Creationism

QUESTION: What is creationism?

ANSWER:

Creationism is one of only two possible origin explanations for our universe and all the life that we see on planet earth. The alternative explanation to creationism is evolution through random natural processes. Some have proposed a mixed blend called Theistic evolution that has a deity creating matter with the ability to self-evolve. Others have proposed that we are just one of an infinite number of universes to avoid the need of explaining away the astronomical odds against the incredible design of life being generated through randomness. Certainly, no evidence exists for these theories.

Many in the secular world see creationism as a religious belief as opposed to one of the only two origin explanations. They see science as supporting evolution and only religion supporting creationism. One reason they have that view is that the definition of science has been changed within the last century. The 1934 edition of Webster’s New School dictionary defined science as “acknowledged truths and laws, especially as demonstrated by induction, experiment or observation.” The current issue of the Oxford Dictionary of Current English defines science as, “the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.” The search for overall truth has been left out and science has been limited to the natural world. This would exclude creationism as a possible origin in science, by definition. This makes evolution the only possible scientific explanation.

Since both definitions agree that we should learn through observation and experiment, we should examine the origins using those criteria along with reason. Let’s examine what scientific observations, experiments, and rationale support biological evolution. First, we need to define biological evolution. To qualify as an explanation, evolution first needs to explain how original life came from inorganic matter. Secondly, it needs to explain how all life formed from original life.

• Did anyone observe the origin of life?
• Did anyone observe all the species being formed from another species?
• Did anyone observe any species being formed from another kind or species with or without help from us?
• Has anyone found fossils that represent transitional forms that would be expected if the theory of evolution were true?
• Are the fossils found in the lowest Cambrian layer only partially formed compared with their life forms today?
• Do we have more species that exist today compared with what we know existed at any earlier time?
• Have experiments made life from non-living matter?
• Have experiments to cause mutations in fruit flies been able to improve the design so their survival chances would be better?
• Have natural scientists consistently presented facts and icons of evolution that have been credible?
• Has the explosion of new information about DNA, RNA, the complexity of the cell and the irreducible complexity of the cell supported evolution?

The answer is “no” over and over again! Scientific observations do not support biological evolution! What about the icons of evolution that have been presented in textbooks for almost 50 years? Don’t these icons support biological evolution? Some of these do show microevolution within species. This type of evolution, even if it permanently points in one direction, is not evolution. It is no more evolution than dog breeding. However, if a dog could be bread into a cat, that would be evolution. Even icons like the peppered moths that were only examples of microevolution, used pinned dead moths on black tree trunks that were not a natural resting place for the moths. Hackle’s embryos, ape-to-man drawings, the horse series, Piltdown Man, Nebraska Man, and others were all shown to be frauds. The literature is full of people finding new bone fragments and claiming them as the missing link only to be discredited later.

Do scientific observations support creation? All the above evidence against evolution supports creation. In addition, all the new information being learned in microbiology strongly supports creation. Evolutionists never questioned that life has apparent design. Now the unimaginable complexity of DNA and the cell have left evolutionists without a clue as to how such a thing could possibly evolve. In addition, Michael Behe discovered that the cell is irreducibly complex. It needed all of the complex chemicals and machinery to function. The cell could not have evolved through natural selection because it wouldn’t function without all its parts. Now scientists are finding evidence of human devolution in our DNA. Our basic blueprint is being degraded. Consequently, rather that evolving we are devolving.

This is completely consistent with the second law of thermodynamics and what the Bible teaches. Man that was once very large and able to live for almost a thousand years is now smaller and lives only about 70 years. The evolutionists were correct in their assertion that the debate is science vs. religion. They just didn’t realize that their science is being dictated by their religious beliefs and that real science supports the Theistic religious position. Rather than contradicting Theism, science validates it.

This article is also available in Spanish.