A Universe from Nothing?

BY JAKE HEBERT, PH.D. * | FRIDAY, JUNE 29, 2012

Explaining the origin of the universe is an enormous challenge for those seeking to deny their Creator: How could
a universe come from nothing? The challenge is so great that some have argued that the universe simply did not
even have a beginning, but has existed eternally. However, because most professing atheists have accepted the big
bang model of the universe, they have accepted the premise that our universe did indeed have a beginning. Hence,
they have a need to explain that beginning.

Theoretical physicist Lawrence Krauss presented in a recent book his claim that the laws of physics could have
created the universe from nothing.1 Likewise, other physicists offer similar arguments.

They appeal to the well-known phenomena of “virtual particle” creation and annihilation. The spontaneous (but
short-lived) appearance of subatomic particles from a vacuum is called a quantum fluctuation. These subatomic
particles appear and then disappear over such short time intervals that they cannot be directly observed. However,
the effects of these virtual particles can be detected; they are, for instance, responsible for a very subtle effect on
the spectrum of the hydrogen atom called the “Lamb shift.” The short lifetimes of these virtual particles are
governed by the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle (HUP), which says that a short-lived state cannot have a well-
defined energy.

The HUP places a limit on the time that a quantum fluctuation can persist. The greater the energy of the
fluctuation, the shorter the time that it may last. It is for this reason that virtual particles appear and then disappear
after very short intervals.

Krauss and other evolutionary physicists argue that the universe itself is the result of such a quantum fluctuation.
However, the HUP itself presents an apparent difficulty for this claim. One would intuitively expect the energy
content of the entire universe to be enormous. Hence, even if one were to argue that the universe did “pop” into
existence via a quantum fluctuation, the energy content of the universe would be so large that the corresponding
time would be vanishingly small, and the newly born universe would then immediately vanish. It is, therefore,
difficult to see how our enormous universe could have resulted from such a fluctuation.

Evolutionary physicists argue, however, that if the total energy content of the universe were exactly zero, then a
universe resulting from such a fluctuation could persist indefinitely without violating the HUP. This is admittedly
a clever argument. Have the “new atheists” found a genuinely convincing way to explain our universe’s existence
apart from God?

Not really. The argument hinges on the claim that the total energy of the universe is exactly zero, and this claim is
based squarely on Big Bang assumptions. Stephen Hawking writes:
The idea of inflation could also explain why there is so much matter in the universe….The answer is that, in
quantum theory, particles can be created out of energy in the form of particle/antiparticle pairs. But that just raises
the question of where the energy came from. The answer is that the total energy of the universe is exactly zero.2

Despite Hawking’s blithe assertion, no human being can possibly know the precise energy content of the entire
universe. In order to verify the claim that the total energy content of the universe is exactly zero, one would have
to account for all the forms of energy in the universe (gravitational potential energy, the relativistic energies of all
particles, etc.), add them together, and then verify that the sum really is exactly zero. Despite Hawking’s
intelligence and credentials, he is hardly omniscient.

So the claim of a “zero energy” universe is based, not on direct measurements, but upon an interpretation of the
data through the filter of the Big Bang model. As hinted in the above quote, the claim comes from inflation
theory, which states that the universe underwent a short, accelerated period of expansion shortly after the Big
Bang. But “inflation” is an ad hoc idea that was attached to the original Big Bang model in order to solve a
number of serious (and even fatal) difficulties.3 Hawking, Krauss, and others are making the claim of a zero
energy universe because it is an expected consequence of inflation theory. However, for someone who does not
have an a priori commitment to the Big Bang (and inflation theory), it is not at all clear that the universe’s total
energy would be exactly zero. In fact, it seems extremely unlikely.

Moreover, when virtual particles momentarily appear within a vacuum, they are appearing in a space that already
exists. Because space itself is part of our universe, the spontaneous creation of a universe requires space itself to
somehow pop into existence.

In his recent book, Krauss spends very little time addressing this key point. Most of the book consists of a defense
of the Big Bang, anecdotal stories, and criticisms of creationists. It is only near the end of the book that he
actually seriously addresses this key issue (how space itself could be created from nothing), but he spends very
little time on it, despite the fact that the book is over 200 pages long.4 He argues that quantum gravity (a theory
that merges quantum mechanics and general relativity) could allow space itself to pop into existence. One obvious
problem with this claim is that a workable theory of quantum gravity does not yet exist.

Moreover, the general claim that the laws of physics could have created our universe suffers from a number of
serious logical difficulties. Our understanding of the laws of physics is based on observation. For instance, our
knowledge of the laws of conservation of momentum and energy come from observations made from literally
thousands of experiments. No one has ever observed a universe “popping” into existence. This means that any
laws of physics that would allow (even in principle) a universe to pop into existence are completely outside our
experience. The laws of physics, as we know them, simply are not applicable here. Rather, the spontaneous
creation of a universe would require higher “meta” or “hyper” laws of physics that might or might not be anything
like the laws of physics that we know.
But this raises another problem. Since such hypothetical meta or hyper laws of physics are completely outside our
experience, why do atheistic physicists naively assume that rules like the HUP would even apply when describing
the universe’s creation? They freely speculate about other (unobservable) universes in an alleged “multiverse”
that can have laws of physics radically different from our own. Since the HUP is known to be valid only within or
inside our universe, it is not at all clear why they would assume that the HUP would even apply when discussing
our universe’s creation. Perhaps the HUP is indeed part of these hyper laws of physics, but one could just as
easily argue that it is not. One can engage in all kinds of speculation here, but such speculation is not science.

Moreover, even if these supposed higher laws of physics actually existed, in order for them to create the universe,
they must have an existence apart from the universe. But this presents a dilemma for the atheist who says that the
cosmos is all that exists. Before his death, Carl Sagan acknowledged in correspondence with ICR scientist Larry
Vardiman that he recognized this problem for his worldview: His view of origins required the laws of physics to
create the cosmos, but because he did not acknowledge his Creator, he could not explain the origin of the laws
themselves.5 The existence of physical laws external to the cosmos itself was an obvious violation of his well-
known axiom “The Cosmos is all that is or ever was or ever will be.”6

Of course, the atheist could try to dodge this difficulty by resorting to the claim that the cosmos simply had no
beginning and is eternal.

But even this avoidance leaves unresolved difficulties. For instance, some are claiming that the cosmos as a whole
—the so-called “multiverse”—is eternal, but that it contains infinitely many individual universes (a consequence
of modern inflation theory). According to this view, it is only our particular universe that began 13.7 billion years
ago. The existence of other alleged (but unobservable) universes supposedly explains our seemingly improbable
existence—because the multiverse contains infinitely many universes, the laws of physics and chemistry in at
least some of these universes would have properties necessary for life. Thus, our existence is supposedly
explained because we just happen to live in such a universe.

A glaring fallacy exposes this argument: While the laws of physics and chemistry in our universe do indeed allow
life to exist, they do not allow life to evolve. The laws of physics and chemistry simply are not favorable to the
evolution of life.

For decades, creationists have pointed out the insurmountable difficulties with “chemical evolution” scenarios.7,
8, 9 These difficulties don’t vanish simply because someone claims that other (unobservable) universes exist.
Even if the laws of physics and chemistry in every single one of these other supposed universes did allow for life
to evolve, those laws from another universe could not explain the existence of life in this universe. This should
have occurred to the atheists—but their argument demonstrates “vain imaginations” and “foolish, darkened
hearts” (Romans 1:21-23).

Despite the impressive academic credentials of those promoting the “universe from nothing” idea, the scenario is
utterly unreasonable, and no Bible-believing Christian should be intimidated by these “vain imaginations.”
Quantum Fluctuations May Kill Big Bang
Evangelism
by Dr. Danny R. Faulkner on February 12, 2015
Share:
Abstract
Many Christians today embrace the big bang theory as an avenue for evangelism. They reason that a big bang
origin of the universe naturally leads one to conclude that there must be a Creator, thus opening the door for
sharing the gospel. However, there is a growing belief that a quantum fluctuation gave rise to the universe apart
from God. This belief is based upon several speculative and probably incorrect ideas concerning physics, but it
appears to be the direction that big bang cosmogony is headed. If big bang evangelism ever was effective, its
window is rapidly closing.

Evolution vs. God Shop Now

The Reason for Belief in an Eternal Universe
Christians who believe the big bang model frequently argue that if the universe had an origin, then there must be a
transcendent Creator. Indeed, the implication of a Creator was the main reason why so many cosmologists and
astronomers opposed the big bang model for many years in the middle of the 20th century. Many scientists chose
to believe in an eternal universe rather than the big bang origin primarily because an eternal universe avoids the
need of a Creator. However, the 1965 discovery of the cosmic microwave background convinced most scientists
that the big bang was the correct origin model of the universe. Consequently, the big bang model has been the
dominant cosmogony for nearly a half century, so today few people are aware of that early opposition.

Even though the big bang model now enjoys wide acceptance, the need for a Creator has not gone away. To
counter this problem, cosmologists and physicists have devised arguments that supposedly show how the big bang
could have happened apart from a Creator. Over the years, those who criticize recent creationists have chastised
us for not publishing our work on creation in what they consider legitimate scientific journals. The critics claim
that when creationists write popular-level books, creationists are attempting to circumvent the scientific process.
Interestingly, very little of the supposed mechanisms of how the universe came into existence spontaneously is
published in scientific journals either. Instead, atheist scientists write their thoughts on this subject in popular-
level books. A recent example of this is Lawrence Krauss’ 2012 book, A Universe from Nothing. In this book,
Krauss draws upon topics that have been published in scientific journals to make some conclusions about the
origin of the universe apart from a Creator, but those conclusions were made in the book, not in the scientific
literature.

Enter Quantum Fluctuations

The question arises whether any articles have been written in the traditional scientific journals on the spontaneous
appearance of the universe. One possibility is Tryon (1973). Tryon published in Nature, a prestigious science
journal, but his brief article reads more like a letter or opinion piece, so it is doubtful that it went through any sort
of rigorous peer review. Apparently, Tryon was the first to suggest that the universe began in a quantum
fluctuation. Perhaps a better example would be the more recent, detailed paper on the supposed quantum
fluctuation origin of the universe by Stenger (1989).

What is a quantum fluctuation? In classical physics, we know that energy is conserved, that is, that energy can
neither be created nor destroyed. Our understanding of the conservation of energy comes from countless
experiments of localized parts of the universe, but, presumably, the law of conservation of energy applies to the
universe as a whole. Therefore, it would seem that the sudden appearance of energy, as required by the big bang
model, would violate the conservation of energy. However, many physicists think that the Heisenberg uncertainty
principle (HUP) offers a way around this problem. The HUP is an aspect of quantum mechanics, the physics of
small systems, such as atoms and sub-atomic particles. The HUP places a limit on how well we can know
information about a small particle. One formulation of the HUP relates our uncertainty in knowing a particle’s
energy to the uncertainty in the measurement of time that the particle occupies the measured energy . Let ΔE
represent the uncertainty in the amount of energy and ∆t represent the uncertainty in the time. Then the product
ΔE∆t is approximately equal to ħ, where ħ = h/2π, and h is Planck’s constant. Planck’s constant has the value
6.626 x 10-34 Joule-second. Notice that Planck’s constant has the appropriate units of energy and time. Planck’s
constant is very small, so the uncertainties are vanishingly small on a macroscopic scale. That is why the HUP is
not observable in the macroscopic world. However, on the scale of subatomic particles, the uncertainties can be
large compared to the quantities involved, so the consequences of the HUP can be significant on the microscopic
scale.

But Does This Mechanism Work?

There are certain experimental results that demonstrate the HUP, so the HUP is a well-accepted phenomenon in
quantum mechanics. However, a problem arises when physicists attempt to expand the meaning and application
of the HUP to violations of the conservation of energy. This expansion is the teaching that violations of energy
conservation are allowed as long as they do not last very long. That is, if ΔE is the violation of the conservation of
energy over some time ∆t, then such violations are permitted as long as the product ΔE∆t is less than ħ. To
support this interpretation, physicists often refer to certain experiments where they infer that pairs of virtual
particles pop into existence before popping back out of existence. Albert Einstein showed with his famous E =
mc2 equation that matter and energy are equivalent things. Hence, the appearance of particles would violate the
law of conservation of energy, unless the pairs of particles exist for a very short period of time. While this is a
common interpretation of the HUP, it is controversial. For instance, Bunge (1970) has called virtual particles
fictitious and argued that quantum field theory can explain these experiments without appeal to virtual particles.
Or consider the comments of David Griffiths, a physicist with two well-respected textbooks in relevant fields. In
one text he wrote this:

It is often said that the uncertainty principle means energy is not strictly conserved in quantum mechanics—that
you’re allowed to “borrow” energy, as long as you “pay it back” in a time; the greater the violation, the briefer the
period over which it can occur. Now, there are many legitimate readings of the energy-time uncertainty principle,
but this is not one of them. Nowhere does quantum mechanics license violation of energy conservation, and
certainly no such authorization entered into the derivation of Equation 3.74.(Griffiths 2005)
And in another text he wrote the following:

In special relativity, the energy E, momentum, p, and mass m of a free particle are related by the equation E2-
p2c2 =m2c4. But for a virtual particle E2 – p2c2 can take on any value. Many authors interpret this to mean that
virtual processes violate conservation of energy (see Problem 1.2). Personally, I consider this misleading, at best.
Energy is always conserved. (Griffiths, 2008)
Negative Energy
Dismissing these objections, many physicists and cosmologists want to apply this approach to the entire universe.
They ask, “What if the sum of the energy in the universe is zero?” They conclude that if the energy of the
universe is exactly equal to zero, then the universe could have popped into existence without violating the
conservation of energy and could continue to exist for billions of years. In his essay, Tryon (1973) famously
quipped that “our universe is simply one of those things which happen from time to time.” This is the ultimate
evolutionary theory, because the universe itself is just a sort of accident; there was no cause, and so there is no
need of God.

Besides relying upon a very questionable application of the HUP, this approach also requires that the total energy
of the universe is zero. There is a tremendous amount of energy in the universe. Much energy is in the form of
light or other electromagnetic radiation. Quantum mechanically, we think of radiation consisting of particles
called photons. Each photon has energy E = hν, where ν is the frequency of the photon. Since both h and ν are
positive, all energy of electromagnetic radiation is positive. Matter in the universe has an equivalent energy given
by the famous Einstein equation E = mc2, where m is mass and c is the speed of light. Since c is a large number
that is squared, matter in the universe has considerable energy (this is why nuclear power is so efficient). Since m
and c are positive numbers, the total energy of matter in the universe is positive as well. Together, the mass and
radiation energy of the universe is considerably positive, so for the universe to be the result of a quantum
fluctuation, there must be a tremendous amount of negative energy to counterbalance the positive energy.

Where might this negative energy be? In physics, the only negative energies are those encountered with potential
energies. Indeed, Tryon used gravitational potential energy in the general form –GmM/R to estimate the total
gravitational potential energy of the universe. Using values then current (circa 1973), Tryon found that
gravitational potential energy and the energy of matter were roughly equivalent, from which he concluded that the
universe had zero energy. However, potential energies are zero only if we choose an appropriate reference point
to make them so (the mathematics is simpler this way). In classical physics, the choice of reference point is
arbitrary, and if we choose a different reference point, all potential energies could be positive. Hence, in an
absolute sense, one cannot so easily make the energy of the universe zero. However, some physicists have argued
that in non-classical physics this is possible (Berman 2009) or have put forth theories of how certain fields may be
present in the universe that may require negative potential energies. Indeed, the entire motivation for this sort of
approach appears to be the bias against the possibility of a Creator rather than some formal requirement based
upon observation of the universe or known laws of physics.
THESE MUSINGS DEMONSTRATE THE FUTILITY OF MAN’S THINKING APART FROM GOD.
Setting this difficulty aside for now, the manner in which a quantum fluctuation could operate is not totally agreed
upon. One possibility is to argue that the universe appeared truly out of nothing in a manner consistent with itself.
In a world without quantum fluctuations, the sudden appearance of energy would violate a basic property of the
universe, the conservation of energy, so a universe governed by classical physics without the Heisenberg
Uncertainty Principle cannot spontaneously appear out of nothing. However, a universe governed by quantum
mechanics allows for quantum fluctuations, so the universe could have arisen in this manner. Another possibility
is to argue that the big bang was preceded by . . . well, nothing. But does nothing truly exist? Quantum
mechanically, a vacuum totally devoid of matter isn’t so empty. As previously mentioned, this whole line of
reasoning relies upon a particular interpretation of the HUP. This same interpretation requires that virtual particles
spontaneously pop into and out of existence. Those virtual particles amount to a form of energy. If this vacuum
that preceded the big bang had more energy than the current universe, then, since physical systems naturally go
from higher to lower energy, the big bang inevitably followed that earlier, higher energy state. However, Tryon
(1973) hinted at the current thinking on the subject when he suggested that the universe appeared, not out of
nothing, but in “. . . the vacuum of some larger space in which our Universe is imbedded.” Now many
astronomers and cosmologists think that our universe is just one universe in a vast multiverse consisting of
myriads of other universes. In this view, our universe was spawned by a hypothetical process called inflation.
This process is supposedly spawning even more universes even now in a supposedly never-ending process. The
multiverse is the totality of all these past and future universes. This amounts to a return to the eternal universe,
albeit on a much grander scale. As previously mentioned, an eternal universe has no place for God.

Conclusion
Notice that these things are discussed in popular-level books, not in the scientific literature, so apparently
evolutionists are not held to the same standard that creationists are. This sort of reasoning may seem silly or even
bizarre to most people, but such ideas have gained tremendous traction among physicists in recent years. At first,
these were just wild ideas that physicists informally discussed, followed by more formal discussions in colloquia,
followed by brief mentions in popular-level books. The statements in books eventually were expanded to the point
that they became the main focus of books. For instance, nearly 30 years before Krauss published his book, James
Trefil (1983, pp. 203–208) briefly discussed such ideas in his book, The Moment of Creation. Halfway between,
Before the Beginning: Our Universe and Others, a book by Marin Rees (1997), took a decidedly less tentative
approach. While Krauss’ recent book appears more definite, most readers may not notice his frequent use of
qualifying terms, such as “could,” “might,” and “may.” In the near future we can expect physicists, astronomers,
and cosmologists to take a much more forceful attitude in insisting that it is as indisputable as gravity that a
quantum fluctuation gave rise to the universe.

There are at least three serious logical problems with this entire line of reasoning:

Quantum mechanics implicitly assumes the existence of time and space, so how can the laws of quantum
mechanics create time and space?
The only way that we know quantum mechanics is (at least approximately) correct is because we can do
experiments and make observations to verify its predictions. Even if we accepted at face value the claim that QM
allows particles to “pop” into and out of existence, who has ever observed a universe popping into existence?
Point #2 is one of the big logical problems with the claim that the laws of physics can explain the creation of the
universe. These laws have only been observed to be applicable within our universe. We thus have zero
justification for believing that they would apply “outside” the universe.
Of course, these musings demonstrate the futility of man’s thinking apart from God. As the Apostle Paul warned
in his epistle to the Romans (1:21–22, KJV),

Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their
imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools. . . .
Unfortunately, many Christians embrace the big bang as evidence of the God of the Bible, and thus they have
wedded the big bang model to their apologetics. Often their motivation is to bring people to salvation, reasoning
that the big bang model shows that there must be a Creator, and so people will want to investigate who God is.
However, people who take this approach fail to grasp the significance of these new developments within the big
bang model. Lost souls who follow the latest pronouncements of scientists about the big bang are inclined to take
those scientists’ opinions about there being no need for a Creator as well. While the motivation for evangelism of
those Christians who accept the big bang is commendable, their approach is doomed to failure as the big bang
model continues to assume a more atheistic bent.

Answers in Genesis stands for the authority of Scripture, so we start with the Bible when interpreting science
rather than starting with the pronouncements of fallible scientists to interpret the Bible. We recognize that there
are scientific problems with the big bang model (see “Does the Big Bang Fit with the Bible?”), but, more
importantly, there are numerous biblical problems with the big bang model as demonstrated in the following
articles:

The Big-Bang God or the God of Scripture?

Does the Big Bang Fit with the Bible? (video)
The Big Bang? (Chapter 2 in Evolution Exposed: Earth Science
The Big Bang: God’s Chosen Method of Creation?
Big Bang topic page
In reaching lost souls, the authority of Scripture always will outperform the ideas of men.

I would like to thank Jake Hebert of the Institute for Creation Research in assisting me with this article. He has
written on these themes:

http://www.icr.org/article/universe-from-nothing/
http://www.icr.org/article/hiding-from-god-multiverse/
References
Berman, M. S. On the Zero-Energy Universe. International Journal of Theoretical Physics 48 (2009): 3278.

Bunge, M. Virtual Processes and Virtual Particles: Real or Fictitious? International Journal of Theoretical Physics
3, no. 6 (1970): 507–508.

Griffiths, D. J. 2005. Introduction to Quantum Mechanics, 2nd edition. Cranbury, New Jersey: Pearson.

Griffiths, D. 2008. Introduction to Elementary Particles, 2nd revised edition. Weinheim, Germany: Wiley-VCH
Verlag, 65.

Krauss, L. M. 2012. A Universe from Nothing: Why There Is Something Rather Than Nothing. New York: Free
Press.

Rees, M. 1997. Before the Beginning: Our Universe and Others. Reading, Massachusetts: Addison Wesley.

Stenger, V. J. The Universe: The Ultimate Free Lunch. European Journal of Physics 11 (1990): 236–243.

Trefil, J. S. 1983. The Moment of Creation: Big Bang Physics from before the First Millisecond to the Present
Universe. New York: Charles Scribner’s and Sons.

Tryon, E. P. Is the Universe a Vacuum Fluctuation? Nature 246, no. 5433 (1973): 396–397.
Commentary on the Intelligent Design
Movement
Appendix D
by Dr. Jason Lisle and Tim Chaffey on March 29, 2012
 


There are some positive things about the Intelligent Design Movement but also
some things that a Christian should consider carefully.

Students in grades 7–12 can visit with representatives from Christian institutions across the country who hold to
biblical authority and young-earth creation. Register now for this free event!

Find Out More

The Intelligent Design Movement (IDM) is an informal collaboration dedicated to exposing the problems with
naturalistic evolution. As a movement, IDM challenges Darwinian evolution in schools, textbooks, and politics
. There are some positive things about IDM but also some things that a Christian should consider carefully.

Intelligent Design Arguments

First, we must make an important distinction. The term “intelligent design” does not always refer to the Intelligent
Design Movement. There are also, for example, intelligent design arguments. These arguments are used by IDM,
but are also used by creationists not affiliated with IDM. Before we get into the details of IDM, it is instructive to
briefly discuss intelligent design arguments, and their strengths and weaknesses.
Intelligent design arguments are those that confirm the existence of the Creator God (or at least a creator—not
necessarily the biblical God). These arguments are based on the teleological argument for the existence of God.
That is, living things appear to be designed for a function and with purpose and thus require a designer. Moreover,
the universe and the earth appear to be “fine-tuned” so that life can exist. Often, intelligent design arguments draw
on analogies with other things that are known to have been created by an intelligent source. Examples of
intelligent design arguments would be irreducible complexity in living systems and information science
arguments.
Irreducible complexity is a specific kind of order in which all the components must be in existence in order for the
whole to work. A watch is the classic example. If even one of its essential parts is missing or out of place, the
watch does not function properly. It is an “all-or-nothing” kind of machine. Irreducibly complex machines cannot
have been generated by a gradual Darwinian process because none of the parts can work properly without all the
other parts. Likewise, a living cell has many complicated parts that are interdependent; one cannot operate
without all the others. Therefore, a cell cannot be the result of an evolutionary process in which parts are added
one at a time. An intelligent creator is required.

THESE KINDS OF ARGUMENTS . . . CAN BE VERY DEVASTATING TO NATURALISTIC PARTICLES-TO-

PEOPLE EVOLUTION.
Information arguments make use of the fact that, in all observed cases, creative information always comes from
an intelligent source. As an example, when we read a book, we suppose that the book had an author even if we
have never seen him or her. No one would assume that it was produced by a series of typos that gradually
improved the quality over vast ages. Likewise, the DNA of living organisms has encoded instructions that dictate
the function of every cell. Since information never comes about by chance, the reasonable deduction is that an
intelligent agent created life.

These kinds of arguments (when used properly) can be very devastating to naturalistic particles-to-people
evolution. However, they only indicate that life requires a creator.

