Without a doubt, the scientific evidence favors a supernatural creation model for the origin of the universe, of life, and of species.

Though there are many creation models differing in specifics of sequence and timeof events, some fundamental evidences are convincing many scientists that creation models are more credible than evolution models.

For example, the first law of thermodynamics indisputably leads to the logical conclusion that the universe was created supernaturally.

Following is a three point argument to show this fact.

1. The first law of thermodynamics states that energy and matter cannot be created by natural means.

2. Observation shows that the universe is made of energy and matter.

3. Therefore, the universe must have originated by supernatural means.

The first law of thermodynamics is a scientific law for which there are no known exceptions. Because credible science relies on known, empirical evidence, an objective scientist is compelled to admit that based on the first law of thermodynamics the origin of the universe is best explained as a supernatural event.

In contrast, the evolution model proposes only natural explanations for origins. Thus, this model is seriously flawed because it contradicts a known scientific law.

With regard to the origin of life, the scientific evidence favors the creation model.

First, the supernatural origin of life is a justifiable model because of the precedence established for the supernatural origin of the universe. After all, if the universe originated by supernatural means,it is reasonable to assume that life originated supernaturally.

The evidence for the supernatural origin of life also involves a law of science: the law of biogenesis. This law states that living cells come from preexisting cells. There are no known exceptions. Further, experiments conducted in the field of abiogenesis show that at all seven steps of the proposed evolutionary events leading from lifeless molecules to a living cell, even under carefully controlled conditions and utilization of sophisticated technology, living cells cannot be made from molecules. Thus, one can conclude that under natural, spontaneous conditions it far more unlikely that living cells could have evolved.

Though evolutionists argue that more time is needed to demonstrate the plausibility of the evolutionary claim, it should be noted that this is an excuse for the lack of evidence. At present, all evidence for the origin of life favors the supernatural creation of life from lifeless molecules.

As for the origin of species, the evidence strongly favors the creation model. Consider the following:

1. Because the supernatural origin of the universe and of life are overwhlemingly supported and favored by the evidence of scientific findings, then the most reasonable explanation for the origin of species is that of supernatural creation. Precedence and consistency compel one to accept a complete model of creation.

2. Whereas, creationists and evolutionists both agree that change within populations occurs by means of mutation of the DNA molecule and pressures of natural selection, they dispute the degree of change that is possible. While evolutionists argue that change is unlimited, creationists submit evidence for limited change. In both academic and industrial laboratories, intensive research is conducted to induce genetic change in organisms. Without exception, increased change brings about simultaneous decrease inviability. Thus, laboratory evidence suggests that cumulative change in the DNA molecule will result in death. The evidence favors the creationists' claim that change is limited.

3. In light of this evidence, it is not surprising to discover that the fossil record reveals that populations resist change. Presently, the Darwinian model of proposed inevitable, gradual change is under attack and has been abandoned by many evolutionists in favor of the punctuated equilibrium model.

This model states that because the fossil record shows that populations resist change and that there is an absence of transitional organisms from one kind to another, the best evolutionary explanation is that populations under go rapid transition (one to two million years rather than ten to twenty million years). Due to the rapid change and the relatively small number of organisms involved in the transition, the links between major groups of organism populations are missing (missing links).

This model is an excuse for the absence of evidence. It does not offer evidence in favor of evolution.

Further, it is an admission that evolutionary transition from one population to another kind is not documented by the fossil findings. The fossil record supports the creation model claim that population kinds of organisms experience limited change and that they were created fully formed and fully functional independent of other populations. Once again, the evidence favors creation.

Overall, evidence favors the creation model for the supernatural origin of the universe, of life, and of species.