By faith, we understand that the universe has been framed by the word of God, so that what is seen has not been made out of things which are visible.(Hebrews 11:3)

Creation or Evolution? Created or Evolved?

The Bible teaches that God created the universe and everything in it. The theory of evolution teaches that man is the product of the development of simple life forms into more complex ones by random chance, very much like a machine building on itself. The theory of evolution disposes of the need for an intelligent Creator or Master Designer.

That simpler life forms can become more complex life forms may be an appealing theory but it does not have a leg to stand on. The following are some major flaws in the theory of evolution:

1. Belief in evolution violates the First Law of Thermodynamics, the law of energy conservation, which states that energy can be converted from one form into another, but it can neither be created or destroyed. Nothing in the present economy of natural law can account for its own origin. The energy required for innovative evolution, a fish developing legs and crawling out of a primordial swamp, violates this inviolate law of physics. The present structure of the universe is one of conservation. The creationist model agrees with the Biblical world view that God created the universe. Since God has ceased from his creative works (Gen.2:3), energy is no longer created. The release of energy in an atomic fission reaction is not a creation of energy but a change of form from matter to energy.

2. Belief in evolution violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics, the law of energy decay. The energy available for useful work in a functioning system tends to decrease, even though the total energy remains constant. Structured systems progress from a more orderly, more complex, state to a less orderly, disorganized, and random state. This process is known as "entropy". Theoretically in a rare, limited, and temporary situation a more orderly state might result. But all systems move toward decay, according to this law. Evolution is in direct violation of the second law of thermodynamics. Evolutionists are aware of this and therefore require billions of years of constant violations of the second law of thermodynamics. Not only is evolution statistically highly improbable but virtually impossible.

3. Evolution violates the Law of Biogenesis that life comes only from preexisting life and will only perpetuate its own kind. Belief in evolution is essentially a belief in "spontaneous generation" where in one scenario life appeared when lightning struck a primordial soup and somehow a living cell formed. Pasteur (1860), Spallanzani (1780), and Redi (1688) disproved that maggots can come from rotten meat, flies from banana peels, bees from dead calves (etc...). When the decaying matter was sealed off and presterilized no life arose as there was no biological contamination.

4. There is no evidence in the fossil record to substantiate evolution. According to the general theory of evolution the basic progression of life culminating in man was nonliving matter, to protozoans, to metazoan invertebrates, to vertebrate fishes, to amphibians, reptiles,birds, fur-bearing quadrupeds, apes and man. If the theory of evolution were accurate we would expect to find vast numbers of transitional forms objectively preserved in the fossil record. Transitional forms are totally absent from the fossil record. Archaeopteryx was once believed to be a transitional form but has since been acknowledged by paleontologists to have been a true bird. Evolutionists, cognizant of this glaring flaw in their belief system, now argue that fossils are not present because there were brief "evolutionary bursts" over billions of years which, because of their rapidity and brevity, did not leave their footprint in time. Nevertheless, a belief in "evolutionary bursts" is still unsupported by the First and Second Law of Thermodynamics and the Law of Biogenesis.

5. The fossil record has failed to document a single, verifiable "missing link" between ape and man. Compilations on skimpy and inaccurate evidence, highly speculative constructs, and artists renderings abound but there is no scientific evidence documenting a missing link. "Positive finds" of a missing link are periodically announced only to be subsequently embroiled in controversy, revised, or disavowed. Nebraska man was constructed based on the discovery in 1922 of a single tooth which was that of an extinct species of pig.

In 1891 the Java ape man or Pithecanthropus erectus (erect ape man) was reconstructed based on a small piece of the top of a skull, a fragment of a left thighbone, and three molar teeth. The remnants were collected over a range of seventy feet and in an old riverbed mixed with the bones of extinct animals. On scanty if no evidence with no proof that all the pieces found were of the same animal a supposed missing link was found. Dr. Eugene Dubois, a fervent evolutionist, later came to the conclusion the bones were the remains of some type of gibbon, an ape.

In 1912 Charles Dawson, an amateur fossilologist produced some bones, teeth and primitive instruments which he supposedly found in a gravel pit at Piltdown, Sussex, England. In October of 1956 Reader’s Digest published an article, summarized from Popular Science Monthly , titled "The Great Piltdown Hoax." A new fluoride absorption method to date bones revealed the Piltdown bones were fraudulent. The teeth had been filed and both teeth and bones had been discolored with bichromate of potash to conceal their true identity. All the "experts" had been deceived for over forty years.

For many years Neanderthal Man was considered a missing link. He was portrayed as a semierect, barrel-chested, hairy creature, most often with a club in hand. Other Neanderthal skeletons revealed that Neanderthal Man was fully erect, fully human, with a brain capacity exceeding that of modern man by 13 percent. It was concluded the initial specimen had been crippled with osteoarthritis and rickets. Today Neanderthal Man is considered Homosapiens.

Henry Morris in his well written book Creation And The Modern Christian (Master Book Publishers, El Cajon, California, 1985) points out:

"If evolution were true, then the various stages of human evolution ought to be the best documented of all, since man is supposedly the most recent evolutionary arrival and since more people are searching for fossil evidence in this field than in any other. Nevertheless, as noted above, the actual evidence is still extremely fragmentary and very doubtful. Exactly which hominid fossils might be ancestors of man, as well as when and in what order, are still matters of heated dispute even among evolutionary anthropologists."

He points out that the long-sought common ancestor of man and the apes, especially of the "australopithecines" including the famous "Lucy", now seems to have turned up still living in the form of the pygmy chimpanzee known as the "bonobo." The "bonobo" is an inhabitant of the Zaire jungles and is "almost identical in body size, in stature and in brain size" to Lucy, supposedly the oldest fossil hominid ( Science News , February 5, 1983, p.89).

6. Evolution fails to explain the existence of even a "simple cell." The simplest single cell organisms have in their genes and chromosomes as much data as there are letters in the world’s largest libraries - a trillion letters. There are hundred of thousands of genes in each cell. Most life forms have billions of such complex cells in perfect order. There is no way that random processes can organize such massive data. The mathematical possibility of a human body being formed accidentally is the same as that of an explosion in a print shop forming a dictionary.

Sir Fred Hoyle, the originator of the "steady-state" theory of the origin of the universe and an atheist, feels that the odds against the chance formation of life on earth are so small that it can be compared to the chance that "a tornado sweeping through a junkyard would assembly a Boeing 747 from the materials therein" ("Hoyle on Evolution," Nature , Vol. 294, Nov. 12, 1981, p.105). Hoyle and Chandra Wickramasinghe, a mathematical astronomer, calculated the probability that life would arise spontaneously anywhere in a universe of 15 billion light-years radius and at least 10 billion years old. They found this probability less than one chance out of 1 with thirty zeroes attached after it. Sir Fred Hoyle and Dr.Wickramasinghe have been reluctantly driven to the conclusion that life must have been created by a Higher Intelligence (a sort of pantheistic intelligence which created spores somehow in other parts of the universe which were caused to drift to earth) since it is far too complex to have risen from natural processes.

Sir Fred Hoyle makes another colorful comparison using a furry creature close to the hearts of evolutionists: "No matter how large the environment one considers, life cannot have had a random beginning. Troops of monkeys thundering away at random on typewriter keys could not produce the works of Shakespeare, for the practical reason that the whole observable universe is not large enough to contain the necessary monkey hordes, the necessary typewriters, and certainly not the waste paper baskets required for the deposition of wrong attempts. The same is true for living materials (p.148).

Men will go to great lengths to rationalize there isn’t a personal Designer of the Universe who intelligently crafted all life. Just from the general and cursory data provided on this web site on the topic, it takes infinitely more faith to believe in evolution than it does in an intelligent Creator. Evolution is a theory with no scientific evidence to back it up. It is an empty faith for those who don’t want to believe in God and should be taught as religion, a religion which inspired Karl Marx to develop his theory of class struggle and influenced Adolf Hitler with his superior, evolved Aryan superman. Many were sacrificed to their ruthless utopian, amoral visions. Evolution is a belief system which looks at an unborn fetus as an animal embryo without a right to life rather than the creation of God. As David wrote in Psalms 139:13:

"For you created my inmost being;
You knit me together in my mother’s womb.
Thank you for making me so wonderfully complex!
You were there while I was being formed in utter seclusion!"

