You've heard me say many times that evidence is neutral and not really for any theory. Instead, theories are simply our attempts to explain why the evidence is the way it is. Still, some theories seem to explain the evidence better than other theories. If I found a suspect's bloody fingerprints on a murder weapon, I would immediately think he was there at the time of the crime; the defense might claim someone framed the suspect by painting his fingerprints onto the weapon with blood. Both theories could explain why the fingerprints are there but one is more likely than the other so I might say the bloody fingerprint is evidence for his guilt.
Critics love to say there is no evidence for creation. The truth is that creation has exactly the same evidence as evolution. We try to explain things like the fossils, for example, according to creation and secular scientists attempt to explain the same fossils with their theory. There is a dispute between both sides about which is the better explanation but the fossils themselves don't say which theory is correct.
Now, even though evidence isn't truly for any theory, I feel some things are better explained by creation than evolution. I know I keep saying I'm going to stop writing series. Actually, I should just stop saying that instead of thinking I'll ever stop writing series. Anyway, over the next few posts, I'm going to list 10 observations that I feel are best explained by young earth creation. I was going to call it “The Top 10 Evidences for Biblical Creation” but I really couldn't decide if these are the best 10. Actually, there are so many evidences that I thought about making a top 20 list but I didn't want this series to run that long. I'm just saying that to say there are other items that could have made this list but I'm only listing 10.
In this post, I thought I'd start with some ontological arguments. Here goes.
# 10: The existence of matter/energy: The first law of thermodynamics says that matter or energy can neither be created nor destroyed, they can only change form. You can convert matter into energy (as per Einstein's E=mc2) but the net amount of matter/energy in the universe remains constant.
This creates a quandary for secular science: if neither matter nor energy are being created, where did all the matter in the universe come from in the first place? Like Kent Hovind used to ask, “Who bought the gas that runs this machine?” Matter either has to be eternal (which merely ascribes to matter a divine-like quality which is hardly scientific) or it had to be created.
Logically speaking, something cannot create itself. But then again, many evolutionists are strangers to logic. In his book, The Grand Design, Stephen Hawking said, “Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing.” I've always wondered how such a bright guy could make such a nonsensical statement. How could there even be a law such as gravity if nothing existed? Physical laws, such as gravity, are very likely properties of matter. At the very least, physical laws describe how matter behaves. In any event, if nothing exists, then neither do physical laws exist.
Secular science really has no explanations for the origin of matter, energy, or the physical laws that govern them. They merely acknowledge these came into existence in a creation event they call the Big Bang. They are believers in poofism. Nature-did-it is the god of the gaps argument of evolutionists.
Note carefully that I'm not saying that since we don't know how it happened then it must be God. The Bible has told us that God created all matter (John 1:3). What we observe empirically is consistent with what the Bible says. It is not consistent with secular science that says matter/energy cannot be created naturally. If matter/energy cannot be created naturally, the only other possibility is that it is created supernaturally.
# 9: The existence of life: The theory of evolution proposes that all life on earth has descended from a common ancestor yet scientists excuse themselves from saying where the first life form came from. In Darwin's time, a cell was believed to be a gelatinous blob that could just fall together from an accidental arrangement of chemicals. It was called, “spontaneous generation.” Through scientific experimentation, all supposed examples of spontaneous generation were shown to be false. The idea was finally totally rejected and replaced by the Law of Biogenesis which states that life only comes from life.
Secular scientists still cling to a rehashed version of spontaneous generation, only now they call it “abiogenesis.” Besides being completely contrary to the scientific law of biogenesis, science hasn't been able to produce a single example of life coming from non-living chemicals.
A famous “origin of life” experiment was done by two scientists named Miller and Ulrey. They set up a contraption that produced various amino acids “naturally.” It's hard to credibly say a designed system producing amino acids does so “naturally.” Additionally, amino acids have been found in other places, like on meteors. Since amino acids are the building blocks of DNA, and because we sometimes find amino acids in nature, scientists believe these could be arranged serendipitously to create life.
Life isn't about substance; it's about arrangement. Believing amino acids could fortuitously organize into a living cell is like finding rocks and believing they could be accidentally arranged to create the pyramids. The more complicated the arrangement, the less likely it is the result of happenstance – the abundance of materials notwithstanding.
By the way, if life could not have even started, then the entire rest of the theory of evolution would be moot. I'm just saying...
God creating life is not only consistent with the law of biogenesis, it has also been observed as recorded in the resurrection accounts found in the gospels. A Creator is, by far, the more reasonable and scientific explanation of the origin of life.
Read this entire series