Sermon Tone Analysis

! THE SCIENTIFIC CASE FOR CREATION

by Dr. Phil Fernandes \\ A chapter from his doctoral dissertation \\ © 1997, Institute of Biblical Defense, All Rights Reserved

Today, many people believe that evolution is a biological fact.

However, this is not the case.

Science, by definition, deals with probabilities, not certainties.

The next two chapters will explore the creation-evolution debate.

This chapter will draw heavily upon the information found in the book Origin Science by Norman L. Geisler and J. Kirby Anderson.1

*HISTORY OF THE CREATION-EVOLUTION DEBATE*

The creation model is the view that God created the universe without using evolution.

The creation model dominated modern science before 1860.2

Modern science was started by men who believed in the existence of the God of the Bible.

Galileo, Isaac Newton, Francis Bacon, Johannes Kepler, and Blaise Pascal are just a few who fit into this category.3

Their belief in God's existence formed the foundation for modern science.

They believed that a reasonable God created the universe in a reasonable way, so that through reason man could find out about the universe in which he lives.4

In other words, the universe makes sense only because God designed it to make sense.

Today, however, atheistic evolutionists have rejected this base for modern science.5

They have rejected the existence of a reasonable God.

But the question that they must face is this: "Without a reasonable God, can a person really expect the universe to make sense?"

The evolution model is the view that life spontaneously evolved from non-life without intelligent intervention.6

The evolution model dominated modern science after 1860.7

Charles Darwin published his book The Origin of Species around that time.8

Darwin proposed a naturalistic explanation for the origin of the universe, first life, and new life forms.9

He taught that nature can be explained without appealing to a supernatural origin.

Darwin's proposal quickly became the predominant "scientific" view.

*THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD*

Evolution is not a scientific fact.

The scientific method consists of six steps: 1) observation, 2) proposal of a question or problem, 3) hypothesis (an educated guess), 4) experimentation, 5) theory (a hypothesis with a high degree of probability), and 6) natural law (a theory shown to be valid on a universal scale).10

Evolution is not a scientific law or theory, let alone a scientific fact.

The supposed evolutionary changes from one species to another cannot be observed.11

They supposedly occurred in the past.

Therefore, since observation is the initial step in the scientific method, evolution cannot be proven through the scientific method.

The creation view is in the same category as evolution.

Creation, scientifically speaking, is not a fact, law, or theory.

Like evolution, the supposed creation is a singular event in the past.

It cannot be observed.

Therefore, both creation and evolution are only scientific models; they represent different ways to interpret the same evidence.12

This does not mean that creation and evolution cannot claim to be scientific.

Contrary to popular belief, the scientific method is not the only way to search for truth in the field of science.

Forensic science (crime scene investigation) does not use the scientific method, for the crime can no longer be observed.

Still, forensic science is a legitimate science.13

Science can be separated into two main divisions: operation science and origin science.

Operation science deals with the repeatable; it is science of the observable present.

It uses the scientific method.

Forensic science, creation, and evolution do not fall into this category.14

Origin science, on the other hand, deals with the non-repeatable; it deals with the singular events of the past.

Origin science does not utilize the scientific method since singular events of the past can no longer be observed.15

Forensic science, creation science, and evolutionary science fall into this category.

*ORIGIN SCIENCE*

Since the non-repeatable events of the past cannot be observed, origin science does not make use of the scientific method.

Instead, origin science uses the principles of analogy (also called uniformity) and causality to determine whether or not a model is plausible.16

The principle of analogy states that when a scientist observes a cause bringing about a certain effect in the present, he should posit the same kind of cause for a similar effect in the past.17

In other words, similar effects usually have similar causes.

The principle of causality states that every event must have an adequate cause.18

A scientist should use these two principles to determine the plausibility (or lack of plausibility) of a particular model.

Since the creation model and the evolution model fall under the heading of origin science, the principles of analogy and uniformity must be applied to them to determine which model is more plausible.

It must be understood that the creation model and the evolution model both deal with the same evidence.

An example of this is common anatomy.

Common anatomy deals with the similarities in the body parts of different species.

Examples of common anatomy are the similarities that exist concerning the arm of a man, the arm of an ape, the wing of a bird, and the fin of a shark.

Both creationists and evolutionists agree to the common anatomy between different species of animal life.

However, the two models interpret the evidence differently.

The evolution model teaches that common anatomy proves common ancestry.19

Common ancestry is the view that all species are related since one species has evolved into another.

The creation model teaches that the same data (common anatomy) proves the existence of a common Designer.

Animals often share common anatomy due to their being created and designed by the same God.20

Which model is more plausible?

In order to answer this question, the principles of analogy and causality must be applied to the origin of the universe, the origin of first life, and the origin of new life forms.

Both the creation model and the evolution model must be tested in these three areas to ascertain which model is more plausible.

*THE ORIGIN OF THE UNIVERSE*

Did the universe have a beginning, or did it always exist?

This is a very important question.

For if the universe had a beginning, it would need a cause.

It could not have evolved into existence from nothing.

If the universe is eternal then it may not need a cause.

Fortunately, science is not silent on this question.

The second law of thermodynamics is called energy deterioration.

This law says that the amount of usable energy in the universe is running down.21

Eventually, all the energy in the universe will be used up.

This means that the universe is winding down.

If it is winding down, it had to have been "wound up."

If the universe is going to have an end, it had to have a beginning.

There had to be a time when all the energy in the universe was usable; this marks the beginning of the universe.

The expansion of the universe and the big bang model also confirm the beginning of the universe.22

In 1929, astronomer Edwin Hubble discovered that the universe is expanding at the same rate in all directions.23

As time moves forward the universe is growing apart.

This means that if one went back in time the universe would get denser.

If one goes back in time far enough, the entire universe would be contained in what scientists have called "a point of infinite density."24

But, a point can only be finitely dense.

For a point to be infinitely dense it would have to be non-existent.

Therefore, the universe came into existence from nothing a finite time ago.

There have been two main attempts to refute the beginning of the universe.

The first is the steady-state model.

This view holds that the universe had no beginning.

Instead, it always existed in the same state.

However, because of the mounting evidence for the big bang model, this view has been abandoned by most of its adherents.25

The second attempt to evade the beginning of the universe is called the oscillating model.

This model teaches that, at some point during the universe's expansion, gravity will halt the expansion and pull everything back together again.

From that point there will be another big bang.

This process will be repeated over and over again throughout all eternity.

However, the oscillating model fails for three reasons.