Christianity should be an evolutionary process.

by Philip Bruce Heywood
(Central Queensland, Australia)

Well, Diogenes, Christianity is meant to be an evolution. The Bible is jam packed with evolution. Only it is not the mystical, animistic evolution that attributes creative power to Nature. That is paganism. The word, "evolution" literally means an unrolling, or a staged revelation. Do we immediately see how Christianity is an evolution? The Bible is full of evolution? Here is the concept. Before us, we have a roll of carpet. It unrolls, before our eyes. We may take two approaches. 1) We may assert that the carpet unrolled by its own power. 2) We may assert that some spring mechanism was built into the carpet so that it would unroll. 1) Equals animism, or the attribution of Nature with Divine attributes. 2) Equals rational, scientific thinking -- which of course is one with the biblical world view.

For years, certain factions have been pushing 1). Their explanation of evolution is, "Nature did it." They therefore have shied away from investigating the mechanism of the unrolling -- just as all religions shy away from questioning their deity.

At this time, the mechanism has become apparent -- sufficiently apparent to leave no doubt. The mechanism when applied to the fossil record and to the biblical account (which anyone who can read, can see implies some sort of staged revelation)ends the controversy. There is no longer a controversy. Technology has begun to catch a clear glimpse. Good on you for raising these questions in an intelligent manner. AIG & CO. have no excuse for all the fibbing. I personally advised them of the lay of the land, decades past. They rubbished the facts, so I was obliged to publish the facts, myself. Please see

Philip Bruce Heywood.
ex. Geological Survey of Queensland

Comments for Christianity should be an evolutionary process.

Click here to add your own comments

Sep 08, 2012
by: Paul Pavao (webmaster)

I don't print links in guest comment sections unless they're at least reasonably okay. I don't reject them because they disagree with me, but I do reject them for being useless to dialogue.

Philip's was fine, so I kept it.

Thank you for your contribution, Philip.

Click here to add your own comments

Join in and write your own page! It's easy to do. How? Simply click here to return to Creation Argument Invitation.