Categories
creation eternity evolution

“THE UNIVERSE IS ETERNAL”

Neal Pollard

Articles across the scientific community of late have been postulating a similar idea. Astrophysicist Brian Koberlein suggests that there was no single point in space and time when matter was infinitely dense, saying, “The catch is that by eliminating the singularity, the model predicts that the universe had no beginning. It existed forever as a kind of quantum potential before ‘collapsing’ into the hot dense state we call the Big Bang. Unfortunately many articles confuse ‘no singularity’ with ‘no big bang’” (briankoberlein.com). One of the most recent darlings of this explanations are Ahmed Farag Alia and Saurya Das, whose paper “Cosmology from quantum potential” is being cited by quantum physicists and astrophysicists.  As this gets traction, there should be a trickle down effect until the broader scientific community embraces this idea.

Let’s hope so!

It could be a pivotal moment in the creation versus evolution debate.  Why?  When you wade through the technical, obtuse jargon, this theory concludes that the universe is eternal.  We all know that something has always had to exist.  Our options are “intelligent, moral, animate mind” or “mindless, amoral, inanimate matter.”  The faith factor has just multiplied by a centillion for those wanting a God-less explanation.  The same argument they have tried to level against those believing in intelligent design and creation applies to them.  How did that eternal matter get here?

Here’s the difference between the two arguments.  Matter not only had to “create” itself, it also had to develop (evolve?) intelligence, morality, purpose, etc.  The Bible reveals an intelligent designer (Creator) with inherent morality, purpose, and sufficient power and energy to make it all.  “It’s too simplistic,” they say.  “How quaint!”  But to a person who is truly trying to approach these two explanations with open-minded fairness, which of these two ideas will seem more plausible?  It won’t even be a fair contest!

Let’s hope this latest attempt to explain our origin finds favor among those who “say there is no God” (Ps. 14:1) and who “suppress the truth” (Rom. 1:18ff).  Maybe it will help more honest searchers “find” God (Acts 17:27). I think it will!

Categories
Christian Evidences inspiration truth

IF THESE THINGS ARE TRUE, HOW DO WE EXPLAIN THE FACTS?

Neal Pollard

  • If the theory of evolution is true, why haven’t they found any transitional fossils?  Charles Darwin, on page 413 of his tome Origin of Species, said, “Why is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely-graduated organic chain; and this is the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged against the theory.” Almost 150 years of archaeological digging and an incredible volume of fossil-findings later, the objection should be even stronger!
  • If the documentary hypothesis is true, why can’t they find even one copy or fragment? The idea that later scribes and penman wrote the first five books of the Old Testament, some almost 1000 years after the time Moses lived, is widely believed among liberal religious scholars. That there are no copies or fragments of these post-Moses writers has not done much to defuse the zeal of those who teach it.  Neither is any attempt given to explain or rebut the many statements in the Pentateuch claiming that Moses wrote them (cf. Ex. 17:14; 24:4-7; 34:27; Num. 33:1-2; Dt. 31:9-11).
  • If the idea of being genetically predisposed to homosexuality is true, where is the genetic evidence of it? The study most supportive of “the gay gene,” conducted in 1991 by Baiiley and Pillard, found 52% of the pairs of identical twin brothers studied were homosexual.  A much larger sample size, in an Australian study released in 2000 by Bailey, Dunne, and Martin, found only 20% concordance in identical twin males and 24% among identical twin females. Bearman and Brucker, in 2002, found less than 10% concordance (via Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78(3): 524-36; Archives of General Psychiatry, 48 (12): 1089-96; and the American Journal of Sociology, 107: 1179-1205).
  • If the idea that a “fetus” is part of the mother is true, why does that unborn one have its own unique genetic code? Not only that, but the unborn can be a different blood type, gender, race, hair color, eye color, and more.
  • If the big bang theory is true, what did it and why?  Whether it is thought to have been highly concentrated matter, energy, or combination, what force acted upon it? It was there, presumably for an eternity.  Why didn’t it “bang” before it did? Why did it bang when it did? How did mind emerge from matter? How did morality emerge from non-morality? How did an explosion or expansion form such order out of chance and chaos?
  • If it is true that making moral judgments about others’ behavior is wrong, why is that moral judgment not wrong?

None of these questions is intended to exhaustively address any of the theories or world-views they represent.  Yet, so many unquestioningly and blindly accept these premises as fact when they are far from it.  Seemingly, the last resort, if ever taken, would be to accept and follow what the Bible says.  However, that is the fundamental dividing line.  Hebrews 11:6 puts it well, that “without faith it is impossible to please Him, for he who comes to God must believe that He is and that He is a rewarder of those who seek Him.”