https://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=12&article=2786
Evolution and the Laws of Science: The Laws of Thermodynamics
“[T]he principles of thermodynamics have been in existence since the creation
of the universe” (Cengel and Boles, 2002, p. 2, emp. added). So states a
prominent textbook used in schools of engineering across America.
Indeed, these principles prove themselves to be absolutely critical in
today’s science world. Much of the engineering technology available
today is based on the foundational truths embodied in the Laws of
Thermodynamics. As the writers of one engineering thermodynamics
textbook stated: “Energy is a fundamental concept of thermodynamics and
one of the most significant aspects of engineering analysis” (Moran and
Shapiro, 2000, p. 35). Do these laws have application to the
creation/evolution debate as creationists suggest? What do they actually
say and mean?
The word “thermodynamics” originally was used in a publication by Lord
Kelvin (formerly William Thomson), the man often called the Father of
Thermodynamics because of his articulation of the Second Law of
Thermodynamics in 1849 (Cengel and Boles, p. 2). The term comes from two
Greek words: therme, meaning “heat,” and dunamis, meaning “force” or “power” (American Heritage...,
2000, pp. 558,1795). Thermodynamics can be summarized essentially as
the science of energy—including heat, work (defined as the energy
required to move a force a certain distance), potential energy, internal
energy, and kinetic energy. The basic principles and laws of
thermodynamics are understood thoroughly today by the scientific
community. Thus, the majority of the work with the principles of
thermodynamics is done by engineers who simply utilize the already
understood principles in their designs. A thorough understanding of the
principles of thermodynamics which govern our Universe can help an
engineer to learn effectively to control the impact of heat in his/her
designs.
THE FIRST AND SECOND LAWS OF THERMODYNAMICS
Though there are many important thermodynamic principles that govern
the behavior of energy, perhaps the most critical principles of
significance in the creation/evolution controversy are the First and
Second Laws of Thermodynamics. What are these laws that, not only are
vital to the work of an engineer, but central to this debate?
The First Law
The First Law of Thermodynamics was formulated originally by Robert
Mayer (1814-1878). He stated: “I therefore hope that I may reckon on the
reader’s assent when I lay down as an axiomatic truth that, just as in
the case of matter, so also in the case of force [the term used at that
time for energy—JM], only a transformation but never a creation takes
place” (as quoted in King, 1962, p. 5). That is, given a certain amount
of energy in a closed system, that energy will remain constant, though
it will change form (see Figure 1). As evolutionist Willard Young says
in defining the First Law, “Energy can be neither created nor destroyed,
but can only be converted from one form to another” (1985, p. 8).
 |
|
Figure 1
|
This principle, also known as the “conservation of energy principle”
(Cengel and Boles, p. 2), can be demonstrated by the burning of a piece
of wood. When the wood is burned, it is transformed into a different
state. The original amount of energy present before the burning is still
present. However, much of that energy was transformed into a different
state, namely, heat. No energy disappeared from the Universe, and no
energy was brought into the Universe through burning the wood.
Concerning the First Law, Young further explains that
the principle of the conservation of energy is considered to be the single most important and fundamental ‘law of nature’ presently known to science, and is one of the most firmly established.
Endless studies and experiments have confirmed its validity over and
over again under a multitude of different conditions (p. 165, emp.
added).
This principle is known to be a fact about nature—without exception. One thermodynamics textbook, Fundamentals of Thermodynamics, says:
The basis of every law of nature is experimental evidence, and this is
true also of the first law of thermodynamics. Many different
experiments have been conducted on the first law, and every one thus far has verified it either directly or indirectly. The first law has never been disproved (Borgnakke and Sonntag, 2009, p. 116, emp. added).
That is why the McGraw-Hill Dictionary of Scientific and Technical Terms defines a scientific law as “a regularity which applies to all
members of a broad class of phenomena” (2003, p. 1182, emp. added).
Famous atheist, theoretical physicist, and cosmologist of Cambridge
University, Stephen Hawking, concurred:
But what’s really important is that these physical laws, as well as being unchangeable, are universal.
They apply not just to the flight of the ball, but to the motion of a
planet and everything else in the Universe. Unlike laws made by humans,
the laws of nature cannot ever be broken. That’s why they are so powerful…. [T]he laws of nature are fixed (“Curiosity: Did God Create the Universe?” 2011, emp. added).
The Second Law
In the nineteenth century, Lord Kelvin and Rudolph Clausius (1822-1888)
separately made findings that became known as the Second Law of
Thermodynamics (Suplee, 2000, p. 156). The Second Law builds on the
First, stating that though there is a constant amount of energy in a
given system that is merely transforming into different states, that
energy is becoming less usable. Extending our wood
burning illustration above, after the wood is burned, the total amount
of energy is still the same, but transformed into other energy states.
Those energy states (e.g., ash and dissipated heat to the environment)
are less retrievable and less accessible (see Figure 2).
 |
|
Figure 2
|
Well-known atheist, physicist, cosmologist, and astrobiologist of Arizona State University, Paul Davies, explained it this way:
[T]he celebrated second law of thermodynamics…says, roughly speaking,
that in any change the Universe becomes a slightly more disorderly
place; the entropy goes up, the information content goes down. This
natural tendency towards disintegration and chaos is evident all around
us (1978, 80[1129]:506).
This process is irreversible. Lord Kelvin stated that energy is
“irrecoverably lost to man and therefore ‘wasted,’ although not annihilated”
(Thomson, 1882, p. 189, ital. in orig.). This principle is known as
entropy. Simply put, entropy states that nature is tending towards
disorder and chaos. Will the paint job on your house maintain its fresh
appearance over time? Will your son’s room actually become cleaner on
its own, or will it tend toward disorder? Even without your son’s
assistance, dust and decay take their toll. Although work can slow the
entropy, it cannot stop it. Renowned evolutionary science writer Isaac
Asimov explained:
Another way of stating the Second Law then is “The universe is
constantly getting more disorderly!” Viewed that way we can see the
Second Law all about us. We have to work hard to straighten a room, but
left to itself it becomes a mess again very quickly and very easily.
Even if we never enter it, it becomes dusty and musty. How difficult to
maintain houses, and machinery, and our own bodies in perfect working
order: how easy to let them deteriorate. In fact, all we have to do is
nothing, and everything deteriorates, collapses, breaks down, wears out,
all by itself—and that is what the Second Law is all about (1970, p.
6).
Entropy is simply a fact of nature. Entropy can be minimized in this
Universe, but it cannot be eradicated. That is where engineers come in.
Engineers work to discover ways of minimizing energy loss and maximizing
useful energy before it is forever lost. Thousands of engineering jobs
are dedicated to addressing this fundamental fact of the Second Law of
Thermodynamics. Your energy bill is affected directly by it. If the
Second Law was not fixed—unchanging—engineers could not develop the
technology necessary to maximize usable energy, thereby lowering your
energy costs.
Some engineers devote their entire careers to minimizing entropy in the
generation of power from energy. All this effort is based on the
principles established by the Second Law of Thermodynamics. These
principles are established as fact in the scientific community. The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language defines “law” as “a statement describing a relationship observed to be invariable between or among phenomena for all cases
in which the specified conditions are met” (2000, p. 993, emp. added).
Since laws are invariable, i.e., unchanging and constant, they have no
exceptions. Otherwise, they would not be classified as laws. Tracy
Walters, a mechanical engineer working in thermal engineering, observed:
It has been my experience that many people do not appreciate how
uncompromising the Laws of Thermodynamics actually are. It is felt,
perhaps, that the Laws are merely general tendencies or possibly only
theoretical considerations. In reality, though, the Laws of
Thermodynamics are hard as nails, and...the more one works with these Laws, the deeper respect one gains for them (1986, 9[2]:8, emp. added).
Evolutionist Jeremy Rifkin stated that “the Entropy Law will preside as
the ruling paradigm over the next period of history. Albert Einstein
said that it is the premier law of all science; Sir Arthur Eddington
referred to it as the ‘supreme metaphysical law of the entire universe’”
(1980, p. 6). Borgnakke and Sonntag, in Fundamentals of Thermodynamics, explain:
[W]e can say that the second law of thermodynamics (like every other
law of nature) rests on experimental evidence. Every relevant experiment
that has been conducted, either directly or indirectly, verifies the
second law, and no experiment has ever been conducted that contradicts the second law. The basis of the second law is therefore experimental evidence (2009, p. 220, emp. added, parenthetical item in orig.).
Another thermal science textbook says, concerning the Second Law of
Thermodynamics, “To date, no experiment has been conducted that
contradicts the second law, and this should be taken as sufficient proof of its validity” (Cengel, Turner, and Cimbala, 2008, p. 266, emp. added).
IMPLICATIONS OF THE LAWS
When understood properly, the Laws of Thermodynamics apply directly to
the creation/evolution controversy in precisely the same way they apply
in the engineering world today (cf. Miller,
2007). In fact, these foundational truths, utilized daily by the
engineering world, have eternally significant, spiritual implications in
that they prove that God exists. How so?
If there is no God, the existence of the Universe must be explained
without Him. The Big Bang theory claims that all matter in the Universe
initially was condensed in a sphere smaller than the size of a period at
the end of this sentence. That sphere exploded and helps to explain why
the Universe, according to many cosmologists, appears to be expanding
or inflating (see Thompson, et al., 2003, 23[5]:32-34,36-47). Even if
the Big Bang were true (and it is not, cf. Thompson, et al.), this
theory offers no explanation for the origin of that sphere. Evolutionist
Alan Guth, a cosmologist and physics professor at M.I.T., admitted that
“[i]nflation 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). He
further stated, “[A] proposal that the universe was created from empty
space is no more fundamental than a proposal that the universe was
spawned by a piece of rubber. It might be true, but one would still want
to ask where the piece of rubber came from” (Guth, 1997, p. 273). So
where could the “rubber” have come from?
The only logical possibilities for the origin of the matter and energy
comprising the Universe are that they are responsible for their own
existence (i.e., they popped into existence out of nothing—spontaneous
generation or they always existed—eternality) or Someone is responsible
for their existence (i.e., they were placed here by something outside of
the Universe—Creation) (see Figure 3).
 |
|
Figure 3
|
As the well-known philosopher and evolutionist from the 19th
century, Herbert Spencer said, “Respecting the origin of the Universe
three verbally intelligible suppositions may be made. We may assert that
it is self-existent [i.e., eternal—JM]; or that it is self-created
[i.e., spontaneously generated—JM]; or that it is created by an external
agency” (1882, p. 30).
Possibility 1: Spontaneous Generation of the Universe
Consider the entire physical Universe as a system consisting of all
mass, matter, and energy that exists in the Universe. If one believes in
the Big Bang model, the system’s boundary would be outside of the blast
radius of the Big Bang, or outside of the original cosmic dot that
exploded. Without God (i.e., something outside of the bounds of the Universe—something supernatural), this Universe would have to be a closed system.
Since our system encompasses the entire Universe, there is no more mass
that can cross into our system from the outside, which necessitates our
system being closed. If mass, matter, and energy could enter and/or
exit the system, the system would be an open system[NOTE: The creationist contends that the Universe is
an open system, since there is Someone outside of the natural Universe
Who can cross the boundary and put matter and energy into the system.
However, without God, the entire physical Universe as a system logically
would have to be a closed system. Atheists must so believe in order to explain the Universe without God.].
Evolutionary physicist Victor Stenger, in his book, God: The Failed Hypothesis, said:
Conservation of energy [i.e., the First Law—JM] and other basic laws hold true in the most distant observed galaxy
and in the cosmic microwave background, implying that these laws have
been valid for over thirteen billion years. Surely any observation of
their violation during the puny human life span would be reasonably
termed a miracle…. In principle, the creation hypothesis could be
confirmed by the direct observation or theoretical requirement that
conservation of energy was violated 13.7 billion years ago at the start
of the big bang (2007, pp. 115-116, emp. added).
The First Law of Thermodynamics states that in a closed system, the
amount of energy present in that system is constant, though it
transforms into other forms of energy. So, if the Universe as a whole
initially contained no mass, matter, or energy, and then all of the
mass, matter, and energy in the Universe spontaneously generated, the
First Law would be violated. Without intervention from an outside force,
the amount of mass, matter, and energy in the Universe would have
remained constant (unchanged) at nothing. According to
the scientific evidence, matter/energy could not have originally
spontaneously generated. Thus, according to Stenger, the creation
hypothesis is confirmed based on the scientific evidence. The initial
creation of energy from nothing amounted to a miracle.
As was mentioned earlier, there are no exceptions to
laws, or else they would not be laws. The First Law of Thermodynamics
has no known exceptions. The Law is accepted as fact by all scientists
in general and utilized by engineers in particular. Therefore, the
Universe, composed of all mass, matter, and energy, could not have
spontaneously generated (popped into existence on its own) without
violating the exceptionless and highly respected First Law of
Thermodynamics. The energy level of the Universe would not have been
constant. Spontaneous generation would amount to the creation of energy
from nothing (see Figure 4). The Universe could not have come into
existence without the presence and intervention of a Force outside of
the closed system of the entire physical Universe. The Universe
therefore must be an open system that was created by a non-physical Force (i.e., a Force not composed of mass, matter, and energy) outside
of the physical boundary of this Universe (above nature, or
supernatural) with the capability of bringing it into existence out of
nothing. That Force can be none other than a supernatural God.
To develop a theory that requires the violation of that principle would
be against the scientific evidence. It would be unscientific. The
evidence from science indicates that matter could not and cannot
spontaneously generate.
 |
|
Figure 4
|
Unfortunately, though this truth is so glaringly obvious to many, there
has been a recent surge of sentiment in the impossible notion that this
Universe could have created itself—that something could come from
nothing. British evolutionist Anthony Kenny (1980), physics professor
from City University in New York, Edward Tryon (1984), and physicists
Alan Guth from M.I.T. and Paul Steinhardt of Princeton (1984) are just a
few who are open proponents of this notion. Stephen Hawking said,
“Bodies such as stars or black holes cannot just appear out of nothing.
But a whole universe can…. Because there is a law like gravity, the
universe can and will create itself from nothing” (2010, p. 180).
However, the truth still stands. Until the First Law of Thermodynamics
ceases to be a fundamental law explaining this Universe, the spontaneous
generation of this Universe from nothing is impossible.
No wonder Victor Stenger, a proponent of the idea of spontaneous
generation, said, “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]:30). According to Stenger, the idea is “speculative”
(p. 30). No solid evidence. Just speculation. Famous evolutionary
astronomer, Robert Jastrow, the founder and former director of the
Goddard Institute for Space Studies at NASA, said:
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).
Science studies what occurs in nature, not super-nature. In nature, matter and energy can be neither created or destroyed, but “must remain unchanged forever.”
This is a “firmly established fact.” Nothing comes from nothing. If a
molecule will not pop into existence from nothing, a sphere containing
all of the matter and energy of the entire Universe will certainly not
pop into existence.
Possibility 2: Eternal Existence of the Universe
Again, considering the entire Universe as a system necessitates that it
be a closed system. The Second Law of Thermodynamics states that though
energy in a closed system is constant (First Law of Thermodynamics),
that energy is transforming into less usable forms of energy (i.e., the
Universe is “running down”). This process is irreversible. There is a
finite amount of usable energy in the Universe (which explains the
widespread interest in conserving energy). In the Big Bang model, that
energy was originally in the cosmic egg that exploded, and now would be
found within the blast radius of the original explosion. That usable
energy is depleting according to the Second Law. Engineers strive to
slow this inevitable depletion of energy, but it cannot be stopped.
If the Universe has always existed (i.e., it is eternal), but there is a
finite amount of usable energy, then all usable energy already should
be expended (see Figure 5). Yet, usable energy still exists. So, the
Universe cannot have existed forever. It had to have a beginning. The
eternality of matter would be the equivalent of a system with an energy
input and 100% usable energy output (see Figure 6). It would be the
equivalent of describing the Universe as a perpetual motion machine—a
design that attempts to violate either the First or Second Law of
Thermodynamics by, for instance, running forever without an energy
input. No such machine has ever been designed, since such a machine
would violate the laws of thermodynamics. Philip Yam, writing in Scientific American
said, “Claims for perpetual-motion machines and other free-energy
devices still persist, of course, even though they inevitably turn out
to violate at least one law of thermodynamics” (1997, 277[6]:82).
 |
|
Figure 5
|
 |
|
Figure 6
|
No wonder evolutionists, themselves, have long conceded this truth. In his book, Until the Sun Dies, renowned evolutionary astronomer Robert Jastrow stated:
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 of the Universe, either in the past or in the future (1977, p. 30, emp. added).
In his book, God and the Astronomers, Jastrow reiterated this truth:
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…. Now three lines of
evidence—the motions of the galaxies, the laws of thermodynamics, the
life story of the stars—pointed to one conclusion; all indicated that
the Universe had a beginning (1978, pp. 48-49, 111).
Evolutionist Kitty Ferguson, award-winning science writer, agreed. She
said, “It’s also common knowledge that the universe isn’t eternal but
had a beginning” (1994, p. 89). Any person who develops a theory that
claims that the Universe could be a perpetual motion machine, is guilty
of contradicting the solid evidence from science. They are being
unscientific, and their unscientific mindset has resulted in an
unscientific theory.
Possibility 3: The Inevitable Implication
What does the scientific evidence actually say about the matter of
origins? Forget speculation, conjecture, hypothesis, and theory—wishful,
hopeful thinking that there might be some way to avoid a supernatural
explanation and the restrictions that Being might have on our desires.
What does the evidence say?
To repeat, logically, there are only three possible explanations for
the existence of matter in the Universe. Either it spontaneously
generated, it is eternal, or it was created by a non-physical Being
outside of the boundaries of the Universe. Atheists use the theory of
evolution in an attempt to explain the existence and state of the
Universe today. In order for the theory of evolution to be true, thereby
accounting for the existence of mankind, either all of the mass, matter, and energy of the Universe spontaneously generated (i.e., it popped into existence out of nothing), or it has always existed
(i.e., it is eternal.). Without an outside force (a transcendent,
omnipotent, eternal, superior Being), no other options for the existence
of the Universe are available. However, as the Laws of Thermodynamics prove,
the spontaneous generation and the eternality of matter are logically
and scientifically impossible. One and only one possible option remains:
the Universe was created by the Creator. The
scientific evidence points to the existence of God. Bottom line: God
designed the laws of thermodynamics. Creationists believe them.
Engineers use them. Atheists cannot harmonize them with their beloved
theory.
CONCLUSION
Evolutionists claim that science and the idea of God are
irreconcilable. “Only one of them can be true,” they say, “and you
cannot prove there is a God.” Not all theistic models for the origin of
the Universe are in keeping with science. For instance, according to Enuma Elish,
the Babylonian creation account, the polytheistic Babylonians believed
that matter is eternal (Pfeiffer, 1972, p. 226). This has been shown to
be false. However, although not all Creation models are in harmony with
the scientific evidence, one would expect the true Creation model to be
in keeping with the evidence. The Laws of Thermodynamics, which science
itself recognizes in its explanations of the phenomena in the Universe,
were written by the Chief Engineer (cf. Miller,
2012). As expected, they prove to be in complete harmony with His
existence, contrary to the claims of evolutionists. God, Himself,
articulated these laws centuries ago in the Bible.
At the very beginning of the Bible, the First Law of Thermodynamics was
expressed when Moses penned, “Thus the heavens and the Earth, and all
the host of them, were finished. And on the seventh day, God ended
His work which He had done, and He rested on the seventh day from all
His work which He had done” (Genesis 2:1-2, emp. added). In Exodus
20:11, Moses wrote, “For in six days, the Lord made the heavens and the
earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested (i.e., ceased) the
seventh day.” Everything in the Universe was made in
six days, and then the Lord stopped creating. Nothing else is coming
into existence naturally. After the six days of Creation, the mass,
matter, and energy creation process was terminated. As evolutionist
Willard Young said regarding the First Law: “Energy can be neither
created nor destroyed, but can only be converted from one form to
another.” The thrust of the First Law of Thermodynamics was expressed in
the Bible thousands of years ago, although it was not discovered and
formally articulated by scientists until the 19th century.
Through the hand of the psalmist, God also stated centuries ago what
scientists call the Second Law of Thermodynamics: “Of old You laid the
foundation of the Earth, and the heavens are the work of your hands.
They will perish, but You will endure; yes, they will all grow old like a garment;
like a cloak You will change them, and they will be changed. But You
are the same, and Your years will have no end” (102:25-27, emp. added).
The Universe is wearing out—decaying, like an old shirt: the Second Law
of Thermodynamics. Once again, the Creation model is in perfect harmony
with science. The evolutionary model fails its thermodynamics test.
The inspired writer wrote in Hebrews 11:3, “By faith we understand that
the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that the things which are
seen were not made of things which are visible.” Paul declared in Acts
14:17, “Nevertheless He did not leave Himself without witness, in that
He did good, gave us rain from heaven and fruitful seasons, filling our
hearts with food and gladness.” The psalmist affirmed, “The heavens
declare the glory of God; and the firmament shows His handiwork” (19:1).
Paul assured the Romans, “For since the creation of the world His
invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things
that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse” (1:20, emp. added). The scientific evidence points to God. There will be no excuse in the end for those who deny it.
In closing, we return to Lord Kelvin, the Father of Thermodynamics, for
fitting final thoughts. In a short public speech in 1903, reported by The Times and followed up by an amending letter to the paper by Kelvin, Kelvin said:
I do not say that, with regard to the origin of life, science neither affirms nor denies Creative Power. Science positively affirms Creative Power….
It is not in dead matter that we live and move and have our being [Acts
17:28—JM], but in the creating and directive Power which science
compels us to accept as an article of belief.... There is nothing
between absolute scientific belief in a Creative Power, and the
acceptance of the theory of a fortuitous concourse of atoms.... Forty
years ago I asked Liebig, walking somewhere in the country if he
believed that the grass and flowers that we saw around us grew by mere
chemical forces. He answered, “No, no more than I could believe that a
book of botany describing them grew by mere chemical forces”.... Do not
be afraid of being free thinkers! If you think strongly enough you will be forced by science to the belief in God, which is the foundation of all Religion. You will find science not antagonistic but helpful to Religion (as quoted in Thompson, 1910, pp. 1097-1100, emp. added).
According to the Father of Thermodynamics, evolutionists are failing to
“think strongly enough.” No wonder the psalmist asserted: “The fool has
said in his heart, ‘There is no God’” (14:1).
REFERENCES
American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language (2000), (Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin), fourth edition.
Asimov, Isaac (1970), “In the Game of Energy and Thermodynamics You Can’t Even Break Even,” Smithsonian Institute Journal, pp. 4-10, June.
Borgnakke, Claus and Richard E. Sonntag (2009), Fundamentals of Thermodynamics (Asia: John Wiley and Sons), seventh edition.
Cengel, Yunus A. and Michael A. Boles (2002), Thermodynamics: An Engineering Approach (New York: McGraw-Hill), fourth edition.
Cengel, Yunus A., Robert H. Turner, and John M. Cimbala (2008), Thermal-Fluid Sciences (New York, NY: McGraw-Hill).
“Curiosity: Did God Create the Universe?” (2011), Discovery Channel, August 7.
Davies, Paul (1978), “Chance or Choice: Is the Universe an Accident?” New Scientist, 80[1129]:506-508, November.
Ferguson, Kitty (1994), The Fire in the Equations: Science, Religion, and the Search for God (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans).
Guth, Alan (1997), The Inflationary Universe (New York: Perseus Books).
Guth, Alan and Paul Steinhardt (1984), “The Inflationary Universe,” Scientific American, 250:116-128, May.
Hawking, Stephen (2010), The Grand Design (New York, NY: Bantam Books).
Heeren, Fred (1995), Show Me God (Wheeling, IL: Searchlight Publications).
Jastrow, Robert (1977), Until the Sun Dies (New York: W.W. Norton).
Jastrow, Robert (1978), God and the Astronomers (New York: W.W. Norton).
Kenny, Anthony (1980), The Five Ways: St. Thomas Aquinas’ Proofs of God’s Existence (South Bend, IN: University of Notre Dame Press).
King, A.L. (1962), Thermophysics (San Francisco, CA: W.H. Freeman).
McGraw-Hill Dictionary of Scientific and Technical Terms (2003), pub. M.D. Licker (New York: McGraw-Hill), sixth edition.
Miller, Jeff (2007), “God and the Laws of Thermodynamics: A Mechanical Engineer’s Perspective,” Reason & Revelation, 27[4]:25-31, April, http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/3293.
Miller, Jeff (2012), “‘The Laws of Science’-by God,” Reason & Revelation, 32[12]:137-140, December, http://www.apologeticspress.org/apPubPage.aspx?pub=1&issue=1103&article=2072.
Moran, Michael J. and Howard N. Shapiro (2000), Fundamentals of Engineering Thermodynamics (New York: John Wiley & Sons), fourth edition.
Pfeiffer, Charles F. (1972), The Biblical World (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House).
Rifkin, Jeremy (1980), Entropy: A New World View (New York: Viking).
Spencer, Herbert (1882), First Principles: A System of Synthetic Philosophy (New York: D. Appleton and Company), fourth edition.
Stenger, Victor J. (1987), “Was the Universe Created?,” Free Inquiry, 7[3]:26-30, Summer.
Stenger, Victor J. (2007), God: The Failed Hypothesis (Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books).
Suplee, Curt (2000), Milestones of Science (Washington, D.C.: National Geographic Society).
Thompson, Bert, Brad Harrub, and Branyon May (2003), “The Big Bang Theory—A Scientific Critique [Part 1],” Reason & Revelation, 23[5]:32-34,36-47.
Thompson, Silvanus P. (1910), The Life of William Thomson Baron Kelvin of Largs, Vol. 2, (London: MacMillan and Co.).
Thomson, William (1882), Mathematical and Physical Papers (Cambridge University Press).
Tryon, Edward P. (1984), “What Made the World?,” New Scientist, 101:14-16, March 8.
Walters, Tracy (1986), “A Reply to John Patterson’s Arguments,” Origins Research, 9[2]:8-9, Fall/Winter.
Yam, Philip (1997), “Exploiting Zero-Point Energy,” Scientific American, 277[6]82-85.
Young, Willard (1985), Fallacies of Creationism (Calgary, Alberta, Canada: Detselig Enterprises).
Everyone believes in something. Blind
faith, however, is believing in something without evidence. Every
person on the planet has faith, but having blind faith, by definition,
is irrational: drawing conclusions without enough proof.1 The
faith/trust I have in the laws of science is not blind; it is based on a
mound of evidence that has been formed over many years of
faith-building behavior on their part. Christianity is not built on
blind faith, but on faith that has been substantiated by evidence, and
God demands that Christian faith be such.2 Naturalists, however, have a blind faith in several events that would be necessary if evolution is true.
