Home Church Community

Statement of Beliefs

Contact Us

Search Our Site

Bible Study Resource



Printer Friendly Version

Basic Worldview:
103 Science, the Bible,
and Creation



Origins - Section Five:
Overall Conclusions, Closing Editorial


Origins - Section One: Introduction and the Basics
Origins - Section Two: Premature Dismissals
Origins - Section Two: Application of the Basics
Origins - Section Three: Creation
Origins - Section Three: Evolution, Origin of Life
Origins - Section Three: Evolution, Environment for Life 1
Origins - Section Three: Evolution, Environment for Life 2
Origins - Section Three: Evolution, Another Planet
Origins - Section Three: Evolution, Origin of Species
Origins - Section Three: Evolution, Speciation Factors
Origins - Section Three: Evolution, Speciation Rates
Origins - Section Four: Time and Age, Redshift
Origins - Section Four: Philosophical Preference
Origins - Section Four: Cosmological Model 1
Origins - Section Four: Cosmological Model 2
Origins - Section Four: Dating Methods, Perceptions, Basics
Origins - Section Four: Global Flood Evidence
Origins - Section Four: Relative Dating
Origins - Section Four: Dating and Circular Reasoning
Origins - Section Four: The Geologic Column
Origins - Section Four: Radiometric Dating Basics
Origins - Section Four: General Radiometric Problems
Origins - Section Four: Carbon-14 Problems
Origins - Section Four: Remaining Methods and Decay Rates
Origins - Section Four: Radiometric Conclusions, Other Methods
Origins - Section Five: Overall Conclusions, Closing Editorial
Origins - Section Five: List of Evidences Table
Origins Debate Figures and Illustrations


Section Five – Overall Conclusions

At this point, we have completed both our expanded commentary on creation and evolution theories and our focus on the critical evidence. In this brief conclusion, we will summarize the facts that have been established.

First, our definitions for both creation and evolution theories were accurate. Specifically, evolutionary theory is, by definition, the denial of any need for foresight and teleology and the assertion to the contrary that automatic, routine process that occur without foresight are capable of producing the universe we observe today, life, and all species on earth. The position and status of evolutionary theory on all of these defining issues was established from the words of evolutionists themselves. From such quotes we even established that when key events require extremely improbable coincidences, the result is evidence for orchestration by foresight, or teleology. And indeed we found such extremely improbable coincidences admitted by evolutionists at every defining point in their theory.

In short, at every defining point where evolutionary theory asserted the sufficiency of automatic, routine processes and denied the need for foresight, both on experimental and observational level as well as on the merely theoretical level, evolutionary theory ran into coincidences so highly improbable that their mere coinciding occurrence necessitated foresight. We saw these improbability obstacles admitted on the defining issues of the formation of the structure of the universe, the environment in which life originated, and the origin of the cell. In fact, we even saw evolutionists acknowledging that the earth’s history and historic environment were so incompatible for the origin of life that many evolutionists relocate life’s origin to the un-falsifiable and unscientific location of another planet.

We also saw admissions that on the defining issue of the origin of species, evolution also lacks a working theory. Speciation, or variety, among an existing type of organism doesn’t prove evolution and is agreed to wholeheartedly by creationists, as is natural selection. However, natural selection doesn’t contribute to the origin of new species, since it reduces diversity and genetic variety rather than increasing them. And while beneficial mutation is the only mechanism that is even theoretically capable of producing new structures, organs, traits, and ultimately new types of organisms, beneficial mutations themselves require such a highly improbable series of coincidences that even their occurrence would necessitate foresight. In addition, evolution also lacks a working theory in the sense that it cannot resolve whether new types of organisms emerge gradually or in punctuated bursts. Ultimately, this issue itself results from another insurmountable problem, which is also admitted openly by evolutionists: the fact that the fossil record only records non-evolving, static kinds of organisms. Furthermore, by its very nature, the fossils record cannot provide any evidence of the inability to interbreed, which is the defining mark of speciation. This too, we saw admitted openly by evolutionists along with the admission that speciation is a process that by its nature cannot ever be directly observed at all. Consequently, evolution remains without evidence and without even a working theory for the origin of new types of organisms.

