Evidence for Creation: Intelligent answers for open minds


Published: 25 February 2016 (GMT+10)

The following article is the new Introduction to the third edition of Tom DeRosa’s book with the above title, published by Creation Book Publishers in 2015 and available from the CMI webstore.


This book really does live up to its title’s claim, to provide scientific answers to the age-old question of origins. But the caveat in the title—for open minds—is a crucial one. There is often a pretence of open-mindedness, but far too many people in our modern scientific age are unprepared even to give the case for biblical Creation a hearing.

In recent years the USA has witnessed appeals to the judiciary to rule Intelligent Design (ID) as anti-science. Elsewhere, governments have introduced measures to restrict the airing of alternatives to evolution in school classrooms. Legislation passed in the UK sanctions the discussion of ID and creationism in religious education classes, as long as ‘evidence-based’ views are excluded—a gagging order if there ever was one! Supposedly, teenagers who are studying for their public examinations in science are too inexperienced to be able to properly assess the competing views about origins. Exposing young people to such information is merely calculated to ‘confuse their impressionable minds’, or so it is claimed. And as if that were not all, we are repeatedly told that evolution is an established scientific theory; that alternative viewpoints are not science and, thus, are ‘justifiably’ outlawed.

Consensus science?

The secular authorities, supported by a biased and sometimes mendacious media, are at pains to inform us that this position is entirely reasonable because it represents the established scientific consensus. Yet, for those prepared to acknowledge it, there’s a massive disconnect between the behaviour of these ‘powers that be’ and their plea to be balanced, fair and open-minded. The history of science bears witness to the way in which, all too often, a consensus mentality hindered significant advance in one field or another. Some who are hailed as great scientists today were only given their due recognition posthumously; in life their efforts were rewarded with marginalisation and opposition in equal measure. Gratifyingly, others who dared to challenge the consensus of their day made real breakthroughs which were recognised during their lifetimes, so enjoyed the fruit of their labour.

On the issue of origins, the ruling paradigm has long been that of molecules-to-man evolution. Those men and women of science who, defying the consensus view, have been prepared to stick their heads above the parapet deserve our applause. Whether in the fields of cosmology and physics, the earth sciences, the life sciences or anthropology, their labours are bearing much fruit. The evidence which they have amassed in support of Creation is the subject of this book.

Beyond Intelligent Design

But the author does not stop there, unashamedly declaring the identity of the Designing Deity who is responsible for Creation—the infinitely intelligent God of the Bible. For those who truly have open minds, the evidence from these many and varied facets of science points unambiguously to the Creator, Jesus Christ. It is surely safe to conclude that the Apostle Paul would have warmly commended scientific endeavours done from the perspective of this biblical worldview. He taught that the attributes and qualities of the Creator are so “clearly revealed” as to render all naturalistic philosophical thinking inexcusable (Romans 1:20).

Where does that leave those theistic evolutionists who explicitly, even vehemently, decry Intelligent Design as unscientific? Their god would seem to be little different from the Deists’ god, barred from the responsibility of having designed what we observe, or from having done it intelligently. Are we seriously to conclude that they would have us believe in the unintelligent creation of merely apparent designs? For this would seem to be practically synonymous with the doctrine long espoused by Darwinian ‘high priest’ Richard Dawkins and other evolutionist aficionados.

Where open-mindedness should lead

Tom DeRosa’s short book deftly and insightfully explores information from a wealth of sources with the aim of instilling truth into open-minded readers. In our morally degraded and increasingly godless western societies, these intelligent answers helpfully reveal where the battle is really at. The creation/evolution debate, and allied controversies over the age of the earth, can be distilled down to arguments over authority. On one hand, advocates of moral relativism insist that man is his own authority, this in turn being the legitimate child of secular humanism. On the other hand, traditional Christian morality and ethics flow readily from an acceptance of the Bible as God’s authoritative Word. Such Christian values lack any logical connection with the conception of origins arising from the neoDarwinian worldview.

More than a century and a half has elapsed since Darwin unveiled his evolutionary theory. Were he somehow able to see our day, one wonders what he would make of his native Britain and other countries which have eagerly embraced his ideas. Sexual promiscuity, soaring divorce rates, record levels of child abuse, family meltdown and other social ills have become the norm. Crime rates are putting police forces under increasing pressure, so that the solving of ‘petty crimes’ (such as car thefts1) is increasingly seen as the victim’s responsibility. Alarm has been expressed by the World Health Organisation that suicide globally is now the second leading cause of death in 15-29 year olds, with governments being urged to tackle the problem.2

It would be over-simplistic to lay the blame for all these societal ills at the door of evolutionary belief. Nevertheless, the latter has doubtless been a significant contributor. Generations of people have been taught (from an increasingly young age) that they are merely rearranged pond scum, and that there is no accountability to a Loving Creator God. The book in your hands is an antidote to this pernicious lie. May it be wonderfully used to provide intelligent answers, even leading some readers to saving faith in our great Creator and Saviour, the Lord Jesus Christ.

References and notes

  1. For example, Policing report: Victims 'asked to investigate crime themselves', bbc.co.uk/news, 4 September 2014. Return to text
  2. Preventing suicide: a global imperative, W.H.O., September 2014, who.int/mental_health/suicide-prevention/world_report_2014/en. Return to text

Readers’ comments

Dan M.
I have had the pleasure of meeting Tom DeRosa and I find him to be a sincere and intelligent man.
There are only two possibilities for why we are here. Either we were created or we spontaneously generated from nothing? Since something from nothing is a violation of the scientific principal (unless a miracle) it's impossible and nonsensical.
Intelligent design, (ID) proponents need to stop sitting on the fence and join one camp or the other. Since they, (ID proponents) concede there is design in nature they should follow the evidence to its logical conclusion, (creator God) and join our camp.
Richard Dawkins claims that evolution by spontaneous generation is a fact. To make this statement one must have all knowledge to be able to rule out any and all other possibilities. Thus this person must be God himself or have some kind of divine revelation. This statement must make Richard a prophet or intellectually guilty of Satan's sin. This point of view is in fact an evolution-based religion masquerading as science.
I have no doubt Richard wants the recognition (worship) of his followers but as for me, good luck with that, I already have a God, (Jesus our creator)!
Gordon S.
I have a computer and use it, as I also use other man-made things such as telephones and cars. I know a minimal amount regarding the detail as to how the computer functions and at my age (in my 80's) I do not see a lot of point in studying the science involved as I have little practical use for it. However, a computer and the science involved in its working can be studied, but this will not tell me who made it. This can be ascertained by reading the information supplied by the computer maker. in my case Dell. Thus, although man can ascertain how the created cosmos functions, he cannot by scientific method ascertain by whom and how it was made. That is outside the purview of science and can only be known as revealed by the maker. The scientific establishment needs to see and accept this.

Comments are automatically closed 14 days after publication.