Different Strokes, Part II

As I was reading last night, I found Genesis 25:27 to strike me as fascinating:

When the boys grew up, Esau became an expert hunter, an outdoorsman, but Jacob was a quiet man who stayed at home.

As you may recall, these brothers were twins, born from the same womb at the same time, sired by the same father.

Yet they had totally different natures.

I'm sometimes discouraged that I'm not the outdoorsy, hard-working, energetic man my father is, so that I could be of more help to him around his house. I'm pretty confident that I disappoint him in this regard.

Reading this passage from Genesis helps to soothe my ruffled feathers about this issue though, as it's clear that God has given each of us our own nature.

I remember hearing someone once explain that the famous passage in Proverbs 22:6 actually means "train up a child according to his bent", and I see that the Amplified Version thus renders it:

Train up a child in the way he should go [and in keeping with his individual gift or bent], and when he is old he will not depart from it.

Again, the implication here is that we each have our own nature; some of us are born to be athletes; some are born to be musicians; some are born to be thinkers.

I would love to be more helpful to my dad around the house, but it's just not my nature, any more than it was Jacob's nature. (But unlike Jacob, I don't cook, nor do I swindle my siblings out of their birthright.)

One more point before leaving this passage: here's another Biblical example of "variation on a theme". Very often in discussions with evolutionists I find that they don't get the difference between "Evolution" and "variation on a theme".

"Variation on a theme" is Biblical; you can see it in this passage, and in the whole story of the earth's population in all its colors and sizes descending from Noah and his three sons, and in the passage just a bit farther in Genesis when Jacob does selective breeding.

Variation on a theme is the idea that a pair of ancestral dogs got off the ark and then "evolved" into jackals and dingoes and wolves and foxes and Chihuahas and St. Bernards, but this variation comes about by loss or rearrangement of existing genetic information.

"Evolution", as in "microbe-to-Man", requires new genetic information to come into existence.

Yet when evolutionists are asked for evidence of Evolution, they inevitably trot out examples of "variation on a theme", such as microbes becoming resistant to antibiotics (caused by a loss of the ability to process a certain protein) or light moths "evolving" into dark moths (a mere rearranging in the "popularity" of one set of genetic information over another), or fruit-flies irradiated in the lab developing a second set of wings (a mere duplication of already-existing genetic information).

What evolutionists need to demonstrate is the development of new, never-before-existing genetic information (and lots of it!); otherwise their inadequate examples of Evolution makes Evolutionists of even the staunchest Creationists, for Creationists believe in this type of "micro-evolution", or more aptly, "variation on a theme".