Evidence for Creation from Astronomy and Physics
For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: Romans 1:20 (KJV)
The data of modern astronomy and physics provide compelling evidence for design and creation in nature. By all appearances, the universe had a beginning and has been finely tuned for life as we know it. The finite history of the universe is established by the First and Second Laws of Thermodynamics and strongly suggested by the cosmic expansion and red shift of galaxies. The fine-tuning is manifest in the four fundamental forces of nature, the low entropy of the universe, the quantized red shift of galaxies, the lack of antimatter, several features of the earth and solar system, the chemical properties of the elements, and the properties of water. There are also many evidences for a recent creation including the number of short range comets, the structure of spiral galaxies, the depth and nature of lunar dust, the strength of planetary magnetic fields, the lack of old supernova remnants, the recession of the moon from the earth, and lunar ghost craters.
The First Law of Thermodynamics (FLOT) states that matter-energy cannot be created or destroyed but only converted from one form into another. Take a given amount of matter- energy and perform some process with it and you will still end up with the same amount of matter-energy. There are no known exceptions in nature to this principle. Taken alone, FLOT requires that the universe has always existed or was created by some process outside of nature at some time in the past. The Second Law of Thermodynamics (SLOT), sometimes called the Law of Entropy, holds that every spontaneous process always 1 leads to a decrease in the amount of useful energy in the universe. The implication is that the universe is dying a “heat death;’ after infinite time there would not be any useful energy remaining to do work. Since the universe still contains much useful energy, it must be of finite age – it had a beginning. Thus FLOT and SLOT, taken together, require the universe must have been brought into existence by something outside of nature at some point in the past.
General relativity, currently our best theory of gravity, predicts the universe will either expand or contract but will not be static. The expansion of the universe has been confirmed by the observation of the red-shifting of the frequencies of star light in distant galaxies. The farther away galaxies are, the more red-shifted is their light. If the expansion is run in reverse, all matter eventually ends up at the same starting place in an entity called a black hole singularity, which has infinite mass and no volume. Space-time stops in this singularity, or in others words, time and the universe had a beginning. Now I am not necessarily saying God started the universe as a singularity (although this is possible within a cosmology consistent with a young earth), 2 but only that physics’ best theories predict a beginning of the universe, even when God is not taken into account! By the way, some have tried to side step the implications of relativity by claiming that time does not end in a singularity but merely changes direction (for example, becomes “imaginary time” 3 ). In real time, however, even if the universe had begun as a singularity, expanded (big bang) until gravity forced a contraction, ended in a singularity (big crunch) and the process repeated itself, the universe could still not be of infinite age because SLOT would still be in effect. 4 5 So, the best theories we have, confirmed by experiment, require the universe had a beginning.
There are four fundamental forces 6 in nature we know about: the strong nuclear force, the weak nuclear force, electromagnetism, and gravity. The strong nuclear force holds the protons in atomic nuclei together. If it were slightly weaker, only low atomic weight elements would exist. If it were slightly stronger, 7 nuclear fusion reactions converting hydrogen into helium would be faster and heat from the sun would increase making earth uninhabitable. Similarly, change 7 the weak nuclear force, which controls the stability of radioactive elements, and the fusion rate in stars would change. The electromagnetic force is dominant on the scale of protons and electrons. The electromagnetic force can be attractive or repulsive (opposites attract, like repel), varies in strength with the inverse square of the distance between charges, and is proportional to charge. If the electromagnetic force were larger, 7 no elements larger than hydrogen could exist; the repulsive force between protons would make nuclei with more than one proton unstable. If the electromagnetic force were smaller, nuclear fusion would accelerate and stars would explode; the repulsive force between protons would decrease allowing the formation of heavy nuclei to proceed too rapidly. Gravity is the weakest of forces but dominant for objects the size of earth and larger. Gravity is always attractive, obeys an inverse square law, and is proportional to mass. Gravity is what holds stars together and provides the collision frequency between hydrogen molecules necessary for nuclear fusion. If gravity were changed 8 by as little as one part in 1040, stars like our sun would not exist. If gravity increased, only hot blue dwarfs would exist. If gravity decreased, only cool red giants would result. The fundamental forces are very fine tuned for our existence. Clearly, this is the result of an intelligent Creator and not the result of chance.
The low entropy of the universe 9 required very specific and unlikely initial conditions. There is a 101,030 chance the current configuration of matter in the universe could have arisen from chance natural processes; it is more likely to be a black hole than to be spread out in galaxies, stars, gas clouds and solar systems. Only an intelligent designer could have specified the initial conditions against such odds.
Another piece of evidence for design in the universe is the apparent quantized red shifts 10 of galaxies as seen from the earth. These red-shifts occur in specific discrete intervals and are not a continuum. Hence there is a group of galaxies which all have all been red-shifted by x amount and another group by y amount but very few which have been red-shifted by an amount between x and y. The emerging picture in one in which the earth is surrounded by concentric shells of galaxies. This implies that the earth lies very near the center of the universe. The chance of the earth being in the center of the universe is one in a trillion. The implications are clear: we have a special place in the cosmos and not by accident.
Another interesting feature of the universe is its apparent lack of antimatter. Antimatter is like matter except the charges of subatomic particles are reversed; protons are negatively charged and electrons are positively charged (called positrons). Antimatter has been created in the laboratory but has a fleetingly short lifetime because it is annihilated upon contact with matter and forms pure energy. Theory says that the conversion of energy in matter has an equal probability of forming antimatter; hence there should be equal amount of matter and antimatter in the universe (assuming the formation of both could somehow proceed without recombination and annihilation). However, experiments designed to detect antimatter in the cosmos have so far been unsuccessful. 11 Known natural processes cannot explain the excess of matter in the universe. However, an intelligent designer wanting create a sustainable universe free of matter-antimatter annihilation is a good explanation for what we observe.
Another piece of evidence for design is the distance between stars. 12 If the distance were much smaller, the gravity of nearby stars could affect the stability of solar system and nearby supernovas would bathe the earth with harmful doses of radiation.
Many evidences for design are found when considering the earth. The earth’s gravity and distance from the sun provide a temperature and pressure in which liquid water can exist. The earth’s magnetic field protects life from charged particles (ionizing radiation) in the solar wind. The amount of oxygen 13 is just right for our existence; more and fires would be a problem, less and we would suffocate.
The solar system also shows evidence of design. The size and placement of Jupiter allows the redirection of comets and other bodies which could otherwise collide with the earth with catastrophic consequences. 14 The near circular shapes of planetary orbits helps maintain their stability by keeping changes in gravity minimized. Our sun has just the right mass to allow it to burn hydrogen at a rate which will provide the earth with the amount and frequencies of light energy needed to maintain a biologically friendly temperature.
The properties of the element carbon are essential to life. Only carbon can form the large macromolecules necessary for the storage of heredity information for complex creatures such as ourselves. Any changes in carbon’s chemical properties would spell disaster for life.
Life as we know it would be impossible without liquid water. Water’s properties are also finely tuned: its melting and boiling points and high heat capacity help regulate the temperature of the earth keeping it in the range in which we can live. Water’s chemical properties allow proteins to adopt the shapes required for enzymatic action whereas other solvents do not.
There are also many evidences for a recent for creation. 15 The brief lifetimes and low numbers of short and long range comets in the solar system have required evolutionists to come up with mechanisms for comet formation which explain why we still see comets after 5 billion years. So far, the favorite speculative sources for new comets have been the Oort cloud and the Kuiper belt. However, the Oort cloud has never been observed while the Kuiper belt, now known to exist, 16 contains objects too large 17 to form comets although their composition is consistent with comet nuclei. Hence, since there is still no solid evidence for a source of new comets, the fact that we see comets in the solar system today is still a good argument for a young solar system.
Another piece of evidence for a recent creation is the structure of spiral galaxies. The stars near the center of our Milky Way orbit the center of the galaxy faster than stars near the edge. The spiral structure of the galaxy should be lost in only a few hundred million years. 18 . Evolutionary astronomers speculate that density waves may give rise to the spiral structure. Theory suggests this would require much fine tuning and is therefore improbable.
The depth of lunar dust is yet another piece of evidence for a recent creation. Determinations of the rate of deposition of dust have varied over the last few decades. The more recent rate measurements, however, suggest a rapid deposition rate implying a recent creation of the moon. On the other hand, the composition of lunar dust appears to be mostly lunar in origin also suggesting a brief lunar history. 19
The strengths of several planetary magnetic fields are in excellent agreement with and in some cases were predicted by a creationist model. 20 The theory assumes God initially created the solar system and universe out of water (2 Peter 3:5). Water, of course, consists of an oxygen atom and two hydrogen atoms. It turns out that the proton in the nucleus of hydrogen behaves like a tiny bar magnet with a north and south pole. The positively charged proton spins about an axis, much like the earth, giving rise to its magnetic properties, but the axis typically does not point in any particular direction. However, when hydrogen atoms are placed within a strong magnetic field, the tiny “bar magnets” align with the field and the protons all spin like tops in the same direction. The cumulative alignment of the spins of many hydrogen nuclei itself generates a magnetic field. According to theory, God caused the nuclei of the hydrogen atoms of the primordial water to all spin in the same direction creating strong magnetic fields. He then began to convert the water into other elements and compounds and stopped sustaining the initial alignment. However, the original magnetic fields generated by the aligned spins of the hydrogen nuclei would naturally cause electric currents to be generated in the new planets. These planetary magnetic fields would then slowly and exponentially decay due to electrical resistance. The theory is in excellent quantitative agreement with over a century of measurements of the earth’s magnetic field and is consistent with a 6000 year old earth. The theory also explains the presence of a magnetic field on Mercury, the current absence yet previous existence of a magnetic field on Mars, 21 and the former field of the Moon. Based on this theory, the then unknown magnetic field strengths of Uranus and Neptune were predicted in 1984. These predictions were proved quite accurate by Voyager 2 in 1986! 22 Evolutionary dynamo models of planetary magnetic field generation missed the mark. According to dynamo theories, the circulation of molten fluids in planetary cores gives rise to oscillating (ever reversing) magnetic fields that can presumably last billions of years; presumably, the amount of energy being lost by the main field is being stored in a reservoir of secondary fields. However, recent measurements have shown that the energy being lost by the earth’s magnetic field is not being quantitatively compensated by the circulation of fluids or storage in secondary magnetic fields (so that the net energy of the field would be maintained leading to reversals in the field every several thousand years without loss in overall strength). Thus the total energy of the main and secondary fields is decreasing with time and is probably being dissipated as heat. 23 This result suggests the energy of the Earth’s magnetic field is indeed decreasing without any mechanism to counteract the decay and at a rate that is only consistent with a young earth.
The moon is receding from the earth at a rate of 4 cm/year. 24 Theory suggests that the rate of recession should vary inversely with the distance to the sixth power (1/r6). Accordingly, the earth and moon would have been in contact 1.5 Gyr ago. If the moon had been much closer to the earth in the past, tidal forces would have been much greater, but the fossil record does not show evidence of this. While these results do not require a 6 Kyr age of the earth, they do place an upper limit on the age of the earth-moon system that is much lower than claimed by evolutionists (4.6 Gyr).
Lunar evidence for a recent creation also comes in the form of “ghost craters.” 24 Ghost craters are remnants of small craters seen in the relatively large and dark impact basins known as maria. The ghost craters are thought to have formed after the large impacts causing the maria but before the subsequent overflows of lava. Presumably, the large impacts would have erased any pre-existing craters. The resulting lava overflows have left the maria relatively smooth with little evidence of subsequent meteor impact. The ghost craters have been covered with lava but not erased by it. The problem from an evolutionary point of view is that there would have to have been a long period of time (0.5 Gyr) between the large impacts and the lava overflows in order to account for the large number of ghost craters given the assumed low rate of small meteor impact at that time. It makes more sense to assume that the lava overflows would soon followed the large impacts. A recent creation scenario in which the large impacts were followed by rapid yet steeply declining meteor showers soon followed by the lava overflows and cessation of meteor impacts is more consistent with the facts.
The scarcity of old super nova remnants is another fact consistent with a recent creation. 24 Most of the super nova remnants we can detect visually or with radio telescopes are only a few thousand years old. Theory predicts there should be many older super nova remnants assuming a great age for the cosmos.
In summary, there is essentially no chance that the laws of nature and many fundamental properties of matter just happen to be what is required for intelligent life to exist. The only hope evolutionists have is if there are an infinite number of universes so that at least one had to look like ours. But there is no observational evidence for even a second universe let alone an infinite number. Hence, invoking an intelligent designer as Creator of our universe is the only plausible explanation. There are several evidences for a recent creation which in themselves suggest a supernatural origin for the universe.
- 1An alleged violation of the Second Law has been recently reported [G. M. Wang et al. Phys. Rev. Lett. 89, 050601 (2002)]. However, the system involved was small and the time scale was less than one second. On timescales > 1 sec SLOT was still obeyed. SLOT still holds for the universe over its existence.
- 2Humphrey’s, D. Russell Starlight and Time (Master Books, 1994), p. 32.
- 3Hawking, Stephen W. A Brief History of Time (Bantom Books, 1988), p. 134.
- 4Hawking, p. 150.
- 5Peacock, Roy E. A Brief History of Eternity (Cross way Books, 1990), p. 90-91.
- 6Chaisson, Eric; McMillan, Steve Astronomy Today , 3rd Edition (Prentice Hall, 1999), p. 371-372.
- 7 a b c Heeren, Fred Show Me God (Daystar, 1998), p. 208
- 8Heeren, Fred Show Me God (Daystar, 1998), p. 210
- 9Heeren, Fred Show Me God (Daystar, 1998), p. 211
- 10Humphreys, Russell D. TJ, 2002, 16(3), 1-10.
- 11Heeren, p. 220-222.
- 12Denton, Michael J. Nature’s Destiny (Free Press, 1998), p. 11
- 13Heeren, Fred Show Me God (Daystar, 1998), p. 206
- 14Ward, Peter D; Brownlee, Donald Rare Earth (Copernicus, 2000), p. 238.
- 15Faulkner, Danny R. “The Current State of Creation Astronomy,” Presented at the Fourth International Conference on Creationism, Pittsburgh, PA, August 3-8, 1998. Available on the web at: http://www.icr.org/research/df/df-r01.htm
- 16Eicher, David J. “Beyond Cosmos” Astronomy, September 2002, p. 34-39.
- 17Maran, Stephen Astronomy’s Top Ten Astronomy’s Explore the Universe, 9th Edition, 2003 (published in 2002), p.13; Faulkner, Danny “Comets and the Age of the Solar System” Creation Ex Nihilo Technical Journal 11(3):264–273, 1997.
- 18Humphreys, D. Russell “Evidence for a Young World” Creation Matters, 1999, 4(4), 1.
- 19Faulkner, Danny R.
- 20Humphreys, D. Russell “The Creation of Planetary Magnetic Fields” CRSQ Volume 21, Number 3 (December 1984)
- 21Humphreys, D. Russell “Mars Global Surveyor Confirms Creation!” Creation Matters, Volume 4, Number 3 May / June 1999.
- 22Humphreys, D. Russell “Beyond Neptune: Voyager 2 Supports Creation” Impact N. 203, May 1990. Impact is a monthly publication of the Institute for Creation Research (ICR) and is available on the web (www.icr.org) free of charge.
- 23Humphreys , D. Russell “The Earth’s Magnetic Field is Still Losing Energy” CRSQ Volume 39, June 2002, p. 1.
- 24 a b c Faulkner, Danny R