt
And a wide open land

When I grow up, I want to pick berries
And hunt for my food like my ancestors did
I can’t help but think that the city is lonely
And life is too short to surrender and fade

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.

Life did not take ~4 billion years to evolve on Earth.

This statement often appears in conversation and print, but it grossly misrepresents the evolutionary mechanism. Current estimates suggest life originated between 3.9 and 4.1 billion years ago, which means life took between 400 and 600 million years to evolve. The origin of eukaryotic cells is estimated to be 1.6 to 2.1 billion years ago, corresponding to an evolutionary time of 2.4 to 2.9 billion years to develop.

The 4 billion year number comes from the Cambrian explosion, which took place around 542 million years ago. Thus, the statement people actually mean to make is: “Complex animal life took ~4 billion years to evolve on Earth.” And, of course, when people are talking about the development of complex animal life, they often have the appearance of humans in mind. But life is far more persistent than that. Without the Cambrian explosion, Earth would still be a vibrant planet thriving with life.

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.

Let’s take a look at the CIA World Factbook for the population of religious groups. I have also included the region of origin for the religions in the table below.

It is interesting to note the geographical monopoly of the popular religions: the ones with definite regions are either from the Fertile Crescent area or the Indus Valley. And if we break down “other religions” into components, Shintoism, Taoism, and Confucianism (among others) have Asian origins. In other words, a vast majority of the religions on this table are Eurasian.

All of these religions developed after people were distributed across the globe. How likely is it that Eurasia had a monopoly on the development of desirable religions? Why is the religion of the Maya, for example, nearly forgotten in practice today? Certainly the conquest of the New World led to the spread of Christianity in the Americas, just as later Islamic conquests spread Islam in Africa. But why were none of the conquerers converted to indigenous faiths?

Religion is not a worldview, although many people think this is true. Rather, religion is one of the highest expressions of a worldview–and (especially in the case of Christianity and Islam) religion provides a vehicle for assimilating others into a particular 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

Let’s condense the 4.6 billion year history of the Earth to 1 year.

The rise of atmospheric oxygen in the Paleoproterozoic occurred around 6 months ago.

The Cambrian Explosion took place about 1.5 months ago.

The K-T extinction event (that killed the dinosaurs) was 5 days ago.

Humans and human ancestors appeared about 7.5 hours ago.

The Agricultural Revolution (and rise of civilization) took place one minute ago.

It’s interesting to consider how much importance we put on that last minute.

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.

The phrase “going tribal” is sometimes used as a synonym for drunken revelry, but I think at a fundamental level alcohol is an unnecessary component. The only needed item to “go tribal” is a tribe.

Humans have lived in small relatively isolated tribes for most of history. It is only in the most recent ~8000 years or so that cities have developed and tribal dynamics minimized. But 8000 years is not enough time to erase our evolutionary heritage, and vestiges of this tribalism surface often in our daily lives. However, large-scale tribal celebrations are not necessarily as common. Tribalism implies familiarity; even an alcohol-rich college party would mostly likely not be described as “tribal” because many of the people are simply acquaintances or even unknown to each other. When a common interest unites people, such as a sports team, there can be a degree of tribal affinity. But again, if the sports team is the sole commonality between participants then the tribal intensity is diminished.

A close-knit group of friends might function as a tribe. One step closer, though, is the extended family. Most of us do not live in tribal proximity to our extended families, but every now and then there are events that bring everyone together (reunions, weddings, etc.). Already linked genetically, when a large familial group gets together (especially one in which most people get along) it is difficult to miss the tribal overtones. Introduce rhythmic, danceable music and the similarity is unquestionable. It’s more than just dancing, and it’s more than just celebration. It’s the uniting of an interconnected group into a single form that is unspoken but understood by all. It’s tribal.

What happens when a person decided that an agrarian society is not for them, and that they would prefer the lifestyle of a hunter-gatherer? Well, not much. Regardless of whether or not this decision is contemplated very often or not, civilization is an all-encompassing and pervasive force on a nearly global level. There are only a few remaining people-groups that maintain a hunter-gatherer lifestyle, even fewer who have maintained isolation from the modernized world–and it would be very difficult for a Westerner to join such a tribe for a variety of reasons.

We often maintain that people have the right to their own religion, to pursue happiness in their own way, to strive after a satisfying career, to chase after hopes and dreams. Historically, there have been times when freedoms such as these have been restricted, such as the case of an oppressive state church. Yet even with a religiously dominating government, it was still feasible (although perhaps dangerous) to choose one’s own religion. I do not think this is true today for someone who wishes to live as a hunter-gatherer. It may be that no one really wants to give up the lifestyle of an agrarian civilization, but I still think it is interesting to note that if a person desired to do so, it would be nearly impossible. Civilization is not a choice. It is a demand.

I am able to buy beans in a can.

It didn’t used to be this way. Back in the hunting-and-gathering days, people would search for whatever food they needed for a given day. One day they might catch a deer or a rabbit, while another day they might stumble across some roots or mushrooms. The dinner menu was dependent upon the success of the afternoon hunt. A person having a craving for beans may or may not have their desire satisfied, as this would be dependent on the season and region as well as the success in finding this particular crop. But no matter; the world was full of good things to eat, so something else could always be found.

I don’t run into this problem anymore, though. There are people who process aluminum that allows others to manufacture cans. There are farmers who grow crops in enormous quantities. There are processing plants where these crops are cleaned, cooked, preserved, and packaged in these aluminum cans. There are marketeers and graphic designers who label these goods and nutritionists who ensure that the precise contents of the cans are specified. There are drivers who transport these cans across the nation (and world), grocers who stock and sell the product–the list goes on.

Because of all this, I will never be inconvenienced by being unable to find beans to eat.

A month ago I discussed the problems with many prevalent worldviews which place humanity above and/or against the world, instead of as a part of the community of life. Western religion tends to subscribe to the “ruler of the Earth” philosophy, that humanity has been given control and dominance over the planet and all its biota. Eastern religion comes a bit closer, but the emphasis is generally on the ascension/enlightenment of the individual–and even when non-human life is included, it is generally limited to the animal kingdom.

Ancient tribal religions are found in nearly every corner of the world, albeit in shrinking populations these days. These religions have many apparent traditions in their rituals, myths, and deities, yet there is one common theme that many of them share: the spirit view of nature. All things in nature, living and non-living, contain some sort of spirit (e.g., rock spirits, river spirits, etc.) that contribute to a unified natural community. We generally classify this type of religion as “animism”: the belief in the existence of individual spirits that inhabit natural objects and phenomena.

I am not arguing for the literal acceptance of spirits dwelling in inanimate objects. Rather, there is an important theme that animism conveys in nearly all of its manifestations: the world is a sacred place. Literalism aside, at least in animism (or something similar) there is an active acknowledgement of the relationship of humanity with nature, instead of against nature.

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.