mtheory

There has recently been a new scientific discovery that has again, confirmed what the bible has said for millennia, the universe had a beginning. There was a time when the universe was not, then it was.

Until the 20th century, everybody knew that the universe was eternal past. The bible however stood alone and opposed to common knowledge, and the result was mocking and ridicule for anyone who may have considered the idea.

It doesn’t matter if you believe the earth was created in 6 days or not, that isn’t the issue. We are far to ignorant to make assumptions about how the universe was made. Science can’t even tell us how or why lightning strikes the earth, or what gravity is, or what dark energy and dark matter are. If things right here on earth are such a mystery, why are some scientists so sure about what didn’t happen at the beginning of time? What arrogance we humans have.

Below are a couple short presentations that have scientists inferring that the universe could have been designed. The evidence lies in the cosmological argument, and the exquisite fine tuning of the universe.

After Hubble discovered that the universe was expanding, two more scientific discoveries solidifying the universe had a beginning point. In 1964, Radio astronomers Robert Wilson and Arno Penzias discovered the cosmic microwave background radiation from the Big Bang. Then recently, the precise measurements of the light particles we heard about above.

despite the compelling data suggesting design, scientists in biology and origins science, continue to dazzle us with not what they know happened but with what they know didn’t happen. It is not at all palatable to posit even the possibility that the universe, or living organisms may be the result of design, despite the data. Some popular scientists prefer to believe anything other than a designer, doesn’t matter how implausible. They have no idea what happened, but they do know for a certainty, it was not a designer.

The arguments against design are completely speculative. That is why there are so many different ideas all over the map of imagination. One such theory is called M-theory. But it is not a theory at all, because theories require evidence, and M-theory hasn’t a scrap according to some scientists, including one of Hawking’s own colleagues.

Scientists are scrambling to try and explain the anthropic principle [that the universe appears to have been tuned for human existence]. One way around the more reasonable inference of design to explain the fine tuning of the universe and the cosmological constants, highly imaginative ideas emerge.

One of the elements of M-theory is that there are an infinite number of universes in an infinite number of dimensions that can’t be measured, observed or detected, and in principle, never will be. Some are hoping that if true, it could raise the chances that one universe out of the infinite number would have the corrects tuning for life. as ours does. With the wave of the hand, see, no designer needed after all.

Professor Stephen Hawking is the developer of M-theory and the coauthor with Leonard Mlodinow of the book “The Grand Design”. In his book he claims our universe created itself out of nothing because there are laws such as gravity. Therefor there is no need to logically infer a designer. Hawking has come under considerable criticism for his statements as many in the scientific community have pointed out, that if there is nothing, there are no laws and there is no gravity. This has lead some new atheist scientists to redefine the word “nothing”.

There are other problems with the idea of a multiverse other than the complete lack of empirical evidence. Physicist Sir Roger Penrose, who was a colleague of professor Hawking says M-theory is devoid of evidence of any sort. Dr. Penrose calls the theory a collection of ideas, nothing more.

 

This is but one example of the extremes to which some scientists will stretch credulity to avoid inferring what the data suggests. Design is a reasonable inference given all the data, but the idea of God carries far too much ideological baggage for some to even consider the idea so any ideas other than that is preferable, even ones that border on the ridiculous.

Refining words to support your claim is not new. It reminds me of another person in denial, desperate to avoid compelling evidence.

Robert J.

Advertisements