through the Biblical account in the book of Genesis, stating that everything was designed and
created by God. According to the Bible, a global catastrophe in the form of a world-wide flood
occurred that destroyed all living creatures on Earth, 1,656 years after the creation week. Only
Noah and his family (in total 8 people) survived in the Ark with animals that were collected for
preservation.
For Creationists it will be just as difficult to prove what they believe to be true. Both
Evolutionists and Creationists have to compare the evidence that we have before us today, with
a possible historic scenario. In both cases we have to deal with religious viewpoints, until one
can find factual proof that would either confirm or contradict those viewpoints.
No Creationist or Evolutionist alive today, walked the Earth 5,000 years ago to provide solid
evidence or have a picture of what the Earth looked like in support of their theory. The
Creationist will rely on what is written in the Bible and also refer to supporting evidence from our
world around us, demonstrating how the evidence supports the historic scenario as it is given in
the Bible, while the Evolutionist wil build on Darwin‟s ideas, which are already proven to be
flawed. When information regarding Evolution is presented to the public, these errors will
always be excluded or overlooked. The Evolutionist may even present the “fact” that Evolution
is accepted as modern-day science by the majority of scientists, as the reason for their belief to
be seen as factual, against knowledge that refutes the Evolution Theory.
We have already shown what science is and how the scientific method should be applied and
that there are definite flaws in the way it is applied to the Theory of Evolution. The Evolution
Theory has no scientific grounds, not even in the broadest sense.
The question to ask then: “Is the original hypothesis of life evolving on Earth correct? If there
are flaws in our thinking about Evolution as a Theory, could we also be wrong about the eras
that are supposedly represented by the Geologic Column?” If we are drawing conclusions from
evidence before us that are clearly biased towards conforming to the ideas of life evolving over
millions of years; rather than objectively considering facts and also taking into account the
discrepancies that are encountered, should we not re-evaluate our position on our origins and
find a more accurate model that would account for the facts before us?
If we compare the evidence before us today, with what is said to have occurred in the Creation
model, finding a better match between the evidence and the historic accounts, would this not
more clearly point out to us, the direction we need to follow to obtain the truth? Can we really
believe that there is a God and that He created everything and can we somehow show proof of
his existence?
How does science then apply to the view that an Intelligent Designer was responsible for
everything we see today?
Many people would argue that the information contained in the Bible cannot be substantiated
scientifically. Is this statement really true? From only a few aspects that we touched on earlier,
we already know that there are many discrepancies and contradicting facts that would classify
Evolution as non-scientific. Most scientists that hold to the Evolution view, would certainly reject
this statement as an uneducated viewpoint, but not be able to provide expl anations through
scientific means to prove their case.
Chapter 4: Does God Exist And Can We Prove It?
Having demonstrated some of the flaws in the Theory of Evolution and showing that it has no
proper scientific foundations for its standpoints - considering facts that go directly against what
the Evolution Theory proposes - the only other option available today would be that of
Creationism. Creationism is said to be a religious belief, proposing the existence of humanity,
life, the Earth and the Universe as the result of supernatural workings by a supreme being.1
Scientists believe that the information contained in historic documents such as the Bible and
other biblical texts are non-scientific. They question the accuracy and validity of the information
recorded in those texts. They consider any conclusions drawn from the information contained in
the Bible, can only be classified as pseudo-science. In the 1,800‟s British geologists and other
scientists argued that, from their observations, the world was considerably older than the 17th-
century scripture-based calculation of less than 6 millennia. From this point forward, a distinct
contrast developed between that which is considered “science” through the Theory of Evolution
and that of the Bible, which is said to be a purely religious view. These contrasts have led
people who believe in Creation, to come up with terms like “Creation Science” and “Intel igent
Design” which is label ed by mainstream science as “pseudo-science”. Even within the
creationist circles, there are many different viewpoints on how the account in the Bible should
be interpreted. These are summarised below:
Theistic Evolution
Theistic evolution asserts that the classical religious teachings about God‟s creative work are
compatible with the modern scientific understanding about biological evolution. In short, theistic
evolutionists believe that there is a God, that God is the creator of the material Universe and (by
consequence) all life within, and that biological evolution is simply part of the natural processes
within that creation. Evolution, according to this view, is simply the tool that God employed to
develop human life.
Theistic evolution is not a theory in the scientific sense, but a particular view about how the
science of evolution relates to religious belief and interpretation. Theistic evolution supporters
can be seen as one of the groups who reject the conflict thesis, regarding the relationship
between religion and science - that is, they hold that religious teachings about creation and
scientific theories of evolution need not contradict. Proponents of this view are sometimes
described as Christian Darwinists.
