Author Archive
The Case For A Creator Part IV: Cosmology
Written by Lance Ponder
Friday, 30 May 2008 02:58
18 Comments

Today most cosmologists believe the universe had a beginning in the Big Bang. However, a beginning for the universe strongly suggests an intelligent causal agent to wind things up, as it were. Since the majority of cosmologists are committed to naturalism, they have been forced to search for a cosmological silver bullet: an explanation for how the universe could spring into existence uncaused.

The oscillating universe theory is one such silver bullet. It tries to get around the question of how the universe began by suggesting the universe oscillates. But if this is true, what caused the oscillations to begin? Another theory, recently put forward, was of multiple overlapping universes existing simultaneously. For this to be true there would have to be some sort of “universe factory” to crank out universes. Ignoring the obvious requirement for a higher intelligence to design such an unlikely universe factory, these same scientists keep grasping for some sort of naturalistic explanation where there is none.

Deist or Theist?

Suppose you were a devoted atheist until you sat down and pondered all this. Then, after researching the particulars on your own, with an open mind, you came to the same conclusion I’ve presented here: There must be a God. The next logical query would be whether this God is personal or impersonal. A deist is a person who believes God is an impersonal distant intelligence who does not interact with His creation. A theist is a person who believes God is personally involved with and cares deeply about His creation, even having personal relationships with individuals. If you are wondering which kind of God to believe in, perhaps you should continue to examine the evidence to determine which is more likely, and therefore more believable.

The Kalam principle suggests a personal Creator. If a man were to walk into a kitchen and find a pot of water boiling, he might ask his wife why the water is boiling. His wife could explain it in terms of kinetic energy or she could say she was making him tea. The former explanation is impersonal (scientific only) while the latter is personal. Since there is no scientific (impersonal) explanation for creation, the reason must be personal. Moreover, if God is indeed personally involved with His creation, it seems logical to seek Him if we are to seek our origin and thus our destiny.

What are the odds of a livable planet?

The odds of life being possible anywhere in the universe is astronomically low. To have the correct combination of gravity, atmosphere, temperature, water, minerals, radiation and radiation shielding, solar characteristics, lunar characteristics, and so forth requires a lengthy list of measured constants to be in perfect alignment. Suppose there were only ten such diverse variables. Suppose each variable had only ten possible values. Life requires each of the ten dials to be set correctly. If any one dial is off, even by a value of 1, life cannot exist. That means the odds of a particular solar system having a habitable planet is one in 10 billion. Most stars do not have the energy range, light range, size, or stability of our sun. Most planets we’ve been able to observe orbiting distant stars are not the perfect distance from their star and not of appropriate mass or composition. Most stars are not of the right composition. Near the center of the Milky Way there is tremendous violent radiation making life anywhere near the nucleus highly unlikely. Of the few planets discovered around other stars, they have been found to have radically oblong orbits compared with the orbits of most of our planets. Earth is in the right part of the galaxy. It is orbiting a star of the correct size and composition, at the right distance and speed, with the right solar and lunar gravitational forces, the right magnetic force, the right ozone, the right outer radiation belt, the right amount of hydrogen and helium in the atmosphere, the right amount of oxygen, the right amount of water, the right temperature range, and in general, all the right chemistry to support life. Given these factors, the odds of getting a habitable planet elsewhere in the universe are considerably lower than one in ten billion, yet here we are.

Nuclear chemistry, the Big Bang and Creation cosmology

Nuclear chemistry doesn’t support Big Bang cosmology. Rather it points to a created cosmology. Here’s why.

First, according to the Big Bang theory, large clouds of swirling dust in space spun out into solar systems. Initially all the dust which a solar system is made from is essentially uniformly randomly scattered bits of the same stuff. But if this theory is correct, why is the sun almost entirely hydrogen while the planets are all made of almost entirely heavier elements? Centrifugal force throwing heavy elements out does not account for the observed phenomena.

Second, fusion of light elements gives off energy. This is why the fusion reactions in our sun emit so much energy. Fusion of any elements even slightly heavier, of helium or lithium for example, produces a small fraction of the energy compared to hydrogen fusion. It takes more energy to fuse two elements into a new element (as heavy or heavier than iron) than the fusion reaction gives off. Elements significantly heavier than iron give off more energy than they absorb when they undergo a fission reaction, the nuclear process of breaking a heavy element down into two or more smaller elements with a net release of energy.

Third, all matter is made up of atoms (or parts of atoms). If the sun is made of light elements and the planets are made of heavy elements, there must have been some sort of sorting process. Centrifugal force can’t account for it for at least two reasons: First, the lighter elements should have been thrown to the outside with gravitational forces drawing the heaviest elements to the center. However, in the case of the sun and planets, the opposite is observed, and second, when a spinning mass ejects parts, those parts spin out in the same direction. Two planets spin backward, several moons spin backward, and one planet spins almost completely sideways. The planets all spin at different rates and different angles, in both directions, yet all orbit the sun at the perfect speed given their mass and distance.

Finally, consider the quantum process of fusion itself occurring continuously in our sun. According to Einstein’s special theory of relativity, mass and energy can be equated using a constant value. In the fusion process, energy is given off because the net mass is reduced by the fusion reaction. In other words, a helium atom with two protons is lighter than the sum of two hydrogen atoms. It is logical that in a given sample, the new mass would be less than the original mass, and the density would be higher. The combined effect would be to reduce the total volume required to hold the sample. In a sample the size of the sun, the same logic implies the sun should be shrinking. Of course the laws of physics are a little more complicated, but the basic logic does apply to hydrogen and helium.

Although there’s been a great amount of debate in the astrophysics community, numerous studies since the 1960s, including a recent study measuring gravity waves in the sun, indicates the sun is shrinking at a rate of up to 4.5 km per year. The average data suggests a likely real shrink rate closer to about 2 km per year. If we trace these laws backward in time 1 million years, adding the “shrink rate” back to the sun’s mass for each year of regress, the sun’s surface should be 1 million km closer to earth, which, of course would make life impossible given the time frame assumed by cosmologists for that period in earth’s history. This is significant, because even if the burn rate of the sun isn’t constant, (or if you assume the size reduction is related to the helium/hydrogen ratio, further assuming the sun began as 100% hydrogen), at a billion years old, the earth would have either started out inside the sun or would have continually drawn closer to the sun with time. All this assumes a purely naturalistic cosmology, which doesn’t account for the observed data.

The Case for a Creator: Part I Popular Evidence for Evolution

The Case for a Creator: Part II Homologous Embryos

The Case for a Creator: Part III Causality and Cosmology

Editor's Note: Lance Ponder A.K.A. FKI Professor is the author of Ask James One, and  a frequent MTW contributor.

 

 
The Case for a Creator: Part III
Written by Lance Ponder
Thursday, 27 March 2008 02:33
No Comments

Was the universe caused?

The Kalam Principle states that whatever begins to exist has a cause: The universe began to exist, thus the universe has a cause. The principle was first put forward around 400 AD by John Philoponus of Alexandria. Once you reach the logical conclusion the universe was caused, then the philosophic question, "Why?" cannot be avoided.

Does a beginning require a cause?

In the current age of scientific enlightenment when the very foundation of science itself is based on studying cause-effect relationships, it should be obvious that for something to begin to exist, it must have a cause. In the case of the existence of the universe however, scientists who accept the idea that the universe is expanding must also accept that the universe had a beginning. To avoid this conclusion, some scientists have instead suggested that something can come from nothing.

The “Big Bang Theory” attempts to resolve this by suggesting the universe can do, and did do, just that – it spontaneously popped into existence “ex nihilo,” as it were. To summarize, the universe exploded from a state where everything was previously stuffed into a tiny spot, perhaps no bigger than the period of a sentence. The Big Bang, however, does not explain why the universe exists. Nor do observations of the universe support the Big Bang as the origin of “stuff.” Nor can a thinking person truly conceive of something coming from nothing by any natural means.

Some scientists have put forward the idea of “quantum uncertainties” as the cause of matter’s existence. It has been shown that in a vacuum, sub-atomic matter/anti-matter pairs can spontaneously appear, though they tend to exist only briefly, and very rarely with any greater complexity than a quark or lepton pair. Furthermore, the “vacuum” in which they spontaneously appear is not truly an empty void of nothingness, rather it is a sea of turbulent, if generally low level, energy devoid of matter.

If, however, a person holds to the idea that the universe is static (not expanding and potentially infinite), the question of effect requiring a cause is not a problem. So, with either model, the premise that the beginning of the existence of anything requires a cause cannot reasonably be denied.

Did the universe have a beginning?

Whether the universe is consistent with a static or expanding model, it cannot have an infinite past, thus it must have had a beginning. This proposition holds both mathematically and philosophically.

To demonstrate this mathematically, imagine you had an infinite supply of marbles. If you gave away all your marbles to a friend, they would have infinite marbles and you’d have none. The sum would then be infinity plus zero. If instead you gave your friend every other marble, you’d both have an infinite amount of marbles. That yields the net sum of infinity + infinity. As another alternative, if you kept only three marbles, the new sum would be 3 + infinity.

Mathematically speaking, infinity is only a concept. It cannot exist in the physical universe. Substitute past events for marbles and the absurdity of the infinite model becomes obvious. In the real universe, you cannot add one to infinity because it is already infinite, thus you cannot add a new sun, moon, planet, galaxy, or even atoms.

Einstein’s theory of special relativity requires the universe to be non-static. If this is true, then it had to have come from somewhere, by some means, as a result of some prime cause. Even if the universe really is static, transfinite mathematics require a beginning for the cosmos.

Even the noted cosmologist Stephen Hawking has admitted that his best mathematical models can only create a parabolic past rather than one without a singularity at its core. To get there, he had to use “imaginary” numbers (numbers which include the square root of -1) in coming up with his parabolic time model. In other words, the hocus-pocus of high math could only blur the distinction of beginning from a “singularity” point to a curve. Regardless of its shape, a beginning is still a beginning.

Another theory which tries to skirt the issue of causation is that of the oscillating universe. If this is true, what caused the oscillations to begin? A theory was recently put forward suggesting multiple simultaneously existing universes which overlap. For this to be true, there would have to be some sort of “universe factory” cranking them out. Ignoring the obvious requirement for a higher intelligence to design such an unlikely universe factory, these same scientists keep grasping for some sort of natural explanation where there is none.

In spite of the theories of various scholars, the universe may actually be consistent with the static model. To begin with, there are a number of profound arguments against an expanding universe which cannot be dismissed out of hand. Additionally, the biblical text does not prohibit an expanding universe, nor does it require an expanding universe. However, scripture does not require nor prohibit a static universe, although many Bible scholars would find it easier to support a static model with scripture. If the universe is static at this time, and it very well may be relatively static, this does not get around the requirement for a beginning using the transfinite mathematics discussed earlier. With regard to God, it seems absurd that an ultimate being would endure an infinite past to get humanity to its current state.

If the universe began and it had a cause, is God that cause?

God is eternal. Thus He is without beginning and therefore the only logical prime cause for the existence of the universe. God started time and created all matter. Then He gave it order, and finally, He created life. Thus far, scientists positing a natural cause for the universe have been utterly unable to account for that cause. The only answer when the natural concept fails is a supernatural one. If science cannot show us our origin, perhaps the revelation of God’s word is the only logical answer after all.

The Case for a Creator: Part I Popular Evidence for Evolution

The Case for a Creator: Part II Homologous Embryos

 
The Case for a Creator: Part II
Written by Lance Ponder
Wednesday, 19 March 2008 16:12
3 Comments

Editor’s Note: Lance Ponder continues his series summarizing Lee Strobel’s book, The Case for a Creator.

Refuting homologous embryos from different species

First Problem: In the 1860’s Ernst Haeckel’s studied the embryos of various species in the animal kingdom. After observing these embryos, Haeckel rendered drawings, which depicted embryos of a fish, a salamander, a tortoise, a chicken, a hog, a calf, a rabbit, and a human as remarkably similar at three different stages of development. The similarities are promoted as supporting evidence of Darwin’s tree of life sketches and the idea of common ancestry. However, Haeckel’s drawings were proven false. The actual photographs of these embryos do not match Haeckel’s drawings. His drawings were deliberately doctored to misrepresent the appearance of the embryos, so they would fit Darwin’s evolutionary synthesis. Yet, evolutionists persist in using Haeckel’s sketches as proof of the validity of the Darwinian synthesis.

Second Problem: The embryo selections were “cherry picked” to give the closest appearance of similarity. There are several classes of vertebrates, yet Haeckel only used examples from a few that came closer to providing the desired result. He then multiplied those similarities by “editing” the pictures.

Third Problem: Haeckel claimed the images were from the earliest stages of embryonic development. That was also untrue. His drawings were loosely based on mid-term development when the cells have begun to develop and grow, after the first several rounds of cell reproduction and before they begin to take on a truly unique appearance. During this period there is greater similarity than either early cell division or the later obvious development of body structure. For example, cell division at the first stages of development in mammals is radically different from other vertebrate classes.

