Physical evidence cannot provide absolute certainty of knowing things. Physical evidence can be used to test the plausibility or error in explanations of physical phenomena. But physical evidence cannot be used to establish absolute knowledge of anything. Why? Because there is more that we do not know than which we do know. Everyday new discoveries are made that change our understanding of the world. For example, in a 1999 issue of The Scientist, the discovery of brain mesenchyme cells was reported. Such cells are undifferentiated and can be used to generate new brain tissue. This dispelled decades of belief that brain cells in adults do not generate new growth. What else do we not know and awaits our discovery?
I was an evolutionist until my third year of college. I switched positions after I gained new insights about the subject of origins. I was trained in evolution since elementary school, and was indoctrinated in evolution in high school and in college. As a prerequisite to earn my doctorate in microbiology, I was required to take a class specially prepared just for me (just me and the professor) on evolution. Upon completion of this class, the professor reported to my committee that I demonstrated a superior knowledge of evolution. In spite of this “superior” knowledge, he gave me a B for the course citing that I would probably always remain a creationist. My grade reflected the professor's attitude toward my belief rather than my knowledge of the class material.
I am excited about creation science as a field of study because it offers a cohesive model of everything that exists, consistency with scientific laws, and a wide open field for pioneering investigators. There are several creation models being researched and compared, and much speculation and modeling are taking place. This healthy practice of science is revealing a fresh perspective on the world’s origins. Most importantly, the creation model has a legitimate role in science. Evidence of initial events points to supernatural origins. The purpose of this presentation is to show why creation models are reasonable and credible models of science.
Everyone asks questions at some time pertaining to existence such as, how did I get here, where did I come from, is there a reason for existence or a purpose for living? The answers are of profound importance because the answers to the questions both reveal and form the foundation of one’s perspective on origins and subsequently his worldview opinion about life.
Evolution and creation are contradictory models. Evolution proposes that the origin of the universe, of life, and of all forms of life are the result of the natural properties of matter. Creation proposes that the origin of all things is the result of a supernatural event.
Though the questions of who and why of origins are issues to be sorted out in religious circles, the question of what or how everything came into existence can be resolved by means of modern science.
Science is a tool and is not inherently theistic or atheistic. It should be used to discover truth not to censor unpopular models. Recognizing the important role science plays in verifying and offering credibility to systems of thought, science is the very tool needed to resolve the debate between natural and supernatural models of origins.
Legitimate scientific models fulfill four qualifications, namely,
Models of origins progress through the stages of confirmation and credibility from hypothesis to theory, but cannot qualify as scientific laws. This is because models of origins cannot be repeated and tested. They may fulfill the four points listed above and be legitimate. But they will never be more than legitimate theories at best.
Evolutionist, Rene Dulbecco, said of evolution that, “...the evolutionary events that took place over a period of many thousands of years cannot be reproduced in the laboratory.”
None the less, physical evidence of past events can be observed such as practiced in forensics and anthropology. Theories can be devised to explain the evidence and make predictions for further investigation. And as long as they do not contradict known facts and laws of science, they can be considered legitimate models. Obviously, having more than one model means that some models will be wrong, but until there is evidence to show the invalid explanation, it remains a legitimate model.
Credibility of an origin model should be based on its ability to logically explain data, its consistency with known facts, and its reliability to make accurate predictions.
Scientific evidence weighs heavily in favor for supernatural origins of the universe, of life, and of major groups of organisms. The model for creation explains the data of past events, conforms to the laws of science and other evidences, does not contradict known facts, and accurately predicts experimental findings. In contrast, evolution contradicts particular laws of science. Evidence shows that creationism is not only a good scientific model for origins but superior to the evolution model. Creation is soundly based on and supported by evidence.
It is very important to organize the topic of origins into three areas, namely, the origin of the universe, of life, and of organism types or kinds. Often, in discussions about origins, arguments and evidence are misapplied. You will find the following division of topics and arguments very useful in your personal study of origins.
Though evolutionists chide creationists for using design arguments, they use the design argument in their search for intelligent life in outer space. NASA’s SETI program (Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence) is searching for intelligent life in outer space. Isaac Asimov described the purpose for sending signals into space saying that if intelligent life in the universe detects the signals, they will recognize the obvious design of intelligence in its creation and conclude that intelligent life exists elsewhere. Not only do we send signals into space, we also scan the heavens for signs showing evidence of intelligent creation. Obviously, even the evolutionists recognize the validity of design arguments.
The DNA molecule is a string of information far more complex than radio or optical signals. It is unnaturally complex in size, function, and coded information.
“Intelligent” men have been working on producing life in test tubes for years, and yet they continue to fail even with the code and materials of life available to them. They can generate signals for outer space, but they cannot create life. From an evolutionary point of view, this makes mindless molecules more clever than man. From a common sense perspective, this suggests that we have already found evidence for intelligent design and creation. How is it that intelligent life on this planet has missed the obvious evidence of design in creation?
The human eye: The eye is unnaturally complex. Evolutionist, Robert Jastrow, “The eye appears to have been designed; no designer of telescopes could have done better. How could this marvelous instrument have evolved by chance, through a succession of random events? Many people in Darwin’s day agreed with theologian William Pauley, who commented, ‘There cannot be a design without a designer.’” (R. Jastrow, Evolution: Selection for perfection, Science digest, Dec 1981, p. 86.) It is noteworthy that there is no evidence for the evolution of the eye. Stephen Gould writes, “The eyes of early trilobites, for example, have never been exceeded for complexity or acuity by later arthropods…. I regard the failure to find a clear ‘vector of progress’ in life’s history as the most puzzling fact of the fossil record.” (Stephen Jay Gould, The Ediacaran Experiment,” Natural History, Feb 1984, pp. 22-23).
The human brain: “The human brain itself serves, in some sense, a proof of concept…. Its dense network of neurons apparently operates at a petaFLOPS or higher level. Yet the whole device fits in a 1 liter box and uses only about 10 watts of power.” (Ivars Peterson, “Petacrunchers: Setting a Course toward Ultrafast Supercomputing”, Science News, Vol. 147. 15 April 1995, p. 235).
Design in nature: A Smithsonian July 1991 article described how engineers are looking to nature for design ideas. From an evolutionary perspective, the accomplishments of mindless molecules have exceeded those of intelligent men.
Such complexities in life without precedence or rudimentary representation are predicted and explained by the creation model. They defy explanation invoking only natural cause, which demands unreasonable gullibility. Design leads to the obvious conclusion, that the must be a supernatural, intelligent designer.
For a more detailed development of the following argument, see "The First Law of Thermodynamics and the Supernatural Creation of the Universe."
The presence of Polonium haloes in the earth’s bedrock is evidence for an instantaneous creation of the earth. Original research was published by Dr. Robert Gentry.
Radioactive elements like Uranium form tiny circles or haloes around themselves when found in bedrock such as granite. The size of the halo is determined by the kind of element (e.g. Po or U) that forms it.
Dr. Gentry claims to have discovered evidence of primordial polonium in the earth's bedrock. Such evidence requires that the polonium be present in hardened bedrock. But in order for this to occur, the earth's formation would require an instantaneous creation of rock and not a billion years worth of cooling from a molten state as proposed by evolutionists.
Dr. Kazmann wrote, "The polonium halos, especially those produced by Polonium 218, are the center of a mystery. The half-life of the isotope is only 3 minutes. Yet the halos have been found in granitic rocks ... in all parts of the world, including Scandinavia, India, Canada, and the United States. The difficulty arises from observation that there is no identifiable precursor to the polonium; it appears to be primordial polonium. If so, how did the surrounding rocks crystallize rapidly enough so that there were crystals available ready to be imprinted with radiohalos by alpha particles from Po? This would imply almost instantaneous cooling and crystallization of these granitic minerals, and we know of no mechanisms that will remove heat so rapidly; the rocks are supposed to have cooled over millennia, if not tens of millennia." (R.G. Kazmann, 1979, summary of R.V. Gentry's symposium presentation at Louisiana State University, April 1978, quoted in CTM, p. 61).
