Evolution / Creation

Dispensing with the elephant in the room.

None of us were there at the beginning… Science has some very compelling hypotheses that are underpinned by mathematical and observational research. However, scientists will tell you that much of what they can describe and analyse is still a mystery. Granted science grows in knowledge day by day. Importantly science cannot explore the realm of the supernatural (containing other laws and rules) using the mathematical laws and rules that exist in the natural science world. We move toward a Biblical and scientific connection.

Evolution or Creation? 

While the Bible does not mention 'macro evolution' (that all species came from one source consecutively), it does describe a kind of micro evolution: that God created the species as separate specific meta groups and at specific times that would then in their own genus repeat and spread throughout the earth. For example, that from the canidæ genus would come all dog like creatures: dogs, wolves, jackals, foxes and domestic dogs.

How did it all begin?

So how did the universe begin or life start on Earth? These questions have been at the forefront of mankind’s thinking for as long as history records. 

It is important that we ask questions properly and with respect to a wide variety of disciplines, understand what their strengths and limitations are.

In the last century, we have learned more about science and the universe than ever before. The last few decades has opened new discoveries leading to new theories that give us unique hypotheses about the existence of God and the nature of reality.

God’s account of creation is stated in Genesis using a methodology of writing that is both very specific and also aesthetic, which may stretch to poetic forms of description, what is important to point out is that elements of this account are not poetic but purposefully distinct.

Schools in the UK

In the UK evolution is now almost universally taught as ‘fact'. It has moved from its true status as ‘The Theory of Evolution’ as stated by Charles Darwin. Furthermore, there is a trend for teachers to take great pride in making a distinction between science and religion. This is superficial deception that is connected to the ‘creation v evolution’ argument. Science v religion is a flawed argument which begins to fall apart beyond secondary education (age 11-16). 

University debate

At university level the ‘evolution v creation’ debate rages within both the scientific community and within the humanities community on a far more lucid and academic premise. Many gifted scientists through history have acknowledge God as the source of all things and argued that there are a multiplicity of possible causes to the universe and creation. In humanities too academics argue for and against many areas of investigation including the popular ‘first mover’ notion. Which is the philosophy that everything that exists is a result of a cause and the first cause is what Bible believers call God.

The title of the argument is flawed because it should be 'first mover or accident’ not evolution or creation because either creation or evolution are still described as creation in the Bible text. School’s do an immense injustice to poorly frame arguments by labelling: evolution v creation or science v religion. The truth that we do know is that we were not there at the beginning. Reading the Bible carefully shows God as creator and first mover, and contained within his creation a power within that would engender the idea of micro-evolution, as indicated in the above dog family illustration.

A few examples which challenge The Theory of Evolution. 

1) The stratification in rocks is regarded by some scientists as an arrangement order of death by suffocation in the Great Flood (recorded extensively in many ancient writings across the world). The idea is that on account of the law of hydraulics (not billions of years of atomic dust), the hardest, densest often simple looking crustaceans sink deeper into silt than mammalian creatures which initially float after death and appear on higher stratification layers. A macro-evolutionist who believes that we all came from single cell organisms might inadvertently read the stratification as evolution from simple creatures to complex mammals.

For example:

LOWER strata = Crustacean, Fish, Reptile, Mammal = HIGHER strata

Provable? Take a large jar of water fill it with sand, garden mud, small stones, bits of veg, sticks and bones, anything you want then shake it up what do you get? Layers that support the provable repeatable law of hydraulics. Fossilised trees are regularly found to pass vertically through rock strata, that according to evolutionists span millions of years.

2) Adaptation is not evolution, it is ‘adaptation’ within a genus i.e. within the cat species  not the change of one genus to another like fish to dog.

3) The Bible describes the crossing and mixing of genus as an illegal activity conducted by the fallen angels on earth and was not approved by God. This led to a corruption of bodily systems both morally and physically and the reason for God’s judgement of the Great Flood. 

4) Only micro-evolution or adaptation can be scientifically proven and conducted under scientific conditions. For example a white cat with a brown cat may produce a mix coloured cat.

5) Theory means theory: supposition or a system of ideas for the reason of explaining an idea for example: Darwin's Theory of Evolution.

6) It has not been proven with actual living creatures that you can scientifically support the long transition periods required in evolution to change from one genus to another.

7) There is a provable principle in the universe call the second law of thermodynamics which in essence proves that you cannot produce a perpetual motion machine. It means that things wear out and the energy that is left is more difficult to use again and impossible to become more complex. This law is important because it reaches into a fundamental law in the universe that a+b cannot produce c without an external ‘mover’. We are not talking chemical reaction or algebra, rather that something without an eye can know it needs an eye and grow one. 

7) Scientific argument could be explained as taking a 'frame of reference' that is perceived as fitting to prove a case for the truth of something. The 'frame of reference only ever uses selected elements to build a claim. The problem is that 'frames of reference' are always limited by human error and restricted from 'broad referencing'. Broad referencing is shunned in Universities because lecturers cannot possibly know everything about everything, and then fairly grade ‘broad reaching' papers as a result. In order to fairly grade papers the focus of ALL ACADEMIC DISSERTATIONS is to narrow the field of inquiry down to a precise path of examination. While this successfully fulfils a Universities requirement for marking, it can hopelessly fail to be exhaustive in terms of both broad and narrow enquiry to find ultimate truth.
