Origins Essay


 This is the old version of my origins essay from my wikipedia user page. 


The following is intended as an introductory essay explaining my view of the creation/evolution debate. It's being written primarily because proponents of evolution frequently go off-topic on talk pages for articles and start arguing against creationism and for evolution. In order to stay on-topic in those discussions, I prefer not to join the debate, because our job as editors is not to debate the issues but accurately capture them in articles, according to the WP:NPOV policy and other Wikipedia policies. However, the points brought up by those members do have answers, and I feel it would be helpful to present my view of the issue, as a place to direct those who are interested in "truth-seeking debate" on this issue, or at worst as a siphon to direct the off-topic discussion away from article talk pages (and to my talk page, if anyone wishes--feel free to discuss my view there). I want to be crystal clear--by no means am I seeking here to "disprove" views that I disagree with or pretend that this is definately the best view. This is an explanation of my own worldview, on this issue, and disagreements are certainly valid and worth discussing/considering.


Study of Reality, and the Three Foundations of True Science

I do not consider myself a "scientist", because I prefer to define that word according to university degrees and the other normal definitions of the word. However, in a sense, I believe all people are capable of being, and should be, "studiers of reality". As a logician, one of my primary goals in life is to understand everything. That is, to find the real truth of reality, in all its aspects. I think it's a serious endeavor, because it can be a life-or-death issue; for example, if by not studying reality, I do not discover that I need to accept Christ in order to avoid the second death (and if it exists, obviously), then I'm in big trouble.[1][2]

Many people take a "he said she said" approach to understanding reality; that is, they simply rely on others to tell them what to believe. A non-scientist who accepts evolution generally does so because they trust those they see as more qualified than themselves to study reality. I find this to be an incredibly naive approach. Anyone who's spent much time at all with other humans knows that they can be, and often are, incredibly flawed, and easily fall prey to believing what they choose to believe, regardless of evidence or logic. This is a logical fallacy, in fact; the appeal to inadequate authority.

In that sense, I am like a scientist, in that I choose to use logic, and full and extensive research, including all perspectives in consideration, with an open mind, to come to my conclusions. In other words, I'm not interested in picking a viewpoint because I feel like it, or because it happens to be a majority (or minority, for that matter). Those are all logical fallacies. I'm interested in actually finding the truth. The truth that does not depend on what human beings say (except of course when I'm studying what they say). The truth that is actually true. There are three vital requirements in order to achieve this:

1) Logic. Logic is the key. Logic is one of the few aspects of life capable of proving its own worth, and it is the only one that can sort out the accurate ways of viewing reality from the inaccurate ones.

2) Research. Logic is a sorter; research provides the information that needs sorting. This must be all-inclusive.

3) An open mind. The logic and research together must be allowed to speak to me, not vice versa, and all conclusions must be considered possible.

Many on both sides (and other "sides") of the origins debate, for example, fail in one of these three categories. Evolutionists, specifically, fail primarily in the third; they dismiss any "religious" conclusions before even considering the evidence, and do not allow themselves to reach those conclusions. They also often fail in research; they refuse to consider any evidence that conflicts with their presupposition of evolution, such as Bishop Bell's dinosaur engraving, or polystriated fossils. Overall they fail in logic, both in analyzing the evidence they do admit, and in illogically failing in the other two categories.

These three foundations of the study of reality apply to much more than just the origins debate. In a related sense, they apply to understanding the afterlife (or whether it exists). In an everyday sense, they apply to deciding whether to go see Spiderman 3, or to save the money to pay off that accumulating college debt. There are plenty of societal problems that could be solved if we all took this approach, such as murder; a murderer who is open to understanding the desires of the potential victim not to be killed, or who logically realizes he is likely to be caught, etc, is less likely to commit the crime.

Overall, the origins debate is, to me, the most important issue that needs to be studied. Eternal life, or lack thereof, is the central issue of our lives, and the issue of origins forms the foundation for the issue of the afterlife. If the universe exists randomly and no God exists, and thus no afterlife, that leads to one conclusion. If on the other hand, God does exist and created the world but man sinned and needed salvation in order to qualify for the afterlife, that leads to a different conclusion altogether.

Taken together, these three foundations comprise what in my opinion is "True Science." "Science" is a word whose definition many have tried to whittle down and asterisk in recent years, distracting from the simple basis of all science. True Science, simply put, is the study of reality.

Science vs. Evolution

Evolution is a concept that purposely goes against past ideas of origin and history, although it has its roots in ancient mythology, especially the Greek evolutionary ideas. As such, it takes a risky approach of ignoring many aspects of reality, in order to better understand reality. It's a bold approach, and many people put forth convincing (at first glance) arguments for its merits. It could certainly be useful; if you ignore beliefs you're being told to accept and instead approach it scientifically, you might just find out more about reality. So it's definately a valid approach--but does it pass the test of the Three Foundations? What if the evolutionist is tempted to discard certain aspects of reality that would prove him wrong, and thus betrays the scientific method?

My approach, on the other hand, is a free and open approach. I consider everything that all sides say, and even beyond. I consider everything I'm capable of learning. And as I've done so, I have come to see a huge amount of fatal flaws in the concept of evolution. These are more than enough to disqualify it as "fact"; they are even enough to strongly debate whether it even qualifies as a theory (though I prefer to call it a theory on the grounds that a theory needs only appear convincing, and there is "evidence" for evolution, just not proof). It is enough that I am convinced, after years of study, that evolution is definately not true. Whether it is enough to be considered "disproven" is subjective, and so that is not my approach. It is up to each individual to decide for him or herself.

The scientific method allows for "guesses" or "hypotheses" to be a part of the process of understanding reality. This is certainly true--and both evolution and creationism are hypotheses. However, the scientific method also requires these hypotheses to be submitted to the evidence, and if they do not fit the evidence, the method requires that the hypotheses be tossed out. Evolutionists have been ignoring this step for a long time. Evolutionists take the evidence, and interpret it in whichever way allows it to fit within the hypothesis, and toss out the evidence that does not fit. This is unscientific. The scientific method also requires that all conclusions are possible, depending on what the evidence supports. However, evolutionists ban any "religious" conclusions; that is, any conclusions that would support biblical Christianity, or that allow for what they consider "supernatural" explanations (see below for my take on this word). This is also unscientific.

"Supernatural" and "Law of Nature"

The supernatural is a key difference between Creationism and Evolution. Evolutionists do not necessarily ban the existence of God outright, though "true" evolutionists do, because evolution is founded on humanism. However, evolutionists refuse to consider that a God used "supernatural" means in terms of origins, or in terms of the fossil record, etc. They may accept that Jesus could have been God and died for our sins, but they illogically refuse to accept the reason Jesus had to do so in the first place, as described in Genesis. The central idea? The "supernatural" cannot be considered, because it falls outside the realm that science can study.

However, the problem is that evolutionists arbitrarily decide what to consider "supernatural", and have no basis upon which they can say it falls outside the realm of science. Creationists, on the other hand, simply consider God part of what is "natural", and his abilities to be part of physics. Logic and evidence, especially historical in nature and centered around the Bible, show that God does exist, and that he is capable of guiding the writing of the Bible to be accurate. In fact, God is really all that is truly "natural", because he exists outside of time and existed "before" all the physics and material things that today we consider "nature." Put simply, "nature" is supernatural!

But it's not a simple matter; that is the opinion of Creationists (and myself). Is it logical? Yes. "Natural" is defined primarily in these ways by

1. existing in or formed by nature (opposed to artificial): a natural bridge.
2. based on the state of things in nature; constituted by nature: Growth is a natural process.
3. of or pertaining to nature or the universe: natural beauty.

All three fit with the creationist view of God. He is not artificial; the universe itself is artificial in the sense that it was made by God (although creationists generally consider the original creation to have become natural, as well as the changes to it caused by the Fall). #2 is essentially a restating of #1, and #3 definately applies; God as Creator pertains quite a bit to nature or the universe. Evolutionists, on the other hand, say that God is outside "nature" and therefore is "supernatural". It sounds convincing enough at first glance--God is certainly not contained within his own Creation! But does it matter? Is an artist contained inside his painting? No--does that disprove that the artist painted the painting? No, of course not.

The definition of "supernatural" is as follows:

1. of, pertaining to, or being above or beyond what is natural; unexplainable by natural law or phenomena; abnormal.

Notice the key phrase "unexplainable by natural law". What is natural law? There's a common misconception here that evolutionists are taking advantage of. The "laws" of physics are not laws in the sense of legality. They are simply observations of reality, composed by people. They are essentially attempts to list the physics of reality, to list our understanding of the "rules" that reality functions by. Laws of nature are "observations about the rules of reality", in other words.

How can we learn these rules? We can use evidence, logic, and an open mind to compose them. We can do labratory tests to determine the speed of light, or the makeup of atoms, etc. We can then use math to find patterns, and compose laws such as Boyle's Law. In terms of the study of reality, we can also use historical evidence, such as the ressurection of Christ, the fulfillment of overwhelming amounts of prophecy by Christ, etc, and realize that he is indeed God, as he said he was, and that the Bible is indeed accurate, as he said it is.

A complete list of "rules of reality", in other words, would include much more than just what evolutionists allow. The physics of God can be considered--he is a Trinity, for example, and the Father aspect of God knows everything, and the Son side of him was used to create the universe and to redeem it. He can do anything, but he has his own nature, that he never conflicts with. He is good, he is love, etc. All of this is supported by the evidence. Creationists therefore consider it within the realm of science.

A complete list of such "rules" that included the nature of God could also be falsified. For example, if there really was a global Flood caused by God (whether through direct intervention or not; the Bible does not specifically say), we would expect to find billions of dead things, buried in rock layers, laid down by water all over the Earth, as Ken Ham is so fond of saying. And we do. We would expect him to be able to rise from the dead, and historical evidence proves that he did. We would also expect to find information coded by him that explains how life can grow and follow rules, and that is what we find in genetics. We would also expect to find evidence of the Curse that he cast upon the entire universe, and we do, in mutation, natural selection, death, pain, suffering, crime, etc. In fact, as we learn more and more about the "Laws of Nature" and other operational science that evolutionists and creationists both accept, we can increase our understandings even more and be able to explain plate tectonics, distant starlight, and more in ways that actually fit creation better than evolution!

Evolutionists, however, mistakenly believe that definition #1 of "supernatural" is the same thing as definition #2:

2. of, pertaining to, characteristic of, or attributed to God or a deity.

This is the cause of most disagreement between Creationists and Evolutionists. And it's quite simply wrong. It is not supported by logic or the evidence. Put simply, an open-minded view of "natural" allows a far better understanding of reality than otherwise.

Problems with Evolution

So what are the problems? It's difficult to decide where to begin (or even to include all the major points, much less everything). Some of the problems are far-reaching, and deal with the central theses of evolution. Others are side details, that argue against the theory, but taken alone may not be enough to cast doubt on the central idea. To me, it is the overwhelming mass of both central and peripheral problems with evolution, and how they come together according to the Three Foundations to remove any remaining doubt that evolution is not true. Many of the problems are actually with the arguments and counterarguments used in the debate itself, rather than evidence-based, and these are important in the sense that they confuse the issues and distract from the evidence-based flaws, but on the same principle, they're not important to actually understanding the evidence.

So my approach will be to attempt to begin with the central, foundational problems, then lead into peripheral problems, and end with some of the debating mistakes evolutionists make. I will focus on the peripheral problems and debating mistakes related to the foundational problems I bring up (and where fitting, will include the lesser issues with the greater ones, for clarity). Obviously, that's a huge project in and of itself, so this list will not be completed in one day, if it ever could be completed. I am not seeking to including "everything" here, so do not mistake this for an exhaustive list.

Note that I'm discussing Young Earth Creationism (biblical creationism, specifically), versus Evolution; I'm not discussing either of these positions versus Theological Evolution, OEC, ID, or any other such compromise view, as mixing worldviews is a seperate issue and better discussed on its own (and considered, of course!)--the plain and simple fact is that a "God creation" conflicts with a "Without God Evolution", and the two do not logically mix. I will refer to YEC/biblical creation as simply "Creation/Creationism".

I'm also writing with the assumption that the reader is informed enough to know several basics, such as that both sides agree on natural selection (which preceded Darwin) and the like, and the basics about both Evolution and Creation. (I recommend Answers in Genesis as the primary source for the best Creationist views, evidences, analysis of both sides, etc, and would recommend Wikipedia itself as a good source for Evolution, as well as sites like talk origins, which approaches this debate from the side of evolution. Also of note is [ CreationWiki, which responds to the arguments of talk origins.)

  • "Missing links."
Evolution predicts that species change through time, and evolve into each other in slow steps. This means that the history of life is not composed only of "complete species" but also of "transitional forms". The fossil record should be full of transitional forms, and it should be virtually impossible to find the same species over and over and over, without the same being true of transitional forms.
This is not what we find. We find complete species appearing instantly, and no transitional forms at all. (Obviously, there are a handful of fossils evolutionists have increasingly tried to claim are transitional in response to this criticism, often for years after they are debunked, but see below for why they are not--even a handful of apparent transitions is not enough to satisfy the prediction that they should be common.)
Darwin himself admitted, in a time when archeology was relatively new, that if this prediction did not pan out, his theory should obviously be discarded. It has not panned out. This has prompted some rather wacky modifications to evolution, such as the "hopeful monster" idea, but most evolutionists just ignore it and focus on the few fossils they hope are transitional. This alone is enough to throw the theory out the window, to me, but it is far from the extent of the problems.
  • No increase in genetic information.
Evolution predicts that genetic information can come into existence from non-information, or be increased. This has never happened. Evolutionists enjoy pretending that shifting or decrease of existing information is the same thing, but it is not--it cannot explain the origin of genetic information. Such genetic shifts happen incredibly frequently; in months and years, not millenia--and yet evolutionists require millions of years as a vital part of their theory. And obviously, reshifting or loss of existing information cannot explain the original beginning of all genetic information. (Remember that next time you hear a news article calling genetic shift "evolution".)
Creation, on the other hand, predicts decrease of genetic information, and speciation and natural selection, as results of the Curse, as well as variation within kind as a part of the original creation, and that is what we find. Evolutionists choose on faith to believe that increases have occured, despite it never being observed, and despite it arguing against common sense; information comes from intelligence. An explosion in a brick factory does not make a building, etc.
This, along with fossil transitional forms, and the following, the age of the earth, are the "three foundations", if you will, of evolutionary theory--the first has been disproved, the second must be accepted totally on faith, and the three is in the process of unraveling.
  • Age of the Earth.
Evolutionists seek to explain this with great amounts of time; hence the "millions/billions of years". This has been dealt fatal blow after fatal blow, increasingly so of late. Carbon dating has been shown to be incredibly unreliable. Fossilization, stalactite formation, and even canyon formation have been proven to occur rapidly. The recent RATE project has shown ages of roughly 6000 years for the Earth (the age predicted by the Bible).
Even evolutionists constantly revise their own "for-sure" dating conclusions by incredible amounts, sometimes by billions of years. (One clarification is needed; within the cosmological theory presented in Starlight in Time, which I tentatively support, time on Earth was essentially frozen at the center of a white hole for a time, so longer ages may be possible outside Earth.) In the past few years, many of these revisions have been towards the younger side of the scale rather than the older.
With the third of the three main foundations of Evolution crumbling, Evolution is clearly a theory in trouble. But there is more...
  • Statistics.
This is one of the most famous problems with evolution, and it comes in countless forms. The incredibly low chances that a simple reproducing collection of molecules that could reasonably be considered a precursor to life forming are increadibly slim. The chances of new genetic information forming even with preexisting information are almost nill. The chances for increases in information happening twice, let alone over and over through history, are even worse.
These examples abound; there are other examples as well. The chances of a man coming into being that happens to fit perfectly the Old Testement prophecies concerning Christ are incredibly low, especially considering those prophecies were written only thousands and hundreds of years previously, not millions. Put simply, Evolution is highly, highly, highly unlikely.
  • Mutually-exclusive needs for chance-forming of life.
Unfortunately for those who place faith in the one instance out of a gazillion, there are some key proteins in living beings that have mutually exclusive requirements for "accidental" formation, yet must exist at the same time in order to function and continue to exist. This takes the chances, at least with this part of life, of evolution down to zero.
  • "Irreducible Complexity."
This problem was originally pointed out by an Intelligent Design proponent, not a biblical creationist--essentially it points out that several life components/structures work like machines with multiple parts that all must exist at once, functioning, for the entire machine to function. These show that step-by-step evolution is impossible; evolutionists must explain how all parts of the machine happened to evolve all at once, or evolved for a different purpose seperately (one that is not evident), and somehow came together at a later date. The best they proposed is that a previous machine evolved to assemble the machines in question; this merely extends and increases the problem and the complexity that evolution must explain.
  • Catastrophism needed for most fossilization.
That is, the old evolutionist idea that fossils form when a creature dies and is slowly buried over hundreds/thousands of years has been debunked (though it is still taught in some schools). The creature would rot before fossilizing or even being buried--instead, a creature must be rapidly buried in order to become a fossil. This has cause evolutionists to make minor concessions to Creationism lately; they now believe that fossils are formed (generally) in small local catastrophes. Creationism has predicted this all along, of course, with the Flood.
Evolution now has a different problem--it must be able to show that the catastrophism that the fossil record indicates had to be small, local, reoccuring through time, rather than mostly one single global Flood. However, examples abound of large-scale catastrophism evidence, such as the Grand Canyon.
  • Harmful Mutations.
As we study mutations, we are learning that they are in fact a problem for evolution, not an aid. Regardless of how statistically unlikely a beneficial mutation is, the fact remains that harmful mutations are fact. They do occur, as predicted by Creationism, and in relatively large numbers. They are also not always fatal, not immediately. We all probably have harmful mutations lurking in our DNA, but in recessive genes that are overruled by dominant genes (this is why reproduction with close relatives has become harmful over time since the Fall, and, incidentally, why Cain's wife was one of his sisters). We now know that negative mutations are adding up rapidly, in mere millenia, centuries, decades, and even years. Evolution quite simply cannot sustain this degradation for the millions of years it requires, and any information-increasing mutations would have been overwhelmed by this degradation.
  • The Bible.
Obviously, the Bible conflicts with evolution (despite what many Christians believe), in that it claims God created the world in six days, made man from dust, and man sinned at the Fall and death and disease only came into the world at that point. It is not possible for millions of years of death and suffering preceding the Fall to fit with the biblical account; man could not have been created as described in Genesis through evolution. Non-biblical creation ideas may, of course, fit perfectly well with evolution, but that's beside the point.
