The study of snake-centric theology
October 30, 2013 | James Kohl
Study Theology, Even If You Don’t Believe in God Tara Isabella Burton
This lost liberal art encourages scholars to understand history from the inside out.
Excerpt: “Theology, far from being anathema to the academic life, was indeed its central purpose: It was the “Queen of the Sciences” the field of inquiry which gave meaning to all others.”
Excerpt: “Our findings are unique in providing neuroscientific evidence in support of the Snake Detection Theory, which posits that the threat of snakes strongly influenced the evolution of the primate brain.”
“Snake Detection Theory” pairs mutation-driven natural selection and predation with the neuroscience of epigenetically-effected hormone-organized and hormone-activated adaptive evolution in vertebrates and invertebrates. This pairing leads to a snake-centric theology that can be compared to the role of the serpent in Biblical Genesis.
If everything we know about the evolution or Creation of the human brain and behavior leads us back to snakes, Genesis is by far the most cohesive representation of biologically-based cause and effect, which is nutrient-dependent in every species that has ever existed. “Don’t eat that!” said God. “Eat it anyway!” said the talking serpent. In Genesis, nothing was said to monkeys.
Apparently, people and some monkeys have since been primed to respond to snakes and to foods they probably should not eat, whether or not they have ever seen a snake. People, unlike monkeys, have also been taught that humans are primarily visual creatures as if the visual appeal of food could be compared to their aversive response to a snake using any model of how the epigenetic ‘landscape’ becomes the physical landscape of DNA in the organized genome of any species from microbes to monkeys and man. Thus, “Snake Detection Theory” moves from neuroscientific facts to theory, while claiming to incorporate neurobiological evidence of past selection for snake detection. There is no mention of natural selection for food in “Snake Detection Theory” except in the context of not reaching for a banana if your snake detector goes off. (Example: Reach for a banana, but don’t reach toward a slumbering snake.)
Who’s teaching your children about mutation-driven evolution via snake predation when no experimental evidence has ever supported the theory of mutation-driven natural selection via predation? I’ll bet it’s the same person who is teaching them about the primacy of vision in humans based on the response to snakes in monkeys.