The Law of Biogenesis [Part II] by Jeff Miller, Ph.D.

http://apologeticspress.org/apPubPage.aspx?pub=1&issue=1022

The Law of Biogenesis [Part II]

by	Jeff Miller, Ph.D.

[EDITOR’S NOTE: Part I of this two-part series appeared in the January issue. Part II follows below, and continues, without introductory comments, where the first article ended.]

“Well, I know it’s impossible, but maybe…”

How do atheistic evolutionists get away with teaching a viewpoint that so brazenly contradicts the scientific evidence? Concerning this question, Wald said:

Most…biologists, having reviewed with satisfaction the downfall of the spontaneous generation hypothesis, yet unwilling to accept the alternative belief in special creation, are left with nothing. [Actually, they “are left” with God.—JM] I think a scientist has no choice but to approach the origin of life through a hypothesis of spontaneous generation. What the controversy reviewed above showed to be untenable is only the belief that living organisms arise spontaneously underpresent conditions. We have now to face a somewhat different problem: how organisms may have arisen spontaneously underdifferent conditions in some former period, granted that they do so no longer (1954, pp. 46-47, emp. added).

So, pre-biotic planetary conditions were different? Conditions which would allow for the spontaneous generation of life? On what is this conjecture based? Has any evidence been brought to light which proves that there are any possible conditions that could lead to abiogenesis? No. Else scientists would be able to create life in a laboratory. Conclusion: “different conditions” = evidenceless speculation. Abiogenesis is impossible, but life is here and had to come from somewhere. We, the atheistic, evolutionary community, refuse to consider the God option. That leaves us with the assumption that Earth’s planetary conditions must have allowed for the miracle of abiogenesis in the past. There is no evidence for such speculation, but who cares? In his next breath, Wald went on to admit:

To make an organism demands the right substances in the right proportions and in the right arrangement. We do not think that anything more is needed—but that is problem enough. One has only to contemplate the magnitude of this task to concede thatthe spontaneous generation of a living organism is impossible. Yet here we are…. (1954, pp. 46-47, emp. added).

Evolutionists write, in essence, children’s fables—full of wild speculation, theories, and conjecture about the possible pre-life planetary conditions, but ultimately their viewpoint is “inaccessible to the empirical approach” (Hoyle and Wickramasinghe, 1978, p. 26). Richard Dickerson agreed with Wald. Writing inScientific American under the heading of “Chemical Evolution and the Origin of Life,” he remarked that when speculating about Earth’s pre-biotic conditions we have “no laboratory models: hence one can speculate endlessly unfettered by inconvenient facts” (1978, p. 85, emp. added). He went on to concede: “We can only imagine what probably existed, and our imagination so far has not been very helpful” (p. 86, emp. added). So, basing theories upon imagination is now considered scientific!

Notice from this discussion that in holding to such a position about “pre-biotic conditions,” atheistic evolutionists have nonchalantly moved away from the standard evolutionary model—recognizing that it simply cannot account for the existence of life. Evolutionary theory has historically been based on uniformitarian principles, which assume that geological processes existing today on Earth have existed throughout the past as well (Merriam-Webster On-line Dictionary, 2003). Theorizing conditions that are not in existence today is, in effect, a rejection of standard evolutionary assumptions. It is the creation model—not the evolutionary model—which has historically rejected uniformitarianism. Sadly, in today’s scientific community, it appears that evolutionists have been given the freedom to cherry-pick what their standard assumptions will and will not apply to. How can such be deemed scientific?

“Watch us convert young minds to the Church of Evolution, in spite of the evidence!”

Some 50 years ago, in Frontiers of Modern Biology, George Wald admitted:

As for spontaneous generation, it continued to find acceptance until finally disposed of by the work of Louis Pasteur—it is a curious thing that until quite recently professors of biology habitually told this story as part of their introductions of students to biology. They would finish this account glowing with the conviction that they had given a telling demonstration of the overthrow of mystical notion by clean, scientific experimentation. Their students were usually so bemused as to forget to ask the professor how he accounted for the origin of life. This would have been an embarrassing question, because there are only two possibilities: either life arose by spontaneous generation, which the professor had just refuted; or it arose by supernatural creation, which he probably regarded as anti-scientific (1962, p. 187, emp. added).

So, according to Wald, in 1962 the demise of spontaneous generation was openly taught in biology classes “until quite recently,” and then, with the next breath, the teacher would proceed to engage in self-contradiction by teaching evolutionary theory with its abiogenesis myth. Though this statement was made years ago, the same is still the case a half century later.

According to evolutionists, the planetary conditions must have been different in the distant past—more conducive to abiogenesis. Enter the endless speculation about the pre-biotic world. Consider an example of how such speculation plays out in the high school biology classroom. In one high school biology textbook from the 1990s, published by the popular company Prentice Hall, immediately after explaining how Pasteur, Redi, and Spallanzani disproved spontaneous generation, the authors queried: “If life can come only from life, how did life on Earth first arise?” (Miller and Levine, 1991, p. 342). The book proceeds to speculate with profound certainty what conditions were like on Earth billions of years ago. The observant student, who is able to see through all of the jargon, will notice that throughout the ensuing discussion about these hypothetical conditions, subtle disclaimers are made. “No one can say with certainty…”; “Somehow these earliest life forms appeared…” (p. 343, emp. added). While discussing the experiments of Miller and Urey conducted in 1953, the textbook says, “Thus, over the course of millions of years, at least some of the basic building blocks of life could have been produced in great quantities on Earth” (p. 344, emp. added). The authors proceed to admit concerning the experiment’s products: “A collection of organic molecules such as amino acids is certainly not life” (p. 344, emp. added).

Next, as if emphasizing the power of intelligent design, the authors briefly discuss the experiments of Russian scientist Alexander Oparin and American scientist Sidney Fox and the round droplets (deemed “protolife”) they “created” in their lab, which can “perform tasks necessary for life” (p. 344). However, they admit that, “we would still not say that these droplets are alive” (p. 344, emp. added). So, recapping the evolutionary rhetoric to this point: evolutionary theory’s explanation of the origin of life is based on words and phrases such as, “no one can say with certainty,” “somehow,” “some,” “could have,” “certainly not life,” and “still not say that these droplets are alive.” Recall that the original point of the authors’ discussion was to explain how life could have spontaneously arose in the past. The authors, in spite of several paragraphs of “explanation,” have yet to answer the question. Assuming they have a brilliant answer coming in the following paragraphs, the ambitious student reads on.

Unfortunately, by now, the authors have likely “lost” the typical student. At this point, these students, probably not catching the authors’ disclaimers, will tend to “zone out” and just take the evolutionist’s word for it—“So, we came from goo. Please move on.” However, now the authors actually start to make candid, significant admissions. Under the heading “From Proto-life to Cells,” the authors concede:

The next step in our story is the most difficult to understandcompletely. From the jumbled mixture of molecules in the organic soup that formed in Earth’s oceans, the highly organized structures of RNA and DNA must somehow have evolved. Scientists do not know how these vital information-carriers formed, but there are several interesting hypotheses (pp. 344-345, emp. added).

The authors then imaginatively give several potential suggestions for how matter could have arranged itself in preparation for life to spring into existence, liberally sprinkling in words like “could have arisen” and “might have combined.” They finish off the section stating, “This is one piece of evidence supporting this interesting, but as yet unproven, hypothesis” (p. 345, emp. added). Notice that the authors still have yet to prove, or even attempt to explain, how spontaneous generation could have occurred. They spent their time presenting imaginary ways matter allegedly could have randomly and accidentally arranged itself in ways that might prepare it for life—although they have no way of knowing whether that arrangement would help or hinder the process, since abiogenesis has never been observed to occur. No evidence was given for how matter could have actually sprung to life.

Finally, the authors simply skip over the question of how the spontaneous jump from inorganic matter to living cells occurred, perhaps correctly realizing that most of the dazed and confused students will not catch this subtle sleight of hand. The authors boldly state, “Although the origin of the first true cells is uncertain, we can identify several of their characteristics with certainty” (p. 345, emp. added). So, the student is quickly distracted and led away from the original question. According to the authors, scientists do not know how living cells actually spontaneously generated, but they assert they know “with certainty” what those cells were like once they mysteriously sprang into life. The authors state this assertion as if they have decisively answered the original question about how life arose. They then proceed to speculate concerning the nature of these living cells, never answering the question of how they originally came to life. In all fairness, how could they answer such a question? Spontaneous generation has already been disproven—scientifically—and they admitted as much on previous pages. Yet they have conveniently failed to come to grips with the import of their own admissions.

The 2006 edition of the textbook did not rectify the problem. The authors acknowledge the work of Spallanzani and Pasteur, unabashedly stating that Pasteur’s work,

convinced other scientists that the hypothesis of spontaneous generation was not correct. In other words, Pasteur showed that all living things come from other living things. This change in thinking represented a major shift in the way scientists viewed living things (Miller and Levine, 2006, pp. 12-13, emp. added).

Sadly the evolutionary community has not allowed Pasteur’s findings to “shift” the way they view living things and their origins.

In this same, more recent edition, the authors “wisely” separated the discussion of Pasteur’s and Spallazani’s work from the discussion on the origin of life by 415 pages. This helps students to forget that evolution contradicts the scientific evidence found by these scientists’ work. In discussing the origin of life, the authors once again fail to accept the implied conclusion from Pasteur’s work regarding the origin of life, stating, “As you will see shortly, researchers still debate such important questions as precisely how new species arise and why species become extinct. There is also uncertainty about how life began” (p. 386, emp. added). Undaunted, the authors proceed to engage in the same hapless speculation they engaged in 15 years earlier. Similar to the previous edition, they discuss the findings, or rather non-findings, of the Miller-Urey experiments. A significant change in the 2006 edition was a candid admission about those experiments which was couched in the midst of the discussion: “Scientists now know that Miller and Urey’s original simulations of Earth’s early atmosphere were not accurate” (p. 424, emp. added). If such is the case, one might rightly ask why the experiments are still discussed at all. The answer lies in the embarrassing fact that evolutionists still have absolutely no evidence that can corroborate abiogenesis. Leaving the discussion out would highlight the unscientific nature of evolution. Leaving the discussion in the textbook creates the impression with youth that some hidden support remains for the abiogenesis postulate in the Miller-Urey experiments—support that is somehow too advanced to discuss with them at their current competency. After all, many youth are more likely to believe the teachers and textbooks they have been trained and taught to believe than they are to think critically about the material actually being presented.

In the next section, under the heading, “The Puzzle of Life’s Origins,” the authors admit, “A stew of organic molecules is a long way from a living cell, and the leap from nonlife to life is the greatest gap in scientific hypotheses of Earth’s early history” (p. 425, emp. added). And that’s it. Proof for abiogenesis is not presented. A scientific refutation of the Law of Biogenesis is not conducted. Once again, the authors fearlessly launch into pages of speculation concerning the origin of the building blocks of life, liberally using qualifying language to subtly admit that nothing the authors are saying has been proven. Concerning proteinoid microspheres, which have some cell-like characteristics but which are not considered living entities, the authors note: “Microspheresare not cells, but they have some characteristics of living systems…. Several hypotheses suggest that structures similar to proteinoid microspheres might have acquired more and more characteristics of living cells” (p. 425, emp. added). Such unending speculation, not backed by any proof whatsoever, is being allowed to fill the minds of unsuspecting youth, causing them to lose faith in the biblical model of life origins—which, in reality, is the origin model actually in keeping with the scientific evidence. The authors proceed to admit once again, “Another unanswered question in the evolution of cells is the origin of DNA and RNA” (p. 425, emp. added). So, in their pointless trek to prove evolutionary theory, evolutionists cannot even reach the abiogenesis chasm of impossibility that they must cross in order to prove their theory. They are still hampered by the chasms that exist much earlier in their mythical journey.

Structure of a Cell

Notice that the phrase “unanswered question” can be misleading to a young biology student. It leaves the subtle impression that scientists have answered many questions about how life arose, and those answers are established fact. In actuality, the “unanswered question” is not referring to the question of whether or not evolutionists knowanything about how life or its building blocks arose on the planet. The question is referring to the fact that there are questions regarding thefeasibility of the origin of life that evolutionists cannot answer, but which must be answered in order for the theory of evolution even to be a possibility, much less the true, factual scientific explanation of the origin of life. Still, many unashamedly—and unscientifically—tout evolution as a fact.

In spite of the truth, sadly, with the wave of a hand, the typical biology student becomes an evolutionary disciple, not realizing that he has just succumbed to the longest, evidence-less leap into the dark that he may ever make in his life. Such vague speculation, substanceless hope, and blind “faith” can hardly be dignified as scientific. One might rightly ask, “Why are Americans allowing their children to be subjected to such anti-scientific propaganda? Why are parents not outraged that their students are wasting valuable class time learning about such speculation, rather than learning true science?”

OTHER IMPLICATIONS OF THE LAW OF BIOGENESIS

An Unreasonable Assumption which Leads to Contradiction of the Evidence

There is no scientific evidence in nature that life can come from non-life. Not one experiment has been conducted which can boast an exception to this rule. One must start with the assumption that there is no Creator and that only nature exists in order to even consider abiogenesis—in spite of all the evidence to the contrary. Again in his lecture series, Origins of Life, Robert Hazen said:

In this lecture series I make a basic assumption that life emerged by some kind of natural process. I propose that life arose by a sequence of events that are completely consistent with the natural laws of chemistry and physics. In this assumption I am like most other scientists.I believe in a universe that is ordered by these natural laws. Like other scientists, I rely on the power of observations and experiments and theoretical reasoning to understand how the cosmos came to be the way it is (2005, emp. added).

[Notice the fact that Hazen contradicts himself by claiming that he relies “on the power of observations and experiments” in his belief on the origin of life, while also admitting in his lecture series that he and all evolutionists are “woefully ignorant” concerning the origin of life, and that likely, “any scientific attempt to understand life’s origin is doomed to failure; such a succession could not be duplicated in a program of lab experiments” (2005, emp. added). He claims to rely on “observations,” “experiments,” and “reasoning” to arrive at his scientific conclusions—one of which is abiogenesis. However, he accepts this belief without reason since it is not, and cannot be, backed by observation or experiment, and according to his own words, such may not ever even be possible.] Hazen states that he considers himself to be in line with “most other scientists” in his self-contradictory assumption regarding the naturalistic origin of life. Of course, he means “atheistic evolutionists” when he speaks of such “scientists” and is absolutely correct in his assertion.

Atheistic evolutionists begin with the biased assumption that there is no God, regardless of its contradictory and unsubstantiated nature. Atheistic evolutionist, prominent science writer, and director of the Knight Science Journalism Fellowship at M.I.T., Boyce Rensberger, admitted:

At this point, it is necessary to reveal a little inside information about how scientists work, something the textbooks don’t usually tell you. The fact is that scientists are not really asobjective and dispassionate in their work as they would like you to think. Most scientists first get their ideas about how the world works not through rigorously logical processes but through hunches and wild guesses. As individuals they often come to believe something to be true long before they assemble the hard evidence that will convince somebody else that it is. Motivated by faith in his own ideas and a desire for acceptance by his peers, a scientist will labor for years knowing in his heart that his theory is correct but devising experiment after experiment whose results he hopes will support his position (1986, pp. 17-18, emp. added).

Rensberger’s overgeneralized statement certainly does not describe all scientists’ approach to their day-to-day research, but it is clear from its handling of the matter of origins that such a statement certainly describes the evolutionary mindset—hardly “objective and dispassionate,” and often given to “wild guesses.” Regardless, with the assumption in place that only the physical or natural exists—no Creator exists—abiogenesis must be true, since life is here and had to start somehow. Thus, if abiogenesis is true, biogenesis cannot be a law. [Note: Rather than making assumptions that do not contradict the scientific evidence, evolutionists resort to unscientific assumptions—assumptions that contradict scientific laws which have been time-tested to be scientifically accurate 100% of the time.]

Consequently, some scientists have become increasingly uncomfortable with calling biogenesis a “law,” since a scientific law, by definition, is “a regularity which applies to all members of a broad class of phenomena,” and abiogenesis would constitute an exception, thus removing it from “law” status (McGraw-Hill…, 2003, p. 1182, emp. added). What once was commonly taught in textbooks due to its universal support by the scientific evidence is being systematically stripped from biology courses in spite of its continued universal support. In the commonly used middle school/junior high textbook, Life Science, the text’s authors do not even mention the word “biogenesis,” much less, “The Law of Biogenesis.” Instead, under the heading, “Life Comes From Life,” the authors explain the work of Redi and Pasteur and proudly proclaim:

Living things arise from living things through reproduction…. Themistaken idea that living things can arise from nonliving sources is called spontaneous generation. It took hundreds of years of experiments to convince people that spontaneous generation does not occur (Coolidge-Stolz, et al., 2005, pp. 36-37, emp. added).

So, the truth of biogenesis still stands as law, though now stripped of its appropriate scientific designation: “Living things arise from living things”; “[S]pontaneousgeneration does not occur.” Unfortunately, it seems that evolutionists, like these very authors, still have not gotten the memo. One would think that the admission, “spontaneous generation does not occur”—clearly implying there are no exceptions to this rule—would mean that biogenesis is still a law. After all, the same statements were made when it was considered a law. The only change appears to be the removal of the word “law,” while still teaching the same truth. Starting on page 170, the authors proceed to teach evolutionary theory, never even addressing the question of how life could have come about—a question which must be able to be answered before the impossible theory of evolution could even begin its “work” millions of years ago.

Other textbooks still use the term “biogenesis,” but have lowered its standing from that of a law. Under the heading, “Spontaneous Generation and Biogenesis,” another prominent life science textbook briefly explains the work of Pasteur, stating that he “provided enough evidence to disprove the theory of spontaneous generation. It was replaced with biogenesis, which is the theory that living things come only from other living things” (National Geographic…, et al., 2005, p. 19, emp. added). Notice the sly adjustment from a “law” to a “theory.” Why change biogenesis to a “theory” instead of a “law,” particularly since the same textbook defines a “scientific law” as “a statement about how things work in nature that seems to be true all the time” (p. 10)—a statement which perfectly describes biogenesis? Based on this definition, has scientific investigation over the last several years nullified biogenesis as being a “law”? As we have already seen above, the answer to that question is a resounding, “No.” There is absolutely no evidence for abiogenesis. Thus, biogenesis, by all rights, is still a law, not a theory. Only the biased evolutionist would  proclaim otherwise.

Again, in spite of “hundreds of years of experiments,” in an attempt to lighten the certainty and implication of biogenesis, others are now calling it a “principle,” instead of a law. Has experimentation proven there are exceptions to its validity? No. Quite the contrary is true. However, if it is considered to be a law, then atheistic evolution cannotbe true, and one must then concede the existence of God. In their textbook, Biology: A Search for Order in Complexity, Moore and Slusher discuss the Law of Biogenesis. In a footnote, they say:

Some philosophers call this a principle instead of a law, but this is a matter of definition, and definitions are arbitrary. Some scientists call this a superlaw, or a law about laws. Regardless of terminology, biogenesis has the highest rank in these levels of generalization (1974, p. 74, emp. in orig.).

In truth, calling Biogenesis a “principle” instead of a “law” does absolutely nothing to aid the evolutionary model, other than making its proponents falsely feel more comfortable with the self-contradictory viewpoint they embrace. After all, the McGraw-Hill Dictionary of Scientific and Technical Terms defines a “principle” as “a scientific law which is highly general orfundamental, and from which other laws are derived” (2003, p. 1671, emp. added). Evolutionists simply cannot escape the truth of the Law of Biogenesis. Evolution cannot be true, and the Law of Biogenesis also be true. Why go against the scientific evidence in support of an unscientific whim?

A Recent Quibble

Today’s evolutionist tries to side step the abiogenesis problem by contending that evolution has nothing to do with the origin of life, but rather is a theory which starts with life already in existence and explains the origin of all species from that original life form. However, this is wishful thinking. Historically, evolutionists have recognized that abiogenesis is a fundamental assumption inherent in evolutionary theory. Recall that Kerkut listed abiogenesis as the first assumption in a list of non-provable assumptions upon which evolution is founded (Kerkut, 1960, p. 6). Recall further that atheistic evolutionist Robert Hazen admitted that in his assumption of abiogenesis, he is “like most other scientists” (2005). After all, without abiogenesis in place, there is no starting point for atheistic evolution. One would have to concede, at the very least, some form of theistic evolution. However, proposed theistic evolutionary models have been found to be untenable as well (cf. Thompson, 2000). Further, evolutionists themselves often use the term “evolution” as a generalized catchall word encompassing all materialistic origin models, including those dealing with the origin of the cosmos, not just the origin of species. Creationists are merely using the evolutionists’ terms in the same way they use them. The truth is, one cannot logically commence a study of Life Science or Biology—studies which are intimately linked with the theory of evolution by scientists today—without first studying the origin of that life which allegedly evolved from a single-celled organism into the various forms of life on Earth today. The two are linked and logically cannot be separated. The reality is that since macroevolution cannot harmonize with true theism (cf. Thompson, 2000), that theory is left alongside abiogenesis as a fundamental plank of atheism. The two are intimately linked and stand or fall together.

One wonders why some “scientists” are so unscientific in their view of origins. Why pick the view that is, by their own admission, “impossible”? Why not look at the scientific evidence and allow it to lead to a conclusion that is in keeping with that evidence—regardless of whether or not they wish to accept it, and regardless of whether the ultimate Cause of life can be directly observed? Would not such an approach be the reasonable one? Would not such an approach be the scientific one? Why should the assumption be made that there is no Creator? Recognizing the existence of a Creator allows for an explanation of the origin of life that is in keeping with the scientific evidence—unlike abiogenesis. The late, renowned British philosopher and former atheist, Antony Flew, after decades of promoting atheism, decided at the end of his life to accept the evidence and concede the existence of a Supreme Being. He wrote, “The only satisfactory explanation for the origin of such ‘end-directed, self-replicating’ life as we see on earth is an infinitely intelligent Mind” (2007, p. 132). While his willingness to stand against the overwhelming tide of false science in becoming somewhat of a deist is certainly commendable, coming to such a conclusion should not be difficult. An unbiased examination of the scientific evidence on the matter shouts the truth to the unbiased mind.

