The New Scientific case for God

The New Scientific case for God

The more we advance on the road to science in all directions, micro and macro, the arguments in favor of an intelligent designer become increasingly eloquent. The origin of the “laws” of nature and the precise values of the “constants” necessitate intelligent design. The precision in the “mix” of constants that were necessary preconditions for the universe to evolve and for life to emerge provide mathematical evidence in support of the “God” hypothesis. The odds of obtaining these “constants” without putting “intelligent design” in the equation is one out of 10,000,000,000 to the power 124. To see how impossible it is, compare this number to the total amount of subatomic particles in the whole universe, which has been calculated to be 10 to the power 80 (Hoyle, Wickramasinge 1985).

Given the exact “mix” of these “constants”, we can logically deduce from inductive premises that they were “intelligently” set by one source, i.e. one God. The “oneness” of this source is observed by the uniformity in the workings of these laws of nature all through the universe, the common origin of everything in the universe and the blueprint of life all across the species.

Faced with such scientific evidence, justice demands that we acknowledge the creator. These facts make clear the assertion that Atheism is a “faith” based religion, with blind “belief” in nature as the “deity” to be evoked as an excuse for every “cause” that cannot be empirically explained. In this age of science, God is a fact. .

This paper DOES NOT present in any way the Christian Creationists position on humankind’s origin. The Koran does not set a time of 6000 years for the creation of the world neither does it support the unscientific ideas in the Bible. 

THE CAUSE:

The Universe consists of billions of galaxies and each galaxy has a vast number of stars. To study a galaxy, scientists record light from it on a strip of film. If the galaxy is moving away from our galaxy, the lines on the spectrum will be towards the red end of the film, this is called red shift. By this mechanism scientists conclude that with the exception of a few nearby galaxies, all the galaxies are moving away from us, and the further away they are the faster they are moving away.

The Universe’s expansion, discussed above began with an explosive event, called the “big bang”. In 1965 a type of radiation called the “Cosmic Background Radiation” was discovered (also called the microwave background radiation) by Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson. All regions of the sky send the same amount of this radiation to the earth. This was the breakthrough for the big bang theory. Long before 1965, scientists had predicted that we should be able to find energy remaining from the Big Bang. They had now factually confirmed the faint remnant of the energy produced during the explosive birth of the universe. This radiation has a temperature of 3K (therefore it is also called 3K radiation) and it is very close to the value predicted by scientists before it was discovered.
This radiation is much different to the radiation coming from a particular portion of the universe since it cannot be increased or decreased by pointing an antenna and is uniform from all locations to the earth.

In 1948, the “steady state theory” was advanced which now has fallen out of favor and which was completely knocked out by the above discovery of 3K radiation. Scientists today accept the Big Bang theory as being the most reliable with the most evidence to back it up. 

However, they do not know what CAUSED the big bang. The standard big bang theory does not explain what caused the big bang. Thus, scientists face a reality. Without God, the Big Bang is an impossibility. 

“Do not the unbelievers see that the skies and the earth were one unit (joined together), then we split them apart…” Koran 21:30 

To clarify some terms: If it is said that the universe is OPEN, it means it will expand forever. If it is said that it is closed, it will not expand forever. Whether a universe will expand, depends on if its average density is less than or equal to its critical density.

Our universe at present according to estimates has less than 20% of the density of matter to stop it from expanding. Essentially, it will continue to expand.

The universe is not beginning-less. It was “born” out of the big bang and had a beginning. Some people maintain the unscientific idea that the universe is beginning-less like the steady-state theory. This has been proven wrong according to the Second Law of Thermodynamics. In a closed system (by closed here we mean one which does not take energy from the outside- this is different to the closed definition given above), entropy (a measure of the degree to which a systems energy is unavailable to perform useful work) increases with time. To restate this: In a system which doesn’t take energy from the outside (like our universe), entropy increases with time.

If the universe had existed forever, we would see maximum entropy (complete disorder) which we do not see at all, something referred to as the fate of excessive expansion.

THE DARK NIGHT SKY PARADOX:

If the universe is infinite in spatial extent then light from infinite number of stars would always be pouring down on the earth from the skies. A simple mathematical calculation would show that the sky would never be dark under such circumstances. The paradox can ONLY be solved if we assume a finite age of the universe (a beginning). In such a case which corresponds to reality, we are only able to see the light which has had time to travel across space to earth since the beginning of the particular star from which it comes (Davies :46).

