Nana Akwasi Twumasi
Religion and its derived arguments and counter-arguments are becoming more relevant in our traditional discourse, especially in these times when people who, once upon a time, churched everyday and slept with their Bibles under their pillow, now think they’re better “educated” and “enlightened” to shun the religious traditions of their homeland. On Ghanaweb.com, it is not uncommon to read comments or articles by people who laugh at and, sometimes, scorn Christians for embracing the ontology of the supreme God. To these “civilized” and better “educated” folks, matters of metaphysical realities, which some in our culture embrace, are deemed antiquated and obsolete folklores that have no place in these modern times. To this “civilized” group, the existence — or the possibility thereof — of deities, angels, demons, witchcraft etc., are concepts that are accepted by those who are uncouth, uneducated, uncivilized and downright gullible. People of this group who refer to themselves as evolutionists/atheists laugh themselves to tears, for instance, when they hear Christians advocating their belief in a God who created the universe out of nothing. However, these same evolutionists/atheists don’t seem to realize that it is equally laughable to think that a crocodile, through eons of genotypic and phenotypic changes in the presence of an environmental stress, could develop wings and fly away. Understandably, to hold the notion that this vast universe was created out of nothing by an invisible God demands faith. Also, to think that this universe came about as a result of a series of events including the Big Bang theory, evolution of species from a primordial “cosmic soup,” evolution of multi-cellular organisms from unicellular organisms—these demand more faith than Christianity. In sum, the theory of evolution is absolutely fallacious and totally inadequate in explaining this complex universe and, therefore, those who’ve imbibed such a confounding theory should refrain from making a mockery of religion—Christianity, to be exact.
Evolution, in the abstract sense, is a change in genetic material, which can potentially produce new species over a period of time. It is believed that because species have similarities they must have descended from a common ancestral gene pool. Against this backdrop, we are told that man descended from chimpanzees because he shares 98-99% of his DNA sequences with chimpanzees. Evolutionists tell us that the forerunner of man, the chimpanzee, walked on four legs, but at one point it succumbed to bipedalism (walking on two legs), and evolved into the modern man. Man, we are further told, evolved large cranial capacity in the process and, hence, he is smarter than the chimpanzee. I summon evolutionists to the defense table to address the following questions: 1. If, indeed, we evolved from chimpanzees and we are their close relatives, will any atheist/evolutionist in good conscience welcome the idea of a man accepting a marriage proposal from a chimpanzee? 2. Would there be any ethical arguments against man intermarrying chimpanzees, and if so, why shouldn’t this union be morally justified, since they are our close living relatives? 3. Why should bestiality be universally condemned when we are closely related to some animals? One can easily see where evolution ceases to make sense. Come to think of it, why shouldn’t organisms have similarities if they inhabit the same planet, breathe the same air, enjoy the same sun, and are the handiwork of one Creator? In the same way that one would expect the children of a couple to have certain similarities, so should we expect that as the handiwork of one Creator we should have certain similarities without necessarily evolving from each other. Further, evolutionary scientists claim they have reproduced pre-life conditions in the laboratory that resulted in the formation of a “cosmic soup.” This “cosmic soup” is supposed to have given birth to the stars, planets, life etc. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/636886.stm). Whereas this may sound as a self-fulfilling prophecy to die-hards of the evolutionary theory, it leaves room for serious questioning: How could scientists create something in the lab and claim it was responsible for an event that happened 14 billion years ago (i.e., the age of the universe based on evolutionary geological timeline)? Scientists can’t find cure for the common cold but they are certain they know what generated the universe 14 billion years ago? Inarguably, it may be possible for evolutionary scientists to create a “replica” of pre-life conditions in the lab, including the synthesis of complex organic molecules or its precursors, which may have “started” life on Earth. However, the only reasonable claim that they can make is that their “replica” may correlate with the formation of the cosmos and life. They cannot claim that the “replica” caused the formation of the cosmos and life. They can make the “causation” argument only on the basis of faith but not science. For evolutionary scientists to claim that the “cosmic soup” they’ve synthesized in the lab caused the formation of the cosmos and life, they must have a sample of that “cosmic soup” from 14 billion years ago against which they can validate their laboratory creation. Unfortunately, the only sample they have is a theory of what pre-life conditions might have been. Should a theory that is been touted as an alternative to Creationism be based on scholastic sentiments or scientific facts? Einstein’s theory of the bending of light, which is embodied in his theory of relativity, wasn’t accepted because it made sense to scientists; it was accepted based on objective data—that is, actual measurements from a solar eclipse. My contention here is that whatever someone “cooks up” in a lab must measure up against what it sets out to prove. Against this backdrop, there is no “proof” that the Big Bang theory and resulting “cosmic soup” are responsible for the genesis of this complex universe.
Additionally, we are told that “natural selection” is one of the driving forces of evolution. Natural selection, by definition, is “the process by which heritable traits that make it more likely for an organism to survive and successfully reproduce become more common in a population over successive generations. It is a key mechanism of evolution” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_selection).
According to this phenomenon, in the face of an environmental stress, organisms that are able to survive pass onto their offspring the acquired traits that enabled them to overcome that stress. As an undergraduate many years ago, one of my professors illustrated the concept of natural selection by explaining how the modern giraffe got its long neck. She explained that the long neck of giraffe resulted from a saltation process, commencing with giraffes foraging leaves of tall trees. She had explained that at one point when food became scarce other herbivores migrated elsewhere while the giraffes stayed and fed off the leaves of tall trees. They grew longer necks over time, which they passed on to their progenies. This explanation calls for serious questioning, and I would welcome answers to the following: 1.Why didn’t the other animals/herbivores stay behind to compete for leaves of tall trees? Isn’t it “funny” that of all the herbivores that were present during this “evolutionary time,” it was only the giraffe that “thought it wise” to stay behind (with the possibility of starving to death) when all others migrated elsewhere to find food? 2. How could the female giraffes have survived under the same conditions when their neck was/is shorter than that of the males? 3. If the male and female giraffes acquired long necks after feeding off of tall trees, how does one explain the differences in the lengths of their necks? Is it because the males fed off of trees that were slightly taller than those of the females?
What’s more, the so-called evidence in the paleontological records is nothing more than pastiche evolutionary fabrications. What the evidence in the fossil records shows is the actual remains of species that are either extinct or extant. What the fossil records do not show is the so-called missing link: it does not have record of species with partially-formed organs, which would be suggestive of one species evolving into another. It does not contain any evidence of the mythical Big Foot, which is supposed to be the transitional stage in man’s evolution from apes. All evidence purported to establish the “missing link” theory have turned out to be hoax. Also, the fossil record does not show that organisms that were known to have existed millions of years ago are any different from their living descendants. The Coelacanth, for instance, was thought to be extinct about 90 million years ago; however, some have been caught in recent years and they are the same as their ancestors (Marvels and Mysteries of Our Animal World, Reader’s Digest Assoc., p.73).
Last but not least, the evolutionary argument that ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny is a concocted falsehood. This concept posits that the embryonic changes that are seen during the different stages of a species gestational period mimic that species evolutionary history. In the book Embryos, Galaxies, and Sentient Beings, the authors Grossinger and Dowse wrote, “What is false about recapitulation is that the ontogenetic stages of modern embryos do not resurrect anything like the exact phenotypes or phenotypic ontologies of their forebears” (p.133). They elaborated further, “Ontogeny cannot precisely resurrect its phylogeny. It has no such map, no such directive, no innate phylogenetic energy or engine, no injunction. The thermodynamics at the core of each embryo lacks any path to a literal predecessor or facsimile of its lineage” (p.134). On this merit, the theory of evolution, with all its fabrications and falsehood, cannot be a reasonable alternative to the biblical account of the origin of the universe and life as a whole.
Taken together, some have accepted the theory of evolution because they can’t see themselves believing in an invisible God who created this vast universe out of nothing. Apparently, these people are “wired” to believe in tangible theories, even if they are based on false science. But the universe that we live in is more than a physical thing. It is my opinion that to fully understand and appreciate this complex universe we should not only consider its physicality, but we should take into account its ethereality as well. Man, as an example, is a physical being but he is more than skin, blood and bones; he has other components that are not visible to the naked eye (e.g., mind, spirit). The ability to express emotion, love, respect, altruism, etc., is exclusive to man and not atoms—which means that man is more than an amalgam of carbon, sulfur, nitrogen etc. It is so ironic that man would put so much hope in the theory of evolution in spite of the fact that its originator, Charles R. Darwin, was not fully convinced of its accuracy. In “On the Origin of Species,” the founding father of evolution himself wrote, “…before the reader has arrived at this part of my work, a crowd of difficulties will have occurred to him. Some of them are so serious that to this day I can hardly reflect on them without being staggered” (Charles Darwin, On the Origin of the Species, 6th edition, p.158). It appears that the proponents of evolution are people who are either educated to look at the universe only through the art of science or, simply, people who are educated beyond their intelligence. True science never contradicts the Bible but rather agrees with it. Scientists agree that the genesis and sustenance of the universe was/is a continuum of these five elements: Time, Space, Matter, Force, and Action. God, in his infinite wisdom, penned the same five elements through Moses. This is recorded in the first sentence of the Bible as, “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth” (Genesis 1:1, KJV). For those who have difficulty reconciling the two statements, the following juxtaposition may help: In the beginning (time) God (force) created (action) the Heavens (space) and the earth (matter). The Bible tells us that God created the world in 6 days, not billions of years. In fact, Moses, when chronicling God’s creative account in Genesis chapter 1, used the phrase “morning and evening” to qualify each of the 6 days of creation, meaning that God created everything out of nothing in 6 literal days. If atheists/evolutionists can’t accept this, but rather demand proof of God’s existence besides His handiwork on earth, then they’ll have to die before they can “see” that proof. In the same way that a seed must die to find “proof” that it can turn into a plant, so must one die to find “visible” proof of God’s existence, since He is a spirit. The good news is that we will all die one day and will have the opportunity to authenticate the veracity of God’s existence. May God help us all!
The author can be reached via nanaakwasitwumasi@googlemail.com
Nana Akwasi Twumasi
Religion and its derived arguments and counter-arguments are becoming more relevant in our traditional discourse, especially in these times when people who, once upon a time, churched everyday and slept with their Bibles under their pillow, now think they’re better “educated” and “enlightened” to shun the religious traditions of their homeland. On Ghanaweb.com, it is not uncommon to read comments or articles by people who laugh at and, sometimes, scorn Christians for embracing the ontology of the supreme God. To these “civilized” and better “educated” folks, matters of metaphysical realities, which some in our culture embrace, are deemed antiquated and obsolete folklores that have no place in these modern times. To this “civilized” group, the existence — or the possibility thereof — of deities, angels, demons, witchcraft etc., are concepts that are accepted by those who are uncouth, uneducated, uncivilized and downright gullible. People of this group who refer to themselves as evolutionists/atheists laugh themselves to tears, for instance, when they hear Christians advocating their belief in a God who created the universe out of nothing. However, these same evolutionists/atheists don’t seem to realize that it is equally laughable to think that a crocodile, through eons of genotypic and phenotypic changes in the presence of an environmental stress, could develop wings and fly away. Understandably, to hold the notion that this vast universe was created out of nothing by an invisible God demands faith. Also, to think that this universe came about as a result of a series of events including the Big Bang theory, evolution of species from a primordial “cosmic soup,” evolution of multi-cellular organisms from unicellular organisms—these demand more faith than Christianity. In sum, the theory of evolution is absolutely fallacious and totally inadequate in explaining this complex universe and, therefore, those who’ve imbibed such a confounding theory should refrain from making a mockery of religion—Christianity, to be exact.
