The Shouting Universe

For as long as I can remember in school, I was told the same thing about how all life on earth began and evolved: "Yes, there are challenges. Yes, there are improbabilities - if not impossibilities - needed to be overcome. But, trust the scientists who agree that given enough time, anything can happen." That's what I heard in high school biology and in college. That's what we're told in the media, and from about everyone else in our society.

The modern theory of Darwinian Evolution is now accepted on a mass scale, and if you're one of the few who believe something to the contrary, you are looked at as though you believed the earth were flat. I'm not kidding - this comparison was made by my college professors. "Evolution is not JUST a theory," they say. I discovered then that all major proponents of Darwinian Evolution are aware of the holes in their philosophy, and are secretly hoping no one will notice that their worldview just can't hold water.

I still vividly remember my Biology 101 course where on the first day of class, my professor took the time to explain to us: "This course is entirely about Evolution, and everything we will discuss will go back to Evolution. Evolution is true, and it is a theory just like our current understanding of gravity is a theory - which means it's a fact." These words were pretty intimidating to me as an 18 year old freshman, but I did something way back then that still makes me chuckle ... after that first lecture I approached my professor's desk, introduced myself, then told her that I didn't believe in Evolution. I provided some of my reasoning, and indicated that it would be up to her to convince me by the end of the course. She took up the challenge by stating that it would be no problem for her because Evolution is provable on many levels.

Spoiler alert: by God's grace I passed. But as I progressed through the material, I began to realize some important shortcomings in the modern theory of evolution. The first is that the explanations for the origin of life were (and still are) pretty laughable. I'm sorry, but the theories about non-life spawning life near a volcano, in a soup-like substance, maybe / maybe-not being struck by lightning, embarrasses me. And these theories embarrass scientists too. What's worse is that we can't seem to replicate the process in the laboratory under perfect conditions and odds that we control! Secondly, we look at the similarities between lifeforms and determine that because Evolution can happen on a micro level, and does produce new species, we take the leap that greater useful complexity arises through natural selection! They don't stop with new species evolving, they must insist that new organs, new functions, and new kinds of lifeforms are developed through this process. Textbooks have cute little cartoons to demonstrate new developments, but don't explain *how* this happens.

As I handed in my final exam I leaned in and whispered to my professor: "I wasn't convinced..." She looked at me, smiled, and nodded.

Not too long ago, I finished reading one of the classic books against Evolution: Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution by Michael Behe. He and I don't see eye to eye on many things, but I would highly recommend this book to help refine your understanding of why Evolution is a flawed theory. He approaches the subject differently than many non-evolutionists do, for example, he doesn't argue from the fossil record. Instead, he argues that the fatal flaw in Darwinian Evolution is that they can't explain their theory on a molecular level.

"Anatomy is, quite simply, irrelevant to the question of whether evolution could take place on the molecular level. So is the fossil record. It no longer matters whether there are huge gaps in the fossil record or whether the record is as continuous as that of U.S. presidents. And if there are gaps, it does not matter whether they can be explained plausibly. The fossil record has nothing to tell us about whether the interactions of 11-cis-retinal with rhodopsin, transducin, phosphodiesterase could have developed step-by-step." (pg. 22).

Behe says later:

"It is now approximately half a century since the neo-Darwinian synthesis was formulated. A great deal of research has been carried on within the paradigm it defines. Yet the successes of the theory are limited to the minutiae of evolution, such as the adaptive change in coloration of moths; while it has remarkably little to say on the questions which interest us most, such as how there came to be moths in the first place." (Bold Mine; pg. 28).

The real genius of his argument is the idea that complex systems (whether they be organs, or even functions within a cell), reach a point of irreducible complexity. Behe defines it this way:

"By irreducibly complex I mean a single system composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning. An irreducibly complex system cannot be produced directly (that is, by continuously improving the initial function, which continues to work by the same mechanism) by slight, successive modifications of a precursor system, because any precursor to an irreducibly complex system that is missing a part is by definition nonfunctional." (pg. 39).

Darwin's Black Box covers 3 powerful examples of irreducibly complex systems that I found very compelling: the eye, blood clotting, and the immune system. Each of these examples are so powerful and persuasive because of everything involved in these systems. I know enough to know that the eye is a remarkable system, so remarkable in fact that there are countless components that comprise its sheer brilliance. Darwinian Evolution would have us believe that the eye developed in slow, gradual changes over time. But the question is rightly asked: what use is a partial eye to natural selection without key components to make it functional? For instance, an eye without a retina is useless, hence the idea that the eye must have arrived in its completed form by a designer.

"The result of these cumulative efforts to investigate the cell-to investigate life at the molecular level-is a loud, clear, piercing cry of "design!" The result is so unambiguous and so significant that it must be ranked as one of the greatest achievements in the history of science. The discovery rivals those of Newton and Einstein, Lavoisier and Schrodinger, Pasteur, and Darwin. The observation of the intelligent design of life is as momentous as the observation that the earth goes around the sun or that disease is caused by bacteria or that radiation is emitted in quanta." (pg. 233).

It is this last idea that I appreciate but must go much further than he does, because Christians don't just believe in some unknown designer who fashioned life's complexity. Rather, we believe in the one and only God of the Bible, the triune God that we worship and love. Now having said that, I believe that there is incredible use in being able to address and discuss Evolution with people in today's society, because almost everyone you meet believes in Darwinian Evolution. People will want some kind of explanation, and this can help to address their concerns so that you can ultimately point them to the gospel of Jesus Christ.

Last week I was talking with an atheist friend about the gospel, and the subject of Evolution suddenly made its way into the conversation. He thought, just like most people think, that Evolution is a scientific reason not to believe in Christianity and the Bible. Using some of the reasoning in Behe's book, I was able to demonstrate the unfoundedness of Evolution. I then immediately made the connection to the reality of God's existence: that the Bible says God has clearly revealed Himself in creation, and in the moral Law written on everyone's heart. My friend didn't like hearing any of this (no sinners do), but Behe is right that molecular biology is shouting at us: "design!"

We know, as Christians, that the entirety of the expanding universe is proclaiming the clear existence of the King of Kings and Lord of Lords. This is why our appeal to fellow sinners has merit, and why we ought to have great courage when speaking about the truth to others. I'm encouraged by the account of Paul's interaction with Agrippa where he tries to persuade the King to repent and believe in Christ:

"24 While Paul was saying this in his defense, Festus *said in a loud voice, "Paul, you are out of your mind! Your great learning is driving you mad." 25 But Paul *said, "I am not out of my mind, most excellent Festus, but I utter words of sober truth. 26 For the king knows about these matters, and I speak to him also with confidence, since I am persuaded that none of these things escape his notice; for this has not been done in a corner. 27 King Agrippa, do you believe the Prophets? I know that you do." 28 Agrippa replied to Paul, " In a short time you will persuade me to become a Christian." 29 And Paul said, " I would wish to God, that whether in a short or long time, not only you, but also all who hear me this day, might become such as I am, except for these chains."" (Acts 26:24-29, NASB).

One thing is clear: God has revealed Himself to all men everywhere, and requires our repentance. By our love of the Lord and His gospel, and by the love we have for our fellow man, we should be looking for opportunities to make known the great God whom we serve with our whole heart.

"10 For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, so that each one may be recompensed for his deeds in the body, according to what he has done, whether good or bad. 11 Therefore, knowing the fear of the Lord, we persuade men," (2 Corinthians 5:10-11a, NASB).

"There is a book..."

When I first heard the news that Ken Ham and Bill Nye were going to debate, a sense of excitement took hold of me. The subject: "Is creation a viable model of origins in today's modern scientific era?" I can't recall another recent opportunity for a Christian to engage such a well-known public defender of Darwinian Evolution, so I knew this was going to be a big deal. In fact, the week of the debate it was given a good amount of media attention in the secular press. If you have not seen it yet, please take this as my personal recommendation to watch the debate.

There has been some talk about whether this was a real debate or not, and I tend to lean towards those who say it was lacking a key element of a formal debate: namely, cross examination. In any case, I found the debate thrilling and frustrating. I agree with most of the conclusions that James White offered on his webcast, The Dividing Line, where he essentially said that Bill Nye won the debate based purely on debating grounds. I don't mean to dismiss Ken Ham by any stretch, because I thought he did a marvelous job. However, consider for a moment the subject for the debate. From the outset, Ham was at a disadvantage because it put him on the defensive, which left Nye without a burden to defend his own position, and allowed him to attack creationism at will.

Both men were fairly polite and respectful, each giving a captivating presentation. Bill Nye the science guy, with all his charm and nifty-looking bow tie, was openly cavalier in how he spoke of Ken Ham, creationists, and ... Kentucky voters. He made repeated references to "Ken Ham's creation model" in an attempt to make him seem even more distant from the alleged consensus of scientists. To the advocate of Darwinian Evolution who questions this, let me ask you: how would you feel if Ken Ham repeatedly made reference to "Bill Nye's evolution model"? Nye stated a couple times how "We, on the outside [do science this way]" (Brackets Mine), implying that outside of the Creation Museum, and/or outside your non-scientific perspective, is how you do "real" scientific analysis. The implication was made over and over again that if one wants to do "real" science, you must reject the supernatural realm, the Bible, the Christian faith, and any notion of disagreement with the majority of scientists.

"This is very troubling to me," Nye declared numerous times. What was troubling to him? There seemed to be two things: (1) that Creationism departs from the majority opinion of modern academia. And (2) a belief in the supernatural.

I will tell you this much: what was troubling to me was Bill Nye's lack of self-reflection. Ironically, for all the mention of "Ken Ham's Creation Model," Nye was woefully ignorant of Ham's actual beliefs on the most basic elements of his creation model. Nye demonstrated an unwillingness to test his own ideas; and why should he since they are proven facts? Right? There was an attitude of dismissiveness towards those who reject the majority opinion. As Ken Ham pointed out: both creationists and evolutionists have the exact same evidence; it is their interpretation that is different. And what causes a different interpretation of the same evidence? One's worldview is solely responsible for this.

He made many appeals to Kentucky voters, pleading that our schools should stick to teaching "science." Of course, what he meant was strictly teaching Darwinian Evolution. I will hand it to Nye, though - at least he wasn't hiding his belief that only his views should be taught in school. One thing that Ken Ham did very well was to point out that since no one was there to observe our beginnings, what we believe about the past is a matter of faith derived from one's worldview. This may appropriately be called a religion - a set of beliefs and presuppositions that comprise an entire worldview by which we interpret the world around us. Therefore, it shouldn't be a stretch to include theories such as Intelligent Design in our public schools, which would simply be an additional worldview taught alongside an already present one. I'm not naive enough to believe this is likely to happen, considering the stranglehold leftists have on our educational system and academics today. But in a just and fair society, this would be a feasible way to present information on the subject of origins.

All in all, I was very proud of Ken Ham for his involvement in the debate. It takes some guts to stand up to the might of modern science, and to have your beliefs mocked. Not everyone could do what Ken Ham did, and I hope many Christians consider that before harshly criticizing his performance. It is all too easy to criticize, especially behind the power of the keyboard (an instrument that turns everyone into an intellectual giant in their own mind). Do I think Ham could have been more effective in how he approached the debate? Yes, absolutely. I wish he was more direct in responding to some of the attacks made by Nye, and also in challenging his opponent's views. 

Nevertheless, it was incredibly refreshing to hear him boldly and uncompromisingly defend the Bible as the Word of God, and the Christian view of creation. My favorite part of the debate were the two times that Ken Ham seized the opportunity to explain that the Bible explains our origins: "There is a book, Mr. Nye, that discusses this. It's called the Bible..." I am proud of you, Mr. Ham. Thank you for your work and service to the body of Christ.

The Ultimate Free Lunch

"I did it! I stopped!" Molly exclaimed. At least once a month Molly has a moment where her breath is taken away by a new experience. I recently taught her how to use the brakes on her bike, and once she did it on her own three or four times, she looked up and smiled at me, knowing that she accomplished a great feat. Now she can come to a complete stop by herself, look both ways for cars, and cross the street safely.

Do you remember the last time your breath was taken away by an experience? How about by observing the world and the Universe around us? For a few years now I have watched a variety of shows on the History and Discovery Channels about the Universe, and I found myself in awe of how amazing and strange it all seems to be. One scientist in particular was able to spark my imagination when considering the vastness of the cosmos: Alex Filippenko. So what did I do? I decided to read his Astronomy textbook, The Cosmos: Astronomy in the New Millennium by Pasachoff and Filippenko. My parents were kind enough to get me the textbook for my birthday, and I completed it just a few weeks ago.

The first thing I discovered in my reading was just how massive the Universe is. To set the stage, it is important to know that light travels at the speed of 300,000 km/s - or 186,000 miles per second - (pg. 2), and our own Milky Way Galaxy is approximately 100,000 light years across (pg. 285)! Our galaxy contains "perhaps a few hundred billion stars" (pg. 384) and is one of 100 billion galaxies detectable by our best telescopes. Some stars called Neutron stars are only about 20 or 30 km across and yet a teaspoonful would weigh a billion tons (pg. 349). It is theorized that super massive black holes exist at the center of galaxies.

"As of 2013, the record mass of a supermassive black hole is 9.7 billion solar masses [one solar mass is equivalent to the mass of our sun], in an elliptical galaxy 320 million light-years from us in the constellation Leo, with a contender in Coma Berenices perhaps even more massive" (pg. 373, Brackets Mine).

Next in importance is the strangeness of the cosmos. Black holes, mysterious substances called dark matter and dark energy, and Quantum Physics force me to imagine the abstract in a bizarre new way. Surrounded by such aberrant and uncanny theories and possible discoveries, the textbook was compelled to discuss a recognition long understood by Christians: the Anthropic Principle. The Anthropic Principle basically states:  

"We exist, hence the Universe must have certain properties or we wouldn't be here to see it. ... In a few cases, apparently "mysterious" relationships between numbers were explained with anthropic reasoning. The values of the physical constants (not to mention the laws of physics seem to be spectacularly "fine-tuned" for life as we know it - indeed, almost "tailor-made" for humans. In many cases, if things were altered just a tiny amount, the results would be disastrous for life, and even for the production of heavy elements of molecules." (Pg. 535)

Makes sense, doesn't it? There is obvious complexity in the Universe, not limited to the complex life that we see on Earth, but also in the very composition of elements and the Laws of Physics. Complexity implies there exists design, which then implies a designer. Recognizing this is the reason this university science textbook felt obligated to briefly discuss the Anthropic Principle. I knew before reading this textbook that the authors were most likely coming at the subject from a purely secular and naturalist perspective. They presuppose that there is no god ... no designer ... and that all that is exists as the result of happenstance. Try as they might, one cannot escape the impact of one's worldview even in the realm of scientific analysis. For example, it is unsurprising why scientists who approach the study of the Universe from a naturalist angle interpret the evidence differently than one approaching it from a supernaturalist angle.

Like any good science book, this one began with a discussion of the Scientific Method, and the process by which they discern facts, create and test theories, arrive at scientific laws, and ultimately make conclusions. But the Scientific Method is also in bondage to one's worldview. Throughout the pages of The Cosmos are my annotations in the margins, highlighted sections, and scribbles intended for later use. What I was primarily looking for were the authors' presuppositions, which were surprisingly frequent. Don't get me wrong: presuppositions are not a bad thing - we all have presuppositions. But being unaware of them tends to make you a slave to them, because when unaware you lack the proper recognition to test your own traditions and consider alternate possibilities.

Contrary to what Astronomers previously thought, the expansion of the Universe is not slowing down but is expanding at an accelerating rate (pg. 341)! A mysterious Dark Energy is repelling the Universe further and further apart (pg. 341). It is believed that space itself is being created with the continuing expansion. Logically, if the Universe has been and continues to expand, then as you go further and further back in time we can conclude that the Universe was once very compact and had a beginning, or starting point: "The Universe had a definite beginning in time, called the Big Bang. The Universe isn't infinitely old" (Pg. 483). This begs the question: how did the Universe start? Here is the answer we're given:

"The Universe came from nothing, and its total energy is zero, but it nevertheless has incredible structure and complexity. Physicists are attempting to come up with ways to test this idea in principle, but no method has emerged yet; thus, in some respects it is not currently within the realm of science, which requires hypotheses to be experimentally or observationally testable ... If this admittedly speculative hypothesis is indeed correct, then the answer to the ultimate question is, in the words of Alan Guth, that the Universe is 'the ultimate free lunch!'" (Pg. 533)

We are told that the Universe came out of nothing, that in its first moment was very compact when the Big Bang occurs, thus forming all elements and the Laws of Physics. Something came from nothing, complexity came from non-complexity, life came from non-life, complex life came from non-complex life, and intelligence came from non-intelligence. I hope it is apparent to you that at the root of each of these conclusions lies an underscoring presupposition.

Conversely, here are the conclusions Christianity brings to the table: God created the Universe by His sheer will and power, He sustains it, He designed all the elements and the Laws of Physics, He is the designer and the intelligence behind all things, and He is the reason we and the Universe exist. To be fair, I'm demonstrating that I have my own set of presuppositions. The question then becomes: after testing each set of presuppositions, which worldview can consistently explain such things as the uniformity of nature, the laws governing the Universe, how and why we exist, and human dignity and morality? The worldview that proves to be internally inconsistent demonstrates its own fatal flaw. It is my contention that the Christian worldview, and only the Christian worldview, can properly interpret the world around us, and do so consistently.

Filippenko and Pasachoff impressed me by their willingness to scrutinize the historic view of the Big Bang Theory. They offered two primary problems: (1) The Horizon Problem - the Universe is so uniform, which you wouldn't expect if it were the result of the Big Bang. For example, cosmic background radiation is essentially identical in all directions. (2) The Flatness Problem - the Big Bang theory has no way of explaining "why the overall geometry of the Universe is so close to being flat" (Pgs. 526-527).

But they also offered the predominant theory to help answer both objections: inflation. Developed in the 1980's, the theory of inflation basically states that in the first moments of the Universe, it was much smaller than previously thought. Because the Universe was so compact it could explain how the temperature is so uniform. Then it may have inflated (expanded really fast) at an exponential rate during its first moments. This also could explain how the Universe is so flat (though they don't explain how inflation flattens it out) (pgs. 527-528).

I will admit that I wanted to (and needed to) read the section outlining the theory of inflation multiple times to fully comprehend the argument. One apparent problem is that since the cause of inflation is unknown (whether it is a certain element, or physical force), it is purely theoretical and therefore untestable. Even as an amateur, my initial thought was that since the Universe expanded at a rapid exponential pace, it seems possible within the framework of inflation that if inflation were true the Universe may be significantly younger than supposed. For example, if the Universe expanded so rapidly at the beginning, perhaps stars are as far away due more to inflation than the presupposed speed and time considered under current models. This could drastically (and exponentially) reduce the time it took for the Universe to be as spread out. It seems only logical that this remains a possibility ... again, all within their own framework.

So the theory of inflation is one possible solution to the problems associated with the historic view of the Big Bang theory. But what about the origin of the Universe? Above I cited the authors' acknowledgment that the Universe was created out of nothing, and yet, that is extremely unsatisfying, even to naturalist astronomers. Keep in mind that the law of conservation of energy states that matter cannot be created nor destroyed, which poses a contradiction to the Big Bang theory (pg. 510). 

One answer to how something can come from nothing involves the theories of quantum mechanics:  

"Quantum theory provides a natural explanation for how that energy [the energy that caused the inflation of the Universe] may have come out of nothing. It turns out that particles and antiparticles spontaneously form and quickly annihilate each other, microscopically violating the law of energy conservation" (pg. 532, Brackets Mine).

 They continue... 

"Perhaps many quantum fluctuations occurred before the birth of our Universe. Most of them quickly disappeared. But one of them lived sufficiently long and had the right conditions for inflation to have been initiated. Thereafter, the original tiny volume inflated by an enormous factor, and our macroscopic Universe was born" (Pg. 532).

What concerns me most about this theory is that it is one thing to say that Quantum Physics exists in an already existent Universe, but you're asking me to believe that Quantum Physics may have had an impact in the creation of the Universe before there were Physics ... or the Universe? I'm gullible but not that gullible.

And just when you thought it couldn't get any more strange, another leap is made in attempt to explain all this. Enter: the multiverse.

"Is our Universe the only universe, or could it be one of many? The entire history of our Universe might be just one episode in the much grander multiverse consisting of many (perhaps infinitely many) universes" (pg. 533). 

This recognizably eccentric theory might encompass theories such as parallel universes, and even a "hyperspace" plane containing ours and other universes (Pg. 534). They continue:  

"There seem to be at least three or four ways to produce other universes. For example, distinct quantum fluctuations could arise out of "nothing," some of which give rise to a universe. This "nothing" might be the vacuum of our Universe, or the "nothing" outside our Universe, in some sort of a larger "hyperspace." If a quantum fluctuation out of "nothing" created our Universe, it seems reasonable that such a process may have occurred many times (thereby making the hyperspace a multiverse), perhaps even infinitely many. We do not yet know whether this is a viable process. To find out, we need a fully self-consistent quantum theory of gravity that unites relativity with quantum physics, and theorists are currently quite excited by the potential of superstring theories" (Pg. 534). 

I can't help but single out this statement: "There seem to be at least three or four ways to produce other universes." Not gonna lie, I find this hilarious. Three or four ways? All involving theories such as the multiverse and inconsistent quantum mechanics. They do recognize the need for consistency, but I am awestruck that one would base one's beliefs about the origins of the Universe on recognizably inconsistent theories.

This brings me to my main point. And if you made it this far, allow me to thank you for sticking with me. Which is more logical:  an eternal and all-powerful Creator of all things, or the Universe coming out of nothing by nothing and for nothing? The Scriptures say that "the fool has said in his heart, 'There is no God.'" (Psalm 53:1, NASB). It is foolish for us to approach the subject of astronomy, or any subject, from a worldview that fails to consistently interpret the world around us. Worldviews matter, no matter how much the secular humanist wishes he could be unbiased. You cannot escape from your worldview, for it is the lens through which you see the world.

When the Scriptures call someone a fool, it isn't intended to be a personal insult, but rather a statement expressing a lack of proper judgment. Remember that since all human beings are created in God's image, we all possess the same general revelation of God's existence, character and moral demands: "because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse." (Romans 1:19-20, NASB). This is why when we are talking with our fellow man, they know what we're saying is true, even though they naturally do their best to suppress the truth in unrighteousness (Romans 1:18). The Christian message rings true with all human beings across the globe because we have a common Creator, and we share a common natural condition as we enter this world.

What took my breath away as I read through The Cosmos was the sheer breadth, peculiarity and beauty of the heavens. There is an inherent wonder in the Universe, and I believe that all of creation is a testimony to God's handiwork: "The heavens are telling of the glory of God; And their expanse is declaring the work of His hands. Day to day pours forth speech, And night to night reveals knowledge" (Psalm 19:1-2, NASB). I'm learning to again have a childlike amazement at the work of God's hands, something I can see in the eyes of my two-year-old. I encourage the reader to do the same.

Thanks for reading,
Rusty