Shaky Creationism: Questionable Arguments Sometimes Used
by Creationists by Warren Krug (May-August, 2006)
|
For sincere Bible-believing Christians, the Word of God is all that is needed for assurance that the arguments
of the evolutionists are without foundation. The book of Genesis describes the creation in the same way a
modern newspaper reporter would describe an actual occurrence.
Throughout the rest of the Bible, the creation account is treated as historical and factual. Exodus 31:17 says,
“For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth.” Romans 5:12 states, “Sin entered the world through
one man.”
Nevertheless, we know that confirmed skeptics, atheists, and other Genesis-doubters couldn't care less what the
Bible says about origins. However, they might be persuaded, if they haven't hardened their hearts too much, by
the testimony of nature. Creationist scientists have many powerful arguments that ought to cause an open-
minded Darwinist to rethink his beliefs, but truthfully there are other ideas creationists have used in the past that
are subject to questions now.
Some Powerful Arguments
1.The fossil record. Often touted by evolutionists as proof for their theory, the fossil record in reality is an
empathic rebuke of any kind of amoeba-to-man evolution. The late evolutionist, Stephen Jay Gould, wrote, “All
paleontologists know that the fossil record contains precious little in the way of intermediate forms; transitions
between major groups are characteristically abrupt.”1 In other words, where are all the “missing links? Even the
recent discovery of an Arctic fish fossil with some possible land animal
features proves nothing.2 The living Australian mammal, the platypus, has
definite birdlike and reptilian features, but no one we know is suggesting it
is evolving into or evolved from any other kind of creature. The evidence
indicates that all the kinds of creatures have existed from the very
beginning.
2. The second law of thermodynamics. This firmly established scientific principle states in part that entropy, or
disorder, increases over time. Computer users need to periodically run programs to “clean up” their machines
or to “defragment” files. Without such outside help, the computer would become more and more disorganized
and less useful over time as it is being used. The same thing is happening in nature. We are slowly losing
available energy. The sun is gradually burning out. The universe is running down. However, Darwinism requires
that as life becomes more complex, over time we need greater organization and more order, not less. But it is
more reasonable to believe a Creator “wound up” the universe at the beginning, and, possibly because of the
introduction of sin, is allowing it to slowly unravel.
3. Genetics. The blueprint for every living creature is contained in its genes, its DNA. How all this incredible
information could have gotten there by natural means is one question and how it could be changed to produce
an entirely different creature is another. Mutations is the most commonly used theory for the changing of the
DNA. But mutations are usually harmful, and in the rare cases when a mutation does produce a seemingly
beneficial change, no new information is added to the DNA. Lots of information would have had to be added to
evolve a single-celled organism into homo sapiens. It is much more reasonable to believe the complex DNA in
creatures was built into them from the beginning.
Some Questionable Creationist Arguments
Just as many evolutionist “evidences” and arguments (e.g. recapitulation theory, peppered moths, Piltdown
man, Mars rock) have fallen by the wayside over the years, creationists too have had to withdraw some of their
talking points. This has a positive side. Anti-creationists sometimes claim Bible scientists are too set in their
ways and refuse to look at the evidence. The withdrawal of some arguments as new evidence is accumulated
shows that creationists are not antiscientific.
Below are some creationist ideas that the Answers in Genesis website finds either dead wrong or at least open
to question. The website lists many more than we have mentioned here. 3
However, as this theory came under increased scrutiny, some problems were uncovered. For instance, there is
no known mechanism for having kept the canopy from falling. Also, the atmospheric pressure would have
increased oxygen and nitrogen levels to such a point these chemicals would have been toxic to humans. The
temperature under such a canopy would have been measured in hundreds of degrees, too warm for human
life. Light from the sun and stars passing through such a canopy would have been refracted to such an extent,
it would have been like looking at the sky through a keyhole.
We can probably say that this venerable theory, while not dead, is on life support.
2. Moon Dust. Early measurements by evolutionist astronomers of the rate dust was falling on the moon made it
seem likely at one time that the first moon landers might sink into a thick layer of dust. However, additional
measurements refined the estimates so that at the time of the first moon landing, NASA scientists were not
worried about sinking.
3. A Japanese ship pulled up a dead plesiosaur near New Zealand. The evidence indicates it was really a
rotting basking shark. A basking shark's gills and jaw rot quickly and fall off, leaving the typical small “neck” with
head. Similar specimens have washed up on beaches.
4. Humans have not descended from apes. Of course humans haven't descended from apes, but most
evolutionists don't say they have. According to prevailing evolutionist theory, humans and apes share a
common ancestor, but not surprisingly creationists don't believe that theory either.
5. The catastrophic splitting of the continents occurred during the time of Peleg (Gen. 10:25). Most
commentators both before and after Darwin agree that the reference to “Earth's division in the days of Peleg”
refers to the linguistic division at Babel. A splitting of the continents at this time would have caused another
global flood. The splitting more likely happened during Noah's Flood.
6. There are no transitional forms. It would be more accurate to say there are no indisputable transitional forms
because there are a number of transitional candidates that have been advanced. See the examples of the
Arctic fish mentioned above and archaeopteryx mentioned below.
9. NASA computers have discovered Joshua's “long day.” This is a hoax. That doesn't mean though that the
account of Joshua's long day isn’t true.
10. Archaeopteryx is a fraud. This supposed “missing link” between birds and reptiles is not a fraud. It's just the
interpretation of the evidence that is faulty. This fossil was a true bird, not a transitional form.
11. Earth's axis was vertical before the Flood. There is no definite proof for or against this claim. The Bible
mentions seasons before the Flood, and some people see the relationship between the Moon and the Earth's
tilt of 23.5 degrees as being ideal and a design feature.
12. There have never been any new species. Not true. New species have been observed to have formed.
However, using the Biblical word “kind”, we can say no new kind of animal has ever been observed. A kind can
include more than one species, and it does not require new genetic information for a new species to form. LSI
References
1. Stephen Jay Gould, “The Return of Hopeful Monsters,” Natural History, vol. 86 (June/July, 1977), p. 24.
(quoted in Morris, Henry M. and Morris, John D., The Modern Creation Trilogy, vol. 2, page 56)
2. “Gone Fishin' for a missing link? (A preliminary response)”, www.answersingenesis, (4/6/06)
3. “Arguments We Think Creationists Should NOT Use,” (www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/dont_use.
asp)
1.The Water Vapor Canopy Theory. When first introduced several decades
ago, this concept seemed like a godsend. The idea that the early Earth
could have been covered by a thick canopy of water vapor solved many
questions in Genesis such as (1) the long ages of the early patriarchs (the
canopy would have shielded humans from much of the harmful radiation
from the sun), (2) the meaning of the separation of the water above and
below the firmament in Genesis 1:6; (3) how creatures could have survived
without rainfall (Gen. 2:5-6); (4) where all the water could have come from
for the forty days it rained during Noah's Flood; (5) why we find warm
weather fossils in cold regions today; etc.
7. Woolly mammoths were “snap frozen” during the Flood. The geological
setting in which the mammoths have been found indicates they more likely
perished at the end of the Ice Age. Just because partially digested food is
sometimes found in their stomachs does not prove the mammoths were
instantly frozen because an elephant's stomach serves as a “holding area.” A
mastodon with preserved stomach contents was found in in mid-western USA
where the ground was not frozen.
8. There was no rain or rainbow before the Flood. The Bible doesn't make this
claim even though it mentions there was no rain at the time Adam was
created. The significance attached to the rainbow following the Flood makes
this theory seem somewhat likely (to this writer), but one cannot be dogmatic,
and AiG, quoting John Calvin, seems less sure of the “no rain and no rainbow
before the Flood” theory.
