Dr. Seth Shostak in his commentary on “Is Anybody Out There?” states; “…there must be a trillion planets just in our universe, if there is no life on any of them then Earth is a miracle.” He goes on; “for scientists, believing in miracles is usually not a good strategy.”
I believe he is correct, it is a very poor strategy indeed, but refusing to acknowledge, on any level, the existence of a Creative force is an equally poor strategy. Good science should explore all avenues, and as Sir Arthur Conan Doyle’s famous character used to say; “Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth.”
I think that even non-Christian historians have adequately established the existence of the first century person of Christ, and we should perhaps then accept the reality of the Resurrection as being, at the very least, probable. We might, therefore reason that whether it is improbable or not, creation must be thoroughly examined alongside all scientific achievements which, from my perspective, appear to be on a convergent course with one another. In thinking about time, and the origin of the universe, it is not difficult to find any array of theories emerging to try to explain what thus far has proven to be inexplicable. As science delves deeper and deeper into the micro nature of our universe, things seem to become “curiouser and curiouser” as Alice would declare in Wonderland. Why must science largely ignore any possibility of a creative force when the very fundamentals of science tell us that “something” cannot be created out of “nothing”?
In 1922 near a ninety-mile beach in Northwestern Australia, Wallace W. Campbell, a noted American astronomer would finally give Albert Einstein the proof he needed to validate his Theory of General Relativity that showed that gravity bent light-waves; this was fundamental to his space/time/gravitational equations. Campbell had launched several attempts to photograph the solar eclipse in an effort to validate Einstein’s theory, but earlier efforts were frustrated by the First World War, and an uncooperative climate on the prior efforts. Time is relative, and variable depending where you are in relation to another moving object. Simply stated, what we experience as our time is not representative of what we might consider universal time!
On a different front altogether, one of the outcomes of a recent origin of humans’ news item (Rockefeller University – Mark Stoeckle and David Thaler, University of Basel - Mitochondria paper on Human Evolution), will present new challenges to those of the religious right who have long held to the biblical notion that the earth is only five or so thousand years old! There are many realities around this planet that attest to the improbability of such a claim. Ninety-foot-tall stalagmites in giant Vietnamese caves could hardly exist in such time-frames given the rate that calcium enriched water drips from the ceiling to form them! Of course, Stoeckle and Thayer’s DNA research has opened a much larger can of worms than merely the age of the planet!
I am afraid that we all must accept that all time is God’s time. He is omnipresent i.e.; He is everywhere at the same time. Furthermore, He existed before the time we have come to attempt to measure since the beginning of the initial time that the universe came into existence. Time, and the notion of velocity had a very different set of characteristics during the early inflationary period at the earliest moments beginning with the singularity (Big Bang?) that we are told started the whole ball rolling. If we want to grasp time without bringing God into the equation, I think we are going to find it tough going indeed!
God speaks to us in measures of time that the early writers were as challenged to understand as are we today. “A day is like a thousand years, "...seventy weeks of years”, etc., they had no way of grasping the concepts that Einstein grappled with, any more than today’s physicists and cosmologists do now. God never gives us exact explanations; neither did his Son. Some things will remain locked up until the end of this time, our time here.
The current brouhaha over global warming that has everyone in a tizzy is another area in which I feel we have misunderstood God. The age of the universe as well as the age of the earth are irrelevant; God fashioned both in His time, and for His purposes. An omniscient God, one who knows the very hairs on our head knew how we would evolve using our intelligence to create both the good and the bad of the world we live in today. He also tells us in Revelation that the earth will grow hotter. It is one of the precursor events of Eschatology. Is it not reasonable therefore that such a God, knowing that we would run into a need for energy, set the stage hundreds of millions of years ago to provide for that need?
Fossil fuels such as petroleum liquids, natural gases and coal have long been held to be the product of the remains of dead animals and plants that underwent change affected by immense heat and pressures within a few miles of the earth’s crust. This biogenic process also has a counterpart theory of an abiogenic process where non-biogenic hydrocarbons were produced from nonliving material.
In the Beginning…
Genesis 1:9 And God said, “Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place, and let dry ground appear.” And it was so. 10. God called the dry ground “land,” and the gathered waters he called “seas.” And God saw that it was good.
The early super continent, Pangea was surrounded by a global ocean called Panthalassa, and it was fully assembled by the Early Permian Epoch (some 299 million to 273 million years ago). The supercontinent began to break apart about 200 million years ago, during the Early Jurassic Epoch (201 million to 174 million years ago), eventually forming the modern continents and the Atlantic, Pacific and Indian oceans. [Encyclopedia Britannia]
Seventy-two percent of the earth is water; mostly salt water with a salt density of approximately three percent, or the same composition as the water that comprises up to sixty percent of our bodies. The separation of the supercontinent by tectonic plate movement is what gives us the continents we see today, and they do seem to fit together nicely, do they not? Once again, we find biblical verse matching scientific history regarding the evolution of our unique planet. What might we expect God to have said to the early Bible writers; “I’ve created a water world from which I have brought forth a landmass that will one day split apart to form continents of which, by the way, you only inhabit one tiny speck!” No, He had to issue an edict which, by the power of his authority, and their ability to understand, they could grasp. Now scientific theory would have us believe that early earth, a fiery hot mass cooling from compressed gasses and other particles, was bombarded by icy comet after icy comet, thereby building up the almost incalculable volume of water we know today as our miles deep oceans. I suppose that is possible, we certainly as yet do not have any basis on which to dismiss such a theory. Even if true, could not such a miraculous series of events have also been a part of a creative plan?
