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?
There are at present approximately twenty major religions in this world, further divided into as many as three-hundred smaller classifications. With very few exceptions, most seem to be of the belief that theirs is the only “true” religion, and that all others are false. Some have suggested that all religions perhaps provide a path to that which we call God, yet by their very nature most religions are fervently exclusive for no other reason than their claim of truth, a declaration which immediately renders everything else a lie of some sort. Very few Muslims will suggest that a Christian will be happily accepted by Allah, just as very few Christian would expect a dedicated atheist to be found in Heaven. Advocates of such ecumenism – as it is called – are often woefully, perhaps even willingly, ignorant of this fact, yet it is absolutely vital in understanding that there can be but one path alone to the divine.
Delving into some of the most important – albeit most controversial – questions of all time, this 5-star Award winning book examines the Biblical and scientific arguments on the origins of the world, the nature of reality, and the concept of time. “Remnants of Eden: Evolution, Deep-Time, & the Antediluvian World” offers a fresh, artistic, and well-researched perspective on the seemingly futile arguments that have baffled intellectuals, scientists and philosophers for millennia. Get your copies today in print or digital!
The fact that we see design throughout life shouldn’t surprise us if we realize that there is a designer behind it all. This universe is no accident, nor is the life that resides in it. Design is evident, and with that we have a first and compelling argument for the existence of a transcendent creator God. The way Genesis presents this God also appears to preemptively oppose the coming false interpretations of His being and creation. Continue reading “Compartmentalizing Genesis”