Creation Science Rebuttals
Creation Magazine (Ex Nihilo)
Creation as Science, Part 1
Ex Nihilo, Volume 2, Issue 2, April 1979
Review by Greg Neyman
© Answers In Creation
The purpose of this series of articles is to show that the creation account in Genesis has scientific value, and scientists can learn lessons from it that apply to the scientific world.
While I agree with that as a basic premise, the author errs right from the start. He begins to make comparisons between evolution and creation. His first one is that "evolution says life forms have a common ancestor, creation says life forms have separate ancestors." However, theistic evolutionists are creationists, thus this comparison is too simplistic. The second comparison he makes gives us no problems. The third comparison is "Where evolution is random, creation is deliberate." Again, the theistic evolutionist, depending on his position (there are varying degrees concerning the amount of God's involvement), could also say creation is deliberate. The fourth comparison is also too simplistic. It says "Evolution is still in process. Creation (Biblical) has ceased." Again, if God put the process of evolution in place, then that process continues today. The only thing that has changed is that God is no longer guiding evolution, since He rested from His creative acts.
Next he contrasts evolution's chemicals to man process with God's special, fiat creation of each species. "In contrast, creation involves separate life forms having separate uniquely created or specially created ancestors." Here, the progressive creationist, who does not believe in evolution, would agree. However, they also are "creationists," even though they believe the earth is old (just as theistic evolutionists are also creationists). The term "creationist" is too narrowly defined by this author.
The author then proceeds to talk about science's limitations. This is followed with a paragraph showing that the three present problems for evolution, because evolution fails on all counts...it cannot be repeatedly tested, it cannot be measured, and, if I'm right on the third point, it cannot be disproven.
The author moves on to geology, and the fact that fossils are a record of the history of life. He makes the criticism that the total geological column cannot be observed firsthand anywhere. We now know of several locations, one in the United States in North Dakota, where the entire geologic column is represented (if you drilled down through it). I understand this article is almost 30 years old, so we will leave it at that.
He does go on to say "The geological column in its present form is not accepted on the basis of any repeatable tests but on the basis of 'acceptable' logic and assumption." In reality, it is testable repeatedly. When fossils from one layer are stratigraphically equivalent to fossils in other layers, they support each other. If it were only a case of two data points, I would agree with the young earth author, but we have thousands of data points that all correlate with each other.
In the end, the author brings up his fourth problem area for testability, the past. He says views of the past are not subject to testing, but only to analysis. He is incorrect. He says "Fossils exist in the present, and from them you INTERPRET a view about the past, but this view is largely accepted by FAITH." When fossils are found, we interpret them based on other fossils found above and below them stratigraphically, and by fossils in the same layer with them. We also interpret the rock layers and stratigraphically correlate them one to another. Thus, a fossil in the rock record can be described in great detail, and is "tested" against all the other fossils in the same layer, and those above and below it.
Finally, he says human fossils are bones only, and drawings of cavemen with clubs, with much hair, and ape women with flat breasts are only mock ups, and these items are taken on faith by the evolutionist. No, the evolutionist knows these are estimates and guesses...other evolutionists who see these artistic renderings know that they are not set in stone...they are merely estimates. There is no faith involved, because these things are known to be estimates and not fact.
This article is on the web at answersingenesis.org/creation/v2/i2/creation.asp
If you are not a Christian, and you have been holding out on making a decision for Christ because the Church always preached a message that was contrary to what you saw in the scientific world, then rest assured that the Bible is the inerrant Word of God, and you can believe in Christ and receive salvation, while still believing in an old earth. Click here for more.
Are you a Christian who believes in young earth creationism? Now that we have shown the many difficulties of the young earth creation science model in this and many other articles, how does this impact your Christian life? If you are a young earth creationism believer, click here.
Related Articles
To learn more
about old earth creationism, see
Old Earth Belief,
or check out the article
Can You Be A
Christian and Believe in an Old Earth?
Feel free to check out more of this website. Our goal is to
provide rebuttals to the bad science behind young earth creationism,
and honor God by properly presenting His creation.