I have been very prolific writing obviously this summer, as there is much to say. I am catching up on some programs I wanted to watch, as they relate to the whole idea of origins, and I wanted to revisit a couple of things. We will launch into that now.
In the early 2000s, a mockumentary program called The Future is Wild was aired on Discovery, and I found it quite interesting. To give a synopsis of the series, it envisions a world at 5 million, 100 million, and 200 million years in the future, and it is of course based on evolutionary biology. To be honest, it is good science fiction, and I have watched it now several times. But, here's the big mistake it makes - it is basing its premise on evolutionary biology, and when watching the series it becomes glaring at how inconsistent it is. So, first let us talk about evolutionary biology.
According to the traditional Darwinian scheme of evolution, life evolves from lower forms to higher forms. The problem with The Future is Wild is that it is not consistent with that narrative. For one thing, it seems to have a more cyclical view of time rather than a linear view, and that basically says that evolution keeps repeating like a karmic cycle over and over. For instance, at the 5 million year mark, the earth is supposedly in another ice age, just like it supposedly entered 5 million years ago. However, this time instead of mammoths and other creatures, the primary species are a wolverine on steroids called a "snow stalker," a large killer bird that looks eerily similar to the ancient terror bird called a "Carakiller," and HUGE aquatic birds (that are kind of cute honestly) that supplant extinct whales called "Gannettwhales." Other creatures in this time period include an underground flightless quail called a "Spink," and odd-looking armored rodents called "Rattlebacks." I want to first address the names they use - nothing overly creative, and it is just odd and very funny. Granted, the "spinks" and the other critters can be kind of cute, but it ain't gonna happen despite what some "expert" who has been puffing on too much medical marijuana says. Another aspect of this 5 million year timeline is that the last primates - a species of South American monkey called a "Babukari" - are monkeys! I mean, in all seriousness, if evolution were so dependable shouldn't a scenario more like a real-life Planet of the Apes be playing out instead of monkeys getting hunted by 7-foot killer birds?? Seriously, if apes are still evolving, then chimps and gorillas should develop cognitive skills at that point, correct? The creators of the program say that there was a mass extinction that killed off everything else, and these represent more "resilient" species that survived and evolved. But, it gets stranger as the show goes on, because you will never believe what will develop superior intelligence, and we'll get to that here in a bit.
At 100 million years, all of the ice caps have melted, and there are tepid warm seas that are only a dozen yards deep, and in them are these monster jellyfish colonies called "Ocean Phantoms," which prey on a 400-lb sea slug called a "Reef Glider." Then, there is the Bengal Swamp, upon which roam huge 120-ton tortoises called "Toratons" and also have land-dwelling octopi called "Swampus." In the rivers a huge electric catfish called a "Lurkfish" fries its victims with electrical charges before it eats them (in this case, it seems to have an affinity for "swampus" flesh - the catfish likes calamari on the menu apparently!). Then, this is where the last of the mammals supposedly end their legacy too - the last living mammal is a hamster-sized critter called a "Poggle" that is farmed by monster spiders as a food source - yeah, OK! As you can see, these "experts" had a lot of time on their hands, and when you watch the extended British version of the show, they have these scientists they consult, including a weird guy who looks like a rogue Mennonite by the name of Dr. Bruce Tiffney, and when I researched him come to find out he is more noted for a Gandalfesque wizard hat he likes to wear rather than publishing peer-reviewed work. The caliber of "experts" they chose for this was astounding, and not in a good way - this show is definitely not meant to be taken seriously as some sort of scientific gospel, but it is creative science fiction. But, hold onto your Tiffney wizard hats, because it gets even more bizarre as time progresses!
At the 200 million year mark, the earth is one huge continent surrounded by a huge ocean, and while most of the planet is a baking, dry desert, the coastal areas tend to be rain forests, and this is where it gets even more interesting. For one thing, now that all the birds are dead the fish are flying in the sky, but wait till you hear what the most intelligent creature in that time period is - a squid! These producers of this series must really have a calamari fetish, because the future rain forest has two species of land-loving squid roaming it. The first is a six-ton monster called a "Megasquid," which looks like an eight-legged love child of an elephant and a shitaki mushroom. The second is a little creature that lives in the trees called a "Squibbon," which supposedly is slated to evolve into the next intelligent life on earth. So, in the eyes of these experts, squid will take over the planet in 200 million years! If I were them, I would use a less-spicy marinara sauce with my calamari when going to Olive Garden, because these guys are having some odd dreams.
