An impressive find

It looks like a cockroach but it has no antenna and appears to have its abdomen shell sutured preventing it from flying. Nonetheless, its by far the largest insect I’ve ever encountered in nature. While at my friend’s place, I grabbed the latest issue of National Geographic, opened a random page an saw a big photo of this very bug in all its splendor. It was part of a small feature on entomophagy. Turns out this is a benacus deyrolli, or a giant water bug as its commonly referred to. I should have been more careful, the Wikipedia article mentions that

Their bite is considered one of the most painful that can be inflicted by any insect (the Schmidt Sting Pain Index excludes insects other than Hymenoptera); the longer the bug is allowed to inject its saliva, the worse the resulting bite, and as the saliva liquefies muscle tissue, it can in rare instances do permanent damage. […] Occasionally when encountered by a larger predator, such as a human, they have been known to “play dead” and emit a fluid from their anus. Due to this they are assumed dead by humans only to later “come alive” with painful results.

When I was done taking the pictures, I released it in my frontyard only to find its empty exoskeleton two weeks after in my friend’s dog mouth.

CMoy headphone amplifier

The final product

One of my friends, who creates music as a hobby, recently bought a pair of AKG 601 headphones. While I do listen to a fair amount of music, I would not consider myself an audiophile or anything close to that. However, those headphones do make a difference I can notice in the quality (or lack thereof for low bit rate MP3s) of whatever is being played. There is only one small problem with them. Being massive open headphones, my friend’s sound card is only able to put out an acceptable level of sound at maximum volume; his MP3 player, on the other hand, is simply incapable of driving them. The AKG 601 have a rated impedance of 120 Ohms while normal earbuds seem to be around 20. As a result of a soundcard’s output impedance being too high, a normal speaker output  is not capable of providing enough current to the headphones.

They are huge, expensive and leak a lot of sound, so he does not plan to use them on bus rides, but there are still some serious downsides with having to drive them at maximum volume:

  • Levels of distortion increase significantly as maximum power is reached in an amplifier. This means that running the volume at maximum produces sound of a lower quality than if it was outputted at 50% and then passed trough a more capable amplifier.
  • When he creates music and wants to listen to specific instruments or tracks that are not as loud as the rest he is stuck with the current level of volume.

To address those problems he was considering purchasing a headphone amplifier, but to me, this seemed like the perfect opportunity for a diy solution. As he is not at all familiar with the world of electronics, I offered myself for the task as it was a good and easy way to get my hands dirty with pure analog stuff and get acquainted with audio. My background is more software with the occasional digital circuit. I did learn about all the concepts in application in this project at school, but the retention capacity of my brain decreases significantly when the interest is not there, and a bunch of formulas splattered on a white board does not tell me how to use an op amp in real life.

Since parts are cheap and shipping isn’t, I decided to build one for me as well. This post details the process but its not a how-to for the CMoy as there are alrealy a ton around the web.


I started my research on the excellent and found the CMoy/Grado RA-1 project. The circuit looked simple enough and according to the author, the quality was on par with a Grado RA-1 which retails at 425 $US on amazon. It turns out that the CMoy pocket amplifier, named after Chu Moy, its inventor, is a very popular design. You can find kits for it on the web that are about an order of magnitude cheaper than the RA-1 it aims at emulating.

Amplifier circuit

Chu Moy’s website provides a wealth of information, but the one that help me the most by far was Warren Young‘s tutorial on the CMoy.

Do not let yourself be fooled by the simplicity of this circuit, there is a lot more to it than meets the eye and tangentsoft’s tutorial does an outstanding job at explaining all the specificities  and what you need to be concerned about when making modification. It took me about ten minutes to get a working version on a breadboard, but actually understanding it required a fair amount of reading and thinking. Once again, Warren’s site proved ato be invaluable resource in this, especially his audiologica section. Some amplifier designs on his website are considerably more complex than this one and would be a nice progression from this project.

Power supply circuit

The power supply is no too complicated but somewhat unconventional because of its use of a virtual ground, something that was previously unknown to me. My design is generally the same except for the addition of a linear regulator and a protection diode as I did not want to run it from a 9V battery and the wall wart I had lying around was unregulated. For the amplifying part, I added a resistance in parallel with the volume pot to make it behave in a more linear fashion (I bought a log one), some decoupling ceramic caps for the op-amp’s supply lines and upped the value of C1 from 0.1uF to 1uF to let trough lower bass frequencies. Every CMoy amplifier circuit variation uses different resistance value. R2 is fairly constant at 100kOhm as it forms toghether with C1 a high-pass filter. R3 and R4 will vary depending on the gain required. The power supply part is pretty straightforward but you will need to find a value for R2 and R3 that will strike a good balance between not draining the battery too fast (should you choose to go that route) and providing the virtual ground enough current sink capability.

Power consumption is very low. I am using a 9V unregulated wall-wart with a current rating of 100mA. Since the amp cannot load it fully, the output voltage at the connector is around 12V which leaves plenty of room for subsequent regulation down to 9.5V. The linear regulator is an absolute necessity as its omission lets trough a very audible hum.

While this circuit will work with any standard parts (which I used for the prototype), it is best to use audio grade components. This is often synonym of overpriced, but in this case, since we are talking small and simple, you can get away with only investing a few more dollars. For the op-amp, I selected the  Burr Brown OPA2134 as recommended by CMoy and decided to go with polypropylene metal film capacitors instead of polyester. I also got a gold-plated IC sockets and audio jacks. The only non-standard part was the volume pot, which had to be dual-gang in order to control both channel at once.


On the breadboard
Protype with generic components

Naturally, everything stated on a bread board. There is nothing spectacular about that, but when I first put toghether the circuit, all I had to work with was some general purpose op-amps (MC1458) and some electrolytic caps. I was unsure whether the op-amp would be sufficient or not, but I did know electrolytic caps are only to be used in a bypass configuration as they induce a fair amount of distortion when used in line. Regardless, there was improvement in comparision with not using an amp at all. At this point, I became confident this would not be another useless circuit and things could only get better with the “audio grade” parts.

Prototype with audio-grade components

When I received the components I ordered from mouser specifically for this project, I instantly swapped them on the protoype and was rewared with a increase in quality… or so I think. The term “subjective” applies especially well to the audio realm; due to known psychological effects, me knowing the components were actually better in theory rendered me incapable of judging whether there was an improvement or not. Then again, I do not really know what to look for but I would consider the overall difference to be subtle enough to be affected by skewed perception. This is why I decided to take my friend trough some blind tests. He does not know a capacitor from a resistance and much less their potential effect on sound, on the other hand, he know music and most likely has a more discerning hear than mine; he is the perfect candidate. More on that at the end of the post.


The original box

While the parts were on their way, I decided to get started on the enclosure right away. Naturally, I would have gone towards a plastic project box but while me and my friend were discussing the project, he suggested the use of a small wooden chest as he had one handy and felt a tupperware container would not do a piece of quality audio equipment any justice. Upon inspecting it, I figured it would be pretty easy to turn it into something visually pleasing with a bit of woodworking. I found my box at Michael’s for $3.50. I had never worked on wood (except while renovating but I would not consider this woodworking) so I was somewhat unsure of the end-result. With perspective, this is the prettiest project enclosure I have built so far and for that price,  I’ll definetly repeat this design.

The box went trough several modifications. First, the lid was removed and disassembled. The rectangular pieces of which the sides of the lid were made were cut and glued to the box. Two there added to the opening of the box to provide a bit more support for feets while the two others where glued to the bottom to raise the pcb.

The holes and marks where the hinges and lock used to be were filled with wood filler and then the edges were sanded down to give the box a rounder shape. Lastly, holes to accomodate the various connectors and holders were carefully (pine is very soft and chips easily) drilled.

Since the box was made out of pine, it needed to have wood conditionner applied on it. It took me a while to figure out how to use this product as information from some diy sites conflicts with the manufacturer’s label and everyone seems to have their particular process when it comes to preparing soft wood for staining. I finally came across a site that explained that wood conditionner was actually diluted varnish. Consequently, it needed a day of drying to properly seal the wood’s pores and allow even stain penetration. This contradicted the can’s label which directed to apply the stain within two hours of applying the conditionner. I ended up following the website’s advice and let it dry overnight. The stain came out beautiful and uniform without any blotching while tests using the manufacturer’s instructions on scraps where not so conclusive.

After staining, I applied two coats of polyurethane warnish with some light sanding in between and that was it for the box. It took three days including drying time but overall, I would estimate the amount of time invested to two hours with sanding being the longer task.


Soldering the circuit was somewhat harder than usual because of the PCB I used but with any

Circuit in fabrication

standard board this should be an easy task. The routing is straighforward but ideally, everything affecting the signal path should be kept as close as possible so as to avoid the side effects of long wires (inductance, capacitance, EMI pickup). Mine required a fairly sized board because of the polypropylene capacitors, but with small components, everything should fit on two postage stamps and not take more than two hours to solder.


To block any unwanted EMI, I lined the inside of the box with two layers of aluminium foil glued toghether like Mark did on his CMoy/Grado RA-1 project. Whether this is useless or not I cannot tell, but it certainly cannot hurt. I still have some old CRTs at my parent’s place so when I get the chance, I will try and see if it picks up anything.

Fitting everything inside the box.

Installing the circuit in the box is no simple task as all the connections have to be soldered while it is in there sitting in mid air. Incidently debugging also has to happen in this position. Mine did pass the smoke test but it did not work correctly the first time around. It turns out I had soldered one channel of the pot the wrong way.


As mentioned in the intro, I would not consider myself versed in the art of listening  and I much less have the capacity to describe sound with words. However, I can certainly tell it makes a noticeable difference in quality of the music. Even with my old and battered Koss headphones it sounds better but when I got to try it with my friend’s AKG-601 I was blown away and felt for a minute I should make the investment and get myself a pair.

The downside of better sound is more obvious compression artifacts; a good amplifier will not discriminate either. Some of my tunes which sounded fine on my MP3 player with earbuds are now barely listenable because of the effectiveness of the amp at reproducing what it takes as input. I finally got a around to finding a few MP3 in my collection which were of good quality, but you should nonetheless be aware that if the end product sounds bad, check the MP3s first before probing the circuit for a problem that isn’t there.

I have only listened to it for a few hours so far and apparently, it get’s better with time as parts burn-in (like engines??). This seems odd to me, but I will take the web’s word on that. I could somehow see this phenomenon coming into play with tubes and high-powered solid-state amplifiers as they are genereally under a lot of thermal stress but for this little mW scale headphone amp, I have my doubts.

(Scientific) Test

Yes, it does sound better, but that’s only my opinion. And a very biaised one because I researched and built the whole thing and incidently, would be very disapointed if all that work did not pay off. It certainly feels like adding the amp to my listening set-up improves the sound, but you can only live with a placebo effect for so long, so I got two friends including the one for which this project was started in the first place and did a blind test.

There were initially four configurations but we decided to drop one  for fear of not completing the test before the beer store closed:

  • Straight MP3 player
  • MP3 player and prototype circuit (no audio-grade components)
  • MP3 player and finished amp

The headphones were obviously the same for all tests and the volumes were adjusted to approximatively the same level. The MP3 player when used alone had to be set to its max volume which is a good thing since the whole purpose of the headphone amp is to avoid this as it dramatically increases the distortion level.

A run would consist of 1 minute of listening to the same song (Californiacation by Red Hot Chili Pepers; everyone I know likes this song) on every configuration. The subjects did not know which one it configuration they were listening with, all they could see was me shuffling wires behind a box and then handing them the headphones. We repeated the run three times so as to increase the chances of getting a statistical significance.

One subject got discouraged in the middle of test, complaining that it all sounded the same to him but despite his lack of faith and to his amazement, the results confirmed the predictions. In order of quality:

  1. Prototype
  2. Finished amp
  3. MP3

The rating scheme was a sort in order of preference, but one decided to rate using half marks so the results group the two amps closer toghether. The MP3 player was identified as worst every time while the two amps shared the top two almost equally. I would have expected the finished amp to come out first but after some careful listening to the actual track, I realised compression artifacts were more audible on it. This is probably due to the OPA2134’s better bandwith as artifacts are generally found in higher frequencies. The MP3 player just by itself did sound truly awful, Some artifacts were not present while others were exacerbated but overall, it felt a bit like listening to the FM radio.



Simple, quick and inexpensive projects are definatly a rare occurance in my life, so this one was definetly a welcomed breath of fresh air; its nice to finish something and it gave me a break from battling with C++. It is not perfect yet but when I get the motivation, I’ll get to correcting the small bugs: mainly a minute discrepancy between the left and right gain (resistor/pot variation) and a not linear enough pot. For the time being I’ll just enjoy it as is.


Building audio equipments is definelty something I will revisit in the future. It’s a break from routine and a very gentle way to get familiarised with the mysterious and unpredictable field of analog electronics: everything works at a low frequency and a low votlage so you can be confident nothing extra weird is happening. As a plus, you get something useful at the end of the day. To summarize, this project is the perfect “Hello world” equivalent.

Next step will be a full scale amp with some digital controls; the circuit is putting itself toghether in my mind as I write those lines, but it will have to wait for a while as I have other stuff that needs to get finished and still in the process of salvaging components.

My friend’s version

My friend's CMoy amp

Not that different actually, but it took a while before we could meet (with 500 km separating us) and sit down for a few hours (from 20:00 to 04:00) to finish the project. I had given him a plan and a solder iron, but we ended up completing the project together. In retrospective, there was no way he could have worked on the thing like I hope he would; I even had soldered the voltage regulator backwards and besides that, there we a massive amount of obstacles I strongly doubt someone with no electronic background could have overcome. Still, it was fun getting high on solder fumes along with him. Tests were conclusive and he is now the proud owner of a clone of a 425$-ish amp clone. The one thing we changed was how the volume pot behaves. I had originally bought a log version but found out it was only useful at 80% of its range so I added a couple resistors to make my friends’s pot behave a bit in a more linear fashion.


The fatality of modern work

This is translation of a text originally written in french and published around April 2009 on, a friend`s blog. The original version can be found here. It turns out that translating is not as easy as it seems, even if I am both the original author and the translator. Incidently, my apologies are given in advance for everything that still has a french syntax to it.

At the time I am starting to write this piece, I have only spent two months and half in this field of cubicles but I feel like a man in his forties, jaded and purposeless from all those years wasted away in floors of false-walls, desks and computers. How can they do it, those colleagues of mine to whom I have never spoken a word, but on which I spy relentlessly in the hope that I will someday understand; understand how they came to accept this fatality of modern work.

What I mean by fatality.

On many occasions, I have shared my desire with my relatives to do what I love most full-time while possibly making enough money to live a frugal but comfortable existence. Almost systematically, I have been replied that work is a necessity before a leisure, that it’s one of those things in life you cannot avoid and that whatever your occupation, you should see it from a positive eye, especially if it pays well. In brief, work is a fatality every member of a society at least a bit conscientious of his quality of life must submit to.

The individuals I work with, should I present them the same question, would most likely give me the same answer. Not that I have asked around, but the fact that I have great difficulty in conceiving them being empty enough to fall under the charms of this paradigm, brings me to the same conclusion.

Times have changed; the western man no longer works solely for subsistence. It seems the American dream has taken over the latter as the first motive of work even tough it is no synonym of accomplishment. Yet, we still justify this quest for manufactured and artificial comfort as a necessity not unlike that of serfdom a few centuries ago. Only now, we seem to be in servitude of economical growth.

A disconcerting superficiality.

It took about ten seconds for discomfort to settle inside me. The moment I first sat in my cubicle, number 441 on the 4th floor of some government building, I kept immobile, stopped my breathing and opened my ears to the ambient sounds. On a background noise of typing, computer hums and various other humanly sonorities, I could hear two women converse; one explaining the traumatizing experience of driving her pet in emergency to the veterinary hospital and the other mechanically acquiescing. The rhythmic flow of typical linguistic constructions evoked a profound disinterestedness from the latter, but the axioms of office life dictated that she could not politely bring this conversation to an early but still overdue end. Trough extrapolation or empathy, I saw myself in a few years time in the very same situation and this is when I really sensed the discomfort. I could not see past my walled cubicle, but it felt like the field was closing in on my person, engulfing me in an insipid lifestyle.

Every day now I encounter this sort of situation where my colleagues chat about the weather (even though they will spend the entirety of the day inside), ask one another how they are doing (even though they do not care) or how their week-end went (even though they still do not care). I agree, those are sometimes legitimate questions, but I am also fully aware that they most often are asked out to promote a polite and concerned image. An image that I am currently forced to project myself, but which I find profoundly dishonest and artificial so incidentally I do my best to avoid those discussions like the plague for I do not want to foster any false friendships in this context. And I could be in the wrong, it could be that all of this is authentic; regardless, I do not want to hang around individuals who cannot converse about anything else.

They do not do it because they believe in it, but because they play the game; or is it that trough inevitable conditioning, they no longer question themselves? How can you show any interest about the low-level bureaucratic hardships of project in a sub-organization or some massive department? I don’t understand. Is it egoism? A desire for promotion? A tacit acceptation of this fatality? A pure lack of consciousness? The sheer variety of human minds that populate this planet leads me to believe to some entertain a genuine interest for this occupation, but that a thousand of them ended up in the same building appears to me as improbable. So, what type of person must you be to accept to spend a sizeable chunk of your conscious life as a cog of this administrative machine?

Profile of a victim.

Who are they and who should I be in order to become comfortable in such an environment? How can they tolerate an existence passing before their eyes in a monotonic cycle of work days, short evenings of numbing TV watching and a week-end instantly ruined by the perspective of yet another Monday? To this question I have found only one plausible answer: the absence of ambitions that cannot be realized by the simple accumulation of capital or social status. The fatality of work matches perfectly the very human goals of family, material comfort and peer recognition. However, it is grossly insufficient at fulfilling any desire for creation or intellectual development, which can only be fully realized when one is in full control of their existence and even more so their intellect.

Buried alive

My ambitions, I believe, are part of the second category and cannot consequently be fulfilled in this present context. I am then forced to choose between the pursuit of those ambitions of the plain acceptance of this fatality. Both options are risky, but one is necessarily nobler while the other confers greater security. If I select the path of reason and continue my progression in this present situation, certainly a physically comfortable one, I will be constrained to bury part of myself with the risk of it coming back to haunt me later on in life. On the other hand, if I follow my ambitions, I risk failure and could see myself having to accept the fatality of modern work and live with the sour taste of defeat for the rest of my days. I prefer the second options, burying a part of oneself is seldom advisable; plus, there is merit in the simple act of trying. But when I expose my vision to others, all I get for feedback is that I am an idealist, that my projects are nothing but utopia and that I am heading for a major disappointment. Although my interlocutors most often fit within the aforementioned descriptions, it remains that there is wisdom in their sayings as for lack of examples, they can only judge my success as unlikely. It seems that their solutions always consist of a change in attitude and an increase in openness towards variety of experiences my situation could bring me.

A question of attitude.

There exists a multitude of trades on this planet which could be classified as interesting. If I suppose for one second I had an infinite lifespan, I would have no problem with trying each and every one of them. However, the transient nature of our existence constrains us to make choices, and I have decided to spend my energies on things I genuinely like rather than trying to convince myself of the good of my present position. We have to be honest with ourselves.

The prevention of the creative process or the constraints of intellectual work.

Intellectual work, in an organizational context, is more than often issued and controlled in a hierarchical manner as the responsibility for success lies generally on higher echelons. Incidentally, those higher echelons expect that work be done in accord with their vision and with tools they are familiar with. While this state of affairs is totally justifiable, it has the major drawback of impeding the creative process, which can only strive in a horizontal manner when cooperation between individuals is involved. Mechanical work that requires no imagination and thus no creativity is generally attributed to workers. The difference here is that we are not transforming metal but information; since information is manipulated with the intellect, bureaucrats are then intellectual workers.

A place of decay.

The location this text questions is a place of decay, where every employee’s brain is slaved and drain of its energy in long hours spent facing a screen repeating more or less the same administrative processes. Upon coming home, this employee is overwhelmed with a feeling of mental fatigue and can not do anything but mundane leisure. The origin of this phenomenon is evident: the body tires. Sadly, after repeating this routine every single day, the individual looses his intellectual vivacity, killed by years of cycling between office work and television. A schism is created, where work and leisure can no longer cohabit. Work being intellectual, leisure time can no longer be of this type. He becomes uniform, inanimate, but more so less interesting and less interested; what used to make him question and think has been replaced with a never satisfied need to evade to a world where everything is simple and unchanging. Some do evade this fatality; those who have and authentic love for what they do; a passion exempt from the prospect of social promotion or peer recognition. But those are too rare of a species.

Manipulating oneself.
An ambition is a dream in effort of realization. Consequently, what transforms a dream in an ambition, what constitutes the effort is action. The amplitude of this action then depends on the magnitude of the ambition and its nature. Can it be realized in the near future? What sacrifices need to be made? How much effort needs to be expanded before coming to an end?

Some ambitions will materialize themselves without any work while others will require constant action, which is regrettably not the easiest for humans who have a strong tendency towards stability and facility once they are within reach. On top all the effort required to accomplish an ambition, we must also combat ourselves, fight this desire to let go and let the flow against which we were advancing overtake us; “what’s the point…” Against ourselves, two weapons are of particular efficiency, conviction and manipulation. Conviction pushes us towards realizing our ambitions trough faith while manipulation entices us to act on ourselves and our environment for the purpose of creating conviction. One must precede the other; conviction only is very often not sufficient, especially for more rational types. We can dream all we want, but sometimes, we must artificially create the conditions necessary to break ourselves out of comfort and push towards battling an imaginary nemesis whose sole function is to motivate us. To barricade ourselves in fortresses of biased beliefs and see evil everywhere except where our ambition lies. Sometimes, this can be the only way of escaping the sea of facility we live in.

A personal opinion in a relative world.

Does salvation resides in the liberation from organizational thought? Not for everyone. Most appear to be perfectly content where they are at, because of personality, because of unconsciousness, because of ambition, because of necessity, because of a need for servitude, etc. In a sense, what seems to be a fatality pleases the majority; negative for some can be positive for others, or it could be the simple acceptance of the order of things. So how do they live within it, what drives them? Most likely the instinctive ambitions upon which western society is built and the need to preserve them once they have been acquired; the rest is only consequent. The only thing that is certain is that I cannot accept this fatality.

Why all this? Moralizing others is a very audacious activity that very often turns sour, so I content myself with asking questions and sharing the results of my thinking with whoever will bother reading them; with the hope that they will in turn questions themselves.

Wikipedia as hope of an agnostic society

In Wikipedia, articles are evolved word by word by contributors to a stable form that reflects consensus. Hence, the rate of change in articles not about ongoing events will tend to diminish over time. Trough having spent a considerable amount reading a vast array of articles, I am confident in claiming that Wikipedia maintains a consistent agnostic point of view with regards to religion (as mandated by its encyclopedic nature). Divinity is definitely present, but it is constrained to where mentions of it are pertinent. In other words, Wikipedia is a secular organization and has become so solely by the consensus of its members; consensus trough discussion and reason.

On the hypothesis that Wikipedia is contributed to by people of all walks of life but with the common characteristics of having been educated in a modern schooling system and being intelligent enough to achieve the level of writing implicitly required. I think I can advance that any society or group of individual that attains a similar level of knowledge, regardless of where they started will, given enough time, necessarily become exempt from irrational belief. Only with Wikipedia, this stabilization came about much faster due to its relatively small size, its virtual nature and the fact that it has been relatively spared by special interest groups.

Even though the level of intelligence in society is far below that of Wikipedians, it has been steadily increasing ever since we as a species started communicating ideas.

There definitely is an emerging tendency not to affiliate to major religions (sects are a problem of a different nature) among the populations of western countries, where the average level of education is much higher than in the rest of the world. As the average individual acquires an increasingly broader knowledge of the environment around him, society as whole acquires the ability to understand concepts that once would have been too complicated of too esoteric for it to grasp. Take the Roman Empire for example, where Christianity replaced paganism as the most popular religion. It certainly took a while for common knowledge to evolve to a point where it could understand the tenets of monotheism but after a few centuries, it had almost completely eradicated polytheism for monotheism was a much more fitting choice for the conditions at the time. In the same manner, Monotheism will move away from the cultural sphere to the personal sphere and will eventually become history. Nonetheless, it’s a lengthy process; social inertia slows down its propagation down the different levels of society. Intellectuals became skeptical about the existence of an anthropomorphic god and its pertinence to the human condition more than a century ago. Then, governments followed this current of thought by separating church and state. Afterwards, attendance of religious services by the wealthier classes started diminishing noticeably only recently and eventually the lower classes of society should follow along the same path. Except for a few cases (the human brain is built to believe after all), society will in the future have completely parted itself with any sort of organized religion.

