Evolution is generally considered a FACT of science, meaning, everything that we observe in the universe is the result of natural processes. From the seemingly infinite depths of space with its vast array of mind boggling objects and phenomena, to the inconceivable complexities of life that exits on this planet we call earth. Everything arose without any divine aid , direction, or design. None was used and none was needed. We are told that the scientific community has established Evolution as "Fact" and that no respectable scientist would question this great truth.
They tell us of a 15 billion year old story that all the matter and energy of the universe was somehow compressed into a grapefruit sized object, perhaps even as small as a single electron, or even smaller, nothing! Somehow this thing became unstable (no one knows why) and exploded. This rapidly expanding hot mass of energy and particles gradually cooled and assembled into stars and galaxies and later planets.
By natural processes on one not so special planet, a watery, primordial soup developed. By purely natural processes, energy from the sun directed by random, chance events, produced complex chemicals. Further organization developed on its own with amazing new information arising producing simple one celled organisms. Over many millions of years, through an incredible number of random chance, mistakes and mutations, more complex creatures gradually evolved producing man. This particle to people process proceeded by purely natural processes that are still working today. Random, chance events, coupled with mistakes, natural selection, and the chief character "time," produce perfection.
This is called "Science."
We must CHALLENGE this highly imaginative view as being totally bankrupt to explain the origin of all things and certainly is not "science."
Webster defines science:
The well recognized "scientific method" in essence is experimentation and observation of observable facts. Reproducing, observation, and testing along with making predications which can be either falsified or proven true is the basis of the scientific method.
Although a naturalistic interpretation of origins is not a new idea to man, Charles Darwin certainly was a key figure in modern evolution concepts in his almost worshipped book, "Origin of Species..." published in 1859. Not only could Darwin not produce support for his beliefs from the fossil record, but he was unable to observe any plant or animal life progress to a higher, more complex form of life.
Evolution in this sence is NOT taking place in the present and no one has observed it happening in the past.
Since no human was around to observe how the universe came to be or has any human scientifically studied evolution taking place over millions and billions of years, we CANNOT pronounce evolution as true science (knowledge). Even considering Evolution as a scientific theory is not accurate since we are unable to use the scientific method to duplicate, observe, and test the past.
The same holds true for creation. Creation was completed in the past and is not testable in the present. What we can do is create a framework or "model" that seems to fit the facts that we now observe in the present with the least amount of secondary assumptions.
There really are fundamentally only 2 models possible. Either everything happens quite naturally or it doesn't! Either a designer and intelligence is required or it isn't. The Evolution model or the Creation model. Both models use the same facts but which fits the best.
In the anti-creationist book by D.J.Futuyma we find this frank admission:
Of course human bias and an individual's world view enters into a person's decision.
The late, well known Carl Sagon, avid atheist, had a naturalistic interpretation for everything he observed since he had determined there is no God:
Later in the same book he reinforced this concept:
In contrast, there are thousands of Christian scientists with advanced degrees in their fields, interpreting the evidence in light of God's' Word, the Bible. Christians believe this is an eye witness account who was there, and claimed to personally be responsible for Creation in the beginning, and is now sustaining all things through the law of conservation.
If we are truly honest with ourselves, we should be willing to accept the truth in spite of our bias.
Unfortunately, some have been convinced into thinking that Evolution is science and creation is religion. This really is just an excuse not to think of the ramifications of what if a god really exists. If God really existed, would we still say he didn't because that's religion? Actually, Evolution is just as much religion, and Creation is just as much science.
One of Webster's definition for religion is "a belief system." Since Evolution is undoubtedly a belief system, it can certainly be considered religion.
The American Humanist Association points this out as well:
A more abrasive voice of the religious implications of evolution was expressed in "American Atheist":
Although not all evolutionist are atheists, by definition evolution does not require a god or designer of any kind. Everything can be explained without any purpose or plan or design.
We are absolutely convinced, that the "Creation model" is far superior to the "Evolution Model" and we will present powerful evidence from the world that we live in and observe that an omnipotent designer is absolutely essential in an honest world view.
No only does science point to the creator, but we believe that he has spoken to His creation in the book called the Bible. We unashamedly proclaim it as "the Word of God" which reveals the origin of the universe and God's purpose in it.
The last book of the Bible sums up God's' purpose of His Creation:
We are further convinced, that regardless of whether or not one wishes to serve the Creator and trust in the Savior, a day is coming when EVERYONE, both good and bad, will bend the knee and personally confess that "Jesus Christ is Lord":
For questions or comments you can contact us by e-mail at email@example.com or write: