{"id":1076,"date":"2017-03-12T20:47:46","date_gmt":"2017-03-13T03:47:46","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/new.creationbc.org\/?p=1076"},"modified":"2021-09-28T11:58:24","modified_gmt":"2021-09-28T18:58:24","slug":"positive-scientific-evidence-for-creation","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/creationbc.org\/index.php\/positive-scientific-evidence-for-creation\/","title":{"rendered":"Positive Scientific Evidence for Creation!"},"content":{"rendered":"
Introduced by Richard Peachey<\/em><\/span><\/h6>\n

The arguments summarized below are taken from W. R. Bird, The Origin of Species Revisited<\/em> (New York: Philosophical Library, 1987), Vol. 2, pp. 104-106. When the Supreme Court of the United States reviewed Louisiana’s “Act for Balanced Treatment of Creation-Science and Evolution,” Bird was the lawyer who argued the state’s case. (The Supreme Court struck down the Louisiana law in 1987.) Bird uses the designation “Theory of Abrupt Appearance” to distinguish his scientific, testable concept of intelligent design from “Biblical creation,” which some may dismiss as “religious.”<\/span><\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
Aspect of
\nTheory of
\nAbrupt
\nAppearance<\/strong><\/span><\/td>\n		Affirmative
\nEvidence<\/strong><\/span><\/td>\n		Testable
\nClaim<\/strong><\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
(a) Biological
\nabrupt<\/em><\/span>
\n appearance:<\/em><\/span><\/td>\n		(1) Paleontology<\/span>
\n argument of abrupt appearances:<\/span><\/td>\n		The fossil record is characterized by generally systematic abrupt appearances of natural groups and of higher categories.<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
 <\/span><\/td>\n(2) Paleontology<\/span>
\n argument of gaps:<\/span><\/td>\n		The fossil record is characterized by systematic gaps between natural groups and between higher categories.<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
 <\/span><\/td>\n(3) Comparative<\/span>
\n morphology<\/span>
\n argument:<\/span><\/td>\n		The structure of fossilized organisms is systematically similar to their modem-day counterparts if non-extinct, and generally exhibits systematic stasis until the present or their extinction.<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
 <\/span><\/td>\n(4) Information<\/span>
\n content argument:<\/span><\/td>\n		The information content of all organisms, including their complex features and molecules, is sufficiently vast to render biological abrupt appearance more plausible and biological macroevolution extremely implausible.<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
 <\/span><\/td>\n(5) Probability<\/span>
\n argument:<\/span><\/td>\n		The mathematical probability is higher for biological abrupt appearance and vastly low for biological macroevolution of complex features, complex organs, and symbiotic relationships.<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
 <\/span><\/td>\n(6) Genetics<\/span>
\n argument:<\/span><\/td>\n		Genetic limits on the scope and frequency of viable mutations generally restrict viable variation or microevolution, provide genetic barriers between natural groups, and prevent biological macroevolution.<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
 <\/span><\/td>\n(7) Comparative<\/span>
\n discontinuity<\/span>
\n argument:<\/span><\/td>\n		Anomalies in classification, comparative anatomy, and comparative biochemistry are sufficiently extensive as to point more plausibly to discontinuous ancestry than common ancestry of various natural groups.<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
(b) Biochemical
\nabrupt
\nappearance: <\/em><\/span><\/td>\n		(1) Information<\/span>
\n content argument:<\/span><\/td>\n		The information content of the least complex organisms and their genetic coding systems is sufficiently vast to render biochemical abrupt appearance more plausible and biochemical evolution extremely implausible.<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
 <\/span><\/td>\n(2) Probability<\/span>
\n argument:<\/span><\/td>\n		The mathematical probability is higher for biochemical abrupt appearance and vastly low for biochemical evolution of the least complex organisms and of their enzymes, other proteins, and DNA.<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
 <\/span><\/td>\n(3) Isomers<\/span>
\n argument:<\/span><\/td>\n		The isomers in protein amino acids and nucleic acid sugars that are necessary to life are explained more plausibly by biochemical abrupt appearance and would not have arisen plausibly in a primordial soup or pond.<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
 <\/span><\/td>\n(4) Biogenesis<\/span>
\n argument:<\/span><\/td>\n		Life comes only from prior life and the general chemical tendency outside of a living organism is away from life and away from molecules necessary for life rather than toward life.<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
 <\/span><\/td>\n(5) Thermodynamics<\/span>
\n argument:<\/span><\/td>\n		The thermodynamic probability of the first life is higher for biochemical abrupt appearance and vastly low for biochemical evolution.<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
(c) Cosmic
\nabrupt
\nappearance:<\/em><\/span><\/td>\n		(1) Thermodynamics argument:<\/span><\/td>\nThe first and second laws of thermodynamics require a beginning for the universe and preclude its eternal existence.<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
 <\/span><\/td>\n(2) Information<\/span>
\n content argument:<\/span><\/td>\n		The information content of the universe is sufficiently vast to render cosmic abrupt appearance more plausible and cosmic evolution extremely implausible.<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
 <\/span><\/td>\n(3) Anthropic<\/span>
\n principle argument:<\/span><\/td>\n		The suitability of the universe for life is intricate and leaves cosmic abrupt appearance more plausible and cosmic evolution implausible.<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
 <\/span><\/td>\n(4) Heterogeneity argument:<\/span><\/td>\nThe heterogeneity of the universe is implausible under the big bang theory, and is more plausibly explained by cosmic abrupt appearance.<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
 <\/span><\/td>\n(5) Star and galaxy formation argument:<\/span><\/td>\nThe formation of galactic clusters, galaxies, stars, and the solar system requires extremely improbable conditions, and is more plausibly explained by cosmic abrupt appearance.<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
 <\/span><\/td>\n(6) Radiohalos<\/span>
\n argument:<\/span><\/td>\n		The polonium halos in the earth’s crust require an abruptly appearing and initially cool earth, in the absence of uranium or thorium halos.<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Introduced by Richard Peachey The arguments summarized below are taken from W. R. Bird, The Origin of Species Revisited (New York: Philosophical Library, 1987), Vol. 2, pp. 104-106. When the Supreme Court of the United States reviewed Louisiana’s “Act for Balanced Treatment of Creation-Science and Evolution,” Bird was the lawyer who argued the state’s case. (The Supreme Court struck down the Louisiana law in 1987.) Bird uses the designation “Theory of Abrupt Appearance” to distinguish his scientific, testable concept of intelligent design from “Biblical creation,” which some may dismiss as “religious.” Aspect of Theory of Abrupt Appearance Affirmative Evidence Testable Claim (a) Biological abrupt appearance: (1) Paleontology argument of abrupt appearances: The fossil record is characterized by generally systematic abrupt appearances of natural groups and of higher categories.   (2) Paleontology argument of gaps: The fossil record is characterized by systematic gaps between natural groups and between higher categories.   (3) Comparative morphology argument: The structure of fossilized organisms is systematically similar to their modem-day counterparts if non-extinct, and generally exhibits systematic stasis until the present or their extinction.   (4) Information content argument: The information content of all organisms, including their complex features and molecules, is sufficiently vast to render biological abrupt appearance more plausible and biological macroevolution extremely implausible.   (5) Probability argument: The mathematical probability is higher for biological abrupt appearance and vastly low for biological macroevolution of complex features, complex organs, and symbiotic relationships.   (6) Genetics argument: Genetic limits on the scope and frequency of viable mutations generally restrict viable variation or microevolution, provide genetic barriers between natural groups, and prevent biological macroevolution.   (7) Comparative discontinuity argument: Anomalies in classification, comparative anatomy, and comparative biochemistry are sufficiently extensive as to point more plausibly to discontinuous ancestry than common ancestry of various natural groups. (b) Biochemical abrupt appearance:  (1) Information content argument: The information content of the least complex organisms and their genetic coding systems is sufficiently vast to render biochemical abrupt appearance more plausible and biochemical evolution extremely implausible.   (2) Probability argument: The mathematical probability is higher for biochemical abrupt appearance and vastly low for biochemical evolution of the least complex organisms and of their enzymes, other proteins, and DNA.   (3) Isomers argument: The isomers in protein amino acids and nucleic acid sugars that are necessary to life are explained more plausibly by biochemical abrupt appearance and would not have arisen plausibly in a primordial soup or pond.   (4) Biogenesis argument: Life comes only from prior life and the general chemical tendency outside of a living organism is away from life and away from molecules necessary for life rather than toward life.   (5) Thermodynamics argument: The thermodynamic probability of the first life is higher for biochemical abrupt appearance and vastly low for biochemical evolution. (c) Cosmic abrupt appearance: (1) Thermodynamics argument: The first and second laws of thermodynamics require a beginning for the universe and preclude its eternal existence.   (2) Information content argument: The information content of the universe is sufficiently vast to render cosmic abrupt appearance more plausible and cosmic evolution extremely implausible.   (3) Anthropic principle argument: […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":1077,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[113,298,312,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-1076","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-articles","category-creation","category-creation-science","category-scientific"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/creationbc.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1076","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/creationbc.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/creationbc.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/creationbc.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/creationbc.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1076"}],"version-history":[{"count":4,"href":"https:\/\/creationbc.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1076\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":8052,"href":"https:\/\/creationbc.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1076\/revisions\/8052"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/creationbc.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/1077"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/creationbc.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1076"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/creationbc.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1076"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/creationbc.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1076"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}