http://www.halleethehomemaker.com/wp-content/themes/desk-mess-tripled
 

Creation: Meanings, Intent, & Truth

Posted by Gregg on Oct 11, 2009 in apologetics, Christian Faith, Creation, homeschooling |

s42875ca107509_9A guest post today from my awesome husband, Gregg.

How Important are Meanings?

In two earlier posts, I discussed the importance of premises. I want to devote today’s thoughts to meanings. What does it mean to, for instance, say that something IS a thing that it plainly is NOT?

There are numerous words to describe this when it happens such as: misrepresent, obfuscate, prevaricate, and lie. And it is almost always damaging.

The damage it can do is apparent, for instance, in referring to pornography as art. Clearly, pornography is not art. Why is it so obviously NOT art and where is the line of demarcation? In other words, how do we quantify the meaning of the difference?

davidThe simple answer in finding meaning is to determine the intent. In depicting a bare human form in artistic ways, Leonardo DaVinci’s statue of David, for example, was intended to exemplify Psalms 8:5.

For You have made [man] a little lower than [God] (Elohim – often mistranslated as angels or other)…

His one time master asked him why he always drew people nude and DaVinci answered, “I want to draw men as God sees them.” His master answered wisely, “But Leonardo, you are not God.”

Nevertheless, his intent was to depict how God must view His perfect creation which He crafted in His own likeness. In other words, his intent was to glorify God by uncovering the beauty of God’s creation, removing every artifice created by man.

Pornographic images are not intended to glorify our Creator. They are intended to invoke lust, inspire sexual fantasy, and tease a physiological response so that consumers seek even more lascivious pornographic images to satisfy flesh bound lusts.

What does any of this have to do with Creation? It comes back to intent.

From its very beginning, the spread of evolution has been based and spread through misinformation, error, and outright fraud. It is a theory without a basis in scientific fact, upon which has been erected a great mass of erroneous dates, conjectures, and assumptions.
— Vance Farrell, Science vs. Evolution 2nd Edition (2006)

Intent:

A wealthy and somewhat lazy man, Charles Darwin, the son of a Medical Doctor in England, had almost no training in the biological or physical sciences. He spent his life measuring things with wooden rulers, talking to farmers about crops, attending séances, raising pigeons (he was a huge fan of pigeons), worrying about his various ailments, and trying to devise a theory that might explain some way in which everything could come from nothing.

The only degree he ever mustered was a degree in Divinity, which back then required a 5th grade level of Sunday School attendance. To be sure, he was never a scientist. What do you think the meaning, the intent, might be in always referring to Darwin as something he clearly wasn’t?

beagleHis father paid the captain of the H.M.S. Beagle a handsome sum of British Pounds Sterling to get Charles out from under foot for a few years. The captain instantly created a ship’s position of “gentleman’s companion” and pocketed the cash. There was no such posting on any ship at sea up to that point, and there was not prior to nor since a posting as a “naturist” as Charles so grandly entitled himself in his book about the voyage. The truth is he did not occupy any kind of official billet. He was, in point of fact, glorified cargo, simply human ballast. What do you think the meaning, the intent, might be in calling his position something it wasn’t?

Spiritually, he called himself a Christian, yet he attended numerous séances in his life to the point of attempting to conjure demons, and also practiced what he called “spiritism” alongside a South American shaman. What do you think the meaning, the intent, might be in calling himself a Christian when he basically practiced witchcraft and made it his life’s mission to discredit the truth of God’s creation?

titlepageIn November of 1856, Darwin published his first edition of ON ORIGIN OF SPECIES BY MEANS OF NATURAL SELECTION OR THE PRESERVATION OF THE FAVOURED RACES IN THE STRUGGLE FOR LIFE. They liked long titles back then. And while his first edition goes to great lengths to explain what “FAVOURED RACES” are, it does not really touch on anything related to the ORIGIN of anything. He continuously claimed that his next revision would include evidence and more explanations. In every edition, all six, there is no new evidence nor even any theory about any kind of origin to be found. Darwin never dared to publish a theory on the actual origin of the species — how life originated from non-life. Like modern Darwinists today, he had absolutely no idea how it could have occurred outside of God’s creation. What do you think the meaning, the intent, might be in grandly entitling his book ORIGIN OF SPECIES when it has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with origins, not a single word in any edition you can find speaks to it. What does that mean, to name something a thing that it was not?

