by Jonas Leyrer

Created on: June 12, 2009

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

• 1
• 2
• Next Page >>