This gives me a bit of hope.

It should be noted that society or the popular web encyclopedia for that matter, both subject to the laws of evolution, will not necessarily evolve towards some ideal of rationality and scientific thinking. Should humanity adopt a different vision on knowledge and objectivity, Wikipedia will have to either adapt or cease its existence. Moles have been steadily losing their eyesight over time with even some of them having a layer of skin covering their eyes. If you spend all your time deep in sand and dirt so as to avoid the hardships of the world above, you will loose sight. Evolution does not strive at attaining some ideal, it strives at finding a best fit for a definite environment; and this sometimes mean that some characteristics which we now consider a step towards that ideal might need to be evolved away for the good of the entity concerned.

Reconciliating Creation and Evolution

If the world really is seven thousands years old or not no one can say for sure. But then again, we might all live in a Matrix and our lives are only a massive conspiration… Conjecture aside, I found out that Evolution is in a sense compatible with Creation. Actually, not the Creation as portrayed in the Bible but nonetheless an act of creation. Anyway, the Bible is a big metaphor and thus should not be taken word for word: the world is way too complicated to have been created piece by piece. I would want my God to be a smart individual, and just like any other individual with brains, this God would have devised a technique to generate this universe without making too much of an effort.

However, there are absolutely no signs that would make Creation remotely plausible. Creation is in a sense only a philosophical possibility. Everything points towards Evolution as the key process that generated complexity. But what if God had used it to save a bit of time? As a process and most likely a mathematical one, Evolution could be an equation that feeds back on itself, be chaotic and would self-generate complexity. It also would have no end but definitely a starting point and some initial conditions. So the equation, devised by God on its free time, that made this universe possible started off at the Big Bang and had in parameters enough of an initial condition to cause the slight asymmetry during baryogenesis that made matter possible. Some years later came us, our intelligence, and a very consequential amount of evidence that lead us to theorize that it could not have happened any faster than 14 billion years.

Unless God had a computer.

God created the equation on his laptop, pressed start, paused it after 6 days (or after 14 billion – 7000 simulation years) to check on the results and realized that where all his previous attempts had generated universes full of uninteresting blobs of matters lazily interacting with one another like in a lava lamp, this one generated us. The simulation has been going on ever since because we are quite a show. God slowed it down 7000 years ago to a speed where he/she/it and his/her/its acquaintances can keep pace with our hilarious existence. Here is creation and God is a smart person: mathematics did all the work for him; creation happened when God wanted to watch.

God is just like a curious human being watching a run of the Game of life. People watching the Game of life are just like God, even if they are not suppose to, they can always interfere in order to save a block from a certain death from a collision with a Lightweight Space Ship.

Or it could very well be that the simulation is still going. Whether 14 billion years were compressed into 6 days, if its really been 14 billion years, if its been a lot more or a bit less than that in the super universe that contains us or if there is no time past our universe is of no object. We all live in the same referential and generating us really took around 14 billion of our years.

Evolution works and if it were not for its discovery, there would be an awful lot of very useful inventions that would be missing from our life today. Whether the entity too many of us refer to as the Biblical God used it or not to create us is another question, but it certainly did it in way that has enabled Evolution to follow its course even today and if was smart, it certainly used it to create everything as well.

The earlier aversion to accepting a God less than infinite in all directions is overcome in part by the recent appreciation that an evolving God is superior to a static God. You tell me, which god is greater? A God incapable of improvement, or one constantly perfecting?
Kevin Kelly

That being said, here is another reason why I do not believe in the Abrahamic God: it was obviously made up by humans. Just like I did in the previous paragraphs, you can say whathever you like and as long as it makes sense to you, it can be applied to a divinity.