Comments and Replies ... and Who We Are

TANATA is devoted to discussing the paradoxes and the mysteries of life, among which is the paradox of the coexistence of good and evil. “God is love,” John tells us. Evil exists, we would suggest, not because God is detached or unconcerned, but because free will exists which is required for true, unforced love to exist. Still, it is painfully hard to reconcile this paradox. We believe that all evil one day will be judged and destroyed, until then we must pray.

DANIEL 7:13-14

13 “I was watching in the night visions, and behold, One like the Son of Man, coming with the clouds of heaven! He came to the Ancient of Days, and they brought Him near before Him.

14 Then to Him was given dominion and glory and a kingdom, that all peoples, nations, and languages should serve Him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and His kingdom the one which shall not be destroyed.


7 Behold, He is coming with clouds, and every eye will see Him, even they who pierced Him. And all the tribes of the earth will mourn because of Him. Even so, Amen.

No RSS feeds have been linked to this section.
Powered by Squarespace



In all honesty ...

Let’s face it … creation science is faith-based. But spiritual and mystical things can coexist with science. They must. We live in a spiritual, mystical realm, and anyone who says otherwise isn’t paying attention. I, for one, have experienced a theophany. See “The Cloud” in the same column you found this) We are not the masters of our own destinies: We sleep and an uncontrolled part of ourselves takes over, working out for us aspects of our lives we do not understand; we can say we know ourselves, but we are ignorant even of what our organs look like and how they function as they do. And none of us can avoid death — it is inevitable. That which has created us and that which receives us when we leave our mortal bodies is in control whether we like it or not. Having said all of that, there are serious, undeniable gaps in evolutionary theory; evolutionary science does not absolutely explain or prove by testing what cannot be proved or tested. Macro-evolution, the morphing of one species into another, has never been observed and cannot be proved.

Allow me to make my point regarding the lack of evidence for Macro-evolution. Can you imagine at any point in all of history a mama ape saying to the papa ape, “You know, this last baby looks a little human compared to the others, don’t you think?” That interaction could never have taken place, and not because apes don’t speak. That interaction could never have taken place because apes are not at all disposed to becoming human, just as they are not disposed to become any other species  at some point.

And so, creation science exists to fill the void, without offering any real tangible proof of its own, other than the very real sense that we live in a spiritual and mystical realm, where life as we witness it may only be an illusion. We err when we claim ultimately to have a handle on our mysterious existence. The color red we see when we see a red ball is not the inherent color of the ball … but it is the color that is reflected back; a red ball is actually every color but red. And paradoxes are real in our lives — that which is simplistic and humble often trumps the great and mighty. The first shall be last, and the last shall be first. Spiritual things are paradoxical. Jesus was and is a paradox: an innocent man who was brutally murdered, but who nevertheless overcame the very empire which had him put to death. That’s pretty good for an itinerant Jewish teacher after only three years work. This doesn’t mean that mankind has not screwed up Jesus’ message of peace, compassion and forgiveness, because it has; but that’s not Jesus’ or God’s fault.

For us, Jesus and his legacy is as tangible as any theories on the origin of man. We believe in the virgin birth and the resurrection, for logical reasons, we believe (we won’t present the cases for these here), and therefore, creationism isn’t so hard to contemplate, though we will probably never understand how it ever could have happened.

Allow me to offer an article which may or may not put a dent in evolutionary science, depending on a person’s predisposed position, but it is compelling … and it is a National 
Geographic article. Peace.

Hillary Mayell
for National Geographic News
January 21, 2003

By analyzing DNA from people in all regions of the world, geneticist Spencer Wells has concluded that all humans alive today are descended from a single man who lived in Africa around 60,000 years ago.

Modern humans, he contends, didn’t start their spread across the globe until after that time. Most archaeologists would say the exodus began 100,000 years ago—a 40,000-year discrepancy.

Wells’s take on the origins of modern humans and how they came to populate the rest of the planet is bound to be controversial.

His work adds to an already crowded field of opposing hypotheses proposed by those who seek answers in “stones and bones”—archaeologists and paleoanthropologists—and those who seek them in our blood—population geneticists and molecular biologists.

Over the last decade, major debate on whether early humans evolved in Africa or elsewhere, when they began outward migration, where they went, and whether they interbred with or replaced archaic species has moved out of scientific journals and into the public consciousness.

Wells addresses these issues in a new book, The Journey of Man: A Genetic Odyssey, and a National Geographic documentary of the same title. In a straightforward story, he explains how he traced the exodus of modern humans from Africa by analyzing genetic changes in DNA from the y-chromosome.

“As often happens in science,” he said, “technology has opened up a field to new ways of answering old questions—often providing startling answers.”

Of course, not everyone agrees with him. But I think I do.