|
CREATIONISM - We prefer the term
"creation science." But opponents are in the majority, ...so their
term is: "creationism."
Paul Abramson
http://www.creationism.org
Scientists who focus on details all day long may inadvertently miss
the big picture of this incredibly complex creation around us.
Flowers, stars, the wind, snow, nettles, ice cream, acid, love,
bears, and granite. All that is in this giant universe just kind of
"exploded" into existence and complexity all by itself? There is no
Creator behind it all?
How many dimensions are there? Humans have five senses and we're
relegated to a small bluish planet on the side of a particular
galaxy. Does it make sense to you that we can somehow come to grips
with "all that is"? Remember that we've only known about the
existence of radio waves for the past 100 years. Modern humans are
hot stuff, huh? Have you ever walked into a room and fell a "chill"
or that something was wrong? Have you ever sensed that you were
being watched? ...How many dimensions are there? Could there be
dimensions (or realms) outside of our inherently limited natural
senses? There are some "prove it to me" folks in every generation.
Atheism goes back at least 3,000 years. We only have 5 senses, which
is enough to sense some of what's out there. But when people think
that their understanding is at the "center of the universe" I must
refrain from joining such nonsense. Pride goes before a fall. ...The
pre-Galilean-evolutionists ... thinking that everything revolves
around their understanding - or else it doesn't exist....
Does "God(s)" have to answer to us and our understanding? (Does
He/She/It/They ... have to answer at all, in fact.) Think about it.
Or is it more logical to proceed with the perspective that it is we
humans who have to seek out and answer to Him?! Human senses (upon
which all of science is necessarily dependant - all the
"testable-repeatable" categorizations, etc.) only perceive data from
some of the dimensions around us. We are largely unaware of the
others.
A high schooler may learn how to take apart and repair automobiles.
He or she might get really good at it. But understanding how
something works and why is still a far cry from then deciding that
if no engineer steps forward - maybe the car just fell together all
by itself. I don't have enough faith (nor misplaced pride) to
believe such a theory. ....Human DNA has some 3.5 billion base pairs
in careful, detailed sequential arrangement. Where's the big factory
to make more humans? ... Oh wait, it's built in. Also partial repair
processes are built-in. You start exercising certain muscles - they
respond and automatically grow bigger for the next day. We can
(collectively) hold our breath and stomp our feet but the notion
that "God has to answer to us" (among other evolutionary
assumptions) is really backwards IMHO. Creationists contend that it
is actually we who are standing on the side of science, against
religious beliefs that would hold us back. We recognize firstly that
there *must* have been a Creator. Just as any car must have had a
designer even more so life on Earth shows evidence of incredible
built-in design.
Maybe scientists, though smart in some ways, could be generally weak
in other areas, like spiritual perception. Have you ever thought of
this? (Possibly somewhat like a "nerd" who's brilliant with
computers, but who has trouble dealing with humans.) Mired in
details and complex formulas, but possibly missing the big picture.
You wouldn't want a brilliant lawyer to perform open heart surgery
on you (even though he or she is smart), or for a jet mechanic to do
your taxes, right? So don't trust scientists when it comes to what
are really ancient history and spiritual matters - our origins and
the purpose of life. How we first got here and precisely when it
started is inherently outside of modern testable-repeatable science.
ORIGINS - THE GENESIS
You and I arrived on planet Earth only recently. Cities and
languages already existed. Art and table manners were taught to us
by others; and so was history. Each person’s life touches others; as
we each learn, then in turn teach (selections of) what we saw
ourselves and heard from others, then die. Ashes to ashes, dust to
dust. Slowly, inevitably things get dusty and forgotten or rewritten
or lost.
Our understanding of human and Earth origins builds the learned
history used as the foundation for our future; it is a base of
experiences, of wisdom. There is an old Russian proverb, "If you
dwell on the past you will lose an eye. But if you forget the past
you will lose both eyes."
I do not know if Creation & the Flood as recorded in the Bible are
true. But I do know that there is some very good evidence to support
this scientific theory. Most other sites which deal with our ancient
origins claim to "have the final word". Well,
www.creationism.org links to several of these on both sides of this Grand Canyon of
controversy, but knowing the limits of my own IQ … I’ll try to share
more of the evidence and debated theoretical problems than
set-in-stone conclusions. You're smart; you can look at this set of
arguments and then decide which direction to pursue for your own
research. This (approximately 30 page long) report can be
comfortably read in an evening. There are actually several
creation-related theories out there, most of which compromise
between strict "evolutionism" (no God, period) and strict
"creationism" (no evolution, period - there were 6 days of Creation,
less than 10,000 years ago).
