-
Recently Written
-
Menu & Categories
FREE CDs/Ebooks
-
Archives
-
Blogroll
- Apologetics Courses
- Apologetics Engine
- Apologetics Wiki
- Bible Survey
- Biblical Archeology
- Biblical Expositor
- Blog of Dysfunction
- Brethren Assembly
- Calvin School
- Christian Encyclopedia
- Free CDs
- IICET
- Indus School
- Integrated Apologetics
- Philip School
- Physics For You
- SBS India
- The Panacea
- Trinity School
-
Admin
Search
Subscribers Of ChristianThought Receive FREE CDs, Ebooks, etc
Subscribe to Journal Of Christian Thought And Receive FREE CDs Visit this group
Tuition-Free Accredited Theology Degrees
Quality Theology Distance Programs Are Only A Click Away. Tuition Free. All Textbooks Supplied Free Online
-
Feb
21
Does Nature Violate Its Laws
February 21, 2007 |
Does Nature Violate Its Laws By Dr. Johnson C. Philip
Books dealing with the Theory Of Evolution frequently state that “life” is a product of chance. They 
mean to say that life evolved on earth by the accidental combination of atoms in a “primordial soup”, (a collection of certain elements, in a liquid medium). But the story in its entirety is not a simple as they would seem you to believe.
The simple-looking statement that life has evolved by chance processes has many assumptions behind it, and each one of these assumptions must scientifically be true before the above statement can be accepted for consideration.
The following are a few of these assumptions:
- Chance and randomness always favour order over disorder.
- The ordered chemicals produced by randomness will be stable so that they can become the building-blocks for chemicals with higher order and arranged in more complex patterns.
- If matter is left to itself and randomly acting forces, it increases the order and complexity by change.
- Not all types of orders (say, chemical compounds) will help the evolution of life, and therefore randomness and chance will select those orders that are most suited to evolve life.
The First assumption: There are a large number of physical and chemical forces in this Universe, all acting randomly on the 92 elements found naturally. Whatever order comes out of this randomness, according to the first assumption, is the product of mere chance; they are forced
to assume this because the Theory Of Evolution does not accept either a plan or a planner behind the Universe.
If chance and randomness favour disorder over order, the accidentally produced orders (say, chemical compounds) will be destroyed faster than the speed with which they are produced. Thus no net order will result in case chance and randomness favour disorder. Since there is a good amount of order everywhere in the Universe, and since he thinks that all this is the result of chance the evolutionist assumes that chance and randomness necessarily favour order and not disorder.
We will examine this, and the other three assumptions too, very soon in relation to some well known laws of physics.
The Second Assumption: No structure can be built by unstable building-blocks. The more complex the structure, the higher must be the stability. This is why the second assumption says that the ordered systems produced by randomness and chance will be stable.
The Third assumption: The ordered systems (like chemical compounds) produced by chance will be very simple but a continuous increase in this order is necessary for the evolution of life.
According to the third assumption, therefore, randomness and mere chance must not only produce order, but also increase the complexity of the ordered systems that have been produced by them. Only chance must work to increase the degree of order, and the final product must be millions of times more ordered than the building-clocks. (e.g. a living cell is millions of times more ordered and complex compared to a water molecule).
The Fourth assumption: When randomly moving atoms combine to form ordered systems innumerable types of ordered systems will be produced. (e.g. Hydrogen and Oxygen can combine to form either water or hydrogen peroxide. Including carbon pushed this number to millions).
Negligibly few types of these orders (chemicals) will aid life while most of them will be detrimental to life. Therefore there comes the fourth assumption according to which chance and randomness will select those forms of orders which are most suited to evolve life.
Examination of The Assumptions
To examine these assumptions we must start by examining the general behaviour of matter under the influence of chance and randomly acting forces. Imagine a box filled with a large number of black and white balls. It is an excellent experimental device used to demonstrate the effect of chance and randomness over the order in the physical world. My physics professor Dr. K. G. Bansigir (not a Christian) used to explain the concepts of randomness, probability and entropy by using this model, and therefore I shall call it the Bansigir Box.
Originally we arrange all the black balls into lower layers and the white balls into upper layers. This produces a certain order inside the box. (Many types of such orders are possible in this system — say, black balls forming the left half and the white one the right half vertically). What would happen now if we give the box a slight jerk ? This jerk is a randomly acting force and it instantaneously destroys the order inside the Bansigir Box. This demonstrates that randomly acting forces produce disorder very fast.
Now let us keep the box shaking continually. The shaking is again a randomly acting force and therefore whatever happens inside the box is a result of chance. What happens if the box is continually shaken for an infinite period of time ? Do we obtain a stable order ?
According to the Mathematical Theory Of Probability, there will be one instant during a time span of millions of years when this order will return in the box; but since the shaking (randomly acting force) is continuing, this order is destroyed the next instant. After several millions of years this order will return once again, but it will be destroyed the next moment by the ongoing shaking. As long as the shaking (random force) continues this cyclic phenomenon will continue, but no permanent order will result.
In the light of these empirical (practical and experimental) observations of the Bansigir Box let us examine the four assumptions mentioned above.
The first assumption: The Bansigir Box shows that chance and randomly acting forces need millions of years to create order, but they destroy this order with in moments. Obviously, chance and randomly acting forces favour disorder and NOT order. Chance and randomly acting forces can produce a meaningful amount of order only if they favour order more than disorder. This is why evolutionists have to bring up the first assumption that “chance and randomly acting forces favour order more than disorder”.
But it is obvious to the students of physics and chemistry that the physical world behaves in its own rigidly fixed ways. Since the first assumption requires the physical world to violate its own fixed pattern of behaviour, and since the physical world does not violate these fixed laws, the first assumption above is absurd. No scientific logic can be based on absurdities, and so the objective thinker must reject the first assumption of the Theory Of Evolutions. Chance and randomness favour evolution of DISORDER not the evolution of order.
The Second Assumption: Once a ordered structure is formed, according to the Theory Of Evolution, it must grow in its complexity. For this to happen a stable order is needed. This is why the second assumption states that “order produced by chance and randomness will be stable”.
Stability will produce a higher probability for combining simple orders into more complex patterns of order.
But how does matter actually behave ? In the Bansigir Box we had noticed that orders will be formed if time-spans of millions of years is allowed but this order is not stable at all. Whatever order is obtained after waiting for millions of years is destroyed the next instant by the randomness itself.
There is however one possible method of producing a stable order. The instant the balls come to an ordered condition, an external observer must intervene and stop the shaking. But this is an intrusion in the affairs by an intelligent being who acts in a certain planned manner. Also, the stopping of shaking at the precise moment means that chance and randomness must stop acting on the order after they produce it.
Both of these conditions are contrary to the assumptions held by the evolutionists. According to them, whatever order is seen in the Universe is a product of mere chance and therefore there is no question of an intelligent being guiding the process. Also, according to the theory, chance and randomness are the builders of order and therefore the question of separating the builder (chance and randomness) does not arise at any state.
It is apparent that order will not be stable in the presence of randomness. But randomness cannot be done away with, and therefore the order produced by chance and randomness will not be stable. This is a basis property of the physical world. If even the simple orders will not be stable, more complex orders cannot evolve. If more complex orders cannot evolve then life will not evolve. But the evolutionists maintain that life has surely evolved the way they say. This means that the physical world has violated its unchangeable laws. This implies further that matter violated its rigidly fixed laws millions of times, and thus evolved life.
Sanity demands a reason and a proof for these untenable assumptions. If matter indeed violates its own laws, what are the examples or proofs for it ? If matter does not violate its own laws, why has it violated itself millions of times for the sake of the evolutionist ? It is incredible ! There is NO scientific basis for the assumption that “the order produced by the randomly acting forces will be stable”.
The Third Assumption: Even the simplest living cell is a highly ordered and complex arrangement of millions of molecules. Since the first ordered structures produced by randomness will be very simple, these must become millions of times more ordered and complex before life can evolve. Since randomness is the only builder here, the third assumption is that “randomly acting forces will produce an increase in the order”.
For an increase in order and complexity, simpler orders must be present in abundant quantities so that they may combine to form higher orders. Moreover, these simple orders must be highly stable so that they can be used to build complex patterns that will be stable. But we had seen earlier that even the most simple orders are not stable. They last for extremely short time-spans only after their formation. This means that the simple orders are destroyed so fast that they have no chance to combine and form more complex patterns. Hence there is no way in which matter can increase its complexity of arrangement when it is left to randomness.
The third assumption takes it for granted that a large number of suitable types of orders will be formed simultaneously and at the same place so that they can interact with each other to produce complex patterns. But it can be shown mathematically that the probability for such an event during the entire life-span of the earth (estimated by evolutionists to be 4.5 billion years) is nil.
It is clear once again that when matter is left to randomness, order and complexity do not increase. The orders are just not stable enough to produce any complex pattern. Thus if the matter does not violate its own laws then the third assumption of the evolutionists if false.
On the other hand if the evolutionists are true, than the matter does violate its own laws. This means that physics and chemistry (according to which the laws of matter cannot be violated) are false. Thus a person holding the evolutionary view either has very little appreciation for the laws of fundamental sciences, or he so much wants to defend the Theory Of Evolution that he has decided to be prejudiced.
Confesses Loren Eisley, a leading evolutionist: “With the failure of these many efforts, science was left in the somewhat embarrassing position of having to postulate theories of living origins which it could not demonstrate. After having chided the theologian for his reliance on myth and miracle, science found itself in the unenviable position of having to create a mythology of its own, namely, the assumption that what after long effort could not be proved to take place today had, in truth, taken place in the primeval past”.
The Fourth Assumption: In all our discussions up to now we have referred to “order” only in general terms. We must now distinguish between various categories of order. When matter arranges itself into ordered patterns, many different types of orders are possible, not all of which will favour the evolution of life.
For example, Hydrogen and Oxygen can combine to form either water or hydrogen peroxide, but out of these hydrogen peroxide is lethal to life. Thus one out of the two possible products in this case is harmful to life and only water is a product favourable to life. Of Carbon is also considered along with Oxygen and Hydrogen, the number of product runs into hundreds of thousands, most of which are unfavourable to life.
In the same way, whenever ordered patterns are formed a large proportion of them will be detrimental to the evolution of life. If, therefore, the random forces should give rise to life, there should be some agency that will be able to discriminate between those orders which will favour the evolution of life and those which will be harmful to the evolution. (Let us call them `favourable orders’ and `harmful orders’). Not only should this agency have the ability of such discrimination, but it should also be able to select the favourable orders so that the evolutionary process may progress upwards.
Since evolutionists maintain that the evolution of life is the result of mere chance, and randomness they have brought up the fourth assumption that “it is the chance and randomness which discriminate between the orders and select the favourable ones”.
The first fact we must note is that both chance and randomness are measurable physical entities with no powers of such discrimination as is imagined by the evolutionists. Chance and randomness function only within certain definite limits defined by the physics and mathematics of probability. According to these laws, chance will never favour an event simply because that event leads to some well-defined purpose. Showing such a favour (or selection) is completely opposite to the nature of chance.
Also, according to the laws, randomness is just the opposite of order and therefore randomness can never favour order as is demanded by the evolutionists. No question arises then of randomness `selecting’ the best order to evolve higher orders.
If chance and randomness, according to the physical laws, do not have discriminating powers and if they cannot favour order then how can we expect them not only to discriminate between favourable and harmful orders but also to select the most suitable orders ? The fourth assumption is diametrically opposite to a fundamental law of physics — the second law of thermodynamics. According to this law, matter always progresses from ordered to a disordered (random) condition. It says that the most disordered condition is the most stable state. It is the basic property of matter to go to the most stable (i.e. the most disordered) condition.
The fundamental sciences like physics and Chemistry exist solely because matter does not violate its own laws. But according to the fourth assumption of the evolutionists matter does violate even its most basic laws. But scientists know that randomly left matter works in such a way that they destroy even the most stable state and progress to an unstable state. According to the Theory Of Evolution, just the opposite has taken place. Moreover, if the evolutionists are true, this violation of law’s has occurred not just once or twice, but Billions upon Billions of times so that life could at last evolve.
What, allow me to ask, is the sanity behind such assumptions ? Why do educated people gulp down a theory which is contrary to all human knowledge. Let the evolutionists themselves answer this question. According to Aldous Huxley, a great popularizer of evolution,
“I had motives for not wanting the world to have meaning; consequently I assumed that is had none, and was able without any difficulty to find satisfying reasons for this assumption…. For myself, as, no doubt, for most of my contemporaries, the philosophy of meaninglessness was essentially an instrument of liberation. The liberation we desired was simultaneously liberation form a certain political and economic system and liberation from a certain system of morality. We objected to this morality because it interfered with our sexual freedom”.
Clearly, Huxley defended a hypothesis that was contrary to physical sciences with a definite motive: He did it not because it had proof in favour but rather to establish his conviction that the world is meaningless. He (and his contemporaries), in his own words, wanted to abolish morality so that they could get sexual freedom. Is this why a great thinker defended
evolutionism ? For promoting “sexual freedom” — which is often a euphemism for unbridled sexual activity. This is anything but science.
CONCLUSION: It is clear from foregoing discussions that order will not come out spontaneously out of disorder as demanded by the evolutionists. Their assumptions are antithetical to the second law of thermodynamics. Nature does not violate its own laws. Evolutionists still cling to their mythologies because they need some crutch to lean upon.
“Scientists who go about telling that evolution is a fact of life are great con men, and the story they are telling may be the greatest hoax ever. In explaining evolution we do not have one iota of fact”. (Dr. T.N. Tahisian, physiologist, Atomic Energy Commission, U.S.A.).
You Are Welcome To Use This Article For Any Purpose Whatsoever With The Following Credit: Used With Permission Of http://www.IntegratedApologetics.Com
Dr. Johnson C. Philip is a Christian Apologist based in Ernakulam. He received the degree of Th.D. in Apologetics in 1984 and Ph.D. in Physics (Quantum-Nuclear Physics) in 1991. He was awarded the DSc in Alternative Medicines in 2003 and DNYS in 2004. So far [By 2005]he has authored more than 2500 popular articles and research papers and more than 50 books in the fields of physics, communication, apologetics, and theology. This includes many Indian “firsts” like a Systematic Theology and a 4-volume Bible Encyclopaedia, both in the Malayalam language. He is a voting member of numerous professional societies including: Creation Research Society, American Scientific Affiliation, The Society Of Christian Philosophers, Indian Physics Association, etc. He is a founder and life member of the Indian Association Of Physics Teachers.
Comments
6 Comments so far
-
Endorsed Sites
Tuition-Free Accredited Theology Degrees
Quality Theology Distance Programs Are Only A Click Away. Tuition Free. All Textbooks Supplied Free Online
Bible & Science I
Bible & Science II
Dating Methods In Archeology
John The Baptist & Archeology
Open Theism
Doctrine Of Trinity
Introduction To Apologetics
Branches Of Apologetics
Historical Apologetics
Reliability Of The Canon
Revelation And The Pagans
Tools Of Apologetics: Intro
Preparton To Become Apologist
What Is Proof
Errors of Interpretation
Bible Difficulties
Scientific Truth ?
Propaganda: An Analysis
Mind Manipulation: An Analysis
Resisting Mind Manipulation
Logic And Fallacies
Debating Techniques
Responding To Debates
Leading Questions
How To Use Apologetics
FREE CDs/Ebooks
|
|
| Subscribe to Journal Of Christian Thought And Receive FREE CDs |
| Visit this group |
I was delighted to read the article. Very good. Can you link my site in your site and please send your links to me so that I can link them in my site too.
With regards
John T. Eapen
Excellent article!
Kindly visit
thank you Bod bless you
Incredibly articulate and comprehensive article. Thank you, Dr. Philip!
In support to this article I would like to draw your attention to the following thoughts. Why can’t we give the options to the authors to use God or Creator instead of nature in scientific publications? http://www.scientificblogging.com/thoughts/jteapen