Progressive Creationism
Progressive creationism holds that God created new forms of life gradually, over a period of
hundreds of millions of years. , It accepts mainstream geological and cosmological estimates for
the Earth‟s age, like Evolutionism, but posits that the new "kinds" of life forms, which have
appeared successively over the planet„s history, represent instances of God directly intervening
to create those new types, supernaturally. Progressive creationists generally reject
macroevolution. They believe it to be biologically untenable as it is not supported by the fossil
record; they also generally reject the concept of universal descent from a common ancestor.
Intelligent Design
Intelligent design best explains the proposition of specific aspects of the Universe and of living
things. This opposes undirected processes such as natural selection, which is held by
Evolutionists. It is a form of Creationism and a contemporary adaptation of the traditional
theological argument for the existence of God, but one, which deliberately avoids specifying the
nature or identity of the designer. Its leading proponents - all of whom are associated with the
Discovery Institute, a politically conservative think tank - believe the Designer to be the God of
Christianity.
Intelligent design was developed by a group of American Creationists who revised their
argument in the creation-evolution controversy to circumvent court rulings that prohibit the
teaching of Creationism as science. Proponents argue that intelligent design is a scientific
theory. In so doing, they seek to fundamentally redefine science to include supernatural
explanations. The overwhelming consensus in the scientific community is that intelligent design
is not science, but must be classified as pseudo-science.
Gap Creationism
Gap creationism (also known as "The Gap Theory"), is a form of Old Earth creationism, that
posits that the six-day creation, as described in the Book of Genesis, involved literal 24-hour
days. They state that there was a gap of time between two distinct creations in the first and the
second verses of Genesis, explaining many scientific observations, including the supposed age
of the Earth, as held by Science today. It differs from Day-Age creationism, which posits that
the “days” of creation were much longer periods (of thousands or mil ions of years), and from
Young Earth creationism, which, although it agrees concerning the six literal 24-hour days of
creation, does not posit any gap of time.
Young Earth Creationism
Young Earth creationism is a form of creationism that asserts the Heavens, Earth, and all life
was created by direct acts of God during a relatively short period, sometime between 5,700 and
10,000 years ago. Its adherents are those Christians and Jews, who believe that God created
the Earth in six 24-hour days, taking a literal interpretation of the Genesis creation narrative as a
basis for their beliefs. Some adherents hold that this view is supported by existing evidence in
the natural world. These adherents believe that the scientific evidence supporting Evolution,
Geological Uniformitarianism, or other theories which are contradictory to a literal interpretation
of this creation myth, is misinterpreted.
Many Young Earth creationists (YECs) are active in the development of creation science; an
endeavour which holds that the events associated with supernatural creation can be evidenced
and modelled through an interpretation of the scientific method. This has led to the
establishment of a number of Young Earth creation science organisations, such as the Institute
for Creation Research, Creation Research Society, Creation Ministries International and
Answers in Genesis.
The established scientific consensus is that Young Earth creationism has no scientific basis.
However, as we have demonstrated in the preceding chapters - there are many issues which
make it incorrect to accept Evolution as factual.
How do you identify the one belief that is the most accurate, with all of these creationist views
discounting spontaneous generation of life? How can we identify the truth, if we cannot
unequivocally prove through normal experimentation and confirm that the timelines suggested
by either Evolution or Creationism are factual? Is there any way in which the scientific method
can be applied to this issue to establish with more clarity, which of these views are the most
accurate? Where would we begin and what methods would we apply to test our hypotheses? I
would like to propose a hypothesis that will assist us in better understanding the subject as we
move forward; should we be able to provide some provable facts to support the hypothesis.
Before I state the hypothesis, let us discuss this subject in a little more detail to provide a better
understanding of my arguments in this respect. When it comes to carrying out experimentation
with regards to the origin of the Universe, the Earth and that of life, we have to acknowledge
three key factors before we continue. As human beings, we are physically limited in our ability
to perform appropriate experimentation.
Firstly, there is time: As humans, we are bound to a fixed timeline and currently we cannot
move back in time to collect accurate data from the point it occurred in history. We may be able
to analyse artefacts, which originated in the past, but we are not able to correctly identify all
factors that would have been in place at the time when a particular artefact originated. We may,
for example, be able to analyse the composition of the atmosphere from an air bubble that was
trapped in amber found today. We would only be able to obtain certain facts from the
composition of the air that was trapped in that bubble and nothing else. There is no way to tell
what the exact conditions on Earth were at that time or what external factors were in play - both
crucial to be acknowledged during experimentation. It is also impossible for us to collect any
evidence relating to aspects that will only occur in the future. Although the theories of general
and special relativity suggest the possibility of travelling through time (which is often the theme
of a variety of fictitious entertainment) there exist no devices or methods today, which would
allow us to travel through time to collect data at specific points in time, outside of the present.2
Without this ability, we will never be able to validate any hypotheses to prove or disprove any
aspect, which requires these measurements conclusively. The information or data we gather
from the present only, will leave us with improvable philosophies as the only results, no matter
from which perspective one considers a subject. An example of this dilemma would be to
attempt collecting data that would prove unambiguously that the Earth had undergone major
changes through a worldwide flood. You would also have to determine accurately what the
meteorological conditions and strength of the magnetic field that existed before this time was,
about 4,500 years ago. We are physically not capable to carry out experimentation or
measurements that would assist us to obtain the evidence that we are after in this case. If we
could travel 4,550 years back in time and stop at a point in time, a few years before the
supposed worldwide flood occurred (as it is described in the Bible) and set up our equipment
and collect relevant data, we would be able to conclusively settle any dispute around the matter.
If time travel was possible, we may stumble upon information that nobody considered. We may
even be able to answer other unrelated questions just because of our position in time and the
benefit that it would provide to our observations e.g. “the sky was pink and not blue 4,550 years
ago…” or “the Earth was much larger in size and the effect of gravity was different…” Since this
ability will remain elusive for the foreseeable future, all we have to go on is evidence that we find
around us in the present. These include geological properties and artefacts that we can
observe, folk tales, which are in many cases considered myths only and the historical records
that have been documented and preserved through the ages. However, the evidence that we
do find, has to conform to processes that we understand today. For example, we know that
fossils can only form if the object, that is fossilised, is encapsulated in an environment that
would prevent decaying agents from reaching it. This is factual today and should also be factual
for times in the past.
The second limiting factor is our locality. We are currently bound to planet Earth. Although we
may have travel ed to the Moon, our solar system‟s size, compared to the size of the Universe,
does not provide us with any mentionable mobility with which we would be able to perform
measurements, which could relate to the distances that we are dealing with. Where altering
vantage points are required to carry out experimentation that would be necessary to confirm
certain hypotheses, we are left with only half of the answer. A similar situation would be
described if someone hypothesised that one was standing behind a one-way mirror, while
others hypothesised that it was just ordinary glass. You are only allowed to observe it from the
side that does not reflect light. The only way in which you would be able to confirm which of the
two statements are true, would be to move to the other side to observe whether your image is
being reflected or not. Without this positional shift and a second observation, any thoughts
about the subject remain unsubstantiated and speculation only.
When we measure distances to nearby celestial objects in the universe, we make use of the
distance of the Earth‟s orbit around the Sun to give us the base of a triangle, which is then used
to calculate the difference in angle when the object is viewed, six months apart.3 For objects
further than 100 light years apart, this method becomes obsolete and cosmologists then revert
to measuring the properties of light emitted by stars and galaxies to determine the distances to
these objects.4 If we wanted to perform an experiment that would prove that galaxies and other
celestial objects in space are in general moving away from us, how would we go about doing
this? The initial thought that led people to believe that objects are moving away from Earth (and
that the Universe, as a result of this, is thought to be expanding), originated when they
encountered the red-shift phenomenon when viewing the majority of stars and/or galaxies. We
touched on this in previous chapters, but will now look at this phenomenon in a little more detail.
Astronomers observed certain aspects in the behaviour of light when looking at distant celestial
objects. It seemed that the light waves that reached us were “stretched out” and that this
resulted in a slower frequency of the light, also known as a “red-shift”.5 Considering that the
majority of the science community accepts that the speed of light has always had a constant
value; the only explanation that would fit this phenomenon, would be to assume that objects are
in fact, moving away from us and that the red-shift, is caused by the resulting Doppler Effect.6
So far it sounds like a good argument and quite plausible, but looking at some of the issues
involved critically, some questions go unanswered. These questions have a considerable
impact on the conclusions that are drawn. One question to ask would be: Has the light that is
observed, moved at constant speed from the object since it originated until the time we
observed it, over hundreds if not thousands of light years? Could there have been any other
influences that may have affected the light, while it was travelling from the object to our eyes
and instruments? We know that gravity plays a role in the speed of light and that light cannot
escape black holes. So, if the speed of light can be varied, can we conclude with absolute
certainty that the beam of light we observe has not been affected by any gravitational influence?
How has the second law of Thermodynamics affected the speed of light over time?7 Since we
cannot accurately measure the change today, due to a lack of time, is it safe to assume that the
speed of light has always been constant?
The same argument would apply for a case in which you had an elastic measuring tape and
wanted to measure the distance between two objects. If you measured the distance, not
knowing that the measuring tape was elastic, or that a force was applied to the tape while you
are measuring, you would get an incorrect answer. In the red-shift example, if we had freedom
of movement in the Universe, it would have contributed immensely to the resolution of our
measurements and assisted us in obtaining more certainty from the conclusions that scientists
are drawing. If we were able to move around at will through the Universe, and perform
additional observations, this would then have allowed us to go to the opposite side of an
observed galaxy, at the same distance as it is viewed from the Earth, measure and record the
properties of the light which this galaxy emits, and compare the new results with the results as
measured from Earth. If the measurements show a shift into the blue from the new vantage
point, we know with certainty that the galaxy is in fact moving away from Earth and towards the
new vantage point. If the results show a shift of the light into the red, similar to observations
from the Earth, we would know that our initial interpretation would be wrong; since the galaxy,
cannot at the same time be moving away from Earth and also moving toward the Earth. From
obtaining these measurements, we would know that the galaxy is probably not moving away
from Earth, but that the speed of light is more likely to be slowing down. Our physical limitation
does not currently allow us to perform the second measurement and is the only measurements
that we can perform from our position on Earth. The interpretation of the data we have is now
open to philosophical arguments and nobody is able to prove, with absolute certainty, that it is
either right or wrong. While we lack the ability to measure or observe certain aspects of the
Universe, the only conclusion we can reach with certainty, is that we do not have the physical
capability to collect sufficient information to reach any concrete conclusion. This fact is
absolutely certain and will remain true, until we can escape our dimensional limitations.
Thirdly, we have to deal with preconceptions. In many people‟s minds certain subjects are
“accepted facts” and they close the door on any further investigation when there are clearly
aspects which require further study to properly explain obvious discrepancies. As an example,
the majority of scientists today believe that the speed of light is constant and has always been
constant. All that we know about science is built upon this assumption. This view will mould
and govern the way in which the world around a scientist is observed. Because most scientists
believe that the speed of light has always been constant and therefore, as a result, also believe
that the Universe is 13.7 billion years old. This being the only way in which one could explain
how light, that was emitted by celestial objects, millions of light years away, could reach us.
This has even been published in a joint statement of the Inter-Academy Panel on International
Issues (IAP) by 92 national and international science academies. They list, as an established
scientific fact, that the Earth is approximately 4.5 billion years old and has undergone continual
change; that life, according to the evidence of earliest fossils, appeared on Earth at least 2.5
billion years ago, and has subsequently taken many forms, all of which continue to evolve; and
that the genetic code of all organisms living today, including humans, clearly indicates their
common primordial origin.8 If one accepts that the Earth is around 4.5 billion years old, it makes
it easier to accept that the Geologic Column is an historic record of past ages; even though
there are various aspects found within the “Column” that go against the idea of it being formed
gradually or being millions of years old. There are no transitional life forms recorded anywhere
in the fossil record and proponents of Evolution have admitted this. There is evidence found in
the fossil record (including the fossilisation process itself) that does not match a gradual
deposition of material to allow for the preservation of biological forms in vast quantities all over
the globe. Yet, most scientists will try to skirt around the issues and keep their minds set on
“what must be true - according to our science and our philosophy”.
As you can probably see, the three aspects mentioned above are major contributors to the
adoption of biased viewpoints on any subject. My idea is not to bash people over the head with
my own views or ideas about specific subjects or try to force a specific doctrine down people‟s
throats. My goal is to have people think about issues logically; to critically consider iss ues and
evaluate all the aspects around these subjects; to ask yourself whether the evidence before you
matches the “facts” and the “theories” that science, society and the powers that be are forcing
upon us as the absolute truth.
If we keep these three limitations in view: Bound to our locality, dimensionality and
preconceptions; how do we then go about to formulate a hypothesis, carry out experimentation
and draw conclusions, which would eliminate the possibility of ending up with an ambiguous
philosophical argument, which can be proven neither true nor false? In my opinion, you need to