Dear Pastor:
Do laws of science uphold creation as recorded in the Bible?
Dear Reader,
Yes, the laws of science clearly show that there is a designer and maker. Just as the laws of any society reflect the legislators of those society, so do the laws of science reflect the Great Legislator, God himself. I will in this article post a very informative research on the laws of thermodynamics. I trust that you will enjoy it. Any questions please feel free to write to me by email. This article is from Apologetics Press.
Evolution and the Laws of
Science: The Laws of Thermodynamics
by Jeff Miller, Ph.D.
“[T]he principles of thermodynamics have been in existence since the
creation of the universe” (Cengel and Boles, 2002, p. 2, emp. added). So
states a prominent textbook used in schools of engineering across America.
Indeed, these principles prove themselves to be absolutely critical in
today’s science world. Much of the engineering technology available today is
based on the foundational truths embodied in the Laws of Thermodynamics. As
the writers of one engineering thermodynamics textbook stated: “Energy is a
fundamental concept of thermodynamics and one of the most significant
aspects of engineering analysis” (Moran and Shapiro, 2000, p. 35). Do these
laws have application to the creation/evolution debate as creationists
suggest? What do they actually say and mean?
The word “thermodynamics” originally was used in a publication by Lord
Kelvin (formerly William Thomson), the man often called the Father of
Thermodynamics because of his articulation of the Second Law of
Thermodynamics in 1849 (Cengel and Boles, p. 2). The term comes from two
Greek words: therme, meaning “heat,” and dunamis, meaning “force” or “power”
(American Heritage..., 2000, pp. 558,1795). Thermodynamics can be summarized
essentially as the science of energy—including heat, work (defined as the
energy required to move a force a certain distance), potential energy,
internal energy, and kinetic energy. The basic principles and laws of
thermodynamics are understood thoroughly today by the scientific community.
Thus, the majority of the work with the principles of thermodynamics is done
by engineers who simply utilize the already understood principles in their
designs. A thorough understanding of the principles of thermodynamics which
govern our Universe can help an engineer to learn effectively to control the
impact of heat in his/her designs.
THE FIRST AND SECOND LAWS OF THERMODYNAMICS
Though there are many important thermodynamic principles that govern the
behavior of energy, perhaps the most critical principles of significance in
the creation/evolution controversy are the First and Second Laws of
Thermodynamics. What are these laws that, not only are vital to the work of
an engineer, but central to this debate?
The First Law
The First Law of Thermodynamics was formulated originally by Robert Mayer
(1814-1878). He stated: “I therefore hope that I may reckon on the reader’s
assent when I lay down as an axiomatic truth that, just as in the case of
matter, so also in the case of force [the term used at that time for energy—JM],
only a transformation but never a creation takes place” (as quoted in King,
1962, p. 5). That is, given a certain amount of energy in a closed system,
that energy will remain constant, though it will change form (see Figure 1).
As evolutionist Willard Young says in defining the First Law, “Energy can be
neither created nor destroyed, but can only be converted from one form to
another” (1985, p. 8).
Figure 1
This principle, also known as the “conservation of energy principle” (Cengel
and Boles, p. 2), can be demonstrated by the burning of a piece of wood.
When the wood is burned, it is transformed into a different state. The
original amount of energy present before the burning is still present.
However, much of that energy was transformed into a different state, namely,
heat. No energy disappeared from the Universe, and no energy was brought
into the Universe through burning the wood. Concerning the First Law, Young
further explains that
the principle of the conservation of energy is considered to be the single
most important and fundamental ‘law of nature’ presently known to science,
and is one of the most firmly established. Endless studies and experiments
have confirmed its validity over and over again under a multitude of
different conditions (p. 165, emp. added).
This principle is known to be a fact about nature—without exception. One
thermodynamics textbook, Fundamentals of Thermodynamics, says:
The basis of every law of nature is experimental evidence, and this is true
also of the first law of thermodynamics. Many different experiments have
been conducted on the first law, and every one thus far has verified it
either directly or indirectly. The first law has never been disproved (Borgnakke
and Sonntag, 2009, p. 116, emp. added).
That is why the McGraw-Hill Dictionary of Scientific and Technical Terms
defines a scientific law as “a regularity which applies to all members of a
broad class of phenomena” (2003, p. 1182, emp. added). Famous atheist,
theoretical physicist, and cosmologist of Cambridge University, Stephen
Hawking, concurred:
But what’s really important is that these physical laws, as well as being
unchangeable, are universal. They apply not just to the flight of the ball,
but to the motion of a planet and everything else in the Universe. Unlike
laws made by humans, the laws of nature cannot ever be broken. That’s why
they are so powerful…. [T]he laws of nature are fixed (“Curiosity: Did God
Create the Universe?” 2011, emp. added).
The Second Law
In the nineteenth century, Lord Kelvin and Rudolph Clausius (1822-1888)
separately made findings that became known as the Second Law of
Thermodynamics (Suplee, 2000, p. 156). The Second Law builds on the First,
stating that though there is a constant amount of energy in a given system
that is merely transforming into different states, that energy is becoming
less usable. Extending our wood burning illustration above, after the wood
is burned, the total amount of energy is still the same, but transformed
into other energy states. Those energy states (e.g., ash and dissipated heat
to the environment) are less retrievable and less accessible (see Figure 2).
Figure 2
Well-known atheist, physicist, cosmologist, and astrobiologist of Arizona
State University, Paul Davies, explained it this way:
[T]he celebrated second law of thermodynamics…says, roughly speaking, that
in any change the Universe becomes a slightly more disorderly place; the
entropy goes up, the information content goes down. This natural tendency
towards disintegration and chaos is evident all around us (1978,
80[1129]:506).
This process is irreversible. Lord Kelvin stated that energy is
“irrecoverably lost to man and therefore ‘wasted,’ although not annihilated”
(Thomson, 1882, p. 189, ital. in orig.). This principle is known as entropy.
Simply put, entropy states that nature is tending towards disorder and
chaos. Will the paint job on your house maintain its fresh appearance over
time? Will your son’s room actually become cleaner on its own, or will it
tend toward disorder? Even without your son’s assistance, dust and decay
take their toll. Although work can slow the entropy, it cannot stop it.
Renowned evolutionary science writer Isaac Asimov explained:
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 (1970, p. 6).
Entropy is simply a fact of nature. Entropy can be minimized in this
Universe, but it cannot be eradicated. That is where engineers come in.
Engineers work to discover ways of minimizing energy loss and maximizing
useful energy before it is forever lost. Thousands of engineering jobs are
dedicated to addressing this fundamental fact of the Second Law of
Thermodynamics. Your energy bill is affected directly by it. If the Second
Law was not fixed—unchanging—engineers could not develop the technology
necessary to maximize usable energy, thereby lowering your energy costs.
Some engineers devote their entire careers to minimizing entropy in the
generation of power from energy. All this effort is based on the principles
established by the Second Law of Thermodynamics. These principles are
established as fact in the scientific community. The American Heritage
Dictionary of the English Language defines “law” as “a statement describing
a relationship observed to be invariable between or among phenomena for all
cases in which the specified conditions are met” (2000, p. 993, emp. added).
Since laws are invariable, i.e., unchanging and constant, they have no
exceptions. Otherwise, they would not be classified as laws. Tracy Walters,
a mechanical engineer working in thermal engineering, observed:
It has been my experience that many people do not appreciate how
uncompromising the Laws of Thermodynamics actually are. It is felt, perhaps,
that the Laws are merely general tendencies or possibly only theoretical
considerations. In reality, though, the Laws of Thermodynamics are hard as
nails, and...the more one works with these Laws, the deeper respect one
gains for them (1986, 9[2]:8, emp. added).
Evolutionist Jeremy Rifkin stated that “the Entropy Law will preside as the
ruling paradigm over the next period of history. Albert Einstein said that
it is the premier law of all science; Sir Arthur Eddington referred to it as
the ‘supreme metaphysical law of the entire universe’” (1980, p. 6).
Borgnakke and Sonntag, in Fundamentals of Thermodynamics, explain:
[W]e can say that the second law of thermodynamics (like every other law of
nature) rests on experimental evidence. Every relevant experiment that has
been conducted, either directly or indirectly, verifies the second law, and
no experiment has ever been conducted that contradicts the second law. The
basis of the second law is therefore experimental evidence (2009, p. 220,
emp. added, parenthetical item in orig.).
Another thermal science textbook says, concerning the Second Law of
Thermodynamics, “To date, no experiment has been conducted that contradicts
the second law, and this should be taken as sufficient proof of its
validity” (Cengel, Turner, and Cimbala, 2008, p. 266, emp. added).
IMPLICATIONS OF THE LAWS
When understood properly, the Laws of Thermodynamics apply directly to the
creation/evolution controversy in precisely the same way they apply in the
engineering world today (cf. Miller, 2007). In fact, these foundational
truths, utilized daily by the engineering world, have eternally significant,
spiritual implications in that they prove that God exists. How so?
If there is no God, the existence of the Universe must be explained without
Him. The Big Bang theory claims that all matter in the Universe initially
was condensed in a sphere smaller than the size of a period at the end of
this sentence. That sphere exploded and helps to explain why the Universe,
according to many cosmologists, appears to be expanding or inflating (see
Thompson, et al., 2003, 23[5]:32-34,36-47). Even if the Big Bang were true
(and it is not, cf. Thompson, et al.), this theory offers no explanation for
the origin of that sphere. Evolutionist Alan Guth, a cosmologist and physics
professor at M.I.T., admitted that “[i]nflation itself takes a very small
universe and produces from it a very big universe. But inflation by itself
does not explain where that very small universe came from” (as quoted in
Heeren, 1995, p. 148). He further stated, “[A] proposal that the universe
was created from empty space is no more fundamental than a proposal that the
universe was spawned by a piece of rubber. It might be true, but one would
still want to ask where the piece of rubber came from” (Guth, 1997, p. 273).
So where could the “rubber” have come from?
The only logical possibilities for the origin of the matter and energy
comprising the Universe are that they are responsible for their own
existence (i.e., they popped into existence out of nothing—spontaneous
generation or they always existed—eternality) or Someone is responsible for
their existence (i.e., they were placed here by something outside of the
Universe—Creation) (see Figure 3).
Figure 3
As the well-known philosopher and evolutionist from the 19th century,
Herbert Spencer said, “Respecting the origin of the Universe three verbally
intelligible suppositions may be made. We may assert that it is
self-existent [i.e., eternal—JM]; or that it is self-created [i.e.,
spontaneously generated—JM]; or that it is created by an external agency”
(1882, p. 30).
Possibility 1: Spontaneous Generation of the Universe
Consider the entire physical Universe as a system consisting of all mass,
matter, and energy that exists in the Universe. If one believes in the Big
Bang model, the system’s boundary would be outside of the blast radius of
the Big Bang, or outside of the original cosmic dot that exploded. Without
God (i.e., something outside of the bounds of the Universe—something
supernatural), this Universe would have to be a closed system. Since our
system encompasses the entire Universe, there is no more mass that can cross
into our system from the outside, which necessitates our system being
closed. If mass, matter, and energy could enter and/or exit the system, the
system would be an open system[NOTE: The creationist contends that the
Universe is an open system, since there is Someone outside of the natural
Universe Who can cross the boundary and put matter and energy into the
system. However, without God, the entire physical Universe as a system
logically would have to be a closed system. Atheists must so believe in
order to explain the Universe without God.].
Evolutionary physicist Victor Stenger, in his book, God: The Failed
Hypothesis, said:
Conservation of energy [i.e., the First Law—JM] and other basic laws hold
true in the most distant observed galaxy and in the cosmic microwave
background, implying that these laws have been valid for over thirteen
billion years. Surely any observation of their violation during the puny
human life span would be reasonably termed a miracle…. In principle, the
creation hypothesis could be confirmed by the direct observation or
theoretical requirement that conservation of energy was violated 13.7
billion years ago at the start of the big bang (2007, pp. 115-116, emp.
added).
The First Law of Thermodynamics states that in a closed system, the amount
of energy present in that system is constant, though it transforms into
other forms of energy. So, if the Universe as a whole initially contained no
mass, matter, or energy, and then all of the mass, matter, and energy in the
Universe spontaneously generated, the First Law would be violated. Without
intervention from an outside force, the amount of mass, matter, and energy
in the Universe would have remained constant (unchanged) at nothing.
According to the scientific evidence, matter/energy could not have
originally spontaneously generated. Thus, according to Stenger, the creation
hypothesis is confirmed based on the scientific evidence. The initial
creation of energy from nothing amounted to a miracle.
As was mentioned earlier, there are no exceptions to laws, or else they
would not be laws. The First Law of Thermodynamics has no known exceptions.
The Law is accepted as fact by all scientists in general and utilized by
engineers in particular. Therefore, the Universe, composed of all mass,
matter, and energy, could not have spontaneously generated (popped into
existence on its own) without violating the exceptionless and highly
respected First Law of Thermodynamics. The energy level of the Universe
would not have been constant. Spontaneous generation would amount to the
creation of energy from nothing (see Figure 4). The Universe could not have
come into existence without the presence and intervention of a Force outside
of the closed system of the entire physical Universe. The Universe therefore
must be an open system that was created by a non-physical Force (i.e., a
Force not composed of mass, matter, and energy) outside of the physical
boundary of this Universe (above nature, or supernatural) with the
capability of bringing it into existence out of nothing. That Force can be
none other than a supernatural God. To develop a theory that requires the
violation of that principle would be against the scientific evidence. It
would be unscientific. The evidence from science indicates that matter could
not and cannot spontaneously generate.
Figure 4
Unfortunately, though this truth is so glaringly obvious to many, there has
been a recent surge of sentiment in the impossible notion that this Universe
could have created itself—that something could come from nothing. British
evolutionist Anthony Kenny (1980), physics professor from City University in
New York, Edward Tryon (1984), and physicists Alan Guth from M.I.T. and Paul
Steinhardt of Princeton (1984) are just a few who are open proponents of
this notion. Stephen Hawking said, “Bodies such as stars or black holes
cannot just appear out of nothing. But a whole universe can…. Because there
is a law like gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing”
(2010, p. 180). However, the truth still stands. Until the First Law of
Thermodynamics ceases to be a fundamental law explaining this Universe, the
spontaneous generation of this Universe from nothing is impossible.
No wonder Victor Stenger, a proponent of the idea of spontaneous generation,
said, “I must admit that there are yet no empirical or observational tests
that can be used to test the idea of an accidental origin” (1987, 7[3]:30).
According to Stenger, the idea is “speculative” (p. 30). No solid evidence.
Just speculation. Famous evolutionary astronomer, Robert Jastrow, the
founder and former director of the Goddard Institute for Space Studies at
NASA, said:
But the creation of matter out of nothing would violate a cherished concept
in science—the principle of the conservation of matter and energy—which
states that matter and energy can be neither created nor destroyed. Matter
can be converted into energy, and vice versa, but the total amount of all
matter and energy in the Universe must remain unchanged forever. It is
difficult to accept a theory that violates such a firmly established
scientific fact (1977, p. 32).
Science studies what occurs in nature, not super-nature. In nature, matter
and energy can be neither created or destroyed, but “must remain unchanged
forever.” This is a “firmly established fact.” Nothing comes from nothing.
If a molecule will not pop into existence from nothing, a sphere containing
all of the matter and energy of the entire Universe will certainly not pop
into existence.
Possibility 2: Eternal Existence of the Universe
Again, considering the entire Universe as a system necessitates that it be a
closed system. The Second Law of Thermodynamics states that though energy in
a closed system is constant (First Law of Thermodynamics), that energy is
transforming into less usable forms of energy (i.e., the Universe is
“running down”). This process is irreversible. There is a finite amount of
usable energy in the Universe (which explains the widespread interest in
conserving energy). In the Big Bang model, that energy was originally in the
cosmic egg that exploded, and now would be found within the blast radius of
the original explosion. That usable energy is depleting according to the
Second Law. Engineers strive to slow this inevitable depletion of energy,
but it cannot be stopped.
If the Universe has always existed (i.e., it is eternal), but there is a
finite amount of usable energy, then all usable energy already should be
expended (see Figure 5). Yet, usable energy still exists. So, the Universe
cannot have existed forever. It had to have a beginning. The eternality of
matter would be the equivalent of a system with an energy input and 100%
usable energy output (see Figure 6). It would be the equivalent of
describing the Universe as a perpetual motion machine—a design that attempts
to violate either the First or Second Law of Thermodynamics by, for
instance, running forever without an energy input. No such machine has ever
been designed, since such a machine would violate the laws of
thermodynamics. Philip Yam, writing in Scientific American said, “Claims for
perpetual-motion machines and other free-energy devices still persist, of
course, even though they inevitably turn out to violate at least one law of
thermodynamics” (1997, 277[6]:82).
Figure 5
Figure 6
No wonder evolutionists, themselves, have long conceded this truth. In his
book, Until the Sun Dies, renowned evolutionary astronomer Robert Jastrow
stated:
The lingering decline predicted by astronomers for the end of the world
differs from the explosive conditions they have calculated for its birth,
but the impact is the same: modern science denies an eternal existence of
the Universe, either in the past or in the future (1977, p. 30, emp. added).
In his book, God and the Astronomers, Jastrow reiterated this truth:
And concurrently there was a great deal of discussion about the fact that
the second law of thermodynamics, applied to the Cosmos, indicates the
Universe is running down like a clock. If it is running down, there must
have been a time when it was fully wound up…. Now three lines of
evidence—the motions of the galaxies, the laws of thermodynamics, the life
story of the stars—pointed to one conclusion; all indicated that the
Universe had a beginning (1978, pp. 48-49, 111).
Evolutionist Kitty Ferguson, award-winning science writer, agreed. She said,
“It’s also common knowledge that the universe isn’t eternal but had a
beginning” (1994, p. 89). Any person who develops a theory that claims that
the Universe could be a perpetual motion machine, is guilty of contradicting
the solid evidence from science. They are being unscientific, and their
unscientific mindset has resulted in an unscientific theory.
Possibility 3: The Inevitable Implication
What does the scientific evidence actually say about the matter of origins?
Forget speculation, conjecture, hypothesis, and theory—wishful, hopeful
thinking that there might be some way to avoid a supernatural explanation
and the restrictions that Being might have on our desires. What does the
evidence say?
To repeat, logically, there are only three possible explanations for the
existence of matter in the Universe. Either it spontaneously generated, it
is eternal, or it was created by a non-physical Being outside of the
boundaries of the Universe. Atheists use the theory of evolution in an
attempt to explain the existence and state of the Universe today. In order
for the theory of evolution to be true, thereby accounting for the existence
of mankind, either all of the mass, matter, and energy of the Universe
spontaneously generated (i.e., it popped into existence out of nothing), or
it has always existed (i.e., it is eternal.). Without an outside force (a
transcendent, omnipotent, eternal, superior Being), no other options for the
existence of the Universe are available. However, as the Laws of
Thermodynamics prove, the spontaneous generation and the eternality of
matter are logically and scientifically impossible. One and only one
possible option remains: the Universe was created by the Creator. The
scientific evidence points to the existence of God. Bottom line: God
designed the laws of thermodynamics. Creationists believe them. Engineers
use them. Atheists cannot harmonize them with their beloved theory.
CONCLUSION
Evolutionists claim that science and the idea of God are irreconcilable.
“Only one of them can be true,” they say, “and you cannot prove there is a
God.” Not all theistic models for the origin of the Universe are in keeping
with science. For instance, according to Enuma Elish, the Babylonian
creation account, the polytheistic Babylonians believed that matter is
eternal (Pfeiffer, 1972, p. 226). This has been shown to be false. However,
although not all Creation models are in harmony with the scientific
evidence, one would expect the true Creation model to be in keeping with the
evidence. The Laws of Thermodynamics, which science itself recognizes in its
explanations of the phenomena in the Universe, were written by the Chief
Engineer (cf. Miller, 2012). As expected, they prove to be in complete
harmony with His existence, contrary to the claims of evolutionists. God,
Himself, articulated these laws centuries ago in the Bible.
At the very beginning of the Bible, the First Law of Thermodynamics was
expressed when Moses penned, “Thus the heavens and the Earth, and all the
host of them, were finished. And on the seventh day, God ended His work
which He had done, and He rested on the seventh day from all His work which
He had done” (Genesis 2:1-2, emp. added). In Exodus 20:11, Moses wrote, “For
in six days, the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that
is in them, and rested (i.e., ceased) the seventh day.” Everything in the
Universe was made in six days, and then the Lord stopped creating. Nothing
else is coming into existence naturally. After the six days of Creation, the
mass, matter, and energy creation process was terminated. As evolutionist
Willard Young said regarding the First Law: “Energy can be neither created
nor destroyed, but can only be converted from one form to another.” The
thrust of the First Law of Thermodynamics was expressed in the Bible
thousands of years ago, although it was not discovered and formally
articulated by scientists until the 19th century.
Through the hand of the psalmist, God also stated centuries ago what
scientists call the Second Law of Thermodynamics: “Of old You laid the
foundation of the Earth, and the heavens are the work of your hands. They
will perish, but You will endure; yes, they will all grow old like a
garment; like a cloak You will change them, and they will be changed. But
You are the same, and Your years will have no end” (102:25-27, emp. added).
The Universe is wearing out—decaying, like an old shirt: the Second Law of
Thermodynamics. Once again, the Creation model is in perfect harmony with
science. The evolutionary model fails its thermodynamics test.
The inspired writer wrote in Hebrews 11:3, “By faith we understand that the
worlds were framed by the word of God, so that the things which are seen
were not made of things which are visible.” Paul declared in Acts 14:17,
“Nevertheless He did not leave Himself without witness, in that He did good,
gave us rain from heaven and fruitful seasons, filling our hearts with food
and gladness.” The psalmist affirmed, “The heavens declare the glory of God;
and the firmament shows His handiwork” (19:1). Paul assured the Romans, “For
since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen,
being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and
Godhead, so that they are without excuse” (1:20, emp. added). The scientific
evidence points to God. There will be no excuse in the end for those who
deny it.
In closing, we return to Lord Kelvin, the Father of Thermodynamics, for
fitting final thoughts. In a short public speech in 1903, reported by The
Times and followed up by an amending letter to the paper by Kelvin, Kelvin
said:
I do not say that, with regard to the origin of life, science neither
affirms nor denies Creative Power. Science positively affirms Creative
Power…. It is not in dead matter that we live and move and have our being
[Acts 17:28—JM], but in the creating and directive Power which science
compels us to accept as an article of belief.... There is nothing between
absolute scientific belief in a Creative Power, and the acceptance of the
theory of a fortuitous concourse of atoms.... Forty years ago I asked
Liebig, walking somewhere in the country if he believed that the grass and
flowers that we saw around us grew by mere chemical forces. He answered,
“No, no more than I could believe that a book of botany describing them grew
by mere chemical forces”.... Do not be afraid of being free thinkers! If you
think strongly enough you will be forced by science to the belief in God,
which is the foundation of all Religion. You will find science not
antagonistic but helpful to Religion (as quoted in Thompson, 1910, pp.
1097-1100, emp. added).
According to the Father of Thermodynamics, evolutionists are failing to
“think strongly enough.” No wonder the psalmist asserted: “The fool has said
in his heart, ‘There is no God’” (14:1).
REFERENCES
American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language (2000), (Boston, MA:
Houghton Mifflin), fourth edition.
Asimov, Isaac (1970), “In the Game of Energy and Thermodynamics You Can’t
Even Break Even,” Smithsonian Institute Journal, pp. 4-10, June.
Borgnakke, Claus and Richard E. Sonntag (2009), Fundamentals of
Thermodynamics (Asia: John Wiley and Sons), seventh edition.
Cengel, Yunus A. and Michael A. Boles (2002), Thermodynamics: An Engineering
Approach (New York: McGraw-Hill), fourth edition.
Cengel, Yunus A., Robert H. Turner, and John M. Cimbala (2008),
Thermal-Fluid Sciences (New York, NY: McGraw-Hill).
“Curiosity: Did God Create the Universe?” (2011), Discovery Channel, August
7.
Davies, Paul (1978), “Chance or Choice: Is the Universe an Accident?” New
Scientist, 80[1129]:506-508, November.
Ferguson, Kitty (1994), The Fire in the Equations: Science, Religion, and
the Search for God (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans).
Guth, Alan (1997), The Inflationary Universe (New York: Perseus Books).
Guth, Alan and Paul Steinhardt (1984), “The Inflationary Universe,”
Scientific American, 250:116-128, May.
Hawking, Stephen (2010), The Grand Design (New York, NY: Bantam Books).
Heeren, Fred (1995), Show Me God (Wheeling, IL: Searchlight Publications).
Jastrow, Robert (1977), Until the Sun Dies (New York: W.W. Norton).
Jastrow, Robert (1978), God and the Astronomers (New York: W.W. Norton).
Kenny, Anthony (1980), The Five Ways: St. Thomas Aquinas’ Proofs of God’s
Existence (South Bend, IN: University of Notre Dame Press).
King, A.L. (1962), Thermophysics (San Francisco, CA: W.H. Freeman).
McGraw-Hill Dictionary of Scientific and Technical Terms (2003), pub. M.D.
Licker (New York: McGraw-Hill), sixth edition.
Miller, Jeff (2007), “God and the Laws of Thermodynamics: A Mechanical
Engineer’s Perspective,” Reason & Revelation, 27[4]:25-31, April, http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/3293.
Miller, Jeff (2012), “‘The Laws of Science’-by God,” Reason & Revelation,
32[12]:137-140, December, http://www.apologeticspress.org/apPubPage.aspx?pub=1&issue=1103&article=2072.
Moran, Michael J. and Howard N. Shapiro (2000), Fundamentals of Engineering
Thermodynamics (New York: John Wiley & Sons), fourth edition.
Pfeiffer, Charles F. (1972), The Biblical World (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker
Book House).
Rifkin, Jeremy (1980), Entropy: A New World View (New York: Viking).
Spencer, Herbert (1882), First Principles: A System of Synthetic Philosophy
(New York: D. Appleton and Company), fourth edition.
Stenger, Victor J. (1987), “Was the Universe Created?,” Free Inquiry,
7[3]:26-30, Summer.
Stenger, Victor J. (2007), God: The Failed Hypothesis (Amherst, NY:
Prometheus Books).
Suplee, Curt (2000), Milestones of Science (Washington, D.C.: National
Geographic Society).
Thompson, Bert, Brad Harrub, and Branyon May (2003), “The Big Bang Theory—A
Scientific Critique [Part 1],” Reason & Revelation, 23[5]:32-34,36-47.
Thompson, Silvanus P. (1910), The Life of William Thomson Baron Kelvin of
Largs, Vol. 2, (London: MacMillan and Co.).
Thomson, William (1882), Mathematical and Physical Papers (Cambridge
University Press).
Tryon, Edward P. (1984), “What Made the World?,” New Scientist, 101:14-16,
March 8.
Walters, Tracy (1986), “A Reply to John Patterson’s Arguments,” Origins
Research, 9[2]:8-9, Fall/Winter.
Yam, Philip (1997), “Exploiting Zero-Point Energy,” Scientific American,
277[6]82-85.
Young, Willard (1985), Fallacies of Creationism (Calgary, Alberta, Canada:
Detselig Enterprises).
Copyright © 2013 Apologetics Press, Inc. All rights reserved.
http://www.apologeticspress.org/
Selections from the Great Controversy between Christ and Satan/6
"What The Bible Says About" Series/5
Email: postmaster@silverliningministry.com