Dr. Anders wrote, "His [Gentry's] conclusions are startling and shake the very foundations of radiochemistry and geochemistry. Yet he has been so meticulous in his experimental work, and so restrained in his interpretations, that most people take his work seriously . . I think most people believe, as I do, that some unspectacular explanation will eventually be found for the anomalous halos, and that orthodoxy will turn out to be right after all. Mean while Gentry should be encouraged to keep rattling this skeleton in our closet for all it is worth." (Edward Anders, Enrico Fermi Institute, University of Chicago, quoted in CTM, p. 236).
For some, the chemical nature of life justifies abiogenesis studies. Martin Glaessner writes that, “In the absence of material vestiges of the first organisms we must briefly consider current theories about the beginning and about the distinguishing characters of what is called life” (Martin Glaessner, 1984, The dawn of animal life, a biohistorical study, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, P. 2).
However, the chemical properties of molecules involved in living systems show that life could not originate naturally. Molecules found in living cells do not naturally react together to form complex biomolecular compounds.
There appears to be a misconception that small is simple. Perhaps the fact that cells and molecules are not visible to the eye, makes its possible to convince people that the chemistry of life is simple. However, this is absolutely not the case.
Failure to produce life in the laboratory is consistent with the complexity of life chemistry and the laws of mathematics and probabilities. The chemistry of life is not simple nor likely to evolve by chance events. The properties of matter are against such an event occurring.
H.P. Yockey calculated the chance appearance of a molecule involved in cellular respiration. He writes, “With regard to the appearance of a single molecule of the cytochrome c family, even the deus ex machina needs 1036 [chances] with just the right conditions [and] 1 billion years... One who finds the chance appearance of cytochrome c a credible event must have the faith of Job” (Yockey, H.P., A Calculation of the Probability of Spontaneous Biogenesis by information Theory, J. Theor. Biol, 1977, 67:393,396). There is not enough time for the impossible to occur.
Harold Morowitz, distinguished Yale biophysicist and former master of Pierson College, wrote in his book, Energy Flow in Biology, that the evolution of the theoretically simplest cell, requiring no less than about 124 proteins would occur in 1:10 to the 340,000,000 power.
To put these numbers in perspective, Borél’s single law of chance calculation determining the impossibility of an event occurring is 1050 (Borél, Emile, Probabilities and Life (New York: Dover, 1962)).
The entire universe is estimated to contain "only" 1080 sub-atomic particles. Some may think that this number sounds too small to represent all the sub-atomic particles in the entire universe. But not so. 1080 is a very big number of unfathomable dimension.
The probability calculations for the chance occurrence of life forming naturally from the molecules is astronomical. It would be more accurate to describe such probabilities as impossibilities. It cannot happen.
Seven transitional stages of evolution are required in order for a living cell to evolve from lifeless molecules. They are as follows:
Without exception, experiments at each of these steps have failed to produce results to demonstrate that such events can occur by chance events caused by the natural properties of molecules.
Contrary to the claims and expectations of evolutionists, origin of life experiments have demonstrated: (1) that the law of biogenesis is confirmed under all conceivable conditions, (2) that the probability of abiogenesis exceeds impossibility, (3) that experiments have failed to produce products in natural, controlled settings at all seven stages required in abiogenesis supporting the claims of evolution, and (4) that evolution of life resulting from the natural properties of molecules is not plausible in intelligently designed and carefully controlled conditions therefore much less in natural settings.
H.P. Yockey stated, “The current accepted ... (evolutionist origin of life) ... scenarios are untenable and the solution to the problem will not be found by continuing to flagellate these conclusions” (H. Yockey, 1992, Information theory and molecular biology, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, GB. P. 289).
