Does disproving evolution prove creationism?

Question

I had promised myself to step back from the evolution / creationism argument, but with so many devotees of drdino.com and harunyahya.com out there, it really begs the question:

For the sake of argument, let's say that evidence is found that completely, inarguably demolishes the concept of evolution. Does that prove creationism? Does that oblige us to believe in creationism? Or, does it just put us again back at square one, with no valid hypothesis about the origin of species?

Can you prove your theory by disproving an alternate theory?

Is there any way to prove/demonstrate creationism without referencing evolution?

Answer 1

Only if the evidence that disproved evolution proved creationism. I would guess you mean biblical creationism because some deity starting the process of evolution would be a form of creation...just not that in the bible. So creationism and evolution can coexist as long as it isn't literal biblical creationism.



But, if we found some evidence that disproved evolution completely (which would be highly unlikely considering all the evidence that backs up the theory) that would just knock us back to not having a good theory for how life developed on earth.



Disproving one theory does not automatically validate the other. They both could be wrong.



Creationism/ID could be demonstrated if someone were able to show that organisms are irreducibly complex...but then someone could use evolution to show that they aren't (or if evolution in this scenario were not an option there are numerous philosophical holes in the argument involving irreducible complexity)

Answer 2

Creationists use a "red herring" argument and it is fallacious.



They attempt to use evolution as a red herring as if by disproving evolution, it would somehow magically prove creationism.



Evolution is proven each time a baby is born. Plants, rocks, water, and other animals all participate in the evolutionary process of producing a unique life form, a baby.



Fertilizing an egg is just one tiny step in the overall process of various life forms evolving into another life form.



But, irrespective of that, creationism is nonsense because it claims complexity is proof the universe was created by a creator that was not created.

Answer 3

yes, i know the sentiments. The biggest question that we humans have,"where do we originate from", reaches on YahooAnswers never a higher level than "Hey, it's not God who did it, silly" versus "Tsk, tsk, who gives you the right to call me a monkey?". It's a complete empty debate, and the full debate seems to be about disproving eachothers points, to make our own point valid. And of course, as you stated in your almost rethorical question, that is an invalid manner of argueing.



Actually, i think both are wrong. The true answer of where we come from, is probably by far not discovered. What we know now is more than 30 years ago, more than 300 years ago, and much more than 3000 years ago. But we are still in complete emptyness almost.



So, where do we come from? Anything is possible. And that feels great!

Answer 4

Creationists seem to get upset if someones says humans evolved from ape, but have no problem saying humans were made out of dirt.



Very few species on this planet rape females and kill their own kind especially females of their own kind and I just cant see humans being the exception to the rule. Especially since we know that primeapes that rape, including humans only adopted the behavior after a severe drought. Only two species out of the primapes rape and commit war. The common chimp and man.

Answer 5

Nope, if we find out that evolution is completely false tommarow, creationism won't suddenly become true, it will remain false as well. That's like saying - You can't prove that god doesn't exists, that means he does!



If evolution was found to be false, yes, we would be back at square one, or whatever square we know for sure is fact.

Answer 6

i personally believe in creationism and my proof is solely based on faith. but this arguement will exist until the end of times so i don't argue about it i just accept that there are people who don't believe as i do and i leave it at that

Answer 7

i dont disproving one proves the other, you have to believe in god to believe creationism. I dont, so even if evolution is disproved, i wont believe in creationism. its really a question of science vs. faith.

Answer 8

Great question Ed! Unfortunately, I don't think too many of the creationists out there will grasp it.

Answer 9

if its disproved it still means that you have to prove creationism. doesnt mean coz something isnt proved that it isnt true, still gotta disprove it right?

Answer 10

S C R E W me!

Answer 11

ALL THESE ARE NOT THE WORK OF CHANCE



IT DOESN'T MAKE SENSE TO SAY, ''IT HAPPENED BY CHANCE''



Just think about the things you see from the moment you wake up in the morning: the pillow under your head, the blanket over you, the alarm clock that woke you up, the slippers you search for as soon as you get out of bed, the window you open to get some fresh air, the clothes hanging in your closet, the mirror you look into every morning, the knife and fork you use for breakfast, the umbrella you take with you when you leave the house, the elevator you get into, the key that opens your car door, the traffic lights along the way, the billboards, the pen, paper and other things on your desk at work...

Spend some time to consider, and it will no doubt occur to you that each of these things was designed for a special purpose. No one would say that it was a matter of chance that everything was where it should be when you arose up in the morning. For example, who would claim that merely by chance, your house key was cut exactly to fit the door? Or that it ended up in your pocket by chance, in the first place? No one would claim that the billboards along the road were put there by chance, or that the meanings they intend came about by randomly painted symbols.

By the same token, no one would deny that a staple—nothing other than a specially shaped piece of wire on your desk—was bent and placed in its dispenser in order to hold papers together. Each staple's metal alloy, size, shape, and intended function show the evidence of deliberate design. It was planned specifically to accommodate your needs; and there's a particular reason why staples are so often found in any office setting.

What about the people you see walking along the street? Or the trees you pass by, the dog that runs out in front of you, the pigeons that build their nests in the eaves of your house, the flowers on your table, the sky above you? Could their existence be by chance, do you think?

It would be nonsense to even consider this possibility! Everything surrounding you, animate and inanimate alike, is too wonderful and complex to be compared with man-made items or ever to be ascribed to the operations of chance. Each is an example of a conscious creation, requiring consummate intelligence and skill. Everyone who finds it illogical to think that even a single staple came about by the proper bending of a wire by chance, will see that it is even more impossible that human beings, cats, birds, trees and the entire universe emerged by chance.

