The blog I mentioned a couple of days ago that views the culture wars through the battle between Christ fish and Darwin fish symbols (and beyond), Fish Wars on Cars, turns out to belong to Nona Williams, a "Purveyor of fine Darwin fish and related items" at Ring of Fire Enterprises. Our ID Fish (if you haven't seen it yet, look at the right-hand column and scroll down) and discussion of Intelligent Design has prompted Nona to propose that if we're going to topple evolution from its throne of certainty and throw open the question of life's and humanity's origins again, we also ought to consider the theories of Zecharia Sitchin. In a nutshell, Sitchin, an expert on ancient Sumeria, believes, based on Sumerian myths and texts, that humans were originally genetically engineered from lower primates by visiting aliens as a race of slaves to mine our planet's minerals for them. (Then they left, Sitchin says, and we upgraded apes proceeded to evolve on our own.)
Sound nutty? Let me repeat what I believe to be the bottom line on the origins of life and of the human species:
Nona, who calls her blog "reality-based" and seems to be firmly in the Darwin fish school, may well be kidding. But the fact is, we don't know how we got here, and now that we know that genetic engineering is possible and are even dabbling in it amateurishly ourselves, the truly open-minded must admit that our devising by a more advanced species is one actual possibility. Among other things, it could explain our radical imperfections (no all-powerful God would have made such a mess of things). This has to be an extremely disconcerting thought for the religious, even though it doesn't pretend to explain Who started it all in the first place.
No wonder people are scared to have an open mind. But -- psst! -- it's fun, too!
- amba
Yes,I do think she was kidding. However, it demonstrates why we "reality-based" types may find the Sumerian School (if I can grace it with that name) far more appealing than ID. It is a nice, straight-forward, testable-at least potentially-proposition. ID, in contrast, is much more amorphous and elusive and full of strange political potential. As with so many other belief systems, I find myself asking "Is this too subtle, complex and nuanced for me to bend my mind around, or is it just a fraud?" As the first choice is unacceptable to the well regulated psyche, I of course go with the second.
Posted by: sharon | March 31, 2005 at 04:07 AM