Creationist Studies

Origins Debate     Limitations of Modern Scientists talking on Origins

koot van wyk (DLitt et Phil; ThD)

Visiting Professor

Kyungpook National University

Sangju Campus

South Korea

Conjoint lecturer of Avondale College

Australia

16 October 2011

         From Washington Associated Press and also in The Korea Herald is the publication of the finds of an art studio in a cave. Describing what was found is one thing that is very scientific but when the scientist begins to talk "origins" then he becomes a theologian. Theologians are scientists which use the data of the Bible to explain the origins of everything. It is God the Creator. For that reason, in the theology of Creationism, there is no room for amoeba to fish to creeping animal to monkey to man, or to put it bluntly, evolution.

         Scientists can speak of what is analogia entis, sensibility or sense perceptions from their being or existence and assuming that all things are equal and the same over millennia, postulate origins. But that is risky and you need a lot of faith in this uniformatism axiom. How do you know all things were the same through all the centuries? Climate wasn't, dinosaurs died, a charcoal layer covers the whole earth which is evidence of a world-wide flood. So where can the scientist find his inspiration for uniformatism and analogia entis confidence?

         On the basis of my ontology, of my eyes, ears, touch, smell, taste the scientist feels equipped to believe his self-created tools or instruments or microscopes or telescopes to venture "further" or "deeper" and then believing all things remain equal and the same unto eternity past, he begins to reconstruct this fairy tale called "evolution" as an answer to his "story" or "myth" of origins. And the surprising thing is, Media, Science, Education of the highest prestigious schools, are all sold out to this deception.      Since there is no evolution on the Moon and Mars but only on this earth, as NASA has demonstrated, the whole concept of uniformatism is shelved. The only alternative left is theology and a Creator God who had a purpose for this earth and its dualism of good and evil, with evil in the form of Lucifer becoming rebellious and becoming Satan, occupying illegally this earth. "Earth grab" was the illegal action of Satan, of what is the property of God. Humans are trapped as well here, as innocent as they start of as babies until they give in to his temptations and join the rebellion. So how do we get out of this?

         That is where God had to die and that was Jesus. He had to fulfill that what was needed to save humans from this mess. A mere acceptance of Jesus is enough for salvation. It is that easy. It is secured.

         If science brought us to a wall, beyond which nothing can be seen any longer, at that point they can start speculate over origins. But that wall has not yet been reached. The telescope is always in dire need of improvement to see more, since the end is not in sight. The microscope is always too limited to go just beyond where it ends, since there is more to see. So the micro-universe and macro-universe is endless even as we speak in our day and age.  So how can scientist speak about origins when their ontology was not there to see, smell, hear, taste, and feel what happened originally? They trust the instruments they created and they trust the belief of uniformity and see, they have all the ingredients they need to hop on the bus of Charles Darwin and Lyell for fossil record legends, to hang onto their man-designed "evolvology" [evolve theories].

         Science is empiricism or if not it is metaphysical or equal to stances in theology. It is mental or otherwise it is transimental. What we have by the professor from Norway teaching at the Witwatersrand University about the art in the South African cave, is metaphysical and transimental descriptions of the artifacts.

         He was not there when it was placed in the cave but he guess it was placed there 100 000 years ago. Exactly? How do you know it is 100 000 years ago and not 55 000 years ago or 500 years ago? Why a round number, exactly 100 000 years ago. Is it plus minus? Is it largely plus and largely minus or minimal plus and minimal minus? How do the scientist know that? It is like story books for children starts telling about fairies: "A long long time ago . . . ".

         The fact that flint tools were found in a cave should not be bothersome to anyone. If Creationists are correct and the Bible can be correct data then in the year 2523 BCE was the Flood of Noah destroying everything. As they multiplied after the flood and God created the DNA change and language culture divide at the Tower of Babel, they had to migrate with nothing than  caves to stay in and flint stones as tools at times. For that we can put a  date on namely in the period prior to the pre-sargonic period and post-deluvial, a period between 2523 and 2333 BCE, the last which is the birth date of South Korea when these flint tool users arrived at the Han River at the Amsan site. This is the sensible approach. The other approach is a pie in the sky legend similar to fairies and dwarfs. Not appealing enough although the populist approach.

         So where did professor Christopher Henshilwood of the University of Bergen, Norway, overstep his limits? As he described what was found, he was fully scientific. When he made the following comment: "the find represents an important benchmark in the evolution of complex human mental processes" he was talking origins and the ingredients of his origin talking are evolution, uniformatism, Darwinism, Lyellism and all that is connected to that. His chronology is weird, with a round 00 000. You need a lot of faith to swallow this part of his speech or lectures or articles. Why, since it is faith-data not science data. It is postulations that are held out as hardcore facts to people. This is the fallacy and deception of modern science not realizing its limits appropriately. Creationism has much more to offer than evolutionism to deal with this data. 

         Another eyebrow lifting comment of Henshilwood is that these finds demonstrate that "humans had the conceptual ability to source, combine and store substances that were then possibly used to enhance their social practices." Enhance? Improve? Develop? From worse to better? What about degrading? From better to worse? What if they came from a high society but were naturalists who wanted to escape complex societies and wish to live in jungles and caves with a monastery syndrome? Again, Henshilwood was not there to enact his empiricism properly in 00 000 years ago.

         The Bible offers us a realistic chronology to work with and that is more historical than this pie in the sky legends and fairy tales of a Darwinian kind.

Sources:

"Ancient art supplies found in South African cave" Korea Herald 14 October 2011

http://www.koreaherald.com/national/Detail.jsp?newsMLId=20111014000560

Biblical Creationism has much more to offer for origins than evolutionistic legends