Is there life on other planets; who knows? We have been searching for some fifty years using increasingly sophisticated techniques, so far without striking success. Not that we should stop searching, but if we accept God (and please feel free to insert whatever name you prefer for the “creative force”) as the creator of the universe, all of those trillions of planets are of his making, and when if ever He wants us to be in touch with life on one of the possible billions of planets capable of sustaining life, He will open that door. Remember, we are a “Goldilocks” planet with unique characteristics, all necessary to sustain life. We sit at just the right, ninety-three million miles distance from the sun. Our axis is tilted to facilitate essential seasons (necessary for growing food) as we orbit the sun. The ‘chip off the old block’, our moon creates the tides, and we have a protective shield to prevent intense solar rays from killing us! Happenstance, or miracle…you choose. If other life is out there, I do not expect to find little green men, or some other sci-fi aberration rather, I expect they will be homo-sapiens just like us; made in the image of God.
Let me be clear, I have no technical, scientific background, nor am I the beneficiary of any theological training. I do however find that taking what we call the thirty-thousand-foot view helps with a clarity that is not achieved when we can’t discern any part of the ‘forest’ because we are standing too close to the ‘trees’! A good example of this is the issue of irreducible complexity.
Dr. Michael Behe, a biochemist at Lehigh University, makes the claim that you cannot account for the cell, the very basis of life as being the result of having randomly occurred in nature and evolved, through mutation, into everything we see on the planet today, as well as everything now extinct that came before! Instead the cell shows unequivocal signs of design by an intelligent agent. To support this, he cites his considerable body of work studying the highly complex make-up of the cell’s components, and the extremely precise series of instructions necessary. Instruction is the new, third leg of what we now know about matter and energy. Matter and energy were the basic building blocks of cellular structure that were known in Darwin’s day. Information is what we now know is the critical component without which no cellular structure can exist. This, together with the critical timing in which the sequences must take place presents a mathematical probability that this can occur randomly as being illogical! Behe gets a lot of attention for his book, “Darwin’s Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution” in which he lays out his argument and supporting research.
Then, as we always find, comes H. Allen Orr, the Shirley Cox Kearns Professor of Biology at the University of Rochester. Orr states “Behe’s work may well represent the most sophisticated—and the most seductive—creationist attack on evolution in a quarter century. But Behe, it turns out, differs from his less-sophisticated brethren in an important way: he does not wholly deny evolution (my emphasis because why would he deny evolution!). He has no problem with stories of moths evolving dark coloration to hide on polluted trees, or of streptococci outwitting antibiotics. Nor does he deny common descent, the notion that all species, including humans, are derived from one or a few common ancestors. But Behe’s chief claim remains deeply revolutionary: evolution, he says, cannot account for the cell, the very basis of life. Instead the cell shows unequivocal signs of design by an intelligent agent.”
Why is it that those who argue this way cannot apparently accept that Creationism and Evolution can coexist! Does it have to be one or the other? Is God not capable of allowing modification to His fundamental blueprint for life? I recall visiting friends in the south of France many years ago. They had purchased a seventeenth century farmhouse which they developed into a beautiful home with stunning views of the Mediterranean. Because of the French conservation laws, they were required to retain the original structure, which they did. I think the original entry door could not have been more than five feet tall; a reality my six-foot three frame would run into! Similarly, a visit to the Tower of London will reveal period costumes that were beyond petite. Of course we evolve, it would not make sense if we did not. I do not find that speaks against God, but for him. If there is a close match between human DNA and that of primates, is that illogical. Does a programmer writing code always start from scratch, or might they take blocks of prior code that fits the need of a current project? Does an architect laying out designs for a group of houses with a common core, but modified external features, not transfer the core design to the new CAD-CAM template?
Orr goes on to attack Behe’s religious background; “Although Behe discusses his religious sentiments—he notes his Roman Catholicism, is disturbed by the ill-will between science and theology and is subtly (but clearly) offended by biologist Richard Dawkins’s atheism—he never places himself squarely in the creationist camp. He maintains that his position is strictly scientific, and that the data have driven him ineluctably to his views. As though to prove his scientific restraint, Behe even refuses to speculate on the identity of the designer. Although his last chapter offers many hints of the designer’s divinity, the door is left open ever so slightly to some variety of alien intervention (although one wonders who designed them). It is hard to say if Behe’s reluctance to utter “God did it” is tactical or sincere. On the one hand, creationists learned long ago to be discreet about religious motive. But on the other, Behe seems sophisticated enough to see that Darwinism never threatened any but the most literal-minded of religious creeds anyway (as dramatically confirmed by Pope John Paul II’s recent acceptance of evolution as “more than just a hypothesis”).”
Orr concludes; “In any case, I will take Behe at his word. His arguments should and must be dealt with on scientific grounds, just as he has requested. For, in the end, Behe is simply right or wrong. And I am convinced that he is very wrong.”
As Dr. Del Tackett (The Truth Project) points out so convincingly; “at any time science, whether in cosmology, physics, or biology points convincingly to intelligent design, it simply refuses to go there.” As he quotes Carl Sagan; “I believe our future depends powerfully on how well we understand the cosmos…” we want to pursue the truth, no matter where it leads, but to find the truth we need imagination and criticism both.” He goes on; “We will not be afraid to speculate, but we will be careful to distinguish speculation from fact!”
Really? Tackett suggests that we must accept one reality or another. Either the cosmos was always there, or it had a beginning. Either proposition presents huge problems, namely, if nothing were there to begin with, who or what put it there? We know we cannot create something out of nothing!
If it was always there, we run into another problem!
The Second Law of Thermodynamics states that the universe tends toward high entropy. If so, what happens when there is nothing left to be disordered? I found an interesting article in All About Science and yes, it is a Christian- based publication.
“Second Law of Thermodynamics - The Laws of Heat Power
The Second Law of Thermodynamics is one of three Laws of Thermodynamics. The term “thermodynamics” comes from two root words: “thermo,” meaning heat, and “dynamic,” meaning power. Thus, the Laws of Thermodynamics are the Laws of “Heat Power.” As far as we can tell, these Laws are absolute. All things in the observable universe are affected by and obey the Laws of Thermodynamics.
The First Law of Thermodynamics, commonly known as the Law of Conservation of Matter, states that matter/energy cannot be created, nor can it be destroyed. The quantity of matter/energy remains the same. It can change from solid to liquid to gas to plasma and back again, but the total amount of matter/energy in the universe remains constant.
Second Law of Thermodynamics - Increased Entropy
The Second Law of Thermodynamics is commonly known as the Law of Increased Entropy. While quantity remains the same (First Law), the quality of matter/energy deteriorates gradually over time. How so? Usable energy is inevitably used for productivity, growth and repair. In the process, usable energy is converted into unusable energy. Thus, usable energy is irretrievably lost in the form of unusable energy. “Entropy” is defined as a measure of unusable energy within a closed or isolated system (the universe for example). As usable energy decreases and unusable energy increases, “entropy” increases. Entropy is also a gauge of randomness or chaos within a closed system. As usable energy is irretrievably lost, disorganization, randomness and chaos increase.
Second Law of Thermodynamics - In the Beginning...
The implications of the Second Law of Thermodynamics are considerable. The universe is constantly losing usable energy and never gaining. We logically conclude the universe is not eternal. The universe had a finite beginning—the moment at which it was at “zero entropy” (its most ordered possible state). Like a wind-up clock, the universe is winding down, as if at one point it was fully wound up and has been winding down ever since. The question is who wound up the clock?
The theological implications are obvious. NASA Astronomer Robert Jastrow commented on these implications when he said, “Theologians generally are delighted with the proof that the universe had a beginning, but astronomers are curiously upset. It turns out that the scientist behaves the way the rest of us do when our beliefs conflict with the evidence.” (Robert Jastrow, God and the Astronomers, 1978, p. 16.)
Jastrow went on to say, “For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries.” (God and the Astronomers, p. 116.)
It seems the Cosmic Egg that was the birth of our universe logically requires a Cosmic Chicken...
That is the rub; what came first? How-ever far out you want to push the question, you still must answer; how and by what power enabled this to come about?
We, like all civilizations before us, can stare into the night sky, or take in a magnificent vista of say, the Grand Canyon, or the splendor of Yosemite National Park’s extraordinary scenery, and marvel at what our senses are experiencing. Then consider Psalm 19; “The heavens declare the glory of God, and the sky above proclaims his handiwork. Day to day pours out speech, and night to night reveals knowledge. There is no speech, nor are there words whose voice is not heard.”
Or, Romans 1:18-20 “For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. For what can be known about God is plain to them because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So, they are without excuse.”
This sums it up clearly, God goes out of his way to reveal Himself to us, as He has done throughout the ages. To deny these truths, and to deny that God provides us with what I believe is a simple foundational reality; that accepting Him requires us to change how we conduct our lives. That is something we do not want to do! It means giving up something, whether that is an entrenched belief system, or a way of life that we either cannot, or will not give up.
When Sharyn and I traveled to England to meet our newest grandchild, our granddaughter Sophie, I found it impossible to look at that beautiful miracle without being moved to awe by God’s creative work that is most evident in a newborn. The perfection of those tiny hands, feet, fingers, eyes; how can anything so complex as this little human being be the product of a random collaboration of proteins and amino acids? Aside from the physical construct, how do we account for the spirit that resides in her little body, which will eventually cause her to ask; “Why?”