Evolution or Warning ?

” And so they fell, just an experiment and just a cutout for humankind. They were talking at first, but their faces were dry. They were not yet developed in the legs and arms. They had no blood, no lymph. They had no sweat, no fat. Their complexions were dry, their faces were crusty. They flailed their legs and arms, their bodies were deformed. And so they accomplished nothing before the Maker, Modeler who gave them birth, gave them heart. Again there comes a humiliation, destruction, and demolition.”

This passage from the Popol Vuh reading interestingly refers to the incomplete nature of humans before the great flood that eliminated the race, as well as the destructive future potential of abandoning its emotional capacity, while offering substantial support for several existence theories. It describes at first that there was a purposeful intention for humankind, which was to be able to have a relationship with its “maker” as recorded in the bible, but “makers,” as recorded in the reading. Some may feel as though this passage introduces an evolutionary perspective of humankind since it talks about “the cutout” of the race, and later, outside the passage, talks about the “monkeys that were left behind.” This would greatly explain the flailing legs and arms, deformed body, no sweat, and crusty faces, which are characteristics of a monkey to any reasonable reader. This potentially draws insight into similarities with primates physically, but also gives insight to human potential, should we forget our greater purposes. The passage states “they were talking at first,” which alludes to some kind of reversion from an original plan and ability. However, it is evident that even from an evolutionary perspective, primates never had the ability to talk, as we understand the meaning of the word, thereby subjecting it to human reversion.  It also refers to the maker giving them a “heart.” In many ancient civilizations, the heart was not only the spring of life, but also represented the center of one’s being, personality, and character. In addition, it is evident that a heart would need blood to pump through it. The fact that the author describes people as those without blood, gives insight to a more metaphorical meaning, as a physical heart cannot have “no blood.” Also in many civilizations, blood is representative of strength and vitality. The reading refers to the failure of this cutout of humankind as evident in their physical shortcomings, but the author emphasizes an emotional shortcoming as it is mentioned they were originally given a heart, also alluding to emotions and character, which humans do not have in common with primates. While the reading refers to physical relevance between humans and monkeys, it specifies that “they are a sign of previous human work.” Thereby indicating the double meaning of evolutionary existence and also a warning to humankind of what it might become, it if does not fulfill its purposes. It was the emotional shortcoming of the other animals that disabled them from having a true relationship with the makers, thereby subjecting them to a lesser purpose of accepting their fate, and allowing themselves to be eaten. This is shown in how they were not able to talk or communicate effectively with their makers. It is the same shortcoming that alludes to a similar fate with humans, should we neglect our emotional capacity and relational ability with our Maker.