Evolution, Human Evolution, Theory Of Evolution


Anyone who takes science with the degree of seriousness it deserves, should realize that as advanced as modern civilization is, the laws of nature are without a doubt way ahead of us. So far ahead, in fact, that we are unlikely to ever catch up.

It's interesting how theories of "origin and evolution" hold up best before first hand exploration. The planets and moons in our solar system which we've already explored by spacecraft talk strongly of uniqueness. Scientifically speaking, it is difficult to attribute their beginnings to a common natural origin; a common natural origin could not have spawned such unique entities. And without a common natural origin there simply is no evolution.

Neither is the evolution of life supported by space exploration. And on top of that, modern man's understanding of genetics show's the evolution of life to be an impossible scenario.

Then, when you combine this with the second law of thermodynamics, which precludes the evolution of the universe as a whole, you inevitably wind up with a world quite different from what scientists have led many to believe. All told, the world we live in could not have had an origin resembling anything depicted by scientists.

What scientists have done in effect is taken a bowl of spaghetti and meatballs and convinced people it's a bowl of noodle soup and big raisins.


The most disturbing aspect is not merely that space exploration and other discoveries have proven many scientific theories wrong. It's that "truth" and "honesty" would dictate abandoning old theories and coming up with new theories which fit the facts. Instead, the basic framework of old theories is being adhered to, and new theories are being formulated, theories which only stretch the imagination in the process of trying to patch up discrepancies between new found facts and old contradictory theories. This is neither truth nor honesty nor science.

Perhaps this is all just the result of a dreaded realization by scientists that in the final analysis science will never have all the answers. Is it possible that the very people whom we rely upon for scientific facts are fearful of facing the possibility that the ultimate origin of our physical universe may very well lie in a Supernatural Creation? This may perhaps, in their view, make science just a little less scientific. But how can you discard the truth simply because it doesn't fit into your scheme of things? After all, it's the truth which should shape and mold science, not scientists who should decide what the truth is.


For too long we've been looking at the universe from earth's point of view. Modern technology has opened a new window. The theory of evolution has probably come into existence out of nothing more than man's need to explain the world he lived in. However, the world man lived in before the space age is not the same world he lives in today. The Darwins of yesteryear may have found it necessary to explain the things which seemed so natural to them. We probably have the same psychological need, the difference is that what seemed natural to them does not necessarily seem natural to us.

Space exploration has shown that life is a rather unusual phenomena -- it's not all that "natural." Looking at earth from just about any other point in the universe, you may suddenly view "lifelessness" as more natural than "life." It should therefore be far easier from a scientific perspective to accept the fact that nature does not produce life naturally, and then try to decipher how we got here; rather than to adhere to a baseless notion that inanimate matter can come to life, and then try to decipher why there is no life anywhere else in the universe. It may be difficult for someone, a twentieth-century scientist for example, who has believed in evolution for so long, to suddenly realize the insanity of it. But I wonder: if Darwin were alive today, would he have dared to come up with his shortsighted answer to the "natural" process of life? I say that modern technology would have stopped him dead in his tracks.


Twentieth-century technology has shown that our understanding of the very universe in which we live has previously been far overestimated. The complexity of our universe will probably continue to baffle us for many years to come. In addition, some notions of the world around us may turn upside down. Whereas for some time now evolution has been considered science and God philosophy, God is increasingly becoming as real as the rays of the morning sun and evolution is receding into a category of theories such as "the world is flat."

After taking into account everything which has thus far been discovered by science, you really don't have to be a religious person to take Creation more seriously. In this day and age, Creation-by-God is, ironically, the most scientific -- that's right, scientific -- explanation you will ever get concerning the origin of our universe. Nothing else even comes close to explaining our existence.


Could some of what we call science today be really nothing more than the twentieth century's version of "superstition?" In every generation there seems to have been the need for some people to believe in something beyond the rational. Strangely, these irrational notions have often been pitted against the concept of God. In the old days, it was a preoccupation with unfounded gods and imagined powers of the supernatural. Nowadays, it is the obsession to show that the universe developed by itself, without any force or power behind it.

Interestingly, nothing in recorded history has ever been as controversial as the concept of God. At the same time, no concept unproven by physical means has so successfully endured the rigorous test of time on such a universal scale as the concept of God. This may not physically prove God's existence, but it certainly gives God a few points over evolution and the like.

Why is it that such irrational concoctions as the unfounded forces of the paranormal and evolution always seem convincing enough in their own time to make it difficult for some people to choose between these ideas and God? Are these forces real? Is evolution real? Hardly likely. Is "freedom of choice" real? That seems to be the most logical explanation.