education aspects part 2
Posted in the Trials Evolution Forum
Since: Feb 13
#1 Aug 18, 2013
That “god-as-universal system and substance”(that which created all things, is in all things, is all things) should exalt one in his relationship with all, And that eons of it all is like a gestation in the womb of the cosmos. Creation Science makes mere guy-in-the-sky man the center of the universe with no meaning for that universe.
But Evolution not only omits a whole profound dimension of what has evolved as well as how. Evolution is the insecurity and arrogance of those who pose as academia’s gods by their self-juxtaposition to the purported universe of mere chance change and survival of struggle-chaos of matter-forms. Such evolutionist-fundamentalists dare no purpose, no direction, just de facto apparitions, epiphenomena ...not plan, not even design.
Theirs is the only design -- the design-less design as their paradigm for the universe of life which is just random and chance and even chaos.
THE ISSUE OF CONTENTION IS NOT GOD (or not) IN THE EVOLUTION CLASS CLASSROOM, BUT THE INCLUSION OF A GREATER DIMENSION OF EXISTENCE, AND THE DYNAMICS THEREOF, THAN MERE CHANCE ....OR ONE-SHOT “HOKUS-POKUS CREATION”.
Implications, let alone conclusions, regarding no creative plan being involved in evolution represent not only scientific non sequitor, but presumption to the point of heresy!!
How dare the neoDarwinian ethos delimit the scope of its concerns thus to oblivion of the undeniable plan inherent in the temporal and recombinant “journey” of life-form and life-awareness, so manifest through the eons and the myriads and the millions thereof that there is no denying a greater power than chance. Yet the secular “selectivists” implicitly purport and subtly promulgate that any “god” or God is either disproven or is beyond the scope of the subject. For all is based on the Random Realm of causation. Thus the “scientist” here is but an obverse creation-scientists. Random mutation -- chaos theory applied on the cellular (or genetic) level? Or a dogmatism of exclusion of the alternatives or addendatives of existence ....including the “field of purposiveness”.
But how dare the creation-scientist per se prate his phobic-paranoid presumptions that even were there purely random mutations subject to de facto selection or extinction (in genetic and temporal minima even unto specie and era maxima), such would pose a threat to the universal Creator? Does he have to so delimit his god and the beliefs therein and “ways”(dynamics) thereof? for could it not be that miracles of abiogenesis and mutability and selectivity and extinction and survival all (and even “randomness”) are the more marvelous in a creative “omniscience” and “Omni power” than one six-day week of mere magical manufacture????
The evolutionist can’t accept the “purposive inherence” in existence.
But the Creation Scientist can’t see that Creation is its evolution.
Add your comments below
|the fallacy of blaming evolution theory for bru... (Jul '13)||Jul '13||alongcameaschneider||1|
Find what you want!
Search Trials Evolution Forum Now