Davidic Publishing

The Official Winds eNewsletter

www.WindsoftheSoul.com

 Copyright © February 2006

More on Darwin, Science and Christianity

Upside Down and Backwards!....

~written from the common sense perspective of The Winds of the Soul~

by Dr. Gregory C.D. Young, Ph.D.(Oxon.)

 
to the book

To that end, a surprising number of theologians from within Judeo-Christian communities seem bent on making evolution acceptable to religious thought, even when Darwin himself has made it quite clear that is not what he had in mind at all.  As George Neumayr from the American Spectator reminds us:  "Theistic evolution -- the idea that an omnipotent God could use random mutations and natural selection to produce life; in other words, create not by his intellect but by chance -- is no more meaningful of a concept than a square circle."

 

The theory of evolution by Charles Darwin has found odd place and company within many Jewish and Christian mind-sets, possibly because they mistakenly cling to a false belief that Darwin was a Christian or at least a religiously devote man, though his autobiography inarguably reveals he was not, and thereafter misunderstand Darwin's original intentions to exclude God and purpose from the reality of life. 

Lest we forget, Darwin was not a Christian, nor even a Theist in the broadest sense.  He was an atheist who for his own personal reasons sought to explain Life without the need of a Creator.  

Yet still, we find many Christians with the apparent need for the church to reconcile itself with Darwinian Theory, trying to make the two fit in some sense.  In part this may be due to the church's unattractive, seemingly inexhaustible and misdirected desire to become in line with liberally esteemed academic and scientific "findings" in order to secure its own social and intellectual legitimacy.   

To that end, a surprising number of theologians from within Judeo-Christian communities seem bent on making evolution acceptable to religious thought, even when Darwin himself has made it quite clear that is not what he had in mind at all.

As George Neumayr from the American Spectator reminds us:  "Theistic evolution -- the idea that an omnipotent God could use random mutations and natural selection to produce life; in other words, create not by his intellect but by chance -- is no more meaningful of a concept than a square circle."

 Mr. Neumayr also points out from a newly edited book of Darwin's writings entitled "From So Simple A Beginning," by an ardent Darwinian and authoritative biographer Edward O. Wilson, that any attempt "to reconcile Darwinism with religion is perhaps 'well meaning' but irreconcilably wrong." 

As Wilson argues, Darwin purposely excluded God as the cause of nature, and any attempt of later "rapprochement" between science and religion is not "desirable" nor consistent with Darwin's thought.

Wilson plainly reminds readers that Darwin rejected Christianity, and that those who think Darwin later "recanted" his view of Christianity are greatly mistaken.  Writes Wilson, "There is not a shred of evidence that he did or that he was presented with any reason to do so." Darwin meant to clearly show that "humanity is not the center of creation, and not its purpose either."

Copyright © 2005 Dr. Gregory C.D. Young, Ph.D.(Oxon.).  All Rights Reserved including the right of reproduction in whole or in part, in any form or by any means, including but not limited to all forms of media print, audio, electronic and video reproduction, without the prior express and specific written content of the author, except in cases of brief quotations embodied in critical articles and reviews. 

Page 1


(1) Darwin's Theory Found Lacking a Supporting Fossil Record:  Let us first remind ourselves that Darwin himself openly admitted that he could not adequately explain the profusion of life that occurred between the Cambrian and Pre-Cambrian periods of history, noting that his theory of gradual evolution could not in any way account for same, and was a major hurdle which if not overcome, would invalidate most of his ideas. 

Says Neumayr, therefore, "critics of evolution who observe that Darwin's account of nature negates any role for God in life actually stand on very solid ground, and merely understand evolutionary theory the same way its most exalted exponents do..., as Godless."

Moreover, the need to continually excuse and placate the Scriptures for Darwinian Theory is especially frustrating in light of the "liberally unpopular" scientific evidence now amassed that directly challenges Darwin's ideas.  In my mind, there are three main areas of dispute:

 

(1) Darwin's Theory Found Lacking a Supporting Fossil Record:  Let us first remind ourselves that Darwin himself openly admitted that he could not adequately explain the profusion of life that occurred between the Cambrian and Pre-Cambrian periods of history, noting that his theory of gradual evolution could not in any way account for same, and was a major hurdle which if not overcome, would invalidate most of his ideas. 

As I have noted in the past, Darwin's theories of selective and adaptive evolution have recently shown themselves to be impractical because of some of the most damning and profound scientific findings that have come to light in recent history.

In fact, the unraveling of the certainty of Darwin's Theory all started with the surprise unmasking of the past work of Dr. Charles Doolittle Walcott, a world renowned paleontologist and expert on life during the Cambrian period 500-600 million years ago, and the distinguished director of the Smithsonian Institution over a century ago. 

This is a story of political intrigue, conspiracy and cognitive dissonance:  the inherent human disability to ignore unpleasant facts. 

Years of fossil hunting by Walcott in the late 19th Century led to his personal discovery of 60,000-80,000 fossils recovered from the Burgess Pass in the Canadian Rockies, fossils which directly refuted Darwin's notions of Gradual Evolution. 

According to Walcott's substantial findings which he painstakingly and personally collected and catalogued over the years, the simple phyla (such as sponges) did not evolve into the more complex (eg. Worms), and that invertebrates had not evolved into vertebrates in a one hundred to two hundred million year period.  Rather, the fossil record indisputably showed that all body morphologies, eyes and gills, jointed limbs and intestines, sponges and worms, insects and fish... all had appeared simultaneously.  Representative of every animal phylum, the basic anatomies of all animals alive today, were suddenly and unexplainable present a half-billion years ago. 

To wit:  There was no "gradual evolution."  These findings by themselves conclusively demonstrated that the main mechanism of Darwinian Theory was fantasy, not fact. 

And yet, a curious thing happens to all of us when confronted with some new information that challenges old and comfortable self-serving ideas.  We generally twist the information to suit our own needs, often insulating ourselves from the correction of error instead of rooting it out. 

Page 2

 


With what he had discovered, Walcott had a lot to lose professionally if he went public, and he wasn't about to sacrifice his entire career, disgrace his social standing and academic reputation by challenging the scientifically accepted and enshrined dogma of Darwinian Theory.  So it was that after publishing only the merest and most modest disclosures of his findings in the Smithsonian's own obscure and limited publication, he then apparently and purposely reburied his findings in the drawers of his basement laboratory, hiding them away from academic and public scrutiny.  This was in 1909.  Eighty years would pass before their rediscovery. 

Indeed, when the accumulation of data begins to mount an ever more convincing argument against pet and favored paradigms (in which previous ego-investment has been substantial), all sorts of twisted cognitions and mental machinations can occur in order to allow us to protect our "sacred cows," as well as retain other errors of preconceived notions of reality.  It happens everyday, both in scientific and religious minds.  This is "cognitive dissonance" in a nutshell. 

With what he had discovered, Walcott had a lot to lose professionally if he went public, and he wasn't about to sacrifice his entire career, disgrace his social standing and academic reputation by challenging the scientifically accepted and enshrined dogma of Darwinian Theory. 

So it was that after publishing only the meekest and most modest disclosures of his findings in the Smithsonian's own obscure and limited publication, he then apparently and purposely reburied his findings in the drawers of his basement laboratory, hiding them away from academic and public scrutiny.  This was in 1909.  Eighty years would pass before their rediscovery.

Parenthetically, this kind of academic dishonesty has only increased since Walcott's time, as the pressures for tenure and push for grant funding has sadly eclipsed the need for publishing untainted and honest data.  Indeed, back in the 1980's, a study at M.I.T. revealed that upwards to 70% of all scientifically published material in the world was in someway purposely defrauded by its authors.  Recent embarrassing admissions of false Korean cloning are just another case in a long line of scientific fakery looking for self-promotion.

As anticipated, the rediscovery in the mid 1980's of Walcott's concealed work put an unexpected shot across the once invincible bow of Darwin's ship, forever changing the concept of evolution, and demonstrating beyond question the profusion of non-evolved life that exploded upon this earth during the Cambrian era.

Finally, Walcott's hard empirical findings of the fossil record were reported in the international press including Time Magazine, Scientific American, The National Geographic Magazine, Nature, Science, The New York Times, directly refuting the slow and gradual workings of Darwin's notion of "survival of the fittest" as well as the mechanisms of "natural selective adaptation" as Darwin originally feared... 

These findings have now seriously refuted the basis and merit of Darwin’s theory of gradual evolution..., again a theory which maintained that higher order organisms evolved smoothly and gradually from lower order life forms by multiple series of random mutations through the influence of Natural Selection.

Far from being gradual or smooth, the staccato fossil records of the last 120 years now demonstrate that single-cell life actually appeared immediately and abruptly after the earth became environmentally habitable (about 3.8 billion years ago), and then after a considerable hiatus of 3.2 billion years with little change or development, all 34 current animal phyla appeared to suddenly explode upon the earth beginning in the Cambrian Age 570 million years ago, astutely dissolving the myth of random evolution---all contributing to the finding that Darwin's own criticisms were accurate, i.e., that the underpinnings of his theories were wrong.

Indeed, as now understood, separate phyla of animal life are not documented to have randomly evolved from each other as Darwinian theory and its supporters have long purported. Rather, new life forms suddenly appeared and then disappeared within the fossil record, directly refuting Darwinian ideas of gradual evolution.

All of this recent rigorous analysis profoundly shows that previous descriptions of the origins of life derived from a series of random events and reactions, gradually and randomly evolving from inanimate materials to increasingly more complex life forms through means of Natural Selection and survival of the fittest, is untenable, misleading, if not patently false.

And yet, interestingly, these findings are continually diminished and obscured by today's neo-Darwinists and liberal academicians.  It seems that cognitive dissonance remains alive and well.

Page 3

 


Yet we should not forget, it was the main mechanism of inter-phylum development (gradual evolution between the Phyla from randomness and natural selection) that was proven to be a fantasy in Darwinian Theory, not the less important intra-phylum development (evolution or unfolding within each phyla).  And that's very important for us to know. Perhaps I'm being too kind here, but peculiarly, though Darwin was most assuredly not right in his overall theory, as we've just seen, neither was he completely all wrong. 

 

Yet we should not forget, it was the main mechanism of inter-phylum development (gradual evolution between the Phyla from randomness and natural selection) that was proven to be a fantasy in Darwinian Theory, not the less important intra-phylum development (evolution or unfolding within each phyla).  And that's very important for us to know.

Perhaps I'm being too kind here, but peculiarly, though Darwin was most assuredly not right in his overall theory, as we've just seen, neither was he completely all wrong. 

Specifically, when fairly parsing his work, it seems that he did correctly understand that "life" was more dynamically in play and impressionable in its development than hitherto suspected by the scientific community of his time, changing and indeed "responding" to other factors surrounding it, correctly discerning that there was some remarkable interactivity between the biological makeup of organisms and their respected environment.  These were observations that are and remain indisputable.

However, though he was right in identifying some of the elements and mechanisms of life in ways that others before had not, he didn't see the "whole picture."  He saw the "picture" as he looked through the glass, but saw it "darkly" and unclearly.  Thus, he was wrong as to how the mechanism of natural change occurred, and how exactly external and internal influence worked, as well as to how the whole system was directed and empowered.  He was mistaken in theorizing from where these dynamics sprang, and how those elements operated under the influence of various environmental conditions. 

 Though he correctly recognized some of the parts of the puzzle that others had yet understood even existed, he put the pieces together wrong, mistakenly envisioning the expression of life to originate and be solely empowered from random processes and subsequent selective adaptation to the environment.  Hence, he was confused in organizing his observations into correct theoretical mechanisms, arriving at some interesting but misguided and deeply flawed conclusions.

He never envisioned the possibility of an underlying mechanism as an "intelligent design" already predetermined to unfold on cue, preconfigured to readily manifest itself when surrounding conditions were met, giving the outward appearance of "evolution," but being in reality a much more refined process of hidden (to his eyes) intentional and preconfigured development that was more of an "unfolding" of life, of the manifest sequencing of complex systems that were, clearly unbeknown to him or any other scientist at the time, already present.  This idea was plainly beyond his understanding.  And indeed, looking to explain the mechanisms of nature from a creator-less perspective, would necessarily have to exclude such a notion of preconfigurement from his analysis.

Thus, he erroneously, and perhaps willfully, assumed that life was without design or intelligent pattern.  He did not discern that the directions for life must preexist the material and the physical.  He didn't, couldn't, or wouldn't, understand that such direction needs to have been predetermined, and that the fossil record and modern scientific enquiry itself would one day begin to affirm that very fact, demonstrating the impossibility of his own theories and summary conclusions.

But again, Darwin wasn't all wrong, just misdirected.  Some of the pieces of the puzzle he discovered were correct, and remain so to this day, although the conclusions of his ideas were most certainly flawed.

Unfortunately, when most people are confronted with such possibilities, they lazily forget to parse the right from the wrong and (excusing my mixed metaphors) end up either accepting the entire bowl of porridge or throwing the baby out with the bathwater. 

So, apart from those theists who continue to blindly argue for a comfortable place for all of Darwin's Theory within religion, most religious arguments are staunchly and feverously opposed in learning anything from Darwin, wrongly pontificating that there is no scientific justification for any form of "evolution," even the kind that unfolds from within the creation itself.... which position seems immediately untenable as it directly denies the possibilities of their own faith..., for the reality of Salvation can be seen to demand the exact same mechanism of "unfolding."

Page 4


To be sure, despite the concordance found within Scriptural and scientific documentation that reveals such things, there are few Christians that would readily accept these findings, quaking with outrage and religious indignation that anybody who would even suggest such a thing as God creating an earth with the "endowed ability" to bring forth life, is committing blasphemy and sacrilege..., even though this possibility is clearly written within the original Hebrew, and the fact that the precedent or pattern for this miracle of life clearly repeats itself within nature over and over again right before our very eyes, as for example is wonderfully expressed within a woman's seeded womb. 

Curiously, these diehards can be as misguided as those seeking reconciliation with Darwin, refraining from embracing (as they reasonably should) that the possibility of a kind of directed and preconfigured "unfolding" within species is clearly evidenced, one which specifically expands after a preexisting order of sophistication from a preexisting pattern of life, and has always been in perfect agreement with the Scriptures, and increasingly so with today's science. 

Moreover, the Jewish twelfth century Rabi Moses Maimonides correctly discerned that the Hebrew word for "created" is used only twice in the original Genesis, once in the beginning of Genesis 1:1, and later when specifically and separately referring to the "creation" of Adam. 

Accordingly, Maimonides argued convincingly that the sacred text therefore suggests that each phyla of life did not need a separate creative fiat from God, the Creator having clearly endowed and organized His preexisting directions upon the earth "itself" in order to bring forth the lower life-forms... 

In fact, it should be no surprise to any who read the Bible that each individual animal phylum first appeared as simple aquatic forms and become more complex with the passage of time.  The Book of Genesis proclaimed this fact 3,300 years ago:  First in Gen1:11, "Let the earth bring forth grass," and all the plants, etc. Then in Gen 1:20 is declared "Let the waters bring forth..." all the aquatic animals and the winged creatures.  Then in Gen 1:24, "Let the earth bring forth..." all the remaining land animals, then mammals. 

That's Genesis 1!  It seems that the Bible knows a thing or two about development, apparently instilling within the creation of the earth the wherewithal and endowment necessary to "bring forth..." life capable or reproducing after its own kind, "whose seed is in itself, upon the earth."  (Gen 1:11)

It seems that Maimonides understood 800 years ago that which science is finally beginning to realize, namely that a possible set of preexisting instructions would efficiently enable physical life to "unfold" according to design, upon meeting the necessary sustaining environmental and physical conditions on earth, when first initiated by the Creator Himself.

And when taking into consideration Einstein's space-time dilation theories, finding that the 6 days of creation are in fact equal to and the same as 15.75 billion years (see Chapter 10, The Winds of the Soul for a complete and analytic discussion), we note that the fossil record depicts the same sequencing and unfolding of life on this planet found documented within Genesis during the 6 days of creation.  The two are in entire agreement as to the undisputed precision of the unfolding of life-forms on our world.

Strange that most Judeo-Christians fail to understand these Biblical points in particular, attempting to fit a superficial knowledge of science into conformity with an over-simplified reading of their Bible, nor wish to see the other possibilities further revealed within the sacred text of the greatness of God's Design.  Again, I suspect that cognitive dissonance is at play here.

To be sure, despite the concordance found within Scriptural and scientific documentation that reveals such things, there are few Christians that would readily accept these findings, quaking with outrage and religious indignation that anybody who would even suggest such a thing as God creating an earth with the "endowed ability" to bring forth life, is committing blasphemy and sacrilege..., even though this possibility is clearly written within the original Hebrew, and the fact that the precedent or pattern for this miracle of life clearly repeats itself within nature over and over again right before our very eyes, as for example is wonderfully expressed within a woman's seeded womb. 

Unfortunately, the ancient text has been conveniently changed in many modern English re-translations, making these possibilities increasingly more obscure to the reader---and more comfortable for those who especially insist that God must create in the manner dependent on their own limited understanding, according to their personal interpretations, flashes of Liberal insight and reformed stare decisis..., and not let the Creator do things the way He wants....

Page 5


(2) Darwinian Theory Falls Short in Assessing the Improbability of Random Life:  Whereas until very recently science held staunchly to the belief that the universe was eternal, had no beginning, and randomly evolved, most reputable scientists now believe that the "Big Bang" (a creative event in my mind) did in fact occur from a quantum singularity—and such an event, by definition, unlikely occurred by chance. 

Once again, keeping to the original text has proven more surefooted than loosening up the interpretations to fit one's peculiar religious or scientific fancy.

So, there is now proof that both the Darwinians and the Religious Dogmatists are wrong to a degree.  Darwinians would prefer a more ordered gradual evolution of life springing from random combinations alone, and many Religionists would rather claim an inexplicable sudden appearance that should never be understood lest it becomes sacrilegious. 

Clearly, there is cognitive dissonance on both sides.  Like the sparrow, we sing the song we learned in our youth, and the paradigm then accepted and revered is hard to displace.

 

(2) Darwinian Theory Falls Short in Assessing the Improbability of Random Life:  Whereas until very recently science held staunchly to the belief that the universe was eternal, had no beginning, and randomly evolved, most reputable scientists now believe that the "Big Bang" (a creative event in my mind) did in fact occur from a quantum singularity—and such an event, by definition, unlikely occurred by chance. 

Further, the scientific understanding that there was an actual "beginning" to everything prompted a great deal of inquiry concerning the mass and energy characteristics of the early universe, leading to the discovery that the critical precision and fine-tuning required for the creation to be successful was of the order and magnitude that made random generation of these events literally impossible.

In other words, when considering the magnitude of the exact precision of the physical universe actually needed to enable physical matter to be separated from light, and the subsequent physical precision needed for everything that followed thereafter, the fact that anything exists at all is far beyond the realm of randomness, even beyond our ability to "measure." 

In fact, mathematicians remind us that the creation of the complexity of Life would be equivalent to winning the lottery not just one time, but for 10190 times in a row, without ever losing!  Winning the lottery 10190 in a row is uniformly considered something of an impossibility. 

To be sure, in order to more accurately visualize the improbability of these events to our ordinary minds, probability theorists have suggested that it is exceptionally more probable for a tornado to pass through a junk yard, and from the debris alone, spontaneously spin together a technically correct, painted, working and fully fueled, flyable 747 jet airliner, than it would be for life to spring forth randomly from our universe.  

In fact, during the last two decades renown cosmologists, mathematicians, biologists, and physicists alike have demonstrated that it is simply mathematically and statistically impossible for life to have randomly evolved in a Darwinian manner, since there simply hasn’t been enough time available since "the creation" for a series of random or chance events to have even come close to yield the complexities of life which we witness around us, and moreover, there isn’t even enough physical matter in the universe to adequately accommodate such ongoing possibilities of random combinations.

