The fact that the scientific method works and produces reliable, constant results proves evolution wrong. If evolution of life on earth is correct, then one who accepts that normally also accepts some other similar unintelligent, unguided unintentional development of our entire universe. For this article’s purpose we will call those processes chemical and stellar evolution.
If that is true, that everything came into being through some ongoing process of change, then wouldn’t that process still be ongoing today? In other words – ALL things would still be in a constant state of change. If that were true, then any measurements we take would inevitably produce different results. Metaphorically speaking, 2+2 would not always equal 4. If that were the case, scientific research with the concept of reproducibility of results would not work. I contend that it is not the case that everything is in some state of ongoing change. Therefore chemical and stellar evolution apparently just stopped?? That doesn’t make sense either. So, I maintain that it never happened to start with.
This is an argument about consistency. Are things constant today to where we can accurately measure and repeat the result? If so (which it is), then evolutionary processes did not create this world. This idea of ongoing changes would render science impossible. The consistency of our laws makes science possible. Those laws and the consistency of them do not make sense in an evolutionary worldview, it would not work the way it does.
The laws and constancy point to a pre-meditated plan put in place so that we would be able to study the universe. Science itself, the very thing atheists try to use to make Christianity look bad, is evidence of a designed universe! Therefore all science is creation science, whether those who are doing it recognize is as such or not.
“The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hand” – Psalm 19:1