Tag Archives: cosmology

Cosmology for God

Science,

Biologists risk career death if they publicly disagree with Darwin’s theory of unguided evolution; notwithstanding the recent scientific evidence (ENCODE, orphan genes, the fossil record, etc.) against that theory. Fortunately, in cosmology and astronomy, scientists are freer to challenge atheist beliefs. The findings in these areas are getting more attention.

Cosmology is the study of the origin and structure of the universe. Last week (December 26) the Wall Street Journal published an opinion piece titled: “Science Increasingly Makes the Case for God.” A friend of mine told me it looked like I wrote it! The author began by focusing on the special qualities of Earth (Count 6 in my book):

Today there are more than 200 known parameters necessary for a planet to support life – every single one of which must be perfectly met, or the whole thing falls apart.

He then turned to the fine tuning of the universe (Count 2 in my book):

Astrophysicists now know that the values of the four fundamental forces – gravity, the electromagnetic force, and the ‘strong’ and ‘weak’ nuclear forces – were determined less than one millionth of a second after the big bang. Alter any one value and the universe could not exist. For instance, if the ratio between the nuclear strong force and the electromagnetic force had been off by the tiniest fraction of the tiniest fraction – by even one part in 100,000,000,000,000,000 – then no star could have ever formed at all. Feel free to gulp.

I also learned recently that, two years ago, at a “State of the Universe” conference held at Cambridge University in England, astronomer Alexander Vilenkin of Tufts University in Boston presented evidence that the universe cannot possibly be eternal. There is something called the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin (BGV) theorem, which proves every universe that expands (like ours) must have a space-time boundary in the past. In other words, science contradicts the atheist belief in an infinite multiverse, in which our universe was created by another universe, and that universe was created by a third universe, and so on back to infinity (turtles all the way down). According to Vilenkin: “All the evidence we have says that the universe had a beginning.”

Thanks for reading and Happy New Year! I can’t wait to learn what new scientific discoveries in 2015 demonstrate the existence of God.

Ell’s Law

Atheist Pseudo-Science, Science, , ,

I’ve been giving a lot of thought lately as to how I’m going to earn my Nobel Prize. I’m not getting any younger. I’ve decided I need my own “law.” That seems to be how you make it really big science-wise – to have a law or principle either named after you or always associated with you. There’s Hubble’s Law, Newton’s Law of Gravitation, Einstein’s Theory of Relativity, and so on. And of course Murphy’s Law. So, to get me started on the road to Nobel, I propose Ell’s Law:

Whenever there are competing explanations for natural phenomena and one suggests, however slightly, the existence of God, the other will become the accepted “scientific” explanation, regardless of whether there is any evidence to support it.

Let’s look at Ell’s Law in operation, starting with Cosmology. The night sky is dark. Did the universe have a beginning, or do we infer there’s a lot of totally undetected dust in the heavens blocking the light from those infinite and eternal stars way out there? You guessed it! – the answer must be dust! Hubble discovers the universe is expanding, and the speed of receding galaxies is proportional to their distance from us. Do we now conclude the universe had a beginning? Nope, applying Ell’s Law, scientists invent the “Steady State” theory, where the universe is still constant and eternal and somehow matter is created in the voids to build new galaxies. This violates a basic rule of science – the First Law of Thermodynamics, the conservation of matter/energy – but, under Ell’s Law, we don’t worry about that. In 1965 we discover radiation from the Big Bang, and other evidence, absolutely confirming that our universe had a beginning. Do we now infer the existence of God? Of course not! Applying Ell’s Law, scientists conclude our universe was created by another universe, which was somehow created by a third universe, and so on, to infinity and beyond, to avoid having to come up with a “First Cause” for a first universe. We discover the constants and laws of physics are exquisitely fine-tuned for the existence of life. Do we infer a designer? Nope! Applying Ell’s Law, we just tweak our model of an infinite number of universes (together called a “multiverse”) to imagine that somehow the laws and constants of physics (and even the number of dimensions actually) can change from one to another. We have absolutely no idea how this occurs, and of course absolutely no idea how we can ever detect evidence of other universes, but, under Ell’s Law, you don’t need evidence!

Now let’s apply Ell’s Law to biology. We discover an incredible molecule called DNA that contains the information for all life. Apply Ell’s Law, and we conclude it arose by accident. We discover an amazing genetic code that all life uses to build proteins from the DNA code, and amazing machines to process DNA. Obviously, created by accident! We don’t have a mildly plausible explanation for the origin of life (and believe me, Harvard and others threw a lot of money at the problem), but, no problem, we ignore that and keep printing high school textbooks suggesting the “scientific” explanation that life was created by accident. We find all species contain massive amounts of unique DNA coding (orphan genes). Evidence of design? Not a chance! Just apply Ell’s Law, and you will conclude it all arose because of accidental mutations and natural selection, even if that’s mathematically absurd.

I could go on, but I think you get my point. Ell’s Law is one of the most powerful laws in science. It also applies in quantum physics and planetary formation. I’m going to start work on my acceptance speech.

Thanks for reading.