•To understand the value of chemistry and physics that is operational—dealing with real things that are testable, measurable, and repeatable. However, they do not adequately deal with origins.

•Chemistry as such is sound, operational science, but almost all secular books and institutions make mention of the naturalistic view of the origin of elements and sometimes the inherent belief (though unsupported) that life comes from non-life. If the latter is mentioned, it is treated as fact in that it must have happened…some way.

•Physics is also sound operational science, but most secular books also make mention that origins are naturalistic. Photographs and illustrations often portray ‘deep time’ in some fashion, thereby underscoring the similar treatment in other sciences. Cosmology (the study and/or philosophy of the origins of the universe), if mentioned, is usually treated as science, which it is not.

•The biblical world view, which is rarely accepted or mentioned, is from Genesis, where the order and appearance of things associated with God’s words and action yield the time, space, matter, energy, and earth (as the unique planet that is designed to be inhabited).

•Those who believe the biblical world view treat operational sciences as passionately as anyone, knowing that God is Creator and the sustainer of a universe filled with complexity, variety, and life on earth. Nevertheless, the biblical world view is rarely presented or acceptable in chemistry or physics explanations.

1.Discussion about the age of things is always evolution-based and presumes ‘deep time’ (billions of years). Nearly every textbook provides a section on dating methods (usually radiocarbon dating) and provides examples. Existing processes are then projected backward to arrive at a discussion of origins of the universe or elements, depending on the subject. In many cases, fossil dating techniques are used as examples. There is no discussion of the assumptions in dating methods, no discussion of any process that suggests short times, and no discussion of the interpretation part of dating methods. The answers or examples are familiar: billions of years for the age of the universe, earth, and first life. It is, of course, presumed that humans appeared on earth fairly recently (a handful of million years ago) and that their development was part of the accidental, undirected process.

2.Laws of science are appropriately mentioned, but their origins are never mentioned. Why are they present at all? Why is the behavior of things so predictable in an accidental by-chance universe? How can all this be? While origins from evolution are assumed as fact, the connection to a predictable universe with order is never discussed. How can it be the way it is? If an answer is given, which is rare, it always has to do with evolution and naturalism. The questions are never really answered, but the amount of ‘scientific’ explanation is deemed sufficient to move on to classic treatment of subjects.

3.The elements (in the periodic table), when their origin is discussed at all, are said to have themselves evolved from simpler ones following the assumed ‘big bang’ explosive start. It is true that nuclear processes in stars are capable of transforming one element into another in a restricted sense. But, to state that all the higher elements formed this way over 18 billion years with no known mechanism is a significant, unsupported assumption.

4.Chemical evolution (abiogenesis, or life from chemicals) is presumed. There is usually some discussion, which is based on a few experiments that have really demonstrated very little and come to a dead end. [Research note: origin of life.] There is almost always a purported explanation of the basic link between chemical and biological development that would lead to the first ‘evidence’ of life. The doubts, the gaps in information, the huge assumptions, and the experiments that suggest otherwise are never presented or discussed. Any child or young person would come away from the text believing this is firm, factual material. While these sections are short, they comprise the framework for physics and chemistry with respect to origins as they are taught today in most textbooks.

5.Continuous stellar evolution is presumed. All things are in a universe of undirected change. In real life, stars are seen burning out, dying, exploding, but the stellar evolutionary framework assumes that everything is evolving upwards in addition. Whether things being studied or presented are chemistry or physics or a combination of both, an origin (usually the Big Bang or its cousins) is presumed, but the process has never stopped. The subject is presented by giving examples of new findings about the solar system or the stars. The conclusions, which are stated in a factual context, are that stellar evolution is well understood and continues to happen. No observation of new stars is cited. Solar system theories of origins center on the ‘nebular hypothesis,’ but there is no mention of the huge problems. [Research note: nebular hypothesis.] Other problems in stellar evolutionary ‘theory’ are never presented or discussed.

1. The universe was created by God at His command as recorded in Genesis 1 and 2 (Unit 1) during the first six days of creation, and the remainder of the biblical record indicates a young earth since that time. There is supporting information from science, as well as historical evidence from Scripture, for a young earth. Key evidences, beginning with the scriptures, are listed below:

a. Biblical time line. There is a straightforward list of generations that are cited in Genesis 5 and 10 for the beginning period. Time references for ages at the time of events and listings of generations in later books are also given. The combined information shows that the earth is approximately 6000 years old; the Flood is 1656 years after the creation week with a small error band. Creation was finished on day 6 by God’s clear statement in Genesis 2:1. Statements in other places (Nehemiah 9:6, Job 38:4, Psalm 74:16-17, Isaiah 45:12, Matthew 19:4) indicate that the events of creation were completed as indicated by the use of past tense. They refer back to the Genesis account. Jesus Christ, the Messiah, referred back to the Genesis account.

b. Observations of a young earth and heavens are summarized below.

i. Comets. Comets are like dirty balls of ice that lose a lot of their mass each time they pass the sun. The calculations show that comets would have disappeared long ago in a billions-of-year world view. Rather than accept this possibility, evolutionists postulate either an unobserved long-period comet birthing region that is called the Oort Cloud or a Kuiper Belt that has enough small objects to be nuclei for the development of short-period comets. Both theories have serious flaws, no birthing of comets has been observed, and no self-birthing process has been defined. [Research note: comets]

ii. Star decay. As mentioned above, stellar decay is definitely widely observed while the evolution of new stars, although stated as fact from a naturalistic world view, has never been observed. Stellar decay is consistent with the winding down of the universe, which has been subjected to a dying process along with the rest of creation. Also, the creation event of stars is clearly in the past tense in several scriptures outside Genesis: Isaiah 48:13, 51:16; Job 38:31-32. The stars were created, placed, and named (Psalm 147:4). God says that creation stopped at the end of the 6th day, as stated in Genesis 2:1.

iii. Planet volcanism. The long evolutionary age of the planets (the age of the solar system) makes no sense in view of recently discovered volcanism on several smaller planets or moons. Within a naturalistic view, these should have cooled off long ago and should no longer be volcanically active.

iv. Moon orbit and position. The moon recedes gradually from earth; if this is calculated backwards, the moon would be far too close to earth in much less time than the prediction of naturalistic theories. [Research note: moon recession]

v. Sea salt. The rate of net increase of salt in the oceans indicates a maximum age for the oceans much less than the evolutionary billions of years. [Research note: salty seas]

vi. Erosion. With reasonable estimates of erosion, any major continent’s features would be utterly different than what we see in times far less than the millions of years that the naturalistic conjectures suggest.

vii. Worldwide flood yielding the recent fossil record. These are a few of the indicators for the recent Genesis Flood: (1) widespread presence of sedimentary rock that shows rapid formation of pliable or bendable layers before they rapidly hardened, (2) the presence of fossils that cross different strata, indicating rapid burial (they do not make sense within the notion of eons of uniform gradual deposits of material), (3) indicators that dinosaurs became extinct much more recently than believed due to findings of soft tissue, identifiable proteins, blood cells and even DNA in samples where naturalistic conjectures of the age for these creatures exceed 65 million years.

viii. Dating method flaws (also see Unit 4 Part 1 Lesson 3). Several dating methods show many different results; they should not. Dating methods have assumptions, and one of the recurring assumptions is the long ages themselves. (Radioactive) carbon 14 should no longer be detectable in a sample older than 100,000 years at the most. But if samples supposedly millions of years old are analyzed, it is almost always present. The amount of helium, formed from radioactive decay, still present in zircon crystals (it leaks out continually) is too high and indicates a young earth.

2. The clear and coherent record of creation by God is also consistent with His character stated in the Bible: He does not lie (Numbers 23:19); He is not the author of confusion (1 Cor 14:33); His universe is filled with laws that show His created universe to be predictable and orderly (Job 38:33, Jeremiah 33:25). Other scriptures in Job and Psalms draw attention to parts of His creation that show a vast array of order and complex relationships among different things. They illustrate the opposite of an accidental universe and earth that developed by chance (no direction involved).

3. Shifting from creation to observing to using aspects of creation around us involves appreciating the chemistry and physics genius of the Creator. With the orderly availability and features of elements, man has the building blocks to explore combinations and reactions. He is able to use the ordinances of physics to look at the dynamics of energy, matter, and time. The predictable order and behavior of things testifies of the Lord’s attention to building blocks that we work with to produce things, go places, and make things happen. The array of materials and processes testifies of the magnitude of His wisdom, and there is so much more to learn and employ. The tenor of the conversations with Job, the challenge of the prophets to consider the wonder of the Creator’s hand, and the blatant lordship over creation exhibited by Jesus Christ speaks of something going on that is far beyond our intellectual ability to fully grasp. God, the Creator, beckons anyone (not just scientists) to dive in, discover, produce useful things, and explore the unknown. Opportunities to solve problems abound, and this author believes that God is waiting for passionate believers with expertise in these fields to go to work. This view of these fields is simply missing from secular educational institutions, which is a shame in view of His hand to create the very things in question.