Why should one believe in Creation?

Answer 1

Because that's what happened. God made the earth and every single piece of whatever in it! Believe it...and it's in print in a very special Book. Genesis 1:1...look it up! Biblegateway.com if you don't have a Bible...THAT ENOUGH FOR YOU?! AnswerCreationists and religious fundamentalists follow the story of creation. It is a story of how light and darkness, all the planets and all life (essentially everything in existence) came into existence. Religious people and creationists regard the creation story as the literal truth of undescribable irrefutability. Others who might have a sprinkling of understanding of science may refer to the creation story as a metaphor. Chemist Peter Atkins in his book Galileo's Finger seems to suggest that creation is simply a simplified story, a shortcut to get the answer that most humans most desperately wish to know; how everything came about.

There are two things to say from here. The first is:

Why is the expression 'believe in creation'? Terms like 'belief' show that creation is a matter in the realm of faith rather than science's realm of knowledge. In other words it must be believed in as there is nothing to back it up. But in science, doesn't one often come up with the expression 'It is believed that blah blah by a process of evolution' (I introduce evolution as the alternate to how life came about) or 'it is believed that blah scientific law states that....'? Yes indeed, but 'belief' in that sense is confidence in the scientific method and the answer it spews forth and the experiments logical stability and backing (yielding an answer logically backed up and therefore likely very accurate). 'Belief' in religious fundamentalist and thus creationist matters is the taking on trust the word of long dead biblical storytellers, with no backup from witnesses, no reliable translations of texts and no scientific method to proceed. Scientific theories by the scientific method calculate how to make aeroplanes that fly, discover cures for diseases for humans and (more vetinarily) other animals, can sequence the human genome and make amino acid seqencers to sequence amino acids and can fight the worst pandemics like HIV. The scientific theory of the RNA world and the origin of life is still sketchy but who knows how far it will go. The creation story really is a simplified story, to hurry along to the answer to everything's origin to satify the thirst for that answer, long before the onset of science. What use then does the creation story have. It is a simplified story, a bedtime story; all it does is entertain people. And many people know full well that the complexities of science and nature to solve the mysteries of everything's origins.

The second thing to say is to go back to those who have sprinklings of science on the edges, who refer to creation as a metaphor. Soon they may be calling it a simplified story. One WikiAnswers contributor (answering a different question) said that with greater education comes lesser dabblings in religious matters. The more science one learns, the more obvious it becomes that that is the only reliable route to take.

This is the 21st century; there are aeroplanes to fly and genomes to sequence, diseases and HIV to eradicate, combat global warming, test for illegal drugs, build skyscrapers, visit more planets, save endangered species and the final evolutionary tree to work out, not to mention the abiogenetic secrets of the RNA world. Science will take us there. Simplified stories or metaphors like creation will not.

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

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

Discovering Creation

Understanding Creation

Answer 3

You should not believe in creation because some pseudo-scientific claims are made, to undermine the scientific alternative. A good reason to believe in creation, as described in The Bible, is if your church says that is what happened. It can undermine faith to begin to hold views different from those you are taught at church, no matter how well-founded any such views may be.
On the other hand, some of the largest and most influential denominations now accept the scientific explanations for the age of the earth and for the evolution of species. Members of these Churches can believe the universe began over 11 billion years ago and that we evolved from earlier hominid species, without pangs of guilt.