primal living and religion

Recently there was a post on the MDA Forum about religion and primal living. It got me thinking about the conundrum (though I consider it minor) that “primal” presents for me.

I hail from Christianity and it’s something I embrace now as an adult, though I’m not thrilled with what people’s good intentions have overwhelmingly reduced it to (a bunch of performance measures handed out by a god who seems to suffer from bipolar disorder – so NOT the correct message).

Anyway, the premise behind primal living says the following:

  •  Evolution is fact
  • The world has been spinning for millions of years
  • Humans have wandered the earth for hundreds of thousands of years

Christianity says (this is what I’ve been taught by several different sources):

  • We were created
  • Humans have only been around for about 10,000 years
  • The world has only been spinning for about 10,000 years

So how do I reconcile these two ideas? 

First, I absolutely believe in a Creator. I can’t see how anything could exist without an external push. In other words, something had to make the world go bang. I don’t believe it’s possible for something to come out of nothing and that’s supposedly what was here before the big bang – nothing. It’s a bigger leap of faith for me to believe that could happen than to believe something bigger outside of this world set it all in motion. 

As far as evolution goes, I do think that living beings have an ability to adapt, a sort of micro-evolution. But it seems a far stretch to believe that one being could completely change into another. Yes, there are similarities between the living things walking this earth but I think these similarities better support the notion of a Creator over chance. 

For instance, the works of artists and designers and engineers progress through their careers but there is usually an identifying mark to their work that points to them as the creator of their product. You see this quite plainly in musicians. Their new album goes in a different direction, it’s experimental, but there’s still an element to their sound that identifies them as a certain musician/group/artist, etc.

It’s different, but the same.

It occurs to me this analogy could easily support evolution too (it’s different, but the same). But I think it goes back to the argument of Creator or Chance. Which is more believable?

The last issue is the timelines. The two options I see are that:

  1. Carbon dating is wrong
  2. Carbon dating is right

If carbon dating is right, I think it simply means that we don’t know or understand the timeline of the Creator. Scripture essentially says that God is not bound by our time (a day is like a thousand years, a thousand years is like a day). Maybe Creation took millions of years maybe it took 144 hours. Who knows? And does it really matter?

What I do find intriguing is that, no matter which way you look at it, through evolution or creation, life is pretty amazing. The functioning of living things is astounding. The human body is a mechanical wonder. And I think primal living is the optimal way to properly maintain my mechanical wonder.


You must be logged in to post a comment.

%d bloggers like this: