Science supports the wonderful Creation of this World by an all-wise God

10 The Origin of Life

10 The Origin of Life

/in /by

10 The Origin of Life

Bible and Science – The Origin of Life:

Intelligent Design or Blind Chance?

O LORD, how manifold are thy works! in wisdom hast thou made them all:
the earth is full of thy riches (Psa. 104:24).

10 The Origin of Life

How did life on earth come about in the first place? Was it the product of specific design by an omniscient creator, or did it occur by a fortuitous combination of chemical elements that eventually evolved into more and more complex organisms? If one could store all the emotional energy expended in debating the answers to these questions, there would never be an energy crisis on this planet.

The watchmaker

One of the most definitive expositions on the side of intelligent design is attributed to William Paley.1 To paraphrase his argument: imagine that we are cast up on an apparently deserted isle and, as we walk along the beach, we spot a shimmering item. Upon picking it up we find that it is circular in shape with latches that open lids that cover the front and back faces. On one face are hands that point to numbers that we realize must measure the passage of time with seemingly remarkable accuracy. Opening the back lid reveals an intricate mechanism of levers, gears, springs and jeweled bearings that seem to make the whole thing function. After examining this extraordinary instrument, would it be logical to conclude that the ocean had washed up onto this beach a bunch of chemical elements that had somehow fabricated themselves into the various gears, levers, springs and so on? Would we also assume that these mechanical components, in the process of time, had assembled themselves into this intricate timepiece by a process of trial and error until they got it right? I think not! Most rational people would instead postulate an intelligent designer, a skillful watchmaker, who planned the mechanism and carefully carried out its creation.

From this conclusion the next logical step would be to notice any other living creature washed up on the beach and examine the even greater intricacies of its structure. Would we conclude intelligent design or blind circumstances created this living organism?

Paley’s argument, made in the 19th century still commands so much attention that an ardent evolutionist in the 20th century found the need to parody it by attributing evolution to the workings of a blind watchmaker!2

As we examine the arguments of evolutionists, we will find again and again that their arguments are often based on tenuous science. In order to compare the arguments for intelligent design versus blind chance for the origin of life, let us focus on the key structure; the heart of virtually every individual living cell, Deoxyribo Nucleic Acid (DNA).3

The Bible’s declaration

According to the Bible, the first mention of life on earth is in Genesis 1:11 Then God said, “Let the land produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds.” And it was so.4 There is no mention of anything living before this verse. Suddenly we are presented with plant life being created and apparently spread over the entire planet. If simpler life forms existed during the apparently long period of time that earth was without form and void we are not told, nor are we given any detailed information that would lead us to conclude, one way or another, that they were created on the first two days (Gen. 1:2-8).

From the point of view of a faithful believer, this is good enough. One doesn’t require the details anymore than one would question how Jesus turned the ceremonial water into wine at the marriage feast of Cana. One simply accepts the miracle from the testimony recorded in the scriptures by reliable witnesses. Ultimately, faith is the answer, but to the evolutionist this is the antithesis of the scientific method and bespeaks of magic. The question is: does the evolutionist really present a case that will hold up to the standards usually imposed by physical science or does it take faith to believe in evolution?

The evolutionist’s theory

What is the evolutionist’s explanation for the origin of life? The answer lies in what has come to be known as the chemical theory of origins first postulated independently during the 1920’s by Soviet biochemist A. I. Oparin and by the British biologist J. B. S. Haldane.5 According to their theory, life originated spontaneously from a series of chemical reactions in the earth’s atmosphere and oceans billions of years ago.

How did this happen? We certainly have no evidence that the spontaneous generation of living organisms is happening today or at any other time in recorded history, for that matter. In order to solve this problem, Oparin and Haldane postulated that the early atmosphere of this planet must have been far different from what we find today. They assumed that abundant free hydrogen, as well as ammonia and methane gases, were in the earth’s atmosphere in the distant past. The action of lightning supplied the activation energy to drive chemical reactions that lead to the formation of simple amino acids and other complex molecules that are the building blocks of living organisms. These simple chemical building blocks then somehow assembled into larger structures and eventually into the complex DNA molecule that holds the code of life.

If this were not hard enough to imagine, we also have to consider that the simple cell once formed then somehow learned to procreate and multiply itself and pass on the DNA code to all subsequent cells as they multiplied and grew into various creatures. A brief outline of the nature of DNA follows, hopefully enough to get the idea without trying to make anyone a biological scientist.

The wonder of DNA

The structure of DNA consists of two interpenetrating helices with many cross branching chemical links between each of the helical strands. Thousands of smaller chemical units called nucleotides form part of the DNA structure.

DNA is responsible for the specifics of formation (whether a man or a mouse), growth (whether cells form an eye or a finger), and reproduction of cells and organisms. Short chemical molecular sections incorporated in DNA called genes determine heredity, i.e. whether we are blond or brunette, whether we have blue eyes or brown ones and so on. In the cell’s nucleus are additional threadlike structures called chromosomes associated with the DNA molecule. Every living creature exists in the way that it does because of the information programmed into the chemical combinations found in its DNA. Tens of thousands of atoms form the DNA structure and even small changes in one or two positions of the chemical pattern can wreak havoc.

It is interesting that in almost all living organisms, the birth process is developed by the mysterious means known as sexual differentiation. The merging of two cells, one from the female and the other from the male, in effect unravels the DNA of each parent and then entwines the split DNA helix to form a new DNA pattern which shares in some measure the traits of each parent. This is true whether it is a human couple, or a male and female holly tree.

Through the genetic code carried in the DNA molecule, it is decided whether or not the living cells multiply and become a fish or follow a different path and become a human being. The DNA code in a single fertilized cell then multiplies in the womb and eventually becomes a full-grown adult organism.

It is sufficient to say that DNA is an extremely complex structure which has so far been impossible to fabricate in the laboratory from elemental considerations. Small changes in the DNA structure (called mutations) are the presumed mechanism by which various species eventually evolved. We will consider this issue of mutation in a later article, but for now let’s focus on the issue of how DNA came about in the first place.

DNA by chance?

In order to replicate the assumed conditions in the early history of earth that led to the creation of simple life forms, Miller and Urey at the University of Chicago in 1953 subjected a mixture of ammonia, hydrogen, methane, and water to electric sparks from a high voltage source for one week. They found that simple biochemical compounds had formed and indeed their experiments were successfully duplicated by scientists elsewhere. These initial experiments are as far as it has gone in the 50 years since these were first performed; no one has been able to establish how these simple biochemical compounds continued to assemble and eventually form a structure as complex as DNA.

It is not for lack of trying; obviously the first scientific person, or group, that could succeed would acquire unparalleled fame. So how could this have happened by pure chance in the early history of earth?

The usual answer from evolutionists is that the hero is time! The premise is that given sufficient time even the most unlikely highly improbable event will occur. And in the billions of years that the earth has existed the gadzillions6 to one chance of chemicals coming together (and staying together) to form DNA obviously happened, therefore the evolutionist shouts – “case proved”!

Unfortunately, Biblical creationists also abuse statistics by saying the odds are so improbable that it is impossible to believe creation by chance. However, if there is any science that is misused more than statistics I don’t know what that might be. So let’s take a little detour and see what I mean when I say that statistics cannot be used either to prove or disprove that the origin of life happened by pure chance.

Examining the odds

First let’s look at the creationist’s argument that the tremendous odds against random chance forming DNA make it impossible. This sounds plausible, but since we don’t know the mechanism which led to the chemical combinations which lead to the first living cell, we need to be cautious about stating the odds.

The exact odds depend on whether or not the chemical reactions are what I will call “associative” or “independent.” What do I mean by this statement? Suppose I give you ten pennies and ask you what are the odds of tossing them and getting all heads. You might rush to say that is easy, the odds of any individual coin being heads or tails are one out of two. Another way of saying it is that in each toss for a particular coin there are only two possibilities, it can be either heads or tails. If I toss one coin (fairly!) many times on the average half the time it will come out heads. The possibility of all ten coins coming up heads is then the product of the individual probabilities, i.e. one-half times itself ten times. This gives us the odds of 1 in 210, which leads to a result that on the average 1 in 1024 tries will make all ten coins turn up all heads. However, the odds change dramatically if you do this experiment in a different way. Suppose you toss the 10 coins and 4 come up heads (6 tails) and then I remove the 4 heads. I then ask you to toss the remaining 6 coins and now 3 come up heads, I remove these three also. Again I ask you to toss and the remaining 3 come up heads! Instead of 1000 or more tries it usually takes 3 to 6 tries to accomplish all 10 coming up heads in what I will call an “associative” action.

This can happen in a chemical combination as atoms are removed from the mix where only those that will associate correctly in the molecule will bind and others are rejected. The bottom line is that since no human being knows the exact mechanism (i.e. whether it was random, or associative, or something else entirely) for the creation of life, statistics simply aren’t meaningful.

Using the argument that the odds are too long that a complex molecule happening by chance is just not convincing to the scientific mind because as long as the odds aren’t zero, the possibility is real.

Major assumptions by evolutionists

What about the other side of the coin, so to speak, used by many evolutionists. I have heard it said that even though the odds are so incredibly long, gadzillions to one, if we wait billions of years it is certain. Let us examine that statistical fallacy.

First of all, the evolutionist’s argument presumes that when life formed the earth was not only billions of years old (which is probable), but that the planet stayed in a biologically active state conducive to the formation and growth of life for a very long time. This latter assumption is exactly that, an assumption without any real proof.

Looking at other planets in our solar system may give some clues with respect to the limits of bioactivity. As things stand now, however, it is impossible to prove how long, if at all, the earth was in a state comparable to what Miller and Urey tried to replicate in their laboratory.

There is even a stronger objection to the formula that long time guarantees overcoming long odds. If something violates the physical laws of the universe, it will never happen even if one waits for an eternity. One example is gravity. If I throw a ball in the air on this planet it will always fall back to the surface. Calculating the odds that presumes that it might sometimes continue to rise (without any additional energy input) is meaningless, because it will never happen! Unlike evolution, gravity is not a theory, it is considered to be a universal law.

Chance violates law of entropy

Now let’s look at the formation of DNA, here evolutionists would have us believe that order can be established out of chaos (the chemical state of the early earth). Evolutionists brush aside the fact that this violates the law of entropy, which states that the universe tends to a state of maximum disorder. How can the complex information encoded in DNA have been produced from randomness without the intervention of an outside source?

Options to the chance idea

Where does all this leave us? Many scientists have wrestled with the apparent impossibility of the origin of life on this planet having occurred by blind chance. The probability that life originated by accident from the primeval soup being activated by lightning has been compared by the late astronomer Sir Fred Hoyle, and his colleague Chandra Wickramasinghe, to be as likely as a whirlwind blowing through a scrap yard and assembling a 747 airliner.7 Instead, they proposed that dormant spores from outer space landed here on earth and found conditions suitable to seed life. The theory that life on earth originated by “seeding” from outer space has come to be known as panspermia. Scientific objections immediately arose to this idea because it seemed impossible for living matter to have survived the radiation and ultra vacuum environments of outer space. However, while this is still very controversial, recent evidence indicates that spores may actually be able to survive outer space conditions.

Another, so-called stronger version of the panspermia idea is the one proposed by Crick and Orgel,8 who realized the near impossibility of spores surviving in outer space. Instead they proposed the idea that life was seeded on earth by the deliberate action of alien visitors who traveled here in a space ship in the distant past. While this might sound like science fiction, the interesting thing to note is that Crick shared the Nobel Prize9 for discovering DNA and if anyone should realize the nature of its complexity it would be him. If someone like Crick is a non-believer in the accidental blind chance mechanism for forming DNA, and the associated origin of the living cell, it does not bode well for accepting the evolutionist’s bold assertion that we are the result of a blind watchmaker. Perhaps the lack of vision lies somewhere else?

A creator the only reasonable option

I hope it is clear that citing statistics to prove or disprove creation by the divine will or by pure chance is not credible. What then can we conclude? In sum, science offers two possible mechanisms for the origin of life: First, pure blind chance operating in the primeval chemical soup that supposedly prevailed on earth billions of years ago to somehow assemble DNA and the associated living cell. The objection to this model is that the physical law of entropy10 is violated in such an assumed chemical reaction. Under these conditions life could never have originated from the blind chance mechanism.

The second proposed mechanism is panspermia, which is the idea that extraterrestrial seeds, planted either by random act or by deliberate action of alien beings, nucleated life on earth. While this idea is interesting, it in fact solves nothing; all it does is transfer the creative process somewhere else! Thus, under panspermia we now need to ask what, how, when and where were these alien seeds created in the first place.

In the final analysis, Paley’s old argument still has strong philosophical grounds and until someone definitely proves something to the contrary it has tremendous merit. In short, if one observes intelligent design it is entirely reasonable to presume an intelligent designer! I will praise thee; for I am fearfully and wonderfully made: marvellous are thy works; and that my soul knoweth right well (Psa. 139:14).

By John C. Bilello, Ann Arbor, Michigan

Footnotes:

1 Watchmaker analogy is due to William Paley (1743-1805), which he presented in his book Natural Theology: or, Evidences of the Existence and Attributes of the Deity, Collected from the Appearances of Nature, first published in 1802. Available in a 1986 paperback edition ISBN 0935005625.

2 Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker: Why the Evidence of Evolution Reveals a Universe Without Design, W. W. Norton & Co., New York, (1996).

3 There are a few cases where this is not true, but that is beyond the scope of this chapter.

4 We will come back to what happened on the first two days of creation in a later chapter.

5 Cited from an article by Harold J. Morowitz, in World Book Enclycopedia©, Electronic edition.

6 The word gadzillions is strictly made up by the author to express a huge number – the odds of DNA happening by “random” chance would be the product of all the individual probabilities of each step in the process of assembling the tens of thousands of atoms in DNA. That number is so large it would fill several pages of this text to express.

7 Comment attributed to F. Hoyle and C. Wickramasinghe, also see their books Evolution from Space: A Theory of Cosmic Creationism, (1982); Astronomical Origins of Life, Kluwer Academic Pub., (1999), ISBN: 0792360818.

8 F. H. C. Crick and L. E. Orgel, “Directed Panspermia” Icarus, v 19, p 341-346, (1973).

9 With James Watson.

10 Also known as the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics

 

Loading

The Wonders of Creation

CREATION vs EVOLUTION?

/in /by

CREATION vs EVOLUTION?

The Wonders of Creation

The Creation

“In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.” Genesis 1:1

“It is a sign between me and the children of Israel for ever: for in six days THE LORD made heaven and earth, and on the seventh day he rested, and was refreshed.” Exodus 31:17

To claim a belief in the Bible it is clear that one must also believe that God created the universe and everything within it in the way it is outlined in the Genesis record. Many people have problems with the Biblical account because of the modern view that science has disproved it, however THERE IS NO evidence for the gradual evolution of man or that life started in a primordial soup. Evolution is not a science because it has not and will not be proved. See below a few of the facts which show evolution to be false:

  1. There is no adequate explanation for the origin of life from dead chemicals. It is a scientific fact that nothing can grow in a vacuum (e.g. nothing can come from nothing) and even the simplest life form is tremendously complex.
  2. The fossil record, our only documentation of whether evolution actually occurred in the past, lacks any transitional forms, and all types appear fully-formed when first present. The evidence that “pre-men” (ape-men) existed is dubious at best. So called pre-man fossils turn out to be those of apes, extinct apes, fully man, or historical frauds.
  3. Any plausible theory of the origin of life must include the formation of complicated macro molecules like proteins, DNA and RNA, as well as the components necessary for life, such as lipids, carbohydrates, hormones, enzymes, etc. that must be formed and be utilized to produce life. Pick up any text book and you will soon realize the complexity and in probability that all of these can be assembled by pure chance. The famous astronomer Sir Fred Hoyle and Professor Chandra Wickramasinghe (both atheists) calculated the probability of life forming by chance in five billion years on earth. The answer is 10e40000 to 1 (a number so close to zero as to effectively be zero). They then considered the universe with 100 billion galaxies each with 100 billion stars and 20 billion years. Still no chance. Hoyle said the probability of life evolving anywhere in the universe is as likely as a tornado sweeping through a junkyard and assembling a Boeing 747!

(The above points have been summarized from “Evolutionary Theory: the Big Problems!” of the Creation Scientists)

The scientific evidence is clearly against the theory of evolution especially in the light of modern biology, and we have only mentioned 3 points! The Bible claims that the complexity of life is clear evidence that God is the creator:

“Because that which may be known of God is manifest (clearly seen) in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse” Romans 1:19-20

What did Jesus Christ believe about Creation

“But from the beginning of the creation God made them (Adam and Eve) male and female. For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife; And they twain shall be one flesh: so then they are no more twain, but one flesh.” Mark 10:6-8

For in those days shall be affliction, such as was not from the beginning of the creation which God created unto this time, neither shall be. Mark 13:19

To claim to be a follower of Jesus (a Christian) it is worth noting that he himself believed and endorsed the Genesis account of Creation and Adam and Eve.

What did the early Christians believe?

“Wherefore, as by one man (Adam) sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned.” Romans 5:12

“But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ.” 2 Corinthians 11:3

“For since by man (Adam) came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.” 1 Corinthians 15:21-22

Not surprisingly, we see then that the early followers of Christ believed in the creation and there were critics even in there time of the Biblical account. Here is an excerpt from Gibbon’s “Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire”:

“The Mosaic account of the creation and the fall of man was treated with profane derision by the Gnostics” Edward Gibbon – The Decline And Fall Of The Roman Empire Volume 1

The early followers of Christ even warned of oppositions to their teachings in “science falsely so called”:

O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called: Which some professing have erred concerning the faith. Grace be with thee. Amen. 1 Timothy 6:20-21

Why do people believe in Evolution?

Evolution is a doctrine of convenience. To believe in chance is to relinquish any responsibilities to a higher being. Evolution fits in nicely with the humanist beliefs of society: do what you want as long as you don’t hurt another human being. The Bible teaches that this is man’s thinking and that God’s ways are completely opposite. Man does not like to have moral responsibility; he does not like to think there will be consequences for his actions and therefore it is much easier to swallow the theory of evolution.

Peter eloquently puts is like this:

“…there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts…” 2 Peter 3:3

The appeal

The appeal is, dear reader, that you look into what the Bible really teaches. If you do so with an open mind you will find the Bible completely in harmony with “real” scientific fact. Acquaint yourself with Bible prophecy and with the Bibles message and know that you will not be looking into a theory, but facts…

Author: M. Davies, Nottingham

 

Loading

An 1871 caricature

Origin of Life

/in /by

Origin of Life

Charles Darwin (1809-1882)Charles Darwin (1809-1882) was a great scientist. He discovered and described the process whereby living organisms adapt to their surroundings and the pressures of life in order to maximise their potential for survival and the preservation of their species. This process is usually called ‘adaptation’, or sometimes ‘microevolution’. The Bible–believer sees in this the hand of the Creator providing a wonderful mechanism which has produced great diversity and beauty within nature.

However, Darwin took another step with his theory, one which he admitted himself was not proven by the evidence to hand at that time, but which he believed would be supported by subsequent discoveries. This theory was the subject of his famous book ‘On the Origin of Species’ published in 1859, in which he proposed that a long series of small ‘adaptations’ driven by environmental pressures, mutations and ‘survival of the fittest’ could produce a new species out of an existing species – hence the ‘origin of species’ and sometimes called ‘macroevolution’. Despite the fact that the evidence Darwin confidently expected would be unearthed has not in fact appeared his theory has become the basis for much of modern biological science. There are, however, a significant number of senior scientists who reject Darwin’s theory of evolution; there have also been attempts to develop significant modifications to the theory to accommodate the fossil record.

For the Bible-believer the evolution of species is incompatible with the teaching of the Scriptures. The Bible teaches that God created all living things ‘after their kinds’ (Genesis 1:11, 12, 21, 24). Thus the fundamental divisions of life on earth were established by divine command.

The purpose of this section of the website is to provide information which reflects this belief in Divine Creation as the best explanation of life on earth.

Adaptation and Evolution

It is now necessary to point out that many of those who support the theory of the evolution of species do not make a distinction between ‘adaptation’ and ‘evolution’ (we will use this word to mean ‘the evolution of species’ from now on). This is unfortunate because it allows evidence for ‘adaptation’ to masquerade as evidence for ‘evolution’. For example the case of the peppered moth often figures in books, and even more in television programmes, about ‘evolution’. This small moth comes in various forms, some almost white in colour, others a dark grey. At times of industrial pollution when the surfaces on which they rest are stained dark colours the darker moths predominate because they are better camouflaged; some years later with much less pollution and lighter surfaces the lighter form of the moth predominates. This is a good example of ‘adaptation’ due to environmental pressures and is cited as a ‘proof’ of evolution.

However it should be noted that at the beginning this creature was a peppered moth, as it was throughout the process, and as it remained afterwards. It certainly adapted to its environment by a process of ‘survival of the fittest’, just as Darwin described, but it did not change into another species in the process.

‘Adaptation’ – a wonder of Creation

Charles Robert Darwin, aged 45 in 1854‘Adaptation’ (microevolution) has produced an amazing variety of plants and creatures. The Bible-believer sees in this the wisdom of the Creator who created ‘kinds’ (the word used in Genesis) and gave them the ability to adapt to the pressures of life. Think of the wide range of dogs, from tiny to large, with different temperaments, differing skills, short hair or long – but they are all dogs and can biologically interbreed; there can be physical limitations to their breeding but they are fertile within their ‘kind’ (much of this ‘adaptation’ in dogs has been the result of the intervention of man, but the principle remains valid). By contrast where man has attempted to breed across ‘kinds’ the result is always infertility. The definition of a ‘species’ is uncertain and debated and it seems likely that a Biblical ‘kind’ may contain a number of ‘species’, as is evidenced by ‘hybridisation’ between certain apparently related species, but the barriers between different ‘kinds’ (cats and dogs, for example) appear to be inviolable and reflect the Divine command ‘And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.’ (Genesis 1:24)

‘Evolution’ – did it turn out as Darwin expected?

HMS Beagle - Darwin's shipReturning to ‘evolution’, Darwin expected that as further discoveries were made of fossils in the rocks the intermediate forms between species would emerge; that the process of change from one species to another would appear as a chain of fossils starting from one species and moving progressively to another. He also expected that this would be a ‘smooth’ process advancing steadily over the vast periods of geological time, culminating in the plants and creatures seen on the earth today. Despite the finding of countless fossils this pattern has not emerged. There has been a very small number of possible intermediate forms (‘missing links’) discovered, such as Archaeopteryx, but they are all controversial and disputed; some have been shown to be elaborate frauds or simply misunderstandings.

The lack of convincing evidence, and indeed that the fossil record appears to tell a different story, has led some scientists to propose alternative explanations. In 1972 Eldredge and Gould proposed a theory of ‘punctuated equilibrium’ suggesting that evolution occurs in sudden, accelerated bursts rather than ‘smoothly’. So the idea that ‘Darwin produced the theory of evolution of species, it has been proved to be true, and all real scientists believe it’ is just not true.

Why is ‘evolution’ so widely taught?

It should be recognised that many scientists believe in evolution and it is widely taught in schools and universities. Given the paucity of the evidence one might wonder why. It may be that the answer is that the only alternative is Special Creation (that is, creation by God) and that is unacceptable to many. There are no other significant theories in science for the explanation of life and its processes so many would see the choice as ‘Evolution’ or ‘Creation’. Believing in Creation carries with it implications for life – if God created the world it would be sensible (even scientific) to listen to what He says about His purpose with it; this may (in fact, will) involve a personal response which some would prefer not to contemplate; hence they choose Evolution.

In the last paragraph it was stated that ‘many scientists believe in evolution’; this is true, but there is a significant number who do not.

The following letter appeared in The Daily Telegraph on 13 February 2009…

“Sir, we are bemused that your distinguished correspondents (Letters, February 9) expressed concern that only 37 per cent of the British population find Darwin’s theory of evolution convincing. They might consider that the problem is that neo-Darwinism has far outrun its basis in scientific evidence. While the evidence for evolutionary adaptation, modification and variation within species – which is what Darwin actually discovered – is secure, the evidence for how complex organisms developed is modest in the extreme. Is it surprising that there is a degree of incredulity that random mutation and natural selection alone can account for the vast complexity of life? A much more open and honest debate is needed. If we lose a spirit of critical inquiry, even about Darwinism, we dishonour the pursuit of science.”

The letter is signed by…
Professor Norman Nevin, Emeritus Professor of Medical Genetics, Belfast
Dr Tim Wells, Senior Lecturer in Neuro-endocrinology, Cardiff University
Professor Stuart Burgess
Professor Steve Fuller, Professor of Sociology, University of Warwick
David Galloway, Consultant Surgeon, Glasgow
Professor Andy McIntosh
Dr Alastair Noble, Former Inspector of Schools
Professor Colin Reeves, Emeritus Professor of Operational Research, Coventry University
Dr Stephen Taylor, Reader in Electrical Engineering and Electronics, University of Liverpool
Dr John Walton, Research Professor of Chemistry, University of St Andrews

Intelligent Design

An 1871 caricature‘Intelligent Design’ is the term given to the argument that the complex designs of the world around us argue for the existence of a Designer, which Bible-believers are convinced is the God of the Bible. A significant aspect of the arguments of intelligent design involves the concept of ‘irreducible complexity’. This recognises that there are many examples where two or more separate developed specialisations are required for the operation they perform together; one of the special developments alone does not provide the function and there is therefore no reason for it to be selected preferentially and so persist, the same is true of the second special development so there appears to be no mechanism within the parameters of evolution to account for the two developments appearing at the same time so that they can work together to provide the function. An example of this is bi-pedalism in humans (walking on two legs). It is known that three distinct developments are needed to achieve bi-pedalism – one in the foot, one in the knee and one in the hip joint (Burgess S, The Origin of Man, Page 22, Day One Publications, 2004). None of these by itself confers the function of bi-pedalism – all three are required for functionality and must be present together.

As a result of the conditions described in the last paragraph presenters of natural history programmes on television are often heard to say things such as ‘Nature has arranged that…’ and ‘Nature has planned for…’ or ‘Nature has provided ….’ as if Nature has thought about it and recognised what will be needed by a particular animal or plant, and acted accordingly. Within the evolutionary paradigm no such consideration is possible – it is all blind chance.

Conclusion

Darwin in 1879 after years of illnessIt seems, then, that evolution does not stand on the certain ground that its proponents would claim. That so much of the evidence advanced for evolution is based on adaptation within a species, which is actually irrelevant to the debate about the origin of species, indicates the lack of hard evidence for the evolution of species. There is a great deal of evidence for the truth of the Scriptures, some of which will be found on other parts of this website, and the Bible offers a satisfying explanation of the origin of life and of species. This in no way reduces the opportunities for the scientist to explore and understand the wonderful complexities of nature, and those who do so within a personal belief in the Creator find their work enhanced by the realisation that all we see has behind it the hand of a loving God.

Here are two quotations from the Scriptures, one from the Old Testament and one from the New: ‘In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.

The earth was without form and void, and darkness was over the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters.

And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. (Genesis 1:1-3 ESV)

By faith we understand that the universe was created by the word of God, so that what is seen was not made out of things that are visible. (Hebrews 11:3 ESV)

Loading

Creation of the Earth

09 Creation of the Earth

/in /by

Harmony of Bible and Science Presented in a Series of Articles

09 Creation of the Earth

Bible and Science – The of the Earth

Hast thou perceived the breadth of the earth? (Job 38:18)Creation of the Earth

Having spent eight chapters writing about the first verse in Genesis we will now turn our attention to other aspects of the creation story. We are introduced to planet earth by the words: And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep (Gen. 1:2). It is obvious that the earth was already in existence prior to the first recorded day of the Adamic creation. That it was without form and void follows precisely what we now know about the earth’s geological history, although the scriptures do not express it in scientific language. Naturally this is hardly surprising since the Bible was not meant to be a geophysics textbook. In this chapter we will look at when, how, and in what condition the earth was originally created.

Ideas about how the earth was formed

When was the earth created? Evidence from radioactive decay studies appears to give a dating of about 4.5 billion years. Such a long time period troubles many Bible students because they feel it gives credence to the arguments of evolutionists. Fear not; we hope to prove otherwise when we deal with the theory of evolution in later stages of these essays. We will briefly review how the earth formed in the first place and explore the reasons for such dating without getting (hopefully) too technical (professional geologists please forgive me!). Finally, we will look at many of the physical features of planet earth, which make it uniquely suited for life, as we know it.

How the earth originated is still an unsolved mystery among scientists. There was a time, not too long ago, when scientists thought the earth, and all the planets in our solar system sprang from the effect of gravitation working upon the eddy currents that could have occurred in the huge gaseous cloud of stellar matter that led to the formation of our Sun. Geological evidence leads to the conclusion that the earth, and probably our whole solar system, is much younger than the universe.

Gaseous condensation isn’t the only theory. Another is that a more dramatic local event was the means that nucleated all the planets. This theory envisages the planets were torn from the Sun by tidal forces excited by an encounter with another star that passed through this portion of the Milky Way galaxy some 4.5 billion years ago.

The idea of the creation of the universe and that of our own planet as happening at two different times is not at all in conflict with the scriptures; the exact means that the LORD used are simply unspecified in the text.1 The Bible indicates that the creation of the earth was long ago (Gen. 1:1) and that it was originally lifeless, and in fact did not have the ability to sustain life (Gen. 1:2) when the angelic (elohim) host proceeded with the creation of the present dispensation. Now let’s address the question of the age of planet earth in more detail.

Dating with rock layers

How do scientists deduce the age of the earth? It is not as straightforward as using the information from light gathered from distant galaxies that gave us an estimate for the age of the universe. The two major methods are from the study of rock formations and the other from observations of radioactive nuclear decay.

The first involves looking at the layering of rocks due to sedimentation. This is akin to measuring the rings in the trunk of a tree to determine its age. Rock formations along deep river beds, or even in the realm of long dormant river valleys, can be shown to cause alternate layering of soil from annual flooding. The soil eventually compacts as the weight of material above increases and, in the course of time, pressure and heat will create rock. The nature of the rock will naturally vary depending on the local chemical structure of the soil. One can get anything ranging from the white limestone cliffs of Dover to the granite of Vermont.

Examining rock layers was the original geological dating method developed in the 18th and 19th centuries, which led to a maximum age for the earth of several hundred million years. However, this method is not without its problems as it assumes uniformity in deposition which would exclude earthquakes, volcanic action, massive flooding and the possibility of dramatically different climate conditions in the distant past. Of course we now know that the earth has indeed had dramatically different climate conditions (even without Noah’s flood). There have been ice ages (when of course no sedimentation could occur) and the continents themselves have not always been in their present positions, which implies enormously different climatic conditions.

Dating by decay of isotopes

The second, more modern, method of deducing age is from the radioactive decay of uranium isotopes into the element lead.

The rate at which a radioactive isotope decays is measured by its half-life–that is, the time required for half the atoms in the isotope to decay into another isotope. Lead isotope 206 is formed from uranium isotope 238, which has a half-life of about 4.5 billion years. Lead-207 is formed from uranium-235, which has a half-life of 700 million years. Scientists can measure the amounts of these isotopes in a rock sample and then calculate the rock’s age from the ratio of lead-206 to uranium-238, the ratio of lead-207 to uranium-235, and the ratio of lead-206 to lead-207. Similar calculations can be made using other radioactive isotopes.2

As an example, let us assume that there was initially 100 milligrams of uranium 238 in a particular rock sample. In 4.5 billion years half of that 100 milligrams will have decayed to lead 206. Hence, if today we were to take a sample of uranium out of the ground and measure 50 milligrams of uranium 238 isotope, and 50 milligrams of lead 206, it had to take 4.5 billion years for this 50/50 mix to occur. Assuming that uranium was on the earth from its foundation, and that absolutely none of the uranium had decayed prior to earth’s formation, then an age of 4.5 billion years is appropriate. Finally, the amounts of these isotopes are very small so the accuracy of observation leads to a significant spread in the data. Nevertheless, measurements of other types of radioactive decay come to more or less the same conclusion; hence most scientists feel comfortable with an age of 4.5 billion years. There is no need for Bible students to think otherwise nor should seemingly immense age concern us (Psa. 68:33).

Reconfiguration of the planet

Now the earth was not always in its present form. If one looks carefully at a map of the world and ponders (with a little imagination) it is readily conceivable that the continents in the Western Hemisphere could possibly (with a little trimming here and there) be cradled into the European and African landmasses. In fact, the continents are all adrift floating on the liquid-like rock of the earth’s mantle. This idea is called plate tectonics and has only relatively recently been accepted by scientists.

The tectonic plates do not correspond exactly with the continents, but comprise some sections that are offshore in the oceans at certain points. It is the motion of these tectonic plates that causes dramatic earthquakes. It is now thought that at sometime in the distant past all the land plates forming the present continents were joined together in one gigantic land mass. And God said, “Let there be an expanse between the waters to separate water from water” (Gen. 1:6).

In the past, Bible critics who thought the landmasses and oceans were always in their present position scoffed at this verse. We now know differently. The dividing of the continents is absolutely essential for life, as we know it, to be possible on this planet. If all the continents were crunched together and the remainder of the planet oceans; weather patterns would be completely different. Scientists have speculated that certain regions would be swamped with precipitation and vast areas of this mega continent’s interior would be barren desert. Naturally, the social consequences would have also been vastly different if all mankind lived on the same continuous land mass.

Location in the Milky Way is critical

There are many other aspects of our planet’s existence that should cause us to wonder. The location of the solar system is on the far fringe of the Milky Way galaxy. If our planetary system were nearer the galactic core, the density of nearby stars would be so great that there would be little difference in the sky’s illumination between night and day. The constant light would be annoying and agricultural growth cycles markedly different, but we might be able to adjust to it. However, the intense high-energy cosmic radiation that would happen, if we were nearer the center of the galaxy, surely would make our type of life impossible. The severe radiation nearer the core of the galaxy would guarantee that birth defects and cancer would afflict virtually every one of us.

Even here, on the periphery of the Milky Way, ionizing radiation from our own sun would destroy us if it weren’t for the earth’s magnetic field deflecting most of this threat and parking it in space in what is called the Van Allen belts.3 Thus, galactic location and the earth’s magnetic field are critical factors permitting life on this planet.

Venus and Mars illustrate Earth’s critical balance

The balance in these physical conditions is not the only “fine-tuned” aspect of our planet that makes life not only possible, but also abundant (there are more than a million4 different species on earth). In recent years, the study of the other planets in the solar system has been greatly expanded by the use of space probes combined with much improved methods of assessing local chemistry.

The earth’s gravity is just sufficient to retain oxygen and neutral nitrogen gases in proportions that perfectly balance to sustain both plant and animal life. Just a small increase or decrease in oxygen level and we would soon find life unsustainable. Even the level of dilute gases in our atmosphere is critical. For example, carbon dioxide which comprises less than one percent is absolutely essential for plant life. Yet minutely small increases in the carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere could eventually change the cloud cover to virtually a 100% continuous canopy. Such a cloud cover would absorb solar energy and ultimately increase the surface temperature of the earth hundreds of degrees (the so-called greenhouse effect).

The two closest planets to Earth are Mars and Venus. Some comparisons with these neighbors make us keenly aware of what a fine line there is between a place of sustainable life and a planet of death. Venus is somewhat closer to the Sun than Earth and is just slightly smaller in planetary diameter. Thus its gravity is slightly less than that of Earth, yet it has held onto a wider mixture of atmospheric gases than our planet and pure oxygen gas seems conspicuously absent. The prime components of the atmosphere of Venus are carbon dioxide, nitrogen, water vapor, argon, carbon monoxide, neon, and sulfur dioxide. Such a mixture of gases would not be breathable for most animal species on Earth. Moreover, the Venus atmospheric cloud cover is complete and impenetrable; sunlight never reaches the surface. The average surface temperature is 8600F (4600C), which makes for a very hot day at the beach. But we wouldn’t want to swim in the oceans of Venus to cool off because they are composed of liquid methane instead of water!

The situation is somewhat different on Mars, which has a diameter about half that of earth’s and thus its gravity is considerably weaker. Naturally, we would weigh a lot less on Mars than on Earth and certain sports could be played with enormous energy. However, this low gravity also means that Mars is almost devoid of breathable atmosphere. Long ago, almost all the atmospheric gases that may have once existed on this planet probably evaporated into outer space.5 The lack of an atmosphere also makes it difficult to ameliorate temperature variations between night and day and from equator to polar regions. The low gravity also seems to be responsible for the apparent lack of any bodies of water on Mars (or liquid bodies of any chemical composition). Temperatures on Mars vary between -230 to 600F (-140 to 200C), which could make for very chilly winters indeed.

Whether any form of life (including microbes) exists on Mars or Venus is still being explored by unmanned space craft probes,6 but what is abundantly clear is that both planets hold no inducement for leisurely vacation or retirement development! That planets so close by, within the range of orbital diameters around the sun that should allow for sufficient solar energy, and with comparable gravity, should be so inhospitable to animal life is surely a disappointment to many scientists. Nonetheless, by comparing conditions on Earth to these neighboring planets we can clearly see that either we are again incredibly lucky or something else was at work to make Earth fit for the countless number of living species that occupy this habitat.

Bible does not give scientific detail

The exact mechanisms whereby the Lord God, through the agency of the elohim, formed the earth and made it suitable for life are not spelled out in detail in Genesis, neither should we expect them to be. I cannot emphasize too strongly that the scriptures were not meant to be a scientific textbook, as what was written had to be understood by mankind for many thousands of years before our time. The level of sophistication used by the Bible in discussing creation might not please modern scientific thought, but neither is it based on preposterous rhetoric that we could clearly ignore. While pagans believed that a god, the famed Atlas of Greek mythology, or the divine elephant of Hindu legend, was holding up the earth and sky, the scriptures presented a very different scenario.

It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in (Isa. 40:22).

The Hebrew word here translated as “circle” is used only this one time in the scriptures and the image it projects (inhabitants …as grasshoppers) is perfectly in line with a view of the earth one could only achieve from space. How could Isaiah possibly have written such words about planet earth without divine inspiration?

Naturally, scientists would prefer to have direct observational evidence of the means whereby the earth was created, but mankind wasn’t there to record the events (Job 38:4) and what we know about the formation of the earth is either gleaned from extrapolating current physical evidence or by accepting on faith the Word of God. We shouldn’t discount physical evidence a priori, but neither should we dismiss faith. Faith in the Word of God is not a blind faith, but one based on abundant scriptural evidence (as with the Isaiah 40:22 passage) that should convince us of the divine hand. The Bible unequivocally states that this planet was created by the Lord (Jer.10:12 and Psa. 102:25 among others) and incorporated into that design was a delicate balance of nature fit for life (Job 38:5-41; Psa. 135:6, 7). We will explore these issues further, God willing, as we examine the Genesis 1 creation story in more detail in future chapters of our essays.

By John C. Bilello, Ann Arbor, Michigan

Footnotes:

1 In the beginning simply implies – prior to the work of the seven days of creation revealed in Genesis Chapter 1. There is nothing said in Gen. 1:1 that forces us to assume that the heavens and specifically our planet earth had both to be created at the same exact instant.

2 World Book Encyclopedia © Electronic Edition

3 This protective magnetosphere deflects particles towards the magnetic poles of the earth and away from almost all the inhabited regions. This effect was discovered in 1958 by James Van Allen on data analyzed from the Explorer I satellite, hence the appellation.

4 Actually more like 10 million species would be appropriate; there are 250,000 species of beetles alone.

5 Mars has a dilute atmosphere of carbon dioxide, nitrogen, argon, oxygen, carbon monoxide, neon, krypton, xenon, and water vapor.

6 As of this writing (January 27, 2004) the European Space Agency probe to Mars (ironically named the Beagle after the sailing ship that took Darwin on his famous voyage) has apparently failed to perform. The NASA Spirit and Opportunity Rovers have sent spectacular pictures of the Mars surface and are scheduled to hunt for past or present signs of life in the form of microbes or fossils. Both probes were deliberately programmed for landings in regions of relatively smooth topology suggesting the presence of a past body of liquid (water?), the supposed best place to find evidence for living entities.

Loading

Is Intelligent Life Elsewhere in the Universe?

08 Is Intelligent Life Elsewhere in the Universe?

/in /by

Harmony of Bible and Science Presented in a Series of Articles

08 Is Intelligent Life Elsewhere in the Universe?

Bible and Science – Is Intelligent Life Elsewhere in the Universe?

The heaven, even the heavens, are the LORD’S:
but the earth hath he given to the children of men (Psa. 115:16).Is Intelligent Life Elsewhere in the Universe?

On September 5, 1977, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) launched Voyager 1, the first of two unmanned spacecraft designed to explore the planets of our solar system and eventually to enter regions beyond.1 In the winter of 2003-04, Voyager reached the limits of our solar system and enter interstellar space. It will be thousands of years before this spacecraft encounters another star, but in the event that it survives to do so there is a capsule on board that has information in it to convey to any possible intelligent alien species that Voyager was sent by a “thinking” race known as mankind. Of course, if an intelligent species were to find it and reply we wouldn’t know anything on earth for thousands of years into the future, unless of course this alien race has discovered something about bridging space that is thus far beyond our comprehension.

Another project that has attempted to explore for intelligent life beyond earth is SETI, which stands for Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence. The idea of this investigation was/is to use powerful radio telescopes to search the sky for microwave signals that might have an intelligible pattern. A few years later similar attempts were launched to explore for powerful laser signals that might convey messages. These explorations are all based on the reasoning that if there were intelligent races elsewhere in our galaxy they must also have developed radio and lasers and might be trying to contact other species. Government funding first sponsored the SETI project, but that source soon got discouraged with the lack of results. Such efforts continue today under private auspices. So far, with more than a decade of searching, no definitive results have been forthcoming though literally tens of millions of dollars have been spent in the quest.

Is Earth unique?

Why is there such intense interest in the search for intelligent life beyond planet earth? The idea of finding living species elsewhere certainly captures the public imagination. One need only consider the fabulous amount of money that is made on films and television science fiction epics such as “Star Wars” or “Star Trek” and their multifarious clones. If we could communicate with another intelligent species elsewhere in the universe there are a host of gnawing questions that would be asked and the answers could profoundly change the human race. Chief among these queries would be: Does an alien race elsewhere believe in a God? And does that God have a plan of salvation for that species?

For most of human history, mankind has thought that the earth was the center of a rather small universe with the moon and planets revolving around us with a few thousand stars arrayed in a canopy above. From the work commencing with Copernicus, Galileo, Kepler and Newton down to Einstein, Hubble and Hawking (and many others), it is now accepted that the universe is a very vast place with literally billions of galaxies, each containing billions of star systems. The probability that there are planets elsewhere in the universe that are similar to earth becomes quite high. If there are many other stars with planetary systems, there is the further possibility that some other intelligent life form might exist. Such alien species might be similar to us, or might be markedly different from our image yet still be rational beings. Nevertheless, until relatively recently, scientists were very skeptical that any form of intelligent life could be found elsewhere in the universe. In the last few years, new, more powerful instruments, such as the Hubble space telescope, and the 400-inchMountKecktelescope in Hawaii, have found abundant evidence that there are planets orbiting other nearby stars. We cannot tell yet whether or not any of these planets have earth-like conditions, but at least it is now fairly certain that other solar-type systems exist with planetary satellites.

Earth’s delicate balance

While wondering about the possibility of life elsewhere, scientists have also come to the remarkable conclusion that this universe we inhabit is exquisitely fine-tuned so that life can exist in it. The physical constants that determine the structure of the universe are set within such close limits that even the smallest change in their values would lead to complete instability such that heavens would never have formed, or, if they had, would have been so short lived that we wouldn’t be around to observe anything. A few examples should suffice to make the point.

First let’s consider Coulomb’s law of electromagnetism. This law states that the force (F) between two electric charges (Q1 and Q2) is equal to a constant (C) times the product of the charges divided by the distance (r) between them squared. In mathematical form this equation looks like: F = C Q1 Q2 / r2.0000000000000000

Forget the details of the math, but recognize that when we square the distance between these two charges it is a very precise number. The number in the exponent is not 2.000001, but exactly “2” to many decimal places of accuracy. Even the smallest change in that power law makes electromagnetism unstable. Since it is electromagnetic forces that hold every atom in the universe together, we can readily appreciate that something very strange is going on! Similar preciseness is required in the exponent governing Newton’s gravitational law. So extraordinary is this result that the physicist John Wheeler commented: “Slight variations in the physical laws such as gravity or electromagnetism would make life impossible…the necessity to produce life lies at the center of the universe’s whole machinery and design.”2

Further examples of fine balance

In fact, the further we inquire, the more we are astounded by the extremely small numerical limits that are placed not only on the physical laws, but also on the physical constants in order for there to be a stable universe (i.e. one that doesn’t form and then immediately implode). An example that comes to mind is the inequality limits, which determine the stability of stars. The range for this parameter is a number that is accurate to 39 decimal places! A small difference in the 38thdecimal place would ensure that no star with the properties of our Sun would exist in the entire universe. Stars would either be blue giants (burning up rapidly) or red dwarfs (far too cool to provide sufficient energy for life). Under these conditions no star like our Sun could ever have existed.

