Creation: Facts that Support the Biblical Account I
A Sunday guest post by my brilliant husband, Gregg.
Every Sunday, my clever husband offers me a “day of rest” by taking over the homemaker duties here. His primary topic, the Biblical Truth of Creation vs. Darwinism, is a subject that has broad reaching scientific, social, and metaphysical implications and is gaining more and more attention in our modern culture. For believers and non-believers alike, the primary purpose is to present scientific, historical, logical, and/or sociological data in an empirical and defensible fashion, as much as possible written in layman’s terms, and in a format suitable for supplementing any homeschool curriculum whether you choose to believe the Biblical account — or secular guesses — about the origins of human life on earth.
Facts that Support the Biblical Account of Creation
The following are observed facts about nature and the universe that support the Biblical account of Creation. Note that these facts are held up by operational and empirical science.
Intelligently designed— There is order where there should only be disorder and there is no waste where most all of the universe should be random waste. There is balance in every system from the weak and strong atomic forces to the gravity and inexplicable forces that bind galaxies together. All of it bears the tool marks of a Creator. Everything in creation—from the largest galaxy to the smallest atom—reveals the fact that it was planned, designed, and constructed by an Intelligent Being of the highest intellect and capabilities.
Irreducible complexity—The various components of every living creature in the world are so complicated and interrelated, that it could not function without every last one of them in place. There is simply no way that some of the parts could have been “evolved” at need and added later. Biochemists and microbiologists know this and have no sound, valid, cogent explanation for it that leaves out living things having been created
Instantaneous complexity—Each entire living creature had to be totally assembled instantly, in order for it to begin living. If this was not done, parts would decay before other parts were made. All aspects had to be there together, all at once or assembled using the most complex blue-print ever imagined with parts and assemblies being introduced at perfect intervals and flawlessly, without error, and in order or else life could not exist. Life does exist, therefore, by simple logic, life was Created.
Mathematically impossible—Mathematicians have repeatedly estimated that the likelihood of DNA, enzymes, amino acids, and proteins being randomly assembled by the chance methods offered by Darwinian guesses is impossible by many orders of magnitude.
What is Darwinism, really? At its root, it is a truth claim about human origins is it not?
But what is that truth claim after some scrutiny? What is it really? After all the condescending sound and fury, at it’s core it is nothing more than a collection of unsubstantiated guesses about unobserved events in the past.
What does a collection of unsubstantiated guesses about unobserved events in the past have to do with biology? Biology, after all, is the study of life in the present, is it not? It would seem logical, then, that historians and philosophers should be having this debate over origins instead of people who make their living studying life science in the present.
That Biologists continue to argue this point demonstrates yet again that this is a philosophical argument, not a scientific argument. This is a debate between two religious world views.
The greatest logical fact in existence that dispels the myth of Darwinism is the complete inability of Darwinists to provide even one solid scientific evidence in support of the entire silly notion. This is a very revealing fact. A “scientific theory” is not scientific at all when it lacks the underlying scientific evidence proving it worthwhile.
Darwinism includes countless unfounded and unscientific pronouncements framed as truth claims, endless hypotheses, outright guesses, and so-called theories — all of it built on even more guesses and theories. None of this can dispel the fact that the basic notion upon which they are all piled on top of is totally and utterly lacking in empirical and operational scientific evidence.
Even discounting the thousands of outright frauds perpetrated in the name of Darwin in the last 150 years or so, the truth is that no evidence that is ever presented as “proof” of Darwinism ever stands up to simple logic, is almost never observed or even observable, and never enters into the arena of empirical and operational science. Think about that for a moment.
While believers in the Biblical account of Creation are able to almost endlessly present a multitude of scientific evidences that support our divine origin, Darwinists never present insurmountable facts but can only respond with ridicule.
That ridicule takes many forms. Ridicule of the believer stating the facts (Ad hominem), ridicule of very minor points never offered as evidence (Straw Man), ridicule of only very minor points offered as evidence while monolithic major points are totally ignored (elephant in the room), equivocation, mockery, intimidation, or other ham-handed efforts to stifle any discussion or debate.
Darwinists cannot stand an open debate of the scientific merit of their arguments, nor can they ever seem to present valid, sound, cogent scientific data shown to be true by empirical and operational science that tends to support their notions, because they have none.
They have none because — there is none.
The vociferous and fanatical ridicule (that borders on senseless religious fanaticism) and the lack of supporting scientific evidence are abundantly seen in the so-called scientific articles written exclusively in an attempt to refute the Biblical account of Creation. There are entire web communities dedicated to the ridicule of believers that simultaneously do not present any actual scientific facts supporting Darwinist claims.
I commit to you that I will publish every single comment that meets this blog’s commenting criteria. You may want to review that criteria before adding your opinion here.
God Bless you and yours.
Additional Posts dealing with Creation and Darwinism
That would not result in the mutation being expressed in the offspring, thus reducing the fitness cost of the offspring, thus in a strict survival of the fittest model that offspring would not survive to reproduce.
….”That would not result in the mutation being expressed in the offspring, thus reducing the fitness cost of the offspring, thus in a strict survival of the fittest model that offspring would not survive to reproduce.”
Okay, I’m still confused.
Here’s a hypothetical example. There’s a population of animals that is living in a certain environment. Some get eaten, some don’t, enough survive long enough to reproduce so that the population continues to exist in that environment in some kind of balance.
Then one animal has a mutation in its DNA which changes one of its two alleles for a particular gene. The effect of that allele is recessive so it doesn’t show up in the phenotype of that animal. The animal finds a mate just the same as its parents did, from the population it is in. They produce offspring. Because the mutant allele is recessive, the offspring are no different in phenotype from any other animals in the population. They do not survive any better – but also they do not survive any worse. Every time one of those heterozygote animals reproduces with a homozygous ‘wild type’ animal (having two copies of the original allele), on average half the offspring are homozygous wild type and the other half are heterozygotes having one copy of the wild type allele and one copy of the mutant allele. But all the offspring have the same wild type phenotype (since the mutant allele is recessive), so again they survive no better and no worse than any other animal in the population. Some of them get killed by predators before reproduction, some survive to reproduce, the population coninues to exist in that environment.
When two of the heterozygotes produce offspring, on average one quarter of the offspring are homozygotes for the mutant recessive allele. So now the effect of the mutant allele can be seen. If it’s a very negative effect, maybe none of the homozygotes will even survive long enough to be born (“homozygous lethal”). If it is somewhat negative, then they may be less successful at reproduction or survival. If it’s a neutral mutation, there will be no phenotypic difference between those animals and the others. If it has some beneficial effect on survival or reproduction in that environment, then maybe a higher percent of those animals’ offspring will survive than the others.
(I have to use ‘assumptive words’ because this is a hypothetical example to list the some options; I’m not talking about a specific known gene or event. I’m trying to explain some of the possibilities.)
Anyway, the fact that a recessive mutation is not expressed does nothing to change the fitness of the animal relative to its population . Whatever the survival situation of the animal or population was before the mutation, it is not changed.
There are other things we could talk about, such as dominant mutations, but I think your point was about recessive mutations; I’m still not sure.
….”….”That would not result in the mutation being expressed in the offspring, thus reducing the fitness cost of the offspring, thus in a strict survival of the fittest model that offspring would not survive to reproduce.”
Did my answer clarify this?