GOD NEEDED FOR THE BIG BANG:

1. The Flatness Problem in Cosmology:
The actual density of the universe is average amount of matter or mass-energy per unit of space. If the actual density of the universe is greater than a particular critical density then the universe will eventually stop expanding. Since after more than 10 billion years of expanding, the universes actual density is pretty close to its critical density, scientists conclude that at the time of the big bang, these two figures must have been very close to each other. They do not know why this was so. If it had not been so, and the actual density differed from the critical by even a tiny amount, either way, our universe would have ceased to exist after only a few million years.. This is termed as the flatness problem. They do not know why both the figures were where they were supposed to be to make our universe still exist after 10 billion years.

The Koran talked about the “expanding universe” as well, fourteen centuries before scientists discovered it:

” And the sky, we built it with might and We cause the expansion of it.” Koran 51:47

If the universe had been expanding too rapidly, the clouds that formed the galaxies would have been spread thin and pulled apart before gravity could dominate… On the other hand if the universe had started out expanding too slowly, it would have come to a halt and started to re-collapse with galaxies falling towards each other (Gribbins, Rees: 17)
If we push back to the earliest time at which our theories of physics can be thought to have any validity, the implication is that the “density-parameter” was set in the beginning, with an accuracy of 1 part in 1060 (10 followed by 60 zeroes). Changing the parameter, either way, by a fraction given by a decimal point followed by sixty zeroes and a one; (0.0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001) would have made the universe unsuitable for life as we know it. (Gribbens, Rees: 18)

We are reminded of the “Flatness” of the universe, its smoothness in this statement of the Koran:
“[It is God] who has created the multiple skies, one separate from the other (as layers). You cannot see any flaw in the Merciful (God’s) creation. Look again, can you make out any rifts?” (Koran 67:3)

2. The Horizon or the Isotropy Problem:

At around 300,00 years after the big bang, all parts of the universe, even separated by more than 20 times the horizon distance, and expanding in opposite directions, in causally disconnected regions (i.e.. no cause or physical effect could pass from one region to the other), began to expand with the same expansion rate and temperature.
No natural explanation exists to explain how a chaotic explosion, the big bang resulted in a uniform expansion pattern among causally disconnected regions, expanding in opposite directions. Calculations indicate that when the universe was a trillionth of a trillionth of a trillionth second old, it consisted of 10 to the power 80 causally disconnected regions, and no physical effect could have traveled from one region to another and yet 300,000 years after, cosmic background radiation proves that they all started expanding with the same expansion rate and the same temperature.

The Koran informs us of the uniformity of cause in the early universe

“… And He (God) inspired in all the heavens their mandate (Koran 41:12).”
“And He (God) raised the sky and set the balance. (Koran 55:7).”

HOW GALAXIES BECAME POSSIBLE:

Calculations by cosmologists indicate that matter in the early universe was uniformly distributed and hence gravitational contractions (contraction is opposite of expansion) in an expanding universe could not have taken place due to natural circumstances unless some special features were built into they system about one second after the big bang by intelligence. If the big bang was a chance event what we would see would be a disorderly arrangement of matter with no galaxies and no order. An intelligent designer controlled things 

“…..and we decked the skies of the world with lamps…. Such is the measuring of the Mighty (God), the Knower.” Koran 41:12 

Einstein’s General Theory of Relativity leads scientists to conclude that in its earliest instant, the universe was infinitely dense where its diameter was zero, i.e. nothing:, yes the universe was nothing at one time. God creates out of nothing, just as the Koran suggests.

NATURAL AND SUFFICIENT REASONS FOR THE CONSTANTS?

There can be natural and sufficient reasons for some physical characteristics of the universe but not all. Without suitable constants, life as we know it wouldn’t have existed and there would be no one to wonder about the cosmos.
Consider this analogy by a Canadian philosopher, John Leslie, suppose you are facing execution by a fifty man firing squad. The bullets are fired and you find that all have missed their target. Had they not done so you would not have survived to ponder the matter. But realizing that you are alive, you would legitimately be perplexed and wonder why ( Gribbens, Rees 271).

  1. The law of conservation of mass and energy: The mass-energy in the universe neither increases or decreases. Therefore the total amount of mass-energy in the universe has been the same and will remain the same. If someone were to figure out the mass-energy total in the universe and give it a figure say X, no natural explanation can exist on why it is X and not X+100 or X-100 and so on.
  2. The Constants: There are no natural and sufficient reasons why all of the universes constants have the values they have. If they had different values, life would cease to exist. However they have the values they have regardless of any physical necessity if we take God out of the picture. Examples like, the Planck’s constant, the speed of light, the electron charge, the gravitational constant. These constants with the exception of the gravitational constant have not varied more than one percent since the start of the universe and are same throughout. The gravitational constant has varied around ten percent.
    It should be noted at this point that these constants have been there since the beginning of the universe, a time before life appeared. These and other strange laws of nature defy any natural and sufficient reasons for their existence, the only valid explanation left is that they were set by an intelligent designer: 

    “… the measuring of the Mighty (God), the Knower.” Koran 41:12 

    According to the principle of sufficient reason stated by G.W. Leibniz, 

    No fact can be real or existing and no statement true unless there is a SUFFICIENT reason why anything is the way it is and not otherwise.

    Whereas scientists face an enigma here, which threatens the edifice of their work, the followers of the Koran face no such enigma at all. God is the sufficient reason. The cause of the constants: 

    “To Him submits whatsoever is in the heavens and the earth.” (Koran)

SUITABLE CONSTANTS:

The numerical values that nature has assigned to the fundamental constants, such as the charge on the electron, the mass of the proton, and the Newtonian Gravitational constant, may be mysterious, but they are critically relevant to the structure of the universe that we perceive. As more and more physical systems from nuclei to galaxies have become better understood, scientists have begun to realize that many characteristics of these systems are remarkably sensitive to the precise value of the fundamental constants. Had nature opted for a slightly different set of numbers, the world would have been a very different place and we would not be here to see it (Davies 1982).

All the constants in the heavens and earth have been subjected to make sure that life and humanity came to be. This is a fact given the current state of evidence. There is no natural explanation as to why the constants have the values they have. They have been set with a purpose in mind, with intelligence and subjected to make sure that the universe evolved in the way that it did and life and humanity came to be. 

Do they [the disbelievers] not see that God has subjected for them whatsoever is in the heavens and the earth.. (Koran 31:20)

  • All protons in the universe have a positive charge of 1.6 X 10 to the power -19 coulomb. This causes the various protons in the atoms to repel one another, but at the same time they stay together since the attraction is 100 times stronger than the repulsion.
    Now the proton has a mass that is 1836 times that of an electron. YET for some mysterious reason the charge on the electron is the same as the proton, 1.6X10 to the power -19 coulomb. Suppose the proton had a lesser charge than what it actually does, there is no reason why it shouldn’t have, there is no natural explanation on why it does, then the attraction between protons would be much more than we see with present figures and they would collide more. This, scientists say would lead to the stars using up their thermonuclear fuel in their cores much faster and dying out in about 100 million years. On our planet it took about 3 billion years for life to appear. If the lives of stars were 100 million years then life could exist nowhere on the universe. An intelligent designer put the figures where they were supposed to be, at 1.6X1019.
  • The Strong Force: The neutrons and protons in the nucleus of the atoms are referred to as nucleons, since they exist in the nucleus. If the neutrons and the protons are separated by more than a hundred billionth of a centimeter, there is no mutual attraction between them. However when separated by a distance of less than ten trillionth of a centimeter, the feel a strong force of attraction. This is termed as a Strong Force or Strong Nuclear Force.
    Scientists calculate that during the first few minutes after the expansion began, roughly 25% of the hydrogen in the universe was converted to helium. Scientists say that if the strong force had been any more intense (which requires a shift in a trillionth of a centimeter or less), all of the universe’s hydrogen would have been converted to helium. In such a case life would never exist for 3 reasons:
  • No water without hydrogen.
  • Hydrogen is necessary for proteins and nucleic acids needed for life.
  • Stars that have only helium are extremely short lived and could never reach the three billion years figure that our system took for life to appear.

What if the strong force were a little weaker by a trillionth of a centimeter or less, things just wouldn’t exist as the protons could not stay together in the cores of atoms. It is an acknowledged fact that if the Strong force was not between 0.1 f and 2 f (where f is the strong force constant) life would not exist and nor would any order like we see it. The difference between the two figures is less than microscopic and there is no explanation on why the numbers were where they were. That happening by chance is by itself, other things being constant, and one in one million. When you take into account all the other constants, the figure gets so small that to believe that life originated without an intelligent designer becomes more absurd than a myth.

The law of conservation of mass and energy discussed earlier makes it impossible to attribute a natural cause to the start of the universe. The energy had to come from somewhere. God provided the energy whose radiation we still receive. 

“…Whenever He (God) decrees a matter, He says Be and it is. (Koran).” 

After exhausting all the other alternatives, the only hypothesis that is supported by facts is that God created the heavens and the earth.

At Planck time (which is 10 to the power of negative 43 seconds, i.e. 10-43) which was a microscopic fraction of the first second after the universe began to expand, all the matter that we observe in the universe was less than a tenth of a millimeter across in volume. According to the black hole theory, the gravity of this singularity would be so massive that apart from a faint type of quantum radiation nothing at all could escape from it. Astronomers know that no natural cause could have caused the explosion of energy given the gravity of the singularity. No known natural force could have overcome even a tenth of the gravity of the singularity at the time of the big bang. 

“…and We split them apart.” (Koran 21:30).

Consider this law in science: 

Occam’s Razor: “When giving explanations, it is better to give a simpler explanation that assumes the existence of fewer unproved things.”

Apart from providing even more credibility to what we’ve established above this idea throws more light on:

  • Why there is just one God and not “gods” given the organization and the uniformity in the universe. The fundamental postulate of Einstein’s Special Theory of Relativity states this unity of law phenomena in nature. Consider what the Koran says in 21:22.
    : “If there were in them (the heavens and the earth) other gods beside GOD, there would have been confusion in both.” (Koran 21:22)
  • If there were more than one God then different parts of the universe would not have worked with such uniformity as they did and as is always the case (when two or more create something), parts of the matter in the universe would have originated at different times. Yet scientists and laws are agreed on that the big bang was when all energy and matter originated in the universe. Koran 23:91 states:
    ” There has never been any other god besides God (Allah). Otherwise, each god would have declared independence with their creations, and they would have competed with each other for dominance. GOD be glorified; far above their claims.” (Koran 23:91) .

WHO CREATED GOD?:

After exhausting all the other alternatives, the only hypothesis that is logically deduced from empirical evidence provided by nature, is that an intelligent being created the heavens and the earth. This being cannot be “human” or like anything in the natural world, so to speak. The attributes of the universe that “necessitate” design (discussed above) as well as the attributes in us that “necessitate” design (discussed below) cannot be the attributes of a creator otherwise “it” would need a creator as well.

Thus, if the creator is “different” than creation, in the attributes that “it” possesses, the question “Who created God?” becomes logically meaningless. Intelligent design would apply only to things that were non-existent and then came into being and contain specific attributes that necessitate design. Thus God has to be eternal, unchanging and unlike creation.

“Say: He is Allah (the God) the One. God, the eternal, absolute. He begets not, nor was He begotten and there is nothing like Him (Koran 112).”
.
THE PLANCK CONSTANT:

The Planck Constant is fixed at 6.6 X (10 to the power of -23) erg per second. It is a figure that shows up in all major equations used by nuclear physicists. The energy used by anything is always some multiple of Planck’s Constant. There is no natural reason why the Planck’s Constant is where it is, it could be a lot higher or a lot lower, but it has been balanced at this level without any natural reason.

The PC (Planck’s Constant) appears in an important formula used to determine the “Fine structure Constant.” The formula is e2/hc where “e” is the electron charge, “h” is the PC and “c” is the speed of light.

If the Planck’s constant had been greater by just 0.00000001, all the stars in our system would be red. If it was lower by just 0.00000001 all the stars in our system would be blue. The problem with red stars is that they never erupt as supernova and if there are no supernova there are no higher level elements that are necessary for life. If there were no supernova, there would be no Carbon to start carbon-based life like us. Blue stars on the other hand burn only for a short time, i.e. around 150 million years. However, it took nearly 3 billion years or more for life to emerge on earth. 150 million just would not cut it. The constant was set by the designer to make sure that life emerged when and where He decided.

THE SPEED OF LIGHT:

The speed of light is set at 3X(108) meters per second. It is an important constant which figures in Einstein’s famous formula E=mc2. “E” is the energy produced when matter is converted to energy in thermonuclear reactions in stars. If the speed of light had been just a tiny fraction higher (and there is no natural reason why it isn’t) then thermonuclear reactions would produce over 10,000 times more energy and all the fuel in the star core would be used up much quicker. Stars would die out much sooner than the 3 billion years it took for life to emerge on earth. Hence life would never have happened.

On the other hand if it was just a little tiny fraction lower, the early universe expansion would have been much slower and long ago the universe would have suffered a gravitational collapse. So both ways there would be no life. An intelligent designer who had life as the goal set the constant.

NEUTRON MASS:

Neutrons have a constant mass of 1.67 X 10-24 grams. When outside an atom a neutron is very unstable and quickly decays into a proton and electron. Inside the nucleus it is stable and does not decay. Suppose that the mass of the neutron was 2% greater than what it is now (and why should not it have been?) neutrons would rapidly decay and an atom would become unstable. As a fact, no higher elements would exist which are necessary for life. The only element in the entire universe would be hydrogen.

On the other hand, if the neutron had a mass less than its current mass by a tiny fraction, the protons would become unstable. This is because now the protons would have a higher mass than neutrons in the nucleus and they would decay into neutrons or positive positrons or pions. According to physicists, if the neutron mass was 0.998 of its present mass, the decay of protons would make the existence of atoms impossible. There would be no life. The designer had life in mind when He set the balance. 

“…He (God) has set the balance.” Koran 55:7

Donald Page of the Princeton Institute of Advanced Study has calculated the odds against the formation of our universe without God putting in the necessary constants. And the figure comes out to be one out of 10,000,000 to the power 124. To see how impossible it is compare this number to the total amount of subatomic particles in the whole universe, which has been calculated to be 10 to the power 80.

Beginning-less is illogical, philosophically speaking

If the universe was not created then it must have existed for an infinite time in the past. However, us being in the present make such a statement preposterous. It is not possible to cross an actual infinity. No matter how much you count or how much time passes, there would still be more to count or more time to pass. This is what the definition of actual infinity is. It is nonfinite it has no room for growth. If the past were infinite, then to get to the present moment, we would have had to cross an actual infinite. In the language of math and logic this is gibberish. It is just like saying that you can jump out of a bottomless pit. This concept throws light on the attributes of God, the creator also. The one who started this, himself must have had to be logically speaking, timeless and unchanging. 

The Odds: 

Roger Penrose in his book, The Emperor’s New Mind (1989) states: 

This now tells us how precise the Creator’s aim must have been, namely to an accuracy of (1010)123. This is an extraordinary figure. One could not even possibly write the number down in the ordinary notation: it would be one followed by 10123 successive 0’s. Even if we were to write a zero on each separate proton and each separate neutron in the entire universe- and we could throw in all the other particles for good measure- we should fall far short of writing the figure needed (as quoted by Denton 1998:9)

The Koran informed us of this century earlier: 

“If you were to COUNT the blessings of God towards you, you can never encompass them (14:34)”

DNA: Mark of the Creator:

Some atheist scientists who were unaware of the wonderful program, the complex mechanism of RNA and DNA were of the “outmoded” opinion that due to favorable physical influences, chemical compounds were able to spontaneously combine in an organized fashion and hence, were by magic, able to produce the fantastic complex which we call a cell, and then even more fantastic complexes like rudimentary living organism.
Wow, given that all their intelligence and directed efforts to date have been unable to form one single living cell in the laboratory, shows how much credibility we need to give to this fairy tale.

Indeed for the smallest macromolecules of a cell to form as a result of repeated attempts, such enormous quantities of matter would have been processed that they would have filled colossal masses on the scale comparable to the volume of the earth itself. Contrary to this we see beauty and harmony in nature and variety of all created things. Chance is totally inconceivable.

Oparine a modern Russian biologist who is a well-known materialist, rejects outright the theory of chance in the formation of life. An article:”The current state of the problem of the origin of life and its future perspectives” states from him, 

“The entire network of perpetual preservation and reproduction of the totality of conditions set by the external environment. This highly organized orientation characteristic of life cannot be the result of chance (as quoted by Bucaille 1987).”

The statement atheists make is tantamount to saying: 

“Iron ore and coal at high temperatures spontaneously formed steel particles and then those steel articles without any intelligence involved by magic formed the Eiffel Tower and other structures (Bucaille 1987).”

This statement sounds stupid, but saying that a cell formed by itself is even more atrocious because a cell is much more complex than any steel structure that human intelligence (not chance) has built.

In his book, The Origin of Life, Oparine draws particularly relevant comparisons to convince the lay man of the illogical nature of theories pointing towards chance. In 1954, he wrote: “It is as if one jumbled together the printing blocks representing the twenty-eight letters of the alphabet, in hope that by CHANCE, they will fall into a pattern of a poem that we know. Only through knowledge and careful arrangement of the letters and words in the poem however, can we produce the poem from the letters (page 52).”

Each cell in the human body has a “program” analogous to a computer program written down, so well organized and regulated so as to function properly, the slightest malfunction leads to deformities and monstrous growths [cancer is the case in point]. Each cell functions like a computer programmed to perform specific functions. It is common knowledge that a computer will only function if it has been programmed.

Without programming, you would never see what you see on this page. A fact that implies the existence of a programming intellect, that provides the information necessary to operate the system. The programming intellect for the billions of living cells, unvarying and uniform in his essence of programming is the One God. 

“He (Moses) said (to pharaoh), “Our Lord is He who gave to everything its creation, moreover guided it.” Koran 20:5 

There is a genuine enigma among the community of biologists: The origin of the genetic code and how it increases in information which leads to more and more complex structures. The only valid explanation given the intelligent nature of the messages contained in the DNA is that an intelligent designer was involved. We call him Allah, the God.

THE ENIGMA OF LIFE’S ORIGIN

The break between the living and non-living is the most fundamental of all discontinuities seen in nature. Natural Selection failed to explain this discontinuity, just as it failed to explain the discontinuity between species which biochemistry made clear. 

Stanley Miller in the 60s, in his attempt to simulate creation of life in the early earth, failed many times in his “intelligently designed” experiments before he succeeded in obtaining some amino acids, the building blocks of proteins. However, we are deliberately not told that he manipulated various scenarios of the early earth and not just one. Neither are we told in popular science textbooks that he failed many times before he succeeded. His experiments were intelligently designed and not random chance, which make this entire effort worthless as it belies the basic premise of life evolving without intelligence. To form proteins from amino acids is a bigger problem than forming amino acids, however, our professors don’t encourage us to think that no trial and error experiments were going on in the early earth using chemical beakers and flasks. Do we ever stop and think that intelligent experiments are being designed and used by these pseudo scientists to deny that there was any intelligence involved in the origin of life?

The “soup-theory” mentioned briefly above is the most in thing among all the theories of the origin of life in the scientific community. However, it poses many questions and big problems and hence just like the pre-Miller times, it still remains an enigma.

  • The “dawn-rocks” of Western Greenland, the earliest dated rocks on earth, considered to be about 3900 Million years old (dating from about 400 million years after the formation of the earth) don’t show any trace of abiotically produced organic compounds. Sediments from various parts of the earth dated between 3900 and 3500 million years old also show no signs of any abiotically produced organic compounds. Like is the usual case with evolutionary theory by Natural selection, paleontology doesn’t support it.
  • In the Presence of oxygen, any organic compounds formed on the early earth would be rapidly oxidized and degraded. It is for this reason that advocates of the “soup” theory suggest (without any geo-chemical evidence to support what they are conjecturing) an early earth without oxygen. Only such an atmosphere would protect the compounds, which would then collect as the “soup”. However this poses further problems. Without oxygen, there is no ozone layer in the upper atmosphere, which protects the earth from a lethal dose of ultraviolet radiation. In such a scenario, any organic compounds formed would break down in an instant. The empirical absence of organic compounds in Martian soil proves this. The late Carl Sagan recognized this when he stated that in the absence of oxygen, a lethal dose of ultraviolet radiation would reach the earth in 0.3 seconds.
  • The presence of water inhibits amino acids from joining to form proteins, since amino acids dissolve readily in water. To overcome this however our ingenious atheist scientists have tried to “invent” another scenario. Sidney Fox says that the amino acids got washed to a hot pan like land. However, experiments have shown that heating amino acids gives no proteins but a dark tar. However, they did some other manipulations by mixing and matching one part of three different amino acids to a beaker of purified amino acids they managed some joining among them. However, that did not yield any proteins but a chemically different product, which is now, called proteinoid. The scientific community has thrown this theory out the door. One of the strongest critics of this theory was Stanley Miller.

Hoyle and his colleague Wickramasinge calculated the odds of the random formation of a single enzyme from amino acids anywhere on the early earth’s surface as being 1 in 10 to the power 20 (add 20 zeros after 10 to appreciate how impossible it is to get one enzyme anywhere on this earth from amino acids given the soup). But wait there are not only one but two thousand enzymes, so the chance of obtaining all of these randomly would be 1 in (10 to the power of 20) the whole thing to the power of 2000. The number for the odds, is so small that it cannot be distinguished from zero. It could never have happened even if the whole universe was soup. 

