Quantum Mechanics: Is It Anti-Creationism?

Sir Isaac Newton (1642/3–1727) who is one of most well-known scientists of all time, who wrote more about the Bible than science, he was a creationist who discovered the laws of motion, gravity, and cooling. He invented the reflecting telescope and was the co-inventor of calculus. However, there were some problems that classical physics invented by Newton could not explain.

For example, an experiment which was conducted by Michelson and Morley (1838–1923)  showed conclusively that there was no difference in the measured speed of light regardless of direction. Then along comes Quantum mechanics. Einstein’s theory of special relativity was able to solve this problem. In other example, classical physics prediction of black body that acted like a ‘vibrator’ with certain modes, which had different frequencies with the same amount of energy proportional to temperature.

It worked well for low frequencies, but predicted that the radiation would be more and more intense at higher frequencies, working its way towards infinite energy which is of course impossible! Max Planck (1858–1947) came along and he was able to solved this faulty prediction. He proposed that they could have only discrete amounts of energy proportional to the frequency. A formula known as Planck’s constant (E = hν).

Physicist Louis-Victor-Pierre-Raymond, 7th duc de Broglie discovered another important concept of quantum mechanics. Just as energy of vibrators and electromagnetic radiation was quantized into discrete packets with particle-like properties, de Broglie proposed that all moving particles had an associated wave-like nature. This discovery lead to the invention of electron microscopes where smaller objects could be observed that previously were not able to be seen with optical microscopes.

There have been concerns by Christians about Quantum Mechanics, such as New Agers coming up with mystical, and moral-relativistic views about it and have form special groups to combat QM as a whole. However, Einstein and Schrödinger didn’t like the mysticism of a supposed “observer collapses the wavefunction”.  So is Quantum mechanics anti-creationism? Answer: No! The evidence through the use of operational science has enabled scientists to solved problems within classic physics. It didn’t overturn it where it was rendered totally useless. In fact its concepts are still used today.

Quantum mechanics is operational science which doesn’t deal with explanations about origins unlike the author himself deciding to inject his own interpretation by giving another theory or explanation the credit. Quantum mechanics really works, and has been strongly supported by verification through experiment. There is no logical reason to oppose it. This is not like the ever-growing complexities as a result of numerous falsifications in the explanation of evolution, in fact it’s quite different. Operational science in itself is not anti-creationism, instead it’s a tool to gain knowledge. Quantum mechanics is a great field for Christians who are interested in physics and would like to become scientists in their own right in this area giving God all the glory!

Failing Paradigm Questions Basic Law And More

The big bang ‘theory’ presents a sequence of events which is totally incompatible with the Bible and not only that, but it has progressed to be incompatible with current observations in space than ever before. For example, the big bang makes no predictions about lumps rather it predicts a uniform explosion. Using some invented explanations, they try to get by but now it’s getting harder, scientists are discovering there are even more lumps in distant space. Something that caught astronomers way off guard because the observation was not able to meet the prediction of their ‘theory’ once again. What are lumps and where do they come from?

What has been observed in space are lumpy aggregates of matter like galaxies and clusters of galaxies with near vacuums of empty space between them, this is what they call lumpiness in space. When tiny differences in temperature measured in the cosmic background radiation was detected. fudge factors were added like dark matter, dark energy and inflation.

When these new observations came up recently it did not cast doubt on whether or not the big bang is a completely falsified ‘theory’ for those who firmly believe in it rather it began to question the fudge factors which were inserted to rescue it to keep it going and now only that but call into question one of the most basic laws, gravity itself.

Wired Science reports…

“The universe appears to be clumpier than astronomers expected, according to the largest galaxy survey to date. The extra clumps could call for a redesign of the standard model of cosmology, and maybe a new understanding of how gravity works.

“Maybe on very large scales, Einstein’s general relativity is slightly wrong,” said cosmologist Shaun Thomas of University College London, lead author of a new paper in Physical Review Letters. “This potentially could be one of the first signs that something peculiar is going on. When viewed close up, the matter in the universe bunches up into stars, galaxies and galaxy clusters. But as you zoom out, cosmologists expect the universe to look more and more smooth, sort of the way details in an earthly landscape blend together when viewed from an airplane.”

Take note, the article outlines these areas could be wrong in light of their belief in the big bang ‘theory’…

1) The most basic and fundamental law of them all, gravity.

2) Einstein’s general relativity.

3) The model within the big bang needs to be tweaked to force the observational data into it.

4) Fudge Factor: Dark energy…“The result could mean cosmologists need to reassess their understanding of dark energy, the mysterious force that drives the universe outward at an ever-increasing rate…. The extra lumps could also mean dark energy doesn’t exist at all.

5) Observations-” where they say, “…the clumpiness could also come from systematic errors in the observations….”

Like stated before, it’s not like the Big Bang ‘theory’ is questioned to the point where it’s falsified among secular astronomers who stand by their observations but don’t seem to know what to do with the lack of confirmations with their ‘theory’. The hard evidence for the big bang and dark energy are very flimsy at best!

One asks, if astronomers who are unable to judge the validity or their own observations, and if some of the most solid theories in all of science (gravity and general relativity) require an overhaul due to the ever-growing complexity of their ‘theory’, then how much trust can mere mortals like ourselves be placed in the much less solid pronouncements coming from evolutionary biology?

For example, the story about how living things evolved by adapting to environmental challenges. In June 3, of science, experiments were conducted with bacteria. They demonstrated that adaptations do occur but they also discovered the pace of adaptations decelerates over time. “Proportional reductions of a cost became successively less beneficial as the cost itself was alleviated” says Harvard evolutionary biologist Christopher Marx.

The changes in the DNA of bacteria were not a free bonus but came with a cost. It’s another example of the law of diminishing returns which has been coming up more and more and is what creationism predicted in nature when it comes to adaption with mutations!

Just like the big bang as science progresses with amazing technology, the more observations are not matching up with the fundamental principles of evolution. Again one asks, how much faith and trust can mere mortals like ourselves be placed in the failing paradigm of the big bang much less solid pronouncements coming from evolutionary biology?

P.Z. Myers Asserts The Mediocrity Principle

The “anthropic argument” which is used for creationism which includes the existence of God is based on the tight values taken on by certain constants in the world of physics thus making our own existence unique and implies intent produced by intelligence. Albert Einstein was the first to propose the cosmological constant.

Cosmic microwave background (CMB) measurement not only demonstrate the existence of the cosmological constant, but also the value of the constant which makes up the lack of matter in the universe. It’s alternative explanation to the invisible dark matter, many secular scientists have embraced. Now there are also various other constants, here are few examples…

1) An electromagnetic force constant, if this is greater, it would cause chemical bonding to be disrupted; elements more massive than boron would be unstable to fission. Now if it was lesser: the chemical bonding would be insufficient for life chemistry.

2) Ratio of electron to proton mass, regardless of greater or lesser, the results would be the same, chemical bonding would be not sufficient enough for life chemistry.

3) The sun, earth’s closest star. It’s made up mostly of hydrogen and helium. Surface temperature is an incredible 6,000 degrees Kelvin. The Bible talks about the sun being, “the greater light” which governs the day. All life on earth depends on the sun. If the sun would burn out one day, it would cause the earth to freeze, the atmosphere would condense, liquefy and freeze, rendering the earth’s temperature to deep space.  The sun is unique, the light and heat from most stars is very variable but the Sun is relatively constant.

PZ Myers is a biologist and associate professor at the University of Minnesota, Morris. Some regard him as a militant atheist who presents very anti-christian viewpoints in his blog. Recently, he wrote about how he teaches students at his University about the “Mediocrity Principle” which he regards it as a must for science. What is it?  He describes it this way…

1) “The mediocrity principle simply states that you aren’t special.”

2) “What the mediocrity principle tells us is that our state is not the product of intent, that the universe lacks both malice and benevolence, but that everything does follow rules — and that grasping those rules should be the goal of science.”

3) “Everything that you as a human being consider cosmically important is an accident.”

4) “Most of what happens in the world is just a consequence of natural, universal laws”

P.Z. Myers claims that “Opposition to the mediocrity principle is one of the major linchpins of religion and creationism and jingoism and failed social policies.” He fails directly to answer, why is that “essential” to science?  Why would accidents be compelled to follow any rules? ““Everything that you as a human being consider cosmically important is an accident.” How could your kids be considered nothing special but just an accident? Many people plan with their intelligence (not instincts) on having kids and many also accomplish those goals.

PZ is clearly advocating atheism while attacking Christianity and other religions by calling them a “cognitive ill” which can be done a way with if only people would have faith in the Mediocrity Principle which has no foundation on what is observed in the real world and attempts to tell us that this is required in science. We are special, we live in a special place, with tight constants that have been designed in such a way that allows us to live our lives in, kids are a blessing to us, not an accident!     

Anti-Realism ‘Theory’ Considered Breakhrough

Earlier this year to explain the origin of the universe, Hawking invokes “M-theory” which is really not a theory at all but rather a collection of different unproven ideas. In science daily, they claim they have the magic to create something out of nothing, naturally…

“The scientists and engineers have developed new equations that show how a high-energy electron beam combined with an intense laser pulse could rip apart a vacuum into its fundamental matter and antimatter components, and set off a cascade of events that generates additional pairs of particles and antiparticles.”

“But in a strong electromagnetic field, this annihilation, which is typically a sink mechanism, can be the source of new particles,” Nees said, “In the course of the annihilation, gamma photons appear, which can produce additional electrons and positrons.” A gamma photon is a high-energy particle of light. A positron is an anti-electron, a mirror-image particle with the same properties as an electron, but an opposite, positive charge.”

This isn’t exactly creating something out of nothing, is it? No, because that is going against natural law. So in turn, they do what Darwinian evolution does, you invent something and go from there without explaining how it got there in the first place. What created a high-energy electron beam to zap into existence, events that supposedly created particles and antiparticles?

Do you really call that science? Should these scientists be removed from their post? In Kentucky back in 2007, astronomer Martin Gaskell found himself as the leading candidate for directing the new observatory at the University of Kentucky. He claimed that evolution and the Bible were reconcilable (which they are not) and also suggested to his students to read intelligent design papers. This like creating something out of nothing became hype. Hiring a ‘creationist’ could be an embarrassment to the University, the establishment and special interest groups suggested. So the process of his removal was on!

Gaskell’s is taking the University to court with an allegation that the university violated the 1964 Civil Rights Act for discrimination against him because of his religion. The university did admit in a legal brief, that concerns over Gaskell’s views on evolution (it wasn’t dogmatic enough) played a role in the decision to chose another candidate.

Gaskell has a doctorate in his field, plus he had published extensively on various subjects such as black holes in space, and developed an observatory at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln atop a campus parking garage — an innovative approach UK (who rejected his hire based on his religious views) eventually would also use.

So there you have it, as long as scientists view evolution or naturalism as a dogma, you can invent anything, even zapping things out of nothing and calling it a major breaththrough, but when you have conducted real observations and nobody had a problem with your work before, but when an important job comes along, you are questioned because of doubts about your view on evolution and then rejected as a result.  This is the movie “Expelled” all over again!

Cells Designed To Use Important Physical Mechanisms

It’s an amazing thing that cells are designed to use physics or otherwise we would not be able to exist. Two papers (here and here) were published in PNAS not long ago. Harland, Bradley, and Parthasaranthy studied the forces working in cell membranes. Lipid bilayers provide the structural framework which gives the cell membranes movement. It was previously believed that simple Newtonian fluids were able to keep them intact.

But researchers have found evidence to the contrary…“we find that membranes are not simply viscous but rather exhibit viscoelasticity…” which is a type of deformation which exhibits the mechanical characteristics of viscous flow and elastic deformation. The membrane is stretchy and it requires something to pull it apart. “The fluidity of membranes is crucial to functions such as the assembly of proteins into signaling complexes and the controlled presentation of macromolecules at cell surfaces…”

In other words, we could not live without membranes that are designed on how to take advantage of viscoelastic properties. Last September, UC Davis studied quantum mechanics – the Complex I macromolecular complex which was recently discovered machinery that resembles intelligently man-made in having a railroad-like piston and coupling-rod mechanism. The piston creates a proton gradient which then drives the ATP synthesis. It requires energy from food and stores it as chemical energy in ATP molecules for energetic activities in the cell. From humans to one-cell animals like bacteria, this is a vital important process for the existence of life!

Hayashi and Stuchebrukhov discovered that Complex I takes advantage of electron tunneling – a phenomenon in quantum mechanics…

“The whole electronic wiring of complex I is obtained by combining tunneling pathways of individual processes, as shown in Fig. 3.  It is clear that specific peptide residues serve as electronic wires connecting neighboring Fe/S clusters; individual electron tunneling paths involve up to three protein residues, including two cysteine ligands and one additional key residue (Table 1).  Notably, the clusters in the protein are oriented in a specific way—corner to corner—with Cys [cysteine, an amino acid] ligands mostly pointing toward each other, which is clearly the most efficient way to transfer electrons from one cluster to another.”

Did scientists drag into this incredible discovery the evolutionary story to remind us that this came from a non-thinking process?  Well, they did decide to show it could not happen by observing what happened with mutants when they tested them and then came out with this conclusion…

“The key residues identified in this study as mediators of electron transfer (Table 1) are remarkably conserved among different organisms.”

These cells are designed with precision of these machines.  The efficiency of electron transfer in Complex I , for example, it depends on precisely-placed amino acids and water molecules down a fairly long chain. The fact is these amino acids are unevolved which means altering them would cause major problems including causing death. Creationists and evolutionists recognize mutations as a process that occurs but genetic drift and stabilizing selection are level or downhill processes.

Stephen Hawking’s New Book Falls Into Anti-Realism

The Grand Design sounds more like a creationist or ID book rather than a consequence of the law of gravity. With this new book, Hawking decided to abandoned his hope in mankind’s ability to come up with a “theory of everything” as promised in A Brief History of Time. Three decades ago, he stated there was a fifty per cent chance of completing a “theory of everything” by 2000 but to no avail. His prediction wasn’t based on a possible acceptance of a creator, rather he used “God” as a metaphor because the vast majority of the population are theists.

The Grand Design has caught the attention of the mainstream media where it’s been hyped up and even my local newspaper picked up the story from the Associated Press. In one of the reviews about his new book, New Scientist says…

M-theory in either sense is far from complete. But that doesn’t stop the authors from asserting that it explains the mysteries of existence: why there is something rather than nothing, why this set of laws and not another, and why we exist at all. According to Hawking, enough is known about M-theory to see that God is not needed to answer these questions. Instead, string theory points to the existence of a multiverse, and this multiverse coupled with anthropic reasoning will suffice. Personally, I am doubtful.”


Take life. We are lucky to be alive. Imagine all the ways physics might have precluded life: gravity could have been stronger, electrons could have been as big as basketballs and so on. Does this intuitive “luck” warrant the postulation of God? No. Does it warrant the postulation of an infinity of universes? The authors and many others think so. In the absence of theory, though, this is nothing more than a hunch doomed – until we start watching universes come into being – to remain untested and untestable. The lesson isn’t that we face a dilemma between God and the multiverse, but that we shouldn’t go off the rails at the first sign of coincidences.”

This review is refreshing and more realistic than other publications that I have seen. The Grand Design falls into anti-realism where there are multiple independent views of reality which are considered possible, each one model-dependent without providing an example of reality. A theory for everything could also fit into anti-realism as well. This is what I call storytelling or science fiction!

Hawkings looks even more lost as he tries to explain away God being the creator. The problem with something being created out of nothing defies the laws of physics. So he did what Darwinian evolution does, you start out with something and go from there. Hawkings claims there was pre-existing gravity and a multi-universe instead of nothing and this is his vain imagination is why he argues against God being the Creator. Where did the laws of nature come from? Where did gravity come from? To suggest pre-existing material for natural evolving purposes that is eternal would be going against the law of entropy!

Updated September 17, 2010: From the Wallstreet Journal

Krauss, a cosmologist, is director of the Origins Project at Arizona State University writes…

“It appears that the dominant energy in our universe doesn’t reside in normal matter, or even mysterious dark matter. Rather, it is located in a much more mysterious form of energy in empty space. Figuring out why empty space has energy is perhaps the biggest mystery in physics and cosmology today.”

“The existence of this energy, called dark energy, has another consequence: It changes the picture so that knowing the geometry of the universe is no longer enough to determine its future. While this may be a disappointment, the existence of dark energy and a flat universe has profound implications for those of us who suspected the universe might arise from nothing.”

“Why? Because if you add up the total energy of a flat universe, the result is precisely zero…Think about it: If our universe arose spontaneously from nothing at all, one might predict that its total energy should be zero.”

There is no way that secular scientists or other people in general would believe that thunderstorms are created out of nothing with zero energy popping out of empty spaces, nor mountains, nor the grass that grows on our lawns! Stephen Hawking and Krauss alike are fools professing himself to be wise as they sink deeper into anti-realism of absurdity which defies natural laws which they profess to believe in while also denying the ever growing evidence for a Universe created by God which we as Christians rejoice in!

Physicists Suggest Dark Matter Is An Illusion

Dark matter has never been observed, nor detected other than measuring gravity but even that is a bit of a stretch. It is presumed to exist in 73 percent of the total mass energy in the entire universe.  Scientists have also presumed the proposal of dark matter was the source for increasing the expansion of the Universe.

The concept has caused some discomfort among scientists because this alleged energy virtually makes up the entire universe, but they don’t have any solid data to back it up. It was however, hyped up by the media and in the scientific community with numerous details of this unseen phenomena created by such sources as computer simulations and some measurements of gravity.

Generally, the hype I believe was trying to convince the public it was using government grant money wisely and to promote more funding for the research which wasn’t producing any solid evidence for dark matter’s existence. As the old saying goes, when an old gap is filled, new gaps are created, the cycle is endless.”

In a shocking revelation by some physicists…

“Dark energy is at the heart of one of the greatest mysteries of modern physics, but it may be nothing more than an illusion” Science Daily

No doubt, there might be a shift in the hypothesis to other proposals as physicists at Oxford University continue with more testing of the Copernican principle. This principle is full of assumptions as well, but since evolution is based on such things as chaos with no purpose in mind, it’s likely to be around a long time and go unchallenged by evolutionists.

As creationists we know and believe the Universe has purpose and there is more evidence for that than ever before which I hope to highlight in future posts. Will there be another proposal to take the place of “dark matter” since it’s considered an illusion? Most likely in the coming years, “yes.” But in the meantime…

“Scientists who have pursued dark matter, hunted for undiscovered planets and advanced nanotechnology were being touted Monday as candidates for the 2008 Nobel Prize in physics.”  AP

Even though, physicists for research of dark matter has lost to spontaneous broken symmetry, as the story just broke after this post was written, there is still some fame left and possible prize in the research to find the invisible dark matter…