Earth, Uniquely Designed For Supporting Life:

The earth was created by an intelligent Master Designer to support life.

1. The earth is positioned at just the right distance from the sun so that we receive exactly the proper amount of heat to support life. The other planets of our solar system are either too close to the sun (too hot) or else too far (too cold) to sustain life.

2. Any appreciable change in the rate of rotation of the earth would make life impossible. For example, if the earth were to rotate at one tenth its present rate, all plant life would either be burned to a crisp during the day or frozen at night.

3. Temperature variations are kept within reasonable limits due to the nearly circular orbit of the earth around the sun.

4. Temperature extremes are further moderated by the water vapor and carbon dioxide in the atmosphere that produce a greenhouse effect.

5. The moon revolves around the earth at a distance of about 240,000 miles causing harmless tides on the earth. If the moon were located one fifth of this distance away, the continents would be completely submerged twice a day.

6. The thickness of the earth’s crust and the depth of the oceans appear to be carefully designed. Increases in thickness or depth of only a few feet would so drastically alter the absorption of free oxygen and carbon dioxide that plant and animal life would not exist.

7. The earth’s axis is titled 23.5 degrees from the perpendicular to the plane of its orbit. This tilting, combined with the earth’s revolution around the sun, causes our seasons, which are absolutely essential for the raising of food supplies.

8. The earth’s atmosphere (ozone layer) serves as a protective shield from lethal solar ultraviolet radiation, which would otherwise destroy all life.

9. The earth’s atmosphere also serves to protect the earth from approximately 20 million meteors that enter it each day at speeds of about 30 miles per second! Without this crucial protection the danger to life would be immense.

10. The earth is the perfect physical size and mass to support life, affording a careful balance between gravitation forces (essential for holding water and an atmosphere) and atmospheric pressure.

11. The two primary constituents of the earth’s atmosphere are nitrogen (78 percent) and oxygen (20 percent). This delicate and critical ratio is essential to all life-forms.

12. The earth’s magnetic field provides important protection from harmful cosmic radiation.

13. The earth is uniquely blessed with a bountiful supply of water, which is the key substance of life due to its remarkable and essential physical properties.

"Such numerous perfect and complex combinations of interrelated conditions and factors essential to delicate life-forms unequivocally point to intelligent purposeful design. To believe that such an intricately planned and carefully balanced life support system is the result of mere change is absolutely senseless. Surely, the honest and objective observer has no other recourse than to conclude that the earth-sun system has been carefully and intelligently designed by God for man."(Huse, Scott M., The Collapse of Evolution )

"Since earliest times men have seen the earth and sky and all God made, and have known of his existence and great eternal power," (Living Bible. Romans 1:20).

Riegle, D.D., Creation or Evolution , Zondervan Publishing House, Grand Rapids, Michigan, 1971, pp.18-20.

Huse, Scott M. The Collapse of Evolution. Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1997, third edition.

Cosmological Argument For God's Existence

Cosmological Argument - A First Cause

A. If something exists, there must exist what it takes for that thing to exist.

B. The universe exists.

C. There must exist what it takes for the Universe to exist.

D. What it takes for the Universe to exist cannot exist within the Universe or be bounded by space and time.

E. Therefore, what it takes for the Universe to exist must transcend both space and time.

Immanuel Kant, the famous Prussian philosopher (1724-1804), justified his agnosticism with what he saw as the following contradictions regarding time (A) and causality (B):

A. Time:

Thesis: The universe must have had a beginning, otherwise an infinite number of moments passed by now. But this is impossible, since an infinite cannot be traversed.

Antithesis: But the universe could not begin in time, otherwise there was time before time began which is impossible.

B. Causality:

Thesis: Not every cause has a cause, otherwise the series would never begin which it has. So there must be a first cause.

Antithesis: But the series cannot have a beginning, since everything has a cause. So there cannot be a first cause.

Analysis:

With respect to Kant’s causation antinomy (paradox), not everything needs a cause, only contingent or finite beings. The Necessary or first or eternal Being does not need a cause.

Kant reasoned that an Infinite Being could be reflected only in an infinite universe. How the universe came to be is immaterial since it can’t be known through our senses (sensibility). For Kant the universal properties which shape every appearance of things before our mind are the apriori transcendental conditions of appearance, which appear analogous to Plato’s Forms (Eidos) or universals underlying physical appearances.

According to Kant, there are two conditions which apply to every perception: space and time. Neither space or time can be considered as a reality existing completely outside of us. We don’t simply observe space or time as spectators. They are somehow a part of our preprogrammed inner consciousness.

For Kant space must be presupposed. We can’t conceive of space as existing outside of ourselves without presupposing the very thing we’re trying to conceive. The original representation of space is an apriori intuition. Space is a concept which exists in our minds before experience. Time is not an empirical concept which has been derived from any experience. Likewise time is a concept which exists in our mind apriori before experience. Just because we experience space and time on an empirical level does not mean they are objectively real. They are part of the structure of our consciousness not things which consciousness originally discovers outside of itself. Kant expresses this by saying that space and time are transcendentally ideal.

Kant’s concept of an infinite universe (one espoused by Aquinas, who held that there was no reason why God Himself must precede his own creation in time) is basically in accord with the Steady State model of the universe which suggests an infinite universe, a universe where the creation of matter is a act of nature, even a law of nature, not a one-time miracle from outside nature. There is a continual, spontaneous self creation of new matter. For Fred Hoyle, one of the three British astrophysicists who invented the Steady State model, “the Universe is everything”. Nothing can transcend the realm of nature.

In the past three decades science using Einstein’s theory of general relativity has refuted Kant’s view of space and time, an infinite universe, by showing that space and time are physical properties and as such are finite. These unknowable properties or noumena as Kant labeled them have become empirical (observable and as such measurable)

Universe Is Not Infinite:

Findings from the Cosmic Background Explorer (COBE) satellite provided powerful evidence that all matter, energy, space and time burst forth from a state of infinite, or near infinite, density, temperature and pressure. The entire universe can be traced to a singularity, an infinitely shrunken space representing the boundary at which space ceases to exist or at which space comes into existence.

The Big Bang theory maintains that all the potential of the cosmos, some forty billion galaxies, ushered forth from a point smaller than a proton, which was an empty quantum mechanical probability framework called a scalar field. Furthermore this empty point, a “false vacuum”, contained not only the potential one universe but 100 million universes. As has so well been poetically described by Gregg Easterbrook , if you believe in the Big Bang, “you believe that, when the Big Bang sounded, the universe expanded from a pinpoint to cosmological size in far less than one second – space itself hurtling outward in a torrent of pure physics, the bow wave of the new cosmos moving at trillions of times the speed of light. You believe that this process unleashed such powerful distortions that, for an instant, the hatchling universe was curved to a surreal degree. Extreme curvature caused normally rare ‘virtual particles’ to materialize from the quantum netherworld in cornucopian numbers, the stuff of existence being ‘created virtually out of nothing,’ as Scientific American once phrase it” (Gregg Easterbrook, “Science Sees The Light”, the New Republic, October 12, 1998).

Evidence For The Big Bang:

A. The Hubble expansion of the universe. Hubble discovered a linear relation between the distance to a remote galaxy and its redshift. In the early 1900’s astronomers observed that the light from distant galaxies was shifted toward the longer, or red, wavelengths of the spectrum interpreted as a rapid motion of the galaxies away from one another. A blue shift would have indicated that the galaxies were approaching one another.

B. In 1965 radio astronomers detected faint radio waves wherever they pointed their radio telescopes. This confirmed the prediction of George Gamow, Ralph Alpher, and Robert Herman of the 1940s that if the universe were expanding from a singularity a faint background radiation from that event of a few degrees above absolute zero must exist everywhere in the sky. This signature for a Big Bang model was further confirmed in 1992 and 1993 by the COBE satellite. The COBE satellite demonstrated that the cosmic background radiation fits the spectral profile of a perfect radiator to better than 0.03 percent precision over the entire range of wavelengths and as such is half a billion times more entropic (efficient at distributing energy) than a burning candle which has a specific entropy of around 2. Only a very hot big bang can account for the huge specific entropy of the universe. This put permanently to rest the concept of a universe cyclically expanding and contracting. It proves that the universe is only expanding.

C. The verified predictions of light-element synthesis in the first minutes of the Big Bang. The universal abundance of helium, remarkably constant from galaxy to galaxy, testifies to a common cosmological origin. Deuterium is destroyed in stars but not produced yet trace amounts of deuterium are observed throughout the interstellar medium, as is an abundance of lithium, which are also indicative of a common creation denominator.

Time Is A Physical Property With a Beginning:

In his special theory of relativity Einstein proposes that the measure interval between two events depends on how the observer is moving. Whenever two observers move relative to each other time dilation occurs. Atomic clocks can record the shift of time dilation at aircraft speed, which is only a few nanoseconds in the typical journey. If an astronaut were to travel at close to the speed of light to a nearby star and return back to earth the astronaut may have traveled for only a year but upon the astronaut’s return ten years would have elapsed on earth depending on the speed of travel.

Speed is one way to jump ahead of time and gravity is another. In his general theory of relativity, Einstein predicted that gravity slows time. Einstein’s theory was proven to the test by Arthur Eddington when during World War I (May 29, 1919) he sent an expedition to northern Brazil to measure the bending of light from the Hyades cluster by the sun during a solar eclipse (David Bodanis, “E=mc2”). Clocks run faster in the attic or in nearby space than on the ground. The effect is miniscule but has been measured by accurate clocks ( Paul Davies, “How To Build A Time Machine”, Scientific American, September 2002, page 52).

The heavier a star the more time is slowed. On the surface of a neutron star time is slowed by about 30 percent relative to Earth time. On the surface of a black hole time stands still relative to Earth. If you were to fall into a black hole from nearby, in the rapid interval of time it would take you to reach the surface, from the “event horizon” to the surface of the singularity, all of eternity would have elapsed in the universe. Science fiction stories regularly depict spaceships zooming close to a black hole and being catapulted far into the future.

Einstein confessed that he was troubled by the thought that his theory of relativity might permit travel into the past under some circumstances. Quantum effects would be dominant in time-traveling situations per the arguments of David Deutsch (“The Fabric of Reality,” page 312) . “Typical candidate versions of a quantum theory of gravity not only allow past-directed connections to exist in the multiverse, they predict that such connections are continually forming and breaking spontaneously. This is happening throughout space and time, but only on a submicroscopic scale. The typical pathway formed by these effects is about 10 –35th metres across, remains open for one Planck time (about 10 –43rd seconds), and therefore reaches only about one Planck time into the past.”

Perhaps the next generation of particle accelerators will be able to create subatomic wormholes that survive long enough for nearby particles to execute fleeting causal loops, but this is doubtful in view of the tremendous energy expenditure required. Traversable stable wormholes are for now strictly science fiction.

Based on general relativity, Hawking, Penrose, and Ellis have presented a space-time “proposal” which postulates that the dimensions of length, width, height, and time have existed only as long as the universe has been expanding. Time really does have a beginning according to this theorem.

Nevertheless, in “A Brief History of Time” Steven Hawking is not quite certain if time has a beginning and may be as such a Kantian “noumena.” He states: “With the success of scientific theories in describing events, most people believe that God allows the universe to evolve according to a set of laws and does not intervene in the universe to break these laws. However, the laws do not tell us what the universe should have looked like when it started – it would still be up to God to wind up the clockwork and choose how to start if off. So long as the universe had a beginning, we would suppose it had a creator.

“Time” by definition is that realm or dimension in which cause-and –effect phenomena occur (Hugh Ross, “The Creation and the Cosmos”). “If time’s beginning is concurrent with the beginning of the universe, as the space time theorem says, then the cause of the universe must be some entity operating in a time dimension completely independent of and preexistent to the time dimension of the cosmos. The conclusion is powerfully important to our understanding of who God is and who or what God isn’t. It tells us that the Creator is transcendent, operating beyond the dimensional limits of the universe. It tells us that God is not the universe itself, nor is God contained within the universe. Pantheism and atheism do not square up with the facts.”

Quantum Approach to Origin of Universe:

Hawking and Penrose proved that the classical equations of General Relativity, “absolutely require that there was a singularity at the birth of the Universe, a point at which time began. There is no way around the singularity problem within the framework of classical General Relativity. If singularities are to be avoided in the real Universe, the only hope is to improve relativity theory by bringing in the effects of quantum theory and developing a quantum theory of gravity” (John Gribbin, “In Search of The Big Bang – Quantum Physics and Cosmology”, chapter on “A Seeker of Singularities”).

Solely using a quantum approach to explain the origin of the universe is impossible to prove and is merely another philosophical theorem rather than science. Quantum math may serve to calculate how atoms and subatomic particles behave, but application of quantum math to the entire universe is next to impossible since quantum theory does not explain how a particle, or a system, gets from State A to State B. According to the Copenhagen Interpretation of quantum physics when we are not looking at a system it exists in a superposition of all the possible states it could be in. However, when we measure that system it is reduced to just one of its many possible states. Just examining a system collapses the wave function into a single state solely on the basis of probability. Then, when we stop examining the system it again spreads out into a superposition of all possible states. When we reexamine the system we will undoubtedly be examining a different system as the odds are incredibly small that the initial system measured will be replicated.

According to quantum theory, were we capable of writing down the equations that describe the sub microscopic wave functions of our universe (an impossible task), there would be no observer, except God of course, outside of our universe to cause it to collapse into one possible quantum state by the mere act of observing it.

As scientific research becomes more metaphysical in its attempt to explain the universe through a quantum approach, some have embraced the “multiverse”. This notion examines the possibility that if our universe emerged out of nothing, additional universes may emerge from nothing as well. New universes may burst forth in other dimensions a billion times a second. The theory of the “multiverse” maintains that all outcomes become possible if the deck is shuffled often enough including an occasional, life supporting system such as ours. This theory is directed at explaining an autonomous, natural cosmos where God is not necessary as a First Cause.

The problem with this the “multiverse” theory is that since we exist in a definite universe in a specific time space envelope, any other universe is strictly intellectual speculation and impossible to prove from the established parameters of our universe any more than a dot cannot prove the existence of a straight line or a cube. The one dimensional dot can speculate about the existence of a straight line but for the dot the line is a “noumena”, an unknown.

Reconciling Relativity With Quantum Theory through Extra-Dimensionality

Black holes are massive objects which become so highly collapsed that their gravity attracts anything within proximity, powerful vacuum cleaners of near space. Certain very small black holes known as “extremal” black holes become massless at critical moments. How can this be possible in view of their extreme density and how can they exert gravity without mass?

Andrew Strominger hypothesized that the answer of their masslessness lies in their extra-dimensionality. “Strominger discovered that in six spatial dimensions, the mass of an extremal black hole is proportional to its surface area. As the surface shrinks, the mass eventually becomes zero. The resolution works given the existence of exactly six spatial dimensions” (Hugh Ross, “Why I Believe In the Miracle of Divine Creation” from the apologetics anthology “Why I Am A Christian” by Norman L. Geisler and Paul K. Hoffman). “One theory solves the two great dilemmas. Here’s what the theory tells us: The universe was created with ten rapidly expanding space-time dimensions. When the universe was just 10 –43 seconds old, the movement when gravity separated from the strong-electroweak force, six of these ten dimensions ceased to expand. Today, these six dimensions still remain as a component of the universe, but they are as tightly curled up as when the cosmos was only 10 –43 seconds old (editor’s note: “curled up space” is also labeled “Calabi-Yau space”). Their cross sections are only 10 –33 centimeters, so small as to be undetectable by direct measurement.”

“Six sets of evidences indicate that this theory is correct. Perhaps the most convincing is that string theory produces, as a bonus by-product, all the equations of special and general relativity” and merges quantum mechanics.

Conclusion:

The Bible can only be understood in an acceptance of a supernatural, transcendent god outside the limitations of the dimensions we are capable of visualizing and experiencing (length, width, height, time). How else can we account for a spiritual life after physical death, Jesus’s ability to walk on water, reversing human illness, walking through walls in his resurrected body, hundreds of accurate and fulfilled Biblical prophecies? How else can we account for human free choice and divine predetermination, unless the God of the universe were outside the time dimension and could see the beginning and end of our lives including all our life decisions in the same instance. A God transcending dimensionality is the only explanation for the supernatural.

The Big Bang tells us that a few billion years ago matter, energy, space, and time began from a singularity. Theologically this means that the cause of the universe had to be outside and independent of the universe, hence a Creator.

There was no place where the Big Bang occurred as prior to the Big Bang space did not exist. Science is capable of ascertaining when this happened from the red shift of the outermost galaxies. Those outermost galaxies are observable records of conditions at the time of the big bang. The images of these galaxies we now see were transmitted 13.7 billion years ago at the dawn of creation. Because of their distance and the speed of light only now are we receiving these images. A red shift indicates they are receding from an observer and a blue shift indicates they are approaching the observer.

Genesis1:1 states: “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.” Note that the duration of the act of creation is not given and a 13.7 billion year universe does not contradict Genesis 1:1.

We cannot escape the necessity of a First Cause, whether we attribute our universe to a singularity or to the existence of multiverses. Perhaps there do exist multiverses but the question must nevertheless be asked, “How did they come into being?” Perhaps a more appropriate question is “How big is your God?” Is he the God of infinite potential or merely an idol three dimensionally limited to a cellular structure of stone and wood? Is he a God who can reveal himself to us by taking the form of a man “to die on a cross of wood even though he created the hill on which it stood?”

Accepting the existence of personal God is a decision which we have to reach using both our hearts and minds as the mind cannot always find a reason, however unjustified, not to accept the existence of a Creator, a First Cause, an omnipotent, omnipresent God. In our intellectual conceit we can always find a reason which we naively believe precludes the existence of God only to find God waiting for us just beyond the limits of our understanding, patiently waiting for our heart and consciousness to expand and acknowledge him. When Renaissance man realized the earth was round instead of flat many ceased to believe in God even though the Book of Isaiah written around 700 B.C. clearly tells us the earth is a “circle”:

“He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth, and its people are like grasshoppers” (Isaiah 40:22).

A little further down Isaiah 40:26-28 continues:

“Lift your eyes and look to the heavens: Who created all these? He who brings out the starry host one by one, and calls them each by name. Because of his great power and mighty strength, not one of them is missing ….. Do you not know? Have you not heard? The Lord is the everlasting God, the Creator of the ends of the earth. He will not grow tired or weary, and his understanding no one can fathom.”

In our pride we gain a little knowledge and now we think we are wise enough to disprove God’s existence only to find God waiting just beyond our limited intellectual horizon.

As the Psalmist in the 139th psalm so aptly states:

“Where can I go from your Spirit? Where can I flee from your presence? If I go up to the heavens, you are there; if I make my bed in the depths (of the sea), you are there.”

The Bible is not limited in understanding. However our minds are limited in understanding. Science merely uncovers new panoramas of increasing complexity, all adorned with God’s fingerprints. True science attests to the existence of a Superhuman Infinite Mind, that of a Master Designer.

