Up until 1964, the scientific consensus of the universe was that it had always existed, that is was eternal. It was called the Steady State or Static Universe theory.
- Interesting the idea of eternal existence is acceptable in many areas of science, but apparently not an acceptable idea when it comes to an intelligent agent?
Static (or Newtonian) Universe – In 1687, Sir Isaac Newton published his “Principia”, which described, among other things, a static, steady state, infinite universe which even Einstein, in the early 20th Century, took as a given (at least until events proved otherwise). [physicsoftheuniverse.com]
It is interesting that the book of Hebrews, written 1,953 years ago says that the universe was created from nothing. And the Book of Genesis, written much earlier also states that the universe was created, meaning that it had a finite beginning, contrary to prevailing wisdom.
By faith we understand that the worlds were set in order at God’s command, so that the visible has its origin in the invisible.
In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
In the 6th century AD, a Christian Scientist, theologian and philosopher John Philoponus, argued for the idea that the universe had a beginning, contrary to the Greek scientific consensus of an eternal universe. As it is today, he was at odds with pagan, secular ideas that brought him condemnation.
Philoponus’ battle against eternalism may be divided into three stages. The treatise Against Proclusis followed by a second and even more provocative publication, On the Eternity of the World against Aristotle. This work was published c. 530-534 [Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy-Stanford University]
John Philoponus broke from the Aristotelian–Neoplatonic tradition, questioning methodology and eventually leading to empiricism in the natural sciences. He was one of the first to propose a “theory of impetus” reminiscent of the modern concept of inertia over Aristotelian dynamics. [Wiki]
The history of hubris in science is long and sorted. When the theory was solidified in 1964 with the discovery of the predicted back ground radiation of the big bang, scientists resisted the findings because the bible said the universe had a beginning.
The current model of how the galaxies and solar systems developed may or may not be correct but the fact that the universe had a finite beginning is relevant to every Christian. Also, that this idea was held thousands of years before science accepted it, shows the bias of the naturalistic materialism mindset among scientists.
When a scientists argues against the existence of an intelligent designer, remember how wrong science can be. Especially when pushed by those who are hostile to the idea of an intelligence. Oh, scientists don’t entertain the absurd, only data and facts.
Consider what atheist scientists are promoting as possible and probable today for the origins of the universe and life itself.
World renown theoretical physicist and cosmologist Stephen Hawking
“Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist,” [The Grand Design]
As eminent mathematician John Lennox points out, a universe cannot create itself if it does not exist. Also, if there is nothing, there are no laws in effect and, laws don’t create anything, they explain things.
- HISTORIC DISCOVERY: Physicists ‘PROVE’ God DIDN’T create the Universe, one news paper headline says.
A TEAM of scientists have made what may turn out to be the most important discovery in HISTORY – how the universe came into being from nothing… Prof Mir Faizal, at the Dept of Physics and Astronomy, at the University of Waterloo, in Ontario, Canada, has successfully applied the theory to the very creation of existence itself.
“Something did not come from nothing. The universe still is nothing, it’s just more elegantly ordered nothing.”
Then there is the multiverse theory. Though, it is not a theory, nor is it even an hypothesis because there is not a shred of empirical evidence supporting such an idea. The idea is to try and explain the extreme fine tuning of the universe apart from a designer. Generally it is said that “IF” there were infinite universes, then one like the one we live in would ultimately be one that can support life.
There is not the slightest shred of reliable evidence that there is any universe other than the one we are in. No multiverse theory has so far provided a prediction that can be tested.
[Handbook of the Philosophy of Science, Philosophy of Physics, Jeremy Butterfield, John Erman; p 1265]
So you see the lengths so called neutral scientists are willing go so they don’t have to consider an intelligent cause. On one hand they accept or at least entertain these outlandish, absurd self contradictory ideas as reasonable science, while on the other hand, ignoring empirical evidence pointing to intelligence.
It is clear the objections to investigating and considering evidence pointing to an intelligent agent;
- Fine Tuning of the Universe for Life
- Digital Code in DNA
- Molecular Machines in Living Cells
- Irreducible Complexity Within Biological Systems
- Co-Dependent Interrelated Information Networks in Biological Systems
- The Emergence of Life on Earth
- The Existence of Conscience, Emotions and self Awareness
to name a few, are ideological not scientific.
I am not offering proof of God’s existence. All I am saying is faith in God is not blind or ignorant. Critical consideration of the existence of God, or an intelligent agent is reasonable given the data. God is at least as reasonable an explanation of what we see as some of the alternative and imaginative absurdities that are considered credible by scientists.
Often, when you read a headline like this;
Physicists ‘PROVE’ God DIDN’T create the Universe
When you continue to read the article, you realize that the headline has little to do with the actual research. Especially in the case of evolution. The articles generally start off with outlandish claims only to admit later, usually well towards the bottom, that what ever is being claimed has not been proven at all. You read phrases like, could be, might be, or one day.
These statements and assertions are pushing the hope is there is no God. So when anyone offers an alternative to God, The idea is enthusiastically accepted and promoted by humanists and naturalistic materialists, inside and outside the sciences.
The world view colors the science. If you believe the prospect of God is absurd, any evidence supporting a designer, must be explained away regardless of its absurdity, and despite the need for tremendous mental gymnastics, fantasy and imagination.
The bible had it right about what can be seen coming from nothing. Human wisdom ridiculed the idea until well, it didn’t. How often over history has scientists reversed themselves? Less than 60 years ago scientists laughed at the idea that the continental plates were moving. It took fifty years for scientists to stop laughing. Think of how much faster discoveries and progress would occur if scientists would leave their bias out of the laboratories.
When scientists accept and promote alternatives to design that stretch credulity, while ridiculing and mocking eminent scientists who see evidence for a designer, and stating design is impossible, it is clear that these so-called scientific pronouncements are rooted in belief not rigor.
Its not that scientists don’t see design in nature, they just object to a designer.
Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose. [Richard Dawkins; The Blind Watchmaker, p. 21 (1996)]Biologists must constantly keep in mind that what they see was not designed, but rather evolved. [Francis Crick; What Mad Pursuit, p. 138 (1990)]
For since the creation of the world his invisible attributes – his eternal power and divine nature – have been clearly seen, because they are understood through what has been made. So people are without excuse. For although they knew God, they did not glorify him as God or give him thanks, but they became futile in their thoughts and their senseless hearts were darkened. Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools
- REASONABLE BELIEF: Science 1
- REASONABLE BELIEF: Science 2
- SCIENCE / COMMENTARY
- MEDIA RESOURCES PAGE
- YOUTUBE CHANNEL