Do We Have a Scientific Theory of Creation? You Decide
Kazmer Ujvarosy
March 15, 2006
It is widely believed that the phrase "scientific theory of creation? is a contradiction in terms. Allegedly such a theory can have no basis in science because there is no way to base it on anything observable or tangible. As I?m going to show, this is a misconception.
Based on nature?s observation we know that any organism or system that yields life is itself the product of life. If we know that a tree yields acorns as its output, for example, we know that the tree system itself is the product of a single acorn. We know, in other words, that the mighty oak is simply a parent acorn?s way of making reproductions of itself, just as ?A hen is only the egg?s way of making another egg,? as Samuel Butler reasoned.
In systems terms we find that an initial input generates a system for the production of output in its own likeness. Even if a system?s initial input is not available for observation and experimentation in its potential state, it still exists in a state of expression or field state, i.e. as the system?s formative and controlling principle. What is more, the initial input?s reproductions are most definitely available for observation and experimentation.
Thus, even if an old and giant oak?s parent acorn is not available in its potential state for scientific investigation, the reproductions of that acorn are most definitely amenable to observation and experimentation.
The main point I want to make is that if we can identify a system?s output, then the system?s initial input is inferable based on the output. If we know that a tree yields apples as its output, based on that knowledge it is inferable that a single apple seed constitutes the tree system?s initial input.
So when we are told in Genesis that the Creator generated the universe for the production of man in his own image, we are faced with one unknown agent only, namely with the Creator?s identity. Man is clearly identified as the output of creation, and the universe as the system which produces that output in the input?s image. Because man is named as the cosmic system?s output, based on that information it is rational to propose that man constitutes the cosmic system?s initial input as well.
This scientific theory of creation ? namely, that a man created the universe for the purpose of self-reproduction, similarly as an acorn generates a mighty oak for the same reason ? is supported by the teachings we find in the New Testament.
When in Revelation 22:13 Christ discloses, ?I am the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end,? he identifies himself as the cosmic system?s input and output. Note also John 10:30 where Christ identifies himself as the Creator, parent seed, or Logos spermatikos of the universe: ?I and the Father are one.?
Ironically, many theologians and evolutionists are in the habit of assuring us that the accounts of creation in the Bible are not fact-based, but faith-based. However it is beyond any doubt that this is a misconception. Even Philip, Christ?s disciple, demanded tangible evidence for the Creator?s existence. Christ, without hesitation, presented the Father?s body for Philip?s examination. In John 14:8-9 we find this exchange of words:
Philip said to Jesus, ?Lord, show us the Father, and we shall be satisfied.? Jesus said to him, ?Have I been with you so long, and yet you do not know me, Philip? He who has seen me has seen the Father; how can you say, ?Show us the Father???
Paul in his letter to the Colossians also assures us that Christ is the Creator of the universe, and not something what is intangible or empirically not verifiable:
By Him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible ?; all things were created by Him and for Him. He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together.
Logically Christ, being the generative seed of the universe, is everlasting. The universe has no power whatsoever to act upon the initial cause of its own origin, just as a tree has no power to act upon its own parent seed.
At this point the argument may be raised that man is not the cosmic system?s input and output, or pinnacle of all life forms in the universe. Indeed, whether it is true or not, we can?t be absolutely certain. Precisely for this reason the theory of creation is tentative, just as scientific theories are supposed to be.
In any case just because we are not absolutely certain that man constitutes the existing highest form of life does not mean that the theory of creation is not fact-based, but faith-based. Man?s existence is an undeniable fact. What is faith-based is the speculation that a life form superior to human life exists, which superhuman being is reproductively isolated from human life. But if either evolutionists or fundamentalists keep insisting ? in the total absence of evidence ? that human life is not the pinnacle of life forms in the universe, in that case they are the ones who believe in the existence of superhuman beings. When next time they scorn you for your conviction that a man created the universe for the purpose of self-reproduction, demand contrary evidence. Can they demonstrate the existence of a superhuman being? If the answer is no, they are the ones who irrationally believe that such a being exists.