Fingerprints of God in the Creation of the Universe

The sun is crucial to life on earth, yet the existence of the sun and that of stars, which are mostly collapsing hydrogen atoms, in general is miraculous. The odds of stars and the forces which govern them occurring accidentally is virtually impossible. For stars to exist the following forces must exist:

1) A weak gravitational force is necessary for the universe to exist as it is:

The strength by which any particle is affected by gravity is proportional to its mass. The actual force between two bodies is given by multiplying the two masses together, and multiplying the result times a universal constant whose fantastic smallness is one of the mysteries associated with the parameters of particle physics. This gravitational constant has a mass of about ten to the minus thirty eighth (10 –38th) power and represents the gravitational force between two protons.

Gravity is a weak force yet plays an important role on earth and space. Stellar bodies are composed of enormous numbers of particles and the tiny gravitational attraction of each particle has an important cumulative effect. Stars cannot exist without a weak gravitational constant. The weaker the gravity, the more protons must be piled on one another so that the pressure at the center can ignite a nuclear reaction. Because the gravitational constant is tiny, stars need to be so huge and because the stars are so large they can burn for “billions” of years.

If the gravitational force were stronger than it is, stars would be much smaller and burn out faster.

2) Neutron, protons, and electrons are just the right size for nuclear and atomic (quantum) physics:

The neutron is just slightly heavier than the proton by about two parts in a thousand. The electron is eighteen hundred times lighter than the proton, but mysteriously enough the electron mass is just about the difference by which a neutron is more massive than a proton. Without this differential in masses it would be impossible for nuclei to stick together to form stable nuclei. Without stable nuclei the world as we know it would not exist.

3) The intrinsic density of mass and energy of empty space:

A volume of empty space has mass allowed per Einstein’s general theory of relativity. This mass is a cosmological constant which measures an intrinsic density of mass and energy. If this constant were sizable the universe would contract and collapse gravitationally similar to a black hole or a dead star imploding. For this not to happen the cosmological constant must be no larger in proton mass than about ten to the minus fortieth (10 –40th) power. A higher constant would result in a short lived universe where no stars are formed.

4) Alpha:

Radiating light from stars allows them to get rid of the energy they produce to keep them from exploding. Light is an aspect of electromagnetism. The electrical force between two fundamental particles is much stronger than their gravitational attraction. The strength of the electrical interaction is measured by a number called alpha, which is the measure of the electric force between two protons or electrons and has a value of approximately 1/137. This is a constant which allows stars to radiate light. Scientists for the whole of the twentieth century have been trying to figure out why alpha is set at this necessary constant with no explanation, except for intelligent engineering.

5) Strong nuclear force:

Like charges repel. Protons are of like charge and most atoms contain numerous protons packed closely together. Therefore atoms should blow apart unless yet another force holds them together, a force more powerful than gravity or electricity. This force must be strong enough to hold the atomic nuclei together but not so strong as to inhibit a star’s chain reactions of nuclear reactions. This force must also be short-ranged so as not to bind electrons, protons and neutrons together into one big nucleus and rendering impossible any chemical reactions. Such a force exists. It is called a strong nuclear force and exerts its influence at approximately a range of an atomic nucleus.

6) Weak nuclear force:

Another necessary force is called the weak nuclear interaction. This force is too weak to bind but it governs the basic nuclear reaction in the physics of stars by which an electron and a proton are transformed into a neutron and a neutrino.

The above data was resourced from Lee Smolin in “The Life of the Cosmos” (Oxford University Press, 1997). Lee Smolin states in the discussion he calls “The Miracle of Stars”:

“If we are to genuinely understand our universe, these relations between the structures on large scales and the elementary particles must be understood as something other than coincidence. We must understand how it came to be that the parameters that govern the elementary particles and their interactions are tuned and balanced in such a way that a universe of such variety and complexity arises.

Of course, it is always possible that this is just coincidence. Perhaps before going further we should ask just how probable is it that a universe created by randomly choosing the parameters will contain stars. Given what we have already said, it is simple to estimate this probability…. The answer, in round numbers, comes to about one chance in ten to the two hundred twenty ninth (10 - 229th) power.”

Creationist Genesis Bible Images