super fly blog

Wednesday, March 12, 2008

Creation and the strong

I had an interesting class yesterday. I decided to take a Basic Christian Doctrine class. Very interesting things happen in there. We have quite a mix of Christian traditions. Catholic to protestant, Calvinist to Arminian. You name, we have something at least similar to it. We went over the concept of creation yesterday and I have to say, very mind blowing things were said. We brought up the picketting of evolution taught in the classrooms. I personally ignore that. I am a religious student, not a science student, and I don't believe that my account of my people's history is a science book. Some great things came up, like the fact that creation is not so much an account of what was as it is a picture of how it should be, and as Christians, we have the gall to say that is how it will be when Christ returns.

As far as evolution is concerned, I do think some miss the point. I will admit that teaching evolution as scientific law is bogus because it has not reached that status yet. However, I am taking an archaeology class and have learned that the oldest artifact known in my field of study is measured by carbon-14 dating in the millions. That says something right there. And you might be one of those who think that carbon dating is very unreliable, and you're partially right. Carbon dating can get very ambiguous as the age of the material gets older, but it always falls within the range that it lists. But since evolution is theory, it is the easier thing to protest because it can be protested from the scientific standpoint. Even scientists disagree. But it is only theory. Darwin fathered it and it grew, but only as far as theory. Besides, don't we pay scientists to make theories anyways?

We are missing the more sinister theory that Darwin proposed, and it is accepted by the scientific community at large. That theory is natural selection, better known as survival of the fittest. Now, you ask how this is sinister. Is it not proven fact? Yes, that is true. Things according to the world as we know it survive based on wit and strength. I'll get what is mine, you get what's yours, and good luck to you all. If you starve, freeze, burn, or go without, it's your own damn fault. And that is how we think in this world. It is not that we know that this is how it is, but we have accepted it as fate. This is where we COMPLETELY MISS THE POINT of the creation account. Everyone will say that Adam and Eve existed as how things should be before the fall, but what about now. Do we not pray for God's Kingdom to come. If we prayed our Lord's prayer by saying "Let us into your Kingdom" we could push people out of the way in order to get there, because everyone else is in your way. But we pray for His Kingdom to come, which means we have to be heaven here. So tell me, how does Survival of the Fittest become our story's title? Why not be heaven? Why not show that although this is how it mostly is, it is not how it has to be? Life can be beautiful, sweet, and filled with love for our brothers and sisters. I like how a line from a song performed by the Trans-Siberian Orchestra put it, "Every man is our brother, and every child is ours."

All this is to say that we should at the very least put as much effort, if not more, into challenging the acceptance of survival of the fittest as we do in protesting the teaching of the theory of evolution, which to me is not a concern. I tend to accept the point of creation alone and not so much the details of how it happened. The story teaches about our future and or responsibility. Do not change that fact.

As far as my stance on evolution vs. creation, I am a creationist religiously and might be an evolutionist scientifically. Interpret that however you like.


  • There are a couple of problems with your post:

    1) radiocarbon dating is unreliable over millions of years. There are other types of radioactive dating that are used for such long periods, as the half-life of C14 is less than 6,000 years. I'm guessing that your source said radioactive dating, not radiocarbon dating.

    2) I have yet to read a scientist, including young-earth creationists, who doubt that natural selection works. There are many people who doubt that natural selection was the main causative agent in the origin of humans, or that it caused the origin of the large groups of organisms, however.

    3) You haven't defined what you mean by evolution (most people don't). You may want to see my post, here, entitled "I Believe in Evolution. So do you." It is about the meanins of that word. It is part 1 of a three-part series.

    By Blogger Martin LaBar, At 3/15/2008 05:58:00 PM  

  • Thanks for your response, in a comment on my blog.

    I goofed, relating to point 2 in my previous comment -- you weren't questioning natural selection, you were against using it as a foundation for theology. I quite agree.

    There are some aspects of evolution and its implications that I'm still not sure of, after over a half century of thinking about them.

    By Blogger Martin LaBar, At 3/16/2008 02:00:00 AM  

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]


Create a Link

<< Home