Is this sucking perspective surrounded by stink?

The gospel according to Edward Abbey:

“From the point of view of a tapeworm, man was created by God to serve the appetite of the tapeworm.”

Humor is noted.

But how does one assume such a parasitic paradigm?

Obviously, there is an undercurrent of “survival of the fittest” mentality that allows this to make any sort of sense. The tapeworm attaches to the human and sucks life-sustaining nutrients from its host. Its way of life is better in that it lazily leeches from the efforts of its host. It is higher up on the food chain than humanity, therefore we know why God created humans. The human serves it’s needs.

Interesting as it may be, does this interaction of species in any way erode or build significant arguments for or against the existence of God? On the contrary, it seems that this thought sucks life-sustaining elements from this discussion as it lazily leeches from the efforts of its better proponents.

Please allow me to tell you what you get from a tapeworm’s point of view [please forgive me this vulgarity].

Its a bunch of sh…shoved fecal matter.

Would I be inaccurate to suggest the same is true of this quote?

Does survival of the fittest continue to yearn?

The gospel according to Stephen Jay Gould:

“We are here because one odd group of fishes had a peculiar fin anatomy that could transform into legs for terrestrial creatures; because the earth never froze entirely during an ice age; because a small and tenuous species, arising in Africa a quarter of a million years ago, has managed, so far, to survive by hook and by crook. We may yearn for a ‘higher’ answer–but none exists.”

Has Dr. Gould offered science’s answer to one of the BIG questions of reality? Questions that have lingered throughout the centuries of recorded history. Questions that must be answered by every philosophy of life, every paradigm of plausibility, and every belief system out there. Some have answered these questions well, and so they have survived to this day. Some have answered these questions poorly, and so they are read about as a history of yesterday. One of these questions might be asked as follows:

Where did we come from?

Certainly, Mr. Gould has offered his answer to [or question of] the question that has been asked. Many have embraced this answer [or questioning]. But in the answering of this question, other significant questions begin to surface: assumptions? presuppositions? biases? belief system? ground of belief? worldviews? paradigms? plausibility structures? and the like.

Some of these matters are revealed in the thoughts penned by Gould that follow the thought quoted in this book of books.

“We may yearn for a ‘higher’ answer–but none exists… We cannot read the meaning of life passively in the facts of nature. We must construct these answers ourselves–from our own wisdom and ethical sense. There is no other way.”

How does one know that no higher answer exists for such a question? Unless of course, one is assuming that no answer is the answer. This whole matter of “passively” reading anything from “the facts of nature” is somewhat disingenuous. Allow me to tell you which scientists have “passively” gone about their scientific pursuits: the forgotten and unknown ones. Those that are remembered [this would include Gould] are the ones which were driven to pursue what answers could be discovered through the discipline of science. Finally, I couldn’t agree more with the matter of constructing answers from “wisdom and ethical sense.”

To contend that “we may yearn for a ‘higher’ answer-but none exists” is a construction built on his own wisdom and ethical sense. Indeed, “there is no other way.” To say that there are no answers to such a question is to presume the following answer: “None of the above.”

This is an answer, is it not?

The question might appear simple, but it is not.
The answers might appear obvious, but to unpack them becomes a daunting task.

If one were to assume that this answer is supported upon a philosophy of life [not just biological life, but all of life and all of reality] that IS true, then what can this tell us of where and who we are right now? 

In this whole matter of surviving by “hook and crook,” there has been the survival of this nagging little riddle. Why do we ask questions like these? Why do we yearn for answers like these? If survival of the fittest is a truth to be embraced, then what do persons like Gould do with the fact that religious beliefs are still surviving and thriving, even in paradigm shifts best described as postmodern?

Some of us may not know why we yearn, but we do know that we yearn. Others may question the significance of it, but they can’t question the existence of it.

Answers may vary, but the question doesn’t.
Answers may fade into history, but the question doesn’t.

Everyone is faced with this yearning, many ask questions, some say there are no answers. Does this satisfy the reality that you know to be true? What is the naturalistic explanation for this yearning? What was the reason for it to evolve into the human psyche? Since it was a part of the evolutionary process, then on what basis do we have to question it or when it should be ignored? Why does it insist to persist?

We yearn.

The yearning is there.
The yearning has to be dealt with.