CONCLUSION

If it could be said that the Law of Biogenesis contradicts the scientific evidence, it would be false. However, such is not the case. It is in keeping with all the evidence. Consider, though, that if one rejects the Creation model, the Law of Biogenesis must be false, since without the Creation model, life had to come from non-life—in violation of that law. The atheistic evolutionist’s conclusion: all of the scientific evidence over the centuries which has proven, according to the evolutionists themselves, the impossibility of abiogenesis, should be discarded in support of a theory which has no scientific support.

Evolution is not in harmony with true science. Creation, however, is. If abiogenesis is not true according to science, special creation, which does not contradict the Law of Biogenesis, must, of necessity, be true. Science, once again, is the friend of God and His Word and the enemy of the atheist.

REFERENCES

Coolidge-Stolz, Elizabeth, Jan Jenner, Marylin Lisowski, Donald Cronkite, and Linda Cronin Jones (2005),Life Science (Boston, MA: Prentice Hall).

Dickerson, Richard E. (1978), “Chemical Evolution and the Origin of Life,” Scientific American, 239[3]:70-110, September.

Flew, Antony and Roy Varghese (2007), There Is No God: How the World’s Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind (New York: HarperOne).

Hazen, Robert (2005), Origins of Life (Chantilly, VA: The Teaching Company).

Hoyle, Fred and Chandra Wickramasinghe (1978), Lifecloud (New York: Harper & Row).

Kerkut, George A. (1960), The Implications of Evolution (London: Pergamon).

McGraw-Hill Dictionary of Scientific and Technical Terms (2003), pub. M.D. Licker (New York: McGraw-Hill), sixth edition.

Miller, Kenneth R. and Joseph Levine (1991), Biology (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall).

Miller, Kenneth R. and Joseph S. Levine (2006), Biology (Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall).

Merriam-Webster On-line Dictionary (2003), http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary.

Moore, John N. and H.S. Slusher (1974), Biology: A Search for Order in Complexity (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan).

National Geographic Education Division, Lucy Daniel, Peter Rillero, Alton Biggs, Edward Ortleb, and Dinah Zike (2005), Life Sciences (New York: McGraw-Hill/Glencoe).

Rensberger, Boyce (1986), How the World Works (New York: William Morrow).

Thompson, Bert (2000), Creation Compromises (Montgomery, AL: Apologetics Press).

Wald, George (1954), “The Origin of Life,” Scientific American, 191[2]:44-53, August.

Wald, George (1962), “Theories on the Origin of Life” in Frontiers of Modern Biology (Boston, MA: Houghton-Mifflin).

Why Did God Create People—Knowing That Many Would Go to Hell? by Kyle Butt, M.A.

http://apologeticspress.org/apPubPage.aspx?pub=1&issue=1024

Why Did God Create People—Knowing That Many Would Go to Hell?

by	Kyle Butt, M.A.

[Author’s Note: The latter half of this question, which concerns hell, is a sentiment that is often used by skeptics to cast doubt on the veracity of the Bible and the God depicted in its pages. We will deal with this question in two distinct sections. First, we will see what the Bible has to say about why God created humans in general. Then we will proceed to show that the concept of hell, and God’s foreknowledge about who will choose to go there, does not rationally or morally militate against the God of the Bible.]

If there is an all-knowing, all-powerful God (and there is, seeExistence of God), then we would expect His motivations for action to be, in many cases, unknown to us. Since there would be so many things that He would know and we would not, it would be virtually impossible for us to understand His reasons for certain actions unless He condescended to explain them. As Isaiah the prophet wrote: “‘For My thoughts are not your thoughts, nor are your ways My ways,’ says the Lord. ‘For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are My ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts’” (Isaiah 55:8-9). In one sense we could liken God’s relationship to humans to the knowledge that a five-year-old child would have of some of the actions of her parents. Suppose a child sees a parent pull out a small, rectangular checkbook, write something on a check, pull the check out and put it in an envelope, place a stamp on it, and put it in the mail. The child might ask, “Mommy, why did you do that?” The mother might respond, “So that we can keep driving our car without the bank taking it from us.” How could the child possibly connect a piece of paper to driving a car? Without knowing the details of how a check represents money, how the car was purchased from a dealership, how the bank loaned the parents money, etc., then the child could not grasp the significance of the check.

In a similar way, there are things that God has done that we humans can never fully understand for the simple reason that God has not told us why He has done them. Or, perhaps He has told us, but His answer does not give all the details that our human curiosity might wish. Moses well understood this idea when he wrote: “The secret things belong to the Lord our God, but those things which have been revealed belong to us and our children forever, that we may do all the words of this law” (Deuteronomy 29:29). Some things God tells us; some things He does not.

When we approach the question of why God created humans, we find ourselves dealing with a question for which God has not provided an extensive answer. The simple answer given in the Bible is that God created humans, as well as the rest of creation, by His will and for His glory. 

BY HIS WILL

Revelation 4:11 declares: “You are worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honor and power; for you created all things, and by Your will they exist and were created” (emp. added). The “take home” message from this verse is that God freely chose to create and was not constrained by any outside force or by a need to fill any type of deficiency. Psalm 115:3 says: “But our God is in heaven; He does whatever He pleases.” The simple, but none too informative, answer to our question is that God wanted to create humans, so He did.

We must stress, at this point, that His desire to create humans was not because He needed them for some reason. There have been those, especially in ancient religions, who have suggested that God was lonely or in some way deficient and needed humans as companions or helpers. This suggestion has no merit. In Acts 17:24-25, the apostle Paul plainly declared: “God, who made the world and everything in it, since He is Lord of heaven and earth, does not dwell in temples made with hands. Nor is He worshiped with men’s hands, as though he needed anything, since He gives to all life, breath, and all things” (emp. added).

The fact that God does not need humans to “help” Him is also reflected in Psalm 50:10-12, a statement that quotes God’s own words: “For every beast of the forest is Mine, and the cattle on a thousand hills. I know all the birds of the mountains, and the wild beasts of the field are Mine. If I were hungry, I would not tell you; for the world is Mine and all its fullness.” This passage is certainly not suggesting that God would actually get hungry. On the contrary, it is implying that God would never need anything from His Creation.

Neither was God “forced” to create humans because He was lonely. Being the all-sufficient Being, there is nothing in God that needs more of anything. God’s eternal communion with Himself (in the persons of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit) has always provided all the fellowship God needs to be complete. We can clearly see this communion of the three persons of the Godhead in Genesis 1:26, “Then God said, ‘Let us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness.’” Jesus echoed this sentiment of God’s eternal communion when He prayed to the Father: “And now, O Father, glorify Me together with Yourself, with the glory which I had with You before the world was” (John 17:5, emp. added). God’s free will act of creating humans had nothing to do with a need to assuage any loneliness. As Stanley Grenz correctly concluded: “Thus, God’s creation of the universe is a free act, a non-necessary act. God is not driven to create, not forced by some sense of compulsion to bring the universe into existence” (1994, p. 99).

Just because God did not (and does not) need humanity for anything, does not imply that humans are unimportant to God. Once He freely chose to create humans, He endowed them with importance by forming them in His own image (Genesis 1:26-27). As theologian Wayne Grudem rightly commented:

Someone might wonder, if God does not need us for anything, then are we important at all? Is there any significance to our existence or to the existence of the rest of creation? In response it must be said that we are in fact very meaningful because God has created us and determined that we would be meaningful to him. That is the final definition of genuine significance (Grudem, 1994, p. 162, italics in original).

God chose to create us by His free will. When He did, He endowed us with meaning and importance by creating us in His image.

FOR HIS GLORY

The Bible also says that God created humans “for His glory.” The God of the Bible declared: “Everyone who is called by My name, Whom I have created for My glory, I have formed him, yes, I have made him” (Isaiah 43:7, emp. added). It is at this point that we must confess that the phrase “for His glory” opens the door to a great deal of speculation. What does the Bible mean when it says that humans (and all creation) were brought into existence for God’s glory? Does it mean that His creation will praise Him and give Him glory? Does it mean the mere fact that human existence brings glory to God as a manifestation of His power and ingenuity? Does it mean that our continued worship of God, in spite of the existence of suffering and hardship in this world, vindicates God and glorifies Him in contradiction to Satan’s expectations, as illustrated in the book of Job? Everything that is involved in this idea will never be truly understood by humans. We can only say that humans are here “for His glory.”

Some have suggested that if the God of the Bible made humans simply “for His glory,” then this would imply that God is an egotistical dictator Who simply wanted more “subjects” to grovel at His feet and tell Him how great He is. This suggestion fails to comprehend important aspects of the phrase “for His glory.” Not only are humans designed to bring glory to God, but they are also designed to enjoy God’s glory and find their own completeness in it. As Jack Cottrell stated: “Herein lies the purpose of human existence, i.e., to receive God’s goodness and to give him glory” (2002, p. 109). God created humans to live a blissfully happy life receiving His glory and responding in turn to the gift of His glory. It is a perfect feedback loop of humans receiving God’s glory, responding with obedience and praise, and being complete and fulfilled by their reception of God’s glory as well as by their proper response to it. We can say, then, that God created humans to live blissfully perfect lives receiving and reciprocating His glory. Understanding the situation in this light brings to the surface the folly of accusing God of selfish egotism.

KNOWING MOST PEOPLE WILL GO TO HELL

Once we establish the fact that God created humans by His will, to live completely happy lives as they receive and respond to His glory, the skeptic is quick to seize upon the fact that many people are not blissfully happy. In fact, a large number of people are unhappy. Not only that, demands the skeptic, but most people, according to the Bible, are destined to be punished eternally in hell. How is it, the skeptic queries, that a loving God could create humans, knowing that most of them would go to hell? Atheist author David Mills demanded:

If we conclude, then, that God would create Hell to deter human behavior which He disliked—knowing beforehand that the majority of humanity would, as a result, suffer eternal torture—then we would be forced to label this god as evil and sadistic also, because He likewise would have inhumanely tortured individuals in order to accomplish His goals (Mills, 2006, p. 180).

Skeptic Vistonas Wu posted similar thoughts on the Web in an article titled “Debunking the Arguments of Christian Fundamentalists and Evangelists”: “If you were God, and you were omnipotent and could see throughout all time, would you create a world where you knew beforehand that the majority of people would end up in an eternal hell?” (2009). The answer implied by the skeptic is, “No.” But the problem with his reasoning is that humans are not all-knowing and that is why humans are not in such a position. In fact, in light of humanity’s limited knowledge, it easily could be the case that the information we do not have at the present is the very information that would lead an all-knowing Being to create the world as it is. The simple sounding question, “If you were God…,” can never be asked in any legitimate sense, and certainly cannot be used as “evidence” to impugn the character of God. If a person really could be God, then his thought process would be so different from what it is now, there is no way he could say what he would or would not do. It needs to be noted in this context that God has created humans in His image, endowing them with the ability to distinguish truth from error, and those ideas that are rational from those that are not. We are not contending that God’s choice to create people is irrational to humans, but rational to God. We are simply saying that God’s omniscience puts Him in a position to know all the details that would be needed to make a perfectly rational decision.

DISSECTING THE SKEPTIC"S ACCUSATION

The skeptic’s accusation that God is evil because He created humans, even though He knew that most would go to hell, crumbles under closer scrutiny. First, the skeptic is quick to include the idea that “most” people are going to hell. This word “most” must be included in the accusation, because if more people go to heaven than go to hell, one could easily argue (using the skeptics’ own humanistic morality) that the present world is arranged for the benefit of the majority. Since humanistic morality claims an action is moral as long as it brings about the most good for the majority of people (Butt, 2010, pp. 33-36), then skeptics cannot, according to their own standard, criticize a God that saves “most” people in heaven and allows a minority of them to choose hell.

So, can we be sure that “most” people are going to hell? No, and here is why. Numerous verses can be cited that seem to indicate that a majority of people choose hell. The most common passage is Matthew 7:13-14, which states: “Enter by the narrow gate for wide is the gate and broad is the way that leads to destruction, and there are many who go in by it. Because narrow is the gate and difficult is the way which leads to life, and there are few who find it.” According to this passage, many choose the path to destruction, and only few choose the path to life. What is implied in these verses, however, is the idea that those under discussion have the ability and capacity to choose. Those who are not in view in this or other such passages are those who have not yet reached an age or mental capacity to choose—unborn babies, infants, and children. If we can show that children go to heaven (and we can, see Butt, 2003), and we can show that there is at least a possibility that more children have died in a saved condition than adults who have died lost, then we can do away with the idea that “most” people are going to hell. When we consider that worldwide, there are an estimated 42 million abortions each year (Johnston, 2010), and when we understand that children often are the first to die in periods of famine and disease, we are forced to conclude that it is at least possible, and most likely probable, that more humans have died in a saved state than those who will be eternally lost. [NOTE: At this point in the discussion, the skeptic will often change the subject and demand that God cannot be loving and allow all those children to die. This accusation is false and has been definitively refuted, see Butt, 2009]. The skeptic, then, cannot know if “most” people are going to hell, and thus, according to humanistic morality based on the majority, cannot accuse God of evil. In truth, however, the concept of “most” people has very little to do with justifying God’s actions. Because God’s morality can still be justified even if most people are lost and only a few saved.

GOD WANTS ALL PEOPLE TO CHOOSE TO BE SAVED

The Bible is clear that God allows all accountable  humans to choose their own final destination. Throughout the Scriptures, we see God placing before humans the ability to determine their own destiny. Moses wrote: “I call heaven and earth as witnesses today against you, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing; therefore choose life” (Deuteronomy 30:19). Jesus’ statement in Matthew 7:13-14 about the narrow and wide paths included the idea that His listeners had the ability “to enter” whichever path they chose. Joshua underscored this idea of choice when he declared to the Israelites, “And if it seems evil to you to serve the Lord, choose for yourselves this day whom you will serve” (Joshua 24:15). The skeptical community likes to parade before the masses a picture of a tyrant God Who arbitrarily casts people to eternal destruction based on nothing more than whim and caprice. That is not true. Any person who goes to hell will have consciously made the decision to be there. As atheist Dan Barker so clearly stated: “Speaking for myself, if the biblical heaven and hell exist, I would choose hell” (2008, p. 170). C.S. Lewis insightfully noted: “There are only two kinds of people in the end: those who say to God, ‘Thy will be done,’ and those to whom God says, in the end, ‘Thy will be done.’ All that are in Hell, choose it” (1946, p. 72, ital. in orig.). Timothy Keller added: “All God does in the end with people is give them what they most want, including freedom from himself. What could be more fair than that?” (2008, p. 79).

God allows people to choose their final destiny, and He wants all men to choose to be saved. First Timothy 2:4 says that God “desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.” Second Peter 3:8 says that the Lord is “not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.” Not only does He not want people to choose hell, He sent His Son as a sacrifice for sin to dissuade people from choosing hell and to persuade them to choose heaven. In fact, the book of Hebrews explains that those who choose the path to destruction will trample the Son of God under their feet on their way (Hebrews 10:29). The concept of hell does not militate against God’s love or justice (Butt, 2010, pp. 17-24). [NOTE: I understand that the skeptic does not accept these verses as inspired and does not accept the story of Jesus’ sacrificial atonement. If the skeptic accuses the Bible of portraying God as immoral, however, he must allow the Bible to answer for itself. I am simply saying the Bible presents a cogent, logical argument that shows the skeptics’ accusation of God as being immoral to be wrong. If God really allows people to choose, and if He sent His Son to demonstrate His love and persuade people to choose right, then He cannot be accused of immorality.]

GOD SHOWS NO PARTIALITY

Another key concept to understandingGod’s dealings with humanity is His lack of partiality. The apostle Peter correctly stated: “In truth I perceive that God shows no partiality. But in every nation whoever fears Him and works righteousness is accepted by Him” (Acts 10:34-35). This verse testifies to the fact that the Bible presents God as a perfectly impartial, fair Being Who gives every person an equal opportunity to respond to the truth. We must understand, however, that we are not saying that all people have the exact same number of opportunities to hear the Gospel, or are born into identical socio-economic situations, etc. What we are saying is that God fairly judges each person based on the opportunities he or she has been given. As Jesus said: “For everyone to whom much is given, from him much will be required; and to whom much has been committed, of him they will ask the more” (Luke 12:48).  In all the examples in the Bible in which people responded properly to the truth, God provided those people with enough information to be saved (cf. Acts 8:26-38; Acts 10). God, therefore, takes into account every aspect of a person’s inherent make-up and external environment and impartially judges that person’s behavior based on what he or she should do given all the circumstances.

YES, BUT GOD KNEW SOME WOULD CHOOSE HELL...

Once the skeptic realizes that he cannot rationally conclude that God is unfair for allowing all people to choose their own destiny, he must insist that the mere fact God knew some people would choose hell should have kept God from creating those people. An adequate response to such a statement is simply, “Who says?” Is there anything about the skeptic’s charge that shows some type of inherent moral rightness? There is nothing. And while, “Who says?” is an adequate response, it is not the only one at the disposal of the biblical theist. While it is true that God could have only created those humans that He knew would choose heaven, would the skeptic call that “fair”? Would it be fair for God not to create a person, and thereby deprive that person of the same opportunities and chances as other people, simply because God knew that person would choose hell? Such a course of action would actually be truly “unfair” and would land God in the real moral dilemma of showing partiality. On the contrary, the only way for God to be truly fair to all His human creatures would be to allow each of them the same opportunity to choose their own final destination.

The skeptic might then contend that it would have been better for God not to have created humans at all. But the answer to such a statement once again is, “Who says?” Who is the skeptic to say that a world with no humans is one that is better than a world in which humans are all given an equal chance to respond to God’s love, with many millions actually responding obediently and receiving eternal life? On what grounds does the skeptic demand that his perceived world is better than the one that we have? He can appeal to no greater authority than his own personal opinion. In essence, the skeptic is saying nothing more than, “I think it would have been better if humans were not created if some would choose hell.” The response to such an opinion is simply that God, Who knows everything and is completely impartial and perfectly moral and loving, understands at least one thing about the Universe that the skeptic does not know (or refuses to acknowledge) that calls for the situation to be as it is.

CONCLUSION

There is no possible way for our finite human minds to understand all the reasons behind why God created humans. There is enough information about God and humans for us to reason properly that God is not immoral for having created humans. We can know that humans were created by an act of God’s free will to receive and respond to His glory. The skeptic’s vacuous charge that God is immoral for creating humans, knowing that some would choose hell, cannot be sustained. God has given every responsible person an equal opportunity to choose heaven. There is no ground upon which the skeptic can maintain that a world without humans would be a better world than one in which some humans choose eternal life and others choose eternal destruction. In fact, God’s attributes of omniscience, impartiality, and love provide the basis to conclude that only He would be in a position to determine which world would be the very best. When understood properly, the Bible presents a completely consistent picture of God’s moral perfection in regard to His choice to create humans.

REFERENCES

Barker, Dan (2008), godless (Berkeley, CA: Ulysses Press).

Butt, Kyle (2003), “Do Babies Go to Hell When They Die?”http://www.apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=13&article=1201.

Butt, Kyle (2009), “Is God Immoral for Killing Babies?” http://www.apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=11&article=260.

Butt, Kyle (2010), A Christian’s Guide to Refuting Modern Atheism (Montgomery, AL: Apologetics Press).

Cottrell, Jack (2002), The Faith Once for All (Joplin, MO: College Press).

Grenz, Stanley (1994), Theology for the Community of God (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans).

Grudem, Wayne (1994), Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan).

Johnston, W. Robert (2010), “Summary of Registered Abortions Worldwide, Through April 10, 2010,” http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/policy/abortion/wrjp3310.html.

Keller, Timothy (2008), The Reason for God: Belief in an Age of Skepticism (New York: Dutton).

Lewis, C.S. (1946), The Great Divorce (New York: Touchstone).

Mills, David (2006), Atheist Universe: The Thinking Person’s Answer to Christian Fundamentalism(Berkeley, CA: Ulysses Press).

Wu, Vistonas (2009), “Debunking the Arguments of Christian Fundamentalists and Evangelists,” http://www.debunkingskeptics.com/Debunking_Christians/Contents.htm.

Is the Large Hadron Collider a Big Bang Machine? by Branyon May, Ph.D.

http://apologeticspress.org/apPubPage.aspx?pub=1&issue=1026

Is the Large Hadron Collider a Big Bang Machine?

by	Branyon May, Ph.D.

[Editor’s Note: The following article was written by A.P. scientist Dr. May who holds a B.S. degree in Physics from Angelo State University, as well as M.S. and Ph.D. degrees in Astrophysics from the University of Alabama.]

In the news, it has been dubbed the “Big Bang Machine” (Boyle, 2008; “‘Big Bang’ Machine…, 2010; Than, 2011), but what exactly is the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) and what does it have to do, if anything, with the Big Bang? Constructed by the European Organization for Nuclear Research (CERN) and located along the French-Swiss border, the LHC is the world’s largest particle accelerator and has been described as “the largest and most sophisticated scientific instrument ever built” (“CERN Inaugurates...,” 2008). Located about 100 meters (330 feet) underground, the LHC can accelerate a beam of protons to 99.99% the speed of light through an ultra-high vacuum beam-pipe connected in a large, circular circuit, almost 27 kilometers (17 miles) in circumference. The enormous magnets that direct the particle beams along their paths are cryogenically cooled to only 1.9 degrees above absolute zero (-271.3 deg C) (“Facts and Figures,” 2008). Along the beam’s path are four large detectors, of which the ATLAS detector represents the largest particle detector ever built, having a volume of over 28,000 cubic meters (7.4 million gallons) and weighing some 7,000 tons (“ATLAS—A Toroidal...,” 2008).

With regard to its connection to Big Bang cosmology, a CERN press release from September 2, 2003 declared, “By colliding particles at extremely high energies, the LHC should shed light on such questions as...What was the state of matter a few microseconds after the Big Bang?” (“CERN Celebrates Discoveries...,” 2003). Three years later in 2006, a similar statement was made in an October press release, that the LHC “possesses enough energy to recreate the first instances of the Big Bang” (“Stephen Hawking Tours...,” 2006). Some have even circulated speculations that the LHC will create micro-black holes and recreate the Big Bang, and global news stories seem to insinuate the LHC will solve all the remaining questions concerning how the Universe arose from a Big Bang. In fact, a video titled “Big Bang v2.0,” produced with support from the Science and Technology Facilities Council (a national research council in the United Kingdom), introduces the LHC under the auspices of being able to answer science’s biggest questions (“Big Bang v2.0,” n.d.). The video’s introduction displays the following questions: “What is Dark Matter?” “Why do things have mass?” “What happened at the Big Bang?” The next two frames give their reply: “The biggest questions in science will be answered... by the biggest experiment in history.” Yet, can the LHC really give the world what the headlines claim (cf. Miller, 2011a; Miller, 2011b)? It seems that a reality check is badly needed—one that is apart from all the sensational press and flashy media presentations.

GENERATING EXTREME, YET NATURAL CONDITIONS

It is obvious that sensationalism has taken its toll, when on the official LHC Web site under the page titled, “LHC ‘Big Questions,’” you find the following question: “I have heard that the LHC will recreate the Big Bang, does that mean it might create another Universe and if so what will happen to our Universe?” (“LHC ‘Big Questions’,” 2012a). This question is a logical outcome when considering the common moniker, “The Big Bang Machine,” the LHC has been given. The following response to this question, as quoted from the LHC Web site, illuminates several important ideas to put the LHC experiments into proper perspective:

People sometimes refer to recreating the Big Bang, but this is misleading. What they actually mean is:

• recreating the conditions and energies that existed shortly after the start of the Big Bang, not the moment at which the Big Bang started,
• recreating conditions on a micro scale, not on the same scale as the original Big Bang and,
• recreating energies that are continually being produced naturally (by high energy cosmic rays hitting the earth’s atmosphere) but at will and inside sophisticated detectors that track what is happening.

No Big Bang—so no possibility of creating a new Universe (“LHC ‘Big Questions’,” 2012b).

First, a quick note: although the final sentence declares, “No Big Bang,” the author is not implying a denial of the Big Bang Theory, but rather this summarizing statement, taken in context, is declaring that no experiment will create a Universe, wherein scientists would be able to watch space-time and matter unfold.

Next, notice in the response how it is repeatedly emphasized the experiments performed are attempts at “recreating” a set of energies or conditions thought to have been present shortly after the Big Bang. It is these extreme ranges of parameters that many scientists believe are in some form analogous to conditions shortly after the Big Bang. Their goal, therefore, is not and cannot be to generate, reproduce, or in any way initiate an event similar to what is alleged by the Big Bang Theory. Rather, they simply are generating a certain range of energy conditions. Sadly, their attempts at correcting this misconception are obscured, if not contradicted, even within their own Web site.

The LHC will collide lead nuclei so that they release their constituent quarks in a fleeting ‘Little Bang’. This will take us back to the time before these particles formed, re-creating the conditions early in the evolution of the universe, when quarks and gluons were free to mix without combining(“LHC ‘Big Questions’,” 2012c, emp. added).

It is not a matter of whether the LHC will create a Big Bang, a “Little Bang,” or a “mini-Big Bang” (Moskvitch, 2010). It cannot generate any “Bang,” as defined within a cosmological origins scenario.

Notice next, the third bulleted statement in the LHC’s response, which states that the conditions produced artificially in the LHC “are continually being produced naturally (by high energy cosmic rays hitting the earth’s atmosphere)...” (“LHC ‘Big Questions’,” 2012b). This simple statement has some profound implications. Especially when it is recognized that the set of conditions and energies to be produced at the LHC have and are being continually produced in nature, and are not a unique characteristic found only in the Big Bang scenario. As the parenthetical phrase states, nature’s equivalent to the LHC occurs when high-energy cosmic rays collide with Earth’s upper atmosphere.

Cosmic rays are very high-energy, subatomic particles that are produced from outside our solar system and within our galaxy. Some of these particles stream into Earth’s atmosphere, colliding with atmospheric particles to produce showers of lower-energy, secondary particles. Many of these cosmic rays are at energies comparable to and greater than the maximum estimated center-of-mass energies of the two counter-rotation proton beams of the LHC. In fact, the approximate rate at which such comparable cosmic rays enter Earth’s atmosphere is an astounding 250,000 particles per second, with over 7.8 trillion events occurring per year (Ellis, et al., 2008, p. 4). Do not let this fact escape notice: although the Big Bang theory requires extremely high-energy conditions in its model, the ability to produce such conditions (or the simple existence of such conditions) does not prove that the Universe came into existence in such a manner. Such conditions are involved in ongoing natural processes, of which scientists presently are deepening their understanding. The connection between the LHC and the cosmic-ray interactions is much more tangible. Consider the following: (1) the high-energy, cosmic-ray interactions in the atmosphere can be observed, measured, and tested in real-time data; (2) hypotheses can be verified or falsified, then adjusted; (3) subsequent predictions can be made and entire processes from beginning to end can be observed; (4) theories can be updated based on the concrete observations; and (5) results can be applied to the current working knowledge. Yet this connection apparently does not make headlines.

To those who might question the validity of a comparison between the LHC collisions and cosmic-ray events, notice that this same comparison is used as a central argument in a report by the LHC Safety Assessment Group (LSAG), which was tasked by CERN with addressing various safety concerns relating to the LHC experiments. As an overarching argument supporting the LHC as a safe endeavor, the authors drew upon this comparison to show that if Earth, Jupiter, the Sun, and countless stars across the galaxy can survive the enormous number of cosmic-ray collisions in their atmospheres (as evinced by their existence today), then the speculations about microscopic black-holes being created, growing, and consuming Earth, are unsubstantiated. The report’s abstract stated an important fact: the center-of-mass energies of the LHC collisions are “less than those reached in the atmosphere by some of the cosmic rays” (Ellis, et al., p. 1). In summarizing their arguments, the authors state, “Thus, the continued existence of the Earth and other astronomical bodies can be used to constrain or exclude speculations about possible new particles that might be produced by the LHC” (p. 5).

Also consider the following two quotes by Stephen Hawking of Cambridge University and Edward Kolb of the University of Chicago, respectively, who are quoted among many distinguished physicists and cosmologists on the CERN Web site.

The world will not come to an end when the LHC turns on. The LHC is absolutely safe.... Collisions releasing greater energy occur millions of times a day in the earth’s atmosphere and nothing terrible happens (“The Safety of the LHC,” 2008).

Nature has already done this experiment.... Cosmic rays have hit the moon with more energy and have not produced a black hole that has swallowed up the moon. The universe doesn’t go around popping off huge black holes (“The Safety of the LHC,” 2008).

Interestingly, a 2003 press release, which announced the upcoming 50^th anniversary of CERN, stated: “This new research facility—a 27 kilometre circular particle accelerator—will smash protons and other nuclei together head on, creating conditions that have not existed since the Big Bang” (“CERN Prepares...,” 2003). Of course, this statement is an obvious contradiction to the previous quotes discussed above. However, can it be explained as accurate to the current knowledge of that time, which has undergone developments since 2003? The answer is no. Although the press release stated that such conditions had not existed since the Big Bang, a safety report tasked by CERN was published the same year, and referenced how high-energy, cosmic rays represent a close comparison to the particle energies expected in the collisions of the LHC. In fact, the first sentence under the subsection titled “Cosmic Rays” stated, “Cosmic-ray processes reach the energies and energy densities that will be encountered at the LHC and, therefore, they may provide limits on possible disaster scenarios” (Blaizot, et al., 2003, p. 4). The report also referenced peer-reviewed papers from the journals Reviews of Modern Physics (Jaffe, et al., 2000) andPhysics Letters B (Dar, et al., 1999) with similarly-based arguments.

