The so-called intellectual elite have repeatedly defamed Creationism by describing it as 'dogma', 'religion', and 'unscientific'.  While yes, it does have its basis in religion, on the fundamental assumption that, as it's name suggests, the world was created, it is anything but unscientific.  As will hopefully become obvious, Creationism has a wealth of evidence behind it, so much to the extent that, as a purely scientific theory, it outweighs evolution itself.  What follows will be simply evidence for Creationism, without any rhetoric; only facts will be provided.  This differs profoundly from the evolutionist apologetics, which, when studied closely, reveal more rhetoric than evidence.  New to Evidence For Creationism 2^nd Edition, the article will delve deeper into the truths and un-truths of evolution.  Also, Noah’s Flood will be examined, as well as the repercussions that it had on geology.

THE ATMOSPHERE:

            The atmosphere is composed of 21% oxygen, 78% nitrogen, and 1% other gases.  This is more remarkable than it appears.  The oxygen level is perfect for sustaining life.  If there were a mere 10& more oxygen in the atmosphere, not only would our body functions burn out of control, but there would be seven times more forest fires, with the fires hotter and lasting longer, as there would be more oxygen for the fires to consume.  Fires would ravage forests, depleting the natural oxygen producers.  In addition, the increased fire would consume more of the oxygen, and it is doubtful whether the imperiled plants that survived the fires would be able to produce enough oxygen for both the fauna and the fire.

            The nitrogen is also very 'convenient'.  The nitrogen in the atmosphere is used to dilute the oxygen, to prevent the circumstances described above.  Besides nitrogen, argon, and carbon dioxide, all other gases that could be used to dilute the oxygen are toxic at any reasonable concentration!  Nitrogen is inert, and is not used by our bodies at all.  Very nice coincidence.

            Plants use the carbon dioxide in the air.  Through photosynthesis, they turn this and the nutrients from the soil into their energy.  A by-product of this process is oxygen.  Without carbon dioxide that animals breathe out, plants would starve and oxygen in the atmosphere would gradually decrease to zero.

            Carbon dioxide also regulates the temperature of the earth through the greenhouse effect.  When left to its own devices, the earth absorbs most of the heat from the sun.  This energy is then radiated into the atmosphere.  Carbon dioxide absorbs most of this energy, keeping the average temperature of the earth at a balmy 55 degrees, prefect for sustaining life.

            Another remarkable feature of the atmosphere is ozone.  Ozone is made up of 3 oxygen atoms, and is able to absorb ultraviolet light.  Ultraviolet light has so much energy that if it were able to penetrate to the surface, it would kill all life.  Ozone successfully blocks out the ultraviolet light, making life on earth possible.  But ozone is also extremely poisonous, so it is all located 25 to 30 kilometers above the earth.  Thus, it keeps Earth habitable, and also is in a region where nothing breathes.

            Evolutionists theorize that for life to have evolved in the primordial seas, oxygen could not have existed.   But recall that ozone is made up of three oxygen atoms.  Without oxygen, there could be no ozone, and with no ozone, ultraviolet rays would penetrate to the ‘soupy sea’, and kill any life that might spontaneously leap into existence there. 

            Conclusion:  Earth just happens to have all of the gases necessary for life, it just happens to have the right quantities of those gases, and they just happen to all be in the right places.  If too much or too little oxygen were in the air, life could not exist.  if too much or too little carbon dioxide were in the air, life could not exist.  In addition, not only does life depend on ozone, it also depends on ozone being far away from the life it is protecting.

            The air that surrounds the earth is just on of aspect of the physical environment that makes life possible.  There are literally millions and millions of aspects of the earth that make it a haven for life.  Accidents do not produce the intricacy that we see in the air around us.  Only intelligent design does!

            Now, the number one criticism I have received is simple:  The air was not designed to fit out needs, but our needs adapted to fit the air!  But there are several serious flaws in this logic.  For one, if we simply adapted to fit the environment, why don't we see life on other planets?  If life spontaneously appeared here, it should have spontaneously appeared elsewhere, too.  Second, the evidence cited does not only relate to the relationship between the air and us.  It also relates to physics.  The fact that increased oxygen levels would increase the number of fires has nothing to do with evolution; it is a property of oxygen, and it is that very property that would make this planet unable to support life if oxygen's atmospheric balance was only silightly different.

WATER:

            Water is composed of one oxygen atom and two hydrogen atoms.  Without water, life as we know it could not exist.

            The reason that two gases can come together to form a liquid at room temperature is a phenomenon called hydrogen bonding.  Hydrogen bonding occurs when hydrogen atoms and oxygen atoms get close together.  When this happens, they form a weak bond; weaker than a chemical bond, but strong enough to hold the hydrogen atoms together.  This is just strong enough to hold a bunch of water molecules together at room temperature.  If the temperature were too high, the added energy would force the molecules apart and they would become steam.  If it becomes too cold, there is not enough energy to maintain the bond, and the liquid solidifies, forming ice.

            There are many other molecules very chemically similar to water, such as H2Te, H2S, and H2Se.  The only real difference is that they have a different atom in place of an oxygen atom, which is not much of a difference.  But guess what?  All these molecules are gases at room temperature.  That’s because they don’t have hydrogen bonding.

            That makes us very 'lucky'.  Despite the fact that all chemically similar molecules are gases at room temperature, water is a liquid, as it must be for life.  The chemical explanation for this is hydrogen bonding, but the real explanation is the Creator.  That the substance essential for life is present because of one tiny property of one tiny atom is simply too much for chance.

            Another property of water is that, as ice, it floats.  This may seem obvious, but again it is a result of hydrogen bonding.  Because of hydrogen bonding, water molecules are closer together as a liquid than as a solid.  Thus, it is less dense, and floats on water.  If it did not have this property, entire rivers, lakes, and oceans would freeze in the winter instead of just the surface, killing all life in the water.  Life would not be possible.  Another property of water that depends on hydrogen bonding is its cohesion.  Again, this is due to hydrogen bonding.  Cohesion makes a substance remain together even when there is pull apart.  This is essential for plants.  Otherwise, water would not be able to travel up their stems.  Water’s cohesion makes plant life possible.  Plant life, in turn, supplies oxygen that in turn renders all life possible.  This is more evidence for intelligent design.

            An interesting feature of the oceans is its salt content.  Salt is put into the ocean by runoff from the countless streams that feed it.  But once the salt is it, it can't go out.  So, the ocean has been getting gradually saltier over time.  Scientists have even been able to determine how much salt enters the ocean each year, so they can then figure out how long salt has been coming into the ocean.  And the answer?  If the oceans had no salt in them in the beginning, then the oceans are just over one million years old.  This means that the earth would have to be a lot younger than the billions and billions of years that the evolutionists say.  And we can assume that the oceans did have salt in them to begin with, since all the animals in it require salt water to live.  Thus, the earth must be significantly less than one million years old.

SPACE:

Water only exists as a liquid, essential for life, at the right temperature, between 32 and 212 degrees.  The earth maintains this temperature mostly by its distance from the sun.  If the earth were a mere 2% closer to the sun, it would be so warm that most water would exist as a gas.  If the earth were 2% farther away, most water would exist as ice.  Thus, the earth has just the right mixture of gases in its atmosphere and is just the right distance from the sun to ensure that the vast majority (97.250%) of its water is liquid.  No other planet we know of is like this!

The Earth is also at exactly the right axial tilt.  Any less tilt, and the seasons could not fluctuate properly.  A well-balanced temperate ecosystem requires changing seasons.  Also, it exposes a greater area to the sun, so the earth can stay warmer.  The difference between day and night temperatures would be extreme and very hostile to life.  If the tilt were only slightly different, life would not be possible.

Also, the moon is placed perfectly, too.  If it were farther away, the tides would slow, the  oceans would stagnate, and all aquatic life would die.  Since most of the world's oxygen comes from sea life, oxygen in the atmosphere would be quickly used up, and life would cease to exist.  If the moon were too close, the tides would flow up over the land, and the pull would be so strong that the ground would be pulled apart.  Thus, the moon is positioned perfectly for life.

            The Big Bang is one of the most over-quoted theories in the history of Evolution.  And although it appears that yes, the universe is expanding, the theory that the entire universe came from a single speck is ludicrous for one obvious reason: where did the speck come from?  The Big Bang theory states that before the universe began, all matter was compressed into a single, sub-atomic particle.  Okay, so the scientists say that the universe came from that speck, but they cannot say where that speck came from!  Thus, the Big Bang Theory does not really deal with the beginning of the universe at all, because there is simply no way to explain how matter could suddenly leap into existence!

            Another blow to the Big Bang is the size of the universe.  Scientists estimate that the Big Bang occurred approximately six trillion years ago.  According to Einstein’s Theory of Relativity, matter cannot travel faster than the speed of light.  Thus, the universe cannot be more than six trillion light years in diameter.  But it seems to modern science that the universe does indeed go on forever.  This in itself disproves the Big Bang Theory.

            One seeming-problem with the young-earth theory that evolutionists constantly quote is that even though stars are billions of light years away, we can see their light.  How can that be, if the earth is only about ten thousand years old?  The question is answered by Dr. Russell Humphrey in a book called Starlight And Time.  In this, he uses complex equations, the Red Shift, and the expanding universe theory to show that if the universe is expanding with the earth at the center, the creation could have happened a few thousand years ago and we would still be able to the light of stars billions of light years away.  Now, to believe that, one has to assume that the earth is at the center of the universe.  For a non-believer, this would make no sense.  But for a Christian, it isn’t so bad.  Even though the Bible says nothing about the earth being the center of everything, there is nothing bad with the idea.  If God created the world, why wouldn’t he put it at the center?  But of course, the assumption that the earth is just one speck in the cosmos is also completely valid.

The Earth’s magnetic field is another piece of strong evidence for Creationism.  There are two theories that speculate on the origin of the field.  One, called the Dynamo Theory, which is the generally accepted theory, says that the rotation of the earth along with other random movements of the magma cause the magma to move in one direction.  The motion creates electrical charges in the core, which causes the earth to be magnetic.

The other theory is the rapid-decay theory, believed by a minority of geologists.  The theory says that the electric current through the earth is a result of how it was formed.  If one makes a few assumptions on how the earth was formed, it is possible to actually calculate how much electrical current would be generated as a result.  The electrical current would then begin to slow down over time, resisted by the matter it was passing through.  This would mean that the current would slow down until it eventually stopped.

Over the past 150 years, the magnetic field has been getting weaker.  The rapid-decay theory fits this best.

Also, it has been proven that the magnetic field has reversed a few times during history.  Both theories explain this.  The dynamo theory predicts random movements in the core will every now and then, overpower the motion caused by the rotation of the earth.  The rapid-decay theory allows for reversals, but only in the event of cataclysmic volcanic or geological activity.

The final thing we can observe is the magnetic fields of other planets.  If we can predict the earth’s magnetic field, we should be able to predict that of other planets, too.  Only the rapid-decay theory can correctly calculated the magnetic field of every planet that has one, in addition to telling which planets should have one and which ones shouldn't.  The rapid-decay theory correctly predicted Uranus and Neptune's magnetic fields, while the dynamo theory was off by a factor of 100,000!

So why do most geologists reject the rapid-decay theory?  Because, if you use the rapid-decay theory, the earth has to be less than 10,000 years old.  Otherwise, the electrical current needed to sustain the magnetic field would cause the earth to explode!  Because most scientists refuse to believe that the earth could be less that billions of years old, they reject the rapid-decay theory even though it is the only theory consistent with all the data collected!

Life would not be possible without the magnetic field.  The magnetic field deflects cosmic rays, which, if allowed to strike the earth, would kill all life.  If it were too weak, cosmic rays would get through.  If it were too strong, the current required to sustain it would cause the core to explode.  Thus, the earth has a magnetic field at just the right strength.  This is one more piece of evidence that the earth was designed and did not occur by chance.

Let's just step back and look at that.  If the earth’s axial tilt were slightly different, life would not be possible.  If the earth was slightly farther or slightly closer to the sun, life would not be possible.  If the magnetic field were slightly different, life would not be possible.  Clearly, the world was designed.

SCIENTISTS:

            Just for those of you who think that all intelligent scientists believe in evolution or are atheists, just look at a few examples of scientists who were strong Christians:

            Sir Isaac Newton, formulator of the famous Theory of Gravity and many other important physical laws, was a very strong Christian.  He considered science as the pursuit of knowledge to better understand God.  Late in his life, he studied the prophetic book of Daniel more than the stars.

            St. Thomas Aquinas was one of the pioneers of motion studies.  Although better known for his theological works, he listed the presence of motion as one of his five arguments for the existence of God.  He said that in all of our experiences, humans have found that motion cannot occur without a mover.  Aquinas tells us that any observable movement should be traceable back to the original mover.  When the universe began, then, something had to be there to start all of the motion that we see today.  Aquinas says that God is this "original mover".

            Benjamin Franklin, pioneer of electrical science, was also a strong Christian.

            Yet another Christian scientist was James Clerk Maxwell, who formulated the famous “Maxwell’s Equations”, which guide the studies of electricity and magnetism.  Maxwell is considered one of the most brilliant men who has ever lived.

            Many scientists today are forsaking evolution as they see firsthand the flaws with the theory.  Many, although not embracing intelligent-design Creationism, are increasingly favorable toward the young-earth theory, simply because of the evidence that supports it.

ATOMICS:

            When Darwin promulgated his famous Theory, it seemed much more plausible than it does today, after extensive research into the unseen: atoms, molecules, DNA, etc.  As we delve deeper, things just get more and more complicated, making it more and more unlikely that the universe appeared by chance.

            As we all know, or should know, an atom is made of electrons orbiting a nucleus of protons and neutrons.  Now, that sounds simple enough.  The electrical charges of the electrons and the protons have to be exactly the same for the atom to work.  Calculations indicate that if the electrons negative charge was even one billionth of one percent different than the protons positive charge, the resulting electrical imbalance would cause any sizeable amount of matter to instantaneously explode!

            Think about that for a minute.  Suppose you designed something and asked a master machinist to build it for you.  If you told him that the measurements had to be followed t within one billionth of one percent, the machinist would laugh at you.  At very best, a machinist might be able to follow your specifications to within one tenth of one percent.  Nevertheless, two of components of the atoms “fit together” with a precision of one billionth of one percent!  Could something like that ever happen by chance?  Of course not!

RADIOACTIVE DATING:

            This is one of the most ludicrous arguments for evolution in the books.  Now, it has been proven that radioactive isotopes decay at a certain rate, and that we can measure those rates.  Thus, it is an obvious connection that by measuring how much radioactive material is left in an object, we can determine its age.  Yes- and no.

            Radioactive dating can be accurate under certain circumstances.  But under others, it has serious weaknesses.  Despite the fact that some scientists will try to convince you that radioactive dating is an accurate means of determining the age of an object, scientific facts tell quite a different story.

            Most dating is done by measuring C14, a radioactive isotope that is found in pretty much everything.  Living organisms continually exchange C14, so when an organism is alive, it has the same amount of C14 as does everything else.  But as soon as the organism dies, it begins losing C14 at a certain rate.  It is the specifics of this certain rate that make radioactive dating so unreliable.

            The question is, how fast does something lose C14?  The answer depends on the environmental conditions.  Scientists assume that the amount of C14 in the atmosphere has not really changed that much.  they assume that the amount of C14 in the atmosphere today is essentially the same as it was 100, 1,000, or 1,000,000 years ago.  If that is true, we can easily determine the age of an object.

            The problem is that the amount of C14 in the air has changed radically over time.  There is a way to measure the amount of C14 in the atmosphere by examining tree rings.  Since we have tree rings dating back to about three thousand years ago, any date within that time frame is accurate.  But it turns out that the amount of C14 in the atmosphere has varied as much as 70% over that time period.  And this applies to all other radioactive dating techniques.  Thus, scientists are saying that the amount of C14 in the air does not change, when there is proof that it has changed radically during the last three thousand years.  A book by John Woodmorappe, Studies in Flood Geology, has complied more than 350 radioactive dates that conflict with one another or with other generally accepted dates.  These erroneous dates demonstrate that the assumptions used in radioactive dating cannot be trusted.

BIOLOGY:

            This is the subject with the most evidence against evolution.  In the last several decades, advances have revealed that the human body, and any other organism’s body, is vastly more complicated than previously thought.  Even the simplest cells are brimming with billions of coded DNA, complicated factories, nervous systems, and whatnot.

            The ear is an example of the amazing complexity of the human body.  Just for starters, let me point out that the human ear can detect sound from 0 decibels to physical damage at 130 decibels.  This is an incredible range!  Since for every ten decibels here is a factor of ten increase in the intensity of the sound waves, the human ear can detect sound waves as much as 10,000,000,000,000 times its threshold before it begins to be damaged.  human science cannot come up with any piece of equipment that can detect such a huge range of sounds!

            Then there is the makeup of the ear.  The ear detects sound when sound waves travel down the ear canal and vibrate the eardrum.  The vibrating eardrum then vibrates three tiny bones, which is turn stir up the inner ear fluid.  Microscopic hairs inside the fluid detect the movement and send the information to the brain.  The brain then can calculate the pitch, volume, and location of the sound.  How could something like that evolve?

            Another even more extraordinary example is the human eye.  The eye works by letting light in through a small opening called the pupil.   The amount of light entering is controlled by muscles in the iris.  The light shines onto the retina, which contains light-sensitive cells called rods and cones.  The rods and cones change the light into electrical signals, which are sent to the brain, which then decodes them.

            The most amazing thing about the eye, however, is that the eye can actually change the shape of the lens in order to keep the image focused.  The iris squeezes on the lens, bending it into place.  Human science cannot make a lens like that which you find in the eye.  Even the most sophisticated cameras are 10,000 times slower and 50 times less resolved than the eye!

            Even Darwin himself admitted that the eye is such a sophisticated work of engineering that the idea of an eye forming by chance is preposterous.

          In his book, The Origin of Species, Darwin himself said:

            “To suppose that the eye, with all its inimitatable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree. (The Origin of Species, Penguin Classics, London, 1985, p.217)

            Clearly the eye was designed.  It was designed by God.

            I’m not going to even go in-depth to DNA, because it is so mind-bogglingly complex.  DNA contains thousands of strands of complex, coded information vital to life.  Each cell is brimming with DNA, all containing completely different blueprints for the cell’s various functions.

I hope this information has been helpful for all reading it. Anyone who has comments or suggestions, please email me. Thanks for reading!

BIBLIOGRAPHY:
By: Brendan Beale
Information provided by: Exploring Creation With Physical Science by Dr. Jay L. Wile © Apologia Educational Ministries, 1999, 2000. All rights reserved. All material used with the author’s permission.