Evolutionists sometimes call biblical creation a pseudoscience. Is such a claim defensible? Could it be that evolution is in fact pseudoscience while creation makes science possible?
In our previous article, we investigated the standard model (the big bang) on scientific grounds. We found that the big bang is not scientific in the sense that none of its major steps have been verified by the scientific method. However, there are things that are reasonable and true that cannot be verified by science. So we must ask, is the big bang reasonable? Are there good reasons to believe it despite its lack of scientific verification?
The big bang is a secular story of the origin of the universe. It was designed to explain the origin of stars, planets, galaxies, and even the universe itself without any need for God. The big bang is not compatible with the history recorded in Genesis. But if we didn’t have Genesis, would it be reasonable to believe in a big bang? Does the big bang have scientific merit?
How did the universe begin? In almost all public schools and universities, the most commonly promoted idea of universal origins is the big bang. Is the big bang really a reasonable theory about how the universe began? Can it be reconciled with Scripture? Is it based on good science?
The outer solar system continues to confirm the biblical timescale. When the New Horizons spacecraft flew past the Pluto system in July 2015, its findings challenged secular expectations…. A recent study examining the sparse cratering on these worlds provides even additional evidence of their biblical age of a few thousand years.
When Charles Darwin wrote “On the Origin of Species” in 1859, he employed an ingenious trick to persuade people of evolution. He linked evolution to natural selection, implying that natural selection was the mechanism of evolution. This was a clever trap because when something false (evolution) is linked with something true (natural selection), people are often fooled.