and Bertie Wooster I have highlighted what I consider to be logical and evidential flaws in the argument of man's descent from the apes. Another poem, Reductio 2, challenges the 'primordial soup' theory by reviewing the findings of the classic Miller/Fox experiments (which claimed to have synthesized life in a laboratory mock-up of the primeval Earth). Adam's Grim Progress was written after I found no cortical evidence to corroborate the theory of our Australopithecine precursors. These attempted refutations will, I hope, assist the reader by creating at least a level playing field for thinking about human origins and for questioning long-held animalistic dogmas. The question, 'Where, then, did mankind come from?', I leave hanging, tantalisingly in the air. This approach is more scientific than making assertions on the basis of insufficient or contradictory data. Moreover, any theory such as evolutionism, that is not falsifiable in principle, was dismissed as metaphysics by the celebrated philosopher of science, the late Sir Karl Popper.
I beg the reader's indulgence for introducing science into so much of the first book, 'What is Truth?', but I wanted to show how science can be characterized as another aspect of truth-seeking (and only another aspect!). The Prologue presents the theme of truth, riddled by relativist doubts. The rest of the poems in the book serve to demonstrate the objective acceptability of some form of consensus against the background of uncertainty . . . I have preferred to adopt a broad view of truth, so as not to risk sterility. Consequently, in Login I explored the role of myth, and in Ideal Eyes that of value judgments, as they are manifested in our culture and daily lives. When I hint of values, I am not being moralistic. I am merely attempting to construct my own philosophy of life on a rationalistic basis, in the light of the values I have come still to hold, after much sifting. In so doing, I hope to assist the reader in discovering his or her own personal philosophy, so that my quest may become another's.
Inevitably my own values (or prejudices?) will permeate the work. If the reader should find my own viewpoints unacceptable, at least he or she may be helped to understand the strength of his or her own position better.... I repudiate the notion that man is innately evil, domineering or self-destructive, or that the iron law of 'the struggle for existence' in this capitalist phase of history entails a fundamental cynicism, slavishness and blindness upon the human spirit. As Homo sapiens approaches the millennium, I believe that we are slowly learning to be more humane and compassionate, more aware and more critical of the spiritual, moral, cultural and material changes occurring conspicuously all around us. Perhaps only now are we discovering the sine qua non of freedom: obedience to our moral, intellectual and spiritual conscience . . .
22 November 1996 George Ames, Biogeochemistry, UWB