Brev två till Richard Dawkins
Dear Richard Dawkins,
As you say there is absolute proof of Darwin’s theory. It is a matter of fact overwhelming proof, hundreds of millions of years of an unbroken chain of proof, but let assume you and I are scientist who come back in say 200 000 years from now.
We are going to make a startling discovery. We are going to find a species that broke that chain of proof. Mankind!
It will be easy to see why because in man no longer only the strongest, fittest and most adaptable where allowed to survive and breed.
In all mammals for millions of years only the strongest, fittest and most adaptable have been able to breed and that is the proof of evolution, proof that we could find in the chain of evolution throughout the history of the planet in anything that had ever lived.
We could see that the planet had had serious bouts with nasty catastrophic things like when the dinosaurs where extinct, but the rule of the chain of evolution was never broken.
Nothing, for hundreds of millions of years, billions of years for that matter, has ever been able to interfere with the rule of evolution, which we can see today, and which you and I can see as those imaginary scientists 200 000 years from now, and what we will discover then is that it was mankind who interrupted this chain in such a way that it totally altered the entire planet.
I am certain that you and I are going to be the inquisitive type of scientists and we will not just simply sit down and accept the fact we see so clearly in front of us. We need to find a reason, because there has to be a reason when something comes in and after hundreds of million years suddenly alter the rules of evolution. We can se how man did it, but we can not understand why.
We spend years pondering our brains searching all the evidence we have and one day it is there, just in front of our eyes, so clear and so very, very understandable.
The discovery of what broke the chain of evolution. We will understand that this is big. Shit, we might even win a Nobel price for our findings.
It was thought that finally broke the chain.
It was just as simple as that. It was when man suddenly developed the ability of the advanced thought that he could challenge the chain of evolution and he did in every single way possible. The problem was that mans advanced thought was not so advanced. Man could not understand the consequences of his actions, he could not understand the complexity of it all and in present times he even doubts evolution. His mind is not so advanced, but advanced enough to suddenly be able to interfere with evolution and the survival of a planet in universe.
We humans can not stop thinking there has to be a thought behind it all. It does not matter whether you are atheist or religious. If we accept the big bang we need to know what was before the big bang, where did that little ball come from. That tiny little ball of energy that created the whole of universe appeared out of nothing?? Then what the hell is nothing? Most people however just settle with the thought that there is a thought behind it all, a God.
So define thought!
What is it? And further more, how big is it? We now know it is so big that it has broken the billion year old chain of evolution. This is a big power, thought is an enormous power. What is it and what has man stumbled on without understanding it?
I depends how we define thought, but isn’t the whole evolution a thought and the thought is that the fittest, the smartest, the best to adapt etc is the winner. That is a thought per definition, is it not? Or is it just evolution? So when and how did our thought suddenly interfere with evolution or is it so that thought has always been there, just not advanced enough to challenge Mother Nature herself.
This is a challenging though I have given you. You are a scientist and you claim evolution as an absolute truth and that we are part in that evolution, but as a scientist you must agree that not only the fittest and the strongest in man get to reproduce. Every man gets to reproduce, more or less. You can not say that we have natural selection since we have modern medicine. We have penicillin, we can give people new hearts, and we can cure lots of cancer, fewer women die in childbirth. Lots more children survive and all this ended up in the population explosion, something man maid, something that mother nature did not plan on and that is proof that man has stepped out of the chain of evolution and that opens two new questions. When did man leave the chain of evolution and why and how? The second question has to be. Did he leave the chain of evolution and where did he come from?
We did not descend from the primates. They have 48 chromosomes, we have 46 and that does not make any sense at all. There is other proof as we that we did not descend from the primates.
So this ought to interest you. You can not prove that man is part of evolution. It is easy to prove that we are not part of evolution today, so in order to prove that man is part of evolution you need to prove why he left the chain of evolution and when.
Now I am, as you are, an atheist, I don’t believe there is a God, but there must be an explanation for this. In my mind there are a few possibilities. We could just have gotten to clever, developed too much though and invented money, which is not in line with evolution and Mother Nature.
Just a little thought experiment. Say that Lions and Zebras had money and our thoughts; do you think they would still fight the way they do? Wouldn’t the Lions have hired hunters (soldiers) and wouldn’t the Zebras have bid defense army’s?
Or does the Sumerians have something to tell us? Has Sitchin, who is an excellent scientist, deciphered the Sumerian writing?
You mention nothing of modern man not fitting in to the chain of evolution in any of your books or TV documentaries is it because you don’t see it or are you scared that it will be used against you and your reasoning around the danger of religions?
I do agree with you and I do think you have excellent help in Zitchin, because if what he says is true, then all religion as we know it will collapse and the reason so few has listened to Sitchin is just that. Nobody wants that to be true, maybe not even an atheist like you.
But you do have some explanation to do and I do hope you get this letter and I do hope you will answer it.
I enclose this link. It is interesting.