The Accident

What science has taught us so far, is that everything in occurrence is nothing but a mere accident and a series of accidents and coincidences leading us to where we stand today with what we have today, like the big bang theory for example or the human evolution.

But is that what really happened?

Come to think about it, we as”intelligent” specie have always tried to speculate over the various vivid phenomenon we do not understand.

As once Terrence Mckenna said, “give us one free miracle and we’ll explain the rest”; but does this highly mechanistic method of investigation still serve to the relevance of our today’s problems?

Probably not.

We may need to think in the lines of a different methodology keeping the skepticism a little far to comprehend the incomprehensibility of our infinite universe.

Sure, science has given us a far-fetched perception of the understanding of nature or universe, but how could we be sure that it’s the only one way and may be not even wrong? There are higher chances of the “science” we know today to be wrong than being right in almost all given spectrum, but the problem today arises where we create a belief and make science from right to righteous.

To think about it and review for a second, most of the explanations given to the world by science from its very beginning have not sustained or proven to be very true, but our stubborn behavior seems to sustain. For example our earlier scientists whom we called as critical thinkers at that time explained and proved repeatedly how our planet, earth, was definitely a flat surface, that is similarly to how we have come to believe today of our scientific constants, like the speed of like, the gravity, etc.

What we fail to do is, to surpass our egos and re-investigate what we have passed beyond with absolute confidence and concrete conformation.

We need to understand that gravity and gravity-related technology did not come into occurrence due to some mathematical formulas cooked up in a madman’s mind after an apple fell on his head, but more importantly, it always existed and, how and why we failed to see those connections for that long. We are constantly, similarly, driven by such great and greater forces, which we may today define as the pseudo sciences or reject them because for lack of evidences through our old-school mechanistic approach; but does it define that if our methods don’t prove its existence then it will cease to exist?

May be its time to take a different approach, may be our old peeping window doesn’t give a clear view to as what our universe might be or what it might have to offer.

Everything has its relevance period, rather than expiry, like our olden mythologies, medieval religions, cultural beliefs and customary rituals; and perhaps mechanistic and old school science?

May be its time when we might need to stop for a moment and think if our scientific approach is still relevant.

-The Civil Illuminator