Science Article | Is Darwinism Based On Established Scientific Facts?More Than Articles

Is Darwinism Based On Established Scientific Facts?

Darwinism is taught in America's public schools as if it were real science, but is it really?

And does valid evidence exist that will thoroughly refute the contentions long made by advocates of Darwinian-style (one kind of creature evolving into another kind of creature, such as apes evolving into humans) evolution?

This is one of a series of articles that explore these questions. In each article I discuss a particular subject that Darwinists contend is proof of Darwinian-style evolution, and then counter that contention with what real science reveals about that subject.

We will discuss a biggie in this article: The First Law of Thermodynamics.

Where did the energy come from?

The First Law of Thermodynamics states that matter or energy cannot be created or destroyed.

This is one of the most accepted and proven laws of science and is one of a number of serious problems for Big Bang cosmologies. Isaac Asimov referred to the First Law of Thermodynamics as "one of the most important generalizations in the history of science."

As simply as I can describe it, the First Law of Thermodynamics states that the total quantity of matter and energy in the universe is always constant, even though energy can be transformed into other forms of energy.

This law, also referred to as the Law of Conservation of Mass and Energy, reveals that the universe could not have created itself as required by the Darwinian-oriented theories.

All the observed changes throughout human history, whether caused by natural forces or by mankind, have resulted from the rearranging of the energy and matter that had already been in existence. Never has an observed change occurred that was the result of the creation of new matter or new energy.

The First Law of Thermodynamics is a major problem for all theories which attempt to explain how the universe developed itself without outside input.

In other words, according to real science, the universe could not have burst into existence during a Big Bang from an infinitely tiny speck of matter.

A letter signed by dozens of scientists appeared in New Scientist on May 22, 2004 titled "Bucking the Big Bang." The letter included statements such as the following:

"The Big Bang theory can boast no predictions that have been validated by observation."

"Claimed successes consist of retrospectively making observations fit by adding adjustable parameters."

"The Big Bang relies on a growing number of never-observed entities, inflation, dark matter, dark energy and cannott survive without these fudge factors. In no other field of physics would this continual recourse to new hypothetical factors be accepted."

Based upon examination of this issue from viewpoints of both Darwinism and real science, it is clear that real science allows no room for a physically and mathematically impossible Big Bang event.

About the Author

Russ Miller is author of The GENESIS Report Series. Register at http://www.new-earth-thought.com to receive FREE his 50 Facts vs. Darwinism e-mail series.

Author Profile: genesisman

Other Science Articles