Neither creation nor macro-evolution have physical proof for their positions. Rather, each party looks at the scientific data from their own perspective and looks for evidence to support it. For instance, the people who are convinced that macroevolution has occurred look at all the fossils unearthed over the centuries and concludes, “Well, since we all evolved, then these invertebrates probably evolved one after the other and the vertebrates branched off and evolved their own way. All these bird-like creatures evolved in order and the mammals branched off and evolved, splitting up more and more, based on the similarities among them.” The evidence is plain.
Those who believe God created each kind of creature by itself, seeing the same data the evolutionist sees, concludes, “All fossilize skeletons are full and complete. All parts needed to be a living creature are all accounted for. There are no in-betweens. These skeletons illustrate the biblical account, that God formed each animal according to its kind. They did not evolve but were created as is.” The evidence is plain.
Same data; same science; different viewpoints
Charles Darwin saw the possibility of small changes in birds over time and wondered whether this survival adaptation could also be an agent that morphs animals into entirely different creatures. He used an illustration that was actually occurring in nature and extrapolated from it. There is no problem with this; it’s how new theories are born, after all.
Creationists do the same thing. They look at what happens in nature — for example, the use of complex language and information — and assume that since all language came from an intelligent mind, then all the language coded in our DNA also came from an intelligent source. Is that theory too much of a stretch? After all, it is demonstrable everywhere; there are no examples of complex information systems arising on their own. Wherever there is language, you’ll find that a mind has ordered the elements to communicate a message.
In the case of software code, to add more functionality one must first consider what function one wants to add, then design the correct code in the best place to add the new feature. So is it a stretch to think that different DNA code had to be written for each creature to give it its unique qualities? Doesn’t that imply that an intelligent mind must first think of the feature, know how to code it, and install it in the correct place to implement the feature? Again, creationists are doing exactly what Darwin did – using observation and evidences to draw conclusions.
There is nothing wrong with science discoveries; it’s our worldview that interprets that data and splits us into different camps.
