In Christian circles today, the teaching of God as our Creator is one that is often neglected. However, if we stop to think about it, it is also one that is really foundational to most of the other major doctrines of the Christian faith. If God did not make us, then we are not accountable to Him! If man did not fall from his original perfect created state, then man does not need salvation or a Saviour, nor is there meaning to the hope we have of a restoration of former things. Most of the Christian moral standards (such as relate to marriage, abortion, homosexuality, pornography, lawlessness, etc.) also have their foundation in the Creation Account of Genesis.
Thus, belief in creation as God records it for us in His Word is really critical and foundational to the whole Christian faith. It seems that the world and its humanistic leaders have recognized this more readily than has much of Christendom. They have very forcefully and effectively taken over much of the political, educational, and communications processes of our society and are constantly bombarding us and our children with their agnostic or atheistic, rationalistic, immoral, evolution-based philosophies, beliefs, and interpretations. Evolution is being "preached" as fact and every area of thought and life is presented in terms of evolutionary processes. Most people, including many Christians, are unaware that there are no scientific facts which prove evolution. Most of the so-called "proofs" are really evolution-based interpretations of scientific observations and facts.
Take, for example, the fossil record. Fossils exist in the present, not the past. Our understanding of how, why, and when the fossils were formed are really interpretations of the observable evidence and is largely determined by our philosophical beliefs. The fossil record (evidence) can be interpreted either in terms of slow, gradual, uniformitarian, "evolutionary" processes, or in terms of relatively recent, catastrophic events and processes consistent with the Biblical record. In fact, many of the fossil facts are best explained by the latter. (For example, consider the poly-strata tree fossils found in several coal fields. These are fossilized trees which extend vertically and continuously through several sedimentary layers. According to the evolution theory, these several layers took many thousands of years to lay down. Flood theory says these layers could easily be laid down rapidly over a short period of time before the tree would rot or decay.)
What about the missing transitional forms? Over the last century, many millions of fossils including many extinct, as well as living species, have been found and catalogued. However, there is not one undisputed "transitional form" among these. The most likely candidate as a "transitional form" (and still presented in many text books as "proof" of evolution) is archaeopteryx. This is now admitted by many evolutionists to be a true bird. Also, other bird fossils much "older" than archaeopteryx (according to the evolutionary timetable) have been found, so it obviously cannot be the ancestor to birds. Furthermore, there is now good evidence to suggest that the archaeopteryx fossils may have involved forgery in the first place. (This is not unlike many of the presumed "human ancestors" which have also proven to be fraudulent.) If the best proof of evolution that we have in the fossil record is the fact that all the "missing links" are still missing, then perhaps it's time we took a fresh look at the nature and truthfulness (?) of the evolution model!
For evolution to be even remotely possible, it requires vast periods of time. In support of these long ages, evolutionists often use radiometric dating results. They seldom mention, and most people are unaware of, the assumptions and anomalies associated with radiometric dating methods. However, if some or all of these assumptions (which are held by faith by most scientists) are not true, (and they probably aren't) then the dates arrived at are also in error. Also, many times the dates given by various radiometric dating methods do not agree with each other or with what is expected. In these cases the "dates" are simply ignored and we never hear about them, or else the dates which best suit the evolutionist's ideas and purposes are used! Is this what scientific objectivity is all about? I'm afraid that scientists are often not nearly as objective and unbiased as we are led to believe they are.
But what about the nature of evolution itself? Is it really scientific while creation is religious, or are both explanations of our origin religious in nature? Since evolution really deals with past, unique, non-repeatable events, which were not observed by human beings, it does not qualify as "science". The scientific method is based on prediction, observation, and repeatability. At least two of these are not true of evolution, so evolution is not really scientific. Rather it is, in fact, a naturalistic religion (or belief system). We thus have two conflicting belief systems concerning origins; naturalistic evolution, and supernaturalistic creation. We must choose which we will believe. Of course, we can only really understand and believe the Biblical Creation model if God, by His Holy Spirit, transforms our hearts and minds and opens them to His truth as revealed in His Word.
Why then do so many people today choose evolution over creation? With scriptural insight this is fairly easy to answer. Fallen man, is by nature, in rebellion against God. Evolution "frees" man from moral accountability to his Creator and from the moral absolutes laid down by his omniscient Maker. With the evolutionary belief system, man is simply the most "advanced" animal around so far. Man is thought to be here as the result of random chance mutations and "survival of the fittest" processes so he is "his own boss". He can do as he pleases and "might makes right". (This is the philosophy which dominates our society and world today and which contributes to the growing moral and social problems we see all around us.)
As a Christian, I have found it very strengthening and encouraging to realize that it is just as legitimate, even in today's world, to believe and espouse the Christian belief system, as it is to accept the humanistic, evolution-based belief system that the world offers us. Both systems must be accepted by "faith" and neither can be proven scientifically.
Scientific evidence can be found to support both systems but it appears to me that some of the best evidence supports the truth-fulness of creationism. The Christian faith has the added advantage of giving us answers to the "Who am I?", "Why am I here?", and "Where am I going?" questions which haunt us and which the humanist can only speculate on. May God help us all to see the truthfulness of His Word, including creation, and to respond to His claim on our lives as He wants us to.
Garry A. Miller, B.E.,M.Sc.,M.R.E.