Evolutionists will frequently dismissively call creation magic. The basis for it is the fact that creationists refer to God, and it is a supernatural perspective on the origin of the world and history. However, the reason for invoking this claim is simply as an excuse to be dismissive of anything creationists have to say. Here we go through the arguments showing why it is completely false.
Creation is not magic; it is caused by intelligence and intent.
Magic is typically defined as the use of supernatural power without mechanism or structure. Creation and other acts of God, however, are caused by intelligent intent, and on several occasions in the Bible actual processes are described. For example, in Genesis 2, it describes God as forming Adam out of the dust of the Earth and breathing into his nostrils the breath of life. This is describing actual physical processes and mechanisms.
Calling creation “magic” is a rhetorical dismissal rather than an argument.
Calling creation “magic” does not address evidence or logic behind what is being stated. It is nothing but a rhetorical term used as an excuse for dismissing what is being said. It is not even close to being an argument simply because it does not address even the specific issue being raised. It is simply a dismissive statement declaring it to be magic; therefore, we can simply dismiss it and anything you have to say.
Many scientific theories invoke unobservable entities
Many accepted scientific theories include unobservable entities. Quantum mechanics includes subatomic particles that cannot be directly observed and, in fact, do not have a definite form or location until an observation is made. The current standard cosmology of the Big Bang includes dark matter and dark energy, both of which can only be detected by the effects they allegedly have on observable matter. In the case of dark energy, it was invented purely as a rescuing device for the Big Bang cosmology. The notion of abiogenesis is alleged to turn high-entropy solar energy into low-entropy biological organisms from lifeless chemicals without even a hypothetical mechanism involved. However, none of these are called magic.
Intelligence can produce complex information and structure.
We know from firsthand experience that intelligence can produce complex information and structures. However, there are no actual examples of natural processes producing either. What about living things producing other living things, you ask? First of all, living things are able to produce other living things because they have complex, specific information stored within them, providing instructions on how to do so. Second, it is their origin that is in question when it comes to the topic of origins; as a result, they cannot be used as an example. Consequently, invoking intelligence for creation cannot be considered magic because our actions to produce complex information and structures are not considered magic.
God is a programmer, not a magician.
Quantum Mechanics suggests the universe is a programmed information system. God is the programmer, and it is not magic for a programmer to work on his program. Anybody who has ever written a computer program, particularly a video game, should easily understand this point. The simple fact of the matter is that this is the only interpretation of quantum mechanics that actually makes sense; furthermore, it helps to make sense of aspects of special and general relativity as well. The point is that if the universe is indeed a programmed information system, then by definition God is the programmer. Furthermore, it makes any intervention that God does, simply a matter of the programmer tweaking his program and definitely not magic
The word “magic” implies capriciousness.
The label of " magic " tends to imply something acting unpredictably; however, Biblical Creation In other acts of God are purposeful, consistent actions. In other words, acts of God are based on His decision to take action and not some unknown unpredictable process. There are multiple examples of creation scientists producing theories that not only make testable predictions but also have them successfully tested. Within the idea of magic, this would not be possible. Creation involves God performing specific acts, not the inaction expected of magic.
The debate is philosophical as well as empirical.
What is often ignored, particularly by evolutionists, is the fact that the debate over origins is philosophical as well as empirical. It highly involves assumptions about naturalism and causation. For example, the entire Big Bang to man story is founded on philosophical naturalism, which is inherently atheistic. In fact, some of the biggest proponents of this view of origins are not only atheists themselves, but they have made it clear that God is not even allowed in the door. In other words, when the mainstream scientific community speaks on origins, they do so from a 100% naturalistic and atheistic perspective. It does not mean that you have to be an atheist to accept this view of origins; it just means you are inconsistent if you are not an atheist. For example, most of the arguments in favor of universal common descent collapse the moment you logically include God in the way you look at the evidence. The rest collapse the moment you look at the evidence from a biblical perspective, including the time scale. In other words, once you recognize the philosophical presuppositions behind the Big Bang demand story, its inherent flaws become obvious.
Dismissing creation as magic does not falsify the hypothesis.
Because scientific evaluation requires testable predictions or evidence for comparison, simply dismissing creation as magic does nothing to falsify anything within creation science. All you are doing if you make this claim is giving yourself an excuse for summarily rejecting anything creationists have to say. This is an example of intellectual laziness. It is akin to summarily rejecting all evidence presented by creationists as not being from a reputable journal, while defining a reputable journal based on its positive position on the Big Bang to man evolutionary story. Nothing in this claim deals with empirical evidence; it is simply an excuse for summarily rejecting any evidence you are presented with in support of creation or the Genesis flood. It is like claiming that there is no evidence for the existence of God, when there is no evidence that you will accept for the existence of God.
Conclusion
The claim that creation is magic is not a logical argument, but rather a rhetorical device whose only purpose is to provide an excuse for summarily rejecting anything a creationist has to say. It does not deal with any empirical evidence. It does not even deal with the question of how biblical creation and miracles can actually occur. It is simply a dismissive statement that makes the person using it feel superior while summarily rejecting any evidence they are presented with.
