Science

How Did We Get Here?

In the discussion of the origins of life, there are two separate and distinct arguments: Either we were created by an omniscient , omnipotent , and omnipresent God or we have come about by time, chance and the inherent properties of matter and energy. These two arguments fall under two different scientific models or theories; Creationism and Evolutionism. There are virtually no other options to define the origin of all living and nonliving matter and energy. It was either created or happened by accident.

Many modern-day scientists claim that religion cannot hold up to science. They say that the two are like oil and water, they don’t mix. Science has become taboo when discussing theological subjects; however, this was not always the case. What we call science today was called natural philosophy in times past.

Most evolutionists will state that creationism is a religion while evolutionism is science. However, British physicist H. S. Lipson (1980) expressed his interest in life’s origin, and his feeling – quite apart from any preference for creation – as thus:

In fact, evolution became in a sense a scientific religion; almost all scientists have accepted it and many are prepared to “bend” their observations to fit with it…To my mind, the theory (evolution) does not stand up at all.¹

There are but only two scientific models, evolution and creation, to explain the origins of everything, both living and non-living matter and energy. Both creationism and evolutionism are scientific models that are used to explain and predict scientific fact. Creation does the better job of the two.

As you will see through further examination, the Biblical account of creation is by far the more logical explanation then that of evolution. 2 Peter 3:5-6 says, “For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water: Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished:” In other words; many have denied the account of creation and the world-wide flood spoken of in Genesis.

To be “willingly ignorant”, as Dr Kent Hovind of Creation Science Evangelism (www.2peter3.com) puts it, is to be “dumb on purpose”. As the evidence begins to mount, you will be confronted with a choice to accept the obvious or be “willingly ignorant” of the facts. Be sure to choose wisely.