Thursday, August 15, 2013

Whose “Creation Myth” Makes the most Sense?

The late Allan Sandage, widely regarded as the father of modern astronomy and discoverer of quasars, wrote,

  • I find it quite improbable that such order [as exemplified by the laws of physics] came out of chaos. There has to be some organizing principle. God to me is a mystery but is the explanation for the miracle of existence – why there is something rather than nothing.

In opposition to this, naturalism posits that there is a natural explanation for these laws. However, these laws pose a formidable challenge:

    1. THEY ARE IMMUTABLE: This is impossible to account for within a universe characterized by molecules-in-motion.

    1. THEY ARE SUPREMELY ELEGANT: Explosions – the Big Bang - can’t account for elegance.

    1. THEY ACT UNIVERSALLY AND UNIFORMLY: From where do they exert their influence? It would seem that they are transcendent. This would best explain their uniform influence.

Consequently, mathematician and scientist John C. Lennox concludes:

  • The world of strict naturalism, in which clever mathematical laws all by themselves bring the universe and life into existence is pure (science) fiction…a rather desperate refuge from the alternative possibility [God].

No comments:

Post a Comment