•  •


Time ] Uniformity ] Other Evidence ] Implications ] Impact on Faith ] Pascal's Great Wager ]

Charles Darwin
"Not one change of one species into another is on record ... we cannot prove that a single species has been changed."
The Life and Letters of Charles Darwin, Volume 1 page 210

Scientists are generally intelligent people. But sometimes it's possible to be both bright and wrong.

Galileo's dying words were, "But it does move." Despite the common perception that the sun moves around the earth, Galileo was right that the earth moves around the sun rather than being stationary. Almost all the scientists of Galileo's day were wrong because they would not reconsider their assumptions or be open to new evidence that contradicted cherished beliefs.

Though the evidence was there before them, they could not, or would not, see it.

In the creation-evolution debate today, scientific facts are interpreted on the basis of prior assumptions. When evolutionists look at the facts of the biological world, they do so through the assumption that only hundreds of millions of years of evolution can explain them. Thus they rarely consider divine creation. In fact they often view a supernatural creation as something `impossible' because their materialistic mindset by definition rules out God and miracles. Scientists embrace evolution today largely because it conforms to the naturalistic premises they have been educated to accept.

On the other hand, when creationists look at the same data, they see things quite differently. As theists, they find it impossible to believe in evolution since it teaches that mere chance created everything. Creationists have reasoned persuasively that attributing instrumental power to chance is actually a betrayal of true science. When creation scientists look at evolution through the eyes of such topics as mathematical probabilities, the fossil record, origin of life experiments, cell research, the laws of thermodynamics, mutations and natural selection, the laws of biogenesis and noncontradiction, information theory and the vast information content in living things, and compare it to the alleged evidence for evolution, they find the data are much better interpreted in defense of a theory of intelligent design.

Despite the common belief in evolution, the truth in this debate will surprise many: that in the last generation, thousands of skilled scientists have abandoned belief in evolution and become creationists. Probably tens of thousands of theistically persuaded scientists are still "in the closet."

Further, even some evolutionists will agree that there is little viable evidence for evolution - and that there is no evidence for evolution that is unequivocal or incontrovertible. Creation scientists thus submit that if compelling evidence favors creation and that other considerations, including those of a scientific, philosophical, and theological nature, deem evolution impossible, then the little evidence that exists for evolution can hardly be considered persuasive.


What Evolutionists say The Scientific Facts
Matter created itself It is a logical and physical impossibility for matter to create itself
The Big Bang theory adequately explains the existence, features, and evolution of our universe. The Big Bang theory is the best naturalistic hypothesis science can currently envision in attempting to explain how the universe might have come into being apart from divine creation. The difficulty is that this theory has too many irremediable problems, including how the "cosmic egg" ever originated; scientific predicaments and background radiation; the "flatness" quandary; and how a chance explosion of matter could ever produce such incredibly fine tuned accuracy to result in extremely ordered galaxies, solar systems, planets, and moons. The facts of science strongly argue that a Big Bang origin for the universe is not possible.
There is an adequate theory to explain the origin, features, and evolution of our solar system. No theory even comes close to adequately explaining the existence of our solar system.
Life in its simplest forms could originate on earth by chance. This is a physical and mathematical impossibility. This idea violates the law of biogenesis, that life originates only from life, as well as other scientific laws, and is proven false by the science of probability.

The chance that life could evolve from non-life is statistically zero no matter how old the universe. Many evolutionists have conceded that if the odds of evolution occurring are just 1 in 10250 (the figure 1 with 250 zeros), then in the words of Henry Quastler in The Emergence of Biological Organization (Yale University Press, 1964, p. 7), "It is virtually impossible that life has originated by a random association of molecules."

Borel's single law of chance tells us that when the chance exceeds 1 chance in 1050, absolutely no chance remains for an event to occur. Even evolutionary scientists have estimated the chance that life could evolve at 1 in 10 100,000,000,000.

Unhappily, materialists who would never bet their life savings on odds of just 1 in 100 are gambling their convictions about reality on odds infinitely smaller.

The evidence of human evolution from a "common ancestor" is highly persuasive. There is no evidence for human evolution. The fossil remains are far too scanty and unreliable. As a result, they are subject to constant debate and dispute within the scientific community In fact as is true in so many other fields, the actual evidence strongly supports creation.
Evolution occurs by mutation, natural selection, and genetic re-combination. No valid explanatory mechanism for evolution exists. Once more, this is the best hypothesis naturalistic science can come up with.

The actual scientific evidence shows that mutations, natural selection, and genetic recombination could not evolve life

Evolution is a scientific fact. Not only is evolution not a scientific fact, it is not even a good scientific theory because it violates so many scientific laws, cannot be tested, and is lacking in real evidence.

Evolution is simply a materialistic postulate that attempts to explain the origin of life on the basis of natural causes without recourse to a divine creator.

No reputable scientist believes in creation. Because the evidence for evolution is lacking, literally thousands of reputable scientists all over the world believe in creation.

Thousands more have abandoned belief in evolution and either become theists in a general sense, or remain agnostic on the subject of origins'

Creation science is a contradiction of terms, violates the basic principles of science, is a betrayal of the scientific method, and should not be allowed in public school classrooms. Theistic or creation science is not a contradiction of terms, nor is it a betrayal of the scientific method, or the principles of science.

As philosophers of science have repeatedly pointed out, theistic science is just as valid an approach to origins as materialistic science.

Placing it alongside evolution in the classroom teaches students to think critically about origins instead of being indoctrinated with only evolution.

There is not a shred of scientific evidence for creation. The evidence is sufficiently persuasive that there is now a growing movement within scientific circles to explore the possibility of supernatural design.

The evidence for supernatural design has always been persuasive, but with increasing scientific discovery, it is becoming even more so, causing many unprejudiced scientists to re-evaluate their commitment to naturalism.

Evolutionists counter-arguments have refuted creationist claims. The scientific establishment has never successfully refuted creationist arguments, which is why thousands of qualified scientists remain creationists.

Creationist ranks are growing daily due to the functional inadequacies of evolutionary theory and the growing and persuasive scientific evidence for supernatural design. If evolutionists had ever refuted creation science, they would not keep losing scientific debates with creation scientists.

Time ] Uniformity ] Other Evidence ] Implications ] Impact on Faith ] Pascal's Great Wager ]

Safari Media Africa/C.A. Mitchell 2000-2012

Developed by