When the facts are evaluated, the creation model is superior
Why is the Bibleís way the right way? According to the Bible the world is around ten thousand years old. While I myself will admit that Carbon14 dating is not exactly accurate, it is in no way billions of years inaccurate! No matter what you wish to believe, the concept of evolution can be tested and has more scientific proof than your religion ever will.
In last week's column I specifically addressed Carbon 14 dating and pointed out that not only does Carbon 14 not provide the long time spans needed by evolution but that none of the dating methods are capable of producing reliable data for the age of the earth. Now I would like to address your claim that evolution can be tested and that it has more scientific proof than biblical Christianity.
Evolution and creation are both models to explain origin and history. They are both reconstructions of past events and thus, they are beyond the scope of testing with empirical science. However, as scientific models both can be either defended or refuted with empirical science, experiments and evidence. Both models should be able to make predictions about the outcome of experiments which would confirm the framework of the model. If a model has to bend or twist to accommodate the outcome of the experiments then it is weak. Thus, the model that explains the greatest number of facts with the fewest number of modifications is the one most likely to be true.
When the facts are evaluated with both models the creation model is far superior to evolution. Unfortunately, the two views are rarely presented side by side so the clear failings of evolution are seldom seen. Instead many jump to conclusions like you have by assuming Carbon 14 dating or some other flimsy area of science supports evolution. Something cannot be true simply by proclaiming it to be true. Thus, evolution is not just an assault on science but it is a poor philosophy because it is presented as a foregone conclusion beyond the realm of testing. Instead, good science does not start with conclusions but with the evidence and then it draws its conclusions.
Evolution is not testable nor does it make scientific predictions because it has no mechanism to work. Evolution depends on chance, which, by the way, is non know-how. Some say that evolution works with natural selection and mutations. Both natural selection and mutations, however, are the enemies of evolution, not the solution to it. Natural selection has never been seen to cause the upward development from species to species needed by evolution. Mutations, most of which are harmful, are the origin of death and disease, not life. Evolution is like a beautiful, shiny, new car with no engine. It may be nice to look at but it has no use. Thus, the only way it can survive is to willfully mislead the uninformed public, purposely conceal facts and manipulate science.
On the other hand, if the creation model is true, then there exists a Creator with an incomprehensible intellect. The creation model would predict complexity in the universe. In this age we live in science has certainly proven this to be true. However, as a model of origin, creation is also not observable or testable. But unlike evolution creation has a working mechanism. Creation is explained by the supernatural, completed act of a Creator. This is evident as we observe nature. Our world becomes understandable, possible, plausible and rational with the explanation of a Creator. However, the only way we can know God and how He created is if He chose to tell us and He did. The Bible is Godís special revelation of Himself.
Therefore, the Bible is the only way because it claims to be the only way. It is true that this is not testable with science but that is because science is limited to the natural world. Just because the Bible is the revelation of a supernatural Creator does not mean that it is any less true. Evolution positions itself above creation because it excludes any explanation other than the natural. However, this does not mean that evolution does not require faith because it does. Since it is not testable or provable with science the question becomes which model best explains the observations we make in science. The creation model is far superior to the evolution model even though it is rarely explained in textbooks, classrooms and the media.
Previous Article Table of Contents Next Article
Perhaps you could get my column published in your local paper, too! Have your newspaper editor contact me. Also, feel free to email me with any of your questions, comments or disagreements.
Originally published in the Rockdale/Newton Citizen