Thursday, September 18, 2008

One of these things is not like the other

See if you can tell which of these things is not like the other.

Group One: How Life Came To Be
Random Chance:
With all the universes out there, life had to appear in one of them.

Chemical Affinity:
There is some chemical affinity in non living gas that causes just the right interaction to allow life to spring from non life.

Self-Ordering Tendencies:
Under certain circumstances, if energy is passed through a system at a fairly high rate, the system will become unstable and will somewhat “miraculously” rearrange itself into something that is a higher order of complexity

Seeding from Space:
A living organism hitched a ride on a comet or on an asteroid or was sent by superior beings living in another system to our earth. After coming to earth, it evolved into - us.

Vents in the Ocean:
These are nice warm places where molecules can evolve into, well, again, us.

Life from Clay:
Clay has crystals and as we all know, crystals are capable of, umm, as it turns out, not much.

Group Two: How The Universe Came To Be

The universe just began:
Hypothesis: “It makes more sense to believe that the universe came into being uncaused out of nothing than to believe that God created the universe out of nothing.”
Problem: Matter cannot create itself nor precede itself either chronologically or physically.

The Steady State Model:

Hypothesis: As the universe expands, new matter is drawn into being ex nihilo in the voids created.
Problem: There is no verification of any kind to support this view. Discoveries of background radiation and galactic red-shift and the primordial nucleosynthesis of the light elements have forever put an end to this theory.

The Oscillating Model:
Hypothesis: If matter in the universe is not evenly distributed then the universe might collapse and rebound in new Big Bangs and this has been going on forever, our universe just being the latest.
Problem: There is no known physics that would allow a collapsing universe to rebound. Evidence shows that there is simply not enough mass in our universe or any universe model to allow for a collapse. Conclusion, our universe will go on expanding forever. What’s more, quintessence is forcing the acceleration of our universe, not a deceleration.

The Vacuum Fluctuation Model:
Hypothesis: The Heisenberg Indeterminacy Principle allows for quantum fluctuations as well as the general gravitational theory. Perhaps our universe is a long lived virtual particle.
Problem: This theory died a quick and well deserved death in the 1980's. Internal incoherence of the models, the obviously young universe when an infinitely old universe is require by the model, ad hoc solutions, all added to this theory’s demise.

Chaotic Inflationary Model:
Hypothesis: Each inflating domain of the universe, when it reaches a certain volume gives rise to another domain and so on into infinity. Our’s is one of those domains.
Problem: Promoters of this theory are at a complete loss as to explain what came before the first domain. The multiverse cannot be past eternal so this theory also comes to a well deserved death.

Quantum Gravity Model:
Hypothesis: The universe is a quantum wave function.
Problem: These models are nothing more than exercises in metaphysical cosmology. To accomplish their goal, imaginary numbers must be introduced to the gravitational equations. ONLY by doing this are they able to eliminate the singularity. It also requires the entrance of imaginary time turning it into a Euclidean four-dimensional space. Reality however, seems to be the undoing of this theory. If real numbers are reinserted into the equations, the singularity returns.

String Scenarios:

Hypothesis: Even with incomplete equations which of course have no solutions, atheists are not afraid to envision models of universes that require no beginning. In this theory, the Big Bang was nothing but a transitional event between a contraction phase which took place before the Big Bang and the expansion phase after it. Prior to the Big Bang a black hole formed in the ETERNALLY preexisting, static vacuum space and collapsed to the maximum allowed values of such quantities before rebounding in the current expansion that we observe.
Problem: Since there is a positive probability of a black hole forming in any patch of pre-existing space, such an event, given infinite past time, would have happened infinitely long ago, which is inconsistent with the finite age of our observable universe.

Cyclic Ekpyrotic Scenario:
Ditto - this model cannot be eternal in the past.

At this point I have to apologise. The question, “Which of these things is not like the other,” was misleading. None of these are unique.
- All of them are scientific failures in the attempt to avoid Creator God as an explanation of everything that we observe about life and its origins.
- All of them are an attempt to do an end run around current scientific evidence.
- All of these and more have been proposed as alternatives to the glaring metaphysical alternative presented by an absolute beginning of the universe. And with each successive failure of these alternatives, the Standard Model with it’s implied beginning, a beginning with a transcendental cause is reinforced and corroborated.

While conceding and attesting to a steady, unbroken line of failures on multiple fronts, atheists acquiesce to the fact that science cannot tell us how the universe came into being, nor can it tell us how the first cell (pre loaded with DNA / RNA) came into existence. And what science will never be able to tell us is why. Why is there something rather than nothing? Despite all their efforts, atheists haven’t come up with a single possibility that remotely makes any sense. Further, there is no prospect that this will ever happen. In fact, year by year the evidence grows in the direction of Intelligent Design. While science in general has done the world immeasurable good, to be a scientist who is also an atheist while working in the field of origins requires so much faith that clinging to “natural causes only” crosses the line into delusion and desperation.

No comments: