What I'm about to say probably won't go down well with people. And for that I'm grateful that mine is a heck of an unpopular blog. I feel like I've been having so much to say but for fear of reproach of the frowns of others I have kept it all in me. Don't judge me for the thoughts that run cuckoo in my head, for the mind is like wild horses that once set loose will not be tamed.
What I have to say is about religion, creation, evolution, and chance.
So if you are one who is sensitive about these issues then for the sake of not despising me, and for the sake of remaining friends, I urge you to stop reading. My mother has always said, religion should be the last thing friends talk about. And I've always believed that religion should be a private affair that should not dictate any part of our lives other than the "religion" compartment. And it is a shame that in most parts of the world, religion is a major driving force for politics. And if you're wondering if I believe this then why am I writing this here? Well, it is MY blog. And like I said, it IS unpopular.
First of all, let's start with what fueled these thoughts in me.
I read a book that said "Science will answer the when and where of life's existence, but only god can answer the why."
Which got me thinking. Why are we here? I did put much thought into this. But then I realised, I'm thankful that science cannot and will never answer this question (hopefully) because the truth is, if science answered it it would be a homogeneous answer. And I refuse to accept that we all exist for the purpose of one. I believe in freedom, and I think it is right for every one of us to pursue our own dreams and set our own goals. Also, for there to be an answer to that question, it suggests an intelligence behind it. Like the tree grows in the direction of the sunlight to receive the optimum amount of it. But, to say there's an answer to the "why" of our existence would mean we were "created", or so to speak.
Now let's delve a little further into the subject of "creation" or as the more versed atheist / evolutionists will call it, "intelligent design". As I have pointed out just now, notice that the word "intelligent" is there to differentiate it against the puny "design". For those of you wondering what the differences are, Darwin believed in design. The first time I heard this I was shocked. The guy who theorised the basis of evolution believes in design? However, after explanation from my dad, I understood what it meant. What he meant was that who we are today is not by chance. Why are there no mono-eyed quadri-handed humans today? I mean at least in the normal population. Because it does not tie in with survival. It disadvantages and at the same time holds no extra advantage that will promote our survival. So it does not happen. And who or what decides that such a creature shall not exist? The designer. And who is this designer? The oh-so-notorious genes. In a way, it makes sense. The selfish gene, remember? It excludes the unwanted and retains the needed. Evolution did not happen by chance. Mutation, the differentiation of one gene sequence to another, THAT happened by chance. But the retention of this mutation which lead to evolution happened by selection. Selection pressure and natural selection, I'm sure we've all learned this in college.
But this explanation begets another question, where did the innocent gene come from? What marks the beginning of DNA?
The easy answer to this would be "intelligent design". An intelligent omnipotent being created the DNA that lead on to life form. However let me state that omnipotence is highly improbable because for arguments' sake, an omnipotent being would be able to create a shield that cannot be pierced, and create a spear that can pierce ANYTHING in the world. So when 2 such things collide, what happens? What happens is that two such things do not exist because omnipotence is a farce. Let's divulge from this topic and consider the two most popular religions on earth - Christianity and Islam. However, living in this country, I will not comment on the latter to safeguard myself and because, in a way, they are brothers in arm so let us just discuss the former. It says god, also known as the intelligent designer in this text, created men in his image and made women from the rib of the men. And let's not forget that the creation of earth and the sun and everything else happened in 7 days. Honestly, if he designed the DNA and let it evolve into a human, then first off he must be lazy for just starting off with the DNA and sitting back to relax. Second, how is creating a DNA in the "image of himself", and what makes you think that MEN evolved first before women. On second thought, maybe this intelligent designer is a DNA, so creating DNA would be in line with both theories. But it said the intelligent designer created men and not DNA. Hmmm, this subject requires further thinking. But let us just be clear that whatever plausible evolution and big bang that happened did not happen in 7 days.
Let's go back to the topic of DNA. Now one must ask, where does the DNA come from. But let's go further back and ask, where does "life" come from? The so-called abiogenesis.
The thing here is, for life as we know it to exist, the first component that must happen is the cell membrane. As we all know, the only "living" organisms without either are viruses but then again, can we even consider them as alive?
So cell membranes... For a wall to encircle something, first there must be something to be encircled, right? So now we have protoplasm. Now one would ask, where does this protoplasm come from? When did the interactions and connections between the organic and inorganic materials start? And where exactly did this "first-formed" entity come from?
Some theorise that this came from meteorites. And may I stress that it is a theory? So there was a big bang and there were solid masses that existed. Then there were "embolus" of these masses and meteorites happened. And we go back to DNA. DNA are nucleic acids that direct the formation of proteins which are amino acids, right? So well, amino acids are mere chemicals that can form or degrade without the need for "life". In chemistry one does not often consider life. However, life is impossible without chemistry. So another question would be, where does the amino acid come from? So this is where meteorites come in. Apparently it carried matters upon it and it arrived and if you ask me further I do not know what to say any more because honestly, I'm not ready to gain a thesis in this field. However, what I can tell you, and hopefully you'll take this message and continue thinking and maybe against all odds one day I'll be able to say "that person who theorised such and such was my classmate". Anyway, what I can tell you is that stromatolites are currently considered to be the earliest forms of living organisms on earth, existing since 3.5 billion years ago. It is said that first, anaerobic bacteria formed, and it cleaved whatever it reacted with and oxygen was formed. And then aerobes appeared. This does tie in well with the theory that photosynthesis existed since 2.4billion years ago, and that stromatolites can photosynthesise. The one bizarre thing we must keep in mind when considering all this is that before the start of life, EVERYTHING was sterile. So whatever happened, happened in a land of sterility with no microbes and so on. By 2.4 billion years ago there were stable isotopes of carbon, iron and so on, making widespread life on earth possible. Not quite 10,000 years ago, I understand, but more science based at least.
Another theory is that "life" came on the meteorites, and not just mere amino acids or chemicals. And by this I don't mean aliens. I know this is starting to sound like scientology but I guess there's a reason that line of thought is gaining popularity... Life arrived on earth and it reacted with the earth and yada yada yada. But so where did this life come from? Haha. Maybe that's why intelligent design attracts people. It requires so little thinking. It is as if everything has already been written for us and all we have to do is read and accept and have faith.
I just relised I've gone a long way to not answer anything at all. But I think this is my way of mourning the fact that our schools and our government is too ignorant to teach and advocate such scientific lines of thought. I guess this is where the "religion should stay religious only" line of thinking comes in. I mean even if we're considering intelligent design, one should always question where the intelligence came from. The truth is I am open to the possibility of this designer, however I need the proof for this. And no I do not consider the "because it cannot be disproved hence it must be true" theory a legitimate one. Just because you cannot disprove that I am the amazing manisfestation of god that appeared in my mother's womb to spread the message of love does not mean that it is true. I am open to the subject of belief, however faith is not my field. And as we all know, faith is blind. And when a blind man leads the blind, the case of the blinds feeling up an elephant ensues.
So people, go forth now and think about life. Buddha once said that the origin of life is too far gone to be seen by men. And in a way it is true. 3.5 billion years is a heck of a long time. Even if we were able to create life from the sterile labs, it does not mean that that's how it happened, it merely means that such a method of creation is possible. However, that does not mean that we cannot theorise.
