Theories of Existence
How did we come to be humans? Did an omnipotent god create us out of the blue? Did we evolve from apes? Or, is there some common ground between these two generally accepted theories? Throughout our history, humans have been burned at the stake, humiliated by the public, and glorified by history in defending their opinions about these questions. The debate will continue until the end of time, but in the meantime we must explore the validity of these theories. There are three main theories of the human conception: Creationism, evolution, and the common ground theory.
"Then God said: 'Let us make man in our image, after our likeness. Let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, the birds of the air, and the cattle, and over all the wild animals and all the creatures that crawl on the ground.'" Such is the Bible�s description of the humans' creation. But is the story, or the Bible itself, believable? Creationists would argue that the Bible is a perfectly accurate view of society before the arrival of advanced civilizations. They say that the Bible must be true because the Lord made it that way. This seems to be quite a bit of blind faith. A more accurate description of the Bible's validity would be: Why would anyone go to all that trouble to make up a false story? Obviously, if not based entirely in historical fact, the book must at the very least based upon the beliefs or myths held at the time. It is a point of fact that all myths have some basis in reality. The next question that jumps out at us is, "Why would such a powerful being even want to bother with creating us, an imperfect race?" If we assumed that the being we call "God" was the last or only one of his race, it would stand to reason that He would want, or even need, company. Although this could be considered an attempt to apply human standards to a nonhuman culture, the Bible did say that we were created in His image and likeness. Since we are social animals, we must also assume that God also had some drive to be social. The next question is "Why would He want to create an imperfect being if He was flawless?" This question will be answered, at least to some extent, as we begin to discover the flaws in the accepted theories.
Evolution is the constant attempt to perfect each species. According to Darwin, it was species-wide, not just limited to a certain group of animals living in a certain geographic area. An example of this occurring now is the fact that humans appear to be getting taller. In many instances, evolution has been proven to occur in animals. Scholars would say that if evolution occurs, then the entire theory of evolution must be true. There is a flaw in their reasoning, however. It doesn�t deal so much with the "what" so much as with the "why." All of the proven evolutionary advanced have been for the better. The "evolution," also called genetic mutations, that create bad effects seem to be limited to only a few individual animals and don't affect the entire species. Is it merely a coincidence that evolution occurs for the better, or is there some external force at work? As Elim Garak said, "I believe in coincidences. Coincidences happen everyday. But, I've learned over the years never to trust coincidences." It appears that evolution is not such an inescapable fact as many people would have us believe.
These two prevailing theories are neither correct nor incorrect. There are flaws in each of them. The best theory is taking the best of both worlds and combining them into a single unified theory. It has been stated that the Bible cannot be entirely true. A reminder of this could be the statement, "History is written by the victors." History is always changed in favor of who writes it; history is not completely objective. People sometimes write a history of what they want to believe, not what actually happened. Perhaps if creationists concede that fact, then they would arrive at a better theory. If they would instead have the opinion that God isn�t perfect, then the two theories fit like a glove. Let's digress a little and think of an appropriate analogy. If an inventor tries to build a toaster, he or she is going to start out with a useless model that does not work. Then, as time progresses, through constant changes and fine tuning, the inventor will end up with a working model. As the inventor spends more time on the toaster, there will be some adjustments that won't work, but eventually the toaster will get better and better. Applying this to us, God is the inventor and we are the toasters. We started out as a mere microbe in a pile of amino acids, not much different than the stuff you would find in the sewers. Now, through constant improvements, or evolution, if you wish, we have arrived as the working toaster of humanity. Perhaps this is why the "freak" genetic mutations generally create desirable results. There is a good inventor behind the scenes, and when He makes a mistake and causes a defect, it is limited to as few individuals as conceivably possible. God knows when He makes a mistake, and He very seldom makes the same mistake twice. This is most likely the best theory, as it combines the two prevailing ideas and creates a single unified theory that can stand its ground without debate.
The debate will continue unless there is scientific proof of one of the three theories, as we humans usually will not budge when it comes to our personal beliefs. In the meantime, we should do our best to objectively evaluate the three theories of our existence: Creationism, evolution, and the combined theory. We must realize that somewhere, in the vast unknown realm of human existence, there is a common ground for all of us to stand by. The bitter battles which we have fought to defend these beliefs serve as a lesson to us, that we must listen to others despite our seemingly remarkable differences. Only then can we reach the answers of what was, what is, and what will continue to be.