While various forms of evolution have been promoted for millennia,_² Charles Darwin’s version included a new feature: natural selection. Natural selection is the idea that “nature” selects the best “fit” organisms for survival, while those less suited for an environment, if they do not migrate, will tend to die off. So, if a particular variety of finch or English Peppered Moth is more suited to an environment than another variety, the better suited option will tend to survive and propagate its genes, while the less suited species will tend to eventually die out, along with its “inferior” genes. Natural selection is, by and large, a reasonable idea and does not contradict biblical Creation. Natural selection does not, however, actually change an organism. It does not have the capability of changing a single-celled organism into a human over time, as Darwin theorized it could. In the well-known words of Dutch botanist and geneticist Hugo de Vries, “Natural selection may explain the survival of the fittest, but it cannot explain the arrival of the fittest.”³

How, then, does the new, “more fit,” variety come about? Princeton University evolutionary biologists Peter and Rosemary Grant spent over 35 years studying Darwin’s famous Galapogos finches. As we have discussed elsewhere,⁴ Darwin noted how different shapes and sizes of beaks in finches may have contributed to the survival and flourishing of various bird varieties and the extinction of others. But where did the beak shape and size variety originate? As high school Biology textbooks correctly teach, the Grants found that “for beak size and shape to evolve, there must be enough heritable variation in those traits to provide raw material for natural selection.”⁵ “Heritable variation” refers to genetic variety that can be inherited from parents and expressed in the species’ offspring. In other words, parents already have the genetic variety in their genes which is then expressed in their offspring. If that potential for variety did not already exist in the genes of the parents, that variety could not be expressed in an offspring. “Without heritable variation in beak sizes, the medium ground finch would not be able to adapt to feeding on larger, tougher seeds during a drought.”⁶

Now to the point: elephants, along with any species on the planet, have a tremendous amount of genetic potential for variety in their offspring. Some elephants have “tusk genes” and are able to grow tusks, while the other elephants have “tuskless genes.” If poachers target elephants with tusks, obviously the elephants with tusk genes are going to tend to die out, along with the tusk genes that they have. In the meantime, the elephants with tuskless genes will tend to survive and begin thriving. The population of African elephants (and the genes they possess) will shift to predominantly tuskless, which is what scientists are finding. But did African elephants evolve?

Well, it depends upon your definition. Did the overall population of the African elephant change (“evolve”) from predominantly tusked to tuskless? Yes. Was the change Darwinian (i.e., the kind of change that could allow an elephant to grow new components and turn into something else)? No. New genetic information is required in order for a species to evolve across a phylogenic boundary into a totally different kind of species,⁷ and no new genetic information was introduced to the species (and there is no known natural mechanism for the generation of new genetic information⁸). Instead, already existing genetic information was simply expressed more often among the elephants.

Here are three key takeaways from the tuskless elephant study:

1. Are tuskless elephants still elephants? Yes. They have not evolved into something else, nor will they do so given enough time.
2. Has new genetic information spontaneously generated (or been created by random genetic mutations) as tuskless African elephants have begun to gain dominance? No. The genetic information already existed.
3. Has progressive evolution happened? No, and, in fact, de-evolution has occurred since the tusk gene has diminished in the African elephant population (i.e., genetic information is being lost). While tuskless elephants can more easily survive death by poachers, overall tuskless elephants will be more vulnerable to other predators in the wild.

Variety among species exists. Some varieties thrive in certain environments/situations. If, however, distinctions in species must come from the genetic variety of their ancestors, where did the original genetic information originate? That’s the more important question. If the origin of information is always the product of a mind, then the genetic information for the tusks of the African elephant originated from a powerful Mind that created it.

Endnotes

¹ Shane C. Campbell-Staton, et al. (2021), “Ivory Poaching and the Rapid Evolution of Tusklessness in African Elephants,” Science, 374[6566]:483-487.

² Bert Thompson (1981), The History of Evolutionary Thought (Montgomery, AL: Apologetics Press).

³ Hugo de Vries (1905), Species and Varieties: Their Origin by Mutation, ed. Daniel Trembly MacDougal (Chicago, IL: Open Court), pp. 825-826, emp. added.

⁴ Kyle Butt (2006), “What Do the Finches Prove?” R&R Resources, 5[9]:33-R, https://apologeticspress.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/0609.pdf.

⁵ Kenneth R. Miller and Joseph S. Levine (2010), Biology (Boston, MA: Pearson), p. 472, emp. added.

⁶ Ibid., p. 473, emp. added.

⁷ Jeff Miller (2014), “God and the Laws of Science: Genetics vs. Evolution [Part 1],” Reason & Revelation, 34[1]:2-20, https://www.apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=9&article=4779&topic=296.

⁸ Ibid. Cf. Jeff Miller (2014), “God and the Laws of Science: Genetics vs. Evolution [Part 2],” Reason & Revelation, 34[2]:14-21, https://apologeticspress.org/god-and-the-laws-of-science-genetics-vs-evolution-part-2-4788/.

The post Are Tuskless Elephants Evidence of Rapid Darwinian Evolution? appeared first on Apologetics Press.

On the Long-standing Failure of Naturalists to Explain the Origin of Life

• “Many ideas have been proposed to explain how it began. Most are based on the assumption that cells are too complex to have formed all at once, so life must have started with just one component that survived and somehow created the others around it. When put into practice in the lab, however, these ideas don’t produce anything particularly lifelike. It is, some researchers are starting to realise,⁵ like trying to build a car by making a chassis and hoping wheels and an engine will spontaneously appear. The alternative—that life emerged fully formed—seems even more unlikely.”
• “An early idea put proteins in the driving seat. In the 1950s, biochemist Sidney Fox discovered that heating amino acids made them link up into chains…. However, the proteinoids never got much further. Some researchers still hunt for lifelike behaviour in simple proteins, but the idea that proteins started life on their own has now been largely rejected.”
• “More recently, much research has focused on an idea called the RNA world…. However, biochemists have spent decades struggling to get RNA to self-assemble or copy itself in the lab, and now concede that it needs a lot of help to do either.”
• “Perhaps, then, membranes came first. David Deamer at the University of California, Santa Cruz, has championed this option. In the 1970s, his team discovered that lipids found in cell membranes could be made when two simple chemicals, cyanamide and glycerol, were mixed with water and heated to 65°C…. Nevertheless, he now accepts that this isn’t enough, because lipids can’t carry genes or form enzymes.”
• “A handful of scientists argue that life didn’t begin on Earth, but elsewhere in the universe, and that it was carried here on meteoroids and other space bodies…. The idea is called ‘panspermia’. Aside from the fact that this simply relocates the problem of how life got going, we also haven’t found evidence of life elsewhere. If panspermia were true, bacteria would be raining down on Earth from space, and neighbouring worlds like the moon would be scattered with their remains. But there is no evidence of incoming bacteria, and moon rocks are sterile. Furthermore, space is hostile to life. In experiments where bacteria were placed outside the International Space Station, even exposures of a year took a heavy toll. This leaves a window for life to travel within the solar system, but it is a narrow one: the trip from Mars to Earth would take many months at least. Travel from other stars would take millennia, so looks impossible.”

Translation: the arguments that have long been used in support of abiogenesis, and which continue to be promoted in textbooks, are all acknowledged now to be wrong based on the physical evidence.

Naturalists: “The Origin of LIfe Is Apparently More Complicated Than We Thought.”

• “The problem with understanding the origin of life is that we don’t know what the first life was like. The oldest accepted fossils are 3.5 billion years old,⁶ but they don’t help much. They are found in ancient rock formations in Western Australia known as stromatolites and are single-celled microorganisms like modern bacteria. These are relatively complex: even the simplest modern bacteria have more than 100 genes. The first organisms must have been simpler. Viruses have fewer genes, but can reproduce only by infecting cells and taking them over, so can’t have come first.”
•  “Life can be boiled down to three core systems. First, it has structural integrity: that means each cell has an outer membrane holding it together. Second, life has metabolism, a set of chemical reactions that obtain energy from its surroundings. Finally, life can reproduce using genes, which contain instructions for building cells and are passed on to offspring…. Life’s three core processes are intertwined. Genes carry instructions for making proteins, which means proteins only exist because of genes. But proteins are also essential for maintaining and copying genes, so genes only exist because of proteins. And proteins—made by genes—are crucial for constructing the lipids for membranes. Any hypothesis explaining life’s origin must take account of this. Yet, if we suppose that genes, metabolism and membranes were unlikely to have arisen simultaneously, that means one of them must have come first and ‘invented’ the others.”

Translation: life is (in the words of intelligent design advocates) “irreducibly complex.” All necessary components for life had to be in place from the beginning, or life could not exist, making naturalistic theories for the origin of life implausible, irrational, and fideistic.

“Well, If Simple Explanations Don’t Work…”

What is the naturalists’ response to the above crushing admissions? Even though the only other “naturalistic” option “seems even more unlikely” according to Marshall, naturalists are essentially conceding the irreducible complexity of life, but are continuing to deny the decisive, rational evidence of a Designer that is demanded by their laboratory findings. If  “simple explanations of how life got started don’t add up,” Marshall says, the explanations (contrary to common sense) must be complex instead. “The shortcomings of these simple models of life’s origin have led Deamer and others to explore the seemingly less plausible alternative that all three systems emerged together in a highly simplified form”: the “everything-first idea” for the origin of life. Really?

Proving the legitimacy of that “less plausible alternative,” Marshall explains, has been the pursuit of various laboratories over the last several years. While acknowledging the shortcomings of their results as well (e.g., “pieces of the puzzle are still missing,” and “It remains to be seen whether [they—JM]…can work”), Marshall admits that, nevertheless, they “are our best model yet…. Perhaps the most persuasive argument [for complexity—JM] is that the simpler ideas don’t work.” But assuming the first life was more complex makes abiogenesis even less plausible, as he admitted. How is that a good solution to the problem? Marshall continues: “As is the case with many things in life, the beginning was probably more complicated than we had thought.” (Wait, haven’t creationists been saying that all along?) Translation: since we can’t get a simple brick to make itself in order to start building a house (we’ve tried), the solution must be that the whole house, comprised of intricate design, complexity, and bricks was accidentally (and magically) manufactured all at once…without a manufacturer. Better option: Hebrews 3:4—there was a manufacturer for the house: “For every house is built by someone, but He who built all things is God.”

 Endnotes

¹ Jeff Miller (2012), “The Law of Biogenesis [Part I],” Reason & Revelation, 32[1]:2-11, http://apologeticspress.org/apPubPage.aspx?pub=1&issue=1018; see also, Jeff Miller (2017), Science vs. Evolution (Montgomery, AL: Apologetics Press), second edition, pp. 61-110.

² Jeff Miller (2013), “‘Unlike Naturalists, You Creationists Have a Blind Faith,’” Reason & Revelation, 33[7]:76-83, http://apologeticspress.org/apPubPage.aspx?pub=1&issue=1125&article=2164.

³ Jeff Miller (2017), “Evolution Is Self-Contradictory,” Apologetics Press, https://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?article=5468.

⁴ Michael Marshall (2020), “Life’s Big Bang,” New Scientist,  247[3294]:34-38. Emphasis is added throughout the following quotes.

⁵ New Scientist is published in the U.K., explaining the variant spelling of many words throughout the following quotes.

⁶ Note that scientific and biblical evidence supports a young Earth, on the order of thousands, not billions, of years. See Jeff Miller (2019), “21 Reasons to Believe the Earth is Young,” Reason & Revelation, 39[1]:2-11.

Suggested Resources

The post A Naturalist's Strong Case Against Abiogenesis appeared first on Apologetics Press.

[NOTE: The following article is a special section within the Apologetics Press study Bible, currently scheduled to be released in 2020. In order to stay in keeping with the “concise” approach, the typical references have been omitted. The reader is referred to our Web site and monthly journal Reason & Revelation for citation of the many relevant articles on these subjects.]

Many within Christendom have attempted to create compatibility between naturalistic evolution (i.e., cosmic evolution—the Big Bang Theory plus Darwinian Evolution) and Scripture. Before even spending time attempting to reconcile Scripture with such theories, however, one should first consider whether evolution is even a rational scientific theory to begin with—supported by the evidence.

According to the Big Bang Theory, all matter and energy that comprise the Universe were originally in an infinitely dense “spec” (a singularity) roughly 14 billion years ago. That “cosmic egg” expanded faster than the speed of light for well less than one second (i.e., “inflation”), and now continues to expand indefinitely. Particles began forming in the first few seconds, atoms after 380,000 years, the first stars after 200-300 million years, and our solar system and Earth roughly nine billion years later.

According to the secular model, some 800 million years later (3.8 billion years ago), life sprang into existence on Earth and Darwinian evolution began. The initial single-celled organisms eventually evolved into multicellular organisms (and the earliest plants), which eventually evolved into invertebrates, which then evolved into vertebrates. Vertebrate fish evolved into amphibians, then reptiles, which gave rise to dinosaurs and mammals. Dinosaurs evolved into birds, and mammals ultimately evolved into primates. The genus homo, within the primate group, arrived some 2-3 million years ago, ultimately evolving into humans.

There are many problems with this “just so” story as proposed by naturalists. Here are 15 of them, some of which apply to naturalistic evolution exclusively, and some to both naturalistic and “supernaturalistic” evolution:

1. The origin of laws of science: At the heart of science is man’s discovery of the laws of nature that govern the Universe, telling it how to behave. These laws exist, and yet there is absolutely no evidence from nature that such laws can “write” themselves into existence. One cannot be a naturalist and believe such a thing happens, since there is no evidence that such a thing could happen in nature. To believe that the laws of science could write themselves would require a blind “faith.”
2. The origin of matter/energy: Not only would the laws that govern the Universe have to create themselves, but the physical material of the Universe would have to either be eternal or create itself. The Big Bang model asserts that the Universe began with all matter/energy in one place and it rapidly expanded eventually forming the Universe. Those who believe the matter of the Universe was the result of a quantum fluctuation must also believe in a quantum field of energy that “fluctuated.” No naturalistic model explains the origin of all matter/energy, but rather, what happened to that already existing material at the beginning. Again, upon examination of the scientific evidence from the natural realm, one discovers three relevant laws of science which prohibit a natural origin of the Universe. The First Law of Thermodynamics indicates that in nature, matter and energy do not create themselves from nothing. Energy can be converted into matter (and vice versa), but the sum total amount of matter/energy in the Universe must be constant. Either matter/energy in the natural realm were created by Something outside of the natural realm, or matter/energy are eternal. Few cosmologists today would accept the latter in light of the findings of the Second Law of Thermodynamics—entropy happens. We are steadily running out of usable energy—that is, the Universe is “wearing out” or “running down,” implying that it could not have existed forever or we would long since have exhausted all usable energy and be in a state of Universal heat death. The Law of Causality—perhaps the most fundamental of all scientific laws—indicates that every effect that we see in the natural realm always has a cause. Since the Universe is an effect, it requires a cause. Since matter/energy could not exist forever or create itself in a natural way, the Cause must be outside of (i.e., super-) nature.
3. The Horizon/Flatness problems: Several decades ago cosmologists observed that the entire Universe appears to have the same temperature, implying that there had to be sufficient time for every location in the Universe to have exchanged its energy with other locations and come to equilibrium. Some places in the Universe, however, are too far from each other to have had time to exchange their energy if the Big Bang model is correct. This problem has been termed the Horizon problem. Further, based on the Big Bang model, if the Universe is billions of years old, when we examine the composition of energy in the Universe, the ratio of gravitational potential energy to kinetic energy in the Universe (i.e., Ω) should be either zero or enormous if the Universe is as old as is claimed. The evidence, however, indicates that Ω is estimated to be close to the very unlikely number one, making the Universe very close to “flat” in curvature (rather than “closed” or “open”). That discovery would seem to imply that either the Universe is not actually billions of years old, or that Ω was initially exactly one to within 15 significant figures—an occurrence so unlikely that it would appear that the Universe was finely tuned (i.e., designed).
4. A lack of evidence for inflation: Inflation was invented, in part, to resolve the Horizon and Flatness problems and yet, to date, there is absolutely no evidence for inflation. Even if it were true, other problems would exist, such as what caused inflation and what caused it to stop? Although inflation is essential for the Big Bang model, accepting it amounts to grasping an irrational blind “faith,” and ironically, leading naturalistic cosmologists acknowledge that fact. Inflation theory is not science.
5. A lack of evidence for dark energy: Big Bang theorists see the evidence for Universal expansion—a key observation undergirding the theory—but cannot (with their model) explain why the expansion of space appears to be accelerating, rather than decelerating, as would be expected based on the Big Bang model. In an attempt to be consistent with the blind “faith” theme of modern cosmology, dark energy was invented to attempt to explain the accelerated expansion. An enormous “fudge factor,” so to speak, was added to the cosmological equation. Presumably, an unknown, unobserved and possibly unobservable energy in space—an energy thought to make up 73% of the Universe, but which we do not know exists—is driving the accelerated expansion. The Big Bang model does not adequately explain the evidence.
6. The smoothness problem: The Big Bang model relies on the fundamental assumption known as the Cosmological Principle—the idea that the Universe is uniform and homogeneous (i.e., spread out evenly). Once again, however, the actual observable evidence indicates that the Universe is not smooth, but rather, is “clumpy” (e.g., there exist stars, galaxies, clusters of galaxies, etc. that clump rather than spread out). The Universe is characterized by deviations from homogeneity. The Universe should be smooth if the Big Bang is true, but it is not.
7. Missing antimatter: Energy can be transformed into matter, according to the First Law of Thermodynamics, but when it happens, an equal amount of antimatter (basically normal matter with a reversed charge on its particles) is always produced—without exception according to the laboratory evidence. So if the Big Bang is true and energy was transformed into all of the matter of the Universe at the beginning, there should have been an equal amount of matter and antimatter produced—but there clearly was not, or else when the two touched, they would have been immediately destroyed, releasing their energy. Today the Universe is virtually completely composed of regular matter. (Apparently the Big Bang did not occur.)
8. The Fermi Paradox: If the Big Bang model is true, it would be inconceivable that other life—even advanced life—does not exist somewhere in the Universe with its billions of stars and even, presumably, more planets. Such life should have long ago colonized our region of the Universe, and yet there is absolutely no evidence for the existence of extraterrestrials. If one predicts that aliens should exist and should have been noticed by humans by now if the Big Bang Theory is true and that prediction fails upon examining the evidence, then the Big Bang Theory has been effectively falsified by the evidence.
9. The Anthropic Principle: The “Anthropic Principle” is the term used by leading cosmologists to describe the incredibly fine-tuned nature of the Universe. Mounting evidence indicates that it seems to have been perfectly designed for life on Earth to exist. In order to by-pass the supernatural implication of the scientific evidence for design (i.e., that there must be a Designer for the Universe), many cosmologists are suggesting that our Universe is one of an infinite number within a “multiverse,” and we “happen” to live in the right one. Other cosmologists, however, point out that such a hypothesis not only requires a blind faith (having no evidence to support it, making it irrational), but it merely “moves the goal posts.” The sleight-of-hand only begs the question: what would cause the multiverse to exist—God?
10. Origin of life: Even if the Big Bang happened, at some point, non-living substances had to spontaneously come to life. When we examine the evidence, however, we find that in nature, life always and exclusively comes from life—a fundamental biological rule known as the Law of Biogenesis. In order to be a naturalist, one must ignore the mountain of scientific evidence for biogenesis and blindly believe that something unnatural occurred at least once (i.e., abiogenesis). In short, one must cease to be a naturalist and become a super-naturalist like us. The problem of the first life spontaneously animating, however, is greater than is perhaps often considered. The first organism could not be simple, since it required an operating program to control its functions and also had to be equipped with a replication system, or its death would have promptly ended its evolutionary journey before it began. Absolutely no evidence exists that such a “just so” story could occur.
11. Darwinian evolution (i.e., macroevolution) lacks solid evidence: After the hypothetical, original life spontaneously animated, Darwinists contend that it eventually evolved into all forms of life we see today. In order for a theory to be rational, however, it must have sufficient evidence to support it. Upon examination of the alleged evidences for evolution, however, they are found, without exception, to be either erroneous (e.g., alleged embryonic recapitulation; horse and whale evolution in the fossil record; vestigial organs and genes; transitional forms; human/chimp chromosome fusion; mitochondrial DNA; and radio-isotope dating techniques); irrelevant (e.g., natural selection, which explains the survival of the fittest, not their arrival; geographic distribution; evidences of microevolution, like “Darwin’s finches,” English peppered moths, the evolution of bacterial antibiotic resistance, epigenetics, and fruit fly evolution, which represent mere diversification within already existing kinds rather than evidence of evolution across phylogenic boundaries into distinctly different kinds of creatures); or inadequate (e.g., homologous structures and genetic similarities). Macroevolution is found to be merely a wishful dream conjured by naturalists, rather than a conclusion warranted by the actual scientific evidence.
12. Origin of genetic information: A single-celled organism is substantially different from a human being, genetically speaking. In order for macroevolution to happen—evolving a single-celled organism into a distinctly different organism—nature must have a mechanism to generate new raw material or genetic information in living organisms over time. No such mechanism is known to exist. Rather, the observable evidence indicates that information is always and exclusively the product of a sender or mind. It is not generated spontaneously from nothing. Neo-Darwinists speculate that genetic mutations could be the mechanism that drives change, but according to the observable evidence, genetic mutations do not create new raw material. It’s not rocket science: without a mechanism to evolve a creature, a creature cannot evolve.
13. Evidence of common ancestry lacking: A fundamental contention of naturalistic evolution is the proposition “relation through descent from a common ancestor”—all living organisms are related, however distantly. Not only is such a contention contrary to the observable evidence that life comes only from life and that of its kind (i.e., the Law of Biogenesis) and would require a mechanism for change which does not exist, but such a contention would imply that the fossil record should be replete with billions of fossils from the transitional species that link all organisms back to the original single-celled organism. Not only did Darwin himself acknowledge that the fossil record does not reveal that evidence (and admitted that the fossil record is, perhaps, the “most obvious and serious objection” which could be levied against his theory), but leading paleontologists admit it as well. For example, every alleged transitional fossil that has been discovered and attempted to be used as evidence that humans evolved from an ape-like creature has been found to be either fraudulent or inconclusive at best (without exception), even though there should be multiplied millions of those transitional fossils, making macroevolution beyond a doubt, and multiplied billions of the transitional fossils of every other species on the planet as well—a prediction which the fossil record does not bear out. Further, the fossil record is characterized by abrupt appearance of fully formed and functional species, stasis (i.e., little change of the species throughout its tenure in the geologic column, rather than evidence of change into distinctly different species), and then extinction—not evidence of evolution. The Cambrian Explosion at the base of the geologic column effectively constitutes a falsification of evolution, since the many fossilized creatures that are found there appear abruptly, fully formed and functional, exhibit complex design (e.g., the trilobite), and show no evidence of having evolved from previous life forms. Ironically, there is a paucity of fossils that are even alleged to be transitional forms, and they are all vertebrate species, which are known to represent only a minute portion of the complete fossil record (perhaps less than one percent). The bulk of the fossil record, however, is comprised of invertebrate species, and yet no transitional forms among the invertebrates are even known. Bottom line: the fossil record falsifies Darwinian evolution rather than verifying it.
14. Uniformitarianism is false: At the heart of every old Earth dating technique (e.g., radioisotope dating techniques, ice core layering analysis, tree ring dating, etc.) is the assumption known as uniformitarianism—the principle that processes and rates currently observed have continued with the same rates and intensity throughout time, implying, for example, that geologic features are explainable by current processes (also implying an old age of the Earth and Universe)—“the present is the key to the past.” Once again, such an assumption does not hold up upon examination of the actual physical evidence. Catastrophic events (e.g., Mount St. Helens volcano eruptions; Mississippi River drainage; rapid canyon erosion from local flooding) are known to speed up “normal” rates and processes. Ironically, even secular geologists now acknowledge that strict uniformitarianism does not hold. The growing theory among secular scientists concerning how the dinosaurs went extinct, for example, involves a massive meteorite that struck the Earth 65 million years ago: a world-wide catastrophic event to be sure. What many geologists appear to ignore, however, is that yielding strict uniformitarianism and accepting catastrophism in any form acknowledges that all old Earth dating techniques could be flawed, since they are all based on the assumption of uniformitarianism.
15. Evidence for an old Earth is lacking: In order to allow the time for cosmic evolution to occur, it is argued that the Universe must be many billions of years old. Even if it was true that time would allow cosmic evolution to occur (and there is no evidence that time has the power to bridge the many gaps in evolution that have already been alluded to), there is no solid evidence to substantiate the claim that the Universe is billions of years old. Uniformitarianism, a fundamental assumption of all evolutionary dating techniques and capable, if true, of allowing for billions of years of evolution, has already been shown to be false, and the oft’ cited radioisotope dating techniques are riddled with further erroneous assumptions. Such techniques (e.g., Rubidium-Strontium, Uranium-Lead, Potassium-Argon, and Carbon-14) assume (1) that the nuclear decay rate from parent to daughter isotope has been constant throughout time—a contention which recent scientific evidence has called into question; (2) the specimen being measured is a closed system, never having been affected by any outside force—a contention which has been observed to be illegitimate; and (3) the specimen was originally only comprised of the parent element—an assumption which has been disproved observationally time and again. Those issues are compounded by the many examples that indicate that the Earth is relatively young—far younger than the cosmic evolutionary timeline indicates.¹

Conclusion: the many problems with cosmic evolution are not mere bumps in the road. They are uncrossable chasms which effectively falsify naturalism. One cannot believe in naturalism and simultaneously have a rational faith. Rather, his “faith” must be a blind one. In truth, there is no such thing as a naturalist, since every person must believe that something unnatural has occurred at least once (e.g., spontaneous generation of natural laws, matter/energy, life, and genetic information). A naturalist is really a supernaturalist in disguise, one who believes in a modern, “respectable” form of witchcraft—only without the existence of an actual witch to do the magic. The supernatural realm is demanded by the scientific evidence. One need only follow the evidence to arrive at God.

Endnotes

¹ Jeff Miller (2019), “21 Reasons to Believe the Earth is Young,” Reason & Revelation, 39[1]:2-11, https://apologeticspress.org/apPubPage.aspx?pub=1&issue=1287.

Suggested Resources

The post Science vs. the Big Bang & Evolution: A Concise Look appeared first on Apologetics Press.

Silva and his evolutionary colleagues subscribe to the notion that “science” only allows natural, observable, experimental phenomena²—no supernatural realm with a God Who miraculously created the Universe allowed. The problem with such thinking, as we have noted elsewhere,³ is that it is impossible to explain the Universe without resorting to supernatural activity—and even many naturalists acknowledge that fact.⁴ The origin of the laws of science, the matter/energy of the Universe, life, and genetic information, for example, have no rational explanations from a purely naturalistic perspective. They require a supernatural Cause.⁵ So Silva and any other naturalists who agree with him in their belief that science should only allow for natural phenomena must inevitably contradict their own position when attempting to explain several characteristics of the Universe.

Bottom line: if the scientific evidence demands the existence of a supernatural Creator, why would scientists define science in such a way that a Designer/Creator is precluded? And further, why would acknowledging that the evidence points to an intelligent Designer of the Universe “endanger” children? There are certainly answers to those questions—but it is certain that they are not rational answers, because they cannot be, according to the evidence. “For every house is built by someone, but He who built all things is God” (Hebrews 3:4).

Endnotes

¹ Heslley Machado Silva (2017), “Intelligent Design Endangers Education,” Science, 357[6354]:880.

² Teaching About Evolution and the Nature of Science (1998), National Academy of Sciences (Washington, DC: National Academy Press).

³ Jeff Miller (2012), “The Atheistic Naturalist’s Self-Contradiction,” Reason & Revelation, 31[5]:53.

⁴ Jeff Miller (2017), “Atheists’ Design Admissions,” Reason & Revelation, 37[12]:134-143.

⁵ Jeff Miller (2017), Science vs. Evolution (Apologetics Press: Montgomery, AL), revised and expanded.

Suggested Resources

The post “Only Science” Should be Taught in Science Classrooms appeared first on Apologetics Press.

#1: “We Need to Figure Out Who Wrote the Laws of Science.”

Famous atheist, theoretical physicist, and cosmologist of Cambridge University, Stephen Hawking, clearly highly reveres the laws of science. In 2011, he hosted a show on the Discovery Channel titled, “Curiosity: Did God Create the Universe?” In that show, he said,

[T]he Universe is a machine governed by principles or laws—laws that can be understood by the human mind. I believe that the discovery of these laws has been humankind’s greatest achievement…. But what’s really important is that these physical laws, as well as being unchangeable, are universal. They apply not just to the flight of the ball, but to the motion of a planet and everything else in the Universe. Unlike laws made by humans, the laws of nature cannot ever be broken. That’s why they are so powerful.²

Hawking, in obvious awe, acknowledges that the laws of nature exist, are unbreakable (i.e., without exception), and apply to the entire Universe—not just to the Earth. But those admissions by the evolutionary community presents a major problem for atheism. Humanist Martin Gardner said,

Imagine that physicists finally discover all the basic waves and their particles, and all the basic laws, and unite everything in one equation. We can then ask, “Why that equation?” It is fashionable now to conjecture that the big bang was caused by a random quantum fluctuation in a vacuum devoid of space and time. But of course such a vacuum is a far cry from nothing. There had to be quantum laws to fluctuate. And why are there quantum laws?…There is no escape from the superultimate questions: Why is there something rather than nothing, and why is the something structured the way it is?³

Even if Big Bang cosmology were correct (and it is not), you still can’t have a law without a law writer.

In “Curiosity: Did God Create the Universe?” Hawking boldly claimed that everything in the Universe can be accounted for through science without the need of God. This is untrue, as we have discussed elsewhere,⁴ but notice that Hawking does not even believe that assertion himself. He said, “Did God create the quantum laws that allowed the Big Bang to occur? In a nutshell, did we need a god to set it all up so that the Big Bang could bang?”⁵ He provided no answer to that crucial question—not even an attempt. And he is not alone. No atheist can provide a reasonable answer to that question.

The eminent atheistic, theoretical physicist, cosmologist, and astrobiologist of Arizona State University, Paul Davies, noted Hawking’s sidestep of that question in the “round table discussion” on the Discovery Channel following “Curiosity,” titled, “The Creation Question: a Curiosity Conversation.” Concerning Hawking, Davies said,

In the show, Stephen Hawking gets very, very close to saying, “Well, where did the laws of physics come from? That’s where we might find some sort of God.” And then he backs away and doesn’t return to the subject…. You need to know where those laws come from. That’s where the mystery lies—the laws.⁶

Writing in New Scientist, Davies asked, “How did stupid atoms spontaneously write their own software…?”⁷ In a more extensive discourse on the subject in The New York Times, Davies said,

[W]here do these laws come from? And why do they have the form that they do? When I was a student, the laws of physics were regarded as completely off limits. The job of the scientist, we were told, is to discover the laws and apply them, not inquire into their provenance. The laws were treated as “given”—imprinted on the universe like a maker’s mark at the moment of cosmic birth—and fixed forevermore…. Over the years I have often asked my physicist colleagues why the laws of physics are what they are. The answers vary from “that’s not a scientific question” to “nobody knows.” The favorite reply is, “There is no reason they are what they are—they just are.” The idea that the laws exist reasonlessly is deeply anti-rational. After all, the very essence of a scientific explanation of some phenomenon is that the world is ordered logically and that there are reasons things are as they are. If one traces these reasons all the way down to the bedrock of reality—the laws of physics—only to find that reason then deserts us, it makes a mockery of science. Can the mighty edifice of physical order we perceive in the world about us ultimately be rooted in reasonless absurdity? If so, then nature is a fiendishly clever bit of trickery: meaninglessness and absurdity somehow masquerading as ingenious order and rationality…. Clearly, then, both religion and science are founded on faith—namely, on belief in the existence of something outside the universe, like an unexplained God or an unexplained set of physical laws.⁸

In conclusion, Davies highlighted the fact that naturalists have a blind faith when assuming that the laws of science could create themselves free from an “external agency”: “[U]ntil science comes up with a testable theory of the laws of the universe, its claim to be free of faith is manifestly bogus.”⁹ Bottom line: there must be a rational origin of the laws of science. In 2016, Davies reiterated, “The ballyhoo about a universe popping out of the vacuum is a complete red herring. It just dodges the real issue, which is the prior existence of the laws of physics.”¹⁰ In an article titled “Taking Science on Faith,” Davies responded to the assertion that the existence of a multiverse could account for the origin of the laws of science, saying,

The multiverse theory is increasingly popular, but it doesn’t so much explain the laws of physics as dodge the whole issue. There has to be a physical mechanism to make all those universes and bestow bylaws on them. This process will require its own laws, or meta-laws. Where do they come from? The problem has simply been shifted up a level from the laws of the universe to the meta-laws of the multiverse.¹¹

Astrophysicist and science writer for New Scientist, Marcus Chown, wrote:

If the universe owes its origins to quantum theory, then quantum theory must have existed before the universe. So the next question is surely: where did the laws of quantum theory come from? “We do not know,” admits [cosmologist Alex—JM] Vilenkin. “I consider that an entirely different question.” When it comes to the beginning of the universe, in many ways we’re still at the beginning.¹²

University of Oxford physicist David Deutsch said, “Even if the answer to why there is something rather than nothing were because of how quantum field theory works, the question would become why are the laws of quantum field theory as they are.”¹³ Cosmologist and Professor of Physics at California Institute of Technology, Sean Carroll, writing in Scientific American, discussed the question of the origin of the Second Law of Thermodynamics: “[E]xplaining why low-entropy states evolve into high-entropy states [i.e., the Second Law of Thermodynamics—JM] is different from explaining why entropy is increasing in our universe…. [T]he real challenge is not to explain why the entropy of the universe will be higher tomorrow than it is today but to explain why the entropy was lower yesterday and even lower the day before that.”¹⁴ In other words, why is there such a thing as a law of nature, like the “Second Law of Thermodynamics”?

Theoretical physicist, faculty member at the Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics, and adjunct Professor of Physics at the University of Waterloo, Lee Smolin, admitted, “Cosmology has new questions to answer. Not just what are the laws, but why are these laws the laws?”¹⁵ In a 2014 interview with Scientific American, cosmologist George F.R. Ellis of the University of Cape Town, co-author with Stephen Hawking of the book The Large Scale Structure of Space-Time, gave a stinging response to theoretical physicist Lawrence Krauss of Arizona State University, who argues in his book, A Universe from Nothing, that physics has ultimately answered the question of why there is something rather than nothing. Among other criticisms, Ellis said,

And above all Krauss does not address why the laws of physics exist, why they have the form they have, or in what kind of manifestation they existed before the universe existed (which he must believe if he believes they brought the universe into existence). Who or what dreamt up symmetry principles, Lagrangians, specific symmetry groups, gauge theories, and so on? He does not begin to answer these questions.¹⁶

Quantum physicist Michael Brooks agreed with Ellis in his criticisms of Krauss’ book. Writing in New Scientist, he said, “[T]he laws of physics can’t be conjured from nothing…. Krauss contends that the multiverse makes the question of what determined our laws of nature ‘less significant.’ Truthfully, it just puts the question beyond science [i.e., beyond the natural—JM]—for now, at least.”¹⁷

In his book, The Grand Design, Hawking tried to submit a way that the Universe could have created itself from nothing without God and still be in keeping with the laws of nature—an impossible concept, to be sure. He said, “Because there is a law like gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing.”¹⁸ Of course, even if such were possible, he does not explain where the law of gravity came from. Professor of mathematics and Fellow in Mathematics and the Philosophy of Science at Oxford University, John Lennox concurred. He took Hawking to task over his assertion that the laws of physics alone can explain the existence of the Universe, saying,

Hawking’s argument appears to me even more illogical when he says the existence of gravity means the creation of the universe was inevitable. But how did gravity exist in the first place? Who put it there? And what was the creative force behind its birth? Similarly, when Hawking argues, in support of his theory of spontaneous creation, that it was only necessary for “the blue touch paper” to be lit to “set the universe going,” the question must be: where did this blue touch paper come from? And who lit it, if not God?¹⁹

Simply put, a more rational statement from Hawking would have been, “Because there is a law like gravity, the Universe must have been created by God.” Bottom line: the existence of the laws of science is evidence of a Designer—even atheists tacitly admit it.

#2: “We Need to Know Who Created Life.”

In Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed, well-known British evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins, Oxford University’s Professor for Public Understanding of Science from 1995 to 2008, said concerning the possibility of intelligent design:

It could be that at some earlier time, somewhere in the Universe, a civilization evolved by, probably, some kind of Darwinian means, to a very, very high level of technology, and designed a form of life that they seeded onto, perhaps, this planet. Now that is a possibility, and an intriguing possibility. And I suppose it’s possible that you might find evidence for that, if you look at the details of our chemistry, molecular biology, you might find a signature of some kind of designer. And that designer could well be a higher intelligence from elsewhere in the Universe.²⁰

So, according to Dawkins, when we look at our chemistry—our molecular biology—(1) there could be evidence of design there, and (2) that design would imply the existence of a designer—a direct admission of the validity of the Teleological Argument. Granted, Dawkins does not directly endorse God as that Designer. Instead, he irrationally postulates the existence of aliens.

Ultimately, since there is no evidence for the existence of aliens, there can hardly be any evidence for their establishing life on Earth. Such an idea can hardly be in keeping with the evolutionist’s own beliefs about the importance of direct observation and experiment in science. Such a theory does nothing but tacitly admit (1) the truth of the Law of Biogenesis—in nature, life comes only from life (in this case, aliens); and (2) the necessity of a creator/designer in the equation.

However, notice: since aliens are beings of nature, they too must be governed by the laws of nature. Recall Hawking’s claim: the laws of physics “are universal. They apply not just to the flight of the ball, but to the motion of a planet and everything else in the Universe.”²¹ Evolutionary physicist Victor Stenger submitted his belief that the “basic laws” of science “hold true in the most distant observed galaxy and in the cosmic microwave background, implying that these laws have been valid for over thirteen billion years.”²² In the interview with Stein, Dawkins went on to say concerning the supposed alien creators, “But that higher intelligence would, itself, had to have come about by some ultimately explicable process. It couldn’t have just jumped into existence spontaneously.”²³ So, the alien creators, according to Dawkins, have been strapped with the laws of nature as well. Thus, the problem of abiogenesis is merely shifted to the alien’s abode, where the question of the origin of life must still be answered.

Bottom line: life is evidence of design, and by implication, an intelligent designer. Writing in New Scientist, Dawkins admitted, “The more statistically improbable a thing is, the less we can believe that it just happened by blind chance. Superficially the obvious alternative to chance is an intelligent Designer.”²⁴ Sadly, the atheist simply cannot bring himself to accept the clear cut, “obvious alternative” that is staring him in the face.

#3: “We Have to Figure Out a Way to Explain All of This Design in Nature.”

George Ellis and Professor of Physics and Astronomy at Johns Hopkins University, Joseph Silk, wrote in 2014 in Nature: “This year, debates in physics circles took a worrying turn. Faced with difficulties in applying fundamental theories to the observed Universe, some researchers called for a change in how theoretical physics is done.”²⁵ Ironically, the “difficulties” theoretical physicists have encountered have become considerable enough that going beyond nature is necessary. According to cosmologist Bernard Carr of Queen Mary University in London, a supernatural option of some sort is demanded. He warned cosmologists to accept the inevitable implications of the evidence: “If you don’t want God, you’d better have a multiverse.”²⁶ The multiverse has, therefore, been latched onto by many naturalists to try to explain away the “difficulties” facing physicists without resorting to God, even though, among other issues with it, there is absolutely no evidence for its existence.²⁷ Lee Smolin said, “We had to invent the multiverse,”²⁸ and according to Lawson Parker, writing in National Geographic, it was from our “imagination.”²⁹ The use of our imagination to determine where we came from certainly sounds like today’s “science” is moving ever further into the realm of fiction.

Regardless, notice that according to many physicists, something beyond the current definition of science is needed to explain certain things—i.e., the existence of the unobservable, supernatural realm is demanded by the evidence. Recall how Davies put it: “Clearly, then, both religion and science are founded on faith—namely, on belief in the existence of something outside the universe, like an unexplained God or an unexplained set of physical laws, maybe even a huge ensemble of unseen universes, too.”³⁰

Besides the existence of the laws of physics, what kind of “difficulties” are physicists encountering that are forcing them to conclude that something outside of the Universe exists, and therefore, that they need to “invent” the multiverse to avoid God? Many have articulated well the problem. Read on to see a great lesson by naturalists on the need for a supernatural Designer for the Universe.

According to Tim Folger, writing in Discover magazine, “The idea that the universe was made just for us—known as the anthropic principle—debuted in 1973.”³¹ Since then, the mountain of evidence supporting the principle has drastically grown in elevation. Consider, for example:

• In a 2011 article, under the heading “Seven Questionable Arguments” for the multiverse, Ellis discussed argument number four: “A remarkable fact about our universe is that physical constants have just the right values needed to allow for complex structures, including living things…. I agree that the multiverse is a possible valid explanation for [fine tuning examples—JM]…; arguably, it is the only scientifically based option we have right now. But we have no hope of testing it observationally.”³² [Notice that the multiverse is “the only scientifically based option,” and yet “we have no hope of testing it observationally.” Doesn’t that make it not a “scientifically based option”?]
• By 2014, Ellis and Silk went even f urther:   

The multiverse is motivated by a puzzle: why fundamental constants of nature, such as the fine-structure constant that characterizes the strength of electromagnetic interactions between particles and the cosmological constant associated with the acceleration of the expansion of the Universe, have values that lie in the small range that allows life to exist…. Some physicists consider that the multiverse has no challenger as an explanation of many otherwise bizarre coincidences. The low value of the cosmological constant—known to be 120 factors of 10 smaller than the value predicted by quantum field theory—is difficult to explain, for instance.³³

• John Rennie, the editor for Scientific American, noted, “The basic laws of physics work equally well forward or backward in time, yet we perceive time to move in one direction only—toward the future. Why?”³⁴ Carroll, along the same lines, noted that “[i]f the observable universe were all that existed, it would be nearly impossible to account for the arrow of time in a natural way.”³⁵
• According to Smolin,

Everything we know suggests that the universe is unusual. It is flatter, smoother, larger and emptier than a “typical” universe predicted by the known laws of physics. If we reached into a hat filled with pieces of paper, each with the specifications of a possible universe written on it, it is exceedingly unlikely that we would get a universe anything like ours in one pick—or even a billion. The challenge that cosmologists face is to make sense of this specialness. One approach to this question is inflation—the hypothesis that the early universe went through a phase of exponentially fast expansion. At first, inflation seemed to do the trick. A simple version of the idea gave correct predictions for the spectrum of fluctuations in the cosmic microwave background. But a closer look shows that we have just moved the problem further back in time. To make inflation happen at all requires us to fine-tune the initial conditions of the universe.³⁶

• Folger quotes Linde in Discover magazine:

“We have a lot of really, really strange coincidences, and all of these coincidences are such that they make life possible,” Linde says. Physicists don’t like coincidences. They like even less the notion that life is somehow central to the universe, and yet recent discoveries are forcing them to confront that very idea…. Call it a fluke, a mystery, a miracle. Or call it the biggest problem in physics. Short of invoking a benevolent creator, many physicists see only one possible explanation: Our universe may be but one of perhaps infinitely many universes in an inconceivably vast multiverse…. Advocates argue that, like it or not, the multiverse may well be the only viable non-religious explanation for what is often called the “fine-tuning problem”—the baffling observation that the laws of the universe seem custom-tailored to favor the emergence of life…. [Andrei Linde:] “And if we double the mass of the electron, life as we know it will disappear. If we change the strength of the interaction between protons and electrons, life will disappear. Why are there three space dimensions and one time dimension? If we had four space dimensions and one time dimension, then planetary systems would be unstable and our version of life would be impossible. If we had two space dimensions and one time dimension, we would not exist,” he says…. [I]f there is no multiverse, where does that leave physicists? “If there is only one universe,” Carr says, “you might have to have a fine-tuner. If you don’t want God, you’d better have a multiverse.”³⁷

• Stuart Clark and Richard Webb, writing in New Scientist, said,

We can’t explain the numbers that rule the universe…the different strengths of weak, strong and electromagnetic forces, for example, or the masses of the particles it introduces…. Were any of them to have even marginally different values, the universe would look very different. The Higgs boson’s mass, for example, is just about the smallest it can be without the universe’s matter becoming unstable. Similar “fine-tuning” problems bedevil cosmology…. Why is the carbon atom structured so precisely as to allow enough carbon for life to exist in the universe?³⁸

• Greene, commenting on Professor of Theoretical Physics at Stanford University Leonard Susskind’s thinking about the multiverse, said,

Susskind was suggesting that string theory augments this grand cosmological unfolding by adorning each of the universes in the multiverse with a different shape for the extra dimensions. With or without string theory, the multiverse is a highly controversial schema, and deservedly so. It not only recasts the landscape of reality, but shifts the scientific goal posts. Questions once deemed profoundly puzzling—why do nature’s numbers, from particle masses to force strengths to the energy suffusing space, have the particular values they do?—would be answered with a shrug…. Most physicists, string theorists among them, agree that the multiverse is an option of last resort….  Looking back, I’m gratified at how far we’ve come but disappointed that a connection to experiment continues to elude us.³⁹

• Mary-Jane Rubenstein, writing in New Scientist, said,

Here’s the dilemma: if the universe began with a quantum particle blipping into existence, inflating godlessly into space-time and a whole zoo of materials, then why is it so well suited for life? For medieval philosophers, the purported perfection of the universe was the key to proving the existence of God. The universe is so fit for intelligent life that it must be the product of a powerful, benevolent external deity. Or, as popular theology might put it today: all this can’t be an accident. Modern physics has also wrestled with this “fine-tuning problem,” and supplies its own answer. If only one universe exists, then it is strange to find it so hospitable to life, when nearly any other value for the gravitational or cosmological constants would have produced nothing at all. But if there is a “multiverse” of many universes, all with different constants, the problem vanishes: we’re here because we happen to be in one of the universes that works. No miracles, no plan, no creator.⁴⁰

Notice: Physicists cannot help but acknowledge the truth of the Teleological Argument for the existence of God. The Universe seems to have been perfectly designed—with detailed fine-tuning—just for us. Design demands a designer. Resorting to belief in the multiverse is a concession by naturalists that we have been right all along: there exists an “unseen realm.” But rather than concede God, naturalists invent the evidence-less, imaginary multiverse. Ironically, all the while the multiverse is itself a supernatural option—albeit, one without any rules concerning how we should behave, making it attractive to many.

#4: “We Need to Mimic All of the Design We See in Nature.”

One area of scientific study where scientists are admitting, many times unconsciously but forcefully, the presence of design in the Universe, is in the field of biomimetics, or biomimcry—as well as the related field known as bio-inspired design. Biomimicry is an attempt to engineer something—design something—using the natural world as the blueprint. Engineers are becoming more and more aware of the fact that the world around us is already filled with fully functional, superior designs in comparison to what the engineering community has been able to develop to date.

The Web page for George Washington University’s Center for Biomimetics and Bioinspired Engineering admits: “[D]espite our seeming prowess in these component technologies, we find it hard to outperform Nature in this arena; Nature’s solutions are smarter, more energy-efficient, agile, adaptable, fault-tolerant, environmentally friendly and multifunctional. Thus, there is much that we as engineers can learn from Nature as we develop the next generation machines and technologies.”⁴¹

It would be difficult to better summarize the decisive evidence for design that is clearly evident to professional designers (engineers) when they look at the natural realm. This same mindset about nature’s design, however, is becoming widespread in the engineering community. Consequently, biomimicry is becoming a major engineering pursuit. The field of biomimicry is growing by leaps and bounds, with research centers being established all over the world, with their express purpose being to mimic the design of nature.

Some engineers are going even further. Realizing that nature’s designs are so impressive that many times we simply cannot mimic them, they are attempting instead to control nature to use it as they wish, rather than mimic it.⁴² Animals, for instance, possess amazing detection, tracking, and maneuvering capabilities which are far beyond the knowledge of today’s engineering minds, and likely will be for many decades, if not forever. An insect neurobiologist, John Hildebrand from the University of Arizona in Tucson, admitted: “There’s a long history of trying to develop microrobots that could be sent out as autonomous devices, but I think many engineers have realised [sic] that they can’t improve on Mother Nature.”⁴³ Of course, “Mother Nature” is not capable of designing anything, since “she” is mindless—but notice that the desire to personify nature and give it design abilities is telling. While mindless nature has no ability to design anything, the Chief Engineer, the God of the Bible, on the other hand, can be counted on to have the best possible engineering designs. Who, after all, could out-design the Grand Designer? In spite of the deterioration of the world and the entrance of disease and mutations into the created order, after several millennia, His designs still stand out as the best—unsurpassed by human wisdom.

Do not miss the implication of practicing biomimicry and autonomous biological control. They are a tacit concession by the scientific community that nature exhibits design! Engineers are the designers of the scientific community. When we engage in biomimicry, we are, whether consciously or not, endorsing the concept that there is design in nature. It would be totally senseless to try to design something useful by mimicking something that was random and chaotic. For the highly educated, brilliant designers of the scientific community to copy nature, proves that nature must be much more than the product of random chance and accidents.⁴⁴

#5: “Evolutionary Design”?

A casual perusal of nearly any article by atheistic scientists when they are discussing the complexity of various species reveals that even they cannot help but intuitively acknowledge a designer. Such writings are riddled with the term “design,” apparently without the naturalistic writers following out the implications of that term. Phrases like, “This feature of the salamander is designed to do this,” are commonplace. Is it not true that the moment one acknowledges the existence of design, he is admitting the existence of a designer at some point—just as acknowledging a poem implies the existence of a poet? We simply cannot escape the evidence for design in nature and the reasoning ability that God has put within us that presses us to acknowledge His existence and ensure that those who wish to find Him will (Acts 17:26-28).

Some atheists have apparently noticed the tendency of naturalists to use such terminology. So, rather than try to rectify atheistic terminology, they embrace it and simply try to redefine the word “design.” Kenneth Miller is an evolutionary biologist at Brown University and co-author of the popular Prentice Hall high school Biology textbook that is used extensively in the United States. In his 2008 book, Only a Theory: Evolution and the Battle for America’s Soul, he admits that structural and molecular biologists, as they study the natural order, routinely mention the presence of design in their explorations. He, himself, admits that the human body shows evidence of design, pointing out examples like the design of the ball and socket joints of the human hips and shoulders and the “s” curve of the human spine that allows us to walk upright. In spite of such admissions, he irrationally claims such admissions should not be considered to be self-defeating for naturalists. According to Miller, the evidence for design in nature should be embraced. In an article published by Brown University, he said, “There is, indeed, a design to life—an evolutionary design.”⁴⁵ Merriam-Webster defines an oxymoron as “a combination of contradictory or incongruous words (such as cruel kindness).”⁴⁶ Another example: “evolutionary design.”

If there is a painting, there must have been a painter. If there is a fingerprint, there must have been a finger that made it. If there is a building, there must have been a builder. If there is an engine, there must have been an engineer. If there is a creation of some sort, there must have been a creator of it. And if there is design, there must have been a…. If a person completes that sentence with any other word besides “designer,” is he not being the epitome of irrational? While we understand Miller’s dilemma as a naturalist and his desire to find a way to dismiss the incessant, forceful admissions of design by his highly credentialed colleagues, he must attempt to do so through some other avenue besides merely attempting to redefine the word “design” in such a way that it does not require intent and purpose—a mind.

The silliness of irrationally postulating that the clearly designed Universe could have designed itself through evolution has not been lost to many in the engineering community. Typically, in the first semester of engineering school, an introductory course presents broad concepts about engineering. Students may learn the basic differences in the engineering fields (e.g., civil, electrical, mechanical, chemical, structural, etc.). They may spend some time considering ethical dilemmas that engineers have often faced in their careers. First-year students also usually give consideration to the design process. Even in its basic form, the design process proves to be very complex, even before considering the specialized scientific knowledge required to design a given item.

Many steps are necessary in order to get a product to the public. Consider one introductory engineering textbook’s template for the design process⁴⁷:

1. Problem symptom or expression; definition of product need; marketing information
2. Problem definition, including statement of desired outcome
3. Conceptual design and evaluation; feasibility study
4. Design analysis; codes/standards review; physical and analytical models
5. Synthesis of alternative solutions (back to design analysis for iterations)
6. Decision (selection of one alternative)
7. Prototype production; testing and evaluation (back to design analysis for more iterations)
8. Production drawings; instruction manuals
9. Material specification; process and equipment selection; safety review
10. Pilot production
11. Production
12. Inspection and quality assurance
13. Packaging; marketing and sales literature
14. Product

The design process is unquestionably lengthy, technical, complex, and calculated. To claim that an efficient design could be developed without a designer is insulting to the engineering community. Where there is design—complexity, purpose, planning, intent—there is a designer.

Conclusion

Truly, the Universe is replete with evidences of design. So much so, that even atheists cannot help but concede that truth. It is noteworthy that leading naturalists are unwilling to suggest that the laws of nature could create themselves naturally.

• Physicists know there must be a supernatural origin for those laws.

Similarly, more and more leading scientists are acknowledging that the existence of life is no accident either.

• Biologists know there must be an intelligence behind it.
• Engineers are so awed by the clear-cut evidences for design on the Earth that they have developed entire centers devoted to biomimicry—effectively plagiarizing the work of God when they fail to give Him due credit as the Chief Engineer.
• Cosmologists gush with incredulity when they see the perfection of the created order as well, knowing that the “fine-tuning”⁴⁸ that is evident in the Universe seems to have resulted in it being “custom tailored”⁴⁹ for humans.

But how can there be “fine-tuning” if no One exists to tune in the first place? How can the Universe be “custom tailored,” and yet there be no Tailor? If one is to be rational—drawing appropriate conclusions from the evidence—he must recognize that there are implications to realizing that the Universe is finely tuned and tailor made. The design in the Universe demands the existence of a Universal Designer.

Endnotes

¹  Paul Ricci (1986), Fundamentals of Critical Thinking (Lexington, MA: Ginn Press), p. 190.

²  “Curiosity: Did God Create the Universe?” (2011), Discovery Channel, August 7, emp. added.

³  Martin Gardner (2000), Did Adam and Eve Have Navels? (New York: W.W. Norton), p. 303, emp. added.

⁴  Jeff Miller (2011), “A Review of Discovery Channel’s ‘Curiosity: Did God Create the Universe?’” Reason & Revelation, 31[10]:98-107, /apPubPage.aspx?pub=1&issue=1004&article=1687.

⁵  “Curiosity…,” emp. added.

⁶  “The Creation Question: A Curiosity Conversation” (2011), Discovery Channel, August 7, emp. added.

⁷  Paul Davies (1999), “Life Force,” New Scientist Online, 163[2204]:26-30, September 18.

⁸  Paul Davies (2007), “Taking Science on Faith,” The New York Times, November 24, emp. added, http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/24/opinion/24davies.html?_r=0.

⁹  Ibid.

¹⁰ As quoted in Richard Webb (2016), “Why Is There Something Rather Than Nothing?” New Scientist, 231[3089]:32, emp. added.

¹¹ Davies, 2007, emp. added.

¹² Marcus Chown (2012), “In the Beginning,” New Scientist, 216[2893]:35, December 1, emp. added.

¹³ As quoted in Webb, p. 32.

¹⁴ Sean M. Carroll (2008), “The Cosmic Origins of Time’s Arrow,” Scientific American, 298[6]:50, June, emp. added.

¹⁵ Lee Smolin (2015), “You Think There’s a Multiverse? Get Real,” New Scientist, 225[3004]:24, January 17.

¹⁶ As quoted in John Horgan (2014), “Physicist George Ellis Knocks Physicists for Knocking Philosophy, Falsification, Free Will,” Scientific American Blog Network, July 22, emp. added, http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/physicist-george-ellis-knocks-physicists-for-knocking-philosophy-falsification-free-will/.

¹⁷ Michael Brooks (2012), “The Paradox of Nothing,” New Scientist, 213[2847]:46, January 11, emp. added.

¹⁸ Stephen Hawking (2010), The Grand Design (New York: Bantam Books), p. 180.

¹⁹ John Lennox (2010), “As A Scientist I’m Certain Stephen Hawking is Wrong. You Can’t Explain the Universe Without God,” Daily Mail Online, emp. added, http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1308599/Stephen-Hawking-wrong-You-explain-universe-God.html.

²⁰ Ben Stein and Kevin Miller (2008), Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed (Premise Media), emp. added.

²¹ “Curiosity…,” emp. added.

²² Victor J. Stenger (2007), God: The Failed Hypothesis (Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books), p. 115.

²³ Stein and Miller, emp. added.

²⁴ Richard Dawkins (1982), “The Necessity of Darwinism,” New Scientist, 94:130, April 15, emp. added.

²⁵ George Ellis and Joe Silk (2014), “Defend the Integrity of Physics,” Nature, 516[7531]:321, December, emp. added.

²⁶ As quoted in Tim Folger (2008), “Science’s Alternative to an Intelligent Creator: the Multiverse Theory,” DiscoverMagazine.com, November 10, http://discovermagazine.com/2008/dec/10-sciences-alternative-to-an-intelligent-creator.

²⁷ Jeff Miller (2017), “7 Reasons the Multiverse Is Not a Valid Alternative to God [Part I],” Reason & Revelation, 37[4]:38-47, http://apologeticspress.org/pub_rar/37_4/1704w.pdf.

²⁸ Smolin, p. 25.

²⁹ Lawson Parker (2014), “Cosmic Questions,” National Geographic, 225[4], April, center tearout.

³⁰ Davies, 2007, emp. added.

³¹ Folger, emp. added.

³² George F.R. Ellis (2011), “Does the Multiverse Really Exist?” Scientific American, 305[2]:42.

³³ Ellis and Silk, p. 322.

³⁴ John Rennie, Editor’s Note in Sean M. Carroll (2008), “The Cosmic Origins of Time’s Arrow,” Scientific American, 298[6]:48, June.

³⁵ Carroll, p. 57.

³⁶ Smolin, p. 24, emp. added.

³⁷ Folger, emp. added.

³⁸ Stuart Clark and Richard Webb (2016), “Six Principles/Six Problems/Six Solutions,” New Scientist, 231[3092]:33, emp. added.

³⁹ Brian Greene (2015), “Why String Theory Still Offers Hope We Can Unify Physics,” Smithsonian Magazine, January, http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/string-theory-about-unravel-180953637/?no-ist, emp. added.

⁴⁰ Mary-Jane Rubenstein (2015), “God vs. the Multiverse,” New Scientist, 228[3052/3053]:64, December 19/26, emp. added.

⁴¹ “Center for Biomimetics and Bioinspired Engineering: COBRE” (2012), George Washington University, emp. added, http://cobre.seas.gwu.edu/.

⁴² Jeff Miller (2011), “Autonomous Control of Creation,” Reason & Revelation, 31[12]:129-131.

⁴³ J. Marshall (2008), “The Cyborg Animal Spies Hatching in the Lab,” New Scientist, 2646:41, March 6.

⁴⁴ For specific examples of biomimicry and bio-inspired engineering, see http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=12&topic=66.

⁴⁵ As quoted in: Brown University (2008), “There is ‘Design’ in Nature, Biologist Argues,” ScienceDaily, http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/02/080217143838.htm.

⁴⁶ “Oxymoron” (2017), Merriam-Webster Online, https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/oxymoron/.

⁴⁷ Introduction to Engineering at Auburn University: Manufacturing—Industrial and Systems Engineering (2004), (Boston, MA: Pearson Custom Publishing), pp. 10, 32.

⁴⁸ Folger; Clark and Webb, p. 33; Rubenstein, p. 64.

⁴⁹ Folger.

The post Atheists’ Design Admissions appeared first on Apologetics Press.

As just one example, consider: if one is a naturalist, he must believe that at some point(s) in the past, life arose from non-living substances (that is, the spontaneous generation of life occurred). Many scientific experiments have been conducted over the centuries testing the hypothesis that spontaneous generation could occur, and every one of them has resulted in the same conclusion: in nature, life only comes from life. No matter what scientists have tried to do in a laboratory to make non-living material come to life, it still remains non-living.³ If one is rational and follows the evidence to its logical conclusion, he will conclude that in the Universe (in nature), life cannot come about from non-life. If, however, he cannot stomach the evidence, and chooses instead to irrationally believe that life can come from non-life in spite of the evidence, he is holding to a blind faith in so doing. There is not one example from nature in which life has been shown to come from non-life.

If life only comes from previously existing life in the Universe, then whence came the original life? It must have originated from a supernatural Source—Someone outside of the Universe. Indeed, it is God Who “gives to all life, breath, and all things” (Acts 17:25).⁴

Endnotes

¹ Lionel Ruby (1960), Logic: An Introduction (Chicago, IL: J.B. Lippincott), pp. 130-131.

² Cf. 1 Thessalonians 5:21; 1 John 4:1; Acts 17:11; John 8:32; John 10:37; Dave Miller (2003),  “Blind Faith,” Apologetics Press, http://apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=11&article=444.

³ Jeff Miller (2012), “The Law of Biogenesis [Part 1],” Reason & Revelation, 32[1]:2-5,9-11.

⁴ For more information, see Jeff Miller (2013), “Unlike Naturalists, You Creationists Have a Blind Faith,” Reason & Revelation, 33[7]:76-83.

Suggested Resources

The post Evolutionists Have a Blind Faith appeared first on Apologetics Press.

There are several scientific problems with Big Bang Theory that illustrate that it is an unscientific, irrational theory that amounts to a blind faith in naturalism. Some of the problems include:

• the origin of the laws of science;²
• the origin of matter/energy;³
• the smoothness problem;⁴
• the lack of evidence for dark energy⁵—a fudge factor added to the Big Bang model to try to explain space observations in light of the Big Bang; and
• the lack of evidence for inflation⁶—an imaginary, but necessary, process at the beginning of the Big Bang that was invented to try to solve other Big Bang issues, including the horizon and flatness problems.

Those significant obstacles are not the extent of the problems with the Big Bang, as was highlighted yet again in major science magazines. The Fermi Paradox is the name given to the concept that if cosmic evolution (i.e., the Big Bang coupled with Darwinian Evolution) is true, it would be inconceivable that other life—even advanced life—does not exist somewhere in the Universe with its billions of stars and even more planets. Writing in New Scientist, University of Sydney astrophysicist Geraint Lewis explains: “The size of the universe suggests advanced alien civilisations, or at least evidence of them, ought to be out there. Signs in the shape of transmissions or megastructures should be obvious. Instead, we find nothing. This ‘eerie silence,’ as cosmologist Paul Davies [Arizona State University—JM] puts it, inspired physicist Enrico Fermi to ask: ‘Where are they?’”⁷ How is the naturalist to explain the Big Bang Theory’s blatant contradiction with the evidence? The response: maybe the aliens are sleeping. Lewis explains: “What if aliens are indeed out there, but are sleeping, awaiting a glorious future when the universe provides the right conditions for them to fulfil their ultimate ambitions?”⁸

It is shocking how far science has drifted from a reliance on being rational—only drawing conclusions warranted by the evidence. At least Lewis admits that “[e]voking sleeping aliens is a very long shot to solve Fermi’s paradox”⁹ and “is little more than guesswork” and “speculation” that “should be taken with a suitable pinch of salt”¹⁰—highlighting the fact that the Big Bang is still directly and hopelessly in contradiction to the observable evidence.

Add to Fermi’s Paradox another problem that still plagues Big Bang Theory: the missing antimatter in the Universe.Energy can be transformed into matter, according to the 1^st Law of Thermodynamics,¹¹ but when it happens, an equal amount of antimatter (basically normal matter with a reversed charge on its particles) is always produced—without exception according to the laboratory evidence. So if the Big Bang is true and energy was transformed into all of the matter of the Universe at the beginning, there should have been an equal amount of matter and antimatter produced—but there clearly was not, or else when the two touched, they would have been immediately destroyed, releasing their energy. Today the Universe is virtually completely composed of regular matter. Elizabeth Gibney, writing in Nature, explains the dilemma for Big Bang believers: “As far as physicists know, matter and antimatter should have been created in equal amounts in the early Universe and so blasted each other into oblivion. But that didn’t happen, and the origin of this fundamental imbalance remains one of the biggest mysteries in physics.”¹²

Do not these many and diverse problems with the best model put forth by naturalists effectively constitute a falsification of modern naturalism? It seems apparent that the evidence is pointing in a totally different direction than a naturalistic model. But if naturalism does not fit the evidence regarding the origin of the Universe, then what does? Something supernatural.

Endnotes

¹ Branyon May, et al. (2003), “The Big Bang—A Biblical Critique,” Apologetics Press, http://apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=12&article=56.

² Jeff Miller (2012), “The Laws of Science—by God,” Reason & Revelation, 32[12]:137-140.

³ Jeff Miller (2013), “Evolution and the Laws of Science: The Laws of Thermodynamics,” Apologetics Press, http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=9&article=2786&topic=336.

⁴ J.V. Narlikar and T. Padmanabhan (1991), “Inflation for Astronomers,” Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics, 29:325-362, September.

⁵ David N. Spergel (2015), “The Dark Side of Cosmology: Dark Matter and Dark Energy,” Science, 347[6226]:1100-1102, March.

⁶ Jeff Miller (2015), “Big Bang Inflation Officially Bites the Dust,” Reason & Revelation, 35[6]:62-65.

⁷ Geraint Lewis (2017), “Dream On,” New Scientist, 235[3137]:24, emp. added.

⁸ Ibid., p. 24.

⁹ Ibid., p. 24.

¹⁰ Ibid., p. 25.

¹¹ Miller, 2013.

¹² Elizabeth Gibney (2017), “The Antimatter Race,” Nature, 548[7665]:20, emp. added.

Suggested Resources

The post Big Bang Problems Highlighted by the Evidence Again appeared first on Apologetics Press.

• If one is a naturalist, he must believe that the Universe is an effect with no cause. The evidence from nature, however, is that all material effects must have a cause.
• If one is a naturalist, he must believe that the rules/laws that govern the physical Universe “wrote” themselves. The evidence from nature, however, is that laws do not create themselves.
• If one is a naturalist, he must believe that matter and energy could either create themselves or exist forever. The evidence from nature, however, is that matter and energy could not create itself (First Law of Thermodynamics), nor could it exist forever (Second Law of Thermodynamics).
• If one is a naturalist, he must believe that at some point(s) in the past, non-living matter gave rise to living matter: life came from non-life. The evidence from nature, however, is that life only comes from life.
• If one is a naturalist, he must believe that one kind of creature can morph into or give birth to a totally different kind of creature over time: macroevolution occurred. The evidence from nature, however, is that life produces according to its kind, not according to another kind.

A naturalist contradicts himself because he must believe in phenomena which do not occur in nature. Causeless effects, laws without law makers, the spontaneous generation of matter/energy and life, and evolution across phylogenic boundaries do not occur in nature. If one chooses to believe that such things could happen in nature, he is no longer a naturalist. He believes in unnatural—supernatural—phenomena. The naturalist is, in actuality, a supernaturalist under the guise of a naturalist. We can, at least, agree with the naturalist on one thing, even if he would not wish to concede it: the origin of the Universe requires supernatural activity. “The heavens declare the glory of God” (Psalm 19:1). Choosing not to believe in Him is “without excuse” (Romans 1:20).

Suggested Resources

The post Evolution Is Self-Contradictory appeared first on Apologetics Press.

[Editor’s Note: A.P. scientist Dr. Branyon May holds a Ph.D. degree in Astrophysics from the University of Alabama. Alana May, his wife and co-author, holds an M.S. in Astrophysics from the University of Alabama. Part I of this two-part series appeared in the August issue. Part II follows below, and continues, without introductory comments, where the first article ended.]

Evaluating First-Hand and Photographic Evidence

First-Hand Evidence

In 1961, the Soviet Union shocked the world by sending the first man into space, Yuri Gagarin. This was not only the first manned flight into space, but the first to orbit Earth. Since that time, more than 500 professional astronauts representing 40 countries have traveled into space as pilots, commanders, or crew members of manned spaceflight programs.¹ The three countries from which these astronauts have been launched include the United States, Russia (previously the Soviet Union), and China. It is important to note for those who might consider conspiracy theories that over the years of space travel, the three countries providing the launch abilities have had tentative and even hostile relations. Yet, even though the over 40 countries who have sent astronauts into space disagree on politics, religion, and economics, their recognition of a spherical Earth that is able to be orbited and studied is consistent.

Each of these countries has been fortunate enough to send select men and women to space as first-hand observers and scientists to gather data from above the Earth’s atmosphere. With more than 50 years of time and over 500 first-hand observers from over 40 countries, the view of Earth as a majestic globe has not been refuted or even brought into question by these individuals. While some may claim a Flat-Earth view, their arguments do not include spaceflight testimony from first-hand observers.

Photographic Evidence: Full-Disk Imagery

While there are many amazing and beautiful images of our Earth provided by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), we want to first focus on the photographic evidence available from numerous international sources. The following collection of photographic evidence only includes imagery from full-planet views of Earth. As you will see, the sources of these images come from a range of satellites, operated by different countries with sometimes different scientific objectives.

Let’s begin with photographic evidence from Japan. The Himawari-8 satellite overseen by the Japan Meteorological Agency (JMA) is currently taking full-disk images of the Earth every 10 minutes, focusing on the region of Japan and its neighbors to the South.² Here is a satellite imagery synopsis from the JMA website:

The Himawari series of geostationary meteorological satellites provides constant and uniform coverage of the earth from around 35,800 km above the equator with an orbit corresponding to the period of the earth’s rotation. This allows them to perform uninterrupted observation of meteorological phenomena such as typhoons, depressions, and fronts.³

Credit: Japan Meteorological Agency	Credit: © JAXA

Also the Japanese Aerospace Exploration Agency (JAXA) captured a full-disk view from the Hayabusa satellite.⁴ This satellite’s main mission was to study the comet Itokawa, but was able to image the full-disk of Earth from a distance of over 180,000 miles away.

Photographic evidence also comes from the currently operating ELEKTRO-L series of satellites launched by the Russian space agency, Roscosmos.⁵ These geostationary satellites are designed to take meteorological images and monitor weather conditions. The ELEKTRO-L2 satellite is positioned over the Indian Ocean and transmits regular images every 30 minutes.⁶

From India, we have photographic evidence from the INSAT-3D geostationary satellite, managed by the India Meteorological Department.⁷ Launched in 2013, this satellite is “designed for enhanced meteorological observations and monitoring of land and ocean surfaces for weather forecasting and disaster warning.”⁸ New full-disk images are regularly relayed to Earth approximately every half-hour.

Credit: © Research Center for Earth Operative Monitoring (NTS OMZ)	Credit: © India Meteorological Department

From a cooperation of numerous European countries, the Meteosat Second Generation (MSG) satellites take full-disk observations. Operated by the EUMETSAT (European Organisation for the Exploitation of Meteorological Satellites), the Meteosat satellites are in geostationary orbits 22,300 miles above Europe, Africa, and the Indian Ocean. New images are taken every 15 minutes in visible and infrared wavelengths.⁹

Launched in 2010, South Korea successfully placed into orbit its first geostationary satellite, COMS (Communication, Ocean and Meteorological Satellite). Managed by the National Meteorological Satellite Center, the COMS satellite takes regular full-disk images with the stated meteorological missions of “continuous monitoring of imagery and extracting of meteorological products, early detection of severe weather phenomena, and monitoring of climate change and atmospheric environment.”¹⁰

Credit: ©2017 EUMETSAT	Credit: © NMSC	Credit: © CNSA

From China, we have photographic evidence from the unmanned Chinese lunar explorer Chang’e 5. Thetest module took this photograph on November 9, 2014 at a distance of 336,000 miles above the Earth’s surface.¹¹ Notice the darker Moon (upper left) is clearly shown in contrast to the bright Earth.

Lastly, we add the photographic evidence taken by the United States. Decades of space travel and many diverse projects have generated a host of full-disk images of our planet. Going back to the early Apollo missions (1961-1972) aimed at traveling to the Moon, NASA astronauts were able to take first-hand photographs on film. While there are many photos, here are four from Apollo 8,10,13, and 17.¹²

Credit: Apollo	credit: NASA’s Galileo spacecraft

Later, in 1990, as it began its mission to Jupiter, NASA’s Galileo spacecraft took an image back toward Earth from a distance of about 1.5 million miles.¹³

In 2015, the joint effort of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), NASA, and the United States Air Force launched the Deep Space Climate Observatory (DSCOVR). Located one million miles away, this satellite “will maintain the nation’s real-time solar wind monitoring capabilities” in order to facilitate alerts and forecasts for geomagnetic storms caused by solar flares and coronal mass ejections.¹⁴ Different from geostationary satellites that continually maintain the same view of Earth, the DSCOVR satellite will be able to image all of Earth. Being located between the Sun and Earth, it will be able to watch the fully illuminated Earth rotate, imaging all sides of the spherical Earth.

Credit: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), NASA, and the United States Air Force launched the Deep Space Climate Observatory (DSCOVR).	Credit: NOAA GOES-R satellite

Some of the most recent satellites to take full-disk images are the updated GOES-R series of satellites. These geostationary satellites are managed by NOAA and located to take real-time images of both Eastern and Western Hemispheres of Earth. “The new satellite can deliver vivid images of severe weather as often as every 30 seconds, scanning the Earth five times faster, with four times greater image resolution.”¹⁵

Historically Recognized As Spherical

Many of us might remember feeling a bit shocked in grade school when our teacher announced, “Many scholars and aristocracy in the 15^th century believed that the world was flat and that if you sailed far enough, you’d go right over the edge. And Christopher Columbus set out to prove them wrong.” The problem with this statement is that Christopher Columbus (and most people in the 15^th century) did not believe in a flat Earth, but rather understood the world to be spherical. Even as we look back to the B.C. era, the accredited scientists of the day believed and were able to prove that the Earth was spherical.  As far back as 500 B.C., most Greek scholars accepted the idea that Earth was spherical. Pythagoras (500 B.C.) believed Earth was round for aesthetic reasons, because the sphere was thought to be the perfect shape. Aristotle (384-322 B.C.) was one of the first to make application of scientific observations to expected results, given a round Earth: (1) the hull of a ship disappearing over the horizon before the rest of the ship, and (2) Earth’s shadow being round during a lunar eclipse. Through time, ancient scientists would gain a deeper understanding of the physics of our world and begin to be able to explain what they were seeing in nature with mathematical formulas.

Credit: Wikimedia.org (Cmglee) 2016 license CC-by- sa-4.0

Eratosthenes of Cyrene (276-194 B.C.) was known as one of the greatest scientists of his time and in the year 240 B.C., King Ptolemy III of Alexandria appointed him chief librarian of what was then considered the hub of learning and the world’s greatest library: the Great Library of Alexandria. Probably one of Eratosthenes’ most well-known contributions to science was his calculations of Earth’s circumference. He was also a leading cartographer of his day and was able to map large regions. But to make a complete map he wanted to know the actual size of Earth. One year, on the Summer Solstice, while he was in Syene (today known as Aswan, Egypt) he noted that the Sun shone directly into the bottom of a well at noon, indicating that it was directly overhead. He realized that since the distance between Syene and Alexandria was known (approximately 5,000 stadia), he could extrapolate that data and determine Earth’s circumference. Back in Alexandria, on the following year’s Summer Solstice, Eratosthenes set up a tent pole of known height and measured the shadow cast by the pole at noon.  Using trigonometric calculations, he found the angle of the shadow to be about 7°, which correlates to about 1/50 of a complete circle.  With this data, he calculated Earth’s circumference to be about 250,000 stadia.¹⁶ There has been some disagreement on what a stadia represented, but it is estimated to be somewhere between 500 and 600 feet. Using these numbers, we see that Eratosthenes’ calculation gives the circumference to between 23,000 miles and 29,000 miles. Modern science gives an equatorial circumference of 24,900 miles.¹⁷

While Eratosthenes’ method and calculations were somewhat crude, one can see the simplicity and significance that his calculations have provided to the scientific community. It is notable that the belief, investigation, and calculation of Earth’s shape and size predate modern efforts, such as those of NASA, by thousands of years.

Conclusion

In this day and age of readily available information, sometimes just enough “truth” can be given to allow an idea to be plausible and believable in one’s mind. Sometimes an idea is given more credence because a celebrity endorses it. Other times, it might take hold because of a rebellion against the norm and someone wanting to be considered a “free-thinker.”  Whatever the reason a person has for believing something, its source needs to have credibility and must be backed by provable, validated data—evidence.

While the origin of the recent interest in Flat-Earth ideas may not be fully known or pinpointed, we can see that a spherical Earth is the one that has the scientific backing. While we did not consider many other evidences of the Earth’s spherical nature, such as Earth’s magnetic poles, GPS triangulation and satellites, the Coriolis effect, time zones, distant horizon curvature, Arctic and Antarctic exploration, and circumnavigation, we were able to evaluate numerous easily accessible observations. From our assessment of the shapes of other celestial bodies, observations of the Sun and Moon, consideration of historical perspectives, and examination of modern, first-hand and photographic evidences, we can see for ourselves that the scientific data supports a spherical Earth.

Endnotes

¹ “List of Astronauts by Name,” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_astronauts_by_name; “Timeline of Space Travel by Nationality,” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_space_travel_by_nationality.

² “Satellite Imagery” (2017), Japan Meteorological Agency, Otemachi, Chiyoda-ku, Tokyo 100-8122, Japan; Image shown: http://www.jma.go.jp/en/gms/smallc.html?area=6&element=1&time=201706270300.

³ “Meteorological Satellites,” Japan Meteorological Agency, http://www.jma.go.jp/jma/jma-eng/satellite/introduction/satobs.html.

⁴ “The Earth Pictured by Hayabusa” (2004), Institute of Space and Astronautical Science, Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency, http://www.isas.jaxa.jp/e/snews/2004/0519_new.shtml.

⁵ Anatoly Zak (2016), “Russia to Introduce A New Generation of Spacecraft,” http://www.russianspaceweb.com/elektro.html.

⁶ “ELEKTRO Geostationary Hydrometeorological Spacecraft (In Operation)” (2011), Research Center for Earth Operative Monitoring, http://eng.ntsomz.ru/ks_dzz/satellites/complex_electro); Image shown: ftp://ftp.ntsomz.ru/ELECTRO_L_2/2017/May/24_05_2017/24052017_10%2030.jpg.

⁷ http://satellite.imd.gov.in/insat.htm; Image archive: http://satellite.imd.gov.in/archive/INSAT-3D-IMAGER/3D-FULL-DISK/.

⁸ http://www.isro.gov.in/insat-3d/insat-3d-advanced-weather-satellite-completes-two-years-orbit.

⁹ https://www.eumetsat.int/website/home/Satellites/CurrentSatellites/Meteosat/index.html; Image shown: http://oiswww.eumetsat.org/IPPS/html/MSGIODC/RGB/NATURALCOLOR/FULLRESOLUTION/.

¹⁰ http://nmsc.kma.go.kr/html/homepage/en/chollian/choll_info.do.

¹¹ “Earth and the Moon from Chang’e 5 T1” (2017), The Planetary Society, http://www.planetary.org/multimedia/space-images/earth/earth-and-the-moon-from-change5t1-2.html.

¹² “Western Hemisphere” (2009), NASA, https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/apollo/40th/images/apollo_image_26.html; “May 18, 1969 – Apollo 10 View of the Earth” (2017), NASA, https://www.nasa.gov/image-feature/may-18-1969-apollo-10-view-of-the-earth; “View of Earth from Apollo 13,” Smithsonian National Air and Space Museum, https://airandspace.si.edu/multimedia-gallery/5429hjpg?id=5429; “Blue Marble – Image of the Earth from Apollo 17” (2007), NASA, https://www.nasa.gov/content/blue-marble-image-of-the-earth-from-apollo-17.

¹³ “PIA00076: Earth – Full Disk View of Africa” (1996), NASA/JPL, https://photojournal.jpl.nasa.gov/catalog/PIA00076.

¹⁴ “DSCOVR: Deep Space Climate Observatory,” National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, https://www.nesdis.noaa.gov/content/dscovr-deep-space-climate-observatory; Image shown: https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD//view.php?id=86257.

¹⁵ John Leslie and Connie Barclay (2016), “NOAA’s GOES-R Weather Satellite Readies for Historic Launch,” https://www.nesdis.noaa.gov/sites/default/files/asset/document/goes-r-l-30-press-release_oct6.pdf.

¹⁶ Alan Chodos, ed. (2006), “June, ca. 240 B.C. Eratosthenes Measures the Earth,” APS News, 15[6]:2, June, https://www.aps.org/publications/apsnews/200606/history.cfm. wiki/File:Eratosthenes_measure_of_Earth_circumference.svg.

¹⁷ “Geodesy for the Layman” (1984), Defense Mapping Agency, http://earth-info.nga.mil/GandG/publications/geolay/TR80003A.html.

The post Flat or Spherical Earth? Evaluating Astronomical Observations [Part II] appeared first on Apologetics Press.

So what causes an eclipse? Although the Sun is physically 400 times larger than the Moon, it is also 400 times farther away. The Moon is approximately 240,000 miles from Earth, while the Sun is 93 million miles away. Yet from our view on Earth, the Sun and the Moon appear to be about the same angular size. This correspondence in apparent size is why we on Earth are able to experience solar eclipses. This type of eclipse (solar) is when the Moon passes exactly through our view toward the Sun, and it blocks the Sun’s light casting a shadow of darkness on Earth during the daytime.

When we consider this amazing event, we find Earth is the only planet where life can view a total solar eclipse. Mars is the only other terrestrial planet with moons. However, they are irregularly shaped and too small to eclipse the Sun. The Gas Giant planets cannot host life to view any possible eclipses. God’s design of the Earth-Moon-Sun system includes the precise correspondence necessary for such a rare and unique event to occur. Humanity has made use of eclipses throughout history to mark time and probe further the details of the Sun and Moon.

The post Eclipses and the Totality of 2017 appeared first on Apologetics Press.

[Editor’s Note: In the July issue of Reason & Revelation, Hebraist Dr. Justin Rogers addressed the matter of whether the Bible gives any credence to the notion of a flat Earth. In this month’s R&R, we consider whether science supports a flat Earth. AP scientist Dr. Branyon May holds a Ph.D. degree in Astrophysics from the University of Alabama. Alana May, his wife and co-author, holds an M.S. in Astrophysics from the University of Alabama.]

While the idea of a flat Earth is not a new one, it has been recently resurrected into mainstream pop culture. For a variety of reasons, many have adopted this view, or have begun looking toward it as a viable option. For some, the arguments contrasting a spherical versus a flat Earth are confusing and have caused frustration. This frustration has then led to a sense of doubt towards many previously accepted beliefs and facts. Such doubt towards authority has even caused some Christians to question their faith in God’s Word.

So what about humanity’s understanding for the shape of the Earth? Is the Earth spherical or flat? The best way to work through this discussion is to consider the observational evidences. One of the most definitive ways to directly see the spherical nature of Earth is through the images taken from space by various space agencies. However, because many people who hold to a flat Earth have also expressed concern about government conspiracy theories, we wish to present the space-based observations after we discuss some simple backyard-type observations. When considering new ideas, a bit of healthy caution is good, but can become unhealthy when conspiracy and paranoia consume the conversation over the facts and observations. Using the laws of nature and physics that God set in place, let’s investigate how we can know the Earth is, in fact, spherical.

Evaluating Observations of the Sun and Moon

Between Flat-Earth and Globe models, the Sun and the Moon have drastic differences in physical characteristics and scale dimensions. The Sun’s generally accepted location places it toward the center of Earth’s orbit at a distance of approximately 93 million miles, with a physical diameter of 864,600 miles. In contrast, Flat-Earth models describe the Sun as being 32 miles in diameter and orbiting above the surface of the Earth at a height of approximately 3,000 miles.¹ Since by observation the Sun and Moon have equivalent angular sizes,2 Flat-Earth models must also place the Moon in an orbit coinciding with the Sun’s orbit at a distance of 3,000 miles and having the same 32-mile diameter.3 Such scales for the Moon are vastly different than the Moon’s generally accepted location in space, where it orbits the Earth at a distance of 238,900 miles and has a physical diameter of 2,160 miles. We should also note that between these two views there is a vast contrast in distance between the positions of the Sun and Moon. In the Flat-Earth model the two objects share similar planes of orbit, circling above Earth parallel to the ground. Therefore, their physical distances from each other would fluctuate substantially depending on where in their orbits they were. At least once during every month’s cycle the two would be physically very near to each other. By contrast, the standard heliocentric and spherical context describes the Moon’s position in orbit around the Earth, where its distance from the Sun would keep approximately the same 93-million-mile-physical-distance as Earth.

With such vast differences in scale these models must also describe vastly different physical characteristics for the Sun and Moon and, in fact, they do. Flat-Earth models describe the Sun and Moon in terms similar to spotlights moving above the Earth’s surface, illuminating in such a way as to produce periods of day and night. Resulting from this description, Flat-Earth models hold that the Moon is not reflecting the Sun’s light, but must instead be producing its own light. The physical characteristics of the Moon are therefore vastly different from the solid, rocky body and sunlight-reflecting surface usually discussed.

Eclipses

One means of testing these contrasting parameters is by evaluating eclipse events, where the Sun, Moon, and Earth experience well-defined and observable changes. First, the most obvious type of eclipse is a solar eclipse. In this type of eclipse the observed effect is for the New Moon to pass in front of the Sun eclipsing some or all of our view of the solar body. Due to the Sun and Moon having similar apparent sizes in the sky, a total solar eclipse can occur when the Moon’s path precisely crosses the Sun. A total solar eclipse causes a daytime period of dramatic darkening, allowing the less bright outer regions of the Sun’s atmosphere, including the chromosphere and corona, to become visible to observers. While these portions of the Sun’s atmosphere are always producing light, their levels of emission are much less than the extremely bright photosphere. Solar eclipses do not usually result in the total eclipse orientation, but rather will occur more often as partial eclipses where only part of the Sun is obscured by the Moon. What information do eclipse observations provide? Eclipses demonstrate several important facts, which we will expand on below, including: (1) the apparent sizes of the Sun and Moon are approximately equal, (2) the distances from Earth to the Sun and Earth to the Moon are not equal, and (3) the spherical shape of Earth.

Eclipses provide for us an important understanding about the positioning of the Sun, Moon, and Earth. We see from the fact that the Moon passes in front of the Sun that the two bodies must be at different distances. During a solar eclipse when the Moon obscures the Sun, the Moon’s distance is closer to Earth than the Sun’s. When we couple this with the first important fact mentioned, that the apparent sizes are approximately equal, then we are able to also understand that the Sun and Moon must be different in their true physical sizes. If two objects were the same true physical size, then placing one of them farther from you would cause it to appear smaller. Thus, since the Sun and Moon appear the same size, then the Sun (which is farther away) would have to be larger than the Moon (which is closer) in order to appear equal in size. As we consider a difference in distance between the more distant Sun and less distant Moon to be greater and greater, the necessary size of the Sun must be larger and larger to result in an observed equivalent, apparent size.

Now that we have established they are not at the same distance, we can also explore how solar eclipses also help provide evidence for the distance factors of the Sun and Moon. A total solar eclipse occurs when the observer is located within the shadow cast by the Moon blocking the Sun’s light. Consider the shadow cast on a wall  by placing an object in front of a light source. What happens to the shadow as the distance between the object and light source is decreased? The shadowed area becomes larger, and a viewer within the shadowed region would have to move farther to leave the shadowed area and lose this precise alignment. If the distance between the light source and object becomes larger, then the shadow that is cast on the wall will become smaller and subsequently the observer’s location in the shadow for an eclipse alignment must become more precise (i.e., since the shadow is smaller, there is less area located within the eclipse shadow region).

Total solar eclipses are very rare events to see on Earth, which tells us that the alignment of such an event requires certain precision. It first requires precision for the orbits and locations of the three bodies to be exactly aligned. Second, it requires that an observer be located within the area of the Moon’s shadow cast on Earth. This second requirement increases the rarity of seeing a total solar eclipse, because the area of the Moon’s shadow resulting in totality is small, at most only about 165 miles in diameter.⁴ The casting of a small shadow means there must be a significant distance between the Sun and Moon. In addition, the path of totality, which is the track that the Moon’s shadow takes as it moves across the Earth’s surface, is a very narrow strip. When seeking to see a total solar eclipse event, the location where you go to observe must be very precisely chosen within the track.

If we focus on the second major type of eclipse, a lunar eclipse, then we see, not only further evidence for distances and orientations matching the heliocentric view, but also evidence for the spherical nature of Earth. Lunar eclipses occur when Earth is positioned between the Sun and Moon, and its shadow is cast across the Moon’s surface causing a darkening of the Moon. While solar eclipses only occur during the New Moon phase, lunar eclipses similarly occur only during the Full Moon phase. The precise alignment of the Sun, Moon, and Earth is emphasized by the fact that while lunar eclipses only occur during Full Moon phases, they do not occur every cycle and are quite rare. In contrast to a solar eclipse that involves one body, the Moon, obscuring the more distant Sun, a lunar eclipse involves the Earth’s shadow progressing across the Moon’s surface until it becomes completely engulfed. The evidence for a spherical Earth comes from the fact that as the lunar eclipse event begins the curvature of the Earth’s shadow can be seen advancing across the Moon’s surface. This provides direct observation for the circular shape of the Earth’s body, as well as the required orbit of the Moon to go around to the opposite side of Earth from the Sun. Both of these observable facts are contrary to Flat-Earth models, some of which postulate Earth as an indefinite plane5 or as a circular inhabitable region set in a rectangular block.6

Observing Objects Outside of Earth

As we consider the shape of our own planet, we can gain perspective by making direct observations of other celestial objects. By comparison of the physical features we observe in other objects, we can make application to the features we observe on Earth. A good starting place is to consider the planets in our own Solar System, objects that are generally the easiest to observe: Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune. Each of these planets is conventionally described as being spherically round, so let’s discuss the observational evidence.

The planets Venus, Mars, Jupiter, and Saturn are the four easiest of the planets to observe with simple backyard telescopes or even binoculars. With these tools the casual observer can see that each of these objects has dimensions and shape, showing more than the spot of light seen with the naked eye. In a simple description, the planets are obviously round; but are they three-dimensionally round objects? During short times of observing, we are able to capture short picturesque views of the planets; but what happens as we continue our observations? If we simply make the effort to add repeated observations, we will be able to see the snapshot characteristics begin to show their dynamic and varying nature. With observations over a matter of days and weeks (even better over months), you will see Venus’ phase change, Mars’ apparent size and surface features change, Jupiter’s rotation, and Saturn’s ring orientation change.

Let’s begin making a few specific observations. Beginning with the planet that has the largest average apparent size, we find Jupiter to be a beautifully banded planet. The roughly horizontal striations of Jupiter have varying colors from white to brownish-red. Overlapping the middle bands, you might see one of the most well-known features of Jupiter: the “Great Red Spot.” This feature serves as a good landmark and is one of Jupiter’s most fascinating features. Named for its appearance, this giant, oval-shaped region in Jupiter’s atmosphere has existed for several hundred years and is similar to features described by Galileo Galilei and Giovanni Cassini as far back as the 1600s. In fact, Giovanni Cassini used careful observations to track the movement of spot features, seemingly similar to the Great Red Spot, in order to conclude that Jupiter was indeed rotating about its axis. From the measurements, Cassini calculated a rotation speed for Jupiter of approximately 10 hours.⁷ Even with Cassini’s very primitive equipment, his calculation matches the currently measured rotation period of 9.925 hours.⁸

The next planet has captivated astronomers’ attention as far back as the telescope: the red planet Mars offers intriguing observations. In a similar fashion to his calculations of Jupiter’s rotation, Giovanni Cassini also calculated the length of Mars’ rotation by measuring how long it took for surface features to make it back around to the same spot. Both Cassini and Dutch astronomer Christiaan Huygens independently calculated the rotation period of Mars to be similar to Earth’s at just over 24-hours.⁹ The similarity between Earth and what we see when observing Mars is much more than just a similar period of rotation. Mars has surface features such as large plains, expansive ravines, and elevated mountains. White regions aligned with its axis of rotation are similar to Earth’s icy polar regions. Mars also has varying atmospheric changes, which most notably include huge dust storms that can obscure large regions. As we consider a round, rotating planet with mountains and canyons, polar ice caps, and an atmosphere that at times is clear and other times is congested with dusty storms, we cannot help but think about days on Earth with beautiful sunny days and about camping excursions in quiet valleys, or maybe cloudy days that often bring sudden storms while hiking in the mountains. If Mars exists as a rotating, spherical planet with diverse landscapes, then so can Earth.

CREDIT: NASA and The Hubble Heritage Team (STScI/AURA); Acknowledgment: R.G. French (Wellesley College), J. Cuzzi (NASA/Ames), L. Dones (SwRI), and J. Lissauer (NASA/Ames)

One of the most recognizable planets, the ringed-world of Saturn, provides an interesting context to consider. With Saturn we find the geometries of both a flat disk for the rings and a spherical body for the planet. Saturn’s ring system is a collection of particles surrounding the planet, individually orbiting Saturn as evidenced from spectroscopic studies showing differential rotation of ring material.¹⁰ Even in commercially available telescopes, Saturn and its beautiful rings can be readily seen. However, as we make repeated observations from year to year, we can watch as the ring orientation changes in its tilt with respect to our perspective from Earth.

In some years, Earth’s view is edge-on with Saturn’s ring plane, causing the rings to be barely visible, while other years, such as late 2017, the rings reach a tilt angle of 27° allowing the outermost A-ring to be visible in its full circumference. The changing tilt-angle of the rings is a regular cycle, oscillating in such a way that both the Northern and Southern Hemispheres of Saturn’s body will be directed towards Earth during the cycle. What this comparison provides is a single view contrasting a spherical versus flat geometry in space. If all of the planets were simply flat circles, then we should see the same type of drastic visual differences from their changing orientations that Saturn’s rings demonstrate, since Saturn’s rings are understood, even in the heliocentric model, to be approximately flat circles. Additionally, the fact that the ring-tilt observations are consistent for every observer on Earth shows that Saturn is a very distant object, so that even observers separated by great distances on Earth will have comparable views.

The more distant planets of Uranus and Neptune are harder to observe with smaller amateur equipment. However, with diligence and larger telescopes, their round bodies can be observed in similar nature as the other planets. The fact that both Uranus and Neptune have their own systems of orbiting moons helps us to understand their relative size and gravitational dominance in their regions of space. The brightest of Uranus’ moons, Titania and Oberon, have been studied for well over 200 years. Titania, the largest and brightest moon, completes an orbit every 8.7 days, while Oberon takes 13.5 days.¹¹  The largest moon of Neptune, Triton, has been observed for over 150 years and has an orbital period of 5.9 days.¹² Thus, when we compare our observations of Uranus and Neptune to those of Jupiter and Saturn, we see many similarities and, by extension, can understand Uranus and Neptune as large spherical bodies.

Simple observations of the Moon and Sun in the sky clearly show a circular body. Couple this simple observational fact with a few additional observations and we can understand them as three-dimensionally round, as well. For instance, in similar fashion to some of the planets, the Sun can easily be monitored over several days tracking visible photosphere features called sunspots, progressing across its surface. Sunspots are dark areas in the brightly visible layer of the Sun, called the photosphere. As we track a sunspot feature across the Sun’s apparent surface, we find that shape and orientation of their entire context shows its movement to be caused by the Sun’s overall rotation and not large atmospheric motion. Even small backyard telescopes with proper solar filters can be used to monitor the presence and movement of sunspots.

For the second brightest object in the sky, the Moon, our regular observations can be done even easier than trying to safely view the Sun. The most obvious observation of the Moon is that it progresses through a regular cycle of phases each month. As this cycle occurs, there is an obvious curvature seen in the visibly bright portion of the Moon. The shape of the Moon’s phase, defined by the dark and light regions, is not caused by any shadowing from Earth. Instead, the obvious curved shapes of a Gibbous or Crescent Moon are due to the overall spherical curvature of the Moon itself. As the Moon’s position relative to the Sun’s location changes, our view of the Moon’s sunlit portion changes, and we see the side of the Moon facing away from the Sun. The direct relationship between lunar phases and the Sun can be seen by how each phase corresponds with the Sun’s position, noting also that the phase of the Moon is approximately the same for every observer—evidence for the Moon having a large distance from Earth. Flat-Earth models have the Moon located quite close, and as such, the Moon’s phase would be dramatically different based on where the observer is located. Instead, a Full Moon is always found opposite the Sun in the sky for every observer. When the Sun is setting below the horizon, the Full Moon is rising above the horizon, and when the Full Moon is setting, the Sun will be rising. Conversely, when the lunar phase is a New Moon, both the Sun and Moon will be seen in the same direction. The sunlit portions and the oppositely shadowed regions of the Moon are the visible results of the spherical shape of the Moon.

Even further, as we gaze at the Full Moon, its varying surface features are obvious by the contrasting light and dark regions. Employ binoculars or a small telescope and you will have immediate access to a wealth of topographic variation: rough and smooth areas, large and small craters, elevated peaks and depressions. Focusing on the surface features, we find that the shadowing effect that the phases provide enhances our understanding of the three-dimensional aspect of the Moon. The boundary line produced by the curved shadow across the Moon’s surface (during the Gibbous or Crescent phase) is called the terminator. You will find as you observe the Moon that the terminator is a region of excellent viewing. “Why?,” you might ask. There is a subtle decrease in the brightness of this region, allowing it to be somewhat easier on the eyes. The brightness difference is caused by the fact that the shadows of visible features along the terminator become lengthened as the terminator line approaches them. First, this is one piece of evidence toward the Moon not producing its own light, as some Flat-Earth proponents suggest,¹³ but rather reflecting light from an outside source (the Sun). Second, the shadows become extended when features are near the terminator, showing to a greater degree a contrast in height above the lunar surface. Here we can begin to identify the differences between elevated and depressed features by where their shadow is cast. The Moon is a distant, three-dimensional body with a variety of topographic landscapes.

Evaluating Observations of the Constellations

As we view the night sky and trace out familiar patterns in the stars, we can begin to map out the constellations. It is these consistent arrangements of stars that allow us to map and chart the heavens. We can use the positions of constellations relative to other stars and constellations to help us determine, not only where lesser-known and less-obvious celestial objects are located, but to help us on Earth to navigate our own geography.

Similar to how Earth’s geography has been mapped through history to provide our current knowledge of how the major landforms are oriented, the entire sky has likewise been mapped to give us a relation for how each constellation is oriented and located relative to the others. Following the same process for how Earth’s maps were compiled, requiring not only exploration but a combining of knowledge from many diverse groups across the world, the constellation map of the sky has been compiled from astronomical observers from different regions of the Earth over long periods of time. This process of combination was not only a good arrangement but was necessary for a complete map, since the available view of the sky is dependent on your location on Earth. Observers in different locations will have different views, not only for similar times of night or seasons, but also may have access to view constellations not available to other regions.

First, the view of a single observer varies seasonally. The visible constellations follow a regular cycle throughout the period of a year, and then repeat the same exact cycle the next year, and every year after that. What this seasonal cycle illustrates is that for any single location, there will be constellations that can be viewed during the winter months but that are not visible during the summer months, and vice-versa. This variation means that the Sun’s position in the sky is independent of the star and constellation positions, and thus there must be two motions in process to account for the Sun’s position and the constellation positions. The fact that there are seasonal variations seen in the East to West changing of visible constellation positions supports the spherical curvature of Earth and its rotational axis motion that impacts the star’s positions.

Second, there are constellation variations based not only on seasonal changes but on the geographical locations of observers. If we consider different observers located in the midwest United States, in central Africa, and in Australia, we find that each will have dramatically different observations. The set of constellations visible will be very different for locations with large North-to-South separations, where many constellations will not be visible from the opposite location. Constellations that may be visible from two locations with smaller North-to-South separations will still have very different apparent positions in the sky. Thus the stars and constellations visible at a particular location correspond directly to an observer’s latitude, where observers located at dramatically different latitudes will have unique views. These variations show us that there is a North-to-South curvature of Earth, which is aligned with a preferred axis of East-to-West rotation. A Flat-Earth model is not able to describe these observations, where a spherical Earth provides a simple description for how they occur.

These observable facts make clear sense for a spherical Earth, as the relative positions on the globe would determine your outward facing view of the sky. Other regions of the sky are obscured by the curved body of Earth. The reason that some constellations may be completely unique based on your location, results from Earth’s globe having a rotating motion about its axis. Where an observer is located on the surface, relative to the axis of rotation, will define what regions of the sky may or may not be visible and which stars are circumpolar (meaning they circle the celestial pole and are continuously above the horizon). The nearer you are to one of Earth’s poles (North or South), the less of the total sky you are able to see. A person South of the Equator will never see the North Star, Polaris (located at the North Celestial Pole). A person North of the equator at latitudes greater than about 26 degrees will never see the Southern Cross (near the South Celestial Pole).¹⁴ This location-dependent view is why Australia and New Zealand have this prominent group of stars on their nation’s flags, but Northern Hemisphere nations do not.

Flat-Earth models have huge complications when trying to describe how the visibility of constellations varies based only on an observer’s latitude. Problems are further compounded when addressing the observations of completely different constellations visible to those located at far Northern and far Southern latitudes, and that there are not one but two celestial poles around which stars rotate.

(to be continued)

Endnotes

¹ Eric Dubay (2014), The Flat–Earth Conspiracy (Self-published), p. 89; See the phrase “under 4,000 miles” in Samuel Rowbotham (“Parallax”) (1865), Zetetic Astronomy: Earth Not a Globe! (Bath: S. Hayward), p. 74.

² Both the Sun and Moon have an angular size of 0.5 degrees. “Angular size” measures how large in angular units, such as degrees, an object appears. Angular size is not a measure of the true physical size, but rather an apparent size based on the object’s distance.

³ See “The Moon” at the Flat Earth Society Web site: http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/tiki/tiki-index.php?page=The+Moon.

⁴ http://www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/~pogge/Ast161/Unit2/eclipses.html. The August 21, 2017 total solar eclipse will only be about 70 miles in diameter, as measured from the NASA map projections. See https://eclipse2017.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/interactive_map/index.html.

⁵ “The Flat Earth Society, along with previous notable flatists such as Samuel Shenton and S. Rowbotham, believe there is no end to the Earth and that it continues indefinitely. The only edge to the earth is the one you are standing on.” Seehttps://theflatearthsociety.org/home/index.php/faq#173818.

⁶ See the flat Earth map on the cover of this issue of R&R created by Orlando Ferguson in 1893. Also at https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Orlando-Ferguson-flat-earth-map.jpg.

⁷ Thomas Hockey (1999), Galileo’s Planet: Observing Jupiter Before Photography (Bristol, PA: IOP Publishing), pp. 31-32; C.A. Young (1886), “Rotation Time of the Red Spot on Jupiter,” The Sidereal Messenger, 5:289-293, http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1886SidM….5..289Y.

⁸ C.A. Higgins, T.D. Carr, and F. Reyes (1996), “A New Determination of Jupiter’s Radio Rotation Period,” Geophysical Research Letters, 23:2653-2656.

⁹ “All About Mars” (no date), NASA, https://mars.nasa.gov/allaboutmars/mystique/history/1600/; Jim Plaxco (1999), Mars Timeline of Discovery: 1570 BC thru 1799, http://www.astrodigital.org/mars/timeline1.html.

¹⁰ Helen Sawyer Hogg (1963), “Out of Old Books: James Keeler and the Rings of Saturn,” Journal of the Royal Astronomical Society of Canada, 57:269, http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1963JRASC..57..269S.

¹¹ David Williams (2016), “Uranian Satellite Fact Sheet” (Greenbelt, MD: NASA Goddard Space Flight Center), https://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/factsheet/uraniansatfact.html.

¹² David Williams (2016), “Neptunian Satellite Fact Sheet” (Greenbelt, MD: NASA Goddard Space Flight Center), https://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/factsheet/neptuniansatfact.html.

¹³ Dubay, pp. 78-81.

¹⁴ Bruce McClure (2017), “Northerners’ Guide to Southern Cross,” EarthSky, http://earthsky.org/favorite-star-patterns/the-southern-cross-signpost-of-southern-skies.

The post Flat or Spherical Earth? Evaluating Astronomical Observations [Part 1] appeared first on Apologetics Press.

If causality fails in quantum mechanics, doesn’t that prove that a Universal Cause isn’t necessary?

A:

Writing in Nature, Howard Wiseman, Professor of Physics at Griffith University, explained that, “In 1964, Northern Irish physicist John Bell proved mathematically that certain quantum correlations, unlike all other correlations in the Universe, cannot arise from any local cause.”¹ Does that mean that a cause for the Universe is unnecessary? If a “quantum fluctuation” does not necessarily require a local cause, doesn’t that mean that a Universe-generating quantum fluctuation would not necessarily require a cause?

The key word that must not be overlooked in a proper understanding of Bell’s Theorem is the word “local.” In order to answer the above questions, that term must be defined and understood. Consider a simplified example: it takes about eight minutes for light from the Sun to reach Earth. But let’s say you were standing on the Sun by yourself, without any interaction with me, but every time I clicked my computer mouse on Earth, you immediately and uncontrollably hopped. There was not a delay of eight minutes. The effect was immediate. The effect of you hopping would be the result of a “non-local” cause. In his article, “Spooky Action at a Distance,” Dr. Gary Felder, Professor of Physics at Smith College, explains locality as “the principle that an event which happens at one place can’t instantaneously affect an event someplace else. For example: if a distant star were to suddenly blow up tomorrow, the principle of locality says that there is no way we could know about this event or be affected by it until something, e.g. a light beam, had time to travel from that star to Earth.”² The question is, does that principle always hold true? According to what’s known as Bell’s Theorem, at the quantum level, the principle of locality does not hold true. Jacob Aron, writing in New Scientist, explained that in quantum theory, “particles could become entangled, so that measuring one would instantly influence the measurement of the other, even if they were far apart.”³ Felder explained: “Bell proved that the results predicted by quantum mechanics could not be explained by any theory which preserved locality. In other words, if you set up an experiment like that described by Einstein, Podolsky, and Rosen, and you get the results predicted by quantum mechanics, then there is no way that locality could be true…. In short, locality is dead.”⁴

Now what does this mean for using the Law of Causality to prove the Universe could not create itself?⁵ Three quick points to consider in response to that question:

• Most important: even if Bell’s Theorem holds true, and it very well may, it does not disprove the Law of Causality—i.e., the need of a cause for every effect in the Universe. Bell’s Theorem argues that there is not a need for a local cause at the quantum level (i.e., locality), but it does not claim that there is not still a necessary relationship between cause and effect—i.e., that causality still holds. While Bell experiments seem to show that there is not always a direct correlation between a cause and effect at the local level, scientists see that there does still seem to be a correlation between the causes and effects in Bell’s Theorem experiments, even if the correlation is not local. According to Bell’s Theorem, a cause can create a distant effect instantly without apparent (or, at least, understandable) interaction (e.g., separated electrons can “affect each other instantly”⁶), but there is still an acknowledged relationship between the cause and effect even if it is distant and immediate. My clicks are undeniably causing you to jump, even if we do not understand why. In the words of Wiseman, concerning the non-local reality interpretation of Bell’s Theorem, it is possible that “the setting of one measuring device can influence the reading of another instrument, however remote”⁷—i.e., the cause and effect are still apparently correlated. So, Bell’s Theorem may highlight another type of cause and effect relationship, but it does not negate the need for a cause in the first place.
• Scientists recognize that they do not completely understand why Bell’s Theorem seems to hold true. They acknowledge that there may be things we have not discovered about reality which could affect our understanding of what is happening at the quantum level and which could prove that the cause is ultimately still “local.”⁸ In other words, compared to what we know about the macroscopic realm from centuries of study, we are relative novices when it comes to the study of the quantum world. We simply do not have all the answers as to what is happening in that realm, but, on the other hand, the evidence for the Law of Causality is abundant and undeniable.
• Scientists even acknowledge that Bell’s Theorem may be false and that further investigation and accumulation of knowledge may reveal that fact. According to Felder, hidden assumptions (e.g., the assumption that “no signal can propagate faster than the speed of light,” which is a fundamental element of Einstein’s theory of relativity) could be corrupting the Bell experiment results.⁹ Wiseman conceded that “[b]efore investing too much angst or money, one wants to be sure that Bell correlations really exist. As of now, there are no loophole-free Bell experiments.”¹⁰

Bottom line: all observed evidence in the Universe, whether at the quantum or super-quantum level, indicates that in the realm in which we live, an effect must have a cause. The Universe is an effect, and if one is to be rational (i.e., follow the evidence we have at our disposal), he must acknowledge that there must be an ultimate cause for the Universe, whether it be local or non-local. According to the evidence, that Cause is none other than the God of the Bible.¹¹

Endnotes

¹ Howard Wiseman (2014), “Bell’s Theorem Still Reverberates,” Nature, 510[7506]:467-469, p. 467.

² Gary Felder (1999), “Spooky Action at a Distance,” Math and Physics Help, http://www.felderbooks.com/papers/bell.html, italics in orig.

³ Jacob Aron (2015), “Quantum Weirdness is Reality,” New Scientist, 227[3037]:8-9, September 5, p. 8.

⁴ Felder.

⁵ Jeff Miller (2011), “God and the Laws of Science: The Law of Causality,” Apologetics Press, http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=12&article=3716&topic=90.

⁶ Felder.

⁷ Wiseman, p. 468.

⁸ Felder.

⁹ Ibid.

¹⁰ Wiseman, p. 468.

¹¹ Jeff Miller (2015), “How Can a Person Know Which God Exists?” Reason & Revelation, 35[5]:52-53, May, http://apologeticspress.org/pub_rar/35_5/1505.pdf.

The post Quantum Mechanics: "No Universal Cause Necessary"? appeared first on Apologetics Press.

[EDITOR’S NOTE: Part 1 of this two-part series appeared in the April issue. Part 2 follows below and continues, without introductory comments, where the first article ended.]

Problem #4: Unscientific

As with inflation theory, the multiverse is untestable and unobservable, making it unscientific. Astrophysicist and Distinguished Professor at Johns Hopkins University Adam Riess and astrophysicist Mario Livio, previously at the Space Telescope Science Institute, stated: “Even just mentioning the multiverse idea…raises the blood pressure of some physicists. The notion seems hard to swallow and harder to test—perhaps signifying the end of the classical scientific method as we know it. Historically this method has required that hypotheses should be directly testable by new experiments or observations.”¹ But observation, direct testing, and experimentation are not possible with the multiverse. Ellis, in apparent frustration, admitted:

Similar claims [about the existence of multiverses—JM] have been made since antiquity by many cultures. What is new is the assertion that the multiverse is a scientific theory, with all that implies about being mathematically rigorous and experimentally testable. I am skeptical about this claim. I do not believe the existence of those other universes has been proved—or ever could be. Proponents of the multiverse, as well as greatly enlarging our conception of physical reality, are implicitly redefining what is meant by “science”…. The various “proofs,” in effect, propose that we should accept a theoretical explanation instead of insisting on observational testing. But such testing has, up until now, been the central requirement of the scientific endeavor, and we abandon it at our peril. If we weaken the requirement of solid data, we weaken the core reason for the success of science over the past centuries.²

Krauss noted that “for many people, multiverses…are indications of how far fundamental physics may appear to be diverging from what is otherwise considered to be sound empirical science.”³ Regarding string theory, inflation, and the multiverse theory, Ellis and Silk insisted, “We agree with theoretical physicist Sabine Hossenfelder: post-empirical science is an oxymoron…. In our view, the issue boils down to clarifying one question: what potential observational or experimental evidence is there that would persuade you that the theory is wrong and lead you to abandoning it? If there is none, it is not a scientific theory.”⁴ Buchanan, writing in New Scientist about the multiverse, bewilderedly said,

[F]antasy is the very word that occurs to many—including some physicists—when they hear some of the ideas popular in cosmology…. [I]nflationary cosmologists have opened the speculative throttle so fully that physicists now talk routinely of such things as an infinitude of parallel universes, or a “multiverse”…. Is this still science? Or has inflationary cosmology veered towards something akin to religion? Some physicists wonder….⁵

By the end of the article, Buchanan’s answer was clear. “In the end, this [i.e., the multiverse—JM] isn’t science so much as philosophy using the language of science.”⁶

Lee Smolin is a theoretical physicist, faculty member at the Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics, and adjunct Professor of Physics at the University of Waterloo. In an article titled, “You Think There’s a Multiverse? Get Real,” he forthrightly argued the following:

[T]he multiverse theory has difficulty making any firm predictions and threatens to take us out of the realm of science. These other universes are unobservable and because chance dictates the random distribution of properties across universes, positing the existence of a multiverse does not let us deduce anything about our universe beyond what we already know. As attractive as the idea may seem, it is basically a sleight of hand, which converts an explanatory failure into an apparent explanatory success…. We started out trying to explain why the universe is so special, and we end up being asked to believe that our universe is one of an infinite number of universes with random properties. This makes me suspect that there is a basic but unexamined assumption about the laws of nature that must be overturned…. [T]he multiverse fails as a scientific hypothesis in spite of the fact that simple versions of inflation made some predictions that have been confirmed. The idea of inflation is plagued by the need to explain how the initial conditions were chosen…. [W]e had to invent the multiverse. And thus with an infinite ensemble of unobservable entities we leave the domain of science behind. In some sense, the multiverse embodies the unreal ensemble of all possible solutions to the laws of physics, imagined as elements of an invented ensemble of bubble universes. But this just trades one imaginary, unreal ensemble for another.⁷

Folger admitted, “The idea is controversial. Critics say it doesn’t even qualify as a scientific theory because the existence of other universes cannot be proved or disproved…. Does it make sense to talk about other universes if they can never be detected?… [Cambridge University astrophysicist Martin] Rees, an early supporter of Linde’s ideas, agrees that it may never be possible to observe other universes directly.”⁸

Naturalists routinely argue that Creation is “unscientific” and therefore should not be taught in science classrooms. After all, God cannot be directly observed, and Creation and Noah’s Flood cannot be reproduced scientifically. In truth, direct evidence for the truth of the biblical model is available⁹ and abundant indirect evidence exists to substantiate the biblical model as well.¹⁰ However, even if it was the case that Creation is unscientific, multiverse theory and inflation (along with the Big Bang) should, on the same grounds that naturalists use, be deemed unscientific by naturalists and left out of the science classroom. Don’t hold your breath that such rational, consistent thinking will prevail among naturalistic scientists. After all, “If you don’t want God, you’d better have a multiverse,”¹¹ and according to Harvard University evolutionary geneticist Richard Lewontin, naturalistic scientists “cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.”¹²

Problem #5: Origin of the Multiverse

For the sake of argument, let us concede the existence of the multiverse. Next question: where did the multiverse come from? Ellis noted,

Many physicists who talk about the multiverse…assume a multiverse context for their theories without worrying about how it comes to be—which is what concerns cosmologists…. Scientists proposed the multiverse as a way of resolving deep issues about the nature of existence, but the proposal leaves the ultimate issues unresolved. All the same issues that arise in relation to the universe arise again in relation to the multiverse. If the multiverse exists, did it come into existence through necessity, chance or purpose? That is a metaphysical question that no physical theory can answer for either the universe or the multiverse.¹³

Recall that Finkel wrote concerning the multiverse, “This is all highly speculative, but it’s possible that to give birth to a new universe you first need to take a bunch of matter from an existing universe, crunch it down, and seal it off.”¹⁴ If a Universe had to first be in existence before the new one was born, how did it all get started? And where did the “strings” of string theory come from? The multiverse theory still does not answer the ultimate question.

That ultimate question is precisely what Richard Webb titled a 2016 article in New Scientist: “Why Is There Something Rather Than Nothing?” One of the hopes about the multiverse theory is that it could explain why our laws of physics are what they are. As we have highlighted elsewhere, they certainly could not write themselves.¹⁵ In the multiverse, every possible law would be expected to happen in some Universe at some time—and possibly many times throughout eternity. But again, the ultimate question is not answered. Webb highlights that truth: “A popular idea is that all the other possible laws of physics—including no laws—exist elsewhere in a ‘multiverse’ of all possible worlds. In that case, why a multiverse?”¹⁶ Theoretical physicist, cosmologist, astrobiologist, and Professor at Arizona State University Paul Davies weighed in as well in an article titled “Taking Science on Faith”:

The multiverse theory is increasingly popular, but it doesn’t so much explain the laws of physics as dodge the whole issue. There has to be a physical mechanism to make all those universes and bestow bylaws on them. This process will require its own laws, or meta-laws. Where do they come from? The problem has simply been shifted up a level from the laws of the universe to the meta-laws of the multiverse.¹⁷

In 2011, he said, “You still have to explain the multiverse. That still has laws. You need a Universe generating mechanism.”¹⁸ According to Davies, the multiverse theory merely moves the goal post. It does not really answer the ultimate question. Michio Kaku, theoretical physicist of the City College of New York, agreed, but went even further: “[I]n string theory, there are other universes out there. There’s a multiverse of universes…. [T]he question is, ‘Where did the multiverse come from?’ You could argue, therefore, that maybe you need a god to create the multiverse, or a creator to create string theory, perhaps.”¹⁹

While there are different versions of the multiverse theory which have been suggested, according to Ellis, “[n]early all cosmologists today” accept the type of multiverse wherein “[e]ach [Universe—JM] has a different initial distribution of matter, but the same laws of physics operate in all.”²⁰ As astronomer Shannon Hall wrote in New Scientist, the other universes of the hypothetical multiverse are “all bound by the same laws of physics” as ours. She reasoned, “At least that’s the assumption: those laws don’t change over the distances we can see, so there is no reason to think they will suddenly transform beyond them.”²¹ Recall again that in the multiverse model, in order to form a new Universe you “need to take a bunch of matter from an existing universe, crunch it down, and seal it off.”²² It stands to reason that if one Universe starts from another, then the same laws would apply to both, which agrees with what Ellis stated. But if that is the case, then the same laws which prohibit matter and energy from creating themselves or existing forever in our Universe²³ hold in those other Universes as well.²⁴ The origin of it all must still be accounted for. If matter and energy in our Universe come from “a neighbouring universe leaking into ours,”²⁵ the matter in that Universe still has to have come from somewhere. In the words of evolutionary biologist of Oxford University Richard Dawkins, “Of course it’s counterintuitive that you can get something from nothing. Of course common sense doesn’t allow you to get something from nothing.”²⁶ Reason still leads to an ultimate Creator of everything.

Problem #6: The Multiverse Admits the Existence of the Supernatural

Recall what Ellis and Silk wrote in 2014 in Nature: “This year, debates in physics circles took a worrying turn. Faced with difficulties in applying fundamental theories to the observed Universe, some researchers called for a change in how theoretical physics is done.”²⁷ Ironically, the “difficulties” theoretical physicists have encountered have forced many naturalists to go beyond nature to try to explain. As Smolin said, “We had to invent the multiverse,”²⁸ and according to Parker, it was from our “imagination.”²⁹ The use of our imagination to determine where we came from certainly sounds like today’s “science” is moving ever further into the realm of fiction.

Regardless, notice that according to many physicists, something beyond the current definition of science is needed to explain certain things—i.e., the existence of the unobservable, supernatural realm is demanded by the evidence. Notice how Davies put it: “Clearly, then, both religion and science are founded on faith—namely, on belief in the existence of something outside the universe, like an unexplained God or an unexplained set of physical laws, maybe even a huge ensemble of unseen universes, too.”³⁰

Besides the existence of the laws of physics, what kind of “difficulties” are physicists encountering that are forcing them to conclude that something outside of the Universe exists, and therefore, that they need to “invent” the multiverse to avoid God? Many have articulated well the problem. Read on to see a great lesson by naturalists on the need for a supernatural Designer for the Universe. According to Folger, “The idea that the universe was made just for us—known as the anthropic principle—debuted in 1973.”³¹ Since then, the principle has grown in strength. Consider, for example:

• In a 2011 article, under the heading “Seven Questionable Arguments” for the multiverse, Ellis discusses argument number four:
  

  A remarkable fact about our universe is that physical constants have just the right values needed to allow for complex structures, including living things…. I agree that the multiverse is a possible valid explanation for [fine tuning examples—JM]…; arguably, it is the only scientifically based option we have right now. But we have no hope of testing it observationally.³²

  [Notice that the multiverse is “the only scientifically based option,” and yet “we have no hope of testing it observationally.” Doesn’t that make it not a “scientifically based option”?]

• By 2014, Ellis and Silk went even further:
  

  The multiverse is motivated by a puzzle: why fundamental constants of nature, such as the fine-structure constant that characterizes the strength of electromagnetic interactions between particles and the cosmological constant associated with the acceleration of the expansion of the Universe, have values that lie in the small range that allows life to exist…. Some physicists consider that the multiverse has no challenger as an explanation of many otherwise bizarre coincidences. The low value of the cosmological constant—known to be 120 factors of 10 smaller than the value predicted by quantum field theory—is difficult to explain, for instance.³³

• John Rennie, the editor for Scientific American, noted,
  

  The basic laws of physics work equally well forward or backward in time, yet we perceive time to move in one direction only—toward the future. Why?³⁴

• Carroll, along the same lines, noted that
  

  [i]f the observable universe were all that existed, it would be nearly impossible to account for the arrow of time in a natural way.³⁵

• According to Smolin,
  

  Everything we know suggests that the universe is unusual. It is flatter, smoother, larger and emptier than a “typical” universe predicted by the known laws of physics. If we reached into a hat filled with pieces of paper, each with the specifications of a possible universe written on it, it is exceedingly unlikely that we would get a universe anything like ours in one pick—or even a billion. The challenge that cosmologists face is to make sense of this specialness. One approach to this question is inflation—the hypothesis that the early universe went through a phase of exponentially fast expansion. At first, inflation seemed to do the trick. A simple version of the idea gave correct predictions for the spectrum of fluctuations in the cosmic microwave background. But a closer look shows that we have just moved the problem further back in time. To make inflation happen at all requires us to fine-tune the initial conditions of the universe.³⁶

• Folger quotes Linde in Discover magazine:
  

  “We have a lot of really, really strange coincidences, and all of these coincidences are such that they make life possible,” Linde says. Physicists don’t like coincidences. They like even less the notion that life is somehow central to the universe, and yet recent discoveries are forcing them to confront that very idea…. Call it a fluke, a mystery, a miracle. Or call it the biggest problem in physics. Short of invoking a benevolent creator, many physicists see only one possible explanation: Our universe may be but one of perhaps infinitely many universes in an inconceivably vast multiverse…. Advocates argue that, like it or not, the multiverse may well be the only viable non-religious explanation for what is often called the “fine-tuning problem”—the baffling observation that the laws of the universe seem custom-tailored to favor the emergence of life…. [Andrei Linde:] “And if we double the mass of the electron, life as we know it will disappear. If we change the strength of the interaction between protons and electrons, life will disappear. Why are there three space dimensions and one time dimension? If we had four space dimensions and one time dimension, then planetary systems would be unstable and our version of life would be impossible. If we had two space dimensions and one time dimension, we would not exist,” he says…. [I]f there is no multiverse, where does that leave physicists? “If there is only one universe,” Carr says, “you might have to have a fine-tuner. If you don’t want God, you’d better have a multiverse.”³⁷

• Stuart Clark and Richard Webb, writing in New Scientist, said,
  

  We can’t explain the numbers that rule the universe…the different strengths of weak, strong and electromagnetic forces, for example, or the masses of the particles it introduces…. Were any of them to have even marginally different values, the universe would look very different. The Higgs boson’s mass, for example, is just about the smallest it can be without the universe’s matter becoming unstable. Similar “fine-tuning” problems bedevil cosmology…. Why is the carbon atom structured so precisely as to allow enough carbon for life to exist in the universe?³⁸

• Greene, commenting on Professor of Theoretical Physics at Stanford University Leonard Susskind’s thinking about the multiverse, said,
  

  Susskind was suggesting that string theory augments this grand cosmological unfolding by adorning each of the universes in the multiverse with a different shape for the extra dimensions. With or without string theory, the multiverse is a highly controversial schema, and deservedly so. It not only recasts the landscape of reality, but shifts the scientific goal posts. Questions once deemed profoundly puzzling—why do nature’s numbers, from particle masses to force strengths to the energy suffusing space, have the particular values they do?—would be answered with a shrug…. Most physicists, string theorists among them, agree that the multiverse is an option of last resort….  Looking back, I’m gratified at how far we’ve come but disappointed that a connection to experiment continues to elude us.³⁹

• Mary-Jane Rubenstein, writing in New Scientist, said,
  

  Here’s the dilemma: if the universe began with a quantum particle blipping into existence, inflating godlessly into space-time and a whole zoo of materials, then why is it so well suited for life? For medieval philosophers, the purported perfection of the universe was the key to proving the existence of God. The universe is so fit for intelligent life that it must be the product of a powerful, benevolent external deity. Or, as popular theology might put it today: all this can’t be an accident. Modern physics has also wrestled with this “fine-tuning problem,” and supplies its own answer. If only one universe exists, then it is strange to find it so hospitable to life, when nearly any other value for the gravitational or cosmological constants would have produced nothing at all. But if there is a “multiverse” of many universes, all with different constants, the problem vanishes: we’re here because we happen to be in one of the universes that works. No miracles, no plan, no creator.⁴⁰

Notice: Physicists cannot help but acknowledge the truth of the Teleological Argument for the existence of God. Design demands a designer, and the Universe has abundant evidence of design (i.e., fine-tuning). The multiverse is a concession by naturalists that we have been right all along: there exists an “unseen realm.” But rather than concede God, naturalists invent the evidence-less, imaginary multiverse. Ironically all the while, the multiverse is itself a supernatural option—albeit, one without any rules concerning how we should behave, making it attractive to many.

Problem #7: Would the Existence of the Multiverse Actually Prove the Existence of God?

According to multiverse theory, “All that can happen, happens” somewhere in the many Universes that make up the multiverse.⁴¹ Ellis explained concerning the multiverse that “[i]n seeking to explain why nature obeys certain laws and not others, some physicists and philosophers have speculated that nature never made any such choice: all conceivable laws apply somewhere. The idea is inspired in part by quantum mechanics, which, as Murray Gell-Mann memorably put it, holds that everything not forbidden is compulsory.”⁴² Sokol agrees: “In the multiverse of eternal inflation, everything that can happen has happened—and will probably happen again.”⁴³ In 2014, Lisa Grossman authored an article in New Scientist titled “Quantum Twist Kills the Multiverse: Goodbye Eternal Multiverse, Hello the End of Everything.” Therein, she explained:

In such an infinite multiverse, everything that has even a slight chance of happening is virtually certain to happen—you just need to wait long enough. Some theorists have pointed out that, taken to its logical conclusion, that includes the spontaneous aggregation of matter so that it creates self-aware, disembodied brains. It’s the same kind of logic that says an infinite number of monkeys typing randomly would eventually produce the complete works of Shakespeare. “It sounds like something a bunch of college sophomores would discuss while high. It doesn’t sound like a real scientific problem,” says Scott Aaronson at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.⁴⁴

It’s certainly a ludicrous idea—“pure speculation” in the words of Ellis⁴⁵—but that is what multiverse theory suggests. Buchanan explained: “In the multiverse, every conceivable world exists, and individuals identical to you and I live out parallel lives in places we cannot have access to.”⁴⁶ Gefter said that in the multiverse, “[e]very conceivable value of dark energy or anything else will exist an infinite number of times among the infinite number of universes, and any universal theory of physics valid throughout the multiverse must reproduce all those values.”⁴⁷ Recall that Steinhardt, writing in Nature, criticized the multiverse concept: “Scanning over all possible bubbles in the multiverse, everything that can physically happen does happen an infinite number of times. No experiment can rule out a theory that allows for all possible outcomes.”⁴⁸

Now, that said: if in the multiverse, “all that can happen happens” and “every conceivable world exists”; if “everything that has even a slight chance of happening is virtually certain to happen”; if “anything” “will exist an infinite number of times”; if “everything that can happen has happened—and will probably happen again”; if “everything not forbidden is compulsory”; then why would it not be the case that a God with the characteristics of the one in the Bible would exist in at least one of those Universes? Does the multiverse not demand that God exists? If not, why not? And if a God like the one in the Bible exists, then that God is omnipresent—He is everywhere and every-when (cf. Psalm 139:7-10; Proverbs 15:3; Ecclesiastes 12:4; 1 Timothy 1:16-17). That means that if He exists in another Universe somewhere, He must exist here as well.

Conclusion

In this article, we have intentionally quoted extensively from emeritus distinguished Professor of Mathematics and Applied Mathematics at the University of Cape Town in South Africa George Ellis since he is a well-respected cosmologist among naturalistic scientists and a key player in the multiverse discussion. Ellis thoroughly grasps why the multiverse is being championed. He understands what is at stake for naturalism, but he also understands that the multiverse theory has significant problems. Consider what he said in his critique of the multiverse in Scientific American in 2011:

Proponents of the multiverse make one final argument: that there are no good alternatives. As distasteful as scientists might find the proliferation of parallel worlds, if it is the best explanation, we would be driven to accept it; conversely, if we are to give up the multiverse, we need a viable alternative. This exploration of alternatives depends on what kind of explanation we are prepared to accept. Physicists’ hope has always been that the laws of nature are inevitable—that things are the way they are because there is no other way they might have been—but we have been unable to show this is true. Other options exist, too. The Universe might be pure happenstance—it just turned out that way. Or things might in some sense be meant to be the way they are—purpose or intent somehow underlies existence.⁴⁹

It is significant that Ellis and Silk acknowledge, “In our view, cosmologists should heed mathematician David Hilbert’s warning: although infinity is needed to complete mathematics, it occurs nowhere in the physical Universe.”⁵⁰ The evidence is clear: there must be Something infinite beyond the physical Universe that brought about this Universe and its laws or ordinances. There is zero evidence for a multiverse being that supernatural realm. Indeed, by cosmologists’ own admissions, the multiverse concoction “leapt out of the pages of fiction into scientific journals”; is “hard to swallow”; is a “sleight of hand”; “dodge[s] the whole issue”; is “imaginary”; and is an “oxymoron.” But on the other hand, there is ample evidence that the God of the Bible exists.⁵¹ He wrote the “ordinances of the heavens” and “set their dominion” over the Universe (Job 38:33). By His word, “the heavens were made, and all the host of them by the breath of His mouth” (Psalm 33:6).

Endnotes

¹ Adam G. Riess and Mario Livio (2016), “The Puzzle of Dark Energy,” Scientific American, 314[3]:42, emp. added.

² George F.R. Ellis (2011), “Does the Multiverse Really Exist?” Scientific American, 305[2]:40-43, emp. added.

³ Lawrence M. Krauss (2014), “A Beacon from the Big Bang,” Scientific American, 311[4]:67, emp. added.

⁴ George Ellis and Joe Silk (2014), “Defend the Integrity of Physics,” Nature, 516[7531]:322-323, December, emp. added.

⁵ Mark Buchanan (2014), “When Does Multiverse Speculation Cross into Fantasy?” New Scientist, 221[2952]:46-47, January 18, https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg22129 520-900-when-does-multiverse-speculation-cross-into-fantasy/, emp. added.

⁶ Ibid., p. 47, emp. added.

⁷ Lee Smolin (2015), “You Think There’s a Multiverse? Get Real,” New Scientist, 225[3004]:24-25, January 17, emp. added.

⁸ Tim Folger (2008), “Science’s Alternative to an Intelligent Creator: the Multiverse Theory,” DiscoverMagazine.com, November 10.

⁹ Kyle Butt (2007), Behold! The Word of God (Montgomery, AL: Apologetics Press), /pdfs/e-books_pdf/ Behold%20the%20Word%20of%20God.pdf; Jeff Miller (2014b), “Bill Nye/Ken Ham Debate: Tying Up Really Loose Ends,” Reason & Revelation, 34[4]:38-59, http://apologeticspress.org/apPubPage.aspx?pub=1&issue=1152.

¹⁰ See the following for a discussion of indirect evidence in science: Jeff Miller (2013b), “‘Unlike Naturalists, You Creationists Have a Blind Faith,’” Reason & Revelation, 33[7]:76-83, http://apologeticspress.org/apPubPage.aspx?pub=1&issue=1125&article=2164.

¹¹ As quoted in Folger, emp. added.

¹² Richard Lewontin (1997), “Billions and Billions of Demons,” The New York Review, January 9, p. 31.

¹³ Ellis, pp. 40-43, emp. added.

¹⁴ Michael Finkel (2014), “Our Star, The Sun, Will Die A Quiet Death,” National Geographic, 225[3]:102, March, emp. added.

¹⁵ Jeff Miller (2012), “The Laws of Science—by God,” Reason & Revelation, 32[12]:137-140, http://apologeticspress.org/apPubPage.aspx?pub=1&issue=1103&article=2072.

¹⁶ Richard Webb (2016), “Why Is There Something Rather Than Nothing?” New Scientist, 231[3089]:32, September 3, emp. added.

¹⁷ Paul Davies (2007), “Taking Science on Faith,” The New York Times, November 24, emp. added, http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/24/opinion/24davies.html?_r=0.

¹⁸ “The Creation Question: A Curiosity Conversation” (2011), Discovery Channel, August 7.

¹⁹ Ibid.

²⁰ Ellis, p. 38, emp. added.

²¹ Shannon Hall (2017), “Infinite Frontiers,” New Scientist, 233[3109]:28.

²² Finkel, p. 102, emp. added.

²³ Concerning the eternality of matter/energy, some physicists have acknowledged that even the multiverse could not exist forever [Lisa Grossman (2014), “Quantum Twist Kills the Multiverse,” New Scientist, 222[2969]:9, May 17].

²⁴ Jeff Miller (2013a), “Evolution and the Laws of Science: The Laws of Thermodynamics,” Apologetics Press, http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=9&article=2786&topic=57.

²⁵ Joshua Sokol (2015), “A Brush with a Universe Next Door,” New Scientist, 228[3045]:8, October 31.

^₂₆ Richard Dawkins and George Pell (2012), “Q&A: Religion and Atheism,” ABC Australia, April 9, http;//www.abc.net.au/tv/qanda/txt/s3469101.htm.

²⁷ Ellis and Silk, p. 321, emp. added.

²⁸ Smolin, p. 25.

²⁹ Lawson Parker (2014), “Cosmic Questions,” , 225[4], April, center tearout.

³⁰ Davies.

³¹ Folger, emp. added.

³² Ellis, p. 42, emp. added.

³³ Ellis and Silk, p. 322.

³⁴ John Rennie, Editor’s Note in Sean M. Carroll (2008), “The Cosmic Origins of Time’s Arrow,” Scientific American, 298[6]:48, June.

³⁵ Sean M. Carroll (2008), “The Cosmic Origins of Time’s Arrow,” Scientific American, 298[6]:57, June, emp. added.

³⁶ Smolin, p. 24, emp. added.

³⁷ Folger, emp. added.

³⁸ Stuart Clark and Richard Webb (2016), “Six Principles/Six Problems/Six Solutions,” New Scientist, 231[3092]:33, emp. added.

³⁹ Brian Greene (2015), “Why String Theory Still Offers Hope We Can Unify Physics,” Smithsonian Magazine, January, http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/string-theory-about-unravel-180953637/?no-ist, emp. added.

⁴⁰ Mary-Jane Rubenstein (2015), “God vs. the Multiverse,” New Scientist, 228[3052/3053]:64, December 19/26, emp. added.

⁴¹ Ellis, p. 42.

⁴² Ibid., emp. added.

⁴³ Sokol, p. 8, emp. added.

⁴⁴ Grossman, p. 9, emp. added.

⁴⁵ Ellis, p. 42.

⁴⁶ p. 46, emp. added.

⁴⁷ Amanda Gefter (2012), “Bang Goes the Theory,” New Scientist, 214[2871]:34, June 30, emp. added.

⁴⁸ Paul Steinhardt (2014), “Big Bang Blunder Bursts the Multiverse Bubble,” Nature on-line, 510[7503]:9, June 5, http://www.nature.com/news/big-bang-blunder-bursts-the-multiverse-bubble-1.15346.

⁴⁹ Ellis, p. 43, emp. added.

⁵⁰ Ellis and Silk, p. 322, emp. added.

⁵¹ Eric Lyons and Kyle Butt (2014), “7 Reasons to Believe in God,” Reason & Revelation, 34[10]:110-119, http://apologeticspress.org/apPubPage.aspx?pub=1&issue=1175; Jeff Miller (2015b), “How Can a Person Know Which God Exists?” Reason & Revelation, 35[5]:52-53, http://apologeticspress.org/apPubPage.aspx?pub=1&issue=1189&article=2506.

Special thanks to Dr. Mike Houts (AP Auxiliary Scientist and NASA nuclear engineer) for reviewing this article and offering helpful suggestions.

The post 7 Reasons the Multiverse Is Not a Valid Alternative to God [Part 2] appeared first on Apologetics Press.

Every now and then I come across an article on modern “scientific” findings that absolutely stuns me, not necessarily because of the newest “findings,” but because of how casually information that was declared to be so scientifically accurate can be disregarded with a few computer keystrokes. Last week research was discussed that will forever change the way we look at the Universe (if you read the right article), and the irony is that you probably are not even aware of it.

For many years, cosmologists (scientists who study the Universe and its supposed origins) have explained to us that our Universe appears to be approximately 28 billion light years across. A light year is the distance light travels in one year. Since light travels at about 186,000 miles per second, the distance it covers in one year is about 5.9 trillion miles. That means if light were to start at one end of our Universe, travelling 186,000 miles per second, it would take 28 billion years to get to the other side. At least that is what we have been told for about a decade.

New studies, however, indicate that cosmologists have been wrong, on a grand scale, about the size of our Universe. Last week, Ed Oswald wrote an article for Yahoo! Tech titled, “How Big is the Universe? Attempting to Answer One of Astronomy’s Most Complex Questions.” In the article, he explained the complicated processes of how cosmologists attempt to measure the size of the Universe. Using the latest information, he wrote, “Physicists…now believe the radius of the observable universe is now roughly 46.5 billion light years away.”¹ That is much bigger than we were told it appeared in years past. But Oswald does not stop there. He goes on to make clear that the galaxies that we see at the edge of our Universe are too “well-formed” to have appeared immediately following the Big Bang. (He incorrectly assumes the reality of the Big Bang.)² That being the case, he mentions researchers at Oxford who believe that our Universe could be “as big as 250 times the size of our observable universe. Try to wrap your mind around that.”³

So what does all this mean? First, it shows us the serious limitations of science. We are often told to bow to the modern dating methods of the Universe, conform to the “real science” that proves the Bible false, and admit the validity of “current scientific findings.” Yet, we learn every day how limited and incorrect these often are. We are told that such is the nature of science; that it is a “self-correcting” endeavor, so that the most current material must be accurate. That simply is not the case. Many times, what passes for science in cosmology is not self-correcting, it is self-refuting. What we learn from situations in which the size of the Universe can greatly expand on paper is that those researchers who purported to present scientific facts about the Universe’s age, size, or composition were giving us nothing of the sort. They were wrong, the whole time. What happens, then, to the person who demanded that we shove the “modern scientific findings” into the biblical account and make it fit? He is left holding a battered Bible in one hand, and useless, “outdated” (read that as false) cosmology in the other.

Furthermore, the better we understand the Universe, the more we realize that atheistic, Big Bang explanations are not scientifically adequate to explain its origin. Before this latest “discovery,” the atheistic understanding of the origin of the Universe already had a real problem explaining how a tiny “singularity” could explode and bring into existence a 28-billion-light-year Universe. Now the problem has been further compounded, since the Universe appears to be much larger, maybe even 250 times bigger for all we know. Atheism’s conundrum is that to get a 93-billion-light-year Universe from a tiny singularity violates the Law of Cause and Effect that says for every material effect there must be a cause that was greater than it. What in the world is big enough to give us a 93-billion-light-year Universe? A tiny singularity smaller than the period at the end of this sentence is not a legitimate, scientific answer.

The apostle Paul wrote, “For since the creation of the world His [God’s] invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead.” The only plausible explanation for a Universe that is 93 billion light years across is an eternal, all-powerful Creator.

Endnotes

The post The Universe Just Got Much Bigger—On Paper appeared first on Apologetics Press.

It has always intrigued me that the evolutionary side of the aisle seems to be notably silent about the fact that at the beginning of the human species, not merely a single human had to come into existence from a non-human—an impossible feat on its own. Neither is it the case that merely two human beings had to evolve onto the scene, either. Rather, at least one male and one distinctly different human being—the female; equipped with a significantly different anatomy—had to evolve simultaneously on the Earth in order for the human species to propagate itself. In other words,one male human could not have randomly come into existence one day, and a female two hundred years later. No, there had to be representatives of both genders on the Earth simultaneously, doubling the impossibility of the event.

Further, those male and female human bodies had to also contain the fully functional reproductive components that would be necessary to replicate humanity. And even further, those male and female human beings had to accidentally run into each other on planet Earth—a sphere with a surface area of 196,900,000 square miles. They had to find each other in what is thought to have been a very hostile and primitive Earthly environment as well—without first starving or being eaten by the ferocious animals that evolutionary images of early man portray.

They had to find each other while they were in the childbearing years, as well—not too old or young to reproduce before the other individual died. Assuming the two were able to find each other at the right time (and were willing and able to reproduce with each other), mother and child then had to survive the ordeal of child birth in those allegedly primitive circumstances.

Running into any one of these significant barriers to success would have killed off humans before we got started. If the accidental emergence of a single human being from a non-human being seems ludicrous to you, surely the other requirements necessary to make the species stick shows the evolutionary proposition to be beyond preposterous.

Endnotes

The post Human Evolution: Beyond Preposterous appeared first on Apologetics Press.

The rational person will only draw conclusions that are supported by the evidence (Ruby, 1960, pp. 130-131). The evidence from the natural realm indicates that every material effect must have an adequate antecedent (or simultaneous—Miller, 2012a) cause. The mass of a paper clip is not going to provide sufficient gravitational pull to cause a tidal wave. There must be an adequate cause for the tidal wave, like a massive, offshore, underwater earthquake (“Tsunamis,” 2000, pp. 1064, 2000). Leaning against a mountain will certainly not cause it to topple over. Jumping up and down on the ground will not cause an earthquake. If a chair is not placed in an empty room, the room will remain chairless. If matter was not made and placed in the Universe, we would not exist. There must be an adequate antecedent or simultaneous cause for every material effect. If this Law of Cause and Effect seems intuitive to you, then you understand why the Cosmological Argument is powerful, logical evidence for the existence of God.

Causality and History

The Law of Cause and Effect, or Law/Principle of Causality, has been investigated and recognized for millennia. From at least the time of Plato (1966, 1:96a-b) and Aristotle (2009, 1[3]) in the fourth century B.C., philosophers have pondered causality. In 1781, the renowned German philosopher Immanuel Kant wrote concerning the Principle of Causality in his Critique of Pure Reason that “everything that happens presupposes a previous condition, which it follows with absolute certainty, in conformity with a rule…. All changes take place according to the law of the connection of Cause and Effect” (Kant, 1781, emp. added). In the nineteenth century, German medical scientist and Father of Cellular Pathology, Rudolf Virchow, affirmed that “[e]verywhere there is mechanistic process only, with the unbreakable necessity of cause and effect” (1858, p. 115, emp. added). Fast forwarding another century, our increased understanding of the world still did not cause the law to be discredited. In 1934, W.T. Stace, professor of philosophy at Princeton University, in A Critical History of Greek Philosophy, wrote:

Every student of logic knows that this is the ultimate canon of the sciences, the foundation of them all. If we did not believe the truth of causation, namely, everything which has a beginning has a cause, and that in the same circumstances the same things invariably happen, all the sciences would at once crumble to dust. In every scientific investigation this truth is assumed (p. 6, emp. added).

The truth of causality is so substantiated that it is taken for granted in scientific investigation. It is “assumed.”

This principle is not some idea that can simply be brushed aside without consideration. If the Law of Causality were not in effect, science could not proceed—it would “crumble to dust” since, by its very nature, it involves gathering evidence and testing hypotheses in order to find regularities in nature. The goal of scientific experimentation is to determine what will happen (i.e., what will be the effect) if one does certain things (i.e., initiates certain causes). If there were no relationship between cause and effect, then nothing could be taken for granted. One day gravity may be in effect, and the next day it may not, and there would be no point in studying it, since it might be different tomorrow. There would be no such thing as a “scientific law,” since there would be no such thing as a “regularity,” which is fundamental to the definition of a law of science (McGraw-Hill Dictionary…, 2003, p. 1182).

Moving farther into the 20^th century, the Law of Cause and Effect still had not been repealed. In 1949, Albert Einstein, in The World as I See It, under the heading “The Religiousness of Science,” wrote, “But the scientist is possessed by the sense of universal causation” (2007, p. 35, emp. added). In The Encyclopedia of Philosophy, renowned American philosopher and professor Richard Taylor wrote, “Nevertheless, it is hardly disputable that the idea of causation is not only indispensable in the common affairs of life but in all applied sciences as well” (1967, p. 57, emp. added).

Even today, when scientific exploration has brought us to unprecedented heights of knowledge, the age old Law of Causality cannot be denied. Today’s dictionaries define “causality” as:

• “the principle that nothing can happen without being caused” (“Causality,” 2009).
• “the principle that everything has a cause” (“Causality,” 2008).

The National Academy of Science’s guidebook, Teaching about Evolution and the Nature of Science, says, “One goal of science is to understand nature. ‘Understanding’ in science means relating one natural phenomenon to another and recognizing the causes and effects of phenomena…. Progress in science consists of the development of better explanations for the causes of natural phenomena” (1998, p. 42. emp. added). Notice that, according to the National Academy of Science (NAS), there can be no progress in science without causality. The NAS, though entirely naturalistic in its approach to science, recognizes causality to be fundamental to the nature of science. It is not, and cannot rationally be, denied—except when necessary in order to prop up a deficient worldview. Its ramifications have been argued for years, but after the dust settles, the Law of Cause and Effect still stands unscathed, having weathered the trials thrust upon it for thousands of years.

The Law of Causality—A Problem for Atheism

The Law of Causality is fundamental to science, and yet it stands in the way of the bulk of today’s scientific community due to their flawed definition of “science.” In an interview in 1994, the late, famous evolutionary astronomer Robert Jastrow, founder and former director of the Goddard Institute for Space Studies at NASA, said:

As Einstein said, scientists live by their faith in causation, and the chain of cause and effect. Every effect has a cause that can be discovered by rational arguments. And this has been a very successful program, if you will, for unraveling the history of the universe. But it just fails at the beginning…. So time, really, going backward, comes to a halt at that point. Beyond that, that curtain can never be lifted…. And that is really a blow at the very fundamental premise that motivates all scientists (as quoted in Heeren, 1995, p. 303, emp. added).

The scientific community today, by and large, incorrectly defines “science” in such a way that anything supernatural cannot be considered “scientific,” and therefore science “fails” in certain areas. Only natural phenomena are deemed worthy of being categorized “science.” According to the definition, if something cannot be empirically observed and tested, it is not “scientific.” [NOTE: The naturalistic community contradicts itself on this matter, since several fundamental planks of evolutionary theory are unnatural—they have never been observed and all scientific investigation has proven them to be impossible (e.g., spontaneous generation of life and the laws of science, macroevolution, etc.; cf. Miller, 2012b).] One result of this flawed definition is highlighted by Jastrow, himself, in the above quote. Contrary to Jastrow’s statement, the laws of science, by definition, do not “fail.” They have no known exceptions. So, it would be unscientific to claim, without conclusive evidence in support of the claim, that a law has failed.

This leaves atheistic evolutionists in a quandary when trying to explain how the effect of the infinitely complex Universe could have come about “unscientifically”—without a natural cause. Four decades ago, Jastrow wrote:

The Universe, and everything that has happened in it since the beginning of time, are a grand effect without a known cause. An effect without a known cause? That is not the world of science; it is a world of witchcraft, of wild events and the whims of demons, a medieval world that science has tried to banish. As scientists, what are we to make of this picture? I do not know (1977, p. 21).

