Blog

Evolutionary Theory in Crisis

For any who are interested in evolutionary theory, I recommend you subscribe to Evolution News (it’s free), published by Discovery Institute, a leading Intelligent Design thinktank.  You will be kept abreast of such developments as described in “Neo-Darwinism Must Mutate to Survive,” a peer reviewed article which concludes that macroevolutionary changes cannot be explained as simply an accumulation of microevolutionary changes.

A review of the article can be found here:

Peer-Reviewed Paper: “Neo-Darwinism Must Mutate to Survive”

Of course, accumulations of microevolutionary changes has always been the presumed mechanism driving evolution.  Without a mechanism, there is no theory of evolution, because the mechanism is the theory.

Postscript to the Cosmological Argument

As children growing up, each of us at some point becomes aware of the laws of cause and effect.  Every effect has a cause, and each cause must be sufficient to produce the effect in question. 

Then when in childhood or adolescence we become aware also of the beauty and power of nature, most of us will say to ourselves, “There must be an explanation for all of this.”  What we see is this magnificent natural world, and we know intuitively that it must have a cause, and that the cause must itself be colossal.

Not only that; but we have also by this time learned to distinguish objects and events that are designed from those which result from impersonal forces such as wind erosion, earthquake, or chemical reactions.  We may not be able to articulate exactly how we make such distinctions, but every child can accurately tell a slab of marble from a statue.  (We will elucidate the precise criteria for design in a future post.)  Finally, we also have understood by this time that design invariably signals personhood – that is, it implies intention, which is an activity of mind, and only of mind.  Put it this way: design is a mental activity — and we know this as children.

But then the child returns to her classroom and does not consider the matter further for months or years, until her next experience of nature, and again she tells herself, “There must be an explanation for all of this.”  Even then she does not pursue the inquiry in any deliberate way; and before long her elders begin teaching her that her intuition is not true, that it is irrational and superstitious, and that science shows that everything is the unintended result of impersonal forces.

But it is perfectly rational to apply the laws of cause and effect to the universe itself – why wouldn’t we? – and perfectly rational to infer mind from design.

Anything which exists either had a beginning or it didn’t, and if it did, then it either had a cause or it didn’t.  The evidence of science overwhelmingly shows that the universe did have a beginning.  What is irrational is to suppose that anything could come into existence, uncaused.

What we all need is someone to confirm that our childhood intuition was and is true.

Those who confirmed that intuition for me are men such as William Craig, Michael Behe, Hugh Ross, J. P. Moreland, John Lennox, and Stephen Meyer.  I thank my God for each one.

A Little Deeper Into the Cosmos

More on the Cosmological Argument for the Existence of God

Why is there something rather than nothing?

If anything exists, then an uncaused being exists.  How do we know this?

Something does exist: the universe; and the universe either had a beginning or it didn’t.  If it didn’t, then it has an infinite past, and neither has a cause nor can it have a cause, and that would end the inquiry.

But we happen to know that the universe did have a beginning, and since it did not create itself, it must have had a cause outside itself.  Thus there exists, in addition to the universe itself, at least one other being – specifically, whatever it was that caused the universe to exist.

Either the cause of the universe was itself uncaused, or it was preceded by an infinite regress of caused causes.  An actual infinite regress of caused causes is impossible.  Therefore, the universe was caused by an uncaused cause.  QED.

What kind of being is this uncaused cause of the universe?

Big Bang cosmology entails that space and time themselves came into existence with the matter and energy of the Creation event.  Therefore, the cause of the universe must be:

     Uncaused

     Spaceless

     Timeless

     Immaterial

     Stupendously powerful

Other observations enable us to add to the list of divine attributes.  The fine-tuning of the universe shows that the First Cause has crafted the constants of physics to achieve a particular purpose, namely, a universe hospitable to complex life.  Purpose is a mental activity: only minds have purposes.  Therefore the First Cause is a personal being.  The fine-tuning demonstrates also that the First Cause is transcendently intelligent.

Why does the universe exist?  Why is there something rather than nothing?  Because God caused the universe to exist.  Then why does God exist?  I do not believe there is an answer to that question.  God does not exist for a reason: he just is.  He is the uncaused cause.  He, and only He, contains in Himself the explanation of His own existence.  As He said to Moses: “I am that I am.  Tell them that I am sent you.”

So to someone who asks, “If God created the universe, then who created God?” the proper response is to point out that the answer is obvious, but that it is the wrong question.  The question is not who created God, but how can it be that God exists, uncaused?  What is the reason for God’s existence?  And the only answer I know of is that He just exists.  He and He alone contains within himself the explanation for his own existence.

And we are in awe once again, and our hearts overflow with gratitude.

Many philosophers maintain that the reason God exists is that He is the necessary being.  I’m not clear on what that means.  Wouldn’t it be possible that nothing at all exists?  Then God would also not exist, right?  Then He doesn’t exist by any sort of logical necessity.  In what sense, then, is he the necessary being?

I suspect the answer is that if God did not exist, then nothing would exist.

So my answer to the question how we know God exists is that we know it from the fact that something that is not God exists and had a beginning.  Everything else follows by logical necessity.

The Heavens Declare the Glory

Several people who follow this blog have been complaining about the recent dearth of posts.  Mea culpa!  I repent!

Here is a fascinating special case of the fine-tuning of the universe.

There are 90 naturally-occurring elements in the periodic table – elements like hydrogen, oxygen, nitrogen, carbon, and many others.  Every physical thing in the universe is made up of these elements or of combinations of these elements.

Each element has distinctive properties, and the properties of all the elements, taken together, result in our physical world –the Earth, the Earth’s atmosphere, the iron that drives the Earth’s magnetic field, the water that makes life possible, the sun, the moon, the stars, our bodies.

It makes me weep to realize the wisdom and power displayed in the Creation.

Where do these elements come from?

I learned several years ago that there have been three or four generations of stars.  The first generation, formed at about 100 million years after the Creation event, consisted only of the lightest elements, hydrogen and helium.  During the lifetime of those stars, they produced heavier elements by a process of fusion – that is, by combining lighter elements to form heavier ones under extreme heat and pressure.  When these stars reached the end of their lifespans, they collapsed, and then they exploded, spreading those heavier elements throughout the cosmos.  Then under gravitation the debris from the explosion of those stars formed a second generation of stars, which likewise produced even heavier elements, collapsed, and exploded.  (They are still exploding; they are called “super-novas.”)  Our sun is an instance of at least a third-generation star, if not a fourth.

Recently it was learned that iron is the heaviest element formed in this manner – by fusion within the first generations of stars.  Now cosmologists have discovered how the heaviest elements were formed.

Most massive stars (say, 10 times the mass of our Sun) exist in binary systems with a twin.  When they die, they explode, but their cores remain, and they collapse to a diameter of only 10 to 12 kilometers, forming the densest objects in the universe other than black holes – so dense that the protons and electrons combine, forming neutrons; and hence they are called “neutron stars.”

The twin neutron stars then circle each other for eons until at last, under their mutual gravitational attraction, they fall into each other.  When they collide, they annihilate in the most spectacular events ever observed.  But after the collapse and before the explosion, they form the heavy elements by a process called “rapid neutron capture,” or the r-process.  Then the explosions again spread these heaviest elements throughout the universe.  Some of them ended up in Earth’s soil.  We ingested the plants that drew those elements out of that soil, and those elements keep us alive by performing vital life functions, from the regulation of brain development to the formation of strong bones.

You can read more from Scientific American at https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-star-collisions-forge-the-universes-heaviest-elements/

Glory to God!

Water: Designed for Life

In April I published links to a wonderful 7-part essay by John Millam, Ken Klos, and Iain D. Sommerville, entitled, Water: Designed for Life (Reasons to Believe 2013).

I have to apologize to those who have tried to open Part 2, or anything after Part 1, by clicking on the links which the publisher provided at the bottom of Part 1.  They don’t work.  (They did work when I first posted the essay.)  Here’s what does work: Once you have opened Part 1, at the top of your browser window will be the URL for that web page, ending in “part-1-of-7.”  Place your cursor next to the 1 and replace it with a 2 and <press> enter.  The same for parts 3-7.  (Yes, I do have permission from RTB to tell you to do this.)

Feast on this thrilling exposition of the miraculous properties of a substance we all take for granted, water, in seven quick strokes by pasting the following URL into your browser:

reasons.org/explore/blogs/todays-new-reason-to-believe/read/tnrtb/2013/05/20/water-designed-for-life-part-1-(of-7)

Everything is fine-tuned.

The Cosmological Argument for the Existence of God is Virtually Conclusive

I cannot leave this argument alone.  Every time I sit down to write about the teleological argument for the existence of God (the argument from design), my thoughts turn to the cosmological argument instead.  Here is my latest effort to reduce the argument to its essence.

There are only four possible explanations for the existence of the universe:

  1. The universe is past-eternal;
  2. The universe had an uncaused beginning;
  3. The universe was caused by a caused cause; or
  4. The universe was caused by an uncaused cause.

We can eliminate the first three explanations.

If the universe is past-eternal, then it did not have a beginning.  If so, then it did not have a cause, but just is.  God may or may not exist, but an uncaused universe does not require it.

Empirical science has shown, however, that the universe did have a beginning.  This leads to two more possible explanations for its existence: either it had a caused beginning, or it had an uncaused beginning.  If the universe had an uncaused beginning, then God may or may not exist, but as noted above, an uncaused universe does not require it.

But an uncaused beginning is unlikely because it would violate the laws of cause and effect.  At the very least, it would seem to do so: there is no plausible basis for maintaining that the universe could have had an uncaused beginning. 

The universe, then, must have had a caused beginning.  If so, then again there are two possible explanations for its existence: either the cause itself had a beginning and hence a cause, or the cause itself did not have a cause and hence was past-eternal.

A caused cause is merely one element in an infinite series, unless the series itself has a beginning; and it can only begin with an uncaused cause.  An actual infinite series is impossible and absurd.  Therefore the series of causes must “end” (begin) with an uncaused cause, which uncaused cause must be past-eternal.

(Every caused universe is past-finite and every past-finite universe which can be actualized is caused.  Every uncaused universe which can be actualized is past-eternal and every past-eternal universe is uncaused.)

Thus three of the four possible explanations for the existence of the universe have been excluded: a past-eternal universe; an uncaused beginning; and a beginning brought about by an infinite series of caused causes.  The remaining explanation, that the universe was brought into being by an uncaused, past-infinite cause, must be true.