Scientists marvel about certain biological structures, and how they have the “appearance” of design, but most would never actually accept that they are designed. They will admit that DNA is a programming language that controls how every form of life is built, but won’t mention that whenever we see functional information there is always an intelligence behind it. They reject the notion that our universe could have been created, and instead come up with ever increasingly bizarre explanations for how it began.
If they would objectively follow the evidence where it leads, many scientists would come to a conclusion that God exists. They would have to. They know too much. Yet, they cannot. The notion of an intelligent creator is not allowed in their world view, and because of that they must reject it before the evidence is ever examined.
Professor Lawrence Kraus, Theoretical Physicist: “The Big Bang was so immense that it brought into existence all of the mass and all of the energy contained in all of the 400 billion galaxies we see in our universe, in a region smaller than the size of a single atom.
Everything we see around us, all came from a dense point of energy smaller than an atom, and now here I am, typing this. Here you are, reading this. Pretty amazing. Of course, when you believe in an eternal, omnipotent creator, this is what you would expect–something amazing. If you don’t believe in a creator, you would be grasping at all kinds of materialistic theories to try to explain it all.
So, we’re still talking about just a fraction of a second after the Big Bang. Also, notice the use of the word “creation”. It’s hard to escape that word to describe what’s going on, even for those who don’t believe in a creator.
They then interviewed Professor Carlos Frenk, a cosmologist who studies how gravity shaped the universe by simulating artificial universes in a super computer. He found that if you create a universe with just a little less gravity, that everything flies apart. No galaxies form–thus, no life. If you create a universe with just a little more gravity, then everything ends up as black holes. Again, you have a failed universe where life cannot exist.
I love that. “Lucky for us, the Big Bang got it just right”. Or, maybe it’s not really luck. Maybe it’s not such a stretch to believe that there is an intelligent being that got it just right–a creator that existed prior to the universe, that brought everything we see into existence, including space and time itself.
Actually, what Frenk has proved is strong evidence for a creator, and is used along with other similar data as support for the idea of intelligent design. Here is one way of looking at how finely tuned gravity is. Imagine a ruler stretching across the universe, and on that ruler are billions upon billions upon billions of inches. Each point on that ruler represents a possible “setting” for gravity. If you moved the setting only one inch in either direction, life would not be possible.
If that’s not enough, there are many constants related to the other forces, and there are interrelationships between those forces that all have to be set just right for life to exist. They have to be incredibly finely tuned to support a life-permitting universe. If you start considering the likelihood that two or more of these constants could be set by chance, the odds quickly become unimaginably small.
This evidence should lead anyone to the conclusion that a creator is at least a possible explanation for all we see–unless of course, you must reject that as a possibility, which those in science believe they must do. They say science can only look at the physical world, and what we are talking about is beyond the physical. Yet, they will postulate a theory about an infinite number of universes being created by membranes crashing together in a dimension we can’t see. They are reaching at straws to come up with any way to explain how it might be possible that we live in a universe that not only popped into existence out of nothing at a specific point in the past, but that is incredibly fine-tuned to support life.
Call me crazy, but I think floating membranes and infinite universes is way more of a stretch than a creator. What about you?
This line from the narrator made me laugh, though I’m sure the narrator might be a wee bit offended at that. It sounds as though the Big Bang is being personified, as if it wasn’t a force of nature (or whatever the scientific types call it) but a being with intelligence, who will itself to act and either “get it just right” or flub up miserably. So it struck me that there’s an unknowing acknowledgment of the need for a Designer rather than a random chaotic bang.
I’m not a scientist and I can’t pretend to comprehend even a fraction of the scientific arguments over creation vs. evolution. But for me, it would take far more faith to believe that our structured, orderly universe was the result of a random act, than to believe that God was behind it.
Laura: Sorry for the delay in approving your comment. I was sifting through some comment spam and finally found yours. I totally agree, and you don’t even need to be a scientist to see the simplicity of the argument for a creator. If something comes into existence, it must have a cause, and you can’t have a regression of causes into the infinite past. If you walk into a room with dominoes falling, you know that something caused the first one to fall. Scientists know that everything, including time and space, were created at a finite time in the past. They have no explanation for how this all came to being, other than to postulate an infinite number of universes, because when you bring in the infinite, anything is possible. Scientists also know that whenever you find complex information, it must be attributed to intelligence. If you see words carved into a stone, you don’t look for a naturalistic source. DNA is complicated informational code that builds every living thing. Yet, they will not consider an intelligent agent as the author of that information.
For some reason scientists believe they must reject any supernatural causes, even if that is where the evidence points. It would be like a detective being shown a dead body with bullet holes in it, and then being told they need to find the cause of death.. but, the cause they put forth must be a natural one. In other words, they could not even suggest that the cause could be an intelligent agent (i.e. murder). It’s crazy. Thanks for the comment!