When Jastrow says that there is no “known cause” for everything in the Universe, he is referring to the fact that there is no known natural cause. If atheism were true, if the material realm is all that exists, if naturalistic science can shed light on the matter of origins, there must be a natural explanation of what caused the Universe. Scientists and philosophers recognize that there must be a cause that would be sufficient to bring about matter and the Universe—and yet no natural cause is known. The McGraw-Hill Dictionary of Scientific and Technical Terms says that “causality,” in physics, is “the principle that an event cannot precede its cause” (p. 346). However, the atheist must concede that in order for his/her claim to be valid, the effect of the Universe did not precede its cause—rather, it actually came about without it! Such a viewpoint is hardly in keeping with science.

The Law of Causality—A Friend to Creationists

Instead of flippantly disregard­ing the truth of the Law of Causality because it contradicts naturalistic theories, why not recognize that the highly respected, exception-less Law of Causality is not the problem? Why not recognize the fact that naturalistic theories, such as the Theory of Evolution and the Big Bang Theory, are simply not in harmony with science on a fundamental level? Why not consider an option that does not contradict the Law? If one were to follow the evidence wherever it leads, rather than defining God out of science, one is led to the unavoidable conclusion that there must be Someone super-natural that caused the Universe to be. If every material (i.e., natural) effect must have a cause, then the ultimate Cause of the Universe must be supernatural.

Every material effect must have an adequate antecedent or simultaneous cause. Notice that creationists have absolutely no problem with the truth articulated by this God-ordained law from antiquity. In Hebrews 3:4, the Bible says that “every house is built by someone, but He who built all things is God.” A house must have a cause—namely, a builder. It will not build itself. Scientifically speaking, according to the Law of Cause and Effect, there had to be a Cause for the Universe. And that is the essence of the Cosmological Argument for the Existence of God.

The only book on the planet which contains characteristics that prove its production to be above human capability is the Bible (see Butt, 2007). The God of the Bible is its author (2 Timothy 3:16-17), and in the very first verse of the inspired material He gave to humans, He articulated with authority and clarity that He is the Cause Who brought about the Universe and all that is in it. “In the beginning, God created the heavens and the Earth” (Genesis 1:1).

Emile Borel was a famous French mathematician for whom the Borel lunar crater was named (O’Connor and Robertson, 2008). He once said concerning the amazing human brain that is able to author works of literature, “Now the complexity of that brain must therefore have been even richer than the particular work to which it gave birth” (1963, p. 125). The effect of the brain’s existence, like a work of literature, must have an adequate cause. In the same way, we know that the infinite Mind behind the creation of this infinitely complex Universe had to be, and was, more than adequate for the task of bringing it all into existence (Revelation 19:6).

Uncaused Cause?

“But if everything had to have a beginning, why does the same concept not apply to God? Doesn’t God need a cause, too? Who caused God?” First, notice that this statement is based on a misunderstanding of what the Law of Cause and Effect claims concerning the Universe. The law states that every material effect must have an adequate antecedent or simultaneous cause. A law of science is determined through the observation of nature—not super-nature. Since they have not observed the supernatural realm, scientists cannot apply the scientific Law of Causality to it. The laws of nature do not apply to non-material entities. The God of the Bible is a spiritual Being (John 4:24) and therefore is not governed by physical law. In the words of skeptic Michael Shermer, executive director of the Skeptics Society and columnist for Scientific American:

If God is a being in space and time, it means that He is restrained by the laws of nature and the contingencies of chance, just like all other beings of this world. An omniscient and omnipotent God must be above such constraints, not subject to nature and chance. God as creator of heaven and earth and all things invisible would need necessarily to be outside such created objects (2006, Ch. 8, emp. added).

Recall also what Professor W.T. Stace wrote in A Critical History of Greek Philosophy concerning causality. “[E]verything which has a beginning has a cause” (p. 6, emp. added). God, according to the Bible, had no beginning. Psalm 90:2 says concerning God, “Before the mountains were brought forth, or ever You had formed the earth and the world, even from everlasting to everlasting, You are God” (emp. added). The Bible describes God as a Being Who has always been and always will be—“from everlasting to everlasting.” He, therefore, had no beginning. Recall Hebrews 3:4 again, which indicates that God is not constrained by the Law of Cause and Effect, as are houses, but rather, presides as the Chief Builder—the Uncaused Causer—the Being Who initially set all effects into motion (John 1:3).

Again, philosophers recognize that, logically, there must be an initial cause of the Universe. [Those who attempt to sidestep the need for a Cause and argue the eternality of the physical Universe are in direct contradiction to the Law of Causality (since the Universe is a physical effect that demands a cause), as well as the Second Law of Thermodynamics, which indicates that nothing physical lasts forever (see Miller, 2013).] Aristotle, in Physics, discussed the logical line of reasoning that leads to the conclusion that the initial cause of motion must be something that is not, itself, in motion—an unmoved mover (1984, 1:428). Aquinas built on Aristotle’s reasoning and said:

Now whatever is in motion is put in motion by another…. For motion is nothing else than the reduction of something from potentiality to actuality…. It is therefore impossible that in the same respect and in the same way a thing should be both mover and moved, i.e., that it should move itself. If that by which it is put in motion be itself put in motion, then this also must needs be put in motion by another, and that by another again. But this cannot go on to infinity, because then there would be no first mover, and, consequently no other mover…. Therefore it is necessary to admit a first efficient cause, to which everyone gives the name of God (1952, 19:12,13, emp. added).

God, not being a physical, finite being, but an eternal, spiritual being (by definition), would not be subject to the condition of requiring a beginning. Therefore, the law does not apply to Him. Concerning the Law of Causality, Kant said that “everything which is contingent has a cause, which, if itself contingent, must also have a cause; and so on, till the series of subordinated causes must end with an absolutely necessary cause, without which it would not possess completeness” (2008, p. 284, emp. added). An uncaused Cause is necessary. Only God sufficiently fills that void.

Consider: in the same way that dimensional space—length, width, and height—are part of the physical Universe, time, itself, is as well. In the same way that space had to have a cause, time itself had to as well: time had a beginning. That means that its Creator logically could not have a beginning. A “beginning” implies a specific timeframe that has begun. Without time in existence, there could be no such thing as a “beginning.” So the Cause of the Universe could not have a beginning since He created time, itself. In essence, there was no such thing as a “beginning” until the uncaused Cause began something. [NOTE: If time was not created, then it exists apart from God and even God is subject to it. The Bible affirms, however, that time itself was created along with the Universe when it uses the phrase “in the beginning” in Genesis 1:1.]

Consider further: if there ever were a time in history when absolutely nothing existed—not even God—then nothing would continue to exist today, since nothing comes from nothing (in keeping with common sense and the First Law of Thermodynamics; Miller, 2013). However, we know something exists (e.g., the Universe)—which means something had to exist eternally, or we would eventually get to a point in past time when nothing existed, which we have already noted cannot be. That something that existed forever could not be physical or material, since such things do not last forever (cf. the Second Law of Thermodynamics; Miller, 2013). It follows that the eternal something must be non-physical or non-material. It must be mind rather than matter. Logically, there must be a Mind that has existed forever. That Mind, according to the Bible, is God. He, being spirit, is not subject to the Second Law of Thermodynamics and can exist forever—the uncreated Creator. While usable energy in the Universe is inevitably expended, according to the Second Law, moving the Universe ever closer to a state of completed deterioration and unusable energy, God’s power is “eternal” (Romans 1:20).

Of old You laid the foundation of the Earth, and the heavens are the work of Your hands. They will perish, but You will endure; yes, they will all grow old like a garment; like a cloak You will change them, and they will be changed. But You are the same, and Your years will have no end (Psalm 102:25-27, emp. added).

The Universe exists. It cannot be eternal according to the Second Law of Thermodynamics. It could not create itself according to the First Law of Thermodynamics. Its existence requires an adequate, supernatural Cause. The Bible calls Him Jehovah.

REFERENCES

Aquinas, Thomas (1952), Summa Theologica, trans. Fathers of the English Dominican Province (Chicago, IL: University of Chicago).

Aristotle (1984), Physics in The Complete Works of Aristotle, ed. Jonathan Barnes (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press).

Aristotle (2009), Metaphysics, trans. W.D. Ross, http://classics.mit.edu/Aristotle/metaphysics.1.i.html.

Borel, Emile (1963), Probability and Certainty (New York: Walker).

Butt, Kyle (2007), Behold! The Word of God (Montgomery, AL: Apologetics Press), http://apologeticspress.org/pdfs/e-books_pdf/Behold%20the%20Word%20of%20God.pdf.

“Causality” (2008), Concise Oxford English Dictionary (Oxford, U.K.: Oxford University Press), http://www.wordreference.com/definition/causality.

“Causality” (2009), Collins English Dictionary—Complete & Unabridged (New York: HarperCollins Publishers), tenth edition, http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Causality?x=35&y=25.

Einstein, Albert (2007), The World As I See It (New York: BN Publishing).

Heeren, Fred (1995), Show Me God (Wheeling, IL: Searchlight Publications).

Jastrow, Robert (1977), Until the Sun Dies (New York: W.W. Norton).

Kant, Immanuel (1781), The Critique of Pure Reason, trans. J.M.D. Meiklejohn (London: Henry G. Bohn), 1878 edition, http://philosophy.eserver.org/kant/critique-of-pure-reason.txt.

Kant, Immanuel (2008), Kant’s Critiques: The Critique of Pure Reason, the Critique of Practical Reason, the Critique of Judgment (Radford, VA: Wilder Publications).

McGraw-Hill Dictionary of Scientific and Technical Terms (2003), pub. M.D. Licker (New York: McGraw-Hill), sixth edition.

Miller, Jeff (2012a), “Simultaneous Causation,” Apologetics Press, http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=9&article=687&topic=57.

Miller, Jeff (2012b), “The Atheistic Naturalist’s Self-Contradiction,” Apologetics Press, https://www.apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=9&article=4225&topic=296.

Miller, Jeff (2013), “Evolution and the Laws of Science: The Laws of Thermodynamics,” Apologetics Press, http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=12&article=2786.

O’Connor, John J. and Edmund F. Robertson (2008), “Felix Edouard Justin Emile Borel,” The MacTutor History of Mathematics Archive, http://www-history.mcs.st-andrews.ac.uk/Mathematicians/Borel.html.

Plato (1966), Plato in Twelve Volumes, trans. Harold North Fowler (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press), http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0170%3Atext%3DPhaedo%3Asection%3D96a.

Ruby, Lionel (1960), Logic: An Introduction (Chicago, IL: J.B. Lippincott).

Shermer, Michael (2006), Why Darwin Matters (New York: Henry Holt), Kindle file.

Stace, W.T. (1934), A Critical History of Greek Philosophy (London: Macmillan).

Taylor, Richard (1967), “Causation,” in The Encyclopedia of Philosophy, ed. Paul Edwards (New York: Philosophical Library).

Teaching about Evolution and the Nature of Science (1998), National Academy of Sciences (Washington, DC: National Academy Press).

“Tsunamis” (2000), The Oxford Companion to the Earth, ed. Paul L. Hancock and Brian J. Skinner (Oxford, U.K.: Oxford University Press).

Virchow, Rudolf (1858), “On the Mechanistic Interpretation of Life,” in Disease, Life, and Man: Selected Essays, ed. by L.J. Rather (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press), 1958 edition.

The post The Cosmological Argument for the Existence of God appeared first on Apologetics Press.

For example, the empirical evidence indicates that the First Law of Thermodynamics is a natural law that governs, and has always governed, the Universe. “[M]atter and energy can be neither created nor destroyed” in nature (Jastrow, 1977, p. 32). One thermodynamics textbook, Fundamentals of Thermodynamics, says, “Many different experiments have been conducted on the first law, and every one thus far has verified it either directly or indirectly. The first law has never been disproved” (Borgnakke and Sonntag, 2009, p. 116). So, it would be unnatural (i.e., supernatural) for matter or energy to create itself. But the naturalist believes that that very thing happened in order for the Universe to exist. He believes in the miraculous. [NOTE: See Miller, 2013a for more on naturalism and the Laws of Thermodynamics.]

Another example: the laws of nature exist. Renowned naturalist, theoretical physicist, and cosmologist of Cambridge University, Stephen Hawking, said:

[T]he Universe is a machine governed by principles or laws—laws that can be understood by the human mind. I believe that the discovery of these laws has been humankind’s greatest achievement…. But what’s really important is that these physical laws, as well as being unchangeable, are universal. They apply not just to the flight of the ball, but to the motion of a planet and everything else in the Universe. Unlike laws made by humans, the laws of nature cannot ever be broken. That’s why they are so powerful (“Curiosity…,” 2011, emp. added).

The laws of nature exist and are crucial in science. The empirical evidence, however, indicates that laws of nature do not write themselves. In a roundtable discussion on the Discovery Channel responding to Hawking’s presentation alleging that the Universe could create itself, naturalist and theoretical physicist, cosmologist, and astrobiologist of Arizona State University, Paul Davies, noted Hawking’s sidestep of the question of how the laws of nature could write themselves into existence. He said, “You need to know where those laws come from. That’s where the mystery lies—the laws” (“The Creation Question…,” 2011). It is a mystery to the naturalist answering how the laws of nature exist since the evidence indicates that they do not write themselves. So again, it would be unnatural (i.e., supernatural) for a law of science to write itself. But the naturalist must believe that that very thing happened in order for the Universe to exist. He believes in the miraculous. [NOTE: See Miller, 2012 for more on naturalism and the laws of science.]

Ironically, honest evolutionists have long admitted that naturalism seems to require miracles. Concerning abiogenesis (i.e., life coming from non-life in nature), the late, famous evolutionist Robert Jastrow said:

At present, science has no satisfactory answer to the question of the origin of life on the earth. Perhaps the appearance of life on the earth is a miracle. Scientists are reluctant to accept that view, but their choices are limited; either life was created on the earth by the will of a being outside the grasp of scientific understanding, or it evolved on our planet spontaneously, through chemical reactions occurring in nonliving matter lying on the surface of the planet. The first theory places the question of the origin of life beyond the reach of scientific inquiry. It is a statement of faith in the power of a Supreme Being not subject to the laws of science. The second theory is also an act of faith. The act of faith consists in assuming that the scientific view of the origin of life is correct, without having concrete evidence to support that belief (1977, pp. 62-63, emp. added).

Sir Francis Crick, who co-discovered the double-helix structure of the DNA molecule, conceded, “An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle, so many are the conditions which would have had to have been satisfied to get it going” (1981, p. 88, emp. added). In his classic text, The Immense Journey, the late evolutionary anthropologist, Loren Eiseley, said the following regarding the idea of spontaneous generation:

With the failure of these many efforts, science was left in the somewhat embarrassing position of having to postulate theories of living origins which it could not demonstrate. After having chided the theologian for his reliance on myth and miracle, science found itself in the unenviable position of having to create a mythology of its own: namely, the assumption that what, after long effort, could not be proved to take place today, had, in truth, taken place in the primeval past (1957, pp. 201-202, emp. added).

Bottom line: naturalists must believe in unnatural occurrences to explain the Universe. They believe in miracles. Question: doesn’t that make them supernaturalists, just like us—only without any evidence for their blind belief? While the Christian can point to, for example, the supernatural characteristics of the Bible (cf. Butt, 2007) and the classical arguments for the existence of God (cf. Lyons and Butt, 2014) as evidence for his beliefs, the naturalist must blindly and irrationally believe in natural miracles without a miracle worker. All the while, he diverts attention from the inadequacies of naturalism by claiming supernaturalists are the irrational ones. If it is the case that naturalism is actually just another form of supernaturalism, why are “naturalistic” theories exclusively being taught in schools in science classrooms? Should they not be removed from the classroom also, if all religious models are being removed due to their being supernatural models? In truth, if there is solid evidence for the Creation model, whether or not the model is supernatural, it makes sense that it should be left on the table of scientific discussion.

REFERENCES

Borgnakke, Claus and Richard E. Sonntag (2009), Fundamentals of Thermodynamics (Asia: John Wiley and Sons), seventh edition.

Butt, Kyle (2007), Behold! The Word of God (Montgomery, AL: Apologetics Press).

“The Creation Question: A Curiosity Conversation” (2011), Discovery Channel, August 7.

Crick, Francis (1981), Life Itself: Its Origin and Nature (New York: Simon and Schuster).

“Curiosity: Did God Create the Universe?” (2011), Discovery Channel, August 7.

Eiseley, Loren (1957), The Immense Journey (New York: Random House).

Jastrow, Robert (1977), Until the Sun Dies (New York: W.W. Norton).

Lyons, Eric and Kyle Butt (2014), “7 Reasons to Believe in God,” Apologetics Press, http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=12&article=5045.

McGraw-Hill Dictionary of Scientific and Technical Terms(2003), pub. M.D. Licker (New York: McGraw-Hill), sixth edition.

Miller, Jeff (2012), “The Laws of Science—by God,” Apologetics Press, https://www.apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=9&article=4545&topic=93.

Miller, Jeff (2013a), “Evolution and the Laws of Science: The Laws of Thermodynamics,” Apologetics Press, http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=9&article=2786&topic=93.

Miller, Jeff (2013b), Science vs. Evolution (Montgomery, AL: Apologetics Press).

Morris, Henry M. (1990), Men of Science Men of God: Great Scientists Who Believed in the Bible (El Cajon, CA: Master Books), third printing.

Teaching About Evolution and the Nature of Science (1998), National Academy of Sciences (Washington, DC: National Academy Press).

The post There’s No Such Thing as a Naturalist appeared first on Apologetics Press.

[EDITOR’S NOTE: Many have inquired about our thoughts on the Bill Nye/Ken Ham debate that took place on February 4^th in Petersburg, Kentucky. Of course, we strongly disagree with Bill Nye’s contention that evolution is a viable model of origins, and wholeheartedly agree with Ken Ham’s proposition that Creation is a viable model of origins. However, we were disappointed in creationist Ken Ham’s decision to allow so many of Bill Nye’s questions and comments to go unanswered, thus leaving the impression that Nye’s points have merit or are unanswerable. In light of so many evidences, undeniable truths, and critical responses that were not brought to light that evening, I asked A.P. staff scientist, Dr. Jeff Miller, to prepare a response to Bill Nye’s assertions. These three men of science are certainly qualified to discuss these matters: Ham received a bachelor’s degree in applied science from the Queensland Institute of Technology in Australia and a diploma of education from the University of Queensland. Nye received a B.S. in Mechanical Engineering from Cornell University. Dr. Miller holds a Ph.D. in Mechanical Engineering from Auburn University.]

In the debate on February 4, 2014, which is said to have been viewed by over three million people Tuesday night, and another two million plus on Wednesday (“Over Three Million Tuned In…,” 2014), Answers in Genesis creationist Ken Ham squared off against Bill Nye (known to many of us as “The Science Guy”). Nye challenged Ham with several questions which he believed to be pertinent to the Creation/evolution controversy (Nye and Ham, 2014). The debate topic centered on whether or not Creation is a viable model of origins in today’s modern scientific era. Without dragging the reader through a play-by-play analysis of the entire debate, we believe several of Nye’s questions and comments that were not addressed in the debate are worthy of attention. [NOTE: Ironically, although Ken Ham did not respond to several of Nye’s points, the Answers in Genesis Web site is replete with solid responses to the bulk of Nye’s arguments, as the references in this article will attest.]

Nye’s Defense of Naturalistic Evolution

First, we wish to highlight the fact that Nye inadvertently revealed some of the weaknesses and even impenetrable barriers that prohibit the naturalistic evolutionary model from being true. Keep in mind that, regardless of the legitimacy of any attacks on the Creation model, if naturalism contradicts the evidence, then the evidence remains in support of some form of supernaturalism. In truth, however, the evidence supports the Creation model.

Evolution is a Historical Science

While Ham did not adequately address many of Nye’s points, Nye was eloquently treated to a lesson on the difference between observational and historical science, proving that naturalistic evolution and origin studies fall under the historical science category. Nye was unable to refute this claim. Nobody has ever observed macroevolution (i.e., inter-kind evolution), abiogenesis (i.e., life from non-life), the spontaneous generation of natural laws (i.e., scientific laws that write themselves), a cause-less effect, or the spontaneous generation or eternality of matter—all of which are necessary under the evolutionary model. This lack of observation proves that evolution does not fall under the definition of science, as stated by the National Academy of Sciences: “The statements of science must invoke only natural things and processes. The statements of science are those that emerge from the application of human intelligence to data obtained from observation and experiment” (Teaching About Evolution…, 1998, p. 42, emp. added). Evolutionists are notorious for reasoning that the Creation model should not be taught in schools since it cannot be observed and, therefore, is not “science,” based on the naturalistic definition of the term. The fact that naturalistic evolution is also unobservable highlights that evolutionary theory is “faith-based” in the sense that direct evidence is lacking for several of its fundamental tenets. Instead of refuting that argument, Nye’s response was, “Mr. Ham, I learned something. Thank you.” Our response: if you do not have an adequate response to that argument, and if Creation does not belong in the science classroom because many of its fundamental tenets were not observed, then evolution does not belong in the classroom either.

In truth, whichever model is the best inference from the evidence should be the one used in the classroom, even if all of its tenets were not necessarily “observed”: Creation or evolution (or some other model). There is, however, a fundamental difference between Creation and evolution. The evidence actually stands against naturalism, since we know from science, for example, that abiogenesis and the origin of matter/energy from nothing (or the eternality of matter) cannot happen naturally. Those phenomena are required by naturalism. One cannot be a naturalist and yet believe in unnatural things like such phenomena without contradicting himself. The component logical fallacy called contradictory premises (or a logical paradox) occurs when one establishes “a premise in such a way that it contradicts another, earlier premise” (Wheeler, 2014). For example:

• Premise One—Evolution is a naturalistic origin model.
• Premise Two—Evolution requires abiogenesis and other unnatural phenomena.

If evolution is purely naturalistic, can it involve unnatural phenomena and still be consistent?

On the other hand, though the creation of the Universe and the Flood cannot be observed today, the evidence points to their historical reality indirectly. In the same way forensic scientists can enter a scene, gather evidence, and determine what happened, when it happened, how it happened, who did it, and many times, why he did it—all without actually witnessing the event—humans can examine the evidence and conclude that the Universe was created. Bottom line: it is clear, regardless of the model you choose, that something happened in the beginning that was unnatural, or as Nye insinuated, “magical.” How is Creation far-fetched, as the naturalists believe, in comparison to a model that espouses magic—with no magician?

Flawed Evolutionary Dating Techniques

Conflicting Dates from a Fossilized Forest

When the research of geologist Andrew Snelling was discussed as proof that uniformitarian dating techniques are fundamentally flawed, Nye was not able to offer an adequate response. In the research, fossilized wood from deep within the Earth under Australia was carbon dated to be about 37,500 years old, while the basalt rock encompassing the wood was dated using the K-Ar method to be some 47.5 million years old (2000), though both the rock and the wood should have been the same age. [NOTE: Carbon dating is used to date organic materials, while the K-Ar method and others are used to date inorganic materials (rocks).] Nye’s attempt to explain the problem using plate tectonics was quickly refuted by Ham when he pointed out that the basalt was not above the forest, but was encompassing the forest. Nye did not respond. Snelling’s research stands as evidence against the validity of evolutionary dating techniques which Nye could not refute. The Creation model has no problem with this research, since it does not rely on uniformitarian dating techniques. [NOTE: Uniformitarianism is the evolutionary assumption that “events of the geologic past can be explained by phenomena observable today” (McGraw-Hill Dictionary…, 2003, p. 2224). Creationists believe that catastrophism is a better model for interpreting the geologic column. Catastrophism is the idea that most “features in the Earth were produced by occurrence of sudden, short-lived, worldwide events” (McGraw-Hill…, p. 342).]

Assumptions and Evolution

Nye claimed that we can know with certainty the age of the Universe based on the present. The problem with that argument for the naturalist is that since no one was there at the beginning to observe what happened or when it happened, no naturalist can actually know, as Nye claimed. Instead, assumptions have to be made by the naturalist in order to try to surmise what may have happened—namely that conditions today were also present in the past (i.e., uniformitarianism). That is quite a presumptuous assumption to be sure. Creationists argue that assumptions such as uniformitarianism and those of radiometric dating techniques are faulty and disprove the validity of those techniques (e.g., Miller, 2013a; Morris, 2011, pp. 48-71). In response, Nye said:

When people make assumptions based on radiometric dating; when they make assumptions about the expanding Universe; when they make assumptions about the rate at which genes change in populations of bacteria in laboratory growth media; they’re making assumptions based on previous experience. They’re not coming out of whole cloth.

First, we find it ironic that Nye so strongly supports evolutionary assumptions, arguing that they are valid because they are based on “previous experience.” Nobody has ever observed macroevolution, abiogenesis, the spontaneous generation of natural laws, a cause-less effect, or the spontaneous generation or eternality of matter, and yet these absurd notions are assumed under the evolutionary model. In the debate, Nye even verbally admitted that the evolutionary model has no explanation for how consciousness could come from matter. He said, “Don’t know. This is a great mystery.” In truth, of course he cannot know, because the evidence from nature says that it cannot happen naturally. His evolutionary model prohibits it (Miller, 2012b), and yet he ignores that evidence. Concerning the origin of matter, he also admitted, “This is the great mystery. You’ve hit the nail on the head…. What was before the Big Bang? This is what drives us. This is what we wanna know!” Again, the naturalistic model prohibits the eternality or spontaneous generation of matter (Miller, 2013b), though one of them had to happen under the naturalistic model. So of course it’s “a great mystery” how it could happen. In truth, it cannot happen naturally. Nature has spoken, and yet Nye and his colleagues reject the evidence in favor of their closed-minded bias towards naturalism.

These are significant questions that evolution cannot answer and that cannot be brushed aside as he attempted to do. They must be answered by the naturalist before naturalistic evolution can even be a possibility—before it should even be allowed to be taught. Without a legitimate explanation, evolution is no different from a fictional story. Life had to come from non-life naturally in the evolutionary model, and matter had to come from somewhere, and yet the evolutionist ignores those problems as though they are irrelevant and assumes there’s a naturalistic explanation for them without any evidence substantiating that assumption.

In truth, all “previous experience” in science says that none of those things (i.e., macroevolution, abiogenesis, the spontaneous generation of natural laws, a cause-less effect, or the spontaneous generation or eternality of matter) can happen. The questions that Nye and his colleagues consider “a mystery” are not really mysteries. Science has spoken on those matters and concluded that they are impossible under the naturalistic model. There are scientific laws which prove that truth (see Miller, 2013c). Accepting those things as possible flies in the face of the scientific evidence and is tantamount to a blind faith in evolution. Evolution is a fideistic religion that ignores the evidence. It has no foundation, since the evidence contradicts its foundational premises. The Creation model, on the other hand, has no problem with the evidence. The Creation model harmonizes with the evidence on all counts and only disagrees with the evolutionary interpretation of the evidence.

That said, we have no problem with the idea that present observations can be useful today and even useful in some ways for the past—but within careful limits. If it is true that, for example, the nuclear decay rates are not a simple constant, but instead are variable, depending upon environmental conditions which could have been significantly different in the past due to catastrophic events like the Flood, then it would be naïve and erroneous to make age estimates of any rock without considering the possibility of such fluctuations.
“[M]aking assumptions based on previous experience” would be incorrect since that “previous experience” did not include the Flood.

In his book, The Young Earth, Creation geologist John Morris documents modern research which casts serious doubt on several of the assumptions of evolutionary dating techniques, especially the assumption of constant nuclear decay rates (2011; see also DeYoung, 2005). For example, research by a team of scientists (known as RATE) that was presented at the International Conference on Creationism in 2003, indicates that the nuclear decay rates have not always been constant (Humphreys, et al., 2003). The RATE team had several zircon crystals dated by expert evolutionists using the uranium-lead evolutionary dating technique and found them to be 1.5 billion years old, assuming a constant decay rate. A by-product of the breakdown of uranium into lead is helium. Content analysis of the crystals revealed that large amounts of helium were found to be present. However, if the crystals were as old as the dating techniques suggested, there should have been no trace of helium left, since helium atoms are known to be tiny, light, unreactive, and able to easily escape from the spaces within the crystal structure. The presence of helium and carbon-14 showed that the rocks were actually much younger (4,000 to 14,000 years old) than the dating techniques alleged. Since these zircons were taken from the Precambrian basement granite in the Earth, an implication of the find is that the whole Earth could be no older than 4,000 to 14,000 years old. The results of the crystal dating indicate that 1.5 billion years’ worth of radioactive decay, based on the uniformitarian constant decay rate assumption, occurred in only a few thousand years. How could such a thing be possible? How can the two dating techniques be reconciled? By understanding that the rate of decay of uranium into lead must have been different—much higher—in the past. This research simply cannot be ignored by any serious, honest scientist. If the Creation model is true, then modern, historical science should be reconsidered and completely revised.

Concerning the creationist stance that nuclear decay rates were different in the past, Nye further said:

So this idea, that you can separate the natural laws of the past from the natural laws that we have now, I think, is at the heart of our disagreement. I don’t, I don’t see how we’re ever going to agree with that if you insist that natural laws have changed. It’s, for lack of a better word, it’s magical. And I have appreciated magic since I was a kid, but it’s not really what we want in conventional, mainstream science…. I encourage you to explain to us why, why we should accept your word for it that natural law changed just 4,000 years ago. Completely. And there’s no record of it.

First keep in mind that three significant assumptions that underlie dating techniques were mentioned by Ham to Nye, and Nye completely ignored two of them (i.e., that radiometric dating techniques assume a specimen was originally completely composed of a parent element, which would yield incorrect dates if daughter elements were present in a specimen from its creation. Such initial conditions would be predicted in the Creation model. The other assumption he ignored was that the specimen was completely isolated throughout its lifetime, and therefore unaffected by outside phenomena—a closed system. See Miller, 2013a for a discussion on these dating technique assumptions.). We believe they were left completely unanswered because they would be impossible for him to refute.

Second, it should be firmly understood that we would not argue that the natural laws of the past have changed. That, in fact, is a requirement of the evolutionary model, not the Creation model. The Law of Biogenesis, for example, would have to be “changed” in the past in order for naturalistic evolution to get started since all evidence indicates that life comes only from life in nature (Miller, 2012b). The Laws of Thermodynamics would have to be “changed” in the past in order to account for the origin of matter and energy, since all of the scientific evidence indicates that energy cannot be eternal and/or cannot spontaneously generate (Miller, 2013b). The Law of Causality would have to be “changed” in the past in order to account for the Universe not having a cause (Miller, 2011b). It seems that we should be challenging Mr. Nye instead: “I encourage you to explain to us why, why we should accept your word for it that natural law changed billions of years ago. Completely. And there’s no record of it. It’s, for lack of a better word, magical.”

The creationist does not argue that the laws of nature changed in the past regarding decay rates, but rather, that decay is subject to a more complex law or equation than the one being assumed today. If nuclear decay rates fluctuate based on conditions resulting from certain catastrophic events, then if all of those conditions were met today, we would argue that the same results would still occur today. In other words, the “law” for decay rates is still the same today, but is merely misunderstood and needs to be modified to be more robust. It should be able to account for the unusual effects of catastrophic activity before applying it to the past. [NOTE: While the creationist does not argue that scientific laws have ever “changed,” he would argue that laws have been temporarily suspended in the past during God’s supernatural activities (Miller, 2003). The evolutionists, however, are in the unenviable position of having to explain, not only how a law could come into existence, but how it could be re-written without a Writer.]

Energy from the Sun for Evolution

The audience asked Nye the question, “How do you balance the Theory of Evolution with the Second Law of Thermodynamics?” Nye answered that question by stating, “The Earth is getting energy from the Sun all the time, and that energy is used to make life forms somewhat more complex…. The fundamental thing…is the Earth is not a closed system. So there’s energy pouring in here from the Sun…. And so that energy is what drives living things on Earth, especially in our case, plants.” The Second Law of Thermodynamics does, indeed, present a problem for the Theory of Evolution, and Nye’s response does not adequately address the problem.

The Second Law of Thermodynamics tells us that in a closed system (like a box completely sealed), the energy and matter within that system will deteriorate and move towards disorder over time (i.e., the “entropy” of the system will increase), becoming less usable and moving from order to chaos. Evolution requires that the opposite happen—that chaos, disorder, and simplicity move towards order and complexity. Nye argued that such is possible, because the system (i.e., the box) is not closed—i.e., the Earth (our system) is receiving energy from outside, namely the Sun, allowing evolution to happen. It is true that entropy can be countered and decreased in localized areas of the Universe (while the entropy of the total Universe increases) as long as energy can be injected into those areas that moves those systems back towards order.

As an illustration, consider a bedroom. Left to itself, a bedroom will move towards a state of disorder. Only the addition of useful energy (i.e., work) can counter the entropy increase in that room. Notice, however, that not just any energy will work. If I dump energy in the form of matter into the room (i.e., if I bring in clothes or trash and dump them in the room), it will not counter entropy, but can actually increase it. Not just any “work” will counter entropy, either. If I step into the room and start jumping up and down (adding energy to the room), it will not counter entropy, but rather, will increase entropy by wearing out the carpet and expending my own energy. If I step into the room and expend energy by knocking books off the shelf, I have not decreased the entropy in the room. Only the addition of the right kind of useful energy will counter entropy in that room.

The Sun can certainly be a useful form of energy. However, it also kills things, melts things, mutates things (e.g., causing cancer), and creates deserts—generating significant entropy on the planet. Before evolution can be considered viable, evolutionists are in the unenviable position of having to explain specifically how the great Second Law can be countered and summarily brushed aside by energy from the Sun (or other outside energy source). Passing allusions to the Sun and the Earth being an open system do not answer the challenge made to evolution by creationists.

The problem is further compounded when one considers that, regardless of the energy reaching Earth from the Sun, evolution is not occurring at the genetic level—where evolution must ultimately occur. Genetic entropy is increasing at alarming rates, moving humanity towards mutational meltdown: deterioration and decay, not order and progression, are what we find at the genetic level (cf. Sanford, 2008; Miller, 2014a; Miller, 2014c). [NOTE: Evolution on a cosmic scale (i.e., Universal evolution, rather than localized Darwinian evolution on Earth) requires that an explosion billions of years ago produced the ordered Universe we have today. Since the Universe is, by definition, closed from a naturalistic perspective (i.e., the evidence indicates that there is nothing outside of the natural Universe that can add useful energy to it to counter entropy; cf. Miller, 2010), the Second Law of Thermodynamics prohibits cosmic evolution.]

Nye’s Attacks against the Creation Model

In his attack on the viability of the Creation model, Nye made several claims that were curiously left unanswered. We believe they deserve attention.

No Higher and Lower Animals Mixing in the Geologic Column?

At one point in the debate, Nye showed various pictures of fossils and the fossil record, including a trilobite picture towards the bottom of the geologic column. He claimed, “You never, ever find a higher animal mixed in with a lower one.” “When there was a big flood on the Earth, you would expect drowning animals to swim up to a higher level. Not any one of them did. Not a single one. If you could find evidence of that, my friends, you could change the world.” This, he argued, was proof in favor of evolution and against the Creation/Flood model, implying that if Creation is true, there should be evidence of “higher” and “lower” creatures (e.g., the trilobite) together in the fossil record, while if evolution is true, they should be separate.

Ironically, in 1968, William Meister discovered a human footprint with fossilized trilobites in the print (Lammerts, 1976, pp. 186-187). Of course evolutionists would not wish to concede that the print was from a human, but it is hard to brush aside the sandal stitching that is visible in the print. That alone is enough evidence to refute Nye’s claim. But what about the story Nature published in 2005 that upset standard evolutionary suppositions about the history of evolution? A small dinosaur was discovered fossilized in the stomach of a mammal too big to have yet evolved, according to the evolutionary model (Hu, et al., 2005). Did that pivotal discovery make an impact? What about the discovery of “human-like” footprints in coal veins that were supposed to have been laid down during the Carboniferous period of evolutionary geology, 248 million years before humans were supposed to be on the scene (Ingalls, 1940; Wilder-Smith, 1970)? What about the existence of “living fossils,” like the coelacanth—creatures found today that, according to the evolutionary interpretation of the geologic column, were supposed to be long extinct? Though they were nowhere to be seen in the column over the last 70 million years (according to the evolutionary timescale), evolutionists were wrong to assume that that meant they were not alive through the millennia (“Coelacanth,” 2014; “Diver Finds…,” 2014). This, of course, illustrates that just because a creature, including a human, did not leave a fossil in a particular geologic layer or layers (even those representing an alleged 70 million years of evolutionary time), it does not mean it did not then exist. Clearly, using Nye’s terminology, the coelacanth must have “swam up” the geologic column, surviving until the present day. And what about the recent discoveries of soft dinosaur tissue—proving that dinosaurs could not have gone extinct 65 million years ago as evolutionists argue, but instead lived contemporaneously with the rest of us (Boyle, 2007; Perkins, 2005; Schweitzer, et al., 2005; Schweitzer, et al., 2007)? “You never, ever find a higher animal mixed in with a lower one,” Mr. Nye? I think not. Will the truth “change the world,” do you suppose? Sadly, probably not.

Nye claims that if the Flood is true, there should be a mixing of “lower” fossils (i.e., simpler creatures) and “higher” fossils in the geologic column, because the “lower” creatures would have been trying to “swim” upward in the Flood. We are amazed that Nye would even make such a statement, as it seems to betray the fact that he does not understand the fossilization process. Only those creatures caught by, for example, mud slides in the Flood would have been fossilized. Those creatures that could “swim up” would not even have been fossilized at all, as they would have died on the surface of the waters and decayed without fossilization, as do most aquatic creatures when they die. The real question, then, becomes which creatures could get to higher ground (not higher water) easier, thus avoiding mud slides? Clearly, smaller creatures with less maneuverability (i.e., not necessarily less complexity) would be covered in the earliest mud slides, not able to move quickly enough, and therefore, be found lower in the ground. Larger, faster, and more intelligent species would tend to be able to avoid fossilization-causing phenomena longer and get to higher ground. There would tend to be, however, exceptions in the Flood model, as some creatures would run into “dead ends” and be caught in mudslides in their flight, which explains the many anomalies and mass fossil grave yards that evolutionists seem to brush under the carpet without much comment. [NOTE: It is also true that creationists do not argue that all fossils were formed in the Flood. Some may, in fact, have been formed during other localized catastrophes, although it is likely that most were formed during the Flood.] While the evolutionary scenario has no room for such exceptions, they are predicted in the Creation/Flood model.

Nye also argued: “There’s not a single place in the Grand Canyon where the fossils of one type of animal cross over into the fossils of another.” While Nye carefully qualified his assertion by focusing solely on the Grand Canyon (which may or may not have such fossils), when the discussion is opened up to allow us to consider other places where “fossils of one type of animal cross over into the fossils of another,” the Creation model is quickly vindicated, and the evolutionary model is found to be inadequate. We have documented several cases of polystrate fossils (i.e., fossils that cut through at least two sedimentary-rock layers) elsewhere, including trees, Calamites, and catfish (e.g., Thompson, 2002, pp. 224-230). Perhaps the most famous of such examples would be the discovery of an 80 foot long, baleen whale “standing on end” in a diatomaceous Earth quarry in California (Reese, 1976, 54[4]:40; Snelling, 1995). Only one such example is needed to refute the entire evolutionary uniformitarian interpretation of the geologic column and vindicate the creationists’ catastrophism approach to interpreting the column. Polystrate fossils prove that the geologic layers were laid down rapidly, not gradually over eons of time.

Attacking the Biblical Age of the Earth

Hundreds of Thousands of Years Documented in Ice Cores?

Nye argued that the Creation model claims that the Flood was some 4,000 years ago (and that Creation was only a few thousand years before that), but that there are ice cores in Greenland and Antarctica showing hundreds of thousands of years’ worth of annual ice layers. As with other evolutionary dating techniques, however, evolutionists base their dating (i.e., layer counting) on erroneous assumptions about those layers—namely uniformity: the idea that seasonal conditions were the same in the distant past as they are now. Evidence exists that indicates that multiple, assumed annual, uniformitarian “layers” can form in one year (Alley, et al., 1997). These sub-annual layers could be the result of individual storms or cyclical weather patterns that resemble annual layers (Oard, 2003).

Creation scientists argue that in the Flood model, a great ice age with turbulent weather ensued after the Flood until around 2000 B.C. (Oard, 2004c). During that ice age, multiple “layers” would have been laid down each year (as many as 1,000 uniformitarian “annual cycles” in one year). The actual annual layers over the next few centuries after the Flood, therefore, would have been much thicker and contain several of the layers evolutionists would count as separate years (cf. Vardiman, 1992; Oard, 2001; Oard, 2003; Oard, 2004a; Oard, 2004b; Oard, 2006).

As further confirmation of this possibility, there is evidence today that ice layers can form quickly and be much thicker than evolutionists’ uniformitarian estimates. World War II planes from 1942 were discovered in 1988 in Greenland, under 260 feet of ice (“World War II Planes Found…,” 1988). This illustrates that even in modern times, although the annual layer of ice in Greenland is less than one foot today (De Angelis, et al., 1997, p. 26683), an average of over five feet of ice formed over the planes every year for 46 years where they were found (“World War II Planes Found…”). Ice cores are simply not a problem for the Creation model.

Evidence against Creation from Tree Dating?

Nye argued that there are bristlecone pine trees alive today that are as much as 6,800 years old, and even a Norway Spruce tree (Tjikko) that is 9,550 years old. If so, these trees would have had to survive the Flood and possibly even precede the Creation Week—a major problem for the Creation model. It is uncertain to which bristlecone pine tree Nye refers, since the oldest living bristlecone pine to date was announced in 2013 as being 5,062 years old (Castro, 2013). Dendrochronology is the science of dating trees by counting their rings, and it is considered a very reliable science for dating wood, since today, one ring is generally known to form in a tree for every year that the tree has lived. However, if we consider the possibility of sub-annual tree ring growth (i.e., more than one ring forming each year; as well as the issues inherent in cross dating, which was used in dating the tree—“OldList,” 2013), like those that can occur in unusual seasons (Aardsma, 1993; Lammerts, 1983), such a tree could line up with the Flood model nicely. In the words of creation scientist John Morris:

As it pertains to Flood model considerations, remember that the centuries immediately following the Flood witnessed the coming of the Ice Age. All trees growing on the continents were recently sprouted, actively growing trees. The still-warm oceans rapidly evaporated seawater, thus providing the raw material for major monsoonal-type storms. Earth was ravaged by frequent and wide-ranging atmospheric disturbances, dumping excessive snowfall in northern regions and rainfall to the south. If ever there was a time when multiple rings could develop in trees, this was it. Those centuries probably produced tree ring growth that was anything but annual. Thus, far from disproving biblical history, tree ring studies provide supportive and instructive information about true history (2012).

While the work of LaMarch and Harlan (1973) prompts many to reject sub-annual tree ring growth for bristlecone pines, not all scientists accept their conclusion. Gladwin believes that bristlecone pine tree growth patterns are too erratic for dating at all (1978), and based on finding extra rings when studying bristlecone tree saplings, Lammerts argued that the bristlecone chronology could be lowered by at least 1,500 years (1983). Furthermore, the renowned expert in dendrochronology, M.G.L. Baillie, warned:

As with conventional jig-saws, some people are better at pattern recognition than others and, if the analogy is not too brutal, there are those who recognise the problems, and those who might try to force the pieces together. It has to be remembered that there is only one correct pattern: each tree has grown only once and ultimately its ring pattern can only fit at one place in time. Simply because two pieces look alike does not necessarily mean that they fit together (1982, p. 23).

If we assume that Nye was referring to cross dated trees in his tree age claims, his argument against the Creation model still fails. Cross dating is the process of successively overlapping the tree ring patterns from living and dead trees (including fossilized trees) further back in history. It is an imprecise and often subjective method to be sure, yet it is incorrectly argued that this process can create a chronology reaching back over 8,000 years (Ferguson and Graybill, 1985).

In response, first we must understand that only living trees would potentially create a problem for the Creation/Flood model, and then, only if one assumes that all trees died in the Flood, which may not be the case (Wright, 2012). The text only says that “all flesh died that moved on the Earth” (Genesis 7:21), which would not include plants. Some pre-Flood era tree species may have been robust enough to survive the turbulent waters of the Flood, and some areas of the Earth—though covered with water—may not have had as much turbulence as others. Bert Cregg of the Department of Horticulture and Forestry at Michigan State University, notes that “[m]any tree species can survive months under water” in floods (Cregg, 2011). Whitlow and Harris’ monumental work on the effect of flooding on trees revealed dozens of species that are tolerant (i.e., able to survive deep flooding for one growing season) and/or very tolerant to flooding (i.e., able to survive deep, prolonged flooding for more than one year; 1979, pp. 68-129). If some trees survived the Flood, then living trees with 6,000 or more rings would not be a problem for the Flood model. [NOTE: It is also possible that Noah brought trees on the Ark (especially those that would provide food for the passengers).]

That said, there are no living trees that can be known to be older than when the Flood occurred. The 2013 bristlecone discovery could very well be that of a tree that began to grow immediately after the Flood. Beyond that point, even if cross dating reliably revealed thousands upon thousands of tree rings—enough to cause one to question a recent Creation (i.e., six to ten thousand years ago)—we must recognize the fact that the biblical model calls for fully functional, mature trees from the first day of their existence (so that Adam and Eve, also fully grown, would have food)—which would have included tree rings, since rings provide strength for large trees (Miller, 2011a). [NOTE: The same may be said about light that is viewable on Earth from stars that are billions of light years away. Such light would have been immediately viewable on Earth by Day Six in order to fulfill God’s purpose for it, stated in Genesis 1:14. See Lyons, 2011 for a discussion on the apparent age of the Universe.] But regardless, such old dates cannot be taken as conclusive due to the potential for sub-annual tree ring growth in unusual weather like that of the world immediately post-Flood, as well as the effects of time-staggered, repeated disturbances on tree ring growth (Woodmorappe, 2009).

The tree that Nye mentioned by name, Tjikko, was dated using carbon dating (Owen, 2008), not dendrochronology, and therefore tends not even to be listed among the verified oldest trees. Carbon dating is a notoriously imprecise and suspect method due to its frequent anomalies, largely caused by its long-believed, foundational assumption that the ratio of ¹⁴C to ¹²C in the atmosphere has remained constant throughout history, as well as the effect of the Earth’s magnetic field on the production rate of ¹⁴C (Batten, 2002). Scientists now know that the ratio is not constant (Michaels and Fagan, 2013). So they attempt to calibrate the ¹⁴C “clock” using other techniques that are largely ineffective beyond recorded history. Archaeologists today, therefore, cannot use ¹⁴C dating as conclusive evidence in dating ancient objects because of such anomalies. So much so that evolutionists admit concerning carbon dating, “[I]t is not infallible. In general, single dates should not be trusted” (Michaels and Fagan). [NOTE: See Major, 1993 for further discussion of carbon and tree ring dating.]

Civilizations Older than the Flood?

Concerning the Bible’s relatively small, thousands of years timeframe, Nye argued, “Ya know, there are, there are human populations that are far older than that, with traditions that go back farther than that.” It is unclear to which civilizations Nye is referring, as he did not specifically state them. The most recent date for the Flood, based on biblical chronologies, would be about 2300 B.C. [NOTE: Some conservative scholars believe that date can be pushed back several hundred years and still be in keeping with the biblical chronologies.] Chinese records date to around 1600 B.C. Only legend exists from before that time (Bender, 2014). Chinese history, therefore, cannot be said to contradict the biblical model. No Sumerian king before Enmebaragesi (2700 B.C.) has been verified by archaeology (Kuiper, 2011, p. 48), though it is thought that the Sumerian language is “the oldest written language in existence,” dating back to about 3100 B.C. (Kuiper, p. 42). That date is suspect, however. According to the Encyclopaedia Britannica, as “the chronology of the first half of the third millennium is largely a matter for the intuition of the individual author. Carbon-14 dates are at present too few and far between to be given undue weight. Consequently, the turn of the fourth to third millennium is to be accepted, with due caution and reservations, as the date of the…invention of writing” (Kuiper, p. 47, emp. added).

While some scholars have dated the commencement of the first Egyptian dynasty at 5700 B.C. (long before the typical date given by creationists for the Flood), archaeologists admit that no written record actually exists from before about 3100 B.C. (and even that estimate cannot be known conclusively). While the chronology of later events than that date can often be somewhat speculative and subjective in many cases, anything dated prior to that date relies almost exclusively on tree-ring dating (which, again, could be completely erroneous due to the Flood), pottery comparison (which is laden with speculative assumptions; cf. Brantley, 1993), or radiocarbon dating—all methods influenced by evolutionary presuppositions and given to subjectivity (cf. Major, 1993). Egyptian chronology is far from being conclusively known, even though many modern Egyptologists have come to an agreement of 3100 B.C. being the date of the First Dynasty of Egypt (with Narmer depicted on the Narmer Palette, being regarded as having unified Egypt). However, the general agreement was 5000 B.C. before the 20^th century, and it may change again. Some scholars, though considered by many in the archaeological community to be fringe individuals, believe that the Egyptian chronology can be collapsed another 300-600 years, bringing the Egyptian civilization commencement down to a date as recent as 2500 B.C.—still a couple of centuries before the typical young Earth Flood model (Bass, 2003). Regardless, taking into account the potential small gaps in the biblical chronologies (Lyons, 2002) easily vindicates the Flood model. [NOTE: See Bass, 2003 for an in depth discussion of Egyptian chronology and the biblical model.]

Notable is the fact that archaeology testifies through many lines of evidence that humanity appeared suddenly in history sometime around 3000 B.C. (i.e., around the time of the Flood). The civilizations were fully developed and modernized when they first appeared in history. It’s as though, like the Cambrian Explosion in the geologic column (discussed below), the civilizations were not the result of a slow, gradual evolution from ape-like humans dragging their knuckles on the ground, grunting, and carrying clubs; rather, they were comprised of individuals that were already intelligent from the onset, though who had not yet banded together to form civilizations capable of recording history for the future. The Flood had only just occurred. As with the Cambrian Explosion, this explosion of ancient history is difficult for evolutionists to explain.

Not so for the Creation model, however, which predicts just such a thing occurring. Relatively soon after the Flood, the incident at the Tower of Babel occurred (Genesis 11; Miller, 2002). Humans were already intelligent and relatively technologically capable at this time—able to construct massive boats and towers. Apparently, humanity wanted to cluster into a single, super-civilization instead of spreading out and filling the Earth as God had commanded (Genesis 9:1). So God created the different languages of the Earth, forcing humanity to divide into similar language groups and disperse throughout the Earth. Once the various groups spread out, it was only a matter of time before those groups began laying down roots, forming the ancient civilizations, and recording history.

Attacking the Flood

Animals to Australia?

Nye spent an extensive amount of time attacking the biblical Flood account. For example, he argued that kangaroos and other Australian animals could not have traveled from the Ark on Ararat to Australia, since no land bridge exists and no evidence of a past land bridge exists. Ironically, this is as much a problem for the evolutionary model as it is for the Creation model. However, as with the evolutionary model, the Creation model has no problem with the concept of Pangaea—the idea that all of today’s continents were once together in one massive continent. Such a concept harmonizes well with the description of God’s activities given in Genesis 1:9. As is often the case, the problem to creationists comes from the evolutionary assumption of uniformitarianism. While the continents are spreading on the order of centimeters per year today, if the Flood occurred, and “all the fountains of the great deep were opened” (Genesis 7:11), surely including volcanic and significant tectonic activity, the separation rate could certainly have been much quicker for many years. Immediately after the Flood, Australia, Antarctica, and India could have been much closer together, in keeping with Pangaea models, allowing migration to Australia before the continents were too far apart. Recent research by Yale University, which indicates that continental drift was once three times faster than it is today, provides support for this theory (Mitchell, et al., 2010; Thomas, 2010). The researchers concluded, “These observations suggest that either nonuniformitarian plate tectonics or an episode of rapid true polar wander occurred during the Cambrian ‘explosion’ of animal life” (p. 755, emp. added). The research not only supports the Flood model prediction about rapid continental drift in the past, but it highlights that the accelerated drift occurred in the same time period as the catastrophic event that caused the Cambrian explosion.

Other possibilities are also available which vindicate the biblical model. For example, according to the Flood model, as mentioned earlier, a great ice age commenced after the Flood, possibly allowing migration across frozen channels. It is also likely that for some time, remnants of the great forests of the pre-Flood era would have been floating on the receding waters of the Earth until their decay was completed. As is the case from localized floods today, small “land masses” composed of trees and debris can be found floating on the water (e.g., traveling down rivers). Who’s to say that such mini-, mobile “continents,” with various animals along for the ride, would not have been common immediately following the Flood? A radically different terrestrial environment, with species clamoring to find food on the newly disheveled Earth, could have caused accelerated dispersal of the Ark’s population from Ararat to Australia before Australia had moved too far from the mainland. It is also possible, based on the biblical model, that divine guidance was involved in the dispersal, similar to the divine guidance alluded to in Genesis 6:20, when God gathered the animals to Noah before the Flood. If God could miraculously bring the many, various animals to the Ark before the Flood, could He not also have dispersed them wherever He chose after the Flood?

11 New Species Each Day?

Nye argued that there are some 16,000,000 species on the planet today, and that if there was a Flood only 4,000 years ago, and only 7,000 representative species on the Ark to start with, there would have to have been 11 new species evolving every day over the last 4,000 years since the Flood. [NOTE: The Creation/Flood model proposes that not all modern species were on the Ark, since the word “kind” in the Bible (e.g., Genesis 6:20) is not equivalent to “species,” but might be closer to the modern taxonomic group, “family.” On the Ark, therefore, there would have been representative species (the biblical word, “kind”) of, for example, the “dog kind,” equipped with the genetic capability to produce all other species within that kind (e.g., coyotes, foxes, wolves, domestic dogs, etc.; See Thomas, 2012 and Ahlfort, 2011 for discussion on the origin of modern canines). Speciation (i.e., the appearance of new species) would have occurred through inter-breeding and microevolution (i.e., evolution involving only minor changes within kinds, such as beak size and color changes, staying within narrow boundaries; as opposed to macroevolution/Darwinian evolution, an unobserved phenomenon which involves change across phylogenic boundaries between kinds). Though the original number of “kinds” was much smaller than the modern taxonomic term “species,” it is true that whatever the number of kinds were on the Ark, they were also the only species of those kinds in existence at the time. All other species today had to descend from those original species. It is unclear if 7,000 is a good estimate of the number of those proto-species, but creationists are currently studying the matter (e.g., Ham, 2012).] Nye said:

So you’d go out into your yard. You wouldn’t just find a different bird: a new bird. You’d find a different kind of bird. A whole new species of bird, every day…. This would be enormous news. I mean, the last 4,000 years? People would have seen these changes among us…. We see no evidence of that. There’s no evidence of these species.

First, again, we have to question where he is getting his information concerning 16,000,000 species. Some studies have species counts as low as 3,000,000 (Zimmer, 2011). A 2011 projected estimate of species on the planet published by Public Library of Science Biology, including the Plantae, Fungi, Protozoa, Chromista, Animalia, Archaea, and Bacteria Kingdoms (i.e., including beetles and bacteria, which Nye implied were not in his estimate), is 10,960,000 (Mora, et al., 2011), not 16,000,000. [NOTE: This is an estimate, which fluctuates based on those variables being considered by the researchers. The scientific community does not agree on how many species may exist and many competing methods of calculating those estimates are available. The actual catalogued number of living species on the Earth was only 1,438,769, as of 2011 (Mora, et al.).]

All marine creatures, of course, though they are included in the 10,960,000 estimate, were not on the Ark, and their microevolution would have continued without being filtered by the animal kinds brought on the Ark. That brings the estimate down to 8,750,000 species in existence today that came from the creatures on the Ark, based on Mora and his colleagues’ study. More could most certainly be removed, considering that the estimated number of those creatures designated as “ocean dwelling” species in the study did not include other creatures that can survive in water (e.g., amphibians), but are not defined as “ocean dwelling” in the study (“WoRMS Taxon Tree,” 2014). Such creatures would not have necessarily been on the Ark.

The biblical text also does not mention Noah carrying plants onto the Ark to save them from destruction (except those that the animals and Noah and his family ate, Genesis 6:21), since they are not “flesh” (Genesis 6:19). Removing plants from the list of species brings our count down to 8,435,400, based on the study of Mora and his colleagues.

Incidentally, while Nye insinuated that the plants of the Earth would have died in the Flood, and it is certainly true that many would have, it is also true that (1) Noah could have brought seeds on the Ark; and (2) most of the world’s vegetation is underwater, and survives well in that environment. Scientists estimate that 50% to 85% of Earth’s oxygen comes from ocean plants (“How Much Do Oceans Add…?” 2013). Further, many dead plants (with their seeds intact) would have been floating in piles on the surface of the Flood waters. It is also true that studies show that seeds can survive submersion in salt water for extended periods of time (Howe, 1968). Ironically, Darwin, himself, verified several ways in which seeds can survive and be viable after extended travel in and on salt water (Darwin, 1979, pp. 352-359). [See Wright, 2012 for an in depth discussion of plant survival in the Flood, including the effect of salinity on seeds, as well as the discussion above about the survival of trees during flooding.]

It is also certain that the number of current species on the planet could be significantly reduced due to the inevitability of synonymous species (e.g., two names given to the same species—creatures originally thought to be two distinct species that are now considered one and the same, or one creature whose name has changed over time and yet both names have been counted). Mora and his colleagues noted this weakness in species estimates, explaining that “[a] survey of 2,938 taxonomists with expertise across all major domains of life…revealed that synonyms are a major problem at the species level” (2011). They believe that 17.9% of species could be synonyms, and possibly much more (as much as 46.6%). The World Register of Marine Species documents that 44.5% of all accepted marine species are synonyms (“World Register of Marine Species,” 2014). If we help Nye by accepting the smaller average amount given by Mora, et al., that only 17.9% of the remaining species are indeed synonyms, that would take 8,435,400 species down to 6,869,150 species on the Earth today and 6,862,000 new species since the Flood, based on the supposition that there were 7,000 kinds on the Ark. Such an estimate is a far cry from Nye’s estimated 16,000,000. Further, if the Flood was 4,500 years ago (which is closer to our estimate), that would bring Nye’s total from 11 new species per day down to 4 (and some estimates push the Flood back further than 5,000 years ago). If there are indeed fewer species than the researchers’ projections, more synonyms, more years since the Flood, more species that could survive outside of the Ark, and more representative kinds on the Ark, this number decreases even more. [NOTE: Though Nye did not mention it, the Creation model must also account for species that have descended from the original proto-species, but that are now extinct. It is unknown how many extinct species are in the fossil record (Evolutionists assume there will be billions because of the need for transitional creatures under the evolutionary model. That prediction has been shown to be false thus far.). It is estimated from the fossil record that “one species per million species per year” goes extinct (“The Current Mass Extinction,” 2001). If all 7,000,000 current “land” species had been in existence since the Flood (which would not have been the case), that would only add 31,500 extinct species to the count, which is negligible in our estimates. Creationist Kurt Wise, whose Ph.D. in Geology is from Harvard University, cites research indicating that at least 75% of the 250,000 species identified in the fossil record are still living, meaning that, at most, 62,500 extinct species exist in the fossil record, and likely, far less (Wise, 2009). Some of those would also be marine species and thus not added to our count. Regardless, again, this number is negligible in our calculations. Keep in mind also that much of the fossil record represents species that were in existence at the time of the Flood and before (i.e., that were killed in the Flood), but that would not have necessarily developed since the Flood. So the actual number of species that have evolved since the Flood but have gone extinct is likely much smaller.]

Further consider the fact that about half of the remaining species are insects (Hamilton, et al., 2010), including the many beetles Nye mentioned, many of which are known to reproduce quickly. Flies (Drosophila melanogaster), for example, can lay as many as 100 eggs each day, and up to 2,000 eggs in their lifetimes (Reeve and Black, 2001, p. 157). Bacteria, also included in the list of species, can reproduce even quicker. According to the American Society for Microbiology, in only 10 hours, one bacterium can propagate through binary fusion and produce ten billion bacteria (“Microbial Reproduction,” 2012). Rapid reproductive rates make the potential for rapid microevolutionary speciation more plausible, especially in the centuries immediately following the Flood. The proto-species on the Ark would have likely been chosen by God due to their immense genetic variability, which would have lent itself to rapid speciation. The speciation rate would have gradually been hampered through the localization of species communities, creating what evolutionists call niche conservatism (cf. Holt and Gomulkiewicz, 1997; Wiens, et al., 2010). [NOTE: It is also possible that many insects, other invertebrates (which comprise “95 to 99 percent of the planet’s animal species” [“Meet Our Animals…,” 2014]), fungi, protozoa, and bacteria species could survive outside of the Ark and therefore, could be removed  from the list—decreasing the number of species on the Mora, et al. list by as much as 4,500,000.]

Also according to the Creation model, human lifespans were higher for several centuries following the Flood, and as with the pre-Flood era, the childbearing age ranges appear to have been longer (e.g., Genesis 11:10). The genealogies of Genesis 11 show an exponential decay rate in life spans in the centuries immediately following the Flood, while the genealogies of Genesis 5 show consistently high life spans before the Flood. This seems to indicate that the Flood dramatically changed the Earth in a way that affected its population’s health (2 Peter 3:6 describes the pre-Flood world, “the world that then existed,” as having “perished”). If the health, reproductive capacity, and lifespans of animals on Earth paralleled those of humans—and it is reasonable to assume that they did for the same reasons—then animal productivity would have also been higher before the Flood and immediately after the Flood, allowing for quicker microevolution (i.e., quicker speciation). Many new species were likely coming about throughout the world every day for centuries after the Flood, though that rate could have slowed significantly today. [NOTE: See Woodmorappe, 1996, pp. 180-213  and Criswell, 2009 for thorough discussions of the plausibility of rapid, post-Flood speciation. See also Thomas, 2011 for a discussion of recent research involving rapidly changing bird species.]

Bottom line: it is not far-fetched to argue that there could have been (and could be) multiple new species appearing around the world every day after the Flood, especially among the smaller creatures on the planet that reproduce quicker. In fact, Science magazine ran an article in 1988 highlighting the correlation between smaller sized creatures being represented by more species on Earth, which supports this hypothesis (May). As opposed to Nye’s claim, we simply would not tend to notice the introduction of many of these new species, since they would be smaller life forms. The Earth is a big place, with many things proceeding unnoticed by mankind. If, for example, four new species appear every day somewhere on (or in) this enormous planet, with a volume of 1,083,210,000,000 cubic kilometers (“Earth Fact Sheet,” 2013), at least three of the four would likely be tiny: not birds or fish as Nye suggested. The odds that any of them would happen to be in my yard, much less that I would notice them, are basically zero. And yet in spite of that, scientists are still consistently documenting 15,000 new species each year—that’s an average of 41 new species found every day (Zimmer, 2011). While many of those are certainly already existing species that scientists are simply discovering and documenting, and are not newly evolved species, who’s to say how many of them are not also newly evolved species (in the microevolutionary sense)? Either way, those species are new to us, they are being noticed, and many are making the news somewhere in the world, Mr. Nye, apparently 41 of them every day—not 11.

Amateur Ship Builders?

Nye was critical of the idea that Noah and his family, without any training as ship-builders, could build such a massive, wooden ship. It is possible (though highly unlikely) that no boat had ever been built before the Ark, since the land was possibly all one continent. It is also possible, however, that in approximately 2,000 years of history from Creation to the Flood, ships could have been built. Human lifespans consistently exceeded 900 years (Genesis 5) and humans likely had higher intelligence [since, unlike modern bodies, their bodies (and brains) were born closer to the perfect Creation and would have been much less decayed and corrupted genetically by disease and mutation]. For all we know, there could have been explorers building ships that could float from “West Pangaea” all the way around the globe to “East Pangaea.” There could have also been boats built to travel across lakes or down rivers, like the Pishon, Gihon, Hiddekel, and Euphrates rivers (Genesis 2:10-14). The Creation model does not claim that humans have become progressively “higher” and more intelligent—slowly evolving from ape-like intelligence to modern human intelligence. In fact, though technology has progressed in many ways over the past few centuries, the opposite would be the case with regard to mental capability due to several millennia of genetic entropy. Humans certainly could have built ships. If anyone on the planet in Noah’s day knew how, there is absolutely no reason to assume that Noah would not have hired him to help. It is a plausible conjecture, in fact, to assume that Noah hired many individuals to help build the Ark, and used the opportunity to preach to them as they worked (2 Peter 2:5), though to no avail (1 Peter 3:20). [NOTE: Extensive evidence exists proving that ancient man was capable of engineering feats that modern man cannot even yet reproduce (Landis, 2012).]

Further, consider the fact that Noah was 600 years old when the Flood came—ample opportunity to learn carpentry (Genesis 7:6). If we assume God did not tell Noah to study ship-building before He told him to build the Ark (although in that period of Bible history, it is clear that God spoke to family patriarchs, Hebrews 1:1, e.g., Adam, Job, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and of course, Noah, and we are not necessarily told about every instance of His communication with them), Noah still would have had as much as 120 years to hone his ship-making abilities before the Flood (Genesis 6:3)—much more time to perfect his skills than any shipwright today, and in fact, more time than any shipwright can even be alive today.

Of course, beyond these reasonable explanations, it is probable that God gave more explicit guidance to Noah concerning the design and construction of the Ark beyond what the text says. Who would be better to serve under as an apprentice than the omniscient Master Builder and Chief Engineer of the Universe, Who commanded Noah to build the Ark in the first place?

Not Enough Space on the Ark?

Nye argued that the National Zoo exhibits only 400 species, and yet those animals take up 163 acres. He believes that it is unreasonable to say that the Ark was capable of holding 14,000 animals in such a small place. The Ark, however, was not built as an attractive, spacious display of animals for the public, but was, rather, a basic shelter to protect the land creatures from the Flood. Rather than a zoo, a better modern parallel to the Ark might be the factory farm, which can house tens of thousands of animals under one roof. Many of the animals were likely juvenile (e.g., the larger sauropod dinosaurs), and many could have been in a hibernated state on the Ark, thus reducing the food and waste estimates. Creationists Whitcomb and Morris argue, based on the assumption of only a 17.5 inch cubit, that the Ark’s carrying capacity was equivalent to eight freight trains pulling sixty five standard box cars each (1961, pp. 67-68).

Creationist geologist and biologist John Woodmorappe conducted a thorough study of the feasibility of housing 16,000 animals (representatives from each of the genus taxonomic ranks; i.e., even more than would be represented if the family rank was used instead) in the Ark, taking into account the spatial requirements for food, water, waste disposal, heating, ventilation, and lighting, and found that the Ark was more than adequate in size to house the animals (1996). [NOTE: The dimensions of the Ark are given in cubits in the Bible (Genesis 6:15). Scholars document that this measurement was the length from the tip of the middle finger to the elbow—about 18-21 inches (Elwell, 1988, p. 2136). If, however, the average human being was larger in the pre-Flood era, due to healthier bodies and a more protected, greenhouse-like environment, the measurement of a cubit could have been larger. The hypothesis of larger sized life before and soon after the Flood is supported by the Bible’s references to enormous fruit (Numbers 13:23), dinosaur-like creatures (Job 40-41), and even very large humans (Genesis 6:4; Numbers 13:33; Deuteronomy 2:11,20; 3:11-13; Joshua 12:4; 13:12; 17:15; 1 Samuel 17:4,23; 1 Samuel 21:9,16-22; 22:10; 2 Samuel 21:19; 1 Chronicles 20:4-8). It could also explain the large size of ancient, fossilized humans, such as homo heidelbergensis. A 25-inch cubit versus an 18-inch cubit would more than double the volume of space within the Ark (1,518,750 cubic feet vs. 4,062,500 cubic feet).]

Was the Ark Seaworthy?

Nye gave the example of the large wooden ship, the Wyoming, which was built in 1909 and sank in 1924 due to the tendency of its wooden planks to “twist and buckle” on the heavy seas [“Wyoming (Schooner),” 2014]. He claimed that the Ark would have been subject to the same problems and therefore could not have survived the Flood, disproving the biblical account.

However, the Wyoming is in no way a parallel to the Ark. First consider that the Wyoming was equipped with six enormous masts and several sails. The torsion that would be generated from the wind filling those sails on the open seas would certainly be significant—most definitely causing twisting, buckling, and leakage. Sails, however, are used when the objective is for a boat to go somewhere. The Ark had no destination. It merely needed to float. So it would not have been equipped with sails, and the torsion problem would be significantly reduced.

Further, in response to Nye, Ham correctly, though briefly and vaguely, alluded to ancient boat-building practices, and the interlocking plank system of mortise-and-tenon joints. Such techniques were being used in the centuries immediately following the Flood on wooden ships 2,000 years ago in Northern Vietnam (Bellwood and Cameron, 2007), 2,800 years ago in Greece (Casson, 1991, pp. 28-29), 3,400 years ago in Turkey (Casson, pp. 28-29)—ironically, the very area where the Ark is thought to have rested after the Flood—and even 4,000-5,000 years ago in Egypt on massive, 150-foot wooden ships (O’Connor and Adams, 2001, pp. 44-45; Ward, 2001, p. 45). Mortise and tenon joints help prevent “the frame from twisting and makes it firmer, giving it added strength” (“Mortise and Tenon Joints,” 2009).

Further, it is notable that God was very specific in articulating to Noah the kind of wood he was to use. He did not give a generic statement like, “Build a wooden boat,” and God did not tell Noah to use terebinth, green poplar, almond, palm, willow, olive, fig, pomegranate, or chestnut wood, though all of these types of trees were clearly known, having been mentioned by Moses in his other inspired writings (cf. Genesis 13:18; 30:37; Exodus 15:27; Leviticus 23:40; Deuteronomy 6:11; 8:8; etc.). Instead, God specifically commanded “gopher wood.” No one knows what “gopher wood” was, and it is very possible that there is no modern equivalent, since many ancient species are extinct and since many species since the Flood would have gone through microevolutionary changes (especially degenerative evolution). The use of this type of wood was clearly significant to God, its characteristics being conducive to such an engineering feat.

Consider also that the Wyoming, in spite of its problems, stayed afloat for 15 years, while the Ark only needed to float for about one year. Even if water did by-pass the pitch that was used to seal the cracks of the ship (Genesis 6:14; which, incidentally, could have been a special sealant well-capable of preventing any leaking that might occur in such a short time), with some sort of primitive pump on board the Ark, or a system to catch any of the fresh, pre-Flood era rainwater that seeped in for drinking purposes (possibly lessening the necessary water storage space), the problem disappears. [NOTE: It is also notable that Genesis 7:16 indicates that God, Himself, sealed the Ark after its passengers boarded. God certainly would have known how to seal a vessel in a way that would prohibit leakage.]

Bottom line: nothing Mr. Nye said disproves the seaworthiness of the Ark. The Ark was a large, barge-like vessel with the correct dimensions to suit its purposes, capable of carrying its crew and supplies and of staying afloat, which is all it needed to do and all it was designed to do. Interestingly, many of the latest, largest barges have begun using a dimension ratio very close to that of the Ark. Modern super jumbo barges have a length to width ratio of 290:50, while the Ark had a ratio of 300:50 (“Barges and Towboats,” 2014). [NOTE: Consider also the S.S. Jeremiah O’Brien, a ship constructed in the 1940’s for transportation of supplies during World War II. Its dimension ratio was 441:57, compared to the Ark’s 450:75 (if one cubit equals 18 inches) (“SS Jeremiah O’Brien,” 2013).] The Chief Engineer would certainly have known what design would be necessary and effective to suit His purposes.

Why Aren’t There Grand Canyons Everywhere?

Nye argued that if the Flood created the Grand Canyon, why aren’t there other Grand Canyons all over the place? In response, first, it may be the case that the Grand Canyon was not formed by the Flood at all, but some other localized catastrophic event from the past. It is very likely, however, that the Flood was the cause. Second, there are, in fact, numerous canyons and gorges spread out all over the world. Wikipedia lists 99 on land, though the list is in no way comprehensive (“Canyon,” 2014).

Keep in mind, however, that many more canyons may not be on land. According to the United States Geological Survey, 70% of the Earth is covered in water, with 96.5% of all of Earth’s water being in the oceans (“How Much Water Is There…?,” 2013). Many, perhaps most, of the Earth’s Flood canyons and gorges are in the oceans, where they were at one time above water, but have since (due to tectonic activity, glacier melting, etc.) been covered with ocean water.

That said, should there be even more? Consider: do you remember going into your backyard as a kid and playing with the water hose? After “flooding” portions of the yard with water, did you notice miniature “canyons”—small cracks in the dirt where the water carved its way through the yard? Were they “all over the place”? No. Did they not tend to be located only in those “arid” areas of the yard where there was more dirt and less grass, whose root systems would help prevent erosion and “canyon” formation? On a large scale, the southwest United States is very much such a place. Bottom line: canyons only form in those areas that are conducive to canyon creation. They will only be “everywhere” if there are conditions “everywhere” for them to form—and there are not.

Animals were Herbivores before the Flood?

According to Genesis 1:29-30, it seems that God initially created land creatures, including birds and creeping things, to be herbivores in the beginning (although other interpretations may be possible). Nye scoffed at such an idea by highlighting the teeth of lions and their apparent carnivorous design. Ham correctly responded by highlighting the similar teeth of bears—which frequently eat vegetation. Such examples could be multiplied indefinitely, highlighting the fact that appearances can be deceiving when those appearances are used to make assumptions about the behavior or fitness of a creature. One would expect a wooly mammoth with its thick fur to be well suited for cold environments, while not being suited for warm habitats. Yet lions and tigers with their thick fur are not in Greenland or Antarctica, but rather, are oftentimes thriving in the hot, humid jungles close to the equator.

Not until Noah and his family exited the Ark are we explicitly told that God’s dietary intentions for various creatures changed. In Genesis 9:3, God personally authorized a carnivorous diet for humans, and it is possible that the same change was intended for animals, whose very nature appears to have changed after the Flood (Genesis 9:2—“And the fear of you and the dread of you shall be on every beast of the Earth, on every bird of the air, on all that move on the Earth, and on all the fish of the sea.”). Before the Flood, God’s rationale for destroying the Earth is discussed. Genesis 6:3 says that “all flesh had corrupted their way on the Earth,” and the same Hebrew words for “all flesh” are used throughout the Flood context, clearly indicating that the phrase is referring to all living land creatures—man and animals (6:13,17,19; 7:15,16,21; 8:17; 9:11,15,16,17). This may indicate that animals had been corrupted from the way God had initially planned for them and had already become carnivorous by the Flood. Either way, Nye’s insinuations are just that—not conclusive evidence against the Creation model. [NOTE: See Thompson, 2001 for further discussion.]

Nye’s Challenges to Creationists

The Creation Model Can’t Predict Anything?

According to Nye, evolutionists can use their model to predict things that can be either verified or invalidated through scientific investigation. [NOTE: Nye discussed the origin of sexuality at length, claiming that evolution predicted the emergence of sexual from asexual reproduction. In actuality, the origin of sexual reproduction is one of the glaring deficiencies of evolutionary theory. See Thompson and Harrub, 2002b for an extensive discussion on evolution and the origin of sexuality.]  As an example, he discussed Tiktaalik—according to evolutionists, a missing, evolutionary link between fish and land-dwellers. [NOTE: See Morris and Sherwin, 2010, pp. 65-67,149 for a conclusive refutation of Tiktaalik’s alleged transitional status.] Such missing links should indeed exist if the evolutionary model is true, and yet Darwin, himself, admitted in The Origin of Species that

the number of intermediate varieties [i.e., transitional, “missing link” fossils—JM], which have formerly existed, [must] be truly enormous…. Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and serious objection which can be argued against this theory [i.e., the theory of evolution—JM]. The explanation lies, I believe, in the extreme imperfection of the geological record (1956, pp. 292-293, emp. added).

He hoped time would help reveal the fossils that would validate his theory. But even after 100 years of further search for tran          sitional fossils, famous Harvard paleontologist Stephen J. Gould admitted, “The history of most fossil species includes…features particularly inconsistent with gradualism…[like] sudden appearance—in any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and ‘fully formed’” (1977, 86[5]:14). According to Gould, there is no evidence of gradual evolution, since there are no transitional creatures. Species are fully formed when they first appear in the record.

The evidence for evolution in the fossil record, that evolutionists can even attempt to argue is in favor of evolution, is slim. So much so that evolutionary Earth scientist Phillip Donoghue from the University of Bristol said, “The origin of animals is almost as much a mystery as the origin of life itself” (2007, 445[7124]:155). The evidence in the fossil record for evolution is so sparse that evolutionist Mark Ridley admitted, “[N]o real evolutionist, whether gradualist or punctuationist, uses the fossil record as evidence in favor of the theory of evolution as opposed to special creation” (1981, 90:832, emp. added).

The Cambrian Explosion, for example, continues to plague evolutionists, since it simply does not fit the evolutionary model. In the Cambrian strata of the geologic column several life forms suddenly appear without any evolutionary history, as though they were created rather than evolved. No transitional fossils exist connecting single-celled organisms with the explosion of fully-formed creatures in the Cambrian strata. In the words of famous evolutionary biologist of Oxford University, Richard Dawkins:

The Cambrian strata of rocks, vintage about 600 million years [evolutionists are now dating the beginning of the Cambrian at about 530 million years], are the oldest in which we find most of the major invertebrate groups. And we find many of them already in an advanced state of evolution, the very first time they appear. It is as though they were just planted there, without any evolutionary history. Needless to say, this appearance of sudden planting has delighted creationists (1986, p. 229, bracketed comment in orig., emp. added).

Atheistic evolutionist Blair Scott, Communications Director of American Atheists, Inc., admitted in the Butt-Scott Debate concerning the Earth, “Now if I take the Cambrian Explosion, on its own, the logical conclusion I would draw is, ‘Wow! It was created’” (2011). Donoghue conceded, “[T]he degree to which animal evolutionary history extends beyond the Cambrian is a controversy rich in speculation but sparse in evidence” (p. 155, emp. added). ScienceDaily, reporting on research at the University of Texas at Austin, said, “This rapid diversification, known as the Cambrian explosion, puzzled Charles Darwin and remains one of the biggest questions in animal evolution to this day. Very few fossils exist of organisms that could be the Precambrian ancestors of bilateral animals, and even those are highly controversial” (“University of Texas at Austin,” 2008, emp. added). Evolutionary biologists D. Osorio, J.P. Bacon, and P.M. Whitington, writing in American Scientist, explained:

As Darwin noted in the Origin of Species, the abrupt emergence of arthropods in the fossil record during the Cambrian presents a problem for evolutionary biology. There are no obvious simpler or intermediate forms—either living or in the fossil record—that show convincingly how modern arthropods evolved from worm-like ancestors. Consequently there has been a wealth of speculation and contention about relationships between the arthropod lineages (1997, emp. added).

In truth, evolution predicts an evolutionary history in the fossil record, and the record falsifies that prediction.

Regardless, in spite of the complete failure of evolutionists in finding missing links, Nye erroneously argues that evolution predicts transitional fossils and can allegedly predict where to find them, in this case Tiktaalik being found in a swamp in Canada. [NOTE: We would be curious to hear what other such predictions have actually yielded results, in his opinion, considering not one fossil has been found which has conclusively proven to be transitional.] Nye said, “They made a prediction that this animal would be found, and it was found. So far, Mr. Ham and his world view, the…Creation model, does not have this capability. It cannot make predictions and show results…. The big thing I want from you, Mr. Ham, is can you come up with something that you can predict? Do you have a Creation model that predicts something that will happen in nature?” Ironically, the Creation model predicts that no such transitional fossils will be found when examining the fossil record, and that engaging in the pursuit of such fossils is foolish and a waste of valuable scientific capital. When creationists look at the fossil record, we expect to find fully functional, distinct species when they first appear in the fossil record, and that is precisely what we find—including the example of Tiktaalik.

An exhaustive list of predictions which can be made based on the Creation model would fill volumes, but we intentionally used the words “predict” and “prediction” regarding creationist positions throughout this article up to this point to highlight the fact that the Creation model can make many predictions. The following are a few sample predictions from the Creation model, understanding, of course, that not all creationists are in agreement with any one model:

• The Creation model predicts that matter and energy will not spontaneously generate, nor can it last forever (i.e., the Universe cannot pop into existence or be eternal), and the evidence from science has verified that truth, though naturalistic evolution must erroneously predict the possibility of one or the other (Miller, 2013b).
• The Creation model predicts that life cannot spontaneously arise in nature from non-life, and the evidence from science has verified that truth, though naturalistic evolution must erroneously predict that abiogenesis can occur (Miller, 2012b).
• The Creation model predicts that, since the Universe was designed, it will be replete with evidences of design. Proofs of complexity, planning, intent, and purpose will be seen everywhere, and nature bears this truth out (see the various Design topics under the category, “Existence of God,” at www.apologeticspress.org).
• The Creation model predicts that the Universe will appear older than it is, since God created it to be fully functional from the beginning. Daughter elements would have been in existence from the beginning, as well as mature light and tree rings (Lyons, 2011; Miller, 2011a).
• The Creation model predicts that similar designs will be found in various living things since all life shares a common Designer and since, from an engineering design perspective, optimal designs would be expected to be repeated in creatures that utilize similar habitats, have similar diets, etc. (Miller, 2014b). This prediction has proven to be valid. Evolutionists call such similar structures “homologous structures,” although they interpret the evidence as being proof of a common ancestor, rather than common Designer.
• The Creation model predicts that life will produce according to its kind, in keeping with Genesis one (God having initially created each of the original proto-species). Microevolution will occur, but evolution across phylogenic boundaries (i.e., macroevolution) will not. The evidence verifies that prediction (Miller, 2014c; Butt, 2008).
• The Creation model predicts that life forms will appear fully formed and functional in the fossil record when they appear, without an evolutionary history linking them to a single-celled organism. The fossil record verifies this prediction (see the Cambrian Explosion discussion above, as well as Thompson and Harrub, 2003b, pp. 1-98).
• The Creation model predicts that, since the Flood actually occurred, archaeology and history will provide ancient stories from independent civilizations around the world that bear witness to its occurrence, although the details of the stories will likely be different, having been corrupted over time (with the exception of the divinely guided record). The evidence verifies that prediction (Lyons and Butt, 2003).
• The Creation model predicts that, because the incident at Babel actually occurred (Genesis 11), archaeology could uncover evidence that ancient humans were capable of constructing tower-like structures. Large, ancient, tower-like structures in the Mesopotamian region, as well as elsewhere, have been discovered, including a well-preserved structure in Ur called a ziggurat. Abraham was said to have lived in Ur relatively shortly after the Babel incident (Genesis 11:28-31). The structure was thought to have been constructed near the end of the third millennium B.C. (“Ziggurats,” 2014). [NOTE: Consider also the ancient pyramids of Egypt.]
• The Creation model predicts that every organ on the human body will be shown to have a purpose, either now or in humanity’s ancient past. There will be no such thing as a vestige of our past “evolutionary history” (i.e., a vestigial organ) that has no purpose today. The latest evidence continues to verify that prediction (Bergman, 2000; Houts, 2011; Lyons, 2008; DeWitt, 2008).
• The Creation model predicts that there will be no conclusive evidence of civilizations that began before the Flood and continued to exist through and after the Flood (i.e., all nations either ended abruptly at the Flood or appeared after the Flood). As was discussed earlier, the verifiable evidences for the ancient civilizations of Sumer, China, and Egypt, for example, coincide with the biblical model’s time frame.
• The Creation model predicts that the dry land might have initially been in the form of one landmass (Genesis 1:9) that was broken up and rapidly divided (likely during and after the Flood). Evidence exists that such a landmass may have existed, and it is generally called Pangaea.
• The Creation model predicts that the Flood would have caused unusual phenomena for a brief period of time. Instead of constant nuclear decay rates, continental drift, tree ring growth, and ice core formations, for example, something akin to exponential decay rates might have been involved. [NOTE: The exponential decay pattern of life spans after the Flood (Genesis 11) supply biblical evidence for this hypothesis.] As has been discussed earlier, evidence supports such a contention.
• The Creation model predicts that humans and dinosaurs once lived contemporaneously and various lines of evidence verify that truth, including ancient drawings, stories, and figurines (Lyons and Butt, 2008).
• The Creation model predicts that dinosaurs roamed the Earth, not 65 million years ago, but in the not-too-distant past, and several lines of evidence verify that truth. Besides the evidences for the co-existence of humans and dinosaurs, there have been recent discoveries of soft dinosaur tissues which could not have survived for 65 million years (Lyons and Butt, 2008).
• The Creation model predicts that there will be evidences that the geologic column was formed rapidly through catastrophic activity, rather than over eons through uniformitarian processes, and such evidence is available and increasing in volume (cf. Morris, 2011; Thompson, 2002, pp. 224-230).
• The Creation model predicts that, since the Earth is relatively young, petrification can happen rapidly, rather than over eons of time, and recent evidence verifies that prediction (e.g., Akahane, et al., 2004).
• The Creation model predicts that smaller, less maneuverable, but not necessarily less complex, creatures will be found lower in the geologic column, and the evidence verifies that truth (e.g., the trilobite, cf. Thompson and Harrub, 2002a).
• The Creation model predicts that, since the Bible is inspired of God, science will verify its scientific claims. Science has consistently done so [e.g., the significance of the eighth day in performing minor surgery under the Law of Moses (Leviticus 12:3; Thompson, 1993a); the importance of proper waste disposal (Deuteronomy 23:12-13; Wise, 2003); the existence of oceanic recesses or trenches (Job 38:16; Thompson, 1993b); the existence of scientific laws (Job 38:33; Miller, 2012c), including the First and Second Laws of Thermodynamics (Psalm 102:25-27; Genesis 2:1-2; Exodus 20:11; Miller, 2012b) and the Law of Causality (Hebrews 3:4; Miller, 2011b); and the significance of blood in sustaining life (Leviticus 17:14; Butt, 2007, pp. 107-108)].
• The Creation model predicts that the Earth might have once been a tropical environment, even at the poles. If it is inferred that it did not rain on the Earth for hundreds of years until the Flood, but instead was watered with dew from the ground (Genesis 2:5-6), if humans had extremely long lifespans before the Flood (Genesis 5), and if the Earth was filled with herbivorous creatures (Genesis 1:29-30) before the Flood, we know the Earth was significantly different than it is now (2 Peter 3:5-6; decaying genealogies of Genesis 11). [NOTE: Some Creation scientists infer from Genesis 1:6-8 that some form of water canopy surrounded the Earth until the Flood, creating a greenhouse-like, lush, protected environment across the entire Earth and holding some of the Flood waters (e.g., Morris, 2014; Vardiman, 2003).] Recent discoveries indicate that Antarctica was “once covered in palm trees.” According to researchers, “tropical vegetation, including palms and relatives of today’s tropical Baobab trees” once grew “on the continent’s now frozen coasts” (“Antarctica Once Covered…,” 2012). Recent discoveries also indicate that Greenland was once green. ScienceDaily, reporting on research at the University of Copenhagen, said:

Ancient Greenland was green. New Danish research has shown that it was covered in conifer forest and had a relatively mild climate. The research is painting a picture which is overturning all previous assumptions about biological life and the climate in Greenland (“Fossil DNA Proves Greenland Once Had Lush Forests…,” 2007).

Though other examples could be given, these predictions meet the challenge posed by Nye.

Are You Supposed to Just Take Our Word for It?

Nye said concerning the Bible, “So, are we supposed to take your word for English words translated over the last 30 centuries, instead of what we can observe in the Universe around us?” In response, we would say, “No.”

The evidence we have discussed thus far is proof of the Creation model from “the Universe around us,” regardless of the Bible’s teachings. Further, the Bible can be known to be from God. It should not be accepted blindly without evidence (1 Thessalonians 5:21; Acts 17:11). What is true can be known (John 8:32). The reason we know the Bible should be trusted as coming from God is because of the characteristics it has that could not have been produced by humans (Butt, 2007). Such evidence proves that the Bible is divine and should be carefully considered by historical scientists. [NOTE: The Bible can also be known to have been transmitted faithfully over the centuries (Miller, 2014; Lightfoot, 2003).]

What Would Change Your Mind?

The audience asked Mr. Ham what would change his mind about Creation. Ham responded by saying, “No one’s ever going to convince me that the Word of God is not true.” We wholeheartedly disagree with such a response, as it seems to indicate that Ham is closed-minded—as though he blindly believes the Bible regardless of the evidence. This approach, again, is not what the Bible actually endorses (cf. Acts 17:11; John 8:32; 1 John 4:11). God expects us to examine the evidence and only believe those things that can be proven to be true (1 Thessalonians 5:21). Jesus even told His critics not to believe in Him if His evidence was insufficient to prove His claims (John 10:37-38; cf. Miller, 2012).

While it is true that the evidence harmonizes perfectly with the Creation model, a true biblical creationist remains open-minded towards all future evidence. If evidence could be presented which cannot be harmonized with the Bible and its Creation model, we would “change our minds.” If, for example, a case of spontaneous generation or the eternality of matter, the spontaneous generation of life, the spontaneous generation of genetic information, the spontaneous generation of complex, functional design, an organ which can be known to have never served any useful purpose for humans, proof that Jesus never lived or the resurrection never happened, a prophecy of the Bible proved to be wrong, a historical or geographical error were found in the Bible, or a legitimate contradiction in the Bible were found, we would readily change our minds.

Nye responded to the same audience question by stating the following:

We would just need one piece of evidence. We would need the fossil that swam from one layer to another. We would need evidence that the Universe is not expanding. We would need evidence that the stars appear to be far away, but they’re not. We would need evidence that rock layers can somehow form in just 4,000 years instead of the extraordinary am-. We would need evidence that somehow you can reset atomic clocks and keep neutrons from becoming protons. Bring on any of those things and you would change me immediately.

The fossil challenge was answered earlier. Evidence that the Universe is not expanding in the way the Big Bang postulates has been provided by astrophysicist Halton Arp (Thompson and Harrub, 2003a; although the creationist does not really have a problem with the idea that the Universe might be expanding—only with the idea that it was originally all crammed into a cosmic egg that exploded). Creationists generally agree that the stars are as far away as they appear, as it has no bearing on the Creation model. Evidence that the rock layers could be formed quickly has been provided elsewhere as well (Morris, 2011). Creationists would not argue that neutrons had to be kept from becoming protons. Morris highlighted research, again, that indicates that the nuclear decay rates have been different in the past (2011). Sadly, though we have “brought on” the evidence, Mr. Nye will probably not be “changed immediately,” because truth is not generally the world’s real motivation.

Nye said, “For us in the scientific community, I remind you that when we find an idea that’s not tenable, it doesn’t work, it doesn’t fly, it doesn’t hold water, whatever idiom you’d like to embrace, we throw it away. We’re delighted…. If you can find a fossil that has swum between layers, bring it on!” Again, we have done so for years, and yet there has not been a change in the thinking of the scientific community because of its naturalistic presupposition. Though naturalism contradicts the Law of Biogenesis, the Law of Causality, the Laws of Thermodynamics, the laws of probability and genetics (Miller, 2013c), it has not been “thrown away.” The reason seems to be summed up best by Richard Lewontin, evolutionary geneticist of Harvard University:

Our willingness to accept scientific claims against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs…, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to naturalism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door (1997, p. 31, 2^nd and 4^th emp. in orig.).

Nye claims that his evolutionary colleagues and he encourage innovators and those with new thoughts, rather than consensus views. It is clear that, if that claim is true, it only applies to those innovators with new thoughts that fit into the consensus naturalistic view (Stein and Miller, 2008).

How Are Creation Scientists Using the Creation Model Today?

Ham did not respond to the challenge of how Creation scientists are using the Creation model today. In response, we would say, “Creation scientists do the same things Creation scientists always did for hundreds of years before evolution was en vogue—true science.” Long before the popularity of evolution, many of the brilliant fathers of various scientific disciplines were, in fact, creationists who approached their work from a theistic perspective (Miller, 2012d).

All areas of science involving the predictions listed above are engaged in by creationists. Creationists are also strong proponents of the booming engineering field known as biomimicry and bioinspired engineering—engineering design using Creation as the blue print to mimic—as well as cyborg research (Miller, 2011c). Recognizing that the Universe is a result of design, rather than random chance, certainly affects an engineer’s perspective in his designs. Creation geologists study the Earth and its characteristics to study the past, but do so with catastrophism and uniformitarianism on their minds, depending on the time frame being considered. Creation paleontologists study ancient humans to determine what life might have been like before and immediately after the Flood. Creation astronomers and astrophysicists study space from a creationist perspective, rather than a cosmic evolutionary, Big Bang perspective. Creation archaeologists study ancient artifacts as verification of the Bible and its chronology. Creation medical doctors study medicine and biology to help others, and engineers design with others in mind as well—a fundamental principle within the biblical model. Dozens of other examples could be cited. Bottom line: creation scientists do the same sorts of things evolutionary scientists do, except creationists do them from a biblical perspective, not wasting time, money, and manpower on erroneous naturalistic pursuits, like origin of life studies and Big Bang cosmology.

Keep in mind, however, that the bulk of scientific study has nothing to do with evolution or Creation and their predictions. Richard Dawkins admitted concerning some scientists:

They have decided, perhaps rightly, that they can do taxonomy better if they forget about evolution, and especially if they never use the concept of the ancestor in thinking about taxonomy. In the same way, a student of, say, nerve cells, might decide that he is not aided by thinking about evolution. The nerve specialist agrees that his nerve cells are the products of evolution, but he does not need to use this fact in his research. He needs to know a lot about physics and chemistry, but he believes that Darwinism is irrelevant to his day-to-day research on nerve impulses. That is a defensible position…. A physicist certainly doesn’t need Darwinism in order to do physics (1986, p. 283, emp. added).

Such examples could be multiplied.

Upon What Do You Base Your Belief?

The audience asked Ham the question, “What is the one thing above anything else upon which you base your belief?” While Ham said the Bible, we would say, “Truth.” Truth provides evidence which drives faith. The trust we have in parents or friends is based on evidence—they have proven themselves to be trustworthy. Our belief in the existence of God is based on evidence: that the Universe could not have created itself; that objective morality must come from God; that complex, functional design always, without exception, demands a Designer; that the religious inclination humans have could not have arisen from rocks and dirt. Our belief in the inspiration of the Bible is based on evidence: the scientific foreknowledge of the Bible; the unity of the Bible; the historical accuracy of the Bible; the predictive prophecies of the Bible; the lack of sustainable contradictions within the Bible. Once the Bible is accepted as inspired, the blueprint for the Creation model can be uncovered, which shapes the creationist’s perspective on science.

What About All the People on the Planet Who Don’t Accept the Bible?

Nye was critical of the idea that the Bible is right, while the billions of people who do not accept it are all wrong. The Bible is clear in its prediction that this will certainly be the case (Matthew 7:13-14). God is just (Psalm 7:11). He is fair. According to the biblical model, anyone who is sincerely seeking the truth will be able to find it (Matthew 5:6; 7:7-8), regardless of their location or life circumstances. In the context of discussing the Flood and the return of Christ, Peter explained that God is longsuffering, “not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance” (2 Peter 3:4-9). But as in the days of the Flood, the bulk of humanity has always chosen not to “come to repentance,” and therefore, dies in its sins (Luke 13:3). God will not force the world to become His disciples, since such an action would not be loving (and God is love, 1 John 4:8) and would be tantamount to His creating mindless robots lacking free will. Mr. Nye has the choice to accept the truth or reject it, and it will not be God’s fault if he continues to choose, as did Pharaoh in the days of Moses, to reject the truth. The same is true of the billions on the planet that reject the truth. [NOTE: Incidentally, if Nye has a problem with the biblical model because most people reject it, and so many people cannot possibly all be wrong, then why does he not have a problem with atheistic evolution, since most people reject it? According to Adherents.com, 92% of the world believes that some form of god(s) exist (“Major Religions of the World…,” 2007), implying that only 8% of the World believes in pure naturalism.]

Conclusion

Creation is not just “a viable model of origins in today’s modern scientific era,” it is the viable model. Why? Because it is true. What else could be more viable than truth? Evolution simply is not a viable model, regardless of how many proponents it has, because it cannot even answer many fundamental questions, and at the same time, it contradicts the existing evidence at every turn. Ironically, Nye quoted from the U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 8, arguing that the Founders’ wished “to promote the progress of science and useful arts,” beckoning the audience to reject Creation because of the Founders’ wishes. An examination of the evidence, however, illustrates that the Founders’ believed in the Bible as the foundation of that scientific pursuit (Miller, 2008), and that foundation has led to the amazing nation that exists today. Sorry, kids. Bill Nye is not the true Science Guy…but the Pseudo-Science Guy (Miller, 2012a). Sadly, he is among the many skeptics that rejected Noah’s message, failed to believe in the global Flood, and missed the boat. We pray that he’ll reconsider the evidence before it’s too late.

REFERENCES

Aardsma, Gerald E. (1993), “Tree-Rings Dating and Multiple Growth Ring Per Year,” Creation Research Society Quarterly, 29:184-189, March.

Ahlfort, Katarina (2011), “Genetic Study Confirms: First Dogs Came from East Asia,” KTH Royal Institute of Technology, November 11, http://www.kth.se/en/aktuellt/nyheter/vargen-tamjdes-till-hund-i-sydostra-asien-1.269636.

Akahane, Hisatada, Takeshi Furuno, Hiroshi Miyajima, Toshiyuki Yoshikawa, and Shigeru Yamamoto (2004), “Rapid Wood Silicification in Hot Spring Water: An Explanation of Silicification of Wood During the Earth’s History,” Sedimentary Geology, 169[3-4]:219-228, July 15.

Alley, R.B., Shuman, C.A., Meese, D.A., Gow, A.J., Taylor, K.C., Cuffey, K.M., Fitzpatrick, J.J., Grootes, P.M., Zielinski, G.A., Ram, M., Spinelli, G., Elder, B. (1997), “Visual-Stratigraphic Dating of the GISP2 Ice Core: Basis, Reproducibility, and Application,” Journal of Geophysical Research, 102[C12]:26367-26381, November 30.

“Antarctica Once Covered in Palm Trees, Scientists Discover” (2012), Fox News, August 2, http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2012/08/02/antarctica-once-covered-in-palm-trees-scientists-discover/.

Baillie, M.G.L. (1982), Tree-Ring Dating and Archaeology (Chicago: University of Chicago Press).

“Barges and Towboats” (2014), Coosa-Alabama River Improvement Association, Inc., http://www.caria.org/barges_tugboats.html.

Bass, Alden (2003), “Which Came First, the Pyramids or the Flood?” Apologetics Press, https://www.apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=9&article=92.

Batten, Don (2002), “Does Carbon Dating Disprove the Bible?” Answers in Genesis, http://legacy-cdn-assets.answersingenesis.org/assets/pdf/radio/Carbondating.pdf.

Bellwood, Peter and Judith Cameron (2007), “Ancient Boats, Boat Timbers, and Locked Mortise-and-Tenon Joints from Bronze/Iron-Age Northern Vietnam,” The International Journal of Nautical Archaeology, 36[1]:2-20.

Bender, Mark (2014), “Chinese History,” Ohio State University, http://people.cohums.ohio-state.edu/bender4/eall131/EAHReadings/module02/m02chinese.html#top.

Bergman, Jerry (2000), “Do Any Vestigial Organs Exist in Humans?” Answers in Genesis, http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/tj/v14/n2/vestigial.

Boyle, Alan (2007), “Finding a Dinosaur’s Soft Spots,” MSNBC, http://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/07/24/288786.aspx.

Brantley, Garry K. (1993), “Dating in Archaeology: Challenges to Biblical Credibility,” Apologetics Press, https://www.apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=9&article=392&topic=61.

Butt, Kyle (2007), Behold! The Word of God (Montgomery, AL: Apologetics Press).

Butt, Kyle (2008), “Mutant Fruit Flies Bug Evolution,” Apologetics Press, http://www.apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=9&article=2501&topic=93.

Butt, Kyle and Blair Scott (2011), The Butt/Scott Debate: Does God Exist? (Montgomery, AL: Apologetics Press), September 29.

“Canyon” (2014), Wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canyon.

Casson, Lionel (1991), The Ancient Mariners (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press).

Castro, Joseph (2013), “What is the Oldest Tree in the World?” Live Science, http://www.livescience.com/29152-oldest-tree-in-world.html.

“Coelacanth” (2014), American Museum of Natural History, http://www.amnh.org/exhibitions/permanent-exhibitions/fossil-halls/hall-of-vertebrate-origins/coelacanth.

Cregg, Bert (2011), “Flood-Tolerant Trees,” Michigan State University: Extension, http://msue.anr.msu.edu/news/flood_tolerant_trees.

Criswell, Daniel (2009), “Speciation and the Animals on the Ark,” Acts & Facts, 38[4]:10, http://www.icr.org/article/speciation-animals-ark/.

“The Current Mass Extinction” (2001), PBS: Evolution—Library, WGBH Educational Foundation, http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/03/2/l_032_04.html.

Darwin, Charles (1956 edition), The Origin of Species (London: J.M. Dent & Sons).

Darwin, Charles (1979), The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life (New York: Avenel Books).

Dawkins, Richard (1986), The Blind Watchmaker (New York: W.W. Norton).

De Angelis, M., Steffensen, J.P., Legrand, M., Clausen, H., and Hammer, C. (1997), “Primary Aerosol (Sea Salt and Soil Dust) Deposited in Greenland Ice during the Last Climatic Cycle: Comparison with East Antarctic Records,” Journal of Geophysical Research, 102[C12]:26681-26698.

DeWitt, David A. (2008), “Setting the Record Straight on Vestigial Organs,” Answers in Genesis, http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/aid/v3/n1/setting-record-straight-vestigial.

DeYoung, Don (2005), Thousands…Not Billions (Green Forest, AR: Master Books).

“Diver Finds ‘Living Fossil’” (2014), Science Now, http://www.calacademy.org/science_now/archive/headline_science/coelacanth_010601.php.

Donoghue, Philip C.J. (2007), “Embryonic Identity Crisis,” Nature, 445[7124]:155-156.

“Earth Fact Sheet” (2013), NASA, http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/factsheet/earthfact.html.

Elwell, Walter A., ed. (1988), Baker Encyclopedia of the Bible (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker).

Ferguson, C.W. and D.A. Graybill (1985), “Dendrochronology of Bristlecone Pine,” Laboratory of Tree-Ring Research Final Technical Report, University of Arizona at Tucson, https://arizona.openrepository.com/arizona/bitstream/10150/246033/1/ltrr-0019.pdf.

“Fossil DNA Proves Greenland Once Had Lush Forests; Ice Sheet Is Surprisingly Stable” (2007), ScienceDaily, July 5, http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/07/070705153019.htm.

Gladwin, Harold S. (1978), “Dendrochronology, Radiocarbon, and Bristlecones,” Creation Research Society Quarterly, 15:24-26, June.

Gould, Stephen Jay (1977), “Evolution’s Erratic Pace,” Natural History, 86[5]:12-16, May.

Ham, Ken (2012), “How Many Kinds?” Answers in Genesis, http://blogs.answersingenesis.org/blogs/ken-ham/2012/11/01/how-many-kinds/.

Hamilton, Andrew J., Yves Basset, Kurt K. Benke, Peter S. Grimbacher, Scott E. Miller, Vojtech Novotny, G. Allan Samuelson, Nigel E. Stork, George D. Weiblen, and Jian D.L. Yen (2010), “Quantifying Uncertainty in Estimation of Tropical Arthropod Species Richness,” The American Naturalist, 176[1]:90-95, July.

Holt, Robert D. and Richard Gomulkiewicz (1997), “How Does Immigration Influence Local Adaptation? A Reexamination of a Familiar Paradigm,” The American Naturalist, 149[3]:563-572.

Houts, Michael G. (2011), “True Science Is the Christian’s Friend,” Reason & Revelation, 31[1]:1-7, January, http://apologeticspress.org/pub_rar/31_1/1101.pdf.

Howe, George F. (1968), “Seed Germination, Sea Water, and Plant Survival in the Great Flood,” Creation Research Society Quarterly, December, pp. 105-112, http://www.creationbotany.org/12_Plant_survival_and_the_great_Flood.pdf.

“How Much Do Oceans Add to World’s Oxygen?” (2013), Earthsky, http://earthsky.org/earth/how-much-do-oceans-add-to-worlds-oxygen.

“How Much Water is There On, In, and Above the Earth?” USGS: The USGS Water Science School, http://ga.water.usgs.gov/edu/earthhowmuch.html.

Hu, Yaoming, Jin Meng, Yuanqing Wang, and Chuankui Li (2005), “Large Mesozoic Mammals Fed on Young Dinosaurs,” Nature, 433:149-152, January 13.

Humphreys, Russell, John Baumgardner, Steven Austin, and Andrew Snelling (2003), “Helium Diffusion Rates Support Accelerated Nuclear Decay,” Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Creationism, ed. John Ivey Jr. (Creation Science Fellowship: Pittsburgh, PA), www.icr.org/research/icc03/pdf/Helium_ICC_7-22-03.pdf.

Ingalls, Albert G. (1940), “The Carboniferous Mystery,” Scientific American, 162:14, January.

Kuiper, Kathleen, ed. (2011), Mesopotamia: The World’s Earliest Civilization (New York, NY: Britannica Educational Publishing).

LaMarche, V.C., Jr. and T.P. Harlan (1973), “Accuracy of Tree Ring Dating of Bristlecone Pine For Calibration of the Radiocarbon Time Scale,” Journal of Geophysical Research, 78:8849-8858.

Lammerts, Walter (1976), Why Not Creation? (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker), pp. 185-193.

Lammerts, Walter E. (1983), “Are the Bristlecone Pine Trees Really So Old?” Creation Research Society Quarterly, 20:108-115, September.

Landis, Don (2012), The Genius of Ancient Man: Evolution’s Nightmare (Green Forest, AR: Master Books).

Lewontin, Richard (1997), “Billions and Billions of Demons,” The New York Review, January 9.

Lightfoot, Neil (2003), How We Got the Bible (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker), third edition.

Lyons, Eric (2002), “Terah Begot Abraham—When?” Apologetics Press, https://www.apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=9&article=900.

Lyons, Eric (2008), “Leftovers…Again!” Apologetics Press, http://www.apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=9&article=2500.

Lyons, Eric (2011), “Common Sense, Miracles, and the Apparent Age of the Earth,” Apologetics Press, http://www.apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=9&article=4082.

Lyons, Eric and Kyle Butt (2003), “Legends of the Flood,” Apologetics Press, http://www.apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=9&article=64&topic=303.

Lyons, Eric and Kyle Butt (2008), The Dinosaur Delusion: Dismantling Evolution’s Most Cherished Icon (Montgomery, AL: Apologetics Press).

“Major Religions of the World Ranked by Number of Adherents” (2007), http://www.adherents.com/Religions_By_Adherents.html.

Major, Trevor (1993), “Dating in Archaeology: Radiocarbon & Tree-Ring Dating,” Apologetics Press, https://www.apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=9&article=464&topic=61.

May, Robert M. (1988), “How Many Species Are There on Earth?” Science, 241[4872]:1441-1449.

McGraw-Hill Dictionary of Scientific and Technical Terms (2003), pub. M.D. Licker (New York: McGraw-Hill), sixth edition.

“Meet Our Animals: Facts” (2014), Smithsonian National Zoological Park, http://nationalzoo.si.edu/animals/invertebrates/facts/.

Michaels, George H. and Brian Fagan (2013), “Chronological Methods 8—Radiocarbon Dating,” University of California Santa Barbara Instructional Development, http://archserve.id.ucsb.edu/courses/anth/fagan/anth3/Courseware/Chronology/08_Radiocarbon_Dating.html.

“Microbial Reproduction” (2012), Microbe World, http://www.microbeworld.org/interesting-facts/microbial-reproduction.

Miller, Dave (2002), “Peleg, Pangaea, and Genesis 10:25,” Apologetics Press, http://www.apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=108&article=4636.

Miller, Dave (2003), “Modern-Day Miracles, Tongue-Speaking, and Holy Spirit Baptism: A Refutation—Extended Version,” http://www.apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=11&article=1399.

Miller, Dave (2008), The Silencing of God (Montgomery, AL: Apologetics Press).

Miller, Dave (2012), “Jesus Said: ‘Do Not Believe Me’,” Apologetics Press, https://www.apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=11&article=4214.

Miller, Dave (2014), “Has the Bible Been Corrupted?” Apologetics Press, Audio File, http://apologeticspress.org/MediaPlayer.aspx?media=4172.

Miller, Jeff (2010), “‘The Laws of Thermodynamics Don’t Apply to the Universe!’” Apologetics Press, http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=9&article=3704.

Miller, Jeff (2011a), “Did the Trees of the Garden of Eden Have Rings?” Apologetics Press, http://www.apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=9&article=4138.

Miller, Jeff (2011b), “God and the Laws of Science: The Law of Causality,” Apologetics Press, http://www.apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=12&article=3716.

Miller, Jeff (2011c), “Autonomous Control of Creation,” Reason & Revelation, 31[12]:129-131, December, http://apologeticspress.org/pub_rar/31_12/1112.pdf.

Miller, Jeff (2012a), “Bill Nye: the (Pseudo-) Science Guy,” Apologetics Press, https://www.apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=9&article=2842.

Miller, Jeff (2012b), “The Law of Biogenesis [Part I],” Reason & Revelation, 32[1]:2-11, http://apologeticspress.org/pub_rar/32_1/1201.pdf.

Miller, Jeff (2012c), “The Laws of Science—by God,” Apologetics Press, http://www.apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=12&article=4545.

Miller, Jeff (2012d), “‘You Creationists are Not Qualified to Discuss Such Matters!’” Reason & Revelation, 32[12]:141-143, December, http://apologeticspress.org/pub_rar/32_12/1212.pdf.

Miller, Jeff (2013a), “Don’t Assume Too Much: Not All Assumptions in Science Are Bad,” Apologetics Press, http://www.apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=9&article=4666.

Miller, Jeff (2013b), “Evolution and the Laws of Science: The Laws of Thermodynamics,” Apologetics Press, http://www.apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=9&article=%202786.

Miller, Jeff (2013c), Science vs. Evolution (Montgomery, AL: Apologetics Press).

Miller, Jeff (2014a), “Can’t Order Come from Disorder Due to the Sun?” Reason & Revelation, 34[2]:22, February, http://apologeticspress.org/pub_rar/34_2/1402w2.pdf.

Miller, Jeff (2014b), “Did Life Originate Under Ground?” Apologetics Press, http://apologeticspress.org/apPubPage.aspx?pub=1&issue=1150.

Miller, Jeff (2014c), “God and the Laws of Science: Genetics vs. Evolution [Part II],” Reason & Revelation, 34[2]:14-21, February, http://apologeticspress.org/pub_rar/34_2/1402w2.pdf.

Mitchell, Ross N., David A.D. Evans, and Taylor M. Kilian (2010), “Rapid Early Cambrian Rota-tion of Gondwana,” Geology, 38[8]:755-758.

Mora, Camilo, Derek P. Tittensor, Sina Adl, Alastair G.B. Simpson, and Boris Worm (2011), “How Many Species Are There on Earth and in the Ocean?” PLoS Biology, 9[8]:e1001127, http://www.plosbiology.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pbio.1001127#pbio.1001127-Appeltans1.

Morris, J. (2012), “Tree Ring Dating,” Acts & Facts, 41[10]:15.

Morris, John (2011), The Young Earth (Green Forest, AR: Master Books).

Morris, John D. (2014), “Year-Long Summertime,” Institute for Creation Research, http://www.icr.org/article/long-summertime/.

Morris, John D. and Frank J. Sherwin (2010), The Fossil Record (Dallas, TX: The Institute for Creation Research).

“Mortise and Tenon Joints” (2009), Materials Technology Wood, http://www.materialstechnologywood.com/practice-joints-mortice-and-tenon.php.

Nye, Bill and Ken Ham (2014), Uncensored Science: Bill Nye Debates Ken Ham (Petersburg, KY: Answers in Genesis).

Oard, Michael (2001), “Do Greenland Ice Cores Show over One Hundred Thousand Years of Annual Layers?” Answers in Genesis, http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/tj/v15/n3/greenland.

Oard, Michael (2003), “Are Polar Ice Sheets Only 4500 Years Old?” Acts & Facts, 32[7].

Oard, Michael (2004a), “Chapter 12: Do Ice Cores Show Many Tens of Thousands of Years?” Answers in Genesis, http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/fit/ice-cores-thousands-years.

Oard, Michael (2004b), “Ice Cores vs. the Flood,” Answers in Genesis, http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/tj/v18/n2/icecore.

Oard, Michael (2004c), “The Genesis Flood Caused the Ice Age,” Answers in Genesis, http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/fit/flood-caused-ice-age.

Oard, Michael (2006), “Still Trying to Make Ice Cores Old,” Answers in Genesis, http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2006/12/28/still-trying.

O’Connor, David and Matthew Adams (2001), “Moored in the Desert,” Archaeology, 54[3]:44-45, May/June.

“OldList” (2013), Rocky Mountain Tree-Ring Research, http://www.rmtrr.org/oldlist.htm.

Osorio, D., J.P. Bacon, and P.M. Whitington (1997), “The Evolution of Arthropod Nervous Systems,” American Scientist, 85[3]:244-253.

“Over Three Million Tuned In Live for Historic Bill Nye and Ken Ham Evolution/Creation Debate” (2014), Answers in Genesis, February 5, http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2014/02/05/post-debate-news-release.

Owen, James (2008), “Oldest Living Tree Found in Sweden,” National Geographic News, April 14, http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/04/080414-oldest-tree.html.

Perkins, Sid (2005), “Old Softy: Tyrannosaurus Fossil Yields Flexible Tissue,” Science News, 167[13]:195, March 26, http://www.sciencenews.org/articles/20050326/fob1.asp.

Reese, K.M. (1976), “Workers Find Whale in Diatomaceous Earth Quarry,” Chemical and Engineering News, 54[4]:40, October 11.

Reeve, E.C. and Isobel Black, eds. (2001), Encyclopedia of Genetics, http://books.google.com/books?id=JjLWYKqehRsC&pg=PA157&lpg=PA157&dq=Drosophila+Fruit+fly+mutations&source=web&ots=V5yPPBPE6h&sig=fOkUS_qLsARelWNDqpe5uhq70mI&hl=en.

Ridley, Mark (1981), “Who Doubts Evolution?” New Scientist, June 25, 90:832.

Sanford, J.C. (2008), Genetic Entropy & the Mystery of the Genome (Waterloo, NY: FMS Publications), Kindle file.

Schweitzer, Mary H., Jennifer L. Wittmeyer, John R. Horner, and Jan K. Toporski (2005), “Soft-Tissue Vessels and Cellular Preservation in Tyrannosaurus rex,” Science, 307:1952-1955, March 25.

Schweitzer, Mary, et al. (2007), “Analyses of Soft Tissue from Tyrannosaurus rex Suggest the Presence of Protein,” Science, 316:277-285, April 13.

Snelling, Andrew (1995), “The Whale Fossil in Diatomite, Lompoc, California,” Creation Ex Nihilo Technical Journal, 9[2]:244-258.

Snelling, Andrew (2000), “Conflicting ‘Ages’ of Tertiary Basalt and Contained Fossilised Wood, Crinum, Central Queensland, Australia,” CEN Technical Journal, 14[2]:99-122.

“SS Jeremiah O’Brien” (2013), Historic Naval Ships Association, http://www.hnsa.org/ships/jobrien.htm.

Stein, Ben and Kevin Miller (2008), Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed (Premise Media).

Teaching About Evolution and the Nature of Science (1998), National Academy of Sciences (Washington, DC: National Academy Press).

Thomas, Brian (2010), “Continents Didn’t Drift, They Raced,” Institute for Creation Research, http://www.icr.org/article/continents-didnt-drift-they-raced/.

Thomas, Brian (2011), “Study Shows Bird Species Change Fast,” Institute for Creation Research, http://www.icr.org/article/study-shows-bird-species-change-fast/.

Thomas, Brian (2012), “On the Origin of Dogs,” Acts & Facts, 41[1]:16, http://www.icr.org/article/origin-dogs/.

Thompson, Bert (1993a), “Biblical Accuracy and Circumcision on the 8^th Day,” Apologetics Press, http://www.apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=13&article=1118.

Thompson, Bert (1993b), “Scientific Foreknowledge and Biblical Accuracy,” Apologetics Press, http://www.apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=13&article=1095.

Thompson, Bert (2001), “Did Death Occur on Earth Prior to Man’s Sin?” Apologetics Press, https://www.apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=11&article=677.

Thompson, Bert (2002), The Scientific Case for Creation (Montgomery, AL: Apologetics Press), https://www.apologeticspress.org/pdfs/e-books_pdf/scfc.pdf.

Thompson, Bert and Brad Harrub (2002a), “Creationists Fight Back! A Review of U.S. News & World Report’s Cover Story on Evolution,” Reason & Revelation, 22[9]:65-71, September, http://apologeticspress.org/apPubPage.aspx?pub=1&issue=533&article=455.

Thompson, Bert and Brad Harrub (2002b), “The Origin of Gender and Sexual Reproduction,” Apologetics Press, http://www.apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=9&article=162.

Thompson, Bert and Brad Harrub (2003a), “Arp’s Anomalies,” Apologetics Press, https://www.apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=9&article=1322.

Thompson, Bert and Brad Harrub (2003b), The Truth about Human Origins (Montgomery, AL: Apologetics Press), https://www.apologeticspress.org/pdfs/e-books_pdf/taho.pdf.

University of Texas at Austin (2008), “Discovery of Giant Roaming Deep Sea Protist Provides New Perspective On Animal Evolution,” ScienceDaily. November 21, www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/11/081120130531.htm.

Vardiman, Larry (1992), “Ice Cores and the Age of the Earth,” Acts & Facts, 21[4].

Vardiman, Larry (2003), “Temperature Profiles for an Optimized Water Vapor Canopy,” Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Creationism, Pittsburgh, PA, August 4-9, pp. 29-39, http://static.icr.org/i/pdf/technical/Temperature-Profiles-for-an-Optimized-Water-Vapor-Canopy.pdf.

Ward, Cheryl (2001), “World’s Oldest Planked Boats,” Archaeology, 54[3]:45, May/June.

Wheeler, L. K. (2014), “Logical Fallacies Handlist,” Carson-Newman University, http://web.cn.edu/kwheeler/index.html.

Whitcomb, John C. and Henry M. Morris (1961), The Genesis Flood (Philadelphia, PA: Presbyterian & Reformed).

Whitlow, Thomas H. and Richard W. Harris (1979), Flood Tolerance in Plants: A State-of-the-Art Review, Environmental & Water Quality Operational Studies Technical Report.

Wiens, John J., David D. Ackerly, Andrew P. Allen, Brian L. Anacker, Lauren B. Buckley, Howard V. Cornell, Ellen I. Damschen, T. Jonathan Davies, John-Arvid Grytnes, Susan P. Harrison, Bradford A. Hawkins, Robert D. Holt, Christy M. McCain, and Patrick R. Stephens (2010), “Niche Conservatism as an Emerging Principle in Ecology and Conservation Biology,” Ecology Letters, 13:1310-1324.

Wilder-Smith, A.E. (1970), Man’s Origin: Man’s Destiny (Wheaton, IL: Harold Shaw).

Wise, David (2003), “The First Book of Public Hygiene,” Answers in Genesis, http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/cm/v26/n1/hygiene.

Wise, Kurt (2009), “Completeness of the Fossil Record,” Answers in Genesis, http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v5/n1/completeness-fossil-record.

Woodmorappe, John (1996), Noah’s Ark: A Feasibility Study (Santee, CA: Institute for Creation Research).

Woodmorappe, John (2009), “Biblical Chronology and the 8,000-Year-Long Bristlecone Pine Tree-Ring Chronology,” Answers in Genesis, http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/aid/v4/n1/biblical-chronology-bristlecone-pine.

“World Register of Marine Species” (2014), WoRMS, http://www.marinespecies.org/.

“World War II Planes Found in Greenland in Ice 260 Feet Deep” (1988), The New York Times On-line Archives, August 4, http://www.nytimes.com/1988/08/04/us/world-war-ii-planes-found-in-greenland-in-ice-260-feet-deep.html.

“WoRMS Taxon Tree” (2014), WoRMS, http://www.marinespecies.org/aphia.php?p=browser.

Wright, David (2012), “How Did Plants Survive the Flood?” Answers in Genesis, http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/aid/v7/n1/how-did-plants-survive-flood.

“Wyoming (Schooner)” (2014), Wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wyoming_%28schooner%29.

“Ziggurats” (2014), The British Museum, http://www.mesopotamia.co.uk/ziggurats/home_set.html.

Zimmer, Carl (2011), “How Many Species? A Study Says 8.7 Million, but It’s Tricky,” The New York Times, August 23, http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/30/science/30species.html?_r=0.

The post Bill Nye/Ken Ham Debate Review: Tying Up Really Loose Ends appeared first on Apologetics Press.

What’s the Significance to the Creationist of Finding Water on Mars?

A:

If naturalistic evolution were true, it would be inconceivable that extra-terrestrial life would not exist. So evolutionists are seemingly frantic in their search for such life. In September of 2013, the journal Science reported results from the Mars rover Curiosity’s exploration of the planet (Grotzinger, 2013). Fascinatingly, water was found in the Martian soil. What does this mean for creationists? Does it prove evolution?

NOVA, funded by the National Science Foundation, said in 2005, “If life is common, then we should be able to find signs of it beyond our own little planet. Unfortunately, the evidence has been elusive” (“Ingredients for Life”). Life has not been discovered anywhere in the Universe apart from Earth, but evolutionary scientists have long hoped at least to find indirect evidences of currently or previously existing life, even if they cannot find life itself (cf. Miller, 2012).

One example of indirect evidence for extra-terrestrial life that has been glaringly absent is evidence for the existence of liquid water in space. Chris McKay of NASA’s Ames Research Center explained in 2005:

The most important requirement for life is liquid water, and that’s the defining requirement for life in terms of our solar system. There’s plenty of energy. There’s plenty of carbon. There’s plenty of other elements on all the planets in our solar system. What’s rare, and which, as far as we know, only occurs now on Earth is liquid water (“Ingredients for Life”).

While one of Jupiter’s moons (Europa) is already known to be covered with ice, a key ingredient for life is liquid water. It seems that now there is evidence that liquid water does exist in space. Soil tests taken from the Curiosity rover indicate that Mars’ soil has 2% water by weight (Landau, 2013). To evolutionists, this is a significant find, since it eliminates one of the barriers preventing evolution from being true. According to NOVA, “Mars might be too cold and dry to harbor life today, but if water was once there, then perhaps life was too” (2005).

Keep in mind that the existence of water in space in no way provides positive proof of extra-terrestrial life or of evolution, in the same way that finding carbon in space provides no proof of extra-terrestrial life or evolution. (Does finding sugar in the kitchen prove that someone made cookies with it?) To the creationist, water and organic substances are merely materials that God created in the Universe on days one and four of the Creation week that serve His purposes for the Universe. The existence of water on Mars provides no more assistance in proving evolution than the existence of dirt. They are both merely products that God placed here. Notice these admissions by one of the reporters covering the Mars story:

Curiosity is not capable of detecting life directly; it wouldn’t confirm either modern life or ancient fossil organisms. It can, however, determine if the ancient environment was habitable—which the rover told us it was—and look for organic compounds. Finding those compounds wouldn’t prove the existence of life, either, because they can come from other sources. But the appearance of organic molecules would suggest that the environment is good at preserving them…. [S]o far, Curiosity has not directly detected organics in the soil (Landau, emp. added).

So nothing has been proven concerning extra-terrestrial life by the rover study. Once again, speculation and wishful thinking still rule the day for evolutionists. Scientists are still trying to figure out if life could exist in outer space—much less that it does or did. Bottom line: while finding liquid water may mark off one of the barriers facing evolution, it is not positive proof of life. It’s just one more step towards the starting line—not the finish line. In reality, evolution still isn’t even in the race with creation.

REFERENCES

Grotzinger, John P. (2013), “Analysis of Surface Materials by the Curiosity Mars Rover,” Science, 341[6153]:1475.

“Ingredients for Life” (2005), NOVA, December 17, http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/education/evolution/ingredient-life-water.html.

Landau, Elizabeth (2013), “Water Discovered in Martian Soil,” CNN Tech, October 7, http://www.cnn.com/2013/09/30/tech/innovation/mars-water/.

Miller, Jeff (2012), “Space: The Womb of Life?” Reason & Revelation, 32[6]:62-64, http://apologeticspress.org/pub_rar/32_6/1206_V01.pdf.

The post Water on Mars? appeared first on Apologetics Press.

[EDITOR’S NOTE: Part 1 of this two-part series appeared in the January issue. Part 2 follows below and continues, without introductory comments, where the first article ended.]

In answer to the question, “Can new information originate through mutations?” Gitt responded, “This idea is central in representations of evolution, but mutations can only cause changes in existing information. There can be no increase in information, and in general the results are injurious. New blueprints for new functions or new organs cannot arise; mutations cannot be the source of new (creative) information” (Gitt, 2007, Ch. 11, emp. added, parenthetical item in orig.). Meyer explains,
“[N]atural selection can ‘select’ only what random mutations first produce. And for the evolutionary process to produce new forms of life, random mutations must first have produced new genetic information for building novel proteins” (2009, Ch. 9). And  again, that simply does not happen.

[M]utations of the kind that macroevolution doesn’t need (namely, viable genetic mutations in DNA expressed late in development) do occur, but those that it does need (namely, beneficial body plan mutations expressed early in development) apparently don’t occur. According to Darwin (1859, p. 108) natural selection cannot act until favorable variations arise in a population. Yet there is no evidence from developmental genetics that the kind of variations required by neo-Darwinism—namely, favorable body plan mutations—ever occur…. [M]utations in DNA alone cannot account for the morphological changes required to build a new body plan (Meyer, 2004, emp. added).

Mutation simply “does not constitute an adequate causal explanation of the origination of biological form in the higher taxonomic groups” (Meyer, 2004).

Meyer summarized the problem for neo-Darwinism:

Neo-Darwinism seeks to explain the origin of new information, form, and structure as a result of selection acting on randomly arising variation at a very low level within the biological hierarchy, namely, within the genetic text. Yet major morphological innovations depend on a specificity of arrangement at a much higher level of the organizational hierarchy, a level that DNA alone does not determine. Yet if DNA is not wholly responsible for body plan morphogenesis, then DNA sequences can mutate indefinitely, without regard to realistic probabilistic limits, and still not produce a new body plan. Thus, the mechanism of natural selection acting on random mutations in DNA cannot in principle generate novel body plans (2004, italics in orig., emp. added).

In the words of Sanford:

[E]ven when ignoring deleterious mutations, mutation/selection cannot create a single gene within the human evolutionary timescale. When deleterious mutations are factored back in, we see that mutation/selection cannot create a single gene, ever. This is overwhelming evidence against the Primary Axiom.In my opinion this constitutes what is essentially a formal proof that the Primary Axiom is false (2008, p. 139, emp. and italics in orig.).

Michael Behe, biochemist and Professor of Biological Sciences at Lehigh University, points out that some microorganisms have been shown to be able to rapidly adapt to new environments. However, in doing so, those organisms never develop new internal functions. According to Behe, their adaptations amount, not to innovation, but merely fine-tuning (2007).

So in the words of Gould, mutations do not “produce major new raw material.” They simply change something that already exists. They alter what is already present. They are variations within types of already existing genes. They might cause a fly to have extra wings, a fish to have extra eyes, or a person to have an extra toe; but mutations cannot create a new kind of creature. A mutation would not cause a wing to appear on a creature unless the creature already had wings in its genetic code. If a fish does not already have antlers in its genes, it is not going to grow them. If a dog does not have webbed duck feet or feathers in its genes, neither it nor its descendants are going to grow them. If a person does not have tank treads in his genes, he will never be able to roll over to his neighbor’s house, regardless of how long he (or his progeny) lives and mutates. Neo-Darwinian evolution simply cannot happen. Sanford lamented:

Very regrettably, evolutionists have treated two very different phenomenon, adaptation to environments and evolution of higher life forms, as if they were the same thing. We do not need to be geniuses to see that these are different issues. Adaptation can routinely be accomplished by loss of information or even developmental degeneration (loss of organs). However, development of higher life forms (representing more specified complexity) always requires a large increase in information (p. 202, italics in orig.).

And Darwinian evolution cannot provide it.

Information: If It’s Not a Product of Naturalistic Processes, Then…

East German scientist J. Peil wrote, “Information is neither a physical nor a chemical principle like energy and matter, even though the latter are required as carriers” (as quoted in Gitt, 2007, Ch. 3). The late American mathematician Norbert Wiener, previously professor of mathematics at M.I.T., graduate of Harvard University, and considered to be the originator of the field of cybernetics, long ago said, “Information is information, not matter or energy. No materialism which does not admit this can survive at the present day” (1965, p. 132). What does that truth imply about information?

In the words of Gitt, in what he calls “Theorem 1,” “[t]he fundamental quantity information is a non-material (mental) entity. It is not a property of matter, so that purely material processes are fundamentally precluded as sources of information” (Ch. 3, emp. added). He further explains, “Information is always based on the will of a sender who issues the information…. Information only arises through an intentional, volitional act” (Ch. 3). “[I]t is clear that the information present in living organisms requires an intelligent source…. Any model for the origin of life (and of information) based solely on physical and/or chemical processes, is inherently false” (Ch. 4, parenthetical item in orig.). Gitt proposes Theorem 29 as a summary of that truth: “Every piece of creative information represents some mental effort and can be traced to a personal idea-giver who exercised his own free will, and who is endowed with an intelligent mind” (Ch. 8). In other words, “[n]ew information can only originate in a creative thought process” (Ch. 8).

What about the findings from computerized evolutionary algorithms and ribozyme-engineering experiments? Don’t they prove neo-Darwinian evolution could happen? Meyer responds:

[M]inds can produce biologically relevant structures and forms of information, but without mind or intelligence little, if any, information arises…. [I]ntelligent agents can produce information. And since all evolutionary algorithms require preexisting sources of information provided by designing minds, they show the power—if not the necessity—of intelligent design….

[R]ibozyme-engineering experiments demonstrate the power—if not, again, the need for—intelligence to produce information—in this case, the information necessary to enhance the function of RNA enzymes…. Undirected materialistic causes have not demonstrated the capacity to generate significant amounts of specified information. At the same time, conscious intelligence has repeatedly shown itself capable of producing such information. It follows that mind—conscious, rational, intelligent agency—what philosophers call “agent causation,” now stands as the only cause known to be capable of generating large amounts of specified information starting from a nonliving state (2009, Ch. 15).

Radiologist Henry Quastler, who pioneered the use of isotopes to study cell kinetics and “was one of the first to apply Information Theory to biology” (Ducoff, 2007), long ago stated, “[C]reation of information is habitually associated with conscious activity” (Quastler, 1964, p. 16). If this be the case—if all the evidence points to an intelligent Designer for the origin of information—why reject the evidence? “Whatever information is—whether thought or an elaborate arrangement of matter—one thing seems clear. What humans recognize as information certainly originates from thought—from conscious or intelligent activity” (Meyer, 2009, Ch. 1, italics in orig.).

But Still…Couldn’t it Happen?

Even if genetic mutation could sporadically provide new information, there are other, even more significant issues. Meyer explains, “[A]ny minimally complex protocell resembling cells we have today would have required not only genetic information, but a sizable preexisting suite of proteins for processing that information” (2009, Ch. 9). And what’s more,

scientists investigating the origin of life must now explain the origin of at least three key features of life. First, they must explain the origin of the system for storing and encoding digital information in the cell, DNA’s capacity to store digitally encoded information. Second, they must explain the origin of the large amount of specified complexity or functionally specified information in DNA. Third, they must explain the origin of the integrated complexity—the functional interdependence of parts—of the cell’s information-processing system (2009, Ch. 5).

Sanford points out further how Darwinian evolution would still not be possible with sporadic instances of new information:

I believe the “going down” aspect of the genome is subject to concrete analysis. Such analysis persuasively argues that net information must be declining. If this is true [and the primary focus of his book illustrates that it is—JM], then even if it could be shown that there were specific cases where new information might be synthesized via mutation/selection, it would still be meaningless since such new information would promptly then begin to degenerate again. The net direction would still be down, and complex genomes could never have arisen spontaneously. If the genome is actually degenerating, it is…bad news for evolutionary theory. If mutation/selection cannot preserve the information already within the genome, it is difficult to imagine how it could have created all that information in the first place! We cannot rationally speak of genome-building when there is a net loss of information every generation! Halting degeneration is just a small prerequisite step before the much more difficult question of information-building can reasonably be opened for discussion (pp. 105-106, italics in orig.).

Wells argues that

even if scientists eventually observe the origin of a new species by natural selection, the observation would not mean that natural selection can also explain the origin of significantly new organs or body plans. But the fact that scientists have not observed even the first step in macroevolution means that “evolution’s smoking gun” is still missing. Despite the lack of direct evidence for speciation [i.e., the origin of new species—JM] by natural selection, Darwin’s followers still assume that he was essentially correct and regard changes within existing species as evidence for their theory (2011, p. 13, emp. added).

Once again, speculation and conjecture without supporting evidence rule the day in evolutionary circles and textbooks. All the while, mounds of evidence exist which indicate that new information is not possible through genetic mutation. So neo-Darwinian evolution is not possible.

Genetic Entropy:
The Unavoidable Trend

Mutations are, by definition, “errors”—mistakes in the replication of DNA (cf. Ayala, 1978, 239[3]:56-69). There are three possible kinds of mutations: bad, good, and neutral (i.e., those that have no net effect on a species one way or the other)—none of which add new raw material or information to the genome. Evolution hinges on the idea that beneficial mutations must be the trend, since evolution requires a progression in species (and those mutations must simultaneously add new raw material in order to evolve a new species).

However, in truth, the scientific evidence indicates that this trend is not the case. Renowned geneticist of Stanford University, Luigi Cavalli-Sforza, head of the International Human Genome Diversity Project, said, “Genetic mutations are spontaneous, chance changes, which are rarely beneficial, and more often have no effect or a deleterious one” (2000, p. 176, emp. added). Prominent evolutionary taxonomist, Ernst Mayr (professor emeritus of Harvard), wrote, “[T]he occurrence of beneficial mutations is rather rare” (2001, p. 98, emp. added). In fact, it has long been realized that, after eliminating the neutral mutations from the discussion, 99% of the remaining mutations are said to be actually harmful—not beneficial (Crow, 1997; Cartwright, 2000, p. 98; Winchester, 1951, p. 228; Martin, 1953, 41:100; Ayala, 1968, 162:1436; Morris, 1984, p. 203; Klotz, 1985, p. 181). This was recognized as long ago as 1950, when Nobel laureate and geneticist, Hermann J. Muller said, “The great majority of mutations, certainly well over 99%, are harmful in some way” (1950, 38:35, emp. added). Famous evolutionary geneticist of Rockefeller University, Theodosius Dobzhansky, admitted that beneficial mutations make up less than 1% of all mutations (as quoted in Davidheiser, 1969, p. 209).

Several decades of further research did not help matters. The late evolutionary geneticist of the University of Massachusetts in Amherst Lynn Margulis, and her co-author, science writer Dorion Sagan, referenced Muller’s historic work, emphasizing that “as was pointed out very early by Hermann J. Muller (1890-1967), the Nobel prizewinner who showed X-rays to be mutagenic in fruit flies, 99.9 percent of the mutations are [still—JM] deleterious. Even professional evolutionary biologists are hard put to find mutations, experimentally induced or spontaneous, that lead in a positive way to evolutionary change” (2002, pp. 11-12, emp. added). According to theoretical evolutionary geneticist Philip Gerrish of the University of New Mexico and Richard Lenski, experimental evolutionary biologist of Michigan State University, it seems that the best estimates for beneficial mutations are now “roughly one in a million” (1998, 102/103:132). That’s one ten-thousandth of one percent. Thomas Bataillon, evolutionary biologist of Aarhus University’s Bioinformatics Research Centre, and Santiago Elena, molecular and evolutionary geneticist of the Institute of Molecular and Cellular Plant Biology in Spain, argue that the rate of beneficial mutations is so low that it cannot even be measured (Bataillon, 2000; Elena, et al., 1998). Behe even argues, based on a thorough examination of relevant evolutionary experiments over the last few decades, that those mutations which are considered to be “beneficial” for an organism still typically involved a loss of function (i.e., a loss of genetic information)—not a gain. In the summary of his 2010 article in the Quarterly Review of Biology, he says, “The results of decades of experi-mental [sic] laboratory evolution studies strongly suggest that, at the molecular level, loss-of-FCT [i.e., loss of function—JM] and diminishing modification-of-function adaptive mutations predominate” (2010, p. 441). In truth, this circumstance should be expected, since mutations are, by definition, deviations from what would have occurred in the replication of DNA, if everything worked in the way that it should.

So mutations do not provide the progressive, beneficial trend required by evolution, but rather, reveal a digressive trend. Mutations, by and large, are deleterious, not beneficial to the genome. That is what the scientific evidence indicates—an avalanche of harmful mutations sweeping all species on the planet down the slope of deterioration, decay, and digression. This trend is in keeping with the Second Law of Thermodynamics—entropy is inevitable (see Sanford, 2008 for a decisive treatise on the truth of genetic entropy). The genome will inevitably deteriorate, not evolve. This trend is also supported by information theory (Gitt, 2007).

“Error catastrophe” is the term used to describe what happens when natural selection cannot adequately counter the loss of information that occurs due to deleterious mutations—a situation we are currently facing. During the final phase of degeneration, “mutational meltdown” occurs (Bernardes, 1996)—the “rapid collapse of the population and sudden extinction” of the species (Sanford, p. 220). Kevin Higgins and Michael Lynch, evolutionary biologists of Indiana University and the University of Oregon, respectively, argue that extinction is currently a significant risk for many mammals and other animals because of the existing state of deterioration in the genome due to mutations. “Under synchronous environmental fluctuations, the acceleration of extinction caused by mutation accumulation is striking…. [F]or a large globally dispersing metapopulation with mutation accumulation, the extinction time is just slightly longer than 100 generations” (2001, p. 2932). There is no doubt that genetic entropy is the trend, not genetic organization.

Behe argues, “[N]ot only does Darwinism not have answers for how information got into the genome, it doesn’t even have answers for how it could remain there” (as quoted in Sanford, 2008, back cover, emp. added). Genetic entropy prohibits it. No wonder Sanford wrote, “Degeneration is the precise antithesis of evolutionary theory. Therefore the reality of Genetic Entropy is positively fatal to Darwinism” (p. 206, italics in orig., emp. added). Expounding on that idea, he said:

If the genome must degenerate, then the Primary Axiom is wrong. It is not just implausible. It is not just unlikely. It is absolutely dead wrong. It is not just a false axiom. It is an unsupported and discredited hypothesis, and can be confidently rejected. Mutation/selection cannot stop the loss of genomic information, let alone create the genome! Why is this? It is because selection occurs on the level of the whole organism. It cannot stop the loss of information (which is immeasurably complex) due to mutation, and is happening on the molecular level. It is like trying to fix a computer with a hammer (p. 147, italics and emp. in orig.).

Due to entropy, the genetic trend is downward. But evolution demands an upward trend—not good for Darwinian evolution.

Notice again, however, that while deterioration destroys evolutionary theory, the trend towards deterioration is in keeping with the Creation model, which argues that the genome was originally pristine in the Garden before sin entered the world, initiating the decay process (Romans 5:12; Psalm 102:25-27). The natural trend all around us is clearly that living creatures are being swept down the proverbial mountainside in an avalanche of entropy. Yet evolutionary theory irrationally postulates that the trend for the mindless, accidental evolution of species has actually been up the mountain-side against an oppressive wall of tumbling snow.

Mutations: Not the Evolutionary Mechanism

No wonder, like Gould and Hayward, Margulis and Sagan strongly expressed their disagreement with the idea that genetic mutations could be the mechanism for evolution, as neo-Darwinism contends. They said, “[R]andom mutation, a small part of the evolutionary saga, has been dogmatically overemphasized” (2002, p. 15). “Many ways to induce mutations are known but none lead to new organisms. Mutation accumulation does not lead to new species or even to new organs or new tissues…. We show here that the major source of inherited variation is not random mutation” (pp. 11-12, emp. added). Evolutionist Pierre-Paul Grassé, who was the chair of evolution at the Sorbonne in Paris for over 30 years, said, “No matter how numerous they may be, mutations do not produce any kind of evolution” (1977, p. 103, emp. added). Nobel laureate, Sir Ernst Chain, who is credited with having purified penicillin in such a way that it could be used as an antibiotic, said years ago, “To postulate…that the development and survival of the fittest is entirely a consequence of chance mutations…seems to me a hypothesis based on no evidence and irreconcilable with the facts” (1970, p. 25, emp. added). As we have seen, such profound statements are still relevant today.

Indeed, due to the nature of genetics, mutations simply do not provide a mechanism for Darwinian evolution to occur. In the words of Sanford, “The demise of the Primary Axiom leaves evolutionary theory without any viable mechanism. Without any naturalistic mechanism, evolution is not significantly different from any faith-based religion” (2008, p. 206; cf. Houts, 2007). [NOTE: “Faith” is used by Sanford here to describe those who believe in God without evidence—an idea which the Bible does not support (cf. John 8:32; 1 Thessalonians 5:21; Acts 17:11; 1 John 4:1; Miller, 2013).] Neo-Darwinism has no mechanism for progressing towards new species, and the origin of the genetic code remains a mystery for naturalists. Evolutionist Douglas Hofstadter, physicist and Distinguished Professor of Cognitive Science at Indiana University in Bloomington once said:

There are various theories on the origin of life. They all run aground on this most central of all central questions: “How did the Genetic Code, along with the mechanisms for its translation (ribosomes and RNA molecules) originate?” For the moment, we will have to content ourselves with a sense of wonder and awe rather than with an answer (1980, p. 548, emp. added).

Writing in Nature, evolutionist John Maddox said, “[I]t is disappointing that the origin of the genetic code is still as obscure as the origin of life itself” (1994, 367:111, emp. added). The unfortunate truth is that so many, both theists and atheists alike, have been steamrolled into believing Darwinian religion by the naturalist crowd. Evolution has been foisted upon the minds of children and touted as scientific fact for decades, when all the while, upon closer examination of the evidence, evolution is found to be baseless in its attempt to explain the origin of species. All along, an explanation for the origin of the kinds of creatures we see on Earth has been available that does not contradict the scientific evidence.

The Bible and Genetics

In the words of famous atheist, theoretical physicist, and cosmologist of Cambridge University, Stephen Hawking, “[T]he Universe is a machine governed by principles or laws—laws that can be understood by the human mind…. But what’s really important is that these physical laws, as well as being unchangeable, are universal. They apply not just to the flight of the ball, but to the motion of a planet and everything else in the Universe” (“Curiosity…,” 2011, emp. added). As with everything else in the law-abiding Universe, reproduction behaves in accordance with governing laws. Life produces according to its kind.

REFERENCES

Ayala, Francisco (1968), “Genotype, Environment, and Population Numbers,” Science, 162:1436.

Ayala, Francisco (1978), “The Mechanisms of Evolution,” Scientific American, 239[3]:56-59, September.

Bataillon, T. (2000), “Estimation of Spontaneous Genome-wide Mutation Rate Parameters: Whither Beneficial Mutations?” Heredity, 84:497-501.

Behe, Michael (2007), The Edge of Evolution (New York: Free Press).

Behe, M.J. (2010), “Experimental Evolution, Loss-of-Function Mutations, and ‘The First Rule of Adaptive Evolution,’” The Quarterly Review of Biology, 85[4]:419-445.

Bernardes, A.T. (1996), “Mutation Load and the Extinction of Large Populations,” Physica ACTA, 230:156-173.

Cartwright, John (2000), Evolution and Human Behavior (London: Macmillan).

Cavalli-Sforza, Luigi Luca (2000), Genes, Peoples, and Languages (New York: North Point Press).

Chain, Ernst (1970), Social Responsibility and the Scientist in Modern Western Society (London: Council of Christians and Jews).

Crow, J.F. (1997), “The High Spontaneous Mutation Rate: Is it a Health Risk?” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, U.S.A., 94:8380-8386.

“Curiosity: Did God Create the Universe?” (2011), Discovery Channel, August 7.

Darwin, Charles (1859), On the Origin of Species By Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life (London: John Murray).

Davidheiser, Bolton (1969), Evolution and Christian Faith (Nutley, NJ: Presbyterian & Reformed).

Ducoff, Howard (2007), “University of Illinois Biophysics: The First Half-Century,” Center for Biophysics and Computational Biology: University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, http://biophysics.illinois.edu/program/history.html.

Elena, S.F., L. Ekunwe, N. Hajela, S.A. Oden, and R.E. Lenski (1998), “Distribution of Fitness Effects Caused by Random Insertion Mutations in Escherichia Coli,” Genetica, 102-103[1-6]:349-358.

Gerrish, Philip J. and Richard E. Lenski (1998), “The Fate of Competing Beneficial Mutations in an Asexual Population,” Genetica, 102/103:127-144.

Gitt, Werner (2007), In the Beginning was Information (Green Forest, AR: Master Books), Kindle file.

Grassé, Pierre-Paul (1977), The Evolution of Living Organisms (New York: Academic Press).

Higgins, Kevin and Michael Lynch (2001), “Metapopulation Extinction Caused by Mutation Accumulation,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 98[5]:2928-2933.

Hofstadter, Douglas R. (1980), Godel, Escher, Bach: An Eternal Golden Braid (New York: Vintage Books).

Houts, Michael G. (2007), “Evolution is Religion—Not Science [Part I],” Reason & Revelation, 27[11]:81-87, November, http://apologeticspress.org/pub_rar/27_11/0711.pdf.

Klotz, John (1985), Studies in Creation (St. Louis, MO: Concordia).

Maddox, John (1994), “The Genesis Code by Numbers,” Nature, 367:111, January 13.

Margulis, Lynn and Dorion Sagan (2002), Acquiring Genomes: A Theory of the Origins of Species (New York: Basic Books).

Martin, C.P. (1953), “A Non-Geneticist Looks at Evolution,” American Scientist,41[1]:100-106, January.

Mayr, Ernst (2001), What Evolution Is (New York: Basic Books).

Meyer, Stephen C. (2004), “Intelligent Design: The Origin of Biological Information and the Higher Taxonomic Categories,” Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, 117[2]:213-239, http://www.discovery.org/a/2177.

Meyer, Stephen C. (2009), Signature in the Cell (New York: Harper Collins), Kindle file.

Miller, Jeff (2013), “Unlike Naturalists, You Creationists Have a Blind Faith,” Reason & Revelation, 33[7]:76-83, http://apologeticspress.org/apPubPage.aspx?pub=1&issue=1125&article=2164.

Morris, Henry M. (1984), The Biblical Basis for Modern Science (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker).

Muller, Hermann J. (1950), “Radiation Damage to the Genetic Material,” American Scientist, 38[1]:33-50,126, January.

Quastler, Henry (1964), The Emergence of Biological Organization (New Haven, CT: Yale University).

Sanford, J.C. (2008), Genetic Entropy & the Mystery of the Genome (Waterloo, NY: FMS Publications), Kindle file.

Wells, Jonathan (2011), The Myth of Junk DNA (Seattle, WA: Discovery Institute Press).

Wiener, Norbert (1965), Cybernetics: Or Control and Communication in the Animal and the Machine (Cambridge, MA: M.I.T.).

Winchester, A.M. (1951), Genetics (Boston, MA: Houghton-Mifflin).

The post God and the Laws of Science: Genetics vs. Evolution [Part 2] appeared first on Apologetics Press.