Something to delve into deeper:

Theological/religious/creation references - "angels", "Father", "eden"

Evolution references - human = monkey throughout

...

I also notice a "god is playing with us" theme, but haven't connected it to the above contradiction.

"Angels on the sideline..." referring to some kind of divine playing field? I imagine angels like coaches looking at the players running around, questioning His (the head coach) playcalling.

There's also a "tug of war" reference, again another kind of game/competition.

I wanted to throw this in the mix. The song may sound simple and the lyrics transparent, but even the seemingly obvious likely has layers that Tool want you to unfold for yourself.

Very good point

Personally I thought of it as pointing out that creationism and evolutionism don't contradict each other, it is the people arguing the points which contradict.

monkeys+thumbs=humans

Monkeys already have thumbs, infamia.

To the topic creator, it's my understanding that evolutionists view the mechanism for evolution "random mutations" in our DNA. Whilst in the song, it is referred to as "given" to us by our father (I.E. God). I've heard there are those who believe evolution is guided by God, so this might be what he's referring to.

Not true... monkeys with opposeable thumbs would be more accurate....monkeys allready have thumbs.


And, life is a paradox.

And "God" i dont think guides anything per say..... but then again "God" is in everything because "God" is energy and everything is made from energy...yeah another paradox.

And i thought Man created Theological/religious/creation references and Evolution references ..... who else researched all that text?

God created the world and everything in it. Although we as humans have taken the sanctity of life and lowered it to the point where nothing is sacred that does not mean that God does not still exist and show his caring and love for his children. Evolution is a lie created by Lucifer to shield many people's eyes from the truth of Gods great plan of Happiness.

Don't let the lies cover your eyes!

are you serious? evolution is a lie? its a fact and has been documented throughout history in all species! Humans are no different, we have evolved as we went along in time.

Please explain to me how Humans didnt/dont evolve. And please dont use parables, i mean parables are all well and good for storytelling but not for a fact based arguement.

As long as there was never a point in time that percievable reality was acctually black and white then ...
shit its the "greys" again

you sir, are a moron.

i thought the meaning of ".....angel's of the side lines...." ment that the angel's aren't doing their jobs the way they were supposed to be and just letting the "mokey's" run around....I didn't know until your second oppinion, Acanterb

Yep. They're called Catholics.

I don't see a paradox..Who's to say a higher power didn't create monkeys that evolved into humans? Just because someone may believe in evolution, doesn't mean they're an atheist.

Everything is everything and everything guides everything.

There is really no paradox in that, but it is easy to confuse it for one; which seems to be suggested in the line "and where there's one they're bound to divide it right in two." Yeah, the line is said in context of simply "pieces of the ground" but it is applicable all the way up to the everything that guides everything, that being the one we obviously have to thank for our opposable thumbs. ;)

i think they are doin thier job perfect! (if there are angels) God gave us freewill.... how can they do anything about it?

well if thats the case... then NOTHING is EVERYTHING and yeah... thats the paradox. everything INCLUDES nothing!

"They" arent being asked to do anything about it. "They" are snickering @ our bickering

your right "they" arent being ASKED to do anything.... "they are being TOLD by "God" (again if there are angels) they obey god. God tells them to obey HIM and trust/have faith. so yeah.... like you reinstated, thier doin thier job :) (thier comments/reactions are irrelevant)

The only paradox of this song is how such shitty lyrics could go over such beautiful music.

me too

It's called symbolism...

Creationism and Evolutionism DO contradict eachother though. According to the bible...

26 Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, [a] and over all the creatures that move along the ground."

27 So God created man in his own image,
in the image of God he created him;
male and female he created them.

28 God blessed them and said to them, "Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and over every living creature that moves on the ground."

He created man in his OWN IMAGE, this doesn't say he created a system where man would evolve, or he created monkeys to evolve into man. He took the rib from the man and used it to create woman. Not monkeys!

