METAPHYSICS·
ANCIENT HISTORY· SOCIOPOLITICAL ISSUES· AGRICULTURE· DIRECTORIES
Divine Creation
|
Divine Creation |
|
|
A Case for Divine Creation
A.O. Kime's objective analysis on the origins of man(1st edition - July 2008) by A.O. Kime In trying to dispel the theory of evolution, it’s unfortunate arguments for Divine Creation have been shallow, unimaginative… including those put forth by believers during Darwin‘s time. While good points were made they weren’t convincing enough to squash the scientific idea of our ‘ascent from an ape‘. In lieu of solid supporting arguments, undeniably obvious, the theory of evolution got a head of steam. It would have, otherwise, died in its tracks… the debate relegated to a small footnote in history. Aside from science having gotten off on the wrong track, perhaps purposely in their centuries-old battle with religions over control of the mind, a suspected 'establishment' matter, covert in nature, the damage to natural perceptions has proven huge. With Divine Creation out of the official picture, society is guided mostly now by plastic perceptions. Divine creation versus evolutionWhile man’s ‘intellectual and ethical attributes’ and his ‘reasoning power’ were the contentions often put forth in the 19th century, and good ones, it still wasn’t enough to convince the scientific-minded… even when pointing out our ‘phenomenal design’ (perfectly-suited) and ’complexity of organs’. Putting any 'conspiracy' aside, the main reason, it seems, was because these good arguments lacked the details. The details, after all, is often where the meat of subject lies. It was also a matter of the creationists trying to discredit the theory of evolution instead of trying to make a better case for Divine Creation. Instead, although true, they argued that the survival of the fittest and the weaker types (being prone to extinction) were the greater cause for changes and not transformations. They also challenged the evolutionists to explain why the same species, living apart from one another, independently, didn’t evolve differently. Also, it was argued, that unless all aspects of the species evolved simultaneously, such as its instincts, the creature could not survive. In other words, the creationists were playing defense instead of offense… and while trying to discredit an opposing view is understandable, par for the course generally, they should have put an equal or greater effort into highlighting the strong points of their own views. The creationist arguments lacked the details… pointing out only the obvious when the obvious is rarely given much thought. The obvious, that which is invariably taken for granted, doesn’t sufficiently ignite the imagination. The same goes for old arguments… and ‘intellectual and ethical attributes’, ‘reasoning power’, ‘phenomenal design’ and ’complexity of organs’ are both obvious and old. Fresh arguments in greater detail seem the solution. The persuasiveness of titlesIn a sense, it’s about titles too. A title for the whole, after all, is merely representative of the sum total. It is merely a human-created word of no substance in itself... being an assumption. Likewise inhibiting, if the sun had no name it would elicit more wonder. Titles have a way of causing one to ’file’ it away and the contents of file cabinets don’t get much attention. While titles are necessary for referencing something, it doesn’t mean the matter is settled or unworthy of further reflection. For example, as a matter in totality ‘phenomenal design‘ is generally too encompassing to sufficiently ponder (the tendency) whereas if one pointed-out a second set of teeth it focuses on an aspect which evolution can’t effectively explain. Likewise, citing a particular star would draw more attention than citing the universe. Although in vain, most people have already pondered the universe. Of course, it was assumed the evolutionists would give ’phenomenal design’ due consideration… but aside from being too encompassing and unimaginatively obvious, ’phenomenal’ isn’t in their vocabulary. After all, they are of the belief that mechanical explanations somehow dispel the term ‘phenomena‘. Dispelling phenomena has also had the effect of killing wonderment… the quintessence of life and living. Evolution... a simply shallow explanationMechanical explanations may explain how things work but not the ‘greater how’… how they came into being. Genetics doesn’t address the matter either, being simply more mechanical explanations. Furthermore, by not addressing ’why’ renders these scientific explanations as surface explanations, utterly shallow. While it is impossible to imagine any of the five sense (or even the sixth sense) could develop randomly, out of ‘need’ ultimately (as science believes), to be improved upon through ‘natural selection‘, but if that were the case… why don’t humans have wings? Surely wings would be handy and four arms would be better than two. While science would argue humans weren’t on the right evolutionary branch (tree of life) to have wings, these ‘branches’ represent little more than a contrived model based on similarities. In a sea of options, similar features don’t prove lineage… only that certain creatures acquired similar features. If there were no monkeys or apes we’d likely be linked to a pig. While the modus operandi of science appears mostly a ’forced fit’ in the beginning, yet adopted nonetheless, perhaps genetics will change this early thinking. While limited in scope, the Science Daily article 'Tree Of Life' Has Lost A Branch (external link) may be an indication the process has begun. At any rate, the remarkable genetic similarities between corn and tomatoes, for example, doesn't suggest linage... merely coincidence. The abstract idea of 'linage' as it applies to the plant and animal kingdom, as if applicable in totality, should soon fall by the wayside. So too, any similarities between primates and humans is merely a coincidence. Aside from the original creations of life, of both mutable and immutable 'archetypes', humans and reptiles the latter, coincidence played a much greater roll than heritage in the beginning. The process of 'heritage', wherefrom to establish linage, then slowly began to dominate as gene structures became more stable (established). In other words, from the divinely-created archetypes coincidence created the great diversity whereas the less-than-dramatic variations were due to inheritable traits and through natural selection. Of largely 'unguided genes', coincidence was the early process... now only occasionally to raise it's head. A two-headed goat would be evidence... although Darwinism would immediately see a kinship to a two-headed chicken. Commonly viewed as a mutation today, an aberration, such occurrences were commonplace in the beginning (primeval times). Gene structures were not fully evolved then, erratic... but intentionally at first for the purpose of diversification. While laboratories may find value in the knowledge of linage, it represents no more than the 'fine-tuned' versions (through natural selection) of the various species. That means, of course, natural selection has its limits as well. If, say, these evolutionary branches did represent the truth, then it undermines the notion that creatures evolved out of need. The concepts of 'destiny' and 'necessity' can’t coexist. This simple-minded concept (evolution) is a kindergartener’s view of the world. Divine creation and the sensesOf course, the five senses could not have randomly developed… what could possibly be the impetus? Unassisted, a creature's cell structures could not possibly know of, much less develop, a sense. Nor could the combined intellect of human genius. Sounds or sight, if gone un-experienced, could never be imagined. Even if there is a ‘creative mechanism’ within creatures in order to improve their lot, unassisted it cannot create something unimagined. Unassisted, certainly a simple organism couldn’t have envisioned and then proceeded to ‘will’ it as an inherent capability. It had to be acquired from a higher plane. In order to arrive at the truth as to our origins, it only takes the pondering of the various phenomenal aspects of the human body to realize Divine Creation is the only possible answer. Although a ’creator’ may remain unimaginable, so too would be our senses if we didn’t already have them. Yet, they exist. Even the simpler body parts such as the dexterous nature of our five-fingered hands should elicit wonder. Natural selection is more-so about randomness and advantage, certainly not perfection. Perfection and beauty is the creator’s domain. Otherwise, we’d likely be a hideous glob with no senses (assuming 'life' began all by itself). Assuredly natural selection can’t account for fingernails either. While claws and fingernails are handy, necessary for those creatures who capitalized on this asset, grown dependent, they can’t be willed or created out of thin air. At least not by creatures. To the degree natural selection did play a roll, it can only ’select’ from the choices given… ’given’ being the keyword. Citing more example shouldn’t be necessary… one can easily find thousands. There exists a sea of phenomenal details. Coexisting with divine creationScientists should instead embrace divine creation, accept the notion… after all, they acknowledge the phenomenal realities of life and earth. It wouldn’t threaten their scientific pursuits one iota. Publicly acknowledging it wouldn’t give rise to religious fanaticism either… at least not in free societies. The whole matter of life and how everything came into being is not a simple matter however, assuredly not limited to the straight-forward choices between 'instantaneous creation', as we might fathom the concept, and evolution. The process was surely more complex… unimaginable. Our senses prove unimaginable scenarios exist. The contentions herein may only partially explain it. Then there’s instincts… likewise unimaginable how they could develop entirely out of need. Experience is only part of story. Scientifically unexplained are these inherent capabilities which cannot be duplicated, much less by unassisted creatures of a lesser mentality. It’s unfortunate the details were overlooked by the 19th century creationists which gave Darwin’s foolish theory of evolution a chance to sprout wings. Future generations, of course, will view the idea that humans evolved from an ape in the same manner we view the ancient notion the world was flat. It will be worth a few chuckles… probably more. Yet, any ridicule is perhaps undeserving. While surely not blinded by this sea of miracles, ostentatiously obvious, the stubbornness of science gives credence to a possible 'conspiracy'. After all, nobody sane would want religions back in control. For good reasons the fear assuredly lingers. An official acknowledgment of Divine Creation, which religions could capitalize on, is much weightier than the combined religious views of government officials. The official observance of religious holidays means nothing either... in lieu of any official acknowledgment, it is reduced to merely an extended courtesy. The fear of religions, and not ignorance necessarily, may be the sole reason Americans will never see an official acknowledgment. The media, the mouthpiece of the establishment, is seemingly in charge of the affair. A.O. Kime
These incredible books by A.O. Kime are available here!
Ask your bookstore for titles by A.O.
Kime This website and contents are explained in our Introduction >TOP >HOME ... the place of smoke signals from the spirit world |
A.O. Kime articles —AGRICULTURE
|
|
|
for information on
'renting' this article, see 
