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