Science and Evolution

Creation
The Universe had a beginning.
Anything that has a beginning must have been caused by something else.
Therefore, the universe, was caused by something else, and this cause was God

If everything needs a cause, then what caused God??
We didn't say that everything needs a cause; we said that everything that has a beginning needs a cause. Only Finite things need a cause. God didn't have a beginning; He is infinite and He is necessary. God is the uncaused cause of all finite things. We cannot ask,"who caused God?" because God is the first cause. You can't go back any further than a first.

If God created all things, then how did He create himself?
Only finite begins need causes. There are only three possible kinds of begin;
1) Self-caused 2) Caused by another 3) Uncaused
For human
Self-caused? Impossible. We cannot bring ourselves to existence.
Uncaused? Impossible. We are not necessary eternal, infinite beings.
What kind of being is God?
Self-caused? Impossible
Caused by another? Leads to an infinite regress.
He must be uncaused.

Can God make a mountain so big that He can't move it?
This is another meaningless question. It asks, " Is there something that is more than infinite?" It is logically impossible for anything to be more than infinite, because infinite has no end.
"Can God make a square circle?"
"What is the smell of blue?"
These are logically impossibilities. They contradict themselves.
He has the power to do anything that is actually possible, even if it is impossible for us.

The difference between operation and origin science.
Operation science deals with the way things normally operate. It examines how the world normally works in the present. It studies things that happen over and over again in a regular and repeated way. Operation science seeks answers that are testable by repeating the experiment over and over, and falsifiable if the cause does not always yield the same effect. Its conclusion should allow one to project what will happen in future experiments. Operation science likes things to be very regular and predictable. No changes; no surprises. So the idea of a supernatural being coming around to stir things up occasionally is strongly resisted. Because of this, it usually seeks out natural causes for the events it studies.
Origin science is not just another name for giving evidence to support creationism. It is a different kind of science. Origin science studies past singularities, rather than present normalities. It looks at how things began, not how they work. It studies things that only happened once and, by their nature, don't happen again. It is a different type of study that requires a different approach. Rather than begin an empirical science like physics or biology, it is more like a forensic science. Remember the TV show about a medical examiner named Quincy? Each week he tried to find out what and/who caused a past singularity ( a person's death ) by examining the effect and deciding what kind of thing could have caused that event. That is what origin science seeks to do.

Now origin science works on different principles that operation science does. Since the past events that is studied cannot be repeated today, it uses analogies between the kinds of cause/effect relationships that we see today and the kind of effect that is being studied. Also, origin science does not claim to give definitive answers, but only plausible ones. We did not observe the events of origins, and we cannot repeat them ( just as Quincy could not ask the murderer to kill the victim again). So the remaining evidence must be studied, the interpretation of it measured by what seems most likely to explain the evidence. And just as operation science recognizes that some events demand an intelligent cause, origin science also admits an intelligent cause when the evidence calls for it.

The first step in the basic argument against evolution is that it has taken the wrong approach. It has applied the principles of operation science to the study of origins. It is seeking regular and repeated causes for events that occurred only once. It has forced the operations that are presently working in the world to explain how the world got here in the first place. Using this method, it is a foregone conclusion that it originated by a process; processes are what operation science studies. But it is confusing to assume that unique and singular events, such as the beginning of the universe or first life, should be studied in terms of regular and repeated process. To understand origins, we must use origin science, not operations science.

There are three types of Order for intelligent primary causes:
1. Orderly ( repetitive ) and specified
Gift Gift Gift Gift
Examples: Crystals, nylon

2. Complex ( unrepeating ) and unspecified
TGELDHT TBWMHQC PUQXHBTJS
Examples: Random polymers

3. Complex ( unrepeating ) and specified
A Message Is Riding On This Sequence
Example: DNA

Whether is be a sculpture, a name written in the sand, or a smoke signal we instantly recognize that it took some smarts to do that - it didn't happen by itself. And all of out present experience confirms this to us. It is universally true of the things that we find in the world today, so it is reasonable to assume that it has always been that way.

A great deal of evidence now supports the option that the universe had a beginning. Robert Jastrow, a founder and former director of NASA's Goddard Institute for space studies, has summarized the evidence in his book God and the Astronomers, saying," How three lines of evidence - motion of the galazies, the laws of thermodynamics, and the life story of the stars- pointed to one conclusion: all indicated that the universe had a beginning." Now if we are speaking of a beginning of the universe - a movement from no matter to matter - then we are clearly in the realm of unrepeatable events covered by origin science.

Logically, if we are looking for a cause which existed before the entirety of nature ( the universe ) existed, we are looking for a supernatural cause. Even Jastrow, a confirmed agnostic, has said as much: That there are what I or anyone would call supernatural forces at work now, I think, a scientifically proven fact." Since he is speaking from the view point of operation science, he probably means that there is no secondary cause which can explain the origin of the universe. But with the recognition of origin science, we can pose a supernatural primary cause that seems to be the most plausible answer to the question. Jastrow closes his book God and the Astronomers with these words:

For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries.