As Christians in today’s world, oftentimes our beliefs will contradict those of the people around us. One of the greatest challenges we face is defending those beliefs to skeptics. To do this effectively, we must know what we believe, and why.
One such controversial belief that many Christians’ hold is the idea of creationism, which states that the universe and everything in it is an intentional act of creation by God. In the face of secular schools and programs promoting the theory of evolution and the big bang as fact, the ability to defend biblical teachings and ideologies has become increasingly relevant.
In this article, we will delve deeper into the concept of creationism, its biblical significance, and some supporting arguments.
Understanding Creationism
Creationism is rooted in the belief that the Genesis account provides an accurate and literal depiction of the universe’s origins. According to this viewpoint, God created the universe in a span of six days, and the earth is estimated to be 6,000-8,000 years old.
This belief is important to the Christian faith, as it necessitates the existence of a divine Creator, and adds to the credibility of the Bible in its entirety.
If this belief is disputed, then Genesis’ account of creation is inaccurate and there is room for doubt on fundamental principles of the Christian faith, including the gospel message. Critics often argue against creationism by citing a lack of “scientific evidence” to support it and by pointing to concepts such as an old earth and evolution, which they claim to be “proven.” Many scientists, academic institutions, and atheists will go to great lengths to demonstrate the “evidence” for these concepts and attempt to negate any explanations supporting creationism. In truth, much of evolutionists’ so-called evidence is based on misinterpretation and faulty calculations.
Arguments for Creationism
1. The case for intelligent design
At the heart of the creationism debate lies the question, “Is there a creator?” For the sake of this argument, the existence of God and the existence of an intentional creator will be considered synonymous. To answer this question, we need only look at the creation all around us for an obvious answer.
In human-made objects from stone tools to architectural marvels like the Great Wall of China and Mount Rushmore, intelligent design is unmistakable and universally recognized. We instinctively understand that these creations did not arise by chance. Now, consider the complexity of the natural world even outside of your own window. Every aspect of creation reflects deliberate design. If the Earth were slightly closer or farther from the sun, it would not be inhabitable. If the sun were a slightly different temperature, life would cease to exist. Every snowflake, every fingerprint, and even every zebra’s stripe is unique. We can see further intent through evolution-defying structural features in nature, such as cellular processes, equine leg structures, and the remarkable capability of bees to fly, despite their less aerodynamic shape. How could this extraordinary and incomprehensible level of intricacy be interpreted as accidental? Even William Paley, the founder of CBS Television, argued that complex creations imply the existence of a creator who conceived their construction and purpose.
To further illustrate the point, imagine taking apart a computer, placing its parts in a box, and shaking it. No matter how much time passes, the components will never spontaneously assemble into a functioning computer. The concept of intelligent design explains why. Even if all the necessary parts were present, without intentional arrangement, the desired outcome would never materialize.
Humans, with their immensely intricate brains made up of billions of neurons, far surpass the complexity of any computer. The probability of even the simplest single-celled organism forming by chance is astronomically low. Two-time Nobel Prize winner and chemist-physicist, Ilya Prigogine stated that the likelihood of organic structures and even the most primitive of living organisms arising by accident is zero. Even non-creationist scientists like Isaac Asimov, acknowledge the compelling evidence for intelligent design presented by the complexity of the human brain.
2. Evidence of a young earth
The concept of a “young earth” is a valuable argument in helping to discredit the theory of evolution. While the possibility of an old earth does not dismantle the creationism argument, a young earth effectively undermines any evolutionary claims while aligning with the biblical timeline.
One compelling piece of evidence for a young earth is the rapid decline of Earth’s magnetic field, which shields and sustains life on the planet. Observations since 1845 indicate a decay rate of approximately 5% per century, suggesting an age for the earth of no more than 20,000 years. Geological data corroborates these findings. While old-Earth proponents have attempted to explain this away using linear decay and self-sustaining models, these are contradictory to known laws of physics, invalidating them by all scientific standards.
Another line of evidence pertains to Carbon-14 levels in fossils, coal, and diamonds. While radiocarbon dating has been used to support evolutionary theory, its half-life of 5,730 years presents a challenge when detecting this isotope in samples purportedly billions of years old. Numerous studies have detected Carbon-14 in samples spanning millions of years, indicating either contamination or flaws in dating methodologies.
Finally, the presence of relatively low salt levels in the sea challenges the evolutionary timeline. Oceans globally undergo a net increase of approximately 336 million tons of sodium annually through river deposits, glaciers, volcanic activity, and more. Calculations based on current rates of accumulation suggest that the oceans would have reached their current salinity in far less than the proposed 3 billion years. Even if past sodium inputs were lower and outputs higher, there is no numerically plausible way for the age of the ocean to be 3 billion years, as suggested by evolutionists.
Other lines of evidence supporting a young earth include observations of short-lived comets, DNA in “ancient” bacteria, minimal sediment on the seafloor, the presence of soft tissue in fossils, and the faint sun paradox.
Challenges to Evolutionary Theory and the Debate Over Coexistence
Much of the “evidence” for evolution has been obtained through a specific interpretation of data and numbers. As seen earlier in this article, inaccurate dating methods and implausible scientific explanations have been used to cover up a large number of inconsistencies and inaccuracies in the data. As Ken Ham’s project, Answers in Genesis, emphasizes, “facts don’t speak for themselves,” and much of the evidence for evolution is indirect and speculative.
While there is a natural level of variety and adaptation that occurs within species, caused by both natural and artificial selection, there have been no observed historical instances of one species evolving into another. Imperfections in human anatomy are also not indicative of evolution, but rather clear evidence of genetic mutations and issues caused by generations existing in an imperfect and sin-filled world.
Some Christians accept the theory of evolution or believe that biblical creation and evolution can coexist, but this stance is both scientifically and biblically incompatible. The debate between creationism and evolution often revolves around the literal interpretation of Genesis. Theistic evolution, which selectively interprets scripture to accommodate secular ideology, undermines the character of God and the authority of scripture.
A Purposeful Creator
Resistance to evolutionist’s theory is not about rejecting science or fearing God’s displacement but rather stems from understanding evolution’s shortcomings. It also serves to attribute due credit to God for the creation of the universe and to affirm the credibility of scripture in its entirety.
Creationism presents compelling arguments for the existence of a purposeful Creator and intentional design in the universe. The complexity of natural design features and the challenges posed to evolutionary timelines by scientific evidence justify serious consideration.
This is interesting, but I would challenge it by saying that the bible has four modes of interpretation. The literal, allegorical, moral, and analogical. There are many parts of the bible that aren’t made to be taken literally. On another note, a thousand years are as a day to God, which lend to the idea that the 6 days in Genesis aren’t literal.
Faith and science go hand in hand. God created the whole universe in a beautifully organized way, and the study of this is science. Scientific beliefs do not hinder our ability to be holy Christians. What matters is that we give all glory to God. Whether we believe in 6 day creation or an old earth, it was God who made it that way, and that’s what matters.
(I would like to clarify that this is not an argument for or against popular scientific theories, rather it’s an argument that those theories have a place in Christianity and don’t get in the way of our theology.)
Hey, Elizabeth! To spark discussion, here’s a question: Did God intend for His Word to be interpreted in all of those ways? Every author has a meaning and intention and it’s the job of the reader to discern the authors intention. What was God’s intention in writing His Word and how did *He* intend each part to be interpreted? For God to be as trustworthy of an author as any of the rest of us, there can only be one correct interpretation and every other interpretation has to miss the mark. So my question is: how do you know that Genesis wasn’t intended to be interpreted literally?
Also, Genesis 1:5 clearly describes an “evening and morning” thus placing the description within the boundaries of time as humanity knows it. Does this jive with “a thousand years” having an evening and a morning? That doesn’t fit or make sense, which lends to the idea of a literal interpretation of time being applied to this passage. Just by reading the text, what conclusion do we reach?
I would like to take your point on evolution facts being indirect further in saying that most, if not all, scientists believe that something can’t come from nothing. Now Evolutionist scientists try to contradict creationism in saying that ‘A little speck exploded into everything (Big Bang theory),’ but that still leaves the problem of the little speck that exploded into everything having to come from something, thus destroying the entire evolution theory.
Christen, thank you for the well-written article. I do think it is important for Christians to know where they stand on these subjects, and it is also helpful to be able to defend/explain our stance and why we believe what we do. I’m striving to become better at being able to explain the reasoning side of things, trying to really understand the why behind things I have been told by my pastor and my Christian parents. They make sense to me, but if someone came and asked me why I believed that, I’m not sure I could put together a good answer. So thank you for getting me a little bit closer to being able to explain these things.
P.S. Here’s a fun fact: evolutionists believe that birds came from lizard-hipped dinosaurs, rather than bird-hipped dinosaurs.
Great article, Christen! Several years ago, I took an online course with Answers in Genesis and I learned all about these things plus a ton more! Answers in Genesis teaches the young-earth creationist position, and their website contains lots of helpful resources for those who want to know more. I encourage you all to check it out!
https://answersingenesis.org/
I would like to agree with you and add on that there is plenty of evidence to add emphasis to the fact that Creation was completed in a literal six days. If you take 2 Peter 3:8, which you referenced, in context, you will find that Peter is actually reminding fellow believers that God is not slow in fulfilling His promises. In other words, this verse does not mean that where the Bible says “days” it actually means “years,” but is simply saying that God has different definitions of “I am coming soon” than we do. Also, Genesis was written by a person, probably Moses, and he likely would not have put “days” if the Holy Spirit told him, “thousands of years.” There is also God telling us in the Ten Commandments to “Remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy” (Exodus 20:8). This is because on the seventh day, after the six during which God created the universe, was when He rested from His work. So, there is another link to evidence for a literal six-day creation. Hope this helps!
Absolutely agreed, Sam! Well said. 2 Peter 3:8 is SUCH an encouraging promise when we really understand what it means!
Thank you all for your thoughtful comments! My main point is not that evolution is correct, (I’m still undecided about that), but that it is not an unchristian theory. Same with the big bang theory. For all we know, God could have created the world from the big bang. Something out of nothing sounds a lot like what happens in Genesis.
The important point here is not HOW He created the world, but just the He DID. And so it does not affect someone’s faith to explore scientific theories that are based on observations about the universe. (Again, I’m not arguing for or against these theories.)
After reading your comments I do think I’ll be doing more close studying of the book of Genesis to try to understand how it’s meant to be interpreted.
Hey, Elizabeth! Yes, I encourage you to study Genesis and really, all of Scripture. When we study the Bible with a literal hermeneutic, it’s amazing how it all comes together as one grand story.
I also challenge you to consider what constitutes something as Christian or unchristian. Our filter should be “is this backed up by the Word of God?” Which goes back to the need to correctly study and interpret Scripture. 🙂
Thank you for your comments and discussion here! 🙂