Molecular History Research Center

I once commented to an acquaintance that I planned to do some research within a Creation/short chronology framework. He was struck with amazement. He could not believe I was serious but He wanted to be polite. He probably thought it was best to leave me alone rather than to ask embarrassing questions; but, It didn't take long before he asked a few questions.

Like my friend, many think the problems encountered in endeavoring to explain physical phenomena within a Biblical Creation context are insurmountable. They feel that a broad range of supporting data in all the areas of the sciences serve to solidify the position that Evolution is an established fact, or at least, the only viable option.

So, many people try to say something like: the weight of evidence proves evolution; or, all the data supports evolution. But this is not true, the weight of evidence does not prove anything. We do not have an issue of weight of evidence. Rather, what we have is weight of interpretation!

When you ask someone why they are taking the position that they are taking, or when you start pinning someone down concerning specific supporting data, asking what the data base is for this idea, it starts breaking down. The idea that the data supports evolution as an established fact, or that the data supports evolution and not creationism, is not true.

Dedicated to conducting creation research in Molecular Biological issues. Presently the MHRC is researching possible explanations for the formation of unprocessed pseudogenes.

This controversy is not over data. The data can go either way. Very intelligent people believe in the long history of the earth and they have good data to support them. There is no question about it. However, I look at that same data and I come to very different conclusions. This process is legitimate! There is such a thing as multiple interpretation to the data base. There is no proof for either position.

All science, especially in those areas that deal with historical data, is dependent upon assumptions or presuppositions to simplify the problem. Without these assumptions, Science would literally grind to a halt. The assumptions that scientists take are assumed to be true yet because of their nature, they can not be tested. That is why they remain today as assumptions, we do not have the ability to test them.

If it were found that one or more of the major assumptions supporting Evolution were in error, Evolution would no longer be a viable theory. Of course, the same would be true for any paradigm used to explain data, be that Creation or Evolution. Both are dependent upon assumptions for their validity.

What is really amazing to me is that when I listen to mainstream sources that promote Evolution, I see that they do not want to acknowledge their assumptions at all. Their propaganda story is that Evolution is fact! That it is a done deal, end of discussion.

They say that the data itself points to the long-age evolutionary process and that there can be no discussion!

This propaganda is simply not true! I say again, many people try to say something like "the weight of evidence proves evolution" or "all the data supports evolution" but this is not true. The weight of evidence does not prove anything. We do not have an issue of weight of evidence. Rather, what we have is weight of interpretation!

But of course the mainstream propaganda machine is not willing to acknowledge that their data is based on interpretation or assumptions.

All scientist have biases. They make interpretations based on assumptions that come from their own view of the world and their personal belief system. Yet, unfair statements are often made of the biased position of Creationists who take a different view of the data base. Yet their own position is based an an equally biased position, but it is mainstream.

So presently, mainstream science sources are using their weight of "universally accepted scientific dogma" to convince all others that Creationism is not even a viable position when looking at scientific data.

If for no other reason than the fact that I am pursuing a minority view, I openly acknowledge my own bias. I have to consider the majority view when considering any position simply because I will have to defend my position against alternate interpretations.

The scientific community at large refuses to acknowledge their bias. They claim to be objective, however, they are very biased because there are interpretations that they do not wish to pursue. So they make the assumption that there is no God and they ignore any kind of idea that even remotely includes God.

So, mainstream Scientist have essentially solved the evolution/creation problem by definition! They define science as only looking for natural processes, which is something that can be measured and observed. This is touted as being the reason why only this kind of study is actually science. It is governed by the scientific method, a process of experimentation and analyzing. Thus, they observe only natural processes because they assume that our world and life has only been shaped by natural processes.

However, it can not be proved that only natural processes have shaped our world and life! It is also assumed that when God is introduced to science that the scientific method become ineffective.

Because of my personal experience with Jesus Christ I am convinced that God is real and personal. I also believe He created all things as described in Genesis. So I am choosing to include God in my theories rather than excluding Him.

Creation Science is considered by most to be a pseudoscience, not really welcomed in the scientific community, yet I became a Creationist. Why? For more information on how I came to this decision and what I decided to do with my convictions, click on the following links. (Select "PREVIOUS PAGE" on your browser to get back to this page.)

So, what I have chosen to do is this: I look at all scientific problems from a Biblical perspective. Scientifically I am unable to prove my position. However, I'm not alone; the Evolutionist is unable to prove his/her position.

The Evolutionist assumes that all phenomena can be explained by natural laws. Since everything can be explained from natural mechanisms, he feels that there is no need to bring in a "supernatural god".

But what if there is a God? I believe that the Theory of Evolution is based on a set of assumptions that are not only unprovable but could easily be a "house of cards" ready to give way to something better when it is realized that God does exist and that He did create all things. The world is a different place when it is realized that God interacts in the daily affairs of man.

Yes there are many problems in trying to confront the world from a Creation viewpoint. For one, the scientific community is not an arena in which we have academic freedom. If I were to apply for funding, to support my research, they would deny it. I would be viewed as one who took a non-legitimate view. I am looking for evidence of a short chronology, and they would say: "What on earth are you talking about? That would be a waste of money!"

Scientific research in today's world is chosen because of its fundability. It is not a search for truth, it is a search for the economically feasible project. If a scientist works in the industry, a proposal for research must be written telling how the research is going to make money for the company. Even in the universities, you have to be able to show the scientific value along tradition lines. Pure basic research is practically dead. A common complaint among scientists is that they are forced to do research, not in areas that are interesting to them, but only in topics that can be funded. Much of what is done, is done because it is funded!

So, if I choose to pursue my interest in origins, than I am forced to strike out on my own. The Molecular History Research Center and its two web sites (mhrc.net and creation-science-prophecy.com) are, of course, the result of my choosing to conduct research in a non-fundable area of science.

I do not think that anyone in science (especially the historical sciences where the data is limited) approaches their science objectively and considers all the answers. They never consider the possibility of a world wide flood or a short age chronology. It is not a consideration and they do not wish to consider that option.

So, it should be clear from almost anyone's perspective that most of the research conducted in practically all areas of science, have been thought out from an Evolutionary perspective.

Since Evolution is so basic to the thinking of most scientists, anyone working from a Biblical perspective must read and reevaluate all assumptions in the scientific literature. Many times researchers state as fact a certain point when in actuality, it is only an assumption. Even in scientific papers I often see information in the form of conclusions and interpretations! I often find in these papers that the data base is not presented, or it is not adequate to determine whether the methods and the data are adequate for their conclusions. They clearly cannot see any other possible explanation to their data since Evolution is regarded to them as fact, or the most likely explanation with no viable alternative explanation.

I am excited with the prospect of approaching problems from a totally different perspective. Yes there are many problems to confront and in some case the problems seem insurmountable. However, overcoming problems is exactly why I chose to do science. In fact I see a unique opportunity in choosing research topics that are particularly troublesome to Creationists. A major breakthrough of scientific knowledge could result because I am using a unique set of assumptions.

If the Biblical Creation/Flood Paradigm is correct then I might expect to see explanations to associated phenomena that weren't originally sought after. A classical example of having associated phenomena being self-evident is the Watson/Crick discovery of the structure of DNA. Once the double helix was known, the basic process of DNA replication was immediately self evident because of the close association of the interacting bases within the molecule. All previous DNA models gave no easy mechanism possibilities.

The Evolution paradigm has been a successful tool for producing workable models and interesting theories, but I feel the Creation paradigm will prove to be even more successful in producing greater insights in the workings of reality.

Please criticise or comment
WebMaster: Michael Brown
center@mhrc.net

Copyright 1998 - 2014 by Michael Brown all rights reserved
Officially posted January 1, 1998
last revised January 1, 2014