Why I Am A Creationist 2


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

Advertisements

3 Comments Add yours

  1. Sean the Creationist says:

    I am a creationist through and through!

    I have had debates about this with evolutionists. I ask them where; did the bacteria come from the we evolved from? How did the bacteria know how to evolve into something it doesn’t know about? for example one day did bacteria think to themselves we will evolve into people, people that use blood to supply everything in out body with oxygen, people that use electronic energy to tell are body parts what we want to do, grow eyes that we can see light and colours with, the abilities to hear, feel, and love? I just do no accept this, thus I’m a creationist.

  2. Byan Coulter says:

    Creationism (intelligent design) does not answer the question of whose god created the Universe, i.e., yahweh, jehovah, allah, vishnu.
    The bible is a book of books that has been edited and re-edited. Funny thing is, god’s words needed to be edited.
    Hindu’s sacred texts believe Vishnu sleeps in the cosmic ocean and dreams a the universe, their proof is that it is written in a book. That sounds stupid doesn’t it?

    The holy bible is a book of misinterpreted poetry, that is all it is, it doesn’t prove anything.

    Keep drinking the Kool-aid, buddy,

    Sincerely,

    Bryan

    1. Sirius says:

      Bryan,

      You’re a little confused.

      You see, the Intelligent Design Movement [ID] isn’t the same thing as Creationism. Creationism does answer the question of Who created the universe. We state categorically that it is the Creator God of the Bible. ID doesn’t the question of who designed the universe. It leaves that question open, being a discipline only interested in whether design is actually evident in nature. I don’t deny that there are Creationists within the ID movement, but the movement itself has no official positions on the identity of the designer.

      It is a mistake to conflate Creationism with ID, mostly for this reason. Individuals within the ID movement have proposed several different designers, ranging from God to little green men to our future time-travelling selves. In fact, Richard Dawkins unitentionally betrayed those who dub ID as Intelligent Design Creationism when he admitted that if evidence for design were undeniable and he was forced to admit it, he would attribute said design to extraterrestrials. So much for the argument that ID is the same thing as Creationism.

      As for your unqualified assertion that God’s Word needed to be edited, well, where did you get that idea? The Bible has been corrected when it has been mistranslated [e.g. when a vital “not” was unintentionally omitted from the ‘Adulterer’s Bible], but that has always been to restore it to what it was originally. It has also been updated to match the current syntax of the day, but not for meaning or content. You mean to make a point that you can’t make; that the Bible is unreliable because language moves or because men make mistakes [which are always corrected] in transcribing it from time to time.

      Your arguments for Vishnu are irrelevant. I don’t believe in Vishnu. I’m not a Hindu. If you have an argument with the Hindus, make it with the Hundus.

      Your assertion that the Bible is a book of misinterpreted poetry simply suggests that you haven’t read it. It contains sections of poetry, but it is largely a historical work. In fact, historians are in agreement that it is unparalleled in its historical and archaeological accuracy. Perhaps you ought to try reading it before you bother judging it and especially before you disagree with it. Just a thought.

      btw, it was actually Flavor-Aid that was used at Jonestown, not Kool-Aid. If you read the other articles on this site, you will find that blind faithiness has no place here. The faith versus reason canard does not fly here. In fact, we affirm that both evolutionists require faith since they both profess to know the events of the unobservable, unrepeatable past. It is simply a matter of which faith [with their individual interpretations of the evidences] is the more rerasonable faith. May I suggest that you’ve demonstarted in this post that haven’t really examined our arguments and evidences well enough to understand what we actually believe, indicating that it is you who are simply parroting dogma or, as you put it, drinking the Kool-Aid.

      Think about it,
      Sirius Knott

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s