So, apes evolved into humans, yet apes are going to be facing extinction in 5 million years due to being the top menu items for giant killer birds in the Amazon? And, mammals will die out in 100 million years, with the last one being a cute hamster being herded by huge spiders? And, squid then become sentient beings in 200 million years? Someone really got a few things mixed up in that story in all honesty, and thankfully God has already revealed to us his plan, and it doesn't have a thing to do with us being replaced by squid. The circle-back mentality of the evolutionists who came up with this puts me in mind of Biden's former press secretary Jen Psaki. It shows that evolution is inconsistent with origins, and that these guys who promote it cannot even get on the same page. That being said, let's consider something else I watched in another documentary.
The topic of this one is a creature called an entelodont. An entelodont was a carnivorous prehistoric pig that terrorized much of the world in the period called the Oligocene, but in recent years evolutionary biology is so flawed that it cannot decide what in hell an entelodont was, so now they have it descended from whales instead of being a prehistoric pig. To be honest, many of these creatures they kept saying existed millions and millions of years ago keep turning up in human memory somehow, and that is what probably drives some of these self-proclaimed "experts" nuts. For instance, as I may have mentioned before, the entelodont matches a creature in Greek mythology called the Erymanthian boar, and as for dragons, they are now known by another name - dinosaurs. Too many accurate depictions of ancient art portraying different species of dinosaurs exist to not think they are older, but they seem to be a more recent phenomenon. This is where evolutionary biology needs to be rejected for a more theological/philosophical-based approach called euhemerism. A euhemerist is a person who sees in myths and legends some reality, and as a Christian euhemerist, I would view many legends and myths in the following way - a core truth somewhere lies at the base of the myth, and much of the embellishment over the years has corrupted the truth to the point that when the Enlightenment came, it rejected mythology because the embellishments were all they saw and not the core conviction that inspired the myth. This is what I believe is the case with ancient creatures such as dinosaurs, entelodonts, and dare I say it, even Jonah's giant fish - who can deny that the possibility exists, for instance, that the fish that swallowed Jonah could have been a megalodon or something? And, that leads me to some conclusions I have come to which make both the Bible make more sense as well as unraveling some of the inconsistency of Darwinian evolution.
In reading the Bible, there are passages we often dismiss as being mere allegory when they may actually be an eyewitness account. Jonah's story is obviously one of those - the well-worn identification of "Jonah and the Whale" is something we have heard countless times, and some things about it never made sense until you start looking at it from a more euhemerist perspective. The Biblical account specifically says "fish" and not whale, for one thing, and even translators schooled in ancient Biblical languages see it. Ancient people were not as stupid as we sometimes think they were either - I think a cursory look from an ancient man at a whale would make it evident to him that it is not just a fish, and they knew the difference. We are sometimes arrogant in our lens of history in that we assume that man was somehow stupider in ancient times than we are now, but in reality, man has always had the same intelligence but maybe hadn't been able to dissect information like we did, but it does not mean they were stupid or lacked something. Ancient man described what he saw based on how he could express it, and that is why if he were to come across a sauropod dinosaur or even a monster like T-Rex, it would be easy to conclude that such a creature fit the description of a dragon or other beast. Man also could always tell the difference between a shark and a whale too, and I am sure early man understood the shark as a fish and not anything else. Therefore, if the biggest fish that ever existed could swallow a man like a sesame seed, who is to say that Jonah didn't encounter something like a megalodon? When we start reading Scripture like that, it starts to make sense. And, the post-Flood change in the atmosphere - less oxygen - would have also resulted in reduced lifespans for people and reduced sizes of animals to conserve oxygen. Basic biology and physics explain the Flood perfectly then, as well as its effects years later. A lot more could be said about this, but you get the idea. In other words, true science confirms true Revelation, just like the "Two Books" idea of both Aquinas and Bonaventure confirm.
In closing, this would merit more discussion, and you will see it once I revise my Genesis study into its own book. Years of studying these types of things has brought me to a place both scientifically and theologically. From a scientific perspective, the overwhelming evidence is that patterns in nature point to a design, an order, and that would be called Intelligent Design, or ID. From a theological perspective, one looks at the Genesis account, and it plainly says GOD created everything, so this is a theological position called Biblical Creationism. The two are not mutually exclusive, but rather complimentary. And, it really makes the circular karmic cycle of Darwinian evolution look more silly. Thanks for allowing me to share, and looking forward to visiting again soon.
No comments:
Post a Comment
No solicitations will be tolerated and will be deleted
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.