Nancy Touchette sums the current status of abiogenesis saying, “So far, none of the current theories have been substantiated or proven by experiment, and no consensus exists about which, if any, of these theories is correct. Solving the mystery may indeed take longer than the origin of life itself” (Nancy Touchette. 1993. Evolutions: Origin of Life. J of NIH Research 5:95).
The most credible explanation for the origin of life is the creation model of intelligent, supernatural design. Insistence of a natural origin model in spite of the natural properties of molecules, their impossible chance of occurring, thousands of failed attempts to produce life in sophisticated and intelligently designed experiments, and the blatant contradiction to the law of biogenesis is clearly irrational and unscientific.
Evidence and logic show that the origin of the universe must have been supernatural and that the only credible explanation for the origin of life is best explained as a supernatural event. It is reasonable, therefore, to assume that the origin of organism species was supernatural as well. The creation science model has the precedence and the weight of evidence supporting it.
Because the term species has not retained its original meaning, Creationists use the English word kind or typology to refer to a population of genetically related individuals. Each kind or typology of organism is considered genetically unrelated to others. Thus, the claim for a supernatural origin of species is more accurately stated as a supernatural origin of kinds or types of organisms.
It is a very important point to note that the debate between evolutionists and creationists is not about whether change can occur. There is no debate over whether mutation or natural selection are mechanisms for change. The debate between evolutionists and creationists is over the amount of change that can occur in a population kind. Evolutionists argue that change is unlimited. Creationists argue that change is limited. To resolve this debate, one needs only to look for the evidence supporting limited or unlimited change.
After fifty years of researching genetic variation in the fruit fly, evolutionists have concluded that Drosophila melanogaster is a dead end in the phylogenetic tree of evolution. In other words, the best model for genetic change shows that change is limited and confined to a defined population.
Fruit flies are an ideal model of genetic studies because they represent an accelerated mutational system involving rapid and abundant mutations in organisms with short gestation times. For over fifty years, these flies have been bombarded with mutation agents, and yet the flies continue to exist as fruit flies.
Evolutionists respond saying that our laboratory setting cannot truly represent millions of years worth of change. In most cases, that may be so. However, genetic studies with the fruit fly has led to the conclusion that this organism will no longer evolve into something else. Thus, experimental evidence supports limited change just as predicted by the creation model. Likewise, studies with bacteria, cattle, and plants support the same conclusion. Evolutionists can offer only an excuse for the absence of evidence. Based on laboratory evidence, the creation model is the credible model of choice.
In light of such evidence, it is interesting to note the quote by Professor D.M.S. Watson of the University of London who said, “... the theory of evolution itself, a theory universally accepted not because it can be proved by logically coherent evidence to be true but because the only alternative, special creation, is clearly incredible” (Nature 124:231-234).
Lacking laboratory evidence for natural origins of the universe, of life, and species, evolutionists argue that fossils in the earth's crust show natural origin of species. But once again, evidence is lacking or at best is circumstantial and debatable.
Harvard paleontologist Dr. Gould wrote, “The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils. All paleontologists know that the fossil record contains precious little in the way of intermediate forms; transitions between major groups are characteristically abrupt” (Gould, Stephen, The Panda’s Thumb, New York: Norton, 1980, pp 181, 189).
Francis Hitching: “When you look for links between major groups of animals, they simply aren’t there; at least, not in enough numbers to put their status beyond doubt. Either they don’t exist at all, or they are so rare that endless argument goes on about whether a particular fossil is, or isn’t, or might be, transitional between this group and that” (Hitching, Francis, The Neck of the Giraffe: where Darwin went wrong, New Haven, Conn.: Ticknor and Fields, 1982, pp 56-57;.p. 19).
Mark Ridley of Oxford University wrote, “... no real evolutionist, whether gradualist or punctuationist, uses the fossil record as evidence in favor of the theory of evolution as opposed to special creation.”
“The gradual change of fossil species has never been part of the evidence for evolution. In the chapters on the fossil record in the Origin of Species, Darwin showed that the record was useless for testing between evolution and special creation because it has gaps in it. The same argument still applies.” (Ridley, Mark, 1981). What Darwin really said of the fossil record was that, “this, perhaps, is the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged against the theory.”
Phillip E. Johnson of the Berkeley Writes, “Darwinism is not so much an inference from the facts as a deduction from naturalistic philosophy” (Johnson, Phillip. The evolution backlash: Debunking Darwin. World, March 1997 p. 13). John Weister, chairman of the Science Education Commission of the American Scientific Affiliation, states more bluntly that “Darwinism is naturalism masquerading as science” (World 1997, p. 14).
In fact, many evolutionists are now espousing the theory of Punctuated Equilibrium to explain why the missing links are missing in the fossil record. They are admitting that the fossil record shows that populations of organisms resist change for millions of years. This period of time allows opportunity for organisms to be fossilized. When populations evolve, the time period is so short (as in one to two million years) that too few opportunities exist for organisms to be fossilized. Thus, transitional fossils documenting evolution from one kind of organism into another are missing because the change took place so quickly. This interpretation of the fossil record is not evidence. It is an excuse for the absence of evidence.
The creation model correctly predicted that the fossil record would show fully functional, "isolated" populations of organisms that resist change. Fossil evidence confirms the laboratory observations and predictions. The evidence supports the supernatural explanation for species.
Evolutionists insist that many unlimited, little changes over long periods of time amount to major changes. They cite as facts for evolution: mutation and natural selection. However, these are mere mechanisms for change. They do not indicate evidence of any kind for the amount of change that can occur.
With regard to the mechanisms of mutation and natural selection, Roger Lewin sums the conclusion of the Macroevolution Conference in Chicago writing, “The central question of the Chicago conference was whether the mechanisms underlying microevolution can be extrapolated to explain the phenomena of macroevolution. At the risk of doing violence to the positions of some of the people at the meeting, the answer can be given as a clear, No.” (Roger Lewin, Evolution Theory under Fire, Science, vol 210, 21 November 1980, p.883).
“One could argue at this point that such minor changes extrapolated over millions of years could result in macroevolutionary change. But the evidence will not support this argument…. Thus, the changes observed in the laboratory are not analogous to the sort of changes needed for macroevolution. Those who argue from microevolution to macroevolution may be guilty, then, of employing a false analogy—especially when one considers that microevolution may be a force of stasis, not transformation …. For those who must describe history of life as a purely natural phenomenon, the winnowing action of natural selection is truly a difficult problem to overcome. For scientists who are content to describe accurately those processes and phenomena which occur in nature (in particular, stasis) natural selection acts to prevent major evolutionary change” (Michael Thomas, “Stasis Considered”, Origins Research, Vol. 12, 1989, p.11).
The creation model offers a consistent and relevant explanation for observed phenomena and predicts that if all organisms were created each as a kind, subject to limited change, then the fossil record should show distinguishable populations of organisms. A search through the data of fossils shows attributes of population kinds easily distinguished from all other kinds. Organisms are fully developed, functional, and genetically isolated as kinds. No evidence of evolution from one kind of organism to another exists. Change is limited. Further, the mere probabilities against the natural evolution of different organism kinds favor the supernatural origin of kinds, and laboratory evidence supports limited change within each kind.
A good model is based on objectivity and scientific reasoning, and the creation model for supernatural origins of species upholds these values. Laboratory, fossil, and probability evidence supports the creation model’s theory that populations of kinds were created supernaturally: fully formed and functional. The evolution model cannot dissociate itself with obvious bias and controversy in its own ranks. Preference should be for models that explain known evidence not for models that substitute evidence with excuses for the absence of evidence. Because the creation model predicts fully formed fully functional organisms to be easily distinguished in the fossil record, the creation model both conforms perfectly to the data and is supported by the data.
If we hold a philosophy which excludes the supernatural, this is what we always shall say. C.S. Lewis, 1974, Miracles pp. 1-2
But if we admit God, must we admit a miracle? Indeed, indeed, you have no security against it. That is the bargain. C.S. Lewis, 1974, Miracles, p. 169