Biochemical systems, like blood clotting, vision, and many functions of the cell are Irreducibly complex. Many systems backed by proper enzymes triggered by catalysts work together, automated to precision, working towards one desired goal in synchrony, to generate the result needed. No gradual system can ever explain their origin. If one part is missing, the whole system fails. If one part is crude the consequences are disastrous. If we scan the literature that seeks to explain the development of these systems based on evolution by natural selection, there is none. Darwinism at the macro level requires faith, as there are no scientific facts to support it. (Behe 1996).

Perverted Standards:

The human eye cannot see x-rays, electricity, magnetic fields etc, yet no man of science would dispute with their existence based on fact and proof. Yet, with just as much or more proof on God being the creator, the same scientist makes the excuse, “We cannot see him.”
If today we were to receive even one intelligent message from space, scientists as a whole after confirmation would conclude that yes, intelligent life in space has been confirmed. Yet, when millions of intelligent messages are found in our DNA, the same scientists don’t even look at it in consideration of an intelligent creator. Dogmatic scientists today have perverted standards. 

An example of these perverted standards are theories like the “multiple universe” theory. It is stated [as an escape from reality and the enigmas scientists face when they seek naturalistic explanations] that an infinite number of universes exist; however we only see ours. The rest do exist somewhere else and all the possible combinations of constants are tried [by chance] and we were the lucky mix, so we are alive to ponder the universe. What they do not realize is that in order to escape from the conclusion of one intelligent designer they are evoking infinite invisible universes that can never be verified. Occam’s Razor makes all this conjecture fall face down. 

The fact is that the world owes its being to something other than itself. The laws of nature did not create the universe since they cease to exist at the earliest point in creation. The laws of mechanics did not originate the laws of mechanics because when the universe was a singularity, they did not exist. The laws of evolution (whatever they are) don’t come about through the laws of evolution because in order to work they require a preexisting order and preexisting entities governed by that order. 

Copyright © Muhammed Asadi 1997 (REVISED 1999) 

Note: 

This paper DOES NOT present in any way the Christian Creationists position on humankind’s origin. The Koran does not set a time of 6000 years for the creation of the world neither does it support the unscientific ideas in the Bible. The Koran does not validate the Bible nor the scientific errors contained in the Bible. 

A Philosophical Examination of Cause and Existence
&
Our Current Knowledge of the Universe and its Implications
By Matt Agona

GOD AND THE LEADING COSMOLOGISTS

  • Fred Hoyle (British astrophysicist): “A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question.”

    (Hoyle, F. 1982. The Universe: Past and Present Reflections. Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics: 20:16)

  • Alan Sandage (Carnegie Observatories-winner of the Crawford prize in astronomy and multiple cosmology awards): “I find it quite improbable that such order came out of chaos. There has to be some organizing principle. God to me is a mystery but is the explanation for the miracle of existence, why there is something instead of nothing.”

    (Willford, J.N. March 12, 1991. Sizing up the Cosmos: An Astronomers Quest. New York Times, p. B9.)

  • John O’Keefe (a man considered to be the father of space geodesy, a pioneer in planetary physics and astronomer at NASA): “We are, by astronomical standards, a pampered, cosseted, cherished group of creatures.. .. If the Universe had not been made with the most exacting precision we could never have come into existence. It is my view that these circumstances indicate the universe was created for man to live in.”

    (Heeren, F. 1995. Show Me God. Wheeling, IL, Searchlight Publications, p. 200.)

  • George Greenstein (astronomer): “As we survey all the evidence, the thought insistently arises that some supernatural agency – or, rather, Agency – must be involved. Is it possible that suddenly, without intending to, we have stumbled upon scientific proof of the existence of a Supreme Being? Was it God who stepped in and so providentially crafted the cosmos for our benefit?”

    (Greenstein, G. 1988. The Symbiotic Universe. New York: William Morrow, p.27.)

  • Arthur Eddington (astrophysicist): “The idea of a universal mind or Logos would be, I think, a fairly plausible inference from the present state of scientific theory.”

    (Heeren, F. 1995. Show Me God. Wheeling, IL, Searchlight Publications, p. 233. )

  • Arno Penzias (Nobel prize in physics): “Astronomy leads us to a unique event, a universe which was created out of nothing, one with the very delicate balance needed to provide exactly the conditions required to permit life, and one which has an underlying (one might say ‘supernatural’) plan.”

    (Margenau, H and R.A. Varghese, ed. 1992. Cosmos, Bios, and Theos. La Salle, IL, Open Court, p. 83)

  • Roger Penrose (mathematician and author): “I would say the universe has a purpose. It’s not there just somehow by chance.”

