Monthly Archives: February 2010
‘In the matter of faith-healing, health is set before us as if it were the great thing to be desired above all other things. Is it so? I venture to say that the greatest earthly blessing that God can give to any of us is health, with the exception of sickness. Sickness has frequently been of more use to the saints of God than health has. . . . A sick wife, a newly-made grave, poverty, slander, sinking of spirit, might teach us lessons nowhere else to be learned so well. Trials drive us to the realities of religion.’ C.H. Spurgeon
HT: Fixed Nails
Though I am not a scientist, I have entertained a deep interest in the subject of evolution, of origins, for quite a long time. I have read quite a bit on the subject and I have some thoughts regarding Darwinism. First, I have, to the best of my ability, followed the truth to where ever it might lead, even if the trajectory is counter to the status quo. Here, in a thumb-nail, is where, a number of years ago, I landed . That life could have risen by natural processes and, by descent with modification, grow in complexity, in speciation, is absurd. If honestly examined, the hypothesis of macro-evolution is ultimately believed not because it is observed to occur – which it is not - but because the alternative, creation by Divine fiat, invalidates the preferred worldviews of western humanism and neo-pagan new-age mysticism.
Here is what I find profoundly revealing: that humanity may have been created, that life may be the supernatural work of a divine Creator Who breathed life into humanity is seen to be a far less attractive alternative to the affirmation that life arose by meaningless and random natural processes. One may have thought the world would, at very least, have let a collective sad sigh, would have mourned a bit, if it found that humanity was no longer was the work of divine breath and hands. Instead, the world, for the most part, seems to rejoice in the fact that we arrived on the scene by unconscious natural forces. What does that say about us?
Ultimately, I think the evolutionary hypotheses is accepted not because of unquestioned empirical evidence, but because it is an unquestioned a priori. There are no other alternatives if you start with an unquestioned acceptance that there is nothing beyond matter that acts on matter. You find yourself with such a pliable hypotheses that it fits any observation. It cannot be invalidated; it cannot be falsified. Given such, the question of origins is perhaps not a matter of science, but of metaphysics. It has been stated that evolution is the foundation of science, especially the life sciences. I would say that the discoveries of science are blind to evolutionary presuppositions. Such is parasitically laid on top of that which is discovered. When all is said and done, we will find that macroevolution is a vestigial organ, a broken, obsolete, and failed leftover of the metaphysics of materialism. Wring your hands over the flawed science behind anthropocentric global warming, if you wish, but stand in fearful awe at how quickly we, by blind acceptance of evolutionary philosophy, embrace the created over the Creator.