Does Matter Alone Explain the Complexity of the Universe? – Part 1

By: Dr. John Ankerberg and Dr. John Weldon; ©1999

The fifth false assumption is: Matter alone can explain the origin of life and the complexity of the universe. (Therefore, there is no need to postulate belief in a Creator God.)

Contents

FALSE ASSUMPTIONS ABOUT EVOLUTION – ASSUMPTION FIVE, PART I

False Assumption 5: Matter alone can explain the origin of life and the complexity of the universe. (Therefore, there is no need to postulate belief in a Creator God.)

The idea that everything has come from nothing is a bit hard to swallow, even for many scientists. Reflecting Darwin’s own concerns, leading evolutionists such as Ernst Mayr have conceded that the idea that systems such as the eye, feather or instinct could evolve and be improved by random mutations, represents “a considerable strain on one’s credu­lity.”^[1] Darwin himself confessed, “I remember well when the thought of the eye made me cold all over…[Now] The sight of a feather in a Peacock’s tail, whenever I gaze at it, makes me sick.”^[2] Dr. Denton also refers to the idea that evolution could occur by purely random processes—and yet produce the complexity of living organisms about us—as “simply an affront to reason.”^[3]

As modern science increasingly uncovers the indescribable complexity of the living world and simultaneously fails to explain the nature of abiogenesis (that life can originate from non-life), the miraculous nature of all theories of origins seem to be made more appar­ent. As we will see, in many ways, the term miracle is no longer properly restricted to only creationist ideology. Nobel prize winning biochemist Dr. Francis Crick commented, “An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle, so many are the conditions which would have had to have been satisfied to get it going.”^[4]

Hoyle’s research partner, Chandra Wickramasinghe, also noted, “Contrary to the popular notion that only creationism relies on the supernatural, evolutionism must as well, since the probabilities of random formation of life are so tiny as to require a ‘miracle’ for spontaneous generation tantamount to a theological argument.”^[5] Let’s briefly look deeper into this idea that belief in evolution is essentially belief in miracles.

Mark Eastman, M.D. and Chuck Missler point out that when you boil down all thematerialistic arguments for the origin of the universe, there are really just two alternatives:

1. that matter is infinitely old. Or
2. that matter appeared out of nothing at a finite point in the past.

They point out, “There is no third option.”

These authors proceed to cite evidence to show that matter cannot be eternal, including evidence from physics, such as proton decay and evidence from the first and second laws of thermodynamics which “provide some of the strongest evidence for a finite universe.”^[6]

Everyone agrees that matter does exist, so we have to explain its existence somehow. If matter cannot be infinitely old—and the scientific evidence is so strong at this point as to make this conclusion inevitable—then our only option is that matter appeared in the uni­verse out of nothing at a finite point in the past. Of course, if we begin with the “Big Bang” and an extremely small amount of dense matter, which some dub the “cosmic egg,” the problem is not resolved. The origin of the “cosmic egg” is a matter of intense debate as well it should be. Where did such an egg originate? Did it exist forever? If not, where did it comefrom? Either it existed forever or it appeared out of nothing at a finite point in the past. Materialistically, there is no explanation, nor will there be. And regardless, doesn’t it require a rather long stretch of the imagination to think that something so infinitely small could produce a universe as large as ours? How could a pinpoint of extremely dense matter produce the billions and trillions of suns and galaxies in our universe? And what were the mechanisms which caused the big bang itself? No one knows.

What is perhaps even more amazing is that we have accepted this infinitely implau­sible scenario for the origin of the universe over against an infinitely more probable one— creation by an infinite God.

In the creation/evolution debate, what must be recognized is that whether you begin with a materialistic or a divine origin for the universe, both are miracles. As Eastman and Missler state:

The creationist’s model begins with an infinitely intelligent, omnipotent, transcendent Creator who used intelligent design, expertise or know-how to create everything from the sub-atomic particles to giant redwood trees. Was it a miracle? Absolutely!

The atheist’s [i.e., materialistic] model begins with an even more impressive miracle—the appearance of all matter in the universe from nothing, by no one, and for no reason. A supernatural event. A miracle! However, the atheist does not believe in the outside or transcendent “First Cause” we call God. Therefore, the atheist has no “natural explanation” nor “supernatural explanation” for the origin of space-time and matter. Consequently the atheistic scenario on the origin of the universe leaves us hanging in a totally dissatisfying position. He begins his model for the universe with a supernatural event. This supernatural event, however, is accomplished without a supernatural agent to perform it.^[7]

Many religions, especially Eastern religions, believe in the idea of an infinite universe. Unfortunately, this has serious implications for their doctrine of God. If the universe is infinite, then by definition there can be nothing else. As a result, even God becomes immi­nent within the universe, an occupant of it rather than an infinite, transcendent being be­yond it. “Therefore, God could not dwell in eternity. He could not exist before time and space began. And because God is confined to the universe, He is subject to its laws. Therefore, God becomes either a product of the universe or the universe itself.”^[8]

It’s beyond the scope of these articles to discuss the problems of a solely imminent, pantheistic God; however, they are anything but small as seen, e.g., in the religious, social and cultural consequences in those nations who espouse pantheism.

