kisma Johnson's blog: "adam and eve"

There is a feeling among rationalists that the world is slowly going mad. The reason? The continuing growth of fundamentalist beliefs concerning Creationism. But what is at the root of this growing phenomenon? Well, first of all, science cannot – ever – prove it wrong. They can rant and rave; they can show how science shows it is not the case – but at best, this can only show the working mechanisms of a process, and not the ‘whys’. Thus, God is immune to the scientific process. sage And the sooner science accepts this and stops decrying the Creationist, the sooner there may be the return of a little commonsense in the debate – on both sides. This is not simply an opinion of mine. I think it can be backed up by sound reasoning. And not reasoning to do with science or Creationism, but the process of the very conflict involved. I think there is a valid law for such conflicts. I call it the ‘law of opposite effect’. It can be explained quite simply. The more one stance becomes entrenched, the more the other will dig in its heels. Thus, the condemnation from either side will guarantee the reasons for condemnation will increase. Hence, the problem isn’t science or Creationism, but the battle between the two. And it gets worse. As the conflict continues, and stances become more fundamental, the point comes when both sides become fanatical. When this point arrives, all commonsense disappears. But more than this, my law has another element: basically, the more fanatical you become, the more you will further the opposite outcome to that intended. Hence, science guarantees Creationism, and vice versa. office And the problem is also of paradigms. Science is now grounded in a totally material world, with nothing other than what can be observed. Well, one thing can be observed above the material – the innate need in people for something above the material. I’m talking about a form of spirituality. Now, to me, spirituality is about bonding – of man to man, mankind to nature, and nature to the universe. It is a form of holistic love, I suppose, and I assume scientists DO fall in love, despite their rationality. Hence, in a world that does not offer intellectual ideals concerning this process, the gap will be filled by systems that do. And the ultimate expression of this is an entire universe created through love by God. An urge towards spirituality will always exist. Whether this means there is a supernatural or not is beside the point. And as long as science decides there is no such thing, they will continue to fuel movements that say there is. And to be quite honest, in terms of the knowledge we have, they could be just as right as scientists think THEY are. © Anthony North, March 2009

Unlike many rationalists, I do not scoff at the Creation as described in the Bible. I don’t believe that Creation occurred as narrated, but I am convinced there is a lot of reasoned thought within the account. Most scientists don’t like this idea. Rather, it is rubbish produced by a superstitious culture with no hold upon reality whatsoever. Hence, we have the two polarities of the Evolution/Creation controversy. I disagree with both stances. wood2Taking the scientific view, it is blatantly not true that such ancient societies descended into superstition alone. Superstition didn’t build the pyramids, or work out agriculture. Reasoned thought had to be involved. This said, I am always on the look-out for reasoned thought within the Bible, and I nearly always find it. And as an exercise in just what I mean, there is no better example than the idea that Eve was created from Adam’s rib. The whole idea seems ridiculous. But read on. Adam is created first, but he is then made to sleep and God takes one of his ribs with which to make woman. Of course, together they make a potent force, and procreation soon occurs. This is the first important point – that procreation had not occurred before hand. A further point is that, during the Adam and Eve Narrative, the writer seems to embody the whole process of life in Adam. We now have what we need to make sense of it all. Indeed, it can become quite reasonable. And what we must first argue is that, if female was not yet existent, can we call Adam male? I think not. Indeed, I would argue that we can best understand the account if we class Adam as a hermaphrodite – i.e. sexless. Now, prior to sexual reproduction, evolution relied on asexual reproduction. sage1 How did asexual reproduction occur? It involves cloning, by taking a cutting from the parent in order to produce an offspring. And with such information we can look at the Adam and Eve Narrative in a totally new light. To me it becomes a perfect symbolic understanding of the change from asexual to sexual reproduction, with a cutting (rib) taken from a hermaphrodite, leading to male and female, and the obvious sexual reproduction that then followed. One obvious deduction some could make from this is a process of incest, with Adam being the parent of Eve, but it implies no such thing if looked at it terms of symbolic understanding of evolutionary change. Indeed, the narrative becomes a marvellous explanatory tale better than any scientist has so far managed to produce. And if correct, it shows that, underlying the general trend of Creation, is a reasoned mind-set at work. One other point of importance, whilst this essay seems to favour evolution over Creation, as such, it actually does no such thing, for it leaves intact the possibility of a God-force driving the process forward. Could such reasoning eventually lead to a middle ground between evolutionist and Creationist. Well, yes – though I won’t hold my breath.