But today, there are people who cannot see this clear reality. Or rather they see it, but pretend not to. They claim that trees, birds, clouds, houses, cars, you yourself, others around you—in short, everything in the universe, animate and inanimate, is all the work of blind chance.

These people, known as Materialist-Darwinists, maintain the contradictory idea that chance occurrences can display supreme intelligence; and that the sum total of millions of chance events, occurring in sequence, can show creative power. According to Materialist-Darwinists, chance events have greater intelligence than every person in the world—no matter how many people have come and gone. They claim that a genius called "chance" has shaped everyone's brain, cognitive ability, judgment, memory, and countless other human characteristics for hundreds of thousands of years.

According to Materialist-Darwinists, time is the only thing that this brilliant genius needs to bring about such extraordinary events. Their warped logic claims that, if given time, chance can transform a mass of inert, unconscious atoms into, for example, a fig, olive, strawberry, orange, peach, tomato, pomegranate, melon, banana, violet, tulip, orchid, or rose; into ants, butterflies, peacocks, horses, giraffes, and human beings, or any of a million other things you may not think of. Moreover, it claims that chance can bring into existence every star, the sun, and all planets in their orbits. According to Darwinism, all students, doctors, architects, businessmen, engineers, and scientists came into being over the course of time by chance, working patiently with the help of a few minerals, a bit of water, and sunlight. Interestingly, the deity of chance at the basis of this false idea is, at the same time, used by Materialist-Darwinists in their books, conferences and heated discussions to explain their own chance existence. This is the essence of the theory of evolution and the materialist philosophy, which some evolutionist-materialist scientists describe by using Latin words in a difficult, deliberately obscurantist style.

In this book, we'll examine the irrationality of those who have entered the blind alley of chance, ignoring the wondrous design that surrounds them as well as the proofs of creation, and denying the evident existence of God Who created them and the universe they live in.

Before starting our discussion, though, it's useful to point out that Materialist-Darwinists' self-contradictory position arises from a conceptual deficiency that has been common throughout history. In the past, pagans and godless societies carved totems and statues of gods with their own hands, ignorantly believing that images of stone and clay had creative power. God speaks of these people in the Qur'an (25: 2-3):

He to Whom the kingdom of the heavens and the earth belongs. He does not have a son and He has no partner in the Kingdom. He created everything and determined it most exactly. But they have adopted gods apart from Him which do not create anything but are themselves created. They have no power to harm or help themselves. They have no power over death or life or resurrection.

=*=*=*=*=*=*

CHANCE IS NOT A DEITY: IT IS GOD WHO IS THE CREATOR OF ALL THAT EXISTS





The theory of evolution, as proposed by Charles Darwin in the 19th century, is one of the most unbelievable and irrational claims in history. Despite this, over its 150-year history it's been accepted by many scientists, professors, doctors and researchers, and many others who have expended great effort to defend evolution to the point of accepting its scientific contradictions.

This theory puts forth the irrational claim that all plants, animals and human beings are the result of blind, unconscious, accidental events. Evolutionists believe that millions of years ago, in the primal soup of the oceans or in pools of water, mindless atoms with no knowledge, powers of reason came together in certain proportions and later, by chance, formed the proteins and cells that even today's scientists with the most advanced laboratory technology have not been able to duplicate. They go so far as to say that these cells, in their turn—and again by sheer chance—formed starfish, fish, sparrows, hawks, seagulls, penguins, cats, lambs, lions, and even human beings who possess the faculty of reason.

To demonstrate just how incredible the claims of evolutionists are, let anyone who believes in the creative power of chance events take a large barrel. Let them put into it however much material they believe is required to form a living thing. For example, let them include all the needed elements—carbon, phosphorus, calcium—as well as organic compounds like amino acids, proteins, lipids, and carotene. Then let them add to this mixture whatever outside influence they choose. For example, heat or chill the barrel. Let it be struck by lightning or apply electric current. Let them stir the mixture with whatever advanced devices they may have. In addition, let them stand guard on this barrel transferring this responsibility from father to son for millions, even billions, of years. And so as to increase the chances of success, let them control the mixing at every moment. Let them consult with others;meet with the world's foremost biologists, geneticists, physicists and experts on evolution. Leave them free to produce whatever conditions they deem necessary to originate life.

Yet despite all this serious, conscious effort, they'll never be able to produce anything like a living being in that barrel. No matter what they do, they'll never be able to produce the living things pictured in this book.

Let those atoms in that barrel perform any reactions they want; never will they begin an "evolution" capable of producing brilliant scientists like Einstein and Newton able to solve complex problems; artists like Michelangelo and Picasso able to create masterpieces; musicians like Beethoven and Mozart able to compose melodies to delight the human spirit; discoverers;scientists able to examine under electron microscopes the molecules and atoms out of which they themselves are composed; talented actors like Humphrey Bogart and Charlton Heston; celebrities like Steve Martin, Bon Jovi and Sting. Or consider the many artists; those who take pleasure in symmetry, esthetics and harmonious colors; those able to design automobiles and write books; thinkers with faculties of logic and judgment;human beings able to retain in memory what they have learned, share longings, feel excitement and pleasure;who are possessed with a sense of love, mercy and compassion; who enjoy the taste of food and whose appetite is stimulated by a cake baking in the oven; who laugh at something funny and enjoy being with their friends; who can defend an idea and carry on a discussion.

Bring unconscious atoms together in whatever way you prefer. Never will they be able to bring about a single one of these living things, or even one of their cells.

If so—if no living thing can ever be produced by human effort and the whole pool of human knowledge—how can life be brought into being with the aid of unconscious atoms and chance events? Any intelligent human being of conscience can certainly understand that he—and other living things—cannot be the result of chance events. Every intelligent, unprejudiced person with a conscience knows that God has created all these living things with His incomparable power.

Regrettably, a segment of the population has accepted this irrational scenario throughout the 20th century. Professors, scientists and teachers may ridicule the "primitive" beliefs of pagan societies, while themselves accepting the nonsense of evolution. In this, they're equally as benighted as those human beings who expect a wooden idol can help them. God's Messenger, he Prophet Mohammed, peace be upon him, also reminded anyone afflicted with such blindness that the greatest sin is associating His creatures with God:

The most severe sin is to associate partners with God, while He has created you.1

In the Qur'an (29:17), God warns those who worship idols and invent lies about them that their power is strong enough to do anything.

Instead of God, you worship only idols. You are inventing a lie. Those you worship besides God have no power to provide for you. So seek your provision from God and worship Him and give thanks to Him. It is to Him you will be returned.

=*=*=*=*=*==*

THE FLAWLESS ORDER OF THE UNIVERSE FALSIFIES CLAIMS THAT IT CAME ABOUT BY CHANCE



The universe with all its creations, both animate and inanimate, has a flawless design, unique systems, and an ordered balance that provide all the conditions necessary for living things to survive. Discoveries, especially those made in the 20th and 21st centuries, have shown that the flawless design of the universe is clearly the work of a supreme intelligence. It is God, with His supreme intelligence, limitless knowledge and eternal power, Who created the universe.

But this fact, established with clear proofs by 20th-century science, is ignored by those who have adopted the Darwinist-Materialist philosophy. Materialists may claim that the universe is the product of chance and chaos, but when we examine the flawless systems that functioned in forming the universe, not to mention the balance and harmony existing among its living things, we clearly see that it cannot be the product of chance.

In The Mysterious Universe, the English physicist Sir James Jeans describes the flawless order in the cosmos:

A scientific study of the universe has suggested a conclusion, which may be summed up ... in the statement that the universe appears to have been designed by a pure mathematician.2

Every planet in the universe, large and small, is the critically important part of a larger order. Not one of their positions in space or any of their movements is random. On the contrary, their countless details known to us so far have been created and especially adjusted for a particular purpose. Of all the innumerable factors influencing the balances in the universe, a change in the position of just one planet is enough to bring chaos. But these balances are never upset. The universe continues on, in its perfect order, with no problems. All of this is a result of God's supreme power in creation.



''He Who created the seven heavens in layers. You will not find any flaw in the creation of the All-Merciful. Look again –do you see any gaps? Then look again and again. Your sight will return to you dazzled and exhausted!'' (Qur'an 67:3-4)



"God, there is no god but Him, the Living, the Self-Sustaining. He is not subject to drowsiness or sleep. Everything in the heavens and the earth belongs to Him. Who can intercede with Him except by His permission? He knows what is before them and what is behind them but they cannot grasp any of His knowledge save what He wills. . . ." (Qur'an 2: 255)



Charles Darwin first proposed the theory of evolution, which suggests that all living things came into being by the mechanism of chance. But the universe's perfect design led even Darwin to admit that there is no room for chance in its creation. As he wrote:

This [conviction in the existence of God] follows from the extreme difficulty or rather impossibility of conceiving this immense and wonderful universe, including man with his capacity of looking far backwards and far into futurity, as the result of blind chance or necessity.3

"The Originator of the heavens and earth. When He decides on something, He just says to it, ‘Be!' and it is." (Qur'an 2: 117)



The distance between the Earth and our moon ensures many important balances and is extremely vital for the continuation of life on Earth. Indeed, the slightest variation in the distance between the two bodies could give rise to significant imbalances. For example:

- If the moon were much closer [to the Earth], it would crash into our planet, if much farther away, it would move off into space.

- If it were much closer, the tides that the moon causes on the earth would become dangerously larger. Ocean waves would sweep across low-lying sections of the continents. Resultant friction would heat the oceans, destroying the delicate thermal balance needed for life on earth.

- A more distant moon would reduce tidal action, making the oceans more sluggish. Stagnant water would endanger marine life, yet it is that very marine life that produces the oxygen that we breathe.4

The Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him, said:

O God:All the Praises are for You:You are the Lord of the Heavens and the Earth. All the Praises are for You:You are the Maintainer of the Heaven and the Earth. You are my only God [Whom I worship] and there is no other God for me [I worship none but You].5



"You will see the mountains you reckoned to be solid going past like clouds—the handiwork of God Who gives to everything its solidity. . . . " (Qur'an 27: 88)



"And the earth: how We stretched it out and cast firmly embedded mountains onto it and caused luxuriant plants of every kind to grow in it." (Qur'an 50: 7)



The distribution of heavenly bodies in the universe is designed exactly to conform to the needs of human life. In his book The Symbiotic Universe, American astronomer George Greenstein explains the importance of the huge voids in space and the distances between heavenly bodies:

All that wasted space! On the other hand, in this very waste lies our safety. It is a precondition for our existence. Most remarkable of all is that the overall emptiness of the cosmos seems to have no other consequence in the astronomical realm. Had the stars been somewhat closer, astrophysics would not have been so very different. The fundamental physical processes occurring within stars, nebulas, and the like would have proceeded unchanged. The appearance of our galaxy as seen from some far-distant vantage point would have been the same. About the only difference would have been the view of the night time sky from the grass on which I lie, which would have been yet richer with stars. And oh, yes—one more small change: There would have been no me to do the viewing.6



"This is God's creation. Show me then what those besides Him have created! The wrongdoers are clearly misguided." (Qur'an 31: 11)





Contemporary philosopher Jean Guitton of the French Academy writes:

The first conditions that determined the basic constants of nature and the emergence of life were set in place with amazing exactness. To give an idea of how precisely the universe appears to have been constructed, it is enough to think of a golfer who can hit his ball from Earth to a hole on Mars! 7



"God is He Who raised up the heavens without any support—you can see that—and then established Himself firmly on the Throne. He made the sun and moon subservient, each running for a specified term. He directs the whole affair. He makes the Signs clear so that hopefully you will be certain about the meeting with your Lord." (Qur'an 13: 2)



"Do you not see that everyone in the heavens and everyone on the earth prostrates to God, and the sun and moon and stars and the mountains, trees and beasts and many of mankind? But many of them inevitably merit punishment. . . ." (Qur'an 22: 18)



"Do you not see how He created seven heavens in layers, and placed the moon as a light in them and made the sun a blazing lamp?" (Qur'an 71: 15-16)



"In two days He determined them as seven heavens and revealed, in every heaven, its own mandate. We adorned the lowest heaven with lamps and guarded it. . . ." (Qur'an 41: 12)



"Did We not make the earth a receptacle for the living and the dead? Did We not place firmly embedded mountains in it, soaring high into the air, and give you sweet fresh water to drink?" (Qur'an 77: 25-27)



"He sends down water from the sky and river-beds fill up and flow according to their size, and the floodwater carries a rising foam. . . ." (Qur'an 13: 17)



If the laws of the universe allowed only the solid and gaseous states of matter, life would never have come into being. This is because the atoms in solid matter are compact, relatively motionless, and do not allow the dynamic molecular activity needed for living organisms to develop. The atoms in gasses have no stability and move freely, preventing the functioning of the complex mechanisms of living organisms.

In short, there must be a fluid environment for the functions necessary for life to develop. The most ideal fluid—rather the only ideal fluid—is water.



The suitability of Earth's environment for the sustaining life is too wondrous to ever be explained by chance occurrences. Lawrence Henderson, a professor in Harvard University's department of biological chemistry, says the following in this regard:

The fitness... [of these compounds constitutes] a series of maxima—unique or nearly unique properties of water, carbon dioxide, the compounds of carbon, hydrogen, and oxygen and the ocean—so numerous, so varied, so complete among all things which are concerned in the problem that together they form certainly the greatest possible fitness.8



God has created the amount of water in the world in the way most appropriate for the survival of living things. The 18th century English natural scientist John Ray, writes the following in this regard:

… [I]f there were but half the sea that now is, there would also be but half Quantity of Vapors, and consequently we could have but half as many Rivers as now there are to supply all the dry land we have at present, and half as much more; for the quantity of Vapors which are raised, as well as to the heat which raised them. The Wise Creator therefore did so prudently order it, that the seas should be large enough to supply Vapors sufficient for all the land.9

To claim that all these events resulted from chance events, a person would have to be completely deluded.



"We pour down plentiful water, then split the earth into furrows. Then We make grain grow in it, and grapes and herbs and olives and dates." (Qur'an 80: 25-29)



". . . . Luxuriant gardens and orchards and meadows, for you and your livestock to enjoy." (Qur'an 80: 30-32)



The molecular biologist Michael Denton writes:

The fitness of water [for life] would in all probability be less if its viscosity were much lower. The structures of living systems would be subject to far more violent movements under shearing forces if the viscosity were as low as liquid hydrogen... If the viscosity of water was much lower, delicate structures would be easily disrupted . . . and water would be incapable of supporting any permanent intricate microscopic structures. The delicate molecular architecture of the cell would probably not survive.

If the viscosity was higher, the controlled movement of large macromolecules and particularly structures such as mitochondria and small organelles would be impossible, as would processes like cell division. All the vital activities of the cell would be effectively frozen, and cellular life of any sort remotely resembling that with which we are familiar would be impossible. The development of higher organisms, which is critically dependent on the ability of cells to move and crawl around during embryogenesis, would certainly be impossible if the viscosity of water was even slightly greater than it is.10



"Say: ‘What do you think? If, one morning, your water disappears into the earth, who will bring you running water?' "(Qur'an 67: 30)



"Have you thought about the water that you drink? Is it you who sent it down from the clouds or are We the Sender?" (Qur'an 56: 68-69)



Water is renewed in a continuous cycle, in a state ready to be used by plants, animals, and human beings. Due to the sun's influence, the Earth's water is purified by evaporation. Evaporated water condenses in the atmosphere, forming clouds, and falls to the earth again as rain. In one year, for example, it is calculated that roughly six to seven hundred million tons of water evaporates at the equator, rises into the atmosphere, is carried towards the North and the South Poles, and eventually returns to the seas again, in the form of rain.

If this transformation did not occur—that is, if water didn't evaporate and return to the earth, life would certainly come to an end.



=*=*=*=*==*=**=



Here is a wonderful book about Evolution Theory:



((The Collapse Of The Theory Of Evolution In 20 Questions))



(Word file)

http://www.harunyahya.net/popup/Download.php?WorkNumber=80&Format=rtf



(PDF file)

http://www.harunyahya.net/popup/Download.php?WorkNumber=80&Format=pdf



Useful sites which may help :

http://www.harunyahya.com

http://www.harunyahya.net

http://www.islam-guide.com/islam-guide.p...

=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*...

Answer 12

I think so and I believe science has already disproven evolution and proven intelligent design. Science itself refutes Darwinism. Science is disproving evolution more every day. There is less evidence for evolution today than there was when Charles Darwin first came up with the theory. There are a lot of scientists that don't believe in evolution, and more are changing their beliefs all the time. Here is a partial list of creation scientists (past and present).

http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-scientists.html

With all the evidence against it I really don't see how any open minded intelligent human being could believe in evolution. With the lack of proof for evolution it takes more faith to believe in evolution than it does to believe in creation and intelligent design. There is a lot more evidence for intelligent design than there is for evolution.



About fifty years ago, American astronomers studying the galactic star clusters, stumbled on evidence that the entire Universe is blowing up before our eyes. According to their observations, all the galaxies in the Universe are moving away from us and from one another at very high speeds, and the most distant are receding at the extraordinary speed of hundreds of millions of miles an hour.



First there was nothing and it blew up and then there was everything and scientists have calculated that it all happened in 1043 of a second. The echo of that explosion can still be heard bouncing around in space. Scientists claim that in the big bang all of the fundamental particles necessary for life were formed. All of the complexity we see around us is the result of this massive explosion.



"The new finding hit the scientific world like a thunderclap." It meant that the idea of an ultimate beginning was no longer merely religious dogma. Science itself now indicated that the universe burst into existence at a particular time in the remote past.



In 1992 measurements by the Cosmic Background Explorer (COBE) and by the Hubble Space Telescope seemed to confirm beyond any reasonable doubt that the Big Bang cosmology is indeed correct. George Smoot, Professor at the University of California at Berkeley and Principle Investigator of the COBE team which made the discovery, said regarding these new observations, "What we have found is evidence for the birth of the universe . . . It's like looking at God."



Working backwards, the evidence implies that there was a time when the universe was infinitesimally small. The evidence from general relativity also indicates that it was not merely a case of the matter in the universe being concentrated at a particular location, but that space itself was this tiny. At a sudden instant in time all of the energy and mass in the universe was located at this infinitesimally small point and exploded. The currently observed outbound motion of the galaxies from each other is a continuing effect of that explosion.



"The scientific community is prepared to consider the idea that God created the universe is a more respectable hypothesis today than at any time in the last 100 years," Frederic B. Burnham, science historian, declared.



However, some die-hard secularists propose that the universe goes through endless cycles of expansions and collapses. Hence, eternity becomes nothing more than an eternal succession of big bangs followed by big crunches followed by big bangs followed by big crunches over and over again and again forever.



But this violates the second law of thermodynamics, the law of decay, that implies that the universe is in a process of gradual disintegration - running down, like a wound-up clock. And if it is running down, then there must have been a time when it was wound up. Once the big bang takes place and the universe begins its expansion, entropy starts to increase. From this point on it will never be able to go back to its original state.



What's more, the first law of thermodynamics (the conservation of matter) implies that matter cannot just pop into existence or create itself. And therefore, if the universe had a beginning, then something external to the universe must have caused it to come into existence - something, or Someone, transcendent to the natural world.



The facts clearly indicate that the universe is not eternal, and it cannot originate itself The implication is that the universe began at a definite moment in time, in a flash of light and energy. Science has begun to sound eerily like Genesis 1: "And God said, 'Let there be light"' (1:3).



The evidence requires that we believe God formed the universe at His command, pointing to the importance of taking God at His word literally - from the beginning both of time and the Bible. Second, there is such a striking parallel between the Hebrews 11:3 account of Creation and the Big Bang Theory when it is coupled with the creation of visible matter from what scientists call antimatter.



In Jeremiah 10:12 the Bible says that God "stretched out the heavens" after it was created ... other verses found throughout the Old Testament affirm that the universe has expanded, and is still expanding. They include: Psalm 104:2, 144:5, 18:9; Zechariah 12:1; Job 9:8, 26:7, 37:18; Isaiah 40:22, 48:13; 42:5, 51:13, 44:24, 45:12; II Samuel 22:10; Jeremiah 51:15; and Ezekiel 1:22.



All of these verses use four different Hebrew verbs and occur in a wide variety of contexts. These are natah, matach, raqa and taphach which all mean "to spread out." Their frequency and diversity provide biblical support for thinking that the universe was much smaller in the past.



Not only are these verses an accurate scientific depiction of the universe, as we understand it today, but they also affirm God as Creator. Who else but God the Creator could have provided such insight, and placed it in recorded history over 4,000 years ago?



Secular scientists require people to have "faith" in the "matter from antimatter" theory in the same way that God requires that Christians have faith in His Biblical account of Creation. However scientists will never prove the earth and all its contents are the creation or result of matter from antimatter. It is a logical impossibility if not a physical one.



Roger Primrose, one of the major forces in the development of the black hole theory estimates the odds of our universe being formed by chance are 1 in 10 billion.



Astrophysicist Sir Fred Hoyle stated, "A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests a super intellect has monkeyed with the physics as well as with the chemistry and biology and there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. ... The numbers that one calculates from the facts seem to be so overwhelming as to put this conclusion beyond question."



Albert Einstein said, "The scientist is possessed by a sense of universal causation. When you look at the complexity around us, someone had to cause it ... Such a super intellect that when you take all of the thinking minds that have ever existed, put them all together ... they were utterly insignificant in comparison."



Even Robert Jastrow, one of the worlds leading agnostic astronomers (described by Paddy Chayevsky as "the greatest writer on science alive today.") admitted, "Consider the enormity of this problem: Science has proven that the universe exploded into being in a certain moment. What cause produced this effect, who or what put the matter and the energy into the universe? Science can not answer these questions. For the scientist who has lived by faith and the power of reason our story ends like a bad dream. We have scaled the mountains of ignorance; we're about to conquer its highest peak, we pull ourselves over the final rock and we are greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries."

http://www.straight-talk.net/evolution/bigbang.htm



Evolution isn't mathematically possible. The complexity of life points to Intelligent Design as revealed by such complex structures as:



Cells and DNA



In Darwin's time, scientists thought cells were just blobs of protoplasm. Since that time the advance of science has uncovered ever more powerful evidence that what Christians believe is true on all levels, including the natural world. And that is becoming even clearer today as scientists learn more about what is inside the cell-and especially the structure of DNA.



According to cell biologist Bruce Alberts, president of the National Academy of Sciences, "The entire cell can be viewed as a factory that contains an elaborate network of interlocking assembly lines, each of which is composed of a set of large protein machines."



Even the simplest cells are bristling with high-tech machinery. On the outside, their surfaces are studded with sensors, gates, pumps and identification markers.



Inside, cells are jam-packed with power plants, automated workshops and recycling units. Miniature monorails whisk materials from one location to another. No such system could arise in a blind, step-by-step Darwinian process.



The most advanced, automated modern factory, with its computers and robots all coordinated on a precisely timed schedule, is less complex than the inner workings of a single cell.



"A bacterium is far more complex than any inanimate system known to man. There is not a laboratory in the world which can compete with the biochemical activity of the smallest living organism. One cell is more complicated than the largest computer that man has ever made." - Sir James Gray, from Cambridge University



DNA is like a language in the heart of the cell, a molecular message, a set of instructions telling the cell how to construct proteins-much like the software needed to run a computer. Moreover, the amount of information DNA includes is staggering: A single cell of the human body contains three or four times more information as all 30 volumes of the Encyclopedia Britannica. As a result, the question of the origin of life must now be redefined as the question of the origin of biological information. Can information arise by natural forces alone? Or does it require an intelligent agent?



DNA is composed of ordinary chemicals (bases, sugars, phosphates that react according to ordinary laws. What makes DNA function as a message is not the chemicals themselves but rather their sequence, their pattern. The chemicals in DNA are grouped into molecules (called nucleotides) that act like letters in a message, and they must be in a particular order if the message is going to be intelligible. If the letters are scrambled, the result is nonsense. So the crucial question is whether the sequence of chemical "letters" arose by natural causes or whether it required an intelligent source. Is it the product of law or design?



Since DNA contains information, the case can be stated even more strongly in terms of information theory, a field of research that investigates the ways information is transmitted. The naturalistic scientist has only two possible ways to explain the origin of life-either chance or natural law. But information theory provides a powerful tool for discounting both of these explanations. Both chance and law lead to structures with low information content, whereas DNA has a very high information content."



The sequence of basis in DNA can not be explained by natural law because there are no chemical laws that make any sequence more likely than another. At the same time these sequences are so complicated that they can not be explained by chance.



"Based on probability factors any viable DNA strand having over 84 nucleotides cannot be the result of haphazard mutations. At that stage, the probabilities are 1 in 4.80 x 10. Such a number, if written out, would read:



480,000,000,000,000,000,000, 000,000,000,000,000, 000,000,000,000,000.



"Mathematicians agree that any requisite number beyond 10 has, statistically, a zero probability of occurrence (and even that gives it the benefit of the doubt!). Any species known to us, including the smallest single-cell bacteria, have enormously larger number of nucleotides than 100 or 1000. In fact, single cell bacteria display about 3,000,000 nucleotides, aligned in a very specific sequence. This means that there is no mathematical probability whatever for any known species to have been the product of a random occurrence—random mutations (to use the evolutionist's favorite expression)."—I. L. Cohen, Darwin was Wrong, 1984, p. 205.



The study of DNA provides powerful new evidence that life is the product of intelligent design.



Today, holding on to the hope that some natural process will be found to explain DNA is supremely irrational. The elusive process that naturalists hope to find would have to be completely unprecedented, different in kind from any we currently know.



Although humans share about 97% of their DNA structure with some higher non-human animals, those last 3% are so vital that all of human civilization, religion, art, science, philosophy and, most importantly, their moral nature depends upon it.



It is the 3% that distinguishes the theistic view of man's origin from the non-theistic view, as well as from the various societal and cultural consequences distinguishing each belief. As John Quincy Adams warned long ago, without a belief in theistic origins [in that three percent difference] man will have no conscience. He will have no other law than that of the tiger and the shark."



ON ALL FRONTS, scientists are being forced to face up to the evidence for an intelligent cause. Ever since big bang theory was proposed, cosmologists have had to wrestle with the implications that the universe had an absolute beginning-and therefore a transcendent creator. The discovery of the information content in DNA is forcing biologists to recognize an intelligent cause for the origin of life. So, too, the fact of irreducible complexity is raising the question of design in living things.



Your Incredible Brain



Your brain is the most complex mechanism in the world and the most influential organ of your body, enabling your mind to think, remember, love, hate, feel, reason, imagine, and analyze.



The average brain weighs about three pounds and contains 12 billion cells, each of which is connected to 10,000 other brain cells - 120 trillion brain connections! Some have compared the human brain to a sophisticated computer, but technology hasn't come close to duplicating its capabilities.



Your brain supervises everything you do, from involuntary actions such as breathing to the conscious decisions of your life. It controls hearing, sight, smell, speech, eating, resting, learning, prejudices, and everything else that makes you behave as you do. Scientists tell us that the brain is our most important organ because it determines the function of the other organs and systems, including the pituitary gland, heart, and nervous system. Your unique traits, temperament, and even physical growth patterns are all controlled by your brain.



We have little or no conscious control over many of these traits, and scientists still disagree over the extent to which we rule ourselves. Yet most experts insist that we can regulate far more mental activity than we realize.



A major portion of your three-pound brain houses your Intellect. Your intellect has phenomenal potential. Scientists tell us that the average person uses less than 10% of his brain's capability. If that is true, then most people die with 10 to 11 billion brain cells still unused.



The vast majority of what we know about the intellect has been discovered during the past 100 years, yet scientists believe that even greater discoveries await us. Thinking and memory are the chief functions of the intellect, but it also affects our intuition, conscience, , and much more. Recent studies indicate a difference between the minds of men and women, providing scientific support for the traditional claim that the sexes think differently.



The second significant part of your brain is what the Bible calls your "heart," your emotional center. It's not heart-shaped, but looks instead more like a walnut. Tied neurologically to every organ of your body, it activates both feeling and movement. The mind is to the emotions what food is to the body.



The third characteristic of the brain is the will, which makes human beings unique from all other living creatures. No one knows where the will is located, but we suspect it resides in the brain, because it so depends on the mind and emotions. Many dying people have displayed a strong will long after most other bodily functions have ceased, but when the brain ceases to function, the will vanishes.



It is difficult to imagine how such a complex organ as the human brain could have simply evolved.



Neurotheology



Andrew Newberg, a professor at the University of Pennsylvania has developed a biological theory of religion, which he believes provides a neurological basis for the great human hunger for God. The theory has made Newberg a leading figure in the emerging science of neurotheology, which explores the links between spirituality and the brain.



He says that a "higher reality" is real and not inconsistent with science.





Using an imaging technology called SPECT scanning to map the brains of Tibetan Buddhists

meditating and Franciscan nuns engaged in deep, contemplative prayer, he photographed blood flow-indicating levels of neural activity-in each subject's brain at the moment that person had reached an intense spiritual peak.



When the scientists studied the scans, their attention was drawn to a portion of the brain's left parietal lobe they called the orientation association area. It is this region that is responsible for drawing the line between the physical self and the rest of existence, a task that requires a constant stream of neural information flowing in from the senses. What the scans revealed, however, was that at peak moments of prayer and meditation, the flow was dramatically reduced. As the orientation area was deprived of information needed to draw the line between the self and the world-the scientists believed-the subject would experience a sense of a limitless awareness melting into infinite space.



It seemed they had captured snapshots of the brain nearing a state of al transcendence-described by all major religions as one of the most profound spiritual experiences - a " al union" with God.



Newberg's research suggests that spiritual feelings are rooted not in emotion or wishful thinking, but in the genetically arranged wiring of the brain.



"That's why religion thrives in an age of reason," Newberg says. You can't simply think God out of existence, he says, because religious feelings rise more from experience than from thought. They are born in a moment of spiritual connection, as real to the brain as any perception of "ordinary" physical reality.



His research suggests that our brains have been wired to experience the reality of God



.The Eye



"To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I confess, absurd in the highest degree." - Charles Darwin



An eye is completely useless unless all its parts are fully formed and working together. Even a slight alteration from its current form destroys its function. How, then, could the eye evolve by slight alterations? Even in Darwin's day the complexity of the eye was offered as evidence against his theory, and Darwin said the mere thought of trying to explain the eye gave him "a cold shudder."



Darwin would have shuddered even harder had he known the structure of cells inside the eye. Contemporary Darwinists such as Richard Dawkins have tried to solve the problem by tracing a pathway to the evolution of the eye, starting with a light-sensitive spot, moving to a group of cells cupped to focus light better, and so on through a graded series of small improvements to produce a true lens.



But as Michael Behe (author of Darwin's Black Box) points out, even the first step-the light-sensitive spot is irreducibly complex, requiring a chemical chain reaction, starting when a photon interacts with a molecule called 11-cis-retinal, that changes to trans-retinal, which forces a change in the shape of a protein called rhodopsin, which sticks to another protein called transducin, which binds to another molecule ... and so on. And where do those cupped cells that Dawkins talks about come from? There are dozens of complex proteins involved in maintaining cell shape, and dozens more that control groups of cells. Each of Dawkins's steps is itself a complex system, and adding them together doesn't answer where these complex systems came from in the first place.



The human eye is so complex and sophisticated that scientists still do not fully understand how it works. The eye completes 100,000 separate functions in a single day. While we sleep the eye conducts its own maintenance work. Considering the number of complex structures in the eye, as well as the highly integrated synchronization, it is difficult to understand how the evolutionist can believe that the eye emerged from a natural trial-and-error process.



Great numbers of trilobite fossils, ocean bottom dwelling creatures now thought to be extinct, have been preserved. Trilobite eyes had lenses made out of calcite. Because these lenses are made out of "rock" and therefore don't decay, paleontologists have been able to study the design of trilobite eyes. Unlike human eyes, which are composed of a single lens, the trilobite eye is composed of a double lens with up to 15,000 separate lens surfaces in each eye, allowing the trilobite to see under water perfectly without distortion. Precise application of several laws of optics, including Abbe's sine law and Fermat's principle, is inherent in the design of these lenses. How did a trilobite grow a second lens? How did the eye function before the second lens was present? Did a grand engineer design the eye or did it develop by chance?



Researchers have found striking similarities between the compound eyes of these trilobites and those of modern insects. For instance, according to Riccardo Levi-Setti, "Trilobites could see in their immediate environment with amazingly sophisticated optical devices in the form of large composite eyes. ... The number of individual optical elements in the compound eye could vary from approximately one hundred to more than fifteen thousand in a single eye, a range not very different from that found in modern insects."



The Human Ear



The ability of our ears to detect sound is much greater than the minimum expected requirement for survival had man simply evolved.



"The ear is capable of sensory response to sound whose pressure at the ear drum is no greater than two ten-thousandths of a millionth of barometric pressure. This pressure moves the ear drum about one one-hundred-millionth of an inch. That dimension is approximately one one-hundredth the width of a hydrogen molecule, the tiniest of all known molecules. Therefore, throughout a significant portion of the ear's dynamic range, it is moving in sub-molecular dimensions." - Hearing Conservation in Industry, Schools, and the Military, edited by David Lipscomb, 1988



To illustrate this incredible sensitivity in visual terms, imagine a six-foot man, standing on the surface of the earth, shrink to only one one-hundred-millionth of an inch. The earth, shrinking also - but still enormous when compared to the man - would proportionately reduce to a tiny ball no bigger than the small letter 'o' on this page! The man would become utterly invisible, even to the powerful microscopes of today.



With this example, a person can begin to appreciate the way God has created the incomprehensibly tiny, as well as the unimaginably large things of this universe. It also helps us to consider the miracle of hearing with which our Creator has blessed us.



Vestigial Organs



"Vestigial organs" in the human body were thought by evolutionists to be remnants of formerly important organs. At one time, more than 200 organs of the human body were classified as such. However, in the last 100 years, these organs have been found to have important functions for the body. It appears that every part of the human body has functionality. This implies masterful design, not chance evolutionary processes.

http://www.straight-talk.net/evolution/biology.htm



* Science itself refutes Darwinism



• According to the theory of evolution, at some time in the distant past there was no life in the universe -- just elements and chemical compounds. Somehow, these chemicals combined and came to life.



• However, scientists don't really know how life came to be. Even Stanley Miller, whose experiments are cited in most biology text books, says that the origin of life is still unknown. The idea that dead material can come to life all by itself is not consistent with scientific observation.



• The leading mathematicians in the century met with some evolutionary biologists and confronted them with the fact that, according to mathematical statistics, the probabilities for a cell or a protein molecule coming into existence were nil. They even constructed a model on a large computer and tried to figure out the possibilities of such a cell ever happening. The result was zero possibility! - Wistar Institute



• Professor Edwin Conklin observed, "The probability of life originating from accident is comparable to the probability of the Unabridged Dictionary resulting from an explosion in a printing shop."



• Under normal circumstances, creatures give birth to the same kind of creatures. It is established scientific fact that like begets like. On rare instances, the DNA in an embryo is damaged, resulting in a mutant child that differs in some respect from its parent. Although a few mutations have been scientifically observed that are beneficial, most mutations produce inferior offspring. For the theory of evolution to be true, there must be a fantastic number of creative mutations that produce new kinds of offspring which are better suited for survival, and therefore are favored by natural selection.



• Darwinists claim that the reptile-to-mammal evolution is well documented. But for reptiles to evolve into mammals at least some of these transformations must have happened:

• Scales had to have mutated into hair.

• Breasts had to have evolved from nothing.

• Externally laid eggs had to evolve into soft-shelled eggs that were nourished by an umbilical cord and placenta in a womb.



• It has never been observed in any laboratory that mutations can cause one species to turn into another. Despite this, evolutionists believe that given enough time, some animals will eventually evolve into other creatures.



• Evolutionists claim that although we have not actually observed these things happening, that does not mean that they are impossible. They say it simply means they are extremely improbable. Evolutionists think the world has been around long enough for all these highly improbable things to happen.



• Sir Fred Hoyle, of Cambridge University stated that statistically the chances of one cell evolving was the same as a tornado passing through a junkyard and giving you a fully functional Boeing 747.

http://www.straight-talk.net/evolution/arguments.shtml







* Scientific evidence casts serious doubts on the theory of evolution, for example:



* The Fossil Record (Updated 3 July, 2005)

http://www.straight-talk.net/evolution/fossil.htm



* Living "Fossils"

http://www.straight-talk.net/evolution/living.htm



* The Cambrian Explosion

http://www.straight-talk.net/evolution/explosion.htm



* New T.Rex Discoveries (Updated 10 June, 2005)

http://www.straight-talk.net/evolution/t-rex.htm



* "Missing Links"

http://www.straight-talk.net/evolution/misslinks.htm



* Anthropic Principle

http://www.straight-talk.net/evolution/anthropic.htm



* Irreducible complexity

http://www.straight-talk.net/evolution/irreducible.htm



* Biological Evidence

http://www.straight-talk.net/evolution/biology.htm



* The Moon

http://www.straight-talk.net/evolution/moon.htm



* Earth's Fight Against Solar Attacks

http://www.straight-talk.net/evolution/earthfight.htm



* Scientific arguments against evolution:

Science itself refutes Darwinism

http://www.straight-talk.net/evolution/arguments.shtml



* The Origins of Darwinism

http://www.straight-talk.net/evolution/origins.shtml



* Darwinism is Racist

http://www.straight-talk.net/evolution/racist.shtml



* Evidence for Intelligent Design

http://www.straight-talk.net/evolution/intelligent-design.shtml



* Creation Science

http://www.straight-talk.net/evolution/creationscience.shtml



* Evidence For A Young Earth and Universe

http://www.straight-talk.net/evolution/youngearth.shtml



* Age of man:

The Race of Man Is Younger Than Previously Thought

http://www.straight-talk.net/evolution/ageofman.shtml



* Darwinism Is Strongly Rooted But Is Being Challenged

http://www.straight-talk.net/evolution/summary.shtml



* References

http://www.straight-talk.net/evolution/references.shtml



* Do real scientists believe in Creation?

Partial list of Creation Scientists

http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-scientists.html