Is young-earth creationism a childish belief?

Dear AiG,

I am a HS senior entering the field of biology. I love the sciences and I am secure in my faith in God as the creator of the universe.

HOWEVER:

I think the idea of "creationism" that you push is childish and frankly, ridiculous. The process of Evolution is proven. Unrefutable fact. Darwin's THEORY is that evolution is how we got to where we are today; but the reality of the evolutionary processorganisms change over time in response to changing environments- is proven completely. Third: The earth is not 6000 years old. It disturbs me to see so many physicists and chemists on your "reformed scientist" list because this goes against all branches of science!

Do you believe in an all-powerful God who can do ANYTHING? Yes? Than why are you so afraid of the idea that he has been around for eons, works in ways we can't even imagine?

Your argument gives Christians a bad name.

Please email me, I'd love to have an intelligent, intellectual discussion with someone.

—M.H., U.S.

Dear AiG,

I am a HS senior entering the field of biology. I love the sciences and I am secure in my faith in God as the creator of the universe.

This is great to hear. I presume you are referring to the God of the Bible. The one and only triune God. By this statement I think it is safe to assume that you are a Christian by accepting Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior.

HOWEVER:

I think the idea of "creationism" that you push is childish and frankly, ridiculous.

The “idea of creationism” that we espouse is none other than the one that God has told us about in His Word. This is not our idea; God gave us His eyewitness account of His creative acts. So, why do you think that Jesus Christ’s written account of how and when He created is childish and ridiculous? Because of what some teacher, TV program, or textbook says? Your disagreement is not with us but with God and His Word.

The process of Evolution is proven. Unrefutable fact. Darwin's THEORY is that evolution is how we got to where we are today; but the reality of the evolutionary process organisms change over time in response to changing environments- is proven completely.

In what way has molecules-to-man evolution been proven true? Natural selection is an observable process, but it certainly is not the same thing as molecules-to-man evolution as we have consistently and correctly pointed out in many of our articles (e.g., Natural Selection). We agree that organisms change, however, there is a genetically-fixed limit to the amount of change a population can experience. Although new species develop, one kind of animal can not change into another kind. It is more important to note that God’s Word does not teach the hypothesis of germs-to-geologist evolution. Instead, from Scripture, we learn that animals were created and are to reproduce according to their kinds (Genesis 1).

Even though many claim amoeba-to-anthropologist evolution to be true, there are many evolutionists who realize that it cannot be proven true—and certainly not by means of observation or laboratory testing (operational science that gives us medicine, technology, and the like).

“Evolution is a historical process that cannot be proven by the same arguments and methods by which purely physical or functional phenomena can be documented.”1

In other words, matter-to-mankind evolution is a historical science that cannot be proven in a lab or by direct observation.

“A scientifically useful hypothesis must be testable and falsifiable (able to be proved false) ... Even though the hypothesis can be falsified, it can never be proved true.”2 [emphasis original]

Since blob-to-mob evolution isn’t even testable (i.e. no one has ever turned an amoeba into a cow), at best it is a hypothesis. And when evolutionists claim it to be absolutely true, they actually ignore the very scientific method on which they claim to rely.

Third: The earth is not 6000 years old. It disturbs me to see so many physicists and chemists on your "reformed scientist" list because this goes against all branches of science!

A 6,000-year-old earth does not go against any branch of science. Perhaps it goes against the beliefs of individuals in every branch of science—perhaps even the majority of individuals, but since when does majority decide truth? The only things opposed by young-earth creation are fallible man’s interpretations about what may have happened in the past. What biblical, logical, or scientific evidence is there that shows that God’s eyewitness account (of what He created) goes against any branch of actual science, which He made possible by the natural laws He created? Because God created an orderly universe that follows natural laws, science is possible. Dirt-to-doctor evolution proposes that the universe and life began by random chance, so in the evolutionary worldview there is no reason why the universe should follow orderly laws. In fact, when evolutionists do operational science, they are assuming that the natural laws God created are uniform. And since God created those laws to operate in a uniform fashion, they are borrowing from the Bible.

Do you believe in an all-powerful God who can do ANYTHING? Yes? Than why are you so afraid of the idea that he has been around for eons, works in ways we can't even imagine?

Of course we believe God can do anything, except sinful things, such as lying. That’s why we believe Him when He told us how and when He did it, not only in Genesis, but throughout Scripture. But now I pose the same questions to you: Do you believe in the all-powerful God of the Bible who can do anything? If so, then why do you not believe He was able to create in six literal, 24-hour days about 6,000 years ago as His Word reveals? If God truly did create using rock-to-rocket-scientist evolution over eons then He lied to us by saying that He created all things in six days (Exodus 20:11; see also Genesis 1). Yet we know God is incapable of lying (Numbers 23:19; Titus 1:2; Hebrews 6:18). So, if God lied to us about earthly things (e.g. how and when He created) how do we know He has not lied about heavenly things (e.g. salvation, Heaven and Hell)?

Your argument gives Christians a bad name.

Because we are all humans affected by the Fall, we certainly are capable of error. However, how does upholding the authority of God’s Word and presenting the full gospel of Jesus Christ give Christians a bad name? In reality, those who do not accurately represent Christ compromise His Word for the ever-changing ideas of man. If a believer is able to pick and choose what they want to believe about the Bible, then a non-Christian even more so. If a Christian chooses not to believe the actual history of Scripture, such as Adam’s Fall and hence the reason for our need of a Savior (Romans 5:12-21), why would a non-Christian want to believe the Bible when it comes to Jesus’ resurrection or His promise of salvation?

Please email me, I'd love to have an intelligent, intellectual discussion with someone.

Thank you for taking the time to email us. I pray the above responses will challenge you to study and trust God’s Word about how and when He created. If you believed His Word for your salvation, I hope you will believe His Word where it gives the reason for the need of that salvation (Genesis 3). Remember what Christ Himself said in John 3:12:

“If I have told you earthly things and you do not believe, how can you believe if I tell you heavenly things?”

In His name and for His glory,

David Wright