INTRO ISSUES & DEFINITIONS OF CREATION SCIENCE & ITS TRUE RIVALS (steady state, abiogenesis & universal common descent) ============================================================================================= 

Dr. Jastrow, despite his agnosticism, told us what secular scientists are finding in spite of their bias against the evidence leading to supernatural conclusions. “For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries.” Robert Jastrow, “God and the Astronomers”  

"The greatest insult to nature is that random mutations and a non-creative 'force' like natural selection are credited with being responsible for all of it." Anonymous

“We need to remember that the only evidence about the way events occurred in the past is found in the geological records. However sophisticated advances in molecular genetics and molecular engineering may become eventually, the fact that a genetic change or even a new species might be generated eventually in the laboratory does not tell us how new species arose in the past history of the earth. They merely provide possible mechanisms. At the present stage of geological research, we have to admit that there is nothing in the geological records that runs contrary to the view of conservative creationists, that God created each species separately, presumably from the dust of the earth. My own view is that this does not strengthen the creationists' arguments." Dr. Edmund J. Ambrose, Emeritus Professor of Cell Biology University of London, evolutionist, The Nature and Origin of the Biological World, John Wiley and Sons, 1982, p. 164

In the last 2 centuries, a philosophical war has been raging between the concepts of Darwinism and creation science. 
A couple things need to be clear right up front.
1) The Biblical worldview has always been based on profound amounts of evidence.
Bible and Christian leaders argued for faith based on reason, facts, many lines of strong evidence and more. Greeks and Romans also used the term faith as relying on evidence as well. So, when God claims something is true, there is a very good chance we'll be able to find evidence of this in the physical world. See much evidence for the Bible using evidence as a foundation for faith here:

2) BOTH creation and Darwinism/universal common descent (UCD) have scientific support. Anyone who claims there is "no evidence" for creationism or Darwinism/UCD:
1) doesn't know what counts as evidence in science or
2) has been deprived of the knowledge of quite a few lines of evidence for creation or Darwinism  or
3) is intentionally lying.

f you are not aware of what counts as objective reasoning and scientific evidence, check this link for starters ( The idea that there is no evidence for God or creation science is solely a propaganda claim. Even this short 3 minute video puts that myth to rest.

In fact, in some areas, there is no secular theory, and the only theory that exists is creation science theory. As Dr. DeYoung, Ph.D. in Physics from Iowa State University says it:

     "Astronomers sometimes speak of origin from a "quantum mechanical fluctuation within a vacuum." However, an energy source is still needed. Actually, there is no secular origin theory, since every idea is based on preexisting matter or energy.

      The Kalam Cosmological Argument is one example of this and a very strong argument for God's existence with the traits of the universe that modern science has found confirming and correlating quite strongly with the predictions given in the Bible. Here is a brief well done overview of the Kalam Cosmological Argument:


Basically it states that:
1. Everything that has a beginning of its existence has a cause of its existence;
(This is an statement based on trillions of observable cases ranging from biogenesis, to synthetic organs to industry. It is NOT an assertion as many atheists have wrongly claimed. It is exclusively an observation of they physical data.)

2. The universe has a beginning of its existence;
(Nearly all cosmologists agree. See:

Therefore the universe has a cause of its existence and a Cause that could create a universe would by definition be God.
(This is a basic scientific inference similar to the ones used in the Big Bang theory and 1000s of theories in science. To figure out what happened in the past, scientists look at the present. The present is the key to the past scientists say. Then they infer that something similar must have happened in the past. For events in the past, it's one of the most important evidences we can have, since we can't time travel to the past.)

Observations, inferences, confirmations of predictions and more are always, always evidence. To find the truth we gather all the evidence and follow it where it leads. In cosmology there is no rival to creation science theory and God as the Prime Mover. There will be more on this below, but 
Arno Penzias, co-discoverer of the microwave background radiation and 1978 Nobel Prize recipient in physics, summarized how cosmology gives evidence for God simply.

      "The best data we have (concerning the big bang) are exactly what I would have predicted, had I nothing to go on but the five books of Moses, the Psalms, the Bible as a whole.” New York Times, March 12, 1978.

Some people may wonder why this debate is important to think about. So before we go any further, we'll consider a few reasons why this topic matters.

Creation science theory was a crucial inspiration for the development of quite a number of human rights. The Declaration of Independence like many other human rights documents and movements grounded human rights and equality in the philosophy of the creation science, that all were created equal, a concept which the Bible emphasized numerous times.

      "When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

       We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

       G.K. Chesterton wrote,

      "The Declaration of Independence dogmatically bases all rights on the fact that God created all men equal; and it is right; for if they were not created equal, they were certainly evolved unequal. There is no basis for democracy except in a dogma about the divine origin of man." - "What I Saw In America', 1922.

        Many more examples of this are here:

This happened routinely throughout history. Without creation philosophy, MANY of your human rights wouldn't exist. Creation science and Christianity continue to contribute greatly to inspiring many people to sacrifice enormous amounts of time and money to uplift the lives of others. It's not sane to condemn ideas that are doing such an enormous amount of good in the world.

Nearly all historians of science have rejected the conflict thesis (the idea that there was a war between Christianity and science) as propaganda and many leading scientists/historians, including some atheists, have agreed that Christianity did a great deal to pioneer modern science and that Christianity has done more more than any other private organization in history to promote science in many fields, pioneering its methods and most branches.

Dr. James Hannam, (Darwinian, Ph.D. in the history of science from Cambridge University) wrote:

      "…Christians believe that God created the world and ordained the laws of nature. He is the guarantor of constant and rational laws, such that investigating the world can consequently be a religious duty. It's easy to forget that, until the 19th century, science had almost no practical applications. A religious imperative to study nature provided almost the only reason to bother doing it. It's no surprise that so many scientific pioneers were devout men: Johannes Kepler, Sir Isaac Newton, Joseph Priestley, Michael Faraday, Georg Mendel, and James Clerk Maxwell, to name just a few.”

In 2011, Dr. Hannam published, “The Genesis of Science: How the Christian Middle Ages Launched the Scientific Revolution” This and his book “God’s Philosophers: How the Medieval World Laid the Foundations of Modern Science" which is based on his research as well as highly regarded academic work by the world’s leading historians of medieval science such as David Lindberg, Edward Grant, William A Wallace, Alan Debus, John North, Lynn Thorndike, Anneliese Maier and Lynn White.

Dr. Hannam summarizes his vast research this way.:

      "Until very recently, almost everyone believed scientific progress has been held back by religion. But today's historians have realized that, if anything, the popular perception is the opposite of the truth.”

It has been reviewed very positively by major secular organizations:
“Well-researched and hugely enjoyable”. New Scientist
“It is engaging, informative and I heartily recommend it.” says Ruth Francis, Head of Press for Nature

Dr. Hannam recently presented some of his research at the Royal Society on how Christianity built the foundations of modern science: (see notes for a summary)

A longer one is at the University of Cambridge:
See also articles at his site:

Out of all the 1000s of religions and cultures in history, it was Christian often using Bible principles and specific science statements that pioneered many scientific processes (Occam’s razor, peer review, falsifiability), the modern scientific method and most of the branches of science:
• 1ST RECORDED EXPERIMENT WITH A CONTROL GROUP: The first clinical trial with a control group was done by Daniel in the Bible (see Daniel 1). Arguably God did the first experiment using the modern scientific method. See Cosmic Conflict here:
• MODERN SCIENTIFIC METHOD. *Bishop Robert Grosseteste Roger Bacon
• ENCYCLOPEDIA, SCIENTIFIC. The first scientific encyclopedia featuring articles, pictures, alphabetical entries--was prepared by a minister, John Harris.
• PHYSICS. Galileo, Newton, Faraday, Maxwell, Thompson (Kelvin), Tait, Lemaître and MANY more.
• SCIENCE&ROCKETRY: Galileo, Johannes Kepler, Dr. Wernher von Braun, father of space science, 1st NASA director most responsible for putting men on the moon.
• GENETICS: Gregor Mendel
• COMPUTER SCIENCE. Blaise Pascal, Charles Babbage, etc.
• ANTISEPTIC SURGERY/BACTERIOLOGY VACCINATION. Joseph Lister, Louis Pasteur, Anton von Leeuwenhoek, Edward Jenner
• RELATIVITY THEORY. Einstein built his theory of relativity on the work of three men, two of whom were Christians: Bernhard Riemann & James Clerk Maxwell. He also used the work of Michelson-Morely & Morley was a Christian.
• CHEMISTRY: Robert Boyle is called by some the Father of Chemistry. Michael Faraday, John Dalton, a Quaker, gave us the atomic theory behind chemistry
• SYNTHETICS: George Washington Carver
• ANESTHESIOLOGY. Crawford Long, James Young Simpson
• GEOLOGY. Nels Steno the Father of Geology.
• THERMODYNAMICS. James Joule and Lord Kelvin
• WAVE THEORY OF LIGHT. Thomas Young, Augustin-Jean Fresnel, etc.
• FIELD THEORY. Michael Faraday first envisioned field theory.
• OPTICS. George Berkeley idealist philosopher and Christian bishop, showed how images form upside down in the eye.

B) Dr. Gauch of Cornell writes:

"The thirteenth century began with a scientific method that lacked experimental methods and lacked an approach to truth that applied naturally to physical things. It concluded with an essentially complete scientific method with a workable notion of truth. Because of Robert Grosseteste at Oxford, Albertus Magnus at Paris, and other medieval scholars, it was the golden age of scientific method. Never before or since that century have the philosophy and method of science been advanced so greatly." pg. 58 Scientific Method in Practice Hugh G. Gauch Jr. (M.S. in plant Genetics from Cornell University and currently a professor there), Cambridge University Press, p. 52.

C) Tim O'Neil has a Master of Arts in Medieval Literature from the University of Tasmania and is a subscribing member of the Australian Atheist Foundation and the Australian Skeptics. He's writing a book called:"History for Atheists: How Not to Use History in Debates About Religion."

He reviews Dr. James Hannam's book how Christian philosophy, and scientists built most of the foundational methods and most branches of modern science and many more here:

Tim agrees with Dr. Hannam that stunningly, it was the humanists in the "Renaissance" that nearly caused science to go backwards, almost destroying 300 years of progress of medieval scientists like Buridan and Dons Scotus in their idolization of the Greeks.

"the rise of humanism is usually portrayed as a 'good thing,' but the truth is that the humanists almost managed to destroy 300 years of progress in natural philosophy[the historical word for science]. By discarding the advances made by medieval scholars together with so many of the manuscripts that contained them, they could have set back the advance of science by centuries. Einstein might have had to do the work of Newton. The reason that progress in science was not held back (although it arguably didn't move forward as quickly as it might have done) was that the invention of printing [ca. 1450] had guaranteed that, if nothing else, the old books were preserved. Most people forgot about them, but a few, like Galileo, used the knowledge found within. (Hannam, p. 218)

Also see:
** (a good site that compares pagan views vs. Christian views fairly shortly quite well)

Darwinism (and atheism) have gained widespread acceptance almost entirely due to these fallacies and lack of information

  • 1) Governments banning the teaching of evidence for creation in schools due to separation of church and state distortions. America's founders wanted
    a) to prevent the govt. from persecuting people for their thoughts on almost any topic: politics, education, science, atheism, theism, or whatever. But,
    b) at the same time they wanted the government to engage in some promotion of positive values and evidence, including some spiritual truths. See:

    A Few Declarations of Founding Fathers and Early Statesmen on Jesus, Christianity, and the Bible

  • 2) Secular journals banning publishing evidence for creation science due to accepting the a priori fallacy of methodological naturalism

  • 3) Media follow the lead of governments/journals and falsely maligning creation science.

  • 4) Some pastors have done great scientific work (Mendel, Lemaitre), but many pastors are not trained in science and so aren't skilled in sharing the fully legitimate evidence that exists.

Science is supposed to follow the evidence wherever it leads. But,
there's an intentional deprivation of objective scientific facts and funding for research from multiple directions in regard to evidence for God and creation science. These are due to a priori fallacies which are diametrically opposed to truth seeking. Atheists/secularists and some misguided theists have for centuries been promoting an a priori fallacy that is the death knell of objective science. It's methodological naturalism and the simplest summary of it is this:
‘Even if all the data point to an intelligent designer, such an hypothesis is excluded from science because it is not naturalistic.’ Kansas State University immunologist Scott Todd, correspondence to Nature 401(6752):423, 30 Sept. 1999.

This is in fact the basis of the how nearly all atheists/Darwinians reason as you can see this concept continually being promoted by leading secular atheist/Darwinian scientists/historians all the time (such as Eugenie Scott, Jerry Coyne, Dawkins, Dennet and countless others) and some shockingly say that methodological naturalism is equivalent to science and that science can't be done without it. This is a myth since for centuries, science made it's greatest progress with absolutely no use of methodological naturalism at all as scholars agree in point #2 above.

There's a simple way we can show
methodological naturalism is wrong and false. Just change the nouns so they point at other targets and see if it sounds reasonable or objective.

  • Even if all the data point to **the Big Bang**, such an hypothesis is excluded from science because it is not **Steady State**.’
  • Even if all the data point to **heliocentrism**, such an hypothesis is excluded from science because it is not **geocentric**.
  • Even if all the data point to **Darwinism**, such an hypothesis is excluded from science because it is not **theistic**.’
  • Even if all the data point to **cancer being caused by smoking**, such an hypothesis is excluded from science because it is not **Philip Morris friendly**.’

        Obviously these ideas are all the end of truth seeking. And so is methodological naturalism. It is actually circular reasoning as well. It basically asserts:
1) Science can only give evidence for naturalism.
2) Because we've assumed a priori that naturalism must be the conclusion.
1) Because s
cience can only give evidence for naturalism.

Another Darwinian admits:
"It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door. The eminent Kant scholar Lewis Beck used to say that anyone who could believe in God could believe in anything. To appeal to an omnipotent deity is to allow that at any moment the regularities of nature may be ruptured, that miracles may happen." Richard Lewontin "The New York Review", billions and billions of demons, January 9, 1997, p. 31

To be a truth seeking tool, science must be able to investigate all hypotheses. It is the EVIDENCE or lack of it that rules out hypotheses, NOT censorship or fallacies.
If you start by deciding the conclusions that science can point to first, then science has been emasculated into nothing more than a tool to prop up the dominant ideology.

The atheist philosopher of science Bradley Monton (Ph.D. from Princeton) and many others have agreed that this is a serious problem, that science is no longer a truth seeking tool if we start off with methodological naturalism.

“If science really is permanently committed to methodological naturalism, it follows that the aim of science is not generating true theories. Instead, the aim of science would be something like: generating the best theories that can be formulated subject to the restriction that the theories are naturalistic. More and more evidence could come in suggesting that a supernatural being exists, but scientific theories wouldn’t be allowed to acknowledge that possibility. In the Dover case, Jones seems aware of the fact that his demarcation criteria entail that the aim of science is not truth. He writes that “while ID arguments may be true, a proposition on which the Court takes no position, ID is not science” (p. 64). But if science is not a pursuit of truth, science has the potential to be marginalized, as an irrelevant social practice…I maintain that science is better off without being shackled by methodological naturalism.”

Darwinism has been a major factor that contributed to many tragedies in history. Basically some people wanted to "help" evolution along by eliminating other human beings that they thought were less advanced than they were. This of course does NOTHING to prove Darwinism wrong scientifically. But, if it has caused so much damage, there's no rational reason why we should be so incredibly biased for it and censoring all evidence against it.

Stephen Jay Gould, a leading Darwinian professor of biology at Harvard, was a staunch anti-racist. Yet he admitted:

‘Biological arguments for racism may have been common before 1850, but they increased by orders of magnitude following the acceptance of evolutionary theory.’ Stephen Jay Gould, Ontogeny and Phylogeny, Belknap-Harvard Press, pp. 127–128, 1977.

      Richard Weikart is a professor of modern European history at California State University, Stanislaus, and has written a book thoroughly documenting how Darwinism was one of several major influences of the Nazi holocaust  in "From Darwin to Hitler: Evolutionary Ethics, Eugenics, and Racism in Germany."

It is reviewed here:
See also:

Richard Weikart makes a quite conclusive Case for the Nazi/Darwinism connection in the prestigious journal, 
German Studies Review here:

      Yvonne Sherratt in her new book Hitler’s Philosophers published by Yale Press points out that some of Hitler's most important inspirations were  eugenicist Ernst Haeckel’s Social Darwinism, and the Völkisch pan-German nationalism of Houston Stewart Chamberlain. Haeckel believed that the laws of evolution such as survival of the fittest should be applied to human beings and that Aryans were the superior race, with Jews, Africans, mentally deficient and others at the bottom. 

This video is a well done documentary on the topic:

Deadly legacy of Darwinism

For those who are Christians, the creation account is the foundation of many Bible doctrines which don't make sense without it. Here are some of them:
1) the nature of God, including his power and goodness, 
2) the nature of man, created in the image of God but fallen because of his sin, 
3) the nature and consequences of sin, 
4) the nature of marriage, 
5) the origin of death as a penalty for sin, and an enemy, 
6) the need for a Saviour to redeem man from sin, 
7) the origin and meaning of work and the weekly day of rest, and 
8) the relationship between man and the rest of creation, which is now cursed because of sin, 
9) The Sabbath is a memorial that points back and stands as a memorial to God's creation. 
and several more.

It's also very important because Darwinism has caused millions to reject belief in God. Richard Dawkins stated that Darwin made it possible to become an intellectually fulfilled atheist. Dr. Provine, another atheist, states simply:

      As the creationists claim, belief in modern evolution makes atheists of people. One can have a religious view that is compatible with evolution only if the religious view is indistinguishable from atheism.” Will Provine, No Free Will. Catching Up with the Vision, Ed. By Margaret W. Rossiter (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1999) pS123.

        If a God created us and gave us all that sustains life right now, it would be difficult to show more base ingratitude than to deny His incredible design that enables every sense that we experience and every pleasure we enjoy ranging from gourmet blueberry cheesecake to the inspiration of art and music to the thrill of base jumping or sky diving to the erotic sensations of sexual love. This is especially true when the weight of evidence from many fields points points very powerfully to life being painstakingly designed by a loving Creator for our maximum pleasure and enjoyment, but also the ability to reason and think for ourselves and preserving our freedom of choice. Not only does this conflict affect questions of identity as well as morality and free will free choice as we will see below, it impacts what we teach, what scientists choose to research and how governments, schools and research centers spend billions of dollars every year. If science is being blocked from pursuing evidence as we will show is indisputably happening, there is a high change that billions of dollars and millions of hours of scientist’s time is being completely wasted and science is being horribly perverted to serve bias.

The agnostic molecular biologist Michael Denton correctly said:

      "It was because Darwinian theory broke man's link with God and set him adrift in a cosmos without purpose or end that its impact was so fundamental. No other intellectual revolution in modern times . . so profoundly affected the way men viewed themselves and their place in the universe." Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (1985), p. 67.

        If you were an engineer and painstakingly designed a synthetic organ for a doctor to use to save a patient’s life, how would you feel if a skeptic suddenly began claiming that the synthetic organ was developed without intelligence, especially if that skeptic was arguing that you shouldn’t get paid or shouldn’t be considered for a Nobel prize? If you are a parent and have ever made a gift for your children, how would you feel about them claiming that they got a gift from gravity? Or let’s imagine that your spouse tragically died fighting for his/her country. What would you think of someone telling your child that your spouse never existed?

In addition to it's pioneering cosmological concepts that have been verified by modern science, it has contributed in several other areas as well. 

  • Norman Borlaug used creationist levels of mutation/natural selection to develop new crop hybrids that greatly increased yields by up to 600%. These saved over 1 billion lives and as a result Borlaug won the Nobel Peace Prize.
  • Semmelweis used Bible science concepts to help reduce death in pregnant women by ~25% (see the story and video in this link about 1/2 way down: 
  • Pretty much all vaccines and medicines that have saved lives have used mutations/natural selection that is at creationist levels of mutation/natural selection. 
  • Several others (coming)

In contrast, what has Darwinism done to improve knowledge in science? Not much. It's mostly developed its own narrative.

Dr Marc Kirschner, founding chair of the Department of Systems Biology at Harvard Medical School stated:
“In fact, over the last 100 years, almost all of biology has proceeded independent of evolution, except evolutionary biology itself. Molecular biology, biochemistry, physiology, have not taken evolution into account at all.” (he's lamenting this fact and calling for other fields of biology to use common descent ideas more). Quoted in the Boston Globe, 23 October 2005.

Dr. Philip Skell, Emeritus Evan Pugh Professor of Chemistry at Penn State University, wrote:
“I recently asked more than 70 eminent researchers if they would have done their work differently if they had thought Darwins theory was wrong. The responses were all the same: No.

I also examined the outstanding biodiscoveries of the past century: the discovery of the double helix; the characterization of the ribosome; the mapping of genomes; research on medications and drug reactions; improvements in food production and sanitation; the development of new surgeries; and others.

I even queried biologists working in areas where one would expect the Darwinian paradigm to have most benefited research, such as the emergence of resistance to antibiotics and pesticides. Here, as elsewhere, I found that Darwins theory had provided no discernible guidance, but was brought in, after the breakthroughs, as an interesting narrative gloss...

From my conversations with leading researchers it had became [sic] clear that modern experimental biology gains its strength from the availability of new instruments and methodologies, not from an immersion in historical biology.” Skell, P., Why do we invoke Darwin? The Scientist 16:10.

The Ph.D. cell biologist Dr. David Menton has stated,
“The fact is that though widely believed, evolution contributes nothing to our understanding of empirical science and thus plays no essential role in biomedical research or education.” Dr. David Menton

Darwinism has taken billions of dollars and research man hours and used them in foolishness and pseudoscience, when we actually need them to teach people how to live healthfully, to advance math/science, to improve human rights, to eliminate poverty and many other far more useful objectives.

Watch these documentaries to see where money is REALLY needed to be spent by our govt. instead of the Darwinian fairy tale.
An American Winter, A Place at the Table, Capitalism: A Love Story (by Michael Moore)
Some free here:


5) I

The term evolution is confusing since it only means “to change over time”. Creation scientists and all Darwinian scientists ALL agree that change and speciation happen. The crux of the difference is whether evolution is limited to for example producing many types of dog from one do vs. universal common descent (the idea that 1 or a few single celled organisms can develop over billions of years into all life). Actually, as we will see below, creation science is a MUCH bigger concept than Darwinism and has beaten many of its rivals already decisively with scientific evidence. Dawinism is one of the last major rivals to creation science still standing and more and more scientific lines of evidence are refuting its claims currently.

In fact it was creationists such as John Wilkins (creationist founder of the 1st scientific society in history, the Royal Society, in the 1600s), Edward Blyth, Alfred Wallace and others based on Genesis, Noah’s flood and observations in nature that pioneered and published many ideas in speciation, mutations and adaptation long before Darwin even thought of publishing his book. The issue was not about whether biological changes happen. Every parent can see this in their own children and grandchildren and in nature and the Bible were not ignorant of this either. One of the biggest controversies between Darwinism and creation theories is whether mutations, speciation, and natural selection are sufficient to explain the entire diversity of life that we see on this planet. If you only believe in change over time, esp. limited change, you are a creationist since creationists pioneered and published that concept long before Darwin did.


If you are a Christian who says Darwinism/UCD has no evidence or a Darwinian who says creation has no evidence, remember that all scientists on both sides agree that there are different types of evidence in science.  But, what is science? Well, we first of all have the scientific method.

Some people think science can only be used in for observable, repeatable events. Actually scientists use it in many ways for both the present and the past.
1) REPEATABLE SENSORY SCIENCE: Hypotheses that are able to be repeated and tested with our senses.

  • EXAMPLES: Gravity, the speed of sound, etc.

2) MATHEMATICAL SCIENCE: Some things are hard for us to observe directly. But, with measurement and mathematics, we can figure them out.

  • EXAMPLES: Heliocentrism beat geocentrism because its math predictions were more accurate. The distance to stars in space can’t be directly measured. But, we use triangulation to figure out the distances.

3) HISTORICAL SCIENCE: Scientists observe and measure the causes and effects of different actions in the world now. They expect that if similar actions were done in the past, we should see traces of similar consequences and results. When we find these traces, it is evidence that a similar action was done in the past. Depending on the methods and context, the evidence can be weak or strong. There are several ways this is done:

A) FORENSIC SCIENCE: This is CSI, Sherlock Holmes, detective type science. See:

B) CONFIRMATIONS OF PREDICTIONS: Based on our current knowledge of the world, scientists make predictions about the past and look for traces of those in the natural world.

  • EXAMPLE: If volcanoes erupted in the past, we should be able to find some ash nearby in. When we do, that confirms an eruption happened.

C) INFERENTIAL SCIENCE: We measure the rates of changes currently happening and extrapolate back from these.

  • Example: We measure the speed of stars, galaxies, etc. and make inferences about the past. If they were moving at this speed, space would have gotten smaller. Big Bang

3) CORRELATIONAL SCIENCE: This can be part of historical science, but is also used these days. Correlations are used to prove causes beyond reasonable doubt. Correlations alone can't do that. But, when mechanisms are found or statistical research rules out other causes, it can help to identify causes.

  • Examples: Correlations help prove that cigarettes are a factor that causes cancer. Correlations show that alcohol is a factor in causing care accidents.

4) EXPLANATORY SCIENCE: explanatory evidence--theories that explain a set of facts better than anything else, even though we may not have direct evidence for the claim, such as plate tectonics.

  • Example: No one has ever seen the continental plates in the earth. But, they explain all the data and facts we have the best. So, scientists think Plate Tectonics must be true.

5) NULL & ALTERNATIVE SCIENCE: The null hypothesis is a general assumption that some hypothesis or claim will have no confirmation. For example, a potential treatment should have no effect. The alternative hypothesis predicts specific results that an experiment should produce. The null hypothesis is the default position, but can never be proven. If the alternative hypothesis predictions are confirmed, then that counts as evidence for that claim.

  • EXAMPLES: New drugs are often tested with the Null/Alternative hypothesis method.     

In the last chapter we saw that while the Bible’s main focus is not explaining all science and history, it has a a very significant and amount of testable and very practical science that has stood the test of time and has been crucial in laying the foundations of modern science, inspiring innovations and practical benefits in numerous fields including dramatic advances in health and sanitation, saving billions for shipping industry, agricultural innovation that solved planetary food emergencies, leading directly to numerous archaeological discoveries and more. Unfortunately, atheists and evolutionists usually studiously avoid speaking about the larger field of Bible science and it’s astronomical contributions to modern civilization since it’s been proven already so solidly and is pretty much indisputable. They prefer to focus on the more controversial area of creation science and sometimes stunningly claim that this is the only area that the Bible even makes a scientific claim.

You might be shocked, but most scientists and people already accept major tenets of creationism such as these and don’t know it (a little below there is a much fuller definition of creation science).

  • If you accept that the universe had a beginning and expanded from there, as many scientists, do, then you accept one of the most important foundations of creation science.

  • If you accept the law of biogenesis as reality, you accept a major pillar of creation science that Pasteur, a major creationist opponent of Darwin, conclusively proved. If biogenesis is scientific then creation has scientific support.

  • If you don’t have faith in abiogenesis, a hypothesis which has been consistently falsified by all experiments from Pasteur’s time to ours (spontaneous generation is one form of abiogenesis), then the only alternative is to be a creationist as even Nobel prize winning evolutionists like George Wald admit:
    “Most modern biologists, having reviewed with satisfaction the downfall of the spontaneous generation hypothesis, yet unwilling to accept the alternative belief in special creation, are left with nothing.” (more from him later)

  • If you agree that speciation is scientific, you must agree creation science has scientific support here as well.

  • If you don’t have faith that one cell can evolve into all living things, the only alternative is believing in creation of at least different phyla, etc. This is only a tiny jump away from being almost fully creationist.

Before we go to the more complete definition, there are several foundations that need to be laid:

Definitions matter, a LOT. For example, if I defined universal common descent (UCD) as
“Darwin did it” or "change from molecule to man in days",

would it be fair to test it based on that definition? No. Neither is it fair to test creation science by "God did it" for the same reasons. You MUST use definitions for each theory that are made by leading scientists/thinkers/sources who advocate them. For UCD, this would be Origin of the Species, Darwin, Stephen Gould, Richard Dawkins and people like that. For creation science, it would be the Bible, Dr. Sanford (prof at Cornell for 25 years), Dr. Kurt Wise (Harvard), and sources like that. We MUST follow the golden rule and use definitions that accurately describe all hypotheses, theories, worldviews.

Opponents of the Bible often choose to focus on the tiny Bible science area of creation science, but here too, there’s a fundamental problem. Even though many aspects of creation science have been conclusively vindicated and all scientists agree with parts of it, most people don’t have the foggiest notion about what creation science actually is. I’ve had interactions with literally 1000s of atheists and evolutionists and so far ONLY 1 of them was able to define creation science even close to accurately. The atheist and evolution establishments obviously don’t want people to even understand what creation science is correctly. But, defining something accurately is essential for deciding if evidence supports a concept or not. Would it be acceptable to define atheism as belief in a flying spaghetti monster or to define Darwinism as dinosaur to bird evolution in a minute? Heavens no ;)!

In any dispute concerning a given theory, the first step in comparing rival concepts is to properly define those concepts accurately enough so that the other side thinks that their view has been accurately represented. Simply: a fair strategy is to let each side define its own views, to concurrently agree on this, and then to look at the evidence: to see which side, if any, is favoured. If one side alone is allowed to frame the definitions and the debate, there’s a very high chance that bias will interfere and that straw men will be set up, making a fair evaluation impossible. People, on both sides therefore, need to remember the Golden Rule, to treat others as they would want to be treated..

Just as important as defining concepts correctly is the importance of making sure that we are comparing rival concepts that deal with the same question and pinpoint the areas where they differ so that we can test and evaluate them.
Would it be right to compare photosynthesis to atheism and then agree that atheism is falsified because photosynthesis has more evidence? No! They don’t deal with the same question and so can’t be rivals. They can't even enter the same playing field or criticize each other.  Would it be right to compare gravity to Darwin's idea of universal common descent and then agree that Darwinism is falsified because gravity has more evidence? No! They don’t deal with the same question and so can’t be rivals.

You can ONLY compare theories or worldviews dealing with the same question or topic. We then pinpoint the areas where they differ so that we can test and evaluate them.

Many people commit the same error as above in trying to pit Darwin's universal common descent (which deals with how life adapts and changes) against God's act of creation (which deals with how life began). This is abominably bad science since these concepts are not even dealing with the same scientific question. There is nothing rational or scientific about trying to force them into competition at all. To do so is serious pseudoscientific reasoning that compromises the integrity of the scientific process. It’s like trying to falsify string theory or universal common descent based on observations of photosynthesis or something like that. Hypotheses that don’t deal with the same scientific question can’t be rivals PERIOD. It would be just as fallacious to compare the concepts of mutations and natural selections that creationists pioneered to abiogenesis and try to rule that out.

Creation science has had MANY rivals, but it has beaten most already. Here are just 3 of many comparing theist and atheist worldview concepts (there are ~17 kinds of atheism, some versions can be called worldviews. "Lack belief" isn't a worldview and so people with that view can't talk or compete at the worldview levle. The atheist theories below refer to strong atheism.)
A) ORIGIN OF THE UNIVERSE: How did the universe begin?
claim: Creation of the universe by God/Big Bang VS.
claim: cosmic evolution and steady state

Why? Both of these concepts deal with the same question, the origin of the universe.

B) ORIGIN OF LIFE: How did life begin?
claim: The act of creation/biogenesis VS.
claim: abiogenesis/spontaneous generation,

WHY? Because both of these questions deal with the same question, the origin of life.

C) VARIATION OF SPECIES: How did we get all the different forms of life on this planet?
claim: Creationist levels of speciation (species to ~family)...Creationist speciation was pioneered long before Darwin by creationists such as John Wilkins, Patrick Matthew, Edward Blyth, Alfred Wallace, etc.
claim: universal common descent (molecules to man over billions of years).

WHY? Because both of these questions deal with how life changes.

D) DESIGN: Where do complex functioning systems originate? For example, you have 100,000 kinesins in most cells, that travel and deliver nutrients to different parts of the cell so it can function.
BIble claim:
Creationists predicted that function would be found for most organs and DNA with time (but not all due to some degeneration from creation).
Darwinian claim:
Darwinians have pointed to vestigial organs and junk DNA as proof of universal common descent. 

E) FOSSIL RECORD: How was the fossil record formed?
Theist claim:T
he fossil record was formed by a combination of catastrophism (Noah's Flood) and
uniformitarianism. Since a flood happened, most of the fossil record should be organized basically from marine sessile to free swimming to land dwelling.
Atheist claim:
Darwinians claimed the fossil record was almost entirely caused by uniformitarianism. Darwinian thought requires the fossil record to be organized from simple to complex.

WHY?  Because these claims both deal with why we have the fossil order that we do.

F) HEALTH SCIENCE: What is the healthiest way to live?
Bible claim: In Genesis 1 a vegetarian diet is given as the ideal food (later some meats were defined as safe/unsafe and allowed if desired, but not ideal).
Non-theist claim: For millennia most scientists/doctors thought meat was required for a healthy life, even in the 1900s and some even now. But, National Geographic and Blue Zones, both secular organizations, have shown that the longest living people groups in the world are mostly or totally vegetarian. Yet another confirmation of creation science.

Which has the weight of evidence? Already, nearly all scientists agree that the weight of evidence conclusively supports a beginning to the universe and all science we have now fully lines up with the law of biogenesis. That’s A) and B) confirmed. Secular science has moved very far away from uniformitarianism of the last couple centuries and is basically in line with creationism’s mixed uniformitarianism + catastrophism model. In the areas of vestigial organs and junk DNA, creationists have been stunningly vindicated. We have now found important function for nearly all vestigial organs and hardly a week goes by without a paper being published finding important function for junk DNA. 
Most fossils were laid down in marine conditions and reflect the order we should see if laid down in a flood. And the health of the vegetarian diet has been confirmed by some of the biggest studies ever in the field of nutrition. So, creation science has already beaten 5 of its 6 major rivals based on the weight of evidence we have at present and we know ~10 different scientific facts that limit evolution in the 5th major area, the modern synthesis (which I'd wager will be dead in 10-20 years if not sooner). There are many more points than these major ones.

In the area of the variation of species, there is a conflict going on that is undeniable. Universal common descent (UCD) says that speciation can cause changes way past the family level all the way up to astoundingly the kingdom level. Thus, the key separation point is ~the family level. So, the crux of the issue is what does the weight of evidence point to best and what best explains the evidence we have:
a) limited speciation from the species to ~the family level (creationist evolution) or
b) unlimited speciation that goes WAY beyond the ~family to the kingdom levels (universal common descent).

Which has the weight of evidence? All sides have some hard questions since we don't know everything (and this gives us good areas to research more). But, creation scientists have identified at least 10 different natural limits on evolution which make universal common descent common descent impossible. The main barrier is the censorship of Darwinians who want to preserve their regime at all costs, even the cost of truth.

Remember that when we evaluate what is true, we don’t do that based on hard questions or difficulties or anomalies. We do that based on the weight of evidence. To many, including former atheist scientists, including some who use to ridicule creation science such as Dr. Walter Veither, the evidence if very firmly on the side of creation science.

Even with the above 6 points, creation science is ALREADY indisputably a scientific theory whether people want to admit it or not. There are 13 foundations listed below and 1000s of predictions based on these, many of which have been conclusively confirmed. The fact is that there are more scientific confirmations of God and creation science than there are for the Big Bang and much historical science and in the majority of areas, even more than universal common descent. The reason you don’t know about these is because of persecution and censorship. Dr. Bergman, another former atheist and evolutionist, with 7+ Ph.Ds., who became a creationist summarizes his book about many cases of persecution of creationists in his book here:
Slaughter of the Dissidents.

A HIGHLY recommended book that summarizes the evidence for creation is Dr. Jonathon Sarfarti’s “The Greatest Hoax on Earth” which summarizes the scientific case for creation and has numerous references on every page from many journals.

When Newtonian physics was taught, some people had doubts...but doubts don't mean ANYTHING and do NOT EVER beat evidence. PERIOD. It is ONLY when a NEW theory or worldview with MORE and BETTER evidence comes along (Einstein's physics) that rational people changed. NO rational person gives up evidence to follow doubt. We follow the weight of evidence that WE DO have, not NOTHING. Skepticism is NEVER EVER evidence. It MAY in some cases lead to new ideas that can be checked out, some are wrong and some are right..but you NEVER give up a theory with evidence in favor of nothing. NEVER. That's the total abdication of all rationality.

Millions of people allege that creation science is only this:
“saying "GOD DID IT!" isn't using your brain at all.” 12inches***
“what about creationist science says more then 'god did it'?” caffeinated***
“A science stopper is a hypothesis that makes no testable or useful predictions…Common examples include intelligent design and creationism.”

It is crucial to avoid misrepresentations and fallacies. They are the enemy of science. One of the biggest ones is the claim that creation science is just saying "God did it" and that’s all it is. It’s a science stopper. Very little could be further from the truth. While creationists do think God did create things with intelligence and much evidence backs that up, the historical record indisputably shows that this has been the BEGINNING of science, not the end, as many respected historians of science such as Dr. Hannam (Ph.D. in the history of science from Cambridge) document. This is also true today.

Let’s debunk this decisively:
1st of all, it’s a patently false straw man that “God did it” is all creation or Bible science is as you will from the definition below. Creation science makes literally 1000s of predictions based on the pillars below, many of which have been irrefutably confirmed. Also, remember that creation science is only 1 small part of Bible science. In previous chapters we have listed many specific examples of Bible science and how it has vastly improved human health, marriage, sex, happiness as well as how the statements, principles and philosophy of the Bible have also directly stimulated Christian scientists to figuring out HOW God designed things to work and how to utilize those functions and improve human life. Biblical principles were profound foundations for modern science.
2nd, there is nothing unscientific at all about claiming that God or any person “did it”. We can say that the Wright Brothers "did it" in pioneering flight & Henry Ford "did it" in building the first Model T car & the Pharoahs "did it" in building the pyramids & someone "did it" building the Easter Island statues & Craig Venter's team "did it" in creating the first synthetic cell by intelligence (which is an evidence for design since it didn’t happen without intelligence directing it).

Dr. "Fritz" Schaefer taught for 18 years at UC Berkeley in the chemistry department and is now the Graham Perdue Professor of Chemistry and the director of the Center for Computational Quantum Chemistry at the University of Georgia. He is the third most quoted chemist in the world. He writes, "The significance and joy in my science comes in the occasional moments of discovering something new and saying to myself, 'So that's how God did it!' My goal is to understand a little corner of God's plan." --U.S. News & World Report, Dec. 23, 1991.

Someone or something “did it” has long been a part of testable science. Popular science shows ranging from Discovery Channel shows to CSI as well as most of the forensic science deal almost exclusively with the issue of who “did it” and use inferential science to prove it. Is it impossible for scientists to use their brains after saying someone “did it” in forensic science? Did detectives just stop working when they made a hypothesis that Ted Bundy “did it” in his serial murders? NO! That was the START of building a scientific case, the exact opposite of what many atheists claim. Proposing who “did it” is the hypothesis, the 1st step of the scientific method, in most of forensic science and other aspects of science as well.

Darwinians also hypothesize that natural selection “did it” in causing universal common descent and atheists hypothesize that something “did it” in bringing about the origin of the first cell from non-living matter. So, creation, universal common descent, abiogenesis, forensic science, CSI and much more in both the scientific and especially historical fields are outside of science and rational thinking if “____ did it” can’t be a scientific claim/hypothesis. The fact is that a hypothesis that someone or something “did it” is a fully legitimate scientific hypothesis that is often used in science. It is however part of historical science, not observable science and so mostly depends on inferential science, predictions & confirmations of what we would expect if this happened and things like that.

3rd, “God did it” is a very testable claim using forensic science (similar to but better than universal common descent. It’s completely false that creation science and intelligent design don’t make any testable or useful predictions. They have for centuries and continue to do so and you will see many examples of this in this chapter. This allegation is a blatant falsehood on the order of saying that the holocaust never happened.

Even if “God did it” were all creation science said in the Bible (it is NOT), that would only be the beginning of science, since forensic and historical science is often concerned with "who done it". We can say the Pharoahs "did it" in building the pyramids and compile evidence from science and history. We can do the same for many things in history. So, even if the straw man was correct, we could still check inferential science on this. But, as you can see below, God did it has always been and always will be a straw man.

Another common fallacy used is the “God of the Gaps” argument. The claim goes that if scientists have explained something, then there is no more need of God. This is utterly absurd. Explaining how something works does absolutely nothing to explain how it originated. When people figure out and explain how car engines work, that does nothing whatsoever to remove the need for car designers and builders and the factories and assembly lines and all the rest. It also does nothing to explain how all the integrated processes were put together and set running. In the same way, explaining how nature works does nothing at all to remove the need for a Designer who designed and built incredibly sophisticated systems that no humans have yet matched as well as starting all the integrated processes that sustains their homeostasis.

Lord Atterbury, a contemporary of Newton, said, "Modesty teaches us to speak of the ancients with respect, especially when we are not very familiar with their works. Newton, who knew them practically by heart, had the greatest respect for them, & considered them to be men of genius & superior intelligence who had carried their discoveries in every field much further than we today suspect, judging from what remains of their writings. More ancient writings have been lost than have been preserved, & perhaps our new discoveries are of less value than those that we have lost."

When people look at the Bible & other things of ancient times, some things seem simple (although some parts are quite complicated) & the temptation to arrogance kicks in…how could something from so long ago & that appears so simple be valid and important for us? But, it was Einstein who said,
"Any intelligent fool can make things bigger, more complex, & more violent. It takes a touch of genius -- & a lot of courage -- to move in the opposite direction.” &
"Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler." Einstein

Many people have a very harmful prejudice in that they are very impressed by complicated knowledge & disrespect simple knowledge. Since universal common descent appears complicated, and creation simple because of the way creation science has been straw manned (creation science can be every bit as sophisticated as universal common descent, with numerous peer reviewed papers on many aspects of it), some think the complicated version must be correct. This actually flies directly in the face of Occam’s razor. Also, if intellectuals, scientists or pastors say something very complicated, many people often just trust that that person must be right because they are smart. I heard one pastor say to other pastors, “You win souls in proportion to the amount of Greek you know.” I don’t think that’s wise, but its human nature for people to trust scientists, pastors, experts, etc. in many areas.

Much of the Bible is written in simple language, but some is quite challenging. Why? In law, surgery, some parts of science & other areas, it’s OK to have a few elite knowing the complex truths & then producing products for the masses or using their skills for those who need them. There’s no need for all to know complex truths. But, in other fields, it’s starkly different. In communication, literacy, health & theology & many other areas, if the masses don’t know the truth, they will suffer in many ways. So, God put truths of the greatest value in the Bible in simple language so that even simple people could understand & choose to follow them.

Da Vinci wrote, “Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication.”
C. W. Ceran said, “Genius is the ability to reduce the complicated to the simple.”

This is precisely what God did. If he hadn’t, billions wouldn’t have known how to have the best life on this earth. But, there is quite enough in the Bible for the most sophisticated mind as well. It has value for people of all IQ levels.

Prejudice against simplicity & traditional knowledge have killed literally millions & science has been stunted by this grave sin against knowledge.

Between 1600 & 1800 over 1 million sailors in the British navy died from a disease called scurvy. Doctors & scientists had no idea why. But, in 1535, the answer had been found & written down. French explorer Jacques Cartier’s ships were frozen in the ice off the St. Lawrence River. Scurvy began to kill some of the sailors. There were 110 sailors & 25 had already died. Many others were very sick & going to die. But then a friendly Indian showed them a cure: tree bark & needles of the white pine - both rich in vitamin C. These were stirred into a drink for the sailors & all the sailors immediately recovered. Cartier reported this to the doctors & scientists back in Europe. But, they laughed at the ignorant Indians & didn’t study this natural solution at all. Only about 200 years later did scientists realize that scurvy was caused by a vitamin C deficiency. The Indians natural remedy was a perfect solution. But, because the scientists & doctors were too proud, over 1 million sailors died of scurvy even after the cure had been found.

The same thing with similar results has happened when people arrogantly discredited biblical knowledge because it seemed simple, when in reality it was very crucial for life.

God could have put the equations of relativity in the Bible without any difficulty or instructions on space travel. No problem at all. But, He gave us a brain & wanted us to enjoy the thrill of discovering what He created & creatively adapting it. He put some crucial basics in there that science now proves are very crucial for life, health, rational thinking, science, etc. but left much for us to discover. The Bible doesn’t claim that it has all knowledge (only God has that & many Christians believe that God’s choice to give us freedom limits that to some degree). It just claims that it is the beginning of wisdom. Sadly, even now in some areas, modern culture hasn’t caught up to this “beginning of wisdom”.

While all deserve respect, unfortunately, it is demonstrable fact in history that many intelligent people have gotten it very wrong. So, just accepting something because a smart person said it is not really that rational (I, by the way, scored in the top 1-2% on national tests in the US all through school. But, that doesn’t mean you should just accept everything I or others say without investigating or that I’m infallible. Not at all.)

Universal common descent has also impeded much progress in causing people to assume that most ancients were barbarian bozos. It’s going to take decades or centuries to cure this delusion. The truth is that some people in history were intellectual giants compared to some these days. 2 cases of this are here:
The ancients & their medical technology (including brain surgery)

Mayan vehicles with ability to fly (how many modern people know how to build flying machines): (~3:30-7:30, esp. see ~6:00)

5. ARGUMENTS FROM AUTHORITY & OCCAM’S RAZOR: Many people are very impressed and even convinced by how many scientists agree with a concept which is basically an argument from authority. Others are convinced by sophisticated graphics and charts. It’s admittedly easier to decide based on things like this and let others do our thinking for us than to do the hard work of investigating things for ourselves. But, the fact of history is that nearly every advance in science has happened against the majority opinion and there are also cases where science has gone down red herring roads and had to retrace its steps and found that a previous view was correct. Charts and graphics have been instrumental in promoting concepts now known to be false (Haeckal’s charts on embryology for example). It doesn’t matter at all how complex or simple a concept is. If it has observational evidence or confirmation of predictions, it is scientific PERIOD no matter how much we have been told it isn’t. Galileo’s experiment with weights was simplicity itself. That didn’t detract from it being scientific at all. In fact, Occam’s razor, tells us that the simplest answer and solution is often the right one. Don’t let your mind be closed by hi-tech graphics, etc. Anyone who has millions of dollars to use can make impressive graphics. But, as Hollywood demonstrates, cool sophisticated graphics don’t prove whether something is true or not. It is the weight of evidence that counts, not graphics. Like evolution, creation science can be summarized very simply in a few sentences or as you can see in some of the links below, esp. those to journals or presentations of professional scientists, it can go at least as deeply into science in many fields as any evolution proponent can. \

Below is a 13 point definition of the major aspects of creation theory (based partially on Arkansas law #590, section 4(a)) but expanded with further clarifications and biblical references to dispel many common misrepresentations. A tiny bit of evidence is also very briefly summarized with links to more in depth presentations, evidence and/or scientific articles. There are 1000s of scientifically testable predictions that have been made based on the definition below. Many have been conclusively confirmed with philosophical, historical and/or scientific evidence. Some are being researched and some need more scientists, time and money to check. It is crucial to remember that all these predictions were made 1000s of years ago, without the benefit of modern knowledge or science. They were made long before any kind of scientific method existed.

