Implications of the laws of thermodynamics.
First of all, we have to realize that just using proven physical laws of chemistry
and physics, using what science has proven to such an extent that it's actually
merited the position of a law, something that whenever it's tested,
no matter how often, no matter by who, we always get the same result.
When we're using pristine pure science like the laws of thermodynamics,
which Einstein said would never be overthrown by the advance of science.
You would think that it would be an open and shut case.
You would think, well, the evolutionists would just fall over dead in front of
these overwhelming, unassailable scientific facts.
But there is a problem you have to be apprised of.
Whenever you debate, whenever you witness to someone, whenever you just have a
conversation with an evolutionist, you have to really cut through a big smoke
screen.
You have to cut through a big premise they have that is not correct, is not logical,
is not legitimate.
But you have to point that out to them and pray the Holy Spirit will help them to
grasp that.
Because they start with a premise that basically says, no matter of all the
evidence is against evolution.
And all of it appears to support intelligent design.
Creation is religion by definition and evolution is science, therefore we must go
with science.
And evolution wins anyway.
So when we're dealing with origins, we're dealing with an emotional question.
Whenever we deal with a question, who are we?
Why are we here?
What is our purpose and meaning and value in life?
How do we determine what is right and what is wrong?
And what is going to happen to us when we die?
These questions really are tied up in the issue of our origin.
If we're just mechanistic products of a mindless universe, then there really isn't
any right and wrong.
And when we ask the deep questions, who am I?
Why am I here?
Where am I going?
The answer is, well, you're a nothing and a nobody and you're not here for any real
reason.
You happen by chance and when you die, that's it.
You will rot back into plant fertilizer and that'll be the end of you and you'll
never be conscious again.
Because evolution is purely materialistic, purely naturalistic.
So it's an emotional question.
Many people want to believe in God because such a belief, if true, offers a lot.
Meaning, purpose, value, dignity, hope beyond the grave.
The possibility of an eternal love relationship with an infinite being who
loves us with a perfect love.
The best of all possible worlds for eternity.
If the God of the Bible is true and if his gospel is true.
So many people, understandably, would prefer to believe that.
And many evolutionists say, well, it's pie in the sky, you're believing
something because it sounds good and you'd like to believe it.
But there are also people, such as our beloved evolutionists, who when they're
thoroughgoing evolutionists, they really don't want to believe in a God.
That means there's somebody bigger and smarter than they are.
Believe it or not, that bothers some people.
They think they have a corner on all the knowledge.
They think their intellect is the highest in the universe.
They don't want somebody infinitely superior to them.
And they certainly don't want such a powerful being to have the right to judge
them for how they ran their life.
That's a big issue.
To them, that's their worst nightmare.
That's the reality they hope is not true.
And unfortunately, as the scripture tells us in Romans chapter 1, when men knew God,
but they would not honor him as God, God's judgment on them was he turned them
over to a reprobate mind.
And although they profess to be wise, and although they may be wise in the
things of the world, having multiple PhDs, they miss the boat.
Because they miss the most important truth the human heart can embrace.
If there is a God who made us, that is the purpose and meaning and
destiny of our existence.
And if you miss that, what shall it profit a man to gain the whole world and lose his
soul?
So it's an emotional question.
Also, it's an unprovable question, because ultimately we cannot repeat
history in the laboratory.
The origin of the universe, the origin of life, the alleged evolution of an ape-like
creature into a man, these make nice stories, but when it comes to scientific
proof, we cannot repeat any history in the laboratory.
It only operates in the present.
Approaching the question properly, and by that I mean, agree to use fair
rules when you get into this discussion.
And what do I mean by that?
Don't allow them to define science in a self-serving way that makes them winners
by definition.
No matter what you're saying, no matter what evidence you present, they can say,
sorry, the rule book says I win and you lose anyway.
Now here we have, well let's see, a quote from Richard Lewontin in his
article, Billions and Billions of Demons, New York Review.
He said that we're forced, not by science, but by our a priori adherence to material
causes to create an apparatus of investigation.
In other words, the rules of the investigation are such, and a set of
concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how
counterintuitive, no matter how apparently illogical or irrational, no matter how
mystifying to the uninitiated.
Moreover, that materialism is an absolute for we cannot allow a divine foot in the
door.
Why?
Because we can prove that there is no God?
No.
No scientist can prove there is no God.
To prove that there is no God, you would have to be everywhere present to
make sure he's not hiding somewhere in the universe, which means you'd have to be
omnipresent and you'd have to be knowledgeable of every fact that exists
everywhere in the entire universe.
Omnipresent and omniscience, those are characteristics of an infinite God.
And you'd have to have those characteristics to prove that there is no
God.
But if you did have them, you would qualify as God, therefore you would be
God, God would exist, and it's a self-repeating logical argument.
You can't prove a universal negative unless you have universal knowledge,
which they do not have, and science does not have.
So why can't they allow a divine foot in the door?
The answer is because they jolly well don't want it.
Philosophically it is unpalatable to them.
Now, we live in a free country.
Under the U.S.
Constitution, First Amendment, you can believe anything you want.
You can even believe things that are stupid, and it's legal.
Isn't that a wonderful thing about the U .S.?
It's legal to believe in stupid things, but that doesn't make them true.
That doesn't make them science.
And if they want to believe this, I will defend their right in our free
country, under our Constitution, to believe that if they want to as their
religion, but they don't have the right to define it as science.
Just because somebody supposedly died, some potentate died and left them the
authority to redefine science.
It doesn't quite work that way.
Now, this definition of religion I love from Random House College Dictionary,
a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe.
Materialism, naturalism is the presupposition without possibility of
proof by the scientific method, that the whole of reality is naturalism.
There is no supernatural dimension.
There certainly is no supernatural creator.
It is a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe
that says it's all materialistic.
It's all naturalistic.
That is a religion.
And as Brother Riddle pointed out so well, we already have a religion.
We already have a faith.
We don't need theirs.
And we need to point out to them that what they have really is a faith.
If they want to be honest and say, I have this faith I'd like to share with
you, I'd say, fine.
I can understand that.
But just don't call your faith science if it doesn't qualify as it.
Don't mislabel it and expect me to accept that definition because it's just not
correct.
It's not true.
Now, here I quote this famous quote by Pierre Thierrard de Chardin, often quoted
by the greatest evolutionist of the 20th century, at least arguably so.
Theodosius Dobzhansky, and he was fond of quoting this, and it says, evolution is a
general postulate to which all theories, all hypotheses, all systems must
henceforward bow, and which they must satisfy in order to be thinkable and true.
Evolution is a light which illuminates all facts, a trajectory which all lines of
thought must follow.
That is what evolution is.
Now, this is really one of the most astounding quotes I've ever confronted.
Right at the beginning it admits it's nothing but a general postulate.
That's another word for a hypothesis, not even something that's been proved,
just something that people conjure up in their imagination and say, well,
we can test it, but we don't know if it's true yet.
But somehow this mere postulate or hypothesis has the power to say all world
systems must bow before it.
And you know what?
If you don't stop and say, wait a minute, you don't have the authority to do that,
they'll run right over you and say, hey, Theodosius So I'd like to know what
happened to the classic definition of science.
The classic definition of science is the search for truth whatever that truth may
be.
And the truth just may be that naturalism doesn't work.
That nature by her laws of chemistry and physics did not create us and was not
responsible for our origin.
That may be the truth.
And real science is interested in finding the truth, whatever the truth may be.
It doesn't start by defining well, we're not going to look in this area it
might be true, we can't prove it's not true but we're not going to look in that
area and we're going to define that area as non-scientific by definition.
Namely supernatural creation.
Guess what?
Supernatural creation just might be true and science can't prove it isn't true.
So here we have the Orwellian thought police coming along and saying,
look, you can search for truth, but only how and where we tell you to.
So everybody says, oh, we want to be free, we want freedom of religion freedom of
speech.
And yet, some of the greatest bondage in academia is this false definition of
science that says you can only search for truth where we tell you to search and how
we tell you to search.
We need to call them on the carpet about that.
So science when redefined as materialism says you may search for truth but only
where and how we tell you, only materialistic explanations are allowed.
Now the problem, what is the problem?
When you allow your opponent to define the rules of argument, you lose.
If they get to set the definition, guess what, they're always going to define
the rules in such a way that no matter what happens, they win and you lose.
For example, the first rule, since I get to set the rules, you've conceded me that
right, I set the rules and you don't.
That's the first rule.
Then what's the second rule?
Heads I win, tails you lose.
So when your opponent is allowed and conceded the authority to define science
in a self-serving manner, he controls the rule book.
You're never going to win in that situation.
It doesn't matter if in a football game you score all the touchdowns or in a
basketball game you get all the hoops.
If the rule book says you lose by definition, it doesn't matter.
And that's literally the position the evolutionists have put themselves in.
Well, it doesn't matter.
It doesn't matter what evidence the evolutionists or the creationists have.
It doesn't matter what arguments they have.
We have real science on our side.
Says who?
Their own self-serving definition.
We've got to take that away from them.
They don't have the authority.
Nobody died and bequeathed to them the right to change the classic definition of
science which is the search for truth, whatever that truth may be.
So, the conclusion, the search for truth, for truth's own sake, is unimportant,
according to their definition.
The only thing that matters is that a materialist victory is assured by
controlling the definition of science, quote-unquote, so that no matter what,
they have to win by definition.
Now, it literally doesn't matter if all the evidence supports intelligent design
and contradicts naturalistic evolution.
You say, well, it's not that extreme, is it?
It is.
I quote here Dr. Scott Todd, an immunologist at Kansas State University,
and he wrote this in Nature magazine.
He said, even if all the data, notice, all means all, even if all the
data point to an intelligent designer, such an hypothesis is excluded from
science because it is not naturalistic.
End of quote.
Now, what would they do if creationist scientists got up and said, even if all
the data point to Darwinian evolution as being true, such an hypothesis is,
you know, not science because it's not supernaturalistic.
Why, they'd scream and cry, and oh my goodness, you'd think the world would end.
But we're supposed to put up with that.
They wouldn't tolerate it for one second.
But we're supposed to be so meek and mild, we'll let them get away with this illogic.
And we have to put our foot down and say, look, we're willing to discuss.
We're willing to talk.
We're willing to debate.
But let's level the playing field.
Let's not start with a definition that guarantees that you win no matter what.
Because you define yourself as a victor by how you define the word science.
So, is it science or just philosophical bias?
I quote here the eminent evolutionist of the early 20th century, D.M.S.
Watson.
He said, evolution is a theory universally accepted, not because it can be proved by
logically coherent evidence to be true, but because the only alternative,
special creation, is clearly incredible.
Huh.
So it's not what we can prove that counts, it's what we don't like that counts.
Why is creation incredible?
Because you can prove it's unscientific?
Because you can prove it didn't happen?
No.
Well, then maybe it did happen.
Oh no, it's incredible.
How do you know?
Well, because we don't like it.
And we'll define what is credible and rational based on what we prefer.
Really?
I thought we lived in a democracy where people can believe what they want and
search for truth the way they want, you see.
And that's the point we have to bring out.
Everybody's for democracy.
Everybody's for freedom of thought.
And we need to point out, Orwell has had his heyday with this type of science,
because they suppress freedom of thought under their definition.
It's incredible by definition, even though they can't prove it's wrong.
I quote here Sir Arthur Keith, another crusading evolutionist of the
early 20th century.
He said, Amen, brother.
I would agree.
We believe it because the only alternative is special creation, which is unthinkable.
In other words, we're not believing in it because we can prove it.
We can't.
It's just because the alternative is so distasteful, so unpalatable, so
reprehensible, that we'd rather believe anything than believe that.
Well, it's a free country.
You can choose what you prefer to believe.
But you don't have the right to say that belief system is science by definition.
Now this quote just about blows me away.
By the way, the full references for these quotes are found in my book out there,
Evolution on Trial, with evolutionists at the witness stand.
But L.
T.
Moore, he brought it to the ultimate, what we call in logic, reductio ad
absurdum, reducing the argument to its ultimate and logical, yet absurd
conclusion.
He said the only alternative to evolution is the doctrine of special creation,
which may be true, but is irrational.
You gotta ask the question, how can the truth be irrational?
If the truth is irrational, how can we have any kind of intelligent or logical
discussion about anything?
Since after all, anything we discuss that might be truth is also irrational.
And why waste the time?
Basically, the truth is that which exists as reality.
That which exists as reality is simply the truth.
How can that which exists as reality somehow be irrational?
The only answer I can find is only a philosophical bias is given more
importance than truth.
But here we're supposed to be dealing with science.
Science is supposed to have the upper hand.
What we can prove by repeated experimentation and observation under
controlled conditions in a laboratory preferably, that's supposed to reign.
But here we have seen over and over again science has little to do with why some of
the most eminent evolutionists in history have rejected creation out of hand.
It doesn't fit their bias.
And if they have to, they'll even say truth is irrational.
Because if that's the real truth, they don't want it.
Much like the Jews said about Jesus, we will not have this man to reign over
us.
We don't care if he can walk on water, change the water to wine, raise the dead.
We don't care.
We don't like him.
He's not the kind of Messiah we want.
And many evolutionists say, well, it may be true, but we don't want it.
We will therefore call it irrational and proclaim ourselves the victors because
we're rational, we're scientific by definition.
What a charade.
What a sad thing.
Now, is there a double standard regarding intelligent design?
I think so.
You know, if an archaeologist dug up clay tablets in the Middle East with the
Gilgamesh epic written down in beautiful cuneiform and he brought this in and said,
oh my goodness, look at this ancient epic story of this great flood.
Wow.
Boy, a society that was really, you know, gifted in literature and writing
produced this.
Well, there'd be no brouhaha about that.
Everybody would accept, yeah, certain types of design like that don't happen by
wind and rain and erosion on clay, doesn't produce the Gilgamesh epic in
cuneiform, doesn't happen, at least not in our scientific experience.
But that same argument is what the creationists use.
The type of design and particularly the linguistic complexity we find in all
living organisms at the molecular level.
Information is the key to information storage and retrieval and actualization
and utilization.
It's all about information systems that interface with one another and cooperate
with one another.
And yet information is based on everything we know in real science something that
only arises as far as scientific observation is concerned by intelligent
authorship.
Never by time, chance, natural laws of chemistry and physics.
All the experiments have failed for more than half a century since the landmark
experiment of Stanley Miller in 1953.
Yet in spite of decades of abject failure, the evolutionists still are there because
in their book they can't lose.
After all, the rule book says they win even if all the evidence is against them.
You have to understand that mindset or you will get very frustrated in trying to
converse with them.
But say we have this idea, well you can't ever invoke intelligent design is by
definition religion, it is by definition not science.
Everything must be explained in terms of naturalism.
So we tell our college students, we are going to go out and look at this
phenomenon.
And before we go, remember the rule book says you can't invoke intelligent design
and control procedures to explain this.
So then they take them out and they look at what?
Mount Rushmore.
Now they look at that and say, well gee, four presidents' heads carved in
granite.
How did that get there?
Based on everything we know in our life experience and in observation and science,
they had to take that information which we knew from eyewitnesses who drew portraits
of Jefferson in Washington and actual photographs of Teddy Roosevelt and Abraham
Lincoln and they used that information to impose a precise facsimile or replica in
granite at Mount Rushmore.
That is the only way we know, based on any science, that that happens.
It doesn't happen by wind and rain and erosion and squirrels burrowing into the
rocks.
At least, not in our observation.
But, they know they want to get an A on the test.
So they go, well, it doesn't seem to make any sense, but I want to get my A so I'm
going to say, isn't it amazing what wind and rain and erosion for millions of years
and squirrels burrowing in the rocks did?
Four presidents' heads in granite.
That's the sad irony of what's going on.
It's like, as one scientist called it, the elephant in the living room.
The name of the elephant is intelligent design.
And he said, you know, to make a living in the field of biochemistry you have to live
with the elephant in the living room but you can never acknowledge it's there.
It takes up space, it stinks, it defecates, it trumpets, it throws hay all
over the place and all the while we have to swear it's not there.
Because if we acknowledge it, we'll lose our job.
The elephant in the living room is all over this universe.
The fingerprints of the creator are there.
But many in the scientific community are intimidated and will never admit it.
They'll go with the standard definition of naturalism.
They want to keep their job.
So we have a two-edged sword of science when it comes to the creation evolution
issue.
And this, I quote Francisco J.
Ayala, very eminent evolutionist geneticist, and he said, a hypothesis is
empirical or scientific only if it can be tested by experience.
A hypothesis or theory which cannot be at least in principle falsified or proven
false by empirical observations and experiments does not belong to the realm
of science.
And with glee they exult and say, well therefore creation doesn't qualify as
a scientific theory because we can't test it, we can't observe it, we can't call
down the creator and ask him to do a miracle of creation for us.
We can't go in the past and observe whether or not he did create the universe
and life and man.
And that's a legitimate criticism.
We ultimately believe the doctrine of creation by faith.
Now that doesn't mean there isn't any evidence.
I think there's a reasonable faith based on the weight of the evidence.
That's how we make decisions in a court of law.
The jury didn't see the crime happen but they look at the weight of the evidence
and they judge that beyond reasonable doubt this is true.
Even though they didn't see it with their own eyes.
The evidence is sufficient that it is a reasonable faith beyond reasonable doubt.
And that's our faith in creation.
We can say it's a reasonable faith.
It fits the facts with the least number of problems and contradictions and it is not
contradicted by any known real facts of science.
I'm not saying theories and philosophies.
Lots of theories and philosophies in the world contradict the Bible.
But they're just theories and philosophies.
Sometimes masquerading as scientific fact.
Real empirical demonstrated facts we don't disagree on at all.
We have all the same evidence, all the same facts as the evolutionists.
The only thing we disagree about is the interpretation.
The history.
How long it took basically is one of the big differences we disagree on.
We look at the same physical evidence in every field of science.
We just disagree on the history of how it came to be.
Now this double-edged sword cuts the other way because although we can't prove
creation by the scientific method, neither can we prove the evolutionary
theory.
Can we go back in a time machine and observe the Big Bang and the evolutionary
origin of the universe or the origin of the first living cell or cell evolving
into marine invertebrates fish, amphibians, reptiles, mammals,
apes, finally man, over billions of years of time?
No.
We can't observe it.
And by his own definition, if you can't falsify it by observation, and we can't do
that to evolution on the broad scale because we can't repeat history in the
laboratory, then it does not belong to the realm of science by their own definition.
It's not a question of which one is faith and which one is scientific fact.
It's a question of which faith fits the facts the best with the least number of
problems and contradictions.
That's the best we can do.
With any historical question, science is limited in what it can tell us.
Now I quote here L.
Harrison Matthews, eminent British biologist, member of the Royal Society,
a fellow of the Royal Society, actually they call them, and he was so
eminent he was asked to write the introduction to the 1971 edition of
Charles Darwin's famous book, The Origin of Species.
They probably regretted asking him because he was a very honest scientist and he said
some amazing things, which I quote here.
He said, in accepting evolution as a fact, how many biologists pause to reflect that
science is built upon theories that have been proved by experiment to be correct?
Or remember that the theory of animal evolution has never been thus proved?
And in the broad scale, that's absolutely true.
We can't see a family, order, class, phyla change into another.
Limited variation within distinct families, species, genus, yeah,
we've seen that, creation explains that, predicts that.
But the big changes define Darwinian evolution.
And no experiment has ever proved that it ever has or even could happen.
He continues saying, the fact of evolution is the backbone of biology and biology is
thus in the peculiar position of being a science founded on an unproved theory.
Oh, heresies in the halls of biology, but he's being honest about it.
It's an unproved theory.
It's not a fact.
He says, and this is a good question that ought to be asked in our textbooks,
by the way, is it a science or a faith?
Good question.
Belief in the theory of evolution is thus exactly parallel to belief in creation.
Both are concepts which believers know to be true but neither up to the present has
been capable of proof.
And neither will be in the ultimate scientific sense unless we can invent a
time machine and literally go back and observe what really happened.
We can't do that.
Therefore it's circumstantial evidence.
Well, what does that mean?
That means we have to compare the creation and evolution issues as scientific models
rather than scientific theories.
A scientific theory is a theory that can be put to the test and proven true or
false.
You can't do that in the broad scale with either creation or evolution.
It's ultimately a matter of faith but they can be examined as scientific models.
A scientific model is simply a conceptual framework that's used to correlate and
make predictions and correlate the evidence and the model that can correlate
the evidence with the least number of problems and contradictions and make
predictions that fit the real world.
Then that theory is most likely the correct one.
And that's where you have to leave it.
This theory makes more sense.
The weight of the evidence is with it.
We therefore put our faith in that as being the most reasonable faith.
That's the best we can do in this area.
Now when we define the creation evolution controversy in the terms of models
conceptual frameworks creation wins hands down.
Evolution is contradicted by all kinds of known facts of chemistry and physics and
experimental data.
Contradiction upon contradiction upon contradiction.
There aren't any facts that actually contradict the concept of special
creation.
Now notice predictions.
Evolution predicts and Julian Huxley said indeed the whole of reality is the self
transforming power of evolution going to ever and ever greater levels of
complexity.
So from inanimate particles we get complex biochemicals which then organize into a
living reproducing cell.
And that goes all the way up to man.
And then supposedly man is continuing to evolve and it's going up and up and up and
up.
Now if this were true we would predict that we ought to be able to find in nature
some inherent intrinsic property of matter and energy that drives it to ever higher
levels of complexity.
No such intrinsic property of matter has ever been observed or proven.
Thus no law exists to describe this phenomenon.
Exactly the opposite tendency of matter and energy has been observed over and over
again without fail.
So much so that it is embodied in a law.
The second law of thermodynamics.
The law of increasing disorder, increasing entropy, increasing loss of
available free energy, converting into dilute unavailable energy that although
it's there it cannot be harnessed for useful work anymore.
So what we actually see in the real world as defined in the second law is something
you would expect if creation is true.
If creation took place then an omnipotent creator created things perfect and
complete.
They didn't have to go in this upward progress to reach perfection.
It was created with perfection at the beginning.
Therefore it couldn't go any higher than perfect.
You wouldn't expect any higher upward movement like evolution predicts and
indeed we don't see that.
However things can go down from perfection.
Especially if the creator as he has revealed has instituted a bondage of
corruption and decay.
Now I don't think that means that God put the second law there at the time of the
curse.
I think the second law is there for a good reason.
If we didn't have the second law in operation certain chemical processes
wouldn't work.
We couldn't digest our food.
That would be pretty miserable.
Talk about indigestion.
So you also wouldn't be able to walk without slipping and falling on your face
because as you walk you generate heat which dissipates according to the second
law.
You have to have friction without the second law.
You wouldn't even be able to walk without slipping all over the place.
So there's good reasons for that second law to be there but the Bible says a
bondage of corruption and decay.
I believe there was an offsetting principle of God's providence there as
there was with the children of Israel.
Remember as they wandered in the desert 40 years it said during all that time their
clothes didn't wear out, their shoes didn't wear out, and their feet didn't
swell.
Does that mean the second law wasn't there?
No, I think it was there, it was just that God was offsetting its effects with his
law of preservation, with his providence, his miraculous upholding of his sovereign
purpose in that situation.
I think when the curse came God withdrew some of his providential grace and this
natural law was now a bondage because there's no more an offsetting principle as
there was for the children of Israel.
So the law I believe has always been there and the law is necessary but degeneration
is what we see.
And that fits the idea of creation and the curse.
And that is what we observe and we never observe the opposite, which is necessary
for evolution to be true on this broad scale both universally and biologically.
