What Is Sola Scriptura?

BY WAYNE JACKSON

There are at least three serious errors—advocated by the prevailing authorities of the Roman Catholic Church—that pertain to the nature of the Scriptures. First, it is contended that the sixty-six books of our common Bibles do not contain the whole of the collection of divine writings. Hence, Catholic Bibles are appended with several extra books known as the Apocrypha.

However, these supplementary books were not a part of the original Hebrew Bible. Moreover, they were never sanctioned by Christ, nor by the inspired New Testament writers. Finally, they do not bear the marks of inspiration that would be expected of a divine document; they thus are to be rejected (see The Apocrypha: Inspired of God?

Second, Catholic authorities allege that the common person cannot understand the Word of God. There needs to be, therefore, a “clergy” to instruct the “layperson” in terms of what he is to believe and practice.

This concept likewise is void of justification. Paul instructed the Christians in Ephesus to “be not foolish, but understand what the will of the Lord is” (Ephesians 5:17). The apostle told those saints that by reading his words they could understand those matters pertaining to Christ (Ephesians 3:3-4).

Additionally, the fact that the New Testament epistles were written to ordinary Christians—not to an upper-strata clergy—is, on the face of it, evidence against the papal theory.

Third, Catholicism contends that the canonical Scriptures were never intended to be the final body of authority in determining God’s truth for humanity. Rather, it is argued, “the Bible is not the only source of faith; it is but a dead letter.”

Supposedly, this means that the “tradition of the Church,” as such has been made known across the centuries through the councils and papal voices of the Roman institution, has been divinely intended to supplement the Scriptures (see Conway 1929, 76-80). Allegedly, then, religious dogma evolves over the years by means of an expanding body of revealed truth. It is to this third proposition that we direct a sharper focus in this brief discussion.

The allegation that the sixty-six books of Scripture are an incomplete source of divine instruction stands in stark contradiction to the testimony of an inspired apostle. In a letter to Timothy, Paul wrote.

Every scripture is inspired of God, and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for instruction which is in righteousness. That the man of God may be complete, furnished completely unto every good work (2 Timothy 3:16-17).

Several terms in this passage warrant amplification.

What Is “Scripture”?

“Scripture” renders the original word graphe, found about fifty-one times in the Greek New Testament. The term always refers to a sacred writing. Most commonly it denotes the holy writings of the Old Testament, but the absence of a Greek article in conjunction with graphe in this passage “leaves room for other writings that have a right to be called divinely inspired Scriptures” (Hiebert 1958, 100). Without question, the term “Scripture” embraces both Old and New Testaments. See 1 Timothy 5:18 and in 2 Peter 3:16 where the term is used comprehensively of both Testaments.

The Purpose of Scripture

The Scriptures are described as having been intended to make the “man [person] of God complete,” and “furnished completely” for the accomplishment of “every good work.” The two terms “complete” (artios) and “furnished completely” (exartizo—an intensified verbal form of the previous word) suggest the idea of that which is “well fitted for some function, complete, capable, proficient,” the equivalent of “able to meet all demands” (Danker et al. 2000, 136; Balz and Schneider 1978, 159). The compound form, exartizo, carries two ideas: “to finish” or “complete” (cf. Acts 21:5), and to “connect perfectly, fit to perfection” (Spicq 1994, 18).

The point we are making relative to the matter at hand is this: if the Scriptures are capable of making a person complete, and furnishing him completely for every righteous activity, then it cannot be argued that the Bible is but a “dead letter,” inadequate for one’s religious instruction. It must not be contended that the “voice of the church” is imperative—both traditionally and currently—to complete the Christian’s source of knowledge.

Sola Scriptura

That brings us to this matter. A Roman Catholic writer, James Akin, argues there are “practical problems” with the concept of sola scriptura. The gentleman disputes the proposition that all matters pertaining to the “faith and practice” of the Christian system must be derived from the Scriptures alone. Similarly, he denies that the individual Christian has the right of “private judgment in the interpretation of the Scriptures.”

In his ambitious effort to disprove the principle of sola scriptura, the Roman apologist offers a seven-point presentation that he believes establish the validity of “tradition” authority—also called “magisterium” (teaching authority)—as opposed to the exclusive authority of the Scriptures. Incredibly, in the gentleman’s essay there is not a solitary appeal to the Bible. Rather, the argument is based altogether upon factors which allegedly, from the very nature of the case, negate the concept of sola scriptura. In summary fashion, here are his seven points, along with our response.

Most Christians had no access to the Scriptures before the invention of the printing press; hence, the idea of sola scriptura cannot obtain where there is no widespread availability of the New Testament documents.

That gospel teaching was not originally circulated in the compact format in which the Scriptures now exist, constitutes no argument at all to negate the undisputed fact that in those early centuries multiplied thousands of people became Christians, grew in the faith, and died with the hope of heaven upon the basis of the simple gospel message. And all of this was achieved without the alleged interpretative skills or authority of popes, cardinals, arch-bishops, synods, or human credos—which cconglomeration did not exist for centuries following the establishment of primitive Christianity.

One must also remember that in earlier times, when printed materials were not so readily available, people relied upon the memory faculty of the human mind much more than is the case today. Sufficient gospel truth for redemption, therefore, was spread abroad—even before the New Testament records were completed.

As the New Testament documents were produced, and began to be circulated, numerous copies were made, and vast quantities of those were committed to memory. To suggest, then, that the pattern for New Testament belief and practice was unknown in those early ages is to contradict known historical facts.

But reflect upon on the following data which suggest a widespread distribution of the Scriptures:

• Polycarp (ca. A.D. 70-155/60), who lived in Smyrna (Asia Minor) around, in his small epistle to the Philippians, quoted from—or alluded to—no fewer than thirteen of the twenty-seven books of the New Testament.
• Origen (ca. A.D. 185-254), whose work was done principally in Alexandria and Caesarea, produced hundreds of writings pertaining to the Bible. In his various works there are more than 5,700 quotations from the New Testament.
• Tertullian (ca. A.D. 160-220), who lived in Africa, quoted the New Testament more than three thousand times in his various writings.

This sort of evidence could be multiplied many times over. Bruce Metzger, one of the foremost textual critics of our time, has observed that the New Testament quotations from the “church fathers” are so extensive that if the New Testament were destroyed entirely, it could be reconstructed from these sources alone (1968, 86).

Even more dramatic than the above is the fact that even infidel writers—e.g., Celsus (mid-second century) and Porphyry (early fourth century)—quoted profusely from the Scriptures in their vain attempts to discredit Christianity. How did they come to have access to the sacred writings if these documents were so scarce and so expensive in those days, as to be beyond the grasp of almost everyone?

The truth is, the early Christians copied the Scriptures extensively, and translated them into many different languages (in an age when literary translation was extremely rare). This constitutes powerful evidence for the reality that the biblical documents were perceived by the early saints as divine entitlements for the masses, and not merely a deposit to be hoarded by a select clerical elite who then would convey “official dogma” to the people.

Even when the Bible became available, copies were so expensive that few could afford them.

This assertion is answered by the data chronicled above.

In those early days, few could read; and so the Scriptures alone would do them little good. The voice of the Church thus was needed additionally.

This argument is seriously flawed—both logically and historically. The fact that one may not be able to read does not mean he cannot be taught the gospel by trustworthy people. Many who are not technically literate have obeyed gospel truth and enjoyed the benefits of salvation.

The objection which our “senior apologist” friend makes in this regard could be lodged against his own position. How would an illiterate Catholic learn of the official dogma of the Roman clergy if he is unable to read his catechism? And how would the “voice” of the papacy be “heard” by the masses in those times when there were no media outlets of rapid and universal communication?

It is quite incorrect to imply that the masses of people generally have been unable to read. An archaeological artifact, the Gezer Calendar, which dates from the tenth century before Christ, is a schoolboy’s exercise. It demonstrates that reading and writing were a part of ancient Israel’s culture, even among the youth (Archer 1964, 52). The fact is, archaeology has demonstrated the existence of schools going back at least 2,500 years before the birth of Christ (Kramer 1959, 1ff). Archaeological and literary evidence have shown that in first-century Palestine most folks were conversant with three languages: Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek (Gundry 1970, 21).

Even Jesus could read and write (Luke 4:16ff; John 7:15; 8:6,8), though he was raised in a very impoverished family environment (cf. Luke 2:24, with reference to the “poor” offering; see also 2 Corinthians 8:9) and, early-on followed the trade of a carpenter (Mark 6:3). Peter and John, who were only humble fishermen—not scholastics (see Acts 4:13)—could read and write, as demonstrated by their respective contributions to the New Testament collection. The illiterate argument is much ado about nothing.

Unlearned people do not have access to “scholarly” sources, thus whatever knowledge they have is most likely flawed.

By the same token, a Catholic “layperson” could hardly know of the reliability of the dogma received from their clergy. They have no access to the countless volumes of decisions that have been handed down from the various Councils. How could they possibly assess the numerous controversies that have raged across the centuries in the very bosom of the Roman Church itself?

The truth is, one does not need to have “scholarly” sources to ascertain God’s plan of redemption and submit thereto. An honest consultation of the New Testament provides adequate information for instruction regarding how to obtain salvation, the fundamentals of church government, worship procedure, godly living, and such like. While grammatical and historical minutia may be of value in honing the finer points of doctrine, it is not essential to attaining heaven.

Hardworking folks have little time for study, and so they need someone to tell them what to believe.

It requires no more time to study the New Testament than it does to peruse a catechism or listen to a priest recite dogma from some pope or council. Such a line of argumentation is embarrassingly impotent.

Through much of Christian history, people have had improper diets. This lack of nutrition resulted in their brains being unable to function critically. Hence, they could not draw rational deductions from studying the Bible alone.

This argument, quite frankly, is pathetic. If it applies to those who desire to study the Scriptures, but cannot think clearly because of unnourished brains, it applies equally to the instruction received from the Catholic clergy. Why, pray tell, would it be more difficult to comprehend the teaching of the inspired New Testament writers, than it would be to ingest the teachings of uninspired Roman Catholic instructors?

Since a high level of critical skill is necessary for interpreting the Scriptures, and, as most folks do not possess such skill, common sense would dictate that Church officials do their thinking for them.

This final quibble is in the same vein as the previous three, and responses to those matters need not be reiterated here.

Conclusion

We would conclude this discussion with a reference to George Salmon’s masterful volume, The Infallibility of the Church—a book so powerful in its exposure of Catholic claims, that it has never been answered by papal apologists. In fact, noted Catholic scholar P.J. Toner, who authored the article on “Infallibility” in the Catholic Encyclopedia, described Salmon’s work as “the cleverest modern attack on the Catholic position” of this issue (Toner 1910, 800).

“Cleverest” is an understatement; it is a devastating exposure of Catholic propaganda relative to the “authority” of the Roman Church.

Salmon points out that it is an undeniable historical fact that as the Roman ecclesiastical system evolved, the time came when Catholic clerics surrendered the idea that the doctrine and practice of the Roman Church could be defended by the Scriptures. Hence, by default, the notion arose that “the Bible does not contain the whole of God’s revelation, and that a body of traditional doctrine existed in the Church equally deserving of veneration” (Salmon 1959, 28). This is precisely the point that we made earlier in noting the gentleman’s total absence of scriptural argumentation.

Ambitiously-driven lusts for release from the authority of the Holy Scriptures has given birth to numerous heretical claims of special revelation from God. Sola scriptura remains as the valid procedure for pursuing the Mind of the Lord.

REFERENCES

• Archer, Gleason, Jr. 1964. A Survey of Old Testament Introduction. Chicago, IL: Moody.
• Balz, Horst and Schneider, Gerhard. 1978. Exegetical Dictionary of the New Testament. Vol. 1. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans.
• Conway, Bertrand. 1929. The Question Box. San Francisco, CA: Catholic Truth Society.
• Danker, F.W. et al. 2000. A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago.
• Gundry, Robert H. 1970. Survey of the New Testament. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan.
• Hiebert, D.E. 1958. 2 Timothy. Chicago, IL: Moody.
• Kramer, Samuel Noah. 1959. History Begins at Sumer. New York, NY: Doubleday.
• Metzger, Bruce. 1968. The Text of the New Testament. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
• Salmon, George. 1959 Reprint. The Infallibility of the Church. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker.
• Spicq, Ceslas. 1994. Theological Lexicon of the New Testament. Vol. 2. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson.
• Toner, P.J. 1910. The Catholic Encyclopedia. Vol. 7. New York, NY: Robert Appleton Co.

SCRIPTURE REFERENCES

Ephesians 5:17; Ephesians 3:3-4; 2 Timothy 3:16-17; 1 Timothy 5:18; 1 Peter 3:16; Acts 21:5; Luke 4:16; John 7:15, 8:6, 8; Luke 2:24; 1 Corinthians 8:9; Mark 6:3; Acts 4:13

Simply Outrageous

BY WAYNE JACKSON

Have you ever heard or read a statement that made you wonder how it ever could have been conceived? For example Bill O’Reilly, Fox News guru, said on national television that “the Catholic Church invented marriage” (WorldNetDaily, 2/10/2010). How does anyone that obtuse deserve a national audience? But he is not alone. Consider a few more quotes that are “simply outrageous.”

God’s Origin

“God is love and the absence of love is hate, so when God came into being before time began hate also was intrinsically in existence” (John N. Clayton, 1977, “The Origin of Satan,” Evidences of God, Vol. I, South Bend, IN: p. 154).

Human Existence Not Provable

“You cannot prove to me that you exist, for I can deny the use of sight by optical illusions or various other problems in interpretation” (John N. Clayton, 1990, The Source: Eternal Design or Infinite Accident?,South Bend, IN: p. 6).

Evolution and Bible Agree

“...[E]volution and the Bible show amazing agreement on almost all issues and one is not mutually exclusive of the other....” (John Clayton, 1990, The Source: Eternal Design or Infinite Accident?, South Bend, IN: p. 135).

Belief and Disbelief Compatible

“...[T]he science of Darwinism is fully compatible with conventional religious beliefs—and equally compatible with atheism” (Stephen Jay Gould, Scientific American, July 1992, p. 119).

Something From Nothing

“. . .[T]he universe is probably the result of a random quantum fluctuation in a spaceless, timeless void . . . the earth and humanity are not conscious creations but an accident . . . it is not sufficient merely to say, ‘you can’t get something from nothing.’ While everyday experience and common sense seem to support this principle, if there is anything that we have learned from twentieth-century physics, it is this: Common sense is often wrong, and our normal experiences are but a tiny fraction of reality” (Victor Stenger, 1987, Free Inquiry, Summer, Vol. 7, No. 3, pp. 26-27).

Spontaneous Generation

“As far as biologists are concerned, however, the matter [of the spontaneous generation of life] was finally settled in the nineteenth century by the work of Pasteur (1822-1895). ... It was demonstrated that spontaneous generation does not occur in any known case. ... Most biologists think it probable that life did originally arise from nonliving matter by natural processes” (George G. Simpson, C. S. Pittendrigh, L. H. Tiffany, 1957. Life: An Introduction to Biology, Burlingame, NY: Harcourt & Brace, p. 261).

Design Without A Designer

“...[W]e all understand by what general process [an airliner] came into existence. It was designed by humans on a drawing board. ... What about our own bodies? Each one of us is a machine, like an airliner only much more complicated. Were we designed on a drawing board too, and were our parts assembled by a skilled engineer? The answer is no” (Richard Dawkins, atheist, 1986, The Blind Watchmaker. New York, NY: W. W. Norton & Co., p. 3, emp. WJ).

No Moral Rules

“Everything is indeed permitted if God does not exist” (Jean Paul Sartre, atheist, 1961, in French Philosophers, Leonard Marsak, ed. Cleveland, OH: World Publishing, p. 485. “...[W]e can never choose evil” (Sartre in: A Casebook on Existentialism, 1966, William Spanos, ed. New York: NY: Thomas Y. Crowell, p. 279).

Human Desire and Morality

“[O]utside of human desires there is no moral standard” (Bertrand Russell, 1950. Unpopular Essays. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster, p. 62).

Killing a Newborn Baby

“Newborn human babies have no sense of their own existence over time. So killing a newborn baby is never equivalent to killing a person, that is, a being who wants to go on living” (Peter Singer, Professor of Bioethics, Princeton University, http://www.princeton.edu/~psinger/faq.html.

No Human Free Will

In 1902 Clarence Darrow, famed criminal attorney, addressed the inmates of the Cook County Jail (Chicago), asserting: “There is no such thing as crime as the word is generally understood. ...The people here can no more help being here than the people outside can avoid being outside” (Arthur Weinberg, 1957, Attorney for the Damned. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster, p. 3).

“The first dogma which I came to disbelieve was that of free will. It seemed to me that all motions of matter were determined by the laws of dynamics and could not therefore be influenced by the human will...” (Bertrand Russell, 1952, Dictionary of Mind, Matter and Morals, New York, NY: Philosophical Library, p. 79).

God Controls All Human Actions

“I wish very frankly and pointedly to assert that if a man gets drunk and shoots his family, it was the will of God that he should do so” (Gordon H. Clark, Calvinist, 1961, Religion, Reason, and Revelation,Philadelphia, PA: p. 221).

Faith Not A Matter Of Freewill

“However much men and women are commanded to believe, and are held accountable for their unbelief, genuine coming to faith is never finally a matter of autonomous human decision” (D.A. Carson, The Gospel According to John. Grand Rapids, MI. Eerdmans. 1991, pp. 302-303).

Preparation Unnecessary

“Since future salvation has been so fully provided by Christ’s finished work, it cannot be cancelled by lack of readiness. Moral preparedness or unpreparedness does not affect the issue one way or the other” (Robert L.Thomas, 1, 2 Thessalonians – The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, Frank E. Gaebelein, ed. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan. 1978. p. 286).

No OT Prophecy of Christ

“There is no unequivocal specific prediction of the coming of Jesus Christ and/or the church in the Old Testament. New Testament speakers reinterpreted and reapplied Old Testament text to Christ and/or the church” (John Willis, 2009, The Transforming Word, Abilene, TX: ACU Press, p. 66).

Jesus’ Death Not In God’s Plan

“Like a lower minor strain running through some great piece of music are the few indications of what God foreknew, though He did not foreplan, would happen to Jesus. ... Why did Jesus die? ... It can be said at once that His dying was not God’s own plan. It was a plan conceived somewhere else, and yielded to by God” (S. D. Gordon, 2003, Quiet Talks About Jesus. Shippenburg, PA: Destiny Image).

Men on the Moon and Sun

“Who can tell us of the inhabitants of this little planet that shines of an evening called the moon? ... when you inquire about the inhabitants of that sphere you find that the most learned are as ignorant in regard to them as the ignorant of their fellows. So it is in regard to the inhabitants of the sun. Do you think it is inhabited? I rather think it is. Do you think there is any life there? No question of it; it was not made in vain,” (Brigham Young, President of the Mormon Church (1847-77), Journal of Discourses, Vol. 13, p. 271). http://www.journalofdiscourses.org/volume-13/

Receiving Christ

“Reception of Christ is a consequence, not a condition, of salvation” (Daniel B. Wallace, 1996, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan; emp. original).

Doing Without Doing

“I am going to maintain that there is no act at all that any man in the Old Testament time or the New ever had to perform in order to be saved. Salvation is received by faith, and faith is the only thing you can do without doing anything” (Ben Bogard, 1938, Hardeman-Bogard Debate, Nashville, TN: Gospel Advocate, emp. original, p. 93).

Sin Cannot Condemn the Soul

“We take the position that a Christian’s sins do not damn his soul. The way a Christian lives, what he says, his character, his conduct, or his attitude toward other people have nothing whatever to do with the salvation of his soul.... All the prayers a man may pray, all the Bibles he may read, all the churches he may belong to, all the services he may attend, all the sermons he may practice, all the debts he may pay, all the ordinances he may observe, all the laws he may keep, all the benevolent acts he may perform will not make his soul one whit safer; and all the sins he may commit from idolatry to murder will not make his soul in any more danger.... The way a man lives has nothing whatever to do with the salvation of his soul.... The way I live has nothing whatsoever to do with the salvation of my soul.” (Sam Morris, n.d. Do A Christian’s Sins Damn His Soul?, Stamford, TX, First Baptist Church).

As Perfect As God

“My soul sin? No. ‘Has Brother Bogard ever sinned?’ In my soul I do not. I am as perfect as God himself as far as my soul is concerned” (Ben M. Bogard, 1938, Hardeman-Bogard Debate, Nashville, TN: Gospel Advocate, pp. 309-310).

Departure From Apostolic Pattern

“It is most likely that in the Apostolic age when there was but ‘one Lord, one faith, and one baptism,’ and no differing denominations existed, the baptism of a convert by that very act constituted him a member of the church, and at once endowed him with all the rights and privileges of full membership. In that sense, ‘baptism was the door into the church.’ Now it is different...” (Edward Hiscox, 1951, The Standard Manual for Baptist Churches, Philadelphia, PA: American Baptist Publication Society, emp. WJ).

Tradition Vs. Scripture

“It is an article of faith from a decree of the Vatican Council that Tradition is a source of theological teaching distinct from Scripture, and that it is infallible. It is therefore to be received with the same internal assent as Scripture, for it is the word of God. Whereas much of the teaching of Scripture could not be determined without Tradition, Tradition would suffice without Scripture; it is the safeguard of Scripture” (Donald Attwater, 1961, A Catholic Dictionary, New York, NY: Macmillan, Imprimatur, pp. 41-42).

Babies Lost

“Even so, children are sinners and can also have evil intentions and thoughts (Romans 3:23). Today, for example, we see children killing children in school, child thieves, rape among children, and so on. But if children and infants didn’t make it to the ark (the means of salvation at the time), whose fault is it but their own and/or parents/guardians who refused to let them?! So why blame God when He offered them a means to be saved?” (Bodie Hodge, New Answers, Green Forest, AR: Master Books. Vol.3, p. 351)

SCRIPTURE REFERENCES

Romans 3:23

CITE THIS ARTICLE

Jackson, Wayne. "Simply Outrageous." ChristianCourier.com. Access date: September 30, 2017. https://www.christiancourier.com/articles/1509-simply-outrageous

The Bible and the Coal Basket

The Bible and the Coal Basket

The story is told of an old man who lived on a farm in the mountains
of eastern Kentucky with his young grandson. Each morning,
Grandpa was up early sitting at the kitchen table reading from his old
worn-out Bible. His grandson, who wanted to be just like him,
tried to imitate him in any way he could.

One day the grandson asked, "Papa, I try to read the Bible just
like you but I don't understand it, and what I do understand
I forget as soon as I close the book. What good does reading
the Bible do?" The Grandfather quietly turned from putting coal
in the stove and said, "Take this coal basket down to the river
and bring back a basket of water."

The boy did as he was told, even though all the water leaked out
before he could get back to the house. The grandfather laughed
and said, "You will have to move a little faster next time," and
sent him back to the river with the basket to try again. This time
the boy ran faster, but again the basket was empty before he
returned home.

Out of breath, he told his grandfather that it was "impossible to
carry water in a basket," and he went to get a bucket instead.
The old man said, "I don't want a bucket of water; I want a basket
of water. You can do this. You're just not trying hard enough," and
he went out the door to watch the boy try again.

At this point, the boy knew it was impossible, but he wanted to
show his grandfather that even if he ran as fast as he could, the
water would leakout before he got far at all. The boy scooped the
water and ran hard, but when he reached his grandfather the basket
was again empty.

Out of breath, he said, "See Papa, it's useless!" "So you think
it is useless?" The old man said, "Look at the basket." The boy
looked at the basket and for the first time he realized that the
basket looked different. Instead of a dirty old coal basket, it
was clean.

"Son, that's what happens when you read the Bible. You might not
understand or remember everything, but when you read it, it will
change you from the inside out. That is the work of God in our
lives. To change us from the inside out and to slowly transform
us into the image of His son.

Take time to read a portion of God's word each day."

Evolution and the Laws of Science: The Laws of Thermodynamics

by	Jeff Miller, Ph.D.

“[T]he principles of thermodynamics have been in existence since the creation of the universe” (Cengel and Boles, 2002, p. 2, emp. added). So states a prominent textbook used in schools of engineering across America. Indeed, these principles prove themselves to be absolutely critical in today’s science world. Much of the engineering technology available today is based on the foundational truths embodied in the Laws of Thermodynamics. As the writers of one engineering thermodynamics textbook stated: “Energy is a fundamental concept of thermodynamics and one of the most significant aspects of engineering analysis” (Moran and Shapiro, 2000, p. 35). Do these laws have application to the creation/evolution debate as creationists suggest? What do they actually say and mean?

The word “thermodynamics” originally was used in a publication by Lord Kelvin (formerly William Thomson), the man often called the Father of Thermodynamics because of his articulation of the Second Law of Thermodynamics in 1849 (Cengel and Boles, p. 2). The term comes from two Greek words: therme, meaning “heat,” and dunamis, meaning “force” or “power” (American Heritage..., 2000, pp. 558,1795). Thermodynamics can be summarized essentially as the science of energy—including heat, work (defined as the energy required to move a force a certain distance), potential energy, internal energy, and kinetic energy. The basic principles and laws of thermodynamics are understood thoroughly today by the scientific community. Thus, the majority of the work with the principles of thermodynamics is done by engineers who simply utilize the already understood principles in their designs. A thorough understanding of the principles of thermodynamics which govern our Universe can help an engineer to learn effectively to control the impact of heat in his/her designs.