Another extremely fortunate circumstance is the fine balance in chemical forces, which permits carbon-based life forms. The molecules that constitute all livings cells are composed of very complex combinations of atoms mostly dependent on carbon-based (organic) chemistry. The carbon atom is capable of a wide range of binding properties depending on the local environment of surrounding atoms. Carbon-carbon bonds in a covalent state3 form the structure commonly known as diamond, but many other bond states are possible with various other elements. There are literally millions of variations of carbon-based chemical compounds. No other element is capable of this type of chemistry. Even the smallest change in the diverse bonding properties of carbon would make life on this planet impossible.4

Given all these circumstances we are either incredibly lucky or else something very special has happened to make our universe suitable for our existence. While most scientists don’t believe in luck, they also prefer to reject the notion of intelligent design by an omniscient creator. What then is their scientific alternative?

The atheist’s alternative

The scientific alternative that some physicists prefer is called the anthropic principle. The general idea of this principle is that the reason we seem to find our universe so hospitable to life is because this just happens to be the universe we inhabit. Under the guise of this principle, we have to accept the idea that there are possibly multitudes of other universes with properties far different from ours and in these universes life, as we know it, may be impossible.

These issues were discussed at a recent conference at Case Western   ReserveUniversity.5 The basic postulate of the anthropic principle really isn’t very different philosophically from the fundamental premise of evolutionary theory, i.e. a pure probability argument. The idea is that, if you have enough universes out there, then by pure chance one is bound to be suitable for life and we just happen to live in that one.

Naturally, this argument does away with the idea of intelligent design by a creator. Under the guise of the anthropic principle, our universe resulted neither from a creator, nor from pure luck, but rather as a result of happenstance. This is a subtle difference, but a comforting one to scientists who prefer to reject God, but don’t have any other explanation for the incredible uniqueness of the physical laws which make life possible in our universe. It also is apparent that no current means exist for observing beyond the limits of our own universe; hence the anthropic principle remains more of a philosophical idea than a physical reality. Dr. Lawrence Krauss is quoted in the New York Times as saying that the anthropic principle is “a way of killing time when physicists didn’t have a better idea.”6

A more rational approach

There are a number of scientists who simply don’t buy the idea of pure luck or happenstance to explain the uniqueness of the physical laws that make life possible in our universe. The physicist Paul Davies has said, “The equations of physics have in them incredible simplicity, elegance and beauty. That in itself is sufficient to prove to me that there must be a God who is responsible for these laws and responsible for the universe.”7 To which I say amen!

The Bible’s position

One may quibble about whether scientists believe in luck or happenstance, as an explanation for the existence of mankind, but it is clear that the one thing they nearly all agree upon is the unique ability of our universe to foster life. Hence the search for intelligent life has a sound scientific basis and no doubt efforts will continue to try to make contact with other beings elsewhere in the universe despite the futility of waiting tens of thousands of years for a possible reply. On the other hand, what does the Bible say about the possibility of life elsewhere in the universe? The astonishing answer from the perspective of scripture is that the existence of intelligent life elsewhere in the universe is virtually certain! Let’s examine this assertion further.

First and foremost there is the recorded fact that angels carried out the works of creation. Angels came to Abraham to announce the birth of Isaac and went on to destroy the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah. In the course of this mission, they sat down to eat and drink with Abraham (Gen. 18:8), showing that they were corporal beings. The angels Gabriel8 and Michael9 appear in the book of Daniel and some 600 years later it appears that the same Gabriel speaks to Zacharias10 and to Mary11 the mother of Jesus. In fact, the Bible is replete with references to angelic creatures carrying out the work of the Lord.

Now surely we do not believe in angels with wings floating in the clouds above the earth, an image often expressed in the popular entertainment media, but having no basis in scripture. Since God only hath immortality (I Tim.6:16), where did the angels come from? They certainly did not coexist as immortals with the Lord from the very beginning. Moreover, where do these angels reside now when not engaged on some earthly mission?

Enoch and Elijah

There is also the curious story of Enoch (Gen. 5:24). The scriptures say he was “translated” (Heb. 11:5). What exactly does this mean? We know it cannot mean that he was given eternal life, because the scriptures plainly say that Christ was the first fruits of the race of Adam to receive immortality (I Cor. 15:20). Some have speculated that Enoch simply died and God had him buried elsewhere on this planet so that other mortal men would not worship this righteous man’s dead body. The Bible, however, does not say this and is quite explicit in giving such burial details in the case of Moses. The original word for translated literally means to transport.12 The question is transported where? It should be obvious that if the scriptures said he was removed to live out an extended mortal existence on another planet somewhere else in the universe, to await the day of redemption, no one until very recently could have possibly had a clue what that meant!

Another fascinating story to contemplate is the departure of the prophet Elijah from the earth. The Bible tells us: “And it came to pass, as they still went on, and talked, that, behold, there appeared a chariot of fire, and horses of fire, and parted them both asunder; and Elijah went up by a whirlwind into heaven” (II Kgs. 2:11). Some have speculated that the description is one of Elijah leaving earth in a rocket ship,13 but whether or not this is true is a moot point. What is abundantly clear is that, by some means or other, Elijah (very much alive) was conveyed into the heavens to be transported somewhere else.

Earth’s destiny

Finally, there is the marvelous passage in Numbers 14:21: “But as truly as I live, all the earth shall be filled with the glory of the LORD.” (See also Hab. 2:14). These words, in effect, constitute the prime directive of the purpose of the Lord with the earth, i.e to fill it with His glory. He didn’t create the earth in vain, He created it to be inhabited (Isa. 45:18) first with us, the sons of Adam, and eventually with a glorified race of beings perfected by trial and glorified by the gift of eternal life through His son the Lord Jesus Christ. If we believe that this is God’s purpose, with respect to the earth, can we not also accept by extension that the whole vast universe is also intended for the glory of the Lord God Almighty. Truly the earth hath he given to the children of men, and someday in the future may we be so blessed as to know and understand what He planned for the rest of the universe.

By John C. Bilello, Ann Arbor, Michigan

Footnotes:

1.A nearly identical craft, Voyager 2, was launched a few months later on Aug. 20, 1977, with the same mission.

2.John Wheeler, Reader’s Digest, September, 1986.

3.Covalent bonds are the strongest type of chemical bonds, where electron orbitals are shared between two atoms; further details need not concern a lay reader.

4.Scientists have speculated on other types of organic chemistry based on apparently similar chemical structures from the same column in the periodic table of elements. Silicon-based organic chemistry, for example, would seem possible; substitution of Silicon for Carbon, however, simply doesn’t work in forming equivalent molecular structures suitable for life.

5.For a layman’s report on this conference see the article: “Zillions of Universes? Or Did Ours Get Lucky?” by Dennis Overbye, New York Times, October 28, 2003.

6.Ibid.

7.Paul Davies, Superforce, Simon and Schuster, New York, (1985).

8.Daniel8:16 and 9:21.

9.Daniel10:13,10:21 and 12:1. Michael is also mentioned in Jude 1:9 and Revelation 12:7.

10.Luke 1:19.

11.Luke 1:26.

12.Translated” = Strong’s number 3346. In Greek = metatithemi, met-at-ith´-ay-mee; from 3326 and 5087; to transfer, i.e. (literally) transport.

13.Erich Von Daniken, Chariots of the Gods: Unsolved Mysteries of the Past, Berkley Books, NY (1999).

Loading

What is the Universe Made Of?

07 What is the Universe Made Of?

/in /by

Harmony of Bible and Science Presented in a Series of Articles

07 What is the Universe Made Of?

Bible and Science – What is the Universe Made Of?

By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God’s command,
so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible (Heb. 11:3 NIV).

So far we have dealt with things very large, namely the universe, but at a very fundamental level. The galaxies, stars, planets and even ourselves are made up of infinitesimally small particles, which form the atomic structure of all matter. Ordinary matter is composed of three sub-atomic particles, which where recognized starting with the discovery of the electron, in 1897. Later, the proton was found in 1919 and finally the neutron was detected in 1932.1

At the atomic level

The proton is a positively charged particle that resides in the nucleus of all atomic matter. The neutron has no electronic charge and is in the nucleus of most atomic material (except hydrogen which is just a proton and an electron).

The electron is negatively charged and is some 1800 times less massive than the proton. It is not in the nucleus of the atom, but rather dances around in a cloud-like shell enveloping the atomic core. Taking the simple case of a hydrogen atom, one finds one proton at its core with a single electron orbiting the proton. The scale of this atom is millions of times smaller than the width of a human hair! It also has some very puzzling properties.

Everyone knows that if you take a positive and negative charge and put them together you get a spark. If you’ve ever incorrectly grounded your auto battery you know what I mean (don’t try this experiment — it can be dangerous!). Yet the hydrogen atom is perfectly stable and so are all other elements in nature.

At first it was thought that the electron circled around the core proton much as the moon circles around the earth. If this were true, then the speed of the electron’s orbit (the orbital velocity) would have to balance the attractive force of the opposite electric charges, which want to pull the electron into the proton thus annihilating both. However, this model for explaining the electron’s orbit didn’t make much sense because it was already known by the late 19th century that a moving charge radiates energy. In fact, this is the origin of radio and television signals.

What would happen with time (extremely small fractions of a second) is that a negative electron revolving around a positively charged proton would radiate energy and quickly lose orbital velocity, spiral into the atomic nucleus and go KABOOM!2 We know this doesn’t happen, or we wouldn’t be here, and the reason is that classical physics doesn’t work in the world of the very small. The electron stays safely in a cloud around the atom nucleus, which is filled with protons/neutrons. A whole new way of thinking about physics called ‘quantum mechanics’ had to be invented to explain it.

Quantum mechanics

The Danish physicist Niels Bohr first worked out the so-called quantum view of nuclear stability in 1913. He postulated that the electron could occupy stable orbits. In these stable states of fixed energy electrons did not radiate electromagnetic waves, nor did they become attracted to the positively charged nucleus. If one attempted to change the energy of the electron, one could only do so in discrete amounts called ‘quanta’ which would excite the electron to a higher (metastable) energy orbital.

Why the orbitals should be stable is totally unexplainable in terms of classical physics. To understand this phenomenon further, intensive theoretical and experimental research went into play over the next decade and a half on what came to be known as ‘quantum mechanics,’ a term used to differentiate the world of the very small from the ‘classical mechanics’ of Newton, Maxwell, Einstein and others, that had been so successful in explaining the macroscopic world.

The results of these studies produced some startling ideas, which are often counterintuitive to the everyday world of our experience. In fact, to be completely honest, quantum mechanics is downright strange! Even the physicist Bohr, who could be called the father of the field, is reputed to have said, after giving a lecture trying to explain quantum mechanics to a group of philosophers who didn’t appear to get it: “Anyone who is not dizzy after his first acquaintance with the quantum of action has not understood a word.” Let’s explore some of the weird behavior of this microscopic, unseen atomic world at the atomic level that makes up the fundamental stuff that comprises everything in the universe, including ourselves.

Impossible to accurately measure

The actions of particles in the quantum world were soon given a statistical interpretation that was expressed in terms of a simple expression (at least for physicists) called the Schrödinger equation. This law is a probability equation that allows one to predict the behavior of atomic particles if one knows the associated potential energy function. Thus, the behavior at the submicroscopic level of the electron, proton, neutron and a host of other particles real (or virtual) could be predicted with great certainty using this equation. Ironically, while one could do so for an assembly of particles, it was eventually realized by Heisenberg that one could never actually know the physical facts about any ‘single’ particle, and this has become known as the famous uncertainty principle. The very act of measuring the position, or velocity, or whatever, about an individual particle affects the condition of the particle such that one can never exactly specify the parameter one was after with absolute certainty.

How do we imagine this in the world of our everyday experience? Suppose I want to measure how far an electron has moved in one second. In order to do this, I have to observe the electron and ‘see’ it. In order to do something as apparently simple as ‘see’ the particle, we can imagine shining a beam of light on it. We need to realize that the beam of light is composed of packets of energy called ‘photons.’ The instant the beam of light impinges on the particle we will change the state of the particle by imparting to it energy from the very light beam we set up to observe it. Hence, the very act of measurement changes the behavior of the object we want to measure.

This is a very simple approach, but it should get the idea across. Classical physics predicted things with absolute certainty; if we know the initial position, velocity, acceleration and forces on a body we could predict its behavior for all time (provided nothing else was added to the system). However, with quantum mechanics, we can never predict with absolute certainty the behavior of any individual particle. The best we can do is to express the behavior of a large assembly of particles in terms of probability functions.

The probabilistic results of quantum mechanics drove physicists so crazy that the famous physicist Albert Einstein said, The theory yields a lot, but it hardly brings us any closer to the secret of the Old One. In any case I am convinced that He does not throw dice.3Notwithstanding Einstein, quantum mechanics has proved to be extremely successful and the results of the discovery of the laws of ‘quantum mechanics’ has led to thousands of new products from computers to cell phones, to name but a few.

Odd characteristics

In spite of its utility, quantum weirdness still amazes. Consider for example another strange result of this theory. Suppose you came to a hill 25,000 feet tall and you couldn’t get around it in any way. You would have two choices for surmounting this obstacle: you could either expend your energy climbing the hill, or you could use your strength to dig a tunnel through it. However, ‘quantum mechanics’ provides a third path: you could simply wait for a ‘quantum fluctuation’ and find yourself on the other side of the mountain!

Naturally, you are scratching your head at this point and thinking this is all science fiction. Indeed sci-fi writers have exploited the strangeness (sometimes entirely without a correct scientific basis!) of quantum mechanics to create some fantastic stories. In literary terms, a ‘quantum leap’ has come to mean a gigantic change, whereas in reality the quantum world strictly applies to the micro-world and only for miniscule energy changes. In this micro-world electrons do indeed surmount energy barriers that are much larger than the apparent energy that they possess. This effect is called ‘tunneling’ and even though physicists cannot predict if any given electron will tunnel, the behavior of an assembly of electrons of a given energy can, in principle, be predicted exactly using Schrödinger’s equation. In other words, the probability that a certain fraction of the electrons will tunnel and get through an energy barrier greater than the self-energy of the electrons themselves is certain. It may sound crazy, but it works, and the integrated circuits in the computer I am using to type this essay function according to the rules of ‘quantum mechanics.’

It should be noted that the greater the energy of the electron assembly relative to the height of the energy barrier that we want them to surmount, the higher will be the fraction of electrons that will tunnel and simply find themselves on the other side. It also follows that since quantum theory is a probabilistic theory, if we have a larger number of electrons of a given energy trying to surmount a high-energy barrier, then the larger the number of electrons that will tunnel. What has this got to do with us trying to get over a 25,000-foot high mountain with minimum exertion of energy on our part?

It sounds balmy

If we want to get to the other side of the mountain with a quantum fluctuation, we can simply wait around until it happens. In principle, we can calculate exactly what the probability would be for us to do so. The fact that none of us has experienced such a phenomenon makes it obvious that the probability must be very low.

We can increase the probability by upping our energy level. All we need do is run as hard as we can up the initial slope of the mountain until we drop! While this helps, if we carry out the calculation, the probability is so small that we would exceed the entire age of the universe before we would have a chance of experiencing a quantum tunneling effect that would get us to the other side of the mountain without climbing it. This doesn’t mean it cannot happen, it only means it is extremely unlikely.

We can increase the odds of someone getting to the other side of this mountain by getting more people involved. Suppose we could convince every human being on earth to start running at this mountain night and day for years on end until someone finally quantum tunneled to the other side (it would get very crowded at the base station!). Given five or six billion people, more or less, making many attempts every day, year on end, then the chances are reasonable that we would find one or more tunneling to the other side in a few years. As the attempt frequency goes up, and the energy of those trying to run up the mountain increases, the probability of success increases.

The fact that we have never seen it happen is only because the statistics are so poor. What is absolutely certain is that the probability is NOT zero. Sooner or later it will happen. Someone will have started to run a few hundred feet up the mountain only to find themselves instantly on the other side. One can calculate what is known of the wave function (which is what a formal solution to the Schrödinger equation is called) of any human being and from that we can get the probability, for example, of me apparently getting through a solid steel door and finding myself on the other side without ever opening the door.

Now your head is probably swimming from this discussion and you may be sitting there thinking: he has gone mad, and moreover all scientists are positively balmy. Nevertheless what I tell you is true; quantum mechanics works and literally tens of millions of microchips are manufactured every year that function according to the laws of physics worked out by that theory.

Through locked doors

As an interesting aside, there is a passage in the scriptures that gives skeptics a field day. The verse in question is in the gospel of John 20:19. It says, speaking of the Lord Jesus Christ after his resurrection visiting his disciples while they where eating in a sealed room: On the evening of the first day of the week, when the disciples were together, with the doors locked for fear of the Jews, Jesus came and stood among them and said, “Peace be with you.” (NIV) The difficultly is the phrase ‘doors locked’. The skeptics often dismiss this passage as a fable or fabrication. However, the event was witnessed by a large number of people and the disciples were neither foolish nor ignorant.

The gospel record is explicit in this detail when it didn’t have to be. In other words, the miracle of Jesus coming to his disciples in a sealed room is, in a sense, simply a passing comment. Why would Matthew make this comment if he hadn’t been an eyewitness and if he wasn’t certain that all the others who had evidenced the same event would back him up? Why add a story that would simply encourage incredulity if it didn’t indeed happen exactly as recorded?

If one only knew classical physics, one could dismiss the whole record here as simply impossible, but from what we now know about quantum mechanics (and from the little slice of it that I have given above), we can be certain that no laws of physics were violated. In fact, the laws of physics guarantee that it was not only possible, given the right amount of manipulation of energy, the event was absolutely certain! Under the right circumstances, there is a finite probability that we could do it ourselves; given our level of energy, it just might take a little longer to get into a sealed room!

Wonderfully made

A final thought about the structure of the atom. The actual mass making up the atoms in our body is trivially small. The fact that we appear solid is due almost entirely to the strong electromagnetic forces that bind the electrons to the proton/neutron nucleus as well as those forces that bond atom to atom. Remove these electromagnetic forces and the total mass of our bodies would fit comfortably on the head of a pin. The fact is we are mostly empty space! Ponder that for a few moments and I am sure you will agree with the Psalmist: I will praise thee; for I am fearfully and wonderfully made: marvellous are thy works; and that my soul knoweth right well(Psa. 139:14).

By John C. Bilello, Ann Arbor, Michigan

Footnotes

  1. J. J. Thompson, E. Rutherford and J. Chadwick discovered the electron, proton and neutron, respectively, in the years cited. At an even finer scale it is now theorized that the latter two particles are constituted of even smaller elementary entities called ‘quarks’, but this is beyond the scope of the present discussion.
  2. “In 1911,Rutherford had postulated an atomic model which described the hydrogen atom as a small heavy nucleus surrounded by an electron in a fixed circular orbit around it. The only snag here was that this arrangement was completely forbidden by the laws of classical physics. According to Maxwell’s equations, the electron, involved in circular motion hence accelerating, should be continuously emitting electromagnetic radiation. This energy could only come from the rotational motion, so the electron should spiral into the nucleus.” Cited from: http://www.sunderland.ac.uk/”hs0bcl/h_nb.htm
  3. Albert Einstein (commenting on his skepticism about the validity of Quantum Theory). The Physicist Niels Bohr is reputed to have replied in response to this “Einstein, stopping telling God what He can do!”

Loading

Is The Universe Eternal?

06 Is The Universe Eternal?

/in /by

Harmony of Bible and Science Presented in a Series of Articles

06 Is The Universe Eternal?

Bible and Science – Is the Universe Eternal?

Thy kingdom is an everlasting kingdom, and thy dominion endurethIs The Universe Eternal?
throughout all generations (Psalm 145:13)

When the Lord made His promises to the patriarch Abraham He said: For all the land which thou seest, to thee will I give it, and to thy seed for ever (Gen. 13:15).[i] The concept of an everlasting kingdom on earth is one of the most important themes in scripture. It is mentioned countless times, from the early words quoted from Genesis through the picture of the New Jerusalem provided in the final pages of our Bibles (Rev. 21:10). It would seem self-evident that for these promises to be completely fulfilled, the heavens and earth themselves must last forever. We have looked at the birth of the universe in previous chapters, now let us ask the question: Will it ever perish?

Scientists have looked into the future of the heavens and earth with the same keen interest as they have delved into the birth of the universe. There are many issues to consider when we ponder the future course of the universe. In this chapter we will consider several of these scenarios: first, the classical thermodynamic role of entropy,[ii] second, the lifetimes of stars from the view of nuclear physics, third, the possible reversal of the expanding universe and finally, the most recent efforts of high-energy physics with respect to the stability of the constituents of the atomic nucleus.

Disorder the rule

In the late nineteenth century scientists studied the basic physics that made heat engines work. In the course of these studies the three basic laws of thermodynamics were uncovered. So fundamental are these laws that, to paraphrase Einstein, one could say that if all else were someday found to fail in physics there would still be thermodynamics. The second law of thermodynamics states that the direction of spontaneous change in isolated systems is [always] toward maximum disorder.[iii] Hence heat always flows from a hotter body to a cooler body and if one leaves a cold cup of coffee on the kitchen table it will never spontaneously warm up of its own accord. Taken together, all processes occurring now will result in a universe of greater disorder.[iv]

Thus, without the intervention of some outside source, the universe as a whole must increase in entropy and gradually will cool down so that every star, every planet and, indeed, whatsoever life exists in it must eventually reach absolute zero and utterly freeze.

Problem for the sun

One of the consequences of this law is that the atomic fusion reactions that fuel our sun will ultimately die out. The energy that powers our sun comes from nuclear reactions similar to the hydrogen bomb. The sun is a fiery cauldron of nuclear fusion reactions, which create a dynamic plasma of intensely hot ion gases that flare outward from the surface layers of the sun. This outward pressure counteracts the gravitational forces that act to draw all the mass of the sun toward its center.

Since the mass of the sun is not infinite, scientists believe it is inevitable that one day the nuclear reactions will cease. When this happens there will not be enough energy to maintain this outward pressure and the sun will ultimately collapse into a dead mass. Of course, the earth and all the planets will be destroyed in the process. A similar fate awaits every star in the universe; it would simply be a matter of time when entropy more or less finished its job and produced utter darkness. No need to worry just yet, this is not expected to happen for some millions of years in the future; but of course if this scenario is correct, then the earth will surely not last forever.

Universe may be approaching stability

Another limitation on the life of the universe is implied in the outward expansion that has occurred since creation. We have discussed in an earlier article how every galaxy in the universe is moving away from us and the more distant a galaxy is the faster it is receding. The question arises: will this expansion eventually stop and reverse itself or will the expansion continue forever until all galaxies are infinitely far apart and the night sky is absolutely pitch black?

To answer this question cosmologists have sought to measure the net mass of the universe. If this mass is above a certain critical amount, the expansion of the universe will sooner or later stop, and the effect of gravitation will draw all the mass in the universe into one relatively small sphere. On the other hand, if the mass is below this critical amount then the universe will expand forever until it eventually disperses into space dust. Thus there are two possibilities: either the universe collapses in a big crunch or it flickers out and ends in a small whimper.

The key is whether or not there is enough mass to slow down the kinetic energy imparted to the galaxies by the initial big bang event. The way to determine which model is correct seems simple enough; measure all the mass in the universe and use Newton’s laws to calculate if that is sufficient to cause gravitational collapse or not. Measuring all the mass in the universe does not seem to scientists as difficult as the layman might imagine. The mass in all the stars and galaxies appears to be fairly uniformly distributed in space; therefore one need only measure a small sector of the night sky, obtain the mass density, and then scale this according to the entire spherical volume of the universe out to the Hubble limit.[v]

Of course, simple did not turn out to be simple at all! First, there seems to be strange gravitational effects which give strong hints of hidden mass in the universe. In fact, as much as 90% or more of the mass may not be detected when one makes normal cosmological observations. Where is this mass? Some scientists think it may lie in exotic particles called neutrinos,[vi] which were previously thought to be devoid of mass. The universe is literally awash in these neutrinos, which are the normal by-product of the nuclear reactions powering the stars. If neutrinos have even the smallest amount of mass this would solve a big problem. Unfortunately, detecting and measuring neutrino mass is not for the faint-hearted. Neutrinos have no electronic charge and interact so weakly with matter that billions of them can pass through our body every day and we would never even notice. Even with all the best estimates of mass in the universe, the question of crunch or whimper is almost impossible to answer.

A constant “C” has been defined (the details need not trouble us here) whereby if C is greater than 1 the universe expands forever and if C less than 1 it collapses. Remarkably, the best estimates of this constant come out with the result that C = 1 within the experimental error. Hence, it’s too close to call and scientists don’t yet have an answer; they simply cannot predict whether or not the universe will expand forever or collapse in a big crunch. Indeed if this result is exactly correct the universe will eventually reach stability and neither expand nor contract.

Protons remarkably stable

We have yet one more problem to think about and that is the very stability of matter itself. The “standard model” of the universe predicts that the proton is not stable, but will eventually decay into other subatomic particles. The proton is a fundamental constituent of every element in the periodic table. The hydrogen atom, for example, is made up of one positively charged proton in its nucleus accompanied by a negative electron orbiting in a shell around the nucleus.[vii]

The atomic number of an element is equal to the number of protons in the nucleus; the remainder of the mass is made up of another fundamental particle without electronic charge called the neutron. Therefore, if the proton disintegrated, every element in the universe would eventually become unstable and perform a disappearing act.

Calculations of the lifetime of the proton have yielded a figure of 1033 years, which is the number 10 followed by 33 zeros. That is a very long time to wait to see if a proton actually decays. However, this figure is also a probability and this offers a possible way of determining if instability of the proton actually exists. To do this all we need is 1033 protons and then the probability is that at least one of them will be found to decay within one year! This is exactly how scientists have chosen to attack the problem of proton decay in what is known as the IMB project.[viii]

The research team of the IMB project has built a huge chamber at the bottom of a salt mine with more than 1033 protons in it. Since you cannot isolate individual protons for very long, what is actually in the chamber is a 10,000-ton water Cerenkov detector.[ix] The water molecule is made up of one hydrogen atom and two oxygen atoms so there are plenty of individual protons available in the tank that could possibly decay. The IMB chamber is at the bottom of a salt mine to isolate it from other nuclear decay products that can occur, for example, from radioactive isotopes or cosmic rays. This huge water tank is completely surrounded with a giant array of photodetectors, which are continuously recording with the hope of finding a flash of light given off by the disintegration of a proton. The data from these detectors is processed with complex software to eliminate any spurious results from other types of subatomic decay products.

The IMB experiment ran for about 10 years, as have several other similar detectors (with somewhat larger amounts of water in their test chambers), which have run for long periods of time at several other places around the world. If everything followed expected theoretical predictions a number of proton decay events should have been observed by now. The remarkable result of all these experiments everywhere is that not a single proton decay observation has been made! Something is clearly wrong; either the lifetime predictions are way off or the proton simply doesn’t decay. Physicists are retracing their steps to see if there is something wrong with the “standard model” of the universe.

Promises ensure forever

We set out in this chapter to find out the future of the universe, both from the scientific and the biblical points of view. The indications from science are mixed; the principle of entropy and the eventual death of stars from exhausting their nuclear fuel seem to indicate that the universe will eventually die. However, whether or not the universe will expand forever or not and the questions concerning the stability of matter seem to give indeterminate results. What do scriptures say? Surely the Lord God could anticipate the findings of science in these latter days and would not leave us without guidance. When the Bible records that His kingdom would be forever we definitely take that to mean without end. Let us examine some relevant scriptures.

First of all, the Bible never says that the universe would last forever, the Bible clearly states that God only hath immortality (I Tim.6:16). It would seem that everything past, present and future is derived from the Lord God almighty and that His existence is undoubtedly the only thing in the universe that we can say for certain is from everlasting to everlasting (see I Cor. 15:28). The words of Psalm 102 reinforce this view:

In the beginning you laid the foundations of the earth, and the heavens are the work of your hands. They will perish, but you remain; they will all wear out like a garment. Like clothing you will change them and they will be discarded. But you remain the same, and your years will never end. The children of your servants will live in your presence; their descendants will be established before you.(Psa. 102:25-28 NIV)

The words of the prophet Isaiah also provide us with additional insight:

The sun will no more be your light by day, nor will the brightness of the moon shine on you, for the Lord will be your everlasting light, and your God will be your glory. Your sun will never set again, and your moon will wane no more; the LORD will be your everlasting light, and your days of sorrow will end(Isa. 60:19-20 NIV).

We might be tempted to say that the words of the Psalmist and of the prophet were merely meant to be poetic metaphors and not to be taken literally. But when we turn to the New Testament we find that the book of Hebrews paraphrases the passage from Psalm 102 and there is absolutely no need for either poetry or methaphor:

And, Thou, Lord, in the beginning hast laid the foundation of the earth; and the heavens are the works of thine hands: They shall perish; but thou remainest; and they all shall wax old as doth a garment; And as a vesture shalt thou fold them up, and they shall be changed: but thou art the same, and thy years shall not fail (Heb. 1:10-12).

Surely we believe literally with all our heart that the Lord, in the beginning laid the foundation of the earth and that the heavens are the works of His hands. That being the case why should we not believe the rest of the quote as literal truth?

With this in mind, we need not be concerned with the scientific findings of the law of entropy or the flameout of the stars from nuclear fuel exhaustion. For that matter, whatever the expectations from any other scientific findings on the future of the universe, however intriguing, we nonetheless know that the Lord God will prevail and his promises are secure. But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him (I Cor. 2:9).

By John C. Bilello, Ann Arbor, Michigan

Footnotes:

[i] See similar statement also in II Sam. 7:16; I Kgs. 2:33,45; 9:5; Psa. 37:29 and many more.
[ii] For those less scientifically inclined: thermodynamics is the study of heat flow and entropy is the degree of disorder in a system. The concept of entropy applies to all physical systems (as far as we know).
[iii] World Book Encyclopedia ©, Electronic edition, article on “Entropy”.
[iv] ibid.
[v] The Hubble limit is the radius of the universe where the expansion velocity reaches the speed of light.
[vi] Originally invoked theoretically, later found experimentally by Enrico Fermi. He named it the “neutrino” (which means in colloquial Italian little neutral one).
[vii] Danish physicist Neils Bohr first pictured the electron as orbiting the proton much like the moon orbits the earth. The orbital energy was supposed to keep the electron in orbit, however, we know today that this model is too simple. More complex quantum mechanical explanations are beyond the scope of this article.
[viii] IMB stands for the names of the collaborating institutions that built and managed the “proton decay” project: Irvine/Michigan/Brookhaven, i.e. University of California, Irvine, University of Michigan and Brookhaven National Laboratory in New York. Together they built the proton-decay detector, which is located 2000 feet underground in the old Morton Salt mine near Cleveland, Ohio.
[ix] Copy of the original scientific proposal can be found at: http://www-personal.umich.edu/~jcv/imb/imb.html

Loading

How Old Is The Universe?

05 How Old Is The Universe?

/in /by

05 How Old Is The Universe?

Bible and Science – How Old Is The UniverseHow Old Is The Universe?

Of old hast thou laid the foundation of the earth: and the heavens
are the work of thy hands. [Psalm 102:25]

When was the universe created? Did it happen on Sunday, October 23, 4004 BC at 9 a.m. or did it occur 20 billion years ago, plus or minus 10 billion years? To the average person, either of these scenarios might seem pretty far-fetched. I know I certainly have my qualms when I hear proponents on either side proclaim their particular viewpoint with absolute certainty. Let’s take a closer look at both the literal biblical and current scientific opinions on the age of the universe.

Bible chronology

The traditional biblical dating, which for a long time appeared in almost every edition of the Authorized Version of the Bible, was worked out by James Ussher (1581-1656), Archbishop of Armagh, Primate of all Ireland and also Vice-Chancellor of Trinity College, Dublin, based on his interpretation of Biblical genealogy.[i] Although the precise 9 a.m. timing is often attributed to him it does not seem to appear explicitly in Bishop Ussher’s writing, but is probably a detail added by a contemporary, John Lightfoot (1602-1675).[ii]

We can make some allowances for the exact dating, since one cannot be entirely certain of the biblical genealogies. In fact in the New Testament, the Apostle Paul argues against endless debating about genealogies; it is clear that he primarily had in mind specific reference to the pride of some in the early church who could trace their heritage back to their supposedly superior ancestry, nevertheless it is probably well to also heed his advice in trying to figure out exact Biblical dating.[iii] Regardless of how you slice it, the Biblical view considers the present creation on earth to be approximately 6,000 years old.

Leeway allowed by scripture

Detailed consideration of Genesis 1:1 leaves considerable leeway in identifying exactly when the universe and planet earth were first formed. The purpose of this essay is to focus on the scientific and biblical arguments for dating the beginning of creation. It should be obvious that none of the religious arguments preclude that the heavens and the earth could be very old and created at some distant time in the past styled as: in the beginning.

That beginning could have been billions of years ago and still easily fit within the realm of what is said in Genesis 1:1 as we have pointed out earlier. Why the earth was without form and void, when the present dispensation was created, we are not told. Some scientists and a lot of Christians seem to object to the concept of a very old earth (and of course its obvious corollary: an even more ancient universe) and opt for a much more recent specific creation that gave us the present order of things. Why these objections?

Religious people seem to think that if the earth were billions of years old then it would be admitting that enough time had passed for the evolutionist’s arguments that gradual change produced life as we know it. Physicists like to trust in what they can measure and it is precisely from observations of the universe they believe that it must be very old indeed. Let us see why physicists have come to this conclusion.

Assumption of unchanging physical laws

The most direct means of measuring the age of the universe is to observe the stars and galaxies in the night sky. The velocity of light is 186,000 miles/second and is entirely independent of the motion of the observer. This is a basic tenet of the theory of relativity and has been tested by many experiments over the past 80 years, all of which have provided the expected verification. Further, it is accepted by scientists that the laws of physics were created with the universe and it is a basic element of faith among physicists that these laws have remained unchanged ever since. That means that by applying the laws of physics to things we can observe today, we can have confidence that the same laws worked in the same way whether it was yesterday or billions of years ago.

Since it takes time for light to travel when we look at something a mile or two down the road, we are not actually seeing it at that exact instant — there is a small fraction of a second delay. The speed of light is so fast that this is not ordinarily a problem. On earth the time difference is minuscule, because even for the longest distances, say for a light beam to travel all around the earth at the equator, it would only take about a little more than a tenth of a second. This is fortunate and it makes all types of electromagnetic communications, from satellite TV to microwave cell phones, virtually instantaneous.

The further we are from the source of light, however, the bigger the delay becomes. It takes about eight minutes for a light beam to travel from the sun to the earth. If the sun were to completely disappear in an instant, we would still have a whole eight minutes to survive before we knew it!

Applying the laws of physics

Since the velocity of light is the same everywhere in the universe and independent of the motion of the observer, we can use it as a measuring reference. It makes as much sense then to say that the sun is eight light minutes away from earth as it does to express that distance in miles or kilometres. In fact, for far distant objects in the universe, the generally accepted standard of measurement is the light-year, i.e. the distance that light travels in one year. For very distant objects this is much more convenient than writing the super-big numbers with scads of zeros that would be required if we used the usual mileage (or kilometre) units to express the distance. Using light-years as a measuring unit we know that the nearest star is about four light-years from earth and the North Star about 50 light-years away. Distant galaxies are even further and have been measured out to units in the billions of light-years away from earth. This means we compute that the light we saw from them last night left those galaxies several billion years ago. Thus when we look out into the night sky we are seeing the ancient history of the universe.

To measure the enormous distances to stars and galaxies requires only a simple application of the laws of physics. Let us see how this works. For star objects relatively nearby one can use simple geometry. All that is necessary is to sight the object with a telescope and note the angle of inclination. If two telescopes situated at different points on earth measure their inclination angles simultaneously, then if the distance between them on earth is known we have the problem reduced to simple geometry. For distances further away it is necessary to measure the inclination angles at different times of the year and use the orbit diameter of the earth around the sun as the geometric base for the measuring triangle. As the distance gets further still the measurement of the differences in the inclination angle will eventually get so small that they are beyond the sensitivity of the telescope we are using. Once this happens one can use the relative luminosity of the galactic object to assess its distance.

We know that similar objects that are close to us will appear brighter than those further away. We also know that this law is very exact and depends on the inverse square of the separation distance. Hence, a star that is twice as far away from us as another will appear four times less bright and one three times as far will be nine times less bright and so on. We can check our brightness scale against our geometric measured values for nearby stars to assure ourselves that our brightness/distance calibration is correct. In order for us to actually see a star, or galaxy,[iv] in our telescope it must have a measurable brightness — otherwise we wouldn’t observe it in the first place. By doing a thorough cataloguing of the brightness of similar objects in the night sky, we can get a reasonable picture of how long it took for the light to reach us from any particular object and hence at least a minimum estimate of the age of that star. Of course, light could have been coming from it long before we observed it, but at least we know where to start.

Even more sophisticated measurements of luminosity have been made in recent years using certain types of variable stars which appear to have very definite fixed brightness values and hence can be used as so-called standard “candles”[v]. It is like observing a calibrated 60 watt light bulb, which always gives out the same exact light output, in the window of a distant house. No matter how far away the house is from us, and in spite of any other lights that may be on, we can still use the standard light bulb to measure the distance. We would never have any trouble using the inverse square law of physics to determine how far away the light was from us. Whenever one of these types of stars appears in a galaxy, one can check its brightness against a calibration scale and know exactly how far the galaxy is away from earth. It saves us from the problem of comparing different galaxies, which may differ markedly from another in shape and total number of stars.

Vast distances observed

Using the measurements described above and with increasing improvement in instrumentation, astronomers have been able to measure galaxies that are many billion light years away from earth. As each new telescopic instrument was put on line, ranging from the original 100-inch Mt. Wilson scope used by Hubble in the 1920’s to the recent Mt. Keck 400-inch telescope on the isle of Hawaii, more and more galaxies have been observed and scientists have been able to see further and further out into the universe in both time and space. The analogous inverse square law applies to the light-gathering power of telescopes; hence the Mt. Keck scope is not four times more powerful than Mt. Wilson, but rather sixteen times better in light-gathering power. Another method of determining the age of the universe has been developed from the Hubble constant[vi]. It will suffice to say that astronomical observations, based on fundamental laws of physics, have determined that there are stars in the night that have been shining for billions of years.

Objections to a very old universe

A very old universe doesn’t sit very well with creationists, though as I have said, there appears to be no fundamental contradiction with the very first words in Genesis, which puts the original creation of heaven and earth outside the realm of the Adamic order. They have used several arguments to deny the evidence of extremely old age gathered from the astronomical observations. There are basically two major objections, and both involve what I will call the “appearance” of age.

The first argument to counter the astronomical observation is the claim that the velocity of light was different in ages past, and, in fact, was at one time very much faster than we would observe today. If that were true then obviously light reaching us from the furthest galaxies would arrive here in incredibly less time and we might indeed only be observing them as six thousand years old. This argument doesn’t hold water either on scientific or Biblical grounds. It explicitly means that the theories of relativity must be wrong and the basic faith that scientists have in the constancy of the laws of physics is not correct.[vii]

The creationist argument of the variability of physical law fails on their own grounds, namely the words of scripture. Consider the following passages from the prophet Jeremiah:

Thus saith the LORD, which giveth the sun for a light by day, and the ordinances of the moon and of the stars for a light by night, which divideth the sea when the waves thereof roar; The LORD of hosts is his name: If those ordinances (laws)depart from before me, saith the LORD, then the seed of Israel also shall cease from being a nation before me forever, Jer. 31:35-36 (KJV).

Thus saith the LORD; If my covenant be not with day and night, and if I have not appointed the ordinances (laws)of heaven and earth; then will I cast away the seed of Jacob, and David my servant, so that I will not take any of his seed to be rulers over the seed of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob: for I will cause their captivity to return, and have mercy on them, Jer. 33:25-26 (KJV).

Incredibly, the Lord (as quoted by Jeremiah) says that His words, His promises, are guaranteed by the constancy of the physical laws of the universe. He also clearly states that these ordinances are His laws; therefore the idea that the laws of physics were created simultaneously with the universe has a firm scriptural foundation. This concept is thus an element of faith not only held by scientists, but is one any Bible believer should have no trouble also accepting.

I have also heard people who believe in a young universe claim that it only has the appearance of age. They do not in this case specify any mechanism, but rest their case on the analogy that the first man Adam must have been created as an adult as was Eve, hence the universe could have been created in its maturity. Leaving aside whether or not Adam or Eve were initially created as adults, the idea that the universe was created with the appearance of age almost would have us believe that God deliberately deceives us. If God is the author of the physical laws of the universe, as Jeremiah unambiguously states, then why would He lead us to read a false conclusion by applying His very laws to the observation of the stars and galaxies in the night sky? This is especially true since the scriptures actually encourage us to observe the heavens for they testify of God. The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork, Psalm 19:1 (KJV).

We are led to the inescapable conclusion that the universe is very old indeed, on the order of billions of years. This should not distress us in the least; obviously the LORD God has been busy with His creation for a long time. The very presence of angelic creatures in the Bible is reasonable evidence that God has been working in the universe in ages past even before the creation of Adam and Eve.

By John C. Bilello, Ann Arbor, Michigan
God willing, next we will look at “Will the Universe last forever?”

Footnotes:

[i] James Ussher, The Annals of the World, vol. iv, (1658).
[ii] John Lightfoot was Vice-Chancellor of University of Cambridge and mentions the 9 a.m. timing in his own reckoning of the date of creation. See: Andrew D. White, History of Warfare of Science with Theology in Christendom, pub. D. Appleton and Co., (1897), pg. 9.
[iii] But avoid foolish questions, and genealogies… [Titus 3:9]
[iv] Recall that galaxies are large star clusters that form islands in space. Galaxies have millions of stars and are separated from other galaxies by vast distances. Millions of galaxies have been observed. Our own sun and planet are in the Milky Way cluster of stars and we apparently are near the outer edge of of our own [Milky Way] galaxy.
[v] Such variable stars are called Cepheid variables. They were discovered by Henrietta Leavitt at Harvard Observatory in the early 20th century.
[vi] Hubble discovered that all galaxies are moving away from an observer on earth and the further away a particular galaxy is from us the faster it is moving. In the Theory of Relativity the speed of light is the upper bound of possible velocity of motion in the Universe. Thus the speed of light must be the upper limit of how fast a galaxy can be moving away from us. This in turn puts a limit on the age of the known Universe and that limit appears to be 20 billion years (within a factor of 2).
[vii] There has been some recent scientific discussion about whether or not the speed of light was always exactly the constant 186,000 miles/sec that we observe today, but scientists have not reached any conclusions on the matter.

Loading

Man vs Monkey

God in Creation Part 5 – MAN IN THE IMAGE OF GOD

/in /by

God in Creation Part 5 – MAN IN THE IMAGE OF GOD

NOT MERELY A NAKED APE!Man vs Monkey

DESPITE SIMILARITIES IN shape and basic bodily functions, humans are vastly different from apes. Man is not, as one biologist once described him, merely a naked ape (D Morris, The Naked Ape). The gulf between the capabilities of the most intelligent apes and mankind is immense. A process of natural selection, by which claimed accidental changes in his DNA conferred a survival benefit, cannot explain these differences.

We could legitimately ask what benefit was it to the ape to become naked by losing its fur? It would immediately seem to be a disadvantage! If this naked ape were to spread beyond its original habitat (as man is alleged to have done) it would need to obtain and wear clothing, thus spending valuable time which could be used for things much more helpful to his survival! From an evolutionary point of view, it would be a retrograde step.

A SPECIAL CREATION

The key to the differences between man and animals is that God created man for a special purpose. Although man shares most of the physical attributes of the animals, in his mental ability he is infinitely superior.

This is strikingly illustrated in the Biblical record of the creation. In the first chapter of Genesis we read about the animals being created: ‘God made the wild animals according to their kinds, the livestock according to their kinds, and all the creatures that move along the ground according to their kinds’ [Genesis 1.25 NIV]. The creation of mankind is described separately, not because they are different physically but because humans have a special relationship with God that marks them as separate from the rest of creation.

‘IN THE IMAGE OF GOD’

This difference is highlighted in the record of man’s creation: ‘So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them’ [Genesis 1.27].

So mankind was created in God’s image – to reflect God’s characteristics in some way which the animals cannot do. The reason for the vast gulf between man and even the most intelligent ape is not some accidental series of evolutionary mutations – but something intended by the Creator.

This difference is demonstrated in many ways. For example, consider man as a thinking being. There is little or no evidence that the majority of animals have any consciousness of themselves as individuals. They cannot reason, certainly cannot reflect and meditate and can have no concept of abstract ideas. They are governed almost solely by instinct, which programmes them to act or react in a certain way. However, man created in the image of God can reason and arrange his thoughts. He can appreciate concepts such as beauty, design and harmony. He can understand right and wrong and has a conscience. It is impossible to explain the presence of these features in terms of evolutionary success. Having a conscience or understanding beauty does not mean a more successful breeding rate, which is what natural selection is all about.

Man also has specific physical abilities that cannot be explained by natural selection. Consider our hands. It has been argued that the development of the human hand helped humans to become successful farmers and hunters. Why then the extreme dexterity of which the human hand is possible? Everybody who wears gardening gloves knows that micro-fine control of the fingers is not essential for successful husbandry.

Yet the human hand is capable of dextrous movements far in excess of what is needed for survival. A concert pianist can play up to thirty different notes every second, and keep this up for half an hour or more. What survival advantage does such an ability give to the human race? Surely, it is much more rational to think that a great Creator has endowed man with such abilities so that he can give Him glory and praise.

Whilst we are thinking about musical ability, what of the human voice? What possible evolutionary advantage is the human singing voice? Is it reasonable to suggest that a good soprano voice accidentally developed and this gave its owner an improved breeding rate over those without this trait? Also, how did the ability to speak and communicate confer an advantage? Millions of animals prosper without this facility. The fact is that man is less well equipped to survive and reproduce than are many animals.

THE HUMAN BRAIN

Could man’s brain have come just by chance? It is now recognised that the human brain is probably by far the most complex natural thing in the entire universe. The gap between animal and human brains is immense. Science still does not understand how the brain functions. It tells us that there are millions upon millions of nerve cells, which are all interconnected in a special way. It has been calculated that if one were to count all the interconnections in the brain’s cerebral cortex at the rate of one per second, then the task wouldn’t be finished in thirty million years. Yet the production of all these countless numbers of nerve cells is all controlled by the information on that human thread of life – a mechanism that evolutionists say occurred by chance!

What an amazing thing is memory! Going back to our imaginary pianist, think of the brainpower involved in remembering a concerto so as to play it from memory – as most professional pianists are able to do. They remember, in the right order, maybe ten thousand notes – and for each note they must recall its duration and loudness. It is said that the composer Saint Saens memorised all of Beethoven’s thirty-two piano sonatas by the age of ten – all stored up in the cells of his brain.

The Human Brain

Clearly such brainpower confers no evolutionary advantage; it has no influence on the individual’s chances of physical survival; it is not natural selection at work. Once we accept that God created man for a specific reason, then we can begin to understand why man is so unique. The Bible tells us repeatedly that humans are something special because they are made in the image of God.

THE REASON FOR CREATION

The Bible also explains the reason for man’s creation. All his distinctive abilities have been put there for a purpose – to give honour to his Creator by living in a way that truly reflects the Divine image in which he has been created. In the Bible God speaks of His sons and daughters ‘whom I created for my glory, whom I formed and made.’ [Isaiah 43.7 NIV]

Here is the real purpose in man’s creation! Unlike the evolutionary view that man is here solely by chance and has no future prospects, the Bible reveals that the whole creation has been made by God to provide Him with eternal companions. From the billions of men and women, God is calling those who one day He will make immortal, to become united with Him forever. This will be achieved through the work of His Son, Jesus.

The Apostle Paul wrote:

‘…in the dispensation of the fullness of times…(God will) gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven, and which are on earth’ [Ephesians 1.10].

To achieve this ultimate unity, in which God will at last be manifested in a race of beings that truly reflect His attributes, the Creator commenced the creation process described in Genesis. He created man in His image, incorporating some of His characteristics, with the view to inviting man to come closer to Him and to at last be made perfectly in the image of God. To achieve this plan a loving Creator sent His own Son:

‘For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life’ [John 3.16].

Reader, what will you choose – the sterile, unscientific and hopeless theories of man – or the solemn promise of an all-wise, powerful and ever-loving Creator, who invites us to come to Him?

‘…since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities-his eternal power and divine nature-have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse’ [Romans 1.20 NIV]

If you would like to find out more about the Bible’s message for you, then please go to our website and explore the True Bible Teaching concerning the Purpose of Almighty God with this earth and your opportunity to be a part of it.

Loading

The Grand Canyon

God in Creation Part 4 – THE EVIDENCE OF GEOLOGY

/in /by

God in Creation Part 4 – THE EVIDENCE OF GEOLOGY

HOW OLD IS IT?

The Grand Canyon

THE THEORY OF evolution is inextricably linked with the geological record, for in the various layers of rock are found fossils that allegedly show a development from simpler forms of life. These sedimentary rocks consist of water-laid deposits which, according to the uniformitarian theory (i.e. that these deposits were formed by processes similar to those that are going on today) were slowly laid down over millions of years.

Many readers will have heard of some of the names and dates given to these various rock strata that girdle the earth. For example, geologists give the term Carboniferous to a sixty-five million-year period; commencing two hundred and eighty million years ago, during which the forests flourished that supposedly gave rise to present-day coal deposits. The Cambrian age (said to be 570 million years ago) describes rocks that contain the earliest traces of animals.

THE GEOLOGIC COLUMN

A schematic representation of the 'geological column',

By collating rocks from various parts of the world, an imaginary geologic column has been built up, with the oldest rocks at the bottom and the youngest at the top.

Evolutionists claim that when this column is examined from bottom to top, the fossils in it show a gradual development from simpler to more complex forms of life.

This all sounds very convincing – but how do they know the age of the various rocks, so as to be able to place them in an order of increasing age?

The simple answer is that in general, they have been dated by the fossils they contain. If the fossils are ‘primitive’, then the rock is old and if more complex, the rock is younger and so on. Therefore based on the fossils they contain, the rocks are dated and put into an ascending order of age.

Then evolutionists say – ‘Look, the simplest fossils are at the bottom and the more complex ones at the top – that’s proof of evolution.’ In other words, they date the rocks on the assumption that evolution is a fact and having done that say that the rock sequence proves evolution to be correct.

CIRCULAR REASONING

This is not misrepresenting the situation. One writer says: ‘If a geologist wished to date a rock stratum he asked an evolutionist’s opinion on the fossils it contained. If an evolutionist were having difficulty dating a fossil species, he would turn to the geologist for help. Fossils were used to date rocks: rocks were used to date fossils.’ 25

This example of circular reasoning is probably not detected by the general public but it has long contained a valid objection, with implications for Darwinian evolution. For example, one critic says: ‘Here is obviously a powerful system of circular reasoning. Fossils are used as the only key for placing rocks in chronological order. The criterion for assigning fossils to specific places in that chronology is the assumed evolutionary progression of life; the assumed evolutionary progression is based on the fossil record so constructed. The main evidence for evolution is the assumption of evolution! Consequently there is certainly no real proof that the vast evolutionary time scale is valid at all…Here is one of the most classic and subtle examples of circular reasoning in all the complex history of metaphysical opposition to Biblical creationism.’ 26

An American physician also writes: ‘Any honest geologist will admit that … the age of geologic strata or the dating of fossils, are frequently the result of ‘circular thinking’ and, as such, have an inherent potential for significant error.’ 27

References

25 R. Milton: The Facts of life, 4th edition page 43 (Corgi Books 1992).

26 Scientific Creationism pages 136,229 (Creation-Life Publishers, 1977).

27 W.F. Duerfeldt: Ohio University, Hospital Practice, 1981

DATING ROCKS – SOME PROBLEMS

Ancient Rock

What about the more recent methods of dating rocks, using radio-isotopes? Do they confirm the previously estimated ages? The answer is that very few rocks can be dated by this method and in those that are suitable, the results are open to considerable criticism. As one writer says: ‘Radioactive dating techniques are far less reliable than were previously thought.’ 28 Just one example – the Hawaiian volcano was known to be only 190 years old, but when dated by the Potassium -Argon method gave a result of up to three billion years old! 29

Doubt is thrown on these dating methods especially on the numerous occasions when ‘old’ rock contains ‘young’ material. The picture shows a block of pure sandstone. It is part of a bed in Australia hundreds of feet thick and extending over hundreds of square miles. Geologists date the formation of the whole of this bed of sandstone at between 230 and 255 million years ago. But embedded in this stone – and clearly it had always been there – is a block of wood. When this wood was dated by a radiocarbon method, it gave an estimated age of not millions of years, but merely thousands of years. Dating methods are clearly suspect!

Another assumption is that rocks take immense ages to form. In the case of sedimentary rocks (the ones with fossils) they were obviously once muddy or sandy deposits, in which were trapped living things. Did it take long ages for them to turn to rock? Not necessarily. There have been several recent examples of rapid rock formation. A perfectly normal rock was dredged up from the site of a one hundred and fifty-year-old wreck and firmly embedded in it – in a similar way that animal fossils are – was a glass wine bottle (see picture). Clearly this rock was not millions of years old.30

References

28 R. Milton: page 44.

29 Funkhouser and Naughton: 1968. (Quoted by Milton pages 65,66).

30 From the wreck of HMS Birkenhead, displayed in the South African Maritime Museum.

FOSSIL FORMATION

It is an indisputable fact that fossils are not being formed today; for when an animal dies, its carcass is soon destroyed by predation or decomposition. Present seabeds are not littered with dead fish that are slowly being buried by mud, which in turn is changing into rock. Yet there are fossil deposits where hundreds or thousands of remains are entombed together in a small area. Also, almost all fossils are of animals apparently in the prime of life. There are examples of fish with recent food in their stomachs, or even frozen in the act of catching another. Healthy horseshoe crabs are trapped as they leave the water in pursuance of their normal lifestyle. In some cases even the finest surface detail of animals and leaves are preserved, indicating that they had not undergone any decomposition prior to burial.31

Fossilized Fish

What these findings suggest is that rather than fossilisation being a gradual process in which creatures over millions of years get covered by sediment, it was a sudden, catastrophic event. This event must have involved huge movements of water, which produced the sediments in which the fossils were entombed. This movement could also have resulted in a certain amount of sorting of the creatures on the basis of size or habitat.

Reference

31 Notably in the Burgess shale deposits in the Canadian Rockies.

MORE EVIDENCE FOR CATASTROPHE

Fossilized Tree Trunk

On current geological theories, the sediments that later turned to rock were laid down very slowly over a long period. Average amounts of 0.2 millimetres per year are suggested by some geologists – the thickness of a human hair. This could not be the process by which fossils were formed. As one writer has pointed out, 0.2 millimetres deposit per year would not bury a tadpole, let alone a dinosaur! 32

In some deep coal measures in Germany were found the perfectly preserved fossil remains of thirty-nine iguanadon dinosaurs. These creatures stood several metres high, and it is inconceivable that they just remained on the spot where they died. The coal-forming measures gradually built up around them over millions of years.

Virtually whole tree trunks, some complete with roots, have also been found upright in stone quarries in Scotland and Germany. These extend up through strata that allegedly took millions of years to lay down. Is it reasonable to suggest that the tree trunk was preserved in an upright position without decay for all that time? Such a fossil tree trunk is on display in the garden of the Natural History Museum in London. Another was found in Lancashire, England and was no less than thirty-eight feet tall.33 All this indicates that the trees were suddenly buried.

Reference

33 F.M. Broadhurst: 1965.

NO MISSING LINKS

According to the evolutionary theory, the transition from one form of creature to another was a very gradual process, a particular characteristic developing over a very long period of time. To take a simple example, the giraffe’s long neck would have grown slightly longer over very many generations, until after millions of years it reached the length it is today. Thus for every single fossil of a long-necked giraffe there should be hundreds with a neck of some intermediate length. And the same should apply to all other animals: the missing links should be more numerous than those creatures at the beginning and end of the long chain. In the case of a transition from one type of creature to an entirely different one – for example, a reptile to a bird – then these missing links should be even more in evidence. Nevertheless, these intermediates are just not there.

From the outset, the absence of these intermediate forms has been recognised as one of the major objections to the theory of evolution. In his ‘Origin of Species’ Darwin wrote: ‘As by this theory innumerable transitional forms must have existed, why do we not find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth?’ He agrees that this absence of intermediate fossils is ‘probably the gravest and most obvious of all the many objections which may be urged against my views’; and that ‘he who rejects this view of the imperfection of the geological record, will rightly reject the whole theory.’ However, he was confident that, with increased geological exploration, those intermediate forms would turn up. But since then, although the fossils of over 250,000 different species of plants and animals have been found, no such definitely transitional forms have been unearthed. Darwin’s ‘grave objection’, with its implicit rejection of his whole theory, still applies today. As one geologist says: ‘We are now about 120 years after Darwin and the knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly expanded. We now have a quarter of a million fossil species, but the situation hasn’t changed much. We have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition than we had in Darwin’s time.’ 34

Reference

34 D.M.Raup: ‘Conflicts between Darwin and Paleontology’,Bulletin, Museum of Natural History (January 1979): 22,25.

BIRDS OF A FEATHER

This is particularly true of the supposed development of flight. According to evolution, flight has developed in at least four independent situations: in birds, insects, flying mammals and flying reptiles (now extinct). Each separate development would have involved numerous transitional forms, subtly changing over millions of years, but no such fossils have been found.

Archaeopteryx

Instead there are just a few fossils which are alleged to represent a transitional form. Probably the most notable is Archaeopteryx, a fossil bird claimed as a link between reptiles and birds. The pictures show the fossil and an artist’s reconstruction. It is bird-like in that it has wings and feathers; but hooks on its wings, teeth in its beak, bones in its tail and the absence of a prominent breastbone are taken as reptilian features.

Archaeopteryx, the fossil bird found in rock supposedly 150 million years old. Palaeontologists now agree that Archaeopteryx is not the ancestor of modern birds.

Nevertheless, there are true birds living today with some of these features. The young hoatzin bird of South America has claws on its wings, as do the turaco and ostrich in Africa. Modern birds do not possess teeth but some fossils that were undoubtedly true birds, do. But the greatest evidence against Archaeopteryx is that not long ago, in the very same rock strata in which it was found, a fossil of a true bird was unearthed.35 Thus, Archaeopteryx could not be the progenitor of true birds for they were already in existence. Archaeopteryx, although admittedly rather odd, was a bird, not a missing link with reptiles.

Doubts are now cast upon Archaeopteryx as a ‘missing link’ between reptiles and birds. In 1985 University of Kansas’s palaeontologist Larry Martin admitted that Archaeopteryx is not ancestral to any group of modern birds. As one modern biologist has said: ‘The almost perfect link between reptiles and birds has been quietly shelved, and the search for missing links continue as though Archaeopteryx has never been found’ 36

Diagram of Avian Lung

What is fatal evidence against the reptile-to-bird theory is the profound difference in the lungs of the two creatures. In reptiles, as in humans, air is drawn into the lung and is then breathed out the same way as it came in. Birds do not have this in-and-out method. Their lungs are open-ended, the air coming into the lungs by one tube, which divides into smaller ones. These then unite again to form a tube by which the air leaves. Thus there is a continual one-way flow of air through avian lungs. This also necessitates the presence of many other related structures for this method to function.

If birds have come from reptiles how could such radical changes have occurred (by chance mutations, remember!) over millions of years. How would the creature survive whilst the airway direction was being so radically altered? Would chance at the same time produce the other essential altered respiratory structures essential for the bird’s survival? These are the sort of questions for which evolution has no reasonable answer.

Reference

36 J Wells: Icons of Evolution: Science or Myth? 2000, pages 116,135.

HORSE EVOLUTION

Another fossil series taken as a proof of evolution and widely illustrated in books about evolution, is the development of the horse. A small, three-toed creature, supposedly living about sixty million years ago, gradually enlarged one of its toes until it became a hoof. Many books depict a fossil sequence showing the various changes leading up to the modern horse. But, as with the peppered moth story discussed in the previous section (see page 30), this fossil sequence has been shown, even by evolutionists themselves, to be seriously flawed. Just placing a series of fossils in a certain sequence does not prove that evolution occurred, especially if, as in this case, the dating of the fossils was done on the basis of an evolutionary time scale. As one candid evolutionist said of the diagrams showing horse evolution: ‘At present, however, it is a matter of faith that the textbook pictures are true, or even if they are the best representations of the truth available to us at the present time’ He goes on to speak of the pattern of horse evolution as ‘chaotic.’ 37

Another writer highlights the subjective nature of the alleged sequence: ‘However, the fact is that the family tree of the horse is continuous only in the textbooks. At no place in the world do the rock strata disclose a continuous and complete set of horse fossils … The sequence depends on arranging fossils together from all over the world, and since we have learned that rocks are only classified by the fossils they contain, the entire family tree is an entirely subjective arrangement.’ 38

References

37 G.A. Kerkut: Implications of Evolution, 1960, pages 144-149.
38 N.J. Mitchell: Evolution and the Emperor’s New Clothes, page 137.

THE ‘CAMBRIAN EXPLOSION’

In the rocks dated by most geologists as being over 600 million years old – the pre-Cambrian rocks – there is only a smattering of fossilised multicellular creatures. Yet in the Cambrian rock series immediately above it, complex animals appear and life abounds in huge variety.

On the basis of shared characteristics, living things are grouped by biologists into major divisions, called phyla. For example the phylum Insecta includes all the insects and Crustacea includes the crabs, shrimps, etc. At present there are twenty-four different animal phyla and of those, no less than fifteen are represented in the Cambrian rocks. As there are no such fossils in the rocks immediately below the Cambrian strata, it means that fifteen groups of animals apparently suddenly appeared on earth. Therefore, if the rocks tell us anything, they deny that there was a process of gradual evolution but rather an explosion of life in all its fully formed diversity, where virtually no creatures were before.

Charles Darwin was the first to acknowledge the difficulty this presented for his theory. In ‘The Origin of Species’ he said: ‘To the question why we do not find rich fossiliferous deposits…prior to the Cambrian system, I can give no satisfactory answer…the difficulty of assigning any good reason for the absence of vast piles of strata rich in fossils beneath the Cambrian system is very great.’

The problem has not gone away in the intervening years. The ‘Cambrian explosion’, as it is termed, has always been a major problem for evolutionists and many rather bizarre theories have been advanced in order to explain it – except, of course, the suggestion that evolution did not occur! That would be unthinkable!

SUMMARY

Despite many claims by scientists – claims that regrettably are passively accepted by most people – the geological evidence for evolution is very weak. Fossils are present in abundance, but there are basic flaws in the methods of dating the rocks in which they are found. It is evident that fossils were most likely not formed by a gradual process of sedimentation, but by a sudden catastrophic flooding with water-borne sediments. We also saw that in the fossil record, complex forms of life suddenly appeared, with a very wide range of creatures being immediately represented. It is significant that both these activities – creation where no life existed before and a world-wide flood – are prominent aspects of the Bible’s record.

Geology provides no proven ‘missing links’ between the different sorts of animals, which should be there in great numbers if transition from one sort of creature to another gradually took place. Darwin admitted that the absence of such intermediate fossil forms was a major, if not conclusive, argument against his theory. Also the few examples of ‘evolution in action’ that are regularly put forward as evidence of evolutionary change either prove nothing of the sort or are readily capable of other interpretations.

GOD THE CREATOR

Such fallibility in the main buttress of evolution – for all admit that the theory stands or falls on the fossil record. It means that the only reasonable explanation for the presence of life on earth is that stated in God’s own revelation to mankind:

‘I have made the earth, the man and the beast that are upon the ground, by my great power and by my outstretched arm’ [Jeremiah 27.5].

But more than that, if God did create the earth and life upon it, He must have done so for a reason. Here is the great difference between evolution and creation. Evolution is by definition purposeless: each generation of living creatures are but a link in a chain that stretches back into obscurity and extends forward into a completely capricious future. There is no purpose in anything, and no hope for the future.

On the other hand, creation demands a purpose, and with such a wise and powerful Supreme Being in control we can be sure that His plan for His creation is one that will be truly worthwhile. This is the topic of our last section.

Loading

Charles Darwin

God in Creation Part 3 – THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION EXAMINED

/in /by

God in Creation Part 3 – THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION EXAMINED

WHERE DID LIFE come from? This question has been asked since earliest times. Today, it is almost universally believed that a simple form of life started as an accidental event and has developed over many millions of years to give rise to all the plants and animals that now exist. This theory of evolution is accepted almost without question by broadcasters, educationalists and an overwhelming majority of scientists. They believe that the concept has been proved up to the hilt. Indeed one scientist has said: ‘The theory is as much in doubt as that the earth goes round the sun.’ 7

STILL ONLY A THEORYCharles Darwin

However, it is not generally recognised by many people that there are also some scientists who do not agree with the theory. Some years ago, the prestigious scientific journal Nature complained in an editorial 8 that the Natural History Museum in London, in an introductory notice at the entrance to its Darwin gallery, had stated that creation might be an alternative to evolution.

The editorial suggested that most biologists would sacrifice their right arm rather than deny that evolution did occur. An immediate response came from the museum staff involved: ‘How is it that a journal such as yours…can advocate that theory be presented as fact? This is the stuff of prejudice, not science…Are we to take it that evolution is a fact, proven to the limits of scientific rigour? If that is the inference then we must disagree most strongly. We have no absolute proof of the theory of evolution.’ 9

This is no isolated viewpoint. The rest of this special issue of ‘Light on a New World’ could be filled with quotations from scientists who do not accept the current theory of evolution. Evolutionists critical of the theory have recently published a number of books. As one scientist said: ‘Scientists who go about teaching that evolution is a fact of life are great con-men, and the story they are telling may be the greatest hoax ever. In explaining evolution we do not have one iota of fact.’ 10

References

7 Richard Dawkins: ‘The Selfish Gene’ (Oxford University Press).
8 Nature Volume 289, page 735 (26 February 1981).
9 Nature Volume 290, page 82 (12 March 1981).
10 Dr T.N. Tahmisian, atomic Energy Commission, USA

THE ORIGIN OF LIFE

Apart from a few rather implausible theories (but that does not prevent them being advanced, especially in school textbooks!), science cannot offer an explanation of how living things originated. Life does not exist outside a small living unit called a cell. There is simply no exception to this. In the previous section we explained just one aspect of life – the coded information on the DNA strand that programmes the cell to make enzymes and other proteins, which in turn control the essential functions of the cell.

As the previous section showed, a length of DNA that codes for just one enzyme consists of a ‘ladder’ of typically over a thousand different ‘rungs’, each in the right place. In view of this obvious complexity, the chances of such a section of DNA occurring by accident are so remote as to be virtually impossible. Nevertheless, even in the most ‘primitive’ cell, at least several hundred such enzymes, with a correspondingly increased length of DNA, are needed before it can be said to be alive.

However, such a cell, even if it accidentally appeared, could not be the precursor of all living things unless it was able to grow and reproduce itself – the complex process of cell division was briefly outlined in the previous article.

When taxed with the impossibility of such a cell occurring by chance, many evolutionists have no answer. Others have calculated that the odds of life occurring on earth by chance are 1 in 1040,000 – a number so incomprehensibly great as to make a chance origin impossible.11 Nobel prize-winner Dr. George Wald agrees with this: ‘One only has to contemplate the magnitude of the task to concede that the spontaneous generation of a living organism is impossible.’ 12 Alternatively, as another writer says of the claimed evolutionary origin of life: ‘Such an occurrence would be indistinguishable from a miracle.’ 13 Yet the chance origin of life is the very basis on which evolutionists build their theory. If this could not have happened, then the theory of evolution collapses like a house of cards. Rather than believe the ‘impossible’ – as many do – why not believe that a wise Creator designed the cell?

SIMPLE TO COMPLEX

However, even if for sake of argument, it was conceded that a simple cell could have happened merely by chance, we are a very long way from the myriad forms of life that fill this planet. How did they all arise from this humble beginning?

The current explanation is termed ‘natural selection.’ It is envisaged that, in a quite random way, some variation occurred in that original cell which, at cell division, could be passed on to it’s progeny. This variation resulted in the new organism becoming more successful than its fellows did in the competitive business of living. As a result of a long series of these accidental changes, simple cells became complex and learnt to join together to form bodies. These developed all the interdependent features that are familiar to us today – limbs, muscles, a heart and circulatory system, brain, eyes, ears, etc. It all sounds very plausible, especially as we are told that this process took countless millions of years – and given enough time, anything might happen!

Whilst it is not denied that in some limited situations natural selection might take place, many strongly reject the idea that it is the engine powering an evolutionary process which has led to all the varied forms of life. So let us look a little closer. What is actually involved in evolution by ‘natural selection’?

In the preceding article, we considered the mechanism of protein production within the cell. We noted that each protein molecule was composed of a long chain of amino acids, all placed in a special sequence. This special sequence determined the ‘shape’ of the molecule and thus enabled it to do its job. We saw in the previous article that this correct sequence was determined by the coded information on the DNA thread, which is copied and then passed on from cell to cell as they divide.

References

11 Hoyle and Wickramasinghe: ‘Evolution from Space.’
12 Weldon and Levitt: ‘UFO’s: What on earth is happening?’
13 M. Denton: ‘Evolution: A theory in Crisis.’
 

MUTATIONS

This process of copying DNA into new cells normally proceeds with great accuracy, but very occasionally a mistake is made, so that the new DNA has slightly different coded information. This new code means that a product with a slightly different ‘shape’ will be formed. This accidental change is called a mutation.

Now, as can be imagined, the new protein will probably not be as effective as the original one. Indeed it will probably not work at all, as its new ‘shape’ will not allow it to carry out the chemical reactions for which it was designed. However, the current theory of evolution depends on this purely random mutation conferring an advantage on the cell and thus to the whole organism, that enables it to be more successful than those without such a mutation.

It is claimed that by this process of successive accidental mutations, all forms of life have developed from simpler forms. Thus, for example, the human brain, which is probably the most complex object in the universe, has developed from increased information gradually and randomly stored up in the human genome (i.e. the sum of all the information on the DNA) over many millions of years.

Is this a reasonable theory?

MUTATIONS USUALLY HARMFUL

Scanning Electron Microscope of normal red blood cells

Firstly, when mutations do occur, they are almost invariably harmful and not beneficial. For example, in humans, a change in a single ‘rung’ of the DNA ladder that codes for the protein haemoglobin, substitutes just one amino acid for another in the sequence; but this apparently small change has far-reaching results – an often fatal disease called sickle cell anaemia. Similarly, a single change in the code for rhodopsin, a pigment in the eye, results in blindness. Therefore, it is generally true to say that most mutations are harmful or confer no benefits.

Secondly and most importantly, the whole basis of the evolutionary theory is that through mutations the information on the genome must increase. Only by this means could a progressively greater complexity of living things have occurred over the supposed millions of years of evolution. If this increase of information does not occur, then it is clear that the current evolutionary theory is a non-starter.

As one recent critic of evolution has observed: ‘the neo-Darwinians14 would like us to believe that large evolutionary changes can result from a series of small events if there are enough of them. But if these events all lose information they can’t be the steps in the … [theory]. Whoever thinks that macroevolution can be made by mutations that lose information is like the merchant who lost a little money on every sale but thought he could make it up on volume.’ 15 So, unless it can be shown that mutations have gradually increased the total genetic information, then evolution could not have occurred.

The fact is that mutations do not increase the available information. As the above writer goes on to say: ‘Not even one mutation has been observed that adds a little information to the genome.’ As a result he concludes: ‘We have therefore to reject the entire neo-Darwinian theory of evolution.’

A familiar example will make the point. Today we have hundreds of different varieties of dogs, varying in size and appearance from the huge St. Bernard to the pocket-sized Chihuahua. It is believed that all have descended from a wolf-like ancestor. In the mutations that produced the range of present domestic dogs, many of the original wolf-like features have been permanently lost; that is, the information for some original characteristics is no longer available on the genome. In other words, although the development of a large variety of dogs from one ancestor superficially looks like a case for evolution, in fact such a development has resulted in a loss of genetic information. However, the theory of evolution, if it were true, would demand an increase.

References

14 Neo Darwinians = those who believe in evolution driven by random mutations, in fact the majority of evolutionists.
15 Lee Spetner: ‘Not by Chance,’ page 160 (Judaica Press Inc.)

DOES CHANCE PRODUCE DESIGN?

If I dropped a handful of coins, we all know that they would go in all directions, ending up as a random pattern on the floor. However, suppose you came into a room, saw a straight line of coins and were told ‘I just dropped these coins and, look, they all happened to end up in a line’ – would you believe it? No, you would rightly say that chance does not produce design. If I then insisted that this had happened not just once but many times, then you would probably think I was out of my mind.

Yet the evolutionist must believe that a beneficial mutation not only occurred by accident once but repeatedly. Further, most of them would have had to occur at about the same time, because frequently more than one mutation is involved in a given change.

A diagram of the tricarboxylic acid cycle, commonly called the Krebs Cycle

For example, the chemistry within the cell is a stage-by-stage process. As an illustration (an example from the hundreds that could be given), one of the most basic reactions in a living cell is the conversion of glucose to carbon dioxide and water, with the release of energy, called the tricarboxylic acid cycle. This does not happen in one go. Rather is it a series of step-wise reactions involving many intermediate stages. However, a different enzyme affects each of the steps. If only one of those enzymes was missing, then the process would stop and the cell die. Therefore, evolutionists must assume that all the mutations that produced the enzymes accidentally appeared at the same time. Or in terms of our analogy, not only did the coins form themselves into a straight line on one occasion, but did so repeatedly.

The same holds good for whole organs and creatures as well as what goes on in cells. The eye is a good example of many differing features that must all be present at the same time if it is to function. As you read this page, your brain is controlling tiny muscles around the transparent lens, altering its shape to accurately focus the image of the print on to the retina at the back of your eye.

The retina has nerve cells that are sensitive even to the smallest quantity of light and areThe Human Eye able, by a sort of in-built computer, to convert the light pattern into a compressed series of nerve impulses. The retina also has special pigments that enable different colours to be identified. Within the brain is a particular area that converts the nerve impulses into a picture we can recognise.

Is it reasonable to suggest that all these interdependent features arose by accident and all at the same time? Does it not rather look like intelligent design? The evolutionist claims that the eye developed by a series of random changes over countless millions of years. But think what we are being asked to believe – that all this fine detail working together so perfectly has come about from a series of accidental mutations. Do not be deceived by the glib evolutionary explanation so common in books for children, that some primitive organism ‘decided’ to develop some new feature.

The concept of planning is ruled out in the current theory of evolution – all is the result of purposeless change. It is ludicrous to suggest that an eyeless creature would envisage the need for sight and so control its developments over the ages to eventually produce an eye. As Darwin himself said: ‘To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree.’ 16 We may confidently say that chance does not produce design.

Picture of a leafLook at the picture of a leaf insect. Here is an example of insects that mimic leaves so perfectly that given the right background they are perfectly camouflaged, as a protection from their predators. Can you see four leaf insects in the right hand picture? Does this look like chance mutations at work? If evolution were true, think of all the wrong designs that must have accidentally been produced by the original insect whilst this perfect disguise was at last fortuitously arrived at. Think of all the simultaneous accidental changes that were needed in the DNA that programmed this new shape. How did the poor insect survive whilst it was developing this disguise? We can be sure that the leaf-like shape was not the choice of the supposed original insect. It probably would not even recognise a leaf, let alone be able to alter its body to copy one.

Reference

16 ’The Origin of Species.’

‘THE PRIZE HORSE IN OUR STABLE’

One of the supposed evidences for natural selection and therefore the evolutionary process, is the variation in the peppered moth. It is an example that appears in almost every textbook on evolution. The story is that the moths were originally of a light colour and thus were camouflaged when they settled on the trunks of lichen-covered trees. But with the advent of industrial processes that polluted the air, the tree trunks became darker due to the lack of lichen and an increase in sooty deposits. Thus the moths stood out like the proverbial sore thumb and were rapidly picked off by the birds.

However, in time the moths responded by becoming darker to match the trunks and so they were camouflaged once more. Here we are told, is evolution in action! This is an example of a story that has universally been taken up and quite innocently repeated by advocates of evolution without themselves having investigated the subject. As is so frequent in this field, everyone else assumes that all the appropriate checks have been made.

In fact the darker form of moth existed well before the Industrial Revolution and all that happened was that the darker form later became more prominent. So it wasn’t a question of a new form developing – it was already there. In fact the dark form exists quite happily in rural situations as far apart as Scotland, Canada and New Zealand, where it suffers no disadvantage from its colour.

The experiments, first carried out by a scientist named Kettlewell in the 1950’s, are now regarded as suspect. What is not generally known is that some of the experiments were done in artificial conditions in an aviary. Unlike in the natural situation, specially bred moths were actually placed by the experimenters on the trunks within reach of the ground; then birds were filmed feeding on them. This is hardly what happens in the wild and when the experiments were repeated in natural conditions the results were variable. It is now recognised that the moths only fly by night when the birds are not active and in the daytime they conceal themselves high up amongst the foliage, rather than be sitting targets on the tree trunks.17 Moreover, when tests were actually carried out in woodland conditions, the results were very inconclusive.18

In addition, what of those pictures in the textbooks, such as the one reproduced here? One scientific paper describes how it was done. The pictures were not taken from nature, but dead moths were glued to the trees! 19 As a result of this re-evaluation of the subject, what was once described by one evolutionist as ‘the prize horse in our stable’ has now been discarded by many. An evolutionist says that when he realised this it gave him that same feeling as when he as a boy discovered Santa Claus was not real! 20 This is an outstanding example of what Professor P. Johnson describes as how ‘devotion to the ideology of Darwinism has led to textbooks full of misinformation’. 21

References

17 C.A.Clarke: ‘Evolution in reverse…’, Biological Journal of the Linnean Society. 26: 189-199,1985.
18 M.Bowden: ‘Science Vs Evolution,’ Appendix 3, pages 194-211 (Sovereign Publications, 1991).
19 D.R.Lees and E.R. Creed: ‘Journal of Animal Ecology,’ 44: 67-83,1975. J.Wells: ‘Icons of Evolution: Science or Myth (Regnery Publishing Inc. 2000).
20 J.A.Coyne: Nature 396(6706): 35,36.
21 Quoted by J.Wells: ‘Icons of Evolution’, back cover.

EVOLUTION AND FAITH

The above are just a few of the many arguments that can be advanced against the theory of evolution. It is true to say that, whilst evolutionists deride those who believe in specific creation for their faith, they do not realise that their theory has almost become a religion demanding even greater faith and unquestioned obedience from its followers. Charles Darwin, on his deathbed, was painfully aware of this. He is reported as then saying concerning his theory of evolution:

‘I was a young man, with unformed ideas. I threw out queries, suggestions, wondering all the time over everything. And to my astonishment the ideas took like wildfire. People made a religion of them.’ 22

So it has remained until now. Many who dare to point out the inconsistencies in the established belief in evolution, face the danger of ostracism and even fear for their livelihood.

It is true to say that the burden of proof demanded of other scientific disciplines seems not to be required in the case of so-called evidence for evolution. The wildest speculations and unproved theories are presented as facts to a public who do not have the background to critically test what they are being asked to believe.

Even some doctrinaire evolutionists accept the unavailability of the evidence. The following candid admission was made in an address to the American Museum of Natural History:

‘For over 20 years I thought I was working on evolution…[But] there was not one thing I knew about it…So for the last few weeks I’ve tried putting a simple question to various people and groups of people. Question is: ‘Can you tell me anything you know about evolution, any one thing, any one thing that is true?’ I tried that question on the geology staff at the Field Museum of Natural History and the only answer I got was silence. I tried it on the members of the Evolutionary Morphology Seminar in the University of Chicago, a very prestigious body of evolutionists, and all I got there was silence for a long time; and eventually one person said, ‘Yes, I do know one thing – it ought not to be taught in high school.’ 23

Although belief in specific creation by an all-wise God requires faith, it is not the sort of faith that ignores the evidence. Instead it looks at the evidence and draws the entirely reasonable conclusion that blind chance could not have produced the complexity and variety of living things.

References

22 Bombay Guardian, 25.3.1916.
23 Colin Patterson, Quoted by Hank Hanegraaff: ‘The face that demonstrates the farce of Evolution’ page 44 (Word Publishing, Nashville, 1998).

CHRISTIANITY AND EVOLUTION

In the belief that evolution is a demonstrable scientific fact, many Christians have rejected the clear Bible teaching on creation, coining the terms ‘theistic evolution’ or ‘God-controlled evolution.’ They accept the evolutionary time scale and the myriad minute changes that eventually produced life in all its diversity, but believe that the whole process was originated and controlled by God. Those who subscribe to this view believe that the Bible’s record of creation should be regarded as an allegory. Yet Jesus, the one whose teaching all Christians claim to follow, believed in specific creation as recorded in the Old Testament. In answer to a query he said of the first human pair:

‘…Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female…?’[Matthew 19.4].

Also, in explaining the principles of Christian redemption, the New Testament writers treat the events described in the early chapters of Genesis as actual happenings. For example in a reference to Adam’s fall we read:

‘…by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin…’ [Romans 5.12].

In the New Testament we also learn that death can be removed by the work of Jesus:

‘For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous’ [Romans 5.19].

‘For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive’ [1 Corinthians 15.22].

Thus, the clear teaching of the Bible is that sin entered the world at a specific time as a direct result of one man’s offence and that sin can be removed by the work of Jesus. A Christian evolutionist must therefore have a different theology from that of Christ or the Apostle Paul.

It is salutary to note that even atheists recognise this is the only logical position for a Christian, as the words of one of them demonstrate:

‘Christianity is – must be! – totally committed to the special creation as described in Genesis, and Christianity must fight with its full might against the theory of evolution….It becomes clear now that the whole justification of Jesus’ life and death is predicated on the existence of Adam and the forbidden fruit he and Eve ate. Without the original sin, who needs to be redeemed? Without Adam’s fall into a life of constant sin terminated by death, what purpose is there to Christianity? None.’ 24

It is hoped that this booklet, although it only considers a small part of the evidence, has demonstrated that the theory of evolution is itself so flawed as to become untenable. Thus any conflict with Bible teaching is removed and wholehearted support can be given to its message of hope for us all.

Reference

24 G Richard Bozarth: ‘The Meaning of Evolution’, American Atheist (February 1978): 19,30

Loading

Earth from Space

God in Creation Part 2 – LIFE ON EARTH

/in /by

God in Creation Part 2 – LIFE ON EARTH

In 1969, when the astronauts Armstrong and Aldrin were on the stark and desolate landscape of the Moon, they were able to see the Earth as it had never been seen before. Just as we on Earth can look up at the Moon, so they were able to see the Earth rising over the barren lunar surface.

From this distance there is nothing to indicate that the Earth was any different from the lifeless Moon with its craters and plains, or from any other planet of the solar system.

However, those astronauts knew that beneath those reflecting clouds and alongside the shimmering oceans was a different world – one as full of beauty as the other is empty and sterile.

Yes, as far as we know, the planet Earth is unique. It is easy to forget that. There is no actual evidence that there is another place like Earth. What is it that makes Earth so different? Is it the mountains and valleys, its rocks, its minerals? No, other planets have these features. The supreme difference is that the Earth contains life. Wherever we look there are living things of amazing diversity and complexity – trees, plants, animals, birds, fish and insects. Chief among these living things is Man himself, with his unique ability to reason.

Earth from SpaceWe might well ask, ‘What is the difference between the Earth and the other planets that enables this phenomenon of life to occur? Are such differences accidental?’

To answer this question we must note the conditions necessary for life to exist. The Universe as a whole is a dangerous place. Vast spaces, intense and powerful radiation, extremes of temperature from a little above absolute zero (minus 273 degrees Centigrade), to millions of degrees above, combine to make the Universe inhospitable to life. Living things are very delicate and even small variations from certain conditions mean death.

Here are some of the criteria that have to be met for life to exist:

  • Temperature range

The range at which living things can function is small on a universal scale. At low temperatures all living processes stop around 0C, when water freezes and the upper limit for growth is around 45C. (Some forms of micro-organisms can grow at higher temperatures and others survive but do not grow in boiling water; even so the temperature range for growth is comparatively small).

  • Water

All living processes take place in water. Our body consists of 70% water and many forms of life exist in water. Life cannot exist without water.

  • Energy source

Living things stay alive by extracting energy from chemical reactions. In most cases this is done by breaking down food. The energy in food originally comes from the Sun. Plants capture the energy by means of a very special substance called chlorophyll and use the energy to make foodstuff that animals can eat, thus extracting the Sun’s energy second-hand. Light is therefore essential to all the higher forms of life.

  • Atmosphere

Most living things require oxygen in order for them to extract the energy contained in food.

  • Correct force of gravity and atmospheric pressure

The astronauts on the Moon could jump higher and farther than on Earth because the Moon’s gravitational pull is less. Conversely, on a large planet gravity would crush them into the ground. On Earth, the atmospheric pressure is about 14 pounds per square inch. If it were a lot more than this, living things would be squeezed to death.

  • Freedom from radiation

Space is full of rays that are lethal to living things: gamma rays, x-rays, ultraviolet rays andThe Planet Mars cosmic rays have sufficient energy to break up complex life chemicals. Astronauts have to wear specially designed suits to protect them from this radiation when they venture from their spacecraft.

  • Only Earth suitable for life

Of all the planets, only the Earth has all these things life needs. It is the correct distance from the Sun to give it the right temperature range and has plenty of water in liquid form. If it was only very slightly nearer the Sun, its water would boil off; a little further away and the oceans would freeze. It has an atmosphere containing oxygen and whilst allowing light through, is thick enough to prevent the dangerous rays in space reaching the Earth’s surface. The atmospheric pressure is not excessive and the Earth is of a size that exercises a force of gravity that is compatible with living things.

A review of the features of other planets shows how unsuitable they are to sustain life:

MERCURY Moon-like surface – no water – very hot – no atmosphere
VENUS Moon-like surface – extremely hot (5000C) – atmosphere of carbon dioxide and sulphuric acid vapour – atmospheric pressure 100 times that of Earth
MARS Dry rocky surface – no water – ‘ice caps’ are solid carbon dioxide – negligible atmosphere – temperature generally very cold
JUPITER Not a solid planet – consists of liquid hydrogen at a temperature of minus 270o C – bathed in clouds of ammonia hundreds of miles thick

LIFE IS THE EXCEPTION

Thus it can be seen that certainly in the solar system, possibly in the Universe, the Earth is unique and life is the exception. Why? Advocates of the theory of Evolution believe that because the Earth by chance, had the suitable conditions, life spontaneously developed and then diversified. They say that life was an almost expected result of those fortuitous and accidental conditions.

Others, including the publishers of this booklet, believe that the whole system is part of a plan. In the development of the Universe and the suitability of the Earth they see the guiding hand of a Creator who wanted intelligent life and therefore created first the materials and then the environment to achieve it.

WHAT IS LIFE?Diagram showing the structure of a cell

There is no gradual transition from non-living chemicals to living things. Even the simplest form of life contains very specialised chemicals that are never found free in nature. This is because living matter is invariably found inside a microscopic box called a cell. Some forms of life exist as a single cell, but the more familiar ones such as plants and animals are made up of vast numbers of cells joined together. When people rather glibly talk of life spontaneously appearing, they are taking a huge intellectual jump that has very little to justify it. As you read on you will see what we mean.

THE COMPLEXITY OF A LIVING CELL

A living cell is a miniature manufacturing unit, complete with its own power supply. The things it makes are the various complex chemicals needed for it to live, grow and reproduce.

One of the most important series of chemicals are special proteins, called enzymes. In a human manufacturing process a device called a ‘jig’ is often used to hold components in the right place whilst they are being joined together. An enzyme is a microscopic ‘jig’ that holds two or more chemicals together whilst they react and are welded into one – or sometimes they are split in two. Obviously, such a ‘jig’ has to be just the right shape so that it can hold the chemicals in the correct relationship.

These chemicals are of all shapes and sizes, so this means that there has to be a completely different ‘jig’ or enzyme for each chemical reaction within the cell. Even the simplest cell could not function with fewer than several hundred different enzymes. For example, the simplest known living organisms are called Mycoplasma. One scientist says, ‘these represent almost the smallest size compatible with life.’ He goes on to say that ‘this ‘simple’ cell can produce seven hundred different proteins and that half of this number are considered essential for the life of the cell.’ 3
 

Reference

3 Professor David Taylor-Robinson: Topley and Wilson’s principles of Bacteriology, Virology and Immunity, 8th edition 1990, Volume 2, page 672.

ENZYME STRUCTURE

Below is a diagram representing an enzyme, its special shape designed to hold its reacting chemicals. You can see that it is a long chain bent and twisted into the necessary shape. How does it get bent in just the right places so that its unique chemicals fit exactly into this ‘jig?’

Amino Acids

If you placed a row of square bricks end to end they would obviously form a straight line. If you introduced into the row a brick with a triangular cross-section, a bend in the row would be obtained. An enzyme molecule is constructed on this principle, using chemicals called amino acids as its ‘bricks’. There are about 20 different amino acids and in effect, they are all different ‘shapes.’ Also, some amino acids have the property of ‘clipping on’ to others further down the chain, thus creating a loop. By careful selection of the various amino acids (and there are usually many hundreds in the enzyme chain) the molecule can be bent into the requisite three-dimensional shape.

Now the important thing! Obviously, to produce a given enzyme there is only one correct sequence of amino acids. The substitution of just one amino acid in the sequence could produce a ‘bend’ in the wrong place, with the result that the enzyme would be unable to hold its particular chemicals and would thus be useless.

So the cell in some way has to remember the correct sequence of amino acids in every one of the hundreds of different enzymes it needs, so that it can make them when required. If it gets even one amino acid in the wrong place in the line, the enzyme might not work properly. How does the tiny cell ensure this correct sequence?

THE CODE OF LIFE

Within each cell is a separate enclosure, the nucleus. Inside this nucleus is a truly amazing substance, commonly known as DNA. Think of a ladder with its two side rails joined by the rungs. Then imagine that some giant twisted the ladder along its length, until the side rails looked like two huge corkscrews cross-connected by the rungs. Reduce this in size to a minute fraction of a millimetre and you have, in essence, the structure of a DNA molecule. The diagrams show the idea. The simple diagram shows the twisted ladder arrangement and the more complicated one the actual structure of just a short length of DNA. A complete DNA molecule would be very much longer, having many thousands of twists in its spiral rather than the few you see here. In fact if the total DNA in just one human cell could be stretched out, it would be about 2 metres long!

The wonderful thing about DNA is that along its length it contains the instructions for making all the different types of enzymes the cell needs. As the enzymes are responsible for making the chemical reactions in the cell work, you can see that DNA therefore controls the whole cell. The information about the correct sequence of amino acids in each enzyme is contained in coded form on the ‘rungs’ of the DNA ladder. There are only four different kinds of ‘rungs’, each composed of chemicals paired together (T, A, G, C in the diagram) and it needs three ‘rungs’ to code for one amino acid.

If we call the four types of rungs A B C D, then ABC might be the code for amino acid 1, BCD for amino acid 2, BCB for amino acid 3, DBA for amino acid 4 and so on. Continuing until all the 20 amino acids are coded, using only four ‘rungs’. So, in our example above, if the sequence of ‘rungs’ on the DNA molecule were BCDBCBABCDBA it would mean that the sequence of amino acids would be 2,3,1,4. In this way, a ladder of 600 ‘rungs’ could code for an enzyme of 200 amino acids in its chain. If the code sequence on the DNA was correct, then every enzyme produced from that section of its length would have its amino acids in the right order too and would therefore be able to do its job.

This only explains the principle of the code’s operation. In practice, the transfer of the coded information to the site of enzyme production is very complicated and involves other very special substances. It is estimated that to make one protein molecule, about another hundred different proteins are required as enzymes to effect the production. 4

The total amount of information along that microscopic chain of DNA is mind-boggling. In a simple cell, like a bacterium, there are several million coded symbols and in those of man there are between two and four billion. The total DNA code in a cell is styled the genome; and it is a measure of scientific progress that in recent years the whole of the human genome has been elucidated.

Reference

4 M Denton: Evolution: A theory in Crisis, page 265 (Adler and Adler 1986).

CELL DIVISION

One of the definitions of living material is that it can reproduce itself. This must obviously occur first at the cellular level. For one cell to become two, the DNA must first be accurately duplicated, so that each new cell can contain the vital instructions coded on that molecule. This replication of DNA is achieved by enzymes made by the DNA itself. If you think about this you will realise that DNA and its enzymes are interdependent. The DNA makes an enzyme that in turn makes the DNA. So both must have originally appeared at the same time. Neither can function on its own. Evolutionists admit that this is a thorny problem. One of them wrote: ‘We are grappling here with a classic ‘chicken and egg’ situation. Nucleic acids [DNA] are required to make proteins, whereas proteins are needed to make nucleic acids…so how could useful proteins have first arisen and then evolved without the nucleic acids needed to encode them? How could nucleic acids be faithfully copied and evolve without the catalytic assistance of proteins?’ 5

DESIGN OR CHANCE?

Do you think that this complex yet accurate method of protein production could have occurred by chance? Could such a detailed code, with its millions of symbols, have been produced by accident? No scientist, despite confident assertions in the media and in school textbooks, has yet proposed a possible way that this detailed system could occur by chance. As one of them freely writes: ‘In their more public pronouncements, researchers interested in the origin of life sometimes behave like the creationist opponents they so despise – glossing over the great mysteries that remain unsolved and pretending they have firm answers that they have not really got.’ 6

But why do some scientists despise those who believe in creation? Surely experience teaches that complexity, such as in a cell, must have been the product of an intelligent mind. The most rational view is that God designed the ‘Code of Life’. By giving a slightly different code to the different sorts of living organisms, He brought into being all the varied forms of life, such as trees, flowers, animals, insects and mankind, as the Bible says:

‘…with thee is the fountain of life’ [Psalm 36.9].

‘…he giveth to all life, and breath, and all things’ [Acts 17.25].

But of course life on earth is not just simple cells. They are organised into groups to form organs and bodies that can see, feel, manipulate things and in the case of human beings, have the ability to reason and communicate. In all this there is the evidence of design, not accidental development.

References

5 Andrew Scott: New Scientist, 2nd May 1985, page 31.

6 Andrew Scott: New Scientist 2nd May 1985, page 33.

DESIGN DEMANDS A DESIGNER

Wherever we look then, at the Universe or inside the cell, we see that things have turned out the way they are because of a series of apparently improbable events. Each event was very unlikely to have occurred by chance. The Universe expanded at just the right rate. The Earth provided just the right environment. Then life with all its amazing complexity appeared on Earth. An accidental sequence of such events strains the bounds of credibility. Reason demands that such careful and intricate design implies the existence of a designer and a controller – a being greater than the Universe. The God of the Bible is described in just these terms:

‘Praise ye the LORD…Praise ye him, sun and moon: praise him, all ye stars of light. Praise him, ye heaven of heavens…Let them praise the name of the LORD: for he commanded, and they were created’ [Psalm 148.1-5].

‘…thou hast made the heaven and the earth by thy great power and stretched out arm, and there is nothing too hard for thee’ [Jeremiah 32.17].

THE BIBLE IS UNIQUE

In this section we have presented the current views about the origin of the Universe and the nature of life that is found in one part of it. Some ideas on the formation of the Universe are only theories, suggesting what might have happened at the beginning. It may be that tomorrow some new discovery will alter the ideas. However, with the proviso that all human knowledge is inevitably imperfect, the harmony of modern scientific discoveries with the Bible is remarkable. This is all the more so when we consider the antiquity of the book – in parts three thousand five hundred years old. If the Bible were merely the product of its age, it would have described the Creation in the self-evidently mythical way like the Babylonian and Egyptian creation stories of 3,500 years ago. In these stories all things were said to be derived from the murdered body of one of their gods or that mankind was formed from the tears of another so-called deity.

Against the background of these obviously nonsensical accounts, the Bible’s record of creation is presented as reasonable, logical and even scientific. It needs a lot of explaining if God is not taken as the originator of the information.

A PURPOSE IN CREATION

The supreme value of belief in a Creator is that everything has been made for a reason. Science may probe the distant parts of the Universe or the innermost intricacies of the living cell but it cannot tell why they are there. If an all-wise God has created everything, it is reasonable to assume a purpose in creation. Also we can learn of that purpose in the Bible, which is the Creator’s revelation to man. We are told there that mankind, far from being the result of chance evolutionary development, was created specifically to bring pleasure and satisfaction to the Almighty. It may seem at first sight that this purpose is failing but this is only from a human standpoint.

Scripture tells us that God is using the literal world to develop a spiritual creation, composed of men and women who have developed a mind and a way of life that reflect the attributes of their Creator. This spiritual creation will at last share the nature and the understanding of the Almighty Being who has created them.

This new creation was the hope of the Apostle Paul:

‘…now we see through a glass, darkly… but then shall I know even as also I am known’ [1 Corinthians 13.12].

It was also the promise of God through His son Jesus Christ:

‘He that overcometh shall inherit all things; and I will be his God, and he shall be my son’ [Revelation 21.7].

Mankind has been created ‘in the image of God’ [Genesis 1.27] and the highest use to which we can put our God-given minds and bodies is to spend our short years in preparation for the future that God has planned – not to spend our time in pursuit of satisfaction in this life.

Loading

How did the beginning begin?

04 How Did The Beginning Begin?

/in /by

Harmony of Bible and Science Presented in a Series of Articles

04 How Did The Beginning Begin?

Bible and Science – How Did the Beginning Begin?How did the beginning begin?

Knowest thou the ordinances of heaven? (Job 38:33)

How did the universe form in the first place and what existed before there ever was a universe? While we may feel that the answers to these questions shouldn’t concern us, I have found that giving some thought to these issues and being able to give a reasonable response to people can be very helpful in preaching work and also in dealing with the inquiring minds of our Sunday school scholars.

When the 17th century theologian James Usher first formed his biblical chronology dating the beginning of creation at 4004 B.C., he was supposedly asked by one brave soul “And pray, Holy Father, what was God doing before He created the Universe?” To which Usher thunderously replied, “Creating hell for those who ask questions such as that?”[i] Modern science still cannot answer the question, What initiated the universe, though many scientists around the world are pursuing the answer. Some of the aspects of this quest will be presented in this article.

The rhetorical question posed by the Lord to Job (38:33) still presents a challenge to our understanding of the beginning of space/time. Obviously, we weren’t there either before, or at the time, the universe was created. As we have stated in an earlier article, the known laws of physics have not been able to help us either, because they break down at the exact moment of creation.[ii] This is called a singularity in physics, which is a point in space/time where all the known equations of physics lead to infinities and cannot be renormalized to get a meaningful solution. Nevertheless, we know that the energy to create the Universe had to come from somewhere and physicists are currently trying to construct models which make sense in terms of providing a framework that rationalizes the universe as we currently find it.

One thing that has shown some promise is the attempt to unify the laws of physics in what has become known as “string theory.” The details are very complicated, but the underlying principle is that the mathematics of vibrating infinitely short strings of multiple dimensions may lead to a fundamental understanding of the Universe. This leads to some very astonishing ideas, the strangest being that we really do not live in a four dimensional (three spatial and one time dimension) world, but rather one made up of ten or eleven dimensions. It is presumed that at the time the universe was created the six or seven “hidden” dimensions folded in on themselves and wrapped themselves into such small dimensions of space that they can no longer be observed (but they still influence the laws of physics).

Illustrating a multi-dimensional universe

How can we imagine this multi-dimensional universe? We can get a picture in our mind of dimensionality by thinking about space in the following way: in general, if we consider a flat surface — say of this sheet of paper — then we are in a two-dimensional world. We can locate any point on this piece of paper by knowing only two coordinates, x and y.

We can extend our thinking to four coordinates by considering the following example: Suppose you are asked to meet a complete stranger in the Empire State Building in New York. To make the meeting actually occur you would have to know exactly where to meet the stranger and also at what time. You convey back to the stranger a message via e-mail that the building is on the corner of Fifth Avenue and 34th Street and you will meet them on the 86th floor observation deck at 3 p.m. on Wednesday, October 15, 2003. You have provided all the space/time information required, three location dimensions and the time dimension. Yet when you get to 86th floor you find that there are several hundred people on the observation deck and you haven’t a clue which one is the stranger! Clearly as the space shrunk to the neighborhood of the 86th floor more information was required to satisfy your rendezvous.

You resolve to try again on another day; this time you ask the stranger for his/her gender, and you tell him to wear a blue suit. When you again ascend the elevator to the 86th floor of the Empire State Building, you find that out of the hundreds of visitors approximately half are men (the gender you are looking for) and two dozen are wearing blue suits. Obviously, you could approach each one of them and find out if he is the one you are seeking, but being a physicist you know you have to do this the proper way by identifying all the dimensions to the problem!

You finally meet your stranger after one more e-mail clarification: By now you know that it will be at (1) 34th Street and (2) Fifth Avenue, on the (3) 86th floor, (4) at 3 p.m. Wednesday, (5) north side of building, (6) a male, (7) with brown hair, (8) wearing a blue suit and (9) with a yellow carnation in the lapel (limiting it to three people) and the stranger would be (10) standing on his head! The solution to definitely meeting the stranger required 10 dimensions and the closer you got to the meeting point the more the dimensions wrapped into themselves so that the last (standing on his head) was limited to only the space occupied by the stranger.

Scientists struggle with the beginning

Solving the multi-dimensional nature of the universe has analogous elements to the Empire State building meeting problem. It appears that it may take as many as ten dimensions to get solutions to the problem of the grand unification of all four known forces and to understand the perfect symmetry that existed at the moment of creation. So far, however, exact solutions have eluded scientists and what seemed a tractable problem only a few years ago has run into many difficulties. The question remains: Did the energy required to create our universe spring out of infinitely small dimensions, which we are incapable of observing?

To obtain the answer to this question scientists have conjured up a model that has been called the Big Foam. We can try to picture this concept by assuming that space is infinite and that at the level of extremely small dimensions, below what we can directly observe, it is filled with an agitated “Big Foam” of energy fluctuations. From time to time one particular fluctuation is large enough to nucleate a Universe![iii] Obviously this doesn’t happen very often, since scientists estimate that our universe is some 20 billion years old. Whether or not physicists can ultimately mathematically construct from this Big Foam model a universe that becomes the one we live in and observe all around us today remains to be seen. Of course it also begs the scientific question: where did the Big Foam of roiling energy fluctuations come from in the first place? However, from the point of view of the Bible student there are some hints in scripture of unseen dimensions and hidden energy in the universe. In scripture the solution to the problem of what initiated the universe is easily explained. We will turn to evidence for these assertions below.

Multiple dimensions in the Bible

There is the famous incident in the life of the prophet Elisha, when the King of Israel sought his life at Dothan. The record in II Kings 6 says that an army with horses and chariots had surrounded the city intent on doing harm to Elisha and his followers. The young servant of the prophet cries out: Oh, my lord, what shall we do? At this point, Elisha reveals a very startling scene as the prophet answers: Don’t be afraid. Those who are with us are more than those who are with them (v. 16). And Elisha prayed, ‘O LORD, open his eyes so he may see.’ Then the LORD opened the servant’s eyes, and he looked and saw the hills full of horses and chariots of fire all around Elisha (v.17)[iv]. Was it simply a vision or were Elisha and his servant somehow allowed to peer into other dimensions? If it were simply a vision, Elisha would have been sore embarrassed if he actually had to call on the chariots of fire to fight the very real forces of the King of Israel that had encompassed them. I suggest that the incident was real and that the Lord God can make things materialize out of other dimensions that we do not have the ability to observe.

God dwells in unapproachable light

The model of the Big Foam is just another attempt at a model, which assumes an inherently eternal structure that created the universe without requiring divine intervention. This is no different from the pagan belief in the immortality of matter, now transferred to the immortality of energy, albeit at a sensitivity level we can never hope to observe. If creation did not happen by random fluctuation from the Big Foam how did it occur? We can gain some insight by recalling the statement about the Lord God that the apostle Paul made to Timothy: Who only hath immortality, dwelling in the light which no man can approach unto; whom no man hath seen, nor can see: to whom be honour and power everlasting. Amen (I Tim.6:16).

“Light” is pure energy and light does not comprise just the visible spectra, but a whole range of energies including everything from x-rays to infrared heat, and more. When the Bible says God dwells in the light, I do not believe this is merely a metaphor, but is the apostle’s way of telling us (in first-century language) that God dwells in a realm of pure energy. Hence, according to this picture, the Lord God is the source of all energy not only in the universe we can perceive, but also in dimensions unseen.

It is entirely within the realm of what is revealed in scripture to say that God supplied all the energy that created the universe in one instant at some time in the distant past. This was a unique event that has led to everything we now see in the heavens and on earth. And what was there before the beginning? The Bible answer: Before the beginning there was God, who is from everlasting to everlasting. He could have been involved in other works before the establishment of our present universe, and someday, if we are worthy to be in His kingdom, we may have the answer to such questions (Rev. 3:4–6).

Scientists object to idea of “God”

Scientists don’t like to invoke God as a first cause. An example of this occurred a few years back when there was an exchange of letters concerning an article that Professor Stephen Hawking[v] wrote for the magazine the American Scientist. A letter to the editor asked Dr. Hawking: Why are we scientists afraid to admit the existence of a Supreme Being whenever the subject of the universe arises?[vi] Dr. Hawking replied: I thought I had left the question of the existence of a Supreme Being completely open in my article. It would be perfectly consistent with all we know to say that there was a being who was responsible for the laws of physics. However, I think it could be misleading to call such a being “God,” because this term is normally understood to have personal connotations which are not present in the laws of physics.[vii]

 It is clear from this exchange that many physicists would prefer to uncover rational laws, which define the state of the universe as we have found it, without invoking “God” while at the same time acknowledging that there is something incredibly unique about our universe that makes a very good case for a Supreme Being. Such a quest has had moderate success in explaining many things about the nature of the present universe except how it started in the first place! If our universe was the result of a pure chance energy fluctuation then we are extremely lucky, because even the smallest change in the physical constants that scientists have uncovered would make our universe completely uninhabitable for man. At best, according to this model, the universe would have been unstable to the point of being suddenly created followed by almost immediate extinction.

Overwhelming evidence for God as the creator

The physical laws do not appear in any way to be mere random chance, and calculations that have tried to modify them in even the smallest way (say, by much less than one part in a trillion trillion trillion!) lead to disaster for our universe. Thus not only does the singularity that created our universe seem unique, so do the physical laws, which govern it.

Michio Kaku, a physicist at Columbia University has written, Most scientists, it is safe to say, believe that there is some form of cosmic order in the Universe.[viii] The physicist Freeman Dyson, commenting on the remarkable coincidences by which the laws of physics follow precise limits that make our universe possible, has said, As we look out into the universe and identify the many accidents of physics and the astronomy that have worked together to our benefit, it almost seems as if the universe must in some sense have known that we were coming.[ix] For the Bible student there is no ambiguity, the message is clear: Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear. (Heb. 11:3).

By John C. Bilello, Ann Arbor, Michigan

Footnotes:

[i] Cited from article by Marcia Bartusiak, Before the Big Bang, the Big Foam, Discover, September, 1987, page 77.
[ii] Actually, calculations on the nature of the Universe using the known laws of Physics are useful down to a very small fraction of a second after the creation event. According to some estimates down to a time of t = 10-42sec., which is one over 10 followed by 42 zeros!
[iii] The Physicist Edward P. Tryon, quoted in Discover: “In answer to the question of why it [i.e. the universe] happened, I offer the modest proposal that our universe is simply one of those things which happen from time to time.”
[iv] All references this paragraph taken from the NIV©.
[v] Professor Hawking is the Lucasian Professor at Cambridge University, the same Chair once held by Isaac Newton.
[vi] Cited from letter to the editor by James J. Tanner, American Scientist, Vol. 73, pg. 12.
[vii] Extracted from reply to Tanner by Hawking, American Scientist, Vol. 73, pg. 12
[viii] Michio Kaku, Hyperspace, Oxford University Press, New York, 1994, pg. 331.
[ix] Ibid., page 258.

Creation Science Today

Loading

Something from Nothing

03 Something from Nothing

/in /by

Harmony of Bible and Science Presented in a Series of Articles

03 Something from Nothing

Bible and Science – Something From Nothing

And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. Genesis 1:3 (KJV)

Something from Nothing

Is it possible to get something from nothing? The Bible certainly appears to teach exactly that principle. “God said…” and it was done. The prophet Isaiah quotes the Lord as saying: I have made the earth, and created man upon it: I, even my hands, have stretched out the heavens, and all their host have I commanded (Isa. 45:12). This creative power of God is mentioned many other times in the scriptures, but, as always, the mechanistic details are not supplied. It is hard to imagine, for example, what would have happened if instead of saying let there be light, the Bible had written out Maxwell’s equations of electromagnetism. Even if the Bible had given us the formulas explaining the physical details, no one in ages past would have understood them, or if somehow they could have achieved comprehension, they would surely have abused the information!

Earth created long ago

In a previous section, we attempted to answer the question of “when” the universe was created. We submitted that both science and scripture came up with the same unambiguous result, namely, in the beginning (Gen. 1:1). Now let us look more specifically at just the earth in contradistinction to the universe as a whole. Careful reading of the text makes it clear in Genesis 1:2, where the tense of the verb switches from passive to active,[i] that when God started in motion the present order of things the earth was already created, although it was without form and void. It is entirely possible that a very long period of time transpired between verses one and two of Genesis.

Such long period transitions are actually quite common in the scriptures. A well-known example occurs when Jesus quotes to the Pharisees the words of Isaiah 61:2 but stops his discourse in the middle of the verse. Obviously, the Lord Jesus came to proclaim the acceptable year of the Lord, but it has been 2000 years and the latter part of the verse, the day of vengeance of our God, has not yet happened. There are many other examples in the Bible: the Apostle Peter tells us that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day (II Pet. 3:8).

Whatever else one may believe, reading the text of Genesis 1 leads to the conclusion that the heavens and the earth definitely existed prior to the creation of Adam and Eve.[ii] That is, the earth existed before the six day creative life-forming work of the Elohim specifically mentioned in the rest of the chapter was accomplished. Why the earth was without form and void is not discussed in Genesis or anywhere else in the scriptures, as far as I can tell.

We can speculate many things, perhaps other creation(s) were made upon the earth, and this planet may be a zoological and horticultural garden used before by the angels for other forms of animal life in ages past, which may be evident in the fossil records. Nevertheless, whatever the reason for the earth being without form and void does not really matter from the viewpoint of scriptures. Prior life of whatsoever nature is of no consequence to God’s plan and purpose with our present dispensation. If we were morally and spiritually fit to know the details, perhaps they would have been revealed to us; all that need concern us for the present discussion are two powerful principles. First, the Bible leads us to the conclusion that the power of God created the universe ex nihilo, i.e. from nothing and secondly, it happened instantaneously at some point in the very distant past prior to establishing the present life forms that inhabit this planet.

The Greek model and original creation

What does science say about the nature of the origins of the universe?

At first scientists sought to keep alive the ancient Greek idea of the eternal indestructible nature of matter. One such model envisaged alternating eras of expansion followed by contraction of the universe. This model pictured all the matter in the cosmos eventually condensing due to gravity then, when it had all crunched together, going unstable and exploding once again. The universe would then expand again until the velocity of expansion was ultimately exhausted by the mutual gravitational masses of all the matter in the universe. At that point the universe would start contracting and in due course reverse the expansion until all the matter collapsed into yet another big crunch. These cycles would alternate eternally.

Doesn’t this viewpoint sound like just another form of the pagan idea of the eternal nature of matter? It also appears to be consistent with other pagan ideas of cyclic reincarnation, albeit of matter rather than spirit.

The only problem is this model doesn’t work! If all the matter in the universe had collapsed into an enormously dense mass it would have constituted a “super black hole.” The gravity of such a black hole is so immense that nothing can escape it, not even light! What was the mechanism that could have exploded this primeval black hole? Scientists could not come up with anything believable let alone provable. Other data, including the universal microwave background, do not appear quantitatively consistent with the alternating big bang/big crunch model of matter, alternately expanding and contracting to form infinite eternal cycles of birth-death-rebirth of the universe from the same eternal matter ad infinitum. Finally, measurements aimed at finding out whether or not there is enough mass in the universe to sooner or later stop the expansion and reverse it have been inconclusive. Another model was sought. This other picture of our origins has come to be known as the “standard model.”

That which does not appear

Some scientists have called the universe the ultimate “free lunch”! As puzzling as it may seem to the layman, over the past several decades, a whole body of work on the physics of the origin of the universe has come to the conclusion that it was indeed created ex nihilo, that is, from essentially nothing. By “nothing” I mean without substance.

Matter is not eternal and, in fact, the very existence of matter is a key scientific puzzle receiving much attention. Even though there is wide acceptance among physicists of the basic tenets of the “standard model,” there is at its core several startling conclusions that are incredibly mystifying. First, as we have said, the physical universe appears to have initiated from nothing, in other words matter simply did not exist before the creative event. Secondly, the initial starting point of the universe may have been confined to a region tinier than the dot at the end of this sentence. Third, the standard model is not able to go completely back to square one, that is, one simply cannot tell from the currently known laws of physics what started it all.

Standard model

Sometimes I hear people say the Bible version of creation is too farfetched and requires an incredible amount of faith, therefore they dismiss it. A companion to this type of thinking is the assumption that science provides a path that is always clear-cut and without any element of faith whatsoever. If either of these modes of thinking describes your feelings then you are in for a surprise.

Indeed the “standard model” predicts that the universe started with a gigantic burst of energy confined to an incredibly small volume of space. Scientists weren’t there at the beginning and don’t have any direct observational evidence, but they do have faith in their model. This faith isn’t blind, it is being continually subjected to extension and computation to see what the consequences imply on the present universe we can observe today. In the beginning was perfect symmetry and what has followed has been a succession of symmetry-breaking landmarks, which has led to the known laws of physics being separated from what was initially one perfect unifying principle. This unified theory has not yet been found, but physicists believe it exists and that all the four currently known forces, strong, weak, electromagnetic and gravity, should be capable of being melded into this grand unifying principle.

The ensuing history of the universe, to this day, has involved the cooling of the initial energy blast allowing the condensation and precipitation of all the matter in the universe. This matter eventually agglomerated via gravity into gaseous nebula, galaxies, stars, planets, and so on. A number of physical problems had to be dealt with to get a consistent picture that correlated with the observations of the universe as we now see it. Working backwards and trying to condense all the observable matter in the universe just didn’t give a consistent picture.

How did mass come about in the first place, why not just cooler and cooler energy? We can visualize that if we heat up a horseshoe in a blacksmith’s forge, it will get white hot if we provide enough charcoal and forced air. When we take it out of the forge and let it cool, the heat energy doesn’t start condensing out into matter, but simply becomes cooler and cooler by itself until you can eventually touch the horseshoe. Obviously, the horseshoe is not hot enough to form a universe, but what about the initial conditions of the universe? To get the universal microwave background we get today and to have the amount of observable matter (and presumably the unobservable dark matter and energy) in the cosmos, the initial energy eruption must have been billions upon billions of degrees hotter in relative temperature.

Where does mass come from?

Even if this model is correct we are still left with nothing! After all, energy doesn’t automatically mean mass. You cannot put a light beam on a scale and weight it.[iii] Regardless of how hot the initial creative energy event may have been, all we would have been left with is heat energy that got cooler and cooler, but there is no reason to presume automatically that physical mass would magically occur. Thus, given this scenario there would hardly be a universe, just a brief hot flash of light that would have flickered out long ago. Something had to make mass happen and, as long as perfect symmetry continued, energy would remain energy in spite of Einstein’s famous equation.

While we are all somewhat familiar with the idea of nuclear energy, which can be in the form of fission (atomic bomb) or fusion (hydrogen bomb), these processes convert mass into energy. No one has ever yet accomplished it the other way around, that is, converting pure energy into mass, at least not on earth. Again we go back to the question of how this spike in energy came about out of nothingness and, once this energy anomaly occurred, why did it eventually condense into matter and not simply become cooler energy? The answer may lie in the breaking of perfect symmetry by a field that permeates all of space.

The Higgs theory

In 1964 a theorist named Peter Higgs at Edinburgh University first expounded the idea of a field mechanism that made it possible to convert energy into mass. At first his idea was treated with a great deal of scepticism. His initial paper outlining the symmetry-breaking loophole that allowed energy to become matter was rejected by one of the world’s most distinguished scientific journals. Higgs persisted, refined his ideas and rewrote his paper and it was accepted elsewhere. Physicists now have almost universally accepted the Higgs field as the mechanism that allowed matter to convert at some point into a dense plasma of charged particles. This idea is part and parcel of the “standard model.”

The Higgs field and its associated particle, the Higgs boson, are so fundamental to there being a universe from the physicists point of view that the Higgs’ boson has been called the “God Particle” by one leading high energy physicist[iv], because without it there would be no matter in the universe and hence no us! The search for the associated Higgs boson, which is a particle capable of being found in high-energy accelerators, has been under intense effort by perhaps as many as 5000 scientists at laboratories around the world over the past decade. Finding this particle would confirm the Higgs field (which cannot be directly measured) and would confirm the mechanism of how energy became mass and formed the physical universe. This search has been called the Holy Grail of physics.[v] Isn’t it curious how terms in physics are getting more and more to sound like religion? But that is another story.

There is still a point that eludes physicists and again the issue is one of transference. Where did the Higgs field come from in the first place? Before the postulate of Higgs, we didn’t know how energy could condense into mass. But before we pat ourselves on the back too hard, let us realize that our ignorance still remains; it has just been transferred to the meaning of the existence of the Higgs field.

Science remains puzzled

The Higgs idea may be able to tell us how mass came about, but there still remains the question of why the energy spike, burst, explosion, or “big bang”if you’d prefer, in the first place? Where did all that energy come from?

It is important to realize that the matter and vacuum of the universe really exist together and both were created at the same time. We don’t really know what the nature of anything was before time t = 0, i.e. before the beginning. It is a mistaken idea to think that the vacuum of free space (which is not really an absolute vacuum, anyway) is what fills everything to infinity. The vacuum is no more eternal and infinite than matter. Matter and vacuum are expanding together in the cosmos as we observe it. We have no idea what it is expanding into and while some scientists think possibly other universes, nevertheless so far that idea appears beyond proof. To me, at least, multiple universes seem like just another concept raised that hopes to do away with the uniqueness of our universe and steps backward to the pagan idea of the eternal nature of matter!

Is it really possible for enormous energy singularities to erupt and form a universe(s)? If that is possible where did this energy come from in the first place and how was it confined before it erupted? Such an enormous amount of energy confined to such a small region of space could not have been stable for very long at all and no known physics can be invoked to understand the mechanism, let alone explain why this singularity occurred.

Some scientists consider that the answer may reside in quantum mechanics and this is something that we will reserve for discussion in a later chapter; it will suffice to say here that if that is the pathway to an answer the end of the road has not yet been found. While the quantum view envisages virtual energy as underlying the apparent vacuum of space, nevertheless the energies of such virtual states are miniscule compared to the energy of the universe.

The idea of energy seething, somehow hidden from the observable fabric of the universe, randomly erupting to form new universes is daunting to say the least. If such a random statistical view holds merit, then we could wake up some morning to find another universe exploding and expanding in our back yard (of course, if such a thing happened we wouldn’t be waking up)! From the point of view of the Bible I know this is not going to happen so why worry about it. Further, from what we know about the observable cosmos, which appears to be stable for billions of years, it is extremely unlikely that any other energy spike can occur, because if they were the usual course of things, we would have observed another one by now!

Physics is essentially left without a first cause no matter how you add it up. Somehow the universe all started from a first cause, which the Bible calls the word of the Lord and which scientists presumably call “an initial event.” When the present universe was created, the laws of physics had to be created concurrently. God is assuredly the creator of the laws of physics and in a very real sense the first physicist. This in itself presents several interesting enigmas that will to be considered in due course.

By John C. Bilello, Ann Arbor, Michigan

Footnotes:

[i] Strong’s Concordance makes it clear that the switch in tense in the English Translation is a correct interpretation of the original Hebrew.

[ii] The wording of Genesis also does not preclude a different beginning time for the universe as distinct from the earth. Christadelphians had no problem with this idea from the very foundations of our community; see Elpis Israel, by John Thomas, 14th edition, pub. The Christadelphian, Birmingham, UK, (1990), pg. 10.

[iii] For those who know quantum mechanics you will realize that light (or any other form of electromagnetic energy) does have momentum as expressed in the de Broglie relation, but momentum is the product of mass times velocity, but the mass cannot be independently determined for light energy.

[iv] Leon Lederman in his book (with Dick Tere) called, “The God Particle: If the Universe is the Answer What is the Question”, Houghton Mifflin, (1993).

[v] Anjan Ahuja, London Times, Monday, June 25th , 2001, section 2, pg. 10.

Loading

Evidence of God

02 In The Beginning

/in /by

Harmony of Bible and Science Presented in a Series of Articles

02 In The Beginning

Bible and Science – In the Beginning

In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth (Gen. 1:1).

In the BeginningLet us begin at the beginning.

It seems like a sensible place to start, but it is not immediately obvious that there had to be a beginning to the universe. Both from a Biblical, and from a scientific, standpoint the very simple and definitive statement, which constitutes the very first words of our Judeo-Christian Bible, present a tremendous challenge.

Created, not eternal

It would have been much simpler indeed, and a lot less aggravation would have been caused, if the Bible had started with the statement: “The heavens and earth are eternal, they have always existed.” After all, the Bible states that God is eternal, and is from everlasting to everlasting, which I guess amounts pretty much to the same thing.[i] In this case a lot of problems would automatically have been solved. It makes good sense that an everlasting God and an eternal universe would go hand in hand.

The Bible doesn’t state things this way, however, and leaves us pondering the question: What happened before the “beginning”? This becomes even more troubling if, as a literalist, you believe the entire universe was created only six thousand years ago.[ii] This view greatly limits the creative sphere in which the Lord God has performed his workmanship.

The scientist is not let off the hook either, for an eternal universe would also have solved a whole host of scientific problems. According to the model pictured by classical physics, an eternal, everlasting static universe would have been just fine, but these ideas were overturned by the astronomer Hubble in 1929, and still later unambiguously verified by observations made in the mid-1960’s on the universal microwave background.[iii]

The fact that the Bible declares explicitly that there was a beginning to our present order of things is undoubtedly both shocking and marvelous. The opening words of Genesis challenge us from the very beginning to have faith in the Word of God even if things are not so obvious as we would prefer. To put these concepts in perspective, first let us examine what a physical “beginning” to the universe implies to the scientist.

Newton and a static universe

To understand why classical physics suggested an eternal, static universe we first must make a brief detour into the Newtonian concept of gravity. Everyone has some familiarity with gravity on an everyday scale, namely, that what goes up must come down! In the 17th century, the young Isaac Newton was supposedly sitting under a tree when an apple fell and hit him on the noggin, which induced him to conceive of the key physical idea of gravitational attraction. It is interesting to note that it was also a piece of fruit (tradition ironically says an “apple”) noted in Genesis that plays a key role in introducing sin into the world. Whether this is coincidental or not is impossible to tell, but I have always been struck that these two most important concepts, one in physics and the other in theology, have such analogous stories of their origins.

As for gravity, Newton, working no doubt on observations from Galileo that he had read about, postulated a mathematical form for expressing this attraction between objects. All masses in the universe are mutually attracted to all other masses. This has profound implications and leads, for example, to the notion that in the absence of any other force, the moon would come tumbling down into the earth and we would all long ago have been pulverized into moon dust! What prevents this from happening is the orbital centripetal force created by the motion of the moon as it revolves around the earth. The position of the moon in space at any given time is a delicate balance between the centrifugal force of its orbital motion, which seeks to hurl it out into space, and the attraction to the earth due to gravitational pull which stabilizes its position.

The big crunch

We can visualize a simple picture of how the classical Newtonian model of gravity puts limits on how one conceives the nature of the universe. Let us start out by considering two masses, say two basketball-sized rocks. Their mutual attraction would eventually bring them together. As we add more and more rocks in the same proximity, in the absence of any other external force, they too must agglomerate into one mass. If we now apply this universal gravitational attraction to the cosmos as a whole we can see that if the universe has boundaries, instead of being infinite, there can be, by definition, no mass outside the boundary to compensate for the mutual attraction within the boundary region and eventually all the mass in the universe would collapse into a giant “ball,” sometimes called the big crunch!

The only way out of the “big crunch” was for the universe to be infinite, which, of course, implied static, eternal and unending. In an infinite universe whatever forces that gravity would exert to pull masses (in this case, galaxies) together would always be countered by other masses in all other directions which would stabilize the action and prevent a “big crunch.”

Contrast of Bible and pagan views

The view that the universe was eternal, indeed that all matter is eternal, was very much the pagan concept of the universe. This picture of the universe was believed by the Greeks, Romans and the Babylonians, among many others. Even so, in the world today there are those who believe in the eternity of all matter and the cyclic rebirth of the individual in many different manifestations over eons of time (basically reincarnation of matter as well as spirit). This was the prevailing view in the ancient pagan world. Nevertheless, the Bible takes a totally contrary viewpoint by stipulating a unique creation at a specific time in the past.

From the very beginning, the idea of an eternal, static, infinite universe was realized to cause an entirely unsatisfactory contradiction. This conflict was also realized by Newton, the very creator of the classical physical notion of universal gravitational attraction. This problem has to do with thermodynamics, a science not yet invented at the time of Newton, but one which his genius anticipated by simple physical intuition. Let us examine this contradiction further.

Newton and others recognized a problem

Imagine that you have just set on a table a hot bowl of soup. Every child has someone chide him to hurry up and come in from playing, wash up and eat before their supper got cold! Indeed, if the soup stands on the table long enough without being eaten, it will reach the same temperature as the room. This is called the equilibrium temperature with its surroundings.

Now how does this observation relate to the universe? Newton realized, as we can, that there are some extremely hot bodies out in the universe and some very cold ones, too. The stars, for example are fiery cauldrons of atomic energy and were intuitively recognized as sources of intense heat even by ancient man. We also know that the earth and indeed the other planets are relatively cooler than the sun and stars. The difference in the heat energy of the hot stars and the cool planets is enormous. Newton realized that if the universe was eternal that heat differential was clearly impossible. Just as the hot soup and the cool room eventually must reach the same temperature (the room heats slightly because of the presence of the soup), even so the stars and planets must eventually come to the same thermal equilibrium. Naturally, if the universe was eternal and had existed forever, then there can be no difference in heat energy between the stars and planets.

Newton appreciated this fact, while at the same time his gravitation model predicted the exact opposite conclusion. Clearly, an extraordinary dilemma presented itself which puzzled scientists for several centuries.

In fact, the gravitational view prevailed in most quarters over the thermal equilibrium prediction, perhaps because scientists were so enamored with the classical Greek ideas that they ignored the contradiction. It is also possible that many scientists didn’t like to postulate a “beginning” because then one might have to find an energizing principle that caused that beginning and that was getting too uncomfortably close to believing in a divine creation!

At the turn of the twentieth century, the notion of a static, eternal, infinite universe was so ingrained in scientific thinking that it led to one of the greatest blunders by one of the smartest men that ever lived.[iv]

An expanding universe

Only a few years after Einstein published his general theory of relativity, it was obvious to another physicist that his equations predicted an ever expanding universe which clearly implied a beginning from an initial starting point. Einstein decided that would never do and added to his equations the so-called “cosmological constant” which corresponds to a negative energy that prevented such an expansion and did away with the “initial condition” or “beginning” problem.[v]

As sometimes happens in science, just when everyone thought a definitive problem had been conclusively solved along came new experimental evidence that completely upset the apple cart.

In 1929, Edwin Hubble, using the 100 inch Mount Wilson Observatory in Southern California, published results on the measurement of red-shifts for a number of galaxies as a function of their distance from earth. By measuring the red-shift, he was able to compute the velocity of galaxies and because the shift in the color of the light was toward red and not blue he knew that the galaxies were all receding from earth. The way this works is through a principle called the “doppler shift.”

It can be explained readily in our common human experience by using sound waves instead of light waves as an example. Let us imagine that we are standing on a train platform and, as the train is coming toward us, the engine operator blows the horn. The sound waves coming toward us would be compressed and we hear a higher frequency, i.e. higher pitched sound on the platform, than the train engineer experiences. Likewise, if we stay in the same place on the platform as the train whizzes by and goes completely past us, if the whistle is blown again the wavelength of the sound is now stretched and hence of lower frequency. The same is, of course, true if we stand on a curb and listen to the sound of a siren, as it comes toward us then moves away past us. In the inbound position, the sound is compressed to higher frequencies and in the direction moving away from us the opposite is true.

The situation is the same for light waves. If a light source is coming toward us, it will be shifted to higher frequencies, i.e. a blue shift, but if moving away it is shifted toward the red. All such shifts, of course, are referred to a stationary observer. Therefore, to an observer on earth, the fact that Hubble measured nothing but red-shifts in the incoming light for all the galaxies he was able to photograph had profound implications. More astonishing was his finding, after using various methods of determining the distance of these galaxies from earth, that the further away they were from us the faster they were receding. It was as if the universe had a giant distaste for planet earth! It didn’t take long for scientists to figure out a model for what must be happening.

The balloon model

Suppose one takes a balloon and glues numerous buttons over its surface; let each button represent a galactic cluster of stars. Now slowly blow up the balloon. Next shrink yourself small enough to sit on one of the buttons (please do this in your imagination only)! If we were sitting on one of the buttons and looked out at all the other buttons, we would see that, as the balloon got bigger and bigger, every button that we could observe, in every direction, would appear to be moving away from us. In fact, an observer on any other button would experience the same sensation. Observers on any particular button would think that every button in the balloon universe was moving away from their particular button island.

The inescapable conclusion of the observations of Hubble was that the universe was not static, but was expanding. Furthermore, more recent and more exacting detailed measurements confirm quite remarkably these early observations that Hubble made on a telescopic instrument that seems very primitive today. Since it is well-known that matter cannot move faster than the velocity of light, it was possible to put an upper limit on the red-shift and get both an idea of the distance limits of the universe and also estimate how long it took for the universe to get to its present size. We will have more to say on this in a later article on the “Big Bang,” but for now it will suffice to say that the results found by Hubble had, in fact, been predicted earlier by the general theory of relativity in its initial version without the cosmological constant correction that Einstein made to force a static universe. That is why Einstein called this his biggest blunder; it remains to be seen whether or not some future result on “dark matter and energy” may yet prove that the cosmological constant has some sort of physical reality.

The point that is overwhelmingly accepted by scientists today is that all the theories and observations of twentieth century cosmological physics indicate beyond the shadow of a doubt that the universe had a “beginning.”

The pagan idea of the eternal nature of matter was the next thing to fall, for it will turn out that matter is not fundamental at all, but rather the universe was created out of “nothing.” But that is another story reserved for a future article.

By John C. Bilello, Ann Arbor, Michigan

Footnotes

[i] 1 Timothy 1:17 Now to the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only God, be honor and glory for ever and ever. Amen. (NIV) and also Isaiah 40:28 Do you not know? Have you not heard? The LORD is the everlasting God, the Creator of the ends of the earth. He will not grow tired or weary, and his
understanding no one can fathom. (NIV)

There are many other parallel references to prove this same point.

[ii] Bishop Ussher, in the 19th Century, using chronology taken from the stated life spans in the Genesis genealogy concluded that the universe was created in 4004 B.C. More on this later.

[iii] In 1929, Edwin Hubble, an astronomer working at the Mount Wilson Observatory in Southern California, discovered that all the galaxies in the universe appeared to be moving away from the earth and the further away they were from us the faster their speed of recession. The conclusion was that the universe could not be static but was undergoing dynamic expansion. (See e.g. G. E. Christianson, Edward Hubble: Mariner of the Nebulae, (1995) )

In 1965, two physicists at Bell Laboratories in New Jersey studying antenna noise discovered that the entire universe appeared to be bathed in a radiation afterglow of a singular event of vast energy taking place in the far distant past. This event has come to be known in popular terms as the “Big Bang”. We will have more to say about this in a later chapter. See: A. Penzias and G. Wilson, A Measurement of Excess Antenna Temperature at 4080Mc/s, ApJ, 142, 419, (1965).

[iv] The idea of a “greatest blunder” is taken from Albert Einstein’s own words.

[v] Ironically, recent interest in the cosmological constant has been revived as a means for perhaps dealing with the problems of “dark” matter and energy which apparently fills the universe.

Next: God in Creation Part 2 – LIFE ON EARTH

Loading