Creation vs. Evolution

There are really two choices with any real foundation and relevant to the mass of humans on the surface of this planet –   A. Creation Theory or B. Evolution Theory.

The evolutionist (by and large) states that there is no proof of an “invisible”, “fictitious character” or “a God” that operates beyond our understanding and has set into motion, structured systems of matter which make up our reality. There’s no proof. It’s a repeated sentiment.

One of the biggest issues that I’ve seen between creationists and evolutionists is simply presentation and representation. I have no doubt that if the creationists of the world could speak with silver tongues and make profound statements within a sentence or two, many “lost” souls would be found and introduced to a new way of viewing faith.

Unfortunately, so many zealots represent faith and God in a blind, argumentative tone without speaking to evolutionists in an organized and scientific way.

Not all evolutionists are organized and scientific, that’s for sure. But when you are trying to go to bat for a concept that requires a life-change, the creationist would pretty much always need to be mirroring the listener and deeply respecting the reasons why they can’t, at this point, wrap their heads around the idea of a Creator.

It would seem that most of the time, one passionate zealot is fit against an atheist / evolutionist of the same educational background. In other words, folks that would bump into each other on the street, in a bar, at a mutual friend’s house and so on. Regardless of what side of the fence you’re on, you get into these discussions with people in the same neighborhood.

To clarify, I’ll be speaking in terms of atheism in its “implicit” sense. The “Positive Atheist” is the type that is “positive that there is no God”. That’s how I remember it. The “Negative Atheist” is basically sure there is no God, but doesn’t worry about it and is the closest to not even caring if they are called an Atheist or not. For these people, it is so insignificant to even mention a “stance” on the subject that they don’t take one and shun any labels.

I have tried very hard to put to words my own experiences and thoughts through my blog and face to face in a way that has never been done before, at least from what I’ve seen.

One side of me understands the “sermon on the mound” mentality and direction given to those that are excited by the message they have received. The natural order is that they would want to tell as many people as they can about this deep, meaningful event. The trouble for me has always been weeding out those that have actually received the message and those that are posing and simply wish they have. Most of these people cling to their churches and Bibles so tightly that it is very difficult for their audience members to relate to them and to keep from snickering. The implications of insecurity for both parties is obvious.

Already, I can anticipate that if any atheist started to read this post, they’ve picked apart enough information to know that I am a believer. Unfortunately, that crowd rests on “Proof!  and Facts”! But, they usually don’t stick around long enough for the message…Which arguably is presented by mindless zealots, so I don’t blame them…But receiving the message is the proof.

Part of the issue over all is that a huge number of evolutionists are cut and dried in their approach and nearly every time it’s a dispute with a cut and dried creationist. No wonder it gets so heated and insulting.

The discussion gets heated and insulting and it really all comes down to that dirty word, faith.

Do you know trigonometry? Are you a propulsion scientist? If not, ok. Do you fly on airplanes? If so, great! You have just demonstrated that you are capable of having faith. Of course any scholar would argue that my example is not of “blind faith” which is the real argument, right?

We can trace the parts back that make up the plane and its ability to fly safely through the air. We can see the pieces that were calculated, engineered and assembled according to clear instructions. We don’t have to know trigonometry ourselves or who Bernoulli was in order to take advantage of a little faith in the other folks that do.

So now that we know atheists and evolutionists do operate with at least some faith, on a daily basis, we have to talk about scale and relativity.

If a faithful believer understands mortality, they can easily pray and fall to their knees in fear and in hope and ask for guidance to achieve salvation (in one form or another from religion to religion). That act requires a very deep social mechanism which is seen in daily life - That person’s relationship with their father and authority in general - Plain and simple.

What I’ve seen in these discussions and flat out arguments are insults that really bring out the real issue in atheists. Not all are aggressive about it, but you get a lot of data reading through or listening to their points on the whole mentality. It really makes a lot of sense.

“No one tells me nuthin’, no-how”! – Sounds about right. I put a hillbilly spin on it, but basically there seems to be no hope in discussing the idea of God with someone that can’t even deal with Dad - So, because of the natural order of things, no matter how anti-establishment, anti-God, anti-authority the person…They will rest on SOMETHING written, represented or introduced by SOMEONE. Almost no humans ever, have sat alone at the top of a mountain without influence throughout their entire lives.

No, these folks reject the “fiction” of the creation theory (not the creation story, two completely different things in my book). The Bible is “fictitious” and “written by men”. But they easily rest on one man’s written word, all day long.

Darwinism! When is the last time you got into an argument about creation vs. evolution and quoted Darwin’s findings as a creationist to argue the side of creation? Try it! Darwin and his theories support the creation argument perfectly, if you take the time to consider it all.

The system and order presented shows an arguably clear path of life from primordial soup to the twisted mentality and complex ego of a “three-way-sandwich”. Poor example of spectrum ends, well crass at least, but how else could I work in food references?

The Food Chain - Perhaps my favorite analogy in support of showing designed and intentional reality:

-          No other living being that we have seen can explain how a taste or odor makes them feel and relay that feeling to a new sensation or memory. I.e. – “I don’t like the smell of pancakes because it reminds me of my douchie, hippy Uncle”. Or, “I can’t eat meat because I love animals, they’re so cute”!

We do not and would not see evolution catering to such anti-“kill or be killed” philosophies and feeling about something as important as smell and taste. We would have evolved to consume any and all available food stuffs and would not need to “like” or “dislike” tastes and smells based on emotion. We would “like” and “dislike” these things only ever based on “editable” or “not edible” as the “King of the Food Chain” rule prescribes.

Variety? Completely unnecessary! Variety of tastes and odors would be a byproduct of multiple, organized biological arrangements, sure, but we can’t even calculate the number of smells, tastes and colors that apply to the countless tastes, memories and unexplainable cognitive connections made to them by our brains. “Kill or be killed” and “edible” and “not edible” is as advanced as Darwin’s theory can ever really get.

One could almost stagger trying to think of why it is that the 4^th grade-mentality, shotgun wielding, hick, hillbillies of the world aren’t the evolutionists. Eating meat, nearly raw, touting “nuke e’m”! and being as close to “me against the world” as it gets, socially…How did we end up with the “free-love” hippy, “live and let live”, “everyone deserves a hand-out” as the Darwin theory supporters and evolutionists?

Nature is not a “put-yourself-out for others” rules set. I could go into a tirade about “Animal Shelters”… (Get it? Animals putting up shelters for other animals…never mind)…but the leap from that mental function to ours is relatively the same distance from Earth to the edge of the Universe for all we know.

So, why the leap from troglodytes to Einstein? It’s inarguable that we’ve found intelligently designed structures and paintings in the ballpark of “tens of thousands of years old”. The creation story says, “Nope! Bad science”! Well come on, an undergrad can tell you that X amount of erosion / time on Y type of rock with look like Z. These guesses as to the creation of the Easter Island heads and the newly discovered cave paintings in Spain that range into nearly 40,000 years old may be off, but no chance in my opinion of them being off by 35,000 years.  

Matter is energy. There is no such thing as a “solid object” – Science fact – “Solid” is a term, like “time” is a term that is archaic and used by textbook scientists and intellectuals to measure and describe interactions with reality. Amit Goswami’s theory for the quantum organization of “matter” in our reality simplifies the overall truth: We are a thought, as are stones, metals, wood, air and every other material object. Each particle indisputably has “instruction” as to where it belongs and what function it has.

Not one single particle would exist if there were no instructions or purpose.

There are rules. There is order. There is purpose - All at a quantum level, being observed and appreciated by highly advanced, walking “amoebae”.

It gets “Evos” pretty uncomfortable thinking that once they decide that life is a quirky accident and that the Big Bang is their Alpha and Omega, they will burn in heck. The nerve that some “authority” could judge them for demanding proof and stomping their feet down for facts, sickens them - Again, daddy issues much?

Listening to “True Believers” tout blind faith and ignorant chants from a collected works of passed down stories doesn’t help. The creationist comes at these Evos with “facts” written by humans who knew way, WAY less about life and reality 2000 years ago. Of course Evos won’t accept that for answers! Read a text book from 1960 and then try to teach a bio chemistry course from it in 2012, even the freshmen would have a laugh by the end of the first chapter.

It’s easy if you step back with a little humility. If a person can at least agree that both sides are absolutely brimming full of important points, then the most important point of all will become apparent:

“Choosing not to seek the truth with an open heart and open mind certainly gets you nothing"    - Trevor Lowder

A human has a choice. Believe or do not. Faith is the perfect invention, since it requires will,           study, reflection, humility, love and hope. Like the chemical composition of a protein strand, without that specific combination, the human being would be impossible and most importantly, unnecessary in the natural world.