On Evolution/Creation Science

Let me begin by saying that I hold no particular expertise in this subject. I have studied this subject  from both sides, and I rely heavily on the work that the Institute for Creation Research has done in compiling very useful articles and resources.

The first thing that needs to be said is that evolution is a belief system. It is part of the religion known as scientism. At its heart, this places man in the position of absolute control, and removes God from the equation altogether.

Oddly, as a consequence of this assumption, man becomes an insignificant speck with no meaning in the grand scheme of the universe.

However, the main ramification of scientism is this: if man cannot understand it, it cannot be possible.

The first step to evolution is to remove God from the equation. Evolutionists assume that God cannot have created the world, and so they are forced to find other theories, none of which work.

[Edit: A friend of mine pointed out that there are Christians who believe in evolution. While I believe that this is a very unstable position, it is a distinction that should be made regardless. For the purposes of this article, “evolutionist” will assume non-theistic evolution.]

Consider these “brilliant” statements by militant atheist Richard Dawkins:

Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose .

Even if there were no actual evidence in favor of the Darwinian theory, we should still be justified in preferring it over all rival theories.

It is almost as if the human brain were specifically designed to misunderstand Darwinism, and to find it hard to believe.

I could go on. This is indicative of the mindset pervading modern science.

That being said, creation science is not without its own demons. While I, of course, would consider myself squarely in this camp, it seems that the Creation Science groups in general have taken some unhelpful turns.

One error (and this is not all creation scientists, it is simply a common pitfall we must all be aware of) is to assume that science is inherently atheist, and that all science must have God at its core to be valid. While God is indeed the root of all knowledge and the Great Scientist, it is evident that He has used heathens to advance our knowledge. Einstein was a gnostic Jew. Alan Turing (inventor of the computer) was a homosexual. Philo Farnsworth (television pioneer) was a staunch Mormon. God uses these pagan men to bring glory to His Name, no matter how much they might fight it.

The second error is that we often think we have to prove ourselves to the “scientific community,” often by listing out names of other scientists who support Creation. This shows that we still believe the accepted “scientific community” to be the standard by which we judge our work. And when it comes down to the wire, we won’t win the name-dropping war.

With these common pitfalls noted, we charge ahead. We fight evolution at almost every turn. Most people don’t actually think about it that much, but its influence is evident. I’ve heard many of my (Christian creationist) friends talk about how we are stardust, and about the “apparent” age of the universe.

First, I’ll address why it’s important to have a good understanding of Creation, as a Christian. Even if you start to go down the Theistic Evolution path, you have already ceded the battle. God’s Word tells us what happened. Our job as scientists is to figure out what exactly that was and how to take dominion of it.

Once we start to question what the word “day” means in the Creation account (hint: it means “day”), we have started to question God’s reliability. We ignore the ~6000 year age of the earth/universe found in Scripture (read your “begats” and you’ll see). We accept the age of the universe as screeched at us from the “scientist community.” This accepted age, by the way, is calculated from experiments based on the assumption that the universe was created at the Big Bang. In other words, it relies on presupposed values which happen to be presupposed because it is presupposed that there is no God. Since it is based on an assumption and not empirical evidence, should it even be considered science?

Recent evidence has also come to light that suggests that the half life of radioactive elements commonly used in dating techniques is not fixed. It would be like suddenly discovering that all of your 12″ rulers were shrinking at a rate that you were not previously aware of. Carbon-14 dating, which is not reliable anyway (too many parameters are ignored, and it is only accurate to around…6000 years) is about to be scientifically proven to be unreliable. It has been suggested that the source of this irregular half-life is tied to some kind of solar bombardment (perhaps neutrinos). What then, now that decay rates have been shown to be variable?

Another argument for the age of the universe comes from the observation of the heavens. If a certain star is 52 million light-years away from Earth, then the Earth must have existed for 52 million years in order for us to observe that star.

I point you to a few very good articles:

To sum this point, the recent Creation is absolutely supported by science. One must simply remove the rose-tinted glasses that are placed over our eyes by the unGodly world.

A digression into the age of the universe was necessary, because a young Earth simply does not support the incredible spans of time called for by evolution.

However, evolution is deeply flawed. As many evolutionists have insinuated, it is the current reigning theory only because there is nothing better to be had (Creation is out of the question of course). Design makes sense, but of course, we, Man that we are, know better.

Don’t let anyone tell you that the fossil record supports evolution. Not even evolutionists believe this:

 “The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major transitions in organic design, indeed our inability, even in our imagination, to construct functional intermediates in many cases, has been a persistent and nagging problem for gradualistic accounts of evolution.” – Stephen Jay Gould

“Contrary to what most scientists write, the fossil record does not support the Darwinian theory of evolution because it is this theory (there are several) which we use to interpret the fossil record. By doing so we are guilty of circular reasoning if we then say the fossil record supports this theory.” – Dr. Robert West

In fact, the very laws of the universe seem to contradict evolution. In this controversial paper, Granville Sewell shows that entropy and the Second Law of Thermodynamics prevent order of this magnitude to arise. The Second Law states that disorder will increase in the universe (outside of an intelligent force acting on it to prevent it from doing so). We can see this on a basic level when we neglect to mow our lawns: weeds and thorns take over; it is only when Man imposes order on it by cranking up a lawnmower, that order is brought to the system. Natural causes cannot produce order: they only produce chaos.

From this line of reasoning, and it is a strong one, evolution (being an impersonal force) cannot produce a human brain from random collisions of molecules. That is an upgrade in order, as it were. An incredibly structured and well formed system cannot arise from natural causes of random molecular interactions.

Of course, the main problem with evolution is that it simultaneously turns Man into both an animal, and into a god. Paradox? Yea, but it’s not something I would jump on. It’s just odd. The problem is with these individually, rather than together.

Man is not an animal. Man was created a little lower than the angels, in the image of God. In the words of Kepler, the father of planetary science:

 Geometry is one and eternal shining in the mind of God. That share in it accorded to humans is one of the reasons that humanity is the image of God.

In other words, the reason we can understand the universe and our place in it, and the animals cannot, is because we are created to.

Man is not a god. We are in the image of God, and we are meant to do His Work and be “little gods” as it were, but when we put ourselves in place of big “G” God, we replay the Original Sin.

Because modern science thinks of man as god, it thinks that anything it cannot explain in the absence of the true God is wrong. Creation is wrong because God doesn’t exist (makes sense actually). It’s a presupposition of atheism.

One more article: Distant Galactic Cluster Should Not Exist.

When we presuppose that God does not exist, we are forced to come up with new ways to think about the universe that simply don’t work. But we don’t need to do that. Because God has given us a record of His Work, both in the Scriptures (special revelation) and in His Creation (general revelation).

It’s especially painful to me when Christians fall into these traps and try to place one foot in both camps. We must realize that we are not smarter than God. We interpret Creation as God’s work, because it is. We’re not supposed to fit God around “what we think we  know.” We fit “what we think we know” around God, because “what we think we know” changes constantly, but God never changes.

Christian, hold fast to your faith. God created the world by the word of His power, in the space of 6 days, and all very good. Those who do not believe that have opened the door to unbelief and allowed God’s Name to become sullied and disrespected. Let that never be said of us, O Lord.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s