Something from Nothing

By Curtis Peter Van Gorder

While visiting my dad for his 85th birthday, we watched some of our old family movies. It was funny to see my brother as a one-year-old, crawling around, playing with the puppies, and eating from the dog's food dish. To think that this cute little baby would grow up to be a distinguished college professor and international lecturer! It got me thinking about how God makes special people out of nobodies. We come into this world naked and helpless, and God transforms us into the unique people we each are through our experiences and choices.

It's been said that God delights in making something out of nothing, and I believe it. In fact, I believe that God made everything out of nothing. The Nobel Prize-winning physicist Dr. Arno Penzias seems to agree. He put it this way: "The best data we have [about the formation of the universe] are exactly what I would have predicted had I had nothing to go on but the five books of Moses, the Psalms, the Bible as a whole. It was a moment of discrete [individually distinct] creation from nothing!"

Skeptics ask, "How could the universe have been created from nothing? The laws of science say that nothing can ever be created or destroyed—only rearranged. In our physical world, you have to have something to start with." Perhaps the clearest and most compelling answer I've found to that argument is put forth by James Perloff in Tornado in a Junkyard:[1]

"The most widely accepted theory of the universe's origin says that, at one time, all mass and energy were compressed in a tiny 'cosmic egg.' Then, about fifteen billion years ago, the egg exploded, creating the universe in the Big Bang. …

"But the Big Bang itself violates natural law. The laws of physics state that matter and energy can neither be created nor destroyed. This is the First Law of Thermodynamics, the law of conservation of energy. As the well-known physicist Paul Davies wrote in his book The Edge of Infinity, the Big Bang 'represents the instantaneous suspension of physical laws, the sudden, abrupt flash of lawlessness that allowed something to come out of nothing. It represents a true miracle—transcending physical principles.'[2]

"If one allows for an event beyond natural law—a 'true miracle,' as Davies put it—then it is logically inconsistent to exclude other events, such as creation by God. If there was a 'cosmic egg,' who put it there? The cosmic chicken? Scientists have always agreed that there is a cause for every effect. How then can the greatest effect of all—the universe itself—have arisen without a cause?"

That cause, I believe, was God's command. God spoke and—BANG!—the universe was created.

Curtis Peter Van Gorder is a member of the Family International in the Middle East.

Leap of Faith

I think people who believe that life emerged naturalistically need to have a great deal more faith than people who reasonably infer that there's an intelligent designer.—Origin-of-life expert Walter Bradley[1]

The creation of the universe is supported by all the observable data astronomy has produced so far. As a result, the people who reject the data can arguably be described as having a "religious" belief. That is, people who refuse to consider the evidence because it conflicts with their preconceived ideas are following a "dogma" in the most stubborn sense of the word.—Physicist and Nobel laureate Arno Penzias[2]

What's important to understand is how reversed the situation is from, say, a hundred years ago. Back then, Christians had to maintain by faith in the Bible that despite all appearances to the contrary, the universe was not eternal but was created out of nothing a finite time ago. Now, the situation is exactly the opposite. It is the atheist who has to maintain, by faith, that the universe did not have a beginning a finite time ago but is in some inexplicable way eternal after all. The Christian can stand confidently within biblical truth, knowing it's in line with mainstream astrophysics and cosmology.—Philosopher William Lane Craig[3]

There is a kind of religion in science; it is the religion of a person who believes there is order and harmony in the universe. Every event can be explained in a rational way as the product of some previous event; every effect must have its cause; there is no First Cause. … 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.—Astronomer, physicist, and cosmologist Robert Jastrow[4]

It's been said that science is the study of proving the existence of God, and it's true. Science is continually digging deeper and deeper into the wonders of God's creation to find what marvels are there, but then they must ask themselves, "Who made it? How did this ever come to be?" And any honest scientist will acknowledge that it couldn't possibly have happened by chance, that creation had to be the work of an intelligent designer.—David Brandt Berg[5]

1 Quoted in Lee Strobel, The Case for Faith (Grand Rapids, Mi.: Zondervan, 2000), 108.
2 Quoted in Chuck Colson, "A Big Brain Interprets the Big Bang," Breakpoint, May 9, 2003; available at: http://www.breakpoint.org/listingarticle.asp?ID=5512 (accessed September 21, 2006).
3 Quoted in Lee Strobel, The Case for a Creator (Grand Rapids, Mi.: Zondervan, 2004), 120.
4 Robert Jastrow, God and the Astronomers (New York: W.W. Norton, second edition, 1992), 105, 116.
5 David Brandt Berg (1919-1994) was the founder of the Family International.

It's What You Choose to Believe

How did the universe and all that is in it come into existence? Did some inexplicable event set off the process or was it the work of an intelligent designer?

The two sides of the debate

True science is based on what is known as the "scientific method," by which knowledge is advanced by formulating a question, collecting data about it through observation and experiment, and testing a hypothetical answer. Only after such experimentation has proven a scientific theory to be true by producing observable and repeatable results does the theory move into the realm of scientific fact.

Atheistic and materialistic science proposes two major theories for our origins. First the big bang theory to explain how the universe came into existence, and then evolution for how life began.

More and more evidence is being uncovered that indicates the universe and all that is in it was the work of an intelligent designer, not chance. The truth is that the theories of the big bang and evolution are not as factual and convincing as their proponents pretend.

Because neither of these theories nor the belief in the Creation being wrought by God can be observed or repeated under observable experimental conditions, they are all belief systems that remain within the realm of faith. It comes down to what—and whom—you choose to believe.

Scientific laws that big bang/evolution defy

When something is a law of science, it means that it is an unchanging principle of nature. It is a scientifically observable phenomenon that has been subjected to extensive measurements and experimentation and has repeatedly proved to be invariable throughout the known universe (e.g., the law of universal gravitation and the laws of motion).

A scientific law that is defied by the big bang theory is the law of the conservation of angular momentum. This law states that if an object is spinning and part of that object detaches and flies off, the part that flies off will spin in the same direction as the object it detached from.

The big bang theory goes through constant revision as new data is interjected into the equation, but in essence it states that the universe began from a furiously spinning, infinitesimally small but immensely dense dot. The dot exploded in the "the big bang" that threw out matter that expanded into all the astral bodies that comprise the universe, which is still expanding.

It is true that the planets are observed to be spinning, but according to the law of the conservation of angular momentum, if all the planets spun off from the same original object, then they would all be spinning in the same direction. Even an examination of our own solar system shows that Venus and Uranus spin in the opposite direction than the rest of the planets do. This evidence alone disproves the big bang theory.

One of the laws of physics is termed the second law of thermodynamics. This law observes the fact that the usable energy in the universe is diminishing. Ultimately, there would be no available energy left. Stemming from this fact we find that the most probable state for any natural system is one of disorder. All natural systems degenerate when left to themselves.

Famed scientist, science fiction writer, and big bang/evolutionary proponent Isaac Asimov put it this way:

Another way of stating the second law then is, "The universe is constantly getting more disorderly." Viewed that way we can see the second law all about us. We have to work hard to straighten a room, but left to itself it becomes a mess again very quickly and very easily. Even if we never enter it, it becomes dusty and musty. How difficult to maintain houses, and machinery, and our own bodies in perfect working order; how easy to let them deteriorate. In fact, all we have to do is nothing, and everything deteriorates, collapses, breaks down, wears out, all by itself—and that is what the second law is all about.

But the crux of evolutionary theory is that things are gaining in complexity, simple life forms giving rise to more sophisticated ones, disorder giving rise to order. This flies in the face of the second law of thermodynamics. On this point alone the theory of evolution would have to be disallowed.

Evolutionists counter this argument by claiming that an energy source can reverse the second law. For example, an outside energy force such as a housekeeper can tidy a disorderly room. They point to the sun as the outside source of energy, and say over billions of years the sun's energy would be like the busy housekeeper. Simple observation, however, would show that energy from the sun alone is not capable of creating life from something with no life, or complexity from simplicity.

Consider the sun shining on two seedlings: the one alive, the other dead. When equal amounts of water and nutrients are added to both, the live plant flourishes but the dead one decays. Energy from the sun is not enough to give rise to life. And as for the dead plant, it rots and disintegrates in accordance with the second law of thermodynamics.

Just for fun

God is sitting in Heaven when a scientist says to Him, "God, we don't need You anymore. Science has finally figured out a way to create life out of nothing. In other words, we can now do what You did in the beginning."

"Oh, is that so? Tell Me," God replies.

"Well," says the scientist, "we can take plain dirt, form it into the likeness of You, and breathe life into it, thus creating man."

"That's very interesting. Show Me," says God.

So the scientist bends down to the earth and starts to mold the soil into the shape of a man.

"No, no!" interrupts God. "Get your own dirt."

Irreducibility

The theory of evolution postulates that small, incremental, beneficial steps propel the evolutionary process forward. It is much like a device where only one component of that device is modified at a time, so as to improve the efficiency of the device in some way, while at the same time allowing the device to remain functioning without any other modifications. Once the device has settled into the fact that it now has an improved component, it then "sees" the benefit of upgrading another one. The point is that it takes these steps one at a time, sees how good that step is, and then takes another step. The device must both continue to function and improve its functionality.

But what if the upgrade requires more than one improvement at a time? Evolutionary theory cannot accommodate this. The improvement must be one step at a time, and if a component doesn't offer an advantage to an organism (i.e., it doesn't function), it will be lost or discarded. Are there devices occurring in nature that therefore cannot be explained by evolution? Indeed there are many, but it only takes one to disprove the theory.

We will choose one which everyone will be familiar with—the amazing human knee joint. The knee joint is unique in our bodies. It is quite unlike the ball and socket joints of our hips or shoulders and the pivot joint of our elbows. Although those are all marvels of engineering, the knee is truly exceptional. It consists of several elements, but the critical design parts are (a) the two condyles of the femur bone that rotate in (b) the matching concave grooves of the tibia, and (c and d) the two cruciate ligaments (so called because they cross over each other) that fit in the space between the condyles.

If a structure is so complex that all of its parts must initially be present in a suitably functioning manner, it is said to be irreducibly complex. The knee joint is irreducible; all four of these parts must be present for the knee to work. (The knee has other parts, but these four are essential to each other for them to function in the way they do.) Any one, two, or three of them on their own would not perform any useful function. They are all unique to the knee.

Therefore it is impossible for the knee to evolve from a simpler joint like the hip or the elbow, according to the theory of evolution. How such a device could have evolved in a gradual, step-by-step process as required by classic Darwinian evolution is an insurmountable obstacle to evolutionists.[]

Scientist sees design

The laws of nature seem to have been carefully arranged so that they can be discovered by beings with our level of intelligence. That not only fits the idea of design, but it also suggests a providential purpose for humankind—that is, to learn about our habitat and to develop science and technology.—Physicist Robin Collins, quoted in: Lee Strobel, The Case for a Creator (Grand Rapids, Mi.: Zondervan, 2004), 147.

A matter of faith

Neither Creation nor big bang/evolution can be conclusively proven by scientific methods. So whether you choose to believe in Creation or big bang/evolution, it takes faith. And for faith to be sustained and grow, it must eventually be rewarded with some evidence, however small. Here is where creationists—and Christians in particular—are at a distinct advantage. Proponents of atheistic theories have their faith bolstered every time a new discovery is made that seems to support them, only to have their faith shaken when that new "evidence" is proven scientifically unsound. Creationists, on the other hand, have their faith rewarded every day. From the synchronization of the cosmos to the wonders of nature and the intricacies of the DNA molecule, everything points to the hand of an intelligent designer behind this universe of ours.

And that's not all. Those who have made a personal direct connection with the Designer through His Son, Jesus Christ, can experience His loving presence. Through the answers we receive to our prayers and through the truth and freedom He reveals to us through His Word, our faith is continually rewarded and strengthened. Just as truly loving human relationships engender faith and trust between the parties, all that we receive from God helps us to trust Him and take Him at His word. Because the other things He tells us in the Bible ring true, we are able to view the Genesis account of Creation from a position of faith—not the faith of a gullible simpleton, but that of a thinking, sensible person who bases his or her decision on the character of a close and trusted friend who is the author of the account.

If you don't yet know the Creator but would like to, you can start now by accepting Jesus as your Savior and inviting Him into your life. Simply pray:

Jesus, I want to know You personally, so I invite You to come into my heart. Thank You for dying for me that my sins may be forgiven and so I can have the gift of eternal life in the world to come. Amen.

"It's What You Choose to Believe" is adapted from Evolution, Fact or Fable?; Richard Johnston (Aurora Production AG, Switzerland, 2002).

1 Stuart Burgess, "Critical Characteristics and the Irreducible Knee Joint," Creation Ex Nihilo Technical Journal, Vol. 13, No. 2, 1999.

Feeding Reading: God the Creator

From the books of Moses:

From the other Old Testament (O.T.) historical books:

From the O.T. poetical books:

From the O.T. prophetic books:

From the New Testament historical books:

From the epistles:

From the book of Revelation:

[end of articles]

Related Articles: The Miracle of Creation - New Ape Man - Take Me to Your Leader - Science Encounters Spirituality - Amazing Facts

Link to Activated Book: Evolution: Fact or Fable  [pdf file]