As the experiments are performed at the LHC and the physics of the high-energy collisions are analyzed, the results definitely will contribute to our understanding of matter in extreme conditions. The benefit of the LHC is the high level of control and reproducibility of conditions such as: the total energy of the colliding particles, whether the two beams collide or a beam and stationary target, the number and types of particles involved, and the minimizing of external contaminants. The descriptions and knowledge learned will be broadly applicable whenever those extreme conditions are encountered, but they do not in any way prove the Big Bang as the origin of the Universe. Thus, the “Big Bang Machine,” constructed to recreate the conditions supposedly found after the Big Bang, actually produces conditions currently observed in cosmic-ray interactions with Earth’s upper atmosphere (and with the Moon’s surface and the Sun’s atmosphere). So a more appropriate name might be “Cosmic-Ray Machine.”

ASTOUNDING DESIGN

From the earliest experiments of the composition of the atom, scientists have used particle collisions and the resulting interactions as a method to discover some of the most fundamental descriptions of matter. In these experiments, the fundamental laws of conservation (conservation of energy, momentum, charge, etc.) are the overarching guiding principles. These laws allow scientists to track the various collision results, knowing that predetermined input parameters (mass, energy, numbers of particles, and/or types of particles) restrict the possible output. Thus, scientists work from the existing input of mass-energy, knowing that the output must be derived from, and cannot exceed, the input into the closed system. Every natural source of energy, from the combustion in car engines to the Sun’s light to the spectacular supernovae, are described by the conservation laws of nature. Even the horrifyingly tremendous amount of energy released in a nuclear explosion is subject to the amount of mass-energy initially present. In the LHC, scientists are not creating matter/energy that was not already present. Likewise, the same is true for any Big Bang model—matter/energy cannot be created nor destroyed in the physical Universe by natural means (cf. Miller, 2007; Miller, 2010). Thus, from whence did it come?

With some initial “hiccups” (see “CERN Releases...,” 2008), the world’s largest particle accelerator, the Large Hadron Collider, began full operations in 2009. The enormous structure, complex engineering, precise detectors, extreme conditions, and intricate experiments that have been developed by many thousands of highly intelligent scientists and engineers over many years, are astounding. How is it that such immense intelligence is required in order to try to “recreate” an accidental, chaotic, purpose-less event—the Big Bang? Is this not an incredible contradiction? Yet, such is the sentiment with each press release and news headline that dubs the LHC the “Big Bang Machine.” When addressing this very question, “How did our Universe come to be the way it is?,” CERN’s own Web site replies matter-of-factly, “The Universe started with a Big Bang—but we don’t fully understand how or why it developed the way it did” (“LHC ‘Big Questions’,” 2012d). In this statement, no doubt is expressed as to whether the Big Bang event occurred, rather just a casual admission of lacking understanding in the details—including the supposed 13.7 billion years that followed. It would be unimaginable to describe the enormous efforts undertaken by those at CERN and the LHC to engineer, construct, and deploy such an amazing technical feat as anything but extraordinary design. It is more unimaginable to attribute anything but Divine designto the intricacies, precision, and complexities seen at every scale of the Universe.

REFERENCES

“ATLAS—A Toroidal LHC Apparatus,” (2008), CERN, http://public.web.CERN.ch/Public/en/LHC/ATLAS-en.html.

“‘Big Bang’ Machine Ready to Smash Records,” (2010), CBS News, March 30, http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/03/29/tech/main6344326.shtml.

“Big Bang v2.0” (no date), http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2008/09/top-5-large-had/.

Blaizot, J.P., J. Iliopoulos, J. Madsen, et al. (2003), “Study of Potentially Dangerous Events During Heavy-Ion Collisions at the LHC: Report of the LHC Safety Study Group,” CERNScientific Information Service, http://doc.CERN.ch/yellowrep/2003/2003-001/p1.pdf.

Boyle, Alan (2008), “Scientists Turn on Biggest ‘Big Bang Machine,’” MSNBC, September 10, http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26439957/.

“CERN Celebrates Discoveries and Looks to the Future,” (2003), CERNPress Release, September 2, http://press.web.CERN.ch/press/PressReleases/Releases2003/PR12.03EWZsymposium.html.

“CERN Inaugurates the LHC” (2008), CERNPress Release, October 21, http://press.web.CERN.ch/press/PressReleases/Releases2008/PR16.08E.html.

“CERN Prepares for 50th Anniversary” (2003), CERNPress Release, July 1, http://press.web.CERN.ch/press/PressReleases/Releases2003/PR10.03ECERN50.html.

“CERN Releases Analysis of LHC Incident” (2008), CERNPress Release, October 16, http://press.web.CERN.ch/press/PressReleases/Releases2008/PR14.08E.html.

Dar, Arnon, A. DeRujula, and Ulrich Heinz (1999), “Will Relativistic Heavy-Ion Colliders Destroy Our Planet?,” Physics Letters B, 470[1-4]:142.

Ellis, John, Gian Giudice, Michelangelo Mangano, et al. (2008), “Review of the Safety of LHC Collisions,”Journal of Physics G: Nuclear Particle Physics, 35:115004.

“Facts and Figures” (2008), CERN, http://public.web.CERN.ch/Public/en/LHC/Facts-en.html.

Jaffe, R.L., W. Busza, F. Wilczek, and J. Sandweiss (2000), “Review of Speculative ‘Disaster Scenarios’ at RHIC,” Reviews of Modern Physics, 72[4]:1125.

LHC ‘Big Questions’” (2012a), http://www.lhc.ac.uk/About+the+LHC/LHC+Big+Questions/11841.aspx.

“LHC ‘Big Questions’” (2012b), http://www.lhc.ac.uk/About+the+LHC/LHC+Big+Questions/17709.aspx.

“LHC ‘Big Questions’” (2012c), http://www.lhc.ac.uk/About+the+LHC/LHC+Big+Questions/17735.aspx.

“LHC ‘Big Questions’” (2012d), http://www.lhc.ac.uk/About+the+LHC/LHC+Big+Questions/17733.aspx.

Miller, Jeff (2007), “God and the Laws of Thermodynamics: A Mechanical Engineer’s Perspective,” Reason & Revelation, 27:25-31, April, http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/3293.

Miller, Jeff (2010), “The Laws of Thermodynamics Don’t Apply to the Universe!” Apologetics Press,http://www.apologeticspress.org/article/3704.

Miller, Jeff (2011a), “Higgs Boson—The ‘God Particle’?” Apologetics Press,http://www.apologeticspress.org/apPubPage.aspx?pub=1&issue=977&article=1500.

Miller, Jeff (2011b), “Higgs Boson—Update,” Apologetics Press,http://www.apologeticspress.org/article/4120.

Moskvitch, Katia (2010), “Large Hadron Collider (LHC) Generates a ‘mini-Big Bang’,” BBC News, November 8, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-11711228.

“The Safety of the LHC” (2008), CERN, http://public.web.CERN.ch/Public/en/LHC/Safety-en.html.

“Stephen Hawking Tours the Future of Particle Physics at CERN” (2006), CERNPress Release, October 2, http://press.web.CERN.ch/press/PressReleases/Releases2006/PR13.06E.html.

Than, Ker (2011), “Densest Matter Created in Big-Bang Machine,” National Geographic News, May 24, http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2011/05/110524-densest-matter-created-lhc-alice-big-bang-space-science.