did man come from?
10) creation science
would be very difficult to explain why the universe should have begun
in just this way, except as the act of a God who intended to create beings
creationism law, which requires creationism be taught wherever the theory
of evolution is explained, is unconstitutional, a U.S. Court of Appeals
Press, July 9, 1985
What is creation science?
science is the study of origins with respect to the Bible's account
of God's creative acts. Creation science, to a degree, is also amenable
to the presuppositions of assorted theists outside of Bible-based Christianity.
Creation science is based in part on the following observations/arguments:
- the universe (which
is space, time, and matter) had a beginning,
thus it had to have been effected by a pre-existing cause,
- the cause
(which had to pre-exist space, time, and matter) must have been independent
of the space, time and matter it preceeded: i.e., was independent of space
(limitless), independent of time (eternal), and independent of matter
- the more than 150
of extremely fine margins and interrelated relationships by which the
properties of the earth and universe provide habitable conditions,
indicating earth's primordial
conditions were likely similar to today's conditions,
- the impossibility
of living cells to arise by chance
(as even attested to by the discoverers of DNA),
- the virtual impossibility
of mutations to
favorably add to the genetic code,
- the incapability
of natural selection
to advance and improve pre-biological systems into biological ones,
- multiple and complex
life forms and all the animal phyla appearing abruptly
in the fossil record (the Cambrian
- the fossil record
displaying zero species-to-species transitional forms (as attested by
scientists from Darwin
himself to modern day paleontologists),
- the reduction in
the number and type of animal
species rather than the increase as evolutionary models predict,
- the irreducible
complexity of numerous biological systems (which Darwin stated
would refute his theory if existant),
structures such as DNA
requiring an intelligent design agent,
- planetary geology
more or less according to the geologic model of catastrophism,
- the history of erroneous
and falsified findings
by evolutionists, and the ongoing maintenance of those falsifications,
- the absence of evidence
for any material, extraterrestrial
- the presence of parallel
accounts between the Bible and scientific observations
concerning the origin of the universe,
- the presence of parallel
accounts between the Bible and scientific observations concerning
- the presence of parallel
accounts between the Bible and scientific observations concerning humanity,
- belief in Scripture
to be the word of God.
How important is Scripture to creation science?
The belief in Scripture
to be the word of God is foundational to creation science; it is the starting
point. Creation science begins with the belief that God is our progenitor,
and from there applies the natural sciences to confirm that belief.
Intelligent design theory,
by contrast, neither employs Scripture nor invokes any presupposed being
as part of its worldview. IDT evaluates the physical universe on the basis
of whether or not it bears any evidence or characteristics of having been
creationists affirm nearly every aspect of intelligent design theory. The
only substantial difference is that creationists begin with Scripture-based
reasoning which declares God is be our designer, and wax certain of it as
they see it confirmed in the evidences of the natural sciences. (See natural
revelation for more explanation.)
The last word on evolution vs. creation
As mentioned before,
Darwin was concerned about the lack of evidence for his conjectures and
hoped confirming evidence would eventually be found. After well over a century
of searching for the first of what was expected to be billions and billions
of transitional specimens, not one has been found. This did not send evolutionist's
running to the Bible, but it did cause them to abandon Darwinism for punctuated
equilibria, and later punctuated equilibria for directed panspermia.
Now with the latest
progress of science and study by Hoyle, Behe, Denton, Crick, Wickramasinghe,
and others, the very foundation of all non-theistic theories of life's origin
has been shaken with the conclusion that life
could not have arisen by chance.
increasingly attribute life and the cosmos' origination to "god". Not
god in the sense of the God of the Bible, but god in the sense of an indescribable
cause which has effected the universe and all life contained therein; a
cause some conclude cannot be physically or scientifically ascertained.
This unknown god is
one that non-theists can comfortably reference because, for them, it is
simply a place-card until such time a preferred answer comes along. Their
unknowable, unidentified god is one they call upon to fill in the gaps in
their evolutionary worldview as did medieval scientists who invoked a god
for their own shortcomings. Such a god makes no demands of them, does not
care how they live, and can be as influential or comfortably non-existent
as they want.
As was explained in
6.3, all premises are matters of faith. The premise taken in
believing the Bible (that there is a God) has been shown to result in a
reasonable explanation of the universe, the planet, and life around us.
The reasonableness of this belief was the goal of these sections, although
much more may have been accomplished.
Meanwhile, the premise
of no-God has been shown to result in a conclusion that approaches irrationality.
The no-God worldview is such that it still requires invoking a god to bridge
gaps of logic and evidence. Of
course, it is to be expected that some version of a no-God origin will always
be believed. Owen Chadwick writes of Darwin's time,
The public accepted
the doctrine of evolution for a bigger reason than the simple probability
established by Darwin, namely that, if they did not, their mental picture
of the origins suddenly became an intolerable blank. 65
In other words, evolution
is the crutch of atheism. For lack of amenable evidence, a committed
atheist has nothing else on which to lean but the leading evolutionary belief
of the day. Today's evolutionary belief appears to prefer the logical
error of either infinite regression (or spontaneous generation) to the sound
conclusion of believing that life was created by the God of the Bible; the
same God who has evidenced himself in history, in Scripture, and in person.
Once again, the frustrated surrender to illogic by George Wald, the 1971
Nobel prize winner for biology:
I will not accept
[creation] philosophically because I do not want to believe in God. Therefore
I choose to believe in that which I know is scientifically impossible
- spontaneous generation arising to evolution.
Is not the evidence
that does exist - evidence which points to creation - a better foundation
for belief than blind and unevidenced faith in erroneous logic? It is, for
those who believe in evidence and have the courage to accept the conclusion
regardless of their presuppositions.
NEXT: What is the nature of Life?
Where did the earth come from?
Where did the universe come from?