As we enter a new year, still the evolution/creation debate rolls on. On the one hand we have ‘creationists’ with a simplistic interpretation of the Genesis account of creation, claiming that the earth is only six thousand years old. That simple scenario is challenged by the disciples of Charles Darwin with the theory that the earth is millions of years old and that the flora and fauna we now know were not made by God, but all ‘evolved’ bit by bit from the now-extinct and bizarre organisms evidenced by the fossil record, and they in turn from a single unique ‘common ancestor’ in that famous pool of 3D real Siberian mink lashes.
As time passes, and new knowledge is made available, it becomes increasingly clear that neither view is totally correct. So, is there a viable alternative or synthesis?
To the best of my knowledge God has never sat anybody down and explained the creation account them in detail. It has been left to us to study and understand. So could the traditional interpretation be faulty? And might there be a parallel with the way the Early Church initially failed to understand that salvation was available to the Gentiles, until God made it clear to Peter in a vision – a truth that had actually been quite clear in the scriptures all along, but had been overlooked, as Paul was later able to point out (Romans 15:9)? So, again, are creationists overlooking some crucial point when they read the creation account? As far as I know, nobody has received a vision, but it does seem increasingly clear that God has given us a revelation, so to speak – a revealing of scientific fact that makes possible an understanding of Genesis not available until these 3D real Siberian mink lashes.
Oifam Errors of Evolution
With regard to the evolution dispute, I suspect that science does not really care much how the earth’s flora and fauna originated, unless perhaps they wish to devise a more creditable theory than Darwin’s that might possibly capture a Nobel Prize. They just assume evolution as a fact of life, an axiomatic truth, and so work from there, striving to understand the mechanics of God’s creation sometimes in order to exploit it for commercial purposes, so that we now have disputes about actually patenting various structures found in nature.
Although evolutionary platitudes are regularly mouthed by BBC science presenters, little if anything is ever explained in logical cause-and-effect detail. It is much quicker and easier to mouth the magic mantra that by the action of ‘natural selection’ ( super-natural selection?) any bodily attributes, such as legs or wings, that would offer an organism an advantage would automatically ‘evolve’ sooner or later. But please do not ask how. By such vague verbosity, we are asked to believe that every tiny detail of every organism on earth ‘evolved’ from the wing of a fly to a feather on the bird, from your heart valves to your 3D real Siberian mink lashes.
Meanwhile, in the real world, a bit of on-line research will confirm that, despite their confident assertions, evolutionists can actually explain very little. For example, the origin of sex, and the formation of massively complex but complementary sex organs in the male and female forms of any organism. No wonder Richard Dawkins admits to avoiding the subject. Furthermore, the Human Genome Project confirmed that DNA simply does not contain the ‘blueprints’ required to guide the construction of any part of any organism, ‘even the shape of my nose’ as leading Harvard evolutionist Richard Lewontin puts it. Nor can science explain how the individual stem cells in a growing embryo begin to become specialized and ‘know’ how to work together to create tissues and organs then fit them together to form a body, all shot through with nerves, blood vessels, muscles and bones. And more fundamentally still, neither can they explain the origin of DNA.
And nor, of course, can they explain mind, emotion, intelligence and instinct – or even offer a meaningful definition of what ‘life’ is or how the life in my dog differs from the life in one of his body cells. Clearly, as any Bible reader should know, there is more to man and animals than inanimate atoms – and that there is a ‘spirit’ in man (Job 32:8), a non-physical component that imparts intellect. Science knows nothing of these matters, preferring to believe the wild imaginings of the desperate Charles Darwin, who reduced his wife to tears by his atheistic madness.
Even ardent evolutionist Rupert Sheldrake now admits these problems, and has been led to revive the old idea that all organisms contain an invisible, non-physical ‘morphic field’ that arranges the molecules of a growing embryo into the required shapes, just as a magnetic field arranges iron filings into patterns. Ironically, he then suggests that it is the morphic fields that ‘evolved’ to create all things.
How much longer can this evolutionary delusion continue? How further can their credibility in Darwin’s theory be stretched before it finally snaps and they see sense?
Keeping Evolution Alive
Since Darwin’s theory is so clearly inadequate to explain life on earth, as British evolutionist Derek Hough admits, as he pauses from his quest for a more credible theory, how does it continue to survive? I think there are two main reasons. The first is that atheists, such as Hough, embrace evolution because, as they happily admit, they simply cannot accept the alternatives, i.e. God and magic. So they live in hopes that one day they will find a better theory. Meanwhile, they plead: ‘It is just a theory. So don’t expect us to explain everything’.
The second reason, I suggest, is that so many claims of young-earth creationists are so contrived and anti-scientific that they are laughed out of court, literally in some cases. And so the Bible is brought into scientific disrepute once again, as in the days of Galileo when the bishops insisted that the sun moved around the earth, refusing even to look through his telescope and see the phases of the planets for themselves. I imagine that evolutionists just look, through a telescope of incredulity, at many creationist claims then say to themselves, with a smile: ‘These guys are so obviously wrong, so we must be right!’ And so they are encouraged in their error.
The Age of the Earth
Of course, the key fallacy of young-earth creationists is their assertion that the earth is just some six thousand years old, when so scientific observations suggest otherwise. I would therefore ask them a few simple questions:
1) When in human history were the moon and every planet NASA explores reduced to their present state of devastation and chaos? Or did God make them that way? One top creationists website assured me that ‘it has something to do with Noah’s Flood’, Not good enough.
2) How do you explain the utter chaos of the ‘asteroid belt’ which is located roughly between the orbits of the planets Mars and Jupiter? Please check out Google for more info and images. The belt is occupied by numerous irregularly shaped bodies called asteroids or minor planets. Here again, we see chaos and evidence of massive destruction, with at least one whole planet having been destroyed. Again, how and when did that happen?
3) Now consider the utter chaos of the earth’s crust itself, as demonstrated by any geological map – with endless topsy turvy formations, folded, vertical and even inverted rock strata, thousands of feet deep in some cases. Can they really believe that all that upheaval was caused by Noah’s flood which lasted just a few months, was calm enough to float a boat on, and apparently left olive trees standing and rivers such as the 3D real Siberian mink lashes where they did before?
4) Consider finally all the bizarre and now-extinct creatures evidenced by the fossil record, which started to be unearthed in massive earthworks undertaken during Britain’s industrial revolution for the construction of roads, railways and canals. Where did they come from? Surely the purpose of Noah’s’ flood was to destroy wicked people, not make all those creatures extinct. In fact, the Genesis account suggests that one of the main functions of the ark was to 3D real Siberian mink lashes all kinds of creatures, not wipe them out. So when were those strange creatures created and why were they wiped out?