Expert: Tom Whiting - 1/23/2009

Question
Hello Tom,I am an creationist and do not believe the big bang myth,I do not know if you are but if you are an evolutionist my question is.What is the evidence that the universe INCREASED in its order and complexity after the big bang in contradiction to the 2nd law of thermodynamics?

Answer
Hi Kevin, Well, we evolutionists are 'creationists' too, but by a process of evolution (as we Christians simply recognize it as God's methodology) as opposed to an instantaneous....'wave your Magic Wand' method assumed by...your people.  Which, BTW, wouldn't the 2nd Law so-called 'contradiction'....apply there, too?  Yes.Well, first right off the top, the Big Bang is no longer a "belief"....It's an....Accept/Reject.  Since data can be obtained, observations made, tests conducted, and conclusions obtained, both subjects of evolution and the Big Bang are no longer "beliefs". Beliefs are things we have no tests or observations for...the Virgin Birth, the Burning Bush, the acceptance that Christ was in fact, the real Son of God...these are 'beliefs' as we have no test for a Virgin Birth, a Burning Bush, or any definitive 'test' for God.  What's the difference? A belief with no other data available, rejection does not require the 'rejector' to provide a new and different process or scenerio...as there is no data to counteract. But with an accept/reject, and you decide to reject (as with the Big Bang or evolution)...then the Monkey is on YOUR back (sorry for the pun) to provide a new and different mechanism to adequately explain the observation results.  With Big Bang, you'd have to adequately demonstrate and explain how the galaxies are all not only expanding from each other, but accelerating their expansion.  You have to give good reason to explain the microwave background radiation (Arno Pensias-1965, and confirmed by COBE in 1991 and WMAP satellite later)....if you can't successfully do that, then from a science standpoint, your rejection....is not germane and is meaningless, because we see all those effects and there HAS tobe an adequate demonstrable explanation for all that data. (With evolution, you have to explain the DNA of Chimps and the other primates with an over 99% DNA matchup!; not to mention all the nearly exact physical characteristics...opposed thumb, binocular vision, not to mention the fossil record, etc. )   And it does no good to say, "Well, God just did it that way, or made it look that way" as that begs the question and still does notprovide an adequate explanation...I could say the same for evolution and the Big Bang the way I view it...I could say the same thing, so that's not an adequate response because one is left with the same unresolved problem, namely an adequate response to the collected data and observations mentioned above. So rather than continuously having to tear down ALL the sciences ALL the time, it makes more logical sense, at least to me, to simply accept the fact that God's methods are slowly being exposed properly, as God gave us Science to do that...sorry, science is the product of God, not the product of the devil as you would probably say. If you don't accept that, then turn in (give up) your microwave oven, your digital watch, your cable or satellite dish, and your computer.  Actually in both scenerio's I don't see any problem with the 2nd Law on either creation process.  When God said, let there be light, he obviously found the way, or had the Power, to reverse entropy in both cases. The Big Bang...was the 'light' in that statement, not the sun. The sun and solar system didn't form up until the Universe had been established (13.7 - 4.6 billion) so the Universe had already been created about 9 billion years before the Solar System formed up. That's where our heavy elements came from, but that's another story. So in conclusion, the only advice I can give was stated by P.J.O'Rourke many years ago..."To mistrust science and deny the validity of the scientific method is to resign your job as a human.  You'd better go look for work as a plant or wild animal."Hope this helped, and from a "born again" Christian myself, (2-28-60)without all the Genesis Biblical baggage,(although you probably don't believe that either, but it's true nevertheless.)Clear Skies,Tom WhitingErie, PA

FOLLOW UP
I need to re-phrase that last paragraph, as I meant...without all
the Genesis "literal interpretation" baggage. We in evolution and
astronomy...it isn't we don't 'believe' Genesis, but rather put a
non-literal interpretation to it.  One is allowed to do that if
one wishes, without loss of Grace or faith. We ALL do that on other parts too...we have to today, otherwise you'd have to buy into a non-moving stationary geocentric Solar system. Joshua at the battle of...wherever, asked the Lord to make the sun stand still (not
the Earth) implying that the sun moves, not the Earth...The earth is as suspended on a string in nothing (implying motionless, literally)...AND the foundations of the Earth are laid that they are unmoved forever, or something like that.
All 3 statements were used against Galileo at his Inquisition, but
Galileo was right and the instantaneous creationists/literal interpretationists.... were wrong.
Bruno was burned at the stake for advocating that the sun is a star,
and all stars were suns....(but that's not right to the instantaneous
creationists/literal interpretationists of that time frame because the sun was created on one day, and the stars another day)....Bruno was right and the instantaneous creationists/literal interpretationists..... were wrong there too. So they were wrong about geocentric, non-moving Earth, (rotation AND revolution
of same), and the fact that the sun IS a star and all stars ARE suns....strike 3 and you're out!  So at the very least, the literal interpretationists past track record from the 1600's....isn't too pure is it?   Is that why y'all prefer to avoid...past history of
that time frame?
Clear Skies,
Tom Whiting
Erie, PA

ADDITIONAL FOLLOW UP:
In fact the literal interpretationists kept us all in the dark
for over 2000 years they has us buffaloed with their stationary and
central Earth.  This held astronomy back for over 2 millenia!
Can you imagine how much more we would have learned if it were not
for the literal interpretationists telling us that the Bible is
correct literally, and we just have to accept a central, non-
moving Earth.  For OVER 2000 years!  Yes, I do blame them....it was only 400 years ago this year that we learned the truth...the earth DOES move, and it's not in the center, the Sun is.
Fool me once (for 2000 years), shame on you (or your predecessors); fool me twice and shame on me.   Never again accept a literal interpretation by human beings! (It's not the Bible, it's the
human beings' bad - or incorrect--interpretation of it!)
tom