Nevertheless, books such as Robert Jastrow’s God and the Astronomers, Henry Margenau and Roy Varghese, eds., Cosmos, Bios, and Theos (LaSalle, IL: Open Court, 1992) and many others are proof that even materialistic scientists are now being forced to consider God and religious ideas concerning the origin of the universe.

This is exactly what Romans 1 teaches—that the creation itself provides evidence that is clearly seen and understood concerning God’s existence: “The evidence for a finite, decaying, and finely-tuned universe has led many to conclude that there must be a Mind behind it all. Remarkably, many of these men are professed atheists who have been forced by the weight of 20th-century discoveries in astronomy and physics to concede the exist­ence of an intelligent Designer behind the creation of the universe.”^[9]

For example, Paul Davies was once a leader for the atheistic, materialistic world view but now asserts of the universe, “[There] is for me powerful evidence that there is something going on behind it all…. It seems as though somebody has fine-tuned nature’s num­bers to make the Universe…. The impression of design is overwhelming.”^[10]

Astronomer George Greenstein observed, “As we survey all the evidence, the thought instantly arises that some supernatural agency—or rather, Agency—must be involved. Is it possible that suddenly, without intending to, we have stumbled upon scientific proof of the existence of a Supreme Being? Was it God who stepped in and so providentially crafted the cosmos for our benefit?”^[11]

Theoretical physicist Tony Rothman acknowledges, “When confronted with the order and beauty of the universe and the strange coincidences of nature, it’s very tempting to take the leap of faith from science into religion. I am sure many physicists want to. I only wish they would admit it.”^[12]

In 1992, physicist and Nobel Laureat Arno Penzias noted, “Astronomy leads us to a unique event, a universe which was created out of nothing, one with the very delicate balance needed to provide exactly the conditions required to permit life, and one which has an underlying (one might say ‘supernatural’) plan.”^[13]

Statements like this could be multiplied many times over. They prove beyond a doubt that the doing of the best science by some of the most brilliant scientific minds leads us back, not to dead matter, but to a living God. At the very least, we may accept the following statement without qualification:

In the case of the origin of the universe and life on earth, as we have seen, there are only two possible explanations—chance or design. In each case a balanced examination of twentieth-century scientific evidence has led a number of world authorities to conclude that appealing to chance is akin to faith in supernatural miracles! In effect, to believe that the universe “just happened,” the skeptic must place as much faith in arbitrary and purposeless laws of physics and chance chemistry as the Christian does in the God of the Bible.^[14]

But it is not the case that the materialist and the theist are actually exerting equal amounts of faith. To the contrary, the materialist’s faith is far greater. We will examine some of the evidence for this in part two.

NOTES

1. ↑ Ernst Mayr, Systematics and the Origin of Species, 1942, p. 296 from Bird, Vol. 1, p. 119.
2. ↑ Bird, Vol. 1, p. 75.
3. ↑ Denton, p. 351.
4. ↑ Francis Crick, Life Itself: Its Origin and Nature (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1981), p. 88.
5. ↑ Cited in Norman L. Geisler, Creator in the Classroom – “Scopes 2”: The 1981 Arkansas Creation/Evolution Trial (Mieford, MI: Mott Media, 1982), p. 151.
6. ↑ Mark Eastman, Chuck Missler, The Creator Beyond Time and Space (Costa Mesa, CA: The Word For Today, 1996), p. 11-12.
7. ↑ Ibid., p. 17.
8. ↑ Ibid., p. 207.
9. ↑ Ibid., p. 27.
10. ↑ Ibid., p. 28, citing Paul Davies, The Cosmic Blueprint (NY: Simon & Schuster, 1988), p. 203; Paul Davies, “The Anthropic Principle,” Science Digest, Vol., 191, no. 10, (Oct. 1983), p. 24.
11. ↑ Ibid., p. 28, citing George Greenstein, The Symbiotic Universe (NY: William Morrow, 1988), p. 27.
12. ↑ Ibid., p. 28, citing Tony Rothman, “A ‘What You See Is What You Beget’ Theory,” Discover, May 1987, p. 99.
13. ↑ Ibid., p. 29, citing Henry Margenau and Roy Barghese (eds.), Cosmos, Bios and Theos (LaSalle, IL: Open Court, 1992), p. 83.
14. ↑ Ibid., p. 156.

Read Part 11