Creationism vs Evolution In The USA

There has been great debate amongst the religionists and the scientists about the credibility of the two schools of thought.

Evolution as a theory is the province of the scientist. Science says that there is great evidence of Evolution in the geology of the earth, the fossil record and astronomy. The scientific study of Earth's geology makes clear that various areas of the planet have been affected by many changes in plate movement, climate variations and erosion. These changes have occurred over millions of years. This is accepted fact among the majority in both schools. The fossil record portrays great periods of time, millions of years, where certain animal or plant species dominated the planet. We find fossils that have been dated thousands and millions of years old. This is accepted fact by the majority in both schools. Astronomy has allowed Man to become familiar with the vastness of the Universe. The scientific study of the bodies of the Universe, their motions, compositions, sizes and effects on other bodies has made clear that the Universe is billions of years old. This is accepted fact by majority of both schools. Science states that there was a certain beginning to the existence of the Universe. This is accepted as fact by the majority of both schools.

Creationism states that a Supreme Being called the Universe into existence. There is no proof of this except that the Universe exists. Creationists ascribe such ominous characteristics as omniscience, omnipotence and omnipresence. Some elements of Creationism have tried to explain the workings and thought processes of the Supreme Being. This has led to certain time constraints on the existence of the Universe. The very attempt to explain the characteristics or thought patterns of such a Supreme Being is folly. The arguments and wars that have been fought over ascribing knowledge of the characteristics and thought patterns of the Supreme Being have been damaging and continue to be damaging to the melding of Creation as it exists in Mankind.

The Evolutionist has evidence to confirm the validity of their theories. The Creationists has none. The Creationist claims that they 'just know' that a Supreme Being exists and manages the Universe and all things in it. The Creationist's argument is further confounded by the chosen view of their particular 'Faith'. The Creationist contradicts themselves when they ascribe characteristics beyond human comprehension to a Supreme Being and then claim to be able to explain these characteristics.

One common thread in both theories is that they are promulgated by Man. Evolutionists as well as Creationists claim at times that Man is the height of both Evolution and Creation. The belief that Man has some special place in existence is folly according to the facts as promulgated by the Evolutionist. The prominence of Man in Creationism is paramount. The Supreme Being created Man in the image of the Supreme Being. Man exists for the propitiation of the Supreme Being. Adherence to the rules and acceptance of the whim of the Supreme Being is the goal of the Creationist.

On the surface, Creationism looks ridiculous while Evolution appears to be the studious pursuit of knowledge.

In the existence of Man, Creationism came into being first. It was accepted that things happen that are beyond our control and understanding as human beings. Creationists ascribed human characteristics to the Supreme Being in an attempt to understand the Nature of that Supreme Being. They believed that if they pleased the Supreme Being in a manner that pleases them that the Supreme Being would treat them well. They did not realize that placing such limits on the Nature of the Supreme is futile.

Science from its earliest days has been trying to explain the Universe and its workings. It accepted the Universe as a great observatory. Science noted certain regularities and their corresponding effects in their lives. Other scientists experimented with various aspects of their surroundings. The progress of this observation and experimentation led to the Theory of Evolution.

The main common thread in both theories is that the Universe had a beginning. Creationists ascribe this beginning to the work of a Supreme Being. Science ascribes the beginning of the Universe to Chance. Science claims that certain events occurred in a certain fashion that caused the Universe to come into being. More recently, science has come to understand that if their initial theory was correct, then the elements of the Universe would have had to exist before the Universe formed. Matter and Energy therefore would have no beginning and no end, omnipresence if you will.

So here we begin and end with two schools of thought seeking a beginning. Two schools of thought that agree in the unexplainable Nature of Existence. Two schools of thought postulating unprovable theories as fact.

In the USA, the Declaration of Independence is the document on which the nation was founded. We hold the truths in the document as "self-evident". That implies that these truths are so obvious that they are beyond explanation. As citizens, we prize these principles upon which our Founding Fathers established the premise of our existence as a nation. To deny the "self-evidence" of the principles of the Declaration would be to deny what this nation stands for.

Our basic rights of Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness are the envy of the world and the bane of tyrannical and monarchical societies. If we treasure these rights and the Wisdom of the Founding Fathers, we are Creationists. If these rights are "unalienable rights endowed by our Creator", denial of such a basic premise of the Declaration would be the denial of all things that our nation stands for.

As a course of study in education, Evolution and its history can be taught.

Creationism can only be accepted. There is an understanding that that unexplainable cannot be conveyed except through the acceptance of its unexplainable Nature.

As citizens of this great nation, we are all Creationists.