Remember that since some of these deal with past events, we should not demand observational evidence of them anymore than we should demand observational evidence of the Big Bang happening or ancient paleontology. Scientific evidence for historical events is based on inferential/forensic science. If predictions are made and confirmations are found for anything, that must be considered fully legitimate scientific evidence for creation just as it is for the Big Bang, forensic science and many other fields.

CREATION THEORY DEFINITION (and a tiny summary of some evidence)

Creation theory is based largely on 4 major claims of the Bible regarding the origin of the universe, the origin of life, adaptation and a global flood, but with 100s of other more detailed claims. There are 2 kinds of claims:
1) Claims that rest directly on what God has said in the Bible and
2) Claims that creationists hypothesize based on current scientific knowledge and hints in the Bible.

The 1st type of claims have been frequently confirmed by science and continue to come true. They are based on what God has said and God does not lie. So with time, if God is real, they will all be proven by science. The 2nd type of claims are ones that creation scientists have come up with that are inferences from the Bible, but not direct claims of God. These have often been correct, but are sometimes found incorrect, since human beings are fallible, including all scientists. Just like Darwinians and all other scientists, creationists can make mistakes as they are searching for more knowledge.

Creation science includes many testable observable and inferential scientific evidence which have often been confirmed by both religious and secular scientists that indicates:

1. CLAIM #1: THE UNIVERSE HAD A BEGINNING (and its age): Matter, energy, the universe and its natural laws were created by God and since that initial creation have been expanding. At least the initial aspects of this must have been ex nihilo. The main alternatives to ex nihilo are steady state or a dozen other ancient cosmologies (debunked and abandoned by science) and infinite regression (untestable and unanswerable scientifically or logically). Creation at present has beaten all other ancient competitors in this area and current cosmology is building on this foundation(even if they want to sweep that fact under the rug due to bias against creation science).

1st, check out the ~20 different cosmologies that existed in history, esp. the ones ~2-3,000 years ago and compare them to the Bible’s model:
--the shape of the universe was like a man (Jainists)
--The Earth and the Heavens form a unit within infinite "waters of chaos"; the earth is flat and circular, (Babylonian)
--At the center of the Universe is a central fire, around which the Earth, Sun, Moon and planets revolve uniformly. (Pythagorean)
--Universe exists unchanged throughout eternity. (Aristotlean)
and others.

1) Hebrews 1:2 says, “through the Son He (God) created the universe.”. This is a strong statement for a beginning.
2) God speaks of the movement of the stars after that beginning
““Can you direct the movement of the stars— binding the cluster of the Pleiades or loosening the cords of Orion?” Job 38:31
3) ~15 verses in the Bible also speak of a stretching of the heavens:
“This is what the LORD says—your Redeemer and Creator: “I am the LORD, who made all things. I alone stretched out the heavens. Who was with me when I made the earth?” Isaiah 44:24 (see also: Isaiah 42:5; Isaiah 45:12; Isaiah 51:13, etc.).
4) The number of stars should be finite since God calls them all by name (Psalms 147:4), but also of very vast number since God compares stars in the sky to the sand on the seashore (Genesis 22:17).

The term stretching is linguistically about the same as expanding, considering translation from a different language/culture, the ancient minds and simplified language God had to use to make it understandable for them. The term heavens, shamayim (שָׁמַיִם), is used to refer to both the earthly sky and the universe. Since we have a beginning to the universe and movement of stars and stretching concepts as above, all together these show very strongly that an expansion of the universe had to happen (and that the movement/expansion has been happening for a long time). For 3,000+ years, while the brightest intellectuals taught dozens of ideas about cosmology, the Bible gave a model that is incredibly close our modern concept.

EVIDENCE: Keep in mind that Even ONE claim or prediction that is confirmed is evidence. This is just a basic understanding of science. The weight of evidence overall determines what is true to the best of our ability.

If you are unacquainted with the fact that confirmed predictions count as evidence in science and have NOTHING to do with opinions, I suggest you start by reading these 2 sites about how 2 predictions of Einstein were confirmed by Gravity Probe B and that greatly increased our confidence that his concepts about relativity are true.

Many scientists have done research providing evidence of a universe with a beginning and an expansion. The red shift, cosmic background radiation, movement of galaxies, many aspects of the The Big Bang theory and more all confirm a beginning to the universe and a subsequent expansion. Arno Penzias, co-discoverer of the microwave background radiation and 1978 Nobel Prize recipient in physics, stated

The best data we have (concerning the big bang) are exactly what I would have predicted, had I nothing to go on but the five books of Moses, the Psalms, the Bible as a whole.” New York Times, March 12, 1978.

In a subsequent radio interview, Penzias was asked what there was before the Big Bang:
"We don't know, but we can reasonably say that there was nothing." An upset listener called immediately, accusing Penzias of being an atheist. He wisely replied: "Madame, I believe you are not aware of the consequences of what I just said. Before the Big Bang there was nothing of what now exists. Had there been something, the question could be: where did it come from?" He continued commenting that if there was nothing and suddenly things began to appear, that was sign that Somebody had taken them from nothing, and concluded saying that his discovery could bring about the overcoming of the historic enmity between science and religion.”

The Bible's model was conclusively confirmed by Lemaitre, Hubble and the work of others, refuting the dominant model, steady state that had reigned for ~2,000+ years as well as many other models.

This is a STUNNING and EXTREMELY strong piece of evidence, vindicating creation science...and there are literally 100s and 1000s more cases like it with overall trillions of confirmations.

If you call this just an opinion, and not hard scientific evidence, then there is just not a common scientific ground to justify further discussion. You cannot deny that this is evidence and be in possession of the basic fundamental knowledge of how science actually works. Denial of this as evidence means that a priori emotions and agendas are more important to you than facts. This is evidence, that as my math prof used to say, is obvious to the most casual observer.

CHALLENGING QUESTION: Is the universe only a few thousand years old or billions?
My personal view, based on logic, the Bible, science, linguistics, etc. is that the universe is quite likely much older than 13.7 billion years old that scientists currently estimate the age of the universe to be based on evidence from inferential science. For similar reasons I believe in an age of life on this earth of ~6-10,000 years old. I have no strong position on the age of the earth, since the Bible says nothing about that and there is much evidence on both sides.

The Bible does not make any claim about the age of the universe anywhere. God could have made the universe billions or trillions of years ago or just in the last few 1000s years. The estimate of the age of the universe has changed dramatically in just the last century and could easily change dramatically again in the future.

There is significant scientific support for both a young universe and an old universe. There are also significant problems for both views. Many do not know of the problems the Big Bang has (keep in mind I support it because I think it has the most evidence).

1) Cosmology (Published in New Scientist, May 22-28 issue, 2004, p. 20)
The big bang today relies on a growing number of hypothetical entities, things that we have never observed-- inflation, dark matter and dark energy are the most prominent examples. Without them, there would be a fatal contradiction between the observations made by astronomers and the predictions of the big bang theory.

In no other field of physics would this continual recourse to new hypothetical objects be accepted as a way of bridging the gap between theory and observation. It would, at the least, RAISE SERIOUS QUESTIONS ABOUT THE VALIDITY OF THE UNDERLYING THEORY.

But the big bang theory can't survive without these fudge factors. Without the hypothetical inflation field, the big bang does not predict the smooth, isotropic cosmic background radiation that is observed, because there would be no way for parts of the universe that are now more than a few degrees away in the sky to come to the same temperature and thus emit the same amount of microwave radiation…” (see link for more)

2) HORIZON PROBLEM: The universe that is much larger than it would take something at the speed of light to cross it in ~14 billion years. So, how could it have become as large as it is without violating the speed of light (inflationary theory tries to solve this). Also, in 1964/5, Penzias and Wilson discovered that Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) comes from all directions in space and is essentially the same all over the universe (to a precision of 1 part in 100,000). But, uniform temperatures happen only with close contact as when you mix cold and hot water together. The pictures shows the problem:
(1) Early in the alleged big bang, points A and B start out with different temperatures.
(2) Today, points A and B have the same temperature, yet there has not been enough time for them to exchange light. This is a major problem for the Big Bang theory. &

STARLIGHT PROBLEM: Some starlight that we see has taken millions or even billions of years based on the speed of light. In Genesis 1:16, it says God “also made the stars” where in an aside. The difficulty is how we could see the stars if the universe is only 6,000 years old as some creationists have claimed.

The answer in my view is not in the science, but linguistics. Does the Bible actually teach that the universe is only 6,000 years old? No, it doesn’t anywhere. This is only an assumption. Linguistically, the Hebrew word for 'create' is 'bara'', denoting something new coming into existence. This word is used multiple times in Genesis 1. However on day 4 when it says 'he made the stars also' the Hebrew word ''asah” is used. This word is often used to denote something being completed that was started before. 'Bara'' is never used that way. So, it’s very possible that the creation of stars in Genesis 1 was a continuation of God’s creation of many parts of the universe that had been ongoing, possibly for billions of years prior to the earth.

It’s also very likely that Genesis 1 is talking about creation in a local sense, not universal, and the local one seems to fit the context better. For example, if I call you up and say, "Hey, the universities are taking a day off on Monday," it is almost never referring to all the universities in the whole world. Depending on context, it usually has a more local meaning referring to universities in our city, state or possibly the nation. It doesn't seem logical that a creative God would just leave the universe empty for billions and trillions of years and only create the whole universe at the same time he created the earth. Considering the Genesis account of how He works, it seems more rational that He started creating the universe long before the earth with basic structure and laws and then progressed in orderly stages as all designers do, creating new parts of it as He desired, building on what He had already built.

It's pretty explicit from even the 1st verse of Genesis that the context and focus is this earth and its surroundings. So, it’s very reasonable to view this linguistic aside as having a local meaning and referring to the stars in our solar system or the ones that are visible to the naked eye or something of that nature. Nothing in the Bible requires the creation of the entire universe at the same time as the earth.

EVIDENCE FOR A YOUNG UNIVERSE (Note I do NOT agree with all arguments made in these sites, biblical or scientific, but they do have some legitimate evidence which must be recognized by any honest person. Since most know the evidence for the Big Bang and a billions of years old universe already, I'll just list a bit of evidence for a young universe.)
1) Refined time dilation model

2) Galactocentric-Cosmology

3) Starlight's Magic Bullet
“This presentation outlines key elements to a newly developed theory called the "First Flash cosmological model". This model attempts at solving Y.E.C.s "distant starlight problem" while at the same time unifying General Relativity with Quantum Mechanics. The resulting predictions match several current physical anomalies plaguing modern science. This video is my first attempt at creating a simplified presentation highlighting scientific as well as spiritual components supporting this theory. I will, at some future date, attempt to present more in depth presentations in an improved quality, style, and speaking manner.”

Dr. Craig Eastwooding Dr. Dawkins (very powerful evidence for the beginning to the universe, which requires a Beginner, God.)

See: Creation is a Scientific Fact (deals mostly with the origin of the universe and some philosophical proofs of God)

See also: The “Something from Nothing Universe”**

2. CLAIM #2: DESIGN/PURPOSE: God designed complex functioning systems ranging from galaxies all the way down to the tiniest atoms of life with interacting mechanisms precisely arranged for optimum function and for specific purposes as well as abilities to adapt, react and interact (more on this in point #5). This function has in some cases been harmed and damaged by the vandalism of sin and its agents. So, we would expect to see some degeneration as well as adaptations. But, many traces of the original intelligent design and purpose should still be clearly discernable.

REASON: Numerous statements in the Bible by God, angels and human beings who were in communication with these supernatural forces make clear claims that God designed the systems of the universe and life (these are all historical sources and count as evidence as well). Like good designers now do, He seems to have designed them to be able to function largely on their own after getting them started. God says:
“I am the one who made the earth and created people to live on it. With my hands I stretched out the heavens. All the stars are at my command. Isaiah 45:12

Jesus said:
"Haven't you read," he replied, "that at the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female” Matthew 19:4

Nehemiah wrote:
“You alone are the Lord. You made the skies and the heavens and all the stars. You made the earth and the seas and everything in them. You preserve them all, and the angels of heaven worship you.” Nehemiah 9:6
See also Psalm 89:11, Hebrews 1:2, Genesis 1-3.

EVIDENCE: Just like we can’t observe the the Big Bang, nobody can observe the creation of the universe or life. But, we can use scientific inferences and gauge what the weight of evidence supports. For example, how many complex functioning systems with precise settings, interlocking and interacting parts/gears, agents traveling and transporting specific ingredients or nutrients to the precise destinations that need them, etc. have been observed to originate from intelligence? How many systems like that have originated and come into being from scratch without intelligence?

Whether you look at mechanical areas or biological areas (ex: Craig Venter’s synthetic cell, synthetic organs, etc.), ALL complex functioning systems that we know the origin of come from intelligence. ALL. This is 100% legitimate inferential scientific reasoning no different from what supports the Big Bang, forensic science, etc. Very powerful inferences from this lead us from this fact to the conclusion that complex systems like kinesins in cells that deliver nutrients to precise locations that enable you to live (see the Bolinsky video below) can only have been designed by intelligence. We don’t know of even 1 example of something like this originating without intelligence. NOT ONE. The weight of evidence points EXCLUSIVELY in the direction of an intelligent designer. Because of this combined with MUCH other evidence, millions agree that nothing could be more rational than to identify this intelligent designer as the God of the Bible.

CELL DESIGN: These videos shows the incredible complexity of the cell. We have trillions of examples of complexity in biology and industry from intelligence. There is no evidence that complexity even at the elementary level of kinesins that has come without intelligence. By the basic rules of science, we must follow the weight of evidence which strongly infers that cells must have come from an intelligent designer. This is NOT an argument from ignorance or “God of the Gaps” at all. It is a scientific inference from trillions of observable cases.

Kinesin Design
Kinesin molecules are motor proteins found inside living things. Known as the ‘workhorse of the cell’, they haul vital cargo along roadways in cells called microtubules. Steven Block (professor of applied physics and of biological sciences at Stanford University) has described kinesin this way; "Kinesin functions like a locomotive in cells to ferry cargo back and forth.

David Bolinsky (medical animator with Harvard): Visualize the Wonder of the Cell

3. CLAIM #3: CREATION OF EARTH & THE ORIGIN OF LIFE: This earth and the sophisticated and integrated and synchronized systems of life, eco systems and the principles regulating their homeostasis were created in their original form by God whose laws sustain life. Some aspects of creation were ex nihilo, but some of earth’s creation was from already previously created materials.

REASON: Genesis 1 gives the account of God creating the earth and the original forms of life. This is a starting foundation for major theology in the Bible and no Bible author doubts that creation is a fact, including Jesus.
"Haven't you read," he replied, "that at the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female” Matthew 19:4 (Jesus)

Paul in Acts 17:24-25 states, “God, who made the world and everything in it, since He is Lord of heaven and earth…gives to all life, breath, and all things.”

Some of this creation was ex nihilo, but some of it, such as the creation of the animals, birds, Adam and Eve seems to have been created at least partly out of previously existing or created materials (See Genesis 2:7, 19,21,22.).

It is clear that an earth covered by water was existing before the 1st day of creation because Genesis 1:2 says, “The earth was formless and empty, and darkness covered the deep waters. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the surface of the waters.” We are not told how long it was between the creation of this “water world” and the 1st day of creation. It could have been very short or a very long time. In verse 9, the earth “appears” when the waters are collected into seas. So, it was not created then. It already existed. Some think that these creative days are concerned with the preparation of the planet for life on an earth that had existed for a long time already.

EVIDENCE: The rigorous experiments of Pasteur refuted spontaneous generation and established the law of biogenesis. All his experiments and every single subsequent one affirm that life comes only from intelligence. We also have trillions of examples of complex functioning systems in mechanical systems, the creation of synthetic cells (Craig Venter), synthetic organs and other biological cases ONLY coming from intelligence. There is not even one solitary example of complex function systems of the type that exists in all biological forms coming without intelligence. The weight of scientific and philosophical evidence is conclusively and exclusively on the side of life originating from intelligence.

What does the Bible claim about the age of the earth and life?
a) EARTH: The Bible makes no claims about the age of the earth. In Genesis 1:1, it says that God created the heaven and the earth in the beginning, but it doesn’t say when the beginning of the heaven and earth is. In the subsequent week of creation, the earth emerges as if it’s already been existing. It could possibly have existed long before life was created or it could have been created at the same time as life. There is quite a bit of scientific evidence in both directions. Some creationists think the earth was created at the same time as everything else, but some think it could have existed for a long period, possibly even billions of years, before life appeared since Genesis 1 only speaks of the water moving so that the dry land can appear (Genesis 1:6-10), not the creation of the land itself.

b) LIFE Most creationists affirm that life in all its glorious complexity, beauty and order was created several thousand years ago. The Bible does not specify the time of the creation of life. But, we infer its age by adding up the geneaologies. However, in Hebrew the term “son” can refer to a biological son, a descendent and also a successor in a political position. Considering these issues, creationists infer from the genealogies that the age of the earth may be around 6,000 years old, but could be as high as 10-20,000 years.

The big issue here is that evolution needs billions of years to perform its miracles. If science can prove that life on earth is less than millions of years old, universal common descent is completely impossible.

REASONS: Genesis 1 and geneaologies in the Bible such as Genesis 5 and Matthew 1 infer that life is ~6,000+ years.

EVIDENCE: ~100 methods of dating point to a young age for life & this earth. ~40 methods point to an old age. Soft tissue of different types has been found in many fossils which refutes many of the old age methods since leading evolutionists say that nothing in science can allow soft tissue to last more than 100,000 years (some say as little as 15,000 years). (some in depth videos and references here, including from secular sources, on dating and showing that soft tissues in fossils can’t be millions of years old.)

5. CLAIM #5: (unfinished) SABBATH & THE 7 DAY WEEKLY CYCLE IS BEST: The year is based on how long it takes the earth to orbit the sun 1 time. The month is based on how long it takes the moon to orbit the earth. Where does the 7 day week come from and why is it best for humanity? The Creation account in the Bible gives the only logical reason for this weekly cycle. This weekly 7 day cycle points directly towards God and the creation week. The French and Russians tried to change the weekly cycle to 4 and 10 days, but it worked out so badly for them that they all soon returned to the 7 day weekly cycle.

6. (unfinished) HUMAN ORIGINS: The Bible predicts that all humans descended from 2 people, Adam and Eve, and that there must be very different origins for humans and apes. We have significant scientific evidence backing this up.

The Non Mythical Adam and Eve (Dr Robert Carter, Ph.D. marine biology)

Traces of the Bible in our Genetic Code (Dr. Robert Carter, Ph.D. Marine Biology)

The Multi-dimensional Genome--impossible for Darwinism to account for-- by Dr. Robert Carter

7. CLAIM #7: SPECIATION: God created the major forms of life in Eden and by saying they could reproduce within kinds there is a very strong implication that these created forms have an ability to evolve and adapt. This is what we would expect of a Creator, since one with wisdom would design life to be able to adapt to its surroundings and changes in the environment that might occur. Biology could proceed with every generation exactly replicating its parents. If it did, then this claim of creation science would be falsified.

REASON: “God created great sea creatures and every living thing that scurries and swarms in the water, and every sort of bird—each producing offspring of the same kind.” Genesis 1:21 (See also Genesis 1:11,12, 24, 25)

EVIDENCE: From the time of Gregor Mendel and even before that, creation scientists have shown that life can adapt and evolve into similar related forms as Genesis allows. We now understand that these changes are due to mutations, alterations of the chromosomes, genetic recombinations such as homologous recombination, genetic drift, gene crossovers, changes in allele frequency and other changes (new research shows that some of it may have factors that aren’t even genetic) that are sometimes heritable and influence longevity and longevity. Environmental factors, sexual selection, natural selection, proximity and quantity of prey/food and other factors all modify and determine which animals are best suited for their environment and will survive best. These all agree with creation science’s claim made 1000s of years ago that life will have the ability to adapt and change as it reproduces.

8. CLAIM #8: SPECIATION WITHIN THE “KIND” LIMIT(universal common descent is false): SPECIATION WITHIN THE “KIND” LIMIT(universal common descent is false): In Genesis, God made animals with the ability to reproduce and evolve to some extent, but this adaptation was specifically limited to the “kind” level. While mutations, adaptations, modifications and natural selection definitely happen, they are completely insufficient to explain the diversity of life and all life descending from a single organism (universal common descent).

In addition to the Bible references above, creationists such as Alfred Wallace, Edward Blyth, Patrick Matthew and even John Wilkins (creationist founder of the 1st scientific society in history) and others, wrote on mutations, natural selection and speciation from species to the family/kind levels long before Darwin, even back into the 1600s and before. For universal common descent to claim speciation as theirs is simply plagiarism and nothing less.

Some claim that “kind” is ambiguous, but that is a myth. God could have said:
a) life forms reproduce (only this could possibly be ambiguous and even this is a stretch)
b) all life forms will like their parents
c) all life can change without any limits
or others.

He instead said with all the specificity that ancient vocabulary and minds could handle (remember that at that time, the scientific method as well as the words species, genus, phylum, etc. didn’t even exist in any language and that God has to limit himself to what people understand, just like all good teachers do), that life could reproduce, but that its adaptation and evolution would be limited to the “kind” level which we understand to be about the genus or family level depending on phylum or division (This is subject to futher research on “species”, “genus” and “family” in science. The term species alone has 15+ different definitions. It’s also subject to further research in Bible science, especially a new field, baraminology, which is developing a whole new taxanomical structure.). The Bible principles thus mean that a pair of dogs could mutate into all sorts of different dogs or that a pair of monkeys could mutate into many different types of monkeys over time. But, they explicitly mean that major groups of biological forms such as plants, trees, sea life, livestock, scurrying animals, wild animals, birds all had separate ancestry. Based on research on “kinds” and further scientific research, these limits are almost certain to require separate ancestries for smaller divisions as well such as man, apes, dinosaurs, snakes, elephants, rhinos, deer, tigers, sloths, rabbits, dolphins, walruses, fish, amphibians, birds, plants, trees, etc.

REASON: “Then God said, ‘Let the land sprout with vegetation—every sort of seed-bearing plant, and trees that grow seed-bearing fruit. These seeds will then produce the kinds of plants and trees from which they came.’ And that is what happened. 12 The land produced vegetation—all sorts of seed-bearing plants, and trees with seed-bearing fruit. Their seeds produced plants and trees of the same kind. And God saw that it was good.” Genesis 1:11,12 (See also Genesis 1:21, 24, 25)

EVIDENCE: No observations, not even at bacterial levels, have shown successive modifications from one species into another order, class, phylum or kingdom or even family, the levels that are beyond creation science. No one has ever seen the development of even 1 new organ that is totally unique to a family of biological organisms. These and many other things MUST happen for universal common descent to be considered. We don’t have any concrete evidence that they happen, the “proofs” that are presented are mostly non-sequitur fallacies, and we have powerful scientific reasons showing that speciation beyond creation science limits is impossible.

