The Two Models
Of
The
Origin
Of The
Universe
Evolution / Creationism
HOW DID THE UNIVERSE GET HERE? This simple question has been at the heart of an on going debate raging throughout our society. A
debate that has divided itself up primarily into two camps: Evolution and Creationism. Now, perhaps you
have been told that evolution is the only valid explanation to the origin of the universe. Maybe you've
been taught that creationism, with its emphasis on the supernatural, is invalid and shouldn't even be
considered. But actually, as we compare the two, we'll find that creationism has a justifiable reason to
exist as a possible explanation to the question of origins.Before we begin, let's remember that no one [mere man] was there when the universe began. So there is no absolute
way to prove which explanation is right. Therefore, the best we can do is frame evolution and creationism
into two separate models, compare each one with the empirical evidence we find around us, and determine
which model best supports the evidence. This is the methodology we will use, and to simplify things we will
concentrate on the one fundamental difference between the two models, which is this: The Creation Model
claims that everything initially came into existence by a SUPERNATURAL act, while the evolution model
contends that only NATURAL laws were involved. Therefore the question is:Does the evidence around us suggest that a supernatural act was behind
the origin of the universe or can natural laws alone explain how it came into existence?
Some Evolutionists may argue at this point that the term evolution describes the process of biological change that an
organism goes through once it exists, and not its origin. Some will even refute the use of the term in conjunction
with the origin of the universe, insisting that it be confined to biological entities. However, the term evolution has
come to mean the origin of everything. Ask the average person on the street and this is exactly what they assume.
And rightfully so, because textbooks teach this very thing. For example, a book entitled: Basic ideas in Biology by
Edwin A. Phillips, on page 635, states that: "ATOMIC EVOLUTION resulted in the ORIGINAL and basic formation of
matter. . .CHEMICAL EVOLUTION is believed to have begun early, after the formation of the earth. In this period,
more complex compounds evolved from the simpler atoms. . . . ORGANIC EVOLUTION was not a sudden dramatic
change but a gradual development." Evolutionist J.E. O'Rourke, in the Journal of Science (1976) said: "Evolution
is more than a useful biological concept: it is a natural law controlling the history of all phenomena."There are some problems that arise when someone tries to explain the origin of the universe using only
natural laws. In fact, ironically, some natural laws force one to consider a supernatural explanation. One
such law is THE FIRST LAW OF THERMODYNAMICS which Evolutionist Willard A. Young, in his book:
Fallacies of Creationism, page 165, defines by saying: "Energy can be exchanged in interactions or
can be TRANSFORMED FROM ONE FORM TO ANOTHER, but IT CAN BE NEITHER CREATED FROM
NOTHING, nor destroyed." He goes on to say the: "first law of thermodynamics and the law of
conservation of energy are essentially equivalent.". . ."The principle of the conservation of energy
is considered to be the single most important and most fundamental "LAW OF NATURE"
presently known to science, and is one of the most FIRMLY ESTABLISHED."This law serves as an important piece of evidence because everything in the universe is made up of energy
and yet, according to the law, all this energy could not have been created naturally, by itself. Of course this
begs the question:HOW DID ALL THE ENERGY IN THE UNIVERSE GET HERE?
The first law of thermodynamics says the universe cannot create itself naturally, yet this is exactly
what the evolution model implies. It says only natural laws resulted in its existence. The Creation Model,
however, says that something outside of the natural laws (supernatural) created the universe. That
explanation doesn't contradict the first law of thermodynamics.Let's look at another piece of evidence: THE SECOND LAW OF THERMODYNAMICS. This law, as
defined in the text book College Physics by Franklin Miller Jr, page 358, states: "that in a CLOSED
SYSTEM heat tends to flow FROM A HOT PLACE TO A COLD PLACE." We experience this law in action all
the time. Place a hot cup of coffee on a block of ice and the coffee gets colder, not warmer. Of course the
cup is not a closed system and therefore its heat can be replenished from an outside source, such as one of
those heating elements that you can place inside the cup.
The universe as a whole, however, is not an open system. Isaac Asimov, in an article entitled The Threat
of Creationism (New York Times magazine, 14, June 1981), said: "the only truly closed system we know
of is the universe." Therefore, the second law says that all the hot spots in the universe, such as the stars,
are cooling down and there is no way to replace this heat. This heat is referred to as useful energy
(energy capable of doing work), and as more of it cools off, it becomes useless background radiation.
(Remember, the first law says this energy is not destroyed but only changed from useful to useless).Putting it another way, if you filled your car's gas tank and let it idle indefinitely, eventually the useful
energy in the gasoline is completely burned up into useless heat energy. Likewise the universe, as it idles, is
burning up all its useful energy. In fact, you could say the universe is running out of gasoline and there is
no natural way to refill its tank. Of course, this begs the question:HOW DID THE UNIVERSE GET A "FULL TANK" IN THE FIRST PLACE? The evolution model says the universe naturally started out with all its original useful energy (a full gas
tank). However, the second law of thermodynamics says that's impossible, since like a car, the universe only
knows how to use up its useful energy. A car can't fill up its own tank and neither can the universe. The
Creation Model, however, says that the tank was filled supernaturally, it doesn't contradict the second law
of thermodynamics.Let's consider another implication of the second law of thermodynamics, which has to do with another
way the law is defined. Isaac Asimov says: "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 . . . 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."
The official name of this increasing disorder is ENTROPY, and the second law says that entropy is ever
increasing in a closed system. The universe therefore is becoming more and more unorganized as time goes
on. Eventually all its highly organized systems will deteriorate to a common level of low organization. This
level is sometimes referred to as Thermodynamic Equilibrium. Evolutionist Willard A. Young says:
"Thermodynamic equilibrium represents the condition of HIGHEST PROBABILITY in any closed
system, whereas non-equilibrium [highly organized] states represents conditions of LOW
PROBABILITY." What he means is that the more highly organized a closed system is, the less probability it
has of existing. But since the universe is a closed, highly organized system, the question that comes to
mind is:HOW COME THE UNIVERSE EVEN EXISTS? Or, as philosopher Mortimer J. Adler once expressed: If there can be nothing instead of something, why
is there something? When you consider, probability wise, that the universe is not supposed to exist, it's
amazing it does. The evolution model ignores this high probability as dictated by the second law and insists
that everything naturally came into being when the natural thing for it to do is not exist! The Creation
Model recognizes this high probability of non-existence and says that it would require a supernatural act
to overcome the odds. Even a non-religious person like Mortimer J. Adler reasoned out that: "Exnihilation
involves the action of a supernatural cause. No natural cause exnihiates anything either creatively or
preservatively." In other words, there are no natural causes that prevent non-existence.
Perhaps by now you may be having a problem with using a supernatural explanation. But, the question
is, why not? Many evolutionists feel that one day they will show how the energy got here in its useful form.
But, in the meantime, why not consider a model based on the supernatural? Isn't it good science to work
with the model that fits the best until a better one comes along?
In reality, there is a reason why most evolutionists won't accept the Creation Model and evolutionist
Hugo Franzen, in his chapter Thermodynamics: The Red Herring, sums it up: "While there is a problem at
some point of reconciling the apparent degradation of useful energy (that is, increase in entropy)
with the constant energy content of the universe if the process is followed backward in time, it
requires a leap of faith to conclude that this problem is solved only by accepting a supernatural
event. The alternative to this leap of faith is to recognize that our present ability to reason
meaningfully about the origin or end of the universe is not adequate to the job."
In other words, he would rather stay ignorant than accept a supernatural explanation. This sentiment is
shared by a lot of evolutionists. They argue that a supernatural explanation doesn't provide an answer.
Evolutionist Ernest Mayr, during an interview with Omni magazine said: "There is much that scientists
cannot explain, but to say that molecules have these qualities because God made them that way
doesn't add anything to our understanding." This is because to them the supernatural has no flesh, no
name, nothing concrete that can be experimented on. However, there is one source that places a face on
the supernatural - the Bible.In fact, the Bible states how the universe came into existence and thus where all the energy came
from. It says: "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth." Gen. 1:1
"Thou, even thou, art LORD alone; thou hast made heaven, the heaven of heavens, with all their
host, the earth, and all things that are therein, the seas, and all that is therein, and thou
preservest them all; and the host of heaven worshippeth thee." Neh. 9:6 (See also Psa. 33:6)The Bible even describes the second law of thermodynamics (entropy) in action: "Lift up your
eyes to the heavens, and look upon the earth beneath: for the heavens shall vanish away
like smoke, and the earth shall wax old like a garment, and they that dwell therein
shall die in like manner: but my salvation shall be for ever, and my righteousness shall not be
abolished." Isa. 51:6 (See also Psa. 102:25-26)Many scoff at the God of the Bible because they can't understand why He would create an imperfect
world. But the Bible teaches that the world started out perfect, fresh from the Creator's hand: "And
God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening
and the morning were the sixth day." Gen. 1:31
But man rebelled (much as he does to this day) and entropy entered the universe in the form of a
curse: "And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast
eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed is the
ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life; Thorns also and
thistles shall it bring forth to thee; and thou shalt eat the herb of the field; In the sweat of thy
face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust
thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return." Gen. 3:17-19
Therefore death, whether it be of life or of the universe, is the result of one thing! SIN:
"Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed
upon all men, for that all have sinned:" Rom. 5:12. In reality, man's sinful rebellion against God is
the true underlining reason why he will not accept a supernatural explanation.
If you died today, are you 100% sure you
would go to Heaven? The Bible says you can!
"These things have I written...that ye may
know that ye have eternal life," I John 5:13.A. You must realize where you stand with God.
1. Your sins separate you and God. "your iniquities
have separated between you and your God,"
Isaiah 59:2.
2. That includes everyone. "For all have sinned,
and come short of the glory of God;" Rom. 3:23.B. You must realize that Heaven can't be earned.
1. Not by doing enough good things. "Not by
works of righteousness which we have done,
but according to his mercy he saved us..."
Titus 3:5
2. Not by being baptized, joining a church, or
obeying the Ten Commandments. "For by
grace are ye saved through faith; and that
not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:
Not of works, lest any man should boast."
Ephesians 2:8-9C. You must be willing to change your direction.
"the wages of sin is death;" Romans 6:23.
1. Self righteousness will cause you to miss Heaven.
Rom. 10:2-3; Luke 13:2; Matt. 5:20; Rom. 3:28
2. Faith in yourself, your baptism, your church will
cause you to miss Heaven, John 1:12; John 3:3.
3. You must repent. "Repent ye therefore, and be
converted," Acts 3:19. "The Lord is...not
willing that any should perish, but that all
should come to repentance." II Pet. 3:9
* Repentance means to change your mind about sin.D. You must receive Jesus Christ by faith as your
personal Saviour. "being justified by faith,"
Romans 5:1.
Eternal life was paid for with the shed blood
of Christ. Accept it as a free gift. "For
whosoever shall call upon the name of the
Lord shall be saved." Romans 10:13SEND THE LIGHT
P.O. Box 815 Fargo, ND 58107
[ Christian Helps Ministry (USA) ] [ Christian Home Bible Course ]