On March 17th I posted a link to an article from Yahoo News entitled, “The Bible, Absolute Truth in a Scientific World.” The article was a book review of a book written by Charles L. Sanders, PhD. The name of the book is Did Jesus Believe Genesis. In my review I wrote it appeared the author took a literal view of the creation account in Genesis; six 24 hour days with creation following the sequence found in scripture. Since I had not read the book I could not say for sure what the author’s position was.

Traveling by air gives me plenty of time to read. I had a trip planned earlier this week and was able to read the entire book while traveling and my initial assumptions about the book were correct. The author holds to a literal interpretation of the creation account.

For the most part, our high schools and universities teach the evolutionary model as an explanation for the universe. They seldom offer or are even allowed to offer opposing viewpoints or lay out technical problems with the Big Bang/evolutionary model. It is taught as fact squelching any investigation as unnecessary. The author lays out several evidences from science where the observations of the universe do not fit the Big Bang/evolutionary model espoused by the scientific community. As these are laid out it becomes clear the science is settled but not as the scientific community would have you think. Literal six day creation fits the observable evidence much better than the Big Bang/evolutionary theory held by many in the scientific community. One quote in the book by evolutionist Richard Lewontin sums up the evolutionist’s thoughts on the matter:

“We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of the failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so-stories, because we have a priori commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanation, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.”

Our faith in a literal interpretation of Genesis and the bible is attacked from every angle, even from some inside the Christian community. This book should be read by every Christian high school and college student in order to withstand the onslaught they will encounter in their education. I highly recommend this book as a beginning point in your investigation of how the observable evidence in the world and universe around us point to our Holy God as the creator and sustainer of all we see and know. You can purchase it at Amazon. Here is the link.

There is a highly controversial study published which seems to indicate that the speed of light is not constant at 186,000 mph but rather has been slowing down with the passage of time. This is highly controversial since the acceptance of this theory would devastate Big Bang Cosmology and require a re-evaluation of everything accepted by science since Einstein’s Theory of Relativity was published. If the speed of light was much higher in the past than in the present, the vast distances observed in the universe would fit nicely into the creation story of Genesis rather than the evolutionary story of the Big Bang.

In 1979, an Australian undergraduate student thought it would be interesting to look at all of the measurements of the speed of light since the speed of light was first measured in the late 1600s. His name was Barry Setterfield. He acquired 163 measurements using 16 different methods over 300 years. What he discovered utterly shocked him. It appeared that the speed of light was slowing down as time progressed.Here are some of his findings:

• In 1738: 303,320 +/- 310 km/second
• In 1861: 300,050 +/- 60 km/second
• In 1877: 299,921 +/- 13 km/second
• In 2004: 299,792 km/second (accepted constant)

In order to confirm his findings he consulted with a statistician by the name of Dr. Trevor Norman. Dr. Norman found that, even allowing for the clumsiness of early experiments, and correcting for the multiple lenses of early telescopes and other factors related to technology, the speed of light was discernibly higher 100 years ago, and as much as 7 percent higher in the 1700s. Dr. Norman confirmed that the measurements were statistically significant with a confidence of more than 99 percent.

Setterfield and Norman published their results at SRI in July 1987 after extensive peer review.

Since the SRI publication in 1987, forefront researchers from Russia, Australia, Great Britain and the United States have published papers in prestigious journals questioning the constancy of the speed of light.

Within the last 24 months, Dr. Joao Magueijo, a physicist at Imperial College in London, Dr. John Barrow of Cambridge, Dr. Andy Albrecht of the University of California at Davis and Dr. John Moffat of the University of Toronto have all published work advocating their belief that light speed was much higher – as much as 10 to the 10th power faster – in the early stages of the “Big Bang” than it is today. (It’s important to note that none of these researchers have expressed any bias toward a predetermined answer, biblical or otherwise. If anything, they are antagonistic toward a biblical worldview.)

If the slowing of the speed of light is occurring it has tremendous implications for other areas of cosmology. Setterfield now believes there are at least four other major observed anomalies consistent with a slowing speed of light:

1. quantized red-shift observations from other galaxies,
2. measured changes in atomic masses over time,
3. measured changes in Planck’s Constant over time,
4. and differences between time as measured by the atomic clock, and time as measured by the orbits of the planets in our solar system.

Setterfield believes that the speed of light was initially about 10 to the 10th power faster than it is today. After the creation of the universe, light speed declined following a curve approximating the curve of the cosecant squared. He believes that light speed reached a point where it is asymptotic since the mid 1960s. Though reasonably constant, he believes the speed still varies in waves – sometimes higher and sometimes lower than the accepted standard.

Recent observations of the signals received from the aging satellites Galileo, Ulysses and Pioneer are also in the category of speed of light anomalies. A unexplained Doppler frequency shift has been detected from all of these satellites, even though the satellites’ distances from the Earth are only about 20 times the distance from the Earth to the Sun – way too close for a traditional Doppler shift to occur in the electromagnetic spectrum. NASA scientists have attempted with little success to attribute the anomalies to an unknown acceleration. Setterfield suggests that equally plausible explanations are variations in c.

Here is an article from CBS News on the topic. It is a very intriguing theory which will undoubtedly get little research as its acceptance would doom the Big Bang Theory and an evolutionary explanation for the universe.

I read on many sites that evolution is a FACT, not a theory or a hypothesis but proven scientific FACT. I assume it is said with such forcefulness to convince the writer that it is true and to prevent others from completing a thorough investigation for themselves. If it is a proven FACT, there’s no need to question a fact and if you did you’d be considered wacky. Why investigate something that’s proven? But there is extensive evidence that evolution is not a proven fact. Before considering the evidence we need to take another look at science and attempt to define it.

First, there is a difference between observational science and theoretical science. Here is a brief explanation.

The scientific approach for examining facts and determining truth is done in five steps. 1st) An observation is made. 2nd) A hypothesis is formed. 3rd) Data is gathered. 4th) The hypothesis is tested in light of the data, and 5th) if the hypothesis passes the test, it becomes a theory. However, new data is constantly being discovered and the hypothesis re-tested. This data either supports the theory or disproves it, but never proves the theory as a fact (for future data could be gathered which disproves it). That is why science can never “prove” anything, only disprove things. If there is no way of testing or falsifying the hypothesis, the theory isn’t accepted by the scientific community. George Gaylord Simpson, a notable scientist himself, has said, “It is inherent that statements which cannot be checked by observation are not really about anything, or at the very least they are not science.” (Gish 1985: 12). Usually the event in question is repeated, and these five steps are used to determine its truthfulness. Events in history cannot be repeated, so they cannot be verified by the scientific method. This alone indicates that the theory of evolution, far from being a fact, is not even a valid scientific theory.

Proof for evolution does not meet the first criterion of observational science. Neither evolution nor the Big Bang has ever been observed. Nor can it be tested. If this is indeed the starting point for observational science then evolution and the Big Bang don’t qualify. And as quoted above inherent statements which cannot be checked by observation are not really about anything!

Evidence for a Young Earth

Here’s a few observations pointing toward a young earth rather than an earth billions of years old:

Decay of the earth’s magnetic field…………………10,000 years
Influx of radiocarbon into earth system………….10,000 years
Influx of uranium into the oceans via rivers……50,000 years
Influx of carbonate into the oceans………………..100,000 years
Efflux of helium-4 into the atmosphere………….175,000 years
Accumulation of dust on the moon………………..200,000 years
Leaching of chlorine from the continents……….1,000,000 years
Erosion of sediment from continents…………….10,000,000 years

While many of these dates don’t point to a creationist model they certainly don’t confirm evolutionary and Big Bang cosmology. This list is just a small sampling of the evidence for a young earth. This link provides an EXCELLENT list of problems with an old earth. If you click on each of the items in their list it provides a brief explanation for a young earth.

Do the research on your own. Conduct a Google Search for Evidence for a Young Earth and review the evidence yourself. Don’t take the word of those with an ax to grind. Look at the evidence and then decide on your own without the influence of others. Does the preponderance of the evidence lead you to believe in an earth billions of years old or one much younger in age?

by Jeff Miller, PhD. of Apologetics Press. This and many other apologetics articles can be found here.

Some contend that science is at odds with religion. They suggest that the scientific method requires empirical testing, but God’s existence cannot be empirically verified. Science supposedly proves the Big Bang, evolutionary theory, a very old Universe, and dinosaurs that never co-existed with humans, while the Bible mistakenly contends that the Universe was created in six literal, 24-hour days only a few thousand years ago, with humans and dinosaurs being created together on day six. Supposedly, science is based on verifiable evidence, whereas religion is based on “blind faith” and ambiguous “tinglies” attributed to the Holy Spirit. For such reasons, it is claimed that science and Scripture cannot be harmonized—that they are diametrically opposed to each another.

In reality, however, true science agrees perfectly with Scripture. Though God’s existence cannot be empirically verified, it can be easily verified through deductive reasoning from the scientific evidence available to us—in the same way forensic scientists use science to investigate events that they did not personally witness. While atheists have successfully created the mirage that science supports their theories, abundant scientific evidence exists which disproves the Big Bang Theory, evolutionary theory, an old Universe, and proves that dinosaurs and humans co-existed (see www.apologeticspress.org for more information on these matters). And yet, no scientific evidence exists that contradicts the true creation model. Rather, the evidence always supports it. The concept of “blind faith,” though championed by many who call themselves Christians, is at odds with Scripture, which defines faith as choosing to believe in something, based on the evidence that has been presented for it, and responding accordingly (see Miller, 2003). Atheistic scientists are simply wrong in their sweeping accusation that science and religion are at odds.

Though some theistic beliefs contradict science, when handled accurately (2 Timothy 2:15), Scripture and science compliment each other perfectly. For instance, science has shown us that matter is not eternal, according to the Second Law of Thermodynamics, and could not have spontaneously generated—popping into existence from nothing—according to the First Law of Thermodynamics. This fact indicates that matter must have been placed here by an Entity outside the physical Universe (see Miller, 2007). This truth, arrived at through science and deductive reasoning, is not in harmony with atheism and much of today’s pseudo-science. But this truth is in keeping with the Bible, which says in its very first verse that God—a Being not subject to the laws of nature (i.e., a supernatural Being)—created the heavens and the Earth. Science supports Scripture.

Science has shown us that in nature, life comes only from life and that of its kind, according to the Law of Biogenesis. Again, this fact indicates that a Being outside of nature must exist Who initiated life (see Miller, 2012). This truth, arrived at through science and deductive reasoning, is not in harmony with atheism and much of today’s pseudoscientific world which must contend, without scientific support, that life popped into existence from non-life. Rather, this truth is in keeping with the Bible, which says in Genesis 1:11,24 and 2:7 that God created life.

Science—the Law of Biogenesis and the Laws of Genetics—has shown us that living beings produce other living beings of their own kind (see Thompson, 2002). There may be small changes along the way (e.g., beak size, color, size, etc.), but the offspring of a bird is still a bird. The offspring of a fish is still a fish. Therefore, since there is no common ancestor for all living beings from which all species evolved, there must be a supernatural Being Who initially created various kinds of life on Earth. This truth, arrived at through science and deductive reasoning, is not in harmony with the teachings of atheism and much of today’s pseudo-scientific world, which argues against the evidence, that various kinds of living beings can give rise to completely different kinds of living beings. But this truth is in keeping with the Bible, which says in Genesis 1:21 and 1:24-25 that God directed living beings to reproduce after their kind.

True science is in harmony with true religion. Why would science lie? It does not have a mind of its own. It has no bias or agenda. It can certainly be misrepresented or its findings misinterpreted, but science is not the enemy of true religion. In fact, according to the Bible, God, Himself, instituted the field of science. When God created human beings on day six and told them to “have dominion” over the Earth and “subdue” it (Genesis 1:28), He was commanding mankind to do something that would require extensive scientific investigation and experimentation. If God founded science, why would science be at odds with religion? When God, through His servant Paul, said in Romans 1:20 that His existence and some of His attributes could be learned from His creation, He was putting His stamp of approval on the scientific study of creation. When He said in 1 Thessalonians 5:21 to “[t]est all things; hold fast what is good,” He was essentially summarizing the scientific method. Bottom line: God founded science. When legitimate scientific findings are interpreted properly and fairly, science supports the Bible and Christianity. It certainly is not at odds with the Bible.

REFERENCES

Miller, Dave (2003), “Blind Faith,” Apologetics Press, http://www.apologeticspress.org/article/444.

Miller, Jeff (2007), “God and the Laws of Thermodynamics: A Mechanical Engineer’s Perspective,” Reason & Revelation, 27[4]:25-31, April (Montgomery, AL: Apologetics Press), http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/3293.

Miller, Jeff (2012), “The Law of Biogenesis,” Reason & Revelation, 32[1]:2-11, January (Montgomery, AL: Apologetics Press), http://www.apologeticspress.org/apPubPage.aspx?pub=1&issue=1018&article=1722.

Thompson, Bert (2002), The Scientific Case for Creation (Montgomery, AL: Apologetics Press).

On June 11, 2011 an article was posted here regarding the elusive Higgs boson particle. News had been leaked it may have been discovered at the Large Hadron Collider at the European Organization for Nuclear Research (CERN) laboratory. There were many tests yet to run and much research to be concluded before making the declaration. The research was on-going but the declaration of its discovery never came.

What is so important about the Higgs boson particle? This excerpt from the Washington Post explains it.

It all begins with a collection of theories known as the “standard model.” The standard model answers two important and fundamental questions: What is matter made of? And why does it behave the way it does?

As to the first question, the standard model says that all matter is made of 12 particles with zany names such as the “charm quark” and the “muon-neutrino.”

The answer to the second question comes down to the four forces observed in the universe. Ordinary people are familiar with gravity and electromagnetism, but there are also the strong and weak forces, which operate on the subatomic level. Under the standard model, bosons transmit forces between particles of matter.

One of the most cherished goals of physics is a “unified field theory,” which would explain the relationships among these forces. For the most part, this theory has been elusive. However, in the 1960s, scientists came up with an idea that would unify at least two of the forces: electromagnetism and the weak force. (They called it the electroweak force, which is rather disappointing for a field that has such a knack for colorful monikers.) But there was a problem with the theory: In order for it to be true, the particles that carry the electroweak force would have to be without mass, and such particles have never been observed.

Enter English physicist Peter Higgs, who came up with a way to save the electroweak force. Higgs theorized that, in the moments after the big bang, mass didn’t exist. However, as things cooled down, a field settled over the universe. When certain particles interact with that field, they gain mass. Physicists don’t know how to observe the Higgs field, but the theory is that when the field acts on a particle, a boson particle is left behind.

The significance is in the last few words of the last paragraph. The discovery of the Higgs boson would validate the Big Bang Theory of cosmological evolution.

I would like to point out a couple of things from these paragraphs. The first comes from the third paragraph and states ‘In order to be true, the particles that carry the electroweak force would have to be without mass, and such particles have never been observed.’ The second is in the fourth paragraph and states, ‘ Physicists don’t know how to observe the Higgs field, but the theory is that when the field acts on a particle, a boson particle is left behind.’ To me it sounds as if they have the cart before the horse. How you ask?

The Scientific Method

This description of the scientific method comes from ucr.edu

What is the “scientific method”?

The scientific method is the best way yet discovered for winnowing the truth from lies and delusion. The simple version looks something like this:

• Observe some aspect of the universe.
• Invent a tentative description, called a hypothesis, that is consistent with what you have observed.
• Use the hypothesis to make predictions.
• Test those predictions by experiments or further observations and modify the hypothesis in the light of your results.
• Repeat steps 3 and 4 until there are no discrepancies between theory and experiment and/or observation.

When consistency is obtained the hypothesis becomes a theory and provides a coherent set of propositions which explain a class of phenomena. A theory is then a framework within which observations are explained and predictions are made.

Higgs Boson

Notice the underlined portion in the description above. It says we would need to observe some aspect of the universe and then form a hypothesis and begin testing. It would appear to me the scientists looking for Higgs bosom got it backward. They admit they haven’t observed the thing they are looking for and creating a hypothesis before it is observed. And I thought the Big Bang was a fact. I guess not.

What happens if Higgs boson is not found? The Washington Post article states:

Obviously, our dominant theory for why mass exists would pretty much go out the window.

What they didn’t say but implied is the Big Bang Theory goes out the window along with the Higgs boson. I would say it’s pretty serious they find the Higgs boson.

Here’s a link to the entire Washington Post article for your review.

by Brandon May,  Ph.D.  This article first appeared in Apologetics Press and can be found here.

[Editor’s Note: The following article was written by A.P. scientist Dr. May who holds a B.S. degree in Physics from Angelo State University, as well as M.S. and Ph.D. degrees in Astrophysics from the University of Alabama.]

In the news, it has been dubbed the “Big Bang Machine” (Boyle, 2008; “‘Big Bang’ Machine…, 2010; Than, 2011), but what exactly is the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) and what does it have to do, if anything, with the Big Bang? Constructed by the European Organization for Nuclear Research (CERN) and located along the French-Swiss border, the LHC is the world’s largest particle accelerator and has been described as “the largest and most sophisticated scientific instrument ever built” (“CERN Inaugurates…,” 2008). Located about 100 meters (330 feet) underground, the LHC can accelerate a beam of protons to 99.99% the speed of light through an ultra-high vacuum beam-pipe connected in a large, circular circuit, almost 27 kilometers (17 miles) in circumference. The enormous magnets that direct the particle beams along their paths are cryogenically cooled to only 1.9 degrees above absolute zero (-271.3 deg C) (“Facts and Figures,” 2008). Along the beam’s path are four large detectors, of which the ATLAS detector represents the largest particle detector ever built, having a volume of over 28,000 cubic meters (7.4 million gallons) and weighing some 7,000 tons (“ATLAS—A Toroidal…,” 2008).

With regard to its connection to Big Bang cosmology, a CERN press release from September 2, 2003 declared, “By colliding particles at extremely high energies, the LHC should shed light on such questions as…What was the state of matter a few microseconds after the Big Bang?” (“CERN Celebrates Discoveries…,” 2003). Three years later in 2006, a similar statement was made in an October press release, that the LHC “possesses enough energy to recreate the first instances of the Big Bang” (“Stephen Hawking Tours…,” 2006). Some have even circulated speculations that the LHC will create micro-black holes and recreate the Big Bang, and global news stories seem to insinuate the LHC will solve all the remaining questions concerning how the Universe arose from a Big Bang. In fact, a video titled “Big Bang v2.0,” produced with support from the Science and Technology Facilities Council (a national research council in the United Kingdom), introduces the LHC under the auspices of being able to answer science’s biggest questions (“Big Bang v2.0,” n.d.). The video’s introduction displays the following questions: “What is Dark Matter?” “Why do things have mass?” “What happened at the Big Bang?” The next two frames give their reply: “The biggest questions in science will be answered… by the biggest experiment in history.” Yet, can the LHC really give the world what the headlines claim (cf. Miller, 2011a; Miller, 2011b)? It seems that a reality check is badly needed—one that is apart from all the sensational press and flashy media presentations.

GENERATING EXTREME, YET NATURAL CONDITIONS

It is obvious that sensationalism has taken its toll, when on the official LHC Web site under the page titled, “LHC ‘Big Questions,’” you find the following question: “I have heard that the LHC will recreate the Big Bang, does that mean it might create another Universe and if so what will happen to our Universe?” (“LHC ‘Big Questions’,” 2012a). This question is a logical outcome when considering the common moniker, “The Big Bang Machine,” the LHC has been given. The following response to this question, as quoted from the LHC Web site, illuminates several important ideas to put the LHC experiments into proper perspective:

People sometimes refer to recreating the Big Bang, but this is misleading. What they actually mean is:

• recreating the conditions and energies that existed shortly after the start of the Big Bang, not the moment at which the Big Bang started,
• recreating conditions on a micro scale, not on the same scale as the original Big Bang and,
• recreating energies that are continually being produced naturally (by high energy cosmic rays hitting the earth’s atmosphere) but at will and inside sophisticated detectors that track what is happening.

No Big Bang—so no possibility of creating a new Universe (“LHC ‘Big Questions’,” 2012b).

First, a quick note: although the final sentence declares, “No Big Bang,” the author is not implying a denial of the Big Bang Theory, but rather this summarizing statement, taken in context, is declaring that no experiment will create a Universe, wherein scientists would be able to watch space-time and matter unfold.

Next, notice in the response how it is repeatedly emphasized the experiments performed are attempts at “recreating” a set of energies or conditions thought to have been present shortly after the Big Bang. It is these extreme ranges of parameters that many scientists believe are in some form analogous to conditions shortly after the Big Bang. Their goal, therefore, is not and cannot be to generate, reproduce, or in any way initiate an event similar to what is alleged by the Big Bang Theory. Rather, they simply are generating a certain range of energy conditions. Sadly, their attempts at correcting this misconception are obscured, if not contradicted, even within their own Web site.

The LHC will collide lead nuclei so that they release their constituent quarks in a fleeting ‘Little Bang’. This will take us back to the time before these particles formed, re-creating the conditions early in the evolution of the universe, when quarks and gluons were free to mix without combining(“LHC ‘Big Questions’,” 2012c, emp. added).

It is not a matter of whether the LHC will create a Big Bang, a “Little Bang,” or a “mini-Big Bang” (Moskvitch, 2010). It cannot generate any “Bang,” as defined within a cosmological origins scenario.

Notice next, the third bulleted statement in the LHC’s response, which states that the conditions produced artificially in the LHC “are continually being produced naturally (by high energy cosmic rays hitting the earth’s atmosphere)…” (“LHC ‘Big Questions’,” 2012b). This simple statement has some profound implications. Especially when it is recognized that the set of conditions and energies to be produced at the LHC have and are being continually produced in nature, and are not a unique characteristic found only in the Big Bang scenario. As the parenthetical phrase states, nature’s equivalent to the LHC occurs when high-energy cosmic rays collide with Earth’s upper atmosphere.

Cosmic rays are very high-energy, subatomic particles that are produced from outside our solar system and within our galaxy. Some of these particles stream into Earth’s atmosphere, colliding with atmospheric particles to produce showers of lower-energy, secondary particles. Many of these cosmic rays are at energies comparable to and greater than the maximum estimated center-of-mass energies of the two counter-rotation proton beams of the LHC. In fact, the approximate rate at which such comparable cosmic rays enter Earth’s atmosphere is an astounding 250,000 particles per second, with over 7.8 trillion events occurring per year (Ellis, et al., 2008, p. 4). Do not let this fact escape notice: although the Big Bang theory requires extremely high-energy conditions in its model, the ability to produce such conditions (or the simple existence of such conditions) does not prove that the Universe came into existence in such a manner. Such conditions are involved in ongoing natural processes, of which scientists presently are deepening their understanding. The connection between the LHC and the cosmic-ray interactions is much more tangible. Consider the following: (1) the high-energy, cosmic-ray interactions in the atmosphere can be observed, measured, and tested in real-time data; (2) hypotheses can be verified or falsified, then adjusted; (3) subsequent predictions can be made and entire processes from beginning to end can be observed; (4) theories can be updated based on the concrete observations; and (5) results can be applied to the current working knowledge. Yet this connection apparently does not make headlines.

To those who might question the validity of a comparison between the LHC collisions and cosmic-ray events, notice that this same comparison is used as a central argument in a report by the LHC Safety Assessment Group (LSAG), which was tasked by CERN with addressing various safety concerns relating to the LHC experiments. As an overarching argument supporting the LHC as a safe endeavor, the authors drew upon this comparison to show that if Earth, Jupiter, the Sun, and countless stars across the galaxy can survive the enormous number of cosmic-ray collisions in their atmospheres (as evinced by their existence today), then the speculations about microscopic black-holes being created, growing, and consuming Earth, are unsubstantiated. The report’s abstract stated an important fact: the center-of-mass energies of the LHC collisions are “less than those reached in the atmosphere by some of the cosmic rays” (Ellis, et al., p. 1). In summarizing their arguments, the authors state, “Thus, the continued existence of the Earth and other astronomical bodies can be used to constrain or exclude speculations about possible new particles that might be produced by the LHC” (p. 5).

Also consider the following two quotes by Stephen Hawking of Cambridge University and Edward Kolb of the University of Chicago, respectively, who are quoted among many distinguished physicists and cosmologists on the CERN Web site.

The world will not come to an end when the LHC turns on. The LHC is absolutely safe…. Collisions releasing greater energy occur millions of times a day in the earth’s atmosphere and nothing terrible happens (“The Safety of the LHC,” 2008).

Nature has already done this experiment…. Cosmic rays have hit the moon with more energy and have not produced a black hole that has swallowed up the moon. The universe doesn’t go around popping off huge black holes (“The Safety of the LHC,” 2008).

Interestingly, a 2003 press release, which announced the upcoming 50^th anniversary of CERN, stated: “This new research facility—a 27 kilometre circular particle accelerator—will smash protons and other nuclei together head on, creating conditions that have not existed since the Big Bang” (“CERN Prepares…,” 2003). Of course, this statement is an obvious contradiction to the previous quotes discussed above. However, can it be explained as accurate to the current knowledge of that time, which has undergone developments since 2003? The answer is no. Although the press release stated that such conditions had not existed since the Big Bang, a safety report tasked by CERN was published the same year, and referenced how high-energy, cosmic rays represent a close comparison to the particle energies expected in the collisions of the LHC. In fact, the first sentence under the subsection titled “Cosmic Rays” stated, “Cosmic-ray processes reach the energies and energy densities that will be encountered at the LHC and, therefore, they may provide limits on possible disaster scenarios” (Blaizot, et al., 2003, p. 4). The report also referenced peer-reviewed papers from the journals Reviews of Modern Physics (Jaffe, et al., 2000) andPhysics Letters B (Dar, et al., 1999) with similarly-based arguments.

As the experiments are performed at the LHC and the physics of the high-energy collisions are analyzed, the results definitely will contribute to our understanding of matter in extreme conditions. The benefit of the LHC is the high level of control and reproducibility of conditions such as: the total energy of the colliding particles, whether the two beams collide or a beam and stationary target, the number and types of particles involved, and the minimizing of external contaminants. The descriptions and knowledge learned will be broadly applicable whenever those extreme conditions are encountered, but they do not in any way prove the Big Bang as the origin of the Universe. Thus, the “Big Bang Machine,” constructed to recreate the conditions supposedly found after the Big Bang, actually produces conditions currently observed in cosmic-ray interactions with Earth’s upper atmosphere (and with the Moon’s surface and the Sun’s atmosphere). So a more appropriate name might be “Cosmic-Ray Machine.”

ASTOUNDING DESIGN

From the earliest experiments of the composition of the atom, scientists have used particle collisions and the resulting interactions as a method to discover some of the most fundamental descriptions of matter. In these experiments, the fundamental laws of conservation (conservation of energy, momentum, charge, etc.) are the overarching guiding principles. These laws allow scientists to track the various collision results, knowing that predetermined input parameters (mass, energy, numbers of particles, and/or types of particles) restrict the possible output. Thus, scientists work from the existing input of mass-energy, knowing that the output must be derived from, and cannot exceed, the input into the closed system. Every natural source of energy, from the combustion in car engines to the Sun’s light to the spectacular supernovae, are described by the conservation laws of nature. Even the horrifyingly tremendous amount of energy released in a nuclear explosion is subject to the amount of mass-energy initially present. In the LHC, scientists are not creating matter/energy that was not already present. Likewise, the same is true for any Big Bang model—matter/energy cannot be created nor destroyed in the physical Universe by natural means (cf. Miller, 2007; Miller, 2010). Thus, from whence did it come?

With some initial “hiccups” (see “CERN Releases…,” 2008), the world’s largest particle accelerator, the Large Hadron Collider, began full operations in 2009. The enormous structure, complex engineering, precise detectors, extreme conditions, and intricate experiments that have been developed by many thousands of highly intelligent scientists and engineers over many years, are astounding. How is it that such immense intelligence is required in order to try to “recreate” an accidental, chaotic, purpose-less event—the Big Bang? Is this not an incredible contradiction? Yet, such is the sentiment with each press release and news headline that dubs the LHC the “Big Bang Machine.” When addressing this very question, “How did our Universe come to be the way it is?,” CERN’s own Web site replies matter-of-factly, “The Universe started with a Big Bang—but we don’t fully understand how or why it developed the way it did” (“LHC ‘Big Questions’,” 2012d). In this statement, no doubt is expressed as to whether the Big Bang event occurred, rather just a casual admission of lacking understanding in the details—including the supposed 13.7 billion years that followed. It would be unimaginable to describe the enormous efforts undertaken by those at CERN and the LHC to engineer, construct, and deploy such an amazing technical feat as anything but extraordinary design. It is more unimaginable to attribute anything but Divine design to the intricacies, precision, and complexities seen at every scale of the Universe.

REFERENCES

“ATLAS—A Toroidal LHC Apparatus,” (2008), CERN, http://public.web.CERN.ch/Public/en/LHC/ATLAS-en.html.

“‘Big Bang’ Machine Ready to Smash Records,” (2010), CBS News, March 30, http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/03/29/tech/main6344326.shtml.

“Big Bang v2.0” (no date), http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2008/09/top-5-large-had/.

Blaizot, J.P., J. Iliopoulos, J. Madsen, et al. (2003), “Study of Potentially Dangerous Events During Heavy-Ion Collisions at the LHC: Report of the LHC Safety Study Group,” CERNScientific Information Service, http://doc.CERN.ch/yellowrep/2003/2003-001/p1.pdf.

Boyle, Alan (2008), “Scientists Turn on Biggest ‘Big Bang Machine,’” MSNBC, September 10, http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26439957/.

“CERN Celebrates Discoveries and Looks to the Future,” (2003), CERNPress Release, September 2, http://press.web.CERN.ch/press/PressReleases/Releases2003/PR12.03EWZsymposium.html.

“CERN Inaugurates the LHC” (2008), CERNPress Release, October 21, http://press.web.CERN.ch/press/PressReleases/Releases2008/PR16.08E.html.

“CERN Prepares for 50th Anniversary” (2003), CERNPress Release, July 1, http://press.web.CERN.ch/press/PressReleases/Releases2003/PR10.03ECERN50.html.

“CERN Releases Analysis of LHC Incident” (2008), CERNPress Release, October 16, http://press.web.CERN.ch/press/PressReleases/Releases2008/PR14.08E.html.

Dar, Arnon, A. DeRujula, and Ulrich Heinz (1999), “Will Relativistic Heavy-Ion Colliders Destroy Our Planet?,” Physics Letters B, 470[1-4]:142.

Ellis, John, Gian Giudice, Michelangelo Mangano, et al. (2008), “Review of the Safety of LHC Collisions,” Journal of Physics G: Nuclear Particle Physics, 35:115004.

“Facts and Figures” (2008), CERN, http://public.web.CERN.ch/Public/en/LHC/Facts-en.html.

Jaffe, R.L., W. Busza, F. Wilczek, and J. Sandweiss (2000), “Review of Speculative ‘Disaster Scenarios’ at RHIC,” Reviews of Modern Physics, 72[4]:1125.

LHC ‘Big Questions’” (2012a), http://www.lhc.ac.uk/About+the+LHC/LHC+Big+Questions/11841.aspx.

“LHC ‘Big Questions’” (2012b), http://www.lhc.ac.uk/About+the+LHC/LHC+Big+Questions/17709.aspx.

“LHC ‘Big Questions’” (2012c), http://www.lhc.ac.uk/About+the+LHC/LHC+Big+Questions/17735.aspx.

“LHC ‘Big Questions’” (2012d), http://www.lhc.ac.uk/About+the+LHC/LHC+Big+Questions/17733.aspx.

Miller, Jeff (2007), “God and the Laws of Thermodynamics: A Mechanical Engineer’s Perspective,” Reason & Revelation, 27:25-31, April, http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/3293.

Miller, Jeff (2010), “The Laws of Thermodynamics Don’t Apply to the Universe!” Apologetics Press, http://www.apologeticspress.org/article/3704.

Miller, Jeff (2011a), “Higgs Boson—The ‘God Particle’?” Apologetics Press, http://www.apologeticspress.org/apPubPage.aspx?pub=1&issue=977&article=1500.

Miller, Jeff (2011b), “Higgs Boson—Update,” Apologetics Press, http://www.apologeticspress.org/article/4120.

Moskvitch, Katia (2010), “Large Hadron Collider (LHC) Generates a ‘mini-Big Bang’,” BBC News, November 8, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-11711228.

“The Safety of the LHC” (2008), CERN, http://public.web.CERN.ch/Public/en/LHC/Safety-en.html.

“Stephen Hawking Tours the Future of Particle Physics at CERN” (2006), CERNPress Release, October 2, http://press.web.CERN.ch/press/PressReleases/Releases2006/PR13.06E.html.

Than, Ker (2011), “Densest Matter Created in Big-Bang Machine,” National Geographic News, May 24, http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2011/05/110524-densest-matter-created-lhc-alice-big-bang-space-science.

While perusing the internet I stumbled upon a site with the express purpose “to convince its readers that God is imaginary; specifically, it makes the case that the Christian God is imaginary.”

The author wrote this about himself.

“Around the time that I finished writing all of these, I happened to find myself in a particular set of life circumstances that allowed a complete and uninterrupted inquiry into the givens of existence, and it has resulted in my effectively disowning the Christian faith that started all this off. The operative question for me had always been: if Christianity is not true in some way, shape or form, then what is? What can replace it? And my search of the alternatives has left me with nothing.”

The author lays out 50 short and concise arguments why Christianity cannot be true and God doesn’t exist. All of them come from the same atheist playbook and many have been addressed extensively by Christian Apologists, yet I thought it would be interesting to address a few of these here on this website.

Here’s the first one I’d like to address:

Think about Science

The argument points out that science must assume there is a “natural” explanation for a phenomenon in order to progress. This is a good argument.

The argument ends by saying that science “must assume that God is imaginary.” This is not necessarily true. Science need only assume that God does not interfere in nature in any frequent or repeatable manner. Yes, this naturally leads to some awkward questions for Christians–but they should be permitted to think about these questions.

The author says “science must assume there is a natural explanation for a phenomena in order to progress?” Nothing wrong with this assumption as a starting point but I’ve always thought science was about the acquisition and retention of knowledge. What happens when the evidence doesn’t point to a natural explanation? As a good scientist should does he/she drop the assumption there is a “natural explanation” for everything? Typically they do not. It is a priori that God does not exist.

That’s the point, scientists don’t go where the evidence leads. They cling to the natural explanation and modify and re-postulate and theorize but don’t want to go where the evidence leads them.

For example, scientists have been studying the formation of life for decades if not since Darwin wrote his famous book Origin of Species. It was assumed life began in the primordial soup of the early oceans on earth. Yet as they’ve continued to study the origins of life the facts don’t fit the hypothesis. Scientists cannot figure out how life began. As a matter of fact it is so daunting it is believed they will never know and now postulate it came from outer space as if that somehow solved the problem. (Hey, let’s say it began out there somewhere that way we don’t have to produce evidence of how it started and we can get around that God thing!)

Occasionally, when their guard is down evolutionists will admit this. Here is a quote from Professor D. M. S. Watson:

“The theory of evolution itself [is] a theory universally accepted not because it can be proved by logically coherent evidence to be true but because the only alternative, special creation, is clearly incredible.”

And another from pantheistic evolutionist George Wald from Harvard, after showing that the spontaneous generation of life from non life was essentially impossible, nevertheless said he continued to believe in evolution because:

“The only alternative to some form of spontaneous generation is a belief in supernatural creation.”

And that simply cannot be!

As these two evolutionists stated, the evidence does not point to evolution but to special creation yet, they hold to their evolutionary views. Rather than beginning again by theorizing special creation they hold to the illogical position of evolution. While this argument sounds good on its face, scientists don’t go where the evidence takes them. They stick with the assumption God does not exist. It would appear this causes some awkward moments for evolutionists, but never mind. They tarry on.