Creation Issues Links
Site Section Links
"A scientist may not believe in ... an eternally existing Creator, Who has no creator. Yet, he will easily believe that dull matter is eternal and that all things, including consciousness were created from it though it has no creator and he can never prove it. The fact that he cannot prove it and in fact knows that it is un-provable does not deter him in the least from his conclusion. Rather he is unshakable in his belief and finds so many reasons to support this belief. He becomes more and more convinced of his opinion as he compiles fact upon fact to reassure himself all the while neglecting the scientific method which he proclaims as superior to all others."
Creation of Nature
Just so you know, the author of this site:
Is a creationist, but not a Biblical creationist, and maintains a belief in an original creator with purpose, plan, values and intelligent design and production capability.
Accepts that will, spirit and intelligence preceded the creation of the material realm.
Is not a "young earther" but accepts that the surface of the earth has been terra-formed by the deliberate introduction of a progression of plant kingdom life forms.
Accepts that even more recently almost all of the surface of the earth has been subject to material sluffings from other planets in the sky, and has been "Electric Discharge Machined" from interaction with other planets. This has resulted in a recently sculpted surface of geological features.
Accepts that Mankind is as old as the physical universe itself.
Accepts that humans on earth are the end product of a family of humans that set themselves on a course to devolve from the level of the Originator.
Accepts that we did not evolve or develop on the earth but transferred here at some relatively recent point in time.
Accepts that perverse but still empowered human forefathers are responsible for the design and development of the animal kingdom and its predatory competition system.
As for the argument of design, one of the issues is simplicity or economy of credibility. The following is taken from:
Another common reaction from a "skeptic," in Forbidden Archeology's Impact, was that you have "abandoned the testing of simpler hypotheses before more complex and sensationalistic ones." It seems to me that what makes something "simple" is the prior belief in it. Yet, this "economy" argument is used quite frequently by "skeptics" who feel that Darwinian evolution is so obvious as to be unquestionable. How do you address this argument?
When the simplicity argument comes up, as in the case you mentioned, the skeptic assumes that the Darwinian explanation is the simplest one, whereas an explanation involving creation or intelligent design is the more complicated one. First of all, I cannot think of a single instance in which I have not given consideration to the Darwinist interpretation of the evidence. Second, the Darwinian explanation is not so simple. If we look at the neo-Darwinian synthesis, we see that it involves quite a complex interaction of genetics, developmental biology, population dynamics, and fitness in specified environments. Actually, it's so complex that Darwinists are unable to actually explain the origin of the anatomically modern human species in the terms their own theory requires.
For example, if they want to explain the human eye, they would have to specify the genome of some ancestral animal that did not have an eye. Then they would have to specify a change in the genome of that animal that would result in the first step in the formation of the modern human eye. Let's keep in mind that a gene just tells a cell how to make a specific protein from amino acid subparts. So they should be able to tell us what protein the mutated gene would produce. We also have to keep in mind that this protein would have to have an effect in the course of the development of the organism, starting from the egg.
So they should be able to specify how the biochemical pathway by which this protein would have some effect, way downstream in the cell division process, perhaps after tens of thousands of cell divisions, so that the first part of the eye is produced in the organism. Then they would have to explain how this change in the gene, etc., would become spread throughout and fixed in a breeding population. They would have to explain how this change would contribute to the fitness of the individuals in that population in a specific environment. Then they would have to iterate this process, to explain the next step in the production of the eye.
Keep in mind, we are not just talking about the structure of the eye. There would have to be an optic nerve that could carry signals to the brain. The eye would also have to have sets of muscles to control it, and these would require nerves going to the brain, and the brain itself would have to have a neuronal structure capable of processing the signals from the eye. The development of each of these subsystems would have to be specified in exactly the same way as described above. You will find no such explanation in any biology text or scientific journal. So it might be debatable as to what the "simpler" hypothesis really is. Ultimately, there is no guarantee that the simplest hypothesis is the true one.
Beyond the painfully tedious and complex development sequences described above, Cremo gives us an off the cuff synopsis of the vision system and three of its sub-systems that contribute to the overall functioning, but even this description of his borders on being simplistic because there are other subsystems and some of the subsystems have their own subsystems. Just looking at the sets of muscles, these have to be proportioned and situated, anchored and attached in an exquisite way. And so on, ad nauseam.
"The faith that the godless evolutionist exercises in the development of life, sentience, consciousness, awareness and intelligence is substantially more naïve and trusting than that of the rabid, right wing fundamentalist, in my opinion. And it has a lot more to do with a determination to AVOID issues surrounding an original creator and "God" than any commitment to "truth."
Looking at the violence and predation
Without stretching our human reason to the breaking point and whitewashing the salient information we have from the natural world of fauna on earth, how can we reconcile the raw violence and savage predation of nature with a creator of peace and harmony, a caring, loving merciful systems designer that eschews the suffering and destruction of life forms?
What man of nobility and good will would even consider embarking on a creation of such an extensive and multifarious system of predatory competition? Even with all of our problems, all of our corruption, in the face and context of the natural world of the animal kingdom, when we do our competitive business and when we design our competitive sports and games, in our "civilized", humanized, non-barbaric societies we draw the line before it gets to the point of serious physical and mental damage and death.
So, IS civilized man more humane that the vaunted creator-god of Judeo-Christianity? Setting aside the barbaric punishment, the mythology and violations of scientific fact, and just looking at the animal kingdom, is it any wonder that cultured scientific gentlemen seek to understand the origin and development of the universe and its life forms in ways that are alternative to those described in sacred writings? The disconnect and contrast between the god of love and this feral animal kingdom is so great that the idea that a "God" worthy of the term having created this system should not pass the laugh-out-loud test! And it doesn't for a growing number of humanists!
Consider one of the many examples of parasitical activity found in nature:
"...the contemporary American science writer, paleontologist and biologist Stephen Jay Gould, an eloquent defender of the hard truth of hard science, discusses the strange case of the ichneumon wasp. During its larval stage this creature lives as a parasite, feeding on the bodies of, usually, caterpillars. The female adult injects her eggs into the host and victim via a long thin tube known as an ovipositor. Some varieties of ichneumon lay the eggs on the surface, so, as a precaution against them being dislodged, they simultaneously inject a paralyzing toxin to prevent the host from moving during the process of incubating and then feeding their offspring. To keep the food fresh, this toxin paralyzes but does not kill. For the same reason larvae deposited inside the caterpillar follow a particular eating pattern designed to consume inner organs and tissue in such a way that the host will continue to live for as long as the larvae require.
"Gould points out how the life of the ichneumons captured the moral crisis of the nineteenth century. The very exploitative viciousness, the cruel calculation of the wasps' behavior seemed to deny the possibility of a benevolent universe. It was one thing to eat your prey, quite another to contrive to keep it alive while you did so. The Victorians attempted to be objective about this terrible spectacle. They made serious attempts not to see nature in terms of human morality. They wished to distance the horror by scientific objectivity. But, as Gould points out, they found themselves obliged to employ the language of human drama simply to tell the story." Appleyard, Bryan, Understanding the Present, p. 76
"Nature is red in tooth and tong!"
Concerning the violence-to-living-entities that is the foundation for survival of many species, it has been said that nature is red in tooth and tong. In the face of the above information and many other examples of vicious activity and macabre aspects, how can we say that a benevolent "god" is the author of nature as we know it? Despite creationists pointing to the astounding variations and complex design of the various system of life forms, their organs, and their relationships, the simple answer is that we CANNOT! And so we posit that something went wrong in a creation originally without pain, violence, suffering and death.
Here are even more extreme examples of the intricate yet perverse design features that we find in nature on earth:
An astonishing example of seemingly-"impossible" design, which has quite rightly been much cited by recent "creationist" writers, is the bombardier beetle Brachinus, which is now known to be equipped, for its defense, with a miniature liquid-fuel rocket engine. Stored hydroquinone fuel and hydrogen-peroxide oxidizer are suddenly mixed in a tail-end combustion chamber, where they react explosively to generate a jet of steam and boiling water, ejected through a trainable nozzle at any threatening predator. (Wesson, P. 82, quoting J. Dean, D.J. Aneshansley, Harold Edgerton, & T. Eisner: Science 248 (June 8, 1990) pp. 1219-1221.)
Another example of an extraordinary "natural" weapon has (unlike the beetle's) been known so long that it was already exhibited by Mivart in his important contra-Darwinian book The Genesis of Species in 1871 (it also appeared in Goldschmidt's list): the "nematocysts" (stinging cells) of cnidarians ("coelenterates": hydroids, jellyfish, sea anemones and their relatives.) In each of these cells lies a barbed micro-harpoon on a coiled-up tether, which is violently ejected if a nearby "trigger" is touched; these micro-harpoons inject a poison so potent that some jellyfish, such as the cubomedusan Chironex, may be fatal for a swimmer to encounter.
But far more astounding than the design of these weapons themselves is the fact that some other organisms command the skill to steal these deadly spring-guns from cnidarians, in order to make use of them for their own defense! Two quite unrelated creatures are known to perform this hardly-credible feat. One is the flatworm Microstoma, which gets them from the small freshwater polyp Hydra. Since it has no hands, it is obliged to eat the Hydra for the purpose—though it must find its flavor repulsive, since it would rather starve than live on an all-Hydra diet. It somehow deactivates the triggers so as to keep the cells from firing; then, in its stomach, somehow keeps them from being digested, and passes them through the stomach wall to wandering cells that carry them to its outer skin, where they are installed, and finally furnished with new triggers grown by their new owner. (I could hardly blame you if you refused to believe a word of this.)
The other deft thieves are marine nudibranchs ("sea slugs"), such as Aeolidia, which attack sea anemones and jellyfish to obtain their nematocysts and install them on their own backs—or, alternatively, to hoard them in special sacs, for the purpose of spewing them en masse into the mouth of an attacker. In Natural History Oct. '93, pp. 66f., you may see color photographs of the fantastically beautiful "red-flame nudibranch" in the act of devouring a sea anemone—of which, however, we are told that it will consume only enough for this purpose, since, like the flatworm, it does not use cnidarians as food but only as armories.
How can anyone manage to believe that blind chance could possibly have endowed either of these creatures, let alone two different ones, with a mechanism capable of accomplishing such an "impossible" purposeful feat? Or (to phrase it in the tendentious jargon of the Darwinists) how can we imagine such a fantastic adaptation" as having been accidentally "evolved"? –Yet Darwin, of course, has an all-sufficient answer—a petitio principii which has the happy faculty of "explaining" anything whatever*: "Would not the animals who chanced to be able to do this have been better able to survive than those who could not? Of course they would! So there is your answer: natural selection! The problem is solved, there is no more to be said."
*Except for the numerous instances of plants and animals that survive well in spite of being burdened with such severe built-in hindrances to their welfare or reproduction that, if natural selection had really exercised more than a trivial effect, they ought to have perished! In this essay, I will pass over that genus of Darwin-disconfirmations, but a large gallery of striking cases may be found in Wesson's scholarly and reliable book. (This argument, of course, does not "suit the book" of the Bible-creationists, who feel they must flatter their vainglorious deity by praising the whole living world as "divinely perfect", denying to its author the capability of error (or of humor.)
Mebane, Alexander, Darwin’s Creation Myth p. 38, 39.
So, when we look at nature with our eyes open we see it as "red in tooth and tong", we see barbaric violence, bizarre form, mind numbing ugliness, violent predatory competition, parasitical attachment and attack all mixed in with its beauty and elegance. The psychological diagnosis of the creator based on this perspective would suggest deep trauma and schizophrenia.
The bottom line is that for nature in this world we must consider another creative agency outside of God, one that is perverse and capable of being extreme, one that would think up a predatory competition system. Who might that be?