If, universally, all systems and processes are “winding down”, dissipating energy and becoming more disordered over time, this implies the universe will at some point reach a state of equilibrium with constant temperature everywhere and the energy in all stars and other systems will have dissipated. Since this has not yet happened, the implication is that the universe has NOT always existed or else equilibrium would have already been reached. The universe exists, thus it must have had a beginning. Since natural processes have never been observed creating something from nothing, the only explanation for the existence of the universe is an un-natural or super-natural creation.

Since we are unaware of any universal maintenance program, we can conclude that the universe will continually proceed in the direction of increasing disorder (Entropy) and energy dissipation, thus eventually reaching a state of equilibrium everywhere.

Second Law of Thermodynamics - The Laws of Heat Power
The Second Law of Thermodynamics is one of three Laws of Thermodynamics. The term "thermodynamics" comes from two root words: "thermo," meaning heat, and "dynamic," meaning power. Thus, the Laws of Thermodynamics are the Laws of "Heat Power." As far as we can tell, these Laws are absolute. All things in the observable universe are affected by and obey the Laws of Thermodynamics.

The First Law of Thermodynamics, commonly known as the Law of Conservation of Matter, states that matter/energy cannot be created nor can it be destroyed. The quantity of matter/energy remains the same. It can change from solid to liquid to gas to plasma and back again, but the total amount of matter/energy in the universe remains constant.

Second Law of Thermodynamics - Increased Entropy
The Second Law of Thermodynamics is commonly known as the Law of Increased Entropy. While quantity remains the same (First Law), the quality of matter/energy deteriorates gradually over time. How so? Usable energy is inevitably used for productivity, growth and repair. In the process, usable energy is converted into unusable energy. Thus, usable energy is irretrievably lost in the form of unusable energy.

"Entropy" is defined as a measure of unusable energy within a closed or isolated system (the universe for example). As usable energy decreases and unusable energy increases, "entropy" increases. Entropy is also a gauge of randomness or chaos within a closed system. As usable energy is irretrievably lost, disorganization, randomness and chaos increase.

Second Law of Thermodynamics - In the Beginning...
The implications of the Second Law of Thermodynamics are considerable. The universe is constantly losing usable energy and never gaining. We logically conclude the universe is not eternal. The universe had a finite beginning -- the moment at which it was at "zero entropy" (its most ordered possible state). Like a wind-up clock, the universe is winding down, as if at one point it was fully wound up and has been winding down ever since. The question is who wound up the clock?

The theological implications are obvious. NASA Astronomer Robert Jastrow commented on these implications when he said, "Theologians generally are delighted with the proof that the universe had a beginning, but astronomers are curiously upset. It turns out that the scientist behaves the way the rest of us do when our beliefs are in conflict with the evidence." (Robert Jastrow, God and the Astronomers, 1978, p. 16.)

Jastrow went on to say, "For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries." (God and the Astronomers, p. 116.) It seems the Cosmic Egg that was the birth of our universe logically requires a Cosmic Chicken...

Let's start with the second question. Physicists would prefer to say that energy is conserved, not matter. In relativity theory we can convert one to another but energy is always conserved. That statement is not in conflict with the Second Law of Thermodynamics which states that in a closed system any process can either keep the entropy constant or increase the entropy of the system. The key is the form of the energy. In the universe today there are processes all around us that are converting one type of energy or another into heat energy. So the question is, what happens when all the usable energy is converted into heat?

That's a famous question that people thought a lot about in the nineteenth century. It goes under the name of the 'Heat Death of the Universe.' In short, once all of the energy in the universe is converted to heat then the universe will be in equilibrium -- everything will be of the same temperature and entropy will remain constant forever. This is complicated a bit by the fact that the universe is expanding. In an expanding universe you can never really reach equilibrium -- but the scientists of the 1800s didn't know about the expanding universe so let's just assume that the universe is static.

In such a universe we have a 'heat bath' of photons. These are the cosmic microwave background photons at a 'temperature' of 2.78 Kelvin. That's a pretty cold heat bath, and obviously you and I and the sun are much hotter. So we're not in equilibrium with the heat bath of the universe. But over time, as the sun burns hydrogen and as planets collide and break apart and as particles decay and so on, everything eventually ends up as photons or other elementary particles which eventually come to equilibrium. This is the conversion to 'heat.' The reason that we no longer worry about the heat death of the universe is that the time it would take for everything around us to convert to heat is many, many times longer than the current age of the universe. Our universe is marching very, very slowly towards equilibrium!

The concepts of entropy and irreversibility, derived from the second principle, have had a tremendous impact on our view of the universe. In breaking the vicious circle of repetitiveness in which the ancients were trapped, and in being confronted with biological evolution generating order and organization, the concept of entropy indirectly opens the way to a philosophy of progress and development (see: the direction of evolution). At the same time it introduces the complementarity between the "two great drifts of the universe" described in the works of Bergson and Teilhard de Chardin.

The image of the inexorable death of the universe, as suggested by the second principle, has profoundly influenced our philosophy, our ethics, our vision of the world, and even our art. The thought that by the very nature of entropy the ultimate and only possible future for man is annihilation has infiltrated our culture like a paralysis. This consideration led Leon Brillouin to ask, "How is it possible to understand life when the entire world is ordered by a law such as the second principle of thermodynamics, which points to death and annihilation?"

This article also appears in the book In Six Days - Why Fifty Scientists Choose to Believe in Creation, edited by John F. Ashton, and published by Master Books, Green Forest, AR. Copyright 2000 by John F. Ashton. It is available on-line from Answers in Genesis .

A formal definition of the second law of thermodynamics is "In any closed system, a process proceeds in a direction such that the unavailable energy (the entropy) increases." In other words, in any closed system, the amount of disorder always increases with time. Things progress naturally from order to disorder, or from an available energy state to one where energy is more unavailable. A good example: a hot cup of coffee cools off in an insulated room. The total amount energy in the room remains the same (which satisfies the first law of thermodynamics). Energy is not lost, it is simply transferred (in the form of heat) from the hot coffee to the cool air, warming up the air slightly. When the coffee is hot, there is available energy because of the temperature difference between the coffee and the air. As the coffee cools down, the available energy is slowly turned to unavailable energy. At last, when the coffee is room temperature, there is no temperature difference between the coffee and the air, i.e. the energy is all in an unavailable state. The closed system (consisting of the room and the coffee) has suffered what is technically called a "heat death." The system is "dead" because no further work can be done since there is no more available energy. The second law says that the reverse cannot happen! Room temperature coffee will not get hot all by itself, because this would require turning unavailable energy into available energy.

Now consider the entire universe as one giant closed system. Stars are hot, just like the cup of coffee, and are cooling down, losing energy into space. The hot stars in cooler space represent a state of available energy, just like the hot coffee in the room. However, the second law of thermodynamics requires that this available energy is constantly changing to unavailable energy. In another analogy, the entire universe is winding down like a giant wind-up clock, ticking down and losing available energy. Since energy is continually changing from available to unavailable energy, someone had to give it available energy in the beginning! (I.e. someone had to wind up the clock of the universe at the beginning.) Who or what could have produced energy in an available state in the first place? Only someone or something not bound by the second law of thermodynamics. Only the creator of the second law of thermodynamics could violate the second law of thermodynamics, and create energy in a state of availability in the first place.

As time goes forward (assuming things continue as they are), the available energy in the universe will eventually turn into unavailable energy. At this point, the universe will be said to have suffered a heat death, just like the coffee in the room. The present universe, as we know it, cannot last forever. Furthermore, imagine going backwards in time. Since the energy of the universe is constantly changing from a state of availability to one of less availability, the further back in time one goes, the more available the energy of the universe. Using the clock analogy again, the further back in time, the more wound up the clock. Far enough back in time, the clock was completely wound up. The universe therefore cannot be infinitely old. One can only conclude that the universe had a beginning, and that beginning had to have been caused by someone or something operating outside of the known laws of thermodynamics.

Is this scientific proof for the existence of a Creator God? I think so. Evolutionary theories of the universe cannot counteract the above arguments for the existence of God. Evidence such as this helped to convince me to believe in God, and to accept His plan of salvation through His son Jesus Christ. For further detailes about my conversion to Christianity, I have written a short testimony.

Philosophical and Theological
If there are any scientific laws that have universal acceptance, and universal applicability, they are the laws of thermodynamics. Thermodynamics literally means "energy in action." It is a word with roots that indicate that it has to do with both heat and motion. (See here for the Wikipedia article on the first law , and on the second law . There are actually more than two laws, but I won't consider any but the first and second in this document.)


Statements/definitions
The first law of thermodynamics may be stated thus: "energy can neither be created nor destroyed." This law does not rule out transformations of energy from one form to another, or even transformations of energy to matter, and the reverse, as according to Einstein's E=mc2 equation. If it is true, it means that neither energy, nor matter, can be created from nothing.
The second law of thermodynamics is more difficult to state in plain English. Here is an attempt: "In any transformation of energy from one form to another, 'useful' energy is lost."
The first law is sometimes stated as "you can't get something for nothing." The second law tells us that not only can't we get something for nothing, but that we always lose in the process. We give up more than we get, energetically speaking.

A familiar consequence of that is the fact that much of the energy of automobile engines does not end up in motion, but in overcoming friction. Another is that it is not possible to have a refrigerator, freezer, or air conditioner that merely removes energy from one place to another. In the process of moving energy, each of these actually increases the total heat in the universe, as it uses electricity (or gas, etc.) to do its work, and some of that work is not merely to transfer heat, but to overcome friction. Another consequence is that when light energy is transformed into chemical energy in green plants by photosynthesis, and then to chemical energy in animals that eat green plants, most of the light energy is not actually transformed into chemical energy in animals, but does various "non-useful" things. As a result, meat of all kinds is more expensive than plant food, either in the grocery store, or if you grow your own. To put it another way, you can feed a family on a lot less space, using a garden, than the space required to feed the same family, if they eat only meat.


An ordered system. Entropy is low. There is a concentration of some substance in one area.

Another statement of the second law is that entropy, or randomness, is constantly increasing. We rely on the fact that the universe is not random. For instance, there are concentrations of water, oil, and iron that we can use. If water molecules were distributed evenly throughout the universe, life would be impossible, because there would be no concentration of water for us to drink. Another homely consequence of this is that, left to itself, any system, such as your house, or room, or desk, or hard disk, or car, gets more and more disordered.

You can not put such a system in order without expending energy. In the very process of applying energy, for instance to run the vacuum cleaner, the amount of useful energy in the universe declines, or the entropy increases.

Scientists say that the increase of entropy must take place in a closed system. Your house isn't a closed system. Energy is brought in from outside, so that it isn't "left to itself." But the universe is a closed system, unless there is an external power acting on it.


A disordered system. Entropy is high. There isn't a concentration of a substance.


Consequences
There are important philosophic and religious implications of the laws of thermodynamics.
If the first law is true, and has always been true, then the universe has always existed. If the second law is true, and has always been true, then if the universe has always existed, by this "time" it would have achieved complete entropy. If you don't understand these statements, read the first section over again, carefully. Obviously these statements are not both true. If they were, the universe would be uninhabitable. How to explain this? The only explanation is that laws of thermodynamics haven't always been true. Why not? One possibility is that there was intervention by a supernatural God, creating something from nothing, in the initial creation of the universe. Another way to say this is that the universe had a definite beginning. There was a time when it did not exist, at least in its present form, then God brought it into being. It is impossible to prove or disprove this, scientifically. However, it is a solution to the dilemma posed in the italicized statements at the beginning of this paragraph.

Unfortunately, some people consider all explanations involving God to be non-scientific, regardless of their merits. Just as unfortunately, many people do not understand the dilemma at the beginning of the previous paragraph. Also unfortunate is the fact that some religious people, at least some Christians, have put limits on the length of time from the initial creation to the present. Scripture does not say when the universe began.

Another solution to the dilemma is to say that the "big bang" (That is, a giant explosion that changed the universe from some original state to the present one, at some specific time in the distant past) started the universe, or started it over. The two solutions, that God began the universe, or that there was a big bang, are not necessarily contradictory. Many Christian scientists believe that God used the big bang to start the universe as we know it. The big bang is not an explanation, by itself. It merely puts the question one step back. What caused the big bang? (Referring to God also leads to a question one step back, namely "Where did God come from?" The usual explanation is that God has always existed; He is eternal.) It seems to me that any explanation of the beginning of the universe depends on ideas that cannot be proved, that require faith , in other words.

In his The Unconscious Quantum (Amherst, New York: Prometheus Books, 1995) Victor J. Stenger says that "In fact, our best current estimate of the total energy of the universe, including the rest energy of matter, is essentially consistent with zero. Within observational accuracies, the rest and kinetic energies of the material bodies of the universe are almost exactly balanced by the negative potential energy of their gravitational interactions." (p. 219) He goes on to say that this includes so-called dark matter, and to explicitly indicate that, if the total energy in the universe is now zero, no violation of the first law of thermodynamics would have been necessary at the beginning of the universe. Dark matter is beyond the scope of the courses I teach, which is a good thing, because I don't understand it. (I'm not sure anyone does.) However, even if Stenger is correct, (which would make an argument for a creator from the laws of thermodynamics weaker, or nullify it entirely) three points can be raised. 1) Why and how did the universe arise from nothing? 2) What he says does not rule out God's activity, at the beginning, and now. 3) There has still been a very long time for the second law to operate, if the beginning of the universe took place as far back as standard scientific theory says it did. For more on this subject, see the Energy of the Cosmos section of the Wikipedia article on Physical Cosmology. I include this paragraph because I want to acknowledge views which differ with mine. I am not sure how well Stenger represents the part of the scientific community with expertise in this area. A review of this book , by an atheist with physics qualifications, indicates that he is obsessively against anything that hints of the spiritual.

Although the second law of thermodynamics does mean that energy transformations are inefficient in practical terms, and implies that all energy transformations result in lost useful energy, this does not apply to every energy transformation. For example, if an electron absorbs energy, it can be said to have been raised to a new electron level, or to a higher shell. This situation is an unstable state, and eventually the electron will move back to its original position, and the energy be given off. (In fact, this is what is happening when a fluorescent object, such as a watch that glows in the dark, gives off light--some of its electrons were boosted to a higher energy level during exposure to light, and fall back to the original level over a period of time.) When energy is given off by an electron falling, the energy given off is exactly the same amount as the original energy absorbed.
The Resurrection

. . . and his incomparably great power for us who believe. That power is like the working of his mighty strength, which he exerted when he raised him from the dead and seated him at his right hand in the heavenly realms . . . (Ephesians 1:19-20, NIV)
The definitions of life and death are complex, and philosophical as well as biological. Generally, living things are in a constant battle with the second law of thermodynamics. However, so long as they can obtain enough energy, they win this battle. They can build themselves as non-random, ordered objects. We do this, however, only at the expense of order in the universe at large. We can expend energy to build. However, when we do so, we are taking energy from somewhere else, which means that there are processes involved that change energy from one form to another.

One of the things that happens as a result of death is that the ability of a living thing to stave off the inexorable increase of entropy is gone. Death leads to decay. As Polkinghorne puts it:

In our present world, change and decay are built into the fabric of the universe. The processes by which genetic mutations produce new forms of life are the processes by which cells become cancerous. Death is the necessary cost of life. In fact, a theological defense of the existence of physical evil is that it is not gratuitous but the inescapable price of an evolutionary world, free to make itself within the independence its Creator has granted to it. John C. Polkinghorne, Serious Talk: Science and Religion in Dialogue. Harrisburg, PA: Trinity Press International, 1995, p. 107.
Not only does death lead to decay, but this decay is, in the practical sense, irreversible. If I had the money, and offered some famous research institution a trillion dollars if they could bring one dead oak leaf back to life, I wouldn't lose my money. It is not humanly possible to reverse the decay in a dead organism, or part of an organism, and bring it back to life.

The resurrection, of course, is miraculous, any way you want to look at it. It wasn�t, or isn�t, humanly possible. We cannot reverse the effects of the second law on a dead leaf, much less a dead human. No wonder Paul called resurrection power "immeasurable" in Ephesians 1:19-20 . God�s promise is that Christians have this power working in us.

Diet
(Note also the fourth paragraph in this document, which deals with plant vs. animal food.) Body processes often transform energy from one form to another. When this happens, according to the second law, useful energy is lost. As a result, even adults must have a source of energy to live on. The only significant source of energy for humans is the food they eat. By the laws of thermodynamics, there are three possibilities. If you take in less useful energy than you lose, you will lose energy (calories). Since calories are stored in material, chemical, form, that means that you will lose weight. If you take in more energy than you lose, you will gain calories and weight. If you take in the same amount, on the average, you will maintain your current calorie amount and weight.

Temperature and Heat
Temperature is a measure of the velocity of the average molecule. In other words, when the temperature is 100 any molecules that can move easily are moving considerably faster than they would be at 50. At absolute zero, all molecular motion would cease. (Actually, absolute zero has never been detected. It is possible to come close to it in laboratory situations, and some remarkable things happen when you do. Absolute zero is about -473o Fahrenheit.)
Heat is a measure of the total heat energy in a body. Among other things, heat depends on the size of the object. Two liters of water of water at 100o would have twice as much heat as one liter of water at the same temperature. The average molecular motion, or temperature, would be the same in both portions of water.

The reason mercury or alcohol thermometers (the kind with fluid in a tube) work is that as the temperature rises, the molecules move faster, and thus tend to move farther apart. In other words, the fluid expands. The actual motion of a molecule depends on a number of factors, one of them being the size. All other things being equal, a large molecule moves more slowly than a smaller molecule or atom. Hydrogen atoms can move very rapidly. Hydrogen and Helium molecules are very small. They do not remain in the atmosphere very long. They move fast enough to escape from earth�s gravity. There is little free Hydrogen or Helium in our atmosphere.

Nuclear Fusion
Please remember that when a system gives off energy, it becomes more stable. This is true of atomic nuclei, too. The mass of a neutron is 1.008665 atomic mass units. (amu) The mass of a proton is 1.007276 amu. The mass of a Helium4 nucleus is 4.002603 amu. The total mass of the 2 neutrons and 2 protons which make up a Helium4 nucleus is 4.031882 amu. What happened to the remaining 0.029279 amu? It was converted to energy according to Einstein�s E=mc2 equation. This is the binding energy. Since there are 4 nucleons in He4, the binding energy per nucleon is equivalent to 0.00731975 amu = 0.029279amu/4. This energy was given up in the formation of the Helium4 nucleus.
Consider a pile of kindling wood and enough matches to light it, versus the pile of ashes that would be formed if it were burned. Which is most stable? The ashes. Which would be more stable, partially burned or totally burned wood? Totally burned wood. Which would have given off more energy? Totally burned wood. Binding energy and burning can be compared. The more binding energy that is given off, the more stable a nucleus will be.

The sun is an enormous object. Its mass is about six trillion metric tons, or about 333,000 greater than the mass of the earth. This means that the gravitational attraction of the sun is much greater than that of the earth. This, in turn, means that it is difficult for Hydrogen nuclei to escape the gravitational pull of the sun. Almost 75% of the sun is made of Hydrogen, and most of the remainder is made of Helium.

I indicated above that Helium4 has a binding energy, and that mass is lost in the formation of He4 from protons and neutrons. Helium4 can be made from Hydrogen1. Most of the energy of the sun comes from just that reaction. The temperature of the interior of the sun is estimated to be in the millions. One consequence of that is that high temperature is that electrons almost always leave their nuclei entirely�they are just sort of running madly around, not attached to anything. Another result of the high temperature is that the remaining Hydrogen nuclei, or protons, are moving so rapidly that they can overcome the repulsion between two positive objects, and combine into a single entity. In the process, one of them becomes a neutron. This new nucleus, H2, has given off binding energy. Actually, the process continues with further proton capture, and eventually a He4 nucleus is formed. This is even more stable than H2. Some of the energy given off by this process escapes the sun, and it is a good thing, because that energy is the energy which living things on earth depend on.

The sun is not burning in the usual sense. The energy of the sun comes from nuclear fusion.

A formal definition of the second law of thermodynamics is "In any closed system, a process proceeds in a direction such that the unavailable energy (the entropy) increases." In other words, in any closed system, the amount of disorder always increases with time. Things progress naturally from order to disorder, or from an available energy state to one where energy is more unavailable. A good example: a hot cup of coffee cools off in an insulated room. The total amount energy in the room remains the same (which satisfies the first law of thermodynamics). Energy is not lost, it is simply transferred (in the