A couple of months ago, the subject of evolution came up in one of my email groups. The comments made about creation and creationists included the following:

The only real opposing viewpoint to evolution is “intelligent design” – and there is nothing scientific about saying “the magic man done it.” Creationism is based on faith and in no way has any scientific ground that brings up any legit questions about the current theory of evolution.

You can’t debate science with mythology and expect people to take you seriously.

The implication of these comments (and much of the rest of the thread) is that we creationists are all religious nuts who believe in creation simply because it’s what we’re told to believe, even in the face of concrete evidence to the contrary. In other words, the implication is that we cannot – or we choose not to – think for ourselves. I have to wholeheartedly disagree that this is the case. I believe in creation for a number of reasons other than simple faith (although that is one reason, too).

Neither Position is Scientifically-Provable

[Tweet “Creationism and evolution have several things in common. The first is that *neither* is scientifically-provable as fact.”]

Although debates on the subject rage, if we’re honest we must admit that creationism and evolution have several things in common. The first is that neither is scientifically-provable as fact. Scientifically speaking, a hypothesis cannot be proven without our being able to either observe it or reproduce it. Obviously, we cannot observe the beginning of the universe, regardless of how it came about; we weren’t there. (Macro)evolution has never been observed, either. (It is true that living things adapt, and creationists know this full well. This, however, has nothing to do with evolution as a system of thought.) Neither creation nor evolution has ever been reproduced by scientists, either.

Both Positions Require Faith

This brings us to the next commonality: both creation and evolution require faith. Because we cannot see either system in action, we must simply believe that in some manner or another the universe came into being. This necessitates a belief, as well, in the existence of something from the very beginning (or, perhaps more accurately, from before the beginning). I believe this something (or, rather, Someone) is God. You believe this something was a small mass of cosmic dust, or a pool of slime, or something. Whatever it is, there is no avoiding the fact that we must believe that something existed first, or else believe that nothing exists at all.

Given that either system must be accepted on faith, it remains for us to determine which system is more plausible (unless you can come up with an entirely different – plausible – theory). It is my belief that creation is the more plausible explanation of origins, based on reasoning from several different disciplines. (Many of the disciplines mentioned below have other points to add to my argument but, as I am not attempting to write a book, space constraints limit me to an example or two in each.)

Creation & History

The first of these disciplines is history. Although most evolutionists do not consider the Bible to be a legitimate source of historical information, consider this: if not a primary source, it is at least the closest thing we have to a primary source for the origin of the world. No one has ever claimed to be a witness to macroevolution. Certainly no one has ever claimed to be a witness to a “Big Bang.” But God Himself has claimed to be a witness to creation, with written testimony to boot.

Creation & Historic Anthropology

The second is historic anthropology. The “myth” mentioned by the poster quoted above is not insignificant. Not only does the biblical book of Genesis describe the creation of the world by a supernatural being, so does the folklore of every other major culture around the world. These myths do, of course, vary somewhat in their details; however in their essentials they are the same. Is it more likely that all of these varied cultures all over the world just happened to have told the same story, or that a single, historical event was described by all and embellished along the way?

Creation & Archaeology

The third discipline is archaeology. Archaeologists have never discovered any “missing link” (although they have made up a few over the years). They have, however, found human and dinosaur footprints side-by-side, and discovered fossils from supposedly different “eras” together in the same layer of earth. Archaeological finds consistently point to a major catastrophe (like, oh, say, a worldwide flood), but do not support the hypothesis of evolution.

Creation & Physics

Fourth is physics. Several factors point to the unlikelihood of the universe’s having randomly expanded from a single point, including the fact that the planets do not all orbit the sun in the same direction. Additionally, the concept of macroevolution runs counter to established physical laws, such as the second law of thermodynamics.

Creation & Biology

The fifth discipline is biology itself. Gene mutations (as distinguished from the selection of the most self-preserving traits already present in the gene pool of a given “kind”) nearly always have negative consequences, rather than positive. In addition, whenever two separate “kinds” of animals have been bred to successfully produce offspring, these offspring have consistently been sterile. Why? Things reproduce after their kind. Spontaneous generation – or life from non-life – was disproven many, many years ago, but the hypothesis of evolution is dependent on this as a scientific possibility.

Creation & Probability

Finally, we have probability and basic common sense. If even a single gene mutation is typically problematic, what are the chances of having thousands of helpful gene mutations in succession, that just happen to result in the creatures we have today? Why do we not have any “in between” creatures? How could so many creatures have gradually evolved the necessary qualities to survive in their habitats without dying out in the meantime (before they had made the necessary adaptations)? How could the processes of the entire universe be so well coordinated by accident – how could earth be exactly as far from the sun as it needs to be to maintain a life-sustaining temperature, how could the atmosphere be exactly what we need to breathe, how could plants and animals so perfectly balance each other in our inspiration and expiration?

Conclusion

In short, it is exceedingly obvious that the world was created. The only reason there is any claim to the contrary is our own selfish desires: if the world was created, then there is a Creator, and if there is a Creator, then He has the right to rule over us as His creation. We don’t like that, so we make up our own silly stories – stories which even a small child could see through were it not for our brainwashing. There is no building without a builder, no art without an artist, no design without a designer, and no creation without a creator.