Creation Evidence

Creation evidence that is not fabricated is difficult to find, if what you mean is evidence against evolution. I would not have written a web site called Proof of Evolution if I could have found good evidence for a young earth or against evolution.

I believe, however, that the earth and mankind was created. I believe in a Creator, and I believe that Jesus Christ is his Son.

Nonetheless, the creation testifies that it evolved over time.

This page addresses the more important creation evidence that I have run across or heard about from readers of this web site. It provides links to pages discussing each of them.

Obviously, I can only give you anti-evolution arguments from my perspective. You can hear an anti-evolution perspective and determine whether you think I've misrepresented their side at Understanding-Creationism.com.

This page is in sections.

I have to point out here that much of the creation evidence you'll read below is not really evidence. It's misrepresentations, misinterpretations, and fabrications. One of the primary things that drove me away from a young earth perspective was just how much young earth creationists were forced to lean on dishonesty to defend their position.

You can also present your own creation evidence below. Be advised I will only approve a real argument, with reasons you believe it and some indication that you've researched enough to think the evidence is real.

Defining "creation evidence" part one
Defining creation evidence, part two
Believers as evidence for creation: (I believe we are, or at least could be, the strongest evidence for creation.)
Scientific evidence

Defining Terms: What Is "Creation"

I do not like the term creationist because it is generally understood to include only those who deny evolution. I'm a committed Christian, a leader and teacher in a Christian community, and a part-time missionary. I not only believe in God, but I believe he created the universe and all things in it.

I also believe that God wants us to be honest people who love truth. One way, among myriads, that we learn truth is from the creation.

Even God tells us that. A couple of my favorite passages are:

The heavens declare the glory of God. The sky displays what his hands have made. One day tells a story to the next; one night shares knowledge with the next. Without talking, without words, without their voices being heard, yet their sound has gone out into the entire world. Their message to the ends of the earth. (Ps. 19:1-4, God's Word Version)

and:

From the creation of the world, God's invisible qualities, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly observed in what he has made. As a result, people have no excuse. (Rom. 1:20, GWV)

Thus, it is okay to believe what nature teaches us. My other site is a Christian history site. One of the things I always found amazing about the earliest Christians in the apostles' churches, once I found out that many of their writings are available, was the way they looked at nature to learn about God.

For example, to those early Christians each new day and each new spring were a testimony from God that the resurrection of the body was true. The fact that we are the only creatures that live with an upturned face, so that we can behold the heavens, was a testimony that we were to learn from heaven and acknowledge God.

Today, though, Christians are frightened of nature because it testifies so clearly that we evolved over a great period of time; however, this makes our creation more glorious, not less!

It's okay to believe God's testimony in nature! That's what those verses above tell us!

What Is Creation Evidence, Part 2

Unfortunately, this page will have to address the evidence that Christians produce for a young earth and against evolution, even though it's a pet peeve of mine that only those who don't believe in evolution are called creationists.

Nonetheless, that's what people mean by "creation evidence," so now that I've complained thoroughly about the definition, I'll give into it for the sake of communication.

Creation evidence comes in two forms:

Evidence for a young earth
Evidence against evolution, or at least against completely natural evolution

Note here that creation evidence and evidence for Intelligent Design may overlap, but they are not the same thing. Intelligent Design theory acknowledges evolution as possible. ID proponents are simply trying to establish that the intervention of God is required for it to happen.

Believers as Creation Evidence

The ultimate evidence for creation, in my opinion, is Christians.

In the 19th century, "many thought that Christianity was disappearing into the past" (Justo Gonzalez, Church History: An Essential Guide, p. 86). Instead, "it was precisely during this period tha the Christian faith achieved such a wide geographic expansion that for the first time it became truly universal" (ibid.).

I would argue that there is only one reason that Christianity didn't disappear into the past then and isn't disappearing into the past now. Many people, myself included, continue to have surprising, life-changing encounters with Jesus Christ.

Why are these people singing joyfully at a funeral?

You can argue intellectually against Jesus and against his Gospel all that you want. When you encounter him, however, all your arguments are over. He converts everyone, even atheists.

Christianity would never last based on mere intellectual arguments. Christianity is divided, there are many counterfeits, and those counterfeits and offshoots have been guilty of incredible evils throughout the last 1700 years. Despite these terrible strikes against it, the faith of Jesus Christ continues to persist, and great deliverance from addictions, unhappiness, and worldliness are worked by the Spirit of God.

This happens because Jesus Christ is real and because the true Gospel, when believed, really endows people with the Spirit of the living God.

When it comes to debating against science, history says that in the long run Christians always lose. On an intellectual level, Christianity really would disappear into the past.

Why Science Wins Debates in the Long Run

Science wins debates in the long run because it operates on godly, Biblical principles that Christians really ought to follow themselves in resolving doctrinal differences. Jesus said a "prophet" can be tested by his fruit, that is, his results (Matt. 7:16). Science actually puts things to the test by practical, testable results.

Not Christians. Ignoring Jesus' teaching, we argue over interpretations that have not been put to the test. False versions of salvation by faith alone then eliminate the only test that matters—whether the Gospel transforms lives and produces righteousness (Rom. 1:16-17).

Thus, Christians end up defending error with ignorance and dishonesty, something that could be avoided by simply trusting what Jesus said.

It doesn't disappear because Jesus is really the Son of God, and he keeps transforming people.

Scientific Creation Evidence

It is impossible to cover every creation argument that's ever been presented even in a book, much less on a web page. I am confident, however, that we can cover enough to give you a good clear picture of the answers to the above questions.

Unfortunately, most creation evidence is based on purposeful lack of research or dishonesty. That may seem harsh, but if you read through these you'll see that it's true.

I had to skip things like "the complete absence of transitional forms proves evolution isn't true."

Why? It's not true! Lies aren't effective arguments, and they certainly don't qualify as creation evidence.

Transitional forms abound, as an example, for whales and man. They're all the more abundant when you include other species.

Portrait of William Paley by George Romney, who died in 1802

William Paley, painted by George Romney

Arguments For a Young Earth

Dr. Gentry's Polonium Halos: Best and only good argument I've seen so far. This one was actually published in a peer-reviewed journal.
Granite always becomes rhyolite when it melts: A blogger who claims to have done large amounts of research presented this argument to me as one of his strongest evidences for a young earth. It took me less than one minute of honest research to find the real story about granite and rhyolite.
Cosmic Dust on the Moon: I haven't done a page on this. Even Answers in Genesis now includes it in the list of arguments creationists should not use.
The Ica Stones: Anti-evolutionists argue that we should pay attention to the Ica stones rather than dismiss them as forgeries, but after more than 30 years, no anti-evolutionist has been willing to research them. Here's the whole story.
The Kachina Bridge Dinosaur Petroglyph: This one is not a purposeful fraud, just more proof that appearances can be very deceiving.
The Earth's Rotation Is Slowing: It is. Is it enough to require us to revamp our estimate of the earth's age?

Arguments for a Global Flood

Flood myths around the world.
Trees are no more than 4,400 years old.

Scientific Arguments that Evolution Can't Happen

Most of these are "pot shots," not an actual extensive case being made. There's always a new attack on evolutionary theory being made, and over time, these prove again and again not to be accurate.

The "schizochroal compound eye" of the trilobite: Young earth creationist Dr. Kurt Wise says the eye of the trilobite is his favorite piece of creation evidence.

I have to pause here to point out that I searched the first 30 results on Google for "best creation evidence" and Dr. Wise's trilobite eyes was the only argument that was reasonable enough to repeat!

It is telling that a creationist could say his best argument is that science does not yet know the purpose of the eye of a creature that's been extinct for two hundred million years!

The second law of thermodynamics (entropy) says things get more disorderly.: This is surely the most common argument that a creationist brings up first. It's even brought up by John Baumgardner, the geologist from Los Alamos labs. But there's two problems with this argument. It's based on a misunderstanding of what the law of entropy means, and the 2nd law of thermodynamics doesn't apply to earth anyway.
Specified Complexity: This is a term invented by William Dembski, head of the Discovery Institute, as though it were a real scientific theory or argument. It is not.
Polystrate Trees: This is the argument that upright trees, covered by multiple layers of sediment, could only have been deposited by the flood.

Philosophical Arguments for a Creator

William Paley's Watchmaker argument: This is the argument that if someone finds a watch in a field, it would be natural to assume that someone actually made it; that it did not appear there by itself.

Arguments that Scientists Are Corrupt

Piltdown skull reconstruction
Photo by Anrie, used with permission

These arguments are the worst of all for Christians. The statement that science, in general, is leading us astray, on purporse or in blindness because of opposition to God, is slander if it's not true ... and it's not true. We Christians repeat this slander often based on nothing but our wish that evolution were not true, and thus defame the name of Christ by our behavior.

Scientific Hoaxes Prove that Scientists Are Deceivers: Scientific hoaxes do happen. Wherever there are people, there will be dishonesty. But there is no conspiracy, and it would be impossible to have one (too much profit in exposing it). It is evolutionary scientists who have exposed these hoaxes, not creationists.
"Lucy," the missing link, is a hoax: Here is where we find where the real corruption lies. This particular "creation evidence" is inexcusable slander against A. afarensis finder Donald Johanson.

Evidence for Which Creation

There are a lot of other creation stories besides the Christian one. There are other religions claiming other gods as creators.

Thus, all of us who argue for a Creator, whether he created through evolution or by divine fiat, have to lean on the lives of Christians and the power of the Gospel as evidence our God exists. We destroy that one and only effective testimony when we embrace dishonesty and ignorance in an attempt to defend God through science.

God, my brothers and sisters, can and does defend himself.