The wealth of historical and logical evidence that the Bible is infallible makes it in and of itself a piece of evidence that must be considered (though before considering it, one needs to examine the evidence for and against its infallibility, and one also must take hermenuetics into account when studying it and not assume a translation is more accurate than the actual Bible). I draw a line in regards to the Bible--evolutionists must not only show from empirical evidence that evolution is a reasonable theory, but they must also explain the Bible. How can it exist as it does, with no flaws having ever been proven (despite multiple human authors over long periods of time), the wealth of prophecy that came true, etc. etc?
That is the challenge; so far nothing I have found has met it, though obviously there are attempts.
  • Living Fossils.
The fossil record is seen in evolution as a chronological record of past life through the history of evolution. Species that existed in the distant past should be found fossilized deeper underground, and species that existed in the more recent past should be found fossilized higher up. Likewise, fossils that are found deeper are assumed to be older (by significant amounts of time), etc. However, as we continue exploring the globe since the first few fossils were found, we've found several examples that violate this principle.
The Coelecanth is one of the most famous examples; it is a fish that was assumed to be extinct long ago, but has been found alive and unchanged today. Yet, fossilized examples of the Ceolecanth in intermediate times are curiously missing, even though we know it must have existed during those times. Other examples exist as well. Rather than missing links, these are "links" that should be missing, but aren't!
Evolutionists must accept on faith that the random catastrophism that they believe creates fossils somehow actively avoids Ceolecanths and other living fossils.
  • Dinosaurs living alongside humans.
One of the central tenets of evolution is that dinosaurs died out long before man evolved, and this is one of the tenets evolutionists defend dogmatically. If dinosaurs were "living fossils" too for millions or more years after they first appear in the fossil record (especially if random catastrophism forms fossils), we should find later fossils of them, but we do not. If man existed alongside dinosaurs, the idea of millions of years is called into question (and the biblical account of creation predicts that man and dinosaurs did live together, being created on the same day), so evolutionists believe man did not.
However, dinosaur legends abound. Obviously, since the term "dinosaur" was not invented until recently, different terms such as "dragons" were used, but legends of large reptilian creatures are famous throughout the world, and not limited just to a few cultures. These include visual descriptions of living creatures, living at the same time as humans. Like all legends, exaggeration through retelling (or even original telling, heh) are to be expected, and we see this as well. Legends are often based on something real, and the wealth of widespread dragon legends indicate that they are very likely to be based on reality.
Examples of correctly-drawn living dinosaurs (and other extinct creatures) are also found, such as the Bishop Bell incription, which even shows the head and tail of the sauropods to be held correctly--this was originally missed by those who found the first sauropod fossils, and only recently has been discovered through analysis of the fossils. Even in the 1900s, humans in remote areas have insisted that dinosaur-like creatures are or recently were alive nearby.
Frequently, in legends, stories, and even art, dinosaurs or dragons are seen as enemies of humans, and are hunted either for meat or to remove them as threats. Creationists believe this is largely why dinosaurs aren't with us today--they were hunted to extinction by man! Even the Bible describes dragons, including the famous Job passages that fit known dinosaurs. The discovery of fossils of large reptiles was in fact something predicted by Creation!
  • Aliens.
Some of the wackier ideas evolutionists have flirted with lately include the idea that there are alien life forms out there, or that life didn't evolve on Earth but was brought here by aliens. (The Bible is silent on this issue, though that fact leads many to think we will not find alien life.)
The first idea is fascinating--the irony is that evolutionists who place faith in statistically unlikely events are paradoxically eager to find life out there that evolved seperately. If we did find alien life, it would be a huge problem for evolution, because it would increase the statistical unlikelihood even more. So far we obviously have not, so for the moment this is not actually a problem in that sense.
I bring it up as a problem because of the second idea; which simply increases the evolutionary difficulty in the same way that preceding machines as an explanation for irreducible complexity do. The same laws of nature that apply on Earth apply everywhere else, so alien life would face the same challenges in evolving as humans, plus it would have to have time to develop a society capable of interstellar travel (not to mention it would need a reason to do this!).
This is very far afield from what evolutionists say "science" is, and is getting into sheer fantasy. It's one of the reasons I consider evolution to be a religion--or at least, it's rapidly evolving into a religion!
It also begs the question--if evolutionists are allowed to believe in an "alien" that created life with what amounts to supernatural means, why not Creationists?
  • Best Evidence? "A gazillion scientists say so."
This is the most oft-repeated idea that is presented as evidence, in news articles, from outspoken evolution scientists, "Skeptics", random newspaper "reader's forum" writers, editorialists, and even Wikipedians. We are to believe evolution because "the vast majority of scientists accept it, so it must be true!"
Well, pardon me if I'm not impressed. Sure, they might be right, but aside from the argument being an ad populum logical fallacy, there are countless historical examples of "scientists" being wrong. Geocentrism, flat Earth; all these things were once held as "fact" but since then have been proven wrong. Besides, for a long time, creationists were the vast majority, but Darwin didn't let that stop him from having a different view, did it? For a view to become a majority, it first must start out as a minority. Christians also have a noteworthy piece of advice from the Bible to heed; "Narrow is the road".
See, I have a theory that history is a long succession of societal "leapfrogging." That is, one particular view, when it's a minority, works hard, studies hard, and generally has the best arguments and even access to the facts. At the same time, the majority has been in power, is getting overconfident and lazy, and is making mistakes. The minority eventually overcomes the minority, then gets lazy and the cycle repeats, while the total knowledge and historical experience of society moves forward, but in "leaps" with intervals in between.
In Darwin's time, the evolutionists were on top of the scientific game. There was reason to think that perhaps one type of being evolved into another, just as there was once reason to think the Earth was flat or maggots "poofed" into being from nothing but dirt. So his view gained the majority. Now that it is, it has become intellectually "lazy" (or stubborn, or both), and at the moment, we are beginning to see the more educated Creationist minority gain ground. Many of the most exciting creationist theories, such as the runaway subduction Flood model, the White Whole distant starlight theory, or the various theories about the Curse and its aftereffects (and how life before those things may have been different) could not possibly have been realized in Darwin's time or before (and pay closer attention to actual evidence than current evolutionists).
If anything, the fact that a gazillion scientists "say so", but cannot "say why so" is a reason to be very skeptical about evolution, and start looking into what the other side is saying. Many people are doing just that. And I for one am, to a degree, glad I was born when Creationism was the minority--and unfortunately I have no doubt that if it does "leapfrog" over Evolution, Creationist leaders will fall to the same laziness of power as Evolutionists are now.
Although--it's worth noting that the undeniability of Christ's resurrection, and the fact that he supported a literal Creation, have been clear evidences through all society since. So there is good reason to look towards him to find the truth, no matter what age you're in or which "frog" is ahead, and this is a big part of why I am convinced that Creationists/Christians have it right. Note that it is just as illogical to assume a minority is right as it is with a majority, at least with no other evidence but that; the Bible presents a big chunk of that other evidence that does not change with public opinion.
  • Dark Matter.
This one is rather ironic; I only learned of it recently, having previously assumed that dark matter was a part of operational science, not origins science. It turns out that (according to a recent AIG article at least) the reason evolutionists see a problem in the stellar orbits of various galaxies is that they assume the galaxies are very old. Dark Matter is an unsubstantiated idea that's designed to cover up a flaw in evolution.
If we take the ages of the galaxies as much younger, the problem of their orbits disappears, and there is no need to use dark matter to explain it. This has also emerged as a possible "problem" for the Starlight in Time White Hole theory, incidentally, if it uses the stellar formation theories evolutionists invented; even though greater amounts than 6000 years are required to take place outside Earth while only 6000 take place on Earth, it cannot have been the billions of years Evolution needs. It's only a problem if evolutionary ages are assumed, however; and this is leading to even newer theories that the gathering of stars from dust in Genesis may have been rapid, just as the formation of man was rapid. "Carved" by God, in other words, just as man was "carved" or "sculpted" from the dust.
The point is, there's a reason evolutionists are stumped as to why they cannot seem to find any of this dark matter they assume must exist. It doesn't, and it doesn't need to.
  • Archeological intelligence of man.
[Need to review sources before writing--noting for later. Thank you so much, fallible memory. Basically, evidence that ancient man was smarter or more skilled in tech than evolutionists would have us believe.]
  • Archeopteryx and other bogus "missing links".
To make a long story short, evolutionists have a long history of leaping to conclusions about "links" that are later disproven, such as the famous bird, who is now known to be just a bird.
  • "Fact, not theory".
This idea, repeated often by evolutionists, and the entry after this one are two variants of the same idea--both have come in more recent years, apparently in response to Creationists who have pointed out that since evolution is only a theory, it should not be presented as a fact in schools, textbooks, reference books (or websites), etc. Evolutionists seem to be quite sensitive about this, and lately have begun dogmatically insisting evolution is not a theory at all, but a fact.
It's not true. Evolution is a theory; it has evidence, and it can even seem essentially proven (at least to those who have not researched what I'm bringing out in this essay), but there is still, and always will be, room for doubt. That is not the same thing as fact no matter how you slice it. The claim has its advantages, obviously; it has a lot of persuasive power, and many don't know how to respond to it when they hear it. After all; if we must believe evolution as a theory because "a gazillion scientists say so", certainly we must believe it as a fact if they say so.
The problem is that if you ask a "factist" to explain why it is a fact, they cannot do so. The best they can do is appeal to the same majority. Instances abound of one scientist finding evidence against evolution but assuming it must be true because other scientists in other fields say so. The actual act of evolution, the forming of new genetic material, has never been observed. It is impossible for something that has never been observed to be a fact. In terms of the scientific method, the criterion for "fact" are also based on actual logic and evidence as well as experimentation, so a logical argument for Evolution's scientific facthood should be easy, if it exists. Doesn't.
On the other hand, Christ's resurrection is a historical fact. There are those that try to argue against it, obviously, but their argument are all disproven. Many witnesses (many "unfriendly" witnesses) attested to his death; many witnesses ("unfriendly", though they generally became friendly afterwards!) attested that he was alive, after his death. This, the prophetic fulfillments, and other things provide a real foundation for Christianity, and by extension, Creation. That does not make Creation a fact, of course, but it does mean it's a theory with actual factual evidence; Evolution is a theory (at best) with no factual evidence--the evidence evolutionists interpret as supporting their theory can be and is interpreted in different ways (and more logical ways) by Creationists. Christ's resurrection, however, supports only one of the two theories.
And that is what both Evolution and Creation are. Theories. Neither can be absolutely proven, because they deal with the unrepeatable past, but one or the other can fit the evidence better.
  • "Antiscientific Method"
I mentioned earlier that evolutionists have ignored the hypothesis-rejection requirement of the scientific method when evidence does not support the theory. But lately, as the mountain of contrary evidence has grown, I've noticed a disturbing trend to go even beyond this--to actually react to evidence against the hypothesis as if it is evidence for it! Usually, it comes in statements such as "This piece of evidence may not support the idea, but the idea is still true". This is where the "Evolution is fact" idea has come from.
The "method" works like this (using the recent "feathered dino" example). First, the hypothesis is formed--in this case, that dinosaurs evolved feathers (and thus evolved into birds). Second, the hypothesis is tested against evidence (at least, sometimes; often the hypothesis is accepted as fact long before this stage). Actual fossils of dinosaurs and birds are examined, looking for feathers on a dinosaur, or dinosaur-like features on a bird. Archaeopteryx is the most famous example of a supposed "feathered dino", although it has been disproved for quite some time now. The most important example is Sinosauropteryx, the only known dinosaur with what was originally claimed to be "protofeathers".
The third step, if the evidence does not support the hypothesis, the hypothesis is not rejected--instead, it is dogmatically asserted to be true! In the most striking example to date, the Sinosauropteryx "protofeathers" alone had spawned a massive move in the media and the scientific consensus (and many Wikipedia editors) to accept feathered dinosaurs as fact. However, a team of researchers eventually studied the actual structures scientifically, and found that, in reality, the structures are nothing but frilly collegen-fibers, just like those in many living reptiles and sharks, not feathers or proto-feathers at all.
The scientific method requires the "feathered dinosaur" theory to be abandoned. But it hasn't been. If you read any related Wikipedia article at this point in time, it will almost certainly assert as accepted fact that feathered dinosaurs have been found. A recent headline-splash about Gigantosaurus featured a fanciful illustration of the dinosaur with feathers, and its feathered state was treated as fact except in a note by a researcher near the end that in actuality, no Gigantosaurus feathers exist in fossil form, but that they probably did exist. Some have even publicly criticized the researchers for their research. And yet, the now-disproved Sinosauropteryx protofeathers were the only foundation for the view. It has scientifically been removed, but the viewpoint has remained.
Other examples of this abound, especially with alleged human ancestors. I actually predicted it would occur when the "protofeather" fossil came out, but what surprised me was that the media fervor and dogmatism over the feathered dinosaur idea was mostly quiet for years. It was only when the only foundation for the theory was removed, in 2007, that this fervor reached such a huge heights that birds are being redefined as dinosaurs, and scientists are even rewriting the history of dinosaurs as famous as T-Rex to include protofeathers!
This "method" does not only apply to side-details within evolution theory. It applies to the whole theory. This is why evolution has for many years now been treated as fact. Evolutionists are so confident in this approach that they boldly assert that any conclusions that include God or the "supernatural" must be excluded from science. This is a serious violation of the scientific method. To a logician like me, the tendency itself to rely on an "Antiscientific Method" instead of the Scientific Method argues against Evolution. Evolutionists have set themselves up as pro-science--it's one of their main talking points. So to see scientists not just ignoring but fighting the scientific method speaks volumes.


