I happened to come across a
religious article recently. Quite a heated debate it sparked; nothing new though.
However, it is interesting to note that despite living in the twenty first
century Man still holds the thinking that matter everywhere tends from a state
of high energy and stability to one of low energy and chaos except in biology.
That is interesting because the last time Steve jumped off a tree, shouting “Superman”,
he landed on the ground, quite badly and had to make use of crutches for a
while. The fact is simple, gravity is a ‘female dog’!
The above – not Steve’s
attempt at flying – is the famous second law of thermodynamics. This phenomenon
is better known as entropy. That alone is responsible for a large part of the
reason people renovate their house every few years and cars that need servicing.
It is with this seemingly little known fact in mind that I ask the question how
does life, made up of matter, evolve to ever higher forms of complexity. We can
make references to biogenesis and other branches of biological science that
apparently support evolution. The fact however remains, for as long as man has
been alive dogs have given birth to dogs and apes have lived and bred without exhibiting
any visible evidence of macro-evolution. We may insist on calling ourselves
homo-sapien-sapiens but we cannot tell the difference between modern man and
homo-sapiens from fifty years ago.
I would like to further make
the assertion that it takes a very brave man, maybe even a foolish one, to deny
the fact of micro-evolution. Species adapt to their surroundings to survive. However,
can any one man submit material evidence of an observed and complete alteration
of an entire animal species? We’ve heard enough of the atheist’s muttering that
there is no God. And that is fine; God is democratic – that bit in his word
about freewill. So in a sense He’s allowed us the freedom and opportunity to
call Him a human invention. So let the atheists raise his glass in a toast to
his belief. It is however, not without consequence and Christians need not feel
bad about this. God has made his own determination that “the fool says in his
mind there is no god”.
The following extract makes the
point rather well:
The implications of the Second
Law of Thermodynamics are considerable. The universe is constantly losing
usable energy and never gaining. We logically conclude the universe is not
eternal. The universe had a finite beginning -- the moment at which it was at
"zero entropy" (its most ordered possible state). Like a wind-up
clock, the universe is winding down, as if at one point it was fully wound up
and has been winding down ever since. The question is who wound up the clock?
The theological
implications are obvious. NASA Astronomer Robert Jastrow commented on these
implications when he said, "Theologians generally are delighted with the
proof that the universe had a beginning, but astronomers are curiously upset.
It turns out that the scientist behaves the way the rest of us do when our
beliefs are in conflict with the evidence." (Robert Jastrow, God and the Astronomers, 1978, p. 16.)
Jastrow went on to
say, "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." (God and the
Astronomers, p. 116.) It seems the Cosmic Egg that was the birth of our
universe logically requires a Cosmic Chicken...
Source: www.allaboutscience.org/second-law-of-thermodynamics.htm actually
The acceptance of evolution
requires the existence of a god type entity to enable the upward mutation of
genetic material towards higher forms of complexity, if the second law of
thermodynamics is to be violated. If not, we are faced with a question that
scientists have yet to answer, how does biology violate a law that no other
branch of science has managed to violate? Furthermore, we have to give consideration
to the implications of the absence of a god type entity in the formation of the
Earth and the wider macrocosm. Truth be told, the universe is a vast and
substantial delicate experiment whose complexity does not allow room for
chance. If not, then chance/evolution must be very intelligent and should in
the final analysis turn out to be a type of god as well.
As a parting shot I would like
to pose the following question. Why hasn’t man evolved wings? After all, we
have a very strong and pressing need to cover vast distances and avoid traffic.
Now that would be great of Chance/Evolution if he could, in his kindness, grant
us that ability. Then we would willingly all throw our bibles away and proclaim
the genius of atheism.Of God, atheists and believers
I happened to come across a
religious article recently. Quite a heated debate it sparked; nothing new though.
However, it is interesting to note that despite living in the twenty first
century Man still holds the thinking that matter everywhere tends from a state
of high energy and stability to one of low energy and chaos except in biology.
That is interesting because the last time Steve jumped off a tree, shouting “Superman”,
he landed on the ground, quite badly and had to make use of crutches for a
while. The fact is simple, gravity is a ‘female dog’!
The above – not Steve’s
attempt at flying – is the famous second law of thermodynamics. This phenomenon
is better known as entropy. That alone is responsible for a large part of the
reason people renovate their house every few years and cars that need servicing.
It is with this seemingly little known fact in mind that I ask the question how
does life, made up of matter, evolve to ever higher forms of complexity. We can
make references to biogenesis and other branches of biological science that
apparently support evolution. The fact however remains, for as long as man has
been alive dogs have given birth to dogs and apes have lived and bred without exhibiting
any visible evidence of macro-evolution. We may insist on calling ourselves
homo-sapien-sapiens but we cannot tell the difference between modern man and
homo-sapiens from fifty years ago.
I would like to further make
the assertion that it takes a very brave man, maybe even a foolish one, to deny
the fact of micro-evolution. Species adapt to their surroundings to survive. However,
can any one man submit material evidence of an observed and complete alteration
of an entire animal species? We’ve heard enough of the atheist’s muttering that
there is no God. And that is fine; God is democratic – that bit in his word
about freewill. So in a sense He’s allowed us the freedom and opportunity to
call Him a human invention. So let the atheists raise his glass in a toast to
his belief. It is however, not without consequence and Christians need not feel
bad about this. God has made his own determination that “the fool says in his
mind there is no god”.
The following extract makes the
point rather well:
The implications of the Second
Law of Thermodynamics are considerable. The universe is constantly losing
usable energy and never gaining. We logically conclude the universe is not
eternal. The universe had a finite beginning -- the moment at which it was at
"zero entropy" (its most ordered possible state). Like a wind-up
clock, the universe is winding down, as if at one point it was fully wound up
and has been winding down ever since. The question is who wound up the clock?
The theological
implications are obvious. NASA Astronomer Robert Jastrow commented on these
implications when he said, "Theologians generally are delighted with the
proof that the universe had a beginning, but astronomers are curiously upset.
It turns out that the scientist behaves the way the rest of us do when our
beliefs are in conflict with the evidence." (Robert Jastrow, God and the Astronomers, 1978, p. 16.)
Jastrow went on to
say, "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." (God and the
Astronomers, p. 116.) It seems the Cosmic Egg that was the birth of our
universe logically requires a Cosmic Chicken...
Source: www.allaboutscience.org/second-law-of-thermodynamics.htm actually
The acceptance of evolution
requires the existence of a god type entity to enable the upward mutation of
genetic material towards higher forms of complexity, if the second law of
thermodynamics is to be violated. If not, we are faced with a question that
scientists have yet to answer, how does biology violate a law that no other
branch of science has managed to violate? Furthermore, we have to give consideration
to the implications of the absence of a god type entity in the formation of the
Earth and the wider macrocosm. Truth be told, the universe is a vast and
substantial delicate experiment whose complexity does not allow room for
chance. If not, then chance/evolution must be very intelligent and should in
the final analysis turn out to be a type of god as well.
As a parting shot I would like
to pose the following question. Why hasn’t man evolved wings? After all, we
have a very strong and pressing need to cover vast distances and avoid traffic.
Now that would be great of Chance/Evolution if he could, in his kindness, grant
us that ability. Then we would willingly all throw our bibles away and proclaim
the genius of atheism.
Disclaimer: All articles and letters published on MyNews24 have been independently written by members of News24's community. The views of users published on News24 are therefore their own and do not necessarily represent the views of News24. News24 editors also reserve the right to edit or delete any and all comments received.