Skip to content

An Evolutionist’s Intellectual Amends with God

February 11, 2010

I am not a religious man at all, so I also do not believe that God exists.  The debate between evolutionists and creationists only fuels division among people, serving one interest or another.  This division is what led me to write this article and decide to take a step forward, beyond the interpretative wall of our beliefs.

Evolution is a process that took an unimaginable amount of time and an equally unimaginable number of transformations that eventually led to life as we know it.

Mathematicians have calculated the odds of life coming into existence, and for sure the results yield the possible conclusion that creationists might be right.

After all, everything in our known Universe is extremely precise – even when it appears to be chaotic – and organic life has such a complexity that the odds of it happening are ONE in infinity, so, mathematically speaking, it is nearly impossible to have appeared without a designer and creator originating it.

It seems to me that evolutionists have to accept the unbelievable odds that life just evolved out of nothing, and allow the possibility that something or someone might have designed and created it.  Creationists too, have to accept that even ONE chance in an infinite number of possibilities, represents a viable possibility that can render their theories null.

Although it appears that the two camps operate from a different perspective, they both use analytical skills to make their point and it all comes down to possibilities and probabilities – a realm of mathematics – and let’s admit it, both camps are unable to offer a definitive answer to the question whether we evolved or we were created.

To divide an entire species over something that we do not actually know is highly manipulative, functionally speaking – counter-productive, and, morally speaking – entirely wrong.  Fueling this phenomenon of social division is as illogical as it would be to have two horses tied on both ends of a carriage, pulling in opposite directions.

The reality is that the “horses” will never stop pulling.  The solution is in the “carriage,” or in our case, us.  We, the people, are the solution.  If for instance, the carriage were to be extremely heavy, neither horse would be able to pull it.  Socially speaking, “heavy” would be equivalent to coherent or unified by a common element that would grant humankind a certain density of common sense.

I can accept the possibility that a creator is responsible for our existence because it does not really matter to me if I evolved into a human being or if I am the result of a primordial and divine creation.  What matters more – at this particular moment – is what I do with this life, rather than where it came from.

If God created everything, including life and myself, then God also must have had a creator as well, because to believe that GOD JUST IS, makes absolute no sense whatsoever, regardless of how we look at it.  The assumption and its consequent statement that “God just is” can only be defined as an easy cop-out that creationists should avoid if they were to meet evolutionists half way.  Consequently, if the God that created everything was also created, then it generates an infinite line of logical arguments that would only end in paralysis by analysis for any evolutionist.

I propose a simple approach to the predicament of evolution versus creation.  If you are an evolutionist, simply choose to transfer value onto the life at hand, in a functional, active, way.  If you are a creationist, then let it be as such.  If God created everything, it did so in a way that also allowed the possibility of evolution, so choose to transfer value onto what you do with the life you have now.

Regardless of evolution or creation, our existence has value in itself, a value measured in what we do, not in what we believe in.

My conclusion can only be a question:

How much longer are we going to waste our energy in dividing interpretation, as opposed to uniting in the functional research and exploration of our potential?

Copyright 2010 by Bogdan Heretoiu

Evolution Through Comprehension or Functionality – a Question of Physics or Human Nature

February 6, 2010

Can we actively participate in our process of evolution or are we just mere observers of the cycle of life? Ask yourself if Biology has anything to do with morals, ethics, and spirituality. Does photosynthesis occur due to a moral standard, or, is it the result of countless evolutionary steps?

Why would we, the human beings, function differently? We can interpret everything in as many ways as we can, but when it comes to functioning, do we organically function due to a spiritual, moral, or ethical set of standards, or, every process that takes place within our body is the result of countless evolutionary steps?

The greatest error humans have been making ever since we know about ourselves – in a “conscious/aware” sense of the knowing – is that we have been obsessively trying to humanly comprehend all matters related to our nature and to the universe around us, rather than functionally exploring and experiencing the phenomena within and around ourselves.

A simple example is one of doing push-ups. We can all discuss and analyze push-ups until we comprehend everything that there is to know about it, yet, if we do not actually train and do the push-ups, we have no experiential knowledge of them. Just because we comprehend everything about push-ups does not automatically imply that we are physically trained to do fifty of them in a row.

Although it may seem a lot more complicated than that, it is very much the same with the way our brain functions. There are countless books and theories available, and countless more appear almost every day, about the nature of the brain. We can all discuss and analyze how the brain, consciousness, the mind, and the self work until we comprehend everything that there is to know about it, yet, if we do not actually actively access the processes at work in our brain, we have no experiential knowledge of them.

Humans have taken the road of comprehension – which is an interpretative process – rather than pursuing the way of experiential learning. This paradoxically happened because of our brain’s ability to create what we call the mind, through a process we refer to as consciousness. From generation to generation, the human species became more and more addicted to its own image and lost in the interpretative process.

To regain functional access to our own brain, we must be willing to explore and experiment as a living organism, rather than as a human. When we function as a human, we inherently function through a highly complex interpretative process – we have identity, standards, expectations, and values. When we function as a living organism – as a molecular configuration – we have the potential to tap into the process that precedes any interpretative process.

The advantage of functionality versus comprehension is huge in potential. It offers direct, immediate access to how we function and it allows us to actively participate and alter the processes taking place.

We have devoted thousands of years to comprehension, but regardless of our technological advancements, organically we have taken only invisible evolutionary steps, if any. Physically speaking, we are actually weaker compared to our ancestors and without vaccines, medicine, supermarkets, and appliances our survival would be questionable.

The real question of our time should not be whether our technology will grant us immortality and everlasting health and happiness, but if we have now reached a level of comprehension that would allow us to be willing to explore and experiment as a living organism, rather than as a human.

www.evolutionaryexploration.com
Copyright 2010 by Bogdan Heretoiu

Rate my article via ArticleBase:

Evolution Through Comprehension Or Functionality – A Question Of Physics Or Human Nature.

What is Evolutionary Exploration ?

February 2, 2010

I must admit that I have been trying to “label” my own book for a while, mainly because I could not pinpoint the category in which it would fit best.

Although the first part of the book is theoretical and closer to philosophy, the second part presents practical experiments that can be applied during everyday life.

Despite my book’s new age feel, I think that neuroscientists would be more interested in the subject than self-help seekers because practically the subject that I am presenting is about a process that precedes thinking in any of its forms – meditating, praying, visualizing, or wishful faith-based thinking.

This also sets apart “Evolutionary Exploration” from most of the titles currently available on the market while making it hard to categorize, as we are so used to doing with everything.

Evolutionary Exploration is a book that describes a process I call Experiential Research, because, in a sense, the practical part of the book is more related to push-ups than it is to spirituality as it has more to do with doing then it has to do with interpreting.

Professionally speaking, I am a filmmaker with experience ranging from various crew positions to producer and film professor, but my long-time passion (since before I even knew about Filmmaking) has been for the potential we all have, as living creatures, to evolve.  I spent most of my young years reading everything I could find about philosophy and psychology and when I was fourteen years old I began studying Martial Arts, which also led me to an intense practice of meditation, breathing techniques, as well as yoga.

*

Throughout my entire practice I was searching for the spiritual common denominator – a quest for the method that could bring people together, rather than divide them.

Evolutionary Exploration is the result of that quest.

If you haven’t read the book yet, please visit the Shop on my website.  There, you will find details about available formats, prices, and sellers.