http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=9&article=3710
Did the Laws of Science Apply in the Beginning?
It is relatively easy for the rational man to disprove the idea that
matter can spontaneously generate. Of course, even intuition does not
back spontaneous generation. Recall Richard Dawkins’ commentary on the
matter: “Of course it’s
counterintuitive that you can get something from nothing. Of course
common sense doesn’t allow you to get something from nothing”
(Dawkins and Pell, 2012, emp. added). It matters not how long you sit
in your chair and stare at an empty desk. A pencil will not eventually
materialize on the desk before you. Things—no matter how simplistic—do
not pop into existence from nothing.
The idea, that
structured, law-abiding, physical
matter (i.e., like that which we see all around us in the created order)
could come into being from nothing, is even more far-fetched. Beyond
intuition, this matter is laid to rest when we consider the implications
of the First Law of Thermodynamics and the Law of Conservation of
Matter (see Miller, 2013c). To paraphrase, the amount of energy and
matter in a system will remain constant unless there is input from some
outside source. In other words, it does not matter how long you stare at
the desk; unless someone comes by your desk and puts an already
existing pencil on it, or you put the pencil on it yourself, or the
pencil falls on the desk from some other place, a pencil will not appear
on the desk. This idea, applied to the origin of the Universe,
indicates that the Universe has either always existed (an idea which
violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics—see Miller, 2013c), or Someone
put it here.
Naturalists do not take such news sitting down. Scientists like Stephen
Hawking claim that in the beginning, at the alleged Big Bang, “the laws
of science…would break down” (1988, p. 88). Theoretical physicist Ahmed
Farag Ali at Benha University and the Zewail City of Science and
Technology in Egypt highlighted the Big Bang singularity as a
devastating deficiency of the Big Bang Theory: “The Big Bang singularity
is the most serious problem of general relativity because the laws of
physics appear to break down there” (as quoted in Zyga, 2015). So, in
other words, according to naturalists, one cannot use the laws of
physics to disprove the spontaneous origin of the cosmic egg, because
those laws could not apply to the cosmic egg at the beginning.
To what are the naturalists referring when they claim that the laws of
nature “break down” at the cosmic egg that gave birth to the
Universe—that the laws did not apply then? One of the first concepts
taught in a study of calculus is that of a “limit.” A “limit” is a way
to solve what will be the end result of an equation if its variable(s)
was allowed to move to its ultimate destination. For example, imagine a
bottle full of water with a leak at its base. As the water leaks from
the bottle, the water level, ℎ, gets smaller. A limit equation seeks to
determine what the end result will be of such a scenario. The “limit” of
“ℎ” in the bottle over time, ℎ(
t), as the water leaks from the bottle, will be zero—the final height of the water when it has all drained from the bottle
. Now imagine trying to find the limit of the same equation, but with the ℎ(
t) term in the denominator of the function
. Over time, the height of the water in the bottle, ℎ(
t),
still moves to zero, which results in a situation where one must find
the limit of an equation with a one divided by a zero. You do not have
to know much about math to know that dividing one by zero is a problem.
Such a scenario does not fit the rules. The usual laws do not work. We
call it a “singularity,” and something similar happens when cosmologists
attempt to work out the equations that explain what would occur at the
beginning of the hypothetical Big Bang. This is why Stephen Hawking
said, “The beginning of real time would have been a singularity, at
which the laws of physics would have broken down” (n.d.).
In response, first notice that there is a reason that physicists
consider the singularity a “problem.” Arguing that a singularity must
have occurred at the beginning of the Big Bang admits that the laws of
nature
do not work in the way they are supposed to in the Big Bang model. The Big Bang
requires the singularity, and yet the laws of nature do not work with singularities. So, by definition, the Big Bang event
is not natural. It is
supernatural—and therefore, the Big Bang naturalist must give up on being a naturalist, or remain in a self-contradictory position.
One physicist contacted me at Apologetics Press and went further in
trying to get around the Universal origin problem. Paraphrasing, he
said, “The laws of nature involve the interaction of matter and energy.
The laws wouldn’t work in a situation where you don’t have matter and
energy—like at the very beginning, before the cosmic egg appeared. So
the laws wouldn’t be violated if matter and energy popped into existence
from nothing, because there wouldn’t be any interaction for the laws to
govern. So, no law would be able to stop matter/energy from popping
into existence.” Is his statement true that the laws of physics only
involve the interaction of matter and energy?
No. In thermodynamics, for example, we often work problems,
specifically First Law of Thermodynamics problems, where you begin with a
system with nothing in it, and then energy or matter moves into the
system from outside of the system. So the problems involve a system
bearing the interaction of nothing with energy/matter, and this is the
precise scenario that poses a problem for the origin of the cosmic egg.
Still, the naturalistic scientist “usually
assumes
that the current laws of physics did not apply then” (Linde, 1994, emp.
added). Granted—certain assumptions are often necessary in science.
Granted—no one was around to make scientific observations about the
origin of matter. But wait…that’s the point. No one was there to observe
the beginning. So we have to be very careful in making assumptions. If
we wish to be rational and not hold to a blind “faith,” we have to look
at evidence available to us and only draw those conclusions that are
warranted by that evidence. But naturalists throw out the current
evidence, since it does not provide them with a naturalistic answer to
the origin question that they seek, and proceed to engage in wild
speculation. How is it scientific to throw aside solid science—making
the assumption that there were no such things as laws of science in the
beginning—with no evidence to support such a claim? This, naturalists
do, even when all empirical evidence that has ever been observed by
scientists leads to the conclusion that the laws of physics are, always
have been, and always will be immutable (i.e., until they are destroyed
along with the physical Universe on the Day of Judgment—2 Peter
3:7-10)—that they do not “break down.” Recall Stephen Hawking’s words
regarding the laws of nature: “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…,” 2011). In spite of such bold assertions, this same
Hawking irrationally contradicted himself in claiming that in the Big
Bang model, which he subscribes to, “the laws of science…break down”
(1988, p. 88). If we behave rationally—drawing conclusions based on the
evidence—a naturalist would have to conclude that the laws
did not
“break down” at the beginning. But if they did not break down, then
naturalism has been falsified—and such a truth cannot be swallowed by
naturalists.
Ironically, evolutionists take great pains to prove the immutability of
certain scientific assertions, at least when it suits their agenda. For
instance, creationists point out that the dating techniques utilized by
evolutionary geologists are based on certain assumptions which are far
from reasonable when all of the evidence is considered—like the
assertion that physical constants used in dating methods have, in fact,
remained constant throughout time. Mark Isaak of “The TalkOrigins
Archive” attempts to respond to this criticism by describing certain
constants which have purportedly remained constant for billions of years
(Isaak, 2007). Creationists have no problem with the idea that certain
constants could have remained essentially the same over long periods of
time (though we do not believe that the Universe has existed for
billions of years). However, scientific evidence indicates that not
all
physical constants have remained unchanged forever—like constants that
are used in evolutionary dating techniques (cf. Stober, 2010; Miller,
2013b; Butt, 2010b; Reucroft and Swain, 2009; Gardner, 2010). For
instance, catastrophic phenomena, such as volcanoes (cf. Akahane, et
al., 2004), can significantly accelerate the rate of processes generally
thought to take millions of years. The conclusion: dating techniques
that make unscientific assumptions are flawed (cf. Miller, 2013b). But
scientific laws, by definition, are without exception.
Notice again that, on one hand, naturalists do not want to grant that
the laws of science have always been constant, although all scientific
evidence indicates that they have; but they
do want to
make erroneous claims about physical constants that have been shown to
be in contradiction with the scientific evidence, since it suits their
agenda. And further notice that the evolutionist’s dilemma is not
improved upon even if we grant the possibility that the laws of science
were inapplicable at the beginning. Would evolutionists have us to
believe that in the beginning, not only matter, but the physical laws
that govern that matter popped into existence with the matter as well
(see Miller, 2012b)? How can there be a law without a law maker? How is
such an assertion scientific? And how is such an assertion allowed to go
unchallenged by many scientists? The bias of those in the evolutionary
community against accepting the rational and scientific alternative to
their faulty theories is profound.
After Stephen Hawking admits on his Web site that “the laws of physics
would have broken down” at the singularity, in the next sentence he
contradicts himself, saying, “Nevertheless, the way the universe began
would have been determined by the laws of physics” (n.d.). The
naturalist wishes to have his cake and eat it, too. One cannot sidestep
the thrust of the First Law of Thermodynamics by trying to say the laws
did not apply in the beginning, and then simultaneously claim that
natural law—namely quantum law—would bring about the Universe, which is
precisely what naturalists wish to do (see Miller, 2013a). If you
acknowledge that the
natural laws cannot work in your model, you must acknowledge that your model is a
supernatural model—not a naturalistic model.
If
the evolutionist cannot use science and its laws to bring about the
Universe, then he has, in reality, given up on naturalism and become a
believer in supernaturalism. In other words, if the laws of nature did not apply in the beginning, by implication, only
supernatural
phenomena could have existed to bring about the Universe (see Miller,
2012a). The next step is only to decide which supernatural entity is the
true Creator—God, with His supporting evidences; or magic, with its
lack thereof. [NOTE: The fact that naturalists must believe in
supernatural phenomena illustrates that naturalistic theories amount to
religion. Consistency, therefore, would dictate that those schools that
do not allow the Creation model to be taught in their science classes
should eliminate naturalistic theories as well. However, this author
believes that the correct solution would be to teach the evidence from
science, wherever it leads. Truth is the goal. The scientific evidence
detailed in this book points to a Creator. So it should be taught. Any
theory which contradicts the evidence should be removed from scientific
discussion. See Houts, 2007, for more on the idea that evolution is
religion, not science.]
Although assumptions are often necessary in science, scientific assumptions must carry the quality of being
reasonable
in order for them to be permissible in scientific discussion (See
Miller, 2013b for a discussion on scientific assumptions.). What
scientific evidence could be cited to back such a grandiose claim that
there was a time that the laws of nature did not hold? The only way the
claim that the laws of science did not apply in the beginning can be
made and considered to be reasonable is if the person has made another
equally unscientific
assumption upon which that claim
is based. The person would have to assume that there was no One here at
the beginning that organized matter in keeping with the Laws which that
Being set in motion. The Creation model in no way contradicts the laws
of physics. On the other hand, the atheistic evolutionary model
contradicts the laws of physics in a myriad of ways. Yet, oddly,
creationists are the ones who are branded as unscientific.
References
Akahane, Hisatada, Takeshi Furuno, Hiroshi Miyajima, Toshiyuki
Yoshikawa, and Shigeru Yamamoto (2004), “Rapid Wood Silicification in
Hot Spring Water: An Explanation of Silicification of Wood During the
Earth’s History,”
Sedimentary Geology, 169[3-4]:219-228, July 15.
Butt, Kyle (2010b), “New Findings Show Flaws in Old-Earth Dating
Methods,”
http://www.apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=9&article=3770.
“Curiosity: Did God Create the Universe?” (2011),
Discovery Channel, August 7.
Dawkins, Richard and George Pell (2012), “Religion and Atheism,” ABC
Australia, http://www.abc.net.au/tv/quanda/txt/s3469101.htm, April 9.
Gardner, Elizabeth (2010), “Purdue-Stanford Team Finds Radioactive
Decay Rates Vary With the Sun’s Rotation,” Purdue University News
Service, http:
//www.purdue.edu/newsroom/research/2010/100830FischbachJenkinsDec.html.
Hawking, Stephen (1988),
A Brief History of Time: From the Big Bang to Black Holes (New York: Bantam).
Hawking, Stephen (n.d.), “The Beginning of Time,”
Stephen Hawking: The Official Web Site, March 1, 2016.
Houts, Michael G. (2007), “Evolution is Religion—Not Science [Part I],”
Reason & Revelation, 27[11]:81-87, November, http://www.apologeticspress.org/pub_rar/27_11/0711.pdf.
Isaak, Mark (2007), “Claim CE410,” The TalkOrigins Archive: Exploring
the Creation/Evolution Controversy,
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CE/CE410.html.
Linde, Andrei (1994), “The Self-Reproducing Inflationary Universe,”
Scientific American, 271[5]:48, November.
Miller, Jeff (2012a), “The Atheistic Naturalist’s Self-Contradiction,” Apologetics Press,
http://www.apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=12&article=4225.
Miller, Jeff (2012b), “The Laws of Science –by God,” Apologetics Press,
http://www.apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=12&article=4545.
Miller, Jeff (2013a), “Can Quantum Mechanics Produce a Universe from Nothing?” Apologetics Press,
http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=12&article=4584&topic=57.
Miller, Jeff (2013b), “Don’t Assume Too Much: Not All Assumptions in Science Are Bad,”
Reason & Revelation, 33[6]:62-64,69-70, June,
http://www.apologeticspress.org/apPubPage.aspx?pub=1&issue=1122&article=2153.
Miller, Jeff (2013c), “Evolution and the Laws of Science: The Laws of Thermodynamics,” Apologetics Press,
http://www.apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=12&article=2786.
Reucroft, Steve and J. Swain (2009), “Ultrasonic Cavitation of Water
Speeds Up Thorium Decay,” CERN Courier, June 8,
http://cerncourier.com/cws/article/cern/39158.
Stober, David (2010), “The Strange Case of Solar Flares and Radioactive
Elements,”
http://www.symmetrymagazine.org/breaking/2010/08/23/the-strange-case-of-solar-flares-and-radioactive-elements/.
Zyga, Lisa (2015), “No Big Bang? Quantum Equation Predicts Universe Has
No Beginning,” Phys.Org, February 9,
http://phys.org/news/2015-02-big-quantum-equation-universe.html.
[Article Revised 2016]
A
certain segment of the American population has succeeded in
perpetrating the notion of “political correctness” (PC) across a broad
base of society. This ideology has infiltrated politics, education, and
religion. While touted as a manifestation of “compassion” and “respect”
for those with whom one disagrees, the fact is that PC seeks to silence
any expression of disagreement that is not in line with its covert
agenda.
If
Christians are to be kind and loving to everyone (Luke 10:29-37), some
question why 2 John 10-11 teaches, “If anyone comes to you and does not
bring this doctrine (‘the doctrine of Christ’—vs. 9), do not receive him into your house nor greet him;
for he who greets him shares in his evil deeds” (emp. added; cf. Wells,
2015). Also, why did Paul instruct Timothy to “shun profane and idle
babblings” (2 Timothy 2:16; 1 Timothy 6:20-21)? Are Christians to shun
those with whom we disagree, and even go so far as not to greet them or
allow them into our homes?
