Are there theories to support creationism?

Answer 1

Creationism is a theory, but not in the scientific sense.

In science, the word 'theory' us usually used to indicate a well-substantiated, independently verifiable and falsifiable, comprehensive explanatory model.

There is no evidence to support creationism. Scientifically speaking, Creationism depends on throwing Occam's Razor out the window and making unfounded and unwarranted suppositions.

Answer

Not only are their theories, there are actual Laws of science, with no known exception which support creationism. These are the Law of Biogenesis (life only comes from life) and the Second Law of Thermodynamics (simply described as the Law of Entropy).

In addition, despite the fact that creation scientists are far in the minority in terms of personnel, funding and access to media they have demonstrated a wide range of evidence from all fields of science. These theories include recent work in astronomy which explains the data of a supposedly 13.7 billion year old universe and cutting edge work in plate techtonics and runaway subduction which explains rapid geologic processes. Work on accelerated nuclear decay together with the two aforementioned demonstrates that the alleged billions of years of earth history are illusory.

In addition creation scientists often refer to the work of evolutionary scientists, which although committed to the old earth paradigm, often turn up data which does not support evolution. This data tends to get ignored or swept under the carpet and comes from all the fields of science including astronomy, genetics, Biology, chemistry (particularly biochemistry) etc.

The Law of Biogenesis is a law precisely because it is so well attested by scientific data. This is an important law in relation to the creation/evolution debate since it demonstrates that life does not arise spontaneously from non-living matter despite people's belief otherwise. Life thus requires life to come before it. Creationists thus see this as pointing to a creator who originated life and enabled it in its various forms to have the ability to reproduce itself.

The Law of Biogenesis and Creation:

It has been argued that Pasteur's law is only observed in the present time and that it does not make a statement about what did or didn't apply in the distant past, the early earth. Such a statement is true in the sense that all science is done 'in the present' even though at times it makes deductions and assumptions about the past.

However it is also not correct to therefore assume that such a law, or indeed any law can be demonstrated not to have operated in the past. Some indeed have argued that 'we have life, therefore it arose spontaneously.' Such an argument is pure philosophy and belief and not at all scientific.

The various discoveries of genetics and biochemistry, when combined with the Law of Biogenesis and the Second Law of Thermodynamics speak powerfully of the implausibility of a spontaneous generation of life under any conditions. Even further to this, scientists who work specifically in the fields relating to the 'early earth' and what it was believed to be like understand that the conditions were even less conducive to life than they now are on the planet.

This does not prove a divine creative event. It does however point to it being more likely than 'spontaneous generation.' Creationists of course argue that God was indeed present and He has told us what happenned. Although such a claim is indeed a presupposition, as is the belief in a purely naturalistic origin of life on the part of the evolutonists it is more in keeping with the known facts of science.

Regarding The Second Law of Thermodynamics:

One of the issues relates to the operation of the Second Law in relation to open or closed systems. Evolutionists have never demonstrated scientifically how the necessary specified complexity of life can be 'received from the environment.' Not one single example of this exists and were a scientist to demonstrate this they would be awarded a Nobel prize. Information does not arise spontaneously to enable the use of the energy of the sun, for example, and transform it into a usable form. Life does not develop spontaneously from non-life nor do things become more complex. They obey the Second Law and tend towards greater and greater disorder.

Creationists and the Second Law: Creationists use the Second Law both to point out the impossibility of evolution as well as to draw the opposite and quite logical conclusion that God is the creator. This is shown in the following from a 1980 article by Dr. Carl Weiland which is typical of

many examples. This refutes the claim that:

"Some creationists say that the Second Law of Thermodynamics supports creationism. In fact the proponents of this particular hypothesis do not even make that claim, they merely attempt to prove that the Law is inconsistent with evolution - a totally different matter."

'In conclusion 1. The Second Law applied to the whole universe is the death-knell for any proposed evolutionary scheme. (see part 1)

2. No biological order can arise without pre-existing coded mechanisms-the formation of the first cell from naturalistic processes is a thermodynamic impossibility.

3. After the first cell, mutation/selection do not appear to be adequate candidates for the ordered mechanism required to locally overcome the effects of the Second Law in an open system.

Information and order, form, body, arrangement and complexity do not arise spontaneously, but are spontaneously and naturally lost.

Centuries before these scientific principles were formulated, God revealed in The Bible that He created the universe as a functioning whole (i.e. with its order and complexity built-in) and that it is now running down. (Hebrews 1:10-12, quoting Psalm 102, Isaiah 51:6, Romans 8:19-22) This basic Law of matter/energy is in perfect harmony with Scripture, but contradicts the total concept of evolution.'

Source: Creation 3(2):9-11 May 1980

The following is another example of the argumentation used by a creation scientist:

'Now consider the entire universe as one giant closed system. Stars are hot, just like the cup of coffee, and are cooling down, losing energy into space. The hot stars in cooler space represent a state of available energy, just like the hot coffee in the room. However, The Second Law of Thermodynamics requires that this available energy constantly change to unavailable energy. In another analogy, the entire universe is winding down like a giant wind-up clock, ticking down and losing available energy. Since energy is continually changing from available to unavailable, someone had to give it available energy in the beginning! (In other words, someone had to wind up the clock of the universe at the beginning.) Who or what could have produced energy in an available state in the first place? Only someone or something not bound by The Second Law of Thermodynamics. Only the Creator of The Second Law of Thermodynamics could violate it and create energy in a state of availability in the first place.'

Source:In Six Days:Why 50 Scientists Choose to believe in Creation, Dr John Ashton ed

Article excerpt by John M Cimbala, mechanical engineering

Answer While it is only a theory, Creationism does have evidence supporting it, but its not widely published because people don't recognize it as scientific. Here are some bits of evidence, as well as information to contradict Evolution.

First of all, in Evolution, the earth is billions of years old, which can be proved to be untrue. One way is through the Earth's magnetic field. Over time, it has weakened at a steady rate. Using this, the Earth can't be more than 10,000 years old because it would be a magnetic star. Using the Bible however, the Earth is an estimated 6,000 years old, a reasonable time span.

Second, Evolutionists believe that all life started from chemicals that created bacteria and then formed all the animals on Earth. How probable is this? How can a bunch of random chemicals form together to make an orderly, living cell? If it is possible, how come we can't do it? Wouldn't several people have tried this?

Along with this, here's something to think about: animals can evolve, but not in the way that Evolutionists say. Animals can only lose genetic information, or replicate genetic information they have; they cannot make different information (mutations are misplaced or missing data in DNA). If the first cell on Earth would evolve into all the animals and bacteria on earth, it would have to have genetic information for every part of every type of animal that would exist. You simply can't do that: the cell would have too much data and would be too large to function.

Creation doesn't face this problem. If God made the world, he could create animals with all the genetic information needed to make all the different species on Earth. The first dog ever would have all the information needed to make every species of dog today. A chart showing this would resemble more of an "orchard" rather than one big "tree".

Thirdly, Evolutionists use the geologic layers to show how old the Earth is. Supposedly, they have formed very slowly over the years by accumulating matter from dead animals and plants. Catastrophes can also cause more rock layers to form, and in a quicker time period. Mount Helen, for example, caused huge layers of rock to be formed after various eruptions. The bible gives us a huge catastrophe that would have caused MASSIVE layers to be formed and for rock to be shifted: the flood. It would also explain the presence of fossils from sea creatures on some mountains.

Speaking of fossils, Evolutionists say that animals evolved into entirely different species over time (man came from monkeys, lizards and reptiles came from fish, etc.). Small changes can certainly happen, but large changes such as this wouldn't be able to happen because it would require gaining new DNA which can't happen. If it could, wouldn't we have fossils of such radical changes happening? We should, but we don't because it can't happen. Creationism allows creatures to evolve, but not radically.

Answer 2

In scientific terms, a theory is consistent with and explains all known facts, and is capable of predicting facts not yet known. On that basis, creationism is not even a theory - it is a hypothesis. Even the U.S. courts found that creationism is a topic of religion, not of science.
Some creationists say that the Second Law of Thermodynamics supports creationism. In fact the proponents of this particular hypothesis do not even make that claim, they merely attempt to prove that the Law is inconsistent with evolution - a totally different matter. Of course, the Law would only negate the Theory of Evolution if living things were closed systems, but they are not - we receive sustenance and information from the environment. Even when discussing the Second Law of Dynamics in relation to the origin of the universe, creationists are limited to trying to disprove scientific theories about cosmology - they do not and can not show proof that supernatural creation actually occurred. Nor can they demonstrate which deity might have been involved in that creation.

The so-called Law of Biogenesis is sometimes put forward, once again not as proof of creationism, but in the attempt to disprove evolution. However, there is no such Law. It is worth noting that the biology-online site says that Pasteur's research, which led to the statement on biogenesis, dealt with what can be observed to happen now and says nothing about what may have happened on Earth in the past. It goes on to say that Young-Earth creationism is an idea which would seem to be completely discredited by Pasteur's research.

For more information, please visit: http://christianity.answers.com/theology/the-story-of-creation

Answer 3

Here are some arguments for Creationism, or against Evolution:

These point to Divine Creation:

• The staggering complexity of every organ and every cell in the human body.
  
• The vastness of our minds and emotions.
  
• The fact that the universe has definite design, order, and arrangement which cannot be sufficiently explained outside a theistic worldview. (This is how Abraham, without benefit of teachers, came to reject the chaotic world-view of idolatry and the possibility of atheism.)
  
• The laws of the universe seem to have been set in such a way that stars, planets and life can exist. Many constants of nature appear to be finely tuned for this, and the odds against this happening by chance are astronomical.
  

See: More detailed evidence of Creation

Also:

1) The glaring lack of transitional fossils has been noted by the evolutionists themselves, such as this statement from the famous paleontologist and evolutionist George G. Simpson; quote: "The regular lack of transitional fossils is not confined to primates alone, but is an almost universal phenomenon."
"The lack of transitional series cannot be explained as being due to the scarcity of material. The deficiencies are real; they will never be filled" (Nilsson, N. Heribert).
"To the unprejudiced, the fossil record of plants is in favor of special creation" (Corner, E.J.H., Contemporary Botanical Thought).
2) Instances of falsifying of evidence by evolutionists, such as Haeckel's drawings, Archaeoraptor, the Cardiff "specimen," and Piltdown Man.
"Haeckel exaggerated the similarities [between embryos of different species] by idealizations and omissions, in a procedure that can only be called fraudulent. His drawings never fooled embryologists, who recognized his fudgings right from the start. The drawings, despite their noted inaccuracies, entered into the standard student textbooks of biology. Once ensconced in textbooks, misinformation becomes cocooned and effectively permanent, because textbooks copy from previous texts. We do, I think, have the right to be both astonished and ashamed by the century of mindless recycling that has led to the persistence of these drawings in a large number, if not a majority, of modern textbooks (Stephen Gould).
Dr. Jonathan Wells published a book in 2002 entitled Icons of Evolution. Dr. Wells states that the book shows that "the best-known 'evidences' for Darwin's theory have been exaggerated, distorted or even faked."

3) Creationists see the "survival of the fittest" and the dating of rock layers by fossils as being perfect tautologies.

4) The fact that some qualified, educated, normal scientists do not believe in evolution. Or at least question it, even if they still preach evolution: "Nine-tenths of the talk of evolutionists is sheer nonsense, not founded on observation and wholly unsupported by facts. This museum is full of proofs of the utter falsity of their views. In all this great museum, there is not a particle of evidence of the transmutation of species" (Dr. Etheridge, Paleontologist of the British Museum).
"To postulate that the development and survival of the fittest is entirely a consequence of chance mutations seems to me a hypothesis based on no evidence and irreconcilable with the facts. It amazes me that this is swallowed so uncritically and readily, and for such a long time, by so many scientists without murmur of protest" (Sir Ernest Chain, Nobel Prize winner).

5) The fact that there is a shared, worldwide tradition among every ancient society that the world was created.

6) Evolving of new organs or species has not been witnessed during known history.

7) Mutations are harmful, not beneficial. One of the tasks of DNA and of long-term breeding is to avoid or repair any changes brought about by mutations. This means that our genetic apparatus is programmed to resist change.

8) Mutations, even if beneficial, do not create new organs.

9) The fact that a great number of fossils have been found in the "wrong" rock-layers according to what evolutionary Paleontology would require.

10) The fact that you need DNA to make DNA. No genetic code can be demonstrated to have arisen by chance, together with the ability to read that code and carry out its instructions. Information does not arise spontaneously; and there is an incredible amount of information in even the tiniest cell.
"A living cell is so awesomely complex that its interdependent components stagger the imagination and defy evolutionary explanations" (Michael Denton, author).
"The astounding structural complexity of a cell" (U.S. National Library of Medicine).
Concerning a single structure within a cell: "Without the motor protein, the microtubules don't slide and the cilium simply stands rigid. Without nexin, the tubules will slide against each other until they completely move past each other and the cilium disintegrates. Without the tubulin, there are no microtubules and no motion. The cilium is irreducibly complex. Like a mousetrap, it has all the properties of design and none of the properties of natural selection" (Michael Behe, prof. of biophysics).

11) The problem of the impossibility of abiogenesis in general. "The concept of abiogenesis is not science. It's fantasy" (J.L. Wile, Ph.D.).

12) The fact that evolution was once used as support for the belief that Blacks (or others) are less than highly-evolved humans. "Darwin was also convinced that the Europeans were evolutionarily more advanced than the black races" (Steven Rose, author). He also "reasoned that males are more evolutionarily advanced than females" (B. Kevics, author).

13. The first and second laws of thermodynamics point clearly to a Creator, since things undergo entropy rather than get more orderly over time.

14. "Radiometric techniques may not be the absolute dating methods that they are claimed to be. Age-estimates on a given geological stratum by different radiometric methods are often very different. There is no absolutely reliable long-term radiological clock. The uncertainties inherent in radiometric dating are disturbing to geologists and evolutionists." William D. Stansfield, Ph.D., Instructor of Biology, California Polytechnic State University.

15. "Even total rock systems may be open during metamorphism and may have their isotopic systems changed, making it impossible to determine their geologic age." Prof. Gunter Faure (Department of Geology, The Ohio State University, Columbus.)

16 a). At current rates of erosion the amount of sea-floor sediments actually found do not support a "billions of years" age for the Earth.
b) The amount of Sodium Chloride in the sea, also, is a small fraction of what the "old Earth" theory would postulate.
c) The Earth's magnetic field is decaying too fast to extrapolate a long age for the Earth.
d) The rate of accumulation of Moon-dust has been measured; and the amount of dust on the Moon was found to be vastly less than what scientists had predicted before the Moon-landings.
e) Helium is generated by radioactive elements as they decay. The escape of this helium into the atmosphere can be measured. According to the Evolutionary age of the Earth there should be much more helium in the atmosphere, instead of the 0.05% that is actually there.Also see:

God's wisdom seen in His creations

More about God's wisdom

Dissent against Darwin

The facts

Discovering Creation

Understanding Creation