An introduction to the subject of Creation
“Scientists who go about teaching that evolution is a fact of life are great con men, and the story they are telling may be the greatest hoax ever. In explaining evolution we do not have one iota of fact. ... A tangled mishmash of guessing games and figure juggling.”
||Dr. T. N. Tahmisian, a physiologist for the Atomic Energy Commission, USA
||(from ‘The Fresno Bee’, August 20, 1959, p. 1-B)
A few words of needed introduction to this topic. Some basic concepts further laid out.
The controversy of Creation version Evolution is an interesting one. The idea of evolution is generally considered as being the scientific one, as opposed to the creation idea, nowadays usually referred to as a myth. Now, how true is this assumption actually, and consider that in fact it is nothing more than an assumption. These pages here in essence have been made available to offer you perspective on matters. Things may not necessarily be, as so many have assumed/are, according to what the media and the textbooks are persuading us to believe that they are.
One should not forget that we are on a make-belief planet. That what is told as being true (the official line) is assumed by many (the flock) to be the correct version. The other option(s) are then just discredited or are just discarded of as being some conspiracy theory of some sort. There are some things at stake here, and we should not pass by them that easily. In the final days we may be in for a pleasant (for truth seekers) or may be an unpleasant (for the flock) surprise. It depends wholly on how you went about matters, and what you made of things.
What is it about?
A war is being fought. Indeed, it rightfully can be referred to as a war. Certain realities that people have may be violated. It goes even as far as that the integrity of the subject of science may very well be under violation. The subject of science and in particular the subject of evolution is being interfered with, this by opinion and actual belief. Of course this is quite a statement. Well, let the happenings speak for themselves. For sure, it is not my intend to add more opinion to the issue. See, simply investigate the materials, and then you decide for yourself. However, you are urged to be on the alert. It is easy to fall for tricks and in particular misrepresentations. So many have already fallen for these as it is.
It is about the issue if it be creation or evolution. Some wish to even combine these concepts. In particular these last decennia we are manipulatively persuaded to simply accept a certain sequence of happenings. This is referred to as evolution. See, we have evolved and we are still evolving, and we are getting better, and better. Then if you actually think about it, are we not on the edge of destroying ourselves, our planet, and everything on it? Now, wouldn't that actually be contrary to the concept that is referred to as evolution?
The bottom line is that one should not accept just something even if it does sound so very plausible in the way it has been presented. If you are to learn and understand things you need to have a critical mind. Let's assume this critical approach.
Well, just think about it for a moment. For how long has the topic of evolution been in the minds of people now? And for how long a time period has ‘science’ been able to check up on life examples for this claimed macro-evolution? That would be some 150 years. Now, if it be evolution wouldn't one think that by this time some progress would have been made in the actual real life observations of the this evolution and finally can present evidence for this macro-evolution? I fear however that the bird is still a bird, and the dog is still a dog. As time progresses the concept of evolution will become a less and less plausible option.
Being a creationist... (a brief background, and a few memories)
Well, I do call myself for a creationist, I probably have been since the age of 12. A funny thing as I grew up in a predominantly atheist atmosphere. The atheist view always had been unconceivable to me, all this what we see around us maintained and coming from nothing without it being created? All the religious experience I had in my early youth (I was 9-10 years old) was the weekly visit from an elderly woman (asking for no fee), coming to our school, that narrated one hour about stories in the Bible. This was in primary school and lasted may be 2 years or so. I remember that I appreciated that time very much. Today I consider it a loss to not have had some sort of Bible education. I had to do really a whole lot of catching up in later years all by myself.
Another thing that I recall clearly was that as a 13-year old I opposed to learn the Geologic Column by heart, as the geography teacher demanded. See, something here was not quite right to me. According to what we were taught, according to this Geologic Column, strictly following its guideline there were indications as if the Iron Age was foregoing the Stone Age, I just couldn't figure that one out, and the teacher didn't explain it, ah well. You see, that sequence wouldn't be correct if it had been evolution. That thus didn't fit into that Geologic Column. So, I was just not going to learn that table by heart considering such irregularities present. I guess that's just me. It has been a interesting travel ever since!
Very early on I also found out that the Bible confirmed that which was dug up (archaeology). See, I never started out with the Bible tale, in part my interest in these books was simply incited by that it explained, and behold, did not contradict with that which surfaced out of the dirt.
In my early youth I had an increased interest in geology (rocks), then during my 13th to my 25th year my focus had diverted to archaeology (man changing that rock), working with archaeologists in the field and in the lab during these years, with many activities throughout the year including summer vacations.
The guy standing is me, 16 years of age and a blond long-haired ‘animal’ (almost like in the Golden Earring song), and it's my sweater hanging on a nail at the wall. Here we were unearthing the wall fundaments of Castle Montfoort in the Netherlands. We found bullets, pottery and bones, always finding bones. This photograph was actually published in Utrechts Nieuwsblad (a newspaper). Regularly sleeping in tents like here at a dig in Oud-Sabbinge (Zeeland, Netherlands). It's my tent, and again, my sweater hanging over it (although a different one). Unearthing a church from the 11th century or so, and indeed, lots of skeletons we found, church ground you know. Never liked my picture taken, here I try to sneak away, but... too late, the girl who wanted a memory was quicker, she send me this later. At a dig at the early medieval (Viking) settlement Dorestad (Wijk bij Duurstede, Netherlands) where we had to work our way through an old 18th century graveyard as we needed to get to the earth layers below that. To our surprise some of the skeletons we unearthed still had some skin and hair on the skulls, apparently soil conditions had preserved some of that. I still remember the girl that with a plastic bag on her hands was pealing that off, to be send off to the lab for analysis. We found 9th century coins too, by the way.
Alongside I developed interests in recorded history (books, paper and parchment), philosophy, science, religion and metaphysics. I have performed many studies in these area's. Much of the behavioural patterns that Dr. Hovind tales about I have seen firsthand with my own eyes with members of that so-called scientific community this, time after time after time. I can thus surely relate with his information from personal experience and perspective. If you have worked in the field yourself, you will understand how very easy it is to swap samples from one tray to another; leave out some data; doctor your tale a bit, and so on. It gives you a whole different perspective and let you realize how very alert you have to be in regards to so-called finds and the presentation thereof. You see, if a person wants something to be in a certain way, he will fill in the blanks for himself, he may alter some little thing here and a little thing there, look past some other things that will not fit in, and so on. And with that I don't mean it is all dishonest intent from the researcher, that is actually the sad part about it, he often doesn't see it. Either way, it was utterly unacceptable to me. For sure I was not going to walk that road! And so, a preconditioned mind and science may just not go well together. Any true understanding still will start with understanding of self!
So, forceably I can not do other than being a creationist, and this is because of observed science and pure logic! The problem we are facing is that man is programmed, he needs thus to be un-programmed (un-brainwashed) before he actually can see.
‘Creationism vs Evolutionism’ & The religious tenets of evolutionism...
The creation concept is usually rather disrespectfully addressed by the evolutionist as creationism. It is disrespectful because by the way the creation concept is referred to it already deems it being a spin of the mind. Have you ever considered this? Then on the other hand if you propose the expression evolutionism to the evolutionist, he in fact usually will immediately object. Evolution is not an -ism, no-no-no, it is science, you will be told. One may however serious wonder how much of it is actually science. On the overall it looks more like a card house of assumptions, about ready to collapse or change. Alternate options of interpretation (if querying the main concept of evolution itself) are not even considered. In fact they get immediately dismissed. Is science supposed to work like that? I wouldn't think so.
And thus I let follow here below some of the religious tenets of evolutionism. Don't be prejudiced about it, it just follows a line of human behaviour.
- Its followers believe it can violate the first and second law of thermodynamics. It attributes Time, Space and Matter, the power to create the universe and life.
- It calls for faith in scores of things that have never been observed like:
- Matter creating itself;
- Life coming from non-living matter, and;
- Plant and animal life producing different kinds.
- It deifies:
- Evolution, and;
- It attempts to provide answers to basic questions in life like:
- Who we are, and;
- Why we are here.
- Only members in good standing are considered worthy of judgment. Those who don't believe in evolution are considered dumb by its members.
- Their Bible and its offshoots (textbooks) forwards and allows only mention of those views that conform or at least pretend to conform with their belief.
- Historical sciences-, biology-, geology-complex. If you don't adhere to the interpretation as found in their Bible it is deemed by its members that you don't understand these.
- Only experts officially graduated in these beliefs, accepted by its elders, and having a documented record of strictly abiding to the belief, are capable of knowing and understanding that evolution is true.
- The correctness and truthfulness of evolution is based on a decision made that it would be true. The belief is then maintained and rekindled by excessive propaganda and use of authority.
- Much effort is put into attracting new members to the belief at the earliest age possible.
- Books that challenge the belief with different views and interpretations are blacklisted. Such writings should not be at any time available or allowed in any learning facilities and/or libraries.
- Members who no longer believe or express doubts about the stated belief are ‘excommunicated’ and may no longer be employed in their community and will be discredited.
In reality both the creationary and evolutionary take of matters have a religious base, as neither of them can provide for verifiable evidence and repeatable evidence in the physical universe. Therefore it is not more than proper that both of these should receive the -ism at the end. And in the matter of that the evolutionist persist in calling their religion evolution, then so will creation be addressed as such without the -ism. Fair is fair...
Education versus Authority
Now do you get smarter when you go to university and all that? Well, you are supposed to! However it may also result into manipulative indoctrination and persuade the students to accept a particular belief system. See, if you are fed repeatedly and time after time with some subtle information that is accepted by a certain majority, then are you likely to submit to the persuasion or do you investigate it?
One should watch for that education and means of study do not turn into just amassing data. Information has to be evaluated. If it does not it will just turn into robot phenomena. Studies should produce independently thinking minds, not robotical absorption. Some person may appear smart for the common layman, but that person may in reality turn out to be rather unintelligent if fired at with questions that require actual conceptual understanding.
Particular behaviour that has been observed is the one of so-called authoritiveness. Meant here is some person that present him or herself as if they actually know what they are talking about. Often it will be found that they in fact really don't know what they talk about, but only assumed a knowingness in the topic. See, the way you present something may be very convincing by the lesser intelligent and knowledgeable ones. The intelligent educated one will easily expose such a person, and will be able to point out serious flaws in the forwarded argumentation and statements made by such an individual. Unfortunately the lesser gifted ones amongst the human race still may prefer to believe that adopted authority. You see, that intelligent educated one may be lacking a particular authoritiveness or title that will convince these lesser gifted ones. Having been accredited a title such as doctor, a PhD or being a successful businessman (“I am rich!”) is often enough to convince that lesser gifted one whom to listen to and accept as their authority. They lack mental means and independence to verify anything themselves and are unable to make up their own mind. They will not listen to sound reasoning, they will only listen to authority.
“Because they teach in terms of altitude* and Authority, educational institutions
themselves form a social ‘You must believe it’ aberration. It is impossible to reduce an entire
university education even if it sometimes appears desirable, but by addressing the moments
when the patient was hammered into believing or accepting school, from kindergarten forward,
many a fact-clogged mind can again be made facile which was not so before, for the facts will
be re-evaluated automatically by the mind for importances, not
accepted on monotone evaluation as is the case in ‘formal education.’”
(from L. Ron Hubbard's ‘Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health’; 1950, 23rd printing: Jan 1973; Chapter IX, Part Two; pp 343
[* By altitude
is meant a difference of level of prestige—one on a higher altitude carries conviction to one on a lower altitude
merely because of altitude. When one has too little altitude
, he is not believed; when he has too much he is believed too well.]