Natural Selection & Human Stupidity

I have read and come to believe that Nature regulates itself and us through such devices as natural disasters. When food or space is scarce animals either die off or produce fewer offspring. It's just so simple and logical that humanity cannot understand or accept that existence goes on without Man's interference. Animals seek out territory that will provide food, space and reasonable security under reasonable terms. Humanity on the other hand attempts to control Nature or refuses to accept the harsh rules of existence.

Animals seem to accept the food chain and their place and role in Nature. They seek out places where there is what may be reasonable trade offs in order to survive and continue the species. The price of a good food supply may be predation or danger in some other form. Nature exercises its perogatives and animals accept and adjust.

Humanity on the other hand seems to refuse that we are nothing more than animals with a few different talents or abilities. We need space in order to have an air supply. We need space in order to gather or produce food. We need space so that our needs are not curtailed by population density. Should the population become too dense, some will either be killed off or driven away. What is so hard to understand?


Throughout history humans have settled in places that could support their life styles. The problem we seem to have is that we do not regulate population or birth rates until it is too late. We have child after child with little to no regard as to that child's inheritance. As an example, a couple builds a house on a plot that they found. The house has enough room to comfortably accomodate the couple and a child. As more children are born, space shrinks to accomodate the newcomers. There is now less space, less food, even less air in the current home. Their neighbors are finding the same circumstances are unacceptable after a while and are forced to decide if they should move to seek better accomodations or eliminate the competition for the resources available.

One option is killing off some of the children. The other option is moving to some new place. Those who decide that killing off their offspring is unacceptable find it more palatable to kill off their neighbor's off spring and or their neighbor. This is common practice in Nature for animals as well as humans. In Nature, animals deal with the circumstances and then go back to adjusting to their existence. Humans do the same but anyone who survives the purge carries hatred and a need for revenge for the victor in the struggle.

The other option to move to seek out another living space presents a different problem. Every good spot is already taken by other humans and their families. When all possible places to live are taken Mans' animal instincts take charge of their thinking. They have to confront those who live in the space and we call this either theft, murder or war. Nature has conditioned animals and people to be victims while others are conditioned to be predators.

There is one other alternative in the process. This I think of as the 'parasitic option'. Animals or people can infiltrate and consume previously occupied space and resources with the permission of the hosts. Herein is where Human Stupidity (or arraogance) comes into play. The host thinks that they have enough to share and accomodate the newcomers, but they never give a thought to the yet to arrive offspring of the newcomers.

The host is charitable, peaceful and trusting. As long as there is enough to accomodate the host, host's family and the newcomers and their offspring, all is well. When things become stressed there are the same two options. Some either have to be killed off or some have to move. A rational line of thought would be for the newcomers and their offspring to move on, but the newcomers are aware of the hardships involved in moving to seek out a new host. We have conflict, killing or war until an equillibrium is met. Sadly, the host and their family is most often consumed and overtaken by the parasitic newcomers.

After a while, the offspring of all families grow to adulthood and now need their own space in order to mate and start their own families. Commonly the oldest child inherits the space of the parents and the others must either move to conquer their own space or become parasites of the oldest child and parents. This creates an ironic twist. The parents are now the host and the oldest child becomes a domant parasite who will prosper at the demise of the parent host. Should the oldest child become impatient, their options are to move on or kill the parent host.

History and literature are filled with stories of children killing their parents for an inheritance or younger siblings killing older siblings in order to become the beneficiary of the parent host. There are even tales of parents killing off impatient children in order to attain a sense of security from the evil within.

So now we find ourselves generations along with all of these disinherited children wandering the earth to find and conquer (either through war or parasitic erosion) new space in order to live and prosper to bring forth new children.

The United States today is becoming the ultimate host. It is being invaded willingly and unwillingly by outsiders causing stress on the resources of the space available. I find this rather ironic since we were all parasites in the space of Native Americans. The US has the further problem of the cancer that is known as the government.

Parasites are always destructive to the host in order that they may survive. The irony is that they usually have no regard for the survival of the host on which they depend. When the host succumbs to the stresses caused by the parasites, the parasites either move on to a new host or die.

The Cancer that is attacking the host from within is totally illogical. It is thriving and propering at an advanced rate usually with no regard for the health and longevity of the host.

The world is full of parasitic countries that are thriving off of other host countries. There are only two alternatives for our future as a species and as a nation. We must either consume our hosts until there are no more hosts to consume only to be left to die, or we must accept the rules of Natural Selection and take action at the onset of stresses on our space.

Nature will allow us to choose an option, but as we see both options are at the mercy of Nature.

Rather humbling a prospect for a species that creates gods in their own images.

M.A.L.