I believe that evolutionism is a pretty faulty doctrine with holes like a block of Swiss cheese. Even though this is my belief, I do not find it necessary to parrot that oft-repeated evolutionism vs. creationism debate in its most typical form. You know, the one where the opposer says, “There’s not one single proof for creationism,” and the other says, “You’re standing on it,” or, “There’s not a single proof for evolutionism either.” No, for that old debate has been reiterated so many times and in so many ways, the witness simply yawns to endure it again.

That is why, though it is tempting for me to poke holes in the evolutionary theory, I would choose to better direct my time explaining why I am a candidate of creationism.

To be frank, one of the reasons that I firmly support creationism is because it makes sense. The thought of some “power,” or “existence,” that had superior foreknowledge and foresight to diversely create, is far more believable to me than “chance,” trillions of adaptations as the evolutionary theory insists. 

According to the abstract theory of evolution, it is in a constant state of gradual mutational flux. I am convinced that such thing as a genetically “stable” population, not to mention community and biosphere, would be almost, if not entirely impossible. 

This can even be viewed in nature: If a black bear has only one cub as opposed to the usual two or three, then she will simply abandon it. If a bear is willing to abandon her cub just because it did not come in a pack of three, then what does this mean for other species who notice that their offspring is beginning to grow an additional appendage?

This leads me to my second, parallel point: evolution does not make sense. Not that the concept is hard to understand, but that it is simply absurd. With the sheer complexity and order of life and biology, even in something so basic as a single molecule of DNA, I cannot for a moment wrap my mind around it all “evolving” based on chance. I cannot, with any trace of sincerity, consider that the only distinction between me and an earwig is a couple of branches on a top-heavy, phylogenetic tree.

Moreover, the idea that mankind evolved from apes is simply preposterous. I mean, if man really did evolve from apes, wouldn’t we have some sort of transitional stage of ape-man with us today? After all, we have the ape. We have the man. Where then, is the ape-man?

But enough small talk because the heart of the matter is not really in how ridiculous sounding the theory is. Many propositions have been posited, and yet, I am convinced none have met as brilliant controversy as the theory of evolution.

The heart of the matter, although Darwin himself would have frowned to hear this, is there a higher power or not? God or no God?

As a Christian, and therefore creationist, I myself can perceive the theory in no other way. Some might call me narrow-minded because of this. Yet, to me, it seems that it would take a narrow-minded person to claim that the theory of evolution does not directly involve the existence, or non-existence as some might claim, of God.

After all, what aspect of evolution can explain something as deep as man? Evolution can explain man’s genome, certainly, but can it explain man’s pursuit for meaning? 

What meerkat has ever attempted to build a church, temple, ziggurat or shrine? Not only has man done this, but they have done it countless times all across the world.

Interestingly enough, although some scientists seem to look down upon the thought of a higher power, they themselves insist upon the fact that man is the best and brightest of all preceding evolutionary achievements. If man is the best and brightest, the most evolved and logical of all species, then why is religion one of the distinguishing factors of mankind? Does this not imply that awareness of a deity is now a new tier of evolutionary intelligence? I challenge the evolutionist to counter this Catch-22.

As for me, my convictions are solid.