or maybe: "the teleology of life"
(last worked on: October 2nd, 2018)

* Origins: At this keyboarding, I've yet to Google it up whether Francis Crick (1916 - 2004) later changed his mind (or caved), but if so, I'll probably still agree with his arguments (page #51-53 and elsewhere in his 1981 book: Life Itself) --that even very basic forms of life "cannot have arisen by pure chance". What he presents appears to preclude life having arisen anywhere in, and in the known time span of the Earth -and maybe the known Universe. (No less a figure than Sir Fred Hoyle made nearly the same kind of a statement.)

* But there's been recent (December, 2017) news on that score. Scientists from UCLA and the University of Wisconsin-Madison have (as much as) discovered the extraterrestrial origin of live --by determining that there are fossilized life forms (retrieved from western Australia), which are simply too complex to have evolved on the Earth (at that point in time). It must have evolved elsewhere and (somehow) migrated here. Consequently (and IMHO): biological life (as we know it) is likely to be distributed throughout our galaxy, and maybe the Universe.

* While I reference it for resonant inspirations and widely shared wisdom paths, I don't assign Divine authority to the (politically selected) books of the Bible, nor to any other literature held to be sacred. While we have to take very much in life on trust and authority, thoughts should ideally stand on evidence and on their own merits^.

^Making the principles and the essential infrastructure of our society widely understandable (through simplicity, clarity, transparency) -of course- facilitates the widest participation in a democracy. The alternative is a managed society.

* That said: it's hard not to intuit that Earth's (so often gratuitously and aesthetically decorated) life forms are indeed "designed", as if to make explicit that there was or is a "Designer"/Artist at work.

That be as it may, the intentions and the Nature of the Designer are surely well beyond our ken, but we can (and should) at least examine our own reactions to life.  When observing its struggle and suffering, I find it hard to imagine that, by our common human standards, the Designer's intentions were/are benign --in human terms.

It all seems (yes) amazing, astounding, fascinating, awe inspiring--

--but also an amoral exercise --at best.

* Possibly, human kind's propensities for caring, stewardship and empathy (latent and sometimes expressed in other species as well), amounts to God/Nature seeking "balance" --adding moral agentry to the other side of a scale --having become weary of endlessly weighing creatures competitively against each other --"red of tooth and claw".

* Possibly, a caring "spirituality" (meaning a felt connectedness to the outcomes of one's surrounding flora and fauna) is the destination and archetype for all of life --?

(Then: why not have installed it in a perfected state from the start?)