The scientific case against atheism
By Babu G. Ranganathan
Science shows that the universe could not have sustained itself eternally because of the law of entropy (even in an open system). Even an oscillating (repeatedly contracting and expanding) universe would not be able to sustain itself eternally. Although, energy itself is not destroyed, over time the net useful energy in the universe is becoming irreversibly useless so that the universe, if left to itself, will end in total chaos, or what scientists refer to as a "heat death" because the temperature throughout the universe will be totally uniform and all energy will be useless for doing any work. The fact that the universe has not reached this point already is powerful evidence that the universe had a beginning and is not eternal, or otherwise it would have reached this point long ago and I wouldn't be writing this article and you wouldn't be reading it! Again, a closed or open system doesn't make a difference to the issue of entropy.
Einstein confirmed that space, matter, and time had a beginning! Space and time are as physical as matter. That's why space and time can be affected (changed) by gravity. Although, it has been confirmed that virtual particles (matter) can be produced by space. This is not evidence that matter can naturally arise from nothing because, again, space is not nothing. Einstein showed that space is physical. Space is something. It can be stretched and changed. This is not something we can comprehend, but Einstein's advanced mathematical physics shows it to be true.
Einstein, a far greater scientist than Hawking, Dawkins, and Hitchens will ever be, believed, because of science, in the existence of God behind the origin and order of the universe. Einstein didn't believe in a personal God like Christians do, but he did believe science pointed to the existence of an all powerful and intelligent Creator! Einstein, the greatest scientist since Isaac Newton (who also believed in God and was a devoted Christian), was no atheist! All of the founders of modern science were believers in God, including the Catholic monk, Gregor Mendel, the Father of the Science of Genetics!
The First law of Thermodynamics still stands. Matter/energy cannot be created from nothing by any natural processes. Since science shows that the universe is not eternal and requires a beginning and since the First law of Thermodynamics shows that matter/energy cannot be created from nothing by natural processes, then it stands to reason that the beginning of the universe from nothing had to be by a supernatural power.
The supernatural cannot be proved by science, but science does point to a supernatural intelligence for the origin and order of the universe.
The law of entropy shows that disorder can spontaneously come from order, but no substantial order can spontaneously arise from disorder. The disorder in the universe is because of chance but the order can only logically be explained due to an intelligent power and cause.
Gravity may explain how the order found in the precise courses of trillions of stars is maintained, but gravity can't explain the origin of that order! Did all the trillions of stars agree to get out of each other's way? Again, disorder in the universe is because of chance, but the order is because of design.
Natural selection is no "blind watchmaker" because it can only "select," not produce. Natural selection only operates once there is life and reproduction, not before, so it couldn't have been involved in life's origins. A partially-evolved cell (an oxymoron) would quickly disintegrate. It couldn't wait ("survive") millions of years for chance to complete it and then make it alive!
Natural selection doesn't produce new genes. It's simply another term for "survival of the fittest." If a variation occurs that helps a species survive, then that species is going to survive (be "selected'). That's all that natural selection is! It's a passive process in nature.
Only evolution within "kinds" is genetically possible (i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, etc.), but not evolution across "kinds" (i.e. from worm to human). How were species living and reproducing if their reproductive system, vital tissues, organs, and structures hadn't evolved yet? Read my Pravda Internet article: War among evolutionists! I discuss: Punctuated Equilibrium, "Junk DNA," genetics, mutations, natural selection, fossils, genetic/biological similarities between species.
Natural selection would actually prevent macro-evolution. Imagine a fish with part fins, part feet with the fins evolving (transitioning) into feet. What survival benefit would there be? The fish couldn't use its fins or its feet, and there are no fossils showing such a creature ever existed. They only exist on automobile bumper stickers! There are no true transitional forms, either living or fossilized. Evolutionists realize this fact!
Some evolutionists use similarities of traits between species as an argument for transitional forms. This is not a good argument because the traits they cite are complete, fully-formed, and fully functional, not in any true process of transition from one type of structure into another. What about the duck-billed platypus? It has traits belonging to both birds
