The Image of God vs. The Image of Progress
Posted by RazorsKissFeb 27
Genesis tells us, rather plainly, several important things, which must, in order for Christianity, and Creation, to be true, stand in total antithesis to Evolutionary theory.
First:
Physical matter is of supernatural, not natural, origin.
This, obviously, is a place the two views stand in complete antithesis. The Creation view is that God, from His own power, and His own Word, created everything that we consider “natural”. Nature itself, and all it contains, is a product of the Will and Word of God. The Evolutionary views vary. There is a view that matter, space, time, and energy have always existed. There is a view that says that it all came into existence Ex Nihilo, in a similar manner to God’s creation of it. There is still another view which says that energy has always existed – and that everything else resulted from a change from energy into matter.
Second:
Man is of supernatural origin, and created in the image of God – Not the product of eons of progressive changes, resulting in what is now known as man.
Evolutionary theory once again stands in total antithesis to Creation theory. Evolution says that man is nothing “special” – only his own uniqueness makes him special. If even that. He is simply the product of blind chance – a (dare I say miraculous?) step by step occurrence which has led to modern man, as he now stands, on his own two feet. Creation, and, specifically, Judeo-Christian thought, holds man to be in the image of God Himself – and thus worthy of dignity and importance, as a reflection of the awesome God who created Him.
Third:
Man is an improvement upon all that came before – and can improve still further. This contrasts with the Judeo-Christian thought forms which hold man to be created perfect, distinct, and as he is seen today – with one crucial difference. Man has Fallen, and is thus regressing, not progressing.
This is a very, very crucial difference. Evolution holds that man may perfect himself – and that this is the inevitable nature of things. Creation holds that man was already perfect- and that his relationship with God maintained that perfection. Once his relationship with God was damaged – so was man. The ills and evils of mankind since are a reflection of a process of regression – not progression. I cannot stress enough what a significant difference this makes. In one, man is inherently good – and can become still better. In the other, man is inherently evil – and must seek out the source of his original perfection.
Is there any reconciliation possible between these two views of the very fabric of our existence?
No.
When we look at nature, and say “this is all there is” – we forget what we all ask, and have within the very weave of our souls – “is this all there is?”
We must answer the first – “No, it isn’t.” We must answer the second – “No – and we will know what else there is, as we already know that there is more.”
Evolution discards the soul. We know we have souls. We know that these souls are missing something – just as all of nature seems to be missing something. That something is our Creator, and nature’s Supernatural.
We dare not, we must not, and we cannot look an enemy in the face – and turn away as if it is irrelevant. We made that crucial mistake when this enemy first appeared – and we dare not continue. We cannot look at naturalism – at evolution – and spit in our Creator’s face by saying “so what if they deny you?” Romans warns us what excuses exist, for those who deny their Creator. None. His Creation, regardless of attempts to deny it’s Creator, stands as a testament to His power, His majesty, and His creativity – as do we. Despite the philosophical dexterity accompanying the devaluation of man, while simultaneously exalting his attributes – we should take it as a warning. If we exalt the natural – we dethrone the supernatural – we dethrone God – and take His place as the pinnacle. When we take over the pinnacle – we set ourselves up as God.
This is the result of evolutionary theory. The rise of humanism – the rise of human pride. We follow in the footsteps of someone else who thought to usurp God’s place – and follow him to his eventual destination.
So, can we say “So what” to evolution? No. Never.
10 comments
Trackback by The Greatest Pursuits on February 28, 2005 at 3:35 am
Vox Apologia VII — Evolution vs. Creation: So What?
The results for Vox Apologia VII are in! The topic at hand is “Evolution vs. Creation: So What?” This was apparently a popular topic, producing 9 excellent posts. (Or 8 plus my own. ) So without further ado, on to the posts: Does The Creat…
Trackback by The Greatest Pursuits on March 2, 2005 at 12:04 am
Vox Apologia VII Followups
IMHO, the recent Vox Apologia VII on whether the debate over evolution vs. creation has been a big success. There were even a few late entries which I've since added. The list is now up to 12 entries, so if you missed any, be sure to go read them….
Comment by Zaltys on March 12, 2005 at 10:34 am
We dare not, we must not, and we cannot look an enemy in the face – and turn away as if it is irrelevant. We made that crucial mistake when this enemy first appeared – and we dare not continue. We cannot look at naturalism – at evolution – and spit in our Creator’s face by saying “so what if they deny you?”
Why are your beliefs better than mine? Why are you more right than me? What gives you the right to dictate what I am allowed to believe?
This is the result of evolutionary theory. The rise of humanism – the rise of human pride. We follow in the footsteps of someone else who thought to usurp God’s place – and follow him to his eventual destination
To have pride in my status as a human, I would have to have a hand in my own steps up the evolutionary ladder. I take no more pride in being a product of evolution than you do at being a creation of your god. I take pride in achievements of my own, and my species’ evolution is not an achievement of mine.
Comment by RazorsKiss on March 12, 2005 at 4:11 pm
Because they are true.
Because I’m closer to the truth.
Who said you aren’t allowed to believe wrongly? I just tell you when you’re wrong.
There’s a difference.
Not everyone is a religious humanist. Which is what that is identifying.
However.. you really want to say that with every “acheivement” there has not been a massive step backwards? Like, oh… the blitzkrieg (which is still, basically, the way armies move) – accompanied by concentration camps. Or, a amazingly free social order – followed by moral/societal decay, as the excesses of freedom set it up to fall.
Evolution is wrong. It is wrong because it is contra-Biblical – not because I say so.
Comment by Zaltys on March 12, 2005 at 7:23 pm
The Bible is right on your say so, and thus evolution is wrong on your say so.
My assumption that you wished to dictate what I believed was the terminology you used – that you cannot simply allow others to say ‘so what if they deny you?’. This implies the exertion of some means to make others believe similarly to yourselves.
Again, why is your absolute belief that you are right, that your beliefs are true, better than anyone else’s absolute belief that they are right? What makes you special that your absolutely held convinctions happen to be right? Why are you more likely to be right than someone else who holds a belief just as dear as you do? Explain it outside the context of your own convictions, since you must recognise that others do not share them. Others who do not share them will never find assertions based solely on that belief convincing.
It’s a fundamental issue with faith, that your faith is no more right than anyone else’s, because it’s based only on internal conviction. That, of course, is fair enough, but as soon as you start to insist that your belief is better than someone else’s, you run into a sticky situation. You can’t say your belief is better than another’s equally strongly held belief, without saying ‘It is because it just is’. In the end, who is that supposed to convince? The only person who will accept it is someone who believes the same as you do already, and that’s not really much use, is it?
Comment by Zaltys on March 12, 2005 at 7:25 pm
Why are you right, any more than an equally stronly held conviction of another?
Comment by Zaltys on March 13, 2005 at 4:23 am
No, I am right!
Refute me, with a reasonable argument. You can’t, because your statement is based entirely on faith. The whole of your brand of apologetics, as far as I can tell, is a logical tower built upon faith. Doesn’t this make it kind of pointless? When it comes down to it, you can’t answer any challenges to your religion without working from the assumption that your religion is correct. Since those challenging your religion may not share that faith, you fail to refute their arguments – they can only be convinced by arguments working within their own belief system.
So, in the end, all you are left with is “I am right!” “No, I am right!”, back and forth, over and over; in the end, the question always comes down to what you believe, no matter what logic you layer on top of that. There’s a reason most apologetic text is only read by those who already believe, and that is because they are the only ones for whom the arguments hold any weight, because the arguments work within their belief system.
It’s faith. There is no logical, systematic defense, and there doesn’t need to be.
Comment by Zaltys on March 13, 2005 at 4:35 am
couple of further comments: The bible is correct on your say so, and thus evolution is wrong on your say so. Without your belief in its correctness, the bible’s stance on evolution is irrelevant.
Who said you aren’t allowed to believe wrongly? I just tell you when you’re wrong.
This mostly followed from the “so what if they deny you?” section. Since debate will not change anyone’s beliefs, I assumed a more activist approach towards changing people’s viewpoints.
Or, a amazingly free social order – followed by moral/societal decay
Kind of a situational issue, but I agree to an extent. Some places deal with freedom better than others – look at, say, Sweden and Canada. A couple of the most ‘immoral’ countries out there, and yet their societies do no exhibit the decay that supposedly comes with that freedom. I would judge that increased freedom does not have to bring societal decay, but it can do if you do it wrong. In general, I would argue that not every advance comes with a massive step backwards, although some have.
Just a quick note – the picture authorisation system for comments seems to have broken.
Comment by Zaltys on March 13, 2005 at 8:03 am
My apologies for the spam. The first two replies can be ignored in favour of the latter two – there seemed to be some issues with the comfirmation system, so I just rewrote and the comments have appeared in the interim 🙂
Comment by Ed Darrell on March 14, 2005 at 3:11 pm
No scientist argues in any science forum that God is disproven.
First, evolution is a theory in biology. It says nothing at all about the origin of matter. Especially evolution does not deny a role for God in the creation of matter. (If you don’t understand what evolution says, or what it is, or even the branch of science it’s in, I’m not confident that your other comments are not similarly far, far afield.)
Second, evolution does not deny God’s role in the creation of humans. In particular, nothing in the theory says ‘humans are not special.’ Where do you get this stuff?
Third, evolution is absolutely mute on the “perfection” of humans.
Science doesn’t look at nature to say, “that’s all there is.” Instead, science looks to see what is there. (This is a key point for Christians. If God is the creator, nature manifests God. If creationists deny each of manifestations of nature, creationism denies God. Meanwhile, perhaps ironically, science doesn’t deny God.)
Evolution does not deny souls.
Were science to take those positions you ascribe to it, we would have good cause to oppose science. But science takes none of those positions. Instead, we have good cause to ask you to make corrections in your statements.
Romans 1.20 warns us that there will be those who look at things and deny the stuff they are made of. There are creationists who deny atomic theory (especially as it relates to radioactive decay used to date rocks), and there are creationists who deny the work of genes. It seems to me that Romans warns us against creationism.