by Scott H. Northrup
A student asked me recently, "What is the best scientific evidence for creationism?" My reply was that it depends on what one means by "creationism." What is usually referred to as creation- "ism" or "creation science" is the belief that the earth was created by God in six, 24-hour days about 6,000 years ago. I'm sorry, but I can't defend that belief based on scientific evidence. The scientific evidence says the earth is billions of years old, not thousands, and that it took a very long time to become the way we see it today. On the other hand, if by creationism you mean the belief that a superintelligent Being (we call God) created the universe and that God has been directly involved in its continued development, there is striking evidence which supports that.
The best evidence science offers can be found in the field of biochemistry. How did life originate out of the inanimate matter and simple physical laws which govern the natural world? The very simplest self- replicating organism that can participate in evolution is so enormously complex that there appears to be no natural mechanism by which all the necessary parts could have been assembled without outside intervention. This is the argument of what is called the Intelligent Design theory. The evolution from isolated amino acids and nucleic acids, the building blocks of life, to the very simplest self-replicating organism involves a jump so large that it is like trying to broad jump the Grand Canyon. The simplest cell is more complex than the Space Shuttle. For a living cell to be able to reproduce itself, a cell's DNA must replicate. But in order to replicate, dozens of proteins of very exquisite architecture and composition must be already in place to chaperone the process. Those proteins in turn could not exist without DNA having already done its work, because the DNA contains the code to make those proteins. A huge chemical factory called the ribosome, with hundreds of proteins all working together, are needed to take the DNA code and use it to synthesize just the right proteins. It's a chicken and egg thing on a monumental scale.
It is a legitimate activity of science, in its exploration of the natural world, to classify objects as "naturally occurring" or "man-made." We recognize something as man-made because it is too complicated to have simply originated from the natural environment. Man-made objects have a creator. They were created, not "evolved." If you found a wrist watch on the beach, no one would call you unscientific to classify this object as man-made. By the same token, when we find objects in the natural world that could not have simply originated from the natural environment because they are too complex, but at the same time could not be man-made because they are too old, would one be unscientific to posit the theory that these objects had an intelligent designer beyond man's ability? Would one be silly to conclude that these objects were created and placed in the natural environment, not originating from the environment? Is science so stupid as to never be able to recognize an object as being, say, brought from another planet by intelligent beings, if that ever happens? Is that UNSCIENTIFIC? Of course not. So then, is it unscientific to categorize a highly complex entity on earth as having NOT EVOLVED from natural earth processes?
Such is LIFE. One may remain very much a scientist and make the postulate that a Being of incredible wisdom and power must have created life on earth. That's where the good money is being placed. Don't ever let anyone tell you that you are being an irrational religious fanatic for believing that God created the heavens and the earth. It is the most rational belief possible!!
But all of the above is not the best argument for the existence of God. (I assume that is what my young student was really wondering about.) My best argument for God is that I have met Him personally and we have talked. I had an encounter with Him in the back of a van on the plains of Nebraska one afternoon, my most recent "burning bush" experience. Ask me some time how a person can have that experience!!!
@ copyright 2003 by Scott H. Northrup. All rights reserved.