Looks like you are using an old version of Internet Explorer - Please update your browser
Originally published in Creation 2(2):12–13, April 1979
Those who propose evolution of any sort (atheistic or theistic) usually raise one major criticism against creation.
Creation (as based upon Genesis) is regarded as having no scientific expression, since, in their opinion, it is a totally religious concept which involves why and not how.
In order to examine this criticism, let us first make a comparison of evolution and creation. I have chosen five of the major concepts from the Modern General Evolutionary Theory. Evolution claims (1) life developed from simple forms to complex forms; (2) the time involved was and is enormous; (3) mutation (the process of change) in combination with natural selection, can do all sorts of things; (4) the process is random; (5) the process is still going on. If we accept the previous points about evolution as a reasonably scientific definition, then we must also accept any similarly constructed definition of creation as reasonably scientific.
For comparison, evolution says life forms have a common ancestor, creation says life forms have separate ancestors. Evolution says that mutation, recombination, and natural selection can produce unlimited change (chemicals give man). Creation effectively says that mutation and recombinations can produce only a limited amount of change (Noah gives races). Where evolution is random, creation is deliberate. Evolution is still in process. Creation (Biblical) has ceased.
The generally accepted sequence of evolution as in the high school biology text, “The Web of Life,” is something like this—chemicals gave rise to “life” which formed cells which gave rise eventually to man and all other living organisms which will continue to change. This would be the modern popular view or the neo Darwinian theory.
In contrast, creation involves separate life forms having separate uniquely created or specially created ancestors. Their ability to vary is quite limited so creation allows for variation within horizontal limits but no progression of simple things to complex things. Degeneration or loss of complexity is possible in both evolution and creation.
It is our opinion that (1) Creation, as defined previously, is as scientific as evolution; (2) Creation is far more in accord with the evidence than evolution; (3) The theory of General Evolution is not justified by the evidence; and (4) Evolution is quite contradicted by the evidence in many places.
Consider the claim that creation is more religious than evolution. If you have done any study in science you will have noticed that it has prerequisites which distinguish it from other subjects. Its primary means of success have been dependence upon the concept of repeatable testing. It is not enough to argue. You must repeatedly test a theory before you can claim you have proved anything. But, in accepting the repeatable test as a basis for empirical science, there emerge at least four areas of knowledge into which “science” as a method can scarcely begin to enter.
(1) Science has limitations with events which only happen once, because they cannot be repeatedly tested. (2) Science has problems with events or things that cannot be measured, either because they have no agreed measure or they are too big or too small to be measured with present equipment. For example, “Who wrote better music, Beethoven or Bach?” There is no sort of agreed scientific measure for good music or bad. (3) Science has a problem with events which it is claimed cannot happen. There is no way to prove an event cannot happen or an item does not exist, e.g. “God does not exist” is not a scientific statement—it is a belief statement—a blind faith concept based on no evidence.
Let us study some situations relevant to creation-evolution. If you claim that life only evolved once then you are looking at a unique event and you have a problem with scientific method. If you claim that evolution is occurring so slowly it cannot be observed, as many evolutionists do, a second problem emerges. If you claim, as did Prof. Watson at London University, that creation is impossible, you have an absolute negative.
This is an interpretation which we have great difficulty testing.The relationship of the geological column to evolution is very intimate because the order of the fossils is claimed to be a record of the history of life. But in reality this is an interpretation which we have great difficulty testing. This is so since the prerequisite of something that is not an interpretation is that you have it to directly observe. You cannot observe the total geological column at first hand anywhere. The geologist often says, “But you would not expect to observe it in total anywhere.” It should be obvious, however, that there is little difference between what you do not expect to see and what does not really exist.
Let us illustrate this point with a case study from modern history. If we consider the origin of World War I, there is now so much evidence about this event that the historians cannot make up their minds who started it. Give many evolutionary geologists a few fossils and they will dogmatically tell you what has happened over the last hypothetical four thousand million years. The geological column in its present form is not accepted on the basis of any repeatable tests but on the basis of “acceptable” logic and assumption.
This brings to light the fourth problem area for repeatable testability—the past. Views about the past are not subject to repeatable testing, only to logical analysis. Fossils exist in the present, and from them you INTERPRET a view about the past, but this view is largely accepted by FAITH. Whenever human or human like fossils are found, you find bones. You do not find flesh or how much hair or the shape of the body, or the males hitting each other with clubs, just bones and ashes. Hairy snub nosed, flat breasted ape women exist only as imaginative mock ups. This the evolutionists accept by faith. Both creation and evolution have areas accepted by faith, and both have areas which are dependent upon observation.
Further articles will examine these in detail.
Creation as Science Part 2, Creation 2:3 (July 1979)