Forest = Cereal

20120813-083316.jpg

Last night I had an amazing summer conversation with my daughter, Eva, outside under the pines.

Correction: it was a listening session. A single, unending stream of thought (less one addition from me) where I realized my baby girl is much less baby and far more girl.

But I’m sure in both our minds it will be remembered as a conversation, because we experienced it together.

We were playing a game my Daddy and I made up when I was little called It’s Like When, in which one person says a word and the second person has to give a real life application of that word without using the word specifically.

Her word was “forest.”

Apparently my answer of, “It’s like when you’re surrounded by trees,” wasn’t good enough.

“No, Dad,” she corrected.

“It’s like animals everywhere. Rabbits and deer. But we don’t shoot them. Only Popop shoots deer because he likes to eat them. We only eat animals when we eat Cheeseburgers.”

“Those are cows.” (My one addition).

“Ew. Gross. Yeah, and we don’t shoot cows too much. If there are no cows, then there’s no milk. And if there’s no milk, there’s no cereal. And can you imagine life without cereal? I can’t. I mean, what would we even eat?”

I have no idea.

So there you have it, a true Dwight Schrute-ism á la Evangeline Hopper:

Forest equals cereal.

You’re welcome.

ch:

20120813-083324.jpg

Logic May Not Be Enough

But instinct is something which transcends knowledge. We have, undoubtedly, certain fibers that enable us to perceive truths when logical deduction, or any other willful effort of the brain, is futile.

Sounds like something a froofy, superstitious Christian might say. You know, one of those Darwinian dismissing, shallow Creationist, faith-believing, science-hating, anti-progressive people who go to church without thinking, and have never read a book outside of the Bible.

Or it could be that Nikola Tesla stumbled upon a very eloquent, if not oversimplified, explanation for his own spirit-man.

But what would one of the world’s greatest minds know about that kind of thing? He’s so totally last century, like.

ch:

Logic. Should be logical. Right?

If you’re a Christian, even marginally, there are a certain number of tenants that you hold to. That God is omniscient, omnipresent, and omnipotent, to name a few of the foundational. But one that’s been in constant debate between sacred and secular in the modern age–a dividing line, if you will–is that of God as Creator.

It fascinates me how those who operate at high levels of intellectual capacity, setting the standards for science and higher learning, often times refuse to operate by their own laws, and further, fail to acknowledge what seems so elementary to a simpleton like me. Occam’s razor, the meta-theoretical principle that the simplest solution is usually the correct one, would seem to apply when comparing a billion years of anti-entropic evolution versus intelligent design.

But all hope is not lost. During some recent research on the subject of Atheists turning to belief (of any form), a friend passed on an article to me worth quoting, concerning Anthony Flew, a leading atheist and British philosophy professor.

At age 81, after decades of insisting belief is a mistake, Antony Flew has concluded that some sort of intelligence or first cause must have created the universe. ‘A super-intelligence is the only good explanation for the origin of life and the complexity of nature,’ Flew said in a telephone interview from England.

Granted, Flew’s budding theology is on par with that of a baby Christian, looking more like deism than relational evangelical Christianity. But a step is a step. And more importantly, paves the way for other such cerebral thinkers that are nearing the end of a similar question: Shouldn’t the most logical conclusion, when asking about the origin of life, be the One that began it all?

Is this a trend? Or is Professor Flew just a senile old man that should be ignored? ch: