The Seed Blog: Creation vs. Evolution, Part 2

Last week we opened our series on Evolution vs. Creation with a solid basis for why it is not only acceptable, but often rational and wise to go against the views of the majority in a surrounding culture. In our current society, evolution is being taught and represented as an almost established fact. It has been unjustifiably lifted by some, to a point that it is no longer considered, a “theory”, but that it is synonymous with science itself.

And to be a Christian, you must stand opposed to many of these teachings of evolution. But to go against this notion is often times viewed with extreme prejudice, ridicule and even anger with claims that Christians are narrow-minded, biased, and uneducated. And yet, listen to how narrow-minded and biased the following comments are from one of today's major supporters of evolution--Richard Dawkins. His comments are angry, cruel and completely unjustified and inaccurate in their bias today. These types of misstatements and unfounded claims lead many to believe the question becomes, "Faith or Science?" But the "theory" of Evolution is not science; it is a religious belief in origins that there is no God, no Creator; a belief taken by faith, not fact—just as we have a belief in origins that God does exist as Creator. Science applies to both claims equally as each is studied through observation and experimentation in evidence. Dawkins and others insinuate that Christians avoid facts and embrace blind faith, in spite of the proofs presented. I simply ask you to make an effort to remember this quote because we will look at just a few of the evidences together, and then you can give an objective response to "Who is keeping their faith in spite of, even perhaps because of, the lack of evidence!" I am not a scientist, but I do not apologize for bringing you this information, nor should you discredit this information because I am not an expert in the fields in which we will examine because we will be examining credible evidences, accepted by those of the secular and Christian sides of science who are experts. And we will see if that evidence gives any clear, objective reasoning towards the existence of our God.
Let's start with this—a Scientific Law is a rule that relies upon a concise mathematical equation accepted as being universally true and is a cornerstone of science. A Law must never be wrong, and that is why there are so few laws in science because if a law were ever proven wrong, any science built upon that law would also, now be wrong. There are literally, only two possibilities for the entire Universe's existence: 1) it has always been, and there has never been a time when there was nothing (called, "Static" or "Infinite" Universe) 2) there was a time when there was nothing and then from nothing there was everything. Both present extreme problems for scientists today with discoveries through advances in technology and knowledge. First, the theory that the Universe is, "Constant" or "Infinite"—though favored by most all scientists until not too long ago—has been almost completely debunked by all today. Because we now know the Second Law of Thermodynamics (in simple terms, guarantees that the Universe is going from a state of order to disorder and that the Universe is running out of usable energy. If the Universe were infinite, this Law shows it would be completely burned out and used up. And this Law also removed the theory of an, "infinitely expanding and contracting" Universe because it would still lose the energy required). Secondly, the Universe has now been found to be constantly expanding. As far back as 1916, Albert Einstein's Theory of Relativity predicted this would be the case; but Einstein considered this, "irritating", because it would take away the infinite, self-sustaining Universe. He so disliked the Theory results, which are now proven accurate to within five decimal places, that he introduced a change to the equation (later called a fudge factor by some) to keep the Universe constant. Later experiments and studies by a British cosmologist and a Russian mathematician solidly confirmed the Theory of Relativity before the, "fudge factor", showing the Universe actually had a beginning. The British Cosmologist, Arthur Eddington, agreed with Einstein's frustration over the results, "Philosophically, the notion of a beginning of the present order of nature is repugnant to me... I should like to find a genuine loophole." In 1927, this expanding Universe was actually observed for the first time by an astronomer named Edwin Hubble (Hubble Telescope). This observation was through discovery of a, "Red shift" in the light of every visible galaxy. This shift meant that the galaxies were moving away from us, confirming General Relativity again, that the whole Universe is expanding. In 1929, Einstein himself had to go Mount Wilson and witness this with his own eyes. This proven fact is now known as the "Hubble Law." So, we have solid proof the Universe was not always here, but must have through Scientific Laws had a beginning, and that it is also, slowly dying. Romans 8:19-22. Now evolutionists explain this provable and known fact since they say there is no God and there is no creation with the "Big Bang Theory" which says 13.7 billion years ago out of nothing, for no known reason, a single point of infinite density and temperature smaller than the period at the end of this sentence—containing all of the matter and energy of the entire Universe exploded and rapidly accelerated at just the right speed and force to create everything in our Universe. And from this blind, violent, undirected, chaotic explosion the Universe began to take on order, Increasing in complexity and “seemingly purposeful" designs through unguided mishaps and mistakes, until our very conscious mind at this moment could think, reason and contemplate our own existence. In the telling of this faith in origins, from Space.com, Astrophysicist Alex Filippenko, from the University of California, describes it this way. In other words, all with no control, purpose or plan, out of chaos, from a starting point of nothing, came us. And in the midst of this incredible speculation, Filippenko makes this unbelievable remark. Wow, Christians have faith, huh? The article on Evolution goes on to make this statement about the very beginning instance of the Big Bang Theory: Translation: We have no idea what happened, how it happened, why it happened or what caused it. But, we believe this is the answer.”
But there is another reason Filippenko made this statement based upon the Einstein's Theory of Relativity and the overwhelming Laws of Science. All space, matter and even time are intertwined and actually began at the moment of what scientists refer to as the "supposed" Big Bang. Filippenko knew any Law which we might understand and use to explain the moment of Creation was not even present at the moment of Creation, meaning all Laws of science began and were only valid after that moment. We’re created at that moment. The First Law of Thermodynamics essentially says that energy can never be created or destroyed, it can only change form—meaning, the amount of usable energy in the Universe has been set at the beginning, and is never being added to or taken away. This Law obviously was not present before the Big Bang. The Law of Causality or Cause and Effect, which is the most fundamental principle of science states that everything that has a beginning has a cause. To deny this Law is to deny rationality. It is to deny the very reason we practice "Science" in order to discover, "the cause" of everything. We now know the Universe had a beginning, therefore it had to have a cause. A cause equal to or bigger than the effect. But, there could not be a rational, scientific cause because nothing existed before the Big Bang—not even the Laws which now govern it. They all had to become effective just after this event occurred.
So, according to our own Laws of science. and our own solidly observed evidences in the Universe, let's look at this true, scenario objectively. Walk backwards through what these discoveries say happened. The Universe becomes smaller, closer, more energized—not until it is a thousand miles wide, a mile wide, or even a foot—but until it disappears completely, leaving absolutely nothing—no time, space, or matter; no Laws of Science—can you even imagine literally, absolutely nothing. Now press, "forward" again. Something begins to work; something outside of time, space and matter; something outside the Laws of the physical world; something with more energy, and complexity than the entire Universe could hold: The action for the reaction of the Universe—something with the intelligence to bring time, space, and matter into existence in such an unfathomable perfection that it could sustain galaxies, worlds, and life itself; something that did all of this in one moment of instantaneous Creation from absolutely nothing—could someone please tell me, what did I just describe to you? Genesis 1:1; Hebrews 11:3. This is called the, "Cosmological Argument"—everything that had a beginning had a cause. The Universe had a beginning, therefore it has a cause. And if you think for one moment that scientists do not see the undeniable implications of this, you are mistaken. Listen to Dr. Robert Jastrow, NASA, Founded Goddard Institute, Chairman of Lunar Exploration Committee, Professor at Yale. Dr. George Will, Ph.D. from Princeton, writes for The Washington Post, is a contributor on Fox News, received the Pulitzer Prize for Commentary in 1977 sarcastically wrote: “Soon the American Civil Liberties Union, or People for the American Way, or some similar faction of litigious secularism will file suit against NASA, charging that the Hubble Space Telescope unconstitutionally gives comfort to the religiously inclined.” I do not believe God used the Big Bang, but this shows that according to known Scientific Laws, the Universe had to have a beginning, is headed for death, can’t be responsible for its own creation—something equal to or greater was the effect.
