The Science of Predicting the Future

20181005_135017

If you ask the man or woman on the street “Is it possible to predict the future?”, they will likely say no.  It is of course NOT possible for us to “predict the future” except in a very few, short term, low variable type situations. And yet as humans, we see that as just another obstacle to be overcome. So that is exactly what secular scientists are continually trying to do, attempting to predict the weather, earthquakes, hurricanes, politics, economics, lifespans, relationships, and dozens of other events in life. This might not seem such a bad thing.  After all, isn’t that the exciting and compelling thing about science fiction, the desire to see into the future? What is the harm in that?

Well perhaps if it only involved educated, consenting adults who understood the actual underlying principles of scientific research and statistical analysis it would be acceptable. Or if it were seen for what it was, which is science fiction rather than hard science, perhaps it would be acceptable.  But such is not the case. This area of “soft science” has pervaded all aspects of education and the media.

In fact this merger between science and pop culture has created a progeny.  That progeny is called scientism, and in the name of science, our children are taught scientism from early grade school all the way through college.  They are constantly exposed to it on shows like “The Big Bang Theory.”  But while it is treated as actual science, many of the predictions made by scientism (about both past and future events) have much more in common with indoctrination and fortune telling than with actual, provable science.  For example:

“Scientists Have Figured Out When And How Our Sun Will Die, And It’s Going to Be Epic”

So reads the headline on Sciencealert.com. (1) And the article goes on to say, “The Sun is about 4.6 billion years old – gauged on the age of other objects in the Solar System that formed around the same time. And, based on observations of other stars, astronomers predict it will reach the end of its life in about another 10 billion years.”

The science of Astronomy is indeed amazing.  Astronomers observe,  speculate, theorize and calculate.  They attempt to explain this magnificent universe in which we live.  But they fail to tell you, as they predict earth’s incineration and demise, that their theories and explanations are still, even now, full of holes the size of galaxies. (For more on this see my prior blogs entitled Pluto and the Mickey Mouse Astronomers, and Operational vs Historical Science)

Or for another example, consider the following article by Jillian Scudder, which also states we have about a billion years or so left to inhabit the earth.

It is widely understood that the Earth as a planet will not survive the sun’s expansion into a full-blown red giant star. The surface of the sun will probably reach the current orbit of Mars – and, while the Earth’s orbit may also have expanded outwards slightly, it won’t be enough to save it from being dragged into the surface of the sun, whereupon our planet will rapidly disintegrate.” (2)

Or if you prefer to get your forecasts from NBC news, here is a headline:

“Now we know what will happen when the sun dies” 

“New study suggests our star will become ‘one of the prettiest objects in the night sky.”(3) Never mind that at the time they predict our suns demise, the earth will already be long gone according to their own predictions.  The astronomers had been arguing back and forth among themselves as to whether when the sun died it would create a planetary nebula.  This latest theory (latest computer model) says it will, and it will supposedly be spectacular to see.
These are just a couple of the many pseudo-scientific internet sites that predict the future of our planet, and the fate of our sun.  But what happened to the belief that “we can’t predict the future”?  Well, you might say, “this is different… these are scientists!”.  Yes, that is what they say.  But what is a scientist? And more importantly, what types of predictions for the future have scientist made?  What are their results and their credentials for predicting future events?
Well it turns out that scientists are quite good at predicting the future of a real time event in a laboratory if all the factors are known and contained, and the the basic processes of physics are completely stable. They can tell you what is going to happen in the next few minutes after you combine sodium and chloride in a test tube.  They can predict what will happen when gasoline and oxygen are allowed to interact in the presence of intense heat.  These momentary observations can be reproduced again and again in a laboratory or a test tube.  The results will be the same and are thus predictable.
But what are their credentials in predicting things even just a thousand years from now?  Has science ever done that? No.  Not yet anyway.
In fact predicting the future, it turns out, is actually quite difficult.  As written by Adam Keiper, in his blog on The New Atlantis, concerning uncertainties in predicting the future,

All of which is to say that, as you listen to our conversation here today, or as you read books and articles about the future of automation and robotics, try to keep in mind what I call the “chain of uncertainties”:

Just because something is conceivable or imaginable
does not mean it is possible.
Even if it is possible, that does not mean it will happen.
Even if it happens, that does not mean it will happen in the way you envisioned.
And even if it happens in something like the way you envisioned, there will be unintended, unexpected consequences(5)

 

Martyn Shuttleworth authored the following excellent discussion about predictive science.PDF version

Scientists and Soothsayers

“Prediction in research fulfills one of the basic desires of humanity, to discern the future and know what fate holds. Such foresight used to involve studying the stars or looking at the entrails of animals.

Obviously, few pay heed to such methods, in the modern world, but many people expect scientists to become the new soothsayers and predict where humanity, the environment, and the universe will end up. To a certain extent, most scientists regularly use prediction in research as a fundamental of the scientific method, when they generate a hypothesis and predict what will happen.

As part of humanity’s quest to understand nature, predictive science is much more widespread than before.

Much of this is due to the exponential growth in computing power, which allows gradually more detailed and accurate models. These are of great use in predicting the weather or natural disasters such as earthquakes and tsunamis.

The other factor driving this growth of predictions in research is politics and economics. Predicting the weather benefits an economy by informing farmers about what to expect, and allows emergency services to predict when adverse weather may require action. Economics is prediction driven and, as the current economic crisis shows, incorrect predictions can be devastating, although whether politicians choose to listen to the advice of computer prediction models, if they disagree with their policies, is another matter.

With the millions of dollars invested by governments, or by oil companies using the predictions of geologists to know where to drill test wells, predictive science is only going to grow. However, this entire field of science and computing rests upon the same foundations that drove early scientists, the principle of making a prediction and setting out to test it.

Unfortunately, these predictions in science are at the whim of paymasters, whether in government or the private sector. This will always compromise the integrity of the scientists making predictions, but prediction in research will always drive the scientific method. That is my prediction, anyway! “(5)

You may have noted Martyn’s disdain for the effects that money, power and politics can have or science, when he states “This will always compromise the integrity of the scientists making predictions”.  And as you may have predicted, I agree entirely.

 

 

For much more on this topic see my earlier blogs on Science vs. Scientism, and Five Things Everyone Should Know About Scientism.

 

(1) http://www.sciencealert.com/what-will-happen-after-the-sun-dies-planetary-nebula-solar-system

(2) phys.org/news/2015-02-sun-wont-die-billion-years.html

(3) http://www.nbcnews.com/mach/science/now-we-know-what-will-happen-when-sun-dies-ncna873041

(4) today.oregonstate.edu/archives/2009/aug/long-debate-ended-over-cause-demise-ice-ages-–-may-also-help-predict-future

(5) http://futurisms.thenewatlantis.com/

(6) https://explorable.com/prediction-in-research

 

Millennials: A Generation Lost in Deep Time

 

antique architecture classic clock
Photo by Pixabay on Pexels.com

Many millennials are lost. According to an article in the Huff Post entitled “Millennials: The Lost Generation”, “Today we have a whole group of young people that we call millennials – men and women ages 18-33, who have higher rates of depression, stress and suicide, than any generation before them.“(1) An internet search on “millennials the lost generation” reveals scores of hits. But one naturally wonders, why is this generation lost? 

Perhaps they are lost because they have no strong sense of personal identity.  Perhaps they are lost because millions of their parents were more interested in being drunk or high than being parents. Perhaps they are lost because they are misled by politicians whose only concern is power, not Truth. 

Or perhaps, as I am prone to believe, they are lost because they have no foundations on which to base their lives. They are lost because they have no moral compass, no set of coherent eternal truths, no absolutes.  They are lost because they have been taught in the halls of academia that there is no such thing as absolute truth.  

Moreover, they are lost because academia has told them they cannot believe the Bible.  And they fell for it, hook line and sinkerWhy did they believe such a lie?  Because atheistic scientists said it, and so it must be true

But think about this!  Atheistic scientists would say the Bible is false even if Jesus himself healed a withered hand or restored sight to a blind man in their presence! They are atheists!  Everything they say, do, predict or interpret is seen though their atheistic world view! Therefore it is no surprise that atheists say the Bible is not true. But what does the Bible say about atheists?  It says they are fools. Psalm 14:1 reads “The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good.”(2)  Who then should we believe? The atheists or the Word of God?

In addition, as written by Matt Slick, atheism is in itself ultimately self refuting. “A materialist atheist has no intellectual justification whatsoever to trust his own thinking because his physical brain cannot exceed the limits of physics and chemistry. Therefore, there’s no reason for him to conclude that his rationality is correct since his brain is acting “mechanically.” (3) In other words, every response by a materialistic atheist to any argument, including belief or disbelief in God, is by their own definitions a mere random, pre-programmed chemical reaction. It has no merit, no basis, no meaning!

Unfortunately Millennials have been given a choice of believing science, or believing the Word of God.  Such a forced choice is irrational, and unnecessary because science and God’s word are not contradictory. But Public Education has failed them, because they took away even the possibility of Biblical truth.  Instead they filled their heads with diagrams of an outdated and scientifically disproven evolutionary tree of life, fraudulent Piltdown man, and imaginary monkey to man diagrams. Consequently, an entire generation has lost faith in the Bible due to the atheistic, secular agenda in our schools.

We trusted the government to teach our children.  But as stated by Mary Nutting at Answers in Genesis, “Many families today are in deep trouble because they have not been “diligently teaching” their children. Instead, they have left it to the schools, media, museums, national parks, and others to do the job.”(4) And the government trusted the textbooks, and the textbooks trusted the atheists. But why did the texts use atheistic presuppositions to program our children against belief in God, or the Bible? Perhaps because some of the arguments for an ancient universe seem so logical, at least on the surface. Like Deep Time.

The strongest atheistic arguments against the Bible are those rooted in Deep Time (for example light travelling across the universe).  The atheists have convinced most of the world that Genesis cannot be literally true because of the long ages they claim are shown by geology and astronomy.  (See prior posts on Ancient, Where’s the Proof, and Pluto and the Mickey Mouse Astronomers)  Deep Time is the foundational belief that undergirds atheistic arguments against Biblical truth by suggesting everything about the Bible timeline is impossible.  According to the internet dictionary, deep time is: “the multimillion year time frame within which scientists believe the earth has existed, and which is supported by the observation of natural, mostly geological, phenomena.” It will exceed the scope of this post to instruct the reader fully as to why Deep Time is an unreliable concept, but suffice it to say that as with all other scientific conclusions reached by atheists, the science is subject to the ideology.

In other words, when an atheistic scientist makes a choice to absolutely rule out any possibility of God the Creator, this choice influences and pervades and contaminates all their other research and conclusions. No matter how clearly the scientific evidence might be in pointing to a Creator, the avowed atheist will not see it. The simple fact is that the existence of the universe, and the existence of life itself are miraculous.  Atheists choose their explanations for the miracles, a “Big Bang” for which they have no proof, followed by life randomly creating and advancing itself out of nothing.  Bible scholars and scientifically oriented Christians choose another explanation.

Deep Time was a concept well fitted to evolution. The theory of evolution required time spans of hundreds of millions of years to be at all believable. Of course open minded scientists now know that evolution cannot occur no matter how many millions of years one postulates. Deep Time is no longer relevant. (Watch for future blogs on the scientific evidence against Deep Time, you may be surprised.)  In the near future, as the house of cards called Evolution continues to collapse, we may see thousands more open minded scientists, biologists, and astronomers addressing the concept of deep time as well.  

My  hope is that very soon, as a result of these advances in scientific understanding, Millennials will not remain lost.  They will have hope.  They will find the gospel.  They will seek and find the Bible, and they will find the vast amounts of scientific and archeological evidence that supports the Bible.  They won’t find it, of course, in the halls of atheistic, anti-God, anti-Christ academia.  But you can find it, even now, in places like Answers in Genesis, Evolutioncreation.net, and Creation.com.

(1)www.huffpost.com/entry/millennials-the-lost-generation_b_582aaabde4b0852d9ec21ca9

(2) Psalms 14:1 KJV

(3) carm.org/materialistic-atheism-self-refuting

(4) answersingenesis.org/family/families-are-gods-idea-beginning-in-genesis/

(5) ibid

 

Cambrian Explosion

20181005_134827In a prior blog I discussed the dependence of atheistic cosmology on explosions.  Secular scientists believe all matter exploded out of nothing due to a quantum fluctuation.  They also believe all life exploded into being in a short period for no reason a few hundred million years ago. They adopt these beliefs, not based on SCIENTIFIC evidence, but because they have no other explanation!

We discussed the absurdity of quantum fluctuation creating everything in another blog.  Today lets discuss the absurdity of believing in evolution, and at the same time believing all life appeared suddenly on the earth.

For over a century, those who preferred evolution as an explanation for everything taught, and apparently believed, that evolution was a gradual process, requiring hundreds of millions of years to make small changes that progressively increased the complexity of life.  But in fact, the evidence from the geological strata show it pretty much appeared all at once during or just before the Cambrian period. This should have discouraged the proponents of evolution. But since the belief in evolution is primarily a philosophical, rather than a scientific tenet, it did not.

Relatively little is known about the Precambrian Era despite it making up roughly seven-eighths of the Earth’s history. (1) (Wikipedia) Yet in this period, all life on earth supposedly originated, developed, and thrived.  Life not only created itself during this period, according to evolutionary theory it advanced rapidly into millions of species in a very short period. (1)  This is the antithesis of how evolution was described for over a century, and is in itself, proof of the complete failure of evolutionary theory.  In fact, in order to support the latest evolutionary timeline, during the “Cambrian explosion” there would have been the appearance of an entirely new species of life approximately every 50 years!

But there is more. The Precambrian and Cambrian Era are distributed around the world in what is called the “Burgess-type” shale.  In all the ares of the world where such “Burgess-type” shale has been found, all the organisms appear the same.  No variance, no progression. All are the same.  All over the world. No support for evolution here.

In addition, secular scientists recognize, “The way in which the Burgess Shale animals were buried, by a mudslide or a sediment-laden current that acted as a sandstorm, suggests they lived on the surface of the seafloor.” (2) (Wikipedia) This (mudslide or sediment laden current) sounds much more like a single great flood than evidence of evolution. And the fact that other living creatures are above this layer could suggest they were carried in by a sediment laden current afterwards, and buried in successive layers above the sea floor creatures.

The history of geology and evolution do not support the gradual development of life on earth.  Not even using Uniformitarian assumptions. The Theory of Evolution is a scientifically unpalatable philosophical assumption in light of many new findings in geology, molecular biology, biochemistry and genetics over the past 70 years.

 

Job 12:7-10 ESV “But ask the beasts, and they will teach you;
    the birds of the heavens, and they will tell you;
or the bushes of the earth, and they will teach you;
    and the fish of the sea will declare to you.
Who among all these does not know
    that the hand of the Lord has done this?
In his hand is the life of every living thing
    and the breath of all mankind.

 

(1)  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Earth

(2) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burgess_Shale

(3) https://burgess-shale.rom.on.ca/en/science/origin/04-cambrian-explosion.php

 

Nothing Can’t Do Something

20181005_135152(0)

Where did the universe come from?

Secular Academics believe it created itself from nothing. Well technically it was a from an infinitesimally small small bubble of nothing.

Where did the bubble come from?

In quantum physics, a quantum fluctuation (or vacuum state fluctuation or vacuum fluctuation) is the temporary change in the amount of energy in a point in spaceas explained in Werner Heisenberg‘s uncertainty principle.  (Wikipedia)

Or as written in the Physics ArXiv blog, “At the heart of their thinking is Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle. This allows a small empty space to come into existence probabilistically due to fluctuations in what physicists call the metastable false vacuum.”(1)

Stated in common English, supposedly this quantum vacuum state (nothing) can (temporarily) do something, and (permanently) create everything (our universe) out of nothing…. all because of an “uncertainty principle”. So no matter how you phrase it, or what you call it, there was absolute, complete nothingness, and something appeared for no reason.

Now if this reads like nonsense, it is because it IS nonsense. The uncertainty principle, in its simplest form, simply states that you cannot accurately measure both the position (location) and the velocity (speed) of a particle because the process of measuring will by definition require altering one or the other (position or velocity).

“Ordinary experience provides no clue of this principle. It is easy to measure both the position and the velocity of, say, an automobile, because the uncertainties implied by this principle for ordinary objects are too small to be observed. The complete rule stipulates that the product of the uncertainties in position and velocity is equal to or greater than a tiny physical quantity, or constant (h/(4π), where h is Planck’s constant, or about 6.6 × 10−34 joule-second). Only for the exceedingly small masses of atoms and subatomic particles does the product of the uncertainties become significant.” (2)

But even if you DID believe, based on these secular mind games that are far more philosophic than scientific, that the universe somehow created itself, then there are all the same questions about where the universe came from, but only moved to another level. Questions like:

  1. If all the Big Bang scientists believe in an expanding universe, what is the universe expanding into? (Did Space exist a priori?)
  2. What happened just before the Big Bang? (Cosmologists differ / have no idea)
  3. Did the Big Bang have a location? Where? (Is earth at the center?)
  4. If nothing can instantaneously create everything, can we all be instantaneously replaced by another Bang?
  5. If they still don’t know if atoms and light are particles or waves, how can Secular Science claim to know how, when, where or why the Universe began?
  6. If you believe the Universe can create itself (something you cannot even begin to understand), what keeps you from believing in an Almighty Supreme Being (a being we are also completely incapable of comprehending) who has the power to create all things?

Secular cosmology clearly and emphatically does not have all the answers. Don’t let them bully you into believing nonsense.

 

By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God’s command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible. Hebrews 11:3 NIV

(1) https://medium.com/the-physics-arxiv-blog/a-mathematical-proof-that-the-universe-could-have-formed-spontaneously-from-nothing-ed7ed0f304a3

(2) http://www.britannica.com/biography/Werner-Heisenberg#ref524688

 

(For more information see prior blogs “Bang.. and Nothing”, “Individualism”, and “Who are you going to trust”)

The Uniformitarians

20181005_1351525879507706738633709.jpg

It sounds like the Title of a new Stephen King book. “The Uniformitarians”. Pretty scary stuff. But in reality it is another facade adapted by the secular scientific community. Geologists and cosmologists pretend to apply the rules of the universe as we now seen them, and predict the past (supposedly some 14 billions years) based on current laws of physics and current rates of physical processes. Uniformitarianism states that the changes in the past can be predicted because it involves “continuous and uniform processes”. Sounds great, but then they change the rules whenever it suits them…

As defined in the dictionary (originating in Geology but used in cosmology as well):

u·ni·form·i·tar·i·an·ism

 

ˌyo͞onəˌfôrməˈterēənizəm/

 

noun
GEOLOGY the theory that changes in the earth’s crust during geological history have resulted from the action of continuous and uniform processes.

 

As further explained in Wikipedia, it is “an unprovable postulate that cannot be verified using the scientific method”.(1)

Uniformitarianism, also known as the Doctrine of Uniformity,[1][2] refers to the invariance in the principles underpinning science, such as the constancy of causality, or causation, throughout time,[3] but it has also been used to describe invariance of physical laws through time and space.[4] Though an unprovable postulate that cannot be verified using the scientific method, uniformitarianism has been a key first principle of virtually all fields of science.(1)

It is important to note that the Doctrine of Uniformity and the principle of Uniformitarianism are unprovable. (Especially when so many secular scientist claim they KNOW the age of the Earth and the age of the Universe.) But there is another consideration that is perhaps even more important in practice and in principle.

The principle of uniformitarianism has never truly been applied, because in every setting of science, whether astronomy, cosmology, evolutionary biology, or geology, there are glaring problems that require major adaptions or exceptions for the principle to be even loosely applied. As stated by Roger Patterson, “The ideas presented in the textbooks are based on uniformitarian assumptions and have many problems that are not discussed, despite the presence of phrases like “we know” and “scientists have shown”. (2) For example these secular scientist apply the rules of modern physics to the formation of the universe under the Nebular Hypothesis. But according to the rules of physics, the particles that might or might not form after such an explosion would not stick together (coalesce) or undergo accretion, and thus could not form planets, or stars, or galaxies. Further, they would of necessity have had to travel at speeds far greater than the speed of light, an obvious and absurd exception to the principles of physics and uniformitarianism.

Or as another example, in the study of biology, there is a well know and accepted “Law of Abiogenesis”. It is, simply stated, “life cannot come from non life”, or in other words non living matter cannot spontaneously come to life. Everyone knows this is true. Everyone accepts this, except if you believe in Evolution. In order to believe in evolution, you must first accept that life magically created itself out of a bunch of random chemicals, and then reproduced itself. Each step is impossible, but yet this is what our institutes of “higher learning” expect students to accept.

Let me give one more example. The Moon rocks collected from the Moon were dated at 4.5 billion years of age using secular “uniformitarian” assumptions. But using the lunar recession models (based on current rates, or even “adjusted” rates) the Moon would have been quite literally touching the earth just a billion years or so in the past. So the scientists make exceptions, or disallow the evidence, or ignore the findings, but they cannot uniformly apply them.

Geology offers many other examples, in which current processes could not have created the earth as we find it. Fossil layers, rates of mountain erosion, sea floor sediment deposition, and polystrate fossils could not have occurred as described by the Old Age Earth textbooks. The rate of uplift of the Himalayas is FAR too great to be accounted for by Uniformatarian assumptions.

In many cases the Biblical Flood offers a much more sensible model than uniformitarianism.  As an example, did you know that one single mine in Canada’s tar sands can move thirty billion tons of sediment a year? That is double the amount moved by all the rivers in the world combined. Imagine the amounts which might be moved or shifted during Ice ages, meteor impacts, massive volcanic eruptions, or a Global Flood! it is so astronomical that it boggles the mind… and completely discounts any possibility of geographic “uniformitarian” assumptions.

Nevertheless, even though Old Age estimates violate their own premises of “uniform and continuous processes”, the geology texts insist on Old Age estimates for the Earth. (see earlier blogs on “Ancient… Where’s the Proof” and “Bang… and Nothing”, and “The Data in the Strata.”

And in yet another strong refutation, Uniformitarian assumptions on evolution should show that somewhere in the world, species are evolving as we speak. In order for the billions upon billions of evolutionary changes necessary to have occurred in just a millions of years, we should see evolution regularly as species advance along the evolutionary scale. Yet in the entire recorded history of the world, thousands of years, we have no record of a single example of evolution.

So whenever a biology or geology prof tells you something is billions of years old, you can be sure there is more than sufficient evidence to dispute that statement. Do your research, and the Uniformitarian assumptions of Old Earth and Old Universe will fall apart.  Uniformitarian assumptions are unproven, unscientific, and insufficient for determining history, and they are certainly inadequate by any definition for evaluating or proving anything about origins. Uniformitarianism gets an F in History.

 

(1) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uniformitarianism

(2) Patterson, R., Evolution Exposed, Answers in Genesis, 2008, P. 68.

 

For ever since the world was created, people have seen the earth and sky. Through everything God made, they can clearly see his invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature. So they have no excuse for not knowing God. — Romans 1:20 NLT

(For more on similar topics see prior blogs on “Lemmings” and What about Fossils”)

Atheism is a BLAST

beautiful celebrate celebration colorful
Photo by Александр Прокофьев on Pexels.com

Don’t let the cosmologists try to kid you on this one. They have not got a clue either– despite the fact that they are doing a pretty good job of convincing themselves and others that this is really not a problem. “In the beginning, ” they will say, “there was nothing– no time, space matter or energy. Then there was a quantum fluctuation from which…” Whoa! Stop right there. You see what I mean”… Then they are away and before you know it , they have pulled an hundred billion galaxies out of their quantum hats. David Darling (1)

Atheism is a blast. In fact the cosmology of atheism relies on faith in the Big Bang, the biggest explosion of something from nothing that could ever possibly be imagined.

Astrophysicist Paul Sutter of The Ohio State University writes, “At 13.8 billion years ago, our entire observable universe was the size of a peach and had a temperature of over a trillion degrees.”(2) Admittedly this is a pretty bold statement. Is it supported by some evidence? Yes. But proven? Nope. Supported by the majority of the evidence? Certainly not.

John Watson of Techreader.com, writes about the Big Bang,”The first is that there is a good reason it is only called a “theory”. The proponents of this theory would have you believe that it is set in stone and factual; but this is far from the truth. In fact, the Big Bang theory has so many holes that there is not enough evidence to even confidently say that it could even possibly be valid.”(3)

Harvard’s astrophysics site states, “Although astronomers understand what the universe was like just a few seconds after the Big Bang, no one yet knows what happened at the instant of the Big Bang – or what came before. What powered the Big Bang? Where did all the stuff in the universe come from in the first place? What was the universe like just before the Big Bang?”(4) (Italics added) Now, while I think that it is a gross overstatement (some might call it a lie) to say astronomers understand what the universe was like a few seconds after the big bang, at least they admit they have no idea where the big bang came from.

Sutter and other astrophysicists can support the Big Bang claim as a possibility because of the observed red shift, and the relative local deficiency of quasars, and the presence of some background radiation that might have come from a big bang. But they have to accept it on faith, and they have to also downplay a large number of problems with their Big Bang explanation of the universe.

For starters, the Big Bang as an explanation of origins violates both the First and Second Laws of Thermodynamics. The big bang violates the widely held belief that nothing can travel faster than the speed of light. (See Inflationary Period in earlier articles). The Big Bang also has problems known as the Horizon problem, Flatness (or Oldness) problem, and the Monopole problem. The Big Bang violates Einstein’s General Law of Relativity. The Big bang has a Supernova problem, and a problem that we can see fully formed galaxies that are supposedly 10.8 billion light years away, when they should still appear as if early in the process of formation.(5)

But that is just the beginning. For example… we should be able to see an older and older universe as we look further and further away. But we don’t. We should see much more uniformity after such an explosion, but we don’t. There should be some sort of evidence of Dark Matter or Dark Energy, but there are not (and all the Big Bang cosmology equations require them). Evidence shows the galaxies could NOT have coalesced, but there they are.

So, once again, we see from an objective scientific viewpoint that those who tell our youth that the Big Bang is a scientifically proven fact are at best misled, and at worst brazen liars. The Big Bang requires either 1) suspension of scientific reason, or 2) a vast amount of faith. And that is just for the Big Bang.

Secular atheism also requires faith in Abiogenesis (life magically appearing from non-life), and in the Cambrian explosion (which is, simply put, that all the sudden about 500 hundred million years ago all the forms of life suddenly decided to appear on earth at approximately the same time). I will say more about the Cambrian explosion in the next blog. But if I have not stretched your faith in science too much… here is what the Lord says about it.

Isaiah 42:5
This is what God the Lord says—
the Creator of the heavens, who stretches them out,
who spreads out the earth with all that springs from it,
who gives breath to its people,
and life to those who walk on it:

(1) David Darling “On Creating Something from Nothing,” New Scientist 151 (1996):49

(2) https://www.space.com/40370-why-should-we-believe-big-bang.html

(3) https://thetechreader.com/top-ten/top-ten-scientific-flaws-in-the-big-bang-theory/

(4) https://www.cfa.harvard.edu/seuforum/bb_whatpowered.htm

(5) Patterson, R. Evolution Exposed, 2008, Answers in Genesis. p58

 

(For more, see prior posts on “Bang… and Nothing” and “Just the Facts”)

Real Science

Real science, unpretentious and unassuming is this, to investigate the wonders of Creation with all the powers of our God given intellectual capacity, and to maintain truth and objectivity at all costs.” ANM

There has been an ongoing debate about the objectivity and credentials of “science” subtended to the debate over creation vs evolution. For over a hundred years, and especially since the State of Tennessee v. John Thomas Scopes in 1925, there has been a silent, mostly unspoken assumption that one must choose sides. One must either come down on the side of science or on the side of religion. But more recently this has been exposed as a false dichotomy.

In recent years each side of the debate has seemed to approach the topic of evolution, and of the origins of man and the universe, with a sense of religious fervor. In today’s society it could be seen as the battle of the pulpit vs the lectern. In conservative, Bible trusting congregations, the faithful are encouraged to trust the Bible as the Word of God and to view History, the world, and human nature through the lens of scripture. In the secular universities, our youth are told there is no God, the Bible is a myth, and both Life and the Universe originated out of nothing, for no particular reason at all.

Each side seeks to convert others to their point of view, and in recent years, it would seem that the secular view is “winning” the debate, as tens of millions of youth leave the nest, go to universities, and are taught the “truth” of the scientific method, and lectured on the many supposed contradictions of the Bible. After a few years of exposure to the secular worldview, accompanied by a great deal of encouragement to shed the encumbrances of religion and the Ten Commandments, they graduate to freely express their lives and especially their sexuality as they choose.

In a sense it became a great social experiment, starting with the war protests and the sexual revolution of the 1960’s, and progressing to the free availability of abortion, coed dorms at universities, rampant alcohol and mood altering chemical use, and the acceptance of the secular worldview as supreme on essentially all the major campuses and most of the communities of our country. Most will now admit that the experiment has had enormous unanticipated social implications. There has been an epidemic of depression and mental health problems. There has been a breakup of the family. There has been an increasing disrespect for law, and for legal authority. There has been a massive, deadly epidemic of substance abuse, killing tens of millions and leaving entire generations of children fatherless or motherless.

But what if the entire debate, the whole experiment, was based on false premises? What if our understanding of what is science, and what is religion, is fundamentally flawed? What if instead of freeing our children from the encumbrances of religion, we have merely substituted one religion for another? What if at the same time, instead of teaching the benefits of the scientific method, we have inadvertently advanced and propagated the religion of scientism? (See previous post on Scientism)

James 1:27 states, “Pure religion and undefiled before our God and Father is this, to visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep oneself unspotted from the world.” (ASV) Jesus said “Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another.” (NIV) This was the religion taught in our churches and universities prior to the secular revolution. But the religion now taught in schools is secular humanism, the belief that humanity is capable of morality and self fulfillment without the need for any belief in God. Abortion in this worldview is fine. Drugs? Why not? Homosexuality, polygamy, or pedophilia? Sure. Just don’t dispute global warming and you can do whatever else you choose.

But if real religion has been replaced with scientism and secular humanism, what has replaced real science? I believe it is accurate to state, “Real science, unpretentious and unassuming is this, to investigate the wonders of Creation with all the powers of our God given intellectual capacity, and to maintain truth and objectivity at all costs.” But this is not at all what is practiced in our institutions of higher learning. What has replaced real science? The answer is, again, scientism and secular humanism. The wild speculations of Dawkins, Hawking, Darwin, and Marx. One may advance any theory whatever about the origin of comets, or life, or the moon. One may believe any incredible explanation for the impossibility of evolution. One may postulate any variation of the big bang and explain its deficiencies with any form of wild hypothesis. But you must not under any circumstances advance a theory that involves God, or Creation. This is madness, This is academic and political suicide.

If you agree, please feel free to share.

“You are right in speaking of the moral foundations of science, but you cannot turn around and speak of the scientific foundations of morality.”
Albert Einstein

Proverbs 2:6 For the LORD gives wisdom; from his mouth come knowledge and understanding.

(For more on similar topics see prior blog on “Science vs Scientism” and “Scoffers”)