“Evidence for Creation” (Review) - Chapter 2 “Evidence from the Heavens”
As discussed, here is a reminder of my ground rules: “Evidence for Creation” (Review) - Ground Rules for the Review
Because I believe DeRosa’s opening paragraphs exclude discussion of any viable form of Theistic Evolution…
- I will weigh DeRosa’s anti-Evolution arguments as they pertain to Darwinian Evolution, separately from a (for lack of a better term) Geocreationist Theistic Evolution.
- I will be weighing DeRosa’s pro-Creationist arguments as they pertain to Creationist theories in general, and specifically Geocreationist Theistic Evolution.
- I am knowingly excluding all other specific Creationist and Evolutionary theories, though I realize there are other theories that are worthy of discussion.
DeRosa begins this chapter with a summary of the major scientific laws. I really like that Christians are so well represented in scientific history. DeRosa states the following about scientific laws:
Laws of science then, are universal, repeatable, predictable, subject to mathematical expression, and evidence of order in creation.
I agree.
The Two Great Laws of Science
DeRosa’s definition of the First Law of Thermodynamics is as follows:
The First Law of Thermodynamics states that the amount of energy and matter remain constant. Matter or energy may change from one form to another, but will always be conserved. Matter and energy can be neither created nor destroyed. This is called the Law of Conservation of matter and energy.
Though correct, there is a nuance to this law that DeRosa may have missed. That is the fact that it is the total amount of energy within the universe that remains constant. According to Steven Hawking, in “A brief History of Time” (p. 129), gravitational fields have “negative energy. In the case of a universe that is approximately uniform in space, one can show that this negative gravitational energy exactly cancels the positive energy represented by the matter. So the total energy of the universe is zero. Now twice zero is also zero. Thus the universe can double the amount of positive matter energy and also double the negative gravitational energy without violation of the conservation of energy.” In fact, this is precisely what Hawking believes happened during the first moments of the Big Bang, and it appears to be how God managed to create everything from nothing, without violating the First Law of Thermodynamics.
DeRosa goes on:
The Second Law of Thermodynamics holds that energy and matter have a universal tendency to go to disorder, a process known as entropy. The universe is basically running down in every form. Organization, if left alone, becomes disorganization. Energy must be added to the system to increase order and lower entropy.
As stated, this definition is incomplete. The Second Law of Thermodynamics can only be properly stated in terms of closed systems. This is subtle but important, because there may be isolated increases of order within a system, but as long as the overall order of the system goes down, the Second Law of Thermodynamics has not been violated. For example, freezing water creates a dramatic increase in the order of the water’s molecules. However, the heat given up to the enclosing system constitutes an even greater loss of order overall.
Genesis and Two Great Laws
When one steps back to evaluate these laws and their impact on the universe, the question naturally arises as to how they came to be. Just as all laws suggest a lawgiver, so the preeminant laws of thermodynamics most assuredly had to come from the hand of God. It is irrational to believe that these universal laws are the consequence of random chance. There is only one intelligent alternative: God.
Calling the vast the majority of the scientific community irrational, implying they are not intelligent is not constructive, not to mention untrue. Given the evidence for multiple dimensions within the universe, and the theory of quantum mechanics, it is quite rational to theorize that at the moment of the Big Bang, when Quantum Mechanics dominated, every possible universe that could exist had equal potential to exist, and so in some sense does exist. Because there is exactly one combination of forces and laws that allowed mankind to evolve and observe the universe, it is only natural that we observe the laws we do. However, for all intents and purposes, it was random.
Now, in my opinion, this is not precisely what happened, though if someone were looking for a rational Godless theory, that would be it. To be clear, I agree with some of the argument, that there is an infinite number of universes that God could have created, that Quantum Mechanics dominated at the beginning of the Big Bang, and that all possible universes had equal potential for existing, as far as Quantum Mechanics are concerned. Where I part from the mainstream scientific community is that I do not believe the other potential universes were actually created. I believe that God created exactly one universe, that it was this one, that it was purposeful, and that is why we observe the physical laws that we do.
DeRosa also discusses how the Second Law “was put into effect by God at the moment of the creation of matter and energy, because it provides avenues for energy and matter to be transferred.” He goes on:
However, when God cursed the creation, including man, I believe that the Second Law was altered and made more intense. The curse on the world and the universe has produced dramatic and catastrophic changes. Henry Morris suggests that the curse on creation had a threefold impact: “When man sinned, not only did God pronounce a curse on man himself but also on man’s whole dominion (Genesis 3:17) — the physical universe, the biological and social universe.”
There are several things wrong with this argument. First of all, this means that the scientific laws are not necessarily static. DeRosa went to great pains in this chapter to emphasize the reliability of the scientific laws, just to undermine it, saying that God has in fact changed at least one law. Well, if he has changed at least one law in the past, how can we be seriously expected to treat them as laws?
Second, suggesting that the Second Law was made more intense makes no physical sense. Energy is either stored, transformed and saved, or lost to heat. That’s it. To say that the Second Law can be given more intensity is to say that either the universe is now losing more energy than is spent, or started out spending more energy than it lost, and either possibility violates the First Law of Thermodynamics.
Third, there is no biblical basis for including “the physical universe, the biological and social universe” as part of man’s dominion. In Genesis 1:28, God Himself spells out what man has dominion over (emphasis added):
28 God blessed them and said to them, “Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and over every living creature that moves on the ground.”
Finally, we know what was effected by the fall, because God said so in Genesis 3:14-19. There is nothing about the overall universe mentioned, and nothing about the overall universe that would have to change for these verses to be true.
The Laws of Thermodynamics and Creation
I sympathize with DeRosa on this section. I completely agree with him that the complexity of the biological systems within each type of living creature cannot be adequately explained, and so therefore there must be a God. Absolutely. However, it is not because it would violate the Second Law of Thermodynamics. The law only requires that whatever increase in order one observes, the effort must require a sufficient expenditure of energy so as to constitute a net decrease in order overall. In other words, as long energy is continuing to be lost, isolated increases in order can be observed, with no violation of the Second Law.
Still, I do agree with DeRosa’s bottom line about the possibility of life assembling itself into complex systems over time without God. It is why I reject Darwinian Evolution in favor of a Geocreationist Theistic Evolution.
When You Wish Upon a Star
Where to begin. DeRosa shows such a lack of understanding of physical cosmology and astronomy that I just cannot believe it.
Evolutionists indulge in speculation when seeking to explain stellar, galactic, planetary, and organic evolution.
Most scientific theories start with speculation. Speculation births theories, and those theories are tested. It’s the scientific method. Also, DeRosa should be careful of the arguments he lodges against Naturalists, because creation sciencists do the exact same thing. Read my post on Noah’s Flood - Burrows in the Earth’s Crust for an example.
Of course, evolution — which attempts to explain one-time events without any empirical data to support the theory — has never been observed.
Niether has the one-time world-wide flood that DeRosa doubtlessly believes in, but I will leave that one alone. Given that DeRosa has opened up the playing field of evolution to include planets, stars, and galaxies, his statement is simply not true. Our galaxy is filled with stars in different stages of their life, essentially allowing us to study the life cycle of a star from birth to death. Studying the earth tells us what was alive at certain times, and what the atmosphere was like. It tells a coherent story. Are we supposed to ignore that? I really don’t get it.
All forms of cosmology are theoretical in nature, because none can be tested.
This lost me, because all science is theoretical in nature, and theories are meant to be tested. What I think DeRosa is referring to is the fact that the stars were created once. So, because we will never see a star created, we cannot know if our theory is correct. Mankind was created once. Therefore, we cannot test our theory on how it was created. I have heard this argument before, and it is a complete misrepresentation of science. Science cannot predict what will evolve, but it can predict a pattern that future finds will either fit within or not. If they fit, the theory is validated (at least for that case). Science cannot create a star, but it can take the stars that are visible to us, lay them out in a pattern, and start seeing if additional stars fit the pattern. If they do, the theory is validated (for that case). That is how science works.
Each type of evolution above has many theories proposed for it, which suggests that there is no consensus.
He says this like it’s a bad thing, and it’s disingenuous of him to say. Consider that there is no consensus for when or if the Rapture will occur, but we all agree that Christians will be captured into the clouds upon Jesus’ return. Atheists use this as tactic against Christianity, and DeRosa is doing it right back at them. It is not constructive.
DeRosa then makes the case the universe is too big to study it, and too vast to make theories of our observations. That is very short-sighted of him, and quite remarkable, because he keeps making an argument for intelligent design. How can he possibly argue that the universe is intelligently designed if he dismisses any attempt at understanding it? Frankly, if he were to acknowledge the wonderful advances we have made in our understanding of the stars, he would be even more amazed with God’s design than he surely is already.
It is no wonder the field of cosmology has nowhere to turn but the realm of speculation. Without empirical data, it is not true science. This is exemplified by terms like “dark matter” and “dark energy,” concepts needed, according to evolutionary cosmology, to keep things expanding and moving in the universe. The problem, however, is that they cannot be observed at present, so cosmologists are devising new instruments in hopes of finding these hidden entities. For the cosmologist, the embarrassing fact is that this unobservable and unverifiable “dark stuff” occupies 95 percent of the universe. Only 5 percent is observable and can be accounted for.
DeRosa is again writing from ignorance. He began this chapter listing laws such as Newton’s Laws of motion, Universal Gravitation, Kepler’s Law (laws of planetary orbits), and others. It is those laws, which if true, predict the existence of dark matter. Once again, I do not see how an educated person can hold DeRosa’s views on science.
Big Bang or Big Bust?
DeRosa observes:
There are presently 50 theories proposed by cosmologists to explain the Big Bang, all of which are nothing but mathematical models.
Yet, in his first paragraph of this chapter, he said that, “Almost every scientific law can be expressed by means of a mathematical formula.” But now that’s a bad thing? He explains further down:
For cosmic evolution to be accepted, the questions below must be answered, not just with speculative theory or creative mathematical formulations, but with hard empirical evidence.
In the absence of that, how about scriptural evidence that the science about the earth’s development is correct? I have plenty such evidence on this blog.
On to his questions:
1. What causes particles of matter to coalesce into heavenly bodies?
He answers part of the question himself, but then discounts it:
The explanation offered is that as cooling occurs, particles slow down and clump together. The problem is, however, that these celestial objects are moving at relatively high speeds away from each other. There is no empirical evidence to support the star formation theory proposed by evolutionary cosmologists. No star or galaxy has ever been seen to form in space from star gas.
And none ever will, but that fact isn’t evidence. On the other hand, he completely discounts the process in his characterization that particles, “slow down and clump together.” This completely discounts the law of gravity that he believes in. It also discounts the observation that everything is moving apart, and yet we have stars, galaxies, and solar systems. It also discounts our observations of thousands of stars in varying stages of life. He is either unaware of this information, or it means nothing to him.
2. Can an explosion produce order?
DeRosa renews his Second Law argument, which I already responded to above.
What DeRosa fails to realize that as we look back into the past, we find ourselves able to look further and further back because of a cosmic bread crumb trail. Science is just following it. But if it’s actually impossible for it to happen without God, then the strongest argument one can make is that it didn’t happen without God. Arguing that God didn’t do it just doesn’t follow.
3. What was before the Big Bang?
DeRosa says the source was God. I agree. (Yay… can I start building that bridge yet? I hate just criticizing!)
4. Is expansion of the universe observable?
Again, he mentions the 50 models, like it’s a bad thing. The universe is big. Right. It can’t happen without God, so it didn’t happen. Right. I get it.
“In the Beginning God”
Big Bang cosmology defies the Word of God. The Hebrew word for “created” in Genesis 1:1 could only mean that God created all the components of the universe from nothing.
Actually, the net energy of the universe is zero. If all positive and negative energy were to collide together, the entire universe would be cancelled out into nothing. This isn’t a theory you find unless you read some of the drier science books. The idea is that the universe came from the nothing into something at the point of the Big Bang. Now, not all Naturalists believe it, but it is consistent with the evidence. It is therefore consistent with Genesis 1:1.
There is no evidence for these far-reaching claims.
What he means is that you cannot directly observe a big bang. Frankly, our mere existence is evidence.
All heavenly bodies came into being on the fourth day of creation, according to the Genesis account.
Actually, that isn’t right. The Genesis account is that that they were set, or embedded within a solid dome covering the earth. I do not fault DeRosa for not studying the science of Moses’ day, but this means that the account is not literally true. You can read more about the real literal meaning of Day 4 here: Geocreationism and Concordist Theory (Part 4) - What does “literal” literally mean?
The first light was not from the stars; it was from God. On the first day God spoke, “Let there be light: and there was light” (Genesis 1:3)
Actually, all we know is that there was light. It doesn’t say where it was from. And now that we know Day 4 wasn’t literal, it means the light on Day 1 could have been from the sun, though the sun was obscured until Day 4.
The Creator, Jesus Christ, who spoke light into existence…
I believe that the Father spoke, and Jesus (the master craftsman) created.
Let me end by quoting something from DeRosa’s last paragraph that I agree with. All this criticism of a fellow brother in Christ is wearing on me (seriously):
The cosmos is filled with the evidence of God’s glory and sovereignty. It is a sign to man to remind him of his position in time and space as he probes the heavens with sophisticated telescopes. We are simply brought to our knees knowing that there is one far greater than us who created the magnificent universe.
Amen.