Skip to comments.Evidence for Creation
Posted on 04/27/2004 9:41:42 AM PDT by Lost Highway
CRI PERSPECTIVE CP0103
EVIDENCE FOR CREATION?
The idea that God created the world and life is often thought to have been disproved by evolutionary theory. Is there any scientific evidence for creation?
The truth is that the scientific evidence overwhelmingly supports creation. Let me attempt to point out just some of this evidence here. First, the scientific community is now almost unanimous in affirming that the universe had a beginning. This is usually referred to in scientific terms as The Big Bang Theory. Of course, this implies that someone or something brought the universe into existence.
Secondly, the universe bears all the marks of having been finely tuned to make life possible. For example, the elementary forces of gravity, electromagnetism, and the atom are precisely what they need to be. The earths size, distance from the sun, rotational period, composition, and many other factors are all just right. The chances of there being even one planet where all of these factors converge by accident are very slim indeed.
Thirdly, the evidence is mounting that life on earth simply could not and did not come into existence through natural processes in a primordial soup. For example, the experiments to prove that it could have happened are suspect because little progress has been made possible due to the ingenious designs on the part of experimenters.
Fourthly, the genetic code of all biological life on earth contains evidence of intelligent design. This is because the genetic code contains information comparable to the information in complex computer programs as well as information in books.
Fifthly, the fossil record continues to be an embarrassment to the Darwinian theory of evolution. The many transitional forms which Darwin predicted would be found simply have not surfaced. This fact has forced evolutionists to modify Darwins Theory, often in absurd ways. In short, it is the theory of naturalistic evolution which is in serious trouble scientifically today, while the Biblical teaching of creation never looked better.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
We recommend The FACE that Demonstrates the Farce of Evolution by Hank Hanegraaff (B511/$17.00). Also, Darwin on Trial by Phillip Johnson (B290/$13.00). These resources are available through CRI's online bookstore by clicking on the title or by calling our Resource Center at (888)7000-CRI or by mailing a check or money order to PO Box 7000, Rancho Santa Margarita, CA 92688-7000.
The Big Bang was not an explosion. It was a rapid expansion of space-time.
In other words, science text books could all be reduced down to one page of answers to explain all natural & supernatural phenomena with the answers consisting of any variation of "Because God did it" or "because God wanted it that way".
Sounds like science to me!
For the first, I give you the President;
for the last, I give you Carville.
There is usually not enough levity in these threads.
'See,' said he, 'how his legs are formed for wading! What a long slender bill he has! Observe how nicely he folds his feet when putting them in or drawing them out of the water. He does not cause the slightest ripple. He is thus enable to approach the fish without giving them any notice of his arrival!
'My son,'said he,'it is impossible to look at that bird without recognizing the design, as well as the goodness of God, in thus providing the means of subsistence.'
"'Yes,' replied the boy, 'I think I see the goodness of God, at least as far as the crane is concerned; but after all, father, don't you think the arrangement a little tough on the fish?'"
With the exception of the Hindus, I think we all agree we're here. The article deteriorates from this point.
Read The Science of God by Gerald Schroeder (an MIT physicist).
Schroeder also (this is important!) happens to be a Jew, and correctly points out that the word for world/earth used is aretz, or adamah, IIRC, or some word that carries the implication that the flood disaster may have been a localized REGIONAL event.
A real eye opener of a good book, written by a physicist who holds a Biblical understanding.
Schroeder points out continually that there's less discrepancy between Biblical and scientific understanding than the popular culture would have us all believe.
I agree with this statement and so do many others.
There's an interesting debate going-on at ISCID:
There is only one problem with Darwinian evolution. It is the same problem that Lamarckian evolution has presented. Both Have failed endless critical experimental analyses. Accordingly, both must be rejected. Lamarckism has been largely rejected. Why Darwinism survives is a mystery. I hope I may be forgiven for introducing my own Semi-meiotic Hypothesis, but the simple undeniable fact is that it has not been subjected to experimental analysis. Until it is it must be considered viable. There is also evidence accumulating from molecular biology that fundamental gene families common to huge groups of organisms have existed since very early in evolutionary history, which certainly is compatible with the notion that chromosome restructuring alone can serve to release novel genetic expressions which were latent and unexpressed perhaps for many millions of years. Both the Semi-meiotic Hypothesis and the correlated Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis have yet to be even recognized, let alone tested. It may prove that there is really no significant role for micromutational (base pair) genetic alterations in determining evolutionary destiny. In any event, as I and others have indicated, there is no compelling evidence that evolution above the species level is even occurring. That certainly is the perspective of Pierre Grasse, Robert Broom and of all people, the author of "Evolution: The Modern Synthesis", Julian Huxley, not to mention myself. Godfrey Hardy felt that mathematics existed independent of the human condition and needed only to be discovered. I accept that interpretation and have chosen to extend that prefomed concept to include the whole of science to include evolution which I now regard as essentially an emergent phenomenon prescribed just as certainly as were the conic sections, the periodic table of the elements and all of Newtonian physics and Einstein's relativity. Science is nothing but the discovery of what is there. That is the best evidence against the Darwin/Wallace hypothesis. They discovered nothing. They simply reacted to their common reading experience with the works of Malthus and Lyell. The laws of physics have been discovered. The laws that have driven evolution (past tense) will ultimately be discovered. When that finally occurs, and I firmly believe it will, both Lamarckism and Darwinism, like the Phlogiston of chemistry and the Ether of physics will become nothing but historical curiosities.
~Nosivad (John A. Davison, Ph.D.)