So contrary to Darwin, and his latter day proponents of Wilson, Harvard University's Gould, and Oxford's Dawkins, et al, there seems to have actually been a purpose for the creation, at least it can so be reasonably argued, because since the very inception of the "Beginning," the course to Life appeared increasingly more directed as it was inversely improbable. 

Page 6

 


(3) Darwin's Theory Cannot Explain the Origins of Complexity of DNA Encoded in the First Single Cell Life Forms:  Perhaps the most surprising reversal in scientific thinking regarding the belief that everything in life has occurred by chance or generated by random events has occurred in the arena of biological evolution and genetics.  This involves, in particular, the often dismissed annoying "little" fact that the first single cell life form (eukaryotic cells) on this planet had already scripted within their DNA the complete encoded systems needed only for higher life forms, systems of far more sophistication and complexity than they themselves obviously needed.

Thus, it is not at all untenable nor should it appear odd in the face of all the above to explore the possibilities that the proposed "directed intention for life" may have been present right from the very start of the Big Bang.  In fact, in the least it would irresponsible not to investigate such possibilities....at most dishonest. 

As mentioned previously, too, the imposed physical constraints on the universe’s expansion appear to directly parallel the fascinating sequential account of the creation as given in Genesis (eg. separation of photons/light from mass/darkness, the earth bring forth plants, fish, animals, etc.).  Again, the cosmological and fossil records are found to be in complete accord with the exact sequence and time slotting of the directed, non-random, events of Genesis in the Old Testament, so described after appropriately and accurately factoring in Einstein space-time frames of reference.

More reason, indeed, to accept the original text of the Bible as the Word of God, with faith in knowing that someday it will indeed make more sense to us at all levels of understanding.

 

(3) Darwin's Theory Cannot Explain the Origins of Complexity of DNA Encoded in the First Single Cell Life Forms:  Perhaps the most surprising reversal in scientific thinking regarding the belief that everything in life has occurred by chance or generated by random events has occurred in the arena of biological evolution and genetics. 

This involves, in particular, the often dismissed annoying "little" fact that the first single cell life form (eukaryotic cells) on this planet had already scripted within their DNA the complete encoded systems needed only for higher life forms, systems of far more sophistication and complexity than they themselves obviously needed.

More specifically, it's been proven that earth's first single-cell life contained genetic encodings that were comparatively encyclopedic, highly organized, specific directions for growth of body systems and functions (such as for vision, body morphologies, etc.) that could not have possibly been randomly generated from their physical non-nuclei predecessors, and, which had no known specific or useful function for the single-cell organisms that they were. 

Moreover, these levels of sophisticated design and genetic direction could not have possibly been derived from anything before them, for nothing before them existed of the same or similar nature. In other words, they carried the possibilities of genetic complexities for future generations of life that had no possible precursor.

These findings represent a preexisting condition of organization for which Darwinian theory cannot possibly account, as evolution before these points becomes impossible. 

In still other words, single cells don't need the DNA for vision systems, much less any other complex system beyond their own immediate needs, so why carry codified forms of it?  Why carry an expression of genes that only higher life forms would find useful? 

And, from where did such advanced expression possibly come?  To argue that these systems of complexities could possibly be just a priori random assignments of genetic material is a stretch beyond reasonableness and enters the realm of the truly impossible... fantasy indeed!

The point here is, having no possible precedent or forbearer, clearly these systems could not have evolved in Darwinian fashion.  They could not have evolved from a previous life form, for no other preceding life form with a bound nucleus containing the rudiments of genetic material was then available. 

Indeed, these single cell life forms seemed "seeded," genetic information appeared "placed," or specifically "programmed" to "unfold" to higher life forms only when the right and correct physical development and sophistication had been achieved and the needed environmental conditions were first met.  In other words, it's becoming more clear that the so-called previously encoded instruction and direction would only unfold when the surrounding conditions could actually sustain them.

Related to these findings, other prominent scientists have since exposed the reality that certain biological and biochemical systems are in fact a gestalt (an organized whole that is fundamentally more than the sum of its simple parts) and thus could not possibly have randomly sprung from more simple precursors.., suggesting that the end result needed to have been envisioned from the beginning, otherwise the very complexity of the system could not possibly have come to be----especially when there is no useful or needed biological reason to evolve some of the simpler parts by themselves. 

Moreover, compounding this problem to yet another level of incalculable impossibility, these very complexities themselves would not have had enough time or space to randomly have been spun into existence.  The facts now revealed, are self-evidencing....

Page 7


About the Author:  Dr. Gregory C.D. Young, Ph.D.(Oxon.) is a Clinical Psychologist and Neuroscientist having been educated abroad where he completed his postgraduate studies at King’s College, the University of Aberdeen, Scotland, and then graduated and received his Doctorate from the University of Oxford, Oxford, England. He has been in private clinical practice and medical research for over 25 years, being active as an author, popular radio and TV personality, public speaker, and biomedical researcher. He is the author of The Winds of the Soul~Heaven’s First Voice To Us books  &  The Winds of Forgiveness~Heaven's Healing Promises, as well as numerous other scholarly papers and works.

 

 

 

 

Warning and Disclaimer: Although the author and publisher have made every effort in the preparation to ensure the completeness and accuracy of the information given in this eNewsletter and the books, The Winds of the Soul & The Winds of Forgiveness, the publisher and author assume no responsibility for errors or omissions of any kind. The information provided is offered entirely on an “as is“ basis and is simply the point of view of its author. Moreover, the information in this eNewsletter as well as the book is offered without warranty, claim of fitness, or therapeutic effectiveness and appropriateness, either express or implied, nor does it claim or seek to offer any form of diagnosis or treatment for any form of disease or dysfunction. Any individual requiring psychological intervention, diagnosis and/or treatment should always seek the professional services of a responsible and licensed Psychologist or Psychiatrist. Neither the author or Davidic Publishing will be liable or responsible for any damages whatsoever or however defined, caused or alleged to be caused directly, indirectly, incidentally, or consequentially by the information contained in the eNewsletter and the books, The Winds of the Soul & The Winds of Forgiveness.

Point aside:  That's one of many differences between people of true faith and those Religious Dogmatists who run some of our organized religions, wrapping their self-definition in displays of moral exhibitionism.  When an "understanding" of God is finally revealed, Religionists shriek in despair because the unfolding of sacred mysteries acts to expose their lusts for personal power and recognition.

A "mystery" to them is useful only as a tool, a cloak under which they may hide from public view and scrutiny their true motives and that which truly animates their belief-systems.  Namely, of exalting their own idol of "self-importance" above the Glory of the Lord; a self-deception of untoward proportion. 

In direct contrast, the Love of God's Creation unfolded and revealed to a person of true faith is the source of humble admiration, not competition.  Bluntly said, "understanding" is feared by the Religionist (as by the Liberal), whereas it is embraced in wonder and rejoicing by the faithful. 

Instead of finding wonder and awe in the revealed, Religionists find little reason to carry on for their self-esteem becomes narcissistically wounded and damaged in the process (the two cannot coexist), whereas people of true faith find even more reason to become faithful and thankful in the face of new revelation when it is given.  A good rule to measure ourselves by....

 

So if Darwin was wrong, why do some still insist to reconcile him to the Scriptures and a belief in God?  Perhaps, these still don't believe the facts before them.  Or perhaps, in the face of many untoward appetites, the Liberal promises of an ordered natural selection trumping God's omniscient direction is just too powerful of a piece of propaganda to relinquish.... 

Yet, all of the foregoing refutations of Darwinian Theory are plausible arguments based on "science," or more accurately the accumulated scientific evidence derived from the scientific method over a host of disciplines.  They are not ad hoc, drawn from some jury-rigged, egocentric need to be right. 

Yet, let's be certain of one thing.  All of the scientific data that now refute Darwin's Theory of Gradual Evolution, do not summarily prove that God must then exist, and must have been the author of everything that we see, as some mistakenly have argued in their eagerness and subsequent counter-proposals for Intelligent Design (ID).  The disproving of one theory does not automatically assign ascendancy or credence to another. 

But it does keep the possibilities of Non-Darwinian notions still on the table, as well as leaving the door wide open for the logical possibility of our faith.

Accordingly, I personally believe, finding the further extrapolation quite logical, that where and when there is substantial evidence of preexisting order, there may also exist a significant, intelligent, and intentional purpose behind it, especially when in the absence of spontaneous, randomly evolved possibilities.

As Sherlock Holmes astutely reasoned in The Adventure of The Blanched Soldier..."When you have eliminated all which is impossible, then whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth."

Accordingly, since the most recent refutations and objections of Darwin's Theory have been found to be intellectually and scientifically sound, it becomes increasingly more difficult to logically sidestep the possibility that" life" may have then taken its cue and direction from some point behind all of this material world, wherein some intentional design and purpose may very well have had launched or pre-initiated the whole process, without which life simply could not have come to be. 

In the face of all that has been disproved about Darwinian Theory and Random Design, this then becomes a credible hypothesis. "Improbable as it is, all other explanations are more improbable still," Holmes would remind us again from his adventures in The Silver Blaze.

Yet, we still cannot state that this is "evidence" for God... Because it's not.  It's just a footprint..., an impression within the sand from which remains the logical possibility that such a footprint may represent Intelligent Design..., or perhaps something else even grander that we have yet to even imagine or found entering our dreams.  But nonetheless, its remains only a "possibility" that continues on after other competing theories have become null and void.  Such is the real and actual fruit of the scientific method.  This is where the capacity of logic and the scientific method  leads any reasonable man....

Nevertheless, it just so happens that these possibilities are indeed ample justification and good enough rationale to sincerely go and look for the God of this Creation ourselves...beyond known science, within the realm of our faith..., especially since in the wake of disproving Darwin's main thesis, a "Random Creation" appears no longer tenable.   

Whereas we may well find the "testimony" of the Lord our God resonating from the Creation itself, calling out to us to come and see for ourselves..., the true "evidence" of Him is found only in the realm of the Spirit, a "degree of evolution" above the materiality of science, as the grace of the Pattern of His Goodness comes to rest within our enlightened minds and hearts. 

Of course, science has its respected and honored place, but it was never meant to answer the questions of "Why?"  Nor should we ever be satisfied or prove wise in leaning on it to answer all the questions that there are.  It is a fool's errand to expect a tree to walk, no matter how wonderful the tree is indeed!

To be sure, securing "scientific evidence" has never been the ultimate goal or the primary desire of the faithful, but only the Spiritual restoration of His Word and Eternal Life within us.  Indeed, the former pales in comparison to the latter, as "believing" poetically and somewhat paradoxically (to the uninitiated) becomes the basis of true "seeing."

 


If you would like to buy the book The Winds of the Soul~Heaven's First Voice To Us or
Dr. Young's brand new book and the long awaited sequel: The Winds of Forgiveness~Heaven's Healing Promises online for yourself or for a friend, each for just $39.95 (normally 79.95: you save $40.00!) just click on the button below,

 

                

 

       or call 1-800-247-6553  24hrs/day.

 

 

Both Books are also available at Amazon.com, BarnesandNoble.com (BN.com), Barnes & Noble Bookstores, Books-A-Million, and other fine Bookstores; distributed through Barnes & Noble Distribution, and Ingram.

 

To subscribe yourself, a family member, or a friend who you think would enjoy the commentary provided in this free eNewsletter, click here. 

Please note, we deeply respect the internet and the rights to privacy. You have been sent this free eNewsletter because you have previously subscribed to it, or a friend/family member of yours has for you. If you wish to “unsubscribed” and be removed from our mailing-list, please e-mail us at: Unsubscribe@WindsoftheSoul.com and in the space labeled “Subject” simply type “remove” and then click on “send.” We will promptly delete your address from our data base.

Page 8