Creation

Answer The first thing is to decide what is meant be "recognized scientists" - eminent scientists, less eminent scientists who do perform pure research, or persons with advanced science degrees but perform little or no pure research. If reliable data on belief in creation within the scientific community is not available, we could start by establishing how many scientists believe in a personal god, because the number who literally believe in creation must be somewhat smaller than this.

• In 1998, a study by Larson and Witham appeared on the leading journal Nature ("Leading scientists still reject God"), showing that of the American scientists who had been elected to the National Academy of Sciences, only about 7 percent believein a personal god. Religious believers form about 40 percent of the less eminent scientists in America.
• A study in Britain, undertaken by R. Elisabeth Cornwell and Michael Stirrat, involved sending a questionnaire to all 1,074 Fellows of the Royal Society who possessed an email address, offering several propositions and asking the scientists to rank their beliefs on that point from 1 to 7. About 23 percent responded and preliminary results indicate that, of these, 3.3 percent agreed strongly (chose 7) and 78.8 percent disagreed strongly (chose 1) that a personal god exists. A total of 12 Fellows chose 6 or 7 to indicate that they were believers, while 213 Fellows chose 1 or 2 to indicate that they were nonbelievers.

The first thing is to decide what is meant be "recognized scientists" - eminent scientists, less eminent scientists who do perform pure research, or persons with advanced science degrees but perform little or no pure research. If reliable data on belief in creation within the scientific community is not available, we could start by establishing how many scientists believe in a personal god, because the number who literally believe in creation must be somewhat smaller than this.

• In 1998, a study by Larson and Witham appeared on the leading journal Nature ("Leading scientists still reject God"), showing that of the American scientists who had been elected to the National Academy of Sciences, only about 7 percent believe in a personal god. Religious believers form about40 percent of the less eminent scientists in America.
• A study in Britain, undertaken by R. Elisabeth Cornwell and Michael Stirrat, involved sending a questionnaire to all 1,074 Fellows of the Royal Society who possessed an email address, offering several propositions and asking the scientists to rank their beliefs on that point from 1 to 7. About 23 percent responded and preliminary results indicate that, of these, 3.3 percent agreed strongly (chose 7) and 78.8 percent disagreed strongly (chose 1) that a personal god exists. A total of 12 Fellows chose 6 or 7 to indicate that they were believers, while 213 Fellows chose 1 or 2 to indicate that they were nonbelievers.

Noting the use of the word "created" in the question, there can be only one answer. Creation speaks of the point at which anything begins to exist, so the answer is one of faith, not science. As such, God created oxygen.

If you happen to be Hindu, then Brahma, via his creation by Vishnu is likely responsible for oxygen.

The Azrec belied it was the godmother Teteoh innan.

The Maya belied it was Kukulkán and Tepeu.

The Finnish tell that it was Ilmater, daughter of Sky.

The ancestors of the Scandinavians, Anglos, and Saxons believed it was done by the gods Odin, Vili, and Vé.

According to the ancient Hawai'ian Kumulipo (creation story) it just happens in a Big Bang/evolution sort of way, up to the point that the four divine beings (Laʻilaʻi (Female), Kiʻi (Male), Kane (God), and Kanaloa (Octopus)), in the eighth wa.

Different ideas have risen throughout the history of man. No one has the market cornered though and respect for all is important.

• Creationists and Intelligent Design scientists believe animals were created as kinds, and that variations within those kinds have occurred over time by adaptation and by manipulation, such as the genetic selection of traits by breeders of pets and livestock. Evolutionary scientists usually believe complex animals evolved from simpler life forms. They do not generally explain how the simple life forms, which are also animals, came to be, although some believe that non-living protogenic amino acids may have combined and generated life forms.

• Creation Theory is that all life comes from created kinds. There is no argument against speciation. All changes in life forms are micro-evolution, and do not add complexity or genetic material. The fossil record shows fully formed abrupt appearance and stasis (no change) in each layer. Even evolutionists admit this fact.James Crow, a modern leader for evolution theory admits, "...the details (of how evolution could have taken place) are difficult and obscure." (The Twilight of Evolution, p.48) Almost all the touted proofs for evolution show only micro-evolution (eg. Darwin's finches, the peppered moth, antibiotic resistent bacteria), which is not disputed by Creationists or Intelligent Design proponents. These changes have no increase in complexity, but merely emphasize certain pre-existing traits over others. Evolution Theory totally and directly contradicts the well-proven Second Law of Thermodynamics--the universal law of increasing entropy. Things tend toward disorder over time, unless there is outside influence. A common misconception is that 'change equals evolution.' Animals change or adapt to their environment because they already have the inbuilt genetic ability to do so. No new genetic information is added or written into the genetic code. It has also never been demonstrated that chance random processes can generate anything remotely like life. Biochemistry clearly demonstrates that even the simplest cell is incredibly complex and is easily destroyed. Water is particularly destructive. If even the simplest cell cannot arise spontaneously, neither can anything else, including the animals.

• Animals came to be God creating them. Every building has to have a builder. If you start there that at least states there has to be a higher power! Everything in the Bible is true and not one thing has ever been proven wrong.

• In Genesis 1: 20 God said, "Let the water teem with living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the expanse of the sky." In Genesis 1: 24 he said, "Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds: livestock, creatures that move along the ground, and wild animals, each according to its kind." We know that the Bible is the true, inspired Word of God. So how much more proof do you need? Maybe in the beginning of the world, animals and humans lived longer, so you won't find many fossils of them. The world was pure before the Fall of Man, and we don't know how long the time between the Creation and the Fall of Man. It could have been centuries, or years, or days, or seconds. But maybe that is why you don't find many fossils of animals in the first layers of earth. And God didn't see fit to tell us how everything fit together. He just told us what we need to know, and we need to accept that. So, animals were made on the fifth and sixth days of creation.

• The fossil record shows the gradual emergence of different, and generally more complex species over time. For example, the oldest layers only contain bacteria. Newer layers contain mollusks, invertebrates, etc. The newest layers contain vertebrates.

• Creationist Theory does not explain geographic distribution. The most closely related species are generally also found in the closest proximity to each other.

• Creationist Theory does not explain vestigial structures. Vestigial structures are the leftovers of evolution that are no longer functional. For example, wings on flightless birds, remnant hindlimb/pelvic bones in whales, tailbone on humans. If we were created, why the extra spare parts?

• Creationist Theory does not explain why species' designs contain flaws. With evolution, flaws can be passed down from ancestors. Evolution only selects for the best available, but does not guarantee that the best is without flaws. Sometimes it requires a trade off. For example, primates (including humans) have a non-functional gene for synthesizing vitamin c because presumably ancestral primates had so much vitamin c in their diets from fruit that the gene was not necessary. The gene is still there, but unlike in other animals, it doesn't work, so now that our diets don't always contain enough vitamin c, we can get scurvy. Another flaw in our design is that our windpipe stems from the throat so it can be easy to die from choking. If we were simply created, then why would there be these flaws in our physical design?

• Where is the mixing of features? If animals were just created, wouldn't there be a more random mixing of features? Instead, you have groupings of species sharing many similar traits as if they were related to one another or evolved from common ancestors. For example, mammals are grouped because they all produce milk. But all mammals also are warm blooded and have hair or fur (even whales have vestigial hair in the fetal stages). Where are the feathered mammals? Where are the birds that bear live young? You can find the features of older groups appearing on groups that evolved from these groups, but you don't see traits from more recent groups on species from older groups. Sure, there are a few anomalies out there, but do a little research and evolution explains why.

• Creation is just one possible explanation for the origin of life on earth. There is no single way to demonstrate how life began. Any who claim creation are not necessarily correct. It's a war of words. Of philosophies and ideologies. And it is likely to remain so for some time. Until then, just about any argument concerning the origin of life on earth is as "valid" as the next. The Bible thumper is no more or less correct than the one who thumps a science text. Believe what you want to. But your beliefs do not invalidate those of others.

• All the proof one needs to see the changes evolution has effected are at hand. The earth has changed dramatically over the billions of years since it was formed. When life began (by what mechanism one is free to speculate on), it began a long, long time ago. As the planet changed, the life changed, evolved, to adapt to the new conditions. Or it died. It's that simple. The ideation of the tree of life (by Linnaeus) was a brilliant stroke. Modern evolutionary synthesis (MES), the state of the art construct that deals with evolution, is fact. (We just disagree amongst ourselves about abiogenesis - the mechanism of life's inception.) Many Christians are on board with MES and modern science's take on the age of the earth. Literal interpretation of the Bible leads to severe ideological conflicts. But some believe in a young earth. This seems to be adherence to obviously flawed ideology. Particularly in the face of the mountain of facts that any individual could understand. To evolutionists, young earth Christians seem to practice a form of denial on an epic scale. Intelligent Design Science is pseudo-science. It is an ideology that appears to have been designed for a single purpose: to get creation taught in public schools. The basic laws of existence state that nothing comes from nothing. However that would not preclude the possibility that life can come from nonliving things. Protenogenic amino acids are not alive, and neither are the proteins they create. However, a simple combination of proteins with the necessary levels of carbon, hydrogen and oxygen to form strong bonds could very well result in single celled organisms, which, through symbiosis could bond with others and create multi-celled organisms. These things can occur spontaneously. Science has not demonstrated they did occur that way, but it would be foolish to deny that it is possible. There is no way to prove that life here on earth did not come from somewhere else. It could have, and there is more than one explanation as to how it could have occurred.

• Some molecules, acids, a pool of lava and luck.

• If something needed to put the 'objects in question' into motion in order for them to even have a chance to bond into life, why can that not be the case to evolutionists? There is still room for evolution after the cause of motion. Also, why can the world and all life within it not have been intelligently designed but designed to evolve?

Claim: All changes in life forms are micro-evolution, and do not add complexity or genetic material.

The Science- This is simply not true. New genetic material passed through the filter of natural selection easily gives rise to complexity. Such complexity can be seen in the case of a nylon-eating bacteria. New genetic material can come about by various mechanisms. The two most dominant ones in vertebrate evolution are genetic recombination and genetic mutations. These are widely studied phenomena and have an extremely well documented scientific basis.

ClaimThe fossil record shows fully formed abrupt appearance and stasis (no change) in each layer.

The Science- I can only imagine that the author is referring to the Cambrian explosion, which is a well documented event in geology. Furthermore, there have been found countless precambrian fossiles, and first solid evidence of life dates back to roughly 3.5 Bya.

Claim-Even evolutionists admit this fact.James Crow, a modern leader for evolution theory admits, "...the details (of how evolution could have taken place) are difficult and obscure." (The Twilight of Evolution, p.48)

The Science- This is a case of quote mining and, even if quoted correctly, isn't evidence for anything. What one scientist, or any person, says about his own personal incredulity says nothing of the viability of a theory.

Claim-Almost all the touted proofs for evolution show only micro-evolution (eg. Darwin's finches, the peppered moth, antibiotic resistent bacteria), which is not disputed by Creationists or Intelligent Design proponents. These changes have no increase in complexity, but merely emphasize certain pre-existing traits over others.

The Science- I cannot emphasise the error of this statement. I return to the case of the nylon-eating bacteria, where nylon is a polymer first synthesised in the lab in 1935 by Wallace Carothers. "Macro-evolution" (mind you, biologists and geneticists alike do not differentiate between the two) is merely the result of accumulated "micro-evolution". Whereas 1+1+1=3, 1+1+1+1... would eventually equal 100, enough for one to call it macro-evolution by the "micro-macro" standard.

Claim-Evolution Theory totally and directly contradicts the well-proven Second Law of Thermodynamics--the universal law of increasing entropy.

The Science The Second Law of Thermodynamics explains how entropy tends to increase in a closed system. The way this law interacts with biology is that organisms must fight the tendency for disorder lest their cells will collapse. This is the purpose of homeostasis, a process which every organism shares. It has absolutely nothing to do with the increasing complexity of the global gene pool. Apples and oranges!

Claim-Animals change or adapt to their environment because they already have the inbuilt genetic ability to do so. No new genetic information is added or written into the genetic code.

The Science - This is a statement which simply contradicts modern research. I have already written a great deal about mutations and its mechanisms, so I won't comment further.

Claim-It has also never been demonstrated that chance random processes can generate anything remotely like life. Biochemistry clearly demonstrates that even the simplest cell is incredibly complex and is easily destroyed. Water is particularly destructive. If even the simplest cell cannot arise spontaneously, neither can anything else, including the animals.

The Science- It has been demonstrated that amino acids can be synthesised using only a mild electric current from where there were once only simple gases such as, among others, H2O (water vapour), CO (carbonmonoxide) and CH4 (methane). Furthermore, this has nothing to do with evolutionary theory. This is an entirely different field of study altogether called Abiogenesis and is in the field of Organic Chemistry rather than Evolutionary Biology. More importantly, Evolutionary theory is not dependent on Abiogenesis, and Abiogenesis is not dependent on Evolutionary theory for either to be true. This statement supposes that this is the case.

The oldest rock samples, zirconium oxides, were discovered in situ and then analyzed to an accuracy of a few million years. These samples yield an age of something on the order of 3.9 billion years or so. But the earth "recycles" rock, and we have to look around a bit to find "old" rock. That is why we cannot place the age of the earth with native material.

No matter how old the earth is, it is clear from the geological column that fossils are laid down in sequence, with the most recent fossils above the earliest ones. Any method that established a minimum age for the most recent fossils would at least provide a minimum age for the earth. Early in the 19th century, Charles Lyell examined the Etna volcano on Sicily and studied the historical records of frequent eruptions. He noticed that each time it erupted, a new layer of lava would be added, causing the mountain to grow at a measurable rate. By knowing the height of the volcano, its approximate rate of growth and the frequency of eruptions, Lyall determined that the volcano must be several hundred thousand years old. At the edge of the volcano, under the first lava flows, he found fossil shells that were virtually identical to the shells of molluscs still found in the Mediterranean Sea. From this, he deduced that the fossils were geologically recent, that a hundred thousand years was geologically short, and that the age of the earth must be immense.

Even many creationists now accept the evidence for the immense age of the Earth. No longer do all creationists follow the Bible literally, instead we now have the traditional "Young-Earth" creationists and the "Old-Earth" creationists who largely accept that the Earth really is around 4.5 billion years old.

Use the link to the related question on how scientists can date rock using radiometry.

The oldest rocks which have been found so far (on the Earth) date to about 3.8 to 3.9 billion years ago (by several radiometric dating methods). Some of these rocks are sedimentary, and include minerals which are themselves as old as 4.1 to 4.2 billion years. Rocks of this age are relatively rare, however rocks that are at least 3.5 billion years in age have been found on North America, Greenland, Australia, Africa, and Asia.

While these values do not compute an age for the Earth, they do establish a lower limit (the Earth must be at least as old as any formation on it). This lower limit is at least concordant with the independently derived figure of 4.55 billion years for the Earth's actual age.

[As an informational but relevant note, Kent Hovind holds no degrees from any accredited institution. (He is not a "Doctor" of anything.) And at this writing, he is currently housed in Federal prison. A link is provided for factual data.]

For now, we cannot be sure. Who knows? Maybe soon the next Galileo, Columbus, or even the next Wright Brothers will show up, giving us the magical constant that will give each of these equations the same, and correct, answer.