googlef87758e9b6df9bec.html A Sure Word: 10 Evidences For Biblical Creation

Friday, January 22, 2016

10 Evidences For Biblical Creation

You've heard me say many times that evidence is neutral and not really for any theory. Instead, theories are simply our attempts to explain why the evidence is the way it is. Still, some theories seem to explain the evidence better than other theories. If I found a suspect's bloody fingerprints on a murder weapon, I would immediately think he was there at the time of the crime; the defense might claim someone framed the suspect by painting his fingerprints onto the weapon with blood. Both theories could explain why the fingerprints are there but one is more likely than the other so I might say the bloody fingerprint is evidence for his guilt.

Critics love to say there is no evidence for creation. The truth is that creation has exactly the same evidence as evolution. We try to explain things like the fossils, for example, according to creation and secular scientists attempt to explain the same fossils with their theory. There is a dispute between both sides about which is the better explanation but the fossils themselves don't say which theory is correct.

Now, even though evidence isn't truly for any theory, I feel some things are better explained by creation than evolution. I know I keep saying I'm going to stop writing series. Actually, I should just stop saying that instead of thinking I'll ever stop writing series. Anyway, over the next few posts, I'm going to list 10 observations that I feel are best explained by young earth creation. I was going to call it “The Top 10 Evidences for Biblical Creation” but I really couldn't decide if these are the best 10. Actually, there are so many evidences that I thought about making a top 20 list but I didn't want this series to run that long. I'm just saying that to say there are other items that could have made this list but I'm only listing 10.

In this post, I thought I'd start with some ontological arguments. Here goes.

# 10: The existence of matter/energy: The first law of thermodynamics says that matter or energy can neither be created nor destroyed, they can only change form. You can convert matter into energy (as per Einstein's E=mc2) but the net amount of matter/energy in the universe remains constant.

This creates a quandary for secular science: if neither matter nor energy are being created, where did all the matter in the universe come from in the first place? Like Kent Hovind used to ask, “Who bought the gas that runs this machine?” Matter either has to be eternal (which merely ascribes to matter a divine-like quality which is hardly scientific) or it had to be created.

Logically speaking, something cannot create itself. But then again, many evolutionists are strangers to logic. In his book, The Grand Design, Stephen Hawking said, Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing. I've always wondered how such a bright guy could make such a nonsensical statement. How could there even be a law such as gravity if nothing existed? Physical laws, such as gravity, are very likely properties of matter. At the very least, physical laws describe how matter behaves. In any event, if nothing exists, then neither do physical laws exist.

Secular science really has no explanations for the origin of matter, energy, or the physical laws that govern them. They merely acknowledge these came into existence in a creation event they call the Big Bang. They are believers in poofism. Nature-did-it is the god of the gaps argument of evolutionists.

Note carefully that I'm not saying that since we don't know how it happened then it must be God. The Bible has told us that God created all matter (John 1:3). What we observe empirically is consistent with what the Bible says. It is not consistent with secular science that says matter/energy cannot be created naturally. If matter/energy cannot be created naturally, the only other possibility is that it is created supernaturally.

# 9: The existence of life: The theory of evolution proposes that all life on earth has descended from a common ancestor yet scientists excuse themselves from saying where the first life form came from.  In Darwin's time, a cell was believed to be a gelatinous blob that could just fall together from an accidental arrangement of chemicals. It was called, “spontaneous generation.” Through scientific experimentation, all supposed examples of spontaneous generation were shown to be false. The idea was finally totally rejected and replaced by the Law of Biogenesis which states that life only comes from life.

Secular scientists still cling to a rehashed version of spontaneous generation, only now they call it “abiogenesis.” Besides being completely contrary to the scientific law of biogenesis, science hasn't been able to produce a single example of life coming from non-living chemicals.

A famous “origin of life” experiment was done by two scientists named Miller and Ulrey. They set up a contraption that produced various amino acids “naturally.” It's hard to credibly say a designed system producing amino acids does so “naturally.” Additionally, amino acids have been found in other places, like on meteors. Since amino acids are the building blocks of DNA, and because we sometimes find amino acids in nature, scientists believe these could be arranged serendipitously to create life.

Life isn't about substance; it's about arrangement. Believing amino acids could fortuitously organize into a living cell is like finding rocks and believing they could be accidentally arranged to create the pyramids. The more complicated the arrangement, the less likely it is the result of happenstance – the abundance of materials notwithstanding.

By the way, if life could not have even started, then the entire rest of the theory of evolution would be moot.  I'm just saying...

God creating life is not only consistent with the law of biogenesis, it has also been observed as recorded in the resurrection accounts found in the gospels.  A Creator is, by far, the more reasonable and scientific explanation of the origin of life.


Read this entire series

6 comments:

Steven J. said...

You can convert matter into energy (as per Einstein's E=mc2) but the net amount of matter/energy in the universe remains constant.

Under some interpretations of inflationary Big Bang theory, the net amount of matter/energy in the universe is zero. The massive inflation of space in the early universe created (so it is theorized) immense amounts of negative energy (as in, less than zero energy), which required the appearance of an exactly equal amount of positive energy. The total amount of energy (zero) hasn't changed since the beginning of the Big Bang. Note that per E=mc^2, energy can also be converted into matter.

Please remember, when you lecture scientists about what is an is not scientific, that they probably know better than you do what qualifies. Some very strange ideas are backed up by details of quantum and relativistic physics.

Matter either has to be eternal (which merely ascribes to matter a divine-like quality which is hardly scientific) or it had to be created.

If having "divine-like qualities" is "hardly scientific," how can there be scientific evidence for biblical creation, which posits a Cause Who has nothing but "divine-like qualities? I don't think that merely lasting sempiternally qualifies something as inherently divine; I do know that medieval theologians had no problem with ascribing the ability to last forever to some aspects of the physical, created universe.

The main problem with eternal matter is not a problem with matter (protons, neutrons, electrons, etc.) but with complex arrangements of them: the accumulation of entropy over time. There are cyclic models of the universe (e.g. the ekpyrotic model) that dispense with cosmic inflation and posit recurrent big bangs followed by big crunches -- the latter squeeze out the accumulated entropy of one cycle and set the stage for another. Inflationary Big Bang theory, as noted, offers an explanation for matter that comes into existence rather than always existing.

In any event, if nothing exists, then neither do physical laws exist.

The word "nothing" has a range of meanings (as do most common English words): the teenager who states that "there's nothing in the refrigerator" is not asserting that the interior of the fridge has become a vacuum devoid even of air and shelves. Even the "nothing" of the vacuum of space is, as you note, "something" -- it contains quantum fluctuations and physical properties. I agree that Hawking's phrasing is sensationalistic and imprecise, but still, in a world where you can look at a box full of air (and probably airborne bacteria, microscopic dust, etc.) and say it contains "nothing," it is not a violation of standard rules of English to speak of a universe without atoms and radiation (much less stars and planets) giving rise to a universe that has such things as "a universe from nothing."

The Bible has told us that God created all matter (John 1:3).

Actually, it doesn't. John 1:3 states that God through His Word created every created thing. While this phrasing is probably a preemptive strike against those (like the Arians and Jehovah's Witnesses) who would make the Word Himself a created thing, it clearly does not rule out the possibility of uncreated matter. Many scholars interpret Genesis 1 to speak of God, not creating the "without form and void" matter, but simply as shaping the Earth and sky from this substance that was co-eternal with Him.

What we observe empirically is consistent with what the Bible says.

Well, in the sense that stuff exists just as the biblical writers noticed, yes. But the Bible's statements do not of themselves demonstrate that a God with the ability to create matter exists. In that respect, you are at least no better off than inflationary Big Bang and cyclic Big Bang proponents, and perhaps worse off.

Steven J. said...

By the way, if life could not have even started, then the entire rest of the theory of evolution would be moot.

Strictly speaking, the theory of evolution no more depends on any particular theory of cosmology than it depends on any particular theory of abiogenesis. In principle, we could live in a "steady-state" universe that is eternal and unchanging on a large enough scale (individuals worlds and stars would die, but the infinite universe would continue forever) with life as an eternally-existing feature of that universe. I think Fred Hoyle in fact suggested something like this.

Or, conversely, since you assume that God can create life, He could have created the first life and let evolution continue on from that point (Darwin suggested something like this, though his sincerity on this point has been questioned; several of his contemporaries, though, like Asa Gray, appeared quite sincere in advocating this idea).

Besides being completely contrary to the scientific law of biogenesis, science hasn't been able to produce a single example of life coming from non-living chemicals.

Scientific laws are generalizations from observations. It is not particularly rare in science to suggest that such a generalization is over-broad (i.e. may not apply in every case) or mistaken (something other law that gives similar results in most circumstances is in effect instead). The law of biogenesis is not some statute that prohibits, e.g. the spontaneous formation of self-replicating molecules and chemical reactions or their organization into living cells; it simply notes that we don't routinely see that happen in the world as we observe it now (where, e.g. bacteria that already exist would make snacks of simple self-replcating systems as fast as they appear).

It is true that no chemical process yet investigated is able to produce self-replication molecules and processes from scrap. Experiments at the university of Manchester in the UK have shown that the components of RNA form spontaneously from repeated wetting and drying of common, spontaneously-formed chemical compounds, but actual functioning RNA strands have not been so produced. On the other hand, experiments at the Scripps Research Institute with self-replicating RNA strands, able to copy themselves without the aid of other large molecules, have been assembled and studied. The gaps in our understanding of how life could emerge from non-living molecule seem to me to be shrinking.

God creating life is not only consistent with the law of biogenesis, it has also been observed as recorded in the resurrection accounts found in the gospels.

Why is it consistent? "God is spirit" (e.g. not material); the law of biogenesis says that living things come from other material entities as much as it says that these are living material entities. God, as an eternal nonphysical Entity with no physical needs and no metabolism, is living in a metaphorical sense rather than the literal sense implied by the law of biogenesis. At most, you've argued that God is an exception to the law of biogenesis. And the world is replete with stories of divine beings raising the dead, but these are not generally regarded as peer-reviewed reports. And conversely, one might suppose that a God able to raise the dead would also be able to endow nonliving matter with the ability to engender life though its own natural processes.

RKBentley said...

Steven J,

I don't have time to address all of your points. I'm busy working on the next post. Just a few points I want to highlight.

You said, “Please remember, when you lecture scientists about what is an is not scientific, that they probably know better than you do what qualifies.”

Oh, yeah? Says who? Is there some immutable definition of “science” that has been handed down from God? It's rather hilarious that scientists claim that science only seeks natural explanations for any phenomenon. Such an idea cannot meet its own standard. Where is the scientific evidence that every phenomenon must have a natural explanation? This fundamental tenet of science is more of a philosophical view than a scientific one. I'm more interested in learning what is true rather than what is natural. If God created the universe supernaturally, then that is what is true regardless of whether it meets some secular definition of “science.”

You said, “If having "divine-like qualities" is "hardly scientific," how can there be scientific evidence for biblical creation, which posits a Cause Who has nothing but "divine-like qualities?”

This goes back to what I was just saying about science. Your side claims to seek only natural explanations but continuously invokes miracles – all the while claiming to be science. Exactly is how the universe creating itself out of nothing substantially different than a miracle like Jesus raising Himself from the dead? How is believing that matter is eternal more “scientific” than believing in an eternal Creator?

You said, “the Bible's statements do not of themselves demonstrate that a God with the ability to create matter exists. In that respect, you are at least no better off than inflationary Big Bang and cyclic Big Bang proponents, and perhaps worse off.”

You believe in the universe poofed itself into existence without a cause or purpose. I believe the universe was brought into existence by the will of an eternal, all-powerful God. Which is the better explanation? I believe you are objectively worse off.

Thank you for your comments. I look forward to your comments on my future posts in this series. God bless!!

RKBentley

Steven J. said...

Where is the scientific evidence that every phenomenon must have a natural explanation?

That's what "explanation" means. An explanation is an account of why things are one way rather than another way -- an account that shows that the way things are follows from the nature of the causes that produced these things. An posited cause that produces certain effects and cannot produce others, according to the abilities and limits of its nature, is "natural" by definition, and the only kind of cause that really explains anything.

Exactly is how the universe creating itself out of nothing substantially different than a miracle like Jesus raising Himself from the dead?

The inflationary big bang model is ultimately based on observations of nature -- of how visible phenomena behave (e.g. cosmic redshifts or the cosmic microwave background), and about how matter and energy have behaved in experiments. These explanations are, admittedly, several degrees removed from our day-to-day experiences of matter and energy, but they are not "miracles" (exceptions to the demonstrated behavior of matter and energy), but rather extrapolations and inferences from them. The whole point of the resurrection is that, based on everything we know about biology and medicine, it's supposed to be impossible. You need to posit something entirely apart from what we've actually observed to even make it possible, whereas this is not the case with the Big Bang.

You believe in the universe poofed itself into existence without a cause or purpose. I believe the universe was brought into existence by the will of an eternal, all-powerful God. Which is the better explanation?

You believe considerably more than that, actually: you believe that a universe that to 99+ % of astronomers and geologists appears to be billions of years old was actually made less than ten thousand years ago, in 144 consecutive hours, and that, e.g. things like shared pseudogenes and endogenous retroviruses in humans and other primates are in no way evidence of shared ancestry, despite being precisely the sort of evidence that we routinely and uncontroversially cite as evidence of shared ancestry within our own species. I believe that any explanation that doesn't require us to believe that God wove, into the fabric of the heavens and the earth and our own bodies, "one vast and superfluous lie," is superior.

Beyond that, the universe demonstrably exists. Note that while many cosmologists believe that it may well be infinite in extent, so much as we can see is finite, and so does not call for an infinitely powerful Creator. It is not clear that it calls for a personal Creator with purposes for that universe. Your proposed explanation goes far beyond the evidence and the phenomena requiring explanation.

We live in a universe supposedly made for us, yet we could not live for half a minute in the overwhelmingly vast majority of that universe. We live in a universe supposedly made perfect and without suffering, and in which everything bad and undesirable exists because of the sins of two people (as the result of a curse imposed by a God Who does not punish children for the sins of their parents, and Whose omnipotence could not be constrained by mere human will), and yet which is riddled with disease, parasites, and injuries befalling all manner of life. The stars and planets were supposedly made "for times and seasons, days and years," and yet so simple a matter as making the year equal to some exact number of lunar months (or the lunar month equal to some exact number of days) did not seem worth doing.

Joe Rodriguez said...

Steven J. You make some interesting points that make for stimulating conversation. However, I believe Anthony Flew wrestled with much of the same data you referenced, and I presume much more. Have you ever considered his writings regarding all of the collective body of evidences that ultimately convinced him that the universe was created by God? Obviously you disagree with him. Would you care to post your thoughts on his conclusions as generously as you've commented on the points of this series? I believe your rebuttals to Flew's conclusions should be of even greater interest to us, or at least me. Thank you

Steven J. said...

Joe Rodriguez, I confess that I have not read Flew's There is a God, and can claim no detailed knowledge of his arguments for that conclusion. In my defense, I offer the following points:

(1) Flew is a philosopher. In my experience, when philosophers discuss evolution, they tend to treat it as a set of general propositions and ignore important fine details that are by no means obscure or undiscussed by experts. True, Flew was, strictly speaking, addressing abiogenesis and cosmology, but I suspect the same indifference to the actual scientific nitty-gritty characterized his arguments.

(2) I have run across some of the evidence and arguments (e.g. fine-tuning of cosmological constants, or arguments from specified complexity and irreducible complexity in abiogenesis) that presumably would have informed him (if he had separate arguments, I assume I would have heard them repeated and spread about eagerly). If they did not convince me when put forth by other people, why should I regard them more highly because Flew found them convincing.

(3) It is important to note that Flew became an esteemed philosopher because his arguments were novel and good. The converse does not apply: an argument is not automatically novel and good merely because Flew once advanced it.

(4) Not really relevant, but Flew was never "the world's most notorious atheist" as the subtitle declared him. Recall that during much of his life (especially the later parts), he shared this planet with, e.g. Madlyn O'Hair and Richard Dawkins, who were much more notorious than he was, even if they were less sophisticated as proponents of atheism.

(5) Not really relevant, but I do not think that Flew ever declared against, e.g. the immense ages ascribed by geologists and astronomers to the Earth and universe, or held that special creation was preferable to evolution (miraculous abiogenesis is compatible with naturalistic evolution from that point on), or even the immortality of the soul or the ability to survive the death of our bodies. His creationism is a very attenuated thing compared to R.K. Bentley's, or even C.S. Lewis'.