Questions Only God Can Answer

Special creation is an inference to the best explanation for our existence in light of these interesting enigmas:

a) God Makes Sense of the Universe's Origin - Both the evolutionist and the creationist must acknowledge the principle of causation, that is, that causes produce effects. This must be acknowledged, else the question may be raised, why are they engaged in the debate? Of course, the reason is that their arguments (the cause) are meant to change the position of others (the intended effect).

It is certain that the universe had a beginning, since, according to the second thermodynamical law, heat always travels from a warmer body to a colder one. If our universe was infinitely old, then it should have a uniform temperature throughout. This is clearly not the case. The universe has regions that are extremely hot, and others that are extremely cold. The fact is, therefore, that our universe, which is comprised of space, matter and time, must have been caused by something (I would say someone) that (who) stands outside of these restraints. The infinite, transcendent God of the Bible certainly fits the bill as the first cause of our universe. Some may contest that this is far too a simplistic examination of the question, but consider these options, for there are only three:

1. Infinite nothing created matter
2. Infinite mind created matter
3. Infinite matter created minds

Option 1 is non-sense. Nothing cannot become something of it's own accord (even in steps). Option 3 must also be rejected since it begins with a misnomer - infinite matter. Remember, matter is an intrinsic part of our universe, which most certainly appears to be finite. In essence, option 3 is stating that the universe is comprised of infinite finite matter - an impossible situation!

Only option 2 makes any sense at all.

b) God Makes Sense of the Universe's Complexity - To begin with, let me qualify what is meant by complexity. I'm speaking here mainly of specified complexity. Let me give an illustration. Imagine flipping a coin and having it land heads up. On a sheet of paper you write an "H" for "heads". Now suppose you flipped the coin again, and again it came up heads. Again you record an "H" on the paper. Then you flip again, this time tails. So on your page you record a "T" for "tails." Now suppose you kept this up until you page was full of "H's" and "T's". Although the sequence of "H's" and "T's" could be described as complex, nothing about it would knock our socks off. However, suppose you brought your page to me and I produced a page from my pocket containing the exact same letter sequence. Now we have something more than complexity. We have specified complexity. That is, two or more complex structures or sequences specific to each other.

Within living things - even within the "simplest" cells - there exists incredibly complex structures, which network together to form systems capable of performing functions which none of its individual components could accomplish. Furthermore, many such complex systems are themselves networked together in a specific way in order for life to exist. There is no mechanism known that could have produced and arranged the chemical elements if life in such a fashion except for intelligent intervention.

The Thermodynamical Laws

Both the evolutionist and the creationist must acknowledge the existence of the first and second thermodynamical laws.

The First Thermodynamical Law

Walt Brown ("In the Beginning", 7th Ed., p. 24) explains this law and it's ramifications:

"The first law of thermodynamics states that the total energy in the universe, or in any isolated part of it, remains constant. It further states that although energy (or its mass equivalent) can change form, it is not now being created or destroyed. Countless experiments have no verified this. A corollary of this first law is that natural processes cannot create energy. Consequently, energy must have been created in the past by some agency or power outside and independent of the natural universe. Furthermore, if natural processes cannot produce mass and energy - the relatively simple inorganic portion of the universe - then it is even less likely that natural processes can explain the much more complex organic (or living) portion of the universe."

The Second Thermodynamical Law

Brown states, (pp. 54-55)

"If the entire universe is an isolated system, then, according to the second law of thermodynamics, the energy in the universe available for useful work has always been decreasing. However, as one goes back in time, the energy available for useful work would eventually exceed the total energy in the universe that, according to the first law of thermodynamics, remains constant. This is an impossible condition, thus implying that the universe had a beginning."

Gordon J. Van Wylen, ("Thermodynamics", 1959, p. 169) comments:

"A final point to be made is that the second law of thermodynamics and the principle of increase in entropy have great philosophical implications. The question that arises is how did the universe get into the state of reduced entropy in the first place, since all natural processes known to us tend to increase entropy? … The author has found that the second law tends to increase his conviction that there is a Creator who has the answer for the future destiny of man and the universe."

Don N. Page, ("Inflation Does Not Explain Time Asymmetry", Nature, Vol. 304, 7 July 1983, p. 39) states:

"The time asymmetry of the Universe is expressed by the second law of thermodynamics, that entropy increases with time as order is transformed into disorder. The mystery is not that an ordered state should become disordered but that the early Universe apparently was in a highly ordered state…There is no mechanism known as yet that would allow the Universe to begin in a arbitrary state and then evolve to its present highly-ordered state."

David Harry Grinspoon, Assistant Professor of Astrophysical and Planetary Sciences at the University Of Colorado ("Venus Revealed", 1997, p. 297) states:

"total entropy increases, mostly because the Sun increases it's entropy as it radiates energy." "The universe tends toward death and disorder. It's the law."

"So time is relative, changing. Can it be reversed? No. The second law of thermodynamics - which states that isolated systems move from order to disorder - unequivocally rules that out. Humpty Dumpty won't ever put himself back together again."

"Look at the film of an egg as it falls to the floor and breaks. Run the film backward. Watch the egg reassemble, then rise through the air. This demonstrates a basic law of science: that nature is a process of disorganization. This increasing natural disorganization - or entropy - is based on the principle that there are more possible disordered states in nature than there are ordered states. This tendency toward disorder is called an arrow of time." National Geographic, March 1990, "The Enigma of Time", pp. 119, 131

Elsewhere Grinspoon clearly voices his opposition to the concept of special creation, instead embracing complexity theory, non equilibrium thermodynamics as the explanation for our universe's order and complexity.

p. 301: "[Complexity theory is] inherently non-reductionist, focusing instead on emergence. One objection is that complexity science is not predictive - at least not yet, in the way that science has required itself to be. Maybe in some sense it is not even science but natural philosophy ,"

It is clear then, that while all can agree based upon the observable evidence from countless experiments, that the second law is valid, complexity theory, or non-equilibrium thermodynamics cannot be regarded as a mechanism proven to have created order from disorder in the cosmos. Huw Price, ("Past and Future", Nature, Vol. 348, 22 November 1990, p. 356) comments:

"This is 'times' greatest mystery' [the entropy problem], and for all its merits, the theory of nonequilibrium systems does not touch it. What would touch it would be a cosmological demonstration that the Universe was bound to be in a low-entropy state after the Big Bang."

Henry Morris concludes ("The Scientific Case for Creation", 1977, p. 26):

"The evolutionary model, by any such secondary modification and extension, might then perhaps be harmonized with the second law, but it could never predict it. The creation model, however predicts the Second Law."

Ice Cubes and Crystals

Many argue that without violating the second law, matter can organze itself (ice cubes and crystals for example). The inference here is that if matter can organize itself at this level, why is it unthinkable that the chemical elements life couldn't organize themselves into a living system as well. Philip Johnson ("Defeating Darwinism by Opening Minds", p. 73) provides the answer:

"The same laws that form the crystals prevent any more complex ordering from emerging, because they ensure that the same pattern will always be repeated according to the formula."

c) God Makes The Validity of Thought Possible - If the universe is not the product of intelligence, then it must be the product of senselessness. This would mean that even the process by which we deem an argument's validity would also be senseless, from a cosmic perspective. Why and how can the evolutionist assert so vehemently, that the universe is ultimately meaningless, with arguments framed meaningfully? In short, there appears to be an enormous contradiction here, with the evolutionist arguing against the concept of intelligent design in nature, with arguments that had to be intelligently designed!

The issue runs much deeper than that. Consider that if everything, including our perceptive, deductive, and interpretive powers really are simply chemical reactions and nothing more, than how can we say that any one argument is more or less valid than another? Some may state, "An argument's validity is dependent upon its correspondence to reality." In this case, the truth would be the overriding factor here. But consider that even this criterion, that truthfulness is the measure of an argument's validity, is itself simply another senseless chemical reaction in a seemingly endless sea of chemical reactions. Thinking, in the evolutionist's universe would be no more valid that itching!

Truth, described as a correspondence between thought, or statement and reality, could not be said to exist in the evolutionists' universe since even the perception of what reality is, could not be said to hold meaning absolutely. Without absolute truth, statements may be reduced from that which we deem truthful to that which we prefer as a matter of taste. Since everyone including the evolutionist has no problem with people preferring one thing to another, the evolutionist should see no problem with some teachers preferring to teach creation science in the classroom instead of the evolution story. For that matter, the evolutionist should see no problem with me preferring to drive his car instead of mine or use his credit card to buy the things I prefer to have. The evolutionist says that these things are "wrong", but can't quite explain why they're wrong, at least not within the context of his worldview. The moment he tries to impose a moral standard, he must also move toward making a truth claim. Such a claim must be substantiated, and, as we have seen, cannot be within the framework of evolutionary thought.

C.S. Lewis addresses the problem ("God in the Dock", 1970, p. 52-53):

"If the solar system was brought about by an accidental collision, then the appearance of organic life on this planet was also an accident , and the whole evolution of man an accident too. If so, then all our thought processes are mere accidents - the accidental by products of the movement of atoms. And this holds for the materialists' and astronomers' as well as for anyone else's. But if their thoughts - i.e., of Materialism and Astronomy - are merely accidental by products, why should we believe them to be true? I see no reason for believing that one accident should be able to give a correct account of all other accidents."

d) God Makes Sense of Moral Absolutes - Everyone believes in some sort of moral absolute. The evolutionist opposed to the teaching of creation certainly does. For him, teaching something false (in his opinion, the creation worldview) is wrong. By why is it wrong? The evolutionist must provide an answer. If people have decided this, then such a moral code - decided by people - would actually be subject to its creators (people), rather than the other way around. So then, if this moral code is subject to us, what sort of binding power does it have? Why should we listen to it?

In a world in which so many different moral standards are proposed, to whom do we listen and why? Some suggest that society will decide what is right and wrong, but such an assertion raises more questions. We all cross many societal borders everyday (work, family, church, etc…). To which society's moral standard do I to adhere? Why? Consider Hitler. He had a society that seemed to be working quite well. It's certain he had at least 51% of the nation's support. If society decides what's right and wrong than Hitler's society was "right."

What about the "social reformers' dilemma?" The evolutionist must agree that throughout history, men and women have stood outside of society and condemned what was then legal, but morally wrong. The African slave trade comes to mind. Most sane people would agree that putting the slave trade to an end was a good change, but the point is, if society decides what is right and wrong, those who petitioned against the slave trade were "immoral" people. This ties directly to the evolution / creation debate because in 1925, evolutionists petitioned to have their concept of origins taught alongside creation in the classroom. They rallied to make change in what society had already decided was right. Again, if society decides what is right and wrong, these evolutionists were immoral people.

Any proposed moral code, which is expected to be universally binding, must have its roots not in us, but above us. If this is not so, then morality becomes nothing more that than fashion, and would have absolutely no power to command strict adherence. If a binding moral code does exist above is, what is it anchored to if not God?