Darwin made monkeys of us, for evidence points to a deliberate act of creation

Commenting on recent evidence that Darwin's theories on competition drove the survival of species may be wrong, Jesuit scholar, Fr. Robert Spitzer, also argued that the new evidence is nore compatable with the biblical account of creation than classical evolution theories.

---

News channels have been awash with new evidence by a PHD research group from Bristol University, that the drive for living space – not competition, as Darwin believed – drove the survival of species.

Working with fossils, to study evolutionary patterns over 400 million years of history, they found that the biggest evolutionary changes happened when animals moved into empty, not crowded or competitive areas.

That is at odds with Darwin's widely held views about survival of the fittest. Indeed, a survival of the fittest model would have resulted in entropy or devolution to fewer, dominant species limited to a smaller, more favorable habitat – consistent with the laws of thermodynamics.

---

I have often wondered how the same architect could design a very ugly, brutal lizard species and later design the diverse and pleasant to the eye species we now have on earth. It seems contradictory, but not so if one follows the new patterns of thinking.

Footprints of dinosaurs proved their existence, but the footprints of God ...

How do you know I am writing this right now? I could be a robot or ghost-writer, or this could even be plagiarized material. However, over time enough of the persona of the writer does start to emerge for us to be convinced of their presence and authenticity.

That line of thinking was prompted by something Doctor House said last night when faced with a patient who had a mystery illness. In counseling his colleagues he said, “If we cannot find the root cause we must be guided by effect.” What he meant was that they had to deduce, in this case that there was a small tumor, without the benefit of evidence.

That same logic was applied to black holes. No one can see a black hole. By implication it will always be invisible and intangible, because its gravity is powerful enough to suck in light and matter, leaving a void. But, we know its there, because of effects.

Hawking's grand design evidently lacks grandeur or design

The great man has spoken. Stephen Hawking, the world’s leading intellectual, unilaterally proclaimed in his latest book, the Grand Design, that “the universe was not made by God, but is a consequence of all known physics”. So there we have it. Why did we make it so difficult for ourselves. The master has spoken and he must be right.

One can’t help feeling a little sorry for a man so trapped in his own frailty, condemned to a lifetime of immobility, but does he have to vent his bitterness against God by discounting the same?

I am not ready to stoop to his level. Sir Isaac Newton, arguably the greatest of the big three, affirmed that the universe could not have evolved out of chaos. He held a remarkably theistic view of creation, despite his secret alliance to Arianism.

Can we ever understand creation without understanding what motivates its creator?

It is impossible to understand our universe without first understanding the motives behind its formation.

My last past argued that objects like an Italian sports car or a new building or a house, reflect a combination of functional and aesthetic design. It reminds me of a general rule of thumb in aeronautics, which simply states that “if it looks good, chances are it will fly well”.

The fact that our universe is both functionally and aesthetically remarkable, speaks volumes about its maker and His heartbeat. Had we been solely a product of evolution, diversity of species and the preservation of their specificity, would not have happened.

Balancing Creationism against Intelligent Design, always brings us back to Jesus

It is a reflection on how sensitive the issues I now stand betwee Creationist and Intelligent Design postures.

I agree that a literal interpretation of Genesis is over simplistic.

I find it hard to believe that the worlds as we know them were created in seven calendar days. More than that I don't think the bible makes that point - so much for literalism. We read elsewhere that a day is as a thousand years and a thousand years as a day, so we could then argue for a seven thousand year period of creative wonder, but that still doesn't fit the evidence. 

The bible also refers to a week as a period of seven years and alludes to the tribulation as a time, times and half a time. In all that there is enough to question whether a literal interpretation was ever intended, because the bible is so multi-layered andmulti-faceted that it simply refuses to bow to simplistic interpretation. 

A more balanced position, which fits both biblical and empirical arguments, is that the creation happened over seven discrete epochs. That would have followed the environmental conditions necessary for each phase to reach stability, whilst in turn creating a sufficiently stable basis for subsequent phases. For example, the earth had to cool before it could support the genesis of life and evidence of a high degree of water vapor in the garden confirms that it was so.  

Isn't it wonderful that we have acquired little ears to hang our specs on?

Intelligent Design is a legitimate initiative aimed as bringing the concept of an original universe into the classroom. Its advocates are at pains to distance themselves from a theological posture, arguing, for the sake of scientific rigor and to ensure wide acceptance, that the concept of a personal God is by the way.

Most, if not all, ID proponents have a personal witness of God, but they need to legitimize their opposition to evolution, which is widely taught in most western schools. The fact that evolution in its purest form is more theoretical than empirical, is for most educators, as by the way.

So how long is a piece of string really - its so random hey?

In 1735 a group of scientists from the French Royal Academy of Sciences ventured off to Peru, to reach a stretch of earth, measuring about 300 kilometers, that ran from Yarouqui to Quito. Their idea was to use the line, part of a meridian, as a basis for triangulating earth distances, in order to derive the circumference of the earth.

Well the entire expedition was a nightmare. People went missing, some died and others ran away, whilst sceptics sat back in places like Paris and London to ponder why its was all so necessary when any meridian would do.