  • "Theory in science, not layman 'theory'".
This idea is generally stated as a direct response to Creationists, often in sources presenting themselves as "how to debate Creationists" guides. Here's how it goes. A Creationist points out that despite evolution being taught as fact, it is really "just a theory." Usually reminding the evolutionist that it is called the "Theory of Evolution" for a reason. "Factists," of course, simply say "No, it's fact", but more realistic responders reply that the layman's definition of "theory" differs from the scientific one. In science, a theory is an idea that has been tested many times against the evidence and had no failures (or if it had failures, could spawn a similar but more accurate idea that then becomes the theory). In essence, a theory in science is what you could call a "possible fact."
If you've been paying attention, you should see a problem. Evolution has not at all passed the scientific method's tests. Predictions it has made have been proven wrong (missing links), key actions it has required have failed to be observed (new genetic information), and it has failed in such ways over and over and over. Evolutionists seeking to use this defense should be careful--Creationists have noticed, and they have a very valid counterpoint. If we are to define things by the scientific method only, Evolution is not even a theory anymore. It has been reduced to nothing more than a hypothesis. (Hence some Creationists do not call it theory anymore, though as I said, I prefer to call it theory based on the layman's definition.)
Beyond the scientific definition, these responders are missing the point. The Creationist criticism is not intended to say "Okay, so your idea fits the evidence as far as we know--maybe it's still wrong!" Not at all. The point is to say "Our idea fits the evidence far better; yours is nowhere near fact."
  • Multi-layer fossils. (Polystrates.)
Many fossils have been found that run through multiple layers that are each supposed to be many millions of years' span in time.
  • Increasing "dissentfromDarwin".
[polling, Dissentfromdarwin,[3] and pdf.[4] ]
  • "I object to the term 'evolutionist'".
This is a newer idea, and I have not seen it that commonly coming from mainstream evolutionists, but it has shown up quite a few times here on Wikipedia (there's a specific editor who will know who he is). Essentially, the argument is that since the vast majority of scientists are evolutionists, there is no point to the term; it would be like calling a Round-Earther a Round-Earther. (I for one have no problem being called a Round-Earther, by the way. I am one.)
I find this fascinating--if evolutionists are so confident in their worldview, why are they not proud to associate with its name? "Christian" was a term originally invented as an insult to followers of Christ, but Christians took it on gladly and proudly; we have are not ashamed to be named after our Savior. Creation proponents are not ashamed to be called "Creationists." Scientists are not ashamed to be named after science, Americans are "Americans", Humans are humans, etc. I see this as just another incarnation of the sensitivity evolutionists have about their theory, because they realize, even if only subconsciously, that it's in trouble. It's a defensive mode; the same that makes them see it as fact.
The main argument for this idea is that, since evolutionists see evolution as fact/scientific theory, it is superfluous to use the term. Instead, evolutionists would call themselves "scientists" or "biologist" or "geologist." The argument isn't very convincing; creationist scientists would also refer to themselves as "scientists" or whichever subdivision of the operational sciences they specialize in (as opposed to origins science). Words are intended for communication; the word "evolutionist" conveys what any layman would understand. That the "evolutionist" accepts evolution. Besides, creationists are not evolutionists, so what an evolutionist would call himself is irrelevant. Creationists would be free to use the label.
(At least one Wikipedian considers the term to be perjorative. I am not sure why--although given the large amount of problems with the worldview, I would not want to be called an evolutionist! For the record, when I use it, no offense is intended; it is simply meant as an accurate label in the interests of brevity. "Supporter of Evolution" is uneccessarily wordy. Also note, in the vast majority of cases the word shouldn't be used in actual articles, except occasionally in creationist articles where the creationist view is being contrasted to the mainstream view in reference to actual opinions of creationists who use the term, in my opinion, on ground of WP:NPOV#Undue Weight. Here I am talking about the term in talk page discussions, or just discussions in person, etc.)
  • "Creationists are just fundamentalists"
This is one of the more amusing arguments in some ways, but in other ways the most disturbing. Essentially, this is meant as an insult, attaching an assumed negative connotation to the word "fundamentalist" (usually it comes with other direct or indirect Ad Hominem attacks as well; "radicals", "nuts", "neocons", etc. Now, what do the words "fundamentalist", and more importantly, "fundamental" mean, and how did a negative connotation become attached to these words? defines "Fundamentalist" this way:
1. (sometimes initial capital letter) a movement in American Protestantism that arose in the early part of the 20th century in reaction to modernism and that stresses the infallibility of the Bible not only in matters of faith and morals but also as a literal historical record, holding as essential to Christian faith belief in such doctrines as the creation of the world, the virgin birth, physical resurrection, atonement by the sacrificial death of Christ, and the Second Coming.
2. the beliefs held by those in this movement.
3. strict adherence to any set of basic ideas or principles: the fundamentalism of the extreme conservatives. [5]
The first definition obviously accurately describes biblical Creationists. As one, I am a Fundamentalist. But how did that label come to apply? That is clearly the point of the third definition. A Fundamentalist is someone who adheres strictly to "fundamentals", in other words. A Fundamentalist of the first definition adheres to the Bible's fundamentals strictly, as the Bible itself instructs.[6]
It's worth pointing out, by the way, that in the media, Rosie O'Donnel's ideas, etc. Christian Fundamentalists are often equated with Islamic Fundamentalists (again, intending this to be condescending, since the Islamic Fundamentalists we generally hear about are Terrorists or do not oppose Terrorism). Clearly, the definition they mean when they make this comparison is #3, not #1. Islamic Fundamentalists would not qualify as American Protestantism. This is a somewhat technical "logician geekiness" point, but remember that to claim that only religious people can be "fundamental" is an Equivocation Fallacy. Any worldview, including Evolutionism, can have "fundamentalists" by definition #3.
So what is a "fundamental"? The first three definitions as given by are:
1. serving as, or being an essential part of, a foundation or basis; basic; underlying: fundamental principles; the fundamental structure.
2. of, pertaining to, or affecting the foundation or basis: a fundamental revision.
3. being an original or primary source: a fundamental idea.
Think about this. These definations mean that being a "fundamentalist" inherently means you believe in the "foundation", "basis", "primary source", "original source". Fundamentalists believe in the things, in other words, that it is essential to believe in.
So according to the actual definitions of these words, what exactly is negative about being "fundamentalist"? It actually sounds like it's the only logical way to live, doesn't it?
The negative connotations really come from illogic. That is, societal pressure to conform to the "majority", which is the Ad Populum logical fallacy. Peer Pressure. If you are a fundamentalist, in our society, you are "weird". Therefore, many people are scared to embrace views like biblical Creationism because that makes you a nut job by default, regardless of any actual logic. This is no way to find anything remotely resembling truth -- the majority is often wrong.
It's amusing in that evolutionists seem to forget that if being "fundamentalist" is a weakness, Evolution is similarly weak, because it dogmatically insists on several "fundamentals", such as humanism, gradualism, anti-"supernatural" explanations, millions of years, never daring to critically rethink unreliable dating methods, and ultimately, the very idea of natural evolutionary origin itself, to name only a few. Occasionally an Evolutionist will claim that it is compatible with religion (and as discussed below, some people do mix religion with Evolution), but have you ever seen any religious element admitted in the standard Evolutionary view as portrayed in the media, education, or even mainstream scientific articles? There are some exceptions, certainly, but for the most part even the idea of this sparks angry evolutionist protests. Witness the many court cases fighting even the mention of intelligent design in American textbooks. This is definately "fundamentalism".
It's disturbing because it begs the question--what does it say about us as a society that we are afraid to study the "fundamentals" of existence? I encounter this contradiction often: a person will say something about wishing to know the mystery of the purpose of existence, the universe, life, etc. But that same person will balk at a Christian, who believes that he or she has found the answer to those questions. They are all answered in the Bible, and they are indeed "fundamental" both to the Bible and to existence, the universe, life, etc. If you want to know the fundamentals of existence, you have to be willing to become a "fundamentalist" as you study with an open mind. If you will toss away your soul to Peer Pressure with two capital "P"s based on your emotions rather than your brain, you have a serious problem. IF the Bible is true, and there will be a Judgement Day, and God asks you why you did not accept his Son, will you feel emotionally happy as you reveal you just did "what everybody else was doing"? Do you think God will accept that answer? Where exactly did your soul go when you threw it away?
No thanks--I only have one life to live on Earth. I won't waste it playing that game. I am a Fundamantalist, yes, a Fundamental Creationist Christian, and proud of it. I believe God's Word, Foundation and All, because that is the only logical choice in the end. I don't care what anyone else, or even everyone else tells me to believe. I care about what is really true. Logic, evidence, and my open mind are, together, the only way you can convince me I am wrong. Connotate the label for the conclusion I've come to all you want, I will still be proud to wear that label.[7]