And there is nothing here that implies that religious indoctrination should be allowed either. If you educate then you teach something. True education stimulates creative thinking. To think beyond the boundaries. It is however up to the individual what he wishes to endorse. If he does anything other, it is not his. He would just be a follower, and a blind one at that.
Does it require you to be a Christian before you can call yourself a creationist?
It appears that some persons have in fact taken this as their paradigm. It is forwarded as a general argument. Meaning, if you for some reason have expressed appreciation towards the idea of creation, then suddenly you may be regarded as a Christian. It is then also instantly assumed by evolutionists (and even creationists) that this person has come to that conclusion because of some 66 books (Bible). As if there could be no other reason for why one could be in favour of creation or a young earth concept as such. Especially by so-called evolution followers it is a rather common belief that this concept of a young earth in itself would be fiction. Ironically however if one actually goes down deeper in the subject things may not appear so self evident as was assumed at first.
Now, do you need to be a Christian before you can be a creationist? Not quite. Now, does every person that is appreciative towards the idea of a possible young earth need to have been fed with this idea from these 66 books? Why should it? We should approach this concept from unbiased premises. What is it that we see all around us? Where do the observed facts actually lead us? Now, let's simply take it from there.
In my opinion this is the approach that should be taken. It is irrelevant if one be a Christian or if one not be a Christian. Just look at the data available. Not the interpretations thereof, not how it will fit in our already formed frame of mind, no, just consider the data as it is. This appears to be quite a task for man. Let's rob the evolutionists also from their usual rebuttal that any and all creationists have adopted the creation idea because these 66 books have allured us into thinking and/or believing such. It is semantics! It is irrelevant! If you would be a Christian, then don't use it either as an actual argument. The die-hard evolutionist will simply laugh into your face if you do. It is distracting. Let's instead get to business. Don't let it be a matter of pure faith, let it be a topic of science. That will do, you know!
Some thoughts about ‘written debates’ and ‘life debates’
There are some things to say about this. In life debates your immediate understanding is put to the test, whereas in so-called written debates you can fumble around a bit.
Obviously immediate understanding is by far preferred, this is played at an intellectual level. Here you can not rely or fall back on some board of people that is going to verify a supposed validity of your arguments. Life debates rely on alertness and insight. Now you are going to find out if you really have understood anything at all! Written debates to me seems like a snail, slowly moving and leaving its sticky trail. You can't move quick enough.
In the final end it comes down to understanding, and not to an amassment of related and unrelated information lacking the needing structures to make that ‘solid structure in your mind’ that is called understanding. Sure, many people have a supposed solid structure in their mind, but almost equally many suffer from immoveableness. They can't change their way of looking, stuck in their paradigms and so on. They can't change, because they did not arrive there through true understanding.
Did you know? The evolutionist commonly prefers written debates and not life debates... Well, I wonder why...?
(Includes a note on the documentary ‘Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed’ (2008))
A lot of the information that we see out in the media, on television, on the Internet, and reviews that are given seem largely directed by the preconceptions that people have. Meaning that one's mind had already been made up about some subject prior to giving an opinion about it rather than honestly examining it. As a rule it is then not subjected to investigation, or any proper evaluation of the information that has been made available. It seems to be so that certain concepts or ideas, in particular those that are not liked for some reason, are not allowed to earn any credibility.
