A common attack by evolutionists against creationists is that they are just saying “God did it.” This is a straw man, simply because creationists are saying a lot more of than that God did it. If you bothered to read not just creationists material but the Bible itself, you would see actual processes describe and not just the broad statement that “God did it.” Now ultimately; God did indeed do the creating but claiming that Creationists are just saying “God did it” is at best an oversimplification. It would be like saying that evolutionists are just saying “natural processes did it.” Neither of these is an accurate representation of the position.
Evolutionist Critique: “Just saying ‘God did it’ explains nothing”
Critics argue that simply stating “God did it” does not specify how a phenomenon occurred. They continue to claim that it lacks a mechanistic explanation, and it is said to be difficult to test scientifically because it does not produce predictions that can be empirically falsified. They argue that invoking divine action may discourage searching for physical or biochemical processes behind biological complexity.
Many evolutionary scientists maintain that science operates by studying observable, repeatable processes rather than supernatural agency, however they ignore the fact that naturalistic models of origins depend heavily on highly hypothetical natural processes that are neither observable, nor repeatable. They point to past cases where phenomena once attributed to divine action were later explained through natural mechanisms. They are correct for this overly simplified description, but they ignore the fact that actual creation science is much more than just God did it.
Evolutionist Critique: “Saying ‘God did it’ stops further research”
The argument is that once a supernatural explanation is accepted, motivation to investigate underlying mechanisms may decrease. First of all, this is not the case, because even a supernatural explanation would have underlying mechanisms. Furthermore, a specific supernatural event can lead to natural consequences that result in unique testable predictions.
The comparison is made with successful natural research programs that progress through testable hypotheses rather than theological assertions. However, the assumption being made Is that a theological conclusion is nothing but an untestable assertion. It ignores the fact that, a specific action of God, can easily produce specific effects that produced testable predictions.
They will point out that funding and peer-reviewed research typically focus on naturalistic models, but this just shows a bias toward naturalistic thinking, it says nothing about the testability of supernatural hypotheses. They claim that supernatural explanations can be used to end debate prematurely. However, the same can be said of naturalistic explanations when they are being forced on a phenomenon that evidence suggests they cannot explain. Some evolutionary scientists argue that certain forms of creationist reasoning do not generate new experimental questions, but the same thing can be said of some forms of naturalistic reasoning. Also, the argument can be made that insisting on totally naturalistic explanations can drag out research beyond the point where the evidence suggests that it is hopeless.
Creationist Rebuttal: “God did it” does not necessarily mean no explanation
Creationists argue that affirming divine causation addresses ultimate origin, while science studies secondary mechanisms. Scientists associated with intelligent design such as Michael Behe argue for studying biochemical mechanisms while interpreting them as potentially designed. Historically it was a belief in an orderly creation that helped motivate early scientific investigation.
Creation scientists have demonstrated that detailed scientific models of biology, geology, and cosmology can coexist with divine causation. Just because God took action to get something started, doesn't mean that nothing else happens. In fact, several creationist theories have produced successfully tested results. The simple fact of the matter is, but as long as you actually have an explanation that is specific enough and includes specific results, then they can make testable predictions. This is the case for both natural and supernatural explanations.
Likewise, a totally naturalistic mechanism that is way too broad will not produce any testable predictions. It is a question of being specific enough, rather than the nature of the explanation. Also, divine action can explain a lot, for example it is a reasonable explanation for the complex specific information found in DNA that no natural process is known to be capable of replicating. Divine action is not magic, lacking an actual process, it is the action of an intelligent being producing something that is by its very nature an explanation
Creationist Rebuttal: The claim that it explains nothing is disputed
Design inference can explain features of living things and other aspects of nature, such as information complexity, not just existence. Intelligent design advocates point out that specified complexity can function as an explanatory indicator. Excluding intelligent agency is a metaphysical assumption rather than an empirical result.
In many cases, totally naturalistic models cannot even begin to explain important elements of what they are supposed to explain. For example, naturalistic evolution Is incapable of explaining the origin of biological information. Design inference is comparable to criminal investigation, where intelligent causation is inferred from evidence.
Creationist Rebuttal: The claim that it stops further research is rejected
Creationist organizations report ongoing work in geology, biology, cosmology and other fields of science. Young-earth and intelligent design researchers regularly generate hypotheses. Scientists past and present have been motivated by belief in design to pursue empirical study of a variety of phenomenon. Research motivation is often philosophical, and not necessarily methodological. The curiosity and desire for inquiry are not dependent on naturalism. The simple fact is that restricting science to natural causes by itself limits possible explanations. An excellent example for this is the fact that the notion of junk DNA prevented research into possible functions for that DNA for years.
Creationists say more than just “God did it”
The case for biblical creation goes far beyond the simple statement that “God did it.” It includes making the case that natural processes by themselves are totally inadequate to explain the world around us. It includes detailed theories about how God created things, and the consequences of those actions. It is ultimately a matter of interpreting the data differently than one would from a totally naturalistic perspective. Creationists do actual science, but they are not trying to force a totally naturalistic and inherently atheistic interpretation of the data.
Creationists include both natural and supernatural processes.
Creationists consider both natural and supernatural processes when creating hypothesis. They do not try to force one or the other on the data. Not only does this allow for God to have created everything originally, but also for him to be active afterwards such as the Genesis Flood. It allows for including specific acts of God as starting points and following where they naturally lead. In many cases they produce successfully tested predictions. It also allows for including specific supernatural events when the evidence warrants it.
Conclusion
Creationists say more than just “God did it,” they include both natural and supernatural processes. Claiming that Creationists are just saying “God did it” is nothing but a straw man argument. What this is doing is taking an overly broad point of Biblical creation and making it look as if that is all of creation science. This is despite the fact, that creation science, and particularly Young Earth Creation Science Is far more than such a simple concept.
