The most recent articles on this page have drawn a lively “exchange of fire,” mostly from the anti-creation audience, and aimed toward the writer and those who agree with him. This can be seen in the comment stream following the four articles. One should observe not only the wide variety of opinions but the passionate assertions made on both major sides of the subject. The passion of the arguments tells us something about how both the believers in Creation and unbelievers see the importance of the issues.
Not wishing to add to the smoke or heat of arguments, but rather to clarify the issues involved for the average readers, this writer will be addressing some of those recent comments. The more one can engage the other side, the better, for truth tends to surface best in environments of free speech. So, this column is not out to obscure but clarify what is true, and not through a censorship approach. Comments following these articles will seldom be deleted by this writer, unless they are too vulgar to print, accidental duplications, etc. Sometimes opposing arguments are pretty enlightening, and even reinforce a Biblical Creationism perspective in the end.
Science itself is not the true Believer’s enemy. This writer feels that all roads paved with truth lead to Jesus, if followed in the logical direction and in keeping with all the road signs, inside and outside of the scientific method. That has been this writer’s experience, after listening with a relatively open mind to a variety of believing and especially unbelieving arguments for forty years. Some would say that religious folk lead with their feelings, and their brains never catch up. Yes, that happens a lot. But it does not always apply just to those on the creation believing side. This column encourages everyone to do their thinking first, and engage their emotions only based on reasonable foundations. It is a time-honored approach to discovering reality in many realms, but especially in the natural world.
Seeking to be charitable to all men, who as a species are traditionally seen to be much more valuable than animals (per Jesus’ teachings) and equal to each other in the eyes of their Creator (per the Judeo Christian Scripture, the founding documents of the USA, and the Gettysburg address) this column will continue to point out both the logic and evidences for a belief in the Messiah of the Ancient Hebrew Scriptures, and the illogic used or shortcuts taken by the other side for the possible purpose of promoting a worldview that is not in keeping with well established realities, or with American principles of other kinds.
By laying out a rational approach to what is seen by many as a purely irrational belief system, this and future articles on this page will be short, based heavily on current events, historical fact, common knowledge and on the sensibility of average people interested in having reason behind their beliefs. Reason can’t replace faith, but faith that goes beyond reason does not have to necessarily contradict reason. Articles will try to employ a general respect for honest inquirers on both sides of the supernatural belief barrier.
In the first article in this series, we began by showing the value of clarifying terms. There is a very important difference between micro-evolution and macro-evolution, for example. One is scientifically testable, clearly useful, and proved to this writer, and the other is neither testable nor so proved. To argue for the whole of Evolution in general without such distinction, leads school children and adults, even professional scientists to unknowingly extend credibility into unproven areas due among other things, to a failure to distinguish between these terms.
By referencing in the second article the founding of our country (by a document signed by 56 people who believed in sacredness and honor), and in mentioning the “Declaration of Dependence…” a point was being made. The burden of proof in this country, especially during wartime, would seem to be on the folks who disagree with sacred ideals like Creation, not on those who agree with the clear wording of the founding documents. It is a time-tested American tradition to break with English errors, not to join in with them. I realize this point is outside the scientific method, but much of reality does exist outside that constraint, in many folks’ humble opinions. True, there can be a difference between Creationism and Christianity, between American patriotism and good logic, etc. Many faiths believe in a Creator but define that Creator differently. But when the founding fathers of America speak of a Creator, of the self evident truth that there exist unalienable rights and equalities among men all of which arise from a single divine source, labeled clearly as “the Supreme Judge of the World,” the meaning was and still is “clear as a liberty bell” to Pilgrims then and now.
One commenter seemed to think we must redefine the Declaration to include an atheistic belief in nature as the creative force, such as we have in the Darwinian philosophy now shaping children’s minds in science class. But based on the times and the western European cultural roots and background of the signers, that is an untenable interpretation of the clear meaning of the words to anyone at that time or now who is aware of the Judeo Christian Scriptures. Sometimes atheistic naturalists have no understanding or regard for those ancient writings, a fact clearly evidenced in some of their comments. The July Issue of Acts and Facts lists statements in the Constitutions of all fifty states, written across three centuries, that reinforce this point http://www.icr.org.
The third article in this series asked the readers to look for and be willing to recognize greatness in unexpected places, and to let facts overpower ones prejudice when an arch-rival team has a good day. That particular article seemed to generate volleys of fire from both sides, more than any of the other articles written so far. Maybe this writer started the first volley of emotionalism in the way he spoke of his opponents in the creation vs evolution controversy. Maybe the writer should control himself better, and that he admits. Passionate assertions without evidence, however abundantly stated, do not a good argument make. That applies equally to any side in the discussion. May the readers call each other to account when they lead with emotion, banter unfairly, use poor logic, or attack with malicious intent. And let us all be aware that good logic and useful evidence can be applied to the discussion from sources outside the hard sciences, for example by recorded historical eyewitness testimony. Such is the best evidence in a court of law where re-enacting the entire crime for experimental testing is impossible.
The fourth Creationism Examiner article sprung from the popularity of the World Cup to highlight the need for fairness and review of the referees themselves. Just as it seemed to exist in the soccer matches in South Africa this summer, often an unfair playing field exists in this contest over world views, where the main opponents are really philosophical faith systems. Both are appealing to science, evidence, and logic, and trying to win points in the public arena. Sometimes bad calls or cheap shots occur with no one to enforce fairness in the arguments. At such times, the reader himself must judge what is fair and what is not. This was the second most controversial article, judging by the comment stream.
We have much more to discuss. Please be on the look out for the next in a series of reports and opinion related to Columbia and Creationism. And thanks for reading!