Homology is the main claimed evidence for universal common descent, but many homologous structures appear in totally unrelated species and so can’t have come by descent (ex: giant Armadillo-America, Giant Anteater-S. America, Spiny Anteater-Oceania, Giant Pangolin-Africa are all unrelated, but have structures for eating ants). If universal common descent were true, we should see myriads of useless features and false starts both these days iand in the fossils, with ½ limbs and partial organs, etc. We don’t see that and the concepts of vestigial organs and junkDNA that were supposed to support universal common descent have solidly vindicated creation science since we have or are finding clear function and purpose for nearly all of them. Many scientific factors limit speciation to the kind level (***this part still needs to be check in certain parts. There are several more factors that limit speciation and the definitions below may not be precise or as accurate as they should be. But, there are many factors that limit speciation to creation science levels. The 1st 3 are especially strong.***):

1) Lack of Time: There is much evidence that even if universal common descent is granted almost all its assumptions that there is no where near enough time to explain the diversity of life. Haldane’s Dilemma and others show that the rate of mutations is about 1 per 300 generations (***). Dr. Gauger and Dr. Axe have found that given every possible benefit of the doubt it would take about 10^30 (***) years to get the 7 correct mutations for the Kbl2 enzyme to adapt to performing the metabolic functions of BioF2. These and other findings mean that there is not anywhere close to enough time for universal common descent to even be plausible scientifically.

An Insurmountable Problem for Darwinian Evolution

Also read this peer reviewed article which is the basis for this here. VERY solid and hard science. (pdf file)

2) Genetic Entropy
Dr John Sanford, one of the world’s foremost experts on genetics (and inventor of the gene gun), professor at Cornell, traces the history of human genetic decline due to mutations in our DNA, which is called Genetic Entropy. He shows how the decline makes it impossible for genomes to be even 1 million years old, let alone billions. They have to be in the range of 1000s. This is powerful evidence for the Bible’s timescale for human history.

3) Fossils of nearly all phyla have been found in the Cambridge explosion. So, again, there is a VERY small window for all life to come into being. The 4 billion years of earth’s history is not enough time as explained above. But, the fact is that we have MUCH less than that to work with…something like 1% of that time, until all phyla have representation in the fossil record.

4) Survival of the fittest often doesn't work in nature as it is claimed. The animals that are caught by predators are sometimes the strongest, fastest, etc. esp. in the case of ambushes. Survival of the fittest cannot account for the vast diversity of life universal common descent.

“In 1999, researchers in the Netherlands constructed complex model of changing conditions based on the real world. They examined phytoplankton populations where 20 to 40 species of algae and diatoms can exist in a cubic centimeter of water. They used a computer to model the various needs of each species and the resources available to them. And when one species thrives, it sets up the conditions for other species to thrive as it uses up the resources it prefers. In the end, who's thriving among the 20 to 40 species varies over time, but competition for resources need not winnow out species and that species diversity does not necessarily depend on specialization. This research by two biologists and many other experiments upends popular ecological wisdom on the concept of the survival of the fittest.”

5) Irreducible complexity: Many structures are irreducibly complex. Darwin said that if you can find structures like this, his theory would fall apart. Dr. Michael Behe has found many structures with no evidence of any evolution that falsify universal common descent. Evolutionists have criticized Behe’s claims mostly by straw manning and speculating, but they have never refuted his evidence or shown scientific evidence that any of them are reducible.

6) Biochemical limits: Mutations that change the shape of proteins are harmful and get eliminated from the population. Successful mutations would need ~10-15 amino acids for each protein that have a precisely fitting 3D shape and all with the correct charges and positioned perfectly to fit with other proteins. The chance of this happening by chance is astronomical.

7) Homologous recombination and other genetic mechanisms repair DNA without error and prevent unintended variability.

8) Sterility can stop evolution in several ways. For example, if species with different numbers of chromosomes mate, hybrid sterilization is almost always the result and evolution stops.

9) Genetic Information: Genetic Information: While addition of information to the gene may be possible, even secular scientists agree it’s extremely limited. There is nowhere near enough extra genetic information being added to genes to account for universal common descent, even granting evolutionary ages for the earth and every other benefit of the doubt imaginable. Quite a lot of cases of speciation and mutations that were caused by loss of genetic information have been documented in peer review journals and many creationists think that the majority of these are due to loss of genetic information.

10) The cases of observations of single-celled organisms evolving into multicellular life are far less than is required for universal common descent to be viable. And actually, it’s very good that bacteria don’t become multicellular since we need them to LIVE INSIDE our bodies (and in the environment) to maintain homeostasis and the ecological balance of our world. That's a major purpose of single-celled micro-organisms. (***This point esp. needs further verification from a scientist.)

11) All characterized advantageous mutations that Richard Lenski has observed in his twenty-year experiment have turned out to be degradative ones. It’s the same with Thornton’s experiments and others.

There are many more points in this topic that will be discussed later. But, basically, the inferential evidence for universal common descent is extremely weak, often falsified and creation science usually has better explanations.

9. CLAIM #9: DEGENERATION: God created a perfect world, but sin has corrupted it. God limited the lifespan of people at the flood and giants were well known at that time. So, we should be able to find evidence of the degeneration of animals and people in height and size from ancient times to more modern times. Mutations and speciation mentioned above would add variety and so we should expect some fluctuation, but we should in general see significant degeneration from ancient forms to now especially in size and age, but with many variations.

REASONS: In addition to the corruption of sin, Genesis 6:3 & 4 speaks of God reducing the life span of people and of famous giants.

EVIDENCE: We have much fossil evidence of megafauna, such as rhinoceroses up to 6 meters tall, dragon flies with 3 meter wingspans as well as human giants in ancient times.
See also:

10. CLAIM #10: CATASTROPHISM & A GLOBAL FLOOD + UNIFORMITARIANISM: Much of the earth's geological order (especially the Cambrian to the Cretaceous) is best explained by catastrophism, including the occurrence of a worldwide flood involving volcanoes, earthquakes, and many other forces and subsequent to that, other layers have been laid down according to natural processes operating in nature (uniformitarianism).

REASON: “They deliberately forget that God made the heavens by the word of his command, and he brought the earth out from the water and surrounded it with water. Then he used the water to destroy the ancient world with a mighty flood.” 2 Peter 3:5,6 (See also Genesis chapter 1 & 6)

EVIDENCE: If a global flood happened with violent eruptions, earthquakes, etc. as creation science has long understood, we should expect to find:
a) numerous fossils buried in violent and often watery conditions, generally according to habitat and mobility. We find millions of fossils all over the planet buried this way, including including dinosaurs fossilized in marine environments.
b) Marine fossils in many layers of the fossil record, even some high up on mountains and in all sorts of habitats.
c) A majority of fossils buried in marine conditions. ~85%+ of fossils are found buried in marine conditions.
d) large numbers of species suddenly appearing in certain layers with no ancestors (evolution calls these explosions or radiations). The Cambrian explosion and other radiations confirm this.
e) many species going suddenly extinct . Scientists say that over 95% of all species went extinct and usually very suddenly.
f) many layers being laid down quickly with paraconformities between them showing no erosion.

EVIDENCE: These are just a few of the many confirmations of creation science that we find. For more details, see videos here, especially the ones by Dr. Silvestru and Dr. Kurt Wise. Dr. Silvestru, Ph.D in geology from ‘Babes-Bolyai’ University in Cluj, Romania (where he was associate professor),is a world authority on the geology of caves,published 41 scientific papers & 1 book (The Cave Book) & co-authored two books. He was for years the head scientist at the world’s first Speleological Institute. His seminar summarizes the vast evidence for a global flood, including integrating plate tectonics (start at ~36:00 on his video): (esp. videos #1-10)

11. CLAIM #11: FOSSIL ORDER: Creation science predicts that due to the global flood above, we should see a general order of 1st appearance of marine sessile fossils at the lowest levels, then the 1st appearance of free swimming marine fossils should appear in intermediate layers and the 1st appearance of the fossils of land dwelling creatures should appear still higher. Darwinians claim that the fossils should proceed in an order from single celled animals on up to the most complex mammals. These have superficial similarities (and thus Darwinism will have some confirmations similar to how geocentrism had confirmations, but heliocentrism had more), but they have very serious differences as well.

One problem is that many factors such as density, buoyancy, liquefaction, volcanoes, earthquakes, bioturbation & others would also affect deposition of fossils, both during and after the flood and these would also complicate Darwinian claims. Overall though, the order of the fossils is far closer to what we would expect from a flood than universal common descent, and the Cambrian explosion and a variety of radiations are very strong evidence for this.

Dr. Walter Veith is a former atheist, and Darwinian professor, with a Ph.D. in zoology. He writes:
“The type of fossil found in the various layers changes as one goes up the geological column, from invertebrates, fish, amphibians, and reptiles, to the mammals and birds in the upper layers. This order in the fossil record is one of the prime evidences used by scientists to establish evolution as a fact. However, the sequence is not from simple organisms to complex organisms as evolutionists suggest, but rather from marine sessile to free swimming to land dwelling. There is no simple generalized animal in the fossil record that proves that organisms develop from simple to complex.

George Gaylord Simpson, the famous evolutionist, stated in his book The Meaning of Evolution, "It has been suggested that all animals are now specialized and that the generalized forms on which major evolutionary developments depend are absent. In fact, all animals have always been more or less specialized and a really generalized living form is merely a myth or an abstraction."iii

The earliest organisms in the fossil record were complex. There is no evidence for the progression from simple to complex required by the theory of evolution. Many organisms, such as trilobites and ammonites, existed in the past and do not exist today. This does not make them primitive. They were just as complex as anything living today. The fossil record shows a staggering wealth of organisms. Surprisingly, most of the organisms of the past were much larger and more impressive than present day animals. In fact, the fossil record is evidence for devolution rather than evolution.

See also this link which is very detailed on how the fossil record supports the creation account:

12. CLAIM #12: (unfinished and MUCH more to come here) ORIGIN OF THE MAJOR LANGUAGE GROUPS:
After the rebellion at Babel, God scattered the people by confounding the one language into many languages
(Genesis 11). Evolution teaches that we all evolved from a common ancestor, yet offers no mechanism to explain the origin of the thousands of diverse languages in existence today.,

13. CLAIM #13: VEGETARIAN DIET IS IDEAL: A vegetarian/vegan diet is ideal for human function and as natural and fresh as possible.

REASON: Bible health concepts are part of creation since God gives instructions on the ideal diet in Genesis 1:11,12,29,30; 2:9,16; 3:2. Later God allowed the eating of clean meat (healthy, non-scavenger, meat) as acceptable, but not ideal (Genesis 6 and Leviticus 11).

EVIDENCE: When Egyptians were recommending dung and beer or both in 70% of their medicines, the Bible’s diet that prevented disease was adding decades to life. Its teachings on health led DIRECTLY to vast improvement in the world’s health knowledge. Even now, National Geographic, Blue Zones, NIH, NCI and others report that those who follow the Bible’s diet live ~10+ years longer than normal and are the longest living groups of people on earth. (videos 2-4 are confirmations from secular science organizations about how God's health principles add 10+ years to life THESE DAYS. See esp. 11:30. Videos 5-7 are a basic intro to God’s health principles in the Bible that add 10+ years to life.)

14. CLAIM #14: (unfinished) CONSCIOUSNESS FROM A CREATOR: The creation account in the Bible gives us an explanation for why we are conscious. We have many examples of consciousness originating from intelligence, both biological and mechanistic (AI). We do not have any examples of consciousness coming into being without intelligence planning it. The scientific inferential evidence is completely on the side of creation science.

Consciousness: a problemfor naturalism

15. CLAIM #15: OBJECTIVE MORALITY: (unfinished) Where does morality come from? Many factors influence morality (peers, media, culture, economics, atheism/religion, etc.) and people of many backgrounds can thus be moral.  But, what is the origin of objective morality, that transcends culture, custom, religion and opinion. All moral laws that we know about have a moral law giver. The inference is that objective morals must also have a law giver, God, who set up the structure that determines what is objectively moral regardless of subjective opinion.

REASON: Genesis and Exodus give many examples of moral instructions given to Adam/Eve, Israel and other nations.

EVIDENCE: Judeo/Christianity pioneered the vast majority of human rights in human history. Even atheist professors agree on this. Christianity also greatly improves morals in millions of people throughout history. See:

See also:
Former White Supremacist Skin Head neo-nazi Gives Life to Jesus

16. PREDICTION: RESTORATION: In Genesis, God reached down to fallen man and made a prophecy about a Messiah to come who would destroy the power of Satan and restore humanity to the purpose that God originall designed for them.