As if this was not enough, let's now add insult to injury. This explosion that produced everything, yet came from nothing, with no guidance, no purpose, no design—just happened to produce the right scientific laws and constants in the whole Universe to support life. Most have no idea just how incredible that really is. As astounding as the evidence is for the Creation of the Universe, this next Principle is possibly the most powerful, objective proof of God observable. It is called the Anthropic (human, man) Principle. And we are not talking about just a few common factors that must be met in order for life to exist. All of the conditions necessary for our existence in this Universe are so unimaginable that they are well beyond scientific reason or mathematical probability. In order for life to exist, we now know that there must be very precise parameters in [galaxy size, type, location in Universe, our sun’s location in this galaxy, color and composition of sun, earth’s distance from sun, presence of Jupiter (cosmic vacuum), number of moons, mass of moon, distance from moon, tidal force, axis tilt of earth, rotation speed of earth, global distribution of continents, correct land to water surface ratio, correct reflectivity of planet surface, balanced magnetic field, thickness of earth’s crust, proper balance of vital elements in the earth’s crust, proper atmospheric conditions, proper atmospheric discharge (lightening!)], and even these things are but icing on top of the cake. Deep inside is an even more amazing story—the actual laws of physics and the physical properties of the Universe have been minutely fine-tuned. If even one of the many laws and properties that create the Universe were slightly different, life would be impossible. In a secular science article from Nova (PBS), even the agnostic views of the author had to acknowledge this in bewilderment. Just to give you a very brief idea, since these are so much more involved (and above our heads). Things such as unimaginable precision in: the ratio of Electrons and Protons, the ratio of Electromagnetic Force to Gravity, Universe expansion rate (at a rate one millionth slower, it would have collapsed, faster and no galaxies would form, Gravitational force of the Universe, if changed by 0.00000000000000000000000000000000000001%, our sun would not exist, and countless others. In case you feel that I am exaggerating these facts for the sake of Creationism, then observe the following credentials and intent: Sir Roger Penrose, (born 8 August 1931) is an English mathematical physicist and Emeritus Rouse Ball Professor of Mathematics at the Mathematical Institute, University of Oxford and Emeritus Fellow of Wadham College. He has received a number of prizes and awards, including the 1988 Wolf Prize for physics which he shared with Stephen Hawking for their contribution to our understanding of the universe. He is renowned for his work in mathematical physics, in particular his contributions to general relativity and cosmology. Dr. Penrose did an in-depth calculation of the possibility of life originating in the Universe, based on these necessary conditions: Understand that Penrose is a self-proclaimed atheist and colleague of Stephen Hawking. He writes that the chance of accidental life in the Universe is 10, to the 10th power, to the 123rd power. So, according to one of the most respected, and contributory mathematical physicists of our day—who is a self-proclaimed atheist—the chance of life without a Creator is mathematically an absurdity. [I wonder if this should count as a Law?] In his book on cosmology, "A Brief History In Time", Stephen Hawking made this statement. Now look at the atheistic alternative again, with all of these Laws of Science: From nothing, with nothing; against the very Laws of Its own existence; the entire Universe exploded into existence—an effect without a cause; expanded at the perfect rate of speed to an unimaginably perfect degree in every visible and invisible trait, producing all of the perfect Laws of Science needed to create and sustain life to an unthinkably perfect balance; unchangeable without causing disaster. And then progressively made mistakes using increasing order and energy against its own Laws of increasing disorder and decreasing energy until intelligent, complex life was accidentally constructed without any design or purpose.
Who is walking by shear faith, in spite of, and in the lack of evidence today? Let's close with this awesome perspective from my favorite apologist, Dr. Norman L. Geisler: "Believing without observation is exactly what atheists accuse 'religious' people of doing.  But ironically, it's the atheists who are pushing a religion of blind faith. Christians have a good reason based on observation (such as the Big Bang and the Anthropic Principle) for believing what they believe. Atheists don't. That's why we don't have enough faith to be atheists." [Dr. Norman Geisler, I Don't Have Enough Faith To Be An Atheist, p112]. Psalm 90:2.