Ancestor Worship.

A Buddhist blogger brought to light the concept of worshipping our ancestors.  He was not talking of dead relatives, but of the creatures who fought for life along the evolutionary path that led to us.

While the word worship does not appeal to me, the concept to admiration does.  The millions of years of evolution and critters deserves our admiration.

For reasons I cannot understand, the process of evolution does not appeal to many people.  A simpler explanation there was a creator who just sat down and designed the world as it is now is easier for some people to accept.

From somewhere came the first chemical soup.  We can admire the first cell that formed from lightening striking the soup.  That cell, or others, floated about for perhaps millions of years before something happened that others can explain better than me to split it into two cells.  We were off to the races.

Instead of religious art, such as Ten Commandments monuments or crosses, how about a statue of that first cell?  This would be a teaching moment that combined a physical depiction of our beginning with the events that followed.

We could gather around a statue like that and be amazed at how it all happened.  We could take pictures of ourselves in front of it,  “before and after” depictions.

What a concept like this needs is some enthusiastic and passionate support.  Unfortunately, rational thinking often does not have that.

Passion resides in religion.

37 Responses

  1. Michael Ross

    Something from somewhere = chemical soup + occasional lightening strikes + millions of years = Jon

    Sounds like deevolution to me.

  2. Henry

    “For reasons I cannot understand, the process of evolution does not appeal to many people.”

    Statistically, it doesn’t make sense. The “many people” can sense this by rough approximation in their mind without the need to crunch the numbers demonstrating it doesn’t work.

    1. Stan

      I took cellular biology, you can make organic material in the lab under very rigorous and sanitary conditions but to make them live is something else. The simplest living organism has an energy cycle with 14 different steps in it and uses 3-4 organelles found in the cell. Delete any one step in the cycle or any single organelle and it dies. This was supposed to happen by random chance in a random mixture of chemicals?

      After life was created using evolution for the progression of life I have little problem with. It is kind of interesting to realize that the size, diameter, density of the Earth and the distance from the sun along with the suns energy input all have a huge bearing on the existence of life on the Earth. Change any of them by just fractions of a percentage and life is no longer viable. Almost like someone designed it that way.

      1. Stan 2:16 “The size, diameter, density..Change any of life is viable.”

        I understand that to be true as well. There is only one rational explanation, a stroke of luck.

          1. Henry

            Yes, indeed. I have faith God created this earth as indicated in Genesis.

            You have speculative belief that the earth and contents were spontaneously generated through the process of evolution. If that is what you believe, go right ahead.

      2. Demosthenes

        You did not take “cellular biology” ….. Nor were you taught English. Another example; “Almost” which means not quite there. As in, the is not quite enough evidence to support my outrageous claims of a god. Almost as if you know what you are talking about……Almost.

        1. Stan

          Demosthenes. I will show you my transcript if you show me yours (not). If I didn’t, what did I take Oh He Who Knows Everything We Do…….In fact I took it twice because I was struck with congestive heart failure the first time during the last week of class and the final. Several months recovery studying was not at the front of my to do list. So I did the class over and received a 4.0. You are a jerk, plain and simple.

          You also don’t understand SARCASM! Almost like someone DESIGNED it that way. You are the ignorant one my friend. Not the INTELLIGENT One.

  3. Michael Ross

    Imagine a stack of bricks, boards, and a pile of nails (all lifeless inanimate objects). The sun shines on them for millions of years. Lightening occasionally strikes these objects. Will they assemble themselves into another lifeless inanimate object such as a house? Of course not. The bricks will crumble into dust, the boards rot, and the nails will rust. Yet if we are to believe evolution, inanimate lifeless objects have assembled themselves into the glorious array of life we see all around us on planet Earth. Truly believing in evolution takes a much greater faith than believing God created.

    Evolutionists claim that evolution is a scientific fact, but they almost always lose scientific debates with creationist scientists. Accordingly, most evolutionists now decline opportunities for scientific debates, preferring instead to make unilateral attacks on creationists:

    1. Henry

      “Imagine a stack of bricks, boards, and a pile of nails…”

      That is an unfair head start given to the evolutionists. The assembly of manufactured products in a pile gives them a pretty good head start that still fails. Where did the bricks come from? The mortar with lime content in correct proportion? The lime? The calcium?

      1. Michael Ross

        Well where does the “chemical soup” (complex protiens molecules, atoms and sub-atomic particles) come from, the sun, what causes the lightening. Jon: ” only one rational explanation, a stroke of luck.”

        1. Michael 1:30 I should not have written, “stroke of luck” because I really don’t know the answer. A rational approach to these matters of the origin would be to always admit you do not know the answer when you do not. Christians, and all other religions so far as I know, do not do this. When they don’t know the answer to a question like, “Where did life come from?”, they make up an answer, “God created it.”, for which they have no evidence.

          The narrative of the chemical soup and lightening has emerged because it has some scientific grounding. Where the chemical soup came from is, as yet, unknown. To conclude it came from God when there is no evidence for this is not rational. Many science people believe science will uncover the source of the chemical soup eventually. New answers come along every year moving us closer.

          1. Michael Ross

            “A rational approach to these matters of the origin would be to always admit you do not know the answer when you do not.”

            Then let’s not teach it in public schools as a scientific fact when it is only a theory. and let other theories be taught along with evolution. And let parents, teachers and the local school board decide the curreiculum and not a few judicial elite on the Supreme Court.

          2. Michael 3:27 “let other theories be taught along with evolution.”

            If you are using the word “theory” as it is used on the street, perhaps creationism is a “theory”. As the term is used in education, especially the sciences, there is no “theory of creationism”. Creationism does not provide what is needed to be a theory. Evolution does. That’s why creationism is not taught as a theory but evolution is.

            You might take a look at this:


          3. Stan

            I follow the Catholic teaching, evolution as a mechanism of Creation, but that first step can only be done by God. Wouldn’t it be a kicker some day to find out God provided the raw materials and then caused the lightning bolt?

          4. Stan 10:29 “Wouldn’t it be a kicker some day to find our God provided the raw materials and then casued the lightning bolt?”

            Yes, it would. It would put an end to doubt about the god’s existence. By the same token, wouldn’t it be a kicker if man discovered a natural way these things took place in the first place?

          5. Stan

            Gee John, I have never told them to stop looking. Scientific investigation has been part of the Church from before Constantine. Hospitals were created by the Church. Some of the greatest observatories if Europe. The Pope even has one in the home he uses outside of Rome. It is a MYTH that the Church oppresses science. It just is very careful in assuming that the science is true in a burst of enthusiasm.

          6. Henry

            “It just is very careful in assuming that the science is true in a burst of enthusiasm.”

            Well said. It is good to be careful.

    2. Demosthenes

      @Michael Ross
      August 20, 2012 at 4:23 am

      “lifeless inanimate objects” – Not true, what is it called when you start a preposition with a lie? I take most issue with “inanimate” but I believe an argument for”lifeless” could be made as well.

      “Will they assemble themselves into another lifeless inanimate object such as a house? Of course not.” I like how you intermingle possibility with probability. Is it possible? Yes. Is it probable? No.

      No only are you Science failing, you are Math failing.

      1. Stan

        Your own argument then. The chance that a mixture of random chemicals being hit by lightning to produce the first life.

        “Is it possible? Yes. Is it probable? No.”

        Taaaa Daaaaaaaaaaaa!

  4. Michael Ross

    Thanks for the article. I will try to read today on my break. Creation is a “theory” that can never be proven impirically because it is a supernatural act. It can’t be put in a test tube. Evolution is different in that no evidence exists to support it. In fact all the evidense suggests sprcial creation. Such as complete lack of transitional life forms. While there is micro “evolution” or change within a species, the is no macro evolution, change from one species to another. None that is observable in the world today and none in the fossil record.

    1. Michael 4:43 “Creation is a ‘theory’ that can never be proven impirically because it is a super natural act.”

      That is the reason it is not included in science courses.

      ” there is no macro evolution, change from one speicies to another. None that is observable in the world today and none in the fossil record.”

      The science community refutes that, even though there will be the occasional person with science credentials who finds Jesus and refuses to support what the science community has found.

      My friend, an entomologist, says there are, absolutely, evolutionary changes from one species to another. Insects, of course, reproduce rapidly so it is possible to observe in real time how they adapt to changes. Scientists, he says, do not always all agreed on when it happens, what is a new species and what is variation within, but they agree it happens.

      Current experience, then, opens to door to the theory of evolution. There is no such door to creationism.

      1. Stan

        Adapt to changes is NOT creation of new species. That is selective breeding abet natural selection. Brother Gregor Mendel published his findings in 1866 and farmers used it for centuries before to improve breeds, not create new ones. Darwin himself thought that the fossil record should be filled with inter-species records but his whole life he never found one. He admitted great disappointment.

        1. Stan 10:37 “Adapt to chanes is NOT creation of new species.”

          In insects, adaptation has led to new species. If there is a non biblical argument about that I’ll show it to my scientist friends and get their reaction.

          1. Stan

            Would you please have them send you some website concerning these new species that they aren’t sure how it happened or even agree what speciation really is but are sure it happens?

          2. Stan 12:32 re: website about new species.
            I’ve never seen such a website, probably there are many. My friend the entamologist is a member of the Freethinkers and I’ve visited with him about this and he has made a presentation of two about it. I don’t want to bother him just now with classes beginning and he has a big grant or two.

            As I recall, there is quite a bit of agreement of what are adaptation traits within species and what are adaptation traits that result in new species. The only time there is disagreement is when both occur. Some entamologists will conclude the important changes are within the species and some that the important changes represent a new species. What I remember clearly is the robustness of him saying evolution results in new species.

      2. Stan

        “Scientists, he says, do not always all agreed on when it happens, what is a new species and what is variation within, but they agree it happens.”

        That is the most sidestepping gobblety goop statement I have ever seen.

  5. entech

    So we have an entity that has always existed outside of space and time and on a whim he created the current version of space time and matter that we live in, he did it very badly if you look around, as a designer he should lose his license. This concept is as improbable as any other, if it makes you feel better to think this was created with you in mind as it’s pinnacle – go ahead.

Comments are closed.