googlef87758e9b6df9bec.html A Sure Word: What is the Scientific Evidence for Creationism?

Tuesday, September 23, 2008

What is the Scientific Evidence for Creationism?

I apologize in advance because this is going to be a long post. But I think the subject is one of great importance to being equipped in the work of apologetics.

Before now, whenever I’ve talked about evolution or creation, a lot of my posts have revolved around “science.” But I’m not a scientist and neither are a lot of Christians. But do we even need to be scientists to confront the issue? Many young-earth creationists have fallen for the ploy that they need to play by the rules of the enemy when we discuss evolution - don’t use the Bible, don’t talk about the supernatural, and only talk about “science.” That’s garbage!

You see, "scientists" intentionally limit themselves to what is natural. They are proud to say that only what is natural can be observed and "science" doesn't make conclusions about the supernatural or divine. However, real life isn't limited to a lab. Can we study history like we study biology? When we research the Civil War, are we limited to chemical analysis of cannon balls dug up at Gettysburg? There is other evidence people consider besides "scientific" evidence.

Here’s a favorite analogy I like to use. It’s not mine originally but it works so well that I often come back to it:

In the US, it’s average citizens who are called on to sit on juries. We're not all lawyers, scientists, policemen, or criminologists of any kind. Yet we go and listen to the testimony of the “experts”: the lawyers plead the case, the scientists present the forensic evidence, we hear from the eye witnesses, and then we (the average folks) are called on to render a verdict. Perhaps it's not a perfect system but most people feel it is the best system.

When some people read the Bible, they consider it like any other document. If they see the Bible as a historically accurate text, and believe the miracles recorded in it are real, then what the Bible has to say about creation (or anything) carries weight. Furthermore, people use their experiences to form opinions about what is true. Many people see the universe as sublime. Therefore, they see the universe having a Creator to be an acceptable explanation in the scheme of things. It doesn't matter to them that such a conclusion isn't "scientific."

When it comes to the truth about our origins, it's perfectly reasonable to consider ALL the evidence - including the evidence of the Bible. In spite of all the accusations made to the contrary, I've studied all sides of the issue and have determined that the Biblical account of creation is the truth. Others have obviously come to a different conclusion; perhaps they are more persuaded by the "everything-must-be-natural" brand of science. But I refuse to play by the "rules" of scientists who say only their "scientific" evidence is allowed.

Something like the origin of life is a significant question. Most evolutionists avoid the subject with a simple, "ToE isn't about explaining the origin of life but only discusses what happened after the first living organism was formed." However, that answer just doesn't cut it because if life cannot arise spontaneously, then the rest of the theory is academic. The average Joe wants to know how life began and "science" doesn't have an answer. Creation does. This is why creationists harp on the origin of life question.

Now, I don't dismiss scientific reasoning. I've made it part of the equation. I'm just more open to interpreting reality than many scientists are. As we've already seen, many folks only consider the natural possibilities. By doing this they immediately disqualify one possible explanation - the supernatural one. And if the supernatural explanation happens to be the correct one, then I guess they're screwed from the start and practice "science" in vain. When real people are looking for answers, many of them aren't interested in theories that immediately disqualify what might be the TRUE answer.

Certainly reality includes science but it's not just science. It's especially not the restricted science that limits itself to only what is natural. Jesus rose from the dead. By all accounts, that's a miracle. Did it not happen because it's not scientific? And if He did rise from the dead, doesn't that add weight to the things He promised about our eternal life?

If the Creator of the universe walked on earth, told us how to be saved, and proved His divinity through miracles such as rising from the dead, do I reject that because the resurrection from the dead is unscientific? If I lived in a third world country, and never saw someone doing card tricks, I might believe some doing card tricks was a wizard. But it's because I know that dead men don't rise from the dead that I know a miracle has happened. It's because I know that matter is neither created nor destroyed that I know God created the universe. It's because I know that life only comes from life that I know that abiogenesis is impossible.

What about other religions and beliefs? I've considered them also. The Bible just didn't appear on my lap one day and beguile me into believing in it. I wasn't a Christian until I was a grown man. Why did I become a Christian? It’s because I've been convinced of the truth of it.

God said in Isaiah, "Come now, and let us reason together" Isaiah 1:18. I don't believe the Bible because of a blind faith. I've considered the evidence and made a reasonable decision. I did not make an a priori assumption that the natural is all there is and let the rest of the evidence be damned.


RKBentley said...

I received a feedback on this blog from someone posting under the name bobxxxx. While I cannot publish the entire comment due to some offensive language, I’ve censored the obscene portion and am posting the rest now.

bobxxxx said:
There's still no consensus on how the first living cells developed, therefore, according to you, it was magic.

Your magic is childish and idiotic. It's obvious you're uneducated.

>>Comment moderation has been enabled. All comments must be approved by the blog author.<<

In other words, any comments that don't respect your dead Jebus are censored. [expletive deleted]


Wow!! bobxxxx sounds like an angry person. His hatred obviously blinds him to reason and logic.

First, I mentioned abiogenesis in my blog but that was only an example and not the point of the post. Pulling quotes out of context is a practice known as quote mining. Here, bobxxxx not only quotemines but uses the quote as a straw man.

bobxxxx further uses the logical fallacy of ad hominem calling me uneducated. He’s wrong about my education but even if I didn’t have a degree, my education is not evidence against anything I’ve said.

Finally, bobxxxx wraps up his comments referring to “dead Jebus.” Either there’s a religious leader named Jebus that I’m unaware of or bobxxxx is blaspheming the risen Savior, Jesus. If it’s the latter, bobxxxx is mistaken and guilty of more than poor spelling - Jesus is very much alive!

Nevertheless, I wish God’s blessings on bobxxxx. I hope he keeps reading.


Doppelganger said...

Ummm... So, where is the scientific evidence?

The title of the post sort of indicates that there might be some.

And I don't 'moderate' the comments at my blog.

Todd Williams said...

I think what RK means is that naturalists will ask what the scientific evidence for creationism is, which is just another way of saying, "What is the natural evidence for supernatural creation." It's assuming a priori that knowledge can only be obtained through methodological naturalism.