Creationist Wisdom #995: Darwin’s Big Bang

The total is creeping ever closer to 1,000. Today’s letter-to-the-editor appears in the Erie Times-News of Erie, Pennsylvania. It’s titled Look to Bible, not the Big Bang, to explain creation. It’s the first letter at that link, and they have a comments feature.

Unless the letter-writer is a politician, preacher, or other public figure, we won’t embarrass or promote him by using his full name — but today we’ve got a preacher. It’s Leonard Ransil, president of Total Truth Ministries. We’ll give you a few excerpts from his letter, enhanced with our Curmudgeonly commentary, some bold font for emphasis, and occasional Curmudgeonly interjections that look [like this]. Okay, here we go:

Nothing cannot produce something. Why are perpetual motion machines impossible to invent? Because the law of conservation of energy states that energy cannot be created or destroyed in an isolated system.

Fair enough — so far. But then the rev says:

Science has proven that the physical universe 1) consists of matter and energy and 2) had a specific beginning. So, the physical universe did not exist in any form before it began.

Not quite. The rev’s first point is probably correct, but that “specific beginning” isn’t right. The expansion of the visible universe did indeed have a beginning, but as for what was going on before that, we just don’t know. Many still think the universe has been cycling between expansion and contraction phases for what may be literally forever, but the contraction phase has been in doubt for the last 20 years or so, ever since the accelerated expansion of the universe has been observed. But the rev is fixated on what he assumes was the “specific beginning,” so he tells us:

It is scientifically impossible for any material “something” to come from “nothing” — spontaneous generation. Therefore, a “self-causing nothing” (the Big Bang) could not have produced the physical universe.

And he leaps from that to this:

Darwin’s speculation that “nothing” produced mankind is a hoax — and is anti-science. [Gasp!] True science is based on observable, testable, reproducible and, therefore, verifiable experiments — not on speculative impossibilities.

Our professors lied to us, and Darwin was a fool! The rev continues:

The Bible states that an eternal, all-knowing, all-powerful and loving God spoke the material universe into existence and that he made mankind in his own image and likeness. [Ah, now that makes sense!] Further, he desires that “all mankind be saved and come to the knowledge of the truth.” What truth?

Wowie — the rev is going to tell us The Truth. Let’s read on:

That you are no cosmic accident — ultimately caused by some impossible “spontaneous generation” — who vanishes after physical death. Rather, the creator — God — wants you to live with him in his forever family by being spiritually “born again,” made possible by believing and receiving what Jesus Christ did for all mankind — including you — on Calvary.

That’s great information! And here’s some more:

To view many scientific proofs of why macro-evolution and “natural selection” cannot possibly be true genetically, check out a weekly podcast, based in Pittsburgh, at [link omitted]. Warning: This program is so clear and fact-based that there are now many counterfeits by evolutionists at .com sites. Dare to compare. Your family’s everlasting future may depend on it.

Eternity depends on it, dear reader. You don’t want to end up in the Lake of Fire, so heed what the rev has revealed.

Copyright © 2019. 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

15 responses to “Creationist Wisdom #995: Darwin’s Big Bang

  1. Michael Fugate

    Lenny runs his ministry out of a house in Erie PA.
    His website:
    Full of David Barton – America is a Christian Nation – nonsense, but “Total Truth = Big Picture Thinking”

  2. Preacher Lenny asks and answers: “Why are perpetual motion machines impossible to invent? Because the law of conservation of energy states that energy cannot be created or destroyed in an isolated system.

    Our dear SC comments: “Fair enough — so far.”
    Uh no. According to the First Law of Thermodynamics, (conservation of energy) perpetual motion machines are totally possible, even if they won’t produce energy. It’s the Second Law (about entropy) that’s violated by these machines. Compare the Carnot Cycle.
    Of course a famous example of such violations can be found in Genesis chapter 1, every time when “… God said: …”, ie Preacher Lenny’s very own “God spoke the material universe into existence”.

    “a “self-causing nothing” (the Big Bang) could not have produced the physical universe.”
    Except that we can be fairly sure, due to scale, that the Big Bang was not a causal event. Quantum Mechanical probability is the key.

    “Darwin’s speculation that “nothing” produced mankind is a hoax.”
    BWAHAHAHAHA! Darwin speculated nothing like this. For his theory the beginning of our Universe is totally irrelevant. It begins with the first forms of life. About the same time Darwin published his famous book physicists researched the first two laws of thermodynamics, which make evolution possible.
    Hey, Preacher Lenny, what does your favourite Holy Book say again about bearing false testimony?

  3. Michael Fugate

    One does wonder how gods get to be their own causes – I guess it is in the job description or the definition maybe?

  4. Genesis 1 says that in the beginning there was already a chaos of water and wind. This is confirmed by 2 Peter 3:5 ” But they deliberately forget that long ago by God’s word the heavens came into being and the earth was formed out of water and by water.”

  5. Michael Fugate

    An interesting commentary on biblical creation myths
    Is Genesis a rewriting of history?

  6. “Nothing cannot produce something.”

    And is the universe “something”? Not really, if the zero-energy universe hypothesis is correct. It says that negative energy balances out positive energy so that the universe has no net energy at all.

  7. MF – excellent reference! Thanks

  8. It is scientifically impossible for any material “something” to come from “nothing”

    A rule, that a universe cannot spontaneously arise, is already “something” rather than “nothing”. So, given “nothing”, in particular no rules, a universe can arise. Especially easily, one might think, a universe with zero total mass/energy. Of course, there would also be no rule that a godlike being could not arise, which being would then have the ability to create a zero-energy universe. Any inhabitants of a universe would have to look at empirical evidence in order to decide how their particular universe happened to exist. In the case of our universe, the evidence seems to be against godlike beings.

  9. Michael Fugate

    Can you have an immaterial something or a material nothing?

  10. IMHO
    It is a fallacy of the fallacy of compositon/divison to expect that there be an explanation whch applies to a fragment in space/time of te univrese to spply to the totality.
    ‘Goddidit” doesn’t explain anything.

  11. chris schilling

    Nothing came from nothing when Lenny sat down and penned his letter, thus proving his point (and Shakespeare’s King Lear, into the bargain).

  12. A physical nothing is a philosophical something. So Preacher Lenny should tell us first 1. if his god is just a philosophical something and 2. where philosophical somethings come from, besides human brains. Then I’ll probably ask how the philosophical something he calls God is capable of producing any physical something.
    If anything “nothing cannot produce something” is an argument against non-material gods. Before a god diddid he/she/it wasn’t capable of speaking, let alone speaking something into existence, for instance. Johannes 1:1 says “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God” followed by 1:3 “All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.” All things but The Word, which was already there. So Preacher Lenny’s god already had something at hand, if we are to believe him.
    At the other hand, if we grant Preacher Lenny that this somehow makes sense and is possible then we can construct the same regarding the Big Bang, exactly because the Big Bang is not just a philosophical nothing just like Preacher Lenny’s god is or isn’t (I bet he hasn’t made up his mind yet).
    In our times quantum fields look popular, so we get something like

    “In the beginning there were quantum fields, and the quantum fields were with the Big Bang, and the quantum fields initiated the Big Bang. All things were made in the Big Bang and without the Big Bang was not any thing made in our Universe that was made.”

    Granted, just as irreproducible as the creation act, but still observable and testable (albeit indirectly), very much unlike that creation act.

  13. Hans-Richard Grümm

    In order to avoid reifying “nothing” (a well-known fallacy), “nothing cannot produce something” must mean “everything must produce something”.

  14. Thomas Aquinas wrote “[1] Now, what has been said makes it clear that God brought things into being from no pre-existing subject, as from a matter.”
    “[2] For creation is not a change, but the very dependency of the created act of being upon the principle from which it is produced. And thus, creation is a kind of relation; so that nothing prevents its being in the creature as its subject.”
    Summa Contra Gentiles, Book Two, Chapter 16.

  15. Michael Fugate

    As the great philosopher Arlo Guthrie once said, “you can’t have a light without a dark to put it in.”