I believe Christians, particularly Catholics, feared what science was beginning to proove. Science began to show that some creatures definitely evolved from others. They feared that before long science would proove that man evolved from monkeys and therefore devalidate Christianity.... then where would they be? So they went back to the trusty bible and (as always) used it's ambiguity to their advantage by explaining how evolution could have been part of God's original plan.

I'm sure that's what Maynard meant, opposeable thumbs... that's just too awkward and too much to say in the lyrics of this song.

the last few minutes of "right in two" are the climax to the entire album imo

Thinking creats confussion let the power of the song control you feelings to control you thinking

I think Satan used Tool as a tool for this song to make people think there is God, but the truth is, he doesn't exist. Oh yeah, another paradox, god dammit.

EXCEPT --- there've been no "missing link" so to speak (old argument, but still true).

Science hasn't PROVEN anything except the existence of micro-evolution (which Christians/Catholics have no problems with since it explains difference in skin color/existence of hair/resistence to weather conditions/etc.).

Personally, as a Christian, I don't much care if evolution was involved with creation. If evolution is true (though I don't think I'll ever concede to being part monkey --- the rest of creation may have evolved as such, but I think humans are different), then God is even broader and more creative than I initially imagined Him to be (which is constantly something I'm reminded of).

True. For the record, I am not saying here that I accept that evolution is a correct theory. BUT, I believe that Christians had to protect themselves and be proactive in covering their asses just in case it IS someday proven since science is progressing.

And, for the record also, I am not trying to offend Christians, I don't agree with religion in general.

I personally think it's objectively about human struggle and clashing over anything and everything (and moreso nature's inherent use of this trend) - I mean I think that is obvious. The creationism/evolution struggle is just a very good example of this, and an extremely valid one at the current moment. Very good topic for Tool to put to music where they have, and how they have, this time. Anyone complaining about the lyrics, personally I think you just don't get it. It's minimalist and poetic, as is the whole album this time around.

Your point is taken, but the bible never fully defines the method of our creation. It asserts that the product of the method is a creature in "God's" image, but it doesn't say that it was an instantaneous occurrence. The method of creation could have taken millions of years to unfold . . . So I don't fully see the Adam and Eve creation myth as necessarily contradictory to the principles of evolution.

Incidentally, I love that religious people of Abraham's multiplicitous persuasion are so willing to accept this notion of God creating man in his image- it's the ultimate vanity! I mean, seriously- if God is omnipotent, and able to effect reality by just saying so- why ever would "He" decide to relegate himself to such an awkward and limited form? Get it through your heads: your ancestors (or predecessors- as such religions are not limited to perpetuity through bloodline) created "God" in our image in order to stroke their own fragile egos and justify their self-imposed "rule" over the earth. Get the net!

OK, this missing link argument is so inherently flawed that I can't believe a person of your apparent intellect would even care to reference it. Check this out. Granted, even I was surprised and a bit taken aback at the anti-creationist tone of this Wiki piece (encyclopedias should present facts in more unbiased ways), but the information is not wrong. There are several transitions along the timeline of evolution that remain undocumented, but that's the nature of the game. As the Wiki piece states, the remains of the vast majority of life that has lived on earth decomposes (hence fossil fuel). Thus, the scope of what archeologists can actually find is greatly limited to those few remains deposited in areas that hosted the right conditions for fossil preservation at the precise time that such conditions existed.

However, despite such a mighty impedement, evolutionary science has been able to construct a large portion of the puzzle- and every time we discover a new piece, it fits almost exactly as we expected it might. It's all a matter of simple deductive reasoning and pattern recognition. Given the sequence:

1,_,7,10,_,_,19,_,_,_,31,34,37,_,43,46,49,52

one can easily reconcile that the remaining spaces will be occupied by 4, 13, 16, 22, 25, 28 and 40; respectively. Does the truth of this deduction hinge upon whether or not archeologists can dig these numbers out of the earth? Not at all.

Well yes, the bible does not specify exactly how creation happened. But let's think about this.

If the bible says of God, "Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move along the ground."

This implies that the fish, birds, and livestock where there prior to man and man was then created to rule over them. This doesn't really fit into the timeline of evolution properly.

