The scientific consensus is that all matter is eternal.
Let me review a few key points from last Sunday. The scientific consensus is that all matter is eternal. Matter wasn't created. It's just always existed. It has no beginning or end.
The scientific consensus is that billions of years ago dead, lifeless, eternal matter (for inexplicable reasons) began evolving from nothing into something. Life emerged from death. That which was formless and void not only formed itself, but developed the capacity to reproduce itself and spawn increasingly complex forms of life, even humans! Again, according to science, all of this occurred by random, chance processes. Any design that we observe in creation is incidental. Any similarity that exists between species is proof of evolution.
Since the time of Darwin, scientists have indoctrinated us with the belief that everything can be, and must be, explained by naturalistic processes. Here again is the quote from a biology textbook used in a local high school. "One goal of science is to provide natural explanations for events in the natural world. Science also aims to use those explanations to understand patterns in nature and to make useful predictions about natural events." Kenneth Miller and Joseph Levine. Biology. Pearson Education: Boston, page 5.
But here are the facts. Again, quoting from the same textbook, "...no theory is considered absolute truth. Science is always changing; as new evidence is uncovered, a theory may be revised or replaced by a more useful explanation." Kenneth Miller and Joseph Levine. Biology. Pearson Education: Boston, page 13. In the words of John Walton, "Science provides the best explanation of the data at the time. This best explanation is accepted by consensus, and often with few detractors." The Lost World of Genesis One, John Walton, page 17.
The complexity of the biological systems cannot be explained by evolution.
But here is the dirty little secret. There is an elephant in the room that scientists don't want to contend with. Slowly but surely, biochemists like Michael Behe are demonstrating the utter impossibility of evolution occurring on a cellular level. He points out that the biological systems that support cell life are irreducible complex. In order to evolve, multiple systems would have to change simultaneously.
Consider an example adapted from Darwin's Black Box. Suppose you were walking in the woods and stumbled upon this mouse trap. The wooden base is perfectly rectangular. Its metal hammer is designed to crush a little mouse. The coiled spring presses against the platform and hammer to power the hammer. A sensitive catch, which is designed to hold food, releases at the slightest pressure. A metal bar connects to the catch and holds the hammer back when the trap is charged. Staples hold the parts perfectly in place. Darwin's Black Box, Michael Behe, page 43.
The elements of this trap can be found in nature. Its wood can be found in nearby trees and its copper ore is found in nearby rock. But how were its individual components formed? And how did they begin working together so perfectly? But Behe's main point is even more profound. All of the parts are interdependent. Each piece requires all the others in order to complete its function. The mouse trap will not work if you remove any one of its components. Yet this mouse trap doesn't reflect anything near the complexity of a single plant or animal cell.
A single cell has the complexity of an entire city. Its DNA contains as much data as a million CDs can hold. Its biochemical machinery is unsurpassed in efficiency. For its life to begin, all its components would need to come together in just such a way as to not only function as a unit, but also to reproduce itself and spawn new life. Anything that evolutionists posit to happen on a macro-evolution level has to be plausible at a biochemical, cellular level.
Behe explains this another way. He invites us to consider this sequence: skateboard, toy wagon, bicycle, motorcycle, automobile, airplane, jet plane, and space shuttle. Darwin's Black Box, Michael Behe, page 43. Conceptually, you can argue that all of these objects are related. They are used in transportation. But that each of these can evolve, one into another, defies imagination! Just look under the hood! A foot-powered bicycle is different than a two-cycle engine. A car engine is vastly different than a jet engine. A jet engine is entirely different than a rocket engine. And this is to say nothing of the systems required for them to operate!
Science holds to a naturalistic explanation for the origin of life.
But science refuses anything other than a naturalistic explanation for the origin of life! By definition, science disallows supernatural explanations. Science limits itself to the natural. Science blatantly makes itself stupid to God, and it suppresses any knowledge of God. See Romans 1:19. It refuses to consider all things. It only considers those things it can put in its tiny, convenient, naturalistic box.
Behe's concluding point in his book is quite true. "Science, fundamentally, is a game. It is a game with one overriding and defining rule. Rule number one: Let us see how far and to what extent we can explain the behavior of the physical and material universe in terms of purely physically and material causes, without invoking the supernatural." Darwin's Black Box, Michael Behe, page 238.
What does the Bible say about creation?
