Skip to content

Today's Creation Moment

Social Spiders
Job 8:13-14
"So are the paths of all that forget God; and the hypocrite's hope shall perish: Whose hope shall be cut off, and whose trust shall be a spider's web....
A family reunion among spiders is not a pretty thing. Many of the some 35,000 species of spiders begin eating their siblings as soon as they hatch. For this reason, spiders are typically lone hunters...

Origins - Not a Scientific Issue at All

Evolutionary scientists today act as if "science" is the only way to determine whether something is true. But is this a proper way to learn the truth of a one-time event that is rooted in history?

CSI – or Crime Scene Investigation – might make you think so. Since the TV series focuses on forensic science and the study of physical evidence found at crime scenes, many TV watchers believe that such hard, physical evidence is absolutely necessary in order to solve a crime. But if you ask people in law enforcement, you'll learn that other kinds of evidence are just as important.

For instance, if the suspect can prove he was a thousand miles away from the crime scene at the time of the murder, this evidence proves he didn't pull the trigger. Investigators rely on such evidence to make inferences that are essential in crime solving, and this has absolutely nothing to do with DNA sampling, fingerprints and the other tools of the CSI team. Rather, it deals with eyewitness testimony, consideration of motives, the opportunity to commit the crime, plus many other lines of evidence.

Turning now to the evolution-creation debate, the origin of the universe is an historical issue and is not a scientific issue at all. It is not testable, repeatable, observable or falsifiable as the scientific method requires. Scientists can make guesses at what happened, but their guesses are predicated on the assumptions that God doesn't exist and that the rate at which processes occur now are identical to the rate they occurred in the past (uniformitarianism).

Unlike evolutionary scientists, however, biblical creationists know that the origin of the universe is an historical issue … and they do not start by assuming that God doesn't exist. Since origins is an historical, one-time event, creationists start by asking if eyewitness testimony is available. Indeed it is – the eyewitness account recorded in the Bible.

That's why creationists and not evolutionists know what really happened ... in the beginning.


The idea that science is the only or at least the best way to determine truth presumes that man's intellect is the ultimate reality, the ultimate authority. By this it presumes that no greater intelligence exists, and is thus exposed as an atheistic presupposition, denying the existence of God.

True story. Evolutionists are trying so hard to hold their dear macro evolution theory by its last thread. (not including variations in a kind) We know they can't prove the four other definitions that would make evolution true, and the evidence suggests that they're nothing but imagination. "The entire theory is held together in spite of, rather than because of the evidence." (Arthur C. Custance)

Science, as I understand it, is not about reaching absolute knowledge, but rather, in as reliable and measured a manner as possible, gathering and critically evaluating information about reality, past and present, with an ability to reason from evaluated information to predict results of specific investigation. Discussion of the past can, I believe, be science, if the reliability of the information is evaluated in accord with well reasoned, logical rules. When an archeologist, seeing the evidences in documentation, climate, material finds at digs, etc. predicts finds of a specific type in another direction, it is science. The fact that there is a higher level of uncertainty involved in the data than that held in physics or chemistry does not make archeology not science. It is well known as an observed, documented fact that a man named Nobel invented dynamite, but no experiment in physics or chemistry will demonstrate the fact. Eyewitness testimony is next after experiment in establishing fact. Ongoing principles of reality can be tested by experiment and witnessed. If those principles have operated differently in the past, no experiment in the present will establish it. Testimony and present circumstance are the only things able to support the knowledge, and that is always less reliable than repeatable demonstration.

Evolutionists rely on the hope that no one will pay attention to historical facts, which are easily verified by eye-witness testimony and observable processes in effect today. Evolutionism is set in a time before time began on purpose so that its fairytale can live in the minds of its adherents. But that's the only place it exists. It has no place in the real world, the history of which is accurately recorded in the Bible.

Evidence and eye-witness testimony can't be taken seriously by evolutionists. That's because facts would disturb the elaborate and illogical theories they come up with.

I'm not sure what people hope to gain by denying that the Lord created all things. I know that it feeds their arrogance; they use it as an excuse to be god of their own universe. They also manage to profit by it financially. But what can they truly gain? When you have lost your salvation, you have lost everything.

P.S. Despite rumors to the contrary, no unsaved person makes it into heaven. You either have to be humble enough to accept the Lord himself and obey his commands, or you will not be with him.