An Affinity for Divinity. A Trilogy in Three Parts.
Coming Clean with Godliness
Science, as a tool for discovery, convinces some people that God made man and that humans did not evolve from apes or ape ancestors. Others believe that the Almighty made men first and only secondarily, created apes from evil, unworthy humans. This latter idea proposes that some people were intentionally devolved into a more primitive, animalistic form of life.
My beliefs (and science) tell me that it looks as if man and apes share a lot in common. Maybe man and apes evolved from a common ancestor. Maybe they didn't. Let's see if we can prove it, one way or the other. If humans and apes did share a common ancestor, then there should be evidence to support that fact. If they did not, and each represents a separately created entity, then we should find evidence for that fact as well.
In my world, according to the people I read and listen to, the evidence that supports humans and apes splitting off from a common ancestry is overwhelming. Every time we try to prove that this conclusion is wrong, new evidence (or technology) comes along and tells us we are on the right track, and to stay our present course.
As I mentioned earlier, good science says "no" to its own conclusions. Evolution as a general theory presumed to possess serious merit, is never considered factual unless or until scientists find irrefutable proofs that support or prove the aforementioned conclusions as accurate. Therein lies a big difference between systems that try to prove things are how people believe them to be, versus systems that assume all hypotheses and theories are wrong unless it can be demonstrated that they are correct.
It is easy to prove or demonstrate that evolution is incorrect because we're looking for things that support our presupposition that it is indeed incorrect. We're not looking for answers as to whether it is or isn't. We look at apes and ask why are apes still apes and men are men. If men and apes shared common ancestors, why aren't all apes gone and changed into humans? This is then added to a long list of other so-called proofs that confirm how evolution is a false notion.
On the other hand, believers in evolution ask the same exact questions, but we put forth theories that, one way or the other, are designed to prove or disprove the idea that we and apes share an intimate heritage. One such theory would ask, "Well, if apes and men are both still around, and men came from apes, then there must be some evidence that man split off from the apes as a separate species. And if this is true, where is the proof for such a wild assumption?"
And indeed, the proof is everywhere in the fossil record. It is abundant, a veritable embarrassment of riches, so to speak, filled with so-called "missing links" of every age and description. All kinds of skeletons indicate how man became not just a different species of ape, but only one of many. And out of those, only one barely survived -- which is ourselves.
So when someone denies a belief in evolution, what they are really saying is that they don't accept what others assert is indicated by the fossil record. They think the rocks themselves are telling us a false story. Even religious scientists don't dispute the fossil record. They just say it's still incomplete. Or that these strange bones are just freaks of nature. That the analysis of such bones in incorrect or improperly dated.
Well, each to his own. And neither are birds, of course, the living decedents of the dinosaurs. It is curious, however, how these heretical evolutionary scientists can be so accurate with respect to dinosaurs, about building rocket ships, curing terrible diseases, fabricating computers, and creating terrible weapons of mass destruction.
But in using the same science, that they can be so completely wrong about the prehistoric origins of human beings. Or birds.