NORTHWEST ARKANSAS — Mr. George Dean Patterson (Public Viewpoint, Jan. 16) asked why creationists don’t proclaim Albert Einstein to be an idiot. The question itself is framed in such a manner as to pit science against the Bible.
Science interprets data and that data can be viewed through lenses of different worldviews. Mr. Patterson’s worldview is obviously in line with naturalism, which excludes a priori any possibility of God, thus leaving evolution as the only viable option to him.
There are some problems with that worldview, however. Within a naturalistic paradigm, the universe has no cause or purpose, but is here by chance, yet the Big Bang theory implies a beginning to the universe - a conclusion that many naturalistic scientists would rather avoid. The Kalam Cosmological argument:
1) Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
2) The universe began to exist.
3) Therefore, the universe has a cause.
Second, the underpinnings of science itself - observation, reason and consistency in theuniverse - depend upon the existence of a creator. There is no reason for the universe to be ordered and fine-tuned as it is for life and observation. The degree of fine-tuning of the cosmological constant (first hypothesized by Einstein) is difficult to imagine, but its value exactly makes up for the lack of matter in the universe.
Einstein’s general relativity equations revealed what we’ve been able to test empirically today - an expanding universe, yet that conclusion did not square with the static view of his day, so he introduced a fudge factor called lambda. This permitted his theory of general relativity to mathematically hold the universe at a standstill. Einstein later called lambda his greatest blunder, yet it also reveals a tendency whereby adherence to a naturalistic worldview becomes a goal unto itself - philosophical naturalism. If there is no creator then the greatest accomplishments of science are akin to moving deck chairs around on the Titanic, for it all amounts to nothing in the end.
When viewed through purely naturalistic lenses, the data of the cosmos suggest one of two inevitable final states for life onEarth: death by heat or cold. If that is our destiny, what difference does any of this discussion make and why does Mr. Patterson concern himself about what others think of Einstein? If, on the other hand, there is a creator and sustainer of the universe as scientific data supports (the data is the same; it’s how one interprets the data), then Mr. Patterson’s question indirectly leads to some very worthwhile discussions.
Are creationists inconsistent in critiquing Albert Einstein and Charles Darwin? Darwin’s theory of evolution has crept into scientific classrooms without merit in an attempt to displace a necessary creator. Einstein’s theories, although not all correct, belong in the science and math classrooms alongside other scientists that denied atheism and recognized the impossibility of a non-created universe: Nicholas Copernicus, Sir Francis Bacon, Johannes Kepler, Galileo Galilei, Rene Descartes, Isaac Newton, Robert Boyle, Michael Faraday, Gregor Mendel, William Thomson Kelvin and Max Planck.
JOHN COMBER / Bentonville
Opinion, Pages 5 on 01/27/2011