Creation index  |  Contact

An introduction to the subject of Creation

 
Index:

	Foreword
	What is it about?
	‘Creation vs Evolution’  or  ‘Creationism vs Evolutionism’?
	Education versus Authority (i/p)
	Does it require you to be a Christian before you can call yourself a creationist?
	‘Written debates’ versus ‘Life debates’ (planned)
	Propaganda

The controversy of Creation version Evolution is an interesting one. The idea of evolution is generally considered as being the scientific one, as opposed to the creation idea. No, how true is this assumption actually, and consider that in fact it is nothing more than an assumption. These pages here in essence have been made available to offer you perspective on matters. Things may not necessarily be, as so many have assumed/are, according to what the media and the textbooks are persuading us to believe that they are.

One should not forget that we are on a make-belief planet. That what is told as being true (the official line) is assumed by many (the flock) to be the correct version. The other option(s) are then just discredited or are just discarded of as being some conspiracy theory of some sort. There are some things at stake here, and we should not pass by them that easily. In the final days we may be in for a pleasant or may be an unpleasant surprise. It depends wholly on how you went about matters, and what you made of things.

A war is being fought. Indeed, it rightfully can be referred to as a war. Certain realities that people have may be violated. It goes even as far as that the integrity of the subject of science may very well be under violation. The subject of science and in particular the subject of evolution is being interfered with, this by opinion and actual belief. Of course this is quite a statement. Well, let the happenings speak for themselves. For sure, it is not my intend to add more opinion to the issue. See, simply investigate the materials, and then you decide for yourself. However, you are urged to be on the alert. It is easy to fall for tricks and in particular misrepresentations. So many have already fallen for these as it is.

It is about the issue if it be creation or evolution. Some wish to even combine these concepts. In particular these last decennia we are manipulatively persuaded to simply accept a certain sequence of happenings. This is referred to as evolution. See, we have evolved and we are still evolving, and we are getting better, and better. Then if you actually think about it, are we not on the edge of destroying ourselves, our planet, and everything on it? Now, wouldn't that actually be contrary to the concept that is referred to as evolution?

The bottom line is that one should not accept just something even if it does sound so very plausible in the way it has been presented. If you are to learn and understand things you need to have a critical mind. Let's assume this critical approach.

The creation concept is usually rather disrespectfully addressed by the evolutionist as Creationism. It is disrespectful because by the way the creation concept is referred to it already deems it being a spin of the mind. Have you ever considered this? Then on the other hand if you propose the expression Evolutionism to the evolutionist, he in fact usually will immediately object. Evolution is not an -ism, no, it is science, you will be told. One may however serious wonder how much of it is actually science. On the overall it looks more like a cardhouse of assumptions, about ready to collapse. Alternate options of interpretation (if querying the main concept of evolution itself) are not even considered. In fact they get immediately dismissed. Is science supposed to work like that? I really don't think so.

“Because they teach in terms of altitude* and Authority, educational institutions themselves form a social ‘You must believe it’ aberration. It is impossible to reduce an entire university education even if it sometimes appears desirable, but by addressing the moments when the patient was hammered into believing or accepting school, from kindergarten forward, many a fact-clogged mind can again be made facile which was not so before, for the facts will be re-evaluated automatically by the mind for importances, not accepted on monotone evaluation as is the case in ‘formal education.’”
(from L. Ron Hubbard's ‘Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health’; 1950, 23rd printing: January 1973; Chapter IX, Part Two; pp 343)
[* By altitude is meant a difference of level of prestige—one on a higher altitude carries conviction to one on a lower altitude merely because of altitude. When one has too little altitude, he is not believed; when he has too much he is believed too well.]

It appears that some persons have in fact taken this as their paradigm. It is forwarded as a general argument. Meaning, if you for some reason have expressed appreciation towards the idea of creation, then suddenly you may be regarded as a Christian. It is then also instantly assumed by evolutionists (and even creationists) that this person has come to that conclusion because of some 66 books (Bible). As if there could be no other reason for why one could be in favour of creation or a young earth concept as such. Especially by socalled evolution followers it is a rather common belief that this concept of a young earth in itself would be fiction. Ironically however if one actually goes down deeper in the subject things may not appear so self evident as was assumed at first.

Now, do you need to be a Christian before you can be a creationist? Not quite. Now, does every person that is appreciative towards the idea of a possible young earth need to have been fed with this idea from these 66 books? Why should it? We should approach this concept from unbiased premises. What is it that we see all around us? Where do the observed facts actually lead us? Now, let's simply take it from there.

In my opinion this is the approach that should be taken. It is irrelevant if one be a Christian or if one not be a Christian. Just look at the data available. Not the interpretations thereof, not how it will fit in our already formed frame of mind, no, just consider the data as is (quite a task this appears to be for man). Let's rob the evolutionists also from their usual rebuttal that any and all creationists have adopted the creation idea because these 66 books have allured us into thinking such. It is semantics! It is irrelevant! If you would be a Christian, then don't use it either as an actual argument. The die-hard evolutionist will simply laugh into your face if you do. It is distracting. Let's instead get to business.

A lot of the information that we see out in the media, on television, on the Internet, and reviews that are given seem largely directed by the preconceptions that people have. Meaning that one's mind had already been made up about some subject prior to giving an opinion about it rather than honestly examining it. As a rule it is then not subjected to investigation, or any proper evaluation of the information that has been made available. It seems to be so that certain concepts or ideas, in particular those that are not liked for some reason, are not allowed to earn any credibility.

We have this Internation Movie Database that is on the Internet (www.imdb.com). This database also offers a user ratings facility. This shows:

Thus “4,720 IMDb users have given a weighted average vote of 3.5 / 10” (per 15 Oct 2008). When we then look at exactly which votes had been entered here and see how they relate to eachother we see the following: