The Evidence for Creationism and Its Scientific Validity
Assume for a moment that evolution is completely wrong. What evidence do you have that creationism is correct? Remember, we are assuming evolution is wrong, so arguments about the problems with evolution aren't answers to your questions.
Some point to an old book written by sheepherders, suggesting a hidden truth. However, if you cannot determine which theory to believe after being presented with a mountain of evidence supporting one side and none for the other, perhaps you have reasons beyond scientific inquiry that are influencing your beliefs.
According to creationism, all the evidence points to a creation by a supernatural being. This perspective is particularly attractive for people who seek to justify an afterlife as an alternative to death. In the context of religions such as Christianity, creationism offers a path that many find comforting.
Some argue that evolution is a threat to their beliefs, viewing it as an enemy. However, let's examine the actual evidence. In every field of science, there is absolutely no substantial evidence for anything supernatural. Everything that we have discovered has turned out to be natural, not magical.
Evolution, on the other hand, is a well-supported scientific theory with a wealth of evidence. In contrast, "creationism" and "intelligent design" are discredited theist lies with no verifiable evidence. God's existence is a matter of faith, not science.
Creationists often cite the Bible, particularly the creation narrative and the flood narrative, as evidence for their beliefs. They believe that God spoke all that is into existence in six literal days, but there is no evidence to support this claim. However, the global flood narrative is supported by sedimentary flood strata filled with trillions of plant and animal fossils, which conclusively proves a global flood.
Despite this evidence, many questions remain. One of the most perplexing is the ongoing definition of the word "evolution." In 2020, a Quora community member asked: "How did mankind use evolution to create the poodle?" This could also be rephrased in the context of biological warfare: "How does a biological weapons lab use evolution to create a weapons-grade virus or bacteria?"
Some creationists insist that the breed of poodle and the products of biological warfare prove that all biological life on Earth originated from a single microbe. They also point to the fossil record as additional evidence. However, when you ask if this constitutes science, the answer is no. The definition of science requires verifiable evidence and reproducibility, and creationism fails to meet these criteria.
The most convincing evidence for creationism often comes down to faith and personal belief. For example, the global flood narrative and the presence of fossils in sedimentary strata are compelling to those who accept the literal biblical interpretation. However, for those who demand scientific evidence, these narratives alone are not sufficient.
In conclusion, if the theory of evolution is wrong, the burden of proof lies with creationism. The evidence for creationism, while inspiring to believers, lacks the verifiable and reproducible nature required by the scientific method. Until there is substantial empirical evidence supporting creationism, it remains outside the realm of scientific inquiry.