Second, concerning the age of the universe and the earth, we found that evolution also lacks any actual empirical evidence in its favor. As we saw from mainstream scientific publications and even evolutionary scientists, starlight and redshift demonstrate that the Milky Way Galaxy is near the center of the universe. When the universe was less expanded, the gravity well located at the center of mass would have warped time, slowing it down so that billions of years passed outside the gravity well while only days passed on earth. As a result, starlight indeed has enough time to reach the earth while only six days would pass on earth rather than billions of years of history. Consequently, starlight and redshift provided no evidence for the billions of years of time asserted and needed by evolutionary theory.

As we examined the geologic data pertaining to the age of the earth, we also found that there was no empirical evidence supporting an age of millions or billions of years for the earth. We saw that uniformitarianism was the key principle to evolutionary geologic dating methods. And we saw that uniformitarianism was not only self-contradictory, but it was contradicted by the geologic evidence itself. We even saw that catastrophes, the alternative to uniformitarianism, were acknowledged by secular and evolutionary sources.

Moreover, we also saw that the evidence for the specific catastrophe of a global flood was irrefutable. Ample evidence for such a flood exists in both the historic record of numerous, independent cultures all around the world and in the geology of the earth. The geologic evidence includes the fossil record itself. Since fossils must be buried quickly, the rock layers they are buried in must also have been laid down quickly, not slowly or gradually over millions of years. Moreover, all fossils are found in sedimentary rock, which is laid down by water. Together these 2 facts demonstrate that the fossil record is the result of a quick depositing of sediments all over the earth by water from a global flood. In addition, the location of fossils also provides evidence for the global flood. Marine fossils are located far inland and on mountain tops and tropical fossils are located in arctic regions. Furthermore, the preservation of soft tissue, such as the tissue and last meals of frozen mammoths, demonstrates that the creation of these out-of-place tropical fossils was accompanied by a rapid climate shift, rather than a slow, gradual change. And ultimately, we saw how even if uniformitarianists, evolutionists, or even atheists reject the possibility of a Creator, none of these worldviews have any principles, grounds, or evidence on which to reject the evidence for a global flood. Thus, the global flood stands as an irrefutable reality of earth history.

As we considered the various dating methods used by evolutionists to support an age of billions of years for the earth, we also found all such methods to be bankrupt. None of them worked. Relative dating, which is based upon the layering of rocks and the fossils in those layers, is admitted to be utterly incapable of providing actual ages or durations of time but can only indicate the order of burial. Radiometric dating methods also did not work. To calculate ages, radiometric dating requires certain factors to be known. But, as we saw in detail, those required factors are not known. Instead, idealized numeric values are assumed based on relative dates created by assuming of evolutionary theory and adjusted as needed to produce ages through a process of circular reasoning. In addition, we have also seen how the volcanic activity involved in a global flood further renders these critical factors beyond determination.

Concerning carbon-14 we found that the earth’s carbon-14 level is currently still below its saturation point, a point which it should have reached a long time ago if the carbon cycle had been occurring for billions of years. Thus, carbon-14 itself indicates that the earth is young, so young that it has not yet reached the saturation point for carbon-14. Furthermore, when the evidence for a global flood is taken into account, carbon-14 dating simply does not produce any ages that are not reconcilable with creationism’s age of the earth. And likewise, we saw that carbon-14 dating erroneously assumes that the carbon to carbon-14 ratio must always have been what it is today even though this ratio is known to have significantly differed over time and location due to a number of factors.

Lastly concerning dating methods, we saw how none of the non-radiometric absolute dating methods worked either. Each one was based upon assumptions, which were invalid and unreliable. And most importantly, every single dating method, including relative dating and radiometric dating in general, were based entirely upon circular reasoning with one another and with circular reasoning in which evolutionary theory itself is assumed. Not a single dating method worked without the others being assumed first and without evolution being assumed first, including radiometric dating.

Finally, as we saw in quote after quote, the problems in all of these areas still remain unresolved. Furthermore, as we also saw, the nature of many of these problems is such that they are simply unsolvable. In the end there was no working explanation and no evidence supporting the evolutionary formation of the universe, the evolutionary origin of life, the evolutionary origin of species, or the evolutionary age of the universe and the earth. From start to finish, evolutionary theory and its age for the earth were shown to be nothing more than assumptions based upon philosophical preference. And we even saw this fact itself admitted in quote after quote throughout this study. Consequently, as we have seen, there is simply no evidence that currently disproves the account of earth’s history preserved in the Judeo-Christian tradition, an account which records the need for a Creator as well as the interactions of that Creator. On the contrary the available, observable evidence supports the predictions and conclusions offered in the scientific and Biblical theory of Creationism.

These conclusions lead us to 2 final segments for this study. First, below is a closing editorial that focuses on a few important, critical-thinking issues that would have been outside the context of the segments we have covered so far in this series. And second, having established that there is no evidence, which currently disproves the creationist theory, the last section of this study will comprise a simple list of evidence, which supports the young age of the universe and the earth and which also supports the creationist theory as a whole.


Closing Editorial

We began this entire study series by talking about the importance of objectivity and equity. Objectivity defines critical thinking. If a person is not being objective or equitable, then they are not thinking critically.

Throughout this series, we have also taken the time to point out admissions of philosophical preference. These two issues, objectivity and philosophical preference work contrary to one another. And the reason we have taken the time to bring these issues to the foreground in this series is simple. Our primary purpose in this study has been to examine the evidence in detail and to let the evidence speak for itself. But so long as philosophical preference is in the driver’s seat, being persuaded by the objective reality of the evidence remains impossible. For this reason, we have attempted to spotlight philosophical preference when possible throughout the study. Only by identifying it does it become possible to remove it and to once again look with objectivity upon the clear indications of the evidence.

Consequently, having completed an intensive examination of the most critical evidence and with a straightforward listing of all the evidence still to follow, it is important to once again attempt to spotlight and remove the blinding influence of philosophical preference. As such, there are 2 small editorial comments that we feel will serve this purpose. And since this portion of our study is intended as an editorial, we will approach these subjects somewhat more casually.

Our first editorial comment centers on the following facts. Earlier in our article we have seen that given the hostile environment of earth throughout its history prompts many evolutionists to relocate the origin of life to some other planet besides the earth. However, even if life did originate here on earth, evolutionary theory necessitates that the same natural process that brought about life on this planet would do so on other planets throughout the galaxy and the universe as well. This is the logical conclusion of believing that life is not unique to earth but is the result of automatic, routine processes.

All of which leads me to conclude that life is an obligatory manifestation of matter, bound to arise where conditions are appropriate. Unfortunately, available technology does not allow us to find out how many sites offer appropriate conditions in our galaxy, let alone in the universe. According to most experts who have considered the problem—notably, in relation with the Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence project—there should be plenty of such sites, perhaps as many as one million per galaxy. If these experts are right, and if I am correct, there must be about as many foci of life in the universe. Life is a cosmic imperative. The universe is awash with life.” – The Beginnings of Life on Earth, Christian de Duve, American Scientist, September-October 1995

According to this quote, “Life is a cosmic imperative” and “The universe is awash with life.” Moreover, as we can see, the author specifically states that this is the opinion of the experts on this topic among the evolutionary community.

Furthermore, evolutionary theory necessitates not only would life originate on other planet’s but also that life would evolve and eventually develop into intelligent civilizations on other planets as well, all as the logical conclusion to the theory that evolution occurs as a result of automatic, uniform processes. The quotes below describe what is known as the “Green Bank formula,” an equation that is designed to reflect how many technical civilizations exist on other planets throughout the galaxy.

