Explore

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