Creation or Evolution?
Logic Points To Creation
Brian R. Kenyon

There are three ways to arrive at truth: (1) observation (that which can be learned through the senses); (2) reason, or logic; and (3) Divine revelation (what God has revealed in the Bible). In the last two bulletin articles, we focused on the first of these avenues and saw that undeniable scientific evidence points to creation. In this study, we will focus on the avenue of reason, or logic.

Cause And Effect

Logic says that for every contingent effect there must be a sufficient cause. This is sometimes referred to as a cosmological argument. A practical definition of the word “contingent” is dependant. That is, if something’s existence depends on something else, then it is contingent. “Sufficient” means adequate. A sufficient cause, therefore, is a cause that does not depend on anything else—it is adequate all by itself. Apply this, for example, to a tree. It depends on many factors for its existence (proper light, soil, nutrients, temperature, etc). Most important for this study is its origin. Where did the tree come from? Someone might correctly answer, a seed. The seed, however, is also contingent. Where did the seed come from? Someone might correctly answer, another tree. On and on the questions could go without a sufficient cause being given. Logic, however, says that somewhere down the line a sufficient, uncaused cause had to begin either an original seed or tree! We know that the uncaused cause is the God of the Bible, but we will examine that in another article.

The theory of organic evolution has no rational answer for the logical argument of cause and effect. Recognizing that neither the tree nor the seed can account for itself, the evolutionists appeals to gradual change over billions of years. Thus, “time” becomes the “hero of the plot.”1

There are at least two astoundingly irrational faults with the evolutionist’s appeal to time. First, something had to come from nothing, or more precisely for this study, life had to come from non-living matter. The evolutionist may talk about water being heated by sunlight and oozing lava or proteins forming here and there, but the bottom line, no matter how he portrays it, is that somewhere down the line non-living matter “poofed” into life. Who can seriously believe that?

Second, time, especially millions of years, is not an ally to life. The second law of thermodynamics says that over time energy becomes less usable.2 Even a fifth grader is smart enough to figure this out. When teaching a VBS class, a teacher put the pieces of a model human being’s anatomy in a clear jar. He asked the class of fourth and fifth graders, “How long would it take for these plastic bones and organs to assemble themselves to look like the picture on the box?” The children laughed and said, “It could never happen!” The teacher asked, “What if it were placed outside and sat for a thousand years?” They children responded, “It would disintegrate!” Which is more complex: the human body or a plastic model of a human body? If it is impossible for the plastic model to assemble itself over time, why would we think that the human body could assemble itself after millions of years? Foolishness! Even the paleontologist who examined the so-called “mummified dinosaur” named Dakota said, “It just defies logic that such a remarkable specimen could preserve.”3 The three dimensional fossilized skin “defies logic” because the evolutionist says that the fossil is 65-146 million years old. No logic is defied when one accepts the Biblical record of the age of the earth and the flood of Noah’s time, but we will examine them in another article.

Morality And Design

There are two other logical arguments that must briefly be mentioned, which can only be accounted for by creation. First, consider a moral argument: If the moral conduct of an individual or society can be the subject of legitimate criticism, then a supreme moral law giver must exist. Legitimate criticism implies there must be an objective moral standard, and an objective moral standard implies there must be a supreme moral standard giver. Creation by the God of the Bible is the only answer to this logical argument. Evolution cannot account for morality. What is the difference between Hitler killing an estimated six million Jews and the lion that recently escaped the San Francisco Zoo and killed a person? Was the lion immoral? A world trial conducted by some who would not claim to be Christians found Hitler’s cohorts guilty of capital crimes and executed them, proving that people recognize there is a moral law above society. Evolution would have to chalk up Hitler’s crimes as survival of the fittest and something beneficial to the human species.4

Second, consider an argument on design (sometimes called a teleological argument): If there is order and arrangement in the universe, then there must be a designer. One does not have to look far to see that order and design are a part of this world in which we live. Consider the human body. There is more design in the human brain than in the most advanced computer system of our day. What would people think if we said the computer just happened to form by itself? They would say we were nuts! Yet, that is what evolutionists say of the brain!

The “Odds” Of Evolution?

Scientists will appeal to the “odds of evolution” (one in ten to the two billionth power, or 1 in 10^2,000,000,000) to marvel at it. Some creationists cite the same odds to show evolution’s unlikelihood. Yet, logically, there are no odds for evolution! There are no odds for something coming from nothing, for the moral coming from non-moral, or for there being design without a designer. Rationally speaking, organic evolution is impossible!

End Notes

1 Wayne Jackson, Creation, Evolution, and the Age of the Earth (Stockton, CA: Apologetics Press, 1989) 1.

2 Jeff Miller, “God and the Laws of Thermodynamics: A Mechanical Engineer’s Perspective,” ApologeticsPress.org, April 2007, 28 Dec. 2007 <www.apologeticspress.org/articles/3293>.

3 Christopher Lee, “Hi, Dakota, Old Boy: Mummified Dinosaur Can Tell Us Much About His Kin,” The [Lakeland] Ledger 5 Dec. 2007: D1+.

4 For Hitler’s own admission to fulfilling evolution, see Kyle Butt, “Hitler—The Ultimate Evolutionist,” ApologeticsPress.org <www.apologeticspress.org/articles/1772>.