Cause and Effect

     When civilization analyzes science and people inquire what is the most important principle in science, what responds to our intellect? Two principles rise to our understanding, the First, and primarily significant scientific principle, is the Law of Cause and Effect. The second and just as essential is the Second Law of Thermodynamics. We will discuss the second law subsequently. The most vital scientific principle science has, is the law of Cause and Effect. What is the significance of this? In every application of science, astronomy, physics, biology, chemistry, and electromagnetic relationships, we are trying to discover associations between the effect (what we see) and the cause (what created the event). There is nothing acknowledged by man where we do not see this principle applied. When do people observe anything occurring where there is not a reason responsible for it? There might be a situation where individuals do not comprehend what they see ensue but that does not invalidate a source for the incident. The next time we go on line in front of our computers, witness what will happen if we never stroke that enter key, just hang around and see if anything ever materializes.

     In my personal experience there has never been a circumstance when this principle has ever been violated, not even one occasion. At work, I have completed a variety of electrical experiments with flukes, meggars, ductors, injection machines, and many other electronic devices to ensure high voltage trouble shooting problems and they have never been ineffective, not even once, in revealing what phenomenon ensue and how to determine where the problem is located. There have been circumstances where something did not perform like it was supposed to, but there was an effect that was missing a cause and we had to discover what was not functioning like why a meter was not reading a voltage, because the batteries were depleted and there wasn’t any energy to operate the meter. This appears uncomplicated, but it works, and that is the bottom line in the real world.

     Now, lets apply this principle to the thought of where do we originate and where does everything we see come into being. There is a principle in science called Occam’s razor, which basically means that all things being equal the simplest explanation seems to be the best or correct. When this is considered in relation to origins or how the cosmos originated, the principle of cause and effect should apply. In other words, there must have been a source or someone with superior intelligence to produce the universe we observe and to assume that everything we perceive just came into being by itself contradicts the principle of cause and effect. Is there anything humanity has achieved in the real world (as we know it) where anything like this has ever transpired? Everything that humanity has envisioned and accomplished has had a cause and effect relationship. All of human history in science has been established on this principle. When individuals observe phenomenon with the cause and effect principle this should signify what guides human understanding because what ensues at this juncture should guide scientific assessments about origins. If everything we take into account has a cause and effect relationship how can the universe we examine really be any different? What bequeaths anyone the right to say that the universe we comprehend by cause and effect relationships could be any different? This is the simplest and best scientific principle that we know so Occam’s razor should be relevant.

     Everyone has been instructed that the present is the key to the past in science. This is established on the assumption that what is happening now operated in the same manner in ancient history. If this is true then the idea of cause and effect must be taken into account and cannot be ignored when we try to comprehend how did the world originate and who or what is genuinely responsible for its existence. Recently, I read a book called "The Mind of God" in which the author (who is committed to the evolutionary state of mind) was making a presupposition through a variety of equations and mathematical calculations for the possibility that the universe could arrive into existence without any cause. In the second chapter, he acknowledged that he was not concern if he was right or wrong about his deductions just as long as he could make an argument for the possibility of a universe creating itself without a creator and the realistic characteristics of observable facts did not make a difference to him. To go through every one of these supposedly scientific gymnastics and not to be concerned whether he was correct or not is shocking science. The underlying principle about science is to ascertain knowledge and to discover the truth completely about everything. How can anybody say they are scientists if they are not concern if they are correct? This demonstrates how far man will go with his vain imaginations just to dispute the point of view that the real world with all of its cause and effect relationships can somehow come into existence completely without a cause and man’s resolve to ignore what nature shows him every day to illustrate that we can reason anything we contemplate can be possible and dub it science. Anyone can contend for a point of view from an extreme position and what anyone can think is possible but is this real science? Does the real world, with all its complexity, substantiate this type of thinking?

     There are essentially two representations for origins, the evolutionary model and the special creation model. To be impartial and realistic both necessitate to be considered. Lets step back and perceive what each model actually proposes and understand which one of these models the genuine scientific data supports. We will not be able to investigate everything that each position proposes but we will look at just a few major hypothesis that each teaches and observe if they line up with the known facts of science. There are two issues we would like to bring to everyone’s attention because the evolutionary mentality says we should only believe what we can measure, test and prove. In the two examples we are going to discuss we will ascertain there is no scientific proof whatsoever and to have faith in their existence and to place confidence in them is identical to the religious fanaticism that young world creation science is condemned for.

     First unsubstantiated belief in the evolutionary model; we are told that the earth had a primordial atmosphere that contained methane, ammonia, and water vapor, but no oxygen a very significant point. (If oxygen were present it would break down the other compounds.) There was an experiment performed by Dr. Stanley Miller and Dr. Sidney Fox to investigate if this combination of chemicals intermixed with an electrical arc might produce life to arise spontaneously. What was the consequence? Life as we know it was not produced but the electricity did amalgamate some of the atoms to forms of amino acids. Every known life form employs amino acids, but amino acids in life are just of the left-handed variety. Amino acids can be left-handed or right-handed in which case to have life every one of the amino acids must form left-handed chains and if one right-handed amino acid is inserted into the left-handed chain the entire chain will be destroyed. In the laboratory where amino acids are synthesized the results are a 50% mixture of the two forms. Only through highly advanced, difficult controlled processes can these two forms be divided separately ¹. This is the first major difficulty against the formation of life through natural processes. Is there anything in the natural world that would provide this separation procedure and then reconstruct each and every combination with just left-handed amino acids? Furthermore, life requires a lot more than just amino acids; life requires proteins and a DNA code to position them in the appropriate sequences. Even if this overwhelming problem did not exist, there are two other essential scientific problems for the development of life to transpire by random accidental chance that this process has to conquer.

     Lets say, for sake of argument, the amino acids did develop with just left-handed chains and by chance positioned themselves in the correct sequences. By the way, the mathematical probabilities against the correct sequences arranging themselves in proper order by random accidental chance are astronomical, but this is another argument that will not be discussed here. The next major obstacle for life to arise by just natural processes is how did the primordial atmosphere arrive into existence? According to the evolutionary model the Sun formed before the Earth but in laboratory experiments, it has been demonstrated that ultra-violet light breaks down methane and ammonia molecules to simpler forms. In other words, if the Sun formed previous to the Earth, then the Earth was submersed in ultra-violet radiation and it would be virtually out of the question for the primordial atmosphere to have ever developed on its own by natural processes. If such a natural process existed wouldn’t it have left some verification behind? What sheltered the Earth from this radiation? Is their any scientific evidence suggesting otherwise? This is the second major obstacle with the concept of the primordial atmosphere coming into existence by random accidental chance.

     Third and most crucial is the fact that there is no evidence in the Earth’s crust at all that the Earth has ever had a methane, ammonia, and water vapor atmosphere at anytime in the Earth’s history. This cannot be stressed enough that the direct scientific evidence contradicts the evolutionary postulate for the primordial soup concept to have ever existed! To quote Dr. Michael Denton Ph.D., well-trained in Evolutionism, "Considering the way the prebiotic soup is referred to in so many discussions of the origin of life as an already established reality, it comes as something of a shock to realize that there is absolutely no positive evidence for its existence." ² Also, the April 1984 issue of Scientific American reported on an international conference of the Precambrian Paleobiology Research Group that gave a report that showed the Earth’s earliest rusted iron bands was 3.8 billion years old and the oldest fossils of cells were 3.5 billion years old. With this evidence there is proof that free oxygen existed 300 million years before there were any living cells? ³ So where is the evidence for the primordial atmosphere? How can science believe in the prebiotic soup when the scientific technique has been abandoned? Science should not take anything by faith unless it has verification that the evidence supports the postulate. This is the scientific method and it is amazing how conveniently conventional science ignores it and then calls itself science. This is just one example of how mainstream science appears to disregard the evidence, and this is just the tip of the iceberg with what is going on with evolutionary thought. One more point is needed here, in light of the fact that the primordial soup has no proof it ever existed some evolutionary scientists, including Dr. Fred Hoyle and Dr. Francis Crick, have gone so far in relation to this apparent lack of scientific verification to suggest that life came from outer space! (Remember the movie called "Chariots of the God’s"?) Instead of an Intelligent Designer or Creator we must resort to aliens. Boy, what a thought, and this is what we call higher education! These three problems have demonstrated that there is no direct evidence for the effect of the primordial soup concept so science should conclude that the cause (random accidental chance) never existed either.

     Second unsubstantiated belief in evolutionary thought, is an astronomical perspective that evolutionists and old-world believers (people who think the universe is billions of years old) take when they are confronted with the puzzle about short period comets in our solar system. Typical science is absolutely positive that the solar system and the Earth are 4.5 billion years old so evolutionary scientists have an authentic dilemma with short period comets that make the solar system appear to be young. The assumption in evolution is the suggestion that the comets were produced about the same time the solar system was formed. Evolutionary thinking tells people the solar system formed about 4.5 billion years ago but the oldest comets in our solar system appear to have orbital periods only a few thousand years. In other words, comets only revolve around the sun only so many times because the solar activity propels off so much matter every time the comet makes a revolution around the sun and this is the reason we call them short period comets. (Periods of thousands of years is very short compared to the idea the solar system is 4.5 billion years old.) Comets are believed to be made of ice and dust and are also referred as dirty snowballs. Eventually, as the comet travels around the sun it will run out of material and dissipate or break into pieces altogether. If these are the facts about comets then there should not be any short period comets left in our solar system if the solar system has been here for billions of years. Another problem, which is even more significant, is the lack of interstellar comets. The reason we have not seen any interstellar comets is because in a young solar system they would not have had time to reach us.

     The way evolutionists (and old world believers) have tried to step around this problem of young comets in our solar system is to imagine a mysterious cloud called the Oort cloud. The problem with the Oort cloud is the fact that there is no scientific verification whatsoever that substantiates its existence. Also, bare in mind in order to believe this we should have some direct observational evidence that supports the existence of the Oort cloud. The cloud is believed to be almost one light year in radius around our solar system but it is too faint to be observed from Earth. (Scientists have also talked about a Kupier belt where comets come from too, but once again there is no direct observational evidence this belt exists either.) The proposal behind this speculation is a rogue star may pass by the Oort cloud every so often and from its gravity kickoff a comet toward the sun, but there is a valid problem with this because after so many billions and billions of years the reserve of comets would run out. Now the logical question is where would the Oort cloud and Kupier belt be resupplied? The amazing thing is how old world scientists believe in the Oort cloud and Kupier belt without any direct observational evidence that would prove their existence. If the scientific method is to be useful we must not accept as true cause, which we cannot verify. Another problem with this line of reasoning is the fact that if rogue star moving through the heavens were actually what happened to kickoff a comet to fall toward the sun someone would think that somebody somewhere would have observed this star for it must have been moving through the heavens too. (In fairness, there are other effects that could cause the comets to fall toward the sun like collisions but we still are face with the same problem of substantiating this.) With all the comets that man has witness in history, somebody would think that humanity would have observed this phenomenon by now. We must remember, short period comets make the solar system appear to be young, but they do not prove the solar system is young. The short period comets and the prebiotic soup where all life is presumed to have began do illustrate the issues we are trying to expose. They illustrate the evolutionary biasness and how the evolutionary mindset deals with difficulties and how evolutionary scientists and old world believers step around these predicaments without any scientific substantiation. This is a bona fide problem in science when evolutionary scientists tell the average citizens about a postulate where they do not have any scientific confirmation to back up their philosophy. The real kicker is this has been done only to keep the faith in the evolutionary concept and not for any other reason! Not because the evidence demands it, but the old world evolutionary concept has to have billions and billions of years for evolution to even have a chance that it is possible. Without billions and billions of years, scientists know there is no way there has been enough time for evolution to have occurred by accidental random processes which is right where they would be (no chance of evolution being true) if the solar system was young. According to the scientific method believing in these types of concepts should never happen. This is the same religious fanaticism (to believe in or assume by faith without any direct scientific observational verification) that evolutionary thinkers and old world advocates pronounce about young world creationists.

     Taking all of these facts into consideration what has happen to mainstream science? Everyone should understand the principle of cause and effect and should not speculate on our origins without using this principle to guide their thinking because this is what the real world instructs people to do. Yet for some unknown reason mainstream science has one way or another forgotten this, why? Is it because of a personal bias against God and what He articulates about His Creation? How can science ignore evidence or lack of evidence, which is the real problem here and still claim to be objective? In light of this, Dr. H.S. Lipson states, "If living matter is not, then, caused by the interplay of atoms, natural forces and radiation, how has it come into being? There is another theory, now quite out of favor, which is based upon the ideas of Lamarck: that if an organism needs an improvement it will develop it, and transmit it to its progeny. I think we need to go further than this and admit that the only acceptable explanation is creation. I know this is an anathema to physicists, as indeed it is to me, but we must not reject a theory that we do not like if the experimental evidence supports it." (H.S. Lipson, Professor of Physics at the University of Manchester)⁴ If mainstream science would be truthful with all the evidence that is around everyone and reinterpret the evidence by using the principle of cause and effect, the only logical explanation for the world as we see it, is the world is made the way it is, by design. Which logically would necessitate a Designer or Creator and with all things being equal this would be the simplest explanation, which is correct!

Young World Creationist, Stephen J. Miller

¹ Paul S. Taylor, The Illustrated Origins Answer Book, p. 22

² Dr. Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, p. 261

³ Luther Sunderland, Darwin’s Enigma, p. 66

⁴ Dr. H.S. Lipson, in paper published by The Institute of Physics as cited in The Illustrated Origins Answer Book, p. 116