The existence of living things on earth is an incredible and overwhelming reality. Even more incredible is the existence of human beings, a unique species, although not more or less important than any other creature on earth; except for claims of cognition unique to us, a claim that is still being disputed today. When one considers all the planets in our solar system and our inability to easily bump into other types of life in the universe, it seems that our existence is a mathematical impossibility. Yet, here we are. Moreover, it is because we are here why it is not a stretch to realize that anything is actually possible.

Evolutionists believe all things evolved from a very basic, possibly single celled organism. The flaw in their argument is, however, that they cannot explain how that initial organism got here. Creationists believe that all life was created by a supreme being that stands aloft in the universe watching over its creations. The flaw in their argument is the same as the creationists’, they cannot explain how that entity came into being. It is hard for each side to admit that they simply do not know. Nevertheless, this is the crux of the discussion.

Carbon-14 dating only has the ability to date living matter back to a little more than 50,000 years. Beyond that, the data becomes unreliable. This 50,000-year period does not fit in with the creationists' or evolutionists' theories. Creationists believe the earth is approximately 5,000 years old, while evolutionists believe it is millions of years old. Here it is, however, on the table. Why can’t each concede that the methods of dating, including those other than Carbon-14 dating, are simply showing certain facts, and beyond that, we simply don’t know?

It is a baffling thing. Why can’t humans acquiesce to not knowing? What is it within us that drives us to attempt to fit data into our belief systems, rather than let the data guide our thinking? Why do we presume the earth is millions of years old, and then attempt to prove that? Why do we presume a god exists and then attempt to prove that? Why can’t the things that are knowable to us be the only marker we utilize, and admit that we have no clue under the sun how we got here?

The universe, based on our existence here, and based on the many things we’ve come to know and discover over the centuries shows that there are an infinite number of possibilities. Knowing this, why have we stopped considering other possibilities and landed on only two? That’s right, two--two out of millions of possibilities. Some will say, well, we have no way of knowing what we don’t know, so these are theories we have to go on.

But those theories have no greater significance than any other possibilities or theories we could attempt to postulate. We don’t know that we don’t know about these ideas either, evolution and creation. But we have placed every effort into only these two, assuming that we have within our grasp, the wisdom and foresight to gauge these possibilities as the only feasible possibilities.

This is not to say that we cannot seek out information on our theories. But we cannot make an assumption about the age of living things on the planet when there is no data to back up those theories. It is all conjecture at best. Yet, somehow, the so called great minds of our age have decided that if it doesn’t fit, they’ll carve it until it does.

I believe the only way we can make true strides as human beings is to be humble. We need to be humble enough to admit that we simply don’t know. We need to step back and have the wisdom to recognize that when something doesn’t fit into our theory, we should not force it to fit. Life will not change how it began to suit our sensibilities. And we cannot think that the series of events that led to our existence, events that were and still are entirely out of our control, can be manipulated by us to our pleasure or comfort. A rat in a lab experiment cannot decide its fate, especially if it doesn’t even know it is in a lab experiment. No, this is not to imply that there is some cognitive force out there experimenting with us. It is simply an analogy that shows we are attempting to manipulate an environment that we had no part in producing. Unless one understands, clearly and without guessing, the circumstances under which they came to be, they cannot manipulate it. So to try to get creation or evolution to fit into what we wish to believe is like believing that a rat in a maze will somehow know that it is, in fact, in a maze, and can get out and be free.

Finding the key to our existence needs to start with admitting that we don’t know how we got here. We then must realize that two possibilities out of millions is not a productive way to uncover our existence. To have a discussion only within the realm of two possibilities on a planet we still have yet to learn about is ludicrous at best. It is time we open our minds and consider the wealth of other possibilities swirling around in the universe, waiting to be discovered. We cannot discover them if we have subconsciously limited ourselves to the only two that make us comfortable, or more rightly, the only two that have been given us. Frankly, why do we need to wait for anyone to “give” us ideas about how we began? We are all explorers and thinkers, and have the right to propose ideas. The universe is not engaged in our comfort, nor does it care if we have a degree in this or that. It does not give revelations only to those who study science, or those who sift about in the ancient dust of times past. The universe is a truth that sits out there, just the way it is, ever changing and unchanging, waiting, or maybe not waiting at all. It will not adjust what it is to make us feel safe and secure. We need to adjust to the realities of what the universe is, of course, once we discover those realities, and how we can live symbiotically within it.

All written, it is time we begin to truly explore and stop limiting ourselves to what a handful of human beings have decided to propose to us. Or, what gives us comfort.