WHAT KIND OF RELATIONSHIP IS THERE BETWEEN CREATION AND SCIENCE?

As we have shown in all the questions we have considered so far, the
theory of evolution is completely at odds with scientific discoveries.
This theory, born of the primitive level of science in the
nineteenthcentury, has been completely invalidated by successive
scientific discoveries.
Those evolutionists who are blindly devoted to the theory look for a
solution in demagogy,since no scientific foundation is left to them.
The most frequently resorted to of these isthe clichéd slogan that
"creationis a faith, so it cannot be considered part of science." The
claim goes that evolution is a scientific theory, whereas creation is
just a belief. However,this repetition of "evolution is science,
creation is a belief" stems from a totally erroneous perspective.
Those who keep repeating that are confusing science and materialist
philosophy. They believe that science must remain within the borders
of materialism, and thatthose who are not materialist have no right to
make any statements at all. However, science itself completely rejects
materialism.
Studying matter is not the same as being a materialist
Like contemporary materialists, Democritus was deceived into thinking
that matter had existedforever, and that nothing existed but
matter.Let us first briefly define materialism in order to examine the
matter in more detail. Materialism is a philosophy that has existed
since Ancient Greece and is based on the idea that matter is all that
exists. According to materialist philosophy, matter has always existed
and will continue to do so for all time. Nothing exists apart from
matter. This is not a scientific claim, however, because it cannot be
subjected to experiment and observation. It is simply a belief, a
dogma.
However, this dogma became mixed up with science in the nineteenth
century, and even came to be the basic foundation of science. Yet
science is not compelled to accept materialism. Science studies nature
and the universe, and produces results without being limited by any
philosophical classification.
In the face of this, some materialists frequently take refuge in a
simple word game. They say, "Matter is the only subject of study for
science, so ithas to be materialist." Yes, science only studies
matter, but "studying matter" is very different from "being a
materialist." That is because when we study matter, we realise that
matter contains knowledge and design so great that they could never
have been produced by matter itself. We can understand that this
knowledge and design are the result of an intelligence, even if we
cannot see it directly.
For instance, let us imagine a cave. We do not know if anyone has been
in it before us. If, whenwe enter this cave, there is nothing in it
but dust, earth, andstones, we can infer that there isnothing but
randomly distributed matter there. However, if there are expertly
produced pictures in stunning colours on the walls, we may assume that
an intelligent entityhas been there before us. We may not be able to
see that entity directly, but we can infer its existence from what it
produces.
Science has refuted materialism
Science studies nature in the same way as shown in that example. If
all the design in nature could only be explained by material factors,
then science could confirm materialism. However, modern science has
revealed that there is design in nature that cannot be explained by
material factors, and that all matter contains a design brought into
being by a Creator.
For example, all experiments and observation prove that matter could
not by itself have given rise to life, for which reason life must stem
from a metaphysical creation. All evolutionist experiments in this
direction have ended in failure. Life can never have been created from
inanimate matter. The evolutionist biologist Andrew Scott makes the
following admission on the subject in the well-known journal New
Scientist:
Take some matter, heat while stirring and wait. That is the modern
version of Genesis. The "fundamental" forces of
gravity,electromagnetism and the strong and weak nuclear forces are
presumed to have done the rest... But how much of this neattale is
firmly established, and how much remains hopeful speculation? In
truth, the mechanism of almost every major step, from chemical
precursors up to the first recognizable cells, is the subject of
either controversy or complete bewilderment.1
If matter were capable of giving rise to life on its own, as
materialists claim, then it shouldbe possible to synthesise life in
laboratory conditions. However, not even one organelle in a cell can
be reproduced in the laboratory, let alone a complete cell.