Wouldn’t it be nice to have a single article that lays out the scientific evidence for the creationist model?
I sure think so. It is important for two reasons:
1) Most people who are already sympathetic to the creation model nonetheless would probably admit that they could use a good ‘summary case’ for why and how science is supportive of scriptural creation.
“I don’t need to know all the details, much less all of the arguments — just get me up to speed on a few of the most important questions, like: What about millions of years? What about the fossil record? What about biology – does that really support evolution? If not, how can I argue that, and what evidence speaks against it (quickly and shortly enough so I can remember it!)?”
2) While many of us feel that creation science is an amazingly coherent and explanatory model, most us recognize that one of the greatest challenges is simply finding the opportunity to communicate that evidence to others who are not sympathetic to the notion of biblical creation. Even when those opportunities arise, the window of time we have is usually very narrow. Having a single article that lays out the case for the main scientific issues is a great way to quickly communicate just how plausible — how credible and believable — the case for creation really is. It takes great effort to get past the obstacles mainstream science and society have set up. They equate our message with absurd things, like believing in a flat earth. It is great to have one power shot, one article or message, that swiftly punches through those decoys, while demonstrating just how credible our case really is. Will that be enough then to change their mind? No, but it will have removed some major roadblocks to the notion that God really might be the creator, that life cannot, in fact, evolve (‘biogenesis,’ for instance, is in every sense of the word ‘impossible’), and that the evidence from the earth can actually powerfully support our case (that, for instance, the geologic record and its fossils testify of a catastrophic flood, not of billions of years of slow processes).
Without further ado, the following article, originally written by Dr. John Baumgardner (and expanded by myself) does all of this. The first time I read it, it struck me as a superbly argued summary case for creation science. Dr. Baumgardner addresses five main questions, which roughly cover some of the biggest issues that stem from the three main fields of science: biology, geology, and cosmology:
*Can random molecular interactions create life?
*How do coded language structures arise?
*What about the geological/fossil record?
*How is geological time to be reckoned?
*What about light from distant stars?
Read the article here:
The-Los-Alamos-Origins-Debate
Cheers,
Nick
- By: nicholas
- Share
