absence was lacking;
and, ignorant, pitied the lack.
Today I don’t pity.
There is no shortage in absence.
Absence is being in me"
(Carlos Drummond de Andrade)
Ugly Duckling's words, if it were really him, brought the most tangible response to the questions raised by the Monkeys during their investigation. Hence his departure filled their hearts with the most piercing grief. They felt it like the greatest of all losses that may afflict one’s mind. It transcended even the disappearance of a child.
But it is impossible to cross the forest, climb the icy mountain, walk through the desert and down the cliff, and do not acquire resistance to losses. The heroic saga had made the Monkeys intimate of all needs. Of lacks of protection, shelter, heat as well as of water, shade, food. And even of the lack of peace. Every step they had taken, in the long march, had increased the callus of a huge number of deprivations, which made them familiar to the despoilments which animate life. And thought if, at a time like today, when having became the measure of all things, life has not come to be a wire suspended between the neighbor abysses of having and not having.
However, despite the unparalleled conditioning that the march had earned them, the four did not know how to bear that devastating absence, which is the most basic of as many as can exist: the absence of Ugly Duckling. How, why had he departed, after having helped them so much in the lancinating trance of the investigation? Why love, which binds souls, is so fragile, so ready to unleash and to transform presence in absence, climax in anticlimax, all in nothing?
Whipped by these questions, they felt yet another absence: that of immediate remedy for the pain of living. While in the forest, glacier, desert and the woods they had found solace for every evil, there seemed to be no solution for the sharp pain of absence. And in that state of mind, thought they would better withdraw to silence and resume the walk to the sea.
But the day threatened to decline. So they waited for a better occasion to do so. In the meantime, filled up with fruits of the forest and Amphibians of the lake. And as the moon kept aloof, slept as soon as the last rays of sun vanished.
And when trees still dripped the water of the night, as tears poured from heaven, and dawn had not begun to spill over the vastness of the forest, nimble, the four ate some fruit, quaffed sips of the balm that vegetation had collected in its chalices and resumed marching. Skirted the cliff face that looked to the lake and went down to the sea.
They were about to leave the forest, when heard the crowing of a Rooster. Looked around, but half-light still reigned, and they found nothing. Another small lapse, and heard the singing once more. This time they noticed that the sound came from a point at which half-light thickened into shadow. And they glimpsed the outline of the Fowl that had emitted it.
- Good morning, Rooster! Ware exclaimed, linking the figure to the sounds.
- I wish you a great day! Or a great night, given the gloom, answered the Fowl with a fearful voice.
- It will be difficult to have a good day, but we thank you, replied Shard.
- Why difficult? Rooster asked, noticing the plaintive look of his interlocutor.
- Because yesterday we found a group of beautiful Swans. Conversed with one of them, who revealed what we had talked far from here, in the previous days.
- A visionary Swan? A prophet? marveled the Rooster. Who will believe? And what relation does this have with your sorrow? Did the seer predict mishaps, calamities, misfortunes? Prophesied death to you?
- No, nothing like that, but the way he left us abruptly, after having talked about the evolution of species, shocked us deeply.
- Evolution! again marveled the Rooster, who had calmed down when noticing the suffering of the four. Are you interested in this?
- Yes, and a lot. How about you?
- I inquire the origin of the world and how Roosters have emerged.
- What ideas have you formed about these themes? Ware wondered.
- See this forest? replied the other. Thousands of species inhabit it. If all evolved from other species, the DNA of each one has recorded the changes they experienced. That’s why DNA is the key to the evolutionary process.
The Rooster’s pondering made a lot of sense. Glass accepted the premise just set by him and asked curiously:
- Are you suggesting that DNA analysis can reveal the process of evolution?
- Yes, that's what I think. The analysis already exists and is called gene sequencing. Through it, it has been confirmed that species and larger groups actually descended from one another. To provide one reason for that conclusion, Former Repetitive Elements (FRE), which are scraps of genes that changed position in the DNA, were found in almost the same places in human and Mouse genomes. That couldn't have been reached by chance. Francis Collins, who headed the international Project that sequenced human DNA, said: "Unless you take the position that God has placed these FRE’s in the exact positions they are, in order to confuse and delude us, it is virtually impossible to escape the conclusion that Humans and Mice have a common ancestor."
– Okay! applauded Glass. Evolution is a fact, but what concerns us is the extent of the fact. Weeks ago we started a survey to try to understand the range of evolution and if it left space for the idea of a divine creation. Do living beings have a single common ancestor or are they descendants of several? Do species have multiple ancestors? If they do, were they all of the same species or of multiple ones? Depending on the answers to these questions, the tree of life will be more or less branched. Incidentally, it may no longer remain a tree. May become a web. From a scientific point of view, even creation of living beings by God depends on these answers, not on the existence of evolution, which is a fact.
- Unfortunately, the results of science in this regard, said the Rooster, are still controversial and equivocal. In 1986, based on genetic sequencing, Australian scientist Michael Denton published the most impressive critique of evolution so far. In his book Evolution, a theory in crisis, Denton argued that Macroevolution (evolution of major groups of beings) is in crisis. The main argument for this is genetic equidistance. Denton’s favorite example is the cytochrome of Bacteria, which differs 64% from the Horse’s, 64% from the Pigeon’s, 65% from the cytochrome of the Tuna Fish, 65% from that of the Silkworm, 66% from wheat and 69% from the yeast. As the theory of evolution holds that genes that specify proteins alter at regular speeds, the equidistance of different groups could be interpreted as meaning that all arose at the same time. But the fossils show that this has not occurred, which led Denton to conclude that the theory of evolution of large groups is in crisis.
- But Denton has published another book, Monkey Glass reminded his friend, 12 years after the one you mentioned, in which he explained the process by which Macroevolution occurred.
- Yes, but the central thesis of his last book rests on ideas not so accepted by the scientific community. Moreover, given that Denton did not recant his first book in the last one, they must be considered harmonic, not antagonistic.
Tile intervened:
- But the degree of proof of the main theses of the two books are very distinct. Denton’s first book raised the most crucial questions about evolution, since the days of Darwin. That’s why it must be considered one of the most central works on the subject, from the discovery of DNA to date. Denton's judgement doesn’t seem to be casual nor the result of ideological preferences or incomplete information. Scientist Gert Korthof said that "one cannot understand Neo-Darwinism without fully reading Denton's book, because it spells out the implications of Darwinism in greater detail than I ever found in my teachers or in the books about the theme." And see that this conclusion comes from a scientist who doesn’t adopt Denton’s views on genetic equidistance.
The silence that Tile had held contributed to redouble the attention of the others to his words. Therefore he continued:
– Denton’s first book proposes no solution to the crisis it identifies. But defines the territory where evolution’s final battle will be fought. As well as Genetics explained Microevolution, the battle for Macroevolution will be fought within the field of Molecular Biology, particularly in the territory of DNA sequencing.
- Yes, Glass agreed. And, in that very battle, the involvement of God in the evolutionary process will be decided.
At this point, Shard entered the discussion:
- Despite all the controversy about genetic equidistance of large groups, there is no dispute about the examples that Denton provides of it. The only question is whether the examples are sufficient to refute Macroevolution or are just holes in the theory, which will be eliminated by new discoveries. Most scientists treat them as holes or doubts, though no facts can rule them out. But Denton thinks the examples of equidistance authorize us conclude that Macroevolution is shaken.
Suddenly, an idea flashed in Shard’s mind:
- When he said we’re manuscripts, didn’t the Swan refer to the DNA? Aren’t our cells formed in accordance with the genetic code within them? Isn’t that code usually represented by letters which form a text, a manuscript?
One cannot deny that the idea was luminous. If we assume that an intelligence intervened in the process of modification of species, the DNA will be not only similar to, but even the same as symbols. And that will be the clearest reflection of God in science. It will be the expression of a God who does not throw dice, but writes manuscripts.
Here and there in the investigation, the friends had reached the conviction that science and Macroevolution, in particular, are a totalitarian way of thinking. Reality is squeezed into theories of so vast a range that cannot be verified. And theories so vast and so vague shape our minds, not to mention our customs.
If it is the cause of the explanatory success of science, this circular method of deducing and inducing, and of inducing and deducing again, ad infinitum, does not explain the blindness which afflicts the minds of Men? Upon hearing the double crowing of the Rooster and talking with him, the Monkeys made all these questions over and over. And further inquired whether genetic equidistance cannot be seen as a way to reduce the totalitarian character of Evolution.
- Science both clarifies and obscures minds, Shard said boldly. It may serve libertarian or totalitarian ends. Korthof said: "Denton presents the discontinuity of fossils, living organisms, proteins and DNA as a confirmation of his Typological Model, and his description is very consistent with observations. This is a good thing in science. But science without theories is only a descriptive activity. Proximity to empirical reality is an important criterion of science, but not the only one by which we should judge theories." See that, with these words, Korthof makes facts cede to theory. Thus the old adage resurfaces to torment science: "If facts do not support theory, the worse for them." Is this contempt of facts the genuine scientific wisdom or a logical blunder? Didn’t we consider it a blunder, when we found the Mammoth and the Man and when we discovered the Trilobite within the human footprint? Didn’t conclude several times that it’s a real blunder? Didn’t we do so while talking with the Peacock and the Bear? The great evil, the inescapable torment, is that the blunder makes science illusory.
Potshard immediately agreed:
– And the stones? Didn’t they tell us that faith in God has been neglected? Didn’t suggest that the negligence is due to ignorance of faith’s practical meaning? And the Donkey didn’t say the same thing? Didn’t we see in the manuscripts that the Bible’s description of creation may have interpretations quite different from the ones science has refuted?
The conversation was lively, but the sun was high. So the friends said goodbye to the Rooster, who greeted them in a way that sounded quite strange:
- Remember the crowings of our race!
The Monkeys then covered the small distance that separated them from the ocean. Within minutes, they reached the shore and faced the enormity of the waters. The incredible scenery inspired Shard to question:
- The truth we seek isn’t like the ocean?
- And don’t we know about it only what one can take from the ocean with a gourd? Glass completed.
- What would Ugly Duckling tell us about this? Shard asked.
- Would he say that truth is the ocean? echoed Monkey Tile.
- I don’t feel he has abandoned us, Shard completed. Feel, on the contrary, he flies above us every day. And looks at us with the very same care he showed in the woods.
So, every day, under the watchful eye of Ugly Duckling and his band, the guys went from the jungle to the ocean, and back to the woods, until the path became usual. Sometimes, when the weather was firm, they even went to Eden. But their preference was to stay on the beach and play with shells, rocks and small animals. And unlike the come and go to the jungle, these games never became habitual or mechanical.
It was impossible to become such, as the sea was always there to greet them, toast them with its mysteries and fill them with all fading. Thus the friends found in the sea the whole truth, but never ventured into it. Only played before it, even welcomed and admired it. And the door of that truth remained always open.
