· Consider the Possibility ·
I pondered this question for some time, "Why could not bright, otherwise
intelligent people (Stephen J. Gould,
ref1, for instance) consider
the possibility that an explanation of observed phenomena could be
just as consistent with a creation worldview as an evolutionary worldview"?
Or·i·gins
The two predominant models for the origin of
the universe and its contents are Biblical creation and evolution.
World·view
How one assesses his surroundings, or all that was, is, or ever will be
Read more about worldviews at raychilders.com
In·tel·li·gent Or·i·gins
The descriptor, "intelligent design" has been taken, by some,
to describe a train of thought that the universe itself speaks to an
intelligent designer without dealing with whom that might be. The
Biblical worldview clearly identifies the God of the Bible as the
intelligent designer. Moreover, I believe it offers a more rational, logical
explanation of observed phenomena than do the alternatives.
Ex·is·tence, Pur·pose and Des·ti·ny
On a personal level, these can be restated as, "where did I come
from, why am I here, and where am I going (to end up)". How one
answers these questions depends very much on one's worldview as it
relates to origins.
Ho·mo·cen·trism
Why can't skeptics consider the Biblical creation model for origins ? My
conclusion is that, perhaps even subconsciously, it's too few logical
steps from there to being accountable to the Creator. As Walter Martin
so aptly put it in his
hypothetical conversation between (the Biblical) God and a skeptic, "now
what are you going to do about My son (Christ Jesus)". Thus, the skeptic cannot
give up being the center of his own world - the right/ability to define what is
good, right and true for him i.e., to be his own god. Man, as the pinnacle of
evolution, is logically left in the position of a homocentrist, immersed in
the morass of moral relativism, et. al.
References:
- Time magazine, 8/23/99
