Wednesday, September 26, 2007

Was the 'Big Bang' Creation?

As a scientist spending most of my life as an agnostic, and cultural Catholic, it always seemed to me that the Big Bang was the beginning of creation. It certainly fits Genesis 1's description. Einstein appeared to pull back from the idea of the Big Bang as it would imply a creator. he preferred to think of constant universe rather than one with a beginning:

  • Albert Einstein's reaction to the consequences of his own general theory of relativity appear to acknowledge the threat of an encounter with God. Through the equations of general relativity, we can trace the origin of the universe backward in time to some sort of a beginning. However, before publishing his cosmological inferences, Einstein introduced a cosmological constant, a "fudge factor," to yield a static model for the universe. Einstein later considered this to be the greatest blunder of his scientific career.
  • Einstein ultimately gave grudging acceptance to what he called "the necessity for a beginning" and eventually to "the presence of a superior reasoning power." But he never did accept the reality of a personal God.

Einstein didn't believe quantum theory either as it would imply God played dice.

I couldn't get to sleep last night and listened to radio, a physicist, Lawrence Krauss was on declaring that the Big Bang was evidence that biblical creation do not happen. Radio host didn't press with more questions, but this is one Christian who wholeheartedly disagrees.

Krauss went on to say intelligent design was bunk and the theory of evolution is the basis of modern drug design. I don't believe as a physicist, Krauss has designed any successful drugs. I know of at least one who has. Phil Skell, a former professor of mine at Penn State and a member of the National Academy of Sciences has this to say:

  • Evolution Theory is a broadly overarching historical theory that pertains to the developmental history of living organisms over the past 3.5 billion years. It is reasonable to examine its credentials and determine its current utility. Does it have a directive impact in the inductive, or experimental, sciences, such as Physics, Chemistry, and Biology? Despite statements in the literature that make it out to be vitally important in modern Microbiology, Neurobiology, Genetics, Plant Biology, Medicine, Surgery, Pharmaceutics, etc., I believe this assignment to evolutionary theory cannot be justified. Nobel Laureate, Francis Crick wrote: "It might be thought that evolutionary arguments would play a large part in guiding biological research, but this is far from the case." I am mindful of the statement of a professor at a prestigious medical school, that Darwin is not mentioned in the four-year medical program. And, another from a researcher in the pharmaceutical industry, that his company does not have a Division of Darwinian Concepts to help in making more effective their choices for future research.
  • Over A half century ago, during WW II, I was personally associated with an antibiotics research group, engaged in the full range of activities, from finding organisms which inhibited bacterial growth to the isolation and proof of structure of the antibiotics they produced. Since then there has been astounding sophisticated advances in instrumentations and methodologies, but nonetheless persons engaged in current activities make no more use of Darwinian Concepts than in those earlier days; those Concepts do not, and did not, have a determinative impact on the conception and prosecution of the projects.

Militant Darwinists seem to promulgate the idea that all of modern science rests upon the theory of evolution. Everything from microchips to drug design will suffer if evolution isn't taught in grade school without any doubts. Evolution should be taught, but there are holes big enough to fit a truck through with clearance.

I have a good friend, and colleague who invented the glucose detector while we were both graduate students at Penn State. The device is the one you can buy anywhere, and has probably saved 10,000's of lives. He was then and is now a 6-day creationist. I believe in old earth so we differ there. But he and I would agree that the everyday successful functioning of science does not depend on accepting evolution without doubts.

No comments: