The Logic of the Argument for Creation and Against Evolution

Believers in evolution who scoff at anybody who believes in creation commonly make the charge that there is no scientific theory of creation. They are right! Creation is a divinely revealed truth. A companion assertion of evolutionists is that there is no scientific evidence for creation. Here they are wrong. Creationists, when confronted with the frontal attack against creation, have often not made a correct response because they do not correctly understand the relationship between science and creation. Consequently, they sometimes try to make creation into a scientific theory.

Most creationists do understand that the evidence for intelligent, purposeful design in nature is evidence for divine creation. Sometimes, however, they have not grasped correctly the logic for the argument from design in nature. The purpose of this essay is to explain that logic.

Creation is, by definition, a divine miracle. A miracle requires God’s transcending the laws of nature that He established. Therefore, it cannot be described or explained in scientific terms, nor can it be reproduced by scientists in the laboratory. Consequently, there can be no scientific theory or materialistic mechanism of creation. Conversely, evolutionary theorists claim to be developing theories that explain the evolution of complex living organisms and to be discovering spontaneous materialistic mechanisms that do the job. Therefore, the burden of proof is on the evolutionists. They must devise and test theories that successfully explain the origin of complex biological systems and discover mechanisms which are demonstrably capable of producing them.

Have these successful evolutionary theories and demonstrable mechanisms been discovered? The answer to this crucial question is “no.” In the first place, the fossil record fails to provide sequences of intermediate fossils to document a process of gradual evolution transforming one kind of plant or animal into another kind that possesses new complex design features. And neither classical genetics nor molecular biology has brought to light either testable explanatory theories or actual naturalistic materialistic mechanisms for the production of evolutionary novelty. In other words, evolution has yet to explain the origin of anything really new. But this is what evolutionary theory must do if it is to explain how microbes evolved into university professors in 3 billion years. It must explain how an utterly astounding series of complex new design features appeared one after the other gradually to transform that dumb little germ into an intelligent professor (who believes in evolution?). This explanation has yet to be published. Therefore, evolutionary theory totally fails to do what it is supposed to do: explain the origin of everything in the living world purely in terms of materialistic cause and effect.

Logically there are just two explanations of origins: (1) spontaneous materialistic process (i.e., evolution) and (2) intelligent, purposeful design (i.e., creation). So long as evolutionary science fails to discover the process, divine special creation remains a scientifically viable option for scientists, teachers, and students, for it is the only alternative. Every unexplained complex biological design (remember, none has yet been explained) stands as scientific evidence against evolution and for creation. There are just two logical alternatives: evolution and creation. Either life and species have a naturalistic source, or they have a supernatural source. If theistic evolution is injected into the discussion, it can be logically rejected. Theistic evolution, to be termed “theistic,” must have God supernaturally using the evolutionary process to achieve His goals. But evolutionary theorists insist that their theory is a totally naturalistic one, incorporating only time, chance, and various materialistic effects and processes. Thus, the evolution accepted by secular scientists and theistic evolution are mutually exclusive concepts. One is purposeless, unguided; but the other is somehow guided to achieve the purposes of the Creator. Therefore, belief in theistic evolution may not logically be used to argue for the acceptance of modern evolutionary theory. Excluding theistic evolution, then, only two alternative explanations remain: spontaneous materialistic evolution and divine special creation. As long as the one—evolution—continues without success at the crucial points, the alternative—creation—remains a scientifically acceptable option.

The negative character of the logic we have outlined has been cited by evolutionists in their case against creation. “All of your evidence for creation is just evidence cited against evolution,” they say; “it is just a ‘God of the gaps’ argument.” This is true, and it must be so by definition, as we have shown above. Nevertheless, the logic is airtight—until they devise a theory of evolution that really works.

But our argument need not, in reality, be exclusively negative. The sum total of human experience and observation for thousands of years has been that complex designs always arise from intelligent, purposeful minds. Never have humans observed a complex design arise from a non-intelligent source. In the case of an organism arising from a fertilized egg cell, evolutionists believe that the design information for the organism is all contained in the cell’s DNA molecules, called genes. So where did that design information come from? In the absence of observational evidence, why should we assume that the design information in an egg did not have an intelligent mind as its source? Why, indeed? Is not the decision to do so founded to a great extent upon one’s beliefs? Yes, it is the choice to believe in God the Creator or to exclude God from one’s view of the world. However, in the light of the universal experience of the human race cited above, we assert that it is more rational to believe in a created rather than an evolved world. And there is no question that belief in a purposefully designed and created world is a happier, emotionally more satisfying belief to hold.

We should mention another tactic against the logic which we have explained. It is to deny that evolution and creation are the only two alternatives. Supposedly there might be more than two alternatives. Our response to this is: “Are there? Please tell us what they might be.” Conceivably, since we do not know everything, there might be a third possibility. But until it shows up, our logic stands unrefuted.

Divine special creation is still a scientifically valid explanation for the origin of life and of all the kinds of living things that exist on the earth or that have existed in the past. This is a faith, but it is a rational faith. And it is, we believe, the better faith to hold in this modern age of science and technology, indeed, in any age. We should proclaim it with confidence and joy (Psalm 100:1-4). 

— Dr. Robert Kofahl (1924-2009). Reproduced from Foundation magazine, Issue 1, 2018.