Life, Extraterrestrial life, Intelligent life beyond the solar system – The probability of advanced technical civilizations in our galaxy depends on many controversial issues. A simple way of approaching the problem, which illuminates the parameters and uncertainties involved, has been devised by a U.S. astrophysicist, F.D. Drake. The number N of extant technical civilizations in the galaxy can be expressed by the following equation (the so-called Green Bank formula)… Likelihood of life – Contemporary world events do not provide a very convincing counterargument to the contention that technical civilizations tend, through the use of weapons of mass destruction, to destroy themselves shortly after they come into being. If we define a technical civilization as one capable of interstellar radio communication, our technical civilization is only a few decades old. If then L is about 10 years, multiplication of all of the factors assumed above leads to the conclusion that there is in the second half of the 20th century only about one technical civilization in the galaxy—our own. But if technical civilizations tend to control the use of such weapons and avoid self-annihilation, then the lifetimes of technical civilizations may be very long, comparable to geological or stellar evolutionary time scales; the number of technical civilizations in the galaxy would then be immense. If it is believed that about 1 percent of developing civilizations make peace with themselves in this way, then there are about 1,000,000 technical civilizations extant in the galaxy.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition

Green Bank equation – equation that purports to yield the number N of technically advanced civilizations in the Milky Way Galaxy as a function of other astronomical, biological, and psychological factors. Formulated in large part by the U.S. astrophysicist Frank Drake, it was first discussed in 1961 at a conference on the “search for extraterrestrial intelligence” (SETI), held at the National Radio Astronomy Observatory in Green Bank, W.Va…Accordingly, if civilizations characteristically destroy themselves within a decade of achieving radio astronomy, which is taken as a marker of an advanced civilization, then N = l, and there are no other intelligent life forms in the Galaxy with whom terrestrial researchers can communicate. If, on the other hand, it is assumed that one percent of the civilizations learn to live with the technology of mass destruction and themselves, then N = 1,000,000, and the nearest advanced civilization would be on average a few hundred light-years away.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition

As indicated by both of the quotes above, the number of technically advanced civilizations currently existing in the universe depends on whether or not such civilizations tend to annihilate themselves by weapons of mass destruction. If all technical civilizations do tend to destroy themselves, then man would be the only technically advanced civilization in the universe at the present time. However, if even one percent of technically advanced civilizations avoid self-destruction, then there are literally a million other technically advanced civilizations throughout the galaxy at the present time. In particular, notice that for the one percent of technical civilizations that survive their own weapons of mass destruction, this equation necessitates that there are 99 times as many technical civilizations that do destroy themselves. Consequently, regardless of whether or not such civilizations survive to exist in the present, the Green Bank equation necessitates that one hundred million technical civilizations have existed in our galaxy over the course of the history of the universe.

Here we arrive at an illuminating point.

One hundred million technically advanced civilizations over the course of the universe’s history is likely to include a large number of civilizations that are significantly more advanced than mankind. Even one million civilizations would have quite a few that are significantly more advanced than man. And using our own population as a basis, each civilization is going to be comprised of billions of individuals. We must also keep in mind that not a single extra-terrestrial life form has ever been detected or observed and not a shred of empirical evidence exists that life exists on other planets at all, let alone intelligent life or even technically advanced civilizations. Yet the core of evolutionary theory, the idea that life originates and evolves by automatic, routine processes of nature logically demands these conclusions. In other words, by its very nature and definition, evolutionary theory requires the existence of billions and billions of unseen, undetected beings with vastly superior intelligence and capabilities than our own, for whom we have no empirical evidence.

This fact highlights the prejudicial nature of the philosophical preferences behind the acceptance of evolutionary theory. Creationism asserts the necessity for the existence of just 1 superior, powerful intelligent being that we currently cannot see or detect directly through empirical means. Merely as a result of this factor alone, creationism is often popularly labeled as blind faith, primitive, and unscientific. Yet modern evolutionary science necessitates the existence of billions and billions of superior and more powerful beings that we cannot currently see or detect empirically, and evolution is regarded as “good science driven by empirical evidence,” “sophisticated,” and “enlightened.” The plain fact of the matter is that both theories necessitate the existence of unseen, undetected superior beings from beyond the earth.

There are really 2 subpoints here that need to be spotlighted. Number one, why are ancient civilizations and beliefs held by man from older ages regarded as primitive merely for believing in beings from beyond the earth with vastly greater power over nature and greater intelligence than mankind, while modern evolutionary science can assert the exact same thing without being regarded as “primitive?” It seems that there is clearly a double-standard at work here. And this double standard reveals the lack of objectivity and the lack of critical thinking on the part of evolutionists.

