One of the main criticisms leveled at creationism is that it is all based off of religion and unscientific. This is demonstrably far from the truth. Although creationists are willing to admit that their view of origins can never be ‘proven’ scientifically (just as they believe any view of origins cannot), there are several scientific articles that do confirm some of our positions.
DISCLAIMER: I am not saying that all these authors are affirming Biblical creation, just that their findings conflict with traditional beliefs about origin issues.
Radioactive decay is not always constant.
Creationists have been claiming for years that during several events in Genesis, the right conditions may have been present for accelerated radioactive decay, thus explaining why radiometric dating gives ages of millions of years. The following four secular sources all give scientific arguments and/or evidence that confirms that under certain circumstances radioactive decay can and/or has changed in the past:
EXCESS HAFNIUM-176 IN METEORITES AND THE EARLY EARTH ZIRCON RECORD
STANDARD MODEL OF HOW UNIVERSE WORKS MAY BE FLAWED, SAY SCIENTISTS
EXTREMELY LARGE VARIATION OF ATMOSPHERIC C14 CONCENTRATION DURING THE LAST GLACIAL PERIOD
RADIOACTIVE DECAY RATES MAY NOT BE CONSTANT AFTER ALL
Micro vs. Macro-evolution
Oftentimes critics will maintain that there is no scientific distinction between micro and macro evolution. This is simply not true.
“There is a striking lack of correspondence between genetic and evolutionary change. Neo-Darwinian theory predicts a steady, slow continuous, accumulation of mutations (microevolution) that produces a progressive change in morphology leading to new species, genera, and so on (macroevolution). But macroevolution now appears to be full of discontinuities (punctuated evolution), so we have a mismatch of some importance. That is, the fossil record shows mostly stasis, or lack of change, in a species for many millions of years; there is no evidence there for gradual change even though, in theory, there must be a gradual accumulation of mutations at the micro level.”
The coming Kuhnian revolution in biology, Nature Biotechnology, 1997
In arguing for an erasure between the lines of micro and macro, Sean B. Carol states: “A long-standing issue in evolutionary biology is whether the processes observable in extant populations and species (microevolution) are sufficient to account for the larger-scale changes evident over longer periods of life’s history (macroevolution). Outsiders to this rich literature may be surprised that there is no consensus on this issue, and that strong viewpoints are held at both ends of the spectrum, with many undecided”
The big picture, Nature, 2001
“the symposium ended with a panel discussion about questions of microevolution (evolution within the species) and macroevolution (evolution after speciation).”
Meeting report – Evolution in a nutshell. European Molecular Biology Organization reports, 2001
Conflicting “trees of life”
Creation theory has long stated that the “tree of life” should be displayed more as a bush or shrub with many starting kinds that they diversified out to the species we see today. Secular proponents of common decent are scrambling lately to make sense of much conflicting data that seems to confirm the creation bush.
PHYLOGENY: REWRITING EVOLUTION
HOW ANCIENT LIFE MAY HAVE COME ABOUT
WHY DARWIN WAS WRONG ABOUT THE TREE OF LIFE
Creation theory would predict that all DNA would have a use, and there would be no junk DNA or leftover vestiges. Secular science just caught up with that prediction lately.
BITS OF MYSTERY DNA, FAR FROM ‘JUNK’, PLAY CRUICIAL ROLE
Creation theory would predict that since the world is only about 6000 years old, adaptation within kinds of animals must have the ability to adapt rapidly versus the slow changes we normally hear about in Darwinism. The following article cites a group of birds adapting shorter wingspans in just a few short decades.
SHORTER-WINGED SWALLOWS EVOLVE AROUND HIGHWAYS
Non-fossilized material found in dinosaur remains
Creation theory would predict that dinosaurs died off not that long ago. Mary Sweitzer’s intriguing work with discovering soft tissue persevered from what they claim to be 65 million year old samples seems to be better explained by a young-earth.
SOFT SHEETS OF FIBRILLAR BONE FROM A FOSSIL OF THE SUPRAORBITAL HORN OF THE DINOSAUR TRICERATOPS
Genetic entropy or de-evolution
The crux of creation theory states the exact opposite of evolution is occurring: de-evolution – the concept that we are not getting better (or more fit) from generation to generation, but instead degenerating. The first two articles posted below were published by creation scientists in secular journals.
A NEW LOOK AT AN OLD VIRUS: PATTERNS OF MUTATION ACCUMULATION IN THE HUMAN H1N1 INFLUENXA VIRUS SINCE 1918
USING COMPUTER SIMULATION TO UNDERSTAND MUTATION ACCUMULATION DYNAMICS AND GENETIC LOAD
OUR LOAD OF MUTATIONS
The point of this post isn’t that these articles prove anything about creationism. The point is that there is good science being done today that does fall in line with creationist predictions. The accusation that creationists hate and/or do not understand science simply isn’t true. The truth may actually be that we are the true skeptics even though they are the ones that like to throw that word around.