    (Penrose, R. 1992. A Brief History of Time (movie). Burbank, CA, Paramount Pictures, Inc)

  • Tony Rothman (physicist): “When confronted with the order and beauty of the universe and the strange coincidences of nature, it’s very tempting to take the leap of faith from science into religion. I am sure many physicists want to. I only wish they would admit it.”

    (Casti, J.L. 1989. Paradigms Lost. New York, Avon Books, p.482-483) 9. Vera Kistiakowsky (MIT physicist): “The exquisite order displayed by our scientific understanding of the physical world calls for the divine.”

    (Margenau, H and R.A. Varghese, ed. 1992. Cosmos, Bios, and Theos. La Salle, IL, Open Court, p. 52)

  • Robert Jastrow (self-proclaimed agnostic and astrophysicist): “For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries.”

    (Jastrow, R. 1978. God and the Astronomers. New York, W.W. Norton, p. 116.)

  • Stephen Hawking (British astrophysicist): “Then we shall… be able to take part in the discussion of the question of why it is that we and the universe exist. If we find the answer to that, it would be the ultimate triumph of human reason – for then we would know the mind of God.”

    (Hawking, S. 1988. A Brief History of Time. p. 175.)

  • Alexander Polyakov (Soviet mathematician): “We know that nature is described by the best of all possible mathematics because God created it.”

    (Gannes, S. October 13, 1986. Fortune. p. 57)

  • Ed Harrison (cosmologist): “Here is the cosmological proof of the existence of God – the design argument of Paley – updated and refurbished. The fine tuning of the universe provides prima facie evidence of deistic design. Take your choice: blind chance that requires multitudes of universes or design that requires only one…. Many scientists, when they admit their views, incline toward the teleological or design argument.”

    (Harrison, E. 1985. Masks of the Universe. New York, Collier Books, Macmillan, pp. 252, 263.)

  • Edward Milne (British cosmologist): “As to the cause of the Universe, in context of expansion, that is left for the reader to insert, but our picture is incomplete without Him [God].”

    (Heeren, F. 1995. Show Me God. Wheeling, IL, Searchlight Publications, p. 166-167)

  • Barry Parker (cosmologist): “Who created these laws? There is no question but that a God will always be needed.”

    (Heeren, F. 1995. Show Me God. Wheeling, IL, Searchlight Publications, p. 223.)

  • Drs. Zehavi, and Dekel (cosmologists): “This type of universe, however, seems to require a degree of fine tuning of the initial conditions that is in apparent conflict with ‘common wisdom’.”

    (Zehavi, I, and A. Dekel. 1999. Evidence for a positive cosmological constant from flows of galaxies and distant supernovae ,Nature 401:252-254)

  • Arthur L. Schawlow (Professor of Physics at Stanford University, 1981 Nobel Prize in physics): “It seems to me that when confronted with the marvels of life and the universe, one must ask why and not just how. The only possible answers are religious. . . . I find a need for God in the universe and in my own life.”

    (Margenau, H. and R. A. Varghese, eds. Cosmos, Bios, Theos: Scientists Reflect on Science, God, and the Origins of the Universe, Life, and Homo Sapiens (Open Court Pub. Co., La Salle, IL, 1992) )

  • Henry “Fritz” Schaefer (Graham Perdue Professor of Chemistry and director of the Center for Computational Quantum Chemistry at the University of Georgia): “The significance and joy in my science comes in those occasional moments of discovering something new and saying to myself, ‘So that’s how God did it.’ My goal is to understand a little corner of God’s plan.”

    (Sheler, J. L. and J.M. Schrof, “The Creation”, U.S. News & World Report (December 23, 1991):56-64. )

  • Paul Davies (British astrophysicist): “There is for me powerful evidence that there is something going on behind it all….It seems as though somebody has fine-tuned nature’s numbers to make the Universe….The impression of design is overwhelming”.

    (Davies, P. 1988. The Cosmic Blueprint: New Discoveries in Nature’s Creative Ability To Order the Universe. New York: Simon and Schuster, p.203.)

  • Wernher von Braun (Pioneer rocket engineer) “I find it as difficult to understand a scientist who does not acknowledge the presence of a superior rationality behind the existence of the universe as it is to comprehend a theologian who would deny the advances of science.”

    (McIver, T. 1986. Ancient Tales and Space-Age Myths of Creationist Evangelism. The Skeptical Inquirer 10:258-276.)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *