What proof is there that God created man rather than that man is the result of evolution?

Answer 1

Answer

If you are seeking the kind of proof that will stand up under objective scrutiny, you won't find any. There is no scientific proof whatsoever that God created man, or that He even exists. Nothing at all. This despite the best efforts of a misguided group who would twist scientific "facts" to the contrary. Belief in God is a concept that we will either deny or accept based on faith and not on anything else. That is the nature of the acceptance of a Higher Power. Belief, the handmaiden of faith, is something that could be "learned" from childhood. Or it could be "naturally acquired" later in life. Or the whole of the teachings of religion could be rejected for whatever reason.

The great wonder of religion is that it asks us for so much and returns nothing "tangible" except perhaps the good feelings in our hearts. And, though there are clearly a number of unexplainable phenomenon that have been recorded, no "saving grace" or "miracles" can be shown definitively to be sent down to us from on high. Yet people still believe. We find that faith is a great motivator and an engine of will. Whether it is the Hand of God that is exemplified by, say, the passing out of food and warm clothing to the homeless in winter, or the Fist of Allah that metes out Justice through individuals with explosive devices strapped to their bodies. For something that is not available by the liter, ounce or tonne, it is a most extraordinary product, and one that individuals have invested their whole lives in. Have given their whole lives for. Have died for. By choice.

The desire to investigate the nature of faith and belief in God is innate. We all carry that curiosity within us. Some would say that it is imprinted on us by God. Certainly there is no proof that this is not the case. His gifts, whatever form an individual chooses to see them in, are immutable tokens that bespeak the contents of the heart of the receiver upon whom they are visited. If you believe, if you are a believer, you need no proof of the existence of God or of His most Divine Power. And no one can prove to you in any empirical way that you are wrong. No one.

Another View:

The proof is within man itself. Embedded is his very genetic code. Evolution is like changing clothes to suit the environment. When God created man, He put inside him all he needed to survive. When the earth was still young the environment was savage. To survive, brute is needed and so God clothed man with brute, allowed his genetic structure to change, to be able to survive thus yielding those early human fossils we are discovering right now. Whose brains were smaller than ours since a large brain is not yet needed to survive - only strong physical structure. And as the world changes, God allowed man to grow larger brain to accumulate more knowledge which in turn allowed man to survive not with brute force but by knowledge. In turn man lose his brute physical structure, since he does not need it anymore, becoming more and more into the form we are now. Studies show that the changes that happens inside our body is not the introduction of new genetic code but it is the restructuring of old genetic codes to suit the need. So in short, we are still what we were before in the beginning. So therefore evolution is a part of creation. It is God's way of improving us.

Jewish Answer: For the majority of Jews (including Orthodox), there is no conflict between the story of creation found in the Torah and the theory of evolution. The reason for this is that the Torah tells us WHAT God did, not the how of what He did.

Jewish answer 2:

The short answer is that religion and its beliefs cannot be absolutely proven, just as evolution cannot; otherwise everyone would believe in it.

However, if you read "Shattering the Myths of Darwinism" (Park Street press, 2000), or "Darwin on Trial" (Intervarsity press, 1993), you'll likely be well on the way to seeing the question in a new light.

Note also that the evidence of God's creation is not limited to The Bible. All ancient societies believed in a supernatural source for the universe: it's a worldwide tradition.

Answer 2

The evidence that God created man in his current form is limited to the Bible, in two distinct creation accounts at Genesis verses 1:1 to 2:4a and 2:4b to 2:22. �·

In the first account, light [day] was created on day 1; then the firmament, which was believed to separate the waters of the heavens from the lower waters; then by gathering the lower waters in one place the land appeared. Grasses and trees were created; sun; moon and stars - the lights in the firmament; fish, land creatures and fowl; finally man, both male and female. Of importance here is that both man and woman were said to have been created after all the other creation.

In the second account, there was pre-existing dry land, but God had yet to make it rain for plants to grow. A spring arose and God took some moist clay and made Adam. After Adam, he made the creatures of earth, one by one, then finally Eve. This account has man (Adam) as God's very first creation, while woman (Eve) was his last.

Proof of the evolution of man is extensive and growing, with new evidence found almost every year. Primitive humans evolved from earlier hominids around two million years ago in Africa and our early ancestors gradually migrated to Europe, Asia and elsewhere. There is ample evidence of this process and a large number of primitive skeletons have been found and dated scientifically.

For more information, please visit: http://christianity.answers.com/theology/the-story-of-creation

Answer 3

Here are some arguments for Creationism, or against Evolution:

These point to Divine Creation:

• The staggering complexity of every organ and every cell in the human body.
  
• The vastness of our minds and emotions.
  
• The fact that the universe has definite design, order, and arrangement which cannot be sufficiently explained outside a theistic worldview. (This is how Abraham, without benefit of teachers, came to reject the chaotic world-view of idolatry and the possibility of atheism.)
  
• The laws of the universe seem to have been set in such a way that stars, planets and life can exist. Many constants of nature appear to be finely tuned for this, and the odds against this happening by chance are astronomical.
  

See: More detailed evidence of Creation

Debunking the JEPD Documentary Hypothesis

The creation-narrative in Genesis (a Christian author)

Also:

1) The glaring lack of transitional fossils has been noted by the evolutionists themselves, such as this statement from the famous paleontologist and evolutionist George G. Simpson; quote: "The regular lack of transitional fossils is not confined to primates alone, but is an almost universal phenomenon."
"The lack of transitional series cannot be explained as being due to the scarcity of material. The deficiencies are real; they will never be filled" (Nilsson, N. Heribert).
"To the unprejudiced, the fossil record of plants is in favor of special creation" (Corner, E.J.H., Contemporary Botanical Thought).
2) Instances of falsifying of evidence by evolutionists, such as Haeckel's drawings, Archaeoraptor, the Cardiff "specimen," and Piltdown Man.
"Haeckel exaggerated the similarities [between embryos of different species] by idealizations and omissions, in a procedure that can only be called fraudulent. His drawings never fooled embryologists, who recognized his fudgings right from the start. The drawings, despite their noted inaccuracies, entered into the standard student textbooks of biology. Once ensconced in textbooks, misinformation becomes cocooned and effectively permanent, because textbooks copy from previous texts. We do, I think, have the right to be both astonished and ashamed by the century of mindless recycling that has led to the persistence of these drawings in a large number, if not a majority, of modern textbooks (Stephen Gould).
Dr. Jonathan Wells published a book in 2002 entitled Icons of Evolution. Dr. Wells states that the book shows that "the best-known 'evidences' for Darwin's theory have been exaggerated, distorted or even faked."

3) Creationists see the "survival of the fittest" and the dating of rock layers by fossils as being perfect tautologies.

4) The fact that some qualified, educated, normal scientists do not believe in evolution. Or at least question it, even if they still preach evolution: "Nine-tenths of the talk of evolutionists is sheer nonsense, not founded on observation and wholly unsupported by facts. This museum is full of proofs of the utter falsity of their views. In all this great museum, there is not a particle of evidence of the transmutation of species" (Dr. Etheridge, Paleontologist of the British Museum).
"To postulate that the development and survival of the fittest is entirely a consequence of chance mutations seems to me a hypothesis based on no evidence and irreconcilable with the facts. It amazes me that this is swallowed so uncritically and readily, and for such a long time, by so many scientists without murmur of protest" (Sir Ernest Chain, Nobel Prize winner).

5) The fact that there is a shared, worldwide tradition among every ancient society that the world was created.

6) Evolving of new organs or species has not been witnessed during known history.

7) Mutations are harmful, not beneficial. One of the tasks of DNA and of long-term breeding is to avoid or repair any changes brought about by mutations. This means that our genetic apparatus is programmed to resist change.

8) Mutations, even if beneficial, do not create new organs.

9) The fact that a great number of fossils have been found in the "wrong" rock-layers according to what evolutionary Paleontology would require.

10) The fact that you need DNA to make DNA. No genetic code can be demonstrated to have arisen by chance, together with the ability to read that code and carry out its instructions. Information does not arise spontaneously; and there is an incredible amount of information in even the tiniest cell.
"A living cell is so awesomely complex that its interdependent components stagger the imagination and defy evolutionary explanations" (Michael Denton, author).
"The astounding structural complexity of a cell" (U.S. National Library of Medicine).
Concerning a single structure within a cell: "Without the motor protein, the microtubules don't slide and the cilium simply stands rigid. Without nexin, the tubules will slide against each other until they completely move past each other and the cilium disintegrates. Without the tubulin, there are no microtubules and no motion. The cilium is irreducibly complex. Like a mousetrap, it has all the properties of design and none of the properties of natural selection" (Michael Behe, prof. of biophysics).

11) The problem of the impossibility of abiogenesis in general. "The concept of abiogenesis is not science. It's fantasy" (J.L. Wile, Ph.D.).

12) The fact that evolution was once used as support for the belief that Blacks (or others) are less than highly-evolved humans. "Darwin was also convinced that the Europeans were evolutionarily more advanced than the black races" (Steven Rose, author). He also "reasoned that males are more evolutionarily advanced than females" (B. Kevics, author).

13. The first and second laws of thermodynamics point clearly to a Creator, since things undergo entropy rather than get more orderly over time.

14. "Radiometric techniques may not be the absolute dating methods that they are claimed to be. Age-estimates on a given geological stratum by different radiometric methods are often very different. There is no absolutely reliable long-term radiological clock. The uncertainties inherent in radiometric dating are disturbing to geologists and evolutionists." William D. Stansfield, Ph.D., Instructor of Biology, California Polytechnic State University.

15. "Even total rock systems may be open during metamorphism and may have their isotopic systems changed, making it impossible to determine their geologic age." Prof. Gunter Faure (Department of Geology, The Ohio State University, Columbus.)

16 a). At current rates of erosion the amount of sea-floor sediments actually found do not support a "billions of years" age for the Earth.
b) The amount of Sodium Chloride in the sea, also, is a small fraction of what the "old Earth" theory would postulate.
c) The Earth's magnetic field is decaying too fast to extrapolate a long age for the Earth.
d) The rate of accumulation of Moon-dust has been measured; and the amount of dust on the Moon was found to be vastly less than what scientists had predicted before the Moon-landings.
e) Helium is generated by radioactive elements as they decay. The escape of this helium into the atmosphere can be measured. According to the Evolutionary age of the Earth there should be much more helium in the atmosphere, instead of the 0.05% that is actually there.Also see:

God's wisdom seen in His creations

More about God's wisdom

Dissent against Darwin

The facts

Discovering Creation

Understanding Creation