In the remainder of our time, let's turn our attention to the biblical record. What does the Bible teach about creation? Let's again consider Genesis 1:1-2 (NIV). "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. Now the earth was formless and empty..."
When we read these words, we read them through a materialistic lens. We assume that they are telling us something about the origin of matter. In high school you memorized the periodic table and memorized the one hundred or so elements of which all matter consists. The consensus of theologians is that God created everything "ex nihilo"--that he created everything, including time, space, and matter, and all the elements, from nothing. But this isn't the focus of Genesis 1:1-2. The focus of Genesis 1:1-2 isn't that God created all matter (though he did), but it's concerned with the simple fact that God "formed" the heavens and the earth. He gave the heavens and the earth their definition, their function, their form, their shape, their purpose, and their utility.
In Genesis 1:1 the Hebrew word "bara" that is translated "create", also means to "make", "shape", or "form" out of something that already exists.
Imagine that you showed up at a construction site. The modern reader would see the stacks of lumber, the boxes of nails, the bags of concrete and ask, "Who created these materials?" The ancient people would have focused on the houses being built and marveled, "Who designed this house? Who thought of this? Who fashioned these materials and elements to work like this!"
The ancients were less concerned with matter. They were obsessed with function. Look how well and good everything is designed!
The earth was "formed" at God's command.
Consider the emphasis in Hebrews 11:3 (NIV). "By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God's command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible." Notice the word used is "formed" instead of the word "created". The King James version of the Bible uses the word framed. The ancients were less interested in the origins of matter. They were far more impressed with how God formed matter, framed matter, gave matter its function, and brought complex life out of dead elements.
So consider Isaiah 45:18 (NIV). Notice how the words "created" and "fashioned" are parallel to one another. "For this is what the LORD says-- he who created the heavens, he is God; he who fashioned and made the earth, he founded it; he did not create it to be empty, but formed it to be inhabited-- he says: 'I am the LORD, and there is no other.' "
We see the same thing in Isaiah 45:7 (NIV) where God says, "I form the light and create darkness, I make peace and create disaster; I, the LORD, do all these things." Again, notice how the idea of "forming" and "creating" are parallel. We can marvel at a pile of lumber, but the ancients marveled most at God's design in creation. They marveled at the form, the function, and the design. They marveled that God created it, formed it, shaped it, ordered it, purposed it, and now sustains it. To the ancients, the sheer complexity of the designed world was evidence of God's wisdom and goodness.
Genesis 1 demonstrates the contrast between form and function in creation.
It's interesting to see an outline of Genesis 1. Notice what happens on the first three days of creation. On day one, God creates light in Genesis 1:3. On day two, God separates the waters and creates the sky in Genesis 1:6-8. On day three, God creates dry ground, plants, and vegetation in Genesis 1:9-13.
But notice how days one, two, and three parallel days four, five, and six. On day four God creates greater light (sun) to govern the day, and lesser light (moon) to govern the night. On day five God fills the water with living creatures, and he fills the sky with birds. On day six, God fills the land with animals and plants. There is purpose, there is order, there is harmony, there is form in days one through three. But there is function in days four through six.
And at every juncture of creation we read these words, "And God saw that it was good." There is a practicality, a desirability, a wisdom, a goodness, and a pleasantness to everything in creation. The world has been perfectly fashioned to support life. Before God's activity, the heavens and earth were formless and void.
Ancient philosophers argued for an intelligent creator.
Plato, an ancient Greek philosopher, marveled at the order and motion of the stars and marveled at the mind which ordered the universe. He reasoned that there had to be a maker, and a Father of all, and a king.
Aristotle vehemently argued that there was a first, uncaused cause who ordered the universe-- a living, intelligent, immaterial, eternal, and most good being.
Astronomers, having studied the inhospitality of our universe, marvel at how finely tuned and balanced the earth is for life, and especially for human life.
But what about you? What do you conclude from your analysis of created things? Turn your eyes to the screen. Do you sense God's power and divine nature as noted in Romans 1:20? Do you find yourself swept up in adoration and praise like in Psalm 148:5? Do you give God the glory and credit for all creation as in Isaiah 45:12? Or do you worship created things instead of the creator who is forever praised? See Romans 1:20? Do you suppress knowledge of God, concluding that God cannot exist? Do you have the faith that God creates all things?