The 10 Things You Should Know About the Creation vs. Evolution Debate (20 page)

Young-earth creationists also appeal to the second law of thermodynamics in arguing for the unlikeliness of the big bang
scenario (see the appendix). Explosions-especially one as big
as the alleged big bang explosion-produce tremendous chaos
and disorder, not precise order (as the universe seems to display today). How could a big bang explosion produce "the beautifully organized and complexly ordered universe that we now
have" ?30

Another scientific problem with the big bang theory relates
to the distribution of matter throughout the universe. If the big
bang theory were true, we would expect to see an even and
uniform distribution of matter expanding in every direction.
Yet this is not what we see. Indeed, our universe has been found
to be very clumpy, with various super-clusters of millions of
galaxies separated by immense voids in space.31 Dr. Werner Girt
notes that

two astronomers, Geller and Huchra, embarked on a
measuring program expecting to find evidence to
support the big bang model. By compiling large star
maps, they hoped to demonstrate that matter is
uniformly distributed throughout the cosmos.... The
more progress they made with their cartographic
overview of space, the clearer it became that distant
galaxies are clustered like cosmic continents beyond
nearly empty reaches of space. The big bang model was
strongly shaken by this discovery.32

Yet another scientific problem relates to the background radiation throughout the universe (residual radiation from the big
bang). As we just saw, big bang theorists initially postulated that
the matter in the universe would be evenly distributed throughout the universe as a result of the cosmic explosion. They also
postulated that the level of background radiation in the universe
would be smooth. The level of radiation ought to be the same
in every direction.

Scientists have indeed discovered that the background radiation is perfectly smooth in every direction. But now that finding contradicts the nonuniform distribution of matter throughout the universe. Indeed, as noted above, matter is not
evenly distributed throughout the universe. Rather, the
universe has been found to be very clumpy, with the different
clumps separated by huge voids of space. This being the case,
young-earth creationists note, there ought to be differences in
the level of background radiation, with more radiation in certain
directions than in others. But that is not the case."

In view of these and other scientific problems, secular scientists are strongly debating the validity of the big bang theory.
Professor Sir Fred Hoyle, one of Britain's greatest astrophysicists, was as strong opponent of the big bang theory and
constantly gave it "a good kicking. "3' Among competing theories that have been suggested as replacements for the big bang
theory by various scientists are the plasma theory, the steady
state theory, the string theory, the multiple-universe theory, and
a number of variations of the inflation theory (over 50 varia-
tions).35 Space prohibits examining all these theories, but they
all involve untested ideas and a high degree of speculation.31
Henry Morris reflects, "I try to scan two dozen or more scientific journals each month, and it seems to me there is no end
to the speculative writings and researches on these topics."37

The fact that much of the scientific community is raising
serious problems with the big bang theory should give one pause
in accepting it. Debate among scientists on this issue seems more
heated than ever.

Even apart from such scientific problems, young-earth
creationists point out that the big bang scenario conflicts with
Scripture. For example, the big bang theory postulates that the
earth formed long after the stars formed, but the Bible says the
earth was created prior to the stars. Likewise, the big bang theory
says the sun formed before the earth did, but the Bible says
the sun was created on the fourth day, after the earth (see
Genesis 1:14-19). Moreover, whereas the big bang theory speaks
of stars and planets emerging long, long after the initial cosmic explosion (by hundreds of millions of years), Scripture indicates that God spoke the word and the universe suddenly leaped
into existence. Psalm 33:9 says, "For he spoke, and it came to
be; he commanded, and it stood firm."

For these (and other) reasons, young-earth creationists generally believe the big bang theory involves a misinterpretation of
the observable data-especially in regard to the so-called redshift.
And in view of the fact that many prominent secular scientists
are giving the theory a big "thumbs down" today, they feel that
before long, the big bang will go out with a little whimper.

I close this chapter with two brief observations:

Scientific theories change over time. New discoveries have
consistently caused old scientific paradigms to be discarded in
favor of newer paradigms. Science historian Thomas Kuhn
proved this in his book The Structure of Scientific Revolutions.
As I write, many scientists are discarding the big bang theory.
(On my desk at the moment are a number of articles documenting this, including titles like "Leading Cosmologists
Challenge Big Bang Theory," and "Two Prominent Theorists
Propose Alternative to Big-Bang Theory," and "No More Big
Bang? Stanford U. Research Presents New Beginning to
Universe.") Who knows where the discussion will lead? I
certainly don't know.

God's Word does not change over time. Jesus asserted that
"heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will not pass
away" (Mark 13:3 1). God's Word is a rock-solid foundation you
can always trust. The Word of God does not change or falter.
It is not a "here today, gone tomorrow" proposition. God's Word
is trustworthy forever.

Why do I make these observations? I make them because
science (a discipline that I do have some respect for") may
uncover insights to help us better understand the creation described in Genesis. Yet we must not ever make our understanding of Scripture dependent upon the ever-changing field
of science. If you put all your stock in a particular scientific
theory (such as the big bang theory) as a support for your biblical position, and then scientists discover irresolvable problems
with that scientific theory, what happens to your biblical position? Will you still hold to it, or will you change it along with
the changing scientific paradigm? I personally have a problem
with such instability.

Better to place your complete faith in Scripture while still
respecting science than to place your complete faith in science
while wavering back and forth on Scripture. This modus
operandi has the benefit of being open to whatever science
correctly and legitimately reveals, while at the same time anchoring your beliefs and worldview on the rock that cannot be
moved: the Word of God. To me, the Christian really has no
choice but to follow this modus operandi, especially in view of
the fact that science today rests wholly on the foundation of
naturalistic philosophy.

The first and second laws of thermodynamics are foundational
to science and have never been contradicted in observable nature.
This may sound like a topic you'd rather avoid, but these laws
have direct application to the validity of evolutionary theory.

The first law of thermodynamics is the law of energy conservation and says that energy cannot be created nor destroyedit can only change forms. The total amount of energy remains
constant and unchanged. The late atheistic scientist Isaac Asimov
said that in over 125 years, scientists have not witnessed a single
violation of this fundamental law.'

The second law of thermodynamics says that in an isolated
system (a system that neither loses energy nor gains it from
outside of itself, like our universe), the natural course of things
is to degenerate. The universe is running down, not evolving
upward. Although the total amount of energy remains constant and unchanged, it becomes less available for usable work as time
goes on.

Asimov noted that the second law basically means that the
universe is getting increasingly disorderly. Clean up a room and
it quickly becomes messy again. Clean up a kitchen and watch
how fast it becomes disorderly again. "How difficult to maintain houses, and machinery, and our own bodies in perfect working order; how easy to let them deteriorate. In fact, all we have
to do is nothing, and everything deteriorates, collapses, breaks
down, wears out, all by itself-and that is what the second law
is all about."'

This second law can be described in terms of "entropy." An
increase in entropy involves a transition from a more orderly
state to a less orderly state-like a cleaned-up bedroom becoming messy.

Based on the first and second laws of thermodynamics,
creationists believe our universe is headed toward an ultimate
"heat death" in which no more energy will be converted.3 The
amount of usable energy will eventually deplete. Our universe
is decaying. It is eroding.' It is moving from order to disorder.
The universe-and everything in the universe, including our
sun, our bodies, the machines we build, and my car-is running
down.

This means that, contrary to evolutionary theory, things are
not ultimately moving upward but are rather running downward. The foundational principle of biological evolution-that
things are moving from disorder to order, from chaos to
complexity-is simply wrong.5 "The principle of evolution is
precisely the converse of the second law of thermodynamics,
and therefore both cannot simultaneously be true."6

The laws of thermodynamics add strong support for the idea
of a creation. If the second law of thermodynamics is true, then the universe must not be eternal. Therefore, the universe must
have had a beginning, just as Genesis 1:1 claims. Lincoln
Barnett, in his book The Universe and Dr. Einstein, writes:

If the universe is running down and nature's processes are proceeding in just one direction [entropy],
the inescapable inference is that everything had a beginning; somehow and sometime the cosmic processes
were started, the stellar fires ignited, and the whole vast
pageant of the universe brought into being.'

If you compare the universe to a clock, there had to be a
time when the clock had to be fully wound up.' This implies
the existence of a Creator who initiated things in the beginning.

John C. Whitcomb, in his book The Early Earth, similarly
notes that the second law of thermodynamics points us to the
reality that planet earth was once more orderly and organized
than it is now. And this in turn points to "an infinite and
personal God who alone could have infused order and highlevel energy into the universe at the beginning."'

In keeping with this, J.W.N. Sullivan, in The Limitations of
Science, points to the fact that the universe absolutely had to
have a beginning:

The fact that the energy of the universe will be
more disorganized tomorrow than it is today implies,
of course, the fact that the energy of the universe is
more highly organized today than it will be tomorrow,
and that it was more highly organized yesterday than
it is today. Following the process backwards we find
a more and more highly organized universe. This backward tracing in time cannot be continued indefinitely.
Organization cannot, as it were, mount up and up
without limit. There is a definite maximum, and this
definite maximum must have been in existence a finite time ago. And it is impossible that this state of perfect
organization could have been evolved from some less
perfect state. Nor is it possible that the universe could
have persisted for eternity in that state of perfect organization and then suddenly, a finite time ago, have begun
to pursue its present path. Thus the accepted laws of
nature lead us to a definite beginning of the universe
in time.10

The "running down" of the universe is well illustrated by
the sun. Scientists tell us that our sun is burning off its own
mass at a rate of four million tons per second. Since the sun
does not regenerate-it does not produce any new mass-the
mass that is burning off can never be regained once it is gone.
We do not need to be rocket scientists to come to the conclusion that if four million tons of mass are burning away every
second, then eventually, given enough time, the sun will simply
run out of mass to burn. What is true with our own sun is also
true of the millions of stars in the universe. They're all burning away mass at a phenomenal pace. And one day, the universe
will experience a "heat death." Show over!

But don't forget the main point. If the sun is continually
burning off its mass, and its available energy is continually being
depleted, then the sun (and all the other stars) must have been
created and infused with all this energy at some time." Since
our universe is not yet dead, and since it will one day be dead
(as all the energy runs out), the universe obviously must have
had a beginning.