Hi Brad, yes of course!
Creation theory
Biblical creation theory is the theory that the universe and life was formed as described in the first chapter of the book of Genesis in the Bible. It theorizes that upon comparing those claims in the Bible, which are feasibly testable with science, to current scientific observations, that the claims of the Bible and the observations will harmonize.
Claim 1. There is an external source of the universe (God) that possesses an infinite nature.
The Bible claims the universe and life are the result of an external source and that this source is infinite in nature. If this were true we predict to observe evidence that the universe is finite in nature having a beginning point. This is because an infinite universe would obviously not require an external source. Isaac Newton's 3rd law of motion states that for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. And in the First law of thermodynamics, the law of conservation of energy, states that energy can be transformed or changed from one form to another, but cannot be created or destroyed. The Law of universal causation states that every event or phenomenon results from, or is the sequel of, some previous event or phenomenon, which being present, the other is certain to take place. Combining these basic laws brings us to the logical conclusion that if anything, including the universe itself, had a beginning it would require an external source.
According to the current scientific astronomical data, the universe had a beginning. Einstein wanted the universe to be constant, however when he did his calculations for the theory of “General Relativity” he found that according to his calculations the math demanded a beginning for time, space, and matter. The universe, according to his math, must be expanding. This was troubling because it meant that if the universe is expanding, at some point in the past it had to have had a beginning. Einstein had found that the universe was not constant. In 1913, an astronomer named Slipher was the first astronomer to suggest that the universe was in fact expanding in all directions. The proof came in 1929 when famous astronomer Edwin Hubble presented actual conclusive empirical evidence that the universe is expanding. He physically observed distant galaxies moving away at a speed that is directly proportional to their distances from earth. This meant the universe did in fact have a beginning.
The Expanding Universe
Science lists 1998’s biggest breakthroughs
Again the logical conclusion from a universe that had a beginning is that it had to have a source. There are several alternate explanations posed to try and get around this but here are the two most popular, none of which have any supportive observable evidence. Some still believe that the universe is in fact constant but continuously oscillating in and out in cycles. However this could not work according to our current understanding of observational laws as it would have long since died a heat death. Another possibility posed is that it could have been formed by a quantum fluctuation since it has been observed that virtual particles come in and out of existence seemingly from nothing. However there are three problems with this possibility that make it very unlikely. First we have only made these observations in a universe were conditions already exist for a quantum fluctuation to occur. We do not know that a quantum fluctuation can occur where these conditions do not exist. Some fix this by saying the universe could have always existed as a zero point of energy. The problem is that if the universe were ever a zero point of energy or smaller, there is no longer any space for particle pair productions or virtual particles and thus no space for a quantum fluctuation to occur. Secondly the Heisenberg uncertainty principle says in part that the more energy you have in a fluctuation the shorter lived the duration of that fluctuation. That means if any fluctuation occurred that had the potential energy of our entire universe it would instantaneously vanish. Thirdly the law of conservation of energy says that the quantum fluctuations we are observing cannot be the creation of completely new particles because no new energy can be created or destroyed. It can only be converted. Without any other scientific basis we must conclude they are caused by some yet unexplained transfer of energy not the creation of completely new particles. The only viable conclusion that we have based on current scientific observations is that the universe began from some other greater source of energy. Logically this source would also be required to be infinite in nature. This is because if ever there were a time when nothing existed, then nothing would still exist. So there must be at least one source that has existed without a beginning. Things that exist without a beginning are assigned the term "infinite."
Claim 2. The infinite source of the universe possesses intelligence.
The Bible claims that the external source of the universe and life (God) is intelligent in nature. If this is true we predict we would observe two primary features found in the things said to have been created. First we predict we would observe common similar features in structure and traits among various living things since they were all designed to co-exist and function in many similar ways within this same biosphere by the one creator. The scientific literature is full of examples of these types of similarities among various forms of life. Second we predict we would observe characteristics of design or intent that have only been observed coming from sources of intelligence rather than unguided processes. Things with design or intent can be detected by looking for the characteristic of specificity. Specificity is anything in which an observer can see was formed for a specific reason. It is a distinguishing quality or attribute explicitly set forth; as Intended for, applying to, or acting on a particular thing: Something particularly fitted to a use or purpose. Any event or object which exhibits a pattern that matches a foreknown pattern that was completely interdependent of the first. In other words, for an observer to test for specificity he must be able to recognize it from a completely independent experience. This can either be a pattern that produces a recognition response or a functional response. One example would be the way a key's teeth are the exact sizes required to set the tumbles in an independent lock to the unlocked position.
Archaeologists infer something was formed by human intelligence in artifacts by looking for specific design clues in which they classify by: 1. raw material (stone, metal, glass, ceramic, etc.), 2. morphology (form, including size, shape, design, functional aspects etc.), and 3. style (more elusive—including design, decoration, etc.)
Artifact (archaeology) - Wikipedia Marine biologists detect intelligence in dolphin communications by matching specific sound patterns to certain behaviors which imply the existence of an actual intelligent language, by observing a dolphin's abilities to reason, problem solve, and communicate. There is strong evidence to suggest that some specific whistles, named signature whistles, are used by dolphins to identify and/or call each other; dolphins have been observed emitting both other specimens' signature whistles, and their own.
Cetacean intelligence - Wikipedia SETI astronomers infer intelligence by looking for specific narrow bandwidth radio signals or highly compressed light bursts. The SETI scientists use radio telescopes to listen for narrow-bandwidth radio signals from space. Such signals are not known to occur naturally, so a detection would provide evidence of extraterrestrial technology. It would imply it had an intelligent source.
About SETI@home
So by these examples we see how scientists have already been using specificity to try and detect intelligence. The same approach can be used to see if the source of the universe possesses intelligence. When examining the properties, parameters, and arrangement of our universe, solar system, and planet, all working together in unison as a whole, the picture comes together and we realize we are peering into the workings of a highly specified machine. Parameters that all have to exist together in just the right way, at the exact same time, and in the same place for life to exist here. Examples are our location in the galaxy between the spiral arms in a clear zone, our distance from the sun, our gas giants in the outer rim, the size of our sun, our axis in relation to the sun, our moon's size and distance, our atmosphere's mix of nitrogen and oxygen, our land to water mass ratio, plate tectonic activity, circulation of earth's liquid iron inner core, our magnetic field, our earth's size and rotation speed, literally hundreds of features that require these exact parameters and need to all be in place at the same time for life to exist. Even all the physical laws like electromagnetic force, excitation of nuclei, strength of gravity, mass of material, speed of light, temperature, and nuclear intensity are all fine tuned to the precise parameters needed for life. A prevailing view in physics today is that if the balance of these very technical concepts were slightly out of proportion, the elements (especially like carbon which is so necessary for life) could not exist.
Fred Hoyle (British astrophysicist): "A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a super intellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question." Hoyle, F. 1982. The Universe: Past and Present Reflections. Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics: 20:16.
George Ellis (British astrophysicist): "Amazing fine tuning occurs in the laws that make this [complexity] possible. Realization of the complexity of what is accomplished makes it very difficult not to use the word 'miraculous' without taking a stand as to the ontological status of the word." Ellis, G.F.R. 1993. The Anthropic Principle: Laws and Environments. The Anthropic Principle, F. Bertola and U.Curi, ed. New York, Cambridge University Press, p. 30.
Paul Davies (British astrophysicist): "It is obvious even at a casual glance that the universe is remarkably ordered on all scales. Matter and energy are distributed neither uniformly nor haphazardly, but organized into coherent identifiable structures, occasionally of great complexity." Davies, P. 1988. The Cosmic Blueprint: New Discoveries in Nature's Creative Ability To Order the Universe. New York: Simon and Schuster, p.3.
Alan Sandage (winner of the Crawford prize in astronomy): "I find it quite improbable that such order came out of chaos. There has to be some organizing principle. God to me is a mystery but is the explanation for the miracle of existence, why there is something instead of nothing." Willford, J.N. March 12, 1991. Sizing up the Cosmos: An Astronomers Quest. New York Times, p. B9.
Arno Penzias (Nobel prize in physics): "Astronomy leads us to a unique event, a universe which was created out of nothing, one with the very delicate balance needed to provide exactly the conditions required to permit life, and one which has an underlying (one might say 'supernatural') plan." Margenau, H and R.A. Varghese, ed. 1992. Cosmos, Bios, and Theos. La Salle, IL, Open Court, p. 83.
Examining the structure of DNA in all living things we find it contains a highly specified code which warps our most sophisticated computer software programs by comparison. DNA uses specified base code sequences and arrangements as the blue prints to build the correct cells. Almost all the scientific literature describes the DNA code of all organisms as highly specified.
Genetic code supports targeted insertion of two amino acids by one codon. - PubMed - NCBI
http://www.nature.com/nature/dna50/watsoncrick2.pdf
DNA codes for protein synthesis by first coding for RNA. First, the DNA code is transcribed to RNA code, which is still in the “language” of nitrogenous bases, except that adenine on the DNA pairs with uracil (in place of thymine) on the RNA. The RNA code is then translated to protein code, which is a different “language.” This process involves ribosomes and two kinds of RNA: mRNA and tRNA. The mRNA codes for the gene in question and is copied off the DNA, while tRNA matches a specific group of nucleotides with a specific amino acid. A “unit” of three nucleotides on the tRNA codes for one amino acid. Each of these “units” is called an anticodon. These match up with corresponding three-nucleotide sequences on the mRNA called codons, and in this manner the amino acids are organized into the correct sequence to build a protein. The ribosome works with the mRNA and tRNA to hook the amino acids together to form a protein.
http://biology.clc.uc.edu/courses/bio104/dna.htm
It then is a reasonable conclusion drawn by the observable evidence that claims 1 and 2 do in fact harmonize with science. It is therefore not unreasonable to accept that there is an external infinite, and intelligent source of the universe and life based on two observations, that 1. our universe had a beginning and 2. its specified nature is clearly displayed throughout its structure, arrangement and inhabitants. The most common term in the English language assigned to such an entity is "God."
Claim 3. All life was formed as individual kinds by God.
The Bible claims that God formed each individual kind of creature separately and that He formed them so that they would only reproduce after their own kind. If this is true we would predict to find three things. First that all the major forms would show up suddenly in the fossil record looking much the way they do today with unremarkable differences. Secondly as stated earlier we predict that because they all have a common creator who designed them to live and function in many similar ways within the same biosphere, that there would be many similar traits among many of the different forms. Thirdly we predict that we would observe the characteristics of specificity.
The most prevalent competing theory of course is that all life formed naturally through two main unguided processes working together, the process of random mutations causing small changes in the genome which are favored by environmental conditions and that over time these small changes added up to create very large changes aka evolution. A problem often arises with the use of the term evolution because it often is also used just to refer only to the small changes that occur in a population over time due to environmental selection. All knowledgeable Creationists fully accept this kind of evolution. What they reject however is what is typically tacked on to that definition later by some scientists and over popularized by the media. We do actually observe small changes in populations of organisms. And we do observe this happen all the time. There is nothing about this observation that conflicts with the claims of Genesis 1. However what we never observe is that given vast amounts of time these small changes will stack up to create vast changes. This idea stems from a misunderstanding of what causes these small changes to begin with. All changes of multi celled life observed so far in the evidence presented in biological studies show these changes have been the result of natural selection "selecting" already existing genes in the gene pool. All organisms already posses an enormous number of copies of the same genes in the gene pool from with which natural selection can select. These copies are called alleles and are what cause things like different colored hair, eyes, flower pedals, and height. For example if you calculated the total number of varieties available in the 23 chromosomes of the human male population and multiplied that by the total number of varieties available in the 23 chromosomes of the human female population, you wind up with a combined total of varieties available that is well in the trillions from which natural selection can choose.
Obviously then in order to prove that the theory of evolution could have happened with biological evidence we would need to see at least one example of this process happen. What exactly we would need to see is an example of a study conducted in a controlled environment where a random mutation added new gaining type information to the genome that was beneficial to the organisms survival. This needs to be conducted under controlled conditions so we can insure that the changes did not occur as a result of an expression of an already existing allele as mentioned earlier. Some want to use single celled organisms as examples of this occurring in the lab, but the problem is that single celled organisms are not like most other types of living organisms. They don't have the same abilities of just being able to migrate to a new location when food is scarce or environmental conditions become hostile. There is good observational evidence to suggest that they were designed with very unique ways to cope. For example the type of yeast used in a Dr. Ratcliff's experiment is known to already possess the genetic information to perform a dimorphic switch when the environment becomes hostile, such as when it is nitrogen starved, and to become a multi cellular filament.
Single celled organisms also often carry with them another kind of DNA called plasmids which almost never occur in multi celled organisms. For example a study conducted on nylon waste metabolizing bacteria. Since nylon is a man made substance which never existed in nature it would not have been something that bacteria would have ever encountered prior. However bacteria was discovered to have developed the ability to metabolize the waste being dumped into the river by a nylon manufacturing plant. The changes that occurred in Nylonase (nylon metabolizing bacteria) took place in their plasmid DNA not the chromosomal DNA. External forces such as exposure to poison, starvation or high temperature have been observed in studies to activate transposases on the plasmids, meaning the change occurred in "response" to the organisms need rather than a purely random mutation. Evolution theory however is adamant that the mechanisms which cause evolution to occur are completely random mutations accompanied by natural selection. This therefore implies design not descent. Likewise in Lenski's E coli experiments, the changes are due to the activation of a latent function or a beneficial (but not information-gaining) mutation that allows citrate processing. In order to truly be sure that the kind of evolution that is necessary for Universal Common Ancestry type of progression has occurred, we would need to see a positive mutation in the chromosomal DNA of a "multi" celled organism, that demonstrates information gaining to the DNA. To date, no such observations have ever been reported.
Other observations that some believe supports evolution theory are the similarities found between the DNA of different forms of organisms. But as mentioned earlier similarity is also predicted to be observed if all life has a common creator. Likewise evolution is thought to be supported by the similarities between other traits and bone structures of different forms observed in both the living and the fossil record. But if similar features are predicted by both evolutionists and creationists alike then the fact that an organism has similar features does not support either case. Or you could say it actually supports both. In order to say that evolution theory is supported over creation by the fossils we would have to observe at least one finely graduated chain between any two major forms. However no such chain has ever been found. All proposed fossil chains still leave considerable doubt by the huge gaps between the major forms. This problem is admitted by most paleontologists.
"The history of most fossil species includes two features Particularly inconsistent with gradualism: first is stasis. Most species exhibit no directional changes during their tenure on earth. They appear in the fossil record looking much the same as when they disappear; Morphological Change is limited and directionless. Second is Sudden appearance. In any local area a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors. But rather appears all at once and fully formed." -Harvard paleontologist Stephan J. Gould. (Evolutions Erratic Pace, National History, 1977 13-14)
Here Gould is saying that the actual evidence is that rather than gradually arising in a steady transformation, most forms appear all at once and fully formed. This is exactly what we would expect to find had life been formed in the way it is described in the book of Genesis. We do observe similar features between the various forms, and we also observe that the structures and DNA of life displays a high degree of specificity. All these are predictions of creation theory.
Conclusion: The fact that our universe had a beginning, that we observe highly specified features in its arrangement, that all the major forms appear suddenly and full formed in the fossils, and that life displays highly specified characteristics in its makeup, all harmonizes perfectly with the description found in Genesis1. It is therefore not unreasonable at all or unscientific to accept that the God of the Bible is responsible for the creation of the universe and life.
