jungle [8] | Branded adventures in and out of the jungle.

 Where do we come from is a haunting question to comprehend who we are, our role and interactions with the universe!  But the solution, as we don’t know it, is closer than we may think!

Torn apart between two main factions, the pragmatic science and the fervous religion, between the original chaos preceeding its organic birth and the birth of  the prophets that legitimated the datation of its existence, the explanation of the formation of the world  is still synonymous of schism between the rival theories. Which one among the two eternal enemies will take over? Reason or obscurantism?  Science?  Or religion ?

In all matters, Science rationalizes what Religion mystyfies. In this tempestuous environment,  a more realistic standpoint stands up and plays the spoilsport, giving to the birth of the world another dimension, more human we shall say.

From the Big Bang of the galaxies where atoms play the key role to understand the expansion of the cosmos and the planets, justifying the evolution of  Mother Nature and its progeniture  – the diverse species inhabiting the planet -,  to the experimental iron pouring along 300 square kilometres of the South Atlantic ocean to populate the receeding phytoplancton that will absorb the excess of CO2 contained in the atmosphere by the “Polarstern”  laboring in collaboration with the Indian National Oceanographic Institute, science prevails in the elaboration of a rational explanation.

Years of atomic explosions, of organic transformations, of genetic mutations and organisations assert nowadays that our descendance as a specie has its ramification and origin among the primates. Although the lemurians appeared (to relativize the primate theory) to be a possible variable in our gene pool, the evolution from the Australapicus (2-3 million years ago) to the latest vestige of our hominid (animals able to walk upright) inheritance, the Cro- Magnon man (90,000 yrs ago) is irrefutable. Our far, far away cousin Lucy born in the African savannas testified without any doubt of  the hominid presence.

At a time where its majesty the “satellite” reigns in the cosmos sending us pictures revealing the unexpected like water on Titan on its south pole (Saturn’s satellite),  lava flows around Caloris crater on Mercury, at a time where our ascendance will experience the birth of a new ocean (thousand years) in the Afar triangle region in Ethiopia or the first step of the genetic surgery, what would be the weight of any flat religious explanations versus the round omnipotence of science? Nowadays, no more Galileo ban by the Roman Inquisition for his “lack of empirism”…

When science through history, geology… and facts speak out for our past and echoes our future, elevates our reasoning ability, religion distorts our reality to a more convenient story. Pumping its power from ignorance and fears that it instilled us, religion’s only goal was and still is to control. Now that we dispose of science to rationalize the incomprehensible, the unknown, it’s a blow to the truth not to acknowledge its predominance.                                                                                                    . 

Created from the generosity or the anger of a God, from the mix of earth and water or from Jupiter’s thigh, or whatever absurd and bogus human interpretation of their own ignorance, the uncertainty about the origin of humanity attests of the flaw of religion.

When science refers to prehistoric and glacial period extending life to million years ago, religion despizes the unknown and starts naturally its history with the christian, muslim… calendars with the birth or the emigration of their respective prophets. As a contradiction our history should not be fragmented in the acceptance of  the term “BC” as a referal point for datation. But I guess it’s taken for granted!

If, between science and religion, any doubt still subsists in your mind on the origin of the world, let me bring another source of enlightenment by considering Gustave Courbet’s interpretation, althought scandalous at the time, as veracious. Don’t you agree?