Everything which has a beginning has a cause.
The universe has a beginning.
Therefore the universe has a cause.
This is the logical argument proposed by Jonathan Sarfati B.Sc. (Hons.) in Chemistry (with condensed matter and nuclear physics papers substituted) and Ph.D. in Spectroscopy (Physical Chemistry).
He proposes that there is logical evidence that the universe had a beginning. This can be shown from the Laws of Thermodynamics, the most fundamental laws of the physical sciences.
1st Law: The total amount of mass-energy in the universe is constant.
2nd Law: The amount of energy available for work is running out, or entropy, is increasing too exponentially.
If the total amount of mass-energy is limited, and the amount of usable energy is decreasing, then the universe cannot have existed forever, otherwise it would already have exhausted all usable energy by now. When all usable energy is used, then what is called the ‘heat death’ of the universe will occur. For example, all radioactive atoms would have decayed, every part of the universe would be the same temperature, and no further work would be possible. So the obvious corollary is that the universe began a finite time ago with a lot of usable energy, and is now running down. Running down implies a beginning.
It is self-evident that things that have a beginning also have an ending. There must obviously have been a cause. The law of cause and effect provides that the universe could not be self-caused, or created itself. Nothing can create itself without an outside cause, at least equal to or greater than itself. It would be like saying that all matter existed before it came into existence, which is a logical absurdity.
To begin with, evolution itself is divided. There is neo-Darwinism which proposes that millions of minute changes occurred, over an extremely long period of time, and resulted in a new species. When they could not find these tiny changes between one type of creature into another in the fossil record, some evolutionists “theorized” that change must have occurred by occasional, gigantic leaps, called punctuated equilibrium.
Hypothetically, beneficial mutation could only make a slight change. Any more than that would be so disruptive as to cause death due to the irregularities in their DNA. So punctuated equilibrium is not really one giant leap at a time or it may become a leap to the death. Anyway, this punctuated equilibrium envisions a lot of slight changes over many thousands or millions of years; then no change occurs for millions of years. However, fossil records indicate otherwise. There are no fossils that have been found from a leap such as this, because thousands of years is too fast in the billions of years of “geologic time” to leave any. On the other hand, without fossils there is no evidence that ANY leaps ever happened in the first place, and today, there remains no evidence of these leaps or gradual changes or that they are even happening today in any of the millions of species that still exist.
Constant change is what evolution is all about, whether gradual or in gigantic leaps. The problem for evolution is that we do not see the “leaps” or “creeps” in the fossil record. All fossils are of complete animals and plants, not works in progress “under construction”. If evolution's continuously morphing, then almost every fossil should show a least some change. There have never been found any fossils with parts of a species in a state of change…or in various stages of completion.
For every successful change there should be many more leading up to that species. The whole process is random trial and error, without direction. What did Darwin himself think of his theory? Charles Darwin described the problems with his theory in great detail, particularly in the last chapter. I can only briefly state one of his many comments here, in this space allowed. I encourage you to read the entire last chapter of his book (available on-line) and read for yourself what he really thought. Exceedingly few people do! It is free on-line at: literature.org search: Darwin and use your browser under “Edit” to “Find on this page” the words: doubt, intermediate, links, gravest, objection, etc. and read for yourself how Darwin was less than fully certain of his theory.
Darwin had serious doubts about his theory and in “The Origin of Species” writes “The number of intermediate varieties which have formerly existed on earth must be truly enormous. Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory.”
I actually agree with Darwin here in that geology, even to this day, “does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain“. There are many others who also agree with Darwin that the lack of geological evidence is (as he puts it so well), “…the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against [Darwin's] theory”. And the great misconception continues to grow; that Christians do not accept scientific fact. On the contrary, they use the facts against evolutional theory. And to great advantage with the very words of the father of the theory himself.
Science definition being what it is, [must be observable, repeatable and measurable] then I can see why evolution is still being taught as a theory, rather than a fact or as a law. Until it navigates through all three of these hoops, it will retain it’s definition as a theory. And if you read Webster’s definition of the word “theory”, you will likely not find more subjective terms and descriptions given to describe a single word in the entire dictionary. Notice all of the subjective terms that Webster uses to define the word theory: General principle “drawn from” any body of facts; is “plausible” or scientifically “acceptable”; “general principle” offered to explain observed facts; “hypotheses“; “guess“; “abstract thought” [my favorite].
It is no wonder the geology of Darwin‘s day and ours, “does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain“. No fossilized or geological evidence exists to prove it. And you don’t even have to “guess” or “hypothesize” about that. Just a logical look at the evidence will tell you. Students are only getting half the story. They have left unanswered the more important question. Explain the origins of the universe, and thus by extension life? Evolution only addresses the origins of species, not the origins of life. This makes the theory totally useless in regard to the more important question: Where did matter come from? No matter, no life! No matter first, then no life possible to begin with. The theory is absolutely outside of it’s category to answer that question. It is best for it to stay within it’s own definition, with apologies from Webster, since it is less than flattering.
From Chapter Chapter Eight of Blind Chance or Intelligent Design?, Empirical Methodologies and the Bible
Originally published on Associated Conent.com/jackwellman
Be First to Comment
You want to make a logical and scientific argument but you start with 2 completely unsubstantiated statements: Everything which has a beginning has a cause. The universe has a beginning. Prove it; provide Empirical data that supports your statements. Then we can deal with the rest of the problems in your ‘logical argument’. I would also like to state: You cannot prove Creationism or God by disproving Evolution; attacking Evolution does not make you correct. It makes you look desperate.
It is not true that the use of the term “theory” in science implies that there is any great deal of uncertainty about what the theory is describing. To the contrary, to be accepted as a theory, a way of explaining physical reality must be confirmed thousands of times by a range of evidence. A common dictionary is not a good tool to use when you are trying to find the meaning of a term that has a specialized meaning in a particular field. It is also not true that there is no evolution before the origin of life itself. As but one example, scientists are looking at physical and chemical processes in the early solar system to see how organic and biological molecules evolves. http://news.rpi.edu/update.do I am a Christian and believe that only religion can answer many vital questions of life. But I am also a scientist who believes that we cannot ignore scientific truth about the origins of the universe. I don’t suppose many who read this would say we should bleed ourselves or take mercury to cure illnesses. We trust science to provide us the medicines that will cure us. Why do we have to doubt science when it comes to the physical (not spiritual) origins of the physical world. Most of us no longer believe the world is flat; most of us no longer believe the sun revolves around the earth. Why do we need to cling to the notion that evolution is impossible? Jesus did not think the physical world was that important. Why do we want to make its origins so important, and devise elaborate explanations for why evolution could not have occurred? Does anyone also want to offer up an explanation about how the world is actually flat and how the sun revolves around the earth?
As Duderman points out, your premises are flawed. Neither of them can be proven and therefore are not valid premises. But even if I were to grant you your premises, your “logic” is not an argument for the existence of God, it is merely an argument for the existence of a cause. There is nothing that even remotely suggests any attributes about this cause. Is the cause a god? Maybe. Is the cause an alien from another dimension that was trying to make beer in his apartment? Could be that too. But as it is, this logical argument contains no logic whatsoever.
Such a Mishmash of random nonsense. Hard to know where to begin. It actually looks like you are using a version of William Lane Craigs Kalam Cosmological argument. I am quite happy to accept the idea that the universe has a cause. The problem comes when you then try and say ‘And the Cause was Jesus! Because I say so!’. And then the next then you say is ‘Oh and God doesn’t have a beginning. Again because I say so!’. Where on earth do you get this bizarre notion that half animals or half plants should be found in the fossil record. This screams of yet another “I don’t know what The Theory of Evolution says, but I know it’s wrong!” that so many creationists seem to live by. Only Creationists come up with examples that if real would disprove Evolution. No rational person expects An Half Cat or Half Bird. You can certainly tell the people who only get their Darwin quotes from Creationist Quote mine sites rather than from the book itself. Because looking at the book it would become quite clear on the format of the book itself. Part A Possible problem to my Theory. Part B Solutions to this problem Repeat. Of course the Creationists always take from the problem section without acknowledging the response. He has an entire chapter “On the Imperfection of the Geological Record” Oh right, that’s where you have quote mined that quote from. From the first Paragraph of that chapter. You also quite clearly demonstrate a lack of scientific understanding when you think ‘Theory’ is lesser than a fact or a Law. Facts are data (the Earth orbits the sun). Laws are descriptions of how things work (Kepler’s Laws of Planetary Motion). Theory’s explain how they work (The General Theory of Relativity). Laws don’t’ graduate into Theories. Do you believe in Atoms? Or do you not accept Atomic Theory? How about Germ Theory? Cell Theory? What creationists like yourself either ignore or deliberately obscure, is that Theories make observable, repeatable and measurable *predictions* that can be tested. The Theory of Evolution provides that in spades. Millions of Scientists (of all Religions and none) around the world are doing research based on that, and have been for the past 150 years. Go to pubmed and search for Evolution and see how many research papers they have.
To summarize there is no argument for the existence of God here. Certainly no logical one. Just a weird Mish Mash of Creationist talking points. You don’t prove God by disproving The Big Bang Theory (From a Christian btw) or any or other Theory you dislike on religious grounds. You formulate your own hypothesis and show how it explains things better than the current theories.