Because the writer isn’t a politician, preacher, or other public figure, we won’t embarrass or promote her by using her full name. Besides, she’s still a student, and from her picture, she seems to be a sweet young lady. Her first name is Maiah. Here are some excerpts, with bold font added by us for emphasis, and occasional Curmudgeonly interjections that look [like this]:
I believe that evolutionism is a pretty faulty doctrine with holes like a block of Swiss cheese. Even though this is my belief, I do not find it necessary to parrot that oft-repeated evolutionism vs. creationism debate in its most typical form. … No, for that old debate has been reiterated so many times and in so many ways, the witness simply yawns to endure it again. That is why, though it is tempting for me to poke holes in the evolutionary theory, I would choose to better direct my time explaining why I am a candidate of creationism.
That’s fine with us. She says:
To be frank, one of the reasons that I firmly support creationism is because it makes sense. The thought of some “power,” or “existence,” that had superior foreknowledge and foresight to diversely create, is far more believable to me than “chance,” trillions of adaptations as the evolutionary theory insists.
Yes, that makes a lot of sense. Then she tells us:
According to the abstract theory of evolution [Abstract?], it is in a constant state of gradual mutational flux. I am convinced that such thing as a genetically “stable” population, not to mention community and biosphere, would be almost, if not entirely impossible.
The biosphere is always in flux, but beyond that, Maiah doesn’t believe in mutations. She explains why:
This can even be viewed in nature: If a black bear has only one cub as opposed to the usual two or three, then she will simply abandon it. If a bear is willing to abandon her cub just because it did not come in a pack of three, then what does this mean for other species who notice that their offspring is beginning to grow an additional appendage?
Hey, good point! Let’s read on:
This leads me to my second, parallel point: evolution does not make sense. Not that the concept is hard to understand, but that it is simply absurd. [Yeah!] With the sheer complexity and order of life and biology, even in something so basic as a single molecule of DNA, I cannot for a moment wrap my mind around it all “evolving” based on chance. I cannot, with any trace of sincerity, consider that the only distinction between me and an earwig is a couple of branches on a top-heavy, phylogenetic tree.
Maiah ain’t no kin to a creepy insect! She continues:
Moreover, the idea that mankind evolved from apes is simply preposterous. [Right!] I mean, if man really did evolve from apes, wouldn’t we have some sort of transitional stage of ape-man with us today? After all, we have the ape. We have the man. Where then, is the ape-man?
They’re extinct, but we have evidence that they once existed. Maiah should look at the Wikipedia article Homo.
She goes on and on, but that was the best of it — except for the way she ends her article. It was the source of our title:
Interestingly enough, although some scientists seem to look down upon the thought of a higher power, they themselves insist upon the fact that man is the best and brightest of all preceding evolutionary achievements. If man is the best and brightest, the most evolved and logical of all species, then why is religion one of the distinguishing factors of mankind? Does this not imply that awareness of a deity is now a new tier of evolutionary intelligence? I challenge the evolutionist to counter this Catch-22. [Her logic is undeniable!] As for me, my convictions are solid.
Face it, dear reader. Maiah is more evolved than you are.
To be fair to the student newspaper, they have another column with the contrary point of view: Evidence or faith as our model of origin. It’s definitely worth a look.
Copyright © 2018. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.