The Logic of Biblical Creation

Intstitute for Creation Research ^ | August 2008 | Henry Morris, Ph.D.

[Sopater]

Evidence for Creation

 

The Logic of Biblical Creation

by Henry Morris, Ph.D.

This month, creation scientists from all over the globe are gathering in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, for the sixth International Conference on Creationism. The modern creation movement is largely considered to have been launched by the 1961 publication of The Genesis Flood by Dr. Henry Morris and Dr. John Whitcomb. In honor of our founder, ICR is featuring the following article in which he clearly and succinctly presents the reasons we can believe and defend the Genesis account of creation.

---

The biblical account of creation is ridiculed by atheists, patronized by liberals, and often allegorized even by conservatives. The fact is, however, that it is God's own account of creation, corroborated by Jesus Christ (Mark 10:6-8, etc.), who was there!

We are well advised to take it seriously and literally, for God is able to say what He means, and will someday hold us accountable for believing what He says! Furthermore, the account is reasonable and logical, fully in accord with all true science and history. The following chain of logic, while not compelling belief on the part of those who refuse to believe, at least demonstrates the reasonableness of biblical creation.

It is axiomatic that there are only two possible basic models of origins--that is, of the origin of the universe, of the earth, of life, of human life, and of all the basic systems of the cosmos. These are, in simplest terms, evolution or creation. Either the origin of things can be understood in terms of continuing natural processes, or they cannot--one or the other. If they cannot, then we must resort to completed supernatural processes to explain the origin of at least the basic symptoms of the cosmos. Evolution and creation thus exhaust the possibilities, as far as origins are concerned.

This necessarily means that if we can "falsify" (that is, demonstrate to be false) either model of origins, then the other must be true. There is no other option. By definition, evolution should still be occurring now, since it is to be explained by present processes.

Present Processes

If there is anything certain in this world, however, it is that there is no evidence whatever that evolution is occurring today--that is, true vertical evolution, from some simpler kind to a more complex kind. No one has ever observed a star evolve from hydrogen, life evolve from chemicals, a higher species evolve from a lower species, a man from an ape, or anything else of this sort. Not only has no one ever observed true evolution in action, no one knows how evolution works, or even how it might work. Since no one has ever seen it happen (despite thousands of experiments that have tried to produce it), and no one yet has come up with a workable mechanism to explain it, it would seem that it has been falsified, at least as far as the present world is concerned. This does not prove it did not happen in the past, of course, but the evolutionist should recognize that this means it is not science, since it is not observable. Evolution must be accepted on faith.

What about the Past?

Actually, there is no evidence at all that evolution ever took place in the past either. In all recorded history, extending back nearly five thousand years, no one has ever recorded the natural evolution of any kind of creature (living or non-living) into a more complex kind. Furthermore, all known vertical changes seem to go in the wrong direction. An average of at least one species has become extinct every day since records have been kept, but no new species have evolved during that time. Stars explode, comets and meteorites disintegrate, the biosphere deteriorates, and everything eventually dies, so far as all historical observations go, but nothing has ever evolved into higher complexity.

But how about prehistoric changes? The only real records we have of this period are presumably to be found in the sedimentary rocks of the earth's crust, where billions of fossil remains of formerly living creatures have been preserved for our observation. Again, however, the story is one of extinction, not evolution. Numerous kinds of extinct animals are found (e.g., dinosaurs), but never, in all of these billions of fossils, is a truly incipient or transitional form found. No fossil has ever been found with half scales/half feathers, half legs/half wings, half-developed heart, half-developed eye, or any other such thing.

If evolution were true, there should be millions of transitional types among these multiplied billions of fossils--in fact, everything should show transitional features. But they do not! If one were to rely strictly on the observed evidence, he would have to agree that past evolution has also been falsified.

The Necessity of Creation

If evolution did not occur in the past, and does not occur at present, then it is entirely imaginary--not a part of the real world at all. This leaves creation as the necessary explanation of origins.

This fact is also confirmed by the best-proved laws of science--the law of conservation in quantity and the law of decay in complexity, or the famous First and Second Laws of Thermodynamics. The First Law notes that, in all real processes, the total quantity of matter and/or energy stays constant, even though it frequently changes form. A parallel principle in biology notes that "like begets like"--dogs are always dogs, for example, though they occur in many varieties. The Second Law notes that the quality of any system--its usefulness, its complexity, its information value--always tends to decrease. In living organisms, true vertical changes go down, not up--mutations cause deterioration, individuals die, species become extinct. In fact, everything in the universe seems to be headed downhill toward ultimate cosmic death.

The First Law notes that nothing is being either "created" or "evolved" by present processes. The Second Law notes that there is, instead, a universal tendency for everything to disintegrate, to run down, and finally, to "die." The whole universe is growing old, wearing out, headed toward ultimate stillness and death. This universal "increase in entropy" leads directly to the conclusion that there must have been a creation of things in the past; otherwise, everything would now be dead (since they are universally dying in the present).

Again, we are driven to the logical necessity of a primal creation--a creation that was accomplished not by present natural processes, but by past supernatural processes. This means, however, that we cannot deduce anything about that creation except just the fact of creation. The processes of creation, the duration of the period of creation, the order of events--all are hidden from us by virtue of the fact that our present observed processes do not create--they only conserve and deteriorate!

The Necessity of a Creator

Nevertheless, there must have been a creation and, therefore, a Creator! Being the Creator of the infinitely complex, highly energized cosmos, that Creator necessarily must be omniscient and omnipotent. Having created life, as well as human personalities, He must also be a living Person. No effect can be greater than its cause.

Therefore, He is fully capable of revealing to us knowledge about His creation--knowledge which could never be learned through studying present processes. It almost seems that He must do this, in fact, since He surely is not capricious. He would not create men and women who long to know the meaning of their lives, yet neglect or refuse to tell them anything about it.

Assuming, then, that He has revealed this information to His creatures, just where is His revelation to be found? There are numerous books of religion, ancient and modern, but their cosmogonies do not contain any account at all of the creation of the universe.

The answer, therefore, has to be in His record of creation in the book of Genesis, for there is no alternative. There are only three creationist "religions" in the world--Christianity, Islam, and Judaism--and all three base their belief in creation on the record of Genesis. Without exception, all the other religions and philosophies of the world have based their beliefs concerning origins on some form of evolutionism. That is, they all begin with the universe (space, time, matter) already in existence, then speculate how the forces of nature (often personified as various gods and goddesses) may have generated all the systems and living creatures of the world out of some primordial watery chaos. Only Genesis even attempts to tell how the universe itself came to be.

Genesis: God's Record of Creation

Whether most people believe it or not, therefore, the creation account in Genesis is God's record of His creation. Jesus Christ also taught this truth, so surely any true Christian should believe it. This account does not allow even the possibility of evolution, since everything was created "after its kind" (Genesis 1:24), and since, after six days of creating and making things, God "rested from all His work" (Genesis 2:3), and so is no longer using processes which "create" things, as theistic evolutionists believe. Instead, He now is "upholding all things" (Hebrews 1:3) through His law of conservation--the "First Law."

Space does not allow documentation and further discussion here, but even this brief summary demonstrates the logic of biblical creationism. Although one may escape from this chain of logic if he wishes, the fact remains that the chain is logical and reasonable. When mixed with faith, there is peace and joy in believing God's straightforward, rational, simple, satisfying, and truly scientific account of creation in Genesis.

Adapted from Dr. Morris' article "The Logic of Biblical Creation" in the July 1990 edition of Acts & Facts.

*Dr. Morris (1918-2006) was Founder of the Institute for Creation Research.

Cite this article: Morris, H. 2008. The Logic of Biblical Creation. Acts & Facts. 37 (8): 10.

From http://icr.org/articles/3960, copyright © 2008 ICR

[ConservativeDude]

Here we go!

[stuartcr]

How does creation really matter? It’s not like anyone can prove it beyond a doubt.

[J40000]

He’s right. There is NO evidence of evolution - only theory.

[onedoug]

Six days in fifteen billion+ years relativistically. Same-same.

[Sopater]

How does creation really matter? It’s not like anyone can prove it beyond a doubt.

1. Do you believe the Bible is God's word?
   
   
2. If so, do you think He got the first book (Genesis) historically wrong?
   
   
3. If not, is it because you think that "science" has shown that God wasn't needed to create everything?
   

Faith in evolution has done more to cause people to believe that the Bible is just a book written by man in ancient history that has some good suggestions on how to live a good life than any thing else in history. If evolution is true then the Bible is wrong. That's perfectly OK if it's true, however "science" has offered no proof that evolution is true. In order for one to believe that both can be true, one must re-interpret the Bible to fit with the faith of naturalistic evolutionism. This is not necessary since the proof of evolutionism does not exist.

[stuartcr]

No

It’s because I don’t see the importance in knowing how everything was created.

[Tao Yin]

Sometimes creationists really stretch logic and reasoning.

I, myself, am a creationist. The Bible is the literal, inerrant word of God.

However, two points need to be made.
1) God requires faith.
2) God creates perfect.

If God requires faith, we need to believe without seeing. This means that creationism will never be able to be proved. Subsequently, evolution will never be able to be disproved.

What would be the implication if there was no fossil record?

God creates perfect. When He created the Earth, He created the entire ecosystem. This means He created plants in all stages of growth: from seed to decay. He created poop on the ground because part of the ecosystem needs poop to survive. And I bet some of the poop was still warm. And I bet there was an animal near the still warm poop even though the animal didn’t in fact poop it out.

Our scientific knowledge will never grow significantly to disprove the validity of the fossil record. It will always look plausible that evolution might have happened.

It would appear that God placed the fossil record as a red herring. A perfectly plausible explanation other than God, so that man would need faith to believe otherwise.

Of course, this line of reasoning has been discounted in the past (can’t remember the official name), because this implies that the Earth could really be 1 minute old with all of our memories as mere forgeries.

But the final outcome is that man is not an accident, but was created special by God. We are not mere animals, but humans created in the image of God.

[Soliton]

I read it. Thanks for posting it. Where is the Logic of Biblical creation? Forget all the fales statements about evolution. Let’s discuss the science that supports creationism.

What is it. Doesn’t creationism violate your Second law of Thermodynamics? Even a wave forming on the sea violates it.

How is creationism chronology consistant with the fossil record?

How is the creation of man as unique explain the very close association of the Human and Chimpanzee genome.

How is it possible that the earth was created before the sun and stars? Physics tells us that the heavier elements comprising the earth were formed in stars before the earth formed.

How old is the earth and how old is the sun? Explain why creatioists are right and the physists are wrong.

Thanks again for posting.

[B-Chan]

Activating PX-78 Nuclear-Fired Popcorn Poppers now, sir!

[PC99]

Biblical creation is a hypothesis, but you can never test it. The Hindu creation myth is more logical than the Judeo-Christian one - its longer time scales are far more consistent with the observations of astronomy and geology.

[Doomonyou]

Later

[tacticalogic]

How does creation really matter? It’s not like anyone can prove it beyond a doubt.

IMHO, for practical purposes it mostly doesn't. There are a few issues like where to build facilities for long term storage of nuclear waste where we rely on current geological theory. The evidence and methodology we're using produces "old Earth" conclusions.

We rely on the geologists to tell us where the locations are that have been and will likely remain the most geologcally stable. The YEC proponents disagree with their assesments of the age of the Earth, and the evidence and methodology they're using, but I have yet to see them offer any kind of alternative that can be used to make those determinations.

Another area that will have practical implications is research they're doing in the Antartic analyzing ice cores. They've got chamical anaylsys of the layser that they say shows that global warming is a natural cyclic event, and helps disprove the global warming alarmist view that man-made CO2 emissions are responsible. They count the seasonal layers in the ice back to about 400,000 years BC. To be consisten with YEC theory, no evidence that the Earth is over about 10,000 years old is admissible.

[Sopater]

Doesn’t creationism violate your Second law of Thermodynamics?

No, it was a supernatural event.

How is creationism chronology consistant with the fossil record?

What exactly is the chronology of the fossil record?

How is the creation of man as unique explain the very close association of the Human and Chimpanzee genome.

A common designer.

How is it possible that the earth was created before the sun and stars? Physics tells us that the heavier elements comprising the earth were formed in stars before the earth formed.

Physics also tells us that the Sun should have 700 times the angular momentum of the combined planetary angular momentum (Nebula Theory). However, it only accounts for 2% of the solar system's angular momentum. Physics models have a long way to go before they can "tell us" anything with any kind of certainty regarding the formation of the universe.

Explain why creatioists are right and the physists are wrong.

Who says one theory is right and the other is wrong? Both creationism and evolutionism are based on faith. Can't prove either.

[Zionist Conspirator]

Six days in fifteen billion+ years relativistically. Same-same.

Sopater, I have no intention of getting into this thread, but I do want to point out that the notion that the Six Days of Creation = the fifteen billion years of evolution is the creation of Dr. Gerald Schroeder, a concordist Modern Orthodox scientist. It is not the teaching of CHaZa"L.

The main problem with people like Schroeder is their hypocritical inconsistency. They listen to the words of science only up to a point (Day Six) at which point they suddenly stop their ears and become fundamentalists. On what grounds do they do this? Why do they defer to science until Adam arrives but then suddenly insist that he spoke Hebrew, the original language until the Tower of Babel? Why do they ignore linguistic science that claims that Hebrew is merely one language among many and is descended from older languages?

He also accepts the universal Flood, the "giants in the earth," the whole deal. When science contradicts him he refuses to listen. Yet he tells us that this same science that is in error on these other matters is correct in its judgment of the veracity of the Six Days.

Perhaps there are some people who, for whatever reason and despite the internal contradictions and inconsistencies in their thinking, can simply understand Creation in no other way than that taught by modern science. Well and good. However, those who do not have this problem do not need the "solution" which Schroeder has dreamed up.

As to how Creation actually occurred, the mass of mankind has no total explanation. It has the summary in the Torah, none of which can be dismissed as contrary to "natural law" by any believer, but which is certainly full of many mysteries. And it has the theories of modern science. I prefer the former to the latter. However--

There are and have always been people to whom has been revealed exactly how Creation took place. This is very esoteric knowledge--so esoteric that it may not be expounded before more than two people at once. These people know (and I am not one of them; so I choose the closest that I will ever get to it--the account in the Torah). Jewish theistic evolutionists often invoke this tradition against literal creationists and say "see, you don't know what happened." But they hypocritically neglect to mention that neither do they. Only the people who have received this tradition know what it is. And as I said, I am not one of them.

Perhaps one day you will convert to Judaism and become so great a sage that you will receive this knowledge. At least it's something to think about.

[Sopater]

Perhaps one day you will convert to Judaism and become so great a sage that you will receive this knowledge. At least it's something to think about.

Perhaps. Can I convert to Messianic Judaism? ;-) God bless.

[Wonder Warthog]

"How does creation really matter? It’s not like anyone can prove it beyond a doubt."

Actually, science has proven it. It's call the "Big Bang". Originally theorized by a Roman Catholic priest-astronomer (George LeMaitre), and verified by a couple of American radio-astronomers, who got the Nobel prize for doing so.

[Dog Gone]

To demonstrate how stupid this article is, it spends all its time saying either evovlution or creation is true, and then spends the rest of the article with bogus arguments against evolution.

So why can’t an opposite article be written saying evolution must be true because the evidence for creation is not there?

The argument that there are no transistional fossils is a big damn lie. There is no other way to describe it, because surely nobody is so stupid to believe it unless they’ve never seen a fossil in their life.

If you have to lie in order to keep your congregation in line, that says something.

The evidence for creation a few thousand years ago is not there. Not genetically, not radiometrically, not in the fossil record. Attacking evolution with utter falsehoods does not make creation true.

Stick to the truth and see where it leads you.

[Soliton]

The totality of your argument is just have faith, so why talk about logic and science at all. The answe to all of your questions would honestly be “because that’s the way God wants it.”

The whole Creation “Science” thing is a deliberate lie, not to convert scientists, but to give believers a little vaccination against the truth.

It has never worked before. It won’t work this time either. Churches are dying for the same reason newspapers are. People want the truth. They can recognize the truth and they know that churches and newspapers aren’t the places to find it.

[Texas Songwriter]

How does creation really matter? It’s not like anyone can prove it beyond a doubt.

I think a more relevant question is "What is TRUTH? What is the TRUTH about TRUTH? If TRUTH is that which describes actual affairs, does it matter? I believe both honest evolutionists and honest theists would agree on this point.

[Texas Songwriter]

Shall we go over your questions one-by-one, or do you want a more comprehensive answer?

[stuartcr]

I think that truth would be something that can be proven to all...something that goes beyond a need for belief.

