Evidence for Creationism, is there any?

[FreddieFreeloader]

I found this quote in the "Why do you believe in Creationism or Evolution?" thread, as a response to a claim that there was no scientific backing for Creationism.

No scienticfic backing? What do you call Louis Pastuer's studys that disproved spontaneous generation? How do you explain the the fact that the earth is perfectly placed, that if it were just little bit over here or a little bit over there that we'd either burn up or freeze? Have you ever studied the complexity of the human body, of a plant or animal, or even of a microscopic cell?

As evolutionists (I'm doing the popular thing of calling evolution, abiogenesis and cosmology the same for sake of simplicity)
provide backing for their theories Creationists (specifically Young Earth Creationists) try to explain "scientifically" why that evidence doesn't hold.

I observe two things in above quote. First a misunderstanding of the implications of scientific studies (here in the case of Pasteur's experiment), but secondly, and more importantly, in the question of the burden of proof.

On to my question: Ignoring whether or not Creationists are correct in disproving the theories... Does disproving evolution, prove creationism?

I think that the answer is a loud and clear NO!

Then I ask you, what evidence do we have for Creationism?

[The Hungry Atheist]

It's probably fair to say that the only ways we could have arrived in the state we're at now are either by some form of evolution or some form of creation - that is, either we were made just as we are now, or we used to be somehow different and changed, so to speak. However, I generally understand 'Creationism' to mean a belief in the Biblical account of creation, which is clearly not supported simply by discrediting evolution.

As a quick response to Illyricum's claims:

1. I don't know much about the Pasteur experiment in question, but all it disproved was the previous idea that, for instance, maggots would spontaneously appear on rotting animal corpses, and so on. It certainly doesn't disprove 'spontaneous generation' entirely. Somebody who knows more about this particular case should feel free to correct me and elaborate.

2.

Space is big. Really big. You just won't believe how vastly, hugely, mind-bogglingly big it is. I mean, you might think it's a long way down the road to the chemist's, but that's just peanuts to space...

The Earth is, indeed, a very handy distance from the Sun for life to evolve, but there are a hundred billion or so stars in our galaxy alone, and many billions more galaxies out there. Is the idea that at least one of them might have a planet orbiting it at a distance that makes life sustainable really so outrageous?

Also, if the Earth wasn't quite where it was, we wouldn't burn up or freeze, we just wouldn't be here in the first place. We evolved and adapted to our surroundings. If things had been different, we would have been different ourselves in response to the conditions we faced.

3. Yes, life is very complex. What's the argument here? That something so ordered and complicated couldn't possibly have occurred by chance? Even on one of the trillions of possible worlds in the Universe over the course of several billion years?

[FreddieFreeloader]

We can all agree, that the universe and life had to be formed some way or the other, and we could call that (almost infinitely complex) process creation... But of course, this topic is to address Biblical Creationism.

However, I didn't intend for this thread to be addressing the claims made by Illyricum, but rather, to illustrate the attitude that I have seen from many creationists:

"We have plenty of scientific backing for creation... See these people have proved evolution wrong, therefore creation must be correct"

[perfessor]

Since the dawn of recorded history, and certainly farther back than that, we have invented cosmologies to explain our existence, and created theological explanations for that which we could not understand. We have had gods of the sun, moon, oceans, weather, harvests, war, etc. etc. As we have come to understand the mechanisms by which things work, many of these gods have dropped away (although I think we still worship a god of war ).

IMO, creationism is an attempt to cling to a comforting idea ("God is in control"), rather than attempt to understand a process that involves the accumulation of tiny random incremental changes over incomprehensibly large spans of time.

[Illyricum]

What do you qualify as "evidence" ?

[The Hungry Atheist]

I would say that evidence is anything we can observe or discover which makes the theory in question seem more likely to be true. I don't think there's anything in existence which actually, genuinely, reliably implies Creationism to be true. There may be some minor factors which might seem to work in its favour, but it seems to me that overwhelmingly the available evidence in fact points elsewhere.

Freddie, I agree, and I didn't mean to divert this thread or anything - but there seems to be quite a lack of Creationist 'evidence' so far...

[FreddieFreeloader]

No problem, I just wanted to act quickly to ensure that the thread stayed on subject...

Scientific evidence as I had in mind, when creating this thread, would be very much similar to the type of evidence offered by evolutionists on this board. Quoting studies, presenting reaction diagrams and generally offering sound, logical explanations as to why their worldview is the most likely candidate. As the Hungry Atheist suggested, the core of evidence for creationism would be observations of natural phenomena. Once observed, theories should be provided explaining how the observations support a particular idea. In this case creationism.

[Warren]

Greetings,

My first post. I suggest the proof be first defined, and here's mine: proof is reproducibility. If it can be reproduced, in a variety of everyday circumstances, it is proven. Second point, much of conventional science is contrived, in that it has been "proven" in a laboratory situation, that is not based on everyday living. That is not proof. Why do I stress the "everyday" situation, because that is the circumstances in which we live, and if anything has value for humans, it will appear in the circumstances in which we live. An example. Conventional physicians believe the heart pumps the blood. Why? Because that has actually been proven? No. Because less than 150 years ago, status quo science decided the human being worked just like a machine, and from that perspective it appeared reasonable that the heart pumped the blood through the blood vessels.

What is the everyday evidence? 1 Ask any cardiac surgeon, one who has personally experienced the heart beating in the human body, and he will tell you that the expansion movement of the heart is a vastly more vigorous motion then the contractile motion; the exact opposite of what would occur if the heart pumped the blood. 2. Ask any mechanical engineer, and he will tell you it is mechanically impossible for a chamber the size of the left ventricle to provide the level of pressure that exists in the blood vessels throughout the body.

Third point, neither creationism, nor evolution can be proven, because if either occurred, it was too long ago for any human alive today to know which one happened.

So let's look at evolution and creationism from a perspective of which one is the most rational given what all of use experience about ourselves.

Two examples, and I will return latter. The earlest moment of conception is a sperm cell and female egg cell combining to form a fertilized egg; which occurs at the end of one of the woman's fallopian tubes. That fertilized egg begins to multiple through division, gradually forming a ball called a morula. As the morula is forming, the mass of cells begin to travel back down the fallopian tube toward the uterus. About half way there the cells in the middle of the morula began to metamorphose into liquid, creating a cavity in the middle of the morula. And from that point the mass is called a blastocyst. The blastocyst then travels the rest of the way down the fallopian tube, enters the uterus, and attaches itself to the uterine lining, and begins to burrow into the lining.

Just before the burrowing, in MAMMALS AND NOT HUMANS, a pit begins to form on the surface of the blastocyst —called a "gastrula"—, goes deeper and deeper, and at some point, the gastrula opening on the surface of the blastocyst seals off, and now there are two fluid filled cavities inside the blastocyst: the original one formed when the internal morula cells turned to fluid; and the latest one, formed when the opening of the gastrula sealed itself off. The tissues that form the wall between the gastrula and the original cavity is called the "germ layer", and it becomes the future embryo and fetus. That is mammals. In humans there is no gastrula. The germ layer is formed by a band of cells growing across the original cavity.

The theory of evolution is only valid if survival of the fittest unfolds out of the many random gene mutations. There is no way that a mutation that occured that early in fetal development could have a single influence on survival. Hence it is irrational to credit evolution for the disappearance of the gastrula in humans. Creationism is a much more rational source.


Second example: sickle cell anemia. A very bad disease. Many serious episodes from childhood on, most sufferers are dead by their early thirties. The problem? Two aminio acids, out of 600 + amino acids in each hemoglobin molecule are different. That is a difference of less than 1/3 of 1% from the normal person. What animal species has the closest match to humans as far the hemoglobin molecule is concerned? The chimpanzee. What is the difference? 8%. It is irrational to accept that condition that is a deviation from normal of less than 1/3 of 1% difference produces premature mortality in humans, and than claim that evolution could have produced the jump from primates to hamans. Creatism is a much more rational explanation of this phenomenon.

Take care,[/i]

[otseng]

Before I go on to present the evidence to support the Creationism, I'd like to add a few more opening thoughts on this thread.

Limiting this thread only to evidence for CM is a good idea. And even by limiting it to this, it will be a large thread. So, I expect several other threads to be spawned from this one. As a matter of fact, I would encourage it. It would allow for more detailed debates on specific areas of Creationism.

It would also be good to define what we mean by Creationism. Here is my definition:
1. A supernatural entity created the entire universe (including all living things)
2. The earth experienced a world-wide flood

Any other additions/clarifications on my definition would be welcome.

What creationism does not address are:
1. The nature of this supernatural entity
2. When the universe or living things were created

Discussions on either of these should be out of scope of this thread and should be treated as separate threads.

Also, I would like to suggest that references to the Bible be avoided whenever possible. If it is used, it should not be used as evidence for creationism. It can only be used as collaborative testimony to evidence that already exists.

Both Creationism and Darwinian evolution are models. Arguments to support either one should be based on the evidence we see in the world today as Warren pointed out (welcome to the forum by the way). The models are theoretical frameworks in which we determine if what we observe can fit into the model.

Let's start with some laws that we know to be true. These laws are accepted by all scientists (otherwise they won't be called laws).

The Creation Model (CM) is consistent with the first law of thermodynamics. That is, the sum of the energy and matter in a closed system is constant. If we consider the entire universe as a closed system, the only way it could have been created is if a system outside of the universe created it.

The CM is also consistent with the second law of thermodynamics. That is, the amount of of useful energy decreases after any work process in a closed system. Creationism does not violate this rule. The second law also shows that there had to have been a finite time for the existence of the universe.

CM is also consistent with Mendel's laws. Diversity among living things is generally attributed to this law. Animals that were created at the very beginning had the genes to account for practically all the variations that we see today. Microevolution would account for the remainder of the variations.

[ENIGMA]

It would also be good to define what we mean by Creationism. Here is my definition:
1. A supernatural entity created the entire universe (including all living things)
2. The earth experienced a world-wide flood

Any other additions/clarifications on my definition would be welcome.

I would suggest the addition of a third point:

3. Said supernatural entity initially created multiple kinds or groups of living creatures.

...simply because without that caveat Darwinian evolution and Creationism are not mutually exclusive (i.e. Otherwise a deistic deity could simply have created the universe, created the first bit of protolife and let it evolve under purely Darwinian principles).

Both Creationism and Darwinian evolution are models. Arguments to support either one should be based on the evidence we see in the world today as Warren pointed out (welcome to the forum by the way). The models are theoretical frameworks in which we determine if what we observe can fit into the model.

Fair enough.

Let's start with some laws that we know to be true. These laws are accepted by all scientists (otherwise they won't be called laws).

Not quite.

There are a number of laws which are still currently referred to as such when they do not entirely convey the whole truth of the matter, but rather an approximation based on assumptions which were once thought universally true but now are shown not to be the case:

For example, Mendel's laws of genetics:

CM is also consistent with Mendel's laws. Diversity among living things is generally attributed to this law. Animals that were created at the very beginning had the genes to account for practically all the variations that we see today. Microevolution would account for the remainder of the variations.

I would like to direct your attention to the bottom of the article linked:

During his experiments, Mendel encountered some traits that did not follow the laws he had encountered. These traits did not appear independently, but always together with at least one other trait. Mendel could not explain what happened and chose not to mention it in his work. Today, we know that these traits are close together on the same chromosome.

One of the first things I learned in the genetics portion of Biology 101 is that Mendel more or less lucked out in his research since he picked two traits that were not linked (the color and shape of pea pods) and worked from the assumption that no traits were linked (i.e. Mendel's Law of Independent Assortment) which was not the case.