Feedback archive → Feedback 2018

Which of the physical sciences does CMI believe in?

A detailed answer to a simple question

Published: 24 November 2018 (GMT+10)

D.M. from the UK wrote in, sarcastically asking:

“Which of the physical sciences do you believe in?”

Dr Robert Carter, CMI-US, responds:

Fantastic question! The short answer is, “All of them.” In fact just looking at a list of the people who work for CMI, I see PhDs in physicsnuclear physicsengineeringradiotelescopes and antenna designgeomorphologymolecular biologyplant scienceplant nutritionforestryphysical chemistry, zoology, and marine biology. We also have a medical doctor or two. This does not include the many other highly qualified people at CMI with up to master’s-level degrees. In short, we love science! We also have several theologians and educators on staff, to make for a very well-rounded group.

However, that was not really what you were asking. Instead, what you meant to do was ask why we reject naturalism as an overarching philosophical framework for our science. In fact, you equivocated. Essentially, unless I am very much mistaking the tone of the question, you assumed we reject ‘science’ where in fact what we reject is a certain philosophical approach to science. An approach that, in the end, does not work, for it is filled with fatal flaws; Evolution’s Achilles’ Heels, as it were. See also Who’s really pushing ‘bad science’?

It was the Christian worldview that gave birth to modern science. That is clear from history. That worldview was later hijacked. We went from a methodological approach to knowledge, based on our understanding of the character and nature of our Creator, to methodological naturalism, which cuts God completely out of the equation. But what we are left with is a method with no reason for its existence. In the Christian worldview, there is a reason for why things are the way they are. Under naturalism, they just are, and there is really no reason to expect things to always behave the same way throughout all time and across the universe. And, as explained above, this method cannot actually do what it wants to do—explain the universe without invoking design or a designer.

As I explained in another article:

Naturalism cannot explain origins. It fails on multiple fronts. In fact, this failure was the subject of a major book and documentary project of CMI called Evolution’s Achilles’ Heels. Evolution cannot explain the source of the big bang, the reason why the universe expanded so fast (during the “inflationary period” the size is claimed to have increased millions of times over in one quintillionth of a femtosecond–for no known physical reason), the reason why the expansion slowed to the current rate, how stars form from clouds of gas, why Jupiter has half the rotational kinetic energy in the solar system, why Uranus is lying on its side, how life arose from random chemicals, how complex life arose from bacteria, how sexual reproduction came aboutwhere the human mind came from, etc., etc. See also 15 Questions for Evolutionists.

D. replied (note: links to articles on have been added to his message):

Thanks for your reply on “in which physical sciences do you believe?” My interest is not in how you become increasingly convoluted in trying to fit all the well proven facts across every branch of science that the earth is indubitably billions of years old, but how you cope with the weekly discoveries across the world. Eg last week that archaeologists have found evidence of man in Australia some 65,000 years ago. Or that when Arabia was green and fertiletools have been found thought to be over 250,000 years ago.

You can’t believe in palaeontology or geology when these figures come out? I do appreciate that it must cause difficulties for you when the Bible is continually shown to be just a nice collection of fairy storiesDinosaurs and men in the Ark? All together? Farcical

Robert Carter responded:

David, you have done nothing to further the discussion except hurl elephants with a strong dose of invective. Every point you made has an answer. In fact, I suspect you already know how we would answer each of your new charges, but I took the liberty of adding hyperlinks your second message. Thank you for the opportunity. We decided to turn these into a weekend feedback article.


Helpful Resources

Readers’ comments

Jerry H.
Dear friends at CMI,

I have been receiving your magazines for a number of years and find they have a wonderful overall view of creation. My son recently told me that butterflies, because they can study so many generations as they live such a short time, show a very strong case for eveloution. He says there are many changes over these generations that prove eveloution. I had never heard of this before so would you have some understanding of this that I could share with my son? Thanks very much.
Robert Carter

Take heart! There is much to say about butterflies that argues strongly against evolution. Better, what you have been told is more of a 'throw it out there and hope nobody notices' argument.

First, are we talking about butterflies, or moths? The peppered moth has long been used to suggest evolution works, but when examined carefully the entire story collapses. See The Moth Files for starters.

Second, butterflies undergo a process called metamorphosis, where the body basically liquefies before specific cells grow into the new parts of the adult form. But it is not like skin cells turn into skin cells and stomach cells turn into stomach cells. Far from from it. In fact, metamorphosis is an amazing Achilles' heel for evolutionary theory, because why would a worm-like thing ever go through a process of liquefying and scrambling its body prior to reproduction when it would already have been able to reproduce in the form of a worm?

Without further details, I cannot specifically comment on what your son said, let alone what he was told, but I highly suspect that, with a little digging, you can come up with solid answers to the questions.
Dean R.
"Well proven (& unobserved & derived with assumption and philisophical bias) facts/LOL" is the convoluted convolution of evolutionary dogma. Such is an education 'system' and the 'style' of science that is serves.

It is not until you get off the high horse (that has always been a horse) & into the nitty gritty that things become clearer and more defined. The aproiri faires wave their magic wand and sprinkle deep time into the minds of the clueless claiming science, science. Meanwhile dinosaur DNA declares young earth, young earth along with coral reefs and diamonds among many other scientific observations and the consensus cries religion, religion and the minions of the media devoutly follow the secular or humanist narrative alone.

The modern and not so modest always shifting science that we witness today in reality should be reassigned to the arts because of its subjective nature and its predetermined outcomes as it selects & discards data according to a narrative, not science or truth.

It is a real shame and tragedy that philosophy is not taught anymore, or at least some kind of basic philosophy. Not to mention the scientific observations that contradict evolution, but maybe that is how many want it, for then equivocation rules, minds leap in faith and evolution is assumed fact and consensus is adored while truth is ignored.
Philippus Johannes Cornelius S.
And the Creator of it all, the Son of God, who grew up as a Carpenter with His earthly Dad understood all the modern Science, and knows each argument better than all the Scientists that THIS earth can produce and He walks and talks to all the CMI Scientist and all that believe in Him, He shows them what His will is. Jesus Christ did not have a single Hypothesis, He had only truth and facts.
Simon S.
It is astounding how some folk cling to the popular paradigm of evolutionary and long age thinking then having the brass to hurl belief in 'fairy tales' at us. Others refer to God as our 'imaginary friend'.
For their own sakes they need to realise they are the ones believing in 'fairy tales' and an imaginary science that is evolutionary theory.
John P.
Obviously it is David who believes in fairy tales and does not like his faith shaken. You can run from God in this life David, but you can't hide and you'll meet Him one day. What then? You also fail to realize that all cultures with dragon stories can't be wrong. Normally, until the unholy trinity of Lyell, Huxley and Darwin came along, myths contained an element of truth distorted over time. The Bible presents the facts. God was there, He knows what He's talking about, being our Creator.It must be really hard for you for someone to challenge your world view. Don't let your pride and stubbornness get in the way; research the articles on CMI with an open mind. Circular reasoning, strawmen and elephant hurling are the arguments of a loser or someone stumped for an honest rebuttal. Admit you are wrong and God will do the rest.
Russell B.
Good message there! However, most individuals are not scientifically minded and do not have the patience to go through all the facts in light of the Scriptures. For the rank and file barely educated, a much simpler explanation could be presented with enough facts to verify the validity of the Bible in 1000 words or less, and thus debunk the evolutionists and naturalists. Can you do this? For example, look at the odds of prophecies in the Bible that were told about the life and events of Jesus Christ hundreds or thousands of years before he was born, a good place to start, yes? A very crude example would be to go to a casino and put in a penny in the slots, win the first try, take five pennies, get a nickle, try the slots and win the first try, and so on through quarters, dollars, twenties, so forth until you own the casino and all the money in it. This does not even come close that all the events prophecied about Jesus could possibly happen to one man within his lifetime. That would get the ball rolling for sure...
Robert Carter
We have made many similar arguments in the past and 'simple' answers are not hard to find on our website. However, in cases like this it is more appropriate to bring out the 'big guns'. Also, instead of making things easy for everyone, we like to try and help people rise up to a new level of understanding.
Brent A.
Good morning CMI,
I just wanted to say thank you for such a fantastic reply. Unfortunately, for Mr D.M., I'm sure this has fallen on deaf ears (for now) but the good news is someone out there will read your response and take it to heart. I just watched Lee Strobel's Case For Christ and one line in particular stuck in my head. "How much evidence is enough evidence" (paraphrased). It pains me deeply when, regardless of the evidence to prove otherwise, I see the world reject the biblical account and follow what is obviously a very flawed theory of evolution. A theory that has to be changed constantly as it is build upon one flawed theory after another, which once exposed, will make their entire belief system fall like a house of cards. I know in my heart that Satan is behind this. On a side note, one reason (of very many) that I believe Christianity is true is how it has become illegal to slander or question every other religion except Christianity. If I even counter the Muslim faith with a Christian fact, I can be charged for hate crimes but it's open season on the Christian faith. Satan is truly afraid and is trying to make Christianity against the law. Thank you again for all the wonderful work you do and may God continue to bless you. Brent
Gian Carlo B.
Aside that he didn’t provide any detailed substance to his ‘newsfind’, physicists and quantum biologists have found that the universe is fundamentally immaterial and integrated information, which is interesting how you posted a picture of DNA with a bunch of 0’s and 1’s to it as that’s how physicists are modeling the universe. Meaning the inquirer has no escape from theism, because if the universe is fundamentally integrated information, and life requires that to live, it also means spacetime is not fundamental, so materialism is dead. Finally, quantum biology has found that consciousness does manipulate the chemical makeup of the brain and that it too is fundamental, so this means theism, particularly Christian theism, is inescapable, the only way to escape it is to deny science, but that’s a move no atheist will take, so they are stumped and stuck in outdated, irrelevant deterministic materialist world no physicist ever takes seriously.
Michael S.
I think this person is just FRAMING his questions in a way that makes the evidence for eons of age and evolution, seem exactly the same as eons of age and evolution.

The facts and evidence we find in the ground don't automatically BECOME evolution theory. So when he says, "last week they found evidence of man in Australia 65 thousand years ago." That actually only counts as tenuous evidence because it's based on dating methods with many assumptions. There is no way we can test those assumptions using operational science.

In other words, we "cope" with the weekly discoveries all around the world, by explaining that evidence in a more parsimonious way than you can with evolution. With evolution there's no direct evidence an anatomy designed itself. For example there is no evidence a quadruped evolved into a bat. We only in fact find bats, like we expect to if creation is true, rather than evolution.

We also don't have to INVOKE stories about millions of transitionals that magically evolved life and then left no trace.

So I think the question is, how strong are the weekly discoveries anyway? For example if we place weekly, 45 feathers on a scale, do those feathers outweigh only two bricks? So I would say the matter isn't about an accumulation of tenuously consistent evidence for evolution and long ages, but rather the matter is about the most pivotal evidence.

The most powerful evidence for evolution, IS NOT THERE AT ALL. That evidence would be direct evidence of macro evolution, showing us how it evolved the insect wing, showing us how it evolved a bat, showing us how it evolved angiosperms, showing us how it evolved pterosaurs, Ichthyosaurs, frogs, snails, millipedes. The true evidence for evolution, isn't the examples he is giving.
Michael S.
I think this person is basically making out like the expected evidence of evolution is coming to light each week. In fact the expected evidence of macro evolution never comes to light. So the type of examples he gives are explainable without evolution. But a transitional series showing a quadruped mammal certainly evolving into a bat with wings, would indisputably show a macro evolution, or a series of intermediates showing how the insect wing evolved, or something found in the fossils clearly between scale and feather.

So basically I think his argument only counts as, "rhetorical persuasion". The truth of the matter is that anyone who reads CMI's articles will know that there are very good explanations for the evidence which usually turn out to be much better explained without evolution, one reason being we don't have to INVOKE millions of missing transitionals of evolution, as part of our argument. Or missing evidence of living fossils. For example why are pines fossilies at 150 mya but we find none fossilised between then and now? That evidence fits much better with the rock record not being a result of millions of years. Or what about the recent evidence showing that buoyancy caused by decompositional gases require large amounts of sediment in order to create fossilisation because small amounts cause bloat-and-float bodies to burst through the ground and float on the water?

So the difference with evidence for creation is that the evidence seems to be far more consequential than the evidence this evolutionist gives.
Peter H.
Dr. Carter begins his answer, "Fantastic question!" I would say as a followup, "Fantastic answer!" One can only hope that the questioner (a) will actually follow up on all the links that you added to his second message, and (b) will do so with an open mind searching for truth rather than just thinking of new elephants to hurl. BTW, and off-topic, I really like the new simplified system that CMI has set up for submission of comments!
Dan M.
Hello Dr. Carter
If one had a real mountain of evidence as the naturalist claim, they would not feel the need to be sarcastic, character assassinate or to set up straw man arguments. The reason they get upset is that they are always on the ropes. They, (naturalists) can't explain how the real world observations, (real science) fit their paradigm. Then all they have left is intimidation and bullying to get you inline with their point of view, (evolution). In fact it is a modern day inquisition. An atheist inquisition much like the unscriptural biblical inquisition that happened in Europe so many years ago. It was and is about control and not the truth.
Thank God we have one who made us free by the truth, John 8:32.
H S.
Hurl elephants....I like that. Great turn of phrase. :) I might borrow it. Excellent response. I've watched several of Dr. Carter's presentations on YouTube and been incredibly impressed with both the material and the man. Thank you very much Dr. Carter...even if you did give us those wretched glowfish. ;)
Robert Carter
FYI, I did not give you Glowfish. Those fish were made by the competition. None of my fluorescent protein genes will be found in commercially-available, farmed products.
Rose R.
I wonder if DM will have the courage to try any of the links to find out what we really believe. I think he might be quite surprised if he does read some real creationist material. I hope/pray he does.
Keep up the good work.
Yours in Christ Rose.
Bridget M.
What I find interesting is his comment about weekly discoveries across the world that supposedly prove the evolutionary paradigm. I see these headlines as well, and have observed that they seem to constantly contradict each other. Every few weeks, I'll see articles about some discovery that is sensational or unbelievable and that claims experts will need to re-think the accepted consensus on some geological structure or archeological timeline. Most times the publisher will blithely ignore a previous month's article or even a current publication from a competing news source that claims the direct opposite. I don't see how the supposed "discoveries of paleontology or geology" that he is pointing to could possibly be considered credible when the experts are constantly contradicting each other and overturning their supposed scientific standards every few months. It really does lead one to wonder just who is believing the collection of fairy stories....
Robert Carter
It helps to pay attention to the phrase, "We now know." You will see it all the time in scientific reporting. What it really means is, "We were wrong yesterday but don't really want to admit it."
Tammy S.
Thank you Dr. Carter! The "we now know" comment made me chuckle uncontrollably. As a believer, I'd like to take a moment to coin the counter-phrase "we always knew" - considering that man has always known God. And to Dean R., the "high horse that has always been a horse" is priceless!! I enthusiastically concur with the awesome comments in this thread, and I just wanted you all to know how much it blesses me to see so many sound-reasoning believers, unshaken and standing up! Onward, Christian soldiers!!
Mark M.
DM must be suffering from cognitive dissonance now with your list of believing scientists, never mind other famous past and present scientists who believe in God and creation.

That evolution is more belief than science is shown by the strong reactions to creationism. Surely the scientific method is emotionally neutral and should consider ALL hypotheses. I can't remember getting into a punch up in Chemistry about whether a white powder was salt or baking powder.

I too love the high horse comment.
Robert Carter
Being that he has written to us several times, using different email addresses and different pseudonyms, and based on his responses to date, I suspect that he has not actually gone through the many links that were provided. However, the article still stands as a good answer for others to use when confronted by similar statements from the skeptics in their lives.

Comments are automatically closed 14 days after publication.