Evolution, in the abstract sense, is a change in genetic material, which can potentially produce new species over a period of time. It is believed that because species have similarities they must have descended from a common ancestral gene pool. Against this backdrop, we are told that man descended from chimpanzees because he shares 98-99% of his DNA sequences with chimpanzees. Evolutionists tell us that the forerunner of man, the chimpanzee, walked on four legs, but at one point it succumbed to bipedalism (walking on two legs), and evolved into the modern man. Man, we are further told, evolved large cranial capacity in the process and, hence, he is smarter than the chimpanzee. I summon evolutionists to the defense table to address the following questions: 1. If, indeed, we evolved from chimpanzees and we are their close relatives, will any atheist/evolutionist in good conscience welcome the idea of a man accepting a marriage proposal from a chimpanzee? 2. Would there be any ethical arguments against man intermarrying chimpanzees, and if so, why shouldn’t this union be morally justified, since they are our close living relatives? 3. Why should bestiality be universally condemned when we are closely related to some animals? One can easily see where evolution ceases to make sense. Come to think of it, why shouldn’t organisms have similarities if they inhabit the same planet, breathe the same air, enjoy the same sun, and are the handiwork of one Creator? In the same way that one would expect the children of a couple to have certain similarities, so should we expect that as the handiwork of one Creator we should have certain similarities without necessarily evolving from each other. Further, evolutionary scientists claim they have reproduced pre-life conditions in the laboratory that resulted in the formation of a “cosmic soup.” This “cosmic soup” is supposed to have given birth to the stars, planets, life etc. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/636886.stm). Whereas this may sound as a self-fulfilling prophecy to die-hards of the evolutionary theory, it leaves room for serious questioning: How could scientists create something in the lab and claim it was responsible for an event that happened 14 billion years ago (i.e., the age of the universe based on evolutionary geological timeline)? Scientists can’t find cure for the common cold but they are certain they know what generated the universe 14 billion years ago? Inarguably, it may be possible for evolutionary scientists to create a “replica” of pre-life conditions in the lab, including the synthesis of complex organic molecules or its precursors, which may have “started” life on Earth. However, the only reasonable claim that they can make is that their “replica” may correlate with the formation of the cosmos and life. They cannot claim that the “replica” caused the formation of the cosmos and life. They can make the “causation” argument only on the basis of faith but not science. For evolutionary scientists to claim that the “cosmic soup” they’ve synthesized in the lab caused the formation of the cosmos and life, they must have a sample of that “cosmic soup” from 14 billion years ago against which they can validate their laboratory creation. Unfortunately, the only sample they have is a theory of what pre-life conditions might have been. Should a theory that is been touted as an alternative to Creationism be based on scholastic sentiments or scientific facts? Einstein’s theory of the bending of light, which is embodied in his theory of relativity, wasn’t accepted because it made sense to scientists; it was accepted based on objective data—that is, actual measurements from a solar eclipse. My contention here is that whatever someone “cooks up” in a lab must measure up against what it sets out to prove. Against this backdrop, there is no “proof” that the Big Bang theory and resulting “cosmic soup” are responsible for the genesis of this complex universe.
Additionally, we are told that “natural selection” is one of the driving forces of evolution. Natural selection, by definition, is “the process by which heritable traits that make it more likely for an organism to survive and successfully reproduce become more common in a population over successive generations. It is a key mechanism of evolution” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_selection).
According to this phenomenon, in the face of an environmental stress, organisms that are able to survive pass onto their offspring the acquired traits that enabled them to overcome that stress. As an undergraduate many years ago, one of my professors illustrated the concept of natural selection by explaining how the modern giraffe got its long neck. She explained that the long neck of giraffe resulted from a saltation process, commencing with giraffes foraging leaves of tall trees. She had explained that at one point when food became scarce other herbivores migrated elsewhere while the giraffes stayed and fed off the leaves of tall trees. They grew longer necks over time, which they passed on to their progenies. This explanation calls for serious questioning, and I would welcome answers to the following: 1.Why didn’t the other animals/herbivores stay behind to compete for leaves of tall trees? Isn’t it “funny” that of all the herbivores that were present during this “evolutionary time,” it was only the giraffe that “thought it wise” to stay behind (with the possibility of starving to death) when all others migrated elsewhere to find food? 2. How could the female giraffes have survived under the same conditions when their neck was/is shorter than that of the males? 3. If the male and female giraffes acquired long necks after feeding off of tall trees, how does one explain the differences in the lengths of their necks? Is it because the males fed off of trees that were slightly taller than those of the females?