They do not necessarily require the Creator—the God of Scripture. Intelligent design arguments would work
equally well for the god of Islam or any other god. For that matter, they might lead some to believe that
extraterrestrial beings are responsible for life on earth.
Intelligent design arguments, therefore, cannot be used to prove the existence of the biblical God. However,
evidence of design is certainly consistent with the biblical God. Design is what we would expect when we accept
the Bible as our starting point. Therefore, we encourage biblical creationists to use intelligent design arguments,
when appropriate, as evidence that confirms the biblical God. Irreducible complexity and DNA packed full of
information are exactly the kinds of things we would expect from biblical creation.
Both IDM supporters and young-earth creationists use intelligent design arguments. The difference is in the way
these arguments are used. The IDM tends to use intelligent design arguments as their primary case against
naturalistic evolution. However, we advise young-earth creationists to use the Bible as their primary source of
information (Prov. 1:7), and then show how science confirms this. Logically, if the Bible is our ultimate authority
(as it should be for the Christian), then it cannot be proved from something else because there is nothing more
foundational.
The Intelligent Design Movement Strategy
IDM has approached the origins debate by limiting the scope of the argument to a single question: is something
designed? They hope to avoid the common anti-religious bias of our culture by framing the question in a way that
can be tested purely scientifically. Can we scientifically tell if something is designed by intelligence? If so, what
are the characteristics we look for (such as irreducible complexity or creative information)? Whereas most public
schools would never allow the Bible to be used as a source of information in a science classroom, challenges to
Darwinism might be permitted on strictly scientific grounds. Those within IDM see their strategy as a way to
challenge naturalistic evolution that avoids any “separation of church and state” issues.
Since IDM has limited its scope to the single question of whether something is designed, it does not endorse any
particular religious view. Any person who believes in any god who created the universe or life in any way could
be a member of IDM. This wedge strategy essentially divides belief about origins into two classes: naturalism and
super-naturalism. By placing all super-naturalistic philosophies under the same “umbrella,” IDM hopes to present
a more unified front than could be done by any single religiously motivated movement.

IDM is not a Christian movement, although there are many Christians within the movement. Recall that IDM
exists primarily to refute Darwinian evolution. It does not exist to promote Christianity or biblical creation. Those
Christians within the movement may see this as a clever strategy: perhaps they think that one must first remove
the stumbling block of evolution before a person will even consider the merits of biblical Christianity. On the
surface, this certainly sounds reasonable. After all, evolution certainly can be a stumbling block to Christianity.
But there are some difficulties in attempting to refute a worldview in such a piecemeal fashion.
One problem with attempting to remove evolution by scientific evidence before exposing a person to the Bible (as
IDM does) is this: without the Bible, a person cannot properly interpret the scientific evidence. We saw in chapter
7 that the scientific method presupposes the truth of the Bible (i.e., those who employ the scientific method but
deny the Bible [such as evolutionists] are being inconsistent). The real battle is not over specific scientific facts
but rather how those facts should be interpreted. So, when we attempt to argue against evolution without
presenting the biblical worldview, we have done nothing to address the real issue: the faulty (unbiblical)
interpretive framework used by evolutionists. Attacking the evolution worldview before presenting an alternative
is problematic.
Instead, we suggest that these two tasks can be done simultaneously. We can both argue for the Bible, and
simultaneously argue against evolution. Remember, people think in terms of an integrated worldview, not in
terms of isolated facts. Therefore, we contrast our worldview (biblical Christianity) with all its implications
(creation, young earth, salvation by grace through faith, and so on) against the evolution worldview with all its
implications. We show that our worldview makes sense, but that the evolution worldview is arbitrary and
inconsistent with its own axioms. When we argue this way, we are using the biblical “Don’t Answer, Answer”
strategy indicated in Proverbs 26:4–5.
The Intelligent Design Movement does not employ this biblical strategy. The evolutionist insists that the Bible is
not a reliable source of information. Those in IDM accept this standard (even if they don’t actually believe that
way) and attempt to argue by the evolutionists’ criteria. However, we must not “answer the fool according to his
folly”1 lest we be like him. Instead, the consistent Christian stands on the authority of the Bible. We would only
stand on another authority in principle for the sake of argument to show how ridiculous it is.
We understand that there are certain times and places where it may not be appropriate to explicitly mention the
Bible. For example, in a public high school, a teacher may be forbidden to teach students about the Bible in a
biology class. (This just shows how far our society has gone “downhill.” After all, the Bible is the basis for
biology, and all science as we saw in chapter 7.) Still, even when we cannot explicitly mention the Bible, we
never stand on any other authority in practice. Instead we challenge other (false) authorities by showing that when
one stands on them (in principle) it leads to nonsense—thus “answering the fool according to his folly lest he be
wise in his own eyes.” We can, for example, show that old-earth assumptions (such as naturalism and
uniformitarianism) lead to conclusions that refute an old earth. This approach is commonly used in young-earth
arguments as shown in chapter 7.
The Unknown God
Since IDM is not a Christian movement, we would not expect that its goals and methods would always match
with those of a Christian (though there may be some overlap). IDM seeks to persuade our culture that there is a
creator. This is true, of course, but the Christian must not be content to end there. As Christians, our desire is to
think and act in accordance with God’s will. It is our wish that none “should perish, but that all should come to
repentance” (2 Pet. 3:9). So, we don’t simply want to persuade people that there is a god who created life. We
want to see people brought to saving faith in Christ, our Creator and Savior.
In Acts 17:22–31, Paul observed that the men of Athens were very religious. But they did not have a saving
knowledge of Christ. They had erected an altar to “the unknown god.” Paul was not content to leave them to their
belief in a god. Instead, He declared to them who God is. He began in Genesis, declaring that God is the Creator
of all things. By quoting many of their sayings, Paul pointed out that they knew God already2and had been
borrowing from the Christian worldview. Paul did not end his sermon on creation until he told them about the
resurrection of Christ—the culmination of the gospel. Although some mocked Paul (Acts 17:32), others wanted to
hear more, and some believed (Acts 17:34). Paul’s sermon was very successful considering that he was speaking
to an “evolutionized” culture that rejected the Bible. Paul followed the “Don’t Answer, Answer” strategy; he
simultaneously refuted the unbelieving worldview while defending the Christian worldview.
The Pretended Neutrality Fallacy
It is quite common these days for evolutionists to demand that we argue on their terms. In particular, we are told
that we must “leave the Bible out of it.” After all, the evolutionist does not believe the Bible (at least not Genesis
1), so he claims that it would not be fair to use the Bible. We must meet on “neutral ground.” On the surface this
seems reasonable, and many Christians are therefore inclined to leave the Bible out of the discussion. But is this
really meeting on neutral ground?
THE IDEA THAT THE BIBLE IS NOT RELIABLE WHEN TALKING ABOUT ORIGINS IS A SECULAR IDEA.
The idea that the Bible is not reliable when talking about origins is a secular idea. After all, the consistent
Christian believes the Bible is indeed reliable. The notion that the Bible should not be used when discussing
origins is not a “neutral” idea. It is a secular idea. Too many Christians have been duped into arguing on secular
terms.
We must always remember that the Bible is our ultimate authority. Since the Bible has demonstrated itself to be
accurate on all matters upon which it touches, it is not the Christian who is “foolish” for standing on the Word but
rather the non-Christian who is foolish for abandoning it. If an evolutionist insists that he will not start from the
Bible—that’s his problem. Don’t make it yours! He is the one who is arbitrarily rejecting well-established
recorded history in favor of guesswork.
Biblically, there is no such thing as “neutral ground” when it comes to one’s ultimate authority. In Luke 11:23,
Jesus says, “He who is not with Me is against Me” and in Mark 9:40 “For he who is not against us is on our side.”
Therefore, the claim that there is a neutral ground between the believer and unbeliever is itself unbiblical. By
saying that there is such a thing as neutral ground, the unbeliever has already taken the position that the Bible is
wrong—at least on that point. Thus, the unbeliever is really only pretending to be neutral, and so this is called the
“pretended neutrality fallacy.”3 If the Christian agrees to these terms, he has already lost, because he has agreed
that the Bible is wrong. By “answering the fool according to his folly,” the believer has become like him in the
sense that he rejects Scripture as his starting point.
The Intelligent Design Movement as a strategy agrees to secular terms for debating. It leaves the Bible out of the
discussion, avoids appealing to the biblical God, and avoids any reference to biblical history or the biblical time
scale. We have seen the problems with this approach. Instead, we encourage Christians to follow the biblical
strategy outlined in Proverbs 26:4–5. Do not stand on any authority other than the Bible, except for the sake of
argument to show how foolish it would be.
No World History
Since IDM does not use the Bible in any way, it has no history to account for the present world.
Theevolution model at least has a history (albeit an incorrect one) that allegedly accounts for the present world.
Evolutionists claim that they can explain the fossil record, rock formations, mountains, and canyons with their
model. Moreover, biblical (i.e., young-earth) creationists also have a historical model that can account for these
things. The ability of a model to explain various features of the world is a powerful asset. But IDM has no specific
history (as a movement) and therefore does not even attempt to explain many features of the present world.
IDM has been criticized for this. But it cannot have a history because it doesn’t represent any specific worldview.
Some evolutionists have argued that IDM is deceptive because the Christians within it are not upfront about their
worldview. Critics of IDM have argued that it is a “backdoor” method of attempting to get the Bible into schools.

Since IDM has no history, it is perfectly compatible with old-earth creationism. Indeed, many individuals within
IDM are old-earth creationists. They have accepted the secular view of history such as the big bang and the
secular view of the geologic column and as a result have inherited the many problems and inconsistencies
addressed in this book. Of course, some members of IDM are young-earth creationists, but they see IDM as a
better strategy than being upfront about their worldview in its entirety.

Designed for Pain

There is a common argument for evolution that deserves mention here because it is very effective against IDM.
This is a variation of the “problem of pain.” Namely, there are certain features of living organisms that appear to
be designed to cause pain. Examples of this are thorns, bee stings, parasitic organisms, and carnivorous activity.
Evolutionists argue that a good God would not have designed such things. Such features make more sense in an
evolutionary world “red in tooth and claw.” This argument is particularly effective against Christians within the
IDM because Christians argue that their Creator is a God of love.
Biblical creationists are able to answer this objection quite easily. God is good and He did originally make a
perfect world without any pain or bloodshed. But today, the world is cursed because of man’s sin. God no longer
upholds the universe in a perfect fashion (Rom. 8:20–22) as He did in the beginning. Therefore, many things in
the present world have deteriorated from what they once were. Mutations (mistakes in the genome) can cause
disease and suffering. But not all of the bad things in the world today are the result of mere gradual deterioration;
God actively judged the world in response to Adam’s rebellion. Thorns in particular are specifically mentioned as
being a result of the curse (Gen. 3:18). Since God instituted the curse, we would expect that some things in
today’s world are designed to be painful. We would expect that other things cause pain due to deterioration. But
since IDM does not appeal to biblical history, its supporters cannot answer the objection of pain.
Biblical Authority
So, despite the positive aspects of IDM, there are clearly many difficulties with it as well. All these problems
directly or indirectly come back to the issue of ultimate authority. Each of us must either start with the Bible as
our ultimate authority, or autonomous human reasoning. But since all knowledge is in Christ (Col. 2:3),
autonomous reasoning does not lead to truth (Prov. 1:7, 14:12, 16:25). In fact, the only reason that unbelievers
are able to know anything is because they are not completely consistent in their rejection of biblical authority. We
could not reason in a completely autonomous fashion even if we tried—we would still have to borrow God’s laws
of logic in order to deduce anything.
Relying on God’s Word as our foundation for reasoning does not mean that we need to accept things on “blind
faith.” God certainly expects us to think and reason. But our thinking must have a foundation—we have to start
somewhere. Without the foundation of the Bible, we would have no place to even begin our reasoning. We must
learn to build our worldview on the rock of God’s Word, not the shifting sands of human opinions (Matt. 7:24–
27).
The Intelligent Design Movement does not rely on the Bible as its ultimate authority. But then again, IDM is not a
Christian movement, so this isn’t surprising. We certainly commend those in IDM for challenging
Darwinian evolution and naturalism in general. We would encourage those Christians with ties to IDM to think
carefully about the points that have been raised in this section, and to consider the biblical strategy of Proverbs
26:4–5. We encourage all Christians to be biblically minded about all things, placing their confidence not in
man’s autonomy, but in God’s Word.
Previous ChapterAre There Gaps in the Genesis Genealogies?Next ChapterThe Big-Bang God or the God of
Scripture?

Old-Earth Creationism on Trial

As the modern Church struggles to find a place of relevancy for a new generation that already
has massive demands on its time and attention, more and more young people raised in the
Church are leaving it—failing to find the answers to their questions of faith and life, beset with
doubts raised by issues that the Church chooses not to address. Opting to skirt the controversy of
Genesis as literal history, the biblical authority of the Holy Word is called into question and
reduced to a collection of mere stories.

Read OnlineBuy Book

Footnotes
1. Here we are not referring to any specific person as a fool. Rather we are using biblical language
to describe a biblical strategy. See chapters 7 and 8 for a more complete discussion of Proverbs
26:4–5.
2. Romans 1:18–20 indicates that God has made himself known to everyone. So, there is no excuse
for those who suppress the truth about God.
3. This kind of fallacy has been addressed by Dr. Greg Bahnsen. Dr. Bahnsen had a tremendous gift
for being able to articulate biblical truths particularly in matters of logical argumentation. These
concepts are addressed in Dr. Bahnsen’s book Always Ready (Nacogdoches, TX: Covenant Media
Press, 1996).
The Big Bang
God’s Chosen Method of Creation?
by Dr. Jason Lisle on November 20, 2007
Also available in Español and Português
Share: 

  
How did this universe come into existence? Was it designed by God, and if so, how did He do
it? Did God use “natural” methods to create the universe, or did He create everything
supernaturally? These questions are central to our understanding of the purpose of the universe
and our significance within it. Fortunately, there are answers.

What Does the Bible Say . . .

The Record of the Creator
The Creator Himself has given a written record that summarizes His creative acts. Sadly, many
people are inclined to ignore what God has said. Instead, they rely on secular philosophy to
explain what happened in the past, and it contradicts recorded history and eyewitness testimony.

Can you imagine people applying such thinking to other fields of study? What if historians
rejected recorded history and claimed that World War I never happened because their
philosophy does not allow for the possibility of a world war? Would this be reasonable?

These days it is common for people to reject the possibility of a supernatural, biblical creation
simply because they embrace the philosophy of naturalism—the belief that “nature is all that
there is.”

Fast Facts
 Ironically, the one thing the big bang does not explain is the origin of the universe. It is only a
story about what supposedly happened afterwards.
 The cosmic microwave background is much more uniform than was predicted by the big bang
model.
 In the past two decades, astronomers have discovered hundreds of planets orbiting other stars.
They are large Jupiter-sized planets orbiting very close to their star—the opposite of what was
predicted by secular models.

The Big Bang Is Based on Naturalism

Since the philosophy of naturalism does not allow for anything beyond nature, a naturalist
would insist that the universe was created by the kinds of processes currently operating within it.
The big bang is based on this critical assumption; that is, the big bang model attempts to
describe the formation of the entire universe by processes currently operating within the
universe. Stars, planets, and galaxies are all said to have formed “naturalistically”—by the laws
of nature currently in operation today.

Is it rational or necessary to assume that the universe was created in the same way it operates?
Not at all. We can see the absurdity of such thinking by applying it to other objects. A flashlight,
for example, operates by converting electrical energy into light; would it be rational to assume
that the flashlight was created by the conversion of electrical energy into light? No, it was
created by an entirely different process. Most things are.

Logically, we can’t necessarily conclude that the universe was created by the kinds of processes
operating within it. Naturalism is an assumption—nothing more.

CLAIMS THAT GOD USED NATURALISTIC PROCESSES DENY

WHAT THE CREATOR HIMSELF HAS SAID ABOUT THE
CREATION OF THE UNIVERSE.
Nonetheless, some professing Christians accept the claim that God used naturalistic processes,
including the big bang, to create the universe. They might agree with atheistic astronomers that
the stars and planets formed by slow natural processes over billions of years—with only one
exception, that God’s hand directed these processes. Unfortunately, such views deny what the
Creator Himself has said about the creation of the universe, as we will explore in the rest of this
article.

The Bible Teaches Supernatural Creation

The book of Genesis says that God gave human beings dominion over the earth. He said we are
to be stewards of His creation. Today, God sustains the universe in a logical, orderly way so that
we can understand and influence it as we fulfill our God-given “dominion mandate.”

In many cases, we can write equations to describe the consistent predictable behavior of the
universe. These equations, or “laws of nature,” are descriptions of the way God upholds the
universe in the present. However, these laws of nature cannot describe how God created the
universe. Like the flashlight, the universe was not created by the same processes that operate
within it today.

God makes clear in Genesis 2:2 that He changed His mode of operation by the seventh day,
when He ended His work of creation. So God is no longer acting today in the same way He was
during the Creation Week. He is no longer speaking new animals, plants, and stars into
existence. Creation was a supernatural event, which cannot be described by today’s laws of
nature.
So naturalism (the underlying philosophy of the big bang) cannot be harmonized with Genesis.
The big bang is diametrically opposed to the supernatural creation described in the Bible.
Furthermore, there are many other differences between the big bang and the biblical account of
origins. For example,
 1. The Bible tells us that God created heaven, earth, and everything within them in the span of six
days (Exodus 20:11) and rested on the seventh day. This is the basis for our work week (Exodus
20:8). In contrast, the big bang model claims that the universe and earth formed over billions of
years.
2. Genesis tells us that God created the stars on the fourth day—three days after the earth was
created. In contrast, the big bang model claims that stars existed billions of years before the earth.
3. The Bible tells us that the earth was made from water (2 Peter 3:5; Genesis 1:2–9; Psalm 24:2),
but the standard secular model teaches that the earth began as a molten blob.
A Story about the Past and the Future
The big bang model is really a story about the alleged past. But few people realize that it is also
a story about the alleged future.

The big bang model (in the most-accepted variation) claims that our universe will expand
forever. At some point, all usable energy will be converted to a useless form, and life will no
longer be possible. It’s a bleak outlook and one that is vastly different from the Bible’s
description of the future. Scripture teaches that there will be a resurrection, judgment, and then a
restoration of paradise. Clearly, the Bible is not compatible with the big bang.

What Does Science Say . . .

What about the Scientific Evidence?
Most people don’t realize that the big bang is not only bad theology but also bad science. Is the
big bang the same kind of science that put men on the moon or allows your computer to
function? Not at all. The big bang isn’t testable, repeatable laboratory science. It doesn’t make
specific predictions that are confirmed by observation and experimentation. In fact, the big bang
is at odds with a number of principles of real operational science. Let’s explore some of these.

Missing Monopoles
Most people know something about magnets, like the kind found in a compass. These magnets
have two “poles”—a north pole and a south pole. Poles that are alike repel each other, and
opposites attract. A “monopole” is a hypothetical massive particle that is just like a magnet but
with only one pole. So a monopole would have either a “north” pole or a “south” pole, but not
both. Particle physicists claim that the high temperature conditions of the big bang should have
created magnetic monopoles. Since monopoles are predicted to be stable, they should have
lasted to this day. Yet, despite considerable searching, monopoles have not been found. Where
are the monopoles?

