https://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=9&article=679
Creation—Will It Stand the "Test of Science"?
INTRODUCTION
There are two fundamentally different, and diametrically opposed,
explanations for the origin of the Universe, the origin of life in that
Universe, and the origin of new types of varying life forms. Each of
these explanations is a cosmogony—an entire world view, or philosophy,
of origins and destinies, of life and meaning. According to the theory
of evolution, or as it may more properly be called, the
evolution model,
the Universe is self-contained. Everything in our Universe has come
into being through mechanistic processes without any kind of
supernatural intervention. This view asserts that the origin and
development of the Universe and all of its complex systems (the Universe
itself, living non-human organisms, man, etc.) can be explained solely
on the basis of time, chance, and continuing natural processes, innate
in the very structure of matter and energy. The famous Harvard
zoologist, P.D. Darlington, made this very point in his book,
Evolution for Naturalists:
“The outstanding evolutionary mystery now is how matter has originated
and evolved, why it has taken its present form in the universe and on
the earth, and why it is capable of forming itself into complex living
sets of molecules. This capability
is inherent in matter as we know it, in its organization and energy”
(1980, p. 15, emp. added). More than 200 pages later, and after having
spent considerable time and effort examining the alleged evidences for
evolution, Darlington commented:
It is a fundamental evolutionary generalization that no external agent
imposes life on matter. Matter takes the forms it does because it has the inherent capacity to do so.
This is one of the most remarkable and mysterious facts about our
universe: that matter exists that has the capacity to form itself into
the most complex patterns of life (p. 234, emp. added).
The second alternative and opposing world view is the concept of
creation. According to the theory of creation, or as it may more properly be called, the
creation model, the Universe is
not
self-contained. Everything in the Universe, and in fact, the Universe
itself, came into being through the design, purpose, and deliberate acts
of a supernatural Creator Who, using processes that are not continuing
as natural processes in the present, created the Universe, the Earth,
and all life on that Earth, including all basic types of plants and
animals, as well as humans. As both evolutionists (see Wald, 1972, p.
187) and creationists (see Wysong, 1976, p. 5) have correctly pointed
out, there are two and only two possibilities regarding origins. One or
the other of these two philosophies (or models) must be true. That is to
say, all things either can, or cannot, be explained in terms of a
self-contained Universe by ongoing natural processes. If they can, then
evolution is true. If they cannot, then they must be explained, at least
in part, by extranatural processes that can account for a Universe
which itself was created. Even evolutionists acknowledge this point.
Richard Dawkins of Oxford University (a devout evolutionist) has noted:
“The more statistically improbable a thing is, the less we can believe
that it just happened by blind chance. Superficially the obvious
alternative to chance is an intelligent Designer” (1982, 94:130).
Dawkins then explained why he believes no Designer exists—all the while
admitting the inherent complexity of living systems and the tremendous
improbability of evolution!
THE PLAUSIBILITY OF THE CREATION MODEL:
THE PRINCIPLES OF CAUSALITY AND UNIFORMITY
The
function of the Universe has to do with regular laws or
principles of science that are experimentally reproducible and that
therefore can be studied and observed (either directly or indirectly).
This we call
operation science. On the other hand, an
understanding of the Universe includes some singular events, such as
origins. Unlike the recurrent operation of the Universe, origins cannot
be repeated for experimental testing. In the customary language of
science, theories of origins (
origin science) cannot be falsified
by empirical test (if they are false) as can theories of operation
science. How, then, can origins be investigated? Simply put, the best we
can ever hope to achieve, scientifically speaking, is to render any
idea regarding origins either
plausible or
implausible. By the very nature of the case, true falsification is not possible.
How, then, does one determine whether an origin science scenario is plausible? Very simply, the principles of
causality and
uniformity are used. By
cause we mean the
necessary and
sufficient condition that alone can explain the occurrence of a given event. By
principle of uniformity
we mean that the kinds of causes which we observe producing certain
effects today can be counted on to have produced similar effects in the
past. In other words, what we see as an adequate cause in the present,
we assume to have been an adequate cause in the past; what we see as an
inadequate cause in the present, we assume to have been an
inadequate
cause in the past. Evolutionists have relied heavily on the principles
of causality and uniformity in attempts to work out evolutionary
scenarios of the alleged past. Thaxton, Bradley, and Olsen have
addressed these points.
Consider, for example, the matter of accounting for the informational molecule, DNA.
We have observational evidence in the present that intelligent
investigators can (and do) build contrivances to channel energy down
nonrandom chemical pathways to bring about some complex chemical
synthesis, even gene building. May not the principle of uniformity then
be used in a broader frame of consideration to suggest that DNA
had an intelligent cause at the beginning? Usually the answer given is
no. But theoretically, at least, it would seem the answer should be yes
in order to avoid the charge that the deck is stacked in favor of
naturalism.
We know that in numerous cases certain effects always have intelligent
causes, such as dictionaries, sculptures, machines and paintings. We
reason by analogy that similar effects have intelligent causes. For
example, after looking up to see “
BUY FORD”
spelled out in smoke across the sky we infer the presence of a skywriter
even if we heard or saw no airplane. We would similarly conclude the
presence of intelligent activity were we to come upon an elephant-shaped
topiary in a cedar forest.
In like manner an intelligible communication via radio signal from some
distant galaxy would be widely hailed as evidence of an intelligent
source. Why then doesn’t the message sequence on the
DNA molecule also constitute
prima facie evidence for an intelligent source? After all,
DNA information is not just analogous to a message sequence such as Morse code, it is such a message sequence....
We believe that if this question is considered, it will be seen that
most often it is answered in the negative simply because it is thought
to be inappropriate to bring a Creator into science (1984, pp. 211-212,
emp. in orig.).
Use of the principles of uniformity and causality enhance the creation
model, for these are cherished concepts of scientific thinking. Albert
Einstein once said that scientists are “possessed by the sense of
universal causation.” Causality confirms that every material effect has
an adequate antecedent cause. The basic question, then, is this: Can the
origin of the Universe, the origin of life, and the origin of new life
forms best be accounted for on the basis of nonintelligent, random,
chance, accidental processes? Are these
adequate causes? Or, are
these phenomena best accounted for on the basis of a Creator (i.e., an
adequate cause) capable of producing the complex, ordered,
information-relating processes we see around us? Which of these two is
more plausible?
Both evolution and creation may be referred to properly as scientific
models, since both may be used to explain and predict scientific facts.
Obviously the one that does the better job of explaining/predicting is
the better scientific model. However, by the very nature of how science
works, simply because one model fits the facts better does not prove it
true. Rather, the model that better fits the available scientific data
is said to be the one that has the highest degree of probability of
being true. Knowledgeable scientists understand this, of course, and
readily accept it, recognizing the limitations of the scientific method
(due to its heavy dependence upon inductive, rather than strictly
deductive, reasoning).
In order to examine properly the two models, they must be defined in
broad, general terms, and then each must be compared to the available
data in order to examine its effectiveness in explaining and predicting
various scientific facts. What, then, by way of summary, do the two
different models predict and/or include? The
evolution model
includes the evidence from various fields of science for a gradual
emergence of present life kinds over eons of time, with emergence of
complex and diversified kinds of life from “simpler” kinds, and
ultimately from nonliving matter. The
creation model includes the
evidence from various fields of science for a sudden creation of
complex and diversified kinds of life, with gaps persisting between
different kinds, and with genetic variation occurring within each kind.
The creation model denies “vertical” evolution (also called
“macroevolution”?the emergence of complex from simple, and change
between kinds), but does not challenge “horizontal” evolution (also
called “microevolution”?the formation of species or subspecies within
created kinds, or genetic variation). In defining the concepts of
creation and evolution, an examination of several different aspects of
each of the models demonstrates the dichotomy between the two. Placed
into chart form, such a comparison would then appear as seen in Table 1.
| Creation |
Evolution |
| The creation model includes the scientific evidence and the related inferences suggesting that: |
The evolution model includes the scientific evidence and the related inferences suggesting that: |
| I. The Universe and the solar system were created suddenly. |
I. The Universe and the solar system emerged by naturalistic processes. |
| II. Life was created suddenly. |
II. Life emerged from nonlife via naturalistic processes. |
| III. All present living kinds of animals and plants have remained
fixed since creation, other than extinctions, and genetic variation in
originally created kinds has occurred only within narrow limits. |
III. All present kinds emerged from simpler earlier kinds, so that
single celled organisms evolved into invertebrates, then vertebrates,
then amphibians, then reptiles, then mammals, then primates (including
man). |
| IV. Mutation and natural selection are insufficient to have brought
about any emergence of present living kinds from a simple primordial
organism. |
IV. Mutation and natural selection have brought about the emergence
of present complex kinds from a simple primordial organism. |
| V. Man and apes have a separate ancestry. |
V. Man and apes emerged from a common ancestor. |
| VI. The Earth's geologic features appear to have been fashioned
largely by rapid, catastrophic processes that affected the Earth on a
global and regional scale (catastrophism). |
VI. The Earth's geologic lectures were fashioned largely by slow,
gradual processes, with infrequent catastrophic events restricted to a
local scale (uniformitarianism). |
| VII. The inception of both the Earth and living kinds may have been relatively recent. |
VII. The inception of both the Earth and of life must have occurred several billion years ago. |
| Table 1. The two models of origins (after Gish, et al., 1981) |
REVIEWING THE OPTIONS
Throughout human history, one of the most effective arguments for the
existence of God has been the cosmological argument, which addresses the
fact that the Universe (Cosmos) is here and therefore must be explained
in some fashion. In his book,
Not A Chance, R.C. Sproul observed:
Traditional philosophy argued for the existence of God on the
foundation of the law of causality. The cosmological argument went from
the presence of a cosmos back to a creator of the cosmos. It sought a
rational answer to the question, “Why is there something rather than nothing?” It sought a sufficient reason for a real world (1994, p. 169, emp. in orig.).
The Universe exists and is real. Atheists and agnostics not only
acknowledge its existence, but admit that it is a grand effect (e.g.,
see Jastrow, 1977, pp. 19-21). If an entity cannot account for its own
being (i.e., it is not sufficient to have caused itself), then it is
said to be “contingent” because it is dependent upon something outside
of itself to explain its existence. The Universe is a contingent entity
since it is inadequate to cause, or explain, its own existence. Sproul
has noted: “Logic requires that if something exists contingently, it
must have a cause. That is merely to say, if it is an effect it must
have an antecedent cause” (1994, p. 172). Thus, since the Universe is a
contingent effect, the obvious question becomes, “What
caused the Universe?”
It is here that the Law of Cause and Effect (also known as the Law of
Causality) is tied firmly to the cosmological argument. Scientists, and
philosophers of science, recognize laws as “reflecting actual
regularities in nature” (Hull, 1974, p. 3). So far as scientific
knowledge can attest, laws know no exceptions. This certainly is true of
the Law of Cause and Effect. It is, indisputably, the most universal,
and most certain, of all scientific laws. Simply put, the Law of
Causality states that every material effect must have an adequate
antecedent cause. Just as the Law of the Excluded Middle is true
analytically, so the Law of Cause and Effect is true analytically as
well. Sproul addressed this when he wrote:
The statement “Every effect has an antecedent cause” is analytically true.
To say that it is analytically or formally true is to say that it is
true by definition or analysis. There is nothing in the predicate that
is not already contained by resistless logic in the subject. It is like
the statement, “A bachelor is an unmarried man” or “A triangle has three
sides” or “Two plus two are four....” Cause and effect, though distinct
ideas, are inseparably bound together in rational discourse. It is
meaningless to say that something is a cause if it yields no effect. It is likewise meaningless to say that something is an effect if it has no cause.
A cause, by definition, must have an effect, or it is not a cause. An
effect, by definition, must have a cause, or it is not an effect (1994,
pp. 172,171 emp. in orig.).
Effects without adequate causes are unknown. Further, causes never
occur subsequent to the effect. It is meaningless to speak of a cause
following an effect, or an effect preceding a cause. In addition, the
effect never is qualitatively superior to, or quantitatively greater
than, the cause. This knowledge is responsible for our formulation of
the Law of Causality in these words: Every material effect must have an
adequate
antecedent cause. The river did not turn muddy because the frog jumped
in; the book did not fall from the table because the fly lighted on it.
These are not adequate causes. For whatever effects we observe, we must
postulate adequate antecedent causes—which brings us back to the
original question: What
caused the Universe?
There are but three possible answers to this question: (1) the Universe
is eternal; it always has existed and always will exist; (2) the
Universe is not eternal; rather, it created itself out of nothing; (3)
the Universe is not eternal, and did not create itself out of nothing;
rather, it was created by something (or Someone) anterior, and superior,
to itself. These three options merit serious consideration.
Is the Universe Eternal?
The most comfortable position for the person who does not believe in
God is the idea that the Universe is eternal, because it avoids the
problem of a beginning or ending and thus the need for any “first cause”
such as God. In fact, it was to avoid just such a problem that
evolutionists Thomas Gold, Hermann Bondi, and Sir Fred Hoyle developed
the Steady State Theory. Information had come to light that indicated
the Universe was expanding. Dr. Hoyle suggested that the best way to try
to explain both an expanding and eternal Universe was to suggest that
at points in space called “irtrons” hydrogen was coming into existence
from nothing.
As hydrogen atoms arrived, they had to “go” somewhere, and as they did,
they displaced matter already in existence, causing the Universe to
expand. Hoyle suggested that the atoms of gaseous hydrogen gradually
condensed into clouds of virgin matter, that within these clouds new
stars and galaxies formed, etc.
In his book,
Until the Sun Dies, astronomer Robert Jastrow noted
that “the proposal for the creation of matter out of nothing possesses a
strong appeal to the scientist, since it permits him to contemplate a
Universe without beginning and without end” (1977, p. 32). Even after
evidence began to appear that showed the Steady State theory to be
incorrect, Jastrow suggested that “some astronomers still favored it
because the notion of a world with a beginning and an end made them feel
so uncomfortable” (1977, p. 33). Dr. Jastrow went on to say:
The Universe is the totality of all matter, animate and inanimate,
throughout space and time. If there was a beginning, what came before?
If there is an end, what will come after? On both scientific and
philosophical grounds, the concept of an eternal Universe seems more
acceptable than the concept of a transient Universe that springs into
being suddenly, and then fades slowly into darkness.
Astronomers try not to be influenced by philosophical considerations.
However, the idea of a Universe that has both a beginning and an end is
distasteful to the scientific mind. In a desperate effort to avoid it,
some astronomers have searched for another interpretation of the
measurements that indicate the retreating motion of the galaxies, an
interpretation that would not require the Universe to expand. If the
evidence for the expanding Universe could be explained away, the need
for a moment of creation would be eliminated, and the concept of time
without end would return to science. But these attempts have not
succeeded, and most astronomers have come to the conclusion that they
live in an exploding world (1977, p. 31).
What does Jastrow mean when he says that “these attempts have not
succeeded”? In a comment that was an obvious reference to the fact that
Hoyle’s “creation of hydrogen out of nothing in irtrons” violates the
First Law of Thermodynamics, Jastrow noted:
But the creation of matter out of nothing would violate a cherished
concept in science—the principle of the conservation of matter and
energy—which states that matter and energy can be neither created nor
destroyed. Matter can be converted into energy, and vice versa, but the
total amount of all matter and energy in the Universe must remain
unchanged forever. It is difficult to accept a theory that violates such
a firmly established scientific fact (1977, p. 32).
In his book,
God and the Astronomers, Dr. Jastrow explained why
attempts to prove an eternal Universe failed. “Now three lines of
evidence—the motions of the galaxies, the laws of thermodynamics, and
the life story of the stars—pointed to one conclusion; all indicated
that the Universe had a beginning” (1978, p. 111). Jastrow—who is
considered by many to be one of the greatest science writers of our
time—certainly is no creationist. But as a scientist who is an
astrophysicist, he has written often on the inescapable conclusion that
the Universe had a beginning. Consider, for example, these statements
from his pen:
Now both theory and observation pointed to an expanding Universe and a
beginning in time.... About thirty years ago science solved the mystery
of the birth and death of stars, and acquired new evidence that the
Universe had a beginning (1978, pp. 47,105).
And concurrently there was a great deal of discussion about the fact
that the second law of thermodynamics, applied to the Cosmos, indicates
the Universe is running down like a clock. If it is running down, there
must have been a time when it was fully wound up. Arthur Eddington, the
most distinguished British astronomer of his day, wrote, “If our views
are right, somewhere between the beginning of time and the present day
we must place the winding up of the universe.” When that occurred, and
Who or what wound up the Universe, were questions that bemused
theologians, physicists and astronomers, particularly in the 1920’s and
1930’s (1978, pp. 48-49).
Most remarkable of all is the fact that in science, as in the Bible,
the World begins with an act of creation. That view has not always been
held by scientists. Only as a result of the most recent discoveries can
we say with a fair degree of confidence that the world has not existed
forever; that it began abruptly, without apparent cause, in a blinding
event that defies scientific explanation (1977, p. 19).
The conclusion to be drawn from the scientific data was inescapable, as Dr. Jastrow himself remarked:
The lingering decline predicted by astronomers for the end of the
world differs from the explosive conditions they have calculated for its
birth, but the impact is the same: modern science denies an eternal existence to the Universe, either in the past or in the future (1977, p. 30, emp. added).
The evidence states that the Universe had a beginning. The Second Law
of Thermodynamics, as Jastrow has indicated, shows this to be true.
Henry Morris correctly commented: “The Second Law requires the universe
to have had a beginning” (1974b, p. 26). Indeed, it does. The Universe
is not eternal.
Did the Universe Create Itself Out of Nothing?
In the past, it would have been practically impossible to find any
reputable scientist who would be willing to advocate a self-created
Universe. George Davis, a prominent physicist of the past generation,
explained why when he wrote: “No material thing can create itself.”
Further, Dr. Davis affirmed that this statement “cannot be logically
attacked on the basis of any knowledge available to us” (1958, p. 71).
The Universe is the created, not the creator. And until very recently,
it seemed there could be no disagreement about that fact.
However, so strong is the evidence that the Universe had a beginning,
and therefore a cause anterior and superior to itself, some
evolutionists are suggesting, in order to avoid the implications, that
something came from nothing—that is,
the Universe literally created itself from nothing! Anthony Kenny, a British evolutionist, suggested in his book,
The Five Ways: St. Thomas Aquinas’ Proofs of God’s Existence,
that something actually came from nothing (1980). Edward P. Tryon,
professor of physics at the City University of New York, agreed when he
wrote: “In 1973, I proposed that our Universe had been created
spontaneously from nothing, as a result of established principles of
physics. This proposal variously struck people as preposterous,
enchanting, or both” (1984, 101:14). This is the same Edward P. Tryon
who is on record as stating that “Our universe is simply one of those
things which happen from time to time” (as quoted in Trefil, 1984,
92[6]:100).
In the May 1984 issue of
Scientific American, evolutionists Alan Guth and Paul Steinhardt authored an article on “The Inflationary Universe” in which they suggested:
From a historical point of view probably the most revolutionary aspect
of the inflationary model is the notion that all the matter and energy
in the observable universe may have emerged from almost nothing.... The
inflationary model of the universe provides a possible mechanism by
which the observed universe could have evolved from an infinitesimal
region. It is then tempting to go one step further and speculate that the entire universe evolved from literally nothing (1984, 250:128, emp. added).
Therefore, even though principles of physics that “cannot be logically
attacked on the basis of any knowledge available to us” preclude the
creation of something out of nothing, suddenly, in a last-ditch effort
to avoid the implications of the Universe having a cause, it is being
suggested that indeed, the Universe simply “created itself out of
nothing.”
Naturally, such a proposal would seem—to use Dr. Tryon’s
words—“preposterous.” Be that as it may, some in the evolutionary camp
have been willing to defend it. One such scientist is Victor J. Stenger,
professor of physics at the University of Hawaii. In 1987, Dr. Stenger
authored an article titled, “Was the Universe Created?,” in which he
said:
...the universe is probably the result of a random quantum fluctuation
in a spaceless, timeless void.... So what had to happen to start the
universe was the formation of an empty bubble of highly curved
space-time. How did this bubble form? What caused it? Not
everything requires a cause. It could have just happened spontaneously
as one of the many linear combinations of universes that has the quantum
numbers of the void.... Much is still in the speculative stage, and I must admit that there are yet no empirical or observational tests that can be used to test the idea of an accidental origin (1987, 7[3]:26-30, first emp. in orig., second emp. added).
Such a concept, however, has met with serious opposition from within
the scientific establishment. For example, in the summer 1994 edition of
the
Skeptical Inquirer, Ralph Estling wrote a stinging rebuke of
the idea that the Universe created itself out of nothing. In his
article, curiously titled “The Scalp-Tinglin’, Mind-Blowin’,
Eye-Poppin’, Heart-Wrenchin’, Stomach-Churnin’, Foot-Stumpin’, Great Big
Doodley Science Show!!!,” Estling wrote:
The problem emerges in science when scientists leave the realm of
science and enter that of philosophy and metaphysics, too often
grandiose names for mere personal opinion, untrammeled by empirical
evidence or logical analysis, and wearing the mask of deep wisdom.
And so they conjure us an entire Cosmos, or myriads of cosmoses,
suddenly, inexplicably, causelessly leaping into being out of—out of
Nothing Whatsoever, for no reason at all, and thereafter expanding
faster than light into more Nothing Whatsoever. And so cosmologists have
given us Creation ex nihilo.... And at the instant of this
Creation, they inform us, almost parenthetically, the universe possessed
the interesting attributes of Infinite Temperature, Infinite Density,
and Infinitesimal Volume, a rather gripping state of affairs, as well as
something of a sudden and dramatic change from Nothing Whatsoever. They
then intone equations and other ritual mathematical formulae and look
upon it and pronounce it good.
I do not think that what these cosmologists, these quantum theorists,
these universe-makers, are doing is science. I can’t help feeling that
universes are notoriously disinclined to spring into being, ready-made,
out of nothing. Even if Edward Tryon (ah, a name at last!) has written
that “our universe is simply one of those things which happen from time
to time.” ...Perhaps, although we have the word of many famous
scientists for it, our universe is not simply one of those things that happen from time to time (1994, 18[4]:430, emp. added, parenthetical comment in orig.).
Estling’s statements set off a wave of controversy, as was evident from subsequent letters to the
Skeptical Inquirer.
In the January/February 1995 edition of that journal, numerous letters
were published, discussing Estling’s article. Estling’s response to his
critics was published as well, and included the following observations:
All things begin with speculation, science not excluded. But if no
empirical evidence is eventually forthcoming, or can be forthcoming, all
speculation is barren.... There is no evidence, so far, that the
entire universe, observable and unobservable, emerged from a state of
absolute Nothingness. Quantum cosmologists insist both on this absolute
Nothingness and on endowing it with various qualities and
characteristics: this particular Nothingness possesses virtual quanta
seething in a false vacuum. Quanta, virtual or actual, false or true,
are not Nothing, they are definitely Something, although we may argue
over what exactly. For one thing, quanta are entities having energy, a
vacuum has energy and moreover, extension, i.e., it is something into
which other things, such as universes, can be put, i.e., we cannot have
our absolute Nothingness and eat it too. If we have quanta and a vacuum
as given, we in fact have a pre-existent state of existence that either
pre-existed timelessly or brought itself into existence from absolute
Nothingness (no quanta, no vacuum, no pre-existing initial conditions)
at some precise moment in time; it creates this time, along with the
space, matter, and energy, which we call the universe.... I’ve had
correspondence with Paul Davies [a British astronomer who has championed
the idea that the Universe created itself from nothing—BT]
on cosmological theory, in the course of which I asked him what he
meant by “Nothing.” He wrote back that he had asked Alexander Vilenkin
what he meant by it and that Vilenkin had replied, “By Nothing I mean
Nothing,” which seemed pretty straightforward at the time, but these
quantum cosmologists go on from there to tell us what their particular
breed of Nothing consists of. I pointed this out to Davies, who replied
that these things are very complicated. I’m willing to admit the truth
of that statement, but I think it does not solve the problem (1995, 19[1]:69-70, emp. added).
This is an interesting turn of events. Evolutionists like Tryon,
Stenger, Guth, and Steinhardt insist that this marvelously intricate
Universe is “simply one of those things which happen from time to time”
as the result of a “random quantum fluctuation in a spaceless, timeless
void” that caused matter to evolve from “literally nothing.” This
suggestion, of course, is in clear violation of the First Law of
Thermodynamics, which states that neither matter nor energy may be
created or destroyed in nature. Further, science is based on
observation, reproducibility, and empirical data. But when pressed for
the empirical data that document the claim that the Universe created
itself from nothing, evolutionists are forced to admit, as Dr. Stenger
did, that “there are yet no empirical or observational tests that can be
used to test the idea....” Estling summarized the problem quite well
when he stated: “There is no evidence, so far, that the entire universe,
observable and unobservable, emerged from a state of absolute
Nothingness.”
Ultimately, the Guth/Steinhardt inflationary model was shown to be
incorrect, and a newer version was suggested. Working independently,
Russian physicist Andrei Linde, and American physicists Andreas Albrecht
and Paul Steinhardt, developed the “new inflationary model” (see
Hawking, 1988, pp. 131-132). However, this model also was shown to be
incorrect and was discarded. Renowned British astrophysicist Stephen W.
Hawking put the matter in proper perspective when he wrote:
The new inflationary model was a good attempt to explain why the universe is the way it is.... In my personal opinion, the new inflationary model is now dead as a scientific theory,
although a lot of people do not seem to have heard of its demise and
are still writing papers on it as if it were viable (1988, p. 132, emp.
added).
Later, Linde himself suggested numerous modifications and is credited
with producing what now is known as the “chaotic inflationary model”
(see Hawking, 1988, pp. 132ff.). Dr. Hawking performed additional work
on this particular model. But in an interview on June 8, 1994 dealing
specifically with inflationary models, Alan Guth conceded:
First of all, I will say that at the purely technical level, inflation
itself does not explain how the universe arose from nothing....
Inflation itself takes a very small universe and produces from it a very
big universe. But inflation by itself does not explain where that very
small universe came from (as quoted in Heeren, 1995, p. 148).
Science is based on observation and reproducibility. But when pressed
for the reproducible, empirical data that document their claim of a
self-created Universe, scientists and philosophers are at a loss to
produce those data. Perhaps this is why Alan Guth lamented: “In the end,
I must admit that questions of plausibility are not logically
determinable and depend somewhat on intuition” (1988, 11[2]:76)—which is
little more than a fancy way of saying, “I certainly
wish this were true, but I could not
prove
it to you if my life depended on it.” To suggest that the Universe
created itself is to posit a self-contradictory position. Sproul
addressed this when he wrote that what an atheist or agnostic
...deems possible for the world to do—come into being without a
cause—is something no judicious philosopher would grant that even God
could do. It is as formally and rationally impossible for God to come
into being without a cause as it is for the world to do so.... For
something to bring itself into being it must have the power of being
within itself. It must at least have enough causal power to cause its
own being. If it derives its being from some other source, then it
clearly would not be either self-existent or self-created. It would be,
plainly and simply, an effect. Of course, the problem is complicated by
the other necessity we’ve labored so painstakingly to establish: It
would have to have the causal power of being before it was. It would
have to have the power of being before it had any being with which to
exercise that power (1994, pp. 179,180).
The Universe did not create itself. Such an idea is absurd, both philosophically and scientifically.
Was the Universe Created?
Either the Universe had a beginning, or it did not. But all available
evidence indicates that the Universe did, in fact, have a beginning. If
the Universe had a beginning, it either had a cause or it did not. One
thing we know assuredly, however: it is correct—logically and
scientifically—to acknowledge that the Universe had a cause, because the
Universe is an effect and requires an adequate antecedent cause. Henry
Morris was correct when he suggested that the Law of Cause and Effect is
“universally accepted and followed in every field of science” (1974b,
p. 19). The cause/effect principle states that wherever there is a
material effect, there must be an adequate antecedent cause. Further
indicated, however, is the fact that no effect can be qualitatively
superior to, or quantitatively greater than, its cause.
Since it is apparent that the Universe it not eternal, and since
likewise it is apparent that the Universe could not have created itself,
the only remaining alternative is that the Universe
was created
by something, or Someone, that: (a) existed before it, i.e., some
eternal, uncaused First Cause; (b) is superior to it—since the created
cannot be superior to the creator; and (c) is of a different nature,
since the finite, contingent Universe of matter is unable to explain
itself (see Jackson and Carroll, n.d., 2:98-154). As Hoyle and
Wickramasinghe have observed: “To be consistent logically, we have to
say that the intelligence which assembled the enzymes did not itself
contain them” (1981, p. 139).
In connection with this, another fact should be considered. If there ever had been a time when absolutely
nothing existed, then there would be nothing now. It is a self-evident truth that nothing produces nothing. In view of this,
since something does exist, it must follow logically that something has existed forever! As Sproul observed:
Indeed, reason demands that if something exists, either the world or God (or anything else), then something
must be self-existent.... There must be a self-existent being of some
sort somewhere, or nothing would or could exist (1994, pp. 179,185 emp.
in orig.).
Everything that humans know to exist can be classified as either
matter or
mind. There is no third alternative. The argument then, is this:
1. Everything that exists is either matter or mind.
2. Something exists now, so something eternal exists.
3. Therefore, either matter or mind is eternal.
A. Either matter or mind is eternal.
B. Matter is not eternal, per the evidence cited above.
C. Thus, it is mind that is eternal.
Or, to reason somewhat differently:
1. Everything that is, is either dependent (i.e., contingent) or independent (non-contingent).
2. If the Universe is not eternal, it is dependent (contingent).
3. The Universe is not eternal.
4. Therefore, the Universe is dependent (contingent).
A. If the Universe is dependent, it must have been caused by something that is independent.
B. But the Universe is dependent (contingent).
C. Therefore, the Universe was produced by some eternal, independent (non-contingent) force.
In the past, atheistic evolutionists suggested that the mind is nothing
more than a function of the brain, which is matter; thus the mind and
the brain are the same, and matter is all that exists. As the late
evolutionist of Cornell University, Carl Sagan, said in the opening
sentence of his television extravaganza (and book by the same name),
Cosmos,
“The Cosmos is all that is or ever was or ever will be” (1980, p. 4).
However, that viewpoint no longer is credible scientifically, due in
large part to the experiments of Australian physiologist Sir John
Eccles. Dr. Eccles, who won the Nobel Prize for his discoveries relating
to the neural synapses within the brain, documented that the mind is
more than merely physical. He showed that the supplementary motor area
of the brain may be fired by mere
intention to do something,
without the motor cortex (which controls muscle movements) operating. In
effect, the mind is to the brain what a librarian is to a library. The
former is not reducible to the latter. Eccles explained his methodology
and conclusions in
The Self and Its Brain, co-authored with the renowned philosopher of science, Sir Karl Popper (see Popper and Eccles, 1977).
In an article—“scientists in Search of the Soul”—that examined the
groundbreaking work of Dr. Eccles (and other scientists like him who
have been studying the mind/brain relationship), science writer John
Gliedman wrote:
At age 79, Sir John Eccles is not going “gentle into the night.” Still
trim and vigorous, the great physiologist has declared war on the past
300 years of scientific speculation about man’s nature.
Winner of the 1963 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine for his
pioneering research on the synapse—the point at which nerve cells
communicate with the brain—Eccles strongly defends the ancient religious
belief that human beings consist of a mysterious compound of physical
and intangible spirit.
Each of us embodies a nonmaterial thinking and perceiving self that
“entered” our physical brain sometime during embryological development
or very early childhood, says the man who helped lay the cornerstones of
modern neurophysiology. This “ghost in the machine” is responsible for
everything that makes us distinctly human: conscious self-awareness,
free will, personal identity, creativity and even emotions such as love,
fear, and hate. Our nonmaterial self controls its “liaison brain” the
way a driver steers a car or a programmer directs a computer. Man’s
ghostly spiritual presence, says Eccles, exerts just the whisper of a
physical influence on the computerlike brain, enough to encourage some
neurons to fire and others to remain silent. Boldly advancing what for
most scientists is the greatest heresy of all, Eccles also asserts that
our nonmaterial self survives the death of the physical brain (1982, p.
77).
While discussing the same type of conclusions reached by Dr. Eccles,
philosopher Norman Geisler explored the concept of an eternal,
all-knowing Mind.
Further, this infinite cause of all that is must be all-knowing. It
must be knowing because knowing beings exist. I am a knowing being, and I
know it. I cannot meaningfully deny that I can know without engaging in
an act of knowledge.... But a cause can communicate to its effect only
what it has to communicate. If the effect actually possesses some
characteristic, then this characteristic is properly attributed to its
cause. The cause cannot give what it does not have to give. If my mind
or ability to know is received, then there must be Mind or Knower who
gave it to me. The intellectual does not arise from the nonintellectual;
something cannot arise from nothing. The cause of knowing, however, is
infinite. Therefore it must know infinitely. It is also simple, eternal,
and unchanging. Hence, whatever it knows—and it knows anything it is
possible to know—it must know simply, eternally, and in an unchanging
way (1976, p. 247).
From such evidence, Robert Jastrow concluded: “That there are what I or
anyone would call supernatural forces at work is now, I think, a
scientifically proven fact...” (1982, p. 18). Apparently Dr. Jastrow is
not alone. As Gliedman put it:
Eccles is not the only world-famous scientist taking a controversial
new look at the ancient mind-body conundrum. From Berkeley to Paris and
from London to Princeton, prominent scientists from fields as diverse as
neurophysiology and quantum physics are coming out of the closet and
admitting they believe in the possibility, at least, of such
unscientific entities as the immortal human spirit and divine creation
(1982, p. 77).
In an article titled “Modern Biology and the Turn to Belief in God” that he wrote for the book,
The Intellectuals Speak Out About God (for which former United States President Ronald Reagan wrote the preface), Dr. Eccles concluded:
Science and religion are very much alike. Both are imaginative and
creative aspects of the human mind. The appearance of a conflict is a
result of ignorance. We come to exist through a divine act. That divine
guidance is a theme throughout our life; at our death the brain goes,
but that divine guidance and love continues. Each of us is a unique,
conscious being, a divine creation. It is the religious view. It is the
only view consistent with all the evidence (1984, p. 50, emp. added).
CONCLUSION
Scientifically, the choice is between matter only and more than matter
as the fundamental explanation for the existence and orderliness of the
Universe. The difference, therefore, between the evolution model and the
creation model is the difference between: (a) time, chance, and the
inherent properties of matter; or (b) design, creation, and the
irreducible properties of organization. In fact, when it comes to any
particular case, there are again only two scientific explanations for
the origin of the order that characterizes the Universe and life in the
Universe: either the order was imposed on matter, or it resides within
matter. However, if it is suggested that the order resides within
matter, we respond by saying that we certainly have not seen the
evidence of such. The creation model not only is plausible, but also is
the only one that postulates an adequate cause for the Universe and life
in that Universe. The evolution model cannot, and does not. The
evidence speaks clearly to the existence of a non-contingent, eternal,
self-existent Mind that created this Universe and everything within it.
REFERENCES
Darlington, P.D. (1980),
Evolution for Naturalists (New York: John Wiley & Sons).
Davis, George F. (1958),
The Evidence of God in an Expanding Universe, ed. John Monsma (New York: G.P. Putnam’s Sons).
Dawkins, Richard (1982), “The Necessity of Darwinism,”
New Scientist, 94:130-132, April 15.
Eccles, John (1984), “Modern Biology and the Turn to Belief in God,”
The Intellectuals Speak Out About God, ed. R.A. Varghese (Chicago, IL: Regnery Gateway).
Estling, Ralph (1994), “The Scalp-Tinglin’, Mind-Blowin’, Eye-Poppin’,
Heart-Wrenchin’, Stomach-Churnin’, Foot-Stumpin’, Great Big Doodley
Science Show!!!,”
Skeptical Inquirer, 18[4]:428-430, Summer.
Estling, Ralph (1995), “Letter to the Editor,”
Skeptical Inquirer, 19[1]:69-70, January/February.
Geisler, Norman L. (1976),
Christian Apologetics (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker).
Gish, Duane T., Richard B. Bliss, and Wendell R. Bird (1981),
Summary of Scientific Evidence for Creation [Part I], Impact #95 (El Cajon, CA: Institute for Creation Research).
Gliedman, John (1982), “Scientists in Search of the Soul,”
Science Digest, 90[7]:77-79,105, July.
Guth, Alan (1988), Interview in
Omni, 11[2]:75-76,78-79,94,96-99, November.
Guth, Alan and Paul Steinhardt (1984), “The Inflationary Universe,”
Scientific American, 250:116-128, May.
Hawking, Stephen W. (1988),
A Brief History of Time (New York: Bantam).
Heeren, Fred (1995),
Show Me God (Wheeling, IL: Searchlight Publications).
Hoyle, Fred and Chandra Wickramasinghe (1981),
Evolution from Space (London: J.M. Dent & Sons).
Hull, David (1974),
Philosophy of Biological Science (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall).
Jackson, Wayne and Tom Carroll (no date), “The Jackson-Carroll Debate on Atheism and Ethics,”
Thrust, ed. Jerry Moffitt, 2:98-154.
Jastrow, Robert (1977),
Until the Sun Dies (New York: W.W. Norton).
Jastrow, Robert (1978),
God and the Astronomers (New York: W.W. Norton).
Jastrow, Robert (1982), “A Scientist Caught Between Two Faiths,” interview with Bill Durbin in
Christianity Today, August 6.
Kenny, Anthony (1980),
The Five Ways: St. Thomas Aquinas’ Proofs of God’s Existence (South Bend, IN: University of Notre Dame Press).
Morris, Henry M. (1974),
Scientific Creationism (San Diego, CA: Creation-Life Publishers).
Popper, Karl R. and John C. Eccles (1977),
The Self and Its Brain (New York: Springer International).
Sagan, Carl (1980),
Cosmos (New York: Random House).
Sproul, R.C. (1994),
Not A Chance (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker).
Stenger, Victor J. (1987), “Was the Universe Created?,”
Free Inquiry, 7[3]:26-30, Summer.
Thaxton, Charles B., Walter L. Bradley, and Roger L. Olsen (1984),
The Mystery of Life’s Origin (New York: Philosophical Library).
Tryon, Edward P. (1984), “What Made the World?,”
New Scientist, 101:14-16, March 8.
Wald, George (1972), in
Frontiers of Modern Biology (New York: Houghton-Mifflin).
Wysong, R.L. (1976),
The Creation-Evolution Controversy (East Lansing, MI: Inquiry Press).