Now, the second law of thermodynamics sounds formidable but it's something we're
all too familiar with.
Basically the law of degeneration over time.
With time things tend to fall apart and go to pot.
Our clothes wear out, our cars wear out, our houses wear out, we wear out.
We get old and die.
It may have a big name but we're all too familiar with the bondage of corruption
and decay formalized in the second law of thermodynamics.
With time things tend to go from a state of high free energy to loss of available
free energy and entropy and from complexity to disorder and simplicity.
Now, the all important thing, the implications of the laws of
thermodynamics.
Now the second law is the law of increasing disorder, increasing loss of
free energy, increasing entropy over time.
Entropy being defined as randomness, disorder in a system, or dilute energy,
the loss of free energy into dilute energy that's there but it cannot be harnessed
anymore.
Now the first law is the law of mass energy conservation.
Thanks, Einstein.
We know that matter is a kind of a form of energy, a kind of a coalesced energy.
So it's all energy out there.
But the first law says that no matter what happens, whether things blow up or burn
down or things get transported, whatever reactions happen in the universe,
the books always balance.
You never have more energy at the end or less at the end of any transformation than
you had before.
There's always this conservation.
The books balance always the same amount of energy that you started with.
That means the first law states that matter cannot be created or destroyed.
Energy cannot be created or destroyed ultimately in that sense.
The matter and energy remains constant.
It can be transformed but the amount remains constant.
So that means that the quantity remains constant, according to the first law.
However, the second law says that the quality does not remain constant.
The quality degrades over time.
And that's what's being shown here.
The universe is running down irreversibly, according to the second law.
That means it will eventually reach the ultimate heat death or total entropy,
where there will be no more free energy available anywhere in the universe.
It will all be dilute entropy.
Everything will be dark and cold.
No life, no useful work can be done anywhere in the universe.
Now, since it's irreversibly running down, what does that mean?
The universe cannot be infinitely old.
The evolutionists would love to have an infinitely old universe that's eternal,
and therefore, that's their eternal god, instead of the eternal creator.
But the second law, proven science, says it can't be.
Because it's running down, it will reach an end.
It hasn't reached the end yet.
It, therefore, cannot be infinitely old, or in the long sense, would have been at
maximum entropy.
And no life, no evolution, no nothing could exist.
So the second law clearly shows the universe must have had a beginning when
something or someone put that free energy there that is now running down
irreversibly.
So the second law says the universe must have had a beginning, but the first law
says it could not have begun itself by natural law.
Why?
Because matter and energy cannot create or destroy themselves.
Not by natural law.
So, we must have a beginning, but the universe can't begin itself by natural
law.
What do we need?
Something supernatural.
Something transcendent to the limitations of space and time and natural laws.
Something like an omniscient, omnipotent creator, who transcends all these
limitations and who is eternal and therefore had no beginning, therefore
needs no cause to explain his origin.
Now this is basically classic scientific cause and effect reasoning.
If ever there was a scientific law, it is the law of cause and effect,
which states that for every effect there must be an adequate cause and that no
effect can be greater than its cause.
An effect may be lesser than its cause, but never can an effect be greater than
its cause.
And for every effect there must be an adequate cause.
All of science is based on that single axiomatic law being true.
If cause and effect relationships and this law is not true, then there is no such
thing as science.
The scientific method would be impossible to employ.
If you don't believe in cause and effect relationships, how could you ever run an
experiment?
It is accepted axiomatically that this is true scientifically, because if it isn't,
there isn't any science to talk about.
It's that fundamental.
So using the scientific law of cause and effect, we can go through a logical
syllogism here.
First point, the universe, including time itself, can be shown to have had a
beginning.
Even the evolutionists agree with that today.
Yep, it had a beginning.
Secondly, it is unreasonable to believe that something could begin to exist
without a cause.
The universe therefore requires a cause.
Nothing illogical so far.
The evolutionists...
There we go.
Cast a demon out of this now and then.
The evolutionists inevitably say, yeah, but where did God come from?
And that, of course, is an illogical question.
It's akin to asking the question, to whom is the bachelor married?
Haven't figured that one out yet.
Well, when somebody asks a question like that, you know right away they don't
understand the definition of the words they're using.
You see, God the creator by definition is an infinite eternal spirit without
beginning, without end, not bound by time, the creator of time, therefore
transcending any need for a beginning.
So, God as creator of time is outside of time, since therefore he has no beginning
in time.
Remember, only something that has a beginning requires a cause to explain its
existence.
God by definition had no beginning will have no end, is eternal.
There's nothing illogical with something being eternal.
It is illogical though for something to have a beginning like the universe and not
have an adequate cause.
They can say, well, something else was eternal that caused it.
We'll see what their other eternal God is that they like to invoke.
But, since he has no beginning in time, he has always existed, so he does not need
a cause to explain his origin.
He had no origin therefore no cause is required.
Now, that doesn't sit well with many evolutionists.
I think we've already figured that out by what we've looked at.
But let's take a look at some classic cause and effect reasoning with what we
actually observe in the universe.
The first cause of limitless space must be infinite.
The first cause of endless time must be eternal.
The first cause of boundless energy must be omnipotent.
The first cause of universal interrelationships must be omnipresent.
The first cause of supreme complexity must be omniscient or all-knowing.
The first cause of moral values must be moral.
The first cause of spiritual values must be spiritual.
The first cause of human responsibility must be volitional, or having free will.
The first cause of human integrity must be truthful.
The first cause of human love must be loving.
And the first cause of life must be living.
Because no effect can be greater than its cause.
And every effect must have an adequate cause.
The conclusion is that the cause of all these phenomena we see in this universe
must be a living, loving, truthful, volitional, spiritual, moral, omniscient,
omnipresent, omnipotent, eternal, infinite being.
Does that sound familiar to anybody?
Yeah.
He's written a book.
It's called the Bible.
His love letter to man.
And science shows us that a God, such as the God revealed in the Bible,
must exist based on real science.
Cause and effect relationships.
Now, unfortunately for those who say we cannot allow a divine foot in the door,
cause and effect goes out the window.
The axiomatic, basic, pillar truth of science is thrown out because by all means
we cannot allow a divine foot in the door.
And so nothing to them is preferable to God.
Nothing.
Now you think I'm kidding?
Again, the full references for these quotes are in my book Evolution on Trial.
Alan H.
Guth and Paul J.
Steinhard, a couple of notable evolutionists in cosmology, they say this,
it is tempting to go one step further and speculate that the entire universe evolved
from literally nothing.
You've got to ask the question, why is that so tempting?
You know, what's tempting about it?
If everything came from nothing, then what does it mean when we ask the
questions, who are we, why are we here, where are we going?
Well we came from nothing, I guess we're worth nothing and we're not going to get
nothing, and nothing is the answer on all the Jeopardy questions.
Nothing.
But it's tempting, not because of science, not because of cause and effect,
law, but because of the philosophical presumption of naturalism.
Edward Tryon, he said, and I quote, that our universe had its physical origin
as a quantum fluctuation of some pre-existing true vacuum or state of
nothingness.
Wow, that almost sounds eloquent.
It's not very logical though, because when you look up the definition of nothing in
the collegiate dictionary, it reads something like this, that which does not
exist.
So all this eloquent elocution has told us that we all came from that which never
existed.
And if you don't believe that, well, you're just stupid and unscientific
by definition.
Nobody would really accept that.
But we have to point it out in the reductio ad absurdum fashion to point out
that their conclusion is logically absurd.
From nothing comes nothing.
From that which does not exist, you can't get everything that does exist.
Talk about an inadequate cause for the effect.
That which doesn't exist creates everything that does exist, because they
want it to be so.
And they define it as science.
Finally, I quote here Paul Davies, a very rabid evolutionist.
He says, and I quote, this quantum cosmology provides a loophole for the
universe to, so to speak, spring into existence from nothing, without violating
any laws of physics.
Well, I guess, you know, I guess that would be the case.
How can nothing violate anything since it doesn't exist?
I wouldn't worry about laws of physics, you know, I mean, I wouldn't worry about
anything if we all came from nothing.
Don't worry, it's not worth it.
It's nothing.
Okay.
Now I quote here again Paul Davies, the man I just quoted.
Notice what he admits, though, when he's pinned to the wall.
He says, no theory can rule out divine creation.
Scientific theories are simply proposals for how the world is to be tested by
observation.
There is no logical impediment, ah, no logic, no science, that is an
impediment to God existing, or in this case, creating the universe five minutes
ago in its present state, complete with human memories.
In the end, a theory stands or falls on whether human beings consider it
reasonable.
Now I hope I pounded this issue home tonight.
Why is there such a battle over the word rational, reasonable, and scientific?
Because ultimately what human beings consider to be rational, reasonable,
and scientific is what's accepted as science.
Isn't that interesting?
If they can control the definition of what is reasonable and rational, they win.
And that's where a lot of the battle has been fought in recent years.
Now what we have here is a problem because we have proven physics which Einstein said
would never be overthrown, which Isaac Asimov said is the most powerful
generalization scientists have ever been able to make about the universe,
the laws of thermodynamics, and it says there's a natural tendency for everything
to go downhill toward greater disorder, greater increase of entropy, greater loss
of free energy.
It's irreversible and every test ever done has confirmed it.
That is going against something that has never been observed in the history of
science.
That these big changes species, order, class, violent kingdom,
could happen from nothing that then turned into something that then evolved.
When we're going to be scientific we ought to, whether it's philosophically likable
or not, we ought to let the scientific facts sit in judgment on the theory.
But they don't.
They let the theory sit in judgment on the facts.
And we gotta point out, hey, are you doing that?
Because that's not legitimate.
Now, of course, they do have an answer to the problem of the second law of
thermodynamics.
How do we get all this great increase in order?
Well, it's because the Earth is an open system.
You see, the second law, they claim, is defined in the terms of an isolated
system without any energy or matter entering it.
And in such an isolated system, yes, the entropy must also always
increase.
The disorganization must always increase over time.
But it so happens that the Earth is an exception because it is open to the energy
from the sun, and this influx of solar energy is more than sufficient to overcome
the degenerative effect of the second law and allow enormous complexity to build up
over billions of years.
Sounds like a good story, but it doesn't really work.
There we go.
It actually worked.
Now, I quote here the Harvard scientist, or at least he was a scientist at Harvard
when he wrote this for Chemical and Engineering News back in the 80s.
He said, ordinarily, the second law is stated for isolated systems, but the
second law applies equally well to open systems.
Now, think about that.
Is that true?
Obviously, it's true.
Obviously, where did we test and prove the physical law known as the second law of
thermodynamics?
Did we test it here on Earth?
Well, then how did we prove it?
After all, it doesn't apply on Earth.
Earth is an open system.
Obviously, just because energy is available doesn't negate the function of
the second law.
We test it here.
We prove it here.
Obviously, things rot, rust, and corrode, and corrupt, and everything is going
downhill in spite of the fact that we live in an open system.
This a child could understand.
It doesn't matter if the system is open.
The question is, what is it open to?
And if it's only open to raw energy, you're still going to get degeneration
over time.
Now, if all we needed was the sun's energy, as they claim, to get a system
more complex than any machine man has ever created, a living, autonomous,
self-reproducing cell, far more complex than any machine we've ever made,
then we ought to be able to do a lot of things a lot easier.
Why expend the energy?
You know, if we want to get water to flow uphill, liquid water to flow uphill,
can we just say, well, the sun's energy is there, and that energy is sufficient to
push it uphill?
The answer to that question is, well, yes and no.
The energy is there, but unless it's harnessed and directed, that water will
still flow downhill.
You can watch it for millions of years if you want, if you can live that long,
it will always flow downhill because the law of gravity dictates it.
But the law can be overcome, not made to disappear, but overcome if you have a
solar-powered pump that converts the solar energy into electrical energy,
which then runs an electric pump, and then with plumbing, it pushes water
uphill against the force of gravity.
Energy is necessary to do that, but it's not sufficient in and of itself.
Big difference between something being necessary and being sufficient.
In its raw state, it is completely inefficient and insufficient because it's
not converted to usable form and it's not specifically directed.
Now, say we want to get a standard three-bedroom house and garage.
We could dump all the building material out in an open field.
We can measure the sun's energy reaching the site.
We measure all this energy and we go, my goodness, after millions of years,
we've not only got enough energy to build this house, we could build all the cities
in the world.
Many times over.
Lots of energy.
But as we sit there for millions of years, you know what's going to happen?
It's going to rot and rust and corrode into dust.
Why?
Because of the second law.
It's not going to build itself a house.
Even though the energy is there, it's useless unless it can be harnessed
and specifically directed.
Now, say we have a solar-powered robot who's got solar cells on his body that
convert solar energy into electrical energy.
He has a complex computer that can read a blueprint and he thus is able to convert
solar energy into useful kinetic energy.
He reads the blueprint, the directing program, and he takes the random building
materials and he builds the house according to the specification of the
blueprint.
Then you can cause these random building materials to become a more complex
structure, a house.
However, in a real sense, you don't have any more complexity there than what you
started with.
Is the house more complex than the blueprint from which it was made?
Arguably not, because all that specification, all that information is in
the blueprint.
All this did was put it in physical form, but it's the same information.
The question is, where does that information come from that allows you to
overcome the second law through a system that can convert energy and specifically
direct it to build up complexity?
Well, on the Earth, living organisms can do this.
Photosynthesis converts solar energy into chemical energy.
Take a little seed, it can grow into a huge redwood tree because it meets the
criteria.
Energy conversion and directing program with the DNA blueprint.
Now here we have a souped up Mustang with over 2,000 horsepower engine,
counter-rotating props, the kind you find in the Reno Air Races.
I'd love to take a ride in one of these, because it's got all the necessary
criteria.
But one thing I wouldn't want to do is take a ride in one of these.
If my friend said, Tom, I've got an airplane and it's on this slope,
and just jump in and we'll push it off the cliff and we'll fly, I'd say, wait a
minute.
We've got five minutes?
Is that what you're saying?
Yes, okay.
We're running out of time here.
We've got to go fast.
I would say no because you don't have all the criteria.
You have a fuselage, you have an engine with 2,000 horsepower that can rev like
crazy, but you can't convert that raw energy into thrust, because you have no
propeller to convert the energy.
You have no wings for aerodynamic lift, allowing you to overcome the law of
gravity through the law of aerodynamics.
You have part of the criteria, but you don't have enough.
And I'm not going to fly in that airplane.
The evolutionists are trying to take us on a ride, saying that we can overcome the
second law without meeting all the criteria.
Now, worse yet, of course, is that on the primitive Earth, ultraviolet light,
as Brother Riddle pointed out, would be destructive not only of single
cells, which you would kill in less than one-third of one second, it breaks the
chemical bonds and destroys DNA, RNA, ribosomes and proteins, the necessary
macromolecules of life.
If you lay out in the sun too long, you'll find out it's not good for you.
Even with filtration by ozone, you get terrible skin sunburns and skin
cancer.
So I tell you, don't do that.
Here, the sun is the savior.
The sun makes the impossible inevitable, and yet on the primitive Earth,
the sun is the villain.
Without ozone, that raw energy like the bull in the china shop would destroy the
chemical building blocks of life.
How can it be that an open system is the answer when actually it would destroy any
possibility for a naturalistic origin of life?
Even George Gaylord Simpson, one of the most rabid evolutionists of the 20th
century, he admitted the simple expenditure of energy is not sufficient to
develop and maintain order.
A bull in a china shop performs work, amen, but he neither creates nor maintains
organization.
The work needed is particular work, not just rampaging and breaking all the
china.
It must follow specifications, ah, information, a blueprint.
It requires information on how to proceed.
So we have four essential criteria that must be met in order to overcome the
second law and produce any significant amount of increase of complexity.
What are they?
Number one, the system must be open to the environment.
We agree with the evolutionists on that.
Number two, an adequate influx of energy must be available.
We agree about that.
Number three, the system must possess an energy conversion mechanism, like
photosynthesis in plant life, or metabolic energy conversion systems and other life
forms, to convert harmful raw energy, in this case solar energy, into a useful
form of chemical energy.
And fourthly, a directing program, a blueprint or genetic code, must exist to
control the conversion machinery and to direct the converted energy into the
creation and maintenance of complexity.
Nowhere in this observed universe have we seen the second law overcome, or
complexity to build up on any significant scale unless all four criteria are met.
But here we have a problem.
With the Big Bang, the primordial egg that popped out of nothing into something and
then exploded, that is the ultimate isolated system.
There isn't any other matter or energy outside of it to come into the system.
Their own definition, they agree, in an isolated system everything must go
in the direction of greater entropy.
How can you have an explosion which increases entropy and then it coalesces
into a very complex, far more complex universe than that little thing you
started with?
You can't have that because it violates the second law, even according to their
own definition.
I've used this in debates for decades.
The evolutionists never have an answer, other than they ignore it, usually ignore
it in the rebuttal period as if it didn't exist.
For the origin of life, the last two criteria are absent.
You do have an open system, you do have an influx of energy, but you don't have an
energy conversion system because you don't have photosynthesis or metabolism,
very complex chemical systems, and you don't have a blueprint,
DNA.
In fact, the sun's energy would destroy any of those things in an open system
under those situations.
So, the evolutionist Charles J.
Smith, he points out this explanation.
An open system, however, is not completely satisfying because it still leaves the
problem of how or why the ordering process has arisen, an apparent lowering of the
entropy.
A number of scientists have wrestled with this issue.
Bertallenfee, clear back in 1968, called the relation between irreversible
thermodynamics and information theory one of the most fundamental unsolved problems
in biology.
Well, I've got news for them.
It's still unsolved.
They have never given an adequate answer to this lethal contradiction.
Now, some claim that Ilya Prigozhin in 1977 got the Nobel Prize for solving this
problem.
That is demonstrably false.
For one thing, he never claimed he did.
He was surprised he got the prize.
He said he'd never worked in a laboratory for years prior to receiving it,
and what you can prove in a laboratory is real science.
But notice Ilya Prigozhin received the Nobel Prize in Chemistry for using
thermodynamics in the words of the Nobel Citation Committee to, quote, bridge the
gap that exists between the biological and social scientific fields of inquiry.
Whatever in the Sam Hill that means, I'm not sure.
But, I know this much, it doesn't say he solved the problem for the second law of
thermodynamics, poses for naturalistic origin of the first living cell.
They never said he did.
He never said he did.
In fact, the boldest statement we can find Prigozhin making is this.
What was the role of dissipative structures in evolution?
It is very tempting to speculate.
Alright, that prebiotic evolution corresponds essentially to a succession of
instabilities leading to an increasing level of complexity.
End of quote.
Since when has being tempted to speculate merited the Nobel Prize?
You know, I'm tempted to speculate all the time.
I wish they'd give me one.
I'd like to have it.
In fact, I'm more than tempted, I do speculate.
And I speculate that this speculation is not worth speculating about.
Okay?
But the point is being tempted to speculate doesn't cut it.
He never proved it in the laboratory.
He used incredible, just utterly incredible assumptions in his model.
And he said, well, the math works.
Yeah, but you have to understand it's the assumptions, not the math that determines
whether it's true.
If I assumed that a man could carry a million pounds on his back and I assumed
that with that burden he could run at a speed of one mile per second, my math
would correctly compute such a man could transport a burden of a million pounds
over a distance of ten miles in ten seconds.
Anything wrong with my math?
No.
What's wrong is the assumptions are blatantly unscientific and absurd.
Never have we seen a man able to do that.
And to assume it without scientific proof is just speculation.
It doesn't matter what the math says.
Shattering the crystal illusion, we got to go quick here.
Some say, well, desperate to have some physical example in the real world.
They say, well, crystal formation shows a violation of the second law.
No, it doesn't.
What happens is because the valency or bonding of these atoms as it loses energy,
actually you have less free energy in the crystal than the solution from which it
forms.
It proceeds, crystal growth proceeds with a decrease in free energy.
Thus rather than being a violation of the second law, it's actually an example of
the second law in action.
It proceeds with a loss of free energy.
It produces repeating structures that carry little or no information,
like this.
ABC, ABC, ABC, ABC, ABC.
Well, there's order there, but there's not real information.
Life is characterized by information.
Information like this.
This sequence of alphabet letters carries a message, not just short repeating
sequences like a crystal.
Even the eminent evolutionist scientist and chemist Peter T.
Mora, he said, and I quote, crystallization occurs because it leads to
the lowest energy state and to the most stable arrangement of atoms or molecules
under the given conditions because of valency.
Crystallization leads to simple, very uniform repeating structures which
are inert.
These structures do not function and are not designed by function.
They're about as dead as inanimate matter can be.
They have not the free energy or the information required for biological
macromolecules like DNA, RNA, ribosomes, and proteins.
It's the worst analogy one could use for overcoming the second law.
Even Ilya Prigogine, whom they love to quote, admitted this.
He didn't try to say crystals give an answer.
He said dissipative structures, which he never proved.
But he said, unfortunately, this principle of crystal formation cannot explain the
formation of biological structures.
The probability that in ordinary temperatures, a macroscopic number of
molecules is assembled to give rise to the highly ordered structures and to the
coordinated functions characterizing living organisms is vanishingly small.
Or in other words, less than 10 to the 50th power or 10 to the 100th power,
which is a Google, not the one on the Internet.
Now, in utter desperation, some evolutionists have said, hurricanes and
tornadoes show violation of the second law of thermodynamics.
Why?
Because there's order there.
Look at the beautiful design of the whirlpool.
Look at the beautiful design of the tornado.
Yeah, and look at what it does when it contacts anything.
Ask the people in Florida how much better things are after a hurricane passes
through.
It reminds me of the famous quote by Sir Fred Hoyle.
He said, the idea that evolution would work by these random processes is
analogous to a tornado running through a junk yard and assembling a 747 from the
junk.
In flight, fully fueled, and going.
Boy, boy, need to be put out of business if we could do that.
But, it never happens.
What has happened here is that raw solar energy interacting with the atmosphere has
produced another form of raw energy that has order but not complexity, not
linguistic complexity, and if it tangles with anything it destroys complexity.
Like the rampaging bull in the china shop.
It is not a solution.
So, in conclusion, if you could figure this out, you are brilliant.
You are more astute and intelligent than many of our physicists today who are
blinded by their philosophy and cannot see the simple argument.
If we have a bunch of random automobile parts, and we want to get a Cadillac,
you put them in front of a factory, you supply the energy, it goes through the
factory, the workmen read the blueprint, the robots follow the specifications,
and you get beautiful Cadillacs at the end.
Increase from random parts to Cadillacs.
If we have random chemicals, life has the energy conversion systems and blueprint to
take those random chemicals and make replicas of itself, exceedingly complex
systems, but it meets the criteria.
On the primitive earth, you might have some random chemicals, very few,
never have we produced all the ones that are necessary, but raw solar energy would
produce greater randomness because it destroys them.
Like the bull in the china shop.
You can't convert it to usable form, you can't specifically direct it.
Without that, without those criteria, a naturalistic origin of life is utterly
excluded by the proven second law of thermodynamics.
In conclusion, I quote the famous scientist Sir Arthur Eddington,
he said if your theory is found to be against the second law of thermodynamics,
I can give you no hope.
There is nothing for it but to collapse in deepest humiliation.
End of quote.
That would be my concurrence in that regard.
Romans 1.20 says For ever since the creation of the world, his invisible
nature and attributes, that is his eternal power and divinity, have been made
intelligible and clearly discernible in and through the things that have been
made, his handiwork so men are without excuse, altogether without any defense or
justification.
I think that's self-explanatory.