AIG: Evidence of the Cursed Cosmos

This is about an article by Jason Lisle, Ph.D. Jason is the creationist astrophysicist who functions as a retained servitor, credentialed and compliant, employed by the ever-growing creationist conglomerate of Ken Ham (ol’ Hambo). Hambo is the Australian entrepreneur who has become the ayatollah of Appalachia. He runs the online creationist ministry, Answers in Genesis (AIG), and he also created the infamous, mind-boggling Creation Museum, and he’s working on a new project — a Noah’s Ark theme park named Ark Encounter.

Jason’s article is The Search for a Cursed Cosmos. It’s not new. He wrote it back in May of 2009, but AIG bumped it to the top today which is how we saw it. We’re glad they did, because this one is truly a classic. Here are some excerpts, with bold font added by us and scripture references omitted:

As an astronomer, I am sometimes asked what effects the Curse had upon the cosmos beyond earth. How did Adam’s fall into sin affect stars, galaxies, and planets, for example? This question seemed straightforward, but as I looked closer, I found that it was more complicated than it first appeared.

Why is it complicated? Can’t he just look in the Good Book? Apparently not, and here’s why Jason says it’s not that easy:

Let’s begin by discussing what the Bible clearly states about the Curse. The Curse meant that humans and animals would now suffer pain, disease, and eventually death. Work would be difficult and sometimes painful as thorns and thistles now compete for the ground. Clearly, the earth, the plants, and all living creatures were changed as a result of the Curse.

Yes, clearly. Let’s read on:

But what about the universe beyond earth? Scripture is clear that all creation was touched by the Curse and now suffers a “bondage of corruption”. But what does this mean in particular?

Some Christians have suggested that exploding stars (supernovae) and craters on other planets are a result of the Curse. Others have postulated that the laws of nature were changed. Specifically, some have suggested that the second law of thermodynamics began at the Curse. What can we learn from Scripture about the cosmic aspects of the Curse?

This is very exciting. We continue:

Let’s consider craters and supernovae first. It would be hard to establish from the Scriptures alone that they are results of the Curse. The Bible does not mention these things by name, and so one could only make an indirect argument that such signs of catastrophe do not comport with a world that is “very good.”

Jason goes on for a few paragraphs, and then concludes:

So what about craters and supernovae? Are such things really “bad”? Craters on other worlds and distant supernovae do not have any substantial negative impact on human beings, and so it would be hard to argue that they must be a result of the Curse, though of course they could be. Could a perfect universe have craters and exploding stars? Potentially, yes.

Yet the specific ways in which the Curse touched the lifeless celestial realm will always retain an element of mystery.

That’s not satisfactory at all. Let’s see what else he’s got:

Some people have also argued that the second law of thermodynamics began at the Curse. In its original form, this law deals with the transfer of thermal energy (heat). According to the second law of thermodynamics, energy will tend to move from hotter objects to cooler objects. This is a type of “decay,” and the reverse never happens spontaneously.

[…]

[S]olar energy travels from the sun to the earth because the sun is much hotter than the earth. Notice that according to Genesis 1:14–18, the sun (the “greater light”) was designed to give light upon the earth at its creation. Since this happens as a result of the second law, it is clear biblically that the second law of thermodynamics was in operation during the Creation Week. It operated before the Curse, and thus, is not a result of the Curse.

This is very disappointing. Surely Jason has something he can point to which indicates that the universe is cursed. Ah, here it comes:

Although the second law is not intrinsically bad, one difficulty remains. As a result of the second law of thermodynamics, the universe is “running down” as its usable energy decays to a useless form. Consequently, the universe cannot last forever. It must eventually run down completely.

Surely the original universe would not have been this way; after all, Adam and Eve potentially could have lived forever had they not sinned. How do we reconcile this with the necessity of the second law?

Good question! Pay attention now:

Although the decay of energy is necessary for life, it could be that God constantly provided a restorative process, whereby the decaying energy was eventually recycled back into a usable form.

So, although the second law was in full effect, another compensating restorative process may have prevented any net decay of the universe. This would allow the universe and life on earth to exist forever, while heat and energy would still behave as they do today (for the most part).

Very creative, so to speak. Then Jason elaborates on that idea:

So, rather than the second law of thermodynamics beginning at the Fall, it seems more likely that its restorative counterpart ceased at the Fall. God no longer sustains the universe in an eternal, regenerating way.

Impressed? Sure you are. And here’s the conclusion:

This is only one possible explanation, of course. The human mind is not the limit of possibility; God is. So we trust that God is capable of creating and sustaining a perfect world by His wisdom. We can rest in God’s promise that He will restore paradise and that He will perfectly sustain the new heavens and new earth forever.

There you are, dear reader. The evidence of a cursed cosmos is that the flip-side of the Second Law is no longer in operation. Now you know.

Copyright © 2011. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.

add to del.icio.usAdd to Blinkslistadd to furlDigg itadd to ma.gnoliaStumble It!add to simpyseed the vineTailRankpost to facebook

. AddThis Social Bookmark Button . Permalink for this article

21 responses to “AIG: Evidence of the Cursed Cosmos

  1. Is Doctor Jason Lisle, Ph.D. actually insane?
    Or, is he merely a credentialed tool with no professional scruples?

    Inquiring minds want to know.

  2. If you could only look at the Cursed™ universe through your Cursed™ eyes, interpret what you saw with your Cursed™ brain, which has been trained to a level of acquiring a Cursed™ degree, you would see the world much as Dr. Jason Lisle, PhD does.

  3. It must be nice to be a creationist astronomer. You get paid to make things up whole-cloth, without the pesky constraints of actual research. You even achieve a certain status among your co-workers, none of whom know anything about astronomy or science in general.

    I noticed that he referred to the universe as the lifeless celestial realm . Someday he will eat those words.

  4. The Bible does not mention these things

    Which means they didn’t happen, since we’re being literal about what the Bible says.

  5. Welcome to the sick mind of a sociopath. I personally can not imagine the depth of sickness and depravity a mind like Lisle must have to raise children to believe they are cursed. Tragic.

  6. If Adam & Eve would have lived forever if the Curse had not occurred, that in itself would have been the bigger curse.

    Just imagine how many people would be crowded on this planet today if no one died! Soilent Green indeed!

    Oh — and it wasn’t the Second Law of Thermodynamics that came about with The Fall, it was evolution! If plants and animals didn’t die, there would be no evolution.

    So, Curmy, be thankful for the Curse. Without it, you wouldn’t have a blog.

  7. waldteufel asks, “Is Doctor Jason Lisle, Ph.D. actually insane?
    Or, is he merely a credentialed tool with no professional scruples?”

    Does it have to be “either/or”? I vote for “both/and”.

  8. Dear Sir,
    I wish a good day to you.
    Do you recognize my email address, the Korean working in India who is semi-agnositc(?).
    Have you received my email to you asking about your opinion and knowledge?
    I still waiting your reply. Desperately,I request you the most strong(?) and clear scientific fact demonstrated to show the evolution as a true fact, not a mere theory or theory that is most widely acknowledged but still need to be proven.
    Could you please simply let me know your opinion, 1~3 scientific evidence for evolution. Is is geological or biological, or the fossils?
    I presume those are among your O links, please be kindly share your perspective and insight.
    I’m just confused and it’s really painful.
    My curiosity is pure and sincere.
    Thank you very much for your help in advance, looking forward to receiving your reply soon, I remain.
    With best regards,

  9. Wow! Historical writings are full of the rationalizations by man trying to project his influence on nature. This crapola just takes the cake as the most feeble attempt ever to invent relevance.

  10. “It would be hard to establish from the Scriptures alone that they are results of the Curse. The Bible does not mention these things by name…”

    That is correct. In point of fact, in Genesis God curses two things: the serpent and the ground Adam will need to farm. That’s all. Period. So not only does your science stink, Mr. Lisle, so does your theology.

  11. @Ellie: The concept of “original sin” and the curse of death appears in the new testament. (The concept of hell is also a Christian idea, appearing in the new testament.)

    In Genesis there appears a “tree of life”. And the Lord God said, “The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever.” (Genesis 3:22) From this, it seems obvious that death was the norm, and only by eating a special fruit could people become immortal.

  12. From this, it seems obvious that death was the norm, and only by eating a special fruit could people become immortal.

    That explains why my wife, a goddess, keeps telling me to put more fruit in my diet.

  13. I don’t understand why the author of this gobbledegook goes to the trouble to use what limited reasoning powers he possesses if he is just going to, in the end, play the “God can do what He wants” and “we cannot possibly know or understand God’s Plan” cards. Hey, if God is all powerful are they saying that God couldn’t have incorporated Darwin and evolution into his Universe, you know, as part of the Curse for creationists?

  14. @Ed
    That does not dispute what I said about the word “curse” in the story of Adam and Eve in Genesis, nor does it change my opinion of Mr. Lisle.

    Here, have a fig.

  15. @Ellie
    I was not disagreeing with you, I was only elaborating on your point a bit by specifying that the only references to original sin were made up in the new testament by christian authors, and like you said, were not in the original account. I also think the matter of the tree of life is a contradiction for original sin literalists. After all, if there was no death to begin with, why would god put a special tree of life in the garden? Was he just being redundant?

    Naturally, AiG has a long, somewhat contorted answer to the tree of life. http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2010/05/18/satan-the-fall-good-evil-tree-of-life It’s amazing how far they will go to reach the answer they want.

    Thanks for the fig, by the way…. 🙂

  16. “…and so one could only make an indirect argument that such signs of catastrophe do not comport with a world that is ‘very good.'”
    Now (stock disclaimer), I’m no scientist, but, if I had to go to such great and elaborate lengths as these “indirect arguments” in order to reconcile the reality I observe with the pre-suppositions I embrace, I would seriously consider abandoning one or the other.

  17. Damn, I knew “The Simpsons” was right. The frogurt is also cursed…

  18. Tomato Addict

    >”So, rather than the second law of thermodynamics beginning at the Fall, it seems more likely that its restorative counterpart ceased at the Fall.”

    heh.
    hehehe.
    HEE HEE HEE.

    … and so on … eventually …

    BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAA!

    This gets even better! Surely such a profound change to the physical laws of the universe should be detectable in astronomical observations. Observations from stars farther away that say – 6000 light years – could show evidence of this renewal process, while closer stars would not. We might even observe stars undergoing this change. All we have to do is look at stars the proper distance away.

    Maybe Lisle’s next paper can be on the subject of the one-way speed of stupidity?

  19. TA: “Observations from stars farther away that say – 6000 light years – could show evidence of this renewal process, while closer stars would not.”

    A good point that works for you, me, and anyone else who shares our rational view of the universe. However, it won’t work for Jason Lisle, PhD. because according to his theology, there were no stars before 6000 years ago.

    TA: “Maybe Lisle’s next paper can be on the subject of the one-way speed of stupidity?”

    That’s really good!

  20. Maybe Lisle’s next paper can be on the subject of the one-way speed of stupidity?

    Infinite. I vote for infinite. And very asymmetric. It tends to flow more towards those who push this… stuff.

  21. Tomato Addict

    There should be Theory of General Stupidity.