Compared to the ultimate complexity of life, the naturalistic advent of amino acids would be simple child’s play. The real meat of the problem comes with the formation of proteins, genetic material, and the cell as a whole.
Like any good religion, secular naturalism holds its own view of the origin of life. Its adherents believe that, several billion years ago, in a warm, moist world, inorganic natural compounds coalesced into the first self-replicating molecules, leading to the rise of the first simple life forms sometime afterwards. This process, originally termed chemical evolution, has more recently been referred to as abiogenesis. Darwin himself entertained this notion in his later years, declaring in a letter to Joseph Dalton Hooker that life may have originated in a “warm little pond, with all sorts of ammonia and phosphoric salts, lights, heat, electricity, etc. present, so that a protein compound was chemically formed ready to undergo still more complex changes.”(1)
Proponents of the evolution theory assert that both macroevolution and adaptation are in fact two faces of the same coin, with adaptive changes over time accumulating until macroevolution has been accomplished, altering one form of organism into a tangibly different one. Indeed, the mechanism that drives the process at each stage is the same, a buildup of genetic mutations and other factors that cumulatively alter the physiology of an organism. The critical element between the two processes is time. Time and the generational progression of a species. Though adaptive shifts can occur in only a few generations, macroevolution requires hundreds or thousands of generations.
Evolution, in all its publicity, is rarely discussed without an almost holy reverence, and certainly never criticized by the mainstream. It is promoted as an undeniable reality, and that level of propagandization has swayed many into accepting the theory as uninhibited fact. Honestly however there is a great deal to discuss that I believe is critical to an overall understanding of what evolution is and what it isn’t. Among the most important consideration is the fact that evolution, rather than being a singular process, can neatly be divided into two separate phenomena: microevolution and macroevolution.
In the wake of Darwin’s revelations, the life science disciplines began to scramble in order to make sense of evolution and how it applied to their respective fields. In time, much of the established dogma was abandoned as new material flooded the scientific landscape. It was not a smooth transition by any stretch, with many proposing alternative variations of evolution and the processes that drive it. Ultimately each was abandoned. Continue reading “The Modern Myth”
Young Charles, blessed with a life of privilege, was reared to be a man dedicated to the call of science. His father, Dr. R. W. Darwin, an irreligious medical doctor, began grooming him to follow in his footsteps as a physician, and in 1825, at the age of 16, Charles enrolled in the University of Edinburgh Medical School as an apprentice doctor. Much to his father’s dismay, his foray into the field of medicine was short lived, with Darwin disinterested in his studies and finding himself ill at the very sight of blood.
As the evolution paradigm continues to be spread by individuals and organizations alike, it’s inherent message of naturalistic origins – a far more reasonable explanation for many than that invoking the supernatural – is fostering much change around the world, both in the obvious venues and those less expected. As a result, belief systems that tended to stand in opposition of evolution, including many Protestant Christian denominations, have experienced a dramatic falling-away, especially amongst the younger generations which are fed an abundant diet of naturalistic ideals by entertainment and education sources. Conversely, other belief systems such as Hinduism and liberal offshoots of Islam, have simply adapted their message to fit those ideals in, incorporating them into their understanding of creation.
From the values established within us by our families, to the experiences we share with friends, and everything in between, we are in large part products of our environment, shaped by the world around us. I was no different. A great deal of who I was in the past can be attributed directly to my education and my own unrelenting quest to glean knowledge from the world. In fact, in many ways this aspect of my life outpaced all other factors in guiding me to what I would become. Of all that I was exposed to through my intellectual pursuits, none had a greater impact than the evolution paradigm, of how life naturally arose and diversified into all the forms that have existed since its advent.
What of Christianity? A recent study(1) revealed that some 42% of Americans believe that God created mankind in essentially its present state sometime during the last 10,000 years. A similar survey (Gallup, conducted in February 2001) revealed that some 48% of American favored creation over evolutionary origins. Perhaps providing some insight into the large scale acceptance of creation in America is the fact that it represents the most populous nation of Christians in the world, with some 70.6% of the population claiming to be Christian.(2) Outside of America’s borders, such views are rare in most cases, and essentially extinct in others.
I am a Biblical creationist, and as such I personally adhere to and publicly advocate that stance without hesitation. Further defined, I am a Young-Earth Biblical creationist, taking the Word of God very seriously, and expecting that (with exception to instances employing figures-of-speech and visions) the Bible says what it means and means what it says. Biblical creationism, not limited simply to the Young-Earth variety, (1) is by no means the only form of supernatural creation, and the differences, though subtle in some cases, set it apart from all others. What is it that makes Biblical creation different?