Reconsideration of Earlier Responses to Evolutionism

Here are some other common defenses I’ve heard for creationism from a scientific standpoint.

To generalize the application of radiometric dating, take a natural object which is continuously undergoing a constant and predictable natural process of change, a state which is measurable in its present form and which has a well-defined initial state, and by extrapolation it is easy to show how long it would take this natural process to transform an initial state into its current state, therefore we can predict with relative certainty how long ago the initial state occurred. Radiometric dating measures the amount of time between a fossil’s death and its present discovery by the decay of certain isotopes found in the fossil.

What I have heard, however, is that when this same method of extrapolation is applied to other natural processes, the results are not so consistent anymore. For example, I was told that when scientists were first trying to land a person on the moon, they weren’t sure what to expect. The moon’s thin atmosphere allows a lot of space dust to enter into its gravity and settle on the surface without burning up on entry; if the moon is billions of years old like the earth supposedly is (you’ll have to excuse me if I’m using the wrong time frames), then the scientists theorized that the layer of dust on the moon should be very deep. Yet we see that it was only a very thin layer.

More convincingly, consider the sun. Even secular science makes very clear that the balance of the earth with the sun is precariously delicate; if earth’s orbit were just a little different the planet would be uninhabitably hot or cold. Now, the sun has been undergoing fusion and science theorizes that it will eventually burn out. This is extrapolating forward, but what about backwards? Consider that for life to evolve over the past several billion years, the sun would have to maintain its delicate balance all that time to be conducive to life. Yet backwards extrapolation says that the sun should have been too big and bright to support life.

CreationScience also has a theory saying that radioactive decay either isn’t constant or isn’t exponential in its behavior, which of course would explain consistently incorrect values in radiometric dating. Their observation is that repeated laboratory tests of radioactive decay consistently have a margin of error from previous experiments on the side of decay being faster than anticipated, and rarely if ever is decay reported to be slower than it was the last time it was observed. The implication is that, if there is a noticeable change in the decay function over a couple hundred years, imagine how much more pronounced this variation would be over several thousand years.

Another argument that I’ve heard to defend creationism is a simple yet no less important one. Suppose, on the off chance that the universe and everything in it was created some relatively recent time ago by a personal God. Certainly He would be omnipotent, at least insofar as we are concerned, because He would have authority over that which He made, in a similar way that a tinkerer would understand a device that he has built entirely by himself. Since God is omnipotent, there is nothing at all restricting Him from creating a universe which is does not already show “signs” of age. It is in keeping with His character, as Adam and Eve were created as man and woman, not infants, and there would be no vegetation for food if all the trees were still seeds in the ground. It is entirely possible that things like rocks look older than they are because they looked old when they were first created. I’ve heard of this being take to the other extreme, saying that dinosaur fossils were buried in the earth by God at creation “to test our faith.” That lends itself to another discussion entirely, but I will say that I strongly disagree with this view.

I happened upon a web article at NewScientist which talks about 13 things in science that still don’t make sense. Item number 2 has strong connections with the origins of the universe.

I have one consideration which occurred to me as I was being taught evolution. It is quite possible that a thorough investigation would show that it is entirely possible that my point does not necessarily produce a contradiction in evolutionary science, but it’s something to think about. One of the things you learn about in biology is symbiosis and parasitism and one other species relationship whose name I cannot remember. These relationships usually involve two species of very different “complexity” level. That is to say, one should have evolved long before the other did. Yet that is not possible if each depends on the other for its existence. A valid argument would be to say that these creatures evolved after their counterparts in complexity did, so that they evolve together. This would require verification that I can’t provide. It is something to look at in the fossil record, whether or not dependent creatures are indicated as having evolved out of order. For that matter, what about an entire ecosystem, where the relationship is not so direct? The food chain, even? There are so many interrelated dependencies that had to all evolve in exactly the right sequence for it all to fit together the way it does today.

For anyone reading this, I would like to pose one question to you with which to critically examine yourself. If you are wondering whether the universe was created or if it evolved, whether it happened as a statistical chance or if it was divinely guided, examine why you are asking this question. Is it actually in pursuance of truth that you investigate this matter? Perhaps you have made up your mind about God already, and you are simply trying to find some way to rationalize your opinion. Perhaps it is an idle question, and you are not prepared to accept the consequences from one of these positions being true. If what you really want to know is more about God, does He exist or not, and who is He if he does, then I would invite you not to spend too much time deliberating over scientific findings. While they can and must be supportive of the truth, it is not sufficient to convince on such an infinite matter. Assuming evolution is no longer a pressing topic, I will elaborate on this bold statement next time.