What’s more, the so-called evidence in the paleontological records is nothing more than pastiche evolutionary fabrications. What the evidence in the fossil records shows is the actual remains of species that are either extinct or extant. What the fossil records do not show is the so-called missing link: it does not have record of species with partially-formed organs, which would be suggestive of one species evolving into another. It does not contain any evidence of the mythical Big Foot, which is supposed to be the transitional stage in man’s evolution from apes. All evidence purported to establish the “missing link” theory have turned out to be hoax. Also, the fossil record does not show that organisms that were known to have existed millions of years ago are any different from their living descendants. The Coelacanth, for instance, was thought to be extinct about 90 million years ago; however, some have been caught in recent years and they are the same as their ancestors (Marvels and Mysteries of Our Animal World, Reader’s Digest Assoc., p.73).
Last but not least, the evolutionary argument that ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny is a concocted falsehood. This concept posits that the embryonic changes that are seen during the different stages of a species gestational period mimic that species evolutionary history. In the book Embryos, Galaxies, and Sentient Beings, the authors Grossinger and Dowse wrote, “What is false about recapitulation is that the ontogenetic stages of modern embryos do not resurrect anything like the exact phenotypes or phenotypic ontologies of their forebears” (p.133). They elaborated further, “Ontogeny cannot precisely resurrect its phylogeny. It has no such map, no such directive, no innate phylogenetic energy or engine, no injunction. The thermodynamics at the core of each embryo lacks any path to a literal predecessor or facsimile of its lineage” (p.134). On this merit, the theory of evolution, with all its fabrications and falsehood, cannot be a reasonable alternative to the biblical account of the origin of the universe and life as a whole.
Taken together, some have accepted the theory of evolution because they can’t see themselves believing in an invisible God who created this vast universe out of nothing. Apparently, these people are “wired” to believe in tangible theories, even if they are based on false science. But the universe that we live in is more than a physical thing. It is my opinion that to fully understand and appreciate this complex universe we should not only consider its physicality, but we should take into account its ethereality as well. Man, as an example, is a physical being but he is more than skin, blood and bones; he has other components that are not visible to the naked eye (e.g., mind, spirit). The ability to express emotion, love, respect, altruism, etc., is exclusive to man and not atoms—which means that man is more than an amalgam of carbon, sulfur, nitrogen etc. It is so ironic that man would put so much hope in the theory of evolution in spite of the fact that its originator, Charles R. Darwin, was not fully convinced of its accuracy. In “On the Origin of Species,” the founding father of evolution himself wrote, “…before the reader has arrived at this part of my work, a crowd of difficulties will have occurred to him. Some of them are so serious that to this day I can hardly reflect on them without being staggered” (Charles Darwin, On the Origin of the Species, 6th edition, p.158). It appears that the proponents of evolution are people who are either educated to look at the universe only through the art of science or, simply, people who are educated beyond their intelligence. True science never contradicts the Bible but rather agrees with it. Scientists agree that the genesis and sustenance of the universe was/is a continuum of these five elements: Time, Space, Matter, Force, and Action. God, in his infinite wisdom, penned the same five elements through Moses. This is recorded in the first sentence of the Bible as, “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth” (Genesis 1:1, KJV). For those who have difficulty reconciling the two statements, the following juxtaposition may help: In the beginning (time) God (force) created (action) the Heavens (space) and the earth (matter). The Bible tells us that God created the world in 6 days, not billions of years. In fact, Moses, when chronicling God’s creative account in Genesis chapter 1, used the phrase “morning and evening” to qualify each of the 6 days of creation, meaning that God created everything out of nothing in 6 literal days. If atheists/evolutionists can’t accept this, but rather demand proof of God’s existence besides His handiwork on earth, then they’ll have to die before they can “see” that proof. In the same way that a seed must die to find “proof” that it can turn into a plant, so must one die to find “visible” proof of God’s existence, since He is a spirit. The good news is that we will all die one day and will have the opportunity to authenticate the veracity of God’s existence. May God help us all!
The author can be reached via nanaakwasitwumasi@googlemail.com
Copyright © 1994 - 2024 GhanaWeb. All rights reserved.
