Two Fundamental Problems for Materialist Cosmology
The word “cosmology” can be used in two main ways. Cosmology may be used in an objective sense as a general field of study. This would be the science of the origin and development of the universe. It can be done to God’s glory and in harmony with Scripture, or it can be done in rebellion against God’s word. Cosmology can also be used subjectively, from within a viewpoint or larger worldview. In this sense there is a “biblical cosmology” and a “secular cosmology,” or we might even think of an “Eastern” and “Western” and “ancient” and “modern” cosmology. A materialist cosmology is an attempt to explain the origin and nature of the cosmos as if matter is, as Carl Sagan used to say, “all there ever was, or is, or will be.”
A Fundamental Logic Problem with a Materialist Cosmology
When it comes to theories of cosmic origins, there are really only three basic options: (1) The material universe is self-existent and eternal; (2) The material universe is not self-existent and eternal, but required a “trans-material” cause; or (3) The material universe is not self-existent and eternal, but caused itself, or continues to do so.
The first option was that of the ancient Greeks and the standard materialist position in the modern world. For that reason it may surprise us to discover that it is not the majority position among scientists. It had its day. The Steady State model of origins is essentially that the universe had no beginning and maintains a constant density, even creating its own matter (i.e. new galaxies, stars, etc.), all at a uniform, or “steady,” rate. This was the consensus of the mid-20th century, its leading proponent being Sir Fred Hoyle. In addition to the problem of entropy (see below), there were specifics about the expanding universe and quantum mechanics that caused the theory to be abandoned.
The second position has been that of those ancient Hebrews who believed the Scriptures and then Christianity ever since. That there must be a Being who is infinite, personal, eternal, and so forth, is the subject matter of natural theology. This has the additional advantages of being perfectly consistent with the laws of logic, as well as not running into any real conflict with established science. Indeed, it is the only view that is consistent with logic existing in the first place.
The third of these is sometimes called “self-creation” for obvious reasons. Its basic problem with logic is not difficult to see when we think about it. If all things existed in order to create themselves, well, then they would have to both (A) be there and (~A) not be there, at the same time and in the same relation: a textbook case of a violation of the law of non-contradiction. If on the other hand, all things simply existed whereas nothing existed before, then there is no cause assigned to the “nothing” which is just nonsense the other way around.
A Fundamental Scientific Problem with a Materialist Cosmology
Are there any established discoveries of science that bear on the question of origins? We hear much about Darwinian evolution and whether it ever really succeeded in transcending the level of theory. But are there any deliverances of modern science that are universally unchallenged and which we see operating everywhere in the cosmos? Surely if there are any, that distinction would belong to the two well known laws having to do with energy conservation.
The First Law of Thermodynamics (or law of conservation of energy) states that energy can be neither created nor destroyed. Here we must remember that matter is also a form of energy. This is represented in light of Einstein’s equation that E = mc2, or in other words, “energy is equal to mass times the speed of light squared.” This law is often misapplied to the question of origins as if it showed that matter or energy are “invincible” or that they are eternal, since, after all, they “cannot be created.” Hence creation from beyond is overruled. This misunderstands the context of the principle. The operative words are “closed system.”
If I place my hot cocoa in the microwave and forget about it for an hour, will I retrieve a mug filled with hot liquid when I remember? No. Why is that? 100 times out of 100, it will lose its heat energy within the system of the mug and even the square space of the microwave. However, new energy can be introduced into the system. It is not finally closed. I can reheat it with a touch of a button.
The Second Law of Thermodynamics (or principle of entropy) states that all energy is passing from states of order to disorder. This is an irreversible process. Entropy therefore means a “heat death” for the universe. Now how do these two laws help us with respect to cosmic origins? The implications for this law are far reaching. We also see increasing disorder and decreasing complexity with respect to information systems (which includes living organisms, which we now know are coded by information).
Of the first law, Douglas Kelly concludes, “there must have been a point outside physical time when creative energies were in operation which no longer obtain within our natural realm.” Of the second, “that the cosmos is not infinitely old, for if it were, there would be no more heat.”1
This phrase “time’s arrow” was coined by Sir Arthur Eddington to point out that what we know about entropy, and its implications for universal decay, points in the wrong direction for evolution to have taken place. One important book that was written on this concept was called Time’s Arrow and Evolution by T. H. Blume in 1968. He was a skeptic and therefore wrote in order to overcome the problem. To do so, he pointed to “open system thermodynamics.” But the problem is that no matter how many such systems exist, they are temporary because the universe as a whole is a closed system, especially from the naturalistic perspective. Sagan acknowledged,
“It is not known whether open-system thermodynamic processes in the absence of replication are capable of leading to the sorts of complexity that characterize biological systems.”2
I once had a biology professor that would speak of our solar system as a “pocket of resistance.” Whether the other students knew it or not, he had this problem in mind. But what was he doing? He was pushing the materialist’s problem back a step from the earth to the sun. Yet the sun will burn out if left to itself. It too is like my cup of hot cocoa in that forgotten microwave. God alone will decide the moment and the manner of new energy into the total system.
________________
1. Douglas F. Kelly, Creation and Change: Genesis 1.1-2.4 in the Light of Changing Scientific Paradigms (Ross-shire, UK: Christian Focus Publications, 2017), 78, 79.
2. Carl Sagan, “The Definition of Life,” Encyclopedia Britannica, 13, 1973. 1083A.
