Feedback archiveFeedback 2019

Most influential facts for creation?

Published: 7 December 2019 (GMT+10)

While CMI emphasizes a presuppositional approach to apologetics, people sometimes wonder if there are some evidences for creation that are more effective than others.

Ron B. from the U.S. wrote:

Istockphotoevangelising

Dear Creation Ministries staff,

First, I want to thank you again for your marvelous and high quality work. THANK YOU!!!

Second, do you have an idea which scientific facts have the greatest influence on young people who believe evolution is true such that they start to question that belief and/or start to consider that creation (even Intelligent Design) is or might be true?

I ask because I am trying to write some blog statements about living as a follower of Christ. I would like to include some information about science and creation in harmony,

In Jesus’ grasp,

Ron

Thomas Bailey, CMI-Canada responds:

Hi Ron,

Thank you for your encouragement and support of our ministry. I applaud your efforts to draw more young people to Christ by showing how science supports Scripture. While there are a number of lines of evidence that refute evolution, it can be difficult to pinpoint the best one, as every skeptic (both young and old) has their own ‘sticking point’ when it comes to believing the Bible; often fuelled by one or more evidences for evolution. In asking young people what compels them to leave the church, the answer is often a very broad ‘science’. Of course, in saying this, they’re usually thinking that ‘evolution = science’ while ‘creation = blind faith’. That’s why it’s so important for Christians to have answers, because evolution makes atheists out of people. Of course, related to the science questions are often more philosophical questions like, ‘Why does God allow so much pain and suffering?’ Let’s just look at the science for now, and for that, I’d like to narrow it down to two categories.

Results from one survey indicated that young people found biological and fossil evidence (e.g. alleged transitional fossils, human-chimp DNA similarity, natural selection=evolution etc.) to be particularly compelling. An article by Dan Biddle and Jerry Bergman examines those results. Our own interviews with college students in our Fallout! DVD yielded some similar responses. Fortunately, these arguments are all easily refuted by things like dinosaur soft tissue, DNA complexity and information (The four dimensional human genome defies naturalistic explanations), a severe shortage of transitional fossils (Is the fossil record ‘overwhelming evidence for evolution’?), and a close examination of how natural selection actually works. For more on these, I recommend Refuting Evolution and Refuting Evolution 2 and Evolution’s Achilles Heels. Of course, you can also search numerous articles on our website by topic.

However, in a response to the above article, Don Batten pointed out the age of the earth (and I would add the age of the universe) is also a huge issue for many people. You can read his letter to the authors and their response here. It is readily obvious that billions of years is not compatible with a plain reading of Genesis, and the age of the earth is directly related to biological evolution in regard to: how the fossil record is interpreted (i.e. millions of years vs global Flood); and that evolution requires deep time. This leaves us with three options:

  1. reject billions of years, and with it, much of what is taught in school,
  2. reject Genesis and potentially the rest of Scripture,
  3. try to combine them, with often disastrous results (see Sonia’s testimony).

At CMI, we regularly point out the dangers of trying to reconcile the big bang/evolutionary timeline with Scripture because so many end up choosing Option # 2 above. Option #3 requires a measure of cognitive dissonance (many just don’t think about it much) or a massive reinterpretation of Scripture. It’s unfortunate that so many in the church, including theologians and apologists, have accepted deep time because so many folks then conclude that either God is a monster (using death, pain and suffering to create) or that the Bible can’t be true and there is no God. After all, the whole big bang/evolution idea comes from naturalism and is intended to explain everything without a Creator, so why would church leaders claim God used such a system? And interestingly, there are also many good arguments for a young earth and universe: Age of the earth: 101 evidences for a young age of the earth and the universe. One of the most recent articles from our website, Is the big bang really scientific? , does a good job of summarizing the problems with big bang cosmology. Most people are unaware of the evidence against the big bang scenario and just accept is as ‘scientific fact’.

So, to make a long story short, I’m advocating a two-pronged approach: point out the holes in biological evolution as well as deep time (particularly cosmology). I might add that soft tissue and Carbon 14 in dinosaur bones is a topic that addresses both biological/fossil arguments and undercuts deep time, while drawing on a subject that fascinates young people. May God bless you as you share biblical and scientific truth.

Thomas Bailey

Creation Ministries International

Helpful Resources

Refuting Evolution
by Jonathan Sarfati
From
US $7.00
Starlight, Time and the New Physics
by Dr John Hartnett
From
US $10.00
Evolution's Achilles' Heels
by Nine Ph.D. scientists
From
US $10.00
The Deep Time Deception
by Michael Oard
From
US $15.00

Readers’ comments

Rodney P.
Jonathon Sarfati said: Proteins need DNA to form, but DNA needs proteins to form. That brought down the gavel in my mind.
BILL P.
Your answer to Ron's letter is so spot on. I pray that The Lord would give both young and old, a heart that seeks "The TRUTH" of THE LORD GOD. (This heart must be humble and not contain any of the pride of this life) while they search for "The Truth". I know from experience and from Scripture that they will find The True and Living God, Creator of heaven and earth, waiting there to reveal Himself to them. While in the U.S. Navy I spent yrs. looking for the answers to the meaning of life. I thought I might find it in science books, and the countries I visited, searching through the wisdom of their cultures, but I left those places w/a heart not at peace. After yrs. of getting up everyday wondering how I was going to satisfy my lusts I found myself in the gutter of life. One day I cried out to HIM, still not sure HE even existed, YET, my cry was genuine, from the heart, and HE answered me. Today my flesh still wrestles against my spirit, a spirit which is alive again because of HIS grace and mercy,(which is beyond measure), and what HE did on that cross on my behalf. I know in my heart "HE IS", and it's been an awesome experience learning His Truth, and His Ways for over 40 yrs. now. Anyone w/a heart after THE GOD of Abraham, Issac, and Jacob will find the peace that can not be found in this world, no matter how noble the words and wisdom of men might seem. The motive of a person's heart is so important. "Seek ye The Lord, ALL the meek of the earth, you who exercise HIS justice; seek righteousness, seek humility, it may be that you might be hidden on "The Day of His anger". Zephaniah 2, v.3.
Keep up the good work that you folks do on this site until that day when HE takes us home w/HIM.
Jason B.
"point out the holes in biological evolution as well as deep time (particularly cosmology). I might add that soft tissue and Carbon 14 in dinosaur bones is a topic that addresses both biological/fossil arguments and undercuts deep time, while drawing on a subject that fascinates young people."

Exactly!! Couldn't agree more!

I'm a math teacher in a PA public school. Every year I'm able to use the curriculum that introduces carbon-14 dating as an application for exponential decay models as an opportunity to teach about C-14 and soft tissue in dinosaur bones, C-14 in coal, etc. I often hear a comment like, "So the Bible is true," even though I didn't mention anything about the Bible! They love the topic of dinosaurs and that I present the whole picture, not just what their 'supposed to believe'! They learn that Carbon-14 dating can be calibrated with historically known dates, but for specimens older than historical calibration allows, it's only able to give a maximum age. The students who I know are believers are strengthened in their faith.

I refuse to be part of the secular system of brainwashing, so I challenge my students to ask questions and think critically. Which worldview does the evidence support? I also include discussion of how Earth's magnetic field is decaying exponentially (shout out to Dr. Russell Humphreys!) and how what we observe contradicts billions of years as well as collapses C-14 ages even more!

My students don't like being told only part of the story. When they're told the whole truth and nothing but the truth, they respect that and quickly see where our observations lead. I find they are bothered by the one-sided presentations they are required to hear in 'science' classes and they find open honest discussion very refreshing!
Thomas Bailey
Dear Jason, Kudos to you for encouraging critical thinking in your classroom. Pray that more students will have opportunity to examine the evidence for themselves instead of just accepting the interpretations from the mainstream scientific community.
Donald V.
It seems to me that scripture states (Romans 1:20) that there is something that is "Clearly Seen" that makes all of mankind "Without Excuse" for not believing in the Creator. I appreciate all of the research that is done and written about, however even a small child KNOWS that things don't rise in order by themselves.
People need to be brought back to what they ALL know is true, that which God has revealed to ALL mankind.
I would like to know if what I have proposed here is not truly the most influential fact for creation.
Thomas Bailey
Hi Donald, I agree that Romans 1:20 teaches that the existence of God is evident from His creation. But then, Romans 1:25 points out that men "exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator". And we happen to be living in a time when many are teaching that creation created itself, and it's being taught as scientific fact in a post-church culture in which science has become pretty much synonymous with truth and the phrase "the Bible says" has become virtually meaningless. Many are and have been led astray by evolution - including children in the church - as our Fallout! DVD attests. In fact, a number of CMI scientists were caught up in evolutionary thought for years. While you and I can easily agree that the evidence for God in creation is obvious, there are many who need a little evidence to help them see creation through the lens of the Bible rather than naturalism. There are many who want to believe, but have one or more nagging questions about things like the age of the earth, dinosaurs, distant starlight, etc. One of our goals at CMI is to "destroy arguments and every lofty opinion raised against the knowledge of God" ( 2 Corinthians 10:5) in order to help people "see" the evidence for God a little more clearly.
Dr. John C.
I disagree with this for facts coming from the bible in Genesis, it is clear in Genesis that the author wrote to the best of his understanding of what he new. God gave him the words as is true in any other book of the bible since creation could not have been first hand knowledge from a person. It starts to say "In the beginning there was God...". This passage has a lot in it and there is no reason to believe this "beginning" could not have been where God caused the "Big Bang" or other similar phenomenon. Then it proceeds to tell us what God did on each of the six days during creation. Then the question becomes how long is one of God's days to our days? It is a very long time! Because of this there is a lot of room for evolution and billions of years. Why do people believe evolution conflicts with the bible? It does not, creation confirms the writings of the bible!
Thomas Bailey
Dear Dr Crunk, There isn't space here to address all of your objections, but every one of them has been thoroughly dealt with elsewhere on our website and our other resources. I'll highlight just a few points. In regard to whether or not Genesis 1 refers to six literal days: /in-my-fathers-day. See also chapters 2-11 of The Genesis Account (creation.com/s/35-5-306). You are correct that no human being witnessed creation, but the Bible is the Word of God, not the word of man, so it becomes a question of whether God communicated clearly. He could have used billions of years of evolution to create, but what matters here is what God said He did. There are many other Hebrew words He could have used to communicate long ages, but He chose 'day' and even defined it for us in Genesis 1:5. This is reinforced by God's explanation of the fourth commandment in Exodus 20:11. If God meant for the six days to describe a process of cosmological, geological, and biological evolution over billions of years, then He wasn't very clear about it, as there are several places where the two narratives don't line up (/evolution-v-genesis-order). And God, being eternal, doesn't have 'days'. Then there are the numerous theological difficulties with theistic evolution (see /10-dangers-of-theistic-evolution). I also recommend Philip Bell's excellent book, Evolution and the Christian Faith (creation.com/s/10-2-659) for a comprehensive examination of those difficulties. Consider that the ideas of Big Bang cosmology and the theory of evolution were put forward to explain the universe and life without God. So why would God use a system that, if it works, doesn't require Him? And if He really is God, He doesn't need evolution to create. I would suggest you examine a little more closely whether the notion of God using billions of years to create is coming from the Bible or somewhere else.
Donald V.
The thing that is "Clearly Seen" is what we would describe in scientific terms as the Second Law of Thermodynamics which I failed to mention. The fact that ultimately all is running down and not increasing in order is "Clearly Seen" and I believe that this is the bottom line and the underlying major issue that needs to be discussed. Thank you, Don
Thomas Bailey
Thanks for that clarification, Don. Good point. I apologize if I misunderstood your post.
David S.
I have to agree with Donald V. on this one. Though I understand your answer, Thomas, the context of Romans 1:25 is those who have been “given over” to vile affections and to a reprobate mind. I don’t believe for a moment that IF someone that God has hardened is able to be reached, that the BEST way to reach them is with scientific facts (which was Donald’s point, the BEST fact is Scriptural truth). Actually, the BEST way to reach someone like this is by the quick and powerful WORD OF GOD. I’m obviously not opposed to what CMI does (I’m rather a fan), but the moment someone puts ANY argument, even a pro-Christian argument, close to the same category as the Word of God, it actually undermines the very reason for your ministry, which is to turn people back to believing the Bible above ALL other reasonings. The problem in the church today isn’t those who oppose God’s Word, it is those that seek to promote Christ while at the same time lessening the churches reliance on the infallible, inerrant Scriptures. We ought not say or do anything to bring the Scriptures even close to any other kind of reasonings. The Scriptures are GOD-BREATHED. YOUR scientific articles and arguments, while good, are certainly NOT God-breathed. Much love to you all.
Thomas Bailey
Hi David,

I must apologize if my response came off sounding as though scientific evidence is in any way equivalent to the Word of God. Of course it is not. CMI's approach is presuppositional, not evidential (see /presuppositionalism-vs-evidentialism-and-is-the-human-genome-simple). We regularly point out the difficulties with compromised views of Genesis (eg Theistic Evolution, Progressive Creation, etc) that seek to interpret the Word of God through the lens of mainstream scientific interpretation of history rather than interpreting scientific evidence through the lens of the Word of God(see /biblical-history-and-role-of-science). Everything we do is intended to uphold Scriptural truth, and we would hold to that truth even if there wasn't any scientific evidence to support it. My only point was that many in our world today are simply unwilling to listen long enough to hear the Word of God, but they'll read something about science. Our speakers regularly meet up with people who desperately want to reach someone who has closed his/her mind to biblical truth, saying something like, "just show me some evidence." Often, these are family members who have drifted away from the church and embraced naturalism. I think this was the intention of Ron's original query. Articles that show science supports the Bible act as a bridge of sorts to those who wouldn't ordinarily pick up a Bible, read a tract, or walk into a church. We know this from the numerous testimonies we receive from around the world by people who have been given a copy of Creation magazine, for example. Our intention is not to replace the Word of God. We simply provide information intended to get the conversation started and help believers give an answer when challenged by skeptics who think science has disproven the Bible. Once again, I apologize if I mistakenly implied something more than that.
Raymond S.
As a private high school science teacher (30 years) my classes were filled with atheists and children from families with religions other than Bible believing Christianity. I found it very effective to describe the facts like the fossil record, starlight and time, or nuclear decay; then tell how you would interpret it as an evolutionist and then as a creationist. When students realize that the young earth Biblical position is just as plausible (even more plausible) than an evolutionist interpretation, they lose the stumbling block of thinking that you have to abandon science to believe the Bible. The most critical points were always starlight and nuclear decay to address deep time, and the fossil record including dinosaurs/dragons. They seemed to respond most to the "big picture" items like interpreting the fossil sequence as a progressive burial of increasing elevation for land organisms coupled with oceanic organisms from increasing depths.
Chris M.
I backpack a lot and therefore spend quite a bit of time in the mountains (Smoky Mountains to be exact) and it wasn't to long ago I just kinda sat there and looked around for about 30 minutes and thought to myself "Could everything we see today have arisen on it's own from just nature itself?" and it's so blatantly obvious nature did not produce everything by itself. It's so utter mind blowing that people actually believe this that my mind just can't wrap itself around believing that.

And then I thought "you know, if I sat my Iphone 8 down here and came back in 100,000 years, would it have gained the information needed in order to turn it into an Iphone 10?!"

Go sit in nature with no distractions and just sit and observe. It's plainfully obvious all of this was created by a Creator.
David B.
It's a good point that many different things have been the first to raise doubts about evolutionism. One thing I've noticed in several cases is the difficulty of getting biological evolution started in the first place. There's no tendency for non-living things to increase toward the complexity of living things -- just the opposite, in fact!

In my studies I've been particularly struck by a few things other than scientific data. One is that evolutionism was never scientifically demonstrated, nor even stated as a proper scientific theory. Darwin's basic idea of variations filtered by natural selection producing new species is compatible with creationism! There are scientific studies of "evolution" which also fit, but the imagined history of life and claims related to it have nothing to do with original scientific method.

Finally, solid science should, and has, produced great practical results -- physics, chemistry, electronics, aeronautics... but after more than 150 years there is little that evolutionists can point to, and again all of that is compatible with creationism.
David S.
Thank you for your thoughtful response, Thomas. I hope my passion for this subject didn’t come off as too critical or judgmental. I so appreciate the wealth of knowledge and biblical insight I have gained from CMI over the years. I’m just a stickler for making sure we don’t ever put anything close to being in the same category as God’s Word. Sometimes it can sound like those who call nature the 67th book of the Bible (which I know that you don’t agree with). The testimony of our risen Lord is incomparable and needs no help in convincing the wayward sinner and converting the soul. I apologize for insinuating that you somehow have a lower view of Scripture than myself. It was very condescending of me, and I’m sorry. God bless you all in your work for our Lord.
Thomas Bailey
Hi David, I do understand your passion and I agree that we need to be mindful of how we communicate. As creationists, it can be tempting to get caught up in evidence to the point of putting less emphasis on the authority of God's Word (or at least appearing to do so). Thanks to both you and Donald V. for holding me accountable.

Comments are automatically closed 14 days after publication.