| For years scientists have been telling us how | | | | implementation of the laws of nature on every |
| the universe began. Do we really know? Or do | | | | level. So, it might be more scientific to |
| we need another six billions years to figure | | | | take this into account rather than adopt a |
| it out?To date, our space explorations, | | | | fantasy which cannot be scientifically or |
| manned and unmanned, have uncovered a world | | | | logically substantiated.THE DOUBLE |
| of intriguing, perplexing, puzzling, | | | | STANDARDThere seems to be a double standard |
| fascinating, and even awe-inspiring | | | | in logic by which some people accept |
| phenomena. Whether we understand it or not, | | | | scientific theories. When the layman accepts |
| the universe we live in seems to be a highly | | | | theories of evolution without possessing much |
| organized system or set of smaller systems | | | | knowledge of them, he obviously puts his |
| functioning in harmony. All of its components | | | | trust and faith in those who perpetuate these |
| work within a framework of very structured, | | | | theories. This trust is sometimes expressed |
| precise, and clearly defined laws of nature. | | | | as "they're the scientists, they must know |
| If this were not so, the universe could not | | | | what they're talking about." And it is this |
| possibly have survived in its present state | | | | kind of blind allegiance which sets the |
| of complexity for any long period of time, | | | | layman's science-related logic on a different |
| certainly not for thousands of years. If the | | | | level than the logic he uses in daily |
| laws of gravity were to cease functioning for | | | | life.How so?To date, virtually every planet |
| only one moment, all orbiting bodies | | | | and moon explored in our solar system has |
| throughout the universe would move into | | | | proved to be full of inexplicable puzzles, |
| different orbits. For life on earth, this | | | | mysteries, and contradictions of theories (as |
| would be catastrophic. If the "strong force" | | | | pointed out in other chapters in |
| which holds together sub-atomic particles | | | | EvolutionDead.com). Some of these discoveries |
| were to cease functioning, all matter in the | | | | are beyond present scientific understanding. |
| universe would disintegrate. Obviously, the | | | | Some are even beyond anything we expect to |
| laws of nature function every moment of every | | | | understand in years to come. In addition, |
| day, with utmost precision.Our universe | | | | some events outside our solar system are so |
| contains atomic and sub-atomic particles not | | | | baffling that scientists can only explain |
| visible to the naked eye and sometimes not | | | | them with strange entities like black holes |
| even visible with sophisticated instruments. | | | | and quasars, which are themselves only |
| It also contains planets, stars, huge | | | | theoretical. Some events outside our solar |
| galaxies spanning hundreds of thousands of | | | | system cannot be explained even with |
| lightyears across space -- some of which are | | | | theoretical science. Some events on the |
| so far from earth that they appear as mere | | | | quantum level are so baffling that they seem |
| specks in the sky -- and galaxies billions of | | | | to defy common sense and logic.So, how is it |
| lightyears apart. The laws of nature are so | | | | that when it comes to explaining "how it all |
| complex that they support millions of forms | | | | began," scientists give the impression of |
| of life on our planet while maintaining the | | | | having a sufficient understanding of the laws |
| integrity of the cosmos as a whole. It would | | | | of nature governing the entire universe |
| be difficult, if not impossible, for the most | | | | allegedly billions of years ago? Wouldn't one |
| intelligent human being to even imagine a | | | | first need at least an impeccable |
| more complex system, let alone come up with a | | | | understanding of what is happening in his own |
| functioning design of anything nearly as | | | | backyard, our solar system, before explaining |
| complex.And as much as modern man has already | | | | the mechanics of the entire universe? Surely |
| learned, we're just beginning to see the tip | | | | the entire universe is more complex than our |
| of the iceberg concerning the complexities of | | | | "puny little" solar system. And wouldn't such |
| the laws of nature. There have been people | | | | an "expert" have to possess an impeccable |
| who have devoted virtually their entire lives | | | | understanding of quantum mechanics as well as |
| to discovering and studying the laws of | | | | the mechanics of distant heavenly bodies in |
| nature. Doctors have studied medicine. | | | | his own time before attempting to describe |
| Astronomers have studied the skies. | | | | events which allegedly brought all of these |
| Biologists have studied vast numbers of life | | | | entities into existence billions of years |
| forms. Physicists have studied the laws of | | | | ago? Certainly events billions of years in |
| nature governing the cosmos right down to | | | | the past cannot be easier to decipher than |
| those governing events on the quantum level. | | | | events in our own time. So how can anyone |
| And the list goes on. Yet, not one of these | | | | seriously claim to understand how our |
| endeavors has thus far resulted in the | | | | universe developed into its present |
| complete knowledge of even one subject. I'm | | | | state?Perhaps it is necessary to go into the |
| not talking about knowing everything about | | | | dimensions of our universe to put this |
| every subject. I'm talking about knowing | | | | question into proper perspective:The diameter |
| everything about only one subject. It hasn't | | | | of our sun is about 865,400 miles. Our solar |
| happened yet. And you'd think that after all | | | | system is about 9 billion miles in diameter. |
| the scientific discoveries, achievements, and | | | | Our nearest neighbors outside our solar |
| sophistication of the twenty-first century, | | | | system are the stars Proxima and Alpha |
| such knowledge might at least lie in the | | | | Centtauri, each about 4 lightyears away. (One |
| foreseeable future. But that doesn't seem to | | | | lightyear is about 6 trillion miles, the |
| be the case either. In many instances, it's | | | | distance light travels -- at 186,000 miles |
| quite the contrary. Some branches of science | | | | per second -- in one year.) These stars are |
| seem to become increasingly elusive in direct | | | | only two of the billions of stars which make |
| proportion to our sophistication. For the | | | | up our galaxy, the Milky Way. An average |
| "cut and dried" physical world this is | | | | galaxy is believed to have a diameter of |
| supposed to be, this kind of complexity | | | | approximately 100,000 lightyears. The Milky |
| almost rivals spiritualism itself.Now, an | | | | Way is only one galaxy in a local group of 30 |
| intelligent person would ask himself, "Where | | | | galaxies spanning a total of about 3 million |
| did all this complex ingenuity come from?"A | | | | lightyears across space -- if you travelled |
| 'BIG BANG?'There is a theory generally | | | | at the unimaginable speed of light, it would |
| referred to by scientists as the "big bang." | | | | take you about 3 million years to cross this |
| No, it has nothing to do with the fourth of | | | | local group of only 30 galaxies.It is |
| July. When the fourth of July ends, we're | | | | estimated that there are at least fifty |
| usually left with a lot of exploded shreds of | | | | billion galaxies in the universe.When you |
| garbage. When this purported "big bang" | | | | think about these proportions for a moment, |
| ended, it allegedly left us with debris which | | | | you begin to realize the awesomeness of this |
| somehow evolved into a highly complex and | | | | place we so casually refer to as our |
| organized universe. How? Beats the heck out | | | | universe.Then, after hearing the theories |
| me. Let's see if it beats the heck out of | | | | behind the phenomena believed to exist deep |
| you.Big-bang theorists hold that the universe | | | | in space -- black holes, supergiants, |
| roughly fifteen or twenty billion years ago. | | | | supernovae, quasars, pulsars, neutron stars |
| There was this "something or other" which | | | | -- you begin to realize that the "other end" |
| exploded. Since then the universe has been | | | | of the universe is not only far away but also |
| expanding. Everything in it evolved from the | | | | holds wonders which only a few years ago |
| stuff of that explosion.Let's see if we | | | | would have been considered somewhere between |
| understand this. In spite of the fact that | | | | science fiction and the absurd. Even today, |
| just about any kind of an explosion we could | | | | most of these objects are speculative and far |
| cause would result in nothing but chaos and | | | | from pat concepts.Is this the universe which |
| destruction, we're being told, against all | | | | came into existence through a series of |
| logic, that an explosion is what began the | | | | accidents billions of years ago? And who are |
| process of building the inconceivably complex | | | | the ones perpetuating this? The same people |
| system we now call our universe. Isn't that a | | | | who have given us "pat" answers about our own |
| bit like saying that if you blew up a Rubik's | | | | solar system in our own time?We do not yet |
| cube the little pieces could conceivably | | | | understand how phenomena deep in space work |
| become more complex than the original cube? | | | | in our time. We do not yet understand how our |
| It is common sense that an explosion will | | | | solar system works in our time. We do not yet |
| create a general state of fragmentation and | | | | completely understand how our own planet, |
| disarray. After ripping a system apart, isn't | | | | earth, works in our time. We do not yet |
| it rather absurd to expect the resulting | | | | understand how many living organisms on our |
| chaos to become more intricate and organized | | | | planet work in our time. We do not yet |
| than the original system? When you think | | | | understand how even some small organisms of |
| about it, after an explosion, it is | | | | the bacteria and virus variety work in our |
| unrealistic to expect a system to even | | | | time. We do not yet understand how sub-atomic |
| maintain its previous level of complexity, | | | | particles, so fundamental to our existence, |
| let alone evolve into something more | | | | work in our time. But, somehow, we do |
| complex.An example: If you took every nut, | | | | understand the process which allegedly |
| bolt, and part necessary for the construction | | | | brought all of this into being billions of |
| of a car, piled them up on top of a bomb, and | | | | years ago and caused it to evolve. Is someone |
| blew them up, would you ever expect the parts | | | | pulling our leg?How can anyone simply accept |
| to fall down into a functioning car by mere | | | | theories of how a universe of such |
| chance? How many times would you say you'd | | | | unimaginable proportions and complexity came |
| have to blow the pieces up to get a | | | | into being from the same scientists who seem |
| functioning car? Fifteen million? Seventeen | | | | so confused every time we send a rocket to |
| billion? Or do you think it could never | | | | explore an area of space only a stone's throw |
| happen? Sure the pieces would fall into | | | | from earth? How can anyone accept theories of |
| different configurations and shapes after | | | | the origin of our universe, which implicitly |
| each explosion -- configurations which may be | | | | include the origin of the basic elements of |
| pleasant to look at with an abstract, | | | | matter and life, when these same elements are |
| artistic eye. Configurations which may even | | | | not yet understood today? Isn't it obvious |
| inspire you with thoughts like, "Where's the | | | | that our comprehension of the universe is |
| broom?" But to think that you could | | | | shallow, at best?SHORTCOMINGS OF OUR |
| eventually get into a car and drive off is | | | | UNDERSTANDING OF THE BIG BANGIn 1998 |
| confusing the laws of probability with | | | | scientists discovered something that baffled |
| intelligent design. If you blow up the pieces | | | | the heck out of them. Our understanding of |
| of a car, all you will ever get is a pile of | | | | the expanding universe was that it might |
| junk. And maybe a few lumps on your head from | | | | eventually collapse under its own |
| falling debris. But that's about it.The | | | | gravitational pull. Or, if its gravitational |
| scientifically accepted theory of the origin | | | | pull was not strong enough, it would just |
| and evolution of our universe says, in | | | | keep expanding, but at a slower rate, much |
| effect, that if you blew up the parts of a | | | | like any other explosion.What scientists |
| car you could get a lot more than just a car | | | | discovered, however, was that the universe's |
| -- you could accidentally get a supersonic | | | | rate of expansion was speeding up! This was |
| jet or a space shuttle! This is a better | | | | absolutely astounding. There was, and still |
| story than what used car dealers give | | | | is, no science to explain this. Sure we have |
| you.UNSUPPORTED BY SCIENCE ITSELFIf the idea | | | | more theories (dark matter, being the major |
| that chaos cannot accidentally turn into | | | | one), but at the moment it's all a big |
| design and organization makes sense to you, | | | | mystery.What this boils down to is that we've |
| congratulations! You have something of a | | | | had pretty much of a "pat" theory for about a |
| knack for thermodynamics. The second law of | | | | half a century, based on what we thought was |
| thermodynamics states that energy decreases | | | | solid science. Then, reality threw us a |
| in utility, moving from a state of order to | | | | curve, and our most fundamental |
| disorder and finally to a stage of randomness | | | | understanding of the universe went out the |
| and decay.The notion that a "big bang" can be | | | | window.WHERE'S THE LOGICThis is where the big |
| the seed for a universe such as ours is in | | | | puzzle of the double standard comes in. The |
| direct violation of this law. In a big bang | | | | greatest mystery of all is how some people |
| scenario, rather than order turning into | | | | put trust and faith into scientific theories |
| disorder, the precise opposite happens -- | | | | when, given the same circumstances in a more |
| chaos not only turns into organization, but | | | | practical situation, the absurdity would be |
| into an ingenious system of mind boggling | | | | conspicuously obvious to them. Suppose you |
| complexity. This doesn't coincide with | | | | had your bicycle checked out by a mechanic |
| scientific principles, and it certainly | | | | who gave you a three hour speech on how |
| doesn't hold up logically.When confronted | | | | bicycles work. He described in depth the |
| with the second law of thermodynamics as it | | | | physics of pulleys, gears, momentum, and |
| relates to the evolution of life, many | | | | friction, then told you that your bike was in |
| scientists respond that this law does not | | | | excellent shape. But the moment you got on |
| apply to an "open system." Earth, they say, | | | | your bike it fell apart. Would you go back to |
| is an open system since it is influenced by | | | | the same "mechanic" to have your car checked |
| extraterrestrial systems. So, let's say you | | | | out? Would you fly a plane that had been |
| cannot use this argument against life on | | | | okayed by this mechanic? Who, in his right |
| earth. But, how do you do away with the | | | | mind, would reason, "He may be dishonest or |
| second law of thermodynamics when it comes to | | | | ignorant about bicycles, but, after that |
| the entire universe? The entire universe | | | | speech on pulleys and gears, he must be |
| cannot possibly be an open system -- there | | | | competent when it comes to planes and other |
| are no outside systems to influence it. Even | | | | complicated mechanics." Most people would not |
| if we were to discover "other universes" (of | | | | allow this crook to adjust their kites, let |
| anti-matter, for example), it would still not | | | | alone evaluate the condition of their |
| make our universe an open system. Anything we | | | | planes.Why, then, does it not seem odd to |
| discover becomes part of the "big picture" of | | | | these same people that scientists have little |
| our entire universe or part of one big super | | | | problem figuring out how a vast and complex |
| universe. Thus, after all is included, we | | | | universe with the staggering dimensions of |
| inevitably wind up with one huge closed | | | | hundreds of billions of lightyears of space |
| system. How did this entire system turn into | | | | allegedly worked billions of years ago, yet |
| a workable machine of inconceivable | | | | have difficulty understanding how our "drop |
| sophistication by accident?Answer: It didn't, | | | | in the bucket" solar system works today? How |
| because it couldn't.There is no logical or | | | | do scientists go from relative ignorance of |
| scientific basis whatsoever for an entire | | | | the laws of nature of our own solar system in |
| universe to develop out of chaos. Such an | | | | our own time to a well rounded understanding |
| occurrence would need an "outside" force. And | | | | of the forces behind the entire universe in a |
| since we've already included literally | | | | time long gone?The answer, of course, is that |
| "everything" in our definition of "our | | | | scientists obviously do not have a well |
| universe," there are no outside forces left. | | | | rounded understanding of the physics and |
| Consequently, since our universe is in | | | | mechanics of our universe today, and |
| existence and is in a complex state, its only | | | | certainly cannot have any kind of a decent |
| possible origin would have to be a force not | | | | understanding of the universe in the past. |
| within the confines of our physical world. In | | | | The objective here is not to malign |
| short, we'd be talking about a force unlike | | | | scientists. They obviously do understand the |
| anything we are acquainted with on a physical | | | | science behind cell phones, rockets, heart |
| or scientific level -- quite conceivably | | | | surgery, etc. We have proof of that. But how |
| something of a spiritual nature. Perhaps it | | | | the universe (or life, for that matter) |
| is this spiritual aspect, the only true | | | | began, that's a different story. Readily |
| logical option, which scientists are trying | | | | accepting accounts of the origin and |
| to avoid.Without getting involved in the | | | | evolution of our universe only shows a |
| spiritual implications of our physical | | | | tolerance for misinformation in scientific |
| universe for the moment, let us note what is | | | | matters which goes far beyond what one would |
| relevant here: the structure of our universe, | | | | accept in more practical circumstances. If |
| like genetics, shows a high degree of | | | | you find these theories fun, that's great. |
| intelligence and sophistication in its design | | | | But if truth is of concern to you, proceed |
| and implementation. Perhaps the intelligence | | | | with caution.by Josh Greenberger |
| required is so overwhelming that some | | | | |
| individuals simply find it too mind-boggling | | | | This has been an excerpt from his free book |
| to consider. But attributing the | | | | on evolution at EvolutionDead.comJosh |
| super-phenomenal feat of the development of | | | | Greenberger: A computer consultant for over |
| our universe to an accident of chance is not | | | | two decades, the author has developed |
| the answer. Aside from it not being | | | | software for such organizations as NASA's |
| scientific, it falls somewhat short of sound, | | | | Goddard Institute of Space Studies, AT&T, |
| level-headed thinking. There's certainly no | | | | Charles Schwab, Bell Laboratories and Chase |
| evidence supporting such an accident. The | | | | Manhattan Bank. Since 1984, the author's |
| mere existence of our universe does not prove | | | | literary works have appeared in such |
| it was formed by accident. If anything, our | | | | periodicals as The New York Post, The Daily |
| universe does give every indication of having | | | | News, The Village Voice, The Jewish Press, |
| been designed with intelligence. Studying | | | | and others. His articles have ranged from |
| just about any branch of science will tell | | | | humor to scientific to topical events. Visit |
| you, without any great reasoning abilities, | | | | his site: shopndrop. |
| that there is intelligence in the design and | | | | |