Is creation in 6 days plausible?
|Created by Gerard de Vos|
Category: Evolution related
Scientific equipment and methodology have developed dramatically in the last fifty years. Microscopes have enabled scientists to greatly increase their knowledge of biological life.
Since Darwin was on the scene the following phenomenal discoveries have been made:
1. Life is intimately connected with the genetic code on the DNA of the cell. It contains the different instructions for each organism. It is impossible for this information to evolve naturally, by chance. Evolutionary ‘mechanisms’ cannot account for it. The logical alternative is the intelligent Programmer, God. Since information can only come from a mental source (God), a person believing in evolution has to discard science’s inability to explain the origin of the genetic code by naturalism, and believe that the genetic information came by chance. This implies believing in countless miracles, for every type of life, whether fish, insects, microbes or mammals. Saying that this process took billions of years, is without any warrant, as it is an impossible process. It is far more logical that God created the DNA ‘templates,‘ and then ordered the different minerals to assemble into proteins, into cells and into bodies, by speaking life into it on day 5 and 6. People might object that it is preposterous and unbelievable. Really? So an impossible process, made possible by calling on chance and billions of years, changes an impossible process into possible? Which needs the most faith? God’s method or Darwin’s?
2. The claim that the information on the DNA code increased so that ‘higher’ types of life could develop, has never been proved possible by scientific experiments. The fossil record, as well as breeding experiments, prove that the genetic barrier cannot be transgressed. For example, it didn’t matter how many generations of fruit flies were bred and how many variations of fruit flies they were able to get, the fruit flies did not become something else, but remained fruit flies. Again we have only two choices: believe by faith that the millions of different types of life on earth ‘evolved’ naturally (Darwin), or that they were created by God (Bible). To believe the Bible seems preposterous. Then, once again, why does the fossil record support the Bible’s account of creation according to kinds, and not that of Darwin’s gradual evolution into more complex kinds?
3. Life is extremely complex. We know that there can be no step by step assembly of living things, as we find with mechanical things like the engine of a motorcar. An organism is either fully functioning or not. The stronger the microscopes and the more science develops, the better we understand the intricacy of creation, and that it is a case of all or nothing. Biological systems either work, or they don’t. There is no step by step assembly. Not trillions of years, or billions of chances can change this scientific fact. Which is the more believable: the Bible’s account of fast creation in a few days, or Darwin’s of slow, gradual assembly? There can be no slow gradual assembly, thus one has to believe it only by faith.
When investigated, God as the Creator who created in a matter of days, is more scientific than evolution. People might object that it is preposterous to believe in the Bible, forgetting that to believe in Darwin involves billions more miracles than to believe in God. Eventually the main difference is that belief in God is not only scientifically more correct, but for the person who takes God at His word and acts on it, a wonderful, eternal future is winking. For the man who becomes an atheist since he believes in Darwin’s miracles, the eternal future is bleak and terrible.