THE FIRST AND SECOND LAWS OF THERMODYNAMICS

Though there are many important thermodynamic principles that govern the behavior of energy, perhaps the most critical principles of significance in the creation/evolution controversy are the First and Second Laws of Thermodynamics. What are these laws that, not only are vital to the work of an engineer, but central to this debate?

The First Law

The First Law of Thermodynamics was formulated originally by Robert Mayer (1814-1878). He stated: “I therefore hope that I may reckon on the reader’s assent when I lay down as an axiomatic truth that, just as in the case of matter, so also in the case of force [the term used at that time for energy—JM], only a transformation but never a creation takes place” (as quoted in King, 1962, p. 5). That is, given a certain amount of energy in a closed system, that energy will remain constant, though it will change form (see Figure 1). As evolutionist Willard Young says in defining the First Law, “Energy can be neither created nor destroyed, but can only be converted from one form to another” (1985, p. 8).

Figure 1

This principle, also known as the “conservation of energy principle” (Cengel and Boles, p. 2), can be demonstrated by the burning of a piece of wood. When the wood is burned, it is transformed into a different state. The original amount of energy present before the burning is still present. However, much of that energy was transformed into a different state, namely, heat. No energy disappeared from the Universe, and no energy was brought into the Universe through burning the wood. Concerning the First Law, Young further explains that

the principle of the conservation of energy is considered to be the single most important and fundamental ‘law of nature’ presently known to science, and is one of the most firmly established. Endless studies and experiments have confirmed its validity over and over again under a multitude of different conditions (p. 165, emp. added).

This principle is known to be a fact about nature—without exception. One thermodynamics textbook, Fundamentals of Thermodynamics, says:

The basis of every law of nature is experimental evidence, and this is true also of the first law of thermodynamics. Many different experiments have been conducted on the first law, and every one thus far has verified it either directly or indirectly. The first law has never been disproved (Borgnakke and Sonntag, 2009, p. 116, emp. added).

That is why the McGraw-Hill Dictionary of Scientific and Technical Terms defines a scientific law as “a regularity which applies to all members of a broad class of phenomena” (2003, p. 1182, emp. added). Famous atheist, theoretical physicist, and cosmologist of Cambridge University, Stephen Hawking, concurred:

But what’s really important is that these physical laws, as well as being unchangeable, are universal. They apply not just to the flight of the ball, but to the motion of a planet and everything else in the Universe. Unlike laws made by humans, the laws of nature cannot ever be broken. That’s why they are so powerful…. [T]he laws of nature are fixed (“Curiosity: Did God Create the Universe?” 2011, emp. added).

The Second Law

In the nineteenth century, Lord Kelvin and Rudolph Clausius (1822-1888) separately made findings that became known as the Second Law of Thermodynamics (Suplee, 2000, p. 156). The Second Law builds on the First, stating that though there is a constant amount of energy in a given system that is merely transforming into different states, that energy is becoming less usable. Extending our wood burning illustration above, after the wood is burned, the total amount of energy is still the same, but transformed into other energy states. Those energy states (e.g., ash and dissipated heat to the environment) are less retrievable and less accessible (see Figure 2).

Figure 2

Well-known atheist, physicist, cosmologist, and astrobiologist of Arizona State University, Paul Davies, explained it this way:

[T]he celebrated second law of thermodynamics…says, roughly speaking, that in any change the Universe becomes a slightly more disorderly place; the entropy goes up, the information content goes down. This natural tendency towards disintegration and chaos is evident all around us (1978, 80[1129]:506).

This process is irreversible. Lord Kelvin stated that energy is “irrecoverably lost to man and therefore ‘wasted,’ although not annihilated” (Thomson, 1882, p. 189, ital. in orig.). This principle is known as entropy. Simply put, entropy states that nature is tending towards disorder and chaos. Will the paint job on your house maintain its fresh appearance over time? Will your son’s room actually become cleaner on its own, or will it tend toward disorder? Even without your son’s assistance, dust and decay take their toll. Although work can slow the entropy, it cannot stop it. Renowned evolutionary science writer Isaac Asimov explained:

Another way of stating the Second Law then is “The universe is constantly getting more disorderly!” Viewed that way we can see the Second Law all about us. We have to work hard to straighten a room, but left to itself it becomes a mess again very quickly and very easily. Even if we never enter it, it becomes dusty and musty. How difficult to maintain houses, and machinery, and our own bodies in perfect working order: how easy to let them deteriorate. In fact, all we have to do is nothing, and everything deteriorates, collapses, breaks down, wears out, all by itself—and that is what the Second Law is all about (1970, p. 6).

Entropy is simply a fact of nature. Entropy can be minimized in this Universe, but it cannot be eradicated. That is where engineers come in. Engineers work to discover ways of minimizing energy loss and maximizing useful energy before it is forever lost. Thousands of engineering jobs are dedicated to addressing this fundamental fact of the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Your energy bill is affected directly by it. If the Second Law was not fixed—unchanging—engineers could not develop the technology necessary to maximize usable energy, thereby lowering your energy costs.

Some engineers devote their entire careers to minimizing entropy in the generation of power from energy. All this effort is based on the principles established by the Second Law of Thermodynamics. These principles are established as fact in the scientific community. The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language defines “law” as “a statement describing a relationship observed to be invariable between or among phenomena for all cases in which the specified conditions are met” (2000, p. 993, emp. added). Since laws are invariable, i.e., unchanging and constant, they have no exceptions. Otherwise, they would not be classified as laws. Tracy Walters, a mechanical engineer working in thermal engineering, observed:

It has been my experience that many people do not appreciate how uncompromising the Laws of Thermodynamics actually are. It is felt, perhaps, that the Laws are merely general tendencies or possibly only theoretical considerations. In reality, though, the Laws of Thermodynamics are hard as nails, and...the more one works with these Laws, the deeper respect one gains for them (1986, 9[2]:8, emp. added).

Evolutionist Jeremy Rifkin stated that “the Entropy Law will preside as the ruling paradigm over the next period of history. Albert Einstein said that it is the premier law of all science; Sir Arthur Eddington referred to it as the ‘supreme metaphysical law of the entire universe’” (1980, p. 6). Borgnakke and Sonntag, in Fundamentals of Thermodynamics, explain:

[W]e can say that the second law of thermodynamics (like every other law of nature) rests on experimental evidence. Every relevant experiment that has been conducted, either directly or indirectly, verifies the second law, and no experiment has ever been conducted that contradicts the second law. The basis of the second law is therefore experimental evidence (2009, p. 220, emp. added, parenthetical item in orig.).

Another thermal science textbook says, concerning the Second Law of Thermodynamics, “To date, no experiment has been conducted that contradicts the second law, and this should be taken as sufficient proof of its validity” (Cengel, Turner, and Cimbala, 2008, p. 266, emp. added).

IMPLICATIONS OF THE LAWS

When understood properly, the Laws of Thermodynamics apply directly to the creation/evolution controversy in precisely the same way they apply in the engineering world today (cf. Miller, 2007). In fact, these foundational truths, utilized daily by the engineering world, have eternally significant, spiritual implications in that they prove that God exists. How so?

If there is no God, the existence of the Universe must be explained without Him. The Big Bang theory claims that all matter in the Universe initially was condensed in a sphere smaller than the size of a period at the end of this sentence. That sphere exploded and helps to explain why the Universe, according to many cosmologists, appears to be expanding or inflating (see Thompson, et al., 2003, 23[5]:32-34,36-47). Even if the Big Bang were true (and it is not, cf. Thompson, et al.), this theory offers no explanation for the origin of that sphere. Evolutionist Alan Guth, a cosmologist and physics professor at M.I.T., admitted that “[i]nflation itself takes a very small universe and produces from it a very big universe. But inflation by itself does not explain where that very small universe came from” (as quoted in Heeren, 1995, p. 148). He further stated, “[A] proposal that the universe was created from empty space is no more fundamental than a proposal that the universe was spawned by a piece of rubber. It might be true, but one would still want to ask where the piece of rubber came from” (Guth, 1997, p. 273). So where could the “rubber” have come from?

The only logical possibilities for the origin of the matter and energy comprising the Universe are that they are responsible for their own existence (i.e., they popped into existence out of nothing—spontaneous generation or they always existed—eternality) or Someone is responsible for their existence (i.e., they were placed here by something outside of the Universe—Creation) (see Figure 3).

Figure 3

As the well-known philosopher and evolutionist from the 19^th century, Herbert Spencer said, “Respecting the origin of the Universe three verbally intelligible suppositions may be made. We may assert that it is self-existent [i.e., eternal—JM]; or that it is self-created [i.e., spontaneously generated—JM]; or that it is created by an external agency” (1882, p. 30).

Possibility 1: Spontaneous Generation of the Universe

Consider the entire physical Universe as a system consisting of all mass, matter, and energy that exists in the Universe. If one believes in the Big Bang model, the system’s boundary would be outside of the blast radius of the Big Bang, or outside of the original cosmic dot that exploded. Without God (i.e., something outside of the bounds of the Universe—something supernatural), this Universe would have to be a closed system. Since our system encompasses the entire Universe, there is no more mass that can cross into our system from the outside, which necessitates our system being closed. If mass, matter, and energy could enter and/or exit the system, the system would be an open system[NOTE: The creationist contends that the Universe is an open system, since there is Someone outside of the natural Universe Who can cross the boundary and put matter and energy into the system. However, without God, the entire physical Universe as a system logically would have to be a closedsystem. Atheists must so believe in order to explain the Universe without God.].

Evolutionary physicist Victor Stenger, in his book, God: The Failed Hypothesis, said:

Conservation of energy [i.e., the First Law—JM] and other basic laws hold true in the most distant observed galaxy and in the cosmic microwave background, implying that these laws have been valid for over thirteen billion years. Surely any observation of their violation during the puny human life span would be reasonably termed a miracle…. In principle, the creation hypothesis could be confirmed by the direct observation or theoretical requirement that conservation of energy was violated 13.7 billion years ago at the start of the big bang (2007, pp. 115-116, emp. added).

The First Law of Thermodynamics states that in a closed system, the amount of energy present in that system is constant, though it transforms into other forms of energy. So, if the Universe as a whole initially contained no mass, matter, or energy, and then all of the mass, matter, and energy in the Universe spontaneously generated, the First Law would be violated. Without intervention from an outside force, the amount of mass, matter, and energy in the Universe would have remained constant (unchanged) at nothing. According to the scientific evidence, matter/energy could not have originally spontaneously generated. Thus, according to Stenger, the creation hypothesis is confirmed based on the scientific evidence. The initial creation of energy from nothing amounted to a miracle.

As was mentioned earlier, there are no exceptions to laws, or else they would not be laws. The First Law of Thermodynamics has no known exceptions. The Law is accepted as fact by all scientists in general and utilized by engineers in particular. Therefore, the Universe, composed of all mass, matter, and energy, could not have spontaneously generated (popped into existence on its own) without violating the exceptionless and highly respected First Law of Thermodynamics. The energy level of the Universe would not have been constant. Spontaneous generation would amount to the creation of energy from nothing (see Figure 4). The Universe could not have come into existence without the presence and intervention of a Force outside of the closed system of the entire physical Universe. The Universe therefore must be an open system that was created by a non-physical Force (i.e., a Force not composed of mass, matter, and energy) outside of the physical boundary of this Universe (above nature, or supernatural) with the capability of bringing it into existence out of nothing. That Force can be none other than a supernatural God. To develop a theory that requires the violation of that principle would be against the scientific evidence. It would be unscientific. The evidence from science indicates that matter could not and cannot spontaneously generate.

Figure 4

Unfortunately, though this truth is so glaringly obvious to many, there has been a recent surge of sentiment in the impossible notion that this Universe could have created itself—that something could come from nothing. British evolutionist Anthony Kenny (1980), physics professor from City University in New York, Edward Tryon (1984), and physicists Alan Guth from M.I.T. and Paul Steinhardt of Princeton (1984) are just a few who are open proponents of this notion. Stephen Hawking said, “Bodies such as stars or black holes cannot just appear out of nothing. But a whole universe can…. Because there is a law like gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing” (2010, p. 180). However, the truth still stands. Until the First Law of Thermodynamics ceases to be a fundamental law explaining this Universe, the spontaneous generation of this Universe from nothing is impossible.

No wonder Victor Stenger, a proponent of the idea of spontaneous generation, said, “I must admit that there are yet no empirical or observational tests that can be used to test the idea of an accidental origin” (1987, 7[3]:30). According to Stenger, the idea is “speculative” (p. 30). No solid evidence. Just speculation. Famous evolutionary astronomer, Robert Jastrow, the founder and former director of the Goddard Institute for Space Studies at NASA, said:

But the creation of matter out of nothing would violate a cherished concept in science—the principle of the conservation of matter and energy—which states that matter and energy can be neither created nor destroyed. Matter can be converted into energy, and vice versa, but the total amount of all matter and energy in the Universe must remain unchanged forever. It is difficult to accept a theory that violates such a firmly established scientific fact (1977, p. 32).

Science studies what occurs in nature, not super-nature. In nature, matter and energy can be neither created or destroyed, but “must remain unchanged forever.” This is a “firmly established fact.” Nothing comes from nothing. If a molecule will not pop into existence from nothing, a sphere containing all of the matter and energy of the entire Universe will certainly not pop into existence.

Possibility 2: Eternal Existence of the Universe

Again, considering the entire Universe as a system necessitates that it be a closed system. The Second Law of Thermodynamics states that though energy in a closed system is constant (First Law of Thermodynamics), that energy is transforming into less usable forms of energy (i.e., the Universe is “running down”). This process is irreversible. There is a finite amount of usable energy in the Universe (which explains the widespread interest in conserving energy). In the Big Bang model, that energy was originally in the cosmic egg that exploded, and now would be found within the blast radius of the original explosion. That usable energy is depleting according to the Second Law. Engineers strive to slow this inevitable depletion of energy, but it cannot be stopped.

If the Universe has always existed (i.e., it is eternal), but there is a finite amount of usable energy, then all usable energy already should be expended (see Figure 5). Yet, usable energy still exists. So, the Universe cannot have existed forever. It had to have a beginning. The eternality of matter would be the equivalent of a system with an energy input and 100% usable energy output (see Figure 6). It would be the equivalent of describing the Universe as a perpetual motion machine—a design that attempts to violate either the First or Second Law of Thermodynamics by, for instance, running forever without an energy input. No such machine has ever been designed, since such a machine would violate the laws of thermodynamics. Philip Yam, writing in Scientific American said, “Claims for perpetual-motion machines and other free-energy devices still persist, of course, even though they inevitably turn out to violate at least one law of thermodynamics” (1997, 277[6]:82).

Figure 5

 

Figure 6

No wonder evolutionists, themselves, have long conceded this truth. In his book, Until the Sun Dies, renowned evolutionary astronomer Robert Jastrow stated:

The lingering decline predicted by astronomers for the end of the world differs from the explosive conditions they have calculated for its birth, but the impact is the same: modern science denies an eternal existence of the Universe, either in the past or in the future (1977, p. 30, emp. added).

In his book, God and the Astronomers, Jastrow reiterated this truth:

And concurrently there was a great deal of discussion about the fact that the second law of thermodynamics, applied to the Cosmos, indicates the Universe is running down like a clock. If it is running down, there must have been a time when it was fully wound up…. Now three lines of evidence—the motions of the galaxies, the laws of thermodynamics, the life story of the stars—pointed to one conclusion; all indicated that the Universe had a beginning (1978, pp. 48-49, 111).

Evolutionist Kitty Ferguson, award-winning science writer, agreed. She said, “It’s also common knowledge that the universe isn’t eternal but had a beginning” (1994, p. 89). Any person who develops a theory that claims that the Universe could be a perpetual motion machine, is guilty of contradicting the solid evidence from science. They are being unscientific, and their unscientific mindset has resulted in an unscientific theory.

Possibility 3: The Inevitable Implication

What does the scientific evidence actually say about the matter of origins? Forget speculation, conjecture, hypothesis, and theory—wishful, hopeful thinking that there might be some way to avoid a supernatural explanation and the restrictions that Being might have on our desires. What does the evidence say?

To repeat, logically, there are only three possible explanations for the existence of matter in the Universe. Either it spontaneously generated, it is eternal, or it was created by a non-physical Being outside of the boundaries of the Universe. Atheists use the theory of evolution in an attempt to explain the existence and state of the Universe today. In order for the theory of evolution to be true, thereby accounting for the existence of mankind, eitherall of the mass, matter, and energy of the Universe spontaneously generated (i.e., it popped into existence out of nothing), or it has always existed (i.e., it is eternal.). Without an outside force (a transcendent, omnipotent, eternal, superior Being), no other options for the existence of the Universe are available. However, as the Laws of Thermodynamics prove, the spontaneous generation and the eternality of matter are logically and scientifically impossible. One and only one possible option remains: the Universe was created by the Creator. The scientific evidence points to the existence of God. Bottom line: God designed the laws of thermodynamics. Creationists believe them. Engineers use them. Atheists cannot harmonize them with their beloved theory.

CONCLUSION

Evolutionists claim that science and the idea of God are irreconcilable. “Only one of them can be true,” they say, “and you cannot prove there is a God.” Not all theistic models for the origin of the Universe are in keeping with science. For instance, according to Enuma Elish, the Babylonian creation account, the polytheistic Babylonians believed that matter is eternal (Pfeiffer, 1972, p. 226). This has been shown to be false. However, although not all Creation models are in harmony with the scientific evidence, one would expect the true Creation model to be in keeping with the evidence. The Laws of Thermodynamics, which science itself recognizes in its explanations of the phenomena in the Universe, were written by the Chief Engineer (cf. Miller, 2012). As expected, they prove to be in complete harmony with His existence, contrary to the claims of evolutionists. God, Himself, articulated these laws centuries ago in the Bible.

At the very beginning of the Bible, the First Law of Thermodynamics was expressed when Moses penned, “Thus the heavens and the Earth, and all the host of them, were finished. And on the seventh day, God ended His work which He had done, and He rested on the seventh day from all His work which He had done” (Genesis 2:1-2, emp. added). In Exodus 20:11, Moses wrote, “For in six days, the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested (i.e., ceased) the seventh day.” Everything in the Universe was made in six days, and then the Lord stopped creating. Nothing else is coming into existence naturally. After the six days of Creation, the mass, matter, and energy creation process was terminated. As evolutionist Willard Young said regarding the First Law: “Energy can be neither created nor destroyed, but can only be converted from one form to another.” The thrust of the First Law of Thermodynamics was expressed in the Bible thousands of years ago, although it was not discovered and formally articulated by scientists until the 19^thcentury.