|An intriguing example is the general assumption as if micro-evolution and macro-evolution would be the very same. Defenders for the case of evolution like to confide to us that micro-evolution over time (lots of time actually) will turn into macro-evolution. The flaw in this assumption is that micro-evolution (adaption within the kind) has been observed whereas macro-evolution (changing to another kind) has not. Science requires matters to have been observed. A second apparent flaw is that in the matter of macro-evolution that mutations require an increase of information, but all that has been observed is a decrease of information. Simply per these elementary grounds macro-evolution can not deemed to be a scientific approach, it is an assumption, it is an idea. We find however that this is a stout argument from the defenders of evolutionism. But even if said with confidence and emphasis it will still not make it true. Be very aware of that, authoritive statements from some ‘leading’ (trendsetter actually) individual, will just not accomplish that! See, adaption (=micro-evolution) is quite another thing that turning into a different kind (macro-evolution).We do see that evolutionists really do not like the expressions micro- and macro-evolution. Nonetheless we have every scientific reason to actually separate these terms! They commonly just state that they are the same, and next they want to change topic so very quickly! Excuse me?
|Evolutionists frequently phrase “Evolution is as much a fact as is gravitation”. When in fact there is a difference. Gravitation, so it is said, can not be explained (proven), we can only observe it happening. Evolution (macro-evolution) however can not even be observed happening.
‘Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed’ (2008)
|In April 2008 we saw the release of Ben Stein's documentary Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed. It is basically about that the science community is being regulated per the convictions and the interests in regards to the theory of evolution. Thus alternate options or explanations are being expelled, invalidated or ridiculed. It appears that this film is being rejected by various because of the concepts that are being relayed through it.
|We have this International Movie Database that is on the Internet (www.imdb.com). This database also offers a user ratings facility. This showed in October 2008:
| Thus “4,720 IMDB users have given a weighted average vote of 3.5 / 10” (per 15 Oct 2008). When we then look at exactly which votes had been entered here and see how they relate to each other we see the following:
|It appears that 60.2 % totally condemned it. The question is if these votes were based on the personal preconception concerning these matters or was it that the documentary was not well made? You see, the documentary is really not badly made production wise, there must thus be another reason why so many condemned it utterly. It would not even surprise that a large percentage of these 2,842 persons haven't even watched the documentary.
|Then we have the 22.9 % that appreciated it highly. the same question should surface here. Was it because of the voters preconception that they judged so or was it because of a well done documentary? The simple observation here that we found such strong approval and disapproval votes urges us to be careful about how to interpret this all. Especially if we compare this with the amount of votes that were given for rating 2 to 9, as they are totally out of balance.
|One really should not disregard that this very subject is controversial. There are strong pro and anti people found here, it indeed tends to get very emotional. For example I found, while going around posting on newsgroups and forums on the Internet, that if you went against the general opinion that you are not being judged per your knowledge or debating skills and/or the manners how you forward, explain and support your arguments. It is all about that you do or do not agree with the general line that is being promoted on that particular forum! If on the other hand you do agree, and talk complete nonsense at the same time you will receive an appreciative vote. If you choose to not submit you simply get the lowest possible vote. This is what we see happening on these Google Groups where you can leave votes for postings.
|Well, it does not appear that it changed a lot now 5½ years later for that documentary Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed.. The amount of listed voters has since more than doubled but percentages remain pretty much the same. As per 1 March 2014 it lists:
|I do admit here that one of the votes is actually mine. I gave it a rating of 10. I guess this was out of protest. Normally I would have given it an 8. So, my vote would have made a 0.0007 percentage difference. That is nice of course.
Near the end of the documentary we see actually Richard Dawkins, the devout Darwinist, appear. He had a little interview (or discussion) with Ben Stein there. I think that Richard Dawkins lost here, this is what usually happens if you ask the right questions and follow-up questions. Which was exactly what Ben Stein did. I saw later in the news the responses from Richard Dawkins claiming that he had been manipulated or something. Interesting that he says that, because I usually find that he is manipulating, or attempting to do so, the opponent. Well, ask yourself the question, can you be manipulated if you came to your understanding in the right way? Can you be tricked? Do you see what I am saying here? Anyhow, I have watched quite a bit of Richard Dawkins, judge for yourself, see the documentary.
|Copyright © 2003, 2007, 2008, 2014 Michel
Snoeck. All rights reserved.
This page revised:
14 October, 2019