Primary source references As a preface to this document, I want to point out that it is a shame that we have to continue to refute the same arguments that evolutionists keep bringing up over and over again in their attempts to argue against the fact of creation, which fact has been well established since the day the earth was created ex nihilo several thousand years ago.
Nevertheless, the neo-Darwinian dogma of the spontaneous auto-organization of random chemicals into complex biopolymers, by chance forming complex self-replicating automatic machines that then evolve into more and more complex self-replicating automatic machines through genetic transcriptional errors and the injection of random noise, filtered into highly coded information and structures by predators, the climate, and other mindless agents working together to produce an ecosystem capable of sustaining and improving all these countless life forms for billions of years has managed to permeate, over the last years, the thinking in major scientific circles, the media, and secular education, even penetrating some professing Christian institutions.
It is also a shame that the masses have bought all this based on some circular reasoning about fossils, where fossils tend to be found buried, similarities between various life forms, the presence of certain decay products in rocks, and other inherently speculative arguments about the past, based on phenomena that exist in the present.
If I hope to accomplish anything, it will be to simply encourage critical thinking. One must get past the arguments ad populum that its popularity counts for something , ad hominem that if you attack the person making the argument, this counts for something , and especially ad baculum that there are people who have the clout to decree it as true , to ask the key questions and challenge the unsubstantiated assumptions and thinking of those who would hold to the evolution position.
Today there are an increasing number of anti-creationist authors who are producing books and periodicals that make this relatively brief presentation insufficient to deal with all the points in dispute.
Those defending creation today who don't have the time to devote their life's study to gaining expertise in all fields of inquiry must principally be prepared to think critically, logically, and challenge unsubstantiated assumptions made by these people. They must also keep a level head in the face of some vicious attacks and diatribes that will be directed against them, as is advised in the scriptures 1 Peter 3: By way of definitions, I want to point out that when I speak of "evolution," I am referring to the popular contemporary use of the word, which in a nutshell is the belief that all life forms are related by ancestry, and that the first life form occurred spontaneously, all due to completely natural processes.
When I speak of "creation," I am referring to the inherently obvious fact that the origin of all life forms can be attributed to a creator who purposefully created them with planning and intent, and the documented fact that this occurred over the course of a week's time several thousand years ago. This document is not a scientific thesis, but an apologetic intended to be submitted and defended by me in an interactive, online electronic forum.
I claim no copyright on this document, and grant its use to the public domain. I have not written it with a view towards receiving any sort of financial or other personal gain, and I request that others utilizing this document do likewise. Those copying and disseminating this document shall assume full responsibility for defending it. I do not agree to defend this document in any forum that I did not submit it, due to the practical limitations of my own time.
The original source of this document is located at http: I should point out that I do not consider myself an authority on the leading edge of modern creationism, although it may seem so to the uninitiated.
Those wishing to be on the forefront of knowledge must look beyond this paper. I am not a scientist, but an engineer by education and profession. Even so, it is my conviction that no substantial scientific training or experience is required to confront evolutionism and defend recent creation.
I wish to thank my critics, especially those anti-creationists whom I have encountered along the way, for helping to expose deficiencies in my presentation, which has contributed greatly to the continuing refinement of this document. I also wish to thank those who have encouraged me by telling me that this presentation has made a difference.
As design demonstrates the existence and capability of a designer, the inherent design in life, the earth and the universe implies the existence and capability of its Designer. The best source of information regarding a design can be had by inquiring of the designer. A designer provides better and more authoritative information about his design than the design does about itself. In the case of life on earth, the Designer has unmistakenly identified Himself and revealed specific information about some of the circumstances surrounding creation.
A defense of Creation Chance does not cause anything. In fact, within the laws of probabilities and statistics we should not expect order and selection to be the result of "random" processes. Order and selection are the result of directed, non-random causes.
The laws of biochemistry, probability and statistics, and basic information theory are against it. It has never been demonstrated in the laboratory.
Effects caused by random genetic mutations that is, those that are phenotypically expressed are almost always bad. Once in a while they produce some interesting benign abnormalities. But no one has ever shown them to be beneficial, so as to result in complex and sophisticated designs. Random genetic mutations The "survival of the fittest" clause is a tautology and success does not imply complexity.
Natural selection shouldn't be expected to result in functionally different or more complex designs. Putting natural selection together with random genetic mutations doesn't help matters. Natural Selection Genetics disproves evolution. Animals vary based on coded genetic information that is already there.
This is the principle of micro-evolution, which has been verified by the scientific method. Genetics and Micro-evolution Similarity does not imply ancestry. The animals don't have ancestral dates attached to them. Evolutionary taxonomy is an effort based purely upon speculation and prior acceptance of the evolution model.
Any discussion of "transitional forms" is based purely upon speculation and conjecture, and is therefore moot and useless. Transitional forms The fossil record of life forms does not support evolution. The animals now fossilized were as complex back then as they are today.
They seem to have appeared abruptly. The fossil record is consistent with creation according to separate kinds. The fossil record of life forms The fossils themselves don't have dates attached to them. Furthermore, the process of fossilization should not be expected to occur gradually, but better fits within the model of a geological catastrophe.
Fossilization Burial order does not imply ancestry. The various stratified layers of rock do not have dates attached to them. The ordering of fossils within them are best modeled as a consequence of a geological catastrophe. The ordering is also too inconsistent to fit within the evolutionary model.
Stratified layers of rock containing fossils There is no basis for assuming uniform geological processes and ruling out catastrophic events. There is no basis for even assuming the uniform and consistent application of natural law throughout all time. Uniformitarianism is an ideology without a foundation. Catastrophism Current methods for dating rocks and organic material using radioisotopes involve many assumptions about initial conditions and the environment that are not known.
The dating results are inconsistent. Objects known to be young have been dated using these methods with erroneous results. These dating methods therefore cannot be considered reliable. And even if they were reliable, age does not in principle imply ancestry. Radioisotope dating methods Many dating methods exist which would similarly suggest that the earth is thousands, not billions, of years old.
While these methods also have their own set of unverifiable assumptions, they invalidate, or falsify, the few dating methods that would seem to suggest an old age for the earth. Dating methods that suggest a young earth There is no substantial evidence for the existence of ape-men, or any hypothetical sub-human ancestor of man. As far as we know, there is, and has always been a single species that was totally human since the beginning.
There also exist and have existed various species of apes, some extinct, and some still living. Perhaps there might also have existed some degenerate or diseased descendants of modern man.
The "Ape-men" Science is limited to the study of natural phenomena and is not sufficient to evaluate the issue of either creation or evolution.
Nevertheless, the fact of creation is obvious. In conclusion, it may be stated that the overwhelming evidence points to creation and rules out evolution. Science Faith is "confident belief, trust," "being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see.
It is better to place our faith in the Creator, rather than the creation. Faith Rebuttals are provided to common objections to the design argument and chance argument. Extra-terrestrial intelligence A resource list of books, pamphlets, tracts, videos, magazines, and research organizations is provided for further reference. Resource list A list of primary source documents cited by the secondary sources is given for footnoted points in essays Primary source references 2.
A defense of Creation In the computer industry, we know that any computer system functions according to a design and contains highly coded information. Because of the complexity of this design and the highly coded information, we attribute the origin of design in such a machine to an intelligent designer and coder. In fact, the more sophisticated the machine, the more planning and forethought we attribute to its development and the more intelligence and ability we attribute to the designer.
Computers themselves can assist as tools in the process of designing other computers, but ultimately the origin of the design can be attributed to careful planning and intent apart from the machine and tools themselves or any process of nature.
No one would suppose that something as complex and sophisticated as a computer happened together by chance or by natural processes. This idea would be considered an absurd proposition. So it is with life forms on earth. Life on earth is far more complex than computer equipment.
In fact, the collective know-how of the greatest minds in all of human history have failed to produce a machine of the sophistication and success of even the simplest replicating life forms.
The inherent design in the life forms on earth and the coded information contained therein must be attributed to a designer of vastly superior intelligence and ability than man.
It is set forth here as something obvious that design proves a designer and coded information proves a coder. We simply conclude from consistent life-experiences that when we stumble across something that has design, this demonstrates the existence of a designer, and likewise that coded information demonstrates the existence of a coder.
From consistent experience we also know that a creator is not the creation, but that a creator exists outside his creation. The evidence in the world around us, by itself, is reason for us to deduce the existence of a Creator, who exists outside of his creation.
If I want to find out how a particular piece of computer equipment was designed, I can go about it in a couple of different ways. One thing I can do is examine the piece of equipment, taking it apart, measuring it, etc. The other thing I can do is go find the designer and either talk to him or consult the blueprints and other documentation associated with the device.
Of the two methods, the source of the most authoritative information is to consult the designer and his documentation. Written testimony from the Creator includes things like the following paraphrased: There is no other god besides me. There was no one else with me when I did it. Now, anyone can claim to be the creator, and anyone can fabricate information as if it was from the creator.