As a matter of fact Christ never told us that anything superior to his own being exists. He only affirmed his own existence and his identity with the Father, but never the existence of a being beyond and above himself. Being the Creator of the universe, he is most qualified to know that no being superior to himself ever existed.
Based on nature?s observation we know that any organism or system that yields life is itself the product of life. If we know that a tree yields acorns as its output, for example, we know that the tree system itself is the product of a single acorn. We know, in other words, that the mighty oak is simply a parent acorn?s way of making reproductions of itself, just as ?A hen is only the egg?s way of making another egg,? as Samuel Butler reasoned.
In systems terms we find that an initial input generates a system for the production of output in its own likeness. Even if a system?s initial input is not available for observation and experimentation in its potential state, it still exists in a state of expression or field state, i.e. as the system?s formative and controlling principle. What is more, the initial input?s reproductions are most definitely available for observation and experimentation.
Thus, even if an old and giant oak?s parent acorn is not available in its potential state for scientific investigation, the reproductions of that acorn are most definitely amenable to observation and experimentation.
The main point I want to make is that if we can identify a system?s output, then the system?s initial input is inferable based on the output. If we know that a tree yields apples as its output, based on that knowledge it is inferable that a single apple seed constitutes the tree system?s initial input.
So when we are told in Genesis that the Creator generated the universe for the production of man in his own image, we are faced with one unknown agent only, namely with the Creator?s identity. Man is clearly identified as the output of creation, and the universe as the system which produces that output in the input?s image. Because man is named as the cosmic system?s output, based on that information it is rational to propose that man constitutes the cosmic system?s initial input as well.
This scientific theory of creation ? namely, that a man created the universe for the purpose of self-reproduction, similarly as an acorn generates a mighty oak for the same reason ? is supported by the teachings we find in the New Testament.
When in Revelation 22:13 Christ discloses, ?I am the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end,? he identifies himself as the cosmic system?s input and output. Note also John 10:30 where Christ identifies himself as the Creator, parent seed, or Logos spermatikos of the universe: ?I and the Father are one.?
Ironically, many theologians and evolutionists are in the habit of assuring us that the accounts of creation in the Bible are not fact-based, but faith-based. However it is beyond any doubt that this is a misconception. Even Philip, Christ?s disciple, demanded tangible evidence for the Creator?s existence. Christ, without hesitation, presented the Father?s body for Philip?s examination. In John 14:8-9 we find this exchange of words:
Philip said to Jesus, ?Lord, show us the Father, and we shall be satisfied.? Jesus said to him, ?Have I been with you so long, and yet you do not know me, Philip? He who has seen me has seen the Father; how can you say, ?Show us the Father???
Paul in his letter to the Colossians also assures us that Christ is the Creator of the universe, and not something what is intangible or empirically not verifiable:
By Him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible ?; all things were created by Him and for Him. He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together.
Logically Christ, being the generative seed of the universe, is everlasting. The universe has no power whatsoever to act upon the initial cause of its own origin, just as a tree has no power to act upon its own parent seed.
At this point the argument may be raised that man is not the cosmic system?s input and output, or pinnacle of all life forms in the universe. Indeed, whether it is true or not, we can?t be absolutely certain. Precisely for this reason the theory of creation is tentative, just as scientific theories are supposed to be.
In any case just because we are not absolutely certain that man constitutes the existing highest form of life does not mean that the theory of creation is not fact-based, but faith-based. Man?s existence is an undeniable fact. What is faith-based is the speculation that a life form superior to human life exists, which superhuman being is reproductively isolated from human life. But if either evolutionists or fundamentalists keep insisting ? in the total absence of evidence ? that human life is not the pinnacle of life forms in the universe, in that case they are the ones who believe in the existence of superhuman beings. When next time they scorn you for your conviction that a man created the universe for the purpose of self-reproduction, demand contrary evidence. Can they demonstrate the existence of a superhuman being? If the answer is no, they are the ones who irrationally believe that such a being exists.
As a matter of fact Christ never told us that anything superior to his own being exists. He only affirmed his own existence and his identity with the Father, but never the existence of a being beyond and above himself. Being the Creator of the universe, he is most qualified to know that no being superior to himself ever existed.
Print
Email
