Related Links

A collection of Darwin's work and writing

"Les Origines" by Odilon Redon (1883)  inspired by Charles Darwin. Made accessible by Jean-Jacques Blaison (Thank You)
Source:  Bibliothèque Nationale de France

Charles Darwin, God's Man
By Dallas Cross
June, 2009

It is likely that the controversy following Darwin’s theory of evolution initiated between fundamental monotheists and the proof-bound scientific community may have been in God’s plan all along. First to confound the scholar and secondly to confront the seemingly righteous.

It is becoming apparent that the deeper the scientists probe into the big bang phenomenon the more they run out of causative room. Then, as some astronomical scientists have done, they must surrender to admission that there was an unexplainable initiation of what appears to have been a miraculous plan.

On the other side of the bar, the religious proponents of a geologically recent six day creation of Earth are also confounded by the evidence of  scientific discovery. In the face of geological evidence they resort to literal interpretation of the word in their biblical texts and rationalize it within the context of man’s mortal experience.

Both beliefs can be resolved and made symbiotic through acceptance that the God of creation is both omnipotent and timeless. God without time is voiced  in the bible, and now multi-dimensional time is being used by scientists to explain Universal events. Thus, God in his timelessness would have had an  infinity of time to act and leave physical evidence during each single second in  the time-line known to man; using only a two-dimensional parameter of time.

Thus, God’s revelation to Charles Darwin initiated the process that ultimately questions the position of both groups on creation and man's existence; and evokes to each group a poignant reminder not to sell Him  short! It seems one group has the “Who” but not the “How” and the other group has grasp of the “How” but not the “Who.” Obviously the "When" is somewhere in God's timelessness, and the “Why” is still under  discussion.

Comment on this essay and reach Dallas Cross at