Many atheists have championed modern studies in science to hold the final, logical steps in disproving the existence of God. These men and women are eager to explore all aspects of the natural world, only dreaming of what new patterns and systems they might find.
In a perfectly mirrored effort, religious followers, particularly conservative Christians, have refused to entertain evidence of anything that might offend their belief system. These people mentally plug their ears and happily label huge chunks of science as “tests of faith.”
Deep problems dwell within both parties that emerge only to frustrate those on the other side of the debate. The issue causing all the problems in both groups is the insurmountable fact that neither side has been able to prove anything. Atheists charge themselves with the responsibility of trying to come up with arguments and evidence that irrefutably disprove God; while Christians do not expect to ever find proof of God’s existence. The two groups talk past each other as Atheist demand the physical proof that Christians say is not there, and the Christians refuse to accept the evidence that Atheist arguments operate with. It comes down to a simple matter of faith vs. fact.
This debate is important to review because at some point it becomes necessary for both sides to discuss Entropy, a scientific principle that turns the tables. For this topic, it seems that science is left with the unanswerable questions while Christianity enjoys the comfort of the physically viable.
Entropy is a complex physical principle that, at one time or another, becomes necessary for almost every branch of science to discuss. Though several complex means of calculating its quantity have been determined, the basic concept of Entropy can be described as “a universal tendency for disorder.”
This (very) general view of Entropy is credited with any number of phenomena including heat flow and diffusion. It is also the scientific piece of evidence that many Creationists bring to their arguments. They champion the question, “If everything is becoming steadily disorganized then how could life get started? Or, for that matter, how could things have come together for the Big Bang?” It is here that the scientific community is left to scratch its collective head and ask if they have found something in science that disproves what else science indicates.
The first thing that must be said is that there is no use in scientifically arguing for the Big Bang. The theoretical event happened so long ago and occurred on such a mind-blowing scale that anyone who is honest with himself/herself cannot logically try and prove it with data we currently have. It must remain silent, nothing more than a (good) theory to be considered in another discussion.
The second and far more challenging thing that should be addressed is the theory of life formation. Many Christian bring forth arguments that challenge evolution, but it seems that issue is far too small. Life has the amazing ability to check itself against Entropy. It works constantly to achieve order and prevent its own collapse. Life continues to grow and thrive wherever it is given a chance. It can change its surroundings and even itself in order to survive.
The question that must be asked is how life existed when it was not able to defend itself. How could basic elements combine into amino acids and develop into organelles and cellular life? As stated before, Entropy here works in the favor of Creationists. Disorder cannot lead to order, and the odds of even a single cell forming on its own are statistically impossible. It is the Atheists who must now believe in something without seeing or recreating. Faith in a god becomes convenient, the easy alternative to challenging the apparent disorder of the universe.
The point to all this is simple: no matter who you are or what you believe, there is no belief system that denies all forms of faith. Entropy becomes another difficult scientific issue to come to terms with. Parts of the world cannot always be explained simply or rationally. Creationists use “God” to fill in the gaps while some scientists overstep their boundaries with assumptions that are logically probable but by no means certain.
Whatever side of the fence you find yourself on, keep in mind that both your perspective, and that of your opponents, takes a bit of faith. Nothing is truly certain, and I speculate that there will always be more questions than answers.
