An in-depth look at the scientific laws that point toward a Created world

For decades the public has been offered two grand explanations for the existence of life and the universe. The first is naturalism—the idea that unguided physical processes, given enough time and probability, are sufficient to explain everything from the cosmos to consciousness. The second is creation—that the universe and life were intentionally designed by a Creator possessing intelligence, purpose, and power.

While many assume the first view is “scientific” and the second is “religious,” a growing number of scientists and thinkers argue the opposite: that creation actually aligns more closely with established scientific laws, while popular naturalistic models—such as the Big Bang and Darwinian macroevolution—often require violations of those very laws to function.

This article examines those laws and why, far from being unscientific, the creation perspective often fits better with what we know about physics, chemistry, biology, and information theory.

Science today operates under what is called methodological naturalism:

Only natural explanations can be considered in scientific models, even if a supernatural cause is real.

That means:

• A paper invoking God, creation, intelligent agency, or design is automatically considered outside the rules of modern science, no matter how good the evidence appears.
• Any reference that implies purpose, intention, or divine creation is regarded as non-scientific by definition, not by evaluation.

Therefore,  there is a built-in bias that filters out anything that looks like special creation.  This doesn’t mean scientists hate God or want to suppress the Bible.  It simply means the modern scientific framework does not allow supernatural explanations, even if true.  You could present a perfect, flawless argument for special creation, and it still wouldn’t be published in Nature or Science because:

It violates the rules of what those journals consider “science.”  Therefore,  creationist explanations are excluded by the rules of the game — not by evidence.

1. The Big Bang and the Problem of the Scientific Laws It Breaks

The modern Big Bang model asserts that all matter, energy, space, and time came into existence from nothing—a true “no-space, no-time, no-matter” nothing. This is presented as a scientific explanation, yet several foundational scientific laws raise immediate questions.

A. The First Law of Thermodynamics: Matter and Energy Cannot Arise From Nothing

One of the most universal laws of nature is the First Law of Thermodynamics, which states:

Energy and matter cannot be created or destroyed.

Yet the Big Bang requires that every particle in the universe—hydrogen, carbon, oxygen, quarks, photons, fundamental forces, physical constants, and the fabric of spacetime—appeared instantaneously without a cause.

To bypass this contradiction, some cosmologists argue that “the laws of physics break down at t = 0,” or that “quantum fluctuations in the vacuum caused the universe.” But a vacuum fluctuation is not “nothing”—it is a pre-existing energy field governed by physical laws. It still needs origins.

Creation, on the other hand, has no such conflict. A Creator who exists outside the material universe can introduce matter and energy without violating physical laws, because those laws apply only within the universe—not to the One who created them.

B. The Second Law of Thermodynamics: The Universe Began in Impossible Order

The Second Law states that all closed systems naturally move from order to disorder, from usable energy to entropy.

Yet the Big Bang requires the opposite: it demands that the universe began in a state of unimaginable order, with entropy so low that even atheist mathematician Roger Penrose calculated the odds as:

1 in 10 to the power of 10^123

This number is physically absurd—so impossible that Penrose admitted it “seems to demand a very special initial state.” In other words, the Big Bang requires a level of fine-tuned order that natural processes cannot generate.

Creation, however, predicts an orderly universe from the beginning—because intentional creation produces organized systems, not chaotic randomness.

C. Conservation of Angular Momentum: The “Wrong-Way” Universe

If the Big Bang were an explosion, all matter should rotate and orbit in the same direction, following the conservation of angular momentum.

But we observe the opposite:

• Venus rotates backwards
• Uranus rotates on its side
• Some moons orbit in the reverse direction
• Regions of galaxies rotate counter to the rest

Explosions do not produce coordinated reverse rotations. But design and intentional arrangement can.

D. The Law of Cause and Effect: Something Cannot Come From Nothing

The foundational assumption of all science is the Law of Causality:

Every effect must have a cause.

The Big Bang claims the greatest effect in history—the origin of the universe—had no cause, or that it was “self-caused,” a logical impossibility.

Creation avoids this violation, explaining that:

• The universe is the effect
• God is the cause
• Time, space, and matter begin at creation, so God—as the cause—is necessarily outside them

This aligns with both logic and the scientific law of causality.

2. Macroevolution and the Laws of Science It Conflicts With

Macroevolution claims that life originated from non-life, and over billions of years, small changes accumulated to produce every species on earth through unguided processes.

However, several well-established scientific laws directly contradict the mechanisms required for such transformations.

A. The Law of Biogenesis: Life Comes Only From Life

The Law of Biogenesis, demonstrated repeatedly by Pasteur, Redi, and modern microbiology, states:

Life only arises from pre-existing life. Never from non-living matter.

Yet macroevolution requires the opposite—that dead chemicals spontaneously assembled into a living, self-replicating cell.

No experiment, observation, or simulation has ever shown this to be possible. All attempts at spontaneous-life experiments have either failed or required human direction—undermining the claim of natural origin.

Creation aligns perfectly with biogenesis:

Life arises from the living God.

B. The Second Law of Thermodynamics: Evolution Demands Ever-Increasing Order

Evolution requires:

• Simple to complex
• Molecules to cells
• Cells to organisms
• Organisms to ecosystems
• Random mutations to new organs and body plans

But the Second Law predicts the opposite tendency:

Systems naturally degrade over time unless guided by an external intelligence.

Evolutionists often respond: “But the sun adds energy.”
That is true—but raw energy produces chaos, not order, unless a mechanism directs it.

Example:
Sunlight + a beach = warm sand, bleaching shells, evaporation
Sunlight + a solar panel = electricity (only because of engineered design)

Creation explains biological order: organisms have built-in design and information that sustains complexity despite entropy.

C. The Law of Information Science: Information Comes Only From Intelligence

DNA is not merely a molecule—it is code, containing:

• Syntax
• Semantic meaning
• Encoding and decoding systems
• Error correction algorithms
• Layered instructions
• Compressed information
• Redundancy networks
• Built-in failsafe systems
• A 4-letter digital alphabet

In every field of human experience:

Information comes only from an intelligent source. Never from random processes.

Random copying errors (mutations) degrade information—they don’t produce new, functional programming.

Evolution requires new information to build:

• Eyes
• Wings
• Nervous systems
• Bones
• Hormones
• Immune systems
• Consciousness

But random mutations do not generate hierarchically organized, functional information. They break things; they do not build them.

Creation explains information flawlessly:

A transcendent Intelligence encoded life with enormous complexity.

D. The Law of Chemical Probability: Life’s Building Blocks Cannot Form Randomly

The probability of forming a single functional protein of 150 amino acids by chance is:

1 in 10^164

For reference, the observable universe contains:

10^80 atoms

This means the chance is not merely small—it is mathematically impossible, even given billions of years, oceans of chemicals, and lightning strikes.

And that’s just one protein. A simple cell requires:

• Hundreds of proteins
• DNA
• RNA
• Ribosomes
• Membranes
• Energy systems
• Repair mechanisms
• Waste removal systems

All working together, at the same time.

Creation introduces intelligence, which allows for complex systems to appear fully functional, just as they must be.

3. The Astonishing Complexity of the “Simple” Cell

To appreciate the challenge facing naturalistic evolution, one must consider the breathtaking complexity of even the simplest living cell.

A typical cell includes:

• A digital code (DNA) containing billions of bits of information
• Molecular machines such as ATP synthase (a rotating nano-generator)
• Robotic transport systems (kinesin “walking” motors)
• Factory-like ribosomes that read instructions and assemble proteins
• Quality control systems that detect and fix errors
• Energy power plants (mitochondria)
• Communication networks
• Membrane gates that regulate chemical flow
• Recycling systems
• Self-repair mechanisms
• A fully automated self-replication system

Biochemist Michael Denton famously wrote:

“The cell is a veritable microcosm of intricate structures, comparable to a factory city.”

Yet evolution says all of this arose:

• Without guidance
• Without foresight
• Without intelligence
• Through random copying errors
• Starting from dead chemicals

The creation model, however, fits what we observe:

Complex systems with code, machinery, energy, organization, and purpose always originate from intelligent, purposeful design.

No exceptions.

4. Why Creation Aligns Better with the Scientific Evidence

When one examines the laws of science, a consistent pattern emerges:

1. Physics favors creation

The origin of matter, energy, and laws themselves require a cause outside the universe.

2. Thermodynamics favors creation

The universe began in a state of impossible order, and living systems maintain complexity using purposefully encoded information.

3. Biology favors creation

Life arises only from life. DNA is code. Cells are engineered systems.

4. Probability theory favors creation

The odds of life forming accidentally are beyond astronomical.

5. Information science favors creation

Codes, languages, and algorithms always originate from intelligence.

Creation, therefore, is not a retreat from science. On the contrary:

Creation fits comfortably within the boundaries of scientific laws. Naturalistic models repeatedly require violations of those laws.

5. The Universe Points to a Designer

When examined honestly and without philosophical restrictions, the evidence of science suggests:

• The universe had a cause
• That cause must be powerful enough to create space and time
• Life originated from pre-existing life
• Biological systems are saturated with information
• The complexity of cells and organisms demands design
• The laws of thermodynamics oppose spontaneous order
• The probability of unguided life is essentially zero

Science does not disprove God—it reveals Him.

The universe looks like it was designed because it was designed.  Life appears engineered because it is engineered.  DNA contains information because it was written.  Matter exists because it was created.

Naturalistic theories often require the suspension or violation of scientific laws to work. But creation requires no such violations. It simply asserts that the laws we observe reflect the mind of the Lawgiver who made them.

And that, fundamentally, is why creation remains the explanation most consistent with the evidence.

The post Creation and the Laws of Science: Why a Designed Universe Makes More Sense Than an Accidental One appeared first on The Balanced Life: Bible Study and Christian Bible Discussion.

I love science.  Every time I see that we discover something new in medicine, or a distant galaxy, or a previously undiscovered animal,  I marvel at scientific ingenuity.  Science is awesome.  I think about the scientists that were great thinkers in their day that gave us much of what our scientific understandings are today and what it would have been like to make the ground-breaking discoveries that they did.  Some of them were pioneers in their field:

Nicholas Copernicus (1473-1543) who put forward the first mathematically based system of planets going around the sun.

Sir Francis Bacon (1561-1627) who is known for establishing the scientific method of inquiry based on experimentation and inductive reasoning.

Johannes Kepler (1571-1630) who was a brilliant mathematician and astronomer. He did early work on light, and established the laws of planetary motion about the sun.

Rene Descartes (1596-1650) who is known for his famous quote “I think therefore I am”, was a French mathematician, scientist and philosopher who has been called the father of modern philosophy.

Blaise Pascal (1623-1662)  who was a French mathematician, physicist, inventor, writer and theologian. In mathematics, he published a treatise on the subject of projective geometry and established the foundation for probability theory. Pascal invented a mechanical calculator, and established the principles of vacuums and the pressure of air.

Isaac Newton (1642-1727) In optics, mechanics, and mathematics, Newton was a figure of undisputed genius and innovation. In all his science (including chemistry) he saw mathematics and numbers as central.

What is less well known about these men is their devout Christianity.  Throughout their lives their faith guided their science and science guided their faith.

(For more on scientists that believed in God, please visit God and Science.org

It is a wonder that today when people talk about science, it is as if God and science are mutually exclusive and God is not the God of science.

I get asked often how I can believe in God when there is such compelling evidence for the current Big Bang Theory and a universe that is millions of years old.  My response is simple, kinda.  I reply, “How can you believe the theories that exist when there is certainly no consensus among secular scientists and using observational science.  There is significant evidence against the prevailing theories.  In many cases what we observe clearly confirms the Bible or at least that current macro-evolutionary theories need to be thrown out.  It all comes down to faith.   I do not have enough faith to buy that they world is millions of years old and we started with a huge explosion from nothing.”

I realized however, people like to be told what to think and will never look or investigate for themselves to see what makes sense and what the evidence is really saying.  Knowing this first that evidence is evidence.  It is our world view that guides how we interpret the evidence.

Let me get the obvious stuff out of the way.   If you want to know if God exists, ask Him.   Talk to others that know Him and ask them to explain why they believe and what proof they have.  When I read the Bible, everyone that gets to know God, one way or another are changed by it.  Their lives are impacted.

I read an interesting article in New Science Magazine.  The article is entitled, 13 Things that Do Not Make Sense by Michael Brooks.  It is interesting to me that when our calculations don’t add up because what we observe does not match our evolutionary or Big Ban theories, we make things up to fill the discrepancies.  For instance, Dark Matter is a made up theory to explain how the universe is held together and why the mass of everything we observe does not square with what we know about gravitational and centrifugal forces.  In other words, “Galactic matter orbits around a central point because its mutual gravitational attraction creates centripetal forces. But there is not enough mass in the galaxies to produce the observed spin.”  So in order to make things square, the difference between what the mass is of an object and what the mass should be to yield what we observe, we call Dark Matter.

Scientists claim that dark matter must be there even though we cannot test for it, or observe it in any scientific way, but because of the universal object mass discrepancy, then Dark Matter must exist.

2 Timothy 3:7, “Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.”

One other similar theory, and there are many, is the theory of Dark Energy.

Before the 1990’s, scientists theorized that the universe expanded rapidly after the Big Bang and would eventually slow down expansion as objects clustered and developed gravitational forces.  These gravitational forces would eventually slow universal expansion.  But the Hubble Telescope in the 90’s allowed scientists to observe the strangest thing.  The universe was speeding up expansion.  Well, that made absolutely no sense.  There was no way to explain what they observed based on their world view and previous theories.  They were so sure they had it right and taught generations of people this false theory and now, how could they explain what they couldn’t explain.  They made up a theory called Dark Energy.  Dark energy is the invisible force out there that causes the acceleration of universal expansion.

Since there is way more space than there is matter in the universe, they estimate that the universe is 68% Dark Energy, 27% Dark Matter and 5% Normal Matter.

To break this down and not get wrapped up into the weeds on this, what they are saying is that 5% of the universe is what we observe and that 5% we cannot explain without making up the other 95%.  But to sound like we know what we are talking about we make what we made up sound like fact.  The rationale is that dark matter and dark energy must be there because what we observe in the universe makes no sense without them if our original theory of a Big Bang is accurate.

Our schools teach one basic world view as fact shaping the world view of millions of people.  When new contradictory information is discovered that requires an adjustment of the shared world view, other world views based on the same facts are seldom encouraged. Imagine that all of the people that were taught false information before Hubble showed us how wrong we were.  This false information is guiding their decisions today and has falsely shaped their world view.  In fact, most people say they have tremendous faith in science and none or little in the Bible.

Sir Francis Bacon famously wrote, “It is true, that a little philosophy inclineth man’s mind to atheism, but depth in philosophy bringeth men’s minds about to religion; for while the mind of man looketh upon second causes scattered, it may sometimes rest in them, and go no further; but when it beholdeth the chain of them confederate, and linked together, it must needs fly to Providence and Deity.”

2 Timothy 4:3-4, “For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables.”

Ephesians 4:18 “They are darkened in their understanding, alienated from the life of God because of the ignorance that is in them, due to their hardness of heart.”

God has built into each person a knowledge of who He is.  What we observe cannot be explained and will perplex if God is removed from the equation.  Psalms 19:1-4, “The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands. Day after day they pour forth speech; night after night they display knowledge. There is no speech or language where their voice is not heard. Their voice goes out into all the earth, their words to the ends of the world.”

Romans 1:19-20 “For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse.”

Know What You Believe

Theodore N. Tahmisian, a nuclear physicist with the Atomic Energy Commission, has said:

“Scientists who go about teaching that evolution is a fact of life are great con men, and the story they are telling may be the greatest hoax ever. In explaining evolution we do not have one iota of fact … It is a tangled mishmash of guessing games and figure jaggling … If evolution occurred at all, it was probably in a very different manner than the way it is now taught” (Fresno Bee, Aug. 20, 1959).

I recently started paying attention to the campaign against free thought in schools.  It seems that in our public school system, you can believe in anything, anything except God created the heavens and the earth.  Quite seriously, you can believe that we were brought here by aliens, we are descendants of apes or chimpanzees, we are not really humans with a head arms and legs,  but biological pods that have created a mental projection of ourselves and nothing you do or no-one you interact with is real.  These things are quite acceptable to discuss in school and create discussion groups for and invite people to join.  Many parents would be even be intrigued to hear about your involvement in these groups.

However, a group that discussed Jesus, the Bible, or God would lead to the school being sued, protests, and perhaps public shaming.

Of the people who believe in evolution, how many people know why and know the facts?  How many take time to understand why some scientists believe certain aspects of evolution and Big Bang theories while other secular scientists do not?

And why is there the perpetuation of the false notion that science is opposed to the Bible?  Why, when scientific findings that cannot be explained in the context of macro evolution or the Big Bang theories are encountered, are not all theories, including biblical creation explored?

Whether you are a Christian, or agnostic or atheist, you owe it to yourself to know why you believe what you believe.  Especially when the stakes are so high.

See also: Why are Youth Leaving the Church

The post Science and God – Are The Opposed? appeared first on The Balanced Life: Bible Study and Christian Bible Discussion.