Books by A.O. Kime
"Metaphysical realities in America's politically-challenged democracy"
"A sagacious accounting of the Stone Age and the beginnings of civilization"
U.S. colleges and trade schools
Odd combination of directories you think? See 'faces'
A.O. Kime Articles:
Shoofly Village ruins
Stone Age history
Stone Age timelines
Stone Age tools
Dynamics of now
Evil (nature of)
Gift of life
Light (nature of)
Time (nature of)
Curse of science
Int'l Criminal Court
Rule of law
(2nd edition - Nov 2010) by A.O. Kime
for information on 'renting' this article, see Rent-a-Article
In trying to dispel the theory of evolution it’s unfortunate that 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 to the contrary, something 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.
But before expanding on this, let's quickly put the matter in context.
Aside from science having gotten off on the wrong track - perhaps purposely in their centuries old battle with religions for control of the mind - the damage to one's natural perceptive abilities have proven huge. Of course, religions have caused great damage as well. In other words, due to browbeating and the pressure exerted, the vast majority don't think for themselves... believing they must adopt a stance (belief). Only a few trust their own perceptive abilities.
In effect, without being rationally scrutinized, an adopted belief is only a plastic belief. It doesn't matter whether it's a belief about Divine Creation, a religious view, evolution or anything else. Right or wrong, a belief is only real if arrived at independently. Unfortunately - due to the mind-meddling of religions and the sciences - society is now guided mostly by plastic beliefs.
While 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.
In a sense, it’s about titles too. A title for the whole, for example, is merely representative of the sum total... but without knowing what the sum total entails can lead to misconceptions. In other words, if the sun had no name it would elicit more wonder... a reason for further contemplation. 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.
Phenomenal design is generally too encompassing to sufficiently ponder 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 likely draw more attention than citing the universe because most people have already pondered the universe.
Of course, in the mid 1800s it was assumed the evolutionists would give ’phenomenal design’ due consideration… but aside from being too encompassing and unimaginatively obvious, ’phenomenal’ isn't really in the evolutionist's vocabulary. After all, they are of the belief that mechanical explanations somehow dispel the term ‘phenomena‘.
Note: Dissecting the works of God for scientific purposes has also had the effect of killing wonderment… the quintessence of life and living. Assuredly we would view our existence quite differently if we didn't know the structure of our eyes... imagine walking around 'seeing' but not know why. It would be exciting to wonder... perhaps believing our vision were 'windows' for our soul (or for God). Also largely gone now is the exciting mystery of the comet and moon. However, knowing science always misses the big picture is comforting.
Mechanical explanations may explain how things work but not the ‘greater how’… like how they came into being. Genetics doesn’t answer those questions either, being simply more mechanical explanations. Furthermore, by not addressing ’why’ renders these scientific explanations as surface explanations, utterly shallow.
It is preposterous our five senses (or sixth sense) could develop randomly out of ‘need' (as science believes). Only that they could be improved upon through ‘natural selection‘ makes sense. Otherwise… 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 science would likely link us to a pig.
While the science of genetics is convinced it has provided evidence to support Darwinism, except scientists have drawn the wrong conclusions because they don't yet have the whole story. The Science Daily article 'Tree Of Life' Has Lost A Branch (external website)indicates they also have a changing story. The remarkable genetic similarities (and differences) in all living creatures will likely soon suggest it's more than just about linage and natural selection. Current ideas should soon fall by the wayside in favor of more phenomenal realizations.
But alas, scientists won't see God's hand while focused on all the minute details. The amazing nature of genetics should serve as proof of intelligent design. They should get this straight... the genetic similarities between primates and humans are merely a coincidence.
While the nature of science is to stick-to-the-facts - and a needed procedure - but all too often science projects what it all means without knowing all the facts... hence 'evolution'. Science also has the habit of straight-line thinking... being shallow, one-dimensional and unimaginative. In light of this, the following (albeit roughly-hewn) seems far closer to the truth.
Of both mutable and immutable 'archetypes' created by God, humans and reptiles being immutable, coincidence is what caused the great diversity in the beginning. The process of heritage - wherefrom we can now establish linage - then slowly began to dominate as the make-up (structure) of genes became more stable (established). In other words, from divinely-created archetypes came the great diversity through the process of 'random gene distribution' (in some manner) whereas the less-than-dramatic variations were due to inheritable traits and through natural selection.
From a pool 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' had not yet fully evolved and their actions were erratic... but intentionally at first for the purpose of diversification.
That means, of course, millions upon millions of creatures would not have survived for long.
Although the 'fine-tuned' versions of a species (through natural selection) are rooted in linage, the effects of natural selection was (is) limited. In the story of life from the very beginning to the present day, natural selection played a role but not the only role. It was just the last character on stage. Therefore to believe 'evolution' was the only character on stage is a one-dimensional concept. That means it is in conflict because nothing nature does can be described as one-dimensional. Simply put, in trying to explain human beginnings, the theory of evolution is too simple to be true.
Of course, neither could the five senses be developed through merely the process of evolution. It is a preposterous Without divine guidance, a creature's cell structures could not possibly know of, much less develop, a sense. Nor could human genius. Sounds or sight, if gone un-experienced, could never be imagined. While 'cell instructions' is the creative mechanism within creatures in order to develop and improve their lot, these instructions had to come from a higher plane (divine guidance). Unassisted, certainly a simple organism couldn’t have envisioned and then proceeded to ‘will’ it as an inherent capability.
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 our creator may remain unimaginable forever, 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. While natural selection is about randomness, advantage and utility... perfection requires another force. 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.
Scientists should instead embrace divine creation, accept the notion… after all, they acknowledge the phenomenal realities of life. 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. Well, as soon explained, there is some danger.
The whole matter of life and how everything came into being is not a simple matter and assuredly it is not limited to the straight-forward choices between instantaneous creation and evolution as we might fathom these concepts. The process was surely more complex… unimaginable. After all, our senses prove unimaginable scenarios exist.
Then there’s instincts… likewise unimaginable how they could develop entirely out of need. Experience is only part of story.
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.
However, by chance if science is not completely blinded by this sea of miracles, ostentatiously obvious, then the stubbornness of science suggests a possible conspiracy. While unlikely, it would be for good reason... the fear assuredly lingers that religions could capitalize on a scientific acknowledgment of Divine Creation. After all, nobody sane would want to give religions any chance to get back in control. The official observance of religious holidays means nothing in this regard either, it merely an extended - but politically savvy - 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.
Last modified: 03/09/14