How did the universe and all that is in it come into existence?

Did some inexplicable event set off the process

or was it the work of an intelligent designer?

The two sides of the debate

True science is based on what is known as the “scientific method,” by which knowledge is advanced by formulating a question, collecting data about it through observation and experiment, and testing a hypothetical answer. Only after such experimentation has proven a scientific theory to be true by producing observable and repeatable results does the theory move into the realm of scientific fact.

Atheistic and materialistic science proposes two major theories for our origins. First the big bang theory to explain how the universe came into existence, and then evolution for how life began.

More and more evidence is being uncovered that indicates the universe and all that is in it was the work of an intelligent designer, not chance. The truth is that the theories of the big bang and evolution are not as factual and convincing as their proponents pretend.

Because neither of these theories nor the belief in the Creation being wrought by God can be observed or repeated under observable experimental conditions, they are all belief systems that remain within the realm of faith. It comes down to what—and whom—you choose to believe.

Scientific laws that big bang/evolution defy

When something is a law of science, it means that it is an unchanging principle of nature. It is a scientifically observable phenomenon that has been subjected to extensive measurements and experimentation and has repeatedly proved to be invariable throughout the known universe (e.g., the law of universal gravitation and the laws of motion).

A scientific law that is defied by the big bang theory is the law of the conservation of angular momentum. This law states that if an object is spinning and part of that object detaches and flies off, the part that flies off will spin in the same direction as the object it detached from.

The big bang theory goes through constant revision as new data is interjected into the equation, but in essence it states that the universe began from a furiously spinning, infinitesimally small but immensely dense dot. The dot exploded in the “the big bang” that threw out matter that expanded into all the astral bodies that comprise the universe, which is still expanding.

It is true that the planets are observed to be spinning, but according to the law of the conservation of angular momentum, if all the planets spun off from the same original object, then they would all be spinning in the same direction. Even an examination of our own solar system shows that Venus and Uranus spin in the opposite direction than the rest of the planets do. This evidence alone disproves the big bang theory.

One of the laws of physics is termed the second law of thermodynamics. This law observes the fact that the usable energy in the universe is diminishing. Ultimately, there would be no available energy left. Stemming from this fact we find that the most probable state for any natural system is one of disorder. All natural systems degenerate when left to themselves.

Famed scientist, science fiction writer, and big bang/evolutionary proponent Isaac Asimov put it this way:

Another way of stating the second law then is, “The universe is constantly getting more disorderly.” Viewed that way we can see the second law all about us. We have to work hard to straighten a room, but left to itself it becomes a mess again very quickly and very easily. Even if we never enter it, it becomes dusty and musty. How difficult to maintain houses, and machinery, and our own bodies in perfect working order; how easy to let them deteriorate. In fact, all we have to do is nothing, and everything deteriorates, collapses, breaks down, wears out, all by itself—and that is what the second law is all about.

But the crux of evolutionary theory is that things are gaining in complexity, simple life forms giving rise to more sophisticated ones, disorder giving rise to order. This flies in the face of the second law of thermodynamics. On this point alone the theory of evolution would have to be disallowed.

Evolutionists counter this argument by claiming that an energy source can reverse the second law. For example, an outside energy force such as a housekeeper can tidy a disorderly room. They point to the sun as the outside source of energy, and say over billions of years the sun’s energy would be like the busy housekeeper. Simple observation, however, would show that energy from the sun alone is not capable of creating life from something with no life, or complexity from simplicity.

Consider the sun shining on two seedlings: the one alive, the other dead. When equal amounts of water and nutrients are added to both, the live plant flourishes but the dead one decays. Energy from the sun is not enough to give rise to life. And as for the dead plant, it rots and disintegrates in accordance with the second law of thermodynamics.