Problems With Other Worldviews

Evolutionism and biblical Creationism are given the main weight in this essay, because biblical Creationism is the view supported directly from the Word of God itself, and Evolutionism is the view supported by the vast majority of today's scientific community and relies totally on man's ideas as the source of its conclusions. These two views represent the "pure" worldviews that pit God's wisdom against man's. But they are not the only worldviews out there. What about those? Could any of them be the actual truth? What follows is a quick look at some of the most prominent alternative views. Each view is subjected to the same test as all of the rest of this essay.

The vast majority of views that come up in debate are mixes between the two "pure" worldviews, most of which formed simply by "picking and choosing" which parts of both views to accept. Almost all of them have a problem off the bat--how can you come to realistic conclusions by "picking and choosing" rather than using logic, evidence, and an open mind to come to conclusions? In every case that I know of, the mixed worldview fails the logic test. They are not intended, generally, to stand as their own view of truth, but rather to compromise one view with the other.

  • Theistic Evolutionism / Theism
This view is one of the most common worldviews, held institutionally by many Christian denominations, including today's Roman Catholicism. The idea is that some biblical teachings or other religious teachings can be "inserted" into Evolution. The specific beliefs vary, but the basic idea is that Evolution occured exactly as mainstream scientists say it did, rather than how God's Word says it did, and that the Bible is actually compatible with Evolution by re-interpreting what it says according to popular human ideas of the moment--that is, Evolution.
The main problem with it is its main tenet--that interpretation of the Bible should go according to popular human ideas rather than logical analysis--it's an Ad Populum Fallacy. Popular worldviews change all the time, even including many of the details (but not the Fundamentals) of Evolutionism. This makes no sense as an opinion of what really happened in the past. If today, popular or scientific consensus says everything evolved in millions of years, but in an age to come, the same consensus says those old fogies had it wrong--the entire universe actually popped into existence in a mere microsecond with all living creatures already formed, which view is really true? They can't both be true. And which one is true cannot change. Theistic Evolutionists can never say "this view is definately true", because they must first ask everybody else if they're allowed to believe that and they never know when everybody else will change their collective mind. As they have countless times throughout history, often with so-called "scientific" reasons.
For Christians, this also has serious consequences in terms of biblical theology. If the clear meaning of a passage of Scripture so foundational and vital as Genesis 1-11 can be "re-interpreted" complerely beyond the words that are on the page, then of what value are any of the words in the pages of the Bible? This view, taken to its logical conclusion, means that the Bible is irrelevant -- it is through popular opinion alone that decides what God's truth is. So why believe in Jesus? Many believe this logical result of Theism is why so many today are turning away from Christianity. Theists must admit--those that turn from Theistic Evolution to unbelief are being far more logical than Theists themselves.
This view fails to explain how the millions of years of death in Evolutionary Theory before Adam or the first humans can fit with Genesis and the Gospel, all of which clearly teach that it was mankind's sin that brought death and the Curse into the world. According to the Bible, there was no death before Adam's sin, yet according to Evolutionists, there was death before humans. The two views simply cannot mix; Theistic Evolutionists are denying a central tenet of the Gospel and the Bible. Without mankind's sin, there is no need for salvation. If it was part of God's will, it would be unjust for God to condemn us to the Second Death for simply doing as he intended anyways, and it would make no sense for Him to die on a cross to pay for a nonexistent choice, to remove a nonexistent Curse.
This compromise is not needed for any scientific reasons either; millions of years and other evolutionary tenets are accepted for social reasons. They are unfounded in and contradicted by the evidence. If we must place faith in evolutionary dating methods, for example, we must believe that Mount St. Helens erupted not in the 1980s (and in truth we know for a fact that it did, especially in the famous eruption that blew the top off the volcano--I'm sure you've heard of it), but millions of years old, because that is what evolutionary dating methods say. Evolution only appears to be more credible scientifically because most scientists today hold to it--it doesn't pass the actual scientific method or the logic test (as shown in more detail above).
There is just no advantage to holding this belief, other than higher social status for the few that are intellectually blurry-eyed enough to actually hold it. But Jesus himself made it clear that social status is irrelevant; it is his words that are the path to truth and salvation. [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] If we don't accept Jesus' own words in these matters, how can we accept that his words about salvation are true? [13] And as He also said, if you won't believe him when he speaks of earthly things, how will you believe when he speaks of heavenly things?[14]

Most other compromise views share these problems.

  • Intelligent Design
ID contributes good scientific points against evolution, but seems to avoid seeking the actual truth. I could go into much detail and might in a future version of this essay, but ultimately, any identity of the Creator other than the biblical God suffers from the same problems of all other compromise views, including the above.
  • Old Earth Creationism
There's no hermeneutical support for this view; it simply adds old ages into the Bible. The main fallacy here is in mistaking current scientific opinion for proven scientific fact. Science has been wrong many times before, so there is no reason to be convinced by evolution right now, especially given the vast array of scientific problems with it. Throughout history, if everybody would have just stuck to what the Bible portrayed, such as a spherical Earth, they would not have needed to be proven wrong eventually, such as when science proved the Earth spherical. Likewise, the reasonable thing to do now is to stick by the Bible on origins, confident that eventually popular opinion will give way to proof. Already we know of many proofs, and the only reason they have not yet swayed popular opinion is that some with ulterior motives are stifling knowledge of them.

External References

  1. ^ Revelation 20:6, on subject of Christ's rescuing believers from the second death
  2. ^ Revelation 21:8, on subject of unbelievers who will face the second death
  3. ^ Dissent from Darwin website
  4. ^ PDF list of dissenting scientists
  5. ^ "fundamentalist"
  6. ^ 2 Timothy 3:16-17, on the importance of adhering to "All Scripture".
  7. ^ Romans 1:16
  8. ^ Matthew 4:1-11; notice that Jesus pits the Word of God (as a source not to be doubted) against Satan's ideas, one of which involves the World. Theists could never use Jesus' approach, because what is written, in the plain text of the Bible, IS to be doubted.
  9. ^ Matthew 16:26, showing that the world is irrelevant to your salvation.
  10. ^ John 18:37; everyone on the side of truth listens to God, not man.
  11. ^ Mark 7:5-13; Jesus points out that setting aside God's Word for what is taught by men nullifies the Word of God.
  12. ^ Matthew 19:4; Jesus makes clear that what the Scipture says is accurate -- we can also ask Evolutionists "Haven't you read how the world was created in Genesis?"
  13. ^ Matthew 10:28, also relevant in terms of fearing man or God.
  14. ^ John 3:12, on the authority of His word in both earthly and heavenly things; the importance of believing Him in both categories.