Creation Science?

Is creation scientific? What, exactly, is “science”? What is “religion”? What is “spirituality”?

Here we will provide links to sites that deal with science and that show we do not have to check our brain at the door to believe in creation. We do not necessarily agree with everything presented on every site, however, we do believe there is a lot of good information on them.

In order for evolution to “work”, you have to make many assumptions…assumptions that are not explained in the average science book. Many things taught as fact are actually assumptions. No wonder so many people are confused on this issue!

We hope these links will help people to be able to get the information they need to make an informed decision for themselves!

Does God Exist? This site has some excellent FREE resources that you can can either download or borrow.

Creation Revolution

Dr. Jobe Martin

Creation FAQ

Creation Ministries International  Articles: 10 Dangers of Theistic Evolution

Answers in Genesis Articles: How Old Is the Earth?; Lord Kelvin Revisited on the Age of the Earth; Chapter 5: Are There Gaps in the Genesis Genealogies?;

Institute for Creation Research

Creation Science


Conservapedia – Evolution

Creation Wiki

Evolution — Facts, Theories and Fiction

Northwest Creation Network

The Parent Company

BibleSci Guy

11 Responses to Creation Science?

  1. Pingback: The Second Coming of Yeshua/Jesus | Reflections from Beit-Shalom

    • Abigail says:

      Thank you for the link. I read the article. It is pretty clear that the author has a bias (along with some of the people he quotes) and an assumption of an older earth.

      When we hold onto assumptions tightly and then the word of G-d seems to contradict those assumptions, then something has to be done to make them fit together. This requires stretching and adding things to the Word of G-d that it simply does not say. It also sometimes requires an unscholarly look at Hebrew. There are articles above that address these issues.

      We all have assumptions. Mine is that G-d words things the way He does for a reason. He does things the way He does for a reason. We need to pay attention to that. I also presume the word of G-d in the original documents to be infallible…to be accurate. If what we think is true does not line up with the word of G-d, then it means our understanding is faulty…not the word of G-d. There are MANY instances of people doubting the word of G-d because of some seeming “evidence” or “lack of evidence” to the contrary. Yet, time after time, more evidence is unearthed that actually agrees with what G-d has already stated in His word.

      I hope you will check out the above articles and prayerfully consider what they say. 🙂

  2. We’ll probably have to agree to disagree. I don’t think the argument for a young earth is airtight based on the Biblical texts themselves, but I do believe Adam and Eve were actual people (based on both Genesis and Paul to name two Biblical sources). The Trinity absolutely created it all. I think we’ll all be surprised by the details of exactly how when we have the opportunity to ask! … as in most things.

    • Abigail says:

      I believe in letting the bible interpret science…not the other way around. The idea of an old earth came about fairly recently compared to the belief in a young earth. When you have people who do not want to believe in G-d trying to find a way to disprove His existence…or at least the G-d of the bible, anyway…they will interpret what they see without the filter of what G-d has told us. When it seems to disagree with G-d, instead of questioning their “new” belief, they question a plain reading G-d’s word.

      I agree that there will be many surprises. 🙂 I don’t know that we will need to ask, though. We are told that we will know as we are known. I tend to think that goes beyond the intimacy of us knowing G-d and even expands to us knowing all the answers to those questions…all the puzzles of life and events. But that is just my thought.

      • I haven’t finished reading this article, but this fellow is FAR from biased. He really wants to know what the early church fathers thought:

        • Abigail says:

          One problem with looking back at the church fathers is that many of the ones mentioned in the article are also ones that brought some heresy into the body of Yeshua. What means the most to me is what the Jewish people of old understood it to mean.

          The scriptures are to be read plainly except where it is obviously allegory. The writing of Genesis is in the narrative style. It should be taken at its plain meaning unless you have a really good reason to take it in another way. If it is allegory, then when does the allegory stop and the narrative history start?

          Almost all Hebrew scholars agree that while yom can mean different things, it is almost exlusively a 24 hour day when couples with a qualifier. In Genesis 1, yom is coupled with TWO qualifiers. A number is qualifer and so is “evening and morning”.

          There is really no reason to read it any way other than a 24 hour day…unless you are trying to shoehorn the idea of an old earth into the scriptures.

          I have read some of the other ideas, so I am aware of what they propose, but I do not see any compelling reasons to read it other than how it is clearly stated.

          The Jews also understood prophecy in light of them being real days. In fact, it was because of that understanding that they actually were looking for expecting Messiah to come when He did.

          But it is OK to disagree. I don’t think this is a salvational issue. However, it can be problematic in the sense of how you read and understand G-d’s word.

          • I agree that it’s ok to disagree. I also think one can take the Bible as God breathed Word and interpret some sections poetically – which is what some do here (framework theory). I also think that the fact the sun didn’t come til day 4 and the last day never ended do cast question about whether or not the 24 hour day is called for in this passage. A friend’s dad taught Physics and wrote an entire book explaining Genesis from an astrophysical point of view. He had some interesting takes on what light caused “day” in the first few days of creation. And this guy was VERY conservative Biblically. In fact, the old earthers I know are very conservative Biblical scholars, but obviously take a different view. Since those who have such high regard for scripture fall on both sides of this debate, I pretty much figure I’ll learn the truth when I get to heaven! Til then, there are much more important matters to agree upon such as salvation and some of the ethical/moral issues of our day.

  3. Abigail says:

    I think we may all be surprised. In fact, we may all have an incorrect, or partially incorrect, take on it.

  4. Very interesting, science is definitely not fool proof. I used to teach science within psychology and one thing I found interesting was the concept of falsifiability which basically means you can never prove anything only disprove it. Science would have us believe all their theories are water tight when in fact they are based on statistical probability, the likelihood that a phenomenon occurred due to something other than chance, to be honest it’s all a bit confusing I would rather just trust the most simple explanation, God’s Word.

    • Abigail says:

      Exactly! The theories of evolution and of old earth are based upon a number of unprovable assumptions. G-d’s word, on the other hand, is based upon…an infinite, all powerful, all truthful being who was there when He did it all. The best eye witness you can have!

We would love to hear your thoughts...

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s