Evidence for Creation

Christian Research Institute ^ | Christian Research Institute

[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 earth’s 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 Darwin’s 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.

[Lost Highway]

Brief, but I am sure it will stir the pot. ;-)

[gg188]

"As a conservative site, Free Republic is pro-God..." Jim Robinson

Great article in keeping with the FR philosophy.

[Sacajaweau]

They had a committe of evolutionary scientists on a TV program (with Buckley I believe). In the end, 90% of the scientists said but "there is something else" to evolution.

[John H K]

Brief, but manages to encompass all the typical Creationidiot claims and mistakes...

1) Confusing the evolution debate with the origin of life debate. They're two different issues. You can believe God, Yahweh, Allah, gray aliens, Xenu, etc. created life and still be an evolutionist.

2) Claiming "there are no transitional fossils" which is,of course, a flat-out lie. Anyone claiming such is either a liar, or the stupid dupe of a liar.

http://www.holysmoke.org/tran-icr.htm

[gg188]

"Evolution: the mother of all junk science." - gg188

[Junior]

Ping.

[maestro]

Your# 5...........

"Evolution: the mother of all junk science." - gg188

BTTT

[woofer2425]

Considering that once an object in space moves in one direction it continues on that course and speed unless some other force causes the object to change direction or speed.

If there is an explosion in space (ie Big Bang) and debris is going in all directions at once, all in a straight line away from the center of the explosion. How can bits of matter, that are moving away from each other at a very high rate of speed, come together and form planets and other large bodies?

[PatrickHenry]

You really think this thread is worth the effort?

[KillBill]

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. - Agreed basically universally.

Secondly, the universe bears all the marks of having been "finely tuned" to make life possible. - Disagree. There are literally billions of stars, and there are ranges of cosmological constants that would cause life for each of them. Besides, you CAN NOT analyze probability from only one case.

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." - Agreed. Nobody even claims to have an answer for this.

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. - How is DNA like a book or computer program exactly. They both contain information?

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 Darwin's Theory, often in absurd ways. - For one, the fossil record is obviously incomplete. Also, what absurd ways are there.

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. - I find their conclusion suspect, and that though there are significant problems with the current theory of the origin of life, there are more significant problems with the biblical account.

[LiteKeeper]

YEC SPOTREP

[gdani]

The truth is that the scientific evidence overwhelmingly supports creation

Ahh, yes.

I eagerly await scientific evidence for:

* People living to be hundreds of years old
* Talking bushes & serpents
* Woman being created from the rib of a man
* "Adam" & "Eve" being the first humans

And other such biblical phenomena

[Alamo-Girl]

Thanks for the ping!

[jdege]

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?

No.

And there can't be.

Scientific examination of the history of life, of the earth, of the universe, are founded in the principle of uniformitarism - the idea that the rules under which the universe and the earth and life was formed are the same as those operating today.

This isn't a discovery, or a theory - it's a postulate.

The question scientists ask isn't "what happened?", but "how can we best explain what we observe given our fundamental presupposition that the laws of nature are fixed?".

And the very nature of divine intervention steps entirely outside of that postulated framework.

Could the Universe have begun in a six day act of miraculous creation, 6000 years ago? Certainly. But as a miraculous act operating outside of our observed laws of nature, it is outside the domain of science.

If the Universe was created miraculously, it was created with an apparent history. And the scientists are busy studying how that history would have played out, had the Universe actually lived through it, instead of having been created with it.

Are there aspects of our understanding of the history of the universe that are contradictory or confused? Yes.

But does the balance of the evidence suggest an instantaneous creation some reasonably short time ago? Absolutely not.

There are lakes, in Scandinavia, that have layers of silt on the bottom. We can observe these layers being laid down year by year - one layer every year, delineated by changes in composition from winter to summer.

We can drill down and extract cores, showing 30,000 or more such layers. If the Universe was created 6,000 years ago, it was created with a lake that already had 24,000 layers in place.

[smokinleroy]

You can believe God, Yahweh, Allah, gray aliens, Xenu, etc. created life and still be an evolutionist.

I agree. One cannot logically believe in the literal, all-at-once (6-day) creation story with zero Darwinian evolution, and at the same time believe the literal story of Noah's ark. To do this is to assert that every species alive today (besides sea creatures) exists only because it lived through the flood on the ark. I don't know how many species are claimed to exist today, but I'd bet it's orders of magnitude more than could live several months on a boat built by a small number of men over a few decades. Either the flood did not destroy all land life or evolution occurred after the flood. What do the strict creationists say about this?

[Gefreiter]

"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 earth’s 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."

This is a common argument but it puts the cart before the horse. Life forms developed on this planet in a certain manner because it developed and evolved to respond to the existing conditions here, not because God shopped around the universe looking for just the right planet to plunk down humans.

[antiRepublicrat]

Secondly, the universe bears all the marks of having been “finely tuned” to make life possible.

Finely tuned for life as we know it to be possible. They have it reversed: life evolves according to the situation, therefore life the situation will appear optimized to that life. If the "tuning" were different, then life would be different.

Playing the odds question is very disingenuous. What are the odds that we appeared as we do? Extremely low. Of course, what are the odds of anything else specific appearing? Also extremely low. What are the odds that something would appear? My guess is pretty high. The odds game assumes that we were the target of evolution.

If you don't understand that, think of the lottery. The odds of any one person winning the jackpot are absurdly low, but the probability that someone will win approaches one after a while.

[newguy357]

I eagerly await scientific evidence for:

* People living to be hundreds of years old * Talking bushes & serpents * Woman being created from the rib of a man * "Adam" & "Eve" being the first humans

And other such biblical phenomena

That is really not the issue. It comes down to whether or not one believes there really is a God who created everything. If yes, then how would that God have any trouble keeping people alive for hundreds of years or creating a woman from the rib of a man? If no, then of course it's all impossible. That's the issue.

As for whether or not the flood and creation are true, I think Pascal answers it wisely: "Shem, who saw Lamech, who saw Adam, saw also Jacob, who saw those who saw Moses; therefore the deluge and the creation are true. This is conclusive among certain people who understand it rightly."

[Junior]

Probably not. Just included for the sake of completeness.

[biblewonk]

"Evolution: the mother of all junk science." - gg188

I'll bump that.