Why science has not disproved Genesis 1

Evolution is supposed to replace Genesis 1 – creation by an omnipotent God. But can science investigate origins?

Generally people think evolution is a scientific fact.  That is because the popular media, research programs, textbooks, many TV programs and others present it as such.  Evolution is supposed to replace Genesis 1- creation by an omnipotent God.  But is evolution science?

#  The limits of science

Science investigates phenomena of nature with repeated experiments.  Modern science is an absolute miracle.  Their methods and techniques are super.  For instance the scientist uses methods and techniques to discover how the cell works.  Evolution attempts to discover how the cell originated.  As an example, let’s look at DNA:

#  The ‘instruction manual’ (DNA) for organisms

In the cell, researchers discovered the genetic code with its intricate arrangement of nucleotides, sugars, bases, et cetera.  The DNA spells out a ‘recipe’ for birds, fish, plants, humans, et cetera.  Each ‘instruction manual’ or ‘recipe’ is unique to each kind of life on earth.  The problem is:

#  How does a scientist research the origin of DNA?

  • Does he put some chemicals in a container and wait for something to happen?
  • Does he manipulate chemicals in a laboratory?
  • When he designs an experiment to prove its origin, he uses his intelligence and evolution denies intelligence.
  • So when he intelligently plans an origins ‘experiment,’ it defeats the evolutionary purpose.  For according to them, all life originated by random chance.
  • In addition science tests, observes, measures, forms hypotheses, predicts, et cetera.  It is impossible to use anything like that with origin issues.

#  Has science disproved Genesis 1?

  • Evolutionists confess that they have not solved the natural origin of first life yet.  Similarly they haven’t solved the natural origin of metamorphosis, the electric eel, sonar in dolphins and other miracles of nature.
  • What about the Big Bang or the origin of our solar system?  Have they proven by scientific experiments that they happened?  No, they haven’t, but they claim it is science.  Computer simulations are dependent on the designer, which proves that intelligence is necessary to ‘create’ something.
  • Only intelligence can design complex machines.  That means highly complex ‘machines’ like the cell, birds, snakes and humans were created by intelligence.
  • The Bible shows us that intelligence is God Almighty.


  • Science is supposed to answer all the questions of life.
  • Science cannot disprove the supernatural creation account in Genesis 1.
  • Genesis 1 remains a testimony to God’s omnipotence and wisdom.

Nota Bene:  We trust that those who dispute our claims might give us the scientific evidence of how the human mind, an immaterial thing, or speech, evolved.  It would be interesting to find out how science, which can only investigate the material, researches the immaterial.

Author: Gerard and Alida

As you can see in the photo, there are two of us. We live and work together 24/7, studying and enjoying our grandchildren. Our passion is to know and understand what will happen after death. Is there a way to provide for and invest in that?

4 thoughts on “Why science has not disproved Genesis 1”

  1. ” Each ‘instruction manual’ or ‘recipe’ is unique to each kind of life on earth.”

    The above statement that you make regarding DNA isn’t as accurate as you think it is. Only part of the DNA is unique, much of the DNA of any given species is shared with others.

    The ‘recipe’ as you call it, changes between individuals, through a process we call mutation. Mutations get inherited because each parent passes on it’s DNA to it’s offspring. These mutations can be traced through a population and the wider it has spread, the further back in time that mutation originated. This inheritance of mutations is how we can track the movement of people from Africa into Asia and Europe.

    Certain mutations exist across species, leading to the highly rational conclusion of a common ancestor.

    Mutations rates also show that humans are much older than the literal Genesis account allows and they also show that it is impossible for the human race to have been reduced to a single couple.

    Disproving Genesis 1 is not a difficult task for science.


    1. Thanks. Any thinking person would realise one cannot discuss all the intricacies of the genetic code in a blog of about 500 words. It would take a book (or books). If you believe in the ‘normal’ ape-like creature evolving into man in Africa and spreading from there, please explain scientifically how it happened? Include also how changes in body plans happen without the embryo dying, as was found in experiments. You can also present us with the irrefutable science of mutation rates.

      Concerning your scientific proofs to refute Genesis 1, we are anxiously waiting. As does the world, because then it would have gotten rid of the Creator God. You could begin to explain the origin of the genetic code, ATP phase, ribosome construction, how a swirling cloud of gas and dust could form the solar system (while the plane of the ecliptic is 7 degrees off), et cetera.


      1. Do i detect a hint of sarcasm in that reply?

        It’s interesting that you say how big the subject material is for a short blog post and then produce a long list of items you apparently want me to explain in a reply.

        If you really want to know those things then there are many science books available to explain them.

        Or you could revel in your not knowing and instead insert god into the gaps.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: