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.

The question “Where did God come from?” (or “What caused God?”) assumes that God had a cause. However, by definition, an eternal spirit (“the everlasting God”) cannot logically have a cause. Asking about God’s cause (or origin) is as incoherent as asking “Why matter is eternal?” Matter is not eternal. Matter is no more an eternal essence without a cause than God is a physical being with a cause. Asking “where did God come from?” is like asking “when did eternity start?” By definition, eternity never began. Eternity, by definition, is without beginning and end. By definition, so is God.

Consider that in nature, matter and energy are neither created nor destroyed. Scientists refer to this observed fact as the First Law of Thermodynamics. Evolutionists allege that the Universe began with the explosion of a ball of matter 13 to 14 billion years ago, yet they never have provided a reasonable explanation for the cause of the “original” ball of matter. Evolutionist David Shiga made an attempt a few years ago in an issue of New Scientist magazine in his cover story, “The Beginning: What Triggered the Big Bang.” Interestingly, in the last line of the article, Shiga admitted: “[T]he quest to understand the origin of the universe seems destined to continue until we can answer a deeper question: why is there anything at all instead of nothing?”¹ The fact is, a logical, naturalistic explanation for the origin of the “original” ball of matter that supposedly led to the Universe does not exist. It cannot exist so long as the First Law of Thermodynamics is true (that matter and energy cannot create themselves).

Since the physical Universe exists, and yet it could not have created itself, then the Universe is either eternal, or else some thing or some One outside of the Universe must have created it. Relatively few scientists propose that the Universe is eternal. In fact, there would be no point in attempting to explain the “beginning” of the Universe (with a Big Bang, for example) if scientists believed it has always existed. What’s more, the Second Law of Thermodynamics, which states that matter and energy become less usable over time, has led scientists to conclude that the Universe has not always existed; that is, it is not eternal.²

So why don’t the laws of thermodynamics or the law of causality³ apply to God? Because these scientific laws, like all scientific laws, apply to what we find and study in nature. Again, by definition, God is not natural and thus logically is not subject to the laws of nature.

In short, if matter is not eternal, and it cannot create itself, then the only logical conclusion is that some thing or some One outside of nature (i.e., supernatural) caused the material Universe and everything in it. Christians call this Someone, “the everlasting God, the Lord, the Creator of the ends of the earth” (Isaiah 40:28).

Endnotes

The post Where Did God Come From? appeared first on Apologetics Press.

In fact, according to the Bible, God Himself instituted the field of science. When God created human beings on day six and told them to “have dominion” over the Earth and “subdue” it (Genesis 1:28), He was commanding mankind to do something that would require extensive scientific investigation and experimentation. If God founded science, why would science be at odds with His Word? When God, through His servant Paul, said in Romans 1:20 that His existence and some of His attributes could be learned from studying His creation, He was putting His stamp of approval on the scientific study of creation—“the things that are made.” When He said in 1 Thessalonians 5:21 to “[t]est all things; hold fast what is good,” He was essentially summarizing the scientific method. By encouraging humans to study “the works of the Lord” (e.g., Creation and the Flood), He was endorsing science (Psalm 111:2). When God wanted Adam to name the animals, He instituted the field of biology (Genesis 2:19). When He highlighted to Job the natural laws that govern the Universe, He was encouraging the study of physics (Job 38:33). Job 12:8-10 emphasizes geology, while Psalm 19:1 and Genesis 15:5 encourage astronomy. Numbers 19 even delineates a basic recipe for antibacterial soap—chemistry in action. Solomon, in his inspired wisdom, endorsed the study of biological science, encouraging the study of eagles and serpents (Proverbs 30:18-19), as well as ants, badgers, locusts, and spiders (Proverbs 30:25-28). Jesus encouraged botany when drawing His audience’s attention to the lilies of the field (Matthew 6:28), seeds (Matthew 13:1-9,24-30), trees and vines (Matthew 7:16-20), and grass (Matthew 6:30); ornithology by pointing to the birds of the air as an illustration (Matthew 6:26); entomology when mentioning moths (Matthew 6:19-20); and zoology when discussing sheep, dogs, and swine (Luke 15:3-7; Matthew 7:6). In God’s sermon to Job in chapters 38-41, He chose to humble Job and instruct him by giving him a science lesson covering geology, cosmology, astronomy, physics, oceanography, nomology, optics, meteorology, and biology, including zoology, ornithology, entomology, herpetology, botany, and marine biology. Bottom line: God founded, endorsed, and even commanded science. Science is not anti-Scripture.

So, why the confusion? Some confusion comes from the nature of observational science: we cannot taste, touch, smell, hear, or see God, Creation, or the Flood. So the conclusion some draw is that biblical Creation is unscientific. While it is true that several aspects of the biblical model cannot be empirically verified since we cannot observe them today, the same can be said of several crucial steps in any naturalistic theory (e.g., the “Big Bang,” origin of life, origin of species, etc.). Such is the nature of “historical science”: deductive reasoning from indirect evidence must be used to substantiate a theory that concerns unobservable historical events, in the same way forensic scientists use science to investigate events that they did not personally witness. The biblical model, similar to any historical model, must be substantiated by indirect evidence, rather than direct. As we have shown elsewhere (see www.apologeticspress.org), the naturalistic model contradicts the evidence and the biblical model is supported by the evidence.

Further confusion comes from a comparison of Scripture with mainstream naturalistic science. It is true that several popular naturalistic theories have been advanced in modern times which contradict the Bible, but it is also true that, upon closer inspection, those models are found to contradict true science in fundamental ways. For example, one cannot be a naturalist and still believe in phenomena that do not happen in nature (e.g., cause-less effects¹; the spontaneous generation of the laws of science²; matter/energy³; life⁴; genetic information⁵; design⁶; etc.). A theory cannot contradict itself and still be true. True science will not have internal contradictions like those of naturalistic theories.

The biblical model, however, does not espouse such internally inconsistent, pseudo-scientific theories. Instead, it states unequivocally that the Universe was created ex nihilo by Jehovah, the Grand Designer, in six days—a proposition which does not contradict the evidence, and which is supported by indirect evidence. Several hundred years after Creation week, a global Flood occurred which dramatically affected the Earth. The evidence from science supports the Bible’s narrative of that event as well, including evidence from geology, paleontology, astronomy, biology, and meteorology.⁷

The biblical model is scientific because it can explain the origin of the laws of science. It is scientific because it can explain the Universe and its characteristics without contradiction. The biblical model is scientific since it accurately stated several of the laws of science before they were even discovered (e.g., the Law of Causality; First and Second Laws of Thermodynamics; Law of Biogenesis).⁸ The biblical model is scientific since it has made many verified scientific predictions.⁹ Bottom line: God founded science. When legitimate scientific findings are interpreted properly and fairly, science supports the Bible and Christianity. It certainly is not at odds with Scripture—since they share the same Author!

Endnotes

¹ Jeff Miller (2011), “God and the Laws of Science: The Law of Causality,” Apologetics Press, http://apologeticspress.org/article/3716.

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=93.

⁴ Jeff Miller (2012), “The Law of Biogenesis [Part I],” Reason & Revelation, 32[1]:2-11.

⁵ Jeff Miller (2014), “God and the Laws of Science: Genetics vs. Evolution [Part 1],” Reason & Revelation, 34[1]:2-11.

⁶ Jeff Miller (2017), “Atheists’ Design Admissions,” Reason & Revelation, 37[12]:134-143.

⁷ Paul Garner (2011), The New Creationism (Carlisle

⁸ Jeff Miller (2017), Science vs. Evolution (Montgomery, AL: Apologetics Press).

⁹ Jeff Miller (2014), “Bill Nye/Ken Ham Debate Review: Tying Up Really Loose Ends,” Reason & Revelation, 34[4].

Suggested Resournces

The post Do Science and Scripture Harmonize? Yes (Obviously) 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.

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.

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.

If the laws of thermodynamics indicate that the Universe could not have created itself or existed forever,¹ where did the Universe come from? If the laws themselves cannot write themselves into existence,² where did they come from? A growing number of naturalists are, ironically, recognizing that there has to be something outside of nature to explain the existence of the Universe. As we have shown elsewhere, there really is no such thing as a naturalist.³ Unnatural events—things which have not been shown to be able to occur in nature—must have occurred in the past in order to explain the natural realm (e.g., abiogenesis, laws of science writing themselves, matter/energy spontaneously generating, non-designed design, etc., had to occur).

In order to avoid admitting that a supernatural Being exists, the theory being invoked by a growing number of naturalists is that a supernatural (though apparently God-less) realm exists called the multiverse. This multiverse is thought to explain where matter, energy, the laws of physics, and even the “mysterious” examples of “fine-tuning” we see in the Universe came from, all without resorting to the existence of God as the explanation. In the words of cosmologist Bernard Carr of Queen Mary University of London, “If you don’t want God, you’d better have a multiverse.”⁴ So, what is the multiverse? Is there evidence for the existence of such a place?

String Theory: Alleged Support for the Multiverse

The multiverse is the idea that the Universe is not the only Universe that exists: other Universes exist (10⁵⁰⁰, according to string theory⁵) outside our own, and those Universes can collide, creating Big Bangs of their own.⁶ Cosmologist and Professor of Physics at California Institute of Technology Sean Carroll explained: “If conditions are just right…[parts of one Universe—JM] can undergo inflation and pinch off to form a separate universe all its own—a baby universe. Our universe may be the offspring of some other universe.”⁷

Though the multiverse is not demanded by string theory, some cosmologists attempt to find support for it through string theory. Cosmologist and distinguished emeritus Professor of Mathematics and Applied Mathematics at the University of Cape Town in South Africa George Ellis, and Professor of Physics and Astronomy at Johns Hopkins University Joseph Silk said, “Fundamentally, the multiverse explanation relies on string theory.”⁸ So before responding to the multiverse theory, what is string theory?

Modern physics is comprised of two branches: general relativity—physics that governs the “large” realm that we can generally see (e.g., astronomy, astrophysics, and cosmology), and a distinctly different physics that governs the “tiny” realm—namely, at the level of particles, atoms, and what makes up matter (i.e., quantum mechanics). The problem is that the physics of these two separate branches do not work together when joined. They apply only to their separate domains—not to the domain of the other. “This [realization—JM] set the stage for more than a half-century of despair as physicists valiantly struggled, but repeatedly failed, to meld general relativity and quantum mechanics, the laws of the large and small, into a single all-encompassing description”⁹—the so-called “theory of everything.”

While the concept of “string theory” has been around for several decades, persistent problems with the theory made it unpopular as a candidate for the “theory of everything.” Then in 1984, John Schwarz and Michael Green made discoveries that re-energized hope that string theory could bridge the divide between general relativity and quantum mechanics. Writing in Discover magazine, Steve Nadis explained, “[T]his theory attempted to unify all the known forces into a single, elegant package. Some physicists hailed string theory as the long-sought ‘theory of everything.’”¹⁰ Before string theory, the smallest, most fundamental “stuff” that were thought to make up matter (e.g., electrons, protons, neutrons, and photons) were infinitesimal, dimensionless particles—tiny dots that, unlike everything else, could not be broken down or divided into anything else and without any “internal machinery” of their own. In string theory, however, a change in the composition of the fundamental particles is hypothesized. Instead, the particles that make up matter are thought to be tiny, one dimensional, vibrating strings. How those strings vibrate determines what kind of particle something is (its mass, electric charge, nuclear properties, etc.). That might not necessarily sound far-fetched, but the fact that string theory requires the existence of six or seven unobserved dimensions—dimensions beyond those that we can perceive (i.e., length, width, height, and time)—in order for it to work,¹¹ definitely causes some physicists to scratch their heads in concern. Regardless, according to cosmologists and physicists Paul Steinhardt,¹² Justin Khoury,¹³ Burt Ovrut,¹⁴ and Neil Turok,¹⁵ the “inspiration” for their belief in the multiverse

came from string theory, the most widespread approach to get Einstein’s general theory of relativity, which best describes space and time, to play nicely with quantum mechanics, which best describes everything else. String theory proposes that the various particles that make up matter and transmit forces are vibrations of tiny quantum-mechanical strings, including one that produces a “graviton,” an as-yet-undetected particle that transmits gravity. It also predicts the existence of extra dimensions beyond the four [i.e., length, width, height, and time—JM] of space and time we see.¹⁶

According to Ellis, “If we had proof that string theory is correct, its theoretical predictions could be a legitimate, experimentally based argument for a multiverse.”¹⁷

The Multiverse: Seven Problems for the Naturalist

Is the multiverse theory true? Is it even science? Does it have any supporting evidence? Does it solve the naturalist’s problem of explaining the Universe without God?

Problem #1: String Theory

Recall that, while string theory does not necessarily imply that the multiverse is true, the multiverse “relies on string theory.”¹⁸ The first problem, then, with the multiverse hypothesis is that string theory, upon which the multiverse relies, still has no tangible evidence to substantiate it. Many physicists since Green’s and Schwarz’s discoveries

hailed string theory as the long-sought “theory of everything.” Harvard University physicist Andrew Strominger, a leader in string theory for decades…[knew] that such assertions were overblown. And, sure enough, skepticism has seeped in over the years. No one has yet conceived of an experiment that could definitively verify or refute string theory. The backlash may have peaked in 2006, when several high-profile books and articles attacked the theory.¹⁹

Regarding string theory as it relates to the multiverse, George Ellis said, “String theory has moved from being a theory that explains everything to a theory where almost anything is possible…. But string theory is not a tried-and-tested theory; it is not even a complete theory.”²⁰ Theoretical physicist and cosmologist of Arizona State University Lawrence Krauss admitted, “[W]e have, as of yet, no well-defined quantum theory of gravity—that is, a theory that describes gravity using the rules governing the behavior of matter and energy at the tiniest scales. String theory is perhaps the best attempt so far, but there is no evidence that it is correct or that it can consistently resolve all the problems that a complete quantum theory of gravity must address.”²¹ Astrophysicist Eric Chaison of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics said, “Although the theory of superstrings is now causing great excitement in the physics community, there is to date not a shred of experimental or observational evidence to support it.”²² Tim Folger, writing in Discover magazine, admitted that “[a]lthough experimental evidence for string theory is still lacking, many physicists believe it to be their best candidate for a theory of everything.”²³ Stuart Clark and Richard Webb, writing in New Scientist, acknowledged that “string theory has yet to make a single testable prediction.”²⁴

So in spite of the lack of evidence for string theory, many physicists are still holding on to hope. Notice Strominger’s optimism: “String theory may not be the fabled theory of everything…, ‘but it is definitely a theory of something.’”²⁵ But Silk and Ellis went further, acknowledging that string theory is “as yet unverified…. It is not, in our opinion, robust, let alone testable.”²⁶ Notice that according to Silk and Ellis, not only is string theory unverified, it is not even testable. If it is not testable, how can it be scientific? And if other dimensions exist according to string theory, and we cannot even observe them, how can string theory qualify as a legitimate scientific theory? To ask is to answer.

Such problems have not gone unnoticed by some physicists. In 2014 in Nature, Ellis and Silk wrote an article titled “Defend the Integrity of Physics,” in which they rebuked theoretical physicists for the direction they have turned in their scientific endeavors regarding string theory. The need for tangible evidence before accepting a theory is becoming a thing of the past:

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. They began to argue—explicitly—that if a theory is sufficiently elegant and explanatory, it need not be tested experimentally, breaking with centuries of philosophical tradition of defining scientific knowledge as empirical. We disagree. As the philosopher of science Karl Popper argued: a theory must be falsifiable to be scientific. Chief among the “elegance will suffice” advocates are some string theorists [who rely on unobservable entities to validate their theories—JM]…. These unprovable hypotheses [i.e., string theory and the multiverse—JM] are quite different from those that related directly to the real world and that are testable through observations…. As we see it, theoretical physics risks becoming a no-man’s land between mathematics, physics and philosophy that does not truly meet the requirements of any. The issue of testability has been lurking for a decade. String theory and multiverse theory have been criticized in popular books and articles.²⁷

So, string theorists are moving away from the long-standing definition of what constitutes “science.” Davide Castelvecchi, writing in Nature in 2015, said:

String theory is at the heart of a debate over the integrity of the scientific method itself. Is string theory science? Physicists and cosmologists have been debating the question for the past decade…. For a scientific theory to be considered valid, scientists often require that there be an experiment that could, in principle, rule the theory out—or “falsify” it, as the philosopher of science Karl Popper put it in the 1930s….²⁸

According to Castelvecchi, string theory is the “principal example” of theoretical physicists straying “from this guiding principle—even arguing for it to be relaxed…. The strings are too tiny to detect using today’s technology—but some argue that string theory is worth pursuing whether or not experiments will ever be able to measure its effects, simply because it seems to be the ‘right’ solution to many quandaries.”²⁹

String theory is not science. It is evidence-less speculation and conjecture. And some physicists recognize that the problem is even worse than a lack of evidence for string theory:

Joe Polchinski at the University of California at Santa Barbara and Raphael Bousso at the University of California at Berkeley calculated that the basic equations of string theory have an astronomical number of different possible solutions, perhaps as many as 10^1,000. Each solution represents a unique way to describe the universe. This meant that almost any experimental result would be consistent with string theory; the theory could never be proved right or wrong. Some critics say this realization dooms string theory as a scientific enterprise…. String theory is still very much a work in progress.³⁰

Notice that scientists have correctly relied heavily on the ability to test, observe, and falsify scientific theories. Sadly, many scientists have moved to the extreme in their interpretation of that principle, claiming that since the supernatural realm cannot be empirically tested or observed, the existence of God or the Creation model should not be considered on the table of scientific discussion: it is essentially false by scientific definition, and pure naturalism is defined as true. The above scientists, however, are highlighting the fact that with regard to string theory, many scientists are now openly contradicting that long-held belief. But if supernatural options are now allowed in the discussion, why will these same scientists not allow the biblical explanation to be considered in the discussion, considering that the Bible has supernatural attributes and therefore provides positive evidence of the existence of the supernatural realm and its Ruler?³¹

To be clear, some physicists draw a marked distinction between string theory and the multiverse, arguing that string theory is “testable ‘in principle’ and thus perfectly scientific, because the strings are potentially detectable.”³² It may be that string theory will one day be verified, but the point is that, until it is verified, those who wish to point to the multiverse as “evidence” that God need not exist have absolutely no scientific foundation upon which to launch a campaign for the existence of the multiverse. Proponents of the multiverse hold to a belief in it without evidence—their faith is blind. Further, keep in mind, once again, even if string theory were true, it still would not mean that the multiverse is true. If string theory is not true, however, then the small shred of hope some naturalists have that string theory could provide a starting point based in fact for proving the existence of a multiverse disappears.

Problem #2: Inflation

According to cosmologist and Professor of Physics at Stanford University Andrei Linde, and cosmologist, physicist, and director of the Institute of Cosmology at Tufts University Alex Vilenkin, during Big Bang inflation³³ (which they believe is still on-going) “different regions of the cosmos are budding off, undergoing inflation, and evolving into essentially separate universes. The same process will occur in each of those new universes in turn.”³⁴ The multiverse theory is tied to inflation, as is Big Bang Theory, but as we have shown elsewhere, inflation has no evidence to support it.³⁵ Writing in Nature in 2014, Paul Steinhardt, “who helped develop inflationary theory but is now a scathing critic of it,”³⁶ wrote a stinging critique of inflation. His article was in response to the lack of evidence for Big Bang inflation after the then newly discovered alleged evidence for it (the discovery of Big Bang gravitational waves) was found to be false.³⁷ In the article, titled “Big Bang Blunder Bursts the Multiverse Bubble,” he argued that “[p]remature hype over gravitational waves highlights gaping holes in models for the origins and evolution of the Universe.”³⁸ He noted that the “progeny” of inflation is the multiverse, but said,

The BICEP₂ incident [i.e., the erroneously hailed discovery of Big Bang inflation gravitational waves—JM] has also revealed a truth about inflationary theory. The common view is that it is a highly predictive theory. If that was the case and the detection of gravitational waves was the “smoking gun” proof of inflation, one would think that non-detection means that the theory fails. Such is the nature of normal science. Yet some proponents of inflation who celebrated the BICEP₂ announcement already insist that the theory is equally valid whether or not gravitational waves are detected. How is this possible? The answer given by proponents is alarming: the inflationary paradigm is so flexible that it is immune to experimental and observational tests…. [I]nflation does not end with a universe with uniform properties, but almost inevitably leads to a multiverse with an infinite number of bubbles, in which the cosmic and physical properties vary from bubble to bubble [i.e., inflation implies a multiverse—the two stand or fall together—JM]. 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. Hence, the paradigm of inflation [and subsequently, the multiverse—JM] is unfalsifiable…. [I]t is clear that the inflationary paradigm is fundamentally untestable, and hence scientifically meaningless.³⁹

Problem #2 for the multiverse, therefore, is that even if string theory were true, there is no evidence for Big Bang inflation—another necessary puzzle piece in multiverse theory.

Problem #3: No Evidence for the Multiverse

Even if string theory and inflation had evidence to substantiate their veracity, neither theory demands that the multiverse is a reality. The multiverse needs evidence of its own to substantiate it, and it has none. That means that, by definition, belief in the multiverse (like Big Bang inflation) is irrational, according to the Law of Rationality,⁴⁰ and another example of naturalists’ blind “faith” in naturalism.

Ellis acknowledged concerning the multiverse: “We just do not know what actually happens, for we have no information about these regionsand never will…. All in all, the case for the multiverse is inconclusive. The basic reason is the extreme flexibility of the proposal: it is more a concept than a well-defined theory…. The key step in justifying a multiverse is extrapolation from the known to the unknown, from the testable to the untestable.”⁴¹ Ellis and Silk noted that “[f]undamentally, the multiverse explanation relies on string theory, which is as yet unverified, and on speculative mechanisms for realizing different physics in different sister universes.”⁴²

Hugh Everett is credited with first proposing the popular “Many-Worlds Interpretation” of quantum physics: “a quantum ‘multiverse’ in which all possible outcomes are realized in a vast array of parallel worlds.” But after over 50 years since his proposal, according to theoretical physicist and professor at Columbia University Brian Greene, “we still do not know if his approach is right.”⁴³ Evidence is still lacking. Michael Finkel, writing in National Geographic, said,

In recent years it’s become increasingly accepted among theoretical physicists that our universe is not all there is. We live, rather, in what’s known as the multiverse—a vast collection of universes, each a separate bubble in the Swiss cheese of reality. 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.⁴⁴

Theoretical physicist and cosmologist of the University of Cambridge Stephen Hawking has advanced the multiverse idea as well, but admits that it is “still just a theory. It’s yet to be confirmed by any evidence.”⁴⁵ Astrophysicst Gregory Benford of the University of California at Irvine wrote in his book, What We Believe but Cannot Prove, “This ‘multiverse’ view represents the failure of our grand agenda and seems to me contrary to the prescribed simplicity of Occam’s Razor, solving our lack of understanding by multiplyingunseen entities into infinity.”⁴⁶ Physicist Mark Buchanan, writing in New Scientist, authored an article titled “When Does Multiverse Speculation Cross into Fantasy?” Responding to Max Tegmark’s claims about the multiverse in Our Mathematical Universe, Buchanan said,

Tegmark tries hard to make the seemingly outlandish sound almost obvious and unavoidable, and offers taxonomy to help organize a zoo of imagined parallel universes…. These other domains—or “universes”—could well exist, although we currently have no observational evidence for them…. [T]here does seem to be something a little questionable with this vast multiplication of multiverses…. Multiverse champions seem quite happy, even eager, to invoke infinite numbers of other universes as mechanisms for explaining things we see in our own universe. In a sense, multiverse enthusiasts take a “leap of faith” every bit as big as the leap to believing in a creator, as physicist Paul Davies put it in an article in The New York Times.⁴⁷

Philosopher Richard Dawid of Ludwig Maximillian University notes concerning the multiverse that “physicists have begun to use purely theoretical factors, such as the internal consistency of a theory or the absence of credible alternatives, to update estimates, instead of basing those revisions on actual data.”⁴⁸ It is bewildering why scientists would not see Creation as a “credible alternative,” considering that it is based on evidence.⁴⁹ Instead, they choose to throw out reason and make up imaginary realms without evidence. Is it possible that there is widespread bias against God in the scientific community?

There is no evidence for the multiverse, but that’s not the worst of it. Not only is there no evidence, but apparently, there can be no evidence. Theoretical physicist at the University of California, Santa Barbara, David Gross makes a distinction between string theory and the multiverse and sees multiverse theory as much more troubling than string theory, “because the other universes that it postulates probably cannot be observed from our own,even in principle.”⁵⁰ Stephen Battersby, writing in New Scientist, stated in despair concerning the multiverse,

Our standard cosmology also says that space was stretched into shape just a split second after the big bang by a third dark and unknown entity called the inflation field. That might imply the existence of a multiverse of countless other universes hidden from our view, most of them unimaginably alien—just to make models of our own universe work. Are these weighty phantoms too great a burden for our observations to bear—a wholesale return of conjecture out of a trifling investment of fact, as Mark Twain put it?⁵¹

Notice: the other Universes of the multiverse are “hidden from our view”—unobservable “phantoms”—and yet the multiverse is needed “just to make models of our own universe work.” In other words, the existence of a supernatural realm—an unobservable reality beyond our Universe—is demanded in order to make sense of the Universe (more on that subject later).

Ellis explained:

The notion of parallel universes leapt out of the pages of fiction into scientific journals in the 1990s. Many scientists claim that megamillions of other universes, each with its own laws of physics, lie out there, beyond our visual horizon. They are collectively known as the multiverse. The trouble is that no possible astronomical observations can ever see those other universes. The arguments are indirect at best. And even if the multiverse exists, it leaves the deep mysteries of nature [e.g., why does anything exist?—JM] unexplained…. All the parallel universes lie outside our horizon and remain beyond our capacity to see, now or ever, no matter how technology evolves. In fact, they are too far away to have had any influence on our universe whatsoever. That is why none of the claims made by multiverse enthusiasts can be directly substantiated.⁵²

Notice: according to Ellis, the multiverse is beyond our ability to see “now or ever, no matter how technology evolves.” “[N]one of the claims made by multiverse enthusiasts can be directly substantiated.” Recall that Ellis and Silk called the multiverse (and string theory) “imperceptible domains” and “unprovable hypotheses.”⁵³ In the multiverse, they say, “Billions of universes—and of galaxies and copies of each of us—accumulate with no possibility of communication between them or of testing their reality.”⁵⁴ Folger said, “For many physicists, the multiverse remains a desperate measure, ruled out by the impossibility of confirmation.”⁵⁵ One would think such admissions would give more scientists pause, but those bent on blindly rejecting God seem to be, literally, beyond reason on the matter.

Joshua Sokol, writing in New Scientist, said concerning “neighbouring universe[s] leaking into ours,” “Sadly, if they do exist, other bubbles are nigh on impossible to learn about.”⁵⁶ Amanda Gefter, also writing in New Scientist, discussed making predictions and testing them through observations in the Universe.“That’s not possible in an infinite multiverse: there are no definite predictions, only probabilities.”⁵⁷ Clark and Webb discuss various difficulties with the idea that there are many Universes: “The second is how you get convincing evidence for the existence of any of them.”⁵⁸ Lawson Parker, writing in National Geographic, explained that “[i]nflation theory says our universe exploded from…[a quantum energy] fluctuation—a random event that, odds are, had happened many times before. Our cosmos may be one in a sea of others just like ours—or nothing like ours. These other cosmos will very likely remain forever inaccessible to observation, their possibilities limited only by our imagination.”⁵⁹ How convenient for naturalists to be able to propose a theory to explain away God, and that theory be immune to falsification since it is known from the start to be “forever inaccessible to observation.”

[to be continued]

Endnotes

¹ 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.

² 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.

³ Jeff Miller (2014), “There’s No Such Thing as a Naturalist,” Apologetics Press, http://apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=12&article=5050.

⁴ 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.

⁵ Amanda Gefter (2009), “Multiplying Universes: How Many is the Multiverse?” NewScientist.com, October 31, https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20427323-700-multiplying-universes-how-many-is-the-multiverse/.

⁶ Michio Kaku (n.d.), “Michio Kaku Explains String Theory,” YouTube.com, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kYAdwS5MFjQ.

⁷ Sean M. Carroll (2008), “The Cosmic Origins of Time’s Arrow,” Scientific American, 298[6]:56, June.

⁸ George Ellis and Joe Silk (2014), “Defend the Integrity of Physics,” Nature, 516[7531]:322, December, emp. added.

⁹ 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.

¹⁰ Steve Nadis (2016), “The Fall and Rise of String Theory,” Discover, 37[5]:18, June.

¹¹ Nadis, p. 19.

¹² Theoretical physicist, cosmologist, and Professor of Physics at Princeton University.

¹³ Particle physicist, cosmologist, and Associate Professor and Chair of Physics and Astronomy at the University of Pennsylvania.

¹⁴ High energy particle physicist, cosmologist, and Professor of Physics at the University of Pennsylvania.

¹⁵ Cosmologist, physicist, and Director of the Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics.

¹⁶ As noted in Amanda Gefter (2012), “Bang Goes the Theory,” New Scientist, 214[2871]:35, June 30, emp. added.

¹⁷ George F.R. Ellis (2011), “Does the Multiverse Really Exist?” Scientific American, 305[2]:42.

¹⁸ Ellis and Silk, p. 322.

¹⁹ Nadis, p. 18, emp. added.

²⁰ Ellis, p. 42, emp. added.

²¹ Lawrence M. Krauss (2014), “A Beacon from the Big Bang,” Scientific American, 311[4]:67, emp. added.

²² Eric J. Chaison (2001), Cosmic Evolution (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press), p. 246, emp. added.

²³ Folger, emp. added.

²⁴ Stuart Clark and Richard Webb (2016), “Six Principles/Six Problems/Six Solutions,” New Scientist, 231[3092]:28-35, p. 35, emp. added.

²⁵ As quoted in Nadis, p. 18.

²⁶ Ellis and Silk, p. 322, emp. added.

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

²⁸ Davide Castelvecchi (2015), “Feuding Physicists Turn to Philosophy,” Nature, 528[7583]:446, December 24, emp. added.

²⁹ Ibid.

³⁰ Tim Folger (2008), “Science’s Alternative to an Intelligent Creator: the Multiverse Theory,” DiscoverMagazine.com, November 10, emp. added.

³¹ Kyle Butt (2007), Behold! The Word of God (Montgomery, AL: Apologetics Press), /pdfs/e-books_pdf/ Behold%20the%20Word%20of%20God.pdf.

³² Castelvecchi, p. 447.

³³ Inflation is generally understood to be the brief period of time at the beginning of the alleged Big Bang where the Universe is thought to have expanded faster than the speed of light.

³⁴ As noted in Folger.

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

³⁶ Michael Slezak (2014), “The Rise and Fall of Cosmic Inflation,” New Scientist, 224[2989]:8, October 4.

³⁷ Miller, 2015a.

³⁸ 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.

³⁹ Ibid., emp. added.

⁴⁰ Lionel Ruby (1960), Logic: An Introduction (Chicago, IL: J.B. Lippincott), pp. 126-127.

⁴¹ Ellis, pp. 41-43, emp. added.

⁴² Ellis and Silk, p. 322, emp. added.

⁴³ Brian Greene (2013), “Roots of Reality,” New Scientist, 217[2906]:39, March 2.

⁴⁴ Michael Finkel (2014), “Our Star, The Sun, Will Die A Quiet Death,” National Geographic, 225[3]:102, March, emp. added.

⁴⁵ As quoted in David Shukman (2010), “Professor Stephen Hawking Says No God Created Universe,” BBC News, September 2, emp. added, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11172158.

⁴⁶ Gregory Benford (2006), What We Believe But Cannot Prove, ed. John Brockman (New York: Harper Perennial), p. 226, emp. added.

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

⁴⁸ As quoted in Castelvecchi, p. 447, emp. added.

⁴⁹ 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.

⁵⁰ As noted in Castelvecchi, p. 447, emp. added.

⁵¹ Stephen Battersby (2013), “The Dark Side,” New Scientist, 217[2906]:41, March 2, emp. added.

⁵² Ellis, pp. 39-41, emp. added.

⁵³ Ellis and Silk, p. 321.

⁵⁴ Ibid., p. 322.

⁵⁵ Folger.

⁵⁶ Joshua Sokol (2015), “A Brush with a Universe Next Door,” New Scientist, 228[3045]:8, October 31, emp. added.

⁵⁷ Gefter, 2012, p. 34, emp. added.

⁵⁸ Clark and Webb, p. 35, emp. added.

⁵⁹ Lawson Parker (2014), “Cosmic Questions,” , 225[4], April, center tearout, emp. added.

The post 7 Reasons the Multiverse Is Not a Valid Alternative to God [Part 1] 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.

Although atheists contend that God does not exist and agnostics allege that there is a very high probability that He does not exist, theism is the rational belief that there is a God. A sincere pursuer of truth who follows the available evidence will come to the logical conclusion that God exists. Admittedly, this belief in the 21^st century is not the result of seeing God’s Spirit or touching His actual essence (cf. John 4:24; Luke 24:39). What we have at our fingertips, however, is a mountain of irrefutable, indirect, credible evidence that testifies on God’s behalf. Consider seven lines of evidence that warrant the conclusion that an eternal, supernatural Creator (God) exists.

1. Matter Demands a Maker

No rational person denies the fact that matter exists. The Universe and every atom that makes it up is a reality. The logical question to ask is, “Where did it all come from?” From the Milky Way to the most-distant galaxy in the Universe—what was the cause? What made matter?

A study of the material Universe reveals that every physical effect must have an adequate antecedent or simultaneous cause (an idea known as the Law of Cause and Effect or the Law of Causality). The American flag that stood erect on the surface of the moon in 1969 was neither eternal nor without a cause. Its existence on the Moon demands a sufficient cause. The robotic rovers that have rolled across the surface of Mars since the early 21^st century are the effect of adequate causes. No one believes that they popped into existence from nothing or that they are the result of any number of ridiculous, insufficient causes that could be suggested (e.g., an accidental explosion in a junk yard on Earth sent metal objects spiraling toward Mars that assembled themselves into the robotic rovers). Simply put, all material effects demand adequate causes (see Miller, 2011 for more information).

So what caused the Universe and all of the matter in the Universe? The theory that atheistic evolutionists have advanced for several decades now, which supposedly best explains our existence from a purely naturalistic perspective, is known as the Big Bang. Allegedly, approximately 14 billion years ago all of the matter and energy in the Universe was concentrated in a tiny ball of matter that exploded, causing the eventual formation of galaxies throughout the Universe.

The obvious problem with this explanation is that even if the Big Bang actually happened (and sound science argues against such a theory—see May, et al., 2003), a person must still explain whence came the “original” ball of matter. It must have an adequate cause. What do some leading atheists and agnostics around the world argue about the cause of matter? Atheistic cosmologist Stephen Hawking stated on national television in 2011, “Nothing caused the Big Bang” (“Curiosity…,” emp. added). In the book The Grand Design that Dr. Hawking co-authored, he and Leonard Mlodinow asserted: “Bodies such as stars and black holes cannot just appear out of nothing. But a whole universe can” (2010, p. 180, emp. added). In 2006, Todd Friel asked Dan Barker, one of America’s leading atheists, “Do you really believe that something came from nothing?” (emp. added). Barker responded with a simple, “Yes” (“Wretched…”).

The observable truth is, however, in nature, matter and energy are neither created nor destroyed. Scientists refer to this fact as the First Law of Thermodynamics. Though evolutionists have alleged that the Universe began with the explosion of a ball of matter several billion years ago, they never have provided a reasonable explanation for the cause of the “original” ball of matter. “Nothing” is not a reasonable explanation. In 2007, the pro-evolutionary New Scientist magazine ran a cover story titled “The Beginning: What Triggered the Big Bang?” in which the publication attempted to explain the origin of the Universe. But consider the last line of the featured article: “[T]he quest to understand the origin of the universe seems destined to continue until we can answer a deeper question: why is there anything at all instead of nothing?” (“The Universe…,” 194[2601]:33, emp. added). The implication of such a question is quite clear: if at one time in the past “nothing” existed, then nothing should exist today. A reasonable, naturalistic explanation for the origin of the “original” ball of matter that supposedly led to the Universe does not exist. One of the world’s leading atheists, Richard Dawkins, has basically admitted such.

In a panel discussion in 2012 on Australian national television, Dr. Dawkins was asked “how it is that something as enormous as the universes came from nothing?” Notice what Dawkins admitted: “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. That’s why it’s interesting. It’s got to be interesting in order to give rise to the universe at all. Something pretty mysterious had to give rise to the origin of the universe” (“Q&A…,” emp. added). Indeed, atheism’s explanation for the origin of matter is “not agreeing with what seems right or natural” (“Counterintuitive,” 2014). According to Dawkins’ own admissions, the idea of getting something from nothing in nature defies “common sense.” It is far from “sound and prudent judgment based on a simple perception of the situation or facts” (“Common Sense,” 2014).

What’s more, atheists cannot logically argue that the Universe is eternal. It seems that relatively few scientists even propose an eternal Universe anymore. (In fact, there would be no point in attempting to explain the “beginning” of the Universe in a Big Bang if atheists believed it always existed.) Furthermore, the Second Law of Thermodynamics, which states that matter and energy become less usable over time, has led most scientists to conclude that the Universe has not always existed (else we would be out of usable energy; see Miller, 2013). The fact is, the Universe had a beginning. Alex Vilenkin, cosmologist from Tufts University, pressed this fact in his book titled Many Worlds in One: “It is said that an argument is what convinces reasonable men and a proof is what it takes to convince even an unreasonable man. With the proof now in place, cosmologists can no longer hide behind the possibility of a past-eternal universe. There is no escape: they have to face the problem of acosmic beginning” (2006, p. 176, emp. added).

At one time in the past, the material Universe did not exist. Then, at some point, matter came into existence. But since matter is not eternal and cannot create itself from nothing, then something outside of the material realm must have brought matter into existence.

In short, matter demands a Maker. The evidence clearly indicates that the cause of the Universe is inexplicable without a supernatural Being. Something has to be eternally powerful, but we know it cannot be natural or material. Romans 1:20 says: “For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse.” Without some type of eternal power, our Universe cannot exist, and the atheistic answer that our Universe created itself from nothing is the furthest thing from either a scientific or a rational explanation.

2. Life Demands a Life Giver

Life does not pop into existence from nothing. Neither the puppy at the pound nor the bacteria on the doorknob spontaneously generated. Every scientist, whether theist or atheist, knows this observation to be true.

In biology, one of the most widely recognized laws of science is the Law of Biogenesis. “Biogenesis” is composed of two words—“bio,” which means life, and “genesis,” which means beginning. Thus, this law deals with the beginning of life, and it simply says that in nature life comes only from previous life of its own kind. Over the years, the truthfulness of this law has been documented by thousands of scientists, most notably Louis Pasteur. His work dealt a crushing blow to the notion of spontaneous generation.

In 1933, evolutionist John Sullivan admitted that “it became an accepted doctrine that life never arises except from life. So far as the actual evidence goes, this is still the only possible conclusion” (p. 94, emp. added). Okay, but that was 1933. As we move further into the 20^th century the obvious question was “Is it still the only possible conclusion?” What have we learned since the days of Louis Pasteur in the 19^th century and John Sullivan in the first half of the 20^th century? Observational science has reached the same conclusion experiment after experiment, year after year. The eminent evolutionist George Gaylord Simpson and his colleagues observed that “there is no serious doubt that biogenesis is the rule, that life comes only from other life, that a cell, the unit of life, is always and exclusively the product or offspring of another cell” (1965, p. 144, emp. added). Evolutionist Martin Moe noted that “a century of sensational discoveries in the biological sciences has taught us that life arises only from life” (1981, 89[11]:36, emp. added). More recently, staunch evolutionist Neil Shubin conceded the following in his book titled Your Inner Fish:

I can share with you one true law that all of us can agree upon. This law is so profound that most of us take it completely for granted. Yet it is the starting point for almost everything we do in paleontology, developmental biology, and genetics. This biological “law of everything” is that every living thing on the planet had parents. Every person you’ve ever known has biological parents, as does every bird, salamander, or shark you have ever seen…. To put it in a more precise form: every living thing sprang from some parental genetic information (2009, p. 174).

The importance of Shubin’s concession must not be missed. He recognizes that the actual scientific information verifies that life in the natural world must come from previously existing life. Yet he refuses to carry that fact to its proper conclusion: that life could not have sprung from non-living chemicals. Materialistic evolution cannot adequately account for or explain the most basic laws of science, not the least of which is the Law of Biogenesis.

If it is the case that the “only possible conclusion” which scientific evidence demands is that in nature “life never arises except from life,” then, pray tell, how did the first life come into being? Did it somehow break the most fundamental natural law of biology and arise “naturally” from non-life? Or is there another possibility? The truth is, there is another possibility (which science has not disproved), but it is one that evolutionists such as John Sullivan admitted that “scientific men find very difficult of acceptance” (p. 94, emp. added). According to Sullivan, “So far as the actual evidence goes,” biogenesis “is still the only possible conclusion. But…it is a conclusion that seems to lead back to some supernatural creative act” (p. 94, emp. added). Do not miss the point: real, true, operational science indirectly supports a “supernatural creative act,” which implies a supernatural Creator.

Evolutionist and Harvard University Professor George Wald similarly admitted in an article he wrote titled “The Origin of Life” that there ultimately are two options for life’s origin: (1) spontaneous generation and (2) “the only alternative, to believe in a single, primary act of supernatural creation. There is no third position” (1954, p. 46). Sadly, though “[m]ost modern biologists, having reviewed with satisfaction the downfall of the spontaneous generation hypothesis,” they are “unwilling to accept the alternative belief in special creation” (p. 46). Rather than follow the evidence where it ultimately leads (to a supernatural Creator!), atheists would rather put their confidence in a theory that was disproven long ago. Antony Flew, who for five decades was the world’s leading atheistic thinker, was forced in the end to conclude: “The only satisfactory explanation for the origin of such ‘end-directed, self-replicating’ life as we see on earth is an infinitely intelligent Mind” (2007, p. 132; see Miller, 2012 for more information).

3. Design Demands a Designer

Everyday observation reveals and confirms the obvious fact that complex, functional design demands a designer. Paintings demand painters. Poems demand poets. Architecture demands architects. And on and on we could go. Everyone knows that cars and computers, pianos and projectors all require engineers, technicians, and tuners for them to exist and function properly. But what about the Universe as a whole? Can it be described accurately as “designed”? If so, what could such design imply about its origin?

No honest, informed person can deny that the Universe is extremely fine-tuned and functionally complex. From the Earth’s precise orbit around the Sun to a shorebird’s 15,000-mile yearly migration pattern, literally millions of examples of fine-tuned design in nature could be pondered. But consider just one example involving electrons and protons. The ratio of the mass of an electron to a proton is 1:1836, which means that a proton is 1,836 times more massive than an electron. Even with this mass difference, however, electrons and protons have the same electrical charge. Scientists suggest that if the electrical charge of the electron were altered by one part in 100 billion, our bodies would instantly explode (Barrow and Tipler, 1986, pp. 293, 296). Is such precision indicative of precise design? Most certainly.

The truth is, atheists frequently testify to the “design” in nature. Australian atheistic astrophysicist Paul Davies has admitted that the Universe (which according to atheists is the result of mindless, naturalistic, random processes) is “uniquely hospitable” (2007, p. 30), “remarkable” (p. 34), and “ordered in an intelligible way” (p. 30). He even admitted to the “fine-tuned properties” of the Universe. In a 2008 National Geographic article titled “Biomimetics: Design by Nature,” the word “design” (or one of its derivatives—designs, designed, etc.) appeared no less than seven times in reference to “nature’s designs.” The author, evolutionist Tom Mueller, referred to nature’s “sophistication” and “clever devices” (2008, p. 79) and praised nature for being able to turn simple materials “into structures of fantastic complexity, strength, and toughness” (p. 79). After learning of the uncanny, complicated maneuverability of a little blowfly, Mueller even confessed to feeling the need to regard the insect “on bended knee in admiration” (p. 82). Why? Because of its “mysterious” and “complicated” design. The fact is, as evolutionist Jerry Coyne admitted, “Nature resembles a well-oiled machine…. The more one learns about plants and animals, the more one marvels at how well their designs fit their ways of life” (2009, pp. 1,3).

But how can you get design without purpose, intelligence, and deliberate planning? The first three definitions the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary gives for “design” (noun) are as follows: “1a: a particular purpose held in view by an individual or group…b: deliberate purposive planning… 2: a mental project or scheme in which means to an end are laid down; 3a: a deliberate undercover project or scheme”  (“Design,” 2014, emp. added). After defining “design” as a drawing, sketch, or “graphic representation of a detailed plan…,” the American Heritage Dictionary of the English Languagenoted that design may be defined as “[t]he purposeful or inventive arrangement of parts or details” (“Design,” 2000, p. 492, emp. added). A design is preceded by “deliberate purposive planning,” “a detailed plan,” or an “inventive arrangement.” A design is the effect, not of time, chance, and unintelligent, random accidental explosions (what nonsense!), but of the purposeful planning and deliberate actions of an inventor or designer. Literally, by definition, design demands a designer; thus the designed Universe demands a Designer.

According to Paul Davies: “Our universe seems ‘just right’ for life. It looks as if…a super-intellect has been monkeying with physics” (2007, p. 30). Similarly, well-known skeptic Michael Shermer conceded, “The reason people think that a Designer created the world is because it looks designed” (2006, p. 65, emp. added).

Indeed, both honest observation and rational thought should lead every truth-seeking individual to the same conclusion that the psalmist came to 3,000 years ago: “The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament shows His handiwork” (19:1). “The whole earth is full of His glory” (Isaiah 6:3). Both the heavens and the Earth testify day after day and night after night to anyone and everyone who will listen (Psalm 19:2-4). “Lift up your eyes on high, and see Who has created these things” (Isaiah 40:26).

Since the Universe exhibits complex, functional design, and (by definition) complex, functional design demands a designer, then the Universe must have an intelligent designer. This argument for God is logically sound and observationally true. A person can know (without a doubt) that God exists if for no other reason than that the Universe’s design demands a Designer. “For every house is built by someone, but He Who built all things is God” (Hebrews 3:4).

4. Intelligence Demands an Intelligent Creator

Intelligence is defined as “the capacity to acquire and apply knowledge” (“Intelligence,” 2000, p. 910); “the ability to learn or understand things or to deal with new or difficult situations” (“Intelligence,” 2014). It is not difficult to identify certain things that have some measure of “intelligence,” while recognizing other things that have no intelligence. Man obviously has an extremely high level of intelligence. He has constructed spaceships that he can guide 240,000 miles to the Moon while both the Earth and the Moon are in motion. He has built artificial hearts that can extend the lives of the sick. He continues to construct computers that can process billions of pieces of information a second. He can write poetry, calculate where Mars will be 50 years from the present, and build everything from pianos to PlayStation video game consoles. Man is an intelligent being.

Although there is a great chasm between mankind and the animal kingdom, animals do possess a measure of intelligence. Dogs can learn to sit, stay, roll over, and play dead. Dolphins can learn to jump through hoops on command. Birds can make helpful “tools” from twigs in order to accomplish some basic tasks. A few years ago, two colorful, eight-legged cephalopods, known as cuttlefish, graced the cover of the journal New Scientist. The authors referred to this amazing sea creature as a “sophisticated,” “inventive,” eight-legged “genius” with “intelligence” and a “secret code” (Brooks, 2008).

According to atheistic evolution, billions of years ago “nothing” caused a tiny ball of matter to explode. Then, billions of years after this Big Bang, galaxies began to form from lifeless, mindless, unintelligent particles floating around in space in massive clouds of dust. Allegedly, Earth eventually evolved from such a dust cloud. Hundreds of millions of years later, intelligent animals and humans evolved.

What humans have consistently observed in nature, however, is that intelligence demands previous intelligence. The reason that humans in the 21^st century are intelligent is because our ancestors were intelligent. The reason that animals have some measure of intelligence is due to intelligent creatures that came before them. Dust does not give way to organized dust particles that have “the capacity to acquire and apply knowledge.” Water does not think. The mindless mud that evolutionists contend gave way to intelligent life on Earth is nothing but a delusional tale unsupported by everything we know from observation and experience. Neither “nothing” nor inorganic matter ever produces intelligent creatures. So how did the first intelligent creatures come to inhabit the Universe? Just as the first life demands a supernatural life Giver, so the first intelligent beings demand a self-existent, miracle-working Creator of intelligence.

5. Morality Demands a Moral Law Giver

Why do people generally think that some actions are “right” and some actions are “wrong,” regardless of their subjective opinions? Why do most people believe that it is “evil” or “wicked” (1) for an adult to torture an innocent child simply for the fun of it? (2) for a man to beat and rape a kind, innocent woman? or (3) for parents to have children for the sole purpose of abusing them sexually every day of their lives? Because, as evolutionist Edward Slingerland noted, humans have metaphysical rights—rights that are “a reality beyond what is perceptible to the senses” (“Metaphysical,” 2014)—and  “rely on moral values” (as quoted in Reilly, 2007, 196[2629]:7). The fact is, most people, even many atheists, have admitted that real, objective good and evil exist.

Although objective morality may be outside the realm of the scientific method, every rational person can know that some actions are innately good, while others are innately evil. Antony Flew and Wallace Matson, two of the leading atheistic philosophers of the 20^th century, forthrightly acknowledged the existence of objective morality in their debates with theistic philosopher Thomas B. Warren in the 1970s (see Warren and Flew, 1977; Warren and Matson, 1978). Atheist Michael Ruse admitted in his book Darwinism Defended that “[t]he man who says that it is morally acceptable to rape little children, is just asmistaken as the man who says that 2 + 2 = 5” (1982, p. 275, emp. added). Philosophers Francis Beckwith and Gregory Koukl said it well: “Those who deny obvious moral rules—who say that murder and rape are morally benign, that cruelty is not a vice, and that cowardice is a virtue—do not merely have a different moral point of view; they have something wrong with them” (1998, p. 59, emp. added). 

Most rational people do not merely feel like rape and child abuse may be wrong; they are wrong—innately wrong. Just as two plus two can really be known to be four, every rational human can know that some things are objectively good, while other things are objectively evil. However, reason demands that objective good and evil can only exist if there is some real, objective point of reference. If something (e.g., rape) can be legitimately criticized as morally wrong, then there must be an objective standard—“some ‘higher law which transcends the provincial and transient’ which is other than the particular moral code and which has an obligatory character which can be recognized” (Warren and Matson, p. 284).

Recognition by atheists of anything being morally wrong begs the question: How can an atheistlogically call something atrocious, deplorable, evil, or wicked? According to atheism, man is nothing but matter in motion. Humankind allegedly evolved from rocks and slime over billions of years. How could moral value come from rocks and slime? Who ever speaks of “wrong rocks,” “moral minerals,” or “corrupt chemicals”? People do not talk about morally depraved donkeys, evil elephants, or immoral monkeys. Pigs are not punished for being immoral when they eat their young. Komodo dragons are not corrupt because 10% of their diet consists of younger Komodo dragons. Killer whales are not guilty of murder. Male animals are not tried for rape if they appear to forcibly copulate with females. Dogs are not depraved for stealing the bone of another dog. Moral value could not arise from rocks and slime.

The fact that humans even contemplate morality testifies to the huge chasm between man and animals and the fact that moral value could not have arisen from animals. Atheistic evolutionists have admitted that morals arise only in humans. George Gaylord Simpson, one of the most recognized atheistic evolutionists of the 20^th century, confessed that “[g]ood and evil, right and wrong, concepts irrelevant in nature except from the human viewpoint, become real and pressing features of the whole cosmos as viewed morally because morals arise only in man” (1951, p. 179, emp. added). Atheists admit that people (i.e., even “atheists”) have “their own innate sense of morality” (“Do Atheists…?, n.d.). No rational person makes such admissions about animals. “Humans,” not animals, “rely on moral values” (as quoted in Reilly, 2007, 196[2629]:7).

The moral argument for God’s existence exposes atheism as the self-contradictory, atrocious philosophy that it is. Atheists must either reject the truthfulness of the moral argument’s first premise (“If objective moral value exists, then God exists”) and illogically accept the indefensible idea that objective morality somehow arose from rocks and reptiles, or (2) they must reject the argument’s second premise (“Objective moral values exist”), and accept the insane, utterly repulsive idea that genocide, rape, murder, theft, child abuse, etc. can never once be condemned as objectively “wrong.” What’s more, if atheism is true, individuals could never logically be punished for such immoral actions, since “no inherent moral or ethical laws” would exist (Provine, 1988, p. 10).

If there is no God, then there is no objective basis to say that some things are right and others are wrong. Reason demands that objective good and evil can only exist if there is some real, objective reference point outside of nature. The only reasonable answer to an objective moral law for humans is a supernatural, moral law Giver.

6. The Bible’s Supernatural Attributes Demand a Supernatural Author

Christians do not believe that God exists simply because the Bible teaches that He does, nor do Christians believe that the Bible is the Word of God simply because the Bible claims to be inspired by God. Anyone can make claims about whatever they wish. Simply because a person claims to have revelation from a supernatural Creator does not make it so (e.g., the Book of Mormon; see Miller, 2009). However, if the Bible possesses attributes that are super-human, then the Bible proves itself to be of supernatural origin and has indirectly proven the existence of the supernatural Author. American atheist Dan Barker alluded to the legitimacy of this argumentation for God’s existence in 2009 when he explained that one of the things which could falsify atheism would be if God spoke to man and gave him specific information about future events (see Butt and Barker, pp. 50-51).

Indeed, one extremely valuable line of evidence that confirms that the Bible is the inspired Word of God is the presence of accurate, predictive prophecy contained in its pages. Not only are the prophecies of the Bible fulfilled in minute detail with complete accuracy, but these fulfillments are often accomplished centuries after the prophecies were made. Even the skeptic understands that if this is the case, a supernatural agent must be responsible for the writing of the Bible. That is why the skeptic attempts to discredit the prophecies by claiming that they were written after the events or by claiming that they were not fulfilled in detail. By attempting to disparage the prophecies using these methods, the skeptic admits that if the prophecies were written centuries before the events, and if they are fulfilled in detail, then a supernatural agent is responsible for them. As the prophet Jeremiah wrote: “As for the prophet who prophecies of peace, when the word of the prophet comes to pass, the prophet will be known as one whom the Lord has truly sent” (28:9). Completely accurate, fulfilled prophecy is a characteristic that verifies the divine inspiration of the Bible.

One such prophecy concerned a man named Cyrus and two nations: Babylon and the Medo-Persian Empire. Isaiah, who prophesied around 700 B.C., vividly described how God would destroy the powerful kingdom of Babylon, “the glory of kingdoms” (13:19). Writing as if it had already occurred (commonly known as the “prophetic perfect,” frequently employed in the Old Testament to stress the absolute certainty of fulfillment, e.g., Isaiah 53), Isaiah declared Babylon would fall (21:9). He then prophesied that Babylon would fall to the Medes and Persians (Isaiah 13; 21:1-10). Later, he proclaimed that the “golden city” (Babylon) would be conquered by a man named Cyrus (44:28; 45:1-7). This is a remarkable prophecy, especially since Cyrus was not born until almost 150 years after Isaiah penned these words.

Not only did Isaiah predict that Cyrus would overthrow Babylon, but he also wrote that Cyrus, serving as Jehovah’s “anointed” and “shepherd,” would release the Jews from captivity and assist them in their return to Jerusalem for the purpose of rebuilding the temple. Isaiah’s prophecies were recorded almost 200 years before Cyrus conquered Babylon (539 B.C.). Amazing! [NOTE: Secular history verifies that all of these events came true. There really was a man named Cyrus who ruled the Medo-Persian Empire. He did conquer Babylon. And just as Isaiah prophesied, he assisted the Jews in their return to Jerusalem and in the rebuilding of the temple.]

Truly, “no prophecy of Scripture is of any private interpretation, for prophecy never came by the will of man, but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit” (2 Peter 1:20-21). And, if men were inspired of God to write the Scriptures (2 Timothy 3:16), then God exists. In short, the Bible’s supernatural attributes logically demand a supernatural Author (see Butt, 2007 for more information).

7. The Historical, Miracle-Working, Resurrected Jesus Demands a Supernatural Explanation

Human beings can do many amazing things. They can run 26.2 miles without stopping. They can show remarkable courage in the face of great danger. They can even walk along a tightrope hundreds of feet above the ground. But there are certain actions that are humanly impossible. Humans cannot walk on water unassisted, give sight to the blind, instantly reattach severed ears with only their hands, or raise the dead. If ever such a “man” existed, his life would logically testify to the existence of a supernatural Being.

Atheists understand the rationality of this argument. Dan Barker once said on record, “If Jesus were to materialize” and work any number of miraculous deeds, atheism would be disproven (see Butt and Barker, p. 51), and thus theism would be established as a fact. The truth is, the very proof that Barker and other atheists request was provided 2,000 years ago when God put on flesh and came to Earth in the form of man. And He did not merely claim to be God; He did what a reasonable person could expect if God were ever to prove His divinity on Earth—He fulfilled precise prophecies and worked supernatural miracles, including coming back from the dead Himself. (For more information, see Butt and Lyons, 2006). The life and works of Jesus testify to the existence of a supernatural Being.

In 2012, renowned atheist Richard Dawkins was questioned about his unbelief in God. Specifically, he was asked, “What proof, by the way, would change your mind?” He quickly responded by saying, “That is a very difficult and interesting question because, I mean, I used to think that if somehow, you know, great, big, giant 900-foot high Jesus with a voice like Paul Robeson suddenly strode in and said, ‘I exist and here I am,’ but even that, I actually sometimes wonder if that would…” (“Q&A…,” 2012). So, though Dr. Dawkins raises the possibility of the legitimacy of disproving atheism with a 900-foot high, hypothetical Jesus, He continually rejects the historical, miracle-working, resurrected-from-the-dead Jesus Who walked the Earth 2,000 years ago. Sadly, such irrational, hard-hearted unbelief is nothing new. Even some in the very presence of Jesus in the first century, who testified to the supernatural feats that He worked, rejected Him (cf. John 11:45-53; 12:9-11). Thus, it should not be surprising that many will reject the Lord God today despite the evidence for His existence.

Conclusion

Atheists are fond of claiming that their way of thinking is logical, reasonable, and intellectual. Yet atheism irrationally says that everything came from nothing. Atheism says that an explosion caused exquisite order. It says that random chances produced precision and that life popped into existence in nature from non-life. Atheism contends that a well-designed Universe could come about without a Designer. Atheism says that fish and frogs are man’s distant forefathers and that intelligence is ultimately the result of non-intelligence. Atheism alleges that either man is on the same moral plane as a moose, or he actually evolved a sense of morality from amoral mice. While trying to convince others he is galloping confidently atop a stallion called Common Sense, atheism stumbles on the back of a donkey called Foolishness.

Theism, on the other hand, is absolutely rational. Why? Because (among other things) (1) matter demands a Maker; (2) life demands a Life Giver; (3) design demands a Designer; (4) intelligence demands an Intelligent Creator; (5) morality demands a Moral Law Giver; (6) the Bible’s supernatural attributes demand a Supernatural Author; and (7) the historical, miracle-working, resurrected Jesus demands a supernatural explanation (which demands God). Indeed, the Christian can say with all confidence, “I know that God exists.” As former atheist Antony Flew so eloquently concluded: “I must say again that the journey to my discovery of the Divine has thus far been a pilgrimage of reason. I have followed the argument where it has led me. And it has led me to accept the existence of a self-existent, immutable, immaterial, omnipotent, and omniscient Being” (2007, p. 155).

REFERENCES

Barrow, John D. and Frank Tipler (1986), The Anthropic Cosmological Principle (Oxford, England: Oxford University Press).

Beckwith, Francis and Gregory Koukl (1998), Relativism: Feet Firmly Planted in Mid-Air (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker).

Brooks, Michael (2008), “Do You Speak Cuttlefish?” New Scientist, 198[2653]:28-31, April 26.

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

Butt, Kyle and Eric Lyons (2006), Behold! The Lamb of God (Montgomery, AL: Apologetics Press).

Butt, Kyle and Dan Barker (2009), Does the God of the Bible Exist? (Montgomery, AL: Apologetics Press).

“Common Sense” (2014), Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary, http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/common%20sense.

“Counterintuitive” (2014), Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary, http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/counterintuitive.

Coyne, Jerry (2009) Why Evolution is True (New York: Viking).

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

Davies, Paul (2007), “Laying Down the Laws,” New Scientist, 194[2610]:30-34, June 30.

“Design” (2000), American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language (Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin), fourth edition.

“Design” (2014), Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary, http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/design.

“Do Atheists Have Morals?” (no date), http://www.askanatheist.org/morals.html.

Flew, Antony and Roy Varghese (2007), There Is a God: How the World’s Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind (New York: Harper Collins).

Hawking, Stephen and Leonard Mlodinow (2010), The Grand Design (New York: Bantam Books).

“Intelligence” (2000), American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language (Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin), fourth edition.

“Intelligence” (2014), Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary, http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/intelligence.

May, Branyon, et al. (2003), “The Big Bang Theory—A Scientific Critique [Parts 1-2],” Reason & Revelation, 23[5-6]:33-47,49-63.

“Metaphysical” (2014), Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary, http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/metaphysical.

Miller, Dave (2009), “Is the Book of Mormon from God? [Part 1],” http://www.apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=108&article=2787.

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

Miller, Jeff (2012), “The Law of Biogenesis [Part 1],” http://www.apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=9&article=4165&topic=93.

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

Moe, Martin (1981), “Genes on Ice,” Science Digest, 89[11]:36,95, December.

Mueller, Tom (2008), “Biomimetics: Design by Nature,” National Geographic, 213[4]:68-91, April.

Provine, William (1988), “Scientists, Face It! Science and Religion are Incompatible,” The Scientist, 2[16]:10, September 5, http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/9707/title/Scientists–Face-It–Science-And-Religion-Are-Incompatible/.

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

Reilly, Michael (2007), “God’s Place in a Rational World,” New Scientist, 196[2629]:7, November 10.

Ruse, Michael (1982), Darwinism Defended: A Guide to the Evolution Controversies (Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley).

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

Shubin, Neil (2009), Your Inner Fish (New York: Vintage Books).

Simpson, George Gaylord (1951), The Meaning of Evolution (New York: Mentor).

Simpson, G.G., C.S. Pittendrigh, and L.H. Tiffany (1965), Life: An Introduction to Biology (New York: Harcourt, Brace, and World).

Sullivan, John (1933), The Limitations of Science (New York: Viking Press).

“The Universe Before Ours” (2007), New Scientist, 194[2601]:28-33, April 28.

Vilenkin, Alex (2006), Many Worlds in One: The Search for Other Universes (New York: Hill and Wang).

Wald, George (1954), “The Origin of Life,” Scientific American, 191[2]:44-53, August.

Warren, Thomas B. and Antony G.N. Flew (1977), Warren-Flew Debate (Jonesboro, AR: National Christian Press).

Warren, Thomas B. and Wallace I. Matson (1978), The Warren-Matson Debate (Jonesboro, AR: National Christian Press).

“Wretched: Nothing Made Everything” (2006), http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=sK2yNkTuJkY.

The post 7 Reasons to Believe in God 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.

In the nineteenth century, German scientist Rudolf Virchow expanded scientific understanding of the Law of Bio­genesis. Virchow “recognized that all cells come from cells by binary fusion” (“Definition…,” 2006). In 1858, he made the discovery for which he is well-known—“omnis cellula e cellula”—“every cell originates from another existing cell like it” (Gallik, 2013, emp. added). The Encyclopaedia Britannica says, concerning Virchow, “His aphorism ‘omnis cellula e cellula’…ranks with Pasteur’s ‘omne vivum e vivo’ (‘every living thing [arises] from a [preexisting] living thing’) among the most revolutionary generalizations of biology” (see “Rudolf Virchow,” 1973, 23:35, emp. added, parenthetical items and brackets in orig.). So, in nature, life comes from life of its own kind.

In the words of the McGraw-Hill Dictionary of Scientific and Technical Terms, “biogenesis” is the “development of a living organism from a similar living organism” (2003, p. 239, emp. added). In the words of Stephen Meyer, whose doctoral dissertation at Cambridge University was in origin-of-life biology, “From ancient times, humans have known a few basic facts about living things. The first is that all life comes from life. Omne vivum ex vivo. The second is that when living things reproduce themselves, the resulting offspring resemble their parents. Like produces like” (2009, Ch. 3, italics in orig., emp. added). For the same reason that dog-like creatures do not give birth to cats, horse-like creatures do not produce pigs, and frog-like creatures do not have snakes, it is also true that ape-like creatures do not give rise to humans. However, if evolutionary theory is true, this is, in essence, what happened.

Even if a miraculous occurrence of abiogenesis were granted, this chasm still remains for the evolutionist to cross in order for his theory to be true. Perhaps you have seen the standard pictures illustrating the gradual evolution of man from ape-like creatures? Evolutionists draw such pictures and proudly pronounce such ideas to be plausible and even factual. The result: Millions of disciples have been made. However, the Law of Biogenesis stands in the way of this assertion, because evolution requires that creatures do not give rise to other creatures like themselves.

In the field of philosophy, there is a law of logic known as the Law of Excluded Middle, which says that every precisely stated proposition is either true or false (Jevons, 1888, p. 119). As long as one precisely states a proposition, it can be known to be either true or false. If we define a bald person as a person having fewer than 200 hairs on his head, then every person is either bald or not bald. Similarly, as long as we precisely define what a human being is (and scientists have done so), every creature either is or is not human. In order for evolution to be true, the evolutionist must argue that a non-human has, in fact, given rise to a human at some point in the past—either by birth or by transformation (i.e., a non-human suddenly transformed into a human while alive). A proponent of transformation would likely be scoffed at, and the birth of a human from a non-human would violate the Law of Biogenesis. So, again, evolutionary theory is left with a gaping chasm that it cannot cross in hopes of attaining validity.

In the timeless 1976 debate on the existence of God, philosopher and creationist Thomas Warren asked renowned, atheistic, evolutionary philosopher Antony Flew, of the University of Reading in England, questions pertaining to this quandary. Did a non-human being ever transform into or give birth to a human being? Flew could not answer this question in the affirmative and still retain credibility, in light of common sense, as well as the Law of Biogenesis. So, he rightly answered in the negative—tacitly yielding the evolutionary position (Flew and Warren, 1977, p. 248). When pressed further about the implications of his admission, unwilling to concede God, Flew moved into the realm of irrationality. He stated:

The position is that there are of course lots of cases where you can say without hesitation: “It is a lion, it is a horse, it is a man or it is not a man.” But it is, it seems to me a consequence of evolutionary theory that species shade off into one another. Hence when you are confronted by marginal cases, you cannot say this is definitely human or this is not definitely human (p. 25, emp. added).

So, there are creatures that are neither human nor non-human? As Warren stated in his rebuttal, such an illogical position denies the firmly established Law of Excluded Middle. As long as a “human” is precisely defined, everything is either human or not human. It is logically impossible to be neither human nor non-human. The more Warren pressed Flew on this matter, the more illogical Flew was required to become in order to hold to his position.

In his final speech on the first night of the debate, Flew shocked the audience when he stated: “About whether I have met anyone who was not unequivocally either human or non-human: yes, I am afraid I have. I have met people who were very senile. I have also met people who were mad…. Can we say that these former people are people any longer?” (p. 65). Senile and mad people are non-humans? There are several problems with such a position. First, common sense dictates that such people are still human. Second, as long as “human” is precisely defined, the Law of Excluded Middle still applies. Third, Flew tacitly (certainly unconsciously) acknowledged that the “senile” and “mad” are actually human by using the word “people” in conjunction with them. “I have met people who were very senile. I have also met people who were mad.” Fourth, notice that he argues that such people may be considered non-human. He does not say that they are neither human nor non-human. “Can we say that these former people are people any longer?” He therefore admitted, unwittingly, that any being can be defined as human or non-human, even if his definition of a human is a ridiculous one. [NOTE: Flew’s examples (i.e., senility and madness), even if they were erroneously conceded as legitimate examples of Darwinian evolution, were actually counterproductive to his case, since they would only illustrate that digression occurs in evolution, rather than progression.]

The bottom line is that every being is either human or non-human. In order for evolution to be true, a non-human had to give rise to a human at some point in the past—either by transformation or birth. Based on the scientific evidence, neither is possible. And yet, there is no other option for the evolutionist, unless he contends that the first human just popped intact into existence spontaneously—like a fairy or like a mythical dwarf springing from the ground. And yet this assertion would violate the First Law of Thermodynamics (cf. Miller, 2013), the Law of Biogenesis (cf. Miller, 2012), and, of course, reason itself. Life comes from life of its own kind. Period.

Even the evolutionary textbooks admit as much. Concerning the reproduction of living organisms, Prentice Hall’s textbook, Life Science, states: “Another characteristic of organisms is the ability to reproduce, or produce offspring that are similar to the parents. For example, robins lay eggs that develop into young robins that closely resemble their parents” (Coolidge-Stolz, et al., 2005, p. 35, emp. added). Robins make robins. There may be small differences in color, height, beak size, etc. However, the offspring is still a robin—not a shark and not a hawk. Evolutionary theory is not in keeping with the scientific evidence. However, the biblical model, once again, is in perfect harmony with the scientific evidence. God, the Being Who wrote the Law of Biogenesis, created life (Genesis 2:7; Acts 17:25) and made it to produce after its kind (Genesis 1:11,24).

Genetics vs. Evolution

But hasn’t genetics proved that evolution can happen through genetic mutations? Gregor Mendel is known by many today as the “Father of Genetics” (Considine, 1976, p. 1155). His work led to the series of genetic principles known as “Mendel’s laws” (Davis and Kenyon, 1989, p. 60). After his work was published in the Transactions of the Natural History Society of Brünn, his work was left essentially untouched and unknown for some 35 years, until other well-known geneticists conducted research which cited his. One of those—Hugo de Vries, a Dutch evolutionary botanist—is credited with having discovered the existence of genetic mutations (“Hugo de Vries,” 2013).

The Evolution of Evolution

The Law of Biogenesis’ claim that life reproduces according to its kind, while arguably macroscopic in its application to biogenesis, is in keeping with the evidence at the genetic level as well. It provides further support for that important concept: life reproduces according to its kind.

Darwin’s theory of evolution has, itself, evolved over the decades. With further scientific investigation into the legitimacy of Darwin’s theory, time and again, evolutionists have been forced to admit that the current version of evolution cannot do what they previously thought it could. It never completely lines up with the evidence. The alleged evolutionary timeline, therefore, must be revised constantly: dates change as to when various animals lived in the distant past; the order of evolutionary development is endlessly revised; new theories attempting to explain why various animals developed particular body parts are constantly being developed. The theory of evolution evolves.

And truly, the evolution of evolution is not a process that has been in effect for only a few decades. Evolution itself did not originate with Charles Darwin. Forms of evolution have been considered for millennia, at least as far back as the 600s B.C., with Thales and his Milesian school and the Ionian school (Conford, 1957). And for millennia, those ideas have had to be continually revised to attempt to stay in keeping with the latest scientific understanding.

While it is true that one should expect scientific theories to be revised to a certain extent over time—revisions amounting to fine-tuning—the evolutionary model is not merely revised. It periodically requires complete overhauls in broad, fundamental areas of the theory that evolutionists had previously proclaimed as established fact (cf. Thompson, 1981; www.apologeticspress.org). The late, distinguished astronomer Sir Fred Hoyle and Chandra Wickramasinghe, professor of astronomy and applied mathematics at University College, Cardiff, Wales, noted that we should “be suspicious of a theory if more and more hypotheses are needed to support it” (1981, p. 135). The Alcoholics Anonymous definition of “insanity” comes to mind: doing the same thing over and over, but expecting different results. At some point, when attempts to prove a theory result in multiple, successive roadblocks, the sane person must surely ponder, “Maybe we should scrap this theory and start over.”

Regardless, Darwin came along at the right time in history for evolutionary theory to “take off” and gain followers. This circumstance was due to various reasons, not the least of which is surely the fact that he gave the irreligious a “respectable” reason to reject God. The result: Darwin is typically considered the “Father” of evolution.

Natural Selection and Neo-Darwinism

As is implied by the title of Darwin’s famous book (i.e., The Origin of Species By Means of Natural Selection…, 1859), the fundamental premise of Darwinian evolution was originally natural selection. Natural selection is the idea that nature selects those species that are most “fit” or suited to a particular environment for survival. Those species which are not as well-suited, and which do not migrate to environments more conducive to their anatomy, will die out. That idea is largely true and observable, and the creationist has no problem with it. It does not contradict the evidence or the Creation model.

The problem is that Darwin believed natural selection could be the means by which his evolutionary theory could happen—the mechanism that would accommodate the idea that all forms of life came about from previously existing, less complex life, starting with a single cell eons ago. But while natural selection might filter the unfit from a given population, it is not capable of creating anything—especially species that are not only complex, but more complex than their ancestors. John Sanford, co-inventor of the “Biolistic Particle Delivery System” (i.e., the “gene gun”), is one of the few elite individuals with the title of “population geneticist.” His Ph.D. in plant breeding and genetics, and years of further research in genetic engineering, as well as his position as a professor at Cornell University, placed him on the front lines of the scientific community in gathering evidence for and against natural selection and evolution. His work in plant genetics led him from being an ardent atheistic evolutionist to being a creationist. In his book, Genetic Entropy & the Mystery of the Genome, Sanford explained:

For many people, including many biologists, natural selection is like a magic wand. There seems to be no limit to what one can imagine it accomplishing. This extremely naïve perspective toward natural selection is pervasive…. [N]atural selection is not a magic wand but is a very real phenomenon, it has very real capabilities and very real limitations. It is not all-powerful (2008, p. 46, italics in orig.).

Scientists have realized today that Darwin was wrong. Natural selection alone would not suffice to cause evolution to occur. Evolutionary paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould of Harvard University once explained, “The essence of Darwinism lies in a single phrase: natural selection is the creative force of evolutionary change. No one denies that selection will play a negative role in eliminating the unfit. Darwinian theories require that it create the fit as well” (1977, p. 28, emp. added). Therein lies the problem. Evolutionists recognize today that they cannot even claim that natural selection could create the fit. Hugo de Vries long ago said, “Natural selection may explain the survival of the fittest, but it cannot explain the arrival of the fittest” (1905, pp. 825-826, emp. added).

Bottom line: evolutionists have realized that natural selection cannot provide the mechanism required for evolutionary change. Enter neo-Darwinism, the version of evolution that is now en vogue. Neo-Darwinism, also known as the “Primary Axiom” (Sanford, 2008), attempts to revise Darwinism by contending that natural selection coupled with genetic mutations—random DNA accidents—provide the mechanism for evolution to occur. In the words of molecular and cell biologist Jonathan Wells of the Center for Science and Culture at the Discovery Institute in Seattle,

It was not until the 1930s that Darwinian evolution and Mendelian genetics were combined in what became known as the neo-Darwinian synthesis. According to neo-Darwinian theory, traits are passed on by genes that reside on microscopic thread-like structures in the cell called chromosomes, and new traits arise from accidental genetic mutations (2011, p. 18, emp. added).

According to neo-Darwinism, random mutations could accidentally create new species over time, and natural selection could eliminate the unfit ones, leaving the better, more evolved species in existence.

Concerning neo-Darwinism, molecular biologist John McFadden wrote: “Over millions of years, organisms will evolve by selection of mutant offspring which are fitter than their parents. Mutations are therefore the elusive source of the variation that Darwin needed to complete his theory of evolution. They provide the raw material for all evolutionary change” (2000, p. 65, emp. added). Years ago, George Gaylord Simpson and his co-authors said, “Mutations are the ultimate raw materials for evolution” (1957, p. 430). One genetics textbook put it this way: “Mutations constitute the raw material for evolution; they are the basis for the variability in a population on which natural (or artificial) selection acts to preserve those combinations of genes best adapted to a particular environment” (Snyder, et al., 1985, p. 353, parenthetical item in orig.). Is it true that mutations can provide the raw material and mechanism for Darwinian evolution to occur over millions of years? Do mutations eliminate the need for a supernatural Source to explain the origin of species?

Creating Information: A Prerequisite for Evolution

Recall Stephen Meyer, origin-of-life biologist and doctoral graduate of Cambridge University. In his book on the origin of genetic information, he discussed one of the greatest discoveries of the twentieth century—the structure of the DNA molecule by James Watson and Francis Crick. He noted that “when Watson and Crick discovered the structure of DNA, they also discovered that DNA stores information using a four-character chemical alphabet. Strings of precisely sequenced chemicals called nucleotide bases store and transmit the assembly instructions—the information—for building the crucial protein molecules and machines the cell needs to survive” (2009, Ch. 1). Information is packed into our genes, and its transfer during reproduction is critical. Without the transfer of information, there would be no such thing as life.

Information scientist, professor, and control engineer Werner Gitt, retired director of the Information Technology Division at the German Federal Institute of Physics and Technology, noted that,

The concept of “information” is not only of prime importance for informatics theories and communication techniques, but it is a fundamental quantity in such wide-ranging sciences as cybernetics, linguistics, biology, history, and theology. Many scientists therefore justly regard information as the third fundamental entity alongside matter and energy (2007, Ch. 3).

Meyer argues that “[o]ur actions show that we not only value information, but that we regard it as a real entity, on par with matter and energy” (2009, Ch. 1). Indeed, “[a]t the close of the nineteenth century, most biologists thought life consisted solely of matter and energy. But after Watson and Crick, biologists came to recognize the importance of a third fundamental entity in living things: information” (Ch. 3).

How does this third “fundamental entity in living things” relate to the evolution question? In order for evolution to occur, information would have to be created—at the beginning of life and at every macroevolutionary jump between living kinds. This presents a problem for evolution, which Bernd-Olaf Kuppers, biophysicist, professor of natural philosophy, and director of the Frege Centre for Structural Sciences at the University of Jena, summarized: “The problem of the origin of life is clearly basically equivalent to the problem of the origin of biological information” (1990, p. 170). In the book, In the Beginning was Information, Gitt makes the compelling argument that “[t]he question ‘How did life originate?’ which interests us all, is inseparably linked to the question ‘Where did the information come from?’… All evolutionary views are fundamentally unable to answer this crucial question” (Ch. 6). Neil Shubin, paleontologist and professor of organismal biology and anatomy at the University of Chicago wrote:

I can share with you one true law that all of us can agree upon. This law is so profound that most of us take it completely for granted. Yet it is the starting point for almost everything we do in paleontology, developmental biology, and genetics. This biological “law of everything” is that every living thing on the planet had parents. Every person you’ve ever known has biological parents, as does every bird, salamander, or shark you have ever seen…. To put it in a more precise form: every living thing sprang from some parental genetic information (2009, p. 174, emp. added).

The scientific evidence indicates that genetic information is always passed from parents (even though if evolution is true, originally there could not have been parents). It does not spring into existence. So how did it originate? How could it originate, without an initial Parent capable of creating genetic information?

Obviously, the existence of genetic information, its transfer from parent to offspring, and the mechanism—the software and the hardware—by which it transfers are critical to life. More importantly, their origin must be explained, since the creation/evolution debate hinges on that explanation. Under the evolutionary model, the first life had to be information rich, though being the product of non-living matter. From that life, an immense amount of other information had to be “written” into the genome over time through mutations during reproduction in order for humans to be in existence today. And yet, in the words of Gitt, “There is no known law of nature, no known process, and no known sequence of events which can cause information to originate by itself in matter” (Ch. 6).

While there are proposals attempting to explain the origin of the genetic code through natural means, according to Gitt, those proposals are “purely imaginary models. It has not been shown empirically how information can arise in matter” (Ch. 6). Naturalism simply cannot explain the origin of information. Gitt continues, “The basic flaw of all evolutionary views is the origin of the information in living beings. It has never been shown that a coding system and semantic information could originate by itself in a material medium, and the information theorems predict that this will never be possible. A purely material origin of life is thus precluded” (Ch. 11). Meyer explained, “[S]elf-organizational laws or processes of necessity cannot generate—as opposed to merely transmit—new information” (Ch. 15). After reviewing the many attempts over the years to explain the origin of information, Meyer summarized:

Every attempt to explain the origin of biological information either failed because it transferred the problem elsewhere or “succeeded” only by presupposing unexplained sources of information…. Every major origin-of-life scenario—whether based on chance, necessity, or the combination—failed to explain the origin of specified information. Thus, ironically, origin-of-life research itself confirms that undirected chemical processes do not produce large amounts of specified information starting from purely physical or chemical antecedents (Ch. 15, emp. added).

Several years ago, evolutionary scientists gathered in Mainz, Germany and discussed some of the problems that had yet to be solved by naturalists (and still have not been solved today) regarding origins. Klaus Dose of the Institute for Biochemistry at Johannes Gutenberg University wrote concerning the findings of the seventh “International Conference on the Origins of Life”:

A further puzzle remains, namely the question of the origin of biological information, i.e., the information residing in our genes today…. The Mainz report may have an equally important historical impact, because for the first time it has now been determined unequivocally by a large number of scientists that all evolutionary theses that living systems developed from poly-nucleotides which originated spontaneously, are devoid of any empirical base (1983, pp. 968-969, emp. added).

In other words, no scientist has any empirical evidence that biological information could spontaneously generate. But evolution requires the spontaneous generation of information. Without such a process, naturalistic evolution has no mechanism for the initial generation of information at the onset of life or for interkind transformation.

Mutations, Manuals, and New Information

Though neo-Darwinism has been proposed as the solution to rectify the inadequacy of natural selection in causing macroevolution, in reality, it has its own problems as well. Simply put, genetic mutations do not create new raw material or information—which is necessary for the kind of change required by evolutionary theory. Mutations cannot explain the origin of new information. Speaking to that issue, British engineer and physicist Alan Hayward, said years ago:

[M]utations do not appear to bring progressive changes. Genes seem to be built so as to allow changes to occur within certain narrow limits, and to prevent those limits from being crossed. To oversimplify a little: mutations very easily produce new varieties within a species, and might occasionally produce a new (though similar) species, but—despite enormous efforts by experimenters and breeders—mutations seem unable to produce entirely new forms of life (1985, p. 55, emp. added).

Gould said, concerning mutations, “A mutation doesn’t produce major new raw material. You don’t make a new species by mutating the species…. That’s a common idea people have; that evolution is due to random mutations. A mutation is not the cause of evolutionary change” (1980, emp. added). A mutation does not “produce major new raw material”? What does that mean?

Sanford likens the genome to an instruction manual for making human beings. In his analogy, letters correspond to nucleotides, words correspond to small clusters of nucleotides, “which combine to form genes (the chapters of our manual), which combine to form chromosomes (the volumes of our manual), which combine to form the whole genome (the entire library)” (2008, p. 2, italics in orig.). In the printing, re-typing, or digital copying of a book, errors—or mutations—will sometimes appear when you examine the finished product. For example, individual words could be garbled—a few letters of a word could be changed to other letters, termed codon errors in genetics. Duplication could occur—the idea that words, sentences, and even entire paragraphs could be duplicated somewhere within the book. Translocation could occur—where sections from one part of the book are moved and inserted elsewhere in the book. Deletion could occur—where segments of the book are simply lost.

Though these kinds of errors or mutations (and others) can occur, no new material is written when they do. No new information has been added to the book. A new sentence has not been written into the story. The problem with evolutionary theory is that it requires new sentences and even chapters to have been written through mutations in the genetic “book.” In fact, it requires sequels of the book to write themselves into existence through random mutation.

[to be continued]

References

Conford, F.M. (1957), “Pattern of Ionian Cosmogony,” in Theories of the Universe, ed. Milton K. Munitz (Glencoe, IL: Free Press).

Considine, Douglas M. (1976), Van Nostrand’s Scientific Encyclopedia (New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold), fifth edition.

Coolidge-Stolz, Elizabeth, Jan Jenner, Marylin Lisowski, Donald Cronkite, and Linda Cronin Jones (2005), Life Science (Boston, MA: Prentice Hall).

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).

Davis, Percival and Dean Kenyon (1989), Of Pandas and People (Dallas, TX: Haughton).

“Definition: Rudolf Virchow” (2006), Webster’s Online Dictionary with Multilingual Thesaurus Translation, http://www.webster-dictionary.org/definition/virchow.

De Vries, Hugo (1905), Species and Varieties: Their Origin by Mutation, ed. Daniel Trembly MacDougal (Chicago, IL: Open Court).

Dose, K. (1983), “The Origin of Life,” Nachrichten aus Chemie, Technik und Laboratorium, 31[12]:968-969.

Flew, Antony G.N. and Thomas B. Warren (1977), The Warren-Flew Debate on the Existence of God (Jonesboro, AR: National Christian Press).

Gallik, Stephen (2013), “Exercise 1. The Discovery of Cells. D. Schleiden, Schwann, Virchow and the Cell Theory,” The On-line Lab Manual for Cell Biology 4.0, http://stevegallik.org/cellbiologyolm_Ex001_P04.html.

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

Gould, Stephen J. (1980), “Is a New and General Theory of Evolution Emerging?” Hobart College speech, 2-14-80; quoted in Luther Sunderland (1984), Darwin’s Enigma (San Diego, CA: Master Books).

Gould, Stephen Jay (1977), “The Return of Hopeful Monsters,” Natural History, 86[5]:12-16, May.

Hayward, Alan (1985), Creation or Evolution: The Facts and the Fallacies (London: Triangle Books).

Hoyle, Fred and Chandra Wickramasinghe (1981), Evolution from Space (London: J.M. Dent & Sons).

“Hugo de Vries” (2013), Encyclopaedia Britannica Online, http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/633337/Hugo-de-Vries.

Jevons, W. Stanley (1888), Elementary Lessons in Logic: Deductive & Inductive (New York: MacMillan).

Kuppers, Bernd-Olaf (1990), Information and the Origin of Life (Cambridge, MA: M.I.T. Press).

McFadden, John J. (2000), Quantum Evolution: The New Science of Life (New York: W.W. Norton).

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

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

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

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

“Rudolf Virchow” (1973), Encyclopaedia Britannica (London: William Benton Publisher).

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

Shubin, Neil (2009), Your Inner Fish (New York: Vintage Books).

Simpson, George G., C.S. Pittendrigh, and L.H. Tiffany (1957), Life: An Introduction to Biology (New York: Harcourt, Brace).

Snyder, Leon A., David Freifelder, and Daniel L. Hartl (1985), General Genetics (Boston, MA: Jones and Bartlett).

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

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

The post God and the Laws of Science: Genetics vs. Evolution [Part 1] appeared first on Apologetics Press.

[EDITOR’S NOTE: A.P. auxillary staff scientist Dr. Fausz holds a Ph.D. in Aerospace Engineering from Georgia Tech.]

Our society places a great deal of faith and trust in Science. The reverence that many in our society grant to Science is clearly illustrated in a 1998 article published in Science magazine. The article is a compilation of essays and poetry submitted by the students of Holmdel High School in New Jersey: writings which were, in fact, solicited by the 150^th anniversary committee of Science (Jackel, et al., 1998).

For example, a young lady named Megan McIlroy begins her essay, titled “What Science Means to Society,” with the words, “In a society where all aspects of our lives are dictated by scientific advances in technology, science is the essence of our existence” (Jackel, et al., emp. added). The following is a poem written by Brian Sze in the same article:

“Seesaw of the Spirit”

As science develops, religion declines,
Because religion begins where science ends.
As more and more knowledge fills our minds,
Religious influence lessens.
Religion was based on assumed claims,
Which through time have been proved wrong.
But the Church has been too strict to change,
Which has been its downfall all along.
Creation gives us an account
Of man and woman’s first acts,
But evolution seems paramount,
Because it is supported by facts.
So now we are presented with a choice.
Scientific knowledge or conviction?
Everybody has a voice
In answering this controversial question
(Jackel, et al., emp. added).

In one additional example, Jenitta Kwong begins her essay, titled “Science as Livesaver,” with “Science is everything to me,” and in her concluding remarks suggests that, without science, “Life would be meaningless” (Jackel, et al.).

How is it that high school children come to the conclusion that Science dictates all aspects of our lives to the extent that life would have no meaning without Science? From what do they deduce that a presumed “seesaw” between science and religion culminates in a controversial question? It is difficult to believe that very many individual scientists or technologists would suggest such a philosophy regarding science and religion. Most likely, these sentiments reflect values that have been passed on to these children by certain educators, their parents, and/or various friends or mentors with whom they may have associated. In short, our society has in some way conveyed to these children that Science has a position of ultimate importance in their lives that is, sadly (and mistakenly), terminally at odds with faith and religion. Perhaps most strikingly, this misconception has also occurred with very little, if any, input from Science itself.

No doubt, science and technology have given us many conveniences that seem, at least in a shallow sense, to have vastly improved the quality of human existence, but is that enough to suggest that Science is everything? Is the importance placed on Science by our society warranted? More important, does Science pose a better explanation for the meaning of life than religion? To add context to these questions, it is useful to examine the statements and writings of those who hold a preeminent position in the scientific arena.

The fact is, Science goes farther than just claiming preeminence over religion and belief in God in many of these statements. In 2006, several scientists at a conference in La Jolla, California advocated militant eradication of God and religion from society to be replaced completely with the precepts of science. At this conference, cosmologist Stephen Weinberg stated: “The world needs to wake up from the long nightmare of religion…. Anything we scientists can do to weaken the hold of religion should be done, and may in fact be our greatest contribution to civilization.” And celebrated evolutionist Richard Dawkins said: “There’s a certain sort of negativity you get from people who say ‘I don’t like religion but you can’t do anything about it.’ That’s a real counsel of defeatism. We should roll our sleeves up and get on with it” (as quoted in Lyons and Butt, 2007).

Others have simply approached the debate by claiming that science makes God and religion irrelevant. Famous theoretical physicist Stephen Hawking recently wrote: “Because there is a law such as gravity, the Universe can and will create itself from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the Universe exists, why we exist,” adding, “It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the Universe going.” These statements appear in Hawking’s 2010 book titled, ironically, The Grand Design (Hawking and Mlodinow, p. 181). Hawking goes on to explain:

The question is: is the way the universe began chosen by God for reasons we can’t understand, or was it determined by a law of science? I believe the second. If you like, you can call the laws of science “God,” but it wouldn’t be a personal God that you could meet, and ask questions (p. xx).

Here Hawking again attempts to de-emphasize God in favor of Science. Even more, there is a subtle attempt in the last statement to replace God with Science in suggesting that the “laws of science” might be called “God.”

Accomplished scientists such as Hawking and Weinberg, high profile evolutionist Dawkins, and a group of high school students from New Jersey seem to be in agreement that Science holds a place of preeminence over everything, even overshadowing religious conviction. They present science as an omniscient benefactor that gives us everything we need and tells us everything we need to know—very much as many relate to God.

Science, though, has a few things to say about its own “omniscience” that have a direct bearing on the question of whether or not it has eliminated the need for God. Furthermore, these observations have much to say regarding the supposed preeminence of science in our society.

Scientifically Uncertain

Prior to the 20^th century, science and the Universe were believed to be strictly and objectively “deterministic,” meaning that all constituent elements of the Universe could be uniquely characterized and even predicted by fixed natural laws with straightforward (though sometimes complex) closed-form mathematical representations or models. For example, mathematical equations can be formulated for the motion of an object in space using Newton’s Laws of Motion and for the orbits of planets and artificial satellites using Kepler’s Laws of Planetary Motion. This deterministic way of looking at the cosmos is often referred to as “classical physics” or “classical mechanics.” Interestingly, while many of the results of classical mechanics have been shown to have a limited domain of validity, engineers still successfully use the concepts daily in building bridges, designing automobiles, navigating aircraft, and launching satellites into near Earth orbit.

During the past century, however, the theory of relativity and theorems accompanying the birth and growth of the emerging field of quantum mechanics cast doubt on this view of determinism in the minds of many scientists. Most notably, the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle of 1927 stipulated that the position and momentum of sub-atomic particles could not both be uniquely determined to an arbitrary degree of accuracy. That is, there will always be uncertainty in the measurement of at least one of these values that severely limits accuracy when one tries to measure both. Heisenberg’s result has since been extended to other pairs of measurements for subatomic particles, such as energy and spin. These momentous results present a fundamental limitation on the ability of Science to uniquely determine the complete state of the Universe at any given time.

Scientists initially believed that the uncertainty phenomenon was simply a consequence of taking measurements. For example, one might bounce a photon of light off of a subatomic particle and measure its position based on the return speed of the photon. In doing so, however, the momentum of the subatomic particle is changed and can no longer be determined accurately. Thus, the observer and his measurements have a profound effect on the resulting observation (Davies, 1984, p. 49). Dean Overman states: “What one observes depends to some extent on how one observes. The observer cannot be removed from the subject of the observation” (Overman, 1997, p. 29).

On the other hand, many scientists have interpreted the results of quantum mechanics to imply that the Universe itself is inherently non-deterministic. Scientific philosopher Paul Davies refers to this interpretation as “the ‘party line’ which maintains that quantum fuzziness is inherent in nature, and irreducible” (1984, p. 42). Thus, these scientists believe that quantum theory is an apt description of the reality of the Universe, rather than simply describing the effect the scientist has on the system when trying to take measurements. Notably, Albert Einstein, who helped formulate quantum theory, militantly disagreed with this interpretation as we see from one of his most well-known quotes, “God does not play dice.” Einstein believed that

behind the quantum world of unpredictable fuzziness and disorder lay a familiar classical world of concrete reality in which objects really possess well-defined properties such as location and speed and move according to deterministic laws of cause and effect (Davies, 1984, p. 42).

While scientists clearly do not agree on the correct interpretation of quantum theory, one thing that both sides agree on is that the uncertainty of the theory is inescapable and “irreducible,” as Davies describes it. The Uncertainty principle has a profound effect on the ability of Science to fully characterize the Universe. The “fuzziness” of quantum mechanics ensures that Science will remain unable to explain the Universe at its most basic level. Perhaps this can most readily be seen in the inability of Science to even determine the underlying meaning of its own quantum theory.

Mathematically Incomplete

In 1931, an Austrian mathematician named Kurt Gödel formulated and proved a theorem that stipulated “for any consistent mathematical system there exists within the system a well-formed statement that is not provable under the rules of the system” (Overman, p. 27). This result, known as Gödel’s First Incompleteness Theorem, implies that a mathematical system can be shown to be consistent, but will be unable to prove its own consistency within the rules of the system, thus cannot be shown to be “complete.” This fact has serious implications for scientific investigation, since mathematics is almost always utilized as a framework for organizing scientific thought and making application of resulting scientific principles. Scientific laws can be very often recognized more by their mathematical formulation than their narrative text.  For instance, while many recognize the equation E=mc² as a statement from the Relativity Theory of Albert Einstein, few would recognize the statements of the theory underlying that famous formulation.

Certainly, mathematical research subsequent to the work of Gödel has identified very specific, limited mathematical systems that are “self-consistent,” that is, they are both consistent and complete. However, these limited results are not relevant to consideration of the First Incompleteness Theorem in a context that involves formulating scientific understanding and characterization of the entire Universe as opposed to a limited mathematical system. Thus, Gödel’s theory presents a critical impediment to the idea that Science can ever remove the possibility of God from a full understanding of the Universe. As Overman explains:

Gödel’s theorem demonstrates that mathematics is incomplete because the system leaves unanswered the truth or falsity of certain mathematical propositions which are the logical results of valid mathematical inferences (p. 28).

Since Science relies almost entirely on mathematics for developing and expressing its premises and results, Gödel’s theorem and proof should give great pause to anyone placing their total confidence in Science. Mathematical incompleteness will not pervasively limit scientific endeavor since mathematical constructions of closed systems can be both consistent and complete. However, as Science continues to pursue an explanation and corresponding model of the Universe as a whole, “at any moment a contradiction could arise and shake the system down to its foundations” (Overman, p. 28) due to the inability to show both consistency and completeness of the mathematical framework involved.

The Unknowable

Related to the idea of “incompleteness” formulated by Gödel is the concept of “undecidability.” Researchers have conceived many undecidable problems in mathematics and logic. A well-known example from logic is the so called “liar’s paradox,” which is

contained in the statement by Epimenides, a Cretan, who asserts, “all Cretans are liars.” If one assumes that Epimenides is telling the truth, then he is lying. But he cannot be lying because we have assumed he is telling the truth (Overman, p. 26).

Conversely, if we assume Epimenides is lying, then his statement becomes self-contradictory. The liar’s paradox is a logically undecidable proposition.

As for mathematics, mathematician Gregory Chaitin formulated an uncomputable number known as Omega (Ω), which represents the probability that a computer program will halt when its input is a random string of binary numbers. In general, probabilities fall between 0 and 1, where zero represents an event having no chance of occurring (zero probability) and 1 represents certainty. Davies suggests that Ω is “close to 1, because most random inputs will appear as garbage to the computer” and cause it to crash (1992, p. 133). However, Davies goes on to point out that the expansion of Ω beyond the first few digits is totally random, which implies there can be no algorithmic means to generate Ω.

What is most interesting, though, about Chaitin’s result is that Ω is representative of “halting” problems for computer programs, in general, which have been shown to be mathematically undecidable. This prompts Davies to suggest: “So knowing merely the first few thousand digits of omega would give us access to a solution of all outstanding mathematical problems of this type” (1984, p. 134). However, since Ω is completely random beyond the first few digits, it is uncomputable. The implications of this fact are further discussed by Davies:

Unfortunately, being an uncomputable number, omega can never be revealed by constructive means, however long we work at it. Thus, short of a mystical revelation, omega can never be known to us. And even if we were to be given omega by divine transmission, we would not recognize it for what it was, because, being a random number, it would not commend itself to us as special in any respect (1992, p. 134).

This quote is truly remarkable. Of course, we might argue quite reasonably that if such a number were to be given “by divine transmission,” such a transmission might likely include an indication of the meaning and importance of the data. That would certainly be the proper way to view divine revelation.

However, Davies’ statements raise an engaging question regarding that which is unknowable. In some sense, all of nature is a form of divine transmission (“The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament shows His handiwork”—Psalm 19:1). Yet there is so much we do not understand and, it appears, can never understand. Perhaps it is true that the heavens also declare the boundaries of scientific knowledge. It certainly appears to be true that mathematics and science pose a hard limit on the extent of what Science can ultimately “know.”

Behold the Great and Powerful…Science?

In the movie classic The Wizard of Oz, there is the familiar, seminal moment when the true “Wizard of Oz” is about to be discovered by Dorothy and her companions. At that moment, the “Wizard” desperately and frantically states: “Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain!” (Fleming, 1939). Certainly, scientists are aware of the limitations implied by results such as the Incompleteness Theorems, the Uncertainty Principle, and the incomputable problems of mathematics. But this awareness does not stop Science, or at least certain of its most prominent representatives, from continuing to present Science as the omniscient benefactor that so many believe it to be. When scientific beliefs and theories, like manmade global warming and Darwinian evolution, are challenged, often the scientific community will attack the challenger, instead of addressing the merits of the challenge itself, almost as if to say, “Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain.”

But scientific achievement is replete with modern examples of its own limitations. Overman comments:

The limits of our reasoning powers raise the question whether scientific explanations for the origin of the laws of physics, the Big Bang, or the origin of life are issues which fall into…the indeterminate category represented by Gödel’s Incompleteness theorem (p. 28).

Origin of Universe

Scientists continue to be conflicted regarding how the entire Universe came into existence in the first place. The longest prevailing theory (besides divine Creation), of course, is the so-called Big Bang theory—still the front-runner according to many scientists. However, researchers like Stephen Hawking have exerted significant effort to replace the Big Bang Theory due to their inability to explain the Big Bang singularity and how it came into existence. In fact, Hawking once observed that, at the Big Bang singularity, “the laws of science and our ability to predict the future would break down” (1988, p. 117).

The difficulties with the Big Bang theory are, at least in part, a consequence of quantum theory and the Uncertainty Principle. As noted, the Uncertainty Principle limits accuracy in making measurements at a sub-atomic level. This limit, however, has an exact numerical characterization known as Planck’s constant, a physical constant associated with quantum mechanics that was first derived as the proportionality constant between the energy of a photon and the frequency of the photon’s wave form. In short, light can be treated as a particle (photon) or a wave, and Planck’s constant helps define the relationship between the two. As it turns out, Planck’s constant also happens to be the minimum amount of uncertainty that exists between the product of the momentum and position of a subatomic particle. It thus sets the boundary on the accuracy of those measurements in the formulation of the Uncertainty Principle.

This factor is related to uncertainty at the beginning of the Universe (according to the Big Bang model) due to another constant known as Planck time (Williams, 2010). Planck time is the time required for light to travel the distance of one Planck length. Both Planck time and Planck length are derived from Planck’s constant, the gravitational constant, and the speed of light. Remember that Planck’s constant provides a numerical limit on how accurately Science can characterize sub-atomic behavior. Thus, it might come as no surprise that Planck time imposes a hard limit on theoretical, naturalistic models of the beginning of the Universe. These models are unable to “predict” in any way what may have been occurring in the first 5.39×10^-44 seconds (Planck time) of the Big Bang model. If you are not familiar with scientific notation, this number can be written as a decimal point followed by 43 zeros followed by 539. This is an extremely small amount of time, but large enough to befuddle scientists concerned with promoting the Big Bang theory. [NOTE: We are not claiming that scientists actually know what happened from Planck time onward, but merely noting that they cannot know what happened before.]

One of the most prominent theories on the beginning of the Universe in recent years suggests that our Universe is just one of a large number of possible universes brought about by quantum fluctuation. Hawking describes the theory this way:

One picture of the spontaneous quantum creation of the universe is then a bit like the formation of bubbles of steam in boiling water. Many tiny bubbles appear, and then disappear again. These represent mini-universes that expand but collapse again while still of microscopic size…. A few of the little bubbles, however, will grow large enough so that they will be safe from recollapse. They will continue to expand at an ever increasing rate…. These correspond to universes…in a state of inflation (Hawking and Mlodinow, 2010, pp. 136-137).

Note here that our own Universe is considered to be “in a state of inflation.” It is theorized that with such a large number of universes to “select” from, it is possible that a universe such as ours would exist. Specifically, Hawking says:

There seems to be a vast landscape of possible universes. However…universes in which life like us can exist are rare. We live in one which life is possible, but if the universe were only slightly different, beings like us could not exist (2010, p. 144).

This idea has mathematical tractability, subject of course to mathematical incompleteness and the potential of undecidability. With the inherent limitations of mathematics and logic, as well as the self-admitted impotence of Science with respect to predicting anything inside of Planck time, one might wonder how Professor Hawking can state with such certainty that universes like ours would be “rare.” In truth, we would have no way to know if every universe emerging from this hypothetical fluctuation wasn’t exactly like ours. Generally speaking, given the scientifically determined inability of Science to fully characterize our own Universe, verifying the existence and characterizing the nature of other possible universes seems quite a chore—pay no attention to that man behind the curtain.

Medical Science

Advances in medicine are often held up as some of the most impressive accomplishments of Science. Many of the essays in the Science article (mentioned at the beginning of this article—Jackel, et al., 1998) included references to advancements in the field of medicine. Eradicating Small Pox and treatment advances brought on by the Germ Theory of medicine are certainly some of the most impressive accomplishments of mankind. Even in the field of medicine, however, serious limitations in the ability to achieve desired results can be seen.

For example, the U.S. government claims that in 2013 it will spend $29.7 billion on AIDS research, and that at least $25 billion has been spent on AIDS research per year starting in 2009 (Kaiser…, 2013). That amounts to over $100 billion spent on AIDS research in the last five years without finding a cure. Certainly, new life-extending treatments have been developed as a result of this research. But the primary objective of scientific endeavors in AIDS research, that is, a final cure for the viral infection, remains unrealized with no indication that it is likely to come anytime soon.

Similarly, cancer research has been carried on throughout most of our lifetimes with enormous levels of government and private funding. Furthermore, it cannot be said that the money is simply spent by bureaucrats with Science having little say. A 1999 report on sources of cancer research funding indicates that one of the top funding agencies for cancer research publishes its results in the “open scientific literature” and “reviews its strategic research plan with the research community each year and publishes it” (McGeary and Burstein, 1999, p. 4) Again, many new treatments continue to be discovered, but a basic understanding of cancer, allowing for a cure instead of physically grueling treatments, still eludes researchers.

The science of medicine may one day cure AIDS, cancer, diabetes, heart disease, and maybe even the common cold. However, when Science is unable to design a camera that can remotely compare to the human eye, or a microphone that performs as well as the human ear, it is no surprise that Science doesn’t have sufficient understanding of the human body to cure a disease, even with incredible amounts of funding being poured into research. Until those goals of modern medicine are achieved, Science as a whole might prefer for us to pay no attention to that man behind the curtain.

Conclusion

Science is neither omniscient nor omnipotent. Gödel’s Incompleteness Theorem, the Uncertainty Principle of Quantum Mechanics, and the undecidable and uncomputable problems of mathematics and logic show us that scientific omniscience is impossible—which further implies that scientific omnipotence is unachievable.

Mathematical incompleteness tells us that facts from outside of the system are required to prove the system to be both consistent and complete. Science relies implicitly on mathematics for the useful formulation of scientific or natural laws. Furthermore, anything outside of the system (i.e., the physical Universe) is irrelevant to science since it cannot be observed and therefore cannot be measured and/or modeled. Perhaps even more fundamental, the uncertainty principle limits the ability of Science to characterize or measure that which is observable. Thus, in actuality, Science is impotent in the ability to understand even that which is in its purview.

Quantum theory is fundamental to one model of the beginning of our Universe, which suggests that many universes bubbled out of a quantum fluctuation and one of those bubbles grew into everything we can observe. This is ironic because it is the uncertainty principle of quantum theory and the concept of Planck time that places impassable limitations on the ability of Science to understand such a phenomenon. Thus, in order to formulate its model, Science is using the very tools that place some of the elements of the model outside of its bounds.

Hopefully, the answers to the questions at the beginning of this article are clear. Science as an omniscient benefactor is a non sequitur. Science is certainly not omniscient and has no hope of ever being so. It also follows that, while Science has shown much success in meeting some apparent needs of society, it is ultimately incapable of providing everything we need—such as cures for some of our most prevalent infirmities.

The true contributions of Science to our society should never be discounted. Society, though, should take much greater care in where it decides to place its trust. Conversely, Science would only make itself that much more of a boon to society by embracing its limitations and operating more fully within them, instead of hiding behind the wizard’s curtain and pretending to be the omniscient benefactor that society wants to make it.

In the biblical Old Testament, God challenged Job, saying, “Where were you when I laid the foundations of the Earth? Tell me, if you have understanding” (Job 38:4). The origin of our Universe represents one of the pursuits of Science that is, in fact, outside the normal bounds of scientific endeavor. It cannot be empirically modeled, no physical measurements can be made and, as God points out to Job, no man was there to make direct observation.

More to the point, God inspired Solomon, king of the Jews, to write: “He has made everything beautiful in its time. Also He has put eternity in their hearts, except that no one can find out the work that God does from beginning to end” (Ecclesiastes 3:11). Here we see that God not only wants us to understand that we were not there at the beginning of the Universe and have no basis of understanding that event, but also that He has created the Universe with built-in limitations on the extent of man’s ability to characterize it. He has made us fundamentally a part of the system. As Overman states: “[T]he observer cannot be removed from the subject of the observation” (p. 29). Paul Davies also discusses the profound impact that the observer has on the system being observed, as a consequence of quantum effects (1984, p. 49). Being part of the system, we have no hope of characterizing what we observe to its most fundamental level and, as Solomon relates to us, that is a direct consequence of God’s design.

So as we discuss the limitations of Science illustrated by scientific laws like the Uncertainty Principle and the Incompleteness Theorem, we see that we are merely discovering manifestations of design constraints that God Himself placed on the Universe when He created it. These principles were put in place by God’s design as sure as Newton’s Laws, Kepler’s Laws of Planetary Motion, or Einstein’s Relativity Theories were, providing further evidence for the existence of design in the Universe and the God Who developed that design. Furthermore, we see this all the more clearly through a realization of our own inherent limitations to understand His work “from beginning to end.”

[NOTE: Although neither God nor His creative activity can be directly observed, indirect evidence for His existence can be gathered through scientific observation (e.g., evidence of design that leads to the conclusion that He exists).]

REFERENCES

Davies, Paul (1984), Superforce: The Search for a Grand Unified Theory of Nature (New York: Simon & Schuster).

Davies, Paul (1992), The Mind of God: The Scientific Basis for a Rational World (New York: Simon & Schuster).

Fleming, Victor, Dir. (1939), The Wizard of Oz (Hollywood, CA: Warner Brothers Pictures).

Hawking, Stephen (1988), A Brief History of Time: From the Big Bang to Black Holes (New York: Bantam Books).

Hawking, Stephen and Leonard Mlodinow (2010), The Grand Design (New York: Bantam Books).

Jackel, Robert, et. al. (1998), “Science—Far More Than Required High School Coursework,” Science, 20:1858-1860, March.

Kaiser Family Foundation (2013), “U.S. Federal Funding for HIV/AIDS: The President’s FY 2014 Budget Request,” http://kff.org/hivaids/fact-sheet/u-s-federal-funding-for-hivaids-the-presidents-fy-2014-budget-request/.

Lyons, Eric and Kyle Butt (2007), “Militant Atheism,” Apologetics Press, http://www.apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=12&article=2051&topic=24.

McGeary, Michael and Michael Burstein (1999), “Sources of Cancer Research Funding in the United States,” National Cancer Policy Board, Institute of Medicine, http://www.iom.edu/~/media/Files/Activity%20Files/Disease/NCPF/Fund.pdf.

Overman, Dean (1997), A Case Against Accident and Self-Organization (Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield).

Williams, Matthew (2010), “Planck Time,” Universe Today, http://www.universetoday.com/79418/planck-time/.

The post In Science We Trust appeared first on Apologetics Press.

“Blind Faith”—Many Have It

What is “blind faith”? What is meant by the accusation? The idea behind “blind faith” is that a person chooses to believe in something or someone (namely, God) without any supporting evidence. The portrait painted in our minds is that of a person who puts on a blindfold and steps up to a ledge. He cannot see what is beyond the ledge. He has no idea how far down the drop is—whether or not he will plummet to his death, break his legs, or simply fall down. He has no idea if there is water, a trampoline, or rocks at the bottom. He simply decides to believe that he will not die if he jumps off—that he will be safe. He has no evidence, only pure, baseless “faith.” So, he takes a “leap of faith.” Question: who in their right mind would do such a thing? Whoever has such a faith truly is naïve, an extremely emotionally, rather than rationally, charged individual, and possibly is in need of counseling, or has an agenda for having such a belief system.

Sadly many people have such a “faith.” Many people call themselves Christians, and claim to believe in the Bible, but clearly have not read it. They have a “blind faith” which, according to the Law of Rationality (Ruby, 1960, pp. 126-127), is irrational. Their belief in God is not based on the evidence, but is a blind leap into the dark without it. Philosphers call this phenomenon “fideism” (Popkin, 1967, 3:201-202). However, the biblical portrait of faith (Greek, pistis—translated equally as faith, belief, trust, or having confidence in; Arndt, et al., 1979, pp. 661-664) is not what some in Christendom have defined it to be nor what Hollywood has portrayed it to be. It is not “believing when common sense tells you not to,” as the 1947 movie, Miracle on 34^th Street suggested (Seaton). It is not a “leap of faith” like Dr. Jones’ actions in Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade (Spielberg, 1989). The Bible does not advocate a “Feel, don’t think” mentality, like that encouraged by Qui-Gon Jinn in Star Wars (Lucas, 1999). Biblical faith is based on evidence (Hebrews 11:1). It is trust—comparable to the trust one has in a parent or friend—that is based on proof. We trust someone when he has proven himself to be trustworthy. When one listens to or reads revelation from God’s Word (i.e., what Bible believers call “special revelation”) and the information therein proves to be true, one develops faith in God (Romans 10:17). When one examines the evidence from the created order (i.e., what Bible believers call “general revelation”), and it points to the existence of a supernatural Being as Creator—rather than blind, random, accidental change over time—we learn to trust God based on that evidence.

In short: The biblical model of faith requires evidence. According to the biblical model, the truth of God can be known—not felt or accepted without proof—and it will set men free (John 8:32). Sincere truth seekers examine what they have been told and investigate its veracity by pondering the evidence, as did the “fair-minded” Bereans of Acts 17:11, before becoming Christians. In fact, God (through Paul in 1 Thessalonians 5:21) tells the creationist that he is expected to prove or test something before believing it—only accepting what has been proven right or good. Do such passages give the impression that the Bible advocates a blind, evidence-less faith?

Sadly, evidence-based faith is not the faith of many within Christendom. But “don’t throw the baby out with the bathwater.” Many of us base our view squarely on the evidence—such as the evidence presented below. [NOTE: See Miller, 2003a for more on the topic of “blind faith” and the Bible. Also, Miller, 2003b.]

But We Don’t

In order for a belief to not be “blind” or irrational, it needs supporting evidence. While the creationist does not claim to hold direct, observable evidence of God, since we cannot taste, touch, see, hear, or smell Him, the indirect evidence—a legitimate source of scientific evidence—is overwhelming. What supporting evidence do creationists put forth? A thorough treatment of this subject is outside the scope of this article, but hundreds of articles and books deal eloquently and credibly with the subject. [NOTE: See www.apologeticspress.org for a library of said material.]

In short, the creationist argues, among other things, that:

1. The available evidence contradicts the atheistic model (cf. Miller, 2012b; Miller, 2013c), which logically leaves theism—the Creation model;
2. The fundamental evidence that contradicts the naturalistic model, supports the contentions of the creation model, which never contradicts the scientific evidence;
3. The existence and teachings of the laws of science demand a non-material, uncaused Cause for the Universe;
4. There are numerous natural evidences in the Universe that exhibit the characteristics of intent, purpose, and complexity, which indicate a Mind behind them. Such attributes testify to the presence of intelligent design, which implies a Designer;
5. Objective morality exists, which implies a higher Law that transcends mankind, which in turn demands a supernatural Author;
6. A Book exists that contains certain characteristics that can only be explainable if it is what it says it is—the Word of the Creator. 

These proofs, and many others, provide evidence that demands an explanation and cannot be satiated by naturalistic theories. Only supernatural Creation provides an answer in keeping with the evidence. The Creation model can hardly be deemed unscientific. Its legitimate followers cannot be brushed aside as “blind” believers. Such sweeping accusations are unfair and betray a prejudiced, stereotypical mindset, to say nothing of the fact that such accusations fall victim to the ad hominem logical fallacy (“Fallacies,” 2012).

Actually, Evolutionists Do

In truth, Creation is the reasonable choice—the one not beholden to evidence-less leaps of faith. It is not contingent on the baseless, mythical claim that aliens exist and initiated life on Earth (cf. Miller, 2013a); that abiogenesis—like magic from a fictional novel—is somehow possible (cf. Miller, 2012b); that non-humans give birth to humans, as they do in the tabloids (cf. Flew and Warren, 1977, pp. 25,45,65); or the fanciful idea that Universes spontaneously pop into existence (cf. Miller, 2013c). Indeed, atheistic evolution is simply well-packaged superstition. Creation is the option in keeping with reason and the evidence.

While some who call themselves “Christians,” do, indeed, have an unscriptural, blind faith, in truth, the same can be said of the evolutionary community—and more so. Why? (1) Because unlike evolution, the evidence does not contradict Creation but supports it, even though some have accepted Creation without that evidence; (2) because not all creationists hold to a blind faith. Some examine the evidence and draw the reasonable conclusion that a Creator exists. However, all naturalists must have a blind, evidence-less faith, since atheistic evolution is based on certain baseless, unprovable assumptions, including abiogenesis, naturalism, spontaneous generation or the eternality of matter, etc. (cf. Miller, 2013b and Kerkut, 1960 for other key, baseless evolutionary assumptions). Belief in those assumptions is purely blind. They (1) are not supported by the evidence, which classifies evolution as irrational; (2) actually contradict the evidence; and (3) even show the naturalist to be engaged in self-contradiction, which he blindly ignores when confronted with the evidence of his contradictions (cf. Miller, 2012a). It seems clear that it is the evolutionist—not the creationist—who holds to a blind faith.

Consider the following timeless quotes from various prominent evolutionists concerning the character of the naturalist’s faith:

• Robert Jastrow, evolutionary astronomer and founder and former director of the Goddard Institute for Space Studies at NASA: “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  [i.e., naturalists—JM] 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 alsoan 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).
• John Sullivan, once a popular evolutionary science writer: “The hypothesis that life has developed from inorganic matter is, at present, still an article of faith” (1933, p. 95, emp. added).
• 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.).
• G.A. Kerkut, British evolutionary physiologist: Spontaneous generation is “a matter of faith on the part of the biologist…. The evidence for what did happen is not available” (1960, p. 150, emp. added).
• Loren Eiseley, evolutionary anthropologist of the University of Pennsylvania: “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).
• Robert Hazen, evolutionary geologist who received his doctoral degree in Earth Science from Harvard University, a research scientist at the Carnegie Institution of Washington’s Geophysical Laboratory, and a professor of Earth Science at George Mason University: “I make an assumption that life emerged from basic raw materials through a sequence of events that was completely consistent with the natural laws of chemistry and physics. Even with this scientific approach, there is a possibility that we’ll never know—in fact, that we can’t ever know. It is possible that life emerged by an almost infinitely improbable sequence of difficult chemical reactions. If life is the result of an infinitely improbable succession of chemical steps, then any scientific attempt to understand life’s origin is doomed to failure; such a succession could not be duplicated in a program of lab experiments. If the origin of life was an infinitely improbable accident, then there’s absolutely nothing you or I or anyone else could do to figure out how it happened. I must tell you, that’s a depressing thought to someone like me who has devoted a decade to understanding the origin of life” (2005, emp. added).
• Fred Hoyle, distinguished atheistic British astronomer, and Chandra Wickramasinghe, professor of astronomy and applied mathematics at University College, Cardiff, Wales: “It is doubtful that anything like the conditions which were simulated in the laboratory existed at all on a primitive Earth, or occurred for long enough times and over sufficiently extended regions of the Earth’s surface to produce large enough local concentrations of the biochemicals required for the start of life. In accepting the ‘primeval soup theory’ of the origin of life, scientists have replaced religious mysteries which shrouded this question with equally mysterious scientific dogmas. The implied scientific dogmas are just as inaccessible to the empirical approach” (1978, p. 26, emp. added).

If these quotes from eminent evolutionists do not prove that naturalistic evolution is a religious faith, and a blind one at that, what would? It’s no wonder that the late Colin Patterson, senior paleontologist at the British Museum of Natural History in London, said about evolution, “One morning I woke up and something had happened in the night, and it struck me that I had been working on this stuff for twenty years and there was not one thing I knew about it. That’s quite a shock to learn that one can be misled so long. Either there was something wrong with me, or there was something wrong with evolutionary theory” (1981, emp. added). These quotes simply do not characterize true Christianity or the true Creation model—but they do characterize evolution.

Thus, it seems that the rank and file evolutionist’s self-incriminating, venomous accusations towards the creationist are well-represented by the Shakespearean quote, “The lady doth protest too much, methinks” (III.2). Be wary of the one who makes accusations the loudest and attempts to deflect attention from his own inadequacies.

Bottom line: The true model of origins will be based on the evidence. It will be the rational model. It will not contradict the evidence at every turn. So atheistic evolution is not the true model of origins.

REFERENCES

Arndt, William, F.W. Gingrich, and Frederick W. Danker (1979), A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press), second edition revised.

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

“Fallacies” (2012), The Writing Center at UNC Chapel Hill, http://writingcenter.unc.edu/handouts/fallacies.

Flew, Antony G.N. and Thomas B. Warren (1977), The Warren-Flew Debate on the Existence of God (Jonesboro, AR: National Christian Press).

Hazen, Robert (2005), Origins of Life, audio-taped lecture (Chantilly, VA: The Teaching Company).

Hoyle, Fred and Chandra Wickramasinghe (1978), Lifecloud (New York: Harper & Row).

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

Kerkut, George A. (1960), The Implications of Evolution (London: Pergamon).

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

Lucas, George, dir. (1999), Star Wars Episode I—The Phantom Menace, Lucasfilm.

Miller, Dave (2003a), “Blind Faith,” Apologetics Press, http://apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=11&article=444.

Miller, Dave (2003b), “Modern-Day Miracles, Tongue-Speaking, and Holy Spirit Baptism: A Refutation–EXTENDED VERSION,” Apologetics Press, http://apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=11&article=1399.

Miller, Jeff (2012a), “The Atheistic Naturalist’s Self-Contradiction,” Reason & Revelation, 32[5]:53, May, http://apologeticspress.org/apPubPage.aspx?pub=1&issue=1029&article=1763.

Miller, Jeff (2012b), “The Law of Biogenesis,” Reason & Revelation, 32[1]:2-11, January, http://apologeticspress.org/apPubPage.aspx?pub=1&issue=1018&article=1722.

Miller, Jeff (2013a), “Directed Panspermia and Little, Green (Non-Existent) Men from Outer Space,” Apologetics Press, http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=9&article=4620.

Miller, Jeff (2013b), “Don’t Assume Too Much: Not All Assumptions in Science Are Bad,” Reason & Revelation, 33[6]: 62-64,69-70, http://apologeticspress.org/apPubPage.aspx?pub=1&issue=1122&article=2153.

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

Patterson, Colin (1981), Written transcript made from audio tape of lecture presented at the American Museum of Natural History, November.

Popkin, Richard (1967), “Fideism” in The Encyclopedia of Philosophy (New York: McMillan).

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

Seaton, George (1947), Miracle on 34^th Street, Twentieth Century Fox.

Shakespeare, William (2011), Hamlet, The Literature Network, http://www.online-literature.com/shakespeare/hamlet/10/.

Spielberg, Steven, dir. (1989), Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade, Paramount Pictures.

Sullivan, J.W.N. (1933), Limitations of Science (New York: Viking Press).

The post “Unlike Naturalists, You Creationists Have a Blind Faith” appeared first on Apologetics Press.

A Scientific Assumption in Practice

Consider a real-world example from the engineering field. Let’s say I want to design a remote control vehicle to be used on a one mile strip of paved road. The road has been blocked off for my use, and I have maintained the road well, re-paving it when necessary. I have constructed fences around the road to keep animals off of it, and I check the road regularly to make sure that it is smooth and clear. The remote control vehicle is equipped with the necessary sensors that will allow me to keep track of its velocity and heading at all times, since I will be controlling the car from a building several miles away from the strip of road.

With all of that information, I begin developing the equations that will allow me to control the vehicle from a distance. However, the equations get significantly more complex if I do not make certain assumptions about the motion of the vehicle. So, I decide to make the assumption that the car will have 100% traction as it travels down this strip of road. In other words, I assume that it will never slide from side to side or skid—an assumption which could save me a lot of extra time and money. I check the weather report for road conditions and determine that skidding conditions are unlikely during the testing period. The assumption that I will have 100% traction, and can eliminate those variables pertaining to traction from my equations, is a reasonable one—one that will not cause significant error in my equations. There may be a few small rocks on the road, or a heavy gust of wind that might cause a very small amount of error due to my assumption, but by the end of the one mile strip of road, I can maintain, with a very high degree of confidence, that the car will likely still be on the road and very close to the location that I anticipate.

What if I were to take this same remote control vehicle, with the same assumptions in place, and use it in an off-road setting—out in the middle of nowhere, with no road, and on extremely rough terrain? Would the assumption that there will be 100% traction be a reasonable assumption in that setting—one that would not cause a significant amount of error in my equations? How likely would it be that I will know exactly where my car is by the end of one mile of off-road navigation?

Assumptions often have to be made in science, but those assumptions have to be made very carefully or the end results can be significantly affected. Invalid assumptions can cause the scientist to draw conclusions that are not in keeping with the actual evidence. The key for the scientist is to make assumptions that are reasonable and that do not significantly alter the end results. The problem is that much of the alleged evidence for evolution has been gathered under unsubstantiated, unreasonable, and even false assumptions that contradict the actual evidence.

Unreasonable Assumption 1: Abiogenesis

Consider, for instance, the assumption of abiogenesis. In 1960, G.A. Kerkut published The Implications of Evolution. Therein he listed seven non-provable assumptions upon which evolution is based. “The first assumption is that non-living things gave rise to living material, i.e., spontaneous generation occurred” (p. 6). Evolutionary geologist Robert Hazen, who received a doctorate in Earth Science from Harvard, is a research scientist at the Carnegie Institution of Washington’s Geophysical Laboratory and a professor of Earth Science at George Mason University. In his lecture series, Origins of Life, Hazen said:

In this lecture series I make a basic assumption that life emerged by some kind of natural process. I propose that life arose by a sequence of events that are completely consistent with the natural laws of chemistry and physics. In this assumption I am like most other scientists. I believe in a universe that is ordered by these natural laws. Like other scientists, I rely on the power of observations and experiments and theoretical reasoning to understand how the cosmos came to be the way it is (2005, emp. added).

The entire discipline of evolutionary biology is built on the assumption of abiogenesis. But is abiogenesis a reasonable assumption? Is there any evidence to support the assertion that life could come from non-life? Absolutely not. Quite the contrary. There has never been a scrap of empirical evidence that shows that such a thing could happen. In fact, there is a scientific law which prohibits the idea (see Miller, 2012c). The assumption of abiogenesis, upon which evolution stands, is unreasonable and should cause the scientist to scrap the idea in favor of one that does not require such an outlandish assumption.

Unreasonable Assumption 2: Uniformitarianism

What about uniformitarianism? According to the McGraw-Hill Dictionary of Scientific and Technical Terms, “uniformitarianism” is

the concept that the present is the key to the past; the principle that contemporary geologic processes have occurred in the same regular manner and with essentially the same intensity throughout geologic time, and that events of the geologic past can be explained by phenomena observable today (2003, p. 2224).

Uniformitarianism is a fundamental assumption of evolutionary geology. Much of the alleged evidence for deep time—an extremely old age of the Earth and Universe—is based on the principle of uniformitarianism. But is it reasonable to assume that all, or even the majority, of  “the events of the geologic past can be explained by phenomena observable today”? How could one possibly make such an assertion? How could one know whether or not something catastrophic happened, perhaps only once in history, that would have, for instance, completely altered the geologic strata? The idea of “catastrophism,” to which creationists subscribe, allows for such phenomena, and is a much more reasonable assumption upon which to interpret geologic evidence.

Consider, as one example of the effect of catastrophic events on geologic phenomena, recent scientific discoveries concerning rapid petrification. For years it had been assumed that the process of petrification is a uniformitarian process that takes millions of years to complete. However, in 2004, five Japanese scientists published research in the journal Sedimentary Geology which casts doubt on that assumption. The team studied mineral rich, acidic water from the explosion crater of the Tateyama volcano in central Japan—water which runs over the edge of the volcano as a waterfall. Wood had fallen in the path of the water. The surprising discovery was that the wood had become petrified with silica after only 36 years as the water flowed over the wood (Akahane, et al., 2004).

As a further investigation of this phenomenon, the scientists attached pieces of wood to wire and placed them into the water flow. After only seven years, the wood had turned to stone—petrified with silica. Wood petrification had occurred due to the nearby volcanic activity as well. Using a scanning electron microscope, they found that silica petrification occurs in the same way that the wood petrification occurred in the volcanic ash near the volcano (Akahane, et al.). This single discovery completely contradicts the assumption of uniformitarianism, and yet many more could be cited. Catastrophism, on the other hand, is much more reasonable, since it allows for catastrophic events such as volcanoes, meteors, and floods.

Unreasonable Assumptions 3, 4, & 5: Basis of Dating Techniques

The Second Law of Thermodynamics tells us that the Universe is running down or wearing out. We are running out of usable energy. Matter, itself, is breaking down. Various elements break down into other elements over time, and the breakdown appears to be at constant rates today. Scientists are able to measure the rate at which parent isotopes decay into daughter isotopes with an amazing degree of accuracy. This ability is an amazing technological feat, unsurpassed in known human history. However, a major issue arises based on what evolutionary geologists do with the information that they gather from this process. Using the known decay rates of the elements they are studying, evolutionary geologists extrapolate backwards in time to try to determine how old a specimen is.

While this procedure might seem reasonable on the surface, there are significant issues with this practice. The older a specimen is said to be, the more inaccurate the dating technique is known to be. The margin of error grows higher and higher. One reason scientists are aware of this fact is because different dating techniques are often used to date the same specimen, and completely different ages result—often differing by millions of years. It is reasonable to conclude that the primary reason for this discrepancy is the effect of unrealistic assumptions that initiate the process of age extrapolation (cf. Kulp, 1952, p. 261; McDougall and Harrison, 1999, pp. 10-11; Friedlander, et al., 1981 for a discussion of the various assumptions inherent in the dating techniques). Ironically, the evolutionary geologists, themselves, acknowledge that “violations” of the assumptions “are not uncommon” (McDougall and Harrison, p. 11).

One major assumption upon which radiometric dating techniques are based is that, while a specimen might currently have various daughter elements in it, it is assumed that no daughter element existed in the specimen at the beginning of its decay. In other words, the dating technique assumes that the rock was initially completely composed of the parent element. But how could one possibly substantiate an assumption about the initial conditions of a specimen’s decay process, especially when the commencement of its decay was hundreds or thousands (or according to evolutionists, millions or billions) of years ago? Is it not possible, and even likely, that a specimen might have been initially composed of more than one element that blended together during a geologic phenomenon before that rock’s decay processes began? Is it not possible that various rocks were even created by God from the outset, composed of more than one daughter element, due to the usefulness of having those elements already in existence, rather than awaiting their emergence through decay processes? How could one possibly conclusively assert that any specimen was initially composed only of the parent element?

A second assumption upon which radiometric dating techniques are based is that the amounts of parent and daughter isotopes in a specimen have not been altered during the decay process by anything except radioactive decay. So, according to this assumption, the specimen being examined is in a closed system. In other words, the amount of the elements present in a sample have not ever been affected by outside elements. But how likely is it that in thousands of years of geologic processes (or even worse, millions of years, again, according to evolutionists)—lava flows, floods, mudslides, meteorite activity, etc.—the amounts of the various elements in a specimen have not been affected by outside forces?

Evolutionary geologists, again, recognize that this assumption oftentimes does not hold up. According to Ian McDougall, professor of geology in the Research School of Earth Sciences at the Australian National University, and T. Mark Harrison, professor of geology in the Department of Earth and Space Sciences at the University of California, Los Angeles, “Departures from this assumption in fact are quite common, particularly in areas of complex geological history” (1999, p. 11, emp. added). To suggest a closed system for a specimen that is believed to be very old is a reckless, unreasonable assumption, (1) when there is clear evidence that a closed system cannot be guaranteed, and (2) when, in fact, there is compelling evidence that ancient Earth was rocked by a global catastrophe that most certainly would have violated the “closed system” assumption (cf. Whitcomb and Morris, 1961) and created an extremely “complex geological history.”

The third assumption of such dating techniques is that, in keeping with uniformitarian principles, the nuclear decay rate of the elements being measured have remained constant throughout history. While the other assumptions can be seen on the surface to be unsustainable, the problem with this assumption might not seem as evident at first glance. One might expect that the rate of decay of various elements would be “set in stone” as it were—more like scientific laws. However, recent 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 (cf. DeYoung, 2005).

Evolutionists have no qualms openly acknowledging the assumptions inherent in evolutionary dating techniques, since without these assumptions in place, there would be no way to date the Earth or anything on it using science. The standard practice of geologists today, in light of this, is to “do what you can with what you have.” However, if the dating assumptions are too unrealistic to allow for an accurate date of anything, shouldn’t the dating methods be deemed untrustworthy or even abandoned, if that is where the evidence leads? It makes no sense to ignore the issues and accept evolution as fact along with its deep time proposition based on such faulty evidence. How is it scientific to use such dating methods in spite of the near certainty that they will not provide accuracy when dating extremely old specimens? In truth, because of the effect of catastrophic activity on the Earth over the centuries, the only sure way to attain the date of the Earth and its elements is through divine revelation. However, as the next assumption shows, that reasonable option has been eliminated from the table as well, due to evolutionary assumptions.

Unreasonable Assumption 6: Naturalism

According to 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). So according to this modern definition of “science,” anything non-natural is ruled out. In other words, science must be approached through the assumption of naturalism and materialism. Therefore, God is deemed unscientific by this definition (even though He actually instituted the field of science, cf. Miller, 2012d), since He is non-natural and non-material.

Recall the earlier concurring statements by geologist Robert Hazen of the Carnegie Institution, in which he stated that he assumes that life came about through a “natural process…completely consistent with natural laws…. Like other scientists, I rely on the power of observations and experiments and theoretical reasoning to understand how the cosmos came to be the way it is” (2005). Richard Lewontin, evolutionary geneticist of Harvard University, unabashedly said:

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 its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, 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-4^th emp. in orig.).

So regardless of the evidence, the bulk of today’s scientific community has agreed to wipe God and supernatural phenomena out of the definition of “science,” not because of the evidence for or against God, but because of the assumption of naturalism. Again we ask, is this a reasonable assumption?

Remember that not all assumptions in science are unreasonable. If an assumption does not significantly alter the end results, it may be a fair, legitimate assumption. However, the assumption of naturalism significantly alters one’s results—yielding completely different answers to important questions compared to the answers that would be given using an approach without that assumption in place. Further, the assumption of naturalism proves to be unreasonable, first, because it is not in keeping with the evidence, and, second, because it is self-contradictory.

According to science—the First and Second Laws of Thermodynamics—in nature, nothing comes from nothing and nothing lasts forever (cf. Miller, 2013). So according to the scientific evidence, in order to explain the origin of everything in the Universe, since it could not have naturally lasted forever or come from nothing, it had to have come from Something outside of “nature”—outside of the Universe. According to the Law of Biogenesis, in nature, life comes only from life and that of its kind (cf. Miller, 2012c). So again, according to the scientific evidence,  since life could not have naturally come from nothing, it had to have come from Something outside of “nature”—outside the Universe. Naturalism does not work in explaining the scientific evidence on these points. It cannot offer an explanation for the origin of the Universe or life in keeping with the evidence. So would it not be reasonable to re-define “science” in such a way that no option is eliminated from consideration based on the faulty assumption of naturalism?

If the scientific evidence points to something, i.e., Someone, supernatural, why not be allowed as scientists to follow the evidence where it leads? Just because one cannot empirically observe something happening, does not mean that one cannot use science to determine who did what, how they did it, when they did it, where they did it, and with what they did it. Forensic scientists engage in this process every day. Indirect evidence is a legitimate source of scientific information, and the Universe is saturated with indirect evidence for the existence of God.

As an approach to science, naturalism contradicts the scientific evidence, and what’s more, it contradicts itself. The naturalist says that everything must be explained through natural processes. However, naturalism requires unnatural phenomena—like abiogenesis and the spontaneous generation or eternality of matter—in order to explain the origin of the Universe and life (cf. Miller, 2012a). Such things not only have not been witnessed by scientists, but in fact, all the scientific evidence is contrary to them. How can a self-contradictory approach to science be the very perspective that defines science? Why are simple logic and common sense being rejected by so many in the scientific community today?

Conclusion

Assumptions are oftentimes necessary in operational science, and they can be effective and productive in helping scientists to solve problems and make advancements and important breakthroughs; but assumptions must be made with caution. The evolutionary community has a strangle-hold on the minds of many in the scientific community today and, all the while,  evolution is riddled with issues, many of which come down to the fundamental assumptions upon which evolution is based. Why do so many people insist on making such far-fetched, unreasonable assumptions? In the words of Scottish philosopher David Hume, “No man turns against reason until reason turns against him” (as quoted in Warren, 1982, p. 4). Many have turned against reason in spite of the evidence, since the evidence has turned against them. But why be so irrational? Why continue to hold to such a bogus, baseless, irrational theory? The reason for most of humanity’s rejection of truth throughout human history was stated succinctly by God through Paul nearly 2,000 years ago. Some people simply do “not like to retain God in their knowledge,” because His restrictions, though given for our good (cf. Romans 7:12; Deuteronomy 6:24; 10:12-13; Psalm 119), tend not to harmonize with our fleshly desires (Romans 1:20-32).

REFERENCES

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.

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

Friedlander, G., J.W. Kennedy, E.S. Macias, and J.M. Miller (1981), Nuclear and Radiochemistry (New York: Wiley), third edition.

Hazen, Robert (2005), Origins of Life, audio-taped lecture (Chantilly, VA: The Teaching Company).

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.

Kerkut, Gerald A. (1960), The Implications of Evolution (London: Pergamon).

Kulp, J.L. (1952), “The Carbon 14 Method of Age Determination,” Scientific Monthly, 75, November.

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

McDougall, Ian and T. Mark Harrison (1999), Geochronology and Thermochronology by the ⁴⁰Ar/³⁹Ar Method (New York: Oxford University Press), second edition.

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

Miller, Jeff (2012a), “The Atheistic Naturalist’s Self-Contradiction,” Reason & Revelation, 32[5]:53, May, http://apologeticspress.org/apPubPage.aspx?pub=1&issue=1029.

Miller, Jeff (2012b), “Don’t ‘Throw the Baby Out With the Bathwater’: Not All Theories Are Bad!” Apologetics Press, http://apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=9&article=4541.

Miller, Jeff (2012c), “The Law of Biogenesis,” Reason & Revelation, 32[1]:2-11, January, http://apologeticspress.org/apPubPage.aspx?pub=1&issue=1018&article=1722.

Miller, Jeff (2012d), “Science: Instituted By God,” Reason & Revelation, 32[4]:46, April, http://apologeticspress.org/apPubPage.aspx?pub=1&issue=1026.

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

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

Warren, Thomas B. (1982), Logic and the Bible (Ramer, TN: National Christian Press).

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

The post Don’t Assume Too Much: Not All Assumptions in Science Are Bad appeared first on Apologetics Press.

One of the popular rebuttals by the atheistic community is that quantum mechanics could have created the Universe. In 1905, Albert Einstein proposed the idea of mass-energy equivalence, resulting in the famous equation, E = mc² (1905). We now know that matter can be converted to energy, and vice versa. However, energy and mass are conserved, in keeping with the First Law. In the words of the famous evolutionary astronomer, Robert Jastrow, “[T]he principle of the conservation of matter and energy…states that matter and energy can be neither created nor destroyed. Matter can be converted into energy, and vice versa, but the total amount of all matter and energy in the Universe must remain unchanged forever” (1977, p. 32). The idea of matter-energy conversion led one physicist to postulate, in essence, that the cosmic egg that exploded billions of years ago in the alleged “big bang”—commencing the “creation” of the Universe—could have come into existence as an energy-to-matter conversion.

In 1973, physicist Edward Tryon of the Hunter College of the City University of New York published a paper in the British science journal Nature titled, “Is the Universe a Vacuum Fluctuation?” He proposed the idea that the Universe could be a large scale vacuum energy fluctuation. He said, “In answer to the question of why it happened, I offer the modest proposal that our universe is simply one of those things which happen from time to time” (246:397, emp. added). Does it really? Cosmologist and theoretical physicist Alexander Vilenkin, Director of the Institute of Cosmology at Tufts University, said:

Now, what Tryon was suggesting was that our entire universe, with its vast amount of matter, was a huge quantum fluctuation, which somehow failed to disappear for more than 10 billion years. Everybody thought that was a very funny joke. But Tryon was not joking. He was devastated by the reaction of his colleagues… (2006, p. 184).

Though he was originally scoffed at, Tryon’s theory has gained traction among many prominent evolutionary scientists. After all, if true, according to Vilenkin, “such a creation event would not require a cause” for the Universe (pp. 184-185).

Speculation vs. Observation

The fact is, the idea that such an event could happen is pure speculation and conjecture. No such phenomenon—the conversion from energy to matter of an entire Universe—has ever been remotely observed. It is a desperate attempt to hold to naturalistic presuppositions, in spite of the evidence, when a supernatural option that is in keeping with the evidence is staring us in the face. Evolutionary physicist Victor Stenger said,

[T]he universe is probably the result of a random quantum fluctuation in a spaceless, timeless void…. So what had to happen to start the universe was the formation of an empty bubble of highly curved space-time. How did this bubble form? What caused it? Not everything requires a cause. It could have just happened spontaneously as one of the many linear combinations of universes that has the quantum numbers of the void…. Much is still in the speculative stage, and I must admit that there are yetno empirical or observational tests that can be used to test the idea of an accidental origin (1987, 7[3]:26-30, italics in orig., emp. added.).

No evidence. No scientific observation. Just speculation.

Writing in the Skeptical Inquirer in 1994, Ralph Estling voiced strong disapproval of the idea that the Universe could create itself out of nothing. He wrote:

I do not think that what these cosmologists, these quantum theorists, these universe-makers, are doing is science. I can’t help feeling that universes are notoriously disinclined to spring into being, ready-made, out of nothing, even if Edward Tryon (ah, a name at last!) has written that “our universe is simply one of those things which happen from time to time….” Perhaps, although we have the word of many famous scientists for it, our universe is not simply one of those things that happen from time to time (18[4]:430, parenthetical item in orig., emp. added).

Estling’s comments initiated a wave of controversy and letters to the Skeptical Inquirer, eliciting a response by Estling to his critics. Among other observations, he said, “All things begin with speculation, science not excluded. But if no empirical evidence is eventually forthcoming, or can be forthcoming, all speculation is barren…. There is no evidence, so far, that the entire universe, observable and unobservable, emerged from a state of absolute Nothingness” (1995, 19[1]:69-70, emp. added). Therefore, by naturalists’ own definition of science, such an idea is unscientific. There is no evidence that could prove such a thing. The creationist platform is in keeping with observational science and has positive evidence of a divine Being (e.g., the presence of intelligent design in nature, the existence of objective morality, the existence of a Universe which demands a cause, and the existence of a Book that contains supernatural characteristics). However, unlike the creationist platform, those who believe in Tryon’s theory are holding to a blind faith.

Whence Came Energy?

Second, even if such a thing were possible—that energy could be converted to matter in the way that Tryon has suggested—one must ask, “Where did the energy come from?” Alan Guth, professor of physics at M.I.T., wrote in response to Tryon: “In this context, a proposal that the universe was created from empty space is no more fundamental than a proposal that the universe was spawned by a piece of rubber. It might be true, but one would still want to ask where the piece of rubber came from” (1997, p. 273, emp. added).

Energy could not have popped into existence without violating the First Law of Thermodynamics. So in reality, when scientists argue that quantum mechanics creates something from nothing, they do not really mean “nothing.” The problem of how everything got here is still present. The matter generated in quantum theory is from a vacuum that is not void. Philip Yam of Scientific American wrote, “Energy in the vacuum, though, is very much real. According to modern physics, a vacuum isn’t a pocket of nothingness. It churns with unseen activity even at absolute zero, the temperature defined as the point at which all molecular motion ceases” (1997, p. 82, emp. added). Prominent humanist mathematician and science writer, Martin Gardner, wrote: “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” (2000, p. 303, emp. added). Amanda Gefter, writing in New Scientist, said, “Quantum mechanics tells us that the vacuum of space is not empty; instead, it crackles with energy” (2010, p. 29, emp. added). Physicist Richard Morris wrote:

In modern physics, there is no such thing as “nothing.” Even in a perfect vacuum, pairs of virtual particles are constantly being created [i.e., by briefly “borrowing” energy already in existence—JM] and destroyed. The existence of these particles is no mathematical fiction. Though they cannot be directly observed, the effects they create are quite real. The assumption that they exist leads to predictions that have been confirmed by experiment to a high degree of accuracy (Morris, 1990, p. 25, emp. added).

Astrophysicist Rocky Kolb, chairman of the Department of Astronomy and Astrophysics at the University of Chicago, wrote: “[A] region of seemingly empty space is not really empty, but is a seething froth in which every sort of fundamental particle pops in and out of empty space before annihilating with its antiparticle and disappearing” (1998, 26[2]:43, emp. added). Estling continued his extensive observations in response to his critics (mentioned above), saying:

Quantum cosmologists insist both on this absolute Nothingness and on endowing it with various qualities and characteristics: this particular Nothingness possesses virtual quanta seething in a false vacuum. Quanta, virtual or actual, false or true, are not Nothing, they are definitely Something, although we may argue over what exactly. For one thing, quanta are entities having energy, a vacuum has energy and moreover, extension, i.e., it is something into which other things, such as universes, can be put, i.e., we cannot have our absolute Nothingness and eat it too. If we have quanta and a vacuum as given, we in fact have a pre-existent state of existence that either pre-existed timelessly or brought itself into existence from absolute Nothingness (no quanta, no vacuum, no pre-existing initial conditions) at some precise moment in time; it creates this time, along with the space, matter, and energy, which we call the universe…. I’ve had correspondence with Paul Davies [eminent atheistic theoretical physicist, cosmologist, and astrobiologist of Arizona State University, who advocates the supposition that the Universe created itself from nothing—JM] on cosmological theory, in the course of which, I asked him what he meant by “Nothing.” He wrote back that he had asked Alexander Vilenkin what he meant by it and that Vilenkin had replied, “By Nothing I mean Nothing,” which seemed pretty straightforward at the time, but these quantum cosmologists go on from there to tell us what their particular breed of Nothing consists of. I pointed this out to Davies, who replied that these things are very complicated. I’m willing to admit the truth of that statement, but I think it does not solve the problem (1995, 19[1]:69-70, emp. added).

No wonder Jonathan Sarfati said:

Some physicists assert that quantum mechanics…can produce something from nothing…. But this is a gross misapplication of quantum mechanics. Quantum mechanics never produces something out of nothing…. Theories that the Universe is a quantum fluctuation must presuppose that there was something to fluctuate—their “quantum vacuum” is a lot of matter-antimatter potential—not “nothing” (1998, 12[1]:21, emp. added).

Vilenkin, while explaining the problems inherent in Tryon’s work, said:

A more fundamental problem is that Tryon’s scenario does not really explain the origin of the universe. A quantum fluctuation of the vacuum assumes that there was a vacuum of some pre-existing space. And we now know that “vacuum” is very different from “nothing.” Vacuum, or empty space, has energy and tension, it can bend and warp, so it is unquestionably something (2006, p. 185, ital. in orig., emp. added).

He went on to propose that quantum tunneling could be the answer to the creation of the Universe out of nothing. However, quantum tunneling starts with something and ends with something as well. Particles that can jump or tunnel through barriers still must initially exist to do so. Bottom line: according to renowned atheist, theoretical physicist, and cosmologist of Cambridge University, Stephen Hawking, in order to create a Universe, “you need just three ingredients”: matter, energy, and space (“Curiosity…,” 2011). These three ingredients must exist in order to create a Universe, according to Hawking. So, the problem remains. Where did the ingredients for the Universe soup come from? There must be an ultimate Cause of the Universe.

Non-Existent Quantum Law-Maker?

Third, even if one were to irrationally accept the premise that quantum theory allows for the possibility that Universes could pop into existence, in the words of astrophysicist Marcus Chown:

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 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 (2012, p. 35, emp. added).

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? (2000, p. 303, emp. added).

In “Curiosity: Did God Create the Universe?” Stephen Hawking boldly claimed that everything in the Universe can be accounted for through atheistic evolution without the need of God. This is untrue, as we have discussed elsewhere (e.g., Miller, 2011), but it seems that Hawking does not even believe that assertion himself. He asked the question, “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?” (“Curiosity…,” emp. added). He then proceeded to offer no answer to the question. In his critique of Hawking, Paul Davies highlighted this very fact, saying, “You need to know where those laws come from. That’s where the mystery lies—the laws” (“The Creation Question…,” 2011). Quantum mechanics, with its governing laws, simply do not leave room for the spontaneous generation of Universes.

Responses

But what if quantum theory could allow for spontaneous generation at the quantum level? What if the First Law of Thermodynamics does not apply at the unobservable molecular world of quantum mechanics but only to the macroscopic world that we can actually see? Even if that were the case (and there is no conclusive evidence to support the contention that there are any exceptions whatsoever to the First Law of Thermodynamics—see Miller, 2010a), according to the Big Bang model, the quantum level cosmic egg eventually became macroscopic through expansion or inflation. Such an event would have been the equivalent of a breach of the First Law, even under such a speculative definition.

But isn’t it true that “one usually assumes that the current laws of physics did not apply” at the beginning (Linde, 1994)? Assumptions must be reasonable. What evidence could be used to back such a grandiose assumption? And again, who would have written the laws at the moment they became viable? And further, if the laws of physics broke down at the beginning, one cannot use quantum law to bring about matter, which is precisely what the quantum fluctuation theory attempts to do. [NOTE: See Miller, 2010b for more on this contention.]

Conclusion

Can quantum mechanics create Universes from nothing? No. Quantum particle generation requires pre-existing energy—a far cry from nothing. Could quantum mechanics spontaneously create Universes from pre-existing (i.e., created by God) energy? There is no scientific evidence to support such a proposition. So it is speculation and conjecture—wishful thinking on par with postulating that aliens brought life to Earth (which some irrationally believe). Tiny quantum particles fluctuating—bouncing around—is one thing. The creation of the entire Universe through a quantum fluctuation? That’s another.

One who wishes to avoid acknowledging the existence of God should be expected to do almost anything to deny it. Reason will be thrown aside, and acceptance of far-fetched theories—theories that are so speculative that they belong in the fiction section of the library along with the The Wizard of Oz—will be latched onto as fact. The Bible gives the rationale for this irrational behavior by explaining that such a person has “itching ears” (2 Timothy 4:3). Such a person will “heap up…teachers” who will tell him what he wants to hear, who sound smart, and therefore, will make him feel good about the blatantly irrational position that he holds (vs. 3). He will turn his “ears away from the truth, and be turned aside to fables” (vs. 4). Thus, “professing themselves to be wise, they became fools” (Romans 1:22). The quantum fluctuation idea is simply another example of this same mentality, and the admonition to Christians is the same as it was in the first century: “But you be watchful in all things” (vs. 5). “Guard what was committed to your trust, avoiding the profane and idle babblings and contradictions of what is falsely called knowledge” (1 Timothy 6:20).

REFERENCES

Chown, Marcus (2012), “In the Beginning,” New Scientist, 216[2893]:33-35, December 1.

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

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

Einstein, Albert (1905), “Does the Inertia of a Body Depend Upon Its Energy-Content?” Annals of Physics, 18:639-643, September.

Estling, Ralph (1994), “The Scalp-Tinglin’, Mind-Blowin’, Eye-Poppin’, Heart-Wrenchin’, Stomach-Churnin’, Foot-Stumpin’, Great Big Doodley Science Show!!!,” Skeptical Inquirer, 18[4]:428-430, Summer.

Estling, Ralph (1995), “Letter to the Editor,” Skeptical Inquirer, 19[1]:69-70, January/February.

Gardner, Martin (2000), Did Adam and Eve Have Navels? (New York: W.W. Norton).

Gefter, Amanda (2010), “Touching the Multiverse,” New Scientist, 205[2750]:28-31, March 6.

Guth, Alan (1997), The Inflationary Universe (New York: Perseus Books).

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

Kolb, Rocky (1998), “Planting Primordial Seeds,” Astronomy, 26[2]:42-43.

Linde, Andrei (1994), “The Self-Reproducing Inflationary Universe,” Scientific American, 271[5]:48, November.

Miller, Jeff (2010a), “Couldn’t There Have Been Exceptions to the Laws of Science?” Apologetics Press, http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=12&article=3713.

Miller, Jeff (2010b), “Did the Laws of Science Apply in the Beginning?” Apologetics Press, http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=12&article=3710.

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

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

Morris, Richard (1990), The Edges of Science (New York: Prentice Hall).

Sarfati, Jonathan D. (1998), “If God Created the Universe, Then Who Created God?,” Creation Ex Nihilo Technical Journal, 12[1]:21.

Stenger, Victor J. (1987), “Was the Universe Created?,” Free Inquiry, 7[3]:26-30, Summer.

Tryon, Edward P. (1973), “Is the Universe a Vacuum Fluctuation?,” Nature, 246:396-397, December 14.

Vilenkin, Alex (2006), Many Worlds in One: The Search for Other Universes (New York: Hill and Wang).

Yam, Philip (1997), “Exploiting Zero-Point Energy,” Scientific American, 277[6]:82-85.

The post Can Quantum Mechanics Produce a Universe from Nothing? appeared first on Apologetics Press.