The charge to me is to illustrate that the creation theory is no more a leap of faith than the evolution theory. The restrictions placed on me are:
  1. No Biblical quotes
  2. No relying on the "complexity and awesome beauty" argument
  3. No disproving evolution to prove creation.
According to Webster, science is systematized knowledge derived from observation, study, and experimentation carried on in order to determine the nature or principles of what is being studied. I hope to demonstrate the creation theory has as much scientific credentials as the evolution theory.


Lots of information and arguments can be made on either side of this debate. I have paired down the issues to observation and study of basic laws of nature, examining the fossil record, and the age of the earth. I also point out a some of the unsolved problems of evolution, not to prove creation but rather, to establish the standard for a theory to be considered in the origins of the universe.

A simple summary of the creation story is to that origins of the universe is a completed work by a supernatural external power and the net present decrease in complexity. Under this model we can predict that:

  1. Types of rock formations are similar in all "Ages"
  2. Life only comes from life
  3. Distinct kinds of organisms
  4. No new kinds of life appearing
  5. Mutations in organisms are harmful on the whole
  6. Natural selection is a conservative process
  7. Fossil record will show systematic gaps
  8. No ape-human intermediates
  9. Origins of civilization is contemporaneous with man.
One point that need more attention is: This is indirectly addressed via the age of the earth. The premise is that if the origins of civilization is contemporaneous with man then the earth could and likely would be approximately the same age as civilization and/or man.

Below are the other points. These points will be explored later.

Basic Laws of Nature

The creation model postulates a primeval creation which was both complete and perfect, as well as purposeful. It is postulated, first, that a principle of conservation would be established to assure the accomplishment of the purpose of the created entities and, second, any changes which come in and intrude, as it were, on the perfect creation are bound to be harmful. The "Laws of Thermodynamics" confirm this prediction.

The law of gravity, the laws of thermodynamics, the laws of motion, and all other truly basic laws appear to always function in the way they do now. The "Law of Mass Conservation" and the "Law of Energy Conservation" show conservation and stability which is consistent with the creation model.

A little more philosophical consideration is the law of "cause-and-effect" only the creation model provides an adequate answer (The universe could not be its own cause). The theory of relativity teaches that all frames of reference as to size, position, time and motion in the world are relative, not absolute (universe can not be an absolute in itself).

Consider that there are far more harmful mutations than beneficial. It would then be more probable that a population would slip backward rather than move forward. All observed instances of natural selection involve conservative adaptations to the environment (ie. peppered moth) not generation or preservation of mutants of higher order. Mutations are harmful, not helpful, and natural selection acts to try to prevent their getting established in the population as a whole.

Second Law of Thermodynamics

Lets focus on the Second Law of Thermodynamics. In layman terms; the context of the Second Law of Thermodynamics in classical thermodynamics teaches in any physical change that takes place by itself the entropy always increases. Statistical thermodynamics would characterize the second law as every system has a characteristic quality called entropy associated with it. The entropy measures the degree of disorder associated with the system. Process always occur in such a way that the entropy increases. Informational thermodynamics incorporates the concept of entropy as a measure of the "noise" or degree of uncertainty in the communication of the information.

We all have seen seeds turn into trees, water freeze, and no one believes the earth is a closed system. Before going much farther let's look at what a couple of evolutions have said.

The second law does apply to all systems, open or closed. Every system, whether open or closed, tends to deteriorate. We all agree the universe is a closed system so the origins of the universe are best explained by the creation theory. Furthermore, the processes of life are fundamentally very complex chemical processes, and the laws of thermodynamics do apply to chemical processes. Add in that the flow of uncontrolled, raw energy into a system is destructive -- it takes a leap of faith to believe life started by a process of self-transformation.

Information and Mechanism to Convert Energy

Let's come back to the seed to a tree example. What conditions must be met for a low entropy complex organized system to be produced? Here are at least four of the conditions:
  1. The system must be an open system
  2. An adequate outside supply of energy must be available
  3. An energy conversion system must exist to convert the raw, uncontrolled energy coming in from the outside to a controlled form that can be utilized in a constructive way by the system undergoing change
  4. There must be a control system capable of regulating the activities of the system undergoing change, such that the changes are progressive and integrative rather than meaningless and destructive.
Again, the creation theory has no problem explaining how the third and fourth conditions are met, the creator designed them in the beginning.

Ordered vs Organized

Let's look at the water freezing example. First, lets be sure that we realize we are talking about an "ordered" system and not an "organized" system. As ice forms, energy (80 calories/gm) is liberated to the surroundings. The change in entropy of the system as the amorphous water becomes crystalline ice is -0.293 entropy units (eu)/degree Kelvin (K). The entropy change is negative because the thermal and configuration entropy (or disorder) of water is greater than that of ice, which is a highly ordered crystal. While lowering the thermal agitation draws water molecules into orderly crystalline array (via atomic bonding), no such lowering of the thermal agitation will draw amino acids together (the building blocks of life).

Fossil Record under Examination

In the creation model, one would expect an array of distinct kinds of organisms that would contain both similarities and differences. Furthermore, there would be gaps between the different kinds of organisms. The similarities are expected when a similar purpose is involved. The differences are expected when different functions are served. No evolving of one kind of organism to another would happen and thus gaps should be present in the fossil record essentially the same gaps as in the present world.

How are fossils formed in the first place? To become fossilized a plant/animal usually needs to have hard parts (bones, shell, wood, etc), quickly buried, and undisturbed throughout the long process.

The creation model would expect the fossil record to show a wide variety of organisms much like today. The model would expect fossil assemblages to represent ecological communities. The model would expect animals living at the lowest elevations to be buried at the lowest elevations. There would be few in any terrestrial sediments or land plants or animals in the lower strata of the geologic columns. Larger more diversified animals would be higher in the column since they could escape burial for longer periods of time. Man would escape burial (not necessarily death) for the most part and few human fossils would be present. This is a general guide and given the nature of a cataclysmic model, some exceptions are expected to the general guide. They should be just that - an exception.

As a closing thought on the fossil record, how were the footprints found in fossils created?

A Young Earth?

How old is the earth? Previously, I asserted that the amount of dust on the moon was too small for the moon to be billions of years old. Mark Rupright countered that orbiting satellites seem to indicate that the amount of cosmic dust in the vicinity of the earth and moon may be much less than earlier measurements indicated. Well I have now learned that radar, rocket, and satellite data published in 1976 by NASA and the Smithsonian Institution validate the claim of higher cosmic dust filtering onto the earth and moon. In addition, the evolutionist theory assumes much more dust in the past than is currently present. So where did all the dust go?

The evolution theory claims the geologic columns have gradually built-up over millions (if not billions) of years. This would mean that meteorites would have been incorporated into the geologic columns. Meteorites are recognizable by their high nickel content and thus we should find be able to detect these meteorites. No meteorites have been found in the geologic columns.

The Poynting-Robertson effect teaches us that debris will eventually be pulled in by the sun's gravitational force. Given the small mass of the cosmic dust, it should not take long to clear the dust. Furthermore, the Poynting-Robertson effect would have a sorting effect on meteor streams. However observed meteor showers by Fred Whipple and his research team found no dispersion in the meteor stream.

The average life span of short-period comets are on the order of 1,500 to 10,000 years. Today, we still have an abundance of them. So how are these short-period comets being produced?

R.V. Gentry and others indicated that coal believed to be approximately 100 million years old, is in reality only a few thousand years old. They conducted the same survey on coalified wood found in the Devonian Chatanooga shale. This shale commonly is believed to be around 350 million years old, Gentry showed could not possible be that old. The survey is done by radioactive dating of uranium where double halos are found where the first halo is oval followed by a circular one. The assumption is that the oval halo was first a circle that was later compressed. Since the second halo is circular it is concluded that the uranium must have been in the wood prior to the wood turning into coal.

Only Time Will Tell

Barry Setterfield has examined all known data on the measurements of the speed of light. His finding, much to his astonishment, showed a clear and distinct pattern of decay with the passage of time. Upon this amazing result, Setterfield went on to determine the best curve to fit the observed light-speed measurements. Of all the decay curves, one stood out clearly as the best. That curve would make the speed of light approach infinity at around 4000 B.C.

The earth's magnetic field has been observed for at least 135 years. There is no observed indication that it is a sine curve. Instead it's been the typical exponential curve that any half life function would have. The current half life of the magnetic field is 1400 years. This would have made the earth a magnetic star within 10 thousand years.

Setting the Standard for Scientific Model

Let's now take a quick look at problems in the evolution theory. The purpose is to demonstrate that much can be unanswered and require big leaps of faith yet still be considered a scientific theory suitable for instruction in our schools.

Geology Standard

We have rocks dated by the presents of index fossils and fossils dated by the surrounding rocks. No where in the world does the geologic column exist completely. In Arizona and Rhodesia there have been found dinosaur pictographs drawn on cave or canyon walls by man. Pottery has been found with etchings of five-toed llamas on it. In Utah, fossils of several trilobites have been found in the fossilized, sandaled footprint of a man. How do you account for the discovery of living organisms whose fossils are an index fossil? Why are there no fossils of intermediate forms of organisms? How do you account for Equus nevadenis and Equus occidentalis (modern-day horses) being found in the same fossil stratum as Eohippus (earliest member of the horse evolution series)?

Biology Standard

In biology many organisms are hard to explain in the evolution theory. How did the human eye evolve? How did the sea slug evolve to handle the stinging cells of anemones? How does co-adaptation evolve? How did the bombardier beetle evolve? How does the lesser whitethroated warbler young birds know where to migrate to rejoin their parents? How did insects evolve into flying invertebrates? Where did organisms learn to imitate others? How likely is independent convergence in organisms on widely ancestral organisms within the timeframe of evolution? Why does a very successful caterpillar turn into a butterfly? How did the Surinam toad evolve its unique form of carrying eggs on her back?

Anthropology Standard

In anthropology, we have the "Nebraska Man", "Java Ape-Man", "Piltdown Man", and the "Neanderthal Man" which all have been proven to be very fragmentary at best. The "Nebraska Man" was found to be another species (extinct pig). The "Piltdown Man" was a hoax. The "Neanderthal Man" is now classified as Homo sapiens.

Charles Darwin's Own Words

If evolution theory is not a leap of faith then what did Darwin mean by "enough to stagger anyone"? Did the bombardier beetle or the Surinam toad break down Darwin's theory? Does co-adaptation violate natural selection? Does the fossil record make Darwin's views truly fatal?


I did not even begin to expound on the complex wonders of modern genetics and other fascinating issues in the debate of evolution vs creation. Yet, I believe I demonstrated that the creation theory is consistent with the laws of nature and the fossil record. Furthermore, there exists much evidence that the earth is relatively young. Only the creation theory can explain this, if true. The evolution theory has considerable problems in geology, biology and anthropology. Darwin's own words indicates a leap of faith is necessary to believe evolution. I conclude that I have demonstrated that the creation model is no more a leap of faith as a scientific theory than evolution. Which theory you choose to believe is your own choice and is outside the scope of this discussion.