Through the hand of the psalmist, God also stated centuries ago what scientists call the Second Law of Thermodynamics: “Of old You laid the foundation of the Earth, and the heavens are the work of your hands. They will perish, but You will endure; yes, they will all grow old like a garment; like a cloak You will change them, and they will be changed. But You are the same, and Your years will have no end” (102:25-27, emp. added). The Universe is wearing out—decaying, like an old shirt: the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Once again, the Creation model is in perfect harmony with science. The evolutionary model fails its thermodynamics test.

The inspired writer wrote in Hebrews 11:3, “By faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that the things which are seen were not made of things which are visible.” Paul declared in Acts 14:17, “Nevertheless He did not leave Himself without witness, in that He did good, gave us rain from heaven and fruitful seasons, filling our hearts with food and gladness.” The psalmist affirmed, “The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament shows His handiwork” (19:1). Paul assured the Romans, “For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse” (1:20, emp. added). The scientific evidence points to God. There will be no excuse in the end for those who deny it.

In closing, we return to Lord Kelvin, the Father of Thermodynamics, for fitting final thoughts. In a short public speech in 1903, reported by The Times and followed up by an amending letter to the paper by Kelvin, Kelvin said:

I do not say that, with regard to the origin of life, science neither affirms nor denies Creative Power. Science positively affirms Creative Power…. It is not in dead matter that we live and move and have our being [Acts 17:28—JM], but in the creating and directive Power which science compels us to accept as an article of belief.... There is nothing between absolute scientific belief in a Creative Power, and the acceptance of the theory of a fortuitous concourse of atoms.... Forty years ago I asked Liebig, walking somewhere in the country if he believed that the grass and flowers that we saw around us grew by mere chemical forces. He answered, “No, no more than I could believe that a book of botany describing them grew by mere chemical forces”.... Do not be afraid of being free thinkers! If you think strongly enough you will be forced by science to the belief in God, which is the foundation of all Religion. You will find science not antagonistic but helpful to Religion (as quoted in Thompson, 1910, pp. 1097-1100, emp. added).

According to the Father of Thermodynamics, evolutionists are failing to “think strongly enough.” No wonder the psalmist asserted: “The fool has said in his heart, ‘There is no God’” (14:1).

REFERENCES

American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language (2000), (Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin), fourth edition.

Asimov, Isaac (1970), “In the Game of Energy and Thermodynamics You Can’t Even Break Even,” Smithsonian Institute Journal, pp. 4-10, June.

Borgnakke, Claus and Richard E. Sonntag (2009), Fundamentals of Thermodynamics (Asia: John Wiley and Sons), seventh edition.

Cengel, Yunus A. and Michael A. Boles (2002), Thermodynamics: An Engineering Approach(New York: McGraw-Hill), fourth edition.

Cengel, Yunus A., Robert H. Turner, and John M. Cimbala (2008), Thermal-Fluid Sciences(New York, NY: McGraw-Hill).

“Curiosity: Did God Create the Universe?” (2011), Discovery Channel, August 7.

Davies, Paul (1978), “Chance or Choice: Is the Universe an Accident?” New Scientist, 80[1129]:506-508, November.

Ferguson, Kitty (1994), The Fire in the Equations: Science, Religion, and the Search for God(Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans).

Guth, Alan (1997), The Inflationary Universe (New York: Perseus Books).

Guth, Alan and Paul Steinhardt (1984), “The Inflationary Universe,” Scientific American, 250:116-128, May.

Hawking, Stephen (2010), The Grand Design (New York, NY: Bantam Books).

Heeren, Fred (1995), Show Me God (Wheeling, IL: Searchlight Publications).

Jastrow, Robert (1977), Until the Sun Dies (New York: W.W. Norton).

Jastrow, Robert (1978), God and the Astro­nomers (New York: W.W. Norton).

Kenny, Anthony (1980), The Five Ways: St. Thomas Aquinas’ Proofs of God’s Existence (South Bend, IN: University of Notre Dame Press).

King, A.L. (1962), Thermophysics (San Francisco, CA: W.H. Freeman).

McGraw-Hill Dictionary of Scientific and Technical Terms (2003), pub. M.D. Licker (New York: McGraw-Hill), sixth edition.

Miller, Jeff (2007), “God and the Laws of Thermodynamics: A Mechanical Engineer’s Perspective,” Reason & Revelation, 27[4]:25-31, April, http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/3293.

Miller, Jeff (2012), “‘The Laws of Science’-by God,” Reason & Revelation, 32[12]:137-140, December, http://www.apologeticspress.org/apPubPage.aspx?pub=1&issue=1103&article=2072.

Moran, Michael J. and Howard N. Shapiro (2000), Fundamentals of Engineering Thermodynamics (New York: John Wiley & Sons), fourth edition.

Pfeiffer, Charles F. (1972), The Biblical World (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House).

Rifkin, Jeremy (1980), Entropy: A New World View (New York: Viking).

Spencer, Herbert (1882), First Principles: A System of Synthetic Philosophy (New York: D. Appleton and Company), fourth edition.

Stenger, Victor J. (1987), “Was the Universe Created?,” Free Inquiry, 7[3]:26-30, Summer.

Stenger, Victor J. (2007), God: The Failed Hypothesis (Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books).

Suplee, Curt (2000), Milestones of Science (Washington, D.C.: National Geographic Society).

Thompson, Bert, Brad Harrub, and Branyon May (2003), “The Big Bang Theory—A Scientific Critique [Part 1],” Reason & Revelation, 23[5]:32-34,36-47.

Thompson, Silvanus P. (1910), The Life of William Thomson Baron Kelvin of Largs, Vol. 2, (London: MacMillan and Co.).

Thomson, William (1882), Mathematical and Physical Papers (Cambridge University Press).

Tryon, Edward P. (1984), “What Made the World?,” New Scientist, 101:14-16, March 8.

Walters, Tracy (1986), “A Reply to John Patterson’s Arguments,” Origins Research, 9[2]:8-9, Fall/Winter.

Yam, Philip (1997), “Exploiting Zero-Point Energy,” Scientific American, 277[6]82-85.

Young, Willard (1985), Fallacies of Creationism (Calgary, Alberta, Canada: Detselig Enterprises).

---

Copyright © 2013 Apologetics Press, Inc. All rights reserved.