[Soliton]

Shall we go over your questions one-by-one, or do you want a more comprehensive answer?

Whatever works best for you. However, we are having a logical, scientific discussion, so supporting evidence and citations would be helpful

[Dog Gone]

How is it possible that the earth was created before the sun and stars?

Better yet, without the Sun being created on the fourth day, how were the previous days measured?

And how the heck did He create those stars 6,000 years ago when they're thousands of light years away from us and should be invisible since we shouldn't see anything more than the handful of stars less than 6,000 light years away?

[Non-Sequitur]

He’s right. There is NO evidence of evolution - only theory.

One could say the same about creation.

[Texas Songwriter]

I think that truth would be something that can be proven to all...something that goes beyond a need for belief.

Given the fact that a species has never been observed evolving to another species, how can we prove evolution is truth. Do we use forensics, the Laws of Noncontridiction, Law of Causality? What tools will you allow?

[Dog Gone]

Why did God create any other planets in this solar system?

[Soliton]

Better yet, without the Sun being created on the fourth day, how were the previous days measured?

Every creationist I ask that has a different definition of day. It doesn't mean day at all. Even though evening and morning is mentioned, it is a different meaning for them too. Ultimately the whole Bible becomes a Rorschach test because every word has infinite meanings.

[Dog Gone]

Impossible. Every word is literal and if you don’t believe that, you’re going to hell.

[Soliton]

“However, two points need to be made.
1) God requires faith.
2) God creates perfect.

If God requires faith, we need to believe without seeing. This means that creationism will never be able to be proved. Subsequently, evolution will never be able to be disproved.”

You are one of the few here that understands that. Faith is a talent. You have it.

[stuartcr]

As far as I’m concerned, anyone can use anything they want. If their method makes everyone accept it as truth fine, if not, then it ain’t a truth.

That’s why I see no need to know.

[onedoug]

Schroeder did not create general relativity. Rather it seems to be an inherent (observed) property of existence...if it doesn't break down in more comprehensive theories (superstrings).

You're giving Schroeder short-shrift regarding his work. But then, it seems no other view, nor wish to comprehend something of the way in which God builds the world, is to be entertained but your own...whatever that is.

[Dog Gone]

By the way, I know why we can see the light from stars created only 6,000 years ago but are far further away than that.

It’s the same reason we find transistional fossils in rock formations far older than 6,000 years ago.

It’s a practical joke!

[onedoug]

Why did God create any other planets in this solar system?

"If I knew God I'd be Him."

But it seems as stabilization, for one.

Earth couldn't exist without its Moon, nor without the other planets to fill slots outside the habitable zone, least of all Jupiter whose ability to sweep up cometary/meteoric material that would otherwise have been drawn to the inner solar system was demonstrated in our lifetime.

[Sopater]

So why can’t an opposite article be written saying evolution must be true because the evidence for creation is not there?

Because lack of evidence is not enough to make such a statement. The evidence is all the same for both creationism and evolutionism. It's the interpretation of the evidence that differs.

The argument that there are no transistional fossils is a big damn lie. There is no other way to describe it, because surely nobody is so stupid to believe it unless they’ve never seen a fossil in their life.

Kick and scream all call people names all you want, however no fossil ever found has been proven to be transitional between an upper and lower level species on the great tree of life. Homology is not sufficient evidence for transitional species since DNA profiling has shown in many instances that the correlation cannot be consistently made.

The evidence for creation a few thousand years ago is not there. Not genetically, not radiometrically, not in the fossil record. Attacking evolution with utter falsehoods does not make creation true.

Nor does claiming that all of the evidence belongs to the evolutionists make evolutionism true. Keep the faith, that's what you have. Anyone who says that evolutionism is a fact is either intellectually inept or dishonest. At least I'm willing to admit that my belief is based on faith.

Stick to the truth and see where it leads you.

All of the evidence supports the truth.

[Sloth]

How is it possible that the earth was created before the sun and stars? Physics tells us that the heavier elements comprising the earth were formed in stars before the earth formed.

While I have little but contempt for creation "science", your questions are equally silly. You know perfectly well that the creationist explanation is supernatural. If God exists, he is not bound by laws of conservation, thermodynamics, causality, etc.

[Dog Gone]

Earth couldn't exist without its Moon

That's the first time I've heard that. We'd just vanish?

[Sopater]

If God requires faith, we need to believe without seeing. This means that creationism will never be able to be proved. Subsequently, evolution will never be able to be disproved.”

You are one of the few here that understands that. Faith is a talent. You have it.

The same can be said in reversal. Evolution will never be able to be proved. Subsequently, creation will never be able to be disproved. Both are based on faith. Faith is not "blind", it is based on evidence.

[Sopater]

Earth couldn't exist without its Moon

That's the first time I've heard that. We'd just vanish?

Without the moon, the oceans would stagnate and everything in them would die.

[stuartcr]

If something cannot be proved or cannot be disproved, what does it matter how someone believes?

[Zionist Conspirator]

Schroeder did not create general relativity. Rather it seems to be an inherent (observed) property of existence...if it doesn't break down in more comprehensive theories (superstrings).

I didn't say that he did. I said he created this particular form of concordism. If he did not create it, he is its most well-known popularizer.

You're giving Schroeder short-shrift regarding his work. But then, it seems no other view, nor wish to comprehend something of the way in which God builds the world, is to be entertained but your own...whatever that is.

Let the man cease his blatant screaming inconsistency as to when he will be a scientist and when he will be a fundamentalist. At any rate, neither he, you, nor I are among those to whom the details of creation have been expounded.

[Dog Gone]

“Transitional fossils” is not a hard search to make using an internet search engine. You will not only find evidence, but you will find evidence that your position isn’t accurate.

But if you are able to rationalize it away, which is probably possible internally if you’re not required to justify the reasons to others, you still are not providing evidence for creation.

The strongest arguments for creation are, “evolution is false” and “because the Bible tells me so.”

Neither one is based on any positive quantifiable evidence in support of creationism. They’re just word arguments.

I have no desire to change your beliefs about creation. I’ll just remind you that only one side has evidence.

[onedoug]

Without the Moon there would be no stabilization for Earth on it axis thus no seasons. There would be no tides. There would be no eclipses, thus no offsetting of perihelion to have verified general relativity with. The terrestrial tectonic environment would also likely be different by the absence of tidal activity in it, where, were that true, we wouldn't be here to discuss it.

God's Grace....

[Zionist Conspirator]

Perhaps. Can I convert to Messianic Judaism? ;-) God bless.

Lol! I take that in the obvious spirit in which it was offered.

Actually, all Torah Jews are messianists (though the Messiah is not the heart of Judaism). Ironically, it is chr*stians who for some seventeen hundred years turned against messianism, favoring a "realized eschatology" in which a "spiritual messiah" ruled over a non-literal "spiritual kingdom" metaphorically from heaven. It is "Messianic chr*stianity" rather than "messianic Judaism" that is the odd bird in its family.

Chr*stianity was utterly anti-messianist for centuries until the emergence of Fundamentalist Biblical Zionism as we know it today. Rather than refer to "Hebrew chr*stians" as "messianic Jews," it is Fundamentalist Zionists who should be referred to as "Messianic chr*stians" (and, as the ancient Middle Eastern churches observed a while back, "Zionist chr*stianity is not chr*stianity at all").

It is most sadly ironic that "Hebrew chr*stians" have chosen the "messianic" adjective since their form of chr*stianity is only two or three hundred years old and is thoroughly unknown to authentic, historical, anti-messianic, and ultimately anti-Biblical, chr*stianity proper.

[tacticalogic]

As near as I can tell, we're all going to Hell according to someone.

[Dog Gone]

The tides would be less, but the Sun also causes tides. And tides aren’t the driving force in the ocean in any event.

[stuartcr]

Of course, God could have designed it all differently...

[Soliton]

Impossible. Every word is literal and if you don’t believe that, you’re going to hell.

Of course every word is literal, but every word has many meanings and connotations and context. Besides, they weren't written in english and the English that has been used for translation over time has also evolved overtime.

[Soliton]

While I have little but contempt for creation "science", your questions are equally silly. You know perfectly well that the creationist explanation is supernatural. If God exists, he is not bound by laws of conservation, thermodynamics, causality, etc.

This article is by the Institute for Creative Science. Of course you are right. If God exists then the laws of physics aren't laws at all.

[onedoug]

I disagree. I see God by the electricity He made by which we so converse. And matter, E=mc². His Grace we live.

I think...