Today the History channel featured the Lock Ness Monster on "In Search of History." This type of thing doesn't interest me very much, but there was nothing else on I wanted to see and my dad turned it on. What the hell, its only an hour, and usually the history channel does good documentaries with a lot of insightful information. As the story began, I pretty much knew the outcome. No conclusive evidence. Most, if not all, of the famous photos, video clips, and underwater devices either came up empty or came up with something later deemed to be a hoax. Examples are the famous underwater phin photo and the famous photo of the emerged neck and head. The final chapter to this story, in my mind and respected scientists minds, is when one sceptical scientist decided to put an end to the debate. He assembled a team of well over 25 boats that did a full sonar scan of the entire lake. More than once I might add. Nothing was found that could be of that size, or near that size. As it stands now, the only evidence is eye witnesses and some explanations were given to effects in the lake that make mirages among other things such as the emerged neck of a large bird which looks like a serpent from a distance.

Why is this relavent? Well, as the scientist put it who headed the sonar scan, "I killed the Dragon in my head, but many people don't want the Dragon in their head to die." Then the narrator closed with a statement to the affect of, -its better off left alive in the imagination-. But the bottom line was people want to believe in something. Whether it be god, the lock ness monster, or big foot. There is a part of us that needs more than we have, we are bored with the natural world. I suggest this might also contribute to the vast amounts of Allien and Ghost sightings. I'm not going to debate those issues, because I already spend to much time debating this one. If you think 'this one' refers to the lock ness monster, don't even worry about what it does refer to.

To say I'm not religous would be my first inclination if asked, "What religion are you?." A straight out atheist answer is to crass in most circles of the United States and most of the West. But in a way my religion is science. Its not a religion that fights change or new ideas, it is a religion that endorses new ideas and accepts when past ideas were incorrect. The great debates in history that shape our world today have all been won by science, and dare I say lost by the religous establishment. Heliocentricity vs. Geocentricity, Flat vs. Spherical, Evolution vs. Creation, perhaps now, dare I say, Extraterestrial life vs. Only Earthly life. These are more of the popular debates. In each case science finds the answer, fights with popular society in a struggle that can be brutal, and eventually popular society follows until the once despised ideas are common knowledge. Does god exist? Well these debates didn't answer that question, perhaps none will. Is any religion in existance now or in the past "the correct relgion." Perhaps, the scientific religion, if the word religion is deserving of the word science.

H

• Loyalty? - Phil.o.Sofir - January 28, 1999 - 11:58 UTC
  • Re: Loyalty? OPPS! - same - January 28, 1999 - 12:21 UTC
    • I may have given the wrong impression, Big Bang, Stephen Hawking. - H - January 28, 1999 - 15:01 UTC
      • Me too. - Phil.o.Sofir - January 28, 1999 - 20:14 UTC