Creationism, The Big Bang, and Evolution in Plato's Cave

While in the shower a week or so back, I did what most men do in the shower; I did some really heavy thinking. One of the topics that came in the stream of thought was how creationism could be reconciled with the big bang theory and the theory of evolution. The solution I came up with isn't likely to be revolutionary or at all original, but I reached the conclusion independently, and I'm proud of that.

I, being a Christian, accept the idea that the entire universe was created by God in the beginning, in six days (he rested on the seventh). As such, convention would have me reject the idea of the universe being created by exploding from an infinitely dense point, and some mass landing in a perfect spot for a particular combination of chemicals to combine and start doing what we call living and eventually reproducing into different things, over the course of billions of years. To accept the big bang theory or evolution would logically negate the crux of my entire religion. If there was no creation, there was no original sin, and no need for Jesus to save us. Considering the advances in technology and the improvements to human life we have seen from people who operate on the assumption that the big bang theory and evolution are the truth, it is very difficult and seemingly stupid to reject those theories, yet I did, as most Christians do, until now. I have found a way to reconcile these ideas. Enter Plato's Cave.

Plato's Cave (aka "The Analogy of the Cave", read that before continuing) presents quite a few ideas, and I must admit that at my first exposure I latched onto a single one of them, as I do now, though, after further exploration I found that the end game of Plato's Cave was to explain the philosopher's place in society. However, the point I got initially, is that perception is reality; what is one believes to be real are the things that one experiences. The people in the cave see shadows of things, and because that is their only experience, they believe the shadows to be what is real. They have no knowledge that their "reality" is constructed by beings that are aware of a larger, more complex reality, where the shadows are but images of tangible things with mass and depth. In my view, the big bang and evolution are the shadow images which are cast by the reality of creation. Stay with me.

Both the big bang and evolution rely on the same assumption, and that is that if things work this way now, then they always will work this way, and always have worked this way. These "things" are the laws of physics for the big bang and the concept of mutating genes for evolution. My understanding of space is limited, but I assume that clues from the observable universe do ultimately suggest the universe is expanding from a single point after an explosion billions of years ago. But this assumption is made based on our understanding of physics now being applied retroactively. My understanding of genetics is also limited, but I assume that clues from the study of genetics do ultimately suggest a common ancestor. But this assumption is made based on observed mutations and some well-substantiated guesses. But let's look at it differently. What if neither of these things are true in the way scientists believe them to be? What if instead of accelerating to where they are now, the stars and galaxies were placed there? What if instead of evolving from common ancestors, animals were made as they are? What if these things were designed with the intent of the human race drawing those useful, yet inherently incorrect conclusions?

Imagine God creating. Orchestrating the placement of stars and heavenly bodies, and setting them into motion. Forming each animal on Earth, then a man to name them all. Each of these things, arranged just-so, so that with our free will, if we choose to deny our Creator, we are given something else to believe in, something else to help explain our existence. The nature we experience is much like a set of givens for a geometry problem in a math book; the dimensions set out for us to use are in many ways arbitrary to the one creating the problem, but for those who are meant to solve it, those dimensions are law.

That alternate explanation is not just good for the non-believers. The believers, too, receive the benefits as improvements to life are made. We learn new ways to subdue the land and dominate the beasts of the field and the birds of the air. Those with faith are challenged to find what they really believe. Science benefits all, because God created it to do so. He offers us cave dwellers an escape to the higher reality through his word, but even those who chose to remain in the cave are given some semblance of reality to hold onto.

The usual 50 points for reading. +100 for agreeing,  +100 for disagreeing, -175 if you didn't read about the Analogy of the Cave like I asked you to.

JOSH, THE SHERM

Economics Says I Should Quit

The laws of supply and demand. They are important concerning any supply and any demand. Applied to my music, the laws suggest I should cease to produce music. There is no demand for it even when the price is zero.

All these facts are particularly discouraging, and I will go to sleep with hurt feelings tonight. It seems that I will have to fight, tooth and nail, for every view on YouTube and every listen on SoundCloud, and if I want valuable feedback, I'll have to be prepared to fight Armageddon. I just don't understand why I have to fight so hard to get what I want, even when I tell people exactly what I want. I have even admitted that I am weak when it comes to this, that I actually seek validation when I post my art. I refuse to believe that many people would actively want to keep that away from me, yet the low view/play counts say otherwise. I just don't understand how I am failing to build a fan base. All of my friends know I play guitar, most of my friends know I post videos. They somehow have still not keyed into the fact that I need their immediate support, otherwise I suffer. I suppose this will seem a bit silly in the morning when I wake up to a few extra views that YouTube was slow to count, but it doesn't change that they did not instantaneously pounce on the opportunity to keep my ego intact.

Now that I am thoroughly convinced that this will be a commercial failure and will not develop the grass roots fan base I desire, I have to decide if I should continue in the process. How bad do I really want to produce this EP, especially when I know it won't produce the results I wanted? At times, I feel my will to complete this project decreasing, as one would expect. Then at other times I feel a growing obligation to finish it, just to say I did it. I have lately been noticing that most people drive themselves because someone said they couldn't. At no point in my life have I had anyone tell me I couldn't achieve. Except economics. Economics is telling me I should quit, I am supplying a product that has no demand. Well, I guess this is where I finally get a chance to rebel. Fuck you, Economics. I do what I want.

50 for reading. No extras. I'm mad.

JOSH, THE SHERM