 |
| Purchase The Grand Design at Amazon by clicking here. |
The question of origins is one of the most important questions we, as human beings, must face. How you answer this question of where life came from will ultimately determine your view on a wide range of issues. At present, there are two theories, or philosophies, that offer an answer to the question of where humans came from. One is the theory of evolution, which tells us that the existence of humanity is just a cosmic accident, taking place randomly over a period of billions of years. The other is the creationist view – that a loving, personal God created all that is, visible and invisible, out of nothing, merely by his word. There really isn't a third option. Which one is more rational and logical to believe? This question may seem silly to anyone educated in the public school system in America over the last 40 years, as the theory of evolution is rather taught as the fact of evolution. There are, however, some issues which evolutionary theory raises that we should examine, and should ask our evolutionist friends and professors to deal with.
I am not a scientist, and I am not a pastor. I am not a professional apologist who goes around debating the question of origins like the late Dr. Ron Carlson, or Ken Ham. After doing some reading and research on my own, however, I have found some questions regarding evolution to which I can find no satisfactory answer. Ultimately, the reason that I believe in creation is because it is taught in God's inerrant word. Because God's word is also efficacious, God, working with the power of his Holy Spirit, has used this word to create faith in me. I offer the following in the spirit of giving to every man an answer, the reason for the hope that lies within me.
The Laws of Thermodynamics
Newton's Second Law states that everything in the universe is going from a state of organization and complexity, and degenerating toward chaos and disorganization. This is called the problem of entropy. All you need to do to see entropy at work is clean your house. How long does the laundry stay put away, the dishes stay clean, and the windows remain dust-free? Over time, your clean house moves from a state of organization to a state of chaos (especially if you have children running around inside of it).
What does this have to do with evolution? Well, according to Newton, everything in the universe – all energy and matter – is governed by the laws of physics, and evolution is no exception. Newton's Second Law tells us that the universe and all that is in it moves from a state of complexity and organization to a state of chaos and disorganization over time. The theory of evolution states exactly the opposite. Evolution claims that everything is evolving upward, to greater and greater levels of complexity, as evidenced in the rise of man. Moreover, all this happens by chance, over a long period of time. These two views are diametrically opposed to each other. Either Darwin or Newton is mistaken. They cannot both be correct.
The Law of Biogenesis
I remember sitting in 10th grade biology class learning this lesson. It was the first chapter in our textbook before we studied Darwin and the theory of evolution. It is the idea of biogenesis, that is, life only arises from life; it cannot arise from nonliving matter.
I remember our biology teacher telling us that in the 1800s, people believe in something called spontaneous generation. This, she explained, was the naïve notion that if you left meat out in the open and it began to decay, maggots and flies would spontaneously come to life on it. In the same way, if you left water out in the open, and a hair was put in it, given time that hair would spontaneously turn into a larva. I remember sitting in class laughing at the nonsense that these scientists from the 1800s believed. Our teacher went on to tell us that all such notions were dispelled by Louis Pasteur in the second half of the 19th century, when it was discovered that organisms smaller than the eye could see are responsible for the appearance of such creatures. Flies came to the meat, laid eggs that could not be seen, and maggots would eventually mature, etc.
From here, my amusement turned into confusion as we begin the study of evolution. This was the theory, my teacher explained, that all life on earth arose spontaneously by chance out of nonliving, inorganic material, 3.5 billion years ago, and evolved upward out of the primordial ooze to greater and greater forms of complexity, and eventually to humanity as we know it today.
It doesn't take a rocket scientist – or a biology teacher – to understand the problem that the law of biogenesis poses. The theory of evolution is in direct opposition to a basic axiom of biology: life cannot arise from nonliving matter. The response to this question, when raised, is frustrating. One is usually treated to a long, drawn out explanation of certain biological mechanisms and their workings, but basically it boils down to this: yes, the law of biogenesis says that life must come from living matter and cannot do otherwise. But, you must assume, by faith, that it happened at least once, because if it didn't, we wouldn't be here today.
In his book, The Grand Design, Stephen Hawking and Leonard Mlodinow explain M Theory (or what is more commonly called the Multi-verse) as well as the implications quantum physics has for the origins of the universe, for the average person. It can all be summed up in two words: spontaneous generation.
According to Hawking, the origin of the universe is a quantum event. The universe has no origin as we would understand it. Instead, the universe was a singularity in both space and time. It has no initial boundaries in time or space, in the same way that the earth has no edge to use as a defining border, or to fall off of. It is a sphere. It arose out of nothing and expanded like a bubble of steam in a boiling pot of water. Hawking calls this the No Boundary Condition. In other words, the universe arose out of quantum fluctuations which spontaneously generated themselves before there was a universe, or any other matter, in existence. The universe created itself by spontaneously erupting out of the quantum mists:
In fact, many universes exist with many different sets of physical laws. Some people make a great mystery of this idea, sometimes called the Multi-verse Concept. But these are just different expressions of the Feynman Sum Over Histories. To picture this, let's alter Eddington’s balloon analogy, and instead think of the expanding universe as the surface of a bubble. Our picture of the spontaneous quantum creation of the universe is then a bit like the formation of bubbles of steam in boiling water. Many tiny bubbles appear and then disappear again. These represent many universes that expand, but collapse again while still of microscopic size. They represent possible alternative universes, but they are not of much interest, since they do not last long enough to develop galaxies and stars, let alone intelligent life. A few of the little bubbles, however, will grow large enough so that they will be safe from re-collapse. They will continue to expand at an ever increasing rate, and will form the bubbles of steam we are able to see. These correspond to universes that start off expanding at an ever increasing rate.[1]
In the steam analogy there is, however, a force acting on, or behind, the "nothingness" (the water in the pot) to spontaneously generate the "universes" (the bubbles of steam).
But doesn't this violate the laws of physics? How can something spontaneously generate from nothing? Why don't we see this happening around us? Maybe the 17th and 18th century scientists we made fun of in high school were right? Hawking explains that gravity is the key to explaining why universes can spontaneously generate from nothing, but other matter can't:
If we want to go back even further in time and understand the origin of the universe, we must combine what we know about general relativity with quantum theory. To see how this works we need to understand the principle that gravity warps space and time.[2]
Hawking says that the warpage of space and time can be detected and measured, even though we can't step outside of our closed system of space-time. Hawking says that the universe’s positive and negative energies make the universe locally stable, and prohibit the spontaneous generation of matter:
Any set of laws that describes a continuous world such as our own will have a concept of energy, which is a conserved quantity, meaning that it doesn't change during time. The energy of empty space will be a constant, independent of both time and position. One can subtract out this constant vacuum energy by measuring the energy of any volume of space relative to that of the same volume of empty space. One requirement any law of nature must satisfy is that it dictates that the energy of an isolated body surrounded by empty space is positive, which means that one has to do work to assemble the body. That's because if the energy of an isolated body were negative, it could be created in a state of motion, so that it's negative energy was exactly balanced by the positive energy due to its motion. If that were true, there would be no reason that bodies could not appear anywhere and everywhere. Empty space would, therefore, be unstable. But if it costs energy to create an isolated body, such instability could not happen because, as we've said, the universe must remain constant.[3]
Hawking continues:
If the total energy of the universe must always remain zero and it costs energy to create a body, how can a whole universe be created from nothing? That is why there must be a law like gravity. Because gravity is attractive, gravitational energy is negative. One has to do work to separate a gravitationally bound system such as the earth and the moon. This negative energy can balance the positive energy needed to create matter, but it's not quite that simple. The negative gravitational energy of the earth, for example, is less than 1 billionth of the positive energy of the matter particles the earth is made of. A body, such as a star, will have more negative gravitational energy, and the smaller it is, the closer the different parts of it are to each other, the greater this negative gravitational energy will be. But before it can become greater then the positive energy of the matter, the star will collapse to a black hole, and black holes have positive energy. That's why empty space is stable. Bodies such as stars, or black holes, cannot just appear out of nothing, but a whole universe can...Because gravity shapes space and time, it allows space-time to be locally stable, but globally unstable. On the scale of the entire universe, the positive energy of the matter can be balanced by the negative gravitational energy, and so there is no restriction on the creation of whole universes. Because there is a law like gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing in the manner described [in chapter 6]. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something, rather than nothing; why the universe exists – why we exist. It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the universe going.[4]
Hawking comes to the conclusion that the universe spontaneously generated itself out of nothing, as the result of quantum fluctuations, and passed through an infinite number of histories. He comes to his conclusions about life, the universe, and everything, through abstract logic, something he chided Aristotle for doing earlier in the book:
But perhaps the true miracle is that abstract considerations of logic lead to a unique theory that predicts and describes a vast universe full of the amazing variety that we see. If the theory is confirmed by observation, it will be the successful conclusion of a search going back more than 3000 years. We will have found of the grand design.[5]
These things, interesting as they may be, are all the result of the abstract thoughts of theoretical physicists, and have yet to be confirmed by observation. We have left the realm of science and reason, and entered into philosophy and religion, a place Hawking repeatedly ridicules others for venturing into. The theoretical physicists are the priests of a godless religion; The so-called New Atheists are the apologists. The popular physicists mask their true aim of denying the Creator and deifying man behind the guise of seeking the mechanisms of the cosmos through the scientific method.
No comments:
Post a Comment