This post has been long time in coming, but I simply haven’t had time to put it down. My plate is rather full.

My intent last time was to give my reasons as to why I am a Creationist. My last post can be summarized thus:

1. I believe in God…
a. …because of the cosmological argument [the effect of the universe requires a First Cause]
b. …because of the argument from design [evidence of design requires an Intelligent Designer]
c. …because of universal morality [the presence of universal moral Law requires a Lawgiver]
2. I believe that Jesus Christ lived, was crucified under Pontius Pilate, died and rose again, just as the Bible says.
3. I believe the Bible is historically, archaeologically and supernaturally true.
4. I believe that the Bible accurately describes the world we live in.
5. As a result of the Bible’s evidenced reliability, I am a fundamentalist.

[And while someone might invoke the No True Scotsman fallacy here, I simply cannot conceive of a fundamentalist who is not also a Creationist. In fact, I own a copy of The Fundamentals, the books which first popularized the fundamentalist movement. While their focus was on Higher Criticism, a movement which doubted much of the Scriptures based on literary criticism [a movement which has been firmly debunked in the face of overwhelming archaeological evidence since the "higher critics" prematurely shot their academic mouths off!], the articles which address Darwinism are highly critical. As a matter of personal conviction, I cannot see how a fundamentalist Christian could espouse any other view but Creationism.]

You may read the entire post Why I Am A Creationist for specific discussions of these points.

Now for a few more reasons:

6. History is more consistent with Biblical catastrophism than evolutionism.

a. Flood legends are global, so why should it surprise us if the Bible records a global flood. From the Gilgamesh account, Oriental legends and even American Indian traditions, a good portion of the world has a flood legend. These adds credence to the claims of Biblical catastrophism.

b. Dragon legends. I love dragons. I’m a geek. I used to play D & D. Sue me. But those dragons have little to do with what I’m talking about. You see, I’m really talking about dinosaurs. You see, before Sir Richard Owens coined the word “dinosaur,” we described a strikingly similar class of creature but called them dragons and monsters. From Inca burial stones, to St. George, to Beowulf’s Grendel, to fethered serpents in South America and in Egypt, to sea monsters and so on and so forth, their is a striking body of evidence to suggest that man and dinosaurs have co-existed. And, quite simply, this is consistent with the Bible, particularly when considering the descriptions of Behemoth and Leviathan in the book of Job. Creationism imples that man and dinosaurs co-existed. Evolution contends that they’ve been separated by millions of years. Such a wide body of gossip to the contrary is scandalous to Darwin’s theory.

c. OOPArts. Out-of-place Artifacts. Evolution claims that man was once a knuckle-dragging primitive who has grown more civilized, intelligent and technologically adept as he progresses. Og to Steve Jobs, if you will. Creationism posits that Man was intelligent and technologically adept in the beginning, but that a worldwide flood erased much of that knowledge, so that man had to regain ground. Sowhen I find out about ancient batteries and gears, pyramids of geometric and cosmological perfection and the like out of “primitive” man, I realize that I’m looking at evidence for Creationism’s story.

d. Belief in the spirit world. Belief in angels and demons is widespread throughout the world and cannot be accounted for by the influence of any one particular religion or culture. For example, Christian missionaries who went to China found a belief in demons already there. Counterparts to the Judeo-Christian conception of angels and demons include djinn, faeriefolk and Greco-Roman myths about “gods” posing as men.

As a secondary consideration, there is also a universal belief in life after death, the soul and in ghosts. While the latter may have little to do with Christendom per se [I've addressed the issue of ghosts in this post], these beliefs do point to a belief that there is more to reality than this life. As the Bible puts it, God has set eternity in our hearts.   

7. There are a few theological considerations which make me tend to lean toward Creationism. In any case, a cursory glance makes it apparent that Biblical Creation is at odds with evolutionary science.

a. The Creation account is found in the same chapters as the Fall, which descibes why sin exists and predicts that a deliverer would be sent from God to remedy the situation. In other words, the Genesis account is the basis of our need for salvation. If the account which forms the basis of our need for salvation is allegorical, whose to say the need itself is not allegorical? Which is to say, subjective.

b. Evolution posits that man came about by a system of death,struggle and mutation. The Bible claims that death came after man, being a result of his sin.

c. Jesus validated the Old Testament scriptures, specifically mentioning Adam and Eve, Abel, Noah, Lot [and Lot's wife!], Abraham, Moses, David, Jonah and Zechariah. He also quoted the Scriptures extensively as authorative and stated that not the slightest pen stroke of the Law would pass away until all was fulfilled. How can I trust Christ for salvation if I can’t trust His word on the Scriptures [according to prophecies he dies and rose again!] Or as Jesus said to Nicodemus, “If I tell you of earthly things and you don’t believe, how will you believe if I tell you of spiritual things?”

8. There are serious fault lines in Darwin’s Dyke.

a. Darwin started from the position of speculation supported by an argument from ignorance. He had a theory about how observed adaptations within a kind of animal might imply the common descent of all creatures by the same gradual changes over long periods of time. Noting that the fossil record did not favor his theory [lacking necessary transitional forms], he disqualified the geolofical column as “extremely imperfect.” Though he speculated on how the eye might have developed and such, he did nothing more than theorize, all the while reminding his reader that given the current levelof scientific knowledge no one could say it was impossible! Which is again to say, it started off on the weak foundation of speculation and arguement from ignorance.

b. Darwin’s predicted transitional forms are still missing. We have twigs at the tips of the tree of life, but no branches and certainly no trunk! Macroevolution has never yet been observed. While microevolution is observable, it is a gross non sequitur to trumpet that all species derive from a common ancestor. The Cambrian explosion shows nearly all classes of animals, including invertebrates, fully formed as they appear today. The fossil record, showing as it does evidence of plural origins rather than a single common origin, is more evidence for special creation of [and subsequent adaptation within] “kinds” than a common ancestor.

c. As we discover more about the cosmos, we find there was not enough time for life to have developed and evolved to its present state unless we glibly chalk it up to an impossible string of free lunches.

d. Some of Darwin’s arguments in Origins [and some of the arguments in modern evolutionary literature follow the samer tack. For example, Dawkins' anti-religious screed The God Delusion] are theological arguments wherein Darwin presents his idea of how God should have created the world and, when his finitely and imperfectly understood conceptualization of God fails his arbitrary test, he declares that evolution must be true by default. This is a horridly weak argument, but it also reveals that Darwinism is essentially a theological argument for applied materialism.

———-

As before, these proofs are not offered as my entire reasons for being a Creationist, but rather serve to give examples of why I so believe.

–Sirius Knott