As for myself I used to believe in "theistic evolution" (one of the
compromise creation-evolution theories), but more and more the
evidence appears to point me to a young Earth and no evolution.
There are 2 or 3 types of evolution. The first would be "guided"
from above. Certainly this is possible, and we have many examples in
the world (cars have "evolved" tremendously during the 20th Century,
with the guiding hand of engineers and designers). Many believers
ascribe to such theories, but they still compromise the literal
Genesis record. Secondly, there is what is termed:
"micro-evolution", which I prefer to call: "genetic remnant
variation". This refers to changes made within a biological "kind",
i.e. mutations and other changes related to natural selection and
environmental adaptations. Let's say that two calves are born and
the one with longer fur survives the harsh winter allowing it to
breed the next Spring, thus perpetuating longer fur in the herd.
Sure, this is scientific. Within the DNA coding God has placed
varying factors; thank the Maker for his forethought in allowing for
automatic adaptability! But the third type (related to the first,
but with no God "guiding" the outcome), as best as I understand, is
unbiblical and also unscientific. There are no fossils which prove
any transitional life forms have ever come about through "natural
selection" or otherwise. The third type of evolution is what is
believed and preached to our children in the public schools today,
but to the best of my understanding there is no scientific evidence
to support its tenets. Regardless of my individual beliefs however I
hope that you can glean from the evidence and ideas which are
related in this report.
Look at the evidence for yourself. I think you’ll be amazed at just
how many holes there are in the evolutionary theory as commonly
believed today. And then there are the politics involved in the
discovery and classification of artifacts. If an archaeologist
successfully bolsters a claim that a few one-of-a-kind bone
fragments somehow fit right into ancient human lineage, rather than
just another unsuccessful "spur" out there, then long term research
grants are a lot more forthcoming. Debate, counter-claims, political
wrangling; "Survival of the fittest" at its finest.
One thing that most average people don’t know is how wildly the
radio-active dates can fluctuate within different samples of the
exact same specimen. It's not scientific to ignore the values which
don't match current beliefs and to keep testing till they find a
date they like. This topic will be discussed further in the section
below titled: "Professionals, Competition & the Scientific Method".
Another fact that the highly vaunted geologic column (as drawn by
artists) is often stacked wrong, there are gaps, often layers lie in
"the wrong order" or even upside down. And sometimes a geologist,
archaeologist, or mining operation will be digging along and come
across a few large logs upright and transversing what an
evolutionist would have called "millions of years" but what a
creationist would look at and see evidence of the Great Flood from
the time of Noah - an Earth covered with a myriad of sedimentary
rocks, often hundreds of feet deep and formed under great (though
temporary, lasting under a year) pressure. In the forests near your
home do you see dead trees that have stayed upright and undisturbed
for the past few millions of years? Of course not! In some places
ants won't leave picnickers alone for even one hour before moving in
on the target. Insects and microbes are constantly on the look out
for decay and unprotected food to take advantage of. Upright tree
trunks are mute testimony to rapid, deep sedimentary deposition.
Evolutionary theory, as currently believed, requires structural
modification or to be completely replaced with an entirely different
theory of our ancient origins.
The Flood theory can readily handle strata which, by exception,
stacks in "evolutionary" order. The creationist can also discuss
layers which have stacked "upside-down" - since they’re not such -
if the Flood is a historical event. Evolutionists though, must
conjure up a myriad of exceptions when dealing with the real fossil
evidence we see in the world today. (These exceptions often require
more faith than does the Bible’s historical account of what
happened!)
Is it necessarily scientific (but not religious) to exclude God in
geologic strata interpretation? Is it necessarily religious (but not
scientific) to include God in geologic strata interpretation? If our
(supposed?) Creator could, within one of many possible dimensions,
also operate as a Scientific Mathematician then the two are not at
all at odds. And in that case such a belief system with no god(s) on
top would merely be another false religion out there; a religion (a
system of beliefs) which detracts from or denies the invisible yet
obvious hand of the true Maker. Evolution, as a belief system about
origins should be considered on its scientific merits, not as an
article of blind faith - that it "must" have happened.
There is significant evidence that the Earth’s climate used to be
much more uniform and comfortably warmer than today. This is in
keeping with the Bible’s record in Genesis. It is not in keeping
with modern evolutionary beliefs. Fossils and some still frozen
remains (the mammoths, for example) in the Arctic and (palm leaf
imprints) in the Antarctic may be better explained if there was a
firmament (thick cloud canopy) above the Earth prior to the Flood,
as recorded in the Bible. |
