I would rather live my life as if there is a God, and die to find out there isn’t, than live my life as if there isn’t, and die to find out there is!

Thursday, December 10, 2009

Evolution vs. Creation


The evolution vs. creation debate is a question of origins. Were we intelligently created or did we simply evolve randomly? How did we get here? Are we the products of Creation by a higher intelligent power with a purpose, or are we simply an accident? Are we the result of a cosmic accident or a series of such accidents?

The media of today likes to portray the evolution vs. creation debate as science vs. religion, with creation being religious and evolution being scientific. Often, if you don't agree with this label, you too may well be labeled. It really does not matter which camp you are in. If you are an evolutionist or creationist, and you don’t agree with the type cast you receive, you can be criticized and maybe even called a religious fanatic who is trying to pass off religion as science or, perhaps even worse, trying to disprove science to promote a religious worldview. I think we can agree that neither model of our origin has been proven and certainly there remains doubt. Otherwise, the theory of evolution wouldn't be called a "theory.” Whether we like to admit it or not, those who subscribe to the theory of evolution do so by faith. And it takes just as much faith as believing in creation, maybe even more.

Since there is no doubt that I am a Creationist the balance of this article will be written with that slant. After all, why would I want to argue the Evolutionist position since I believe them to be wrong?

Evolutionists, as hard as they try, can not come up with reasonable answers to a couple of very fundamental questions about Evolution.

Question #1. Most Evolutionists say the “Big Bang” exploded into our perfectly formed universe as we have it today. If that is the case where did the mass of matter come from? Science does not explain scientifically where the matter came from that “Big Banged” it's way into our universe, as we know it today.

Question #2. How did living things initiate life in themselves? Science cannot explain scientifically how living things initiated life in themselves.

Question #3. How did life not only initiate life in itself, but how did it do it from absolute sterility? Again science cannot answer how life begot itself from absolute sterility.

These are three very basic questions that, as far as I am concerned, must be answered if Evolution is to be given any credence at all. And, as I indicated, science is unable to provide any credible answers here. In order to accept this “science” you must accept, on faith, that these things “just happened.” You must swallow hook, line and sinker all the unexplained parts they simply can not answer.

So, let’s attempt to establish some examples of the thought processes. To accept the thinking of the Evolutionists you would have to believe that it is possible to have a skyscraper where construction began on the 5th floor and progressed upward from there. The Creationists of course will ask, “where is the foundation?” To answer honestly the Evolutionists will have to respond "well, there is no foundation. " This answer assumes the Evolutionist will answer honestly.

Applying the Evolutionists form of thinking in another way, I seriously doubt an
Evolutionist would get on a train which they know passes over a bridge that is missing some tracks.

I really don’t consider these really good demonstrating examples, but I don’t see them much more difficult to conceive and believe than the lack of reasonable answers to the three above fundamental questions.

As for me – I find Creation much easier to believe than Evolution. Creation takes less faith.

Be blessed,




No comments:

IMPORTANT DISCLOSURE: All products and/or services advertised/promoted on this blog are either owned by myself, or I am an affiliate marketer for. Should you make a purchase I MAY EARN A COMMISSION or receive revenue. Don't let that stop you.