What evidence supports creationism?

Answer 1

Currently, creationism is considered pseudoscience by the vast majority of the scientific community. It is supported by differing accounts from various religions, but to date, there is no observable, testable, or falsifiable evidence.

On creationist websites, and even answers here, creationists tend to "support" creationism by refuting evolution (although most of the arguments you will find have nothing to do with evolutionary theory at all). To creationists, this technique seems to indicate the veracity of the creationist view, but this is a logical fallacy known as a false dichotomy. If evolution is untrue, that does nothing to refute the various other explanations for the variety of life.

Answer 2

• Here are some arguments for Creation 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). For example, theoretical physicist and popular science writer Paul Davies (whose early writings were not especially sympathetic to theism) states concerning the fundamental structure of the universe, "the impression of design is overwhelming" (Davies, 1988, p. 203).
  • 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.

  See: Problems in Evolutionary astronomy

  And: Evidence of a young Earth

  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

Answer 3

In scientific terms, there is no evidence that supports creationism, in the way that there is evidence for evolution. Nevertheless, some people who fear that accepting the reality of evolution would undermine their religious faith, put forward pseudo-scientific hypotheses to attempt to undermine acceptance of evolution as provable fact.

In many cases, creationists rely on outdated information, such as that there is an absence of transitional fossils in the geological record. This was true in the time of Charles Darwin, but since then many transitional fossils have been discovered. To look at one other example, they think that the age of the earth means there should be more helium in the atmosphere, but helium is a light element that gradually escapes from the atmosphere and into space.

Answer 4

Advocates of creationism often cite religious texts such as The Bible as evidence supporting their belief in divine creation. They also point to the complexity and design in nature as evidence of an intelligent creator. Some creationists may also reference gaps or perceived limitations in the theory of evolution as supporting evidence for creationism.