Wednesday, December 05, 2001

some idea of randomness, authorship and evolution. creation to the non-believer must have all three. it is random we are here, it is authored by nature. it is random, it is authored, random yet created. strained yet purposeful. unbelievable but necessary! i cannot but judge that randomness exists, but what of authorship? random is not random, but authored chaos? the chaos we understand is an ordered randomness- the crash and play of atoms, the trickle of condensation on a glass of water, authored, yet random. in a sense, what is nature without both but a created order, pursuing authorship. can the creation pursue the created order? in my own life my randomness is authored by me, it is willed i think in the same way that chaos is authored. without creation is there purpose? without a created is there chaos? can we separate the created from the chaotic and infer a silent mover or a mute divine nature? there must be authorship in everything, even the random for it to be created, for creation is purposeful, even for the most athiestic, not a single creation found, period, is purposeless... yes even the chaos.
existence gives purpose, purpose gives authorship, for the author only authors the authored, so to speak. what can be said of the created randomness that exhibits completeness and unyeilding chaotic purpose? what, but The Author. this idea, the random creation, gives credence to the Author, and eliminates the random. wherever we start this link, we must begin, it must start, and the start cannot be random, for random is a product of order, if there was no order, where do we identify the random? it was authored. even the spontaneous outpouring of "gibberish" a complete random formation of words- jtioqn;nieowq f- must be authored...so it is that my actions, even those most immediate and contemporaneous, are authored, are willed by order itself, by the creation,of me, of everything and even the evolutionist...
Taking the time to simply examine the defaults in life is illuminating. What is it that I do without thinking...I'm not talking about the autonomic functions of breathing to of my heart beating, eyes blinking. But what things do I do in my life that are patterns that are givens? Well I feed my body...food, certainly and other more abstract nourishment. I am a social creature. I sleep/rest. I move. I am emotive. I observe. I cogitate (even in sleep and dreams). This list is far from exhaustive but they are things that I and all of us do on a daily basis with little consideration except perhaps as to the details of said activities, but not the presence of them. Why?
When the question of author ship was raised it was a question of moving the focus back to something behind the obvious, to a point some where outside the Cave. Make makes one want to author, what gives my authorship the power of authority. Single brilliance or exclusive ability to author on this level...certainly not. Why are there predetermined aspects to our lives that we cannot escape. The aforementioned list is a glance at responses ingrained in our lives. Did we learn that such actions were beneficial, is there a level of proficiency that all must reach to be fulfilled (but now I'm getting beyond the scope of my thoughts for now). Back tot he simple point at hand. If I am observing or sleeping or thinking to survive then why do I do it for other reasons as well. If I am acting in a certain way to insure my existence or from the sum of my existence how is it that I seem to come preprogrammed to do so...most of all the list mentioned are observable in infants in age appropriate manifestations...ready made?! Startling! No booming hammer is necessary in the evolution argument...just a (large) shadow of uncertainty...and I think the room is darkening...pleasantly.
All detractors will throw-up their hands and blame me for propping up the straw man and lighting the match but there is a pause that is necessary when we encounter the assumed structures of living that we interact with on a daily basis..why these and not others or why these and not ones much more restrictive, why these and the seemingly fascinating correspondence to a First Mover? Why does it seem that even randomness will be as messy as we wish it would be? Much more later...

Monday, December 03, 2001

there is a method of understanding that requires the thinker to relate all things to some overriding principle or belief- this finds its way into almost every aspect of our lives. we choose what to do, where to eat, and how we conduct ourselves based largely on this defining principle. now this principle is not complete in any one person. to becompletely full of this idea is to be completely devoid of the self. we cannot be both completely something and completely not. therefore, this idea, this pervading principle of life, is then superimposed on the reality of our lives, for we cannot live the ideal. what actions come from the ideal and what actions do not are generally understood as those things we will and those we do not will. for the actions unwilled are not governed- nothing causes us to act but ourselves-strictly speaking. influences yes, but no influence causes action but what is willed, after some influence has taken place. this idea, this principle of our lives, is maintained in our belief centers, in our honest and integral self assessment. the beauty of this principle is that it governs our designs of the world, effectiously determining our actions according to the will. nothing done is without at least an appeal to the agent of our belief. the belief is a product of desire. desire is that which we want- coupled with material arguments, logical deductions and certain amounts of experience, our desires can and do often control that which we find as our governing principles. there are two, with many names, many shades and many, many qualities, some real and some imagined, but, none the less, two- these are those who understand authorship and those who do not. authorship is the authority, the producer, the creator of a thing. naturally there is one author, one creator, and one producer. for other people, there is no author, creator or producer, but the self. the author is the source. in art, in life, there is an author. in existence there is an author, an originator a "cause" the closest we get to creation is the spoken word. but we do not author words, they are the product of The Word. existence is the product of The Word. more on the Word later my favorite subject... however, the ones who know of authorship can still choose the author, they can desire that author to be a certain way, to maintain certain features, or they can take the real Author for who HE is. there can be only one Author, but there are many authors. the Authority, the Creator, the Producer, the Originator, the Master. no amount of self-centered killing of the author is going to alleviate the author from being. even as i am authoring, i am existing, can i be separated from my words. do they emanate from me and enter into you. who is the author, who is the authority, nothing exists with out authorship, and with authorship comes authority, there comes source and yes, there comes right and wrong. no amount of desire will eliminate me, no amount of evolution will eliminate Him.
Continuing the thoughts Josh had placed in his last post I strongly believe in the following phrase: "Detail has not bee orchestrated to be ignored." We have been given the chance to see God's handiwork as an invitation to know Him and to want to know Him infinitely so. Certainly we can go to passages in Romans 1 and Colossians 1 and be made aware of the fact the God the Creator has done something marvelous that we interact with continually. Three responses to that: boredom and numbing familiarity(which leads to destruction and consumption); pride and disbelief(which leads to anthro-theorizing and devaluing; or, awe and wonder (which leads to curious discovery and worship of the One who is responsible) . We were truly created for the last of these possibilities. Evolution cannot not attest for the prevalence of beauty and the seemingly frivolous display of the natural world. There are lots of adaptive theories for why certain attributes have come into being but why haven't all the flowers in a given eco-system evolved to the same general look and smell. One would think that animal or plant would save time and effort in the process by all gravitating to the most streamlined and effective means of feeding or reproducing or pollinating etc... But we see such variety in each eco-system that that is astounding. Fascinating differences growing right next to each other that seem as different as night and day...and rarely short on color, shape, line and form. An evolutionary process that rewards survival of the fittest would hardly contain vast and diverse beauty and we would care less about an attribute of nature that did not feed our need to survive. So I echo Josh's final assessment about the false nature of evolution and ask it to step aside in light of the mysteries of the Creator...mysteries that we may not be able to fully grasp, but that we can full relish. More later...