Opposing the big bang theory 6/11/13
Sir,
Davina Owen (Letter, 31/10/13) asks me to show the scientific evidence for biblical creation.
When it comes to the subject of origins it is essential that we realise that science cannot prove how things began: we are dealing with something which by definition is not observable, testable or repeatable. What scientists can do is study the universe and its contents as they are now, establish certain facts from their observations and ask which of the competing theories of origins is the most consistent with those facts.
The theory of evolution maintains that the universe began with a 'big bang' producing various gases out of which the galaxies formed themselves, including our own solar system. Eventually microscopic life appeared on earth and via countless random mutations over millions of years it evolved by natural selection into all the different forms of life which have ever existed, including man. This all happened by purely natural processes.
Opposing this explanation of origins and giving support to the theory of creation are some fundamental facts of science, including the following:
1) The laws of thermodynamics and in particular the second law. This law states that isolated and undirected systems of matter or energy become less organised with time. Thus the physical, chemical and biological processes operating within the universe tend to disorder. Yet the theory of evolution tells us that the universe began in a state of disorder (being the result of an explosion) and developed, by itself, into the orderly, complex and beautiful universe we know today.
2) The principle of biogenesis, which means that life can only come from life. The proteins which make up new cells do not form anywhere except in existing cells as the directions for making them are contained in the cell’s massive library of information carried by its DNA. The formation of even the simplest cell (which in reality is an amazing and irreducibly complex machine) is utterly beyond the reach of undirected chemical reactions and combinations. Yet without the first self-reproducing entity evolution could never get off the ground.
3) The nature of mutations, which is that they represent a loss of genetic information. To get from the first cell to man vast amounts of extra information need to be added from somewhere so that increasingly complex tissues, organs and other structures can be built by cells. However there are no known biological processes which increase genetic information in an organism. Mutations are essentially degenerative in character and none are unequivocally beneficial: they modify existing traits but do not result in an increase in genetic information.
One might add to the above the absence from the fossils of any undoubted transitional forms. If the theory of evolution was true then there should be billions of these, recording the progress from a single-celled organism to more complex creatures. Instead complex creatures appear suddenly in the rocks, fully formed. That is exactly what we would expect if creation is true, being followed by the catastrophe of a worldwide flood as also recorded in the Bible.
In the last analysis both creation and evolution are theories which can only be accepted by faith. I submit that in the light of the established facts of science the theory that a Creator made the universe is far more reasonable than the theory that it made itself.
Rev. David Blunt
17 Knockline
Isle of North Uist