The fact that we don’t find any monopoles strongly suggests that the universe never was that
hot. This indicates that there never was a big bang. But the lack of monopoles is perfectly
consistent with the Bible’s account of creation because the universe did not start at extremely
high temperatures.
Where Is the Antimatter?
Another challenge to the big bang is the “baryon number problem.” The big bang supposes that
matter (hydrogen and helium gas) was created from energy as the universe expanded. However,
experimental physics tells us that whenever matter is created from energy, such a reaction also
produces antimatter.

Antimatter has similar properties to matter, except the charges of the particles are reversed. (So,
whereas a proton has a positive charge, an antiproton has a negative charge). In any reaction
where energy is transformed into matter, it produces an exactly equal amount of antimatter;
there are no known exceptions.

The big bang (which has no matter to begin with—only energy) should have produced precisely
equal amounts of matter and antimatter. Thus, if the big bang were true, there should be an
exactly equal amount of matter and antimatter in the universe today. But there is not. The visible
universe is comprised almost entirely of matter—with only trace amounts of antimatter.

This devastating problem for the big bang actually is a powerful confirmation of biblical
creation; it is a design feature. God created the universe to be essentially matter only—and it’s a
good thing He did. When matter and antimatter come together, they violently destroy each other.
If the universe had equal amounts of matter and antimatter (as the big bang requires), life would
not be possible.

Missing Population III Stars

The big bang model by itself can account for the existence of only the three lightest elements
(hydrogen, helium, and trace amounts of lithium). This leaves nearly 90 of the other naturally
occurring elements to be explained. Since the conditions in the supposed big bang are not right
to form these heavier elements (as big bang supporters readily concede), secular astronomers
believe that stars have produced the remaining elements by nuclear fusion in their cores. This is
thought to occur in the final stages of massive stars, as the stars explode (supernovae). These
explosions then distribute the heavier elements into space. Second- and third-generation stars are
thus “contaminated” with small amounts of these heavier elements.
If this story were true, then the first stars would be comprised of only the three lightest elements
(since these would have been the only elements in existence initially). Some such stars 1 should
still be around today since their lifespans are computed to exceed the time that has elapsed since
the big bang. Such stars would be called “population III” stars.2 Amazingly (to those who
believe in the big bang), population III stars have not been found anywhere. All known stars
have at least trace amounts of heavy elements in them. It is amazing to think that our galaxy
alone is estimated to have over 100 billion stars in it. Yet not one star has been discovered that is
comprised of only the three lightest elements.

Conclusion
THE BIG BANG IS NOT COMPATIBLE WITH THE BIBLE AND IS NOT GOOD SCIENCE.
There simply isn’t any good reason to believe in the big bang. It is not compatible with the Bible, and it’s not
good science. In the limited space of this article we have sampled just a few of the scientific difficulties with the
big bang. Although secular astronomers have proposed potential solutions to such problems, I would suggest that
such problems are symptomatic of the underlying incorrect worldview. The big bang erroneously assumes that the
universe was not supernaturally created but that it came about by natural processes. However, reality does not
comport with this notion. Science confirms the message of the Bible: “In the beginning, God created the heaven
and the earth.”

Dr. Jason Lisle holds a PhD in astrophysics from University of Colorado at Boulder and is a popular speaker and
researcher for Answers in Genesis–USA. Dr. Lisle uses his knowledge of the heavens and his biblical perspective
to proclaim the handiwork of God in lectures, including “Distant Starlight” and “Creation Astronomy.”
Hiding from God in the Multiverse
BY JAKE HEBERT, PH.D. *  | FRIDAY, MAY 31, 2013
ICR research sometimes involves detecting flawed logic in common evolutionary arguments. One such argument
claims that something called the “multiverse” removes the need for a Creator. Is this claim valid?

In an attempt to solve serious problems in the original Big Bang model, secular cosmologists invoked something
called “inflation”—an enormous hypothetical “growth spurt” in the early universe. Originally, these theorists
believed that inflation would have completely ended shortly after the Big Bang. However, they later concluded
that different regions of space stopped inflating at different times. This would result in the formation of “bubble”
or “pocket” regions that continued to expand at a “normal” non-accelerated rate, while the surrounding space kept
inflating at the faster rate. These pockets of space would become, in effect, their own universes, isolated from one
another by the enormous surrounding gulfs of still-inflating space. 1

Theorists also concluded that inflation would never completely stop. This would result in infinitely many
universes in a great multiverse, each having possibly different physical constants and perhaps even different laws
of physics.2

Some secularists argue that a multiverse removes the need for a Designer, claiming that with infinitely many
universes in existence, it was simply inevitable that some of these universes would have physical laws permitting
life to exist. Hence, they claim a Creator is not needed to explain our existence—we exist and live simply because
our particular universe allows life to exist.

At first glance, this may sound plausible. Have evolutionists actually found a non-miraculous explanation for our
existence?

No, they have not. Their claim is pure speculation; there is no evidence that other universes actually exist at all.
But even if they did exist, this argument still falls short of reason.

Proponents argue that ours is one of the universes whose physical laws allow life to exist. However, it is a
foregone conclusion that the physical laws in our universe permit life to exist; if they didn’t, we wouldn’t be here!

In order for the evolutionist’s argument to truly remove the need for a Creator, however, these physical laws must
do more than simply allow life’s existence—they must also permit spontaneous generation, the non-miraculous
development of life from non-life. Because evolutionists argue that living organisms came from non-living
chemicals, they must argue that spontaneous generation occurred at least once in the distant past.

This raises an obvious and far more substantive question: Do the physical laws in our universe permit
spontaneous generation?

Apparently not. Scientists have never observed spontaneous generation, and there are seemingly insurmountable
chemical and physical obstacles to it ever occurring. 3,4,5 Whether spontaneous generation could possibly occur in
other alleged universes is completely irrelevant to the matter at hand, since secularists are trying to explain (apart
from a Creator) the existence, not of life in other universes, but of life in thisuniverse.
Those arguing that a multiverse explains our existence are implicitly claiming that we live in a universe whose
laws of physics and chemistry permit spontaneous generation. But there is absolutely no evidence that we live in
such a universe! Hence, evolutionists gain absolutely nothing by making this multiverse argument, and they
remain in precisely the same wishful position that they were in before making the argument. They assert that
spontaneous generation occurred in the distant past, but they have no idea or explanation of how it could have
occurred. Here is more evidence that turning one’s back on God often involves turning one’s back on reason
itself.

After sinning, Adam and Eve could not successfully hide from the Lord in the Garden of Eden. Nor can secular
cosmologists hide from Him among a forest of non-existent universes!