Tuesday, September 23, 2014


    Recently I read yet another long letter/article addressing the Theory of Evolution.
I have read a number of stands on this issue and it seems to me there is at least one
other perspective I have not seen presented. It could be that there are articles or essays
from this alternative point of view, but I have not come across them. I will present this
as clearly as I can in hopes it will be found interesting and sound enough to seriously
   There are numerous publications concerning the observations of how objects move
and interact within the universe. A simplified paraphrase might go something like this:
There are certain physical laws or forces that compel matter to behave in certain
and predictable ways; gravity, electromagnetism, quantum mechanics, properties of
light, radioactivity and the like. Everything from atomic particles to planets and stars 
move according to these laws described by physics. We do not make these laws, we
merely discover, recognize, describe and name them. It is theorized that if one could 
somehow calculate via a giant scheme of instrumentation all the various forces effecting
an object, one could correctly predict exactly how that object would behave/move. 
And not only that, one could accurately calculate retrospectively every move that object
had previously made. All this is to say that matter moves exactly thus and so according
to the laws of nature. It has no options. If it ever appears to be unpredictable, or to have
an option, it is only because we are unable to measure precisely all the forces acting
upon it. 
   I can follow the train of thought in this line of reasoning and it does seem logical to me.
And apparently there are some who believe this same line of reasoning applies to
absolutely everything. That, for example, every person will do exactly what they will do
in the same fashion as a comet can only arc along one course. Do we make a selection 
or does it just appear we have chosen? When we “decide” something, some argue that
we retroactively (instantaneously almost) rationalize our “decision” as to believe we
actually chose, versus just understanding our determinate behavior.  However, I doubt
most people would concur.  We seem to intuitively posit that we do indeed  have options.
Should I  conclude that the same forces that compel an object to roll downhill, or cause
a proton to be attracted to an electron, somehow determine whether I will  drink a
lemonade versus a Coca Cola with my lunch? It does not at all seem comparable. 
But how can it be that everything else is completely set in motion by its relative placement
in this universe, while we make hundreds of thousands of tiny decisions/choices every day? 
What constitutes this difference, this realm of possibilities, or options?

     I was pondering these questions when one more observation came to mind—
 The distinguishing characteristic shared amongst compositions that exhibit options is that
they are alive. If this assumption is correct, then perhaps not only is Evolution not in 
opposition to Christian religion, but actually an apologetic argument in support of beleiving
in a divine Creator. If nothing about inanimate matter suggests it is capable of anything other
than determinate behavior, how was this concept of possibility, or options, introduced
with animation? An iron atom inside a living thing is no better off than an iron atom in a
non-living thing. I suggest that non-life does not have within itself this necessary and unique
(even defining?) ingredient required for animation.
   I am no expert on the subject, but I do know that the Theory of Evolution is based on 
the presence of alternatives (probability). Thus and such could either proceed this way
or that way, one of which produces a more optimal result. Only living things can be or do 
or turn a selection. The conscious choice of a person to stand up or sit down may seem 
worlds apart from a tadpole swimming to or fro, but I believe both are ultimately the result
of Evolution. Darwin called this natural selection, or survival of the fittest. Life is invested
in staying alive. Bacteria demonstrate this when they mutate into drug resistant strains. 
Living things are "programmed" to continue living, or try to. But materially speaking, this 
is not logical. An iron atom in a rock is no "better off" than an iron atom in you or me.
It has no stake in whether it is part of a living thing, or an inanimate object.  To this end,
Evolution serves no real purpose, or provides no real benefit to the matter in the universe.
Nor does life. While life is a process that utilizes, or consumes energy, the equation 
describing the transmutable relationship of energy and mass, is complete in itself.
   It is a likely conclusion that life is not natural at all, but rather created.  Created
by an intentional purposed Creator, via a design we have named Evolution.