<<I know I've opened up a lot of different subjects into which we may journey; however, I'd still like to stick with the subject of evolution/creationism. OK?
Oh... and the odds being 10^40,000 or whatever... I tried to find their calculation, but I have, as yet, not found it. I have to read more about this panspermia (sp?) concept, too. Could you refer me to their actual calculation. I view these sorts of calculations on par with the calculations of the odds that there is life on other planets... uh... yeah... sure... next!>>
Evolution it is. First, your questions about Hoyle's calculations, I do not know exactly how he arrived at these conclusions. I only want to point out that it is wrong to assume that all Scientists agree that the Universe is self creating. Hoyle was obviously a great scientist and his views are relevant to our discussion.
I would like to suggest that to accept a theory which is contrary to known Laws of Nature is unscientific at best. I first must say that it is difficult to keep an open mind on this subject and that scientists reject Creation not because it is unscientific but because they simply will not believe that God could have done it. Once they remove the possibility of God from their thinking they have no other choice but to propose Naturalism. Even if it goes against science, they stubbornly hold that there must be more they will discover to prove their beliefs.
Consider the following Discussion about the Laws of Thermodynamics. Reprinted from THE BIBLICAL BASIS OF MODERN SCIENCE by Dr. Henry Morris, 1984 pgs. 146-147
Fallacies in the Evolutionary Cosmogonies
The clear Biblical testimony of special, fiat, completed and conserved creation of the cosmos is, of course, explicitly supported by the two great laws of thermodynamics, the most secure generalizations about the universe that exist in science. These two laws are universal laws, if there is such a thing. No exception to either of them has ever been found. The first, the universal law of conservation, we have just discussed. The second, also known as Time's Arrow, is the universal law of deterioration, and will be discussed in detail later. Both of these laws, individually and jointly, clearly contradict the evolutionist cosmogony. Evolutionism purports to describe a cosmos in which all things come into existence and build themselves up into higher, more complex levels of existence by purely natural processes in a universe that is self-contained and self-sufficient. That is, evolution is a universal principle of innovation and integration, functioning in a closed-system universe. The laws of thermodynamics, on the other hand, describe a universal principle of conservation and disintegration, functioning in a universe that must, at least in its beginning, have been an open-system universe, created and energized by a Creator/Energizer transcendent to it. That is, the two universal laws of science yield exactly the same conclusion stated in Genesis 1:1: "In the beginning, God created the heaven and the earth."
The first law states, in effect, that the universe could not have created itself. The second law states, in effect, that it must have been created or else it would already have completely disintegrated. The Arrow of Time points downward and, if these present laws continue to operate, the universe will eventually "die," with the sun and all its reservoirs of useful energy completely depleted. It will not cease to exist (by the first law), but will be dead (by the second law). Since it is not yet dead, it must have had a beginning; if it were infinitely old, it would already be dead.
By the evolutionary presupposition, there is no external agent available to rejuvenate it. It is a closed system, operating all by itself. But, by the second law, a closed system must proceed toward disintegration: it cannot organize itself into higher levels of integration or organization, as the evolutionary concept requires. Thus, the two most certain laws of science flatly and explicitly contradict the evolutionary cosmogony. The only way the evolutionary cosmogony could be valid would be at some time or place where the laws of science were not valid.
Evolution as a theory is the only system ever considered which on it's own results in higher forms of organization and life. It clearly is in opposition to the established Laws of Science, which is why it is still considered a Theory. To teach it as fact, even to believe it could be fact until this problem is resolved is unscientific at best. Again I must say the only reason to hold to it so strongly is an inability to conceive of the other possibility. In the beginning, GOD.
In Yeshua's name - DLL |
