All of the foregoing was written simply to bring us to this point, and to make some effort to convince even the most die-hard Christian fundamentalist that, at the very least, evolution is not antithetical to theism, or even the Bible specifically. This is not because I am especially pious–most Christians would not count me among their number–but to try to establish a common premise in the fact of evolution. Though I may later return to this fundamental premise in more detail, I will, from here on, consider it a given. This is important, because everything else follows from that simple tautology. Its implications drive home a new system of ethics, where the greatest good is diversity.

Creationism is primarily an American phenomenon. In the Middle East, Islam’s account of creation is accepted without question. In Europe, opposition to evolution is almost unheard of. In Catholic countries, the pope’s acceptance of evolution in 1996 ended any debate on the issue. Yet, in America–and to some extent Australia, thanks to American evangelism–evolution remains contentious. Creationism, “Creation Science” and “Intelligent Design” remain popular explanations for the origin of species. But of course, its popularity doesn’t make it any less ridiculous. These efforts are born of an imaginary crisis between science and faith. But, if you happen to understand the Pantheistic nature of the Bible’s teachings, then all conflict disappears.

I was drawn inexorably towards pantheism as something of an inescapable truth. We consider ourselves “alive” because we possess a minimum level of complexity. We have reflexive, interlocking, adaptive systems, such as the respiratory, circulatory, and nervous systems. Yet our planet is the same. Climate and ecology react to one another in complex, adaptive ways. The earth changes and reacts to new stimuli; and that is only within our own planet, one small part of the cosmic forces of a universe held together with gravity, conflicting forces, and superstrings.

Biologists have traditionally identified five criteria for life:

1. Growth.

It’s difficult to think now how a Christian conservative–as I once was–can read the Bible as “their” book. The condemnation of civilization now seems resounding and obvious. Was I then so wrapped in misdirection and obfuscation to miss it? Or is the text really that ambiguous, that we really do see in it whatever it is we wish to see in it–what we bring to it?

I’d like to give you a glimpse of my Bible, and why I maintain that Judaism and Christianity are not, at their root, the loathsome oppressors’ clubs their followers have so often made them. Why the core of Jesus’ teachings stands as such a stark condemnation of Christianity….

Ladies and gentlemen, eggs and sperm: today is Valentine’s Day. Therefore, my blog entry for the day (and, likely, the month) will be about something both timely and close to my heart: chocolate. Actually, it’ll be about sex. But luckily for me, most of you singles out there can’t tell the difference anyway, so here we go!

Lately, my boss has taken to quoting the famous philosopher Alfred North Whitehead, as in a recent whitepaper: “Civilization advances by extending the number of operations we can perform without thinking about them.” So now, our marketing is claiming that Vivísimo “advances civilization.” By Whitehead’s criterion, of course, that’s absolutely true. If I agreed with Whitehead, I’d be morally obliged to hand in my resignation. But an education in anthropology has given me the perspective to see a common but fundamental error in his unspoken assumptions. I think the kind of clustering Vivísimo does actually undermines civilization–and gives me the happy obligation to keep a very good job.

For years now, I’ve recognized a growing alienation from others. My views differ from theirs on an incredibly fundamental level. For the most part, I’ve learned to generally keep those views to myself, and merely chip away more traditional views–challenge them, raise questions, and generally stir up doubt without ever stating my own position on anything. But with the recent radical change in my direction, I feel the time has come at last to lay down a specific “canon” for myself, a body of work that I can easily point others to, rather than repeating and defending the same premises and assumptions over and over again.

In my youth, I was a devout disciple of the Roman Catholic Church. As a teenager, I was a disciple of Daniel Quinn. I still have much to learn–I am still a student–but now, for the first time in my life, I have no master.

Though I have long held doubts about some of Quinn’s details, it is only recently that I have lost faith in the core tenets of that belief. For Quinn, everything turns on the idea of “changing minds.” Culture, Quinn says, is a story we enact–change the story, and our actions will follow. To curb the destructive force of civilization, we need only undermine the foundational memes of the Taker mythology.

Tribal Dawn shook my faith, but did not destroy it. I still believed in the occupational tribe. So, I was no sooner gone from Tribal Dawn than I began forming another such tribe, this time called “Anthropik Media.” The name, of course, comes from the Greek for “man,” anthropos, the same root as “anthropology.” I was looking for a name that denoted a more human kind of art.

[Steve’s Note: My more technologically-advanced and -trusting colleagues Anthropik may well take issue with this particular piece]

The Huygens probe landed on Titan, where it was met by the crystalline ice-beings, who, assuming it was a God, brought it through the forests of living glass; past the plains where the giant helium-fish swim through the sky; up the winding stair to Ixilazt, the City Atop the Cloud, for their gargantuan queen to devour (as indeed, all Gods must be devoured).