The Human Choice - 7


When people debate "intelligent creation as against chance creation" the end may be that the exponent of the chance side will say, "Well, if God created the universe then who created God?"

If the advocate for intelligent creation is inexperienced he might find this a difficult position but, if knowledgeable, he will say, "I don't know if there is an answer to that, I would think that God has always been there."

His opponent may then say, "That is not a legitimate argument" but, before he can claim victory, the defender of intelligent creation should say, "Well, you claim everything was created by the chance manipulation of matter. Please, before you claim to win, tell me by what chance was the matter created from nothing?"

The debate, at this point must end in a stalemate as both are forced to claim that their creator has 'always been there' and must accept that they offer no understandable beginning.

But this question is too important to be allowed to rest in limbo - it is illogical and unnecessary to let it rest there and we fall into a neat trap if we allow it to rest there.

So let's put origins aside; the debate, as we shall see, does not conclude equally with the unanswerable question of origins. The debate must be decided on the credibility, or otherwise, of "chance Vs. intelligence" as a creative force in the known world. Let us apply ourselves to that.

Creation belief is a religion regardless of its favour of chance or design. Chance or design are the only positive choices but to choose negatively is also a religious choice; in most cases a mere cop-out to sloth.

Most of us make no honest study of what we believe! We are content to select bits and pieces of the two opposites or simply choose some human authority to support our emotional desire and relieve us of the responsibility of thinking for ourselves. Both ploys, of course, are only mild variations on the earlier-mentioned cop-out. Each cop-out puts us in a moral limbo where all effort in aid of our human development is futile. This is not a healthy position and Jesus warns of it when He says:

He who is not with me is against me, and he who does not gather with me scatters. M't. 12:30.

There is no middle ground in the battle between good and evil. It is vital we eliminate confused and conflicting beliefs.

Intelligent commitment is more than mere self-interest, it is a commitment to responsibility and creative adventure.

Those who know something of the frailty of evolution theory may wonder why this materialistic religion has been so successful in replacing the religion that has had such influence during the rapid advances of the last thousand years.

Although materialists frequently claim Christian religions to be just emotional props to allow people to avoid responsibility, that is a deception.

What is true is that seductive teaching of chance creation has created a competition between earthy passions and led Christian religion to degenerate to the point that it is little more than a vehicle for humanism and a prop for the disadvantaged. To imply that it is in the nature of intelligent creation that it be a prop, is rather like saying that a shovel is a prop because some lean-on rather than use it.

Honest assessment of both spiritual and materialist religion makes clear that it is the religion of intelligent creation that demands responsible behaviour while it is the religion of chance creation that offers (in fact demands) escapism - it is materialism that offers rewards for evasion of responsibility. Deceivers try to mask their weaknesses as the failures of others. The evidence supplies the answers.

The rapid rise in popularity of the religion of chance has no driving motivation other than ideas which encourage the mankind-desired escape from responsibility. Admittedly this desire to escape responsibility was aided by deformities entering into Christian religion over the years.

Logically, if creation is just a freak working out of chance events then there is no purpose to life. Future is irrelevant. Life is for the strong. Death will claim all equally. The killer, predator or criminal is equal to the victim and cruelty is equal to kindness. There can be no lasting reward or regret, after life all will be no more than had it never been.

Those remarks are confirmed by the humanist teaching and philosophy that has now infiltrated both the law and education of our world. Humanist "politically correct" teaching promotes egocentricity behind a thin disguise of 'caring'. In law the criminal becomes the victim of society. Socially, pleasure is our only goal; morals are situational and all authority - from parent or God - must be rejected (meaning all authority, excepting humanism's own authoritarian claims). Our greatest triumph is to win an argument in favour of our ego.

A superficial mask of caring is the self-deception needed as a sop to a conscience that cannot be easily terminated. Naturally deception is O.K. if life is meaningless; or, in a humanist world, if personal gain is the motive for misinformation.

Humanist ideology gives the State power for population control. To eliminate unwanted population will advantage a shrinking (thus increasingly advantaged) majority. But the final winners are the control group who, by this sly gradualism, tempt the present majority to gradual self-destruction.

Where do they get the authority for such ideology? That, as you might expect, is unstated, but can be easily traced to a rational response to belief in "survival of the fittest". There is no authority, therefore I need no authority. A deceiver's tautology. The ultimate beneficiary is the Satanist plan.

This, logically and demonstrably, is the secret purpose of the mass-produced, demonic, humanist philosophy that is now commonly known as "political ideology".

Humanist teachings have infiltrated the education system so quietly and secretly that most parents are still ignorant as to why their children so quickly disrespect parental advice and turn to drugs and immoral behaviour. The mass media suffer an odd blindness where exposure of social-engineering is concerned.

Advocates of materialism try to justify a sophistic concept of morality and caring but the logical force in man knows that altruism has no meaning in a chance creation.

We have an innate moral need to believe we are caring but self-interest pulls us to adopt values that are real in terms of our creation belief.

If materialist religion was based on firm evidence and logic then there could be no cause for complaint. To escape into the fantasy land of drugs and die before maturity is just as sensible as anything else - human future is meaningless. But if the theory of chance evolution does not stand up to critical inspection, then to accept it just to satisfy selfish lusts, egocentricity and slothful living is a human catastrophe.

Evolution theory has long been hard to justify and is now a jumble of patch-ups and evasions. A hundred years ago it might have seemed to have scientific potential but, despite claims, growing scientific knowledge gave it no support. Belief in chance creation is, as shall be shown, an indoctrinated myth.

Because argument opposing evolution is not well publicised, I make no claim of originality for arguments or evidence I present. What I do claim is that the truth about evolution is being hidden from the public and from those students who accept the confines of formal education.

The reason for this deceit is social engineering.

History shows that beliefs, once institutionalised, are difficult to oppose and may be fanatically maintained even after shown to be ridiculous.

Let us look at the evidence. choice7.htm

.../Next Page

.../Back to Contents Page