Number two, it also seems to be true that both scientists and lay people that have accepted evolution are either open to or, in fact, embrace the possibility that human civilization itself was created in some form or fashion by an extra-terrestrial civilization of superior intelligence and ability than man. Often these popular concepts take the form of alien beings sowing their genetic make-up into the evolution of life on earth. These popular concepts are featured in the movie Contact (1997), based upon the book by famous evolutionist Carl Sagan, and the movie Mission to Mars. Francis Crick, who received the 1962 Nobel Prize for Physiology or Medicine for helping to discover the double-helix of DNA, believed that life came to earth “on a spaceship sent out by some distant civilization.”

“On the other hand, it is believed that our young planet, still in the throes of volcanic eruptions and battered by falling comets and asteroids, remained inhospitable to life for about half a billion years after its birth, together with the rest of the solar system, some 4.55 billion years ago. This leaves a window of perhaps 200-300 million years for the appearance of life on earth. This duration was once considered too short for the emergence of something as complex as a living cell. Hence suggestions were made that germs of life may have come to earth from outer space with cometary dust or even, as proposed by Francis Crick of DNA double-helix fame, on a spaceship sent out by some distant civilization.” – “The Beginnings of Life on Earth,” Christian de Duve, American Scientist, September-October 1995

As we can see, not only is the idea of superior, more powerful, extra-terrestrial beings considered acceptable science, but even the idea that one such group of beings is the progenitor to mankind is also considered acceptable within science.

With these similarities in view, it gets harder and harder to see exactly what about the creationists view is so philosophically undesireable to evolutionists. One theory asserts the necessity for 1 unearthly being of superior intelligence and superior power over nature, which cannot currently be seen or detected. The other theory asserts the necessity for billions and billions of extra-terrestrial beings with superior intelligence and a superior ability to manipulate the natural world, which cannot currently be seen or detected. The only real issue that distinguishes these two views is the concept of accountability. Creationism’s single, superior, more powerful, more intelligent, unearthly being has authority over us and we are accountable to him while evolution’s billions and billions of superior, more powerful, more intelligent, unearthly beings have no authority over us at all and we are not accountable to them.

Since, as we have seen, there is no empirical evidence that supports or necessitates evolutionary theory, evolutionary theory is shown to be the theory that believes in the existence of countless billions of superior, more powerful, unearthly beings on blind faith simply out of philosophical preference. But more importantly, since there is no empirical evidence that supports or necessitates evolutionary theory and instead, as we have seen, from start to finish evolutionary theory is based upon mere philosophical bias, the only real preference driving the acceptance of evolutionary theory is the desire to avoid accountability.

In conclusion, if a person simply looks at the evidence objectively and thoroughly without being motivated by the desire to avoid accountability, creationism is clear. But so long as the desire to avoid accountability remains, as it always has been, the primary motivation for accepting evolutionary theory, then objective analysis will not be possible. This need for not only an objective but also a thorough analysis of the evidence leads us to our next editorial comment.

Our second editorial comment centers one of the potential reactions to a presentation of the evidence and an accurate presentation of the creationist argument. Initially, many laypersons who’ve accepted evolution criticize that creationists have just accepted a view on blind faith without knowing or looking into the evidence. In contrast, they themselves have rejected creationism because they are healthy skeptics, who question and look into matters before accepting an idea.

However, after experiencing a presentation of the evidence, the problems with evolutionary theory, and the holes where evolutionary theory admittedly has no working explanation, it often becomes suddenly apparent that these “healthy skeptics” have not really looked into the matter at all. They’ve never researched evolution with a critical eye. So, here the question arises, “if they’ve never really researched the matter or considered the options objectively and critically, how did they come to believe in evolution in the first place?” The answer is that they’ve merely accepted evolution on blind faith because a teacher or professor told them it was true. They now fall under the same criticism that they had of creationists.

And what is the response to the fact that they now fall under their own criticism? Do they maintain their commitment to accepting ideas only if that idea is based firmly on the most reasonable view of the evidence? Do they suspend their belief in evolution and their rejection of creationism at least until they have enough time to research the matter more thoroughly? Do they then proceed to spend time looking into the matter and pursuing the issues until they reach a conclusion, just as they formerly asserted was their practice?