A new film is being distributed in the US as I post this. It is entitled CREATION. The film allegedly deals with a young Charles Darwin’s struggle with his Christian faith after “discovering” how life REALLY began. Likely, the film will not address, in any way, the reality of the hopeless flaws in Darwin’s cute little notion of cross-species evolution. It likely will not depict the young Darwin attending séances or trying to conjure demons. It may or may not mention that he married his first cousin, Emma. It will certainly remain silent on the fact that the man himself recanted the notion that natural selection could ever result in macro-evolutionary change, or that his very own book does not deal with creation or origins in any way at all.

Darwin never struggled with his Christian faith. He held belief largely in contempt and felt that true believers were useful idiots. His contemporary, Thomas Huxley, the man who Darwin called “my bulldog” found it amusing to bait and verbally trample believers based on the fact that their faith required them to forgive him for browbeating them.

creationposterSo, what does that mean? What do you think the meaning, the intent, might be in entitling this film CREATION after God’s holy creation of the universe and all life in it –when in reality, it will deal primarily with yet another attempt at destroying a foundational belief of the Christian faith?

In simple terms, it is ALL slight of hand, misdirection, misinformation, error, and outright fraud.

It is a pack of lies.

All of it.

It is pornography pretending to be a work of art.

And that tradition has continued all the way up to today, calling a pig’s tooth Nebraska Man, calling a human skull fused to a chimpanzee jawbone Piltdown man, falsifying data, gluing moths to trees, and on and on and on all the way up to today’s 6th grade textbook which proudly displays Ernst Haeckel’s fraudulent embryos.

Truth:

What do you think it means when man claims he is infallible when the fact is that man is always fallible? What do you suppose the intent would be when Darwinists shout over and over that “Evolution has been proven! It’s a scientific fact!” when the truth is quite the opposite? They do not entreat you to believe their fairy tale, they intimidate, lie, trick, harrass, threaten, and accuse people into belief.

What do you think that means? What do you think the intent might be?

Numbers 23:19 tells us that God is not a man that he should lie. In Genesis 1 and again in Exodus when handing down the 10 commandments, God tells us through His word that in the beginning, He created everything in six days. Jesus Christ asked in Matthew 19:4 Have you not read that He who made man at the beginning made man male and female?

Do you choose to believe God who is perfect? Do you choose to believe Jesus who lived a sinless life? Or do you choose to believe man who is fallible? Where do you put your trust? Whose intent do you trust might more often have your best interest at heart?

simpleorganismsThe truth is that there is scientific evidence that the earth is much, much less than billions of years old. There is evidence of complexity, vast amounts of information, in even the “simplest” living organisms. There is so much information; the complexity is so inexplicably vast it takes warehouses of computers to even store it all. There is a beauty and a symmetry to the design of the solar system, the planets, the galaxy, and the universe. So astonishingly beautiful, ordered, and fine-tuned for our existence.

And there is a hunger, a thirst, a need in man that cannot be met by anything here on earth. It can only be sated by the breaking of bread, the drinking of living water, the knowledge of truth. There is a desire in man that cannot be met by anything, cannot be satisfied by anything, cannot be assuaged by anything outside of knowing our Creator.

God Bless you and yours. Gregg

Resources:

Additional Posts dealing with Creation and Darwinism

Related Posts with ThumbnailsPin It
Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Copyright © 2009-2017 Hallee the Homemaker All rights reserved.
Desk Mess Tripled v1.0 theme from HalleeTheHomemaker.com.

Copyright © 2009 - 2017 Hallee the Homemaker All Rights Reserved.