To that end, students should familiarize themselves with basic principles, such as the law of cause and effect. Simply stated, this law suggests that every effect must have an adequate cause. When applied to the universe, this suggests there must be an adequate cause underlying it. There are but three options.

It is eternal

This “option” is actually little more than a denial of the law of cause and effect. It is equivalent to claiming, “Nothing caused the universe; it has always existed.” This would have a certain appeal to those (e.g., atheists) seeking to eliminate a beginning and an ending, thus any need for God. Advancing this position, however, places one at odds with one of the cornerstones of modern science: the second law of thermodynamics.

In a nutshell, the second law deals with entropy, which is the amount of disorder in a given system. The law states that disorder is everywhere increasing, or, to say the same thing in another way, that everything tends toward its least-ordered state. Houses left to their own become dilapidated; human bodies eventually decay; indeed, everything progresses toward a degenerative state.

Applied to the universe, the second law indicates that it is “running down,” somewhat analogous to a clock. If it is running down, there must have been a time when the universe was “wound up” (i.e., it must have had a beginning). If the universe had a beginning, it cannot be eternal. Indeed, the moment a scientist assigns an age to the universe, however outlandish that age might be, he tacitly admits it had a beginning.

It created itself

After realizing the universe is not eternal, there are but two possibilities remaining: It either created itself or it was created. Aware of the implications of the second law of thermodynamics, yet unwilling to admit the reality of a Creator, some are driven to the incredible position that the universe created itself. Those in this camp essentially argue for a universe that is its own cause and effect. Such is the extreme to which men are forced in their efforts to deny Special Creation.

That the universe could not have created itself should be readily apparent by the exercise of common sense. How could the universe have created itself if there ever was a moment that it did not exist? It would be rather difficult to create yourself without any starting materials!

A self-created universe is also denied by another foundational principle of science, the first law of thermodynamics. The first law indicates that matter and energy are neither being created nor destroyed; they are only transferred from one form to another. The fact that matter does not have the intrinsic ability to create itself clearly does not bode well for those who contend for a self-created universe.

It was created

The only remaining option is that our magnificent universe was created. We may approach this idea from two vantage points. The first is the concept of absolute nothingness. That is, if there ever were a moment when absolutely nothing existed, then nothing would exist now. It goes without saying that you cannot start with “nothing” and arrive at “something.”

The next step in the logical progression is this: since something exists now, something must have always existed! In regards to the “essence” of the eternal “something,” we are faced with two choices: it is either material or it is non-material. What does the evidence indicate? The eternal something (or Someone) cannot be material in nature, for, as the second law of thermodynamics implies, matter is not eternal. The only conclusion we may reasonably infer is that the universe was created by an eternal something (or Someone) who is non-material (i.e., non-tangible) in essence (cf. Psalm 90:2; John 4:24).

The second approach involves revisiting the principle of biogenesis. When faced with the task of explaining the ultimate origin of life in the universe, we are confronted with two options: life either arose from a non-living source or from a living source. The former cannot be true, as such would amount to spontaneous generation (a notion long since discredited). Logically speaking, it must be the case that life originally emanated from the ultimate Life-Giver, God Himself (cf. Acts 17:25).

Conclusion

Young people should not be intimidated by the superficial pronouncements of prejudiced Darwinists. When critically examined, it is seen that evolution is not science, it is “faith”—a faith buttressed by faulty assumptions, defended with circular reasoning, and grounded in the desire to be free from moral constraint.

We must expend the necessary time and energy to prepare our young people for the spiritual and intellectual battles they will encounter. In successfully equipping our youth with the information they need to contend with misguided evolutionists, we not only boost their confidence in themselves, we also strengthen their burgeoning faith in the God they serve. Investments made along these lines will pay rich dividends in time and eternity.

Sources

• Behe, Michael J. (1996), Darwin’s Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution (New York: Simon & Schuster).
• Jackson, Wayne (1999), Answering God’s Critic, http://www.christiancourier.com/articles/read/answering_gods_critic.
• Jackson, Wayne (2001), The Blind Bookwriter, http://www.christiancourier.com/articles/read/the_blind_bookwriter.
• Milton, Richard (1997), Shattering the Myths of Darwinism (Rochester, VT: Park Street Press).
• Smith, Thomas M. and Robert Leo Smith (2006), Elements of Ecology, 6th Edition (Glenview, IL: Pearson Education).