4 QUESTIONS FOR THE ATHEIST:
#2: Why does atheism violate the most basic fact of science?
SERIES—Part 2
Of all the laws of science—they don't get any simpler and easier to understand than the second law of Thermodynamics.

In fact, Albert Einstein called it the most basic law of science.

Closely related to the second law of Thermodynamics is the fact that everything in our universe, when left to itself, tends toward more and more disorder (called "Entropy").



What exactly is the "Law of Disorder?"

The fact that everything tends toward disorder in our universe (that is, if an intelligent mind is not involved) is a phenomenon experienced by every person every day of his/her life.
  • For the parent, the Law of Disorder is seen practically every day they walk into a toy room after the kids are through playing.

  • For the computer operator, it's those pesky chords under the desk that never arrange themselves without help, but somehow manage to get disorganized without much help.

  • For the repair mechanic, it's never walking into the shop expecting to find that the customer's car had fixed itself.

  • For the real estate owner, "nature's tendency for disorder" is the house that always starts falling apart after a few years. And not only does it not repair itself, it didn't draw up its own plans and construct itself either.

  • For the author, it's never having a book write itself by simply providing a word processor with 2 million random letters.

  • And for the engineer, it's getting that airplane, automobile, or space shuttle to work—and then to keep working on its own. No matter what the complex invention, the invention itself will never maintain its complex order without intelligent help. And since it can't maintain order, it sure won't be able to randomly create itself from scratch.

In other words, the Law of Disorder—the easiest, simplest, most fundamental law of science—has been proven through the ages, in all areas of life.

It continues to take place in every observable spot of the universe, without exception.



What the "Law of Disorder" really means

Entropy, or the "Law of Disorder," could be summarized as follows:

Both the creating of complex order, and the maintaining of complex order, always require huge amounts of intelligently applied energy, energy that must be continually re-applied if complex order is to be maintained.

Furthermore—and this is important—the more energy you feed into any spot of the universe, the more rapidly disorder occurs in that spot of the universe. It's like having a two-year-old start playing with an orderly box of toys—versus 10 kids playing with 10 boxes of toys. Which scenario ALWAYS creates the larger mess?

Obviously, the Law of Disorder is all any honest mind needs to understand regarding the validity of evolution (and atheism—since it's entirely founded on evolution).

How so?

Because evolution totally violates Entropy, by claiming that MANY things in nature did the exact opposite, to the extreme.

Furthermore, atheism is clearly a scientific impossibility in that nothing truly complex in our universe is able to "create itself" (or maintain itself) without the aid of an intelligent mind.



Usable energy is disappearing

Directly related to the concept of disorder is the fact that everything in the universe is clocking down. Everything appears to be losing usable (potential) energy.

For example, the sun is losing energy. It will eventually burn out if time goes on long enough. And so will all energy sources in the universe.

Therefore, we might add to atheism's already insurmountable problems by asking:

"If things are 'clocking down' and losing energy, how did they get in a 'clocked up' state to begin with?"

Furthermore, since everything in the universe is going from a state of order and organization to a state of disorder and disorganization, this means the universe is in a more orderly condition today than it will be tomorrow.

Yesterday it was more orderly than today. And if we take this back a few thousand (or million) years into the past, the world must have been far more orderly then than it is today. And a few million years into the future, according to Entropy, the world will be less organized than ever.

In other words, instead of life forms continually growing "more complex by accident," actual laws of science point logical minds to the exact opposite conclusion.



The utter impossibility of atheism further exposed

Now that I've discussed the Law of Disorder, let's go into even more detail to show the ludicrousness of the atheistic theory of (chemical and macro) evolution.

Suppose you decided to build a new house in the middle of the woods. Then suppose you were later forced to permanently abandon your house. Suppose no one else moved in.

If you returned to your house after a few years, do you think it would look the same? Would you expect it to look as neat, orderly and tidy as the day you left it? What about 100 years later? If no one had inhabited your house for 100 years, do you suppose it would look the same?

We know the obvious answer. Who among has not taken a country drive and observed homes that were left to themselves. They certainly didn't appear to maintain themselves!

Again, the reason is that the forces of nature would progressively destroy the house, causing it to progress from its initial state of order and organization to a state of greater and greater Entropy.

And the connection to atheism is obvious:

Nothing that is highly ordered or complex can possibly exist without the initial introduction of intelligence and energy. In other words, intelligence had to be introduced to create the house in the first place, and the moment this intelligent energy departed, disorder would dominate, causing the house to gradually debilitate into ruins.



Can "nothingness" really build a house from scratch?

Now look at it from a slightly different viewpoint:

Suppose again that you intended to build a new house in middle of the woods. You cleared a few trees and placed all the necessary building supplies nearby—wood, nails, concrete, paint, carpet, etc. What do you think the odds would be that the house would "build itself" by random acts of nature?

According to evolutionists and atheists, "Anything is mathematically possible."

Yet few in their right minds would ever admit this could happen by chance. Why? Once again, due to "destructive chemical forces," due to Entropy.

Without creative energy, then matter—indeed, the universe—becomes increasingly more disorganized.

"But it could happen!" they insist. How?

"Well," they might say, "it's mathematically possible that the wind could blow out a hole in the ground perfect for the foundation, it's possible those concrete bags could rupture and spill precisely into the foundation hole, and rain could then fall in exact amounts to mix the concrete ideally. Then the sun might come out, baking the concrete perfectly thus completing the foundation. Meanwhile, the wooden structure of the house could accidentally be blown into the concrete and secured before the concrete dried."

(Remember, all this would have to be done in a specific order of events or the entire process would fail.)

"Next," the atheist might continue, "it's mathematically possible the roof could be blown onto the top of the frame exactly seating itself, with every nail coincidentally landing in the correct spot and driven in by tornadic winds. Then, after the sheet rock was blown and nailed into place, the lighting fixtures could inadvertently be propelled by a hurricane into the house and suspended at the exact and proper spot on the ceilings, hovering in place just long enough for all the screws to be vibrated into position by an earthquake."

"Next, the paint could then be splashed onto the walls by the wind in unblemished smoothness.

"And finally, in a similar fashion the carpet could be unrolled, cut by sharp falling limbs from nearby trees, and laid neatly and perfectly throughout the house."

No wonder so many people these days reject evolution.



Illustration grossly oversimplified

Once again, the illustration is grossly over-simplified in favor of the atheistic explanation of Chemical Evolution.

Remember, as impossible as the above is to happen accidentally, this example assumes that all the necessary supplies are already at the building site.

Imagine how much more difficult it would be to get nature to build your house if you had to wait for it to manufacture the wiring, wood, concrete, lighting fixtures, windows, paint, etc, etc—and then transport them all to the building site!

And by the way: a house is astronomically simpler in design and construction than the simplest life form. There is no comparison. That's why men can build lots of houses but haven't come close to re-constructing the simplest possible life form.

So, in review, why will a house never build itself by accident, and never even come close?

Because Entropy will keep it from happening.

Instead of meaningful construction, the opposite will occur: destruction.

Organized things will become more and more disorganized (e.g., the constructed house goes into ruins). Only creative intelligent energy can reverse this process (e.g., human builders).

It should therefore be clear to everyone that if a house (that's billions of times simpler than your brain) can't build itself by accident, then nor did your brain—or for that matter, an incredibly complex, self-reproducing and self-sufficient bacterium.



Question #3: How did the universe—and physical matter—get here?

We weren't here when it happened. We don't know exactly how it happened. We may not even know why it happened.

But one thing we do know: it happened. The universe came into existence. Something came from material nothingness.

But how?

Where did it all come from? How did the universe get here? How did the chemicals making up our own bodies materialize?

Is the existence of physical matter and the universe simply something we blindly and thoughtlessly accept as a rudimentary fact of our personal existence? Is it truly logical to suggest the universe simply always existed?

Atheism—obviously unable to adequately answer these questions—counters with one of its own: "If God created matter, then Who created God?"

But the fact that none of us knows how God came into being certainly does not detract from the obvious fact that matter had to have been created by Someone a lot smarter than us.

After all, which is easier to believe: That the incredible complexity of life came out of nothingness—or—that the incredible complexity of life was created by an incredibly Complex Being?

Which sounds logical?

Evolution and atheism, unencumbered by common sense, appear to endorse miracles after all.



Question #4: Why is the universe so organized?

Consider the remarkable organization of this vast, boundless universe.

Did this orderly array all plop out of mindless nothingness?

Did it simply pop into existence by chance? Was it all just the most miraculous, unbelievable accident to have ever occurred?

From the macro-systems of our solar system to the micro-systems of the atom's protons, electrons, and neutrons—the universe is remarkably systematized. Our universe unfalteringly follows what we call "laws of nature"—laws of Entropy, gravity, atoms, thermodynamics.

Why do we call them "laws?" Think about that word for a moment. Law.

"Law" implies "order and organization." Organization is evidence of intelligence, of creativity.

The word "organism" derives from the word "organize" which implies that where organization exists, an "organism" or living entity also exists. Therefore, the fact that the universe has laws provides circumstantial evidence to the existence of God.

But not only do the laws of the universe exist, they exist with precision. Precision implies intelligent perfection.

The laws of our universe are so precise that planetary locations can be predicted with absolute pin-point accuracy.

The science of mathematics is evidence of organization and intelligent precision. The reason mathematics can be used to consistently predict events and reactions in our universe is that the laws of our universe are consistent and orderly—to the extent that chemists can predict reactions when chemicals are combined—they can forecast how many electrons will be shared between atoms and what resulting chemical compounds will be produced. They can also predict that the same combinations will react in exactly the same manner time after time.

Where there is precise law, there is order.

Where there is order, there is intelligence.

Therefore, the universal laws of nature imply the existence of a universal, eternal Intelligence, a universal Being.

That Being is God.



What can we conclude?

The evidence of God in the universe is overwhelming.

No wonder the Biblical writer Paul said:
For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made [created], so that men are without excuse.
(Romans 1:20)

David, King of Israel, was more direct:
The fool says in his heart, 'There is no God.'
(Psalms 14:1)



BACK TO PART 1




Additional recommended reading:

Defending Christianity
Why Chemical Evolution is impossible




Print this article Email this article








How to be Saved



10 Tips



Christian Living




         Article Archives:   Feature Article Archives Video Archives Bible Mythbuster Archives
          Main Links:  
Home Make ReligiouslyIncorrect.org your Favorite Translate this page Join our Email List Contact Us
          Other Links:  
Submit Your Article Find Other Christians Near You
        © 2009 ReligiouslyIncorrect.org