The creationism, evolutionism and supreme being progress theories also have merit in a timeframe hypothesis.
In last week’s theorem we looked at physical and mental progress using the human experience as a guide. The only tangible reference point we have for time is also the human experience. When we were kids there was always too much time, too long. It was too long until Christmas, too long until vacation and too long until we were grown up, when time begins to be too short. When we’re bored, time goes too slowly, when busy and entertained, time goes by too quickly. We as humans don’t have a good handle on time and time is relative to the life span of the participant.
If a germ, who’s life span is not much more than a few minutes, could imagine our life span of one hundred years, it would have to be mind boggling. I’m projecting that a germ has a mind to boggle. If we take that same example and apply it to the present timeframe of the universe, the millions of years the dinosaurs inhabited the Earth or even how long mammals have been the dominant species, we have to overlay that with something we can relate to, otherwise it’s mind boggling for us. In order for our minds to be able to make sense out of millions and billions of years of time, we have to break it down into understandable chunks.
As an example: try to imagine how much one trillion dollars are. Since none of us have ever seen a trillion dollars, or could even carry that much money home in a wheel barrow or the back of our pickup truck, it becomes nothing more than a figure and not something we can relate to in a tangible way. Vast amounts of time are the same. For the largest majority of us, if we go beyond our one hundred year life span, and most of us never even make it that far, we have to have something we can relate to in order to make sense out of it all. Six billion years is as much out of our realm of comprehensible knowledge, in a usable and relational way, as one hundred years is to a germ.
Religions break the timeframe down so that our minds can grasp it by using the story of creation. Evolutionists break it down into small bits and pieces by telling us we came from an offhand mix of chemicals, minerals and maybe a chance encounter with a meteor landing in the watery mix. We’re either asked to believe a supreme being created the universe and Earth in a day and humans in its image, or we’re told we evolved from a blob of muck, to a single celled organism and that life progressed from there. As a result of these right/wrong, either/or mindsets, we’re coerced into accepting one and rejecting the other in order to fit into a culturally acceptable box.
Maybe if we combine the creationism, evolutionism and supreme being progress theories, using the human experience as the model, we can see there’s a possibility that a supreme being, starting from zero and progressing over a few billion years, could fit into both the creationist’s and evolutionist’s point of view.
Of course, that would mean many of us would have to find another true belief, or we wouldn’t be able to step back in time in both creationism and evolutionism and fight over our assumptions while maintaining the head in the sand, butt in the air stance we seem to have become accustomed to since we crawled out of the watery mix or were created in a flash.
If creationism is indeed a fact and all of us are created in the likeness of a supreme being, why do we seem bent on destroying that creation? If we’ve become the highest form on Earth through evolution, why do we act as if we’re stuck in our reptilian brain and behave as if we’re less than what we say we are, or less than the potential we possess in either theory?
Leave Your Comments