No, at least not typically. Instead, a common response is just the opposite. They reject their previous conviction that ideas should only be accepted if they can be firmly demonstrated from the evidence. Instead, when faced with the possibility that there is considerably reasonable argument in favor of creationism, they abandon the conviction that anything can be known based upon the evidence. Rather than remaining staunchly committed to the position that evidence clearly reveals reality, the position they formerly held as evolutionists, they now become ardent agnostics, holding that there is no way to know what reality is even from the evidence. Having formerly criticized creationism on the grounds that it was unacceptable to believe on blind faith, they now hold to evolution on the grounds that it is true even if the evidence doesn’t seem compatible with it. Having formerly asserted the need to be skeptical, they now avoid a skeptical look at evolution. Many times this response is couched in the idea that they cannot accept creationism because it doesn’t meet their high standards of proof, while at the same time continuing to accept evolution on the basis of a much, much lower standard of proof.

Such reactions reveal the true reason for their acceptance of evolution and their rejection of creationism. They never rejected creationism because they were good skeptics and looked into the issues, asking objective questions. They never accepted evolution because it is based on evidence rather than blind faith. Instead, they’ve always accepted evolution on blind faith without looking into the matter. And they did so simply because they philosophically prefer to avoid accountability to God. They use false criticisms of creationism to make it look like the issue is their commitment to reason, evidence, and healthy skepticism, when in reality they are simply committed to any worldview that doesn’t involve God, even if they have to sacrifice reason, evidence, and healthy skepticism to do so. And when they do so, they reveal their real motivation. They are blindly committed to a worldview without God, with no accountability, in which they can do whatever they want or at least associate with people regardless of how they behave.

Ultimately, deciding what is true based upon such criteria is not only unscientific, it’s utterly unreasonable and downright foolish. The important point here is not simply that evolutionists should stop criticizing creationism as unscientific, as mere blind faith, and as the product of ignorance of the evidence. These criticisms should be stopped, but they are not the most important point. The most important point is that evolutionists should themselves stop accepting their own theory on blind faith. They should question their own motivations objectively and ask themselves some critical questions. Why do I believe evolution? How much do I really know about evolutionary theory? How much do I know about the evidence? Have I ever really considered creationism fairly? How much do I really know about creationism’s arguments and positions? What criteria should I use for deciding what is true? Should I decide what is true based upon the most reasonable interpretation of the evidence? Or, is what I want to be true more important when I decide what to believe? Am I willing to even consider rejecting reason and evidence in order to believe what I prefer to believe?

In conclusion, resolving the origins debate, the debate between evolution and creation, can only occur if these questions are addressed first by each individual. So long as these questions go unasked and unanswered by each individual, neither the evidence nor the very best reasoning in the world will matter, not with regard to the evolution-creation debate and not with regard to how mankind in general attempts to resolve its differences and live together. We have to make the decision to be rational beings who make decisions and take action based upon the most reasonable and objective interpretation of the evidence. If instead we only pretend to do this, while in reality we remain motivated by our mere personal, philosophical preferences, not only will the evolution-creation debate remain unresolved, but all of our problems with remain unresolved.

This completes our closing editorial segment. We now move on to the last segment of this series, the simple list of evidences. As the list will show, the evidence dramatically favors the young age of the universe and the earth and the creationist theory as a whole. Conversely, the list will also show that there is no evidence in support of evolutionary theory or the evolutionary age of the universe, but that accepting evolutionary theory is instead dependent upon purely philosophical preferences rather than sound science, reason, objectivity, or evidence.


Related Images



Gene Pool
(Figures 1-6)




Defining the
Boundaries of Kinds



Gaps in the
Fossil Record




Britannica
Geologic Column



Misperceptions of
Dating Methods
(Figures 1-8)




Dating Facts



Dating Procedures
(Figures 1-13)




Isotope Dating Chart



Cosmology
Figure 1



Cosmology
Figure 2 (a-d)



Cosmology
Figure 3 (a-f)