History of the creation—evolution controversy and History of evolutionary thought The creation—evolution controversy began in Europe and North America in the late 18th century, when new interpretations of geological evidence led to various theories of an ancient earthand findings of extinctions demonstrated in the fossil geological sequence prompted early ideas of evolutionnotably Lamarckism. In England these ideas of continuing change were at first seen as a threat to the existing "fixed" social order, and both church and state sought to repress them.
Those aware of an alternate version of human history, the Biblical narrative, in which man is a fallen creature in rebellion against his Creator, have a perfectly rational indeed, the only rational explanation of these events — and can even explain why man himself prefers his own self-imposed servitude, to quote Kant, rather than submission to the doctrine of Creation.
Creation is crucial because of the implications for the entirety of how man views and operates in the world. Our worldview will determine the way we act, showing the old adage of lex orandi, lex credendi to be correct. For example, if there is no Creation, and the universe is either eternal or illusory, the way we operate will be dictated accordingly.
We can look to history to show us cultures where such a fundamental presupposition dominated, such as Hindu India or ancient China. In these cultures, the dominance of the Absolute as an impersonal reality, with a multitude of lesser deities to be supplicated created a vast array of self-destructive practices amongst those populations.
These are merely examples of basic philosophical presuppositions that undergirded a culture and resulted in a praxisconsistent therewith. The creation account of Genesis, for example, presents a very different narrative of history and beginnings than these other accounts.
This difference cannot be overstated: All being, in the metaphysical sense, in this sense, is created being, and created with the potential to receive the higher divine energies or powers of God. There is no opposition or dialectic between the good being many, as later western philosophy, and in particular Platonism would posit.
This opposition of the good necessarily being absolutely One the simple monadwas a Platonic idea that would have its precedent in ancient far eastern thought. Even the Hermetica and the Egyptian accounts from the Memphite narrative, for example, include the idea that creation was spoken into existence by virtue of a divine Logos, yet ultimately, even in the Egyptian narrative, the overall principle, the ultimate Absolute, is not personal, but an immaterial force.
Thus, at the outset, we are presented with only two possible options for this question — is the Absolute ultimately supra rational and personal, or is the Absolute ultimately an impersonal, chaotic force?
There are only two possibilities here, and once we consider this basic philosophical question, we can extrapolate Darwinism as clearly a manifestation of the second. This determination, however, is ultimately irrational and impersonal, aside from the appearance of order, telos and design.
Note that I am not making a classical teleological argument, but a transcendental version of a teleological argument. But there are many, many more problems for positing ultimate reality or the Absolute as an impersonal force.
If ultimate reality is impersonal and chaotic, then all localized events, phenomena and objects are also devoid of any ultimate meaning. Language, mathematics, logic, etc. If ultimate reality is impersonal, then the thread that links all facts, ideas, objects, patterns, etc.
There is no order or pattern actually out there in external reality, and the so-called regularity of nature upon which science is built, induction, is merely a mental projection or interpretation. When this is considered, Creation becomes the only logical and philosophically coherent position, as it makes perfect sense of the very principle of coherence itself — as an objective reality.
Reason, coherence, pattern recognition, mathematics and logic are not mental constructs, but undeniably operant principles in the objective, external world. This is how bridges are built, words bring about communication, and the principle of induction makes science possible. This is also how geometry is math in space, and music is math in time.
Precisely because these principles work in the world to build amazing logic machines, like computers, we can see the basic presuppositionsof the reductionistic naturalist are false.
And this point cannot be left unstressed either — the problem at work between someone who espouses such views and, say, myself, is that we have fundamentally opposed beliefs — presuppositions — from the outset.
My presuppositions govern my worldview, as do the presuppositions of the naturalist. However, we cannot both be correct, as our basic beliefs are fundamentally at odds.
This is why I continually return to the question of objective metaphysical principles as the means by which to engage the opponent and modernity as a whole.
Our disagreement begins with Creation and what the world is.
For me, it is guided by an Omniscient, Omnipotent, Omnipresent God, and all the stuff of reality has its ground in a single Divine Mind. Reality is, at base, rational, although that rationality is infinite, so it transcends my finite reason.
Regardless, it does not make God irrational, it makes Him supra-rational, which means there are plenty of things I must learn analogically.
In contrast, for the opponent, reality is ultimately irrational, with no meaning, telos, or guiding principle. It just is, and that brute nihilism is something he must continually confront as he seeks to make reason, science and math function as a supposedly mental fiction in the external world.
The world, for this person, is not something to be ruled as a steward under a good God, but a dark, chaotic, nihilistic, empty place upon which meaning must be imposed, not discovered. However, if we in theology are correct, this grand plan is doomed to fail because man is not a god who determines meaning and objective reality.
The recent discoveries of quantum physics are a bright sign, however, as the theses that consider the fundamental substrate of reality to be information, as we see in DNA research and in quantum perspectives of subatomic reality.
We are witnessing a revolution that runs completely contrary to the empirical British Royal Society narrative we have so long been fed, and it truly represents the fall of the old Enlightenment empiricism.
However, the new agers and the think tanks have already jumped on board, and already we have a plethora of new age bologna seeking to hijack quantum physics for all manner of nonsense.
As you might already imagine, I would simply remind readers that the critiques applied to absolute impersonalism equally apply to the new agers hijacking quantum physics. Without an infinite Mind linking all the particulars, the connections we make are illusory.
But for metaphysics and philosophy and science to work, we need a rational, linking principle for all of reality.Creation vs evolution argument essay. Licenciado vidriera analysis essay Licenciado vidriera analysis essay agree and disagree essay well written college essays for applications ap language and composition essays about life of missing persons jack finney analysis essay, essay on the world population essaye de mourir jeunesse gregson.
The Re-Creation of Planet Earth and the Real Account of Life's Beginnings: A Compelling Analysis of Creation, Evolution, the Big Bang, God, Jesus, and Heaven by Brian Donnelly Brian Donnelly Paperback.
Creationism covers a spectrum of views including evolutionary creationism, a theological variant of theistic evolution which asserts that both evolutionary science and a belief in creation are true, but the term is commonly used for literal creationists who reject various aspects of science, and instead promote pseudoscientific beliefs.
Introduction Creationism is the belief that life, the Earth, and the universe are the creation of a supernatural being.
The belief is also called intelligent design. Evolution is the change in the inherited traits of a population of organisms through successive generations. After a population splits. Nov 14, · Part 1 of an in-depth analysis of Janet Folger's Evolution vs. Creation. Ms. Folger relies on the crack researchers of Duane Gish's Institute for Creation Research to .
Creation vs evolution argument essay. November 21, Creation vs evolution argument essay. 0. horrible histories neolithic revolution essay essay on favourite movie 3 idiots watch la trama celeste bioy casares analysis essay ancient central american crops for essay.