An Article I Wrote

This is some really eclectic and weird stuff, but anyway I'd like you all to read this.

-------------

Last Sunday I was left in a whirlwind of doubt. Being a Young-Earth Creationist (a very misunderstood and unpopular stance, not only in today's secularly-dominated scientific arena but also among many groups of professing Christians), I was suddenly attacked by a wave of confusion regarding the entire philosophy of the general theory of evolution in all its forms: biological, geological and stellar (outer space).

“Could the Theistic Evolutionists and Old-Earth Creationists (Christians who believe in either biological evolution or a 5 billion-year-old earth/14 billion-year-old universe, or even both) be true?” I asked myself. “Maybe God did use evolution...maybe the earth IS old, after all, and there was a possibility of animal deah before Sin entered the world through Adam...what if we're wrong?” I was left in a dizzy, and was generally moody throughout the rest of the day.

However, by the grace of God I was able to discern later on, through the aid of some articles and a bit of memory regarding past studies, that behind the seeming “scientific truth” of long-aged development of the universe and its inhabitants is a paradigm that is not only irrational, but also runs contrary to Scripture--the end-all and be-all basis for conservative creationist scientists. The paradigm--or worldview--in question is naturalism, with its 18th-century offspring, uniformitarianism.

Naturalism assumes that only material nature exists (e.g. natural laws--laws of physics, chemistry, etc. This belief is also known as materialism, and is held by atheists/agnostics) and that only naturally-observed phenomena may be used as a criteria for determining not only how everything operates, but also how everything came into existence. Uniformitarianism, popularized by the lawyer-turned-geologist Charles Lyell, is related to naturalism in that it INSISTS that today's geological features MUST be explained by--and ONLY by--untold ages of erosion, sedimentation, tectonic movements, etc. all operating at uniform, present-day rates over the course of time (hence the name).

One can immediately see how absurd this kind of thinking is, because it ASSUMES unchanging, gradual processes as bases in making further assumptions on how old a rock formation is or how it got there in the first place, all while ruling out any unpredictable and cataclysmic events that might have acted as wildcards. This ruling paradigm has become so widely accepted that an entry on “catastrophism” (a naturalistic, albeit more realistic, take on geology that allows for the possibility of catastrophic events in shaping the geological history of the earth), which runs contrary to uniformitarian principles, declared it as a bankrupt idea.

From here we can see that behind most of secular historical science (a science that theorizes about the natural history of the earth, and is actually far more philosophical than scientific in nature)--in this case historical geology--lies an a priori commitment to materialistic worldviews that assume only the existence of matter and impersonal laws, and nothing else besides. In the end, my response to the old-earthers and the theistic evolutionists on the age of the earth and universe is this: “Why is it necessary for you to assume LONG AGES when those who have popularized the idea thereof have actually birthed it from flawed philosophies?”

But even more importantly, I learned about the importance of being well-grounded. Paul instructed the early Christian believers residing at the ancient Roman cities of Ephesus and Collose to establish their lives in Christ and the Holy Scriptures, so as not to be carried about by “every wind of doctrine” (Ephesians 4:13-15) and “spoiled” through vain, deceitful philosophies (Colossians 2:7-9). But what does my explanation on a historical scientific stance have to do with Thursday's event?

While at the Women's Month celebration held in Bonifacio Shrine, I noticed a set of displays on abortion. Being a conservative, pro-life Christian, I could not help but agree with the message that abortion is simply another form of murder; a throwback to the humanistic and evolutionary dogmas of “eugenics” promoted by the Nazi scientist Ernst Haeckel, who employed subtle deceptions in order to convince the public of the necessity of the Third Reich's ethnic-cleansing quest for the Aryan “master race”. However, one thing caught my eye. A picture of the severed head of an infant contained the caption “Freedom of choice??”

Hmm. Freedom of choice, indeed? Pro-choice advocates treat human life as if it were nothing more than a mere inconvenience to be disposed of at the will of a fellow human being. But let us not forget one of the underlying factors in the enactment of abortion: the consent of the mother. And feminists have gone a long way just to lobby that “right” (which is still being disputed, by the way). Remember the Roe vs. Wade case in the US? The 1973 court battle that legalized abortion-on-demand? It's still being trumpeted by radical feminists as a triumph of “Women's Rights”.

It's a good thing that the Philippines is still somewhat conservative as a nation. In today's liberal atmosphere it's good to find a stable landmark every now and then. But I have to admit that I was taken aback by the display on abortion in a feminist fair. I have no complaint on teaching women livelihood activities (noodle-making, haircuts, etc.), but the display on abortion revealed to me the vast inconsistencies within the feminist camp. It's practically a given that any philosophy that was never rooted in Christ and the Bible to begin with will eventually implode, and this is solid evidence (in fact there are three general types of feminists known, but I won't mention them now). Why? Because the message generated by the “freedom of choice???” poster directly contradicts the “woman's right to choose” rhetoric we often hear abortion advocates trumpet.

In a moment I had been dazzled, but after realizing this I walked away from the exhibit with a heavy heart. We so often blind ourselves to that which we do not wish to see. It is a blessing to know that there are still people who will fight for the right of a so-called “blob of flesh” claimed to be part of the woman's body so long as it doesn't have human features, but then again it must be asked: on what BASIS are they fighting for it? I was primarily confused because here was a philosophy that supports the "woman's right to choose" fighting for the life of the unborn. The one thought racing through my head was "Maybe I was wrong about the feminists. Maybe they ARE right."

A casual look at the DIWA pamphlet I picked up when I first came to Bonifacio Shrine set me aright once more. One of their lectures was on dating, and some of the topics involved how patriarchal constructs and power influence dating. "Wait...these people still seek to turn everything upside down. So on what basis are they willing to defend the life of an unborn child? Is it because life is sacred (which generally religious Filipinos wouldn't deny) or is it because the fetus and the woman are victims of an 'aggressive and heartless patriarchal society'?"
I am terribly sorry, but I am NOT a supporter of the Women's Movement, nor will I ever be one. Just as I stand my ground on the issue of the origin of the universe, so likewise I stand my ground on the issue of feminism. I have too much respect for the (complementarity of the) opposite sex to subscribe to the ideologies of the Sisterhood!