The Greatest Miracle that Science has ever "Proven" part 2

                Many young-earth creationists (YECs) actually share the same misconception with atheists that the Big Bang (BB) is the cause of the beginning of the universe, even though they do so for different reasons.  Since YECs hold this view, they reject the BB because they believe that it removes God as the creator.  Atheists by contrast, hold the BB to be the cause precisely because they are committed to a materialist cause of the universe.  Both positions are wrong for the reason that the BB is not an ultimate cause at all, but to the contrary, the effect of a prior cause, namely, God who brought the physical order into existence by His word of power.  Hebrews 11:3 says, “By faith we understand that the entire created order was fashioned by the command of God so that the things that we see were brought into existence not by that which appears” (my translation).  Indeed, it is conceptually impossible for either position to postulate scientific events as the cause of existence for the reason that, prior to the BB, there was neither matter, energy, space, nor time, by which science could conceivably do any creative work at all.

                This predicament is far more damaging to atheistic materialism (AM) than it is to YEC.  The problem for AM isn’t merely its insistence that science is the solitary legitimate mode of knowledge about reality.  AM further is so committed to an exclusively materialistic cosmos that it dismisses as illusory both the spiritual realm and supernatural events of any sort that cannot be accounted for by science.   Yet granting the multi-faceted demonstrated scientific proof that the universe began out of nothing (see Hugh Ross’ “A Beginners and Experts Guide to the Big Bang”), the BB stands as a profound refutation of the notion that miracles cannot happen.  Since in light of the present level of knowledge that event can be rationally understood only as a miracle in a manner that is consistent with Genesis 1:1, “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth,” we have strong reasons to hold that God exists, both as creator, and sustainer by His Word of power (Colossians 1:17,Hebrews 1:3).  Notice then the context by which I appeal to science; NOT as an explanation of the BB as if it was a naturalistically-occurring event, but as a witness to the broad array of indicators that the BB is the very greatest miracle behind nature.  The vital consequence of such a monumental miracle as the BB is that it strikes a fatal blow to the fundamental tenet of atheism that nothing exists outside of the material order.

The Greatest Miracle that Science has Ever "Proven"

              You may have noticed that the word “proven” in my title is in quotes and wondered if this is a concession that no such proof really exists for the “miracle” in question.  So you may be thinking my claim only illustrates the adage, “What one hand gives, it takes away with the other.”  Now on the one hand it is true that in terms of the question of causes in the succession of events of nature (e.g. present array of biological creatures, the geological history of Washington, etc.), scientists are not able to prove their conclusions.  Instead, they look at the entire range the evidence and then, out of a pool of multiple competing hypotheses, choose which one best fits the broadest array of data.  On the other hand, even under this criterion, the claim of my title still stands that science has virtually “proven” the “miracle” of the beginning of the universe!  Not only are scientists at a loss to explain this event in light of current scientific knowledge.  This is an event for which there is not even conceivably a scientific explanation.

                At a recent Reasons to Believe (www.reasons.org) chapter meeting, the agenda of which is to harmonize the Bible with scientific knowledge without compromising either one, our “resident atheist” also attended as a highly valued guest.  During the Q&A which followed that day’s video presentation on the beginning of the universe, he declared publically that there is no actual evidence for the existence of God.  I publically contested his assertion by posing the challenge that, in the face of the scientific evidence just presented affirming the universe came into existence out of a “zero volume singularity,” what can atheism offer as a scientific account of how the universe began out of nothing, that is superior to theism?  When he replied that “the God answer” is unacceptable, I further pressed him, “What cause then do you offer in its place as a more reasonable account?”  When he proposed a quantum alternative, others present reminded him that he was merely assuming the prior existence of the very particles and laws that he seeks to explain.  Ultimately he conceded that the cause of the universe is yet unknown.                

To be continued...