REASON: God said in Eden “And I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your seed and her Seed; He shall bruise your head, and you shall bruise His heel.” Genesis 3:15. (see also Galatians 3:16) This is the 1st prediction of a Saviour who would destroy Satan and rescue humanity. ~300 more prophecies with many more details were given over time about this Messiah who would break the power of sin and the devil who also called the serpent and Satan (Revelation 12:9).

EVIDENCE: ~300 prophecies predicted the Messiah’s birthplace, time of ministry, how long his ministry would be, how he would be betrayed and for how much, his false accusations, how he would die, where he would be buried, his resurrection and many more. All of these were fulfilled in Jesus who proved his divinity by resurrecting with many powerful proofs and evidences including over 500 people seeing Him alive after His resurrection. Jesus holds the power of resurrection and offers a completely unrivaled gift to you, a gift of life forever with your Creator.

Below is the definition of Darwinian evolution (the modern synthesis version) to compare. But, there’s a common fallacy used by many who are biased in favor of Darwinian concepts. They like to obscure the fact that creation science has always included the ability of change between species. Then they claim that because Darwin’s claims of speciation have been proven that we can just go ahead and call universal common descent a fact. This is one of the most stupendous bait and switch tactics in all history. What kind of genuine science could allow you to claim that small species change is proof that man evolved from bacteria over eons? This at VERY best an extremely speculative hypothesis and has nothing to do with conclusive scientific evidence. In addition to being a bait and switch tactic, it is also non-sequitur fallacy similar to measuring the growth of a fetus and then asserting that there are no limits to its growth and that it will grow to be 10 kilometers tall in a few years. It is because of this deceptive tactic of conflating terms that for clarity, I try to use the more precise term universal common descent when referring to the Darwinian idea that evolution can account for the entire diversity of life on our planet which is the REAL issue.

Pretty much all of the definition of the Darwinian modern synthesis & universal common descent except for #12 fit completely within priori creation science. Note also that ~1/2 of the aspects of the definition below did not exist until more than 100 years after Darwin published his book and parts of this definition are plagiarized from prior creation science. Observable evidence of points 1-11 will only confirm what creation science has been saying for millennia. Plagiarizing and extrapolating by pure faith has never been solid science. Those who believe in universal common descent need to find solid evidence that proves universal common descent, not just show evidence of the same levels of speciation that creationists have been working on for centuries.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ DEFINITION OF THE MODERN EVOLUTION SYNTHESIS & UNIVERSAL COMMON DESCENT:

1. Variation exists in all populations.
2. Some of that variation is heritable.
3. Base pair sequences are encoded in a set of self-replicating molecules that form templates for making proteins.
4. Combinations of genes that did not previously exist may arise via "crossing over" during meiosis, which alters the sequence of base pairs on a chromosome.
5. Copying errors (mutations) can also arise, because the self-replicating process is of imperfect (although high) fidelity; these mutations also increase the range of combinations of alleles in a gene pool.


6. Some of that heritable variation has an influence on the number of offspring able to reproduce in turn, including traits that affect mating opportunities, or survival prospects for either individuals or close relatives.
7. Characteristics which tend to increase the number of an organism's offspring that are able to reproduce in turn, tend to become more common over generations and diffuse through a population; those that tend to decrease such prospects tend to become rarer.
8. "Sampling errors" can occur in populations that alter the relative frequency of the various alleles for reasons other than survival/reproductive advantages.
9. Migration of individuals from one population to another can lead to changes in the relative frequencies of alleles in the "recipient" population.


10. Populations of a single species that live in different environments are exposed to different conditions that can "favor" different traits. These environmental differences can cause two populations to accumulate divergent suites of characteristics.
11. A new species develops (often initiated by temporary environmental factors such as period of geographic isolation) when a sub-population acquires characteristics which promote or guarantee reproductive isolation from the alternate population, limiting the diffusion of variations thereafter.


12. The combination of these effects tends to increase diversity of life forms; over the time frame from the late Hadean to the present, this becomes sufficient to explain the diversity of life observed on Earth, both in what is directly seen at present, and indirectly through geologic evidence from the fossil record.


Science requires new hypotheses to make NEW claims and predictions and prove these NEW claims, not just plagiarize from older claims. The key issue here is to identify where these rival ideas differ and which side has the weight of evidence.

Pasteur wrote, “Posterity will one day laugh at the foolishness of modern materialistic philosophers. The more I study nature, the more I stand amazed at the work of the Creator. I pray while I am engaged at my work in the laboratory.” The Literary Digest (18 October 1902)

Some have mocked him for getting it wrong, but actually, his predictions have been fulfilled and keep on being fulfilled.
Lamarckism, pangenesis, transmutationism, recapitulation (Haeckel’s "Ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny"), orthogenesis, xenogenesis and other explanations for universal common descent have been falsified. Saltational evolution and punctuated equilibrium are mostly based on hope and events that have never been seen and have left no physical evidence. They are pretty much untestable and not falsifiable and thus not part of science.

So, Pasteur was right. The only problem is that every time evolution gets falsified, it evolves a new version to try and keep people believing in it. How many times does this have to happen before people realize how much money, time and scientific manpower is being wasted on a red herring?

These are only some of the major theories that have been falsified and doesn’t even touch the myriad of smaller concepts that have been falsified and abandoned even by evolutionists. Here are 2 sites with just a few of the many smaller concepts that have been falsified. &

One atheist said as many do, "No other theory is as well supported as evolution."

That would be a falsehood even if Darwinian evolution referred to speciation below the family level (which is what creation science has been LONG before Darwin even thought of universal common descent). But, Darwin claimed that life can evolve WAY past the family level. There are numerous theories in science that have far more support than universal common descent: biogenesis, photosynthesis, Boyle’s law, Copernicus system, , the speed of light, and many other strong scientific concepts that have needed little or no modification since they were pioneered. Modifying is fine and we must do it…but when a concept has to be continually changed in gigantic ways as evolution has been…the question becomes how many times must a concept be falsified after molting yet again, before people realize that it isn’t true.

The modern synthesis is in big trouble with 1000s of scientists on both sides becoming more and more skeptical of its ability to scientifically support universal common descent. One man compiled a list of 4, 000 scientists who are skeptical of Darwinism and cites research by Harvard that shows in the US alone, there are ~113,000 scientists who are skeptical of Darwin.

Science reporter Suzan Mazur has interviewed many leading evolutionists and says that,
“Scientists agree that natural selection can occur. But the scientific community has known for some time that natural selection has nothing to do with evolution.” &

It looks like universal common descent may be in the process of evolving again as the modern synthesis is proving incompetent. Mazur reports that a group of scientists called the Altenberg 16 are researching a new version of evolution called self-organization (sort of like a hydra can gather all it’s parts together after being cut up into all sorts of pieces) and they speculate that most or all of the phyla just self-organized at once in the Cambrian times. Mazur writes:
“But will the A-16 deliver? Will they help rid us of the natural selection "survival of the fittest" mentality that has plagued civilization for a century and a half, and on which Darwinism and neo-Darwinism are based, now that the cat is out of the bag that selection is politics not science? That selection cannot be measured exactly. That it is not the mechanism of evolution. That it is an abstract rusty tool left over from 19th century British imperial exploits.”

The problem with this like all the other versions of evolution is that it’s unobservable and thus directly untestable. The only ways to test it like all versions of Darwinian evolution are highly speculative and interpretive and other equal or better explanations are available.

There are 1000s of scientists who now believe that Darwinism is completely unable to explain the diversification of life. Dr. Bergman compiled a list of 4,000 just on his own and Harvard Research suggests that ~113,000 scientists in America…a VERY sizable number also have major doubts about universal common descent.

Darwin Skeptics Select List of Science Academics, Scientists, and Scholars Who are Skeptical of Darwinism
Compiled by Jerry Bergman PhD.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ WHAT HARM HAS EVOLUTION CAUSED TO HUMAN LIFE AND SCIENCE?
DISCOURAGES SCIENTIFIC ENQUIRY: Since evolution thinks that we descended from other animals, etc. it has promoted the concept that we have vestigial organs, junkDNA and other useless things in our bodies. Creation science teaches that God made all things for a purpose and with the exception of where there has been interference in this original design, we should find purpose for pretty much everything. This stimulates scientific inquiry. Evolutionary views delayed and hindered investigation into the purpose and function of vestigial organs and junkDNA. In almost every case now though, we know that these have important functions in our bodies.

HISTORY: Evolution causes us to think that ancient people were mostly ignorant cavemen acting like monkeys and barbarians. There is much evidence that many ancient people were very very advanced. See for example Evolution encourages a version of history that denigrates our ancestors and their achievements and discourages enquiry into these areas.

RELIGION: Evolution hypothesized that belief in God was at first polytheistic and evolved from a belief in nature being God to eventually progressed to a belief in 1 God. Again much money and time was spent on this imagination. Scholars now have shown that in almost every case monotheism was the original religious belief of nearly every culture we know about. 1 scholar alone compiled 12 volumes of evidence on this.

In addition to all the above, Darwinian medicine has caused much direct harm. Here are a few excerpts from this article which has independent references confirming this fact:
“Although the field of medicine experienced major advances in the 20th century, it also embraced mistakes and outright atrocities caused by the introduction of evolutionary thinking. Setbacks to the profession are bad, but thousands of patients "treated" with Darwinian medical principles suffered needlessly, experiencing confusion, painful surgery, and even death.”

“Even if patients were fortunate enough to be deemed "fit," they still might not avoid the surgical knife. Because of Darwin's The Descent of Man, the appendix became widely regarded as a worthless rudimentary organ left over from man's herbivorous ancestors. This led to a decades-long fundamental flaw in Darwinian medicine: the expectation that people would be better served without certain organs, even perfectly healthy ones.”
“By the mid-20th century, thousands of "prophylactic" surgeries had been performed based on assumptions such as "the sooner [vestigial appendages] are removed the better for the individual."5 A 2007 Duke University Medical School press release challenged this naïve view: "Long denigrated as vestigial or useless, the appendix now appears to have a reason to be--as a 'safe house' for the beneficial bacteria living in the human gut."6

Darwinian medicine's concept of vestigial organs has also retarded medical research, since there is little incentive to study "useless" structures. This mistaken belief has permeated even the cellular and molecular levels. Stanford University reported in 1998 on certain white blood cells that heretofore had been largely ignored by immunologists. Why? The "natural killer" (NK) cells were "thought by some to be an archaic remnant of the primitive mammalian immune system."9 The appendix's function, NK cells, so-called "junk" DNA, and other areas of profitable medical research continue to be held back by the smothering assumptions of Darwinian medicine.

“The scientific and academic consensus, including prominent faculty from Harvard University and Johns Hopkins Medical School, promoted eugenics as the opinions of science's most progressive thinkers.3 International Eugenics Congresses were held in 1912, 1921, and 1932, attended by some of the world’s leading scientists. Supporters were given high academic honors, while dissenters were marginalized.”

(text in picture for youtube readers who I can’t send the picture to: “Eugenics is the self-direction of human evolution.” Logo from the Second International Eugenics Congress, 1921.)
“These actions gave eugenics an appearance of scientific respectability, followed by medical acceptability. What was the result? In the United States, over 70,000 victims were sterilized, including 8,000 procedures in Lynchburg, Virginia, alone.4 In many other countries, most notoriously Germany, untold thousands more suffered the horrors of eugenics.”

Many of the giants in medicine--Edward Jenner, Gregor Mendel, Louis Pasteur, Howard Florey and Ernst Chain, Selman Waksman--did pioneering work (including in genetics and antimicrobial resistance) while either rejecting Darwinism or ignoring it altogether. Darwinian medicine is a sham. It stands on the backs of real researchers, dresses up their major medical insights with evolutionary stories, and then claims them as its own, while diverting grant money away from bona fide medical research.The legacy of Darwin’s ideas to medicine ranges from irrelevant to disastrous. But beyond the wasted time, talent, and resources of the medical community, Darwin's most lasting legacy to the field may well be the suffering of those whom medicine was originally meant to heal.
Please insert your text here.