Also, and more convincingly, the bible says "So the LORD God caused the man to fall into a deep sleep; and while he was sleeping, he took one of the man's ribs and closed up the place with flesh. 22 Then the LORD God made a woman from the rib he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man."

If you were to believe that perhaps God created Monkeys, then God allowed Monkeys to evolve into men, then God would have had to wait until man was evolved before he could take his rib and create a female according to the above. That would imply that all monkeys (male and female) evolved only into male humans. It just doesn't make sense in terms of evolution.

As I mentioned above, if Adam and Eve were the FIRST humans, where do they fit in on an evolution timeline? What about hoomo erectus? (this site bleeps it out if I spell the first word correctly, that's kind of nice they don't allow you to use such an offensive term... ok i digress) They were considered human, but that is not how Adam and Eve were described.

Regardless if you see the above as contradictions, my point is that everything in the bible was written in metaphors or ambiguously and therefore open to interpretation. That way it could be molded, bent and morphed into whatever it needs to be in the future. So when science progresses, man's intelligence and knowledge evolves, etc., Christians can open their trusty bible and say, look, this new discovery is implied here in this verse, or can go hand in hand with this verse, etc.

EXCELLENT point! You said this perfectly!

FIXED.

That's classic.

Why couldn't "God's Image" be a creature which can learn, adapt, and evolve? Image isn't always an aesthetic.

That's possible, but the proof of the pudding is in the eating (that's the real version of that axiom, by the way), and that's not the way that the Christians/Jews/Muslims have eaten that pudding. The notion that Adam was "created in God's Image" has been used to apply all kinds of stigma to the higher power.

God is a graying, bearded old man who sits on his throne in heaven. Thus, men are more godly than women.

That's just one example of how the Abrahamic faiths have eaten this pudding, and the influences of that ideal are still plaguing humankind today.

I really do believe that if you (not you, MisterMudd, but the rhetorical you) reverse your interpretation of the Abrahamic creation myth- if you were to infer that Man created God in Man's image; that upon eating of the fruit of the knowledge tree, Adam and Eve gained an incomplete understanding (like the guy in RS with his extra-natural message) of the nature of creation and dubbed it "God"- it doesn't devalue the teachings of religious morality at all. If anything, I think it helps people to see that the bible and its teachings are merely a collection of parables that did their best to approximate a higher law in the very complex and confusing context of human existence.

This new interpretation completely revolutionized my perspective on the teachings of the Abrahamic persuasions. It allows me to see "eternal damnation" as a metaphor for the human condition; not that I will be individually punished and condemned to burn without adherence to the whim of current clergy, but that mankind- my family- will be forced to live with the ramifactions of my actions- so I had better keep certain moral and ethical tenets in mind as I make my decisions.

God is a metaphor. Something created this everything (whether intentionally or as a side effect to some other action/idea/?), and in that creation, something bestowed upon humans (at least- can't speak for the rest of animalia) an interconnected consciousness. Some humans understood that there had to be some sort of energy responsible, so they personified it and gave it names/a name. The metaphor of God is the best that the human mind can muster in approximating the essence of the higher energy that spawned our existence and still incorporate that energy into a story that doesn't require metaphysical understanding to comprehend.

By redefining the basic elements of the Abrahamic religious constitution (which is what happens when you reverse the creation myth), you can strip away much of the negativity that has been wrought from it. The basic principles that define Christianity, Islam and Judaism are really quite benign- it's the further (mis?)interpretation of much of the mythology that causes so much harm. And that is why every Christian, Jew and Muslim is equally responsible for these manifestations: they continue to regard as sacred certain texts that cannot be justified as rational and refuse to allow their defining scripture to live and grow along with the ever-evolving reality of the human condition.

Everything you said, I agree with. The only point I was trying to make was that if you are going to quote the bible, in particular verses that are open for interpretation, there are multiple angles to see the meaning.

This, my friend, is the best post on this site imo. Your words summarize my thoughts/beliefs perfectly!

Aw, shucks!