Forth Problem: In 1996 Life published pictures of a human embryo at a stage which made it look as if the embryo had something resembling gills. Many modern biology books promote similar ideas about the appearance of the human embryo. Of course the folds of skin at a certain stage when the embryo is still doubled over itself may look a bit like gills, but it is a very normal stage of embryonic development. Most of us have folds in our adult skin, but no one suggests those folds could be used for breathing under water.

Fifth Problem: Our knowledge of genetics today was completely unknown in the mid-19th century. Darwin couldn’t peer inside a cell as we can today. Had he known about the thousands of amino acids used to construct genetic material inside a living cell he might very well have come to a different conclusion. Cells are too complex to be explained by random organization into hundreds of tiny organic machines, each with dozens to hundreds of molecular components.

Summary: In spite of all this, many modern text books still use Haeckel’s drawings as proof of evolution. Evolutionists who are aware of these problems still claim that while the details contain errors, the concept is still true. Most text books used in high schools and college biology classes still support Haeckel’s concept if not the artwork itself. Any similarities between kinds of creatures can be argued to come from similarity of design just as easily of similarity of evolutionary development. Where evolution fails, the common elements of design seem to be the only logical explanation left.

Refuting the so-called missing links?

Darwin said the most obvious objection to his theory was that the fossil record failed to support it. This was attributed to glaring systematic gaps in the fossil record. But two years after Darwin’s book was published a fossil dubbed “archaeopteryx” was unearthed from a German quarry. Because of some of its unusual features including a tail which resembles a lizard and unusual claws, it was at first thought this animal was half-bird and half-reptile. Birds have a number of very distinct characteristics from reptiles including wings, feathers, wishbone, weight distribution, and so forth. Archaeopteryx might have some interesting and beautiful features, but as a specimen, it is entirely avian. Using index fossil dating, this particular bird is supposed to have lived later than its alleged progeny, not before. Studies have since proven this animal is a member of a now extinct group of birds.

Archaeoraptor was presented in 1999 as part bird and part dinosaur. It was touted as clear evidence of a missing link. Later, it was proven to be a fake. A Chinese paleontologist showed a dinosaur tail had literally been glued onto the fossil of a now extinct bird. Unfortunately a lot of fake fossils are presented as new finds because they are very profitable. China is a particularly big source of fake fossils. In Florida a fossil was dubbed “bambiraptor.” It was a chicken sized dinosaur with what was purported to be turkey DNA. A reconstruction used certain bird elements, such as eagle eyes, to make it appear more birdlike. The DNA evidence, it turns out, was actually contamination from a technician’s lunch.

Another iconic “missing link” was Java Man. Discovered in Indonesia in 1891/92 by Dutch scientist Eugene Dubois, Java consisted of a skull fragment found among some bones by a river bank. Many people believe Java Man to have included a complete skull, smaller than modern man’s, thereby “proving” earlier man had lower intelligence. Java Man actually included only a skull cap along with a few teeth and a femur. Analysis of the skull cap shows that while the bones were from a relatively small human, the brain capacity was well within modern norms.

A better find for evolutionists was Peking Man who was discovered in China early in the 20th century. But we’ll probably never know for sure what Peking Man’s orientation was because his remains disappeared not long after they were discovered.

Based on these and other specimens in different regions, taxonomists have attempted to classify the skeletal remains into the following three groupings: Neanderthal, homo erectus, and homo sapien. Modern humans are classified homo sapien. The group homo erectus is supposedly an erect man-like group. Neanderthal has an even more pronounced brow and slightly different head shape. There are a few dozen samples of these various skulls and other bones.

The homo erectus and Neanderthal are supposed to have died out about 340 million years ago. Finds and dating methods employed in the last two decades have shown at least some of these samples to be much more recent.

Another problem for evolutionists is that these samples have all yielded brain sizes well within the normal range of modern humans. Other bones from these skeletal remains have shown little if any other differences from modern man. The “speciation” of homo erectus and especially Neanderthal compared to homo sapien have been wildly exaggerated in artistic renderings to promote the concept of Darwin’s tree. Examination of physical evidence shows the differences between these species are superficial. Were the scientific community to promote the photographs, the public would be far more skeptical of evolutionist claims. Today, more than a few scientists believe these are all variations within the family of homo sapiens and thus are not unique classes at all.