Higher power makes more sense
September 20, 2018
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.
Rachel • Sep 24, 2018 at 10:20 am
Hey Maiah,
Thank you for sharing your opinion on creationism. Even thought I think we have slightly different reasoning for why it is or isn’t true, I appreciate you writing about your opinion.
Khris Woodring • Sep 22, 2018 at 3:49 pm
George Griselda, you’ve got some serious anger issues there. You might want to seek some help with that.
If you are representative of the people claiming to be “scientifically minded” and objective then I would encourage anyone reading along to keep that in mind. In this case, I say “good job” helping readers to clearly see who is more measured and mature in this discussion. You’ve clearly done more to show how unreasonable folks like yourself who shroud themselves in their thin cloak of reason and method can be. I truly thank you for that.
George Griselda • Sep 22, 2018 at 1:26 pm
Chris Woodring. The only coherent and responsible part of your non comment is that you kept it short jethro. Finish the GED and try again.
Khris Woodring • Sep 21, 2018 at 10:01 pm
The only coherent and responsible reply in all of the comments so far is from W. Wayne Marlow.
Good for him! I‘m glad to know that one well articulated and mature reply was submitted.
paul collier • Sep 21, 2018 at 9:23 pm
If a non-student (I’m 72), non-Louisianan may speak his mind here–I came across this by accident and found Maiah’s piece to be very … earnest. It is extremely gratifying that even in Jindalstan, one of the most scientifically backward states in the Union, an essay extolling creationism … earnest though it is … gets plenty of well-deserved blow-back .Keep it up, guys.
George Griselda • Sep 21, 2018 at 2:27 pm
Apparently nobody can read over at SEL. Otherwise there would be some comments on this page.
W. Wayne Marlow • Sep 21, 2018 at 10:21 am
The author’s stated inability to comprehend how evolution works is not evidence that it doesn’t. In critical thinking circles, that is known as the appeal to personal incredulity and is a logical fallacy.
.
Despite her claim in the second paragraph that she will make the case for creationism, that author mostly just attempts to shoot down evolution. But even if evolution were disproved, that would not make the case for creationism anymore than it would be evidence that aliens left behind eggs when they visited Earth 4 billion years ago and that’s how we all ended up here. She also commits the god of the gaps fallacy by filling in a higher power wherever there is a lack of knowledge. Science says, “I don’t know, let’s find out.” Religion says, “I don’t know, therefore a god did it.”
As to the evidence for evolution, it includes: 1. Islands that have never been a part of a continent having no terrestrial mammals, amphibians, or freshwater fish; 2. All but one marsupial being native only to Australia; 3. The Geologic Column containing less-evolved fossils the farther down it goes; 4. Comparative anatomy between species; 5. Transitional fossils such as Archaeopteryx, Tiktaalik, and Lucy; 6. Richard Lenski’s ongoing e. coli experiment at Michigan State; 7. The Florida lizard that was observed developing a beneficial toe pad that enabled it to escape an invasive species; 8. Vestigial traits; 9. And species that exist only on isolated locales such as Iceland, Palau, and Madagascar.
Regarding the fossil record, we see transitional forms between fish and amphibians, amphibians and reptiles, reptiles and birds, reptiles and mammals, and between early apelike ancestors and modern humans. It’s not just a matter of what, the when is also important. University of Chicago biologist Dr. Jerry Coyne has said, “Those transitional forms just happen to occur at the proper time in the fossil record. Mammal-like reptiles – the transitional forms between reptiles and early mammals – occur in the sediments after reptiles were already around for a while, but before easily-recognizable mammals come on the scene. It’s not just that they look intermediate, but that they lived at the right time for demonstrating a true evolutionary transition.”
There is also great similarity in embryonic forms between species. Mammals, birds, reptiles, and fish are all in their own biologic class, but look so similar before birth that it sometimes takes experts to tell them apart. Also, traits of one animal may be present in the embryonic state of a separate animal, even across classes. For example, human embryos have gill slits that disappear before birth. This implies common ancestry with fish and as the branch split, different traits were either further evolved or became vestigial. In another example, whales have a pelvis remnant that is pointless for aquatic travel but which would have served their land-roving ancestors well.
Nothing in my letter attempts to disprove creationism, it merely makes the case for evolution. Similarly, if the author wishes to make a scientific case for creationism she should leave evolution out of it and let creationism stand on it merits. She should describe the Scientific Method and use it to explain how creationism works.
George Griselda • Sep 21, 2018 at 8:58 am
Maiah. It seems you have a denominational disagreement with many other christian churches in america. And the Vatican. Which says creationism is neither science OR religion. I’m glad your religious convictions are solid. Too bad you are attacking established, proven science with it instead of using it constructively. Will you be selling your car, buying a donkey and moving into a cave without electricity and running water then? because you’ve just denied the basic sciences (like geology and paleontology, biology and physics) that provide you with the daily conveniences you use. Isn’t that parasitic to deny the sciences that help you live your life? And then crowing about it??? No? Please explain.
IF, you go to the NCSE website,(use your google search engine) you can learn about creationism and why it is not science. The federal and Supreme courts have ruled repeatedly, based on the evidence, that creationism has no basis in science. NO accredited university science department at any accredited university in america teaches creation science. Its not science, its religion and apparently not very good religion. NO credible peer reviewed science journal of merit has EVER published any creation “science” articles. Its not science. It fundamentalist religion dressed up in a lab coat and its loaded with falsehoods, misleading propaganda and deceit about science. One doesn’t have to attack established science in order to be christian. But thats certainly your choice. A sad choice which will keep you scientifically illiterate . Fundamentalist science denial is so sad. perhaps you should BUY. A. SCIENCE. BOOK. And then read it.
Tall Grass • Sep 21, 2018 at 8:29 am
“… I cannot for a moment wrap my mind around it all “evolving” based on chance.”
But others can, and the evidence is irrefutable. Your statement about “chance” also shows a deep ignorance of what evolution entails.
“Not only has man done this, but they have done it countless times all across the world.”
Man has also invented countless gods and religions all across the world and throughout human history. Why is yours the “correct” one?
George Griselda • Sep 20, 2018 at 9:34 pm
Maiah. BUY. A. SCIENCE. BOOK. Seriously.
Helena Constantine • Sep 20, 2018 at 9:22 pm
The ignorance here is appalling, starting with he fact that black bears don’t abandon singleton cubs. The author is evidently living a world detached from reality.
What scientist has ever said, “that man is the best and brightest of all preceding evolutionary achievements.”? On the contrary that man is the pinnacle of creation is a Christian belief. Can’t she even tell the difference between science and religion. And, incidentally the evolutionary role of religion in human culture is pretty well-understood (it promotes group cohesion)-the author’s personal ignorance does not change that fact.
“I believe that evolutionism is a pretty faulty doctrine with holes like a block of Swiss cheese…Evolution can explain man’s genome” Which is it?
“After all, we have the ape. We have the man. Where then, is the ape-man?” And once all the other great apes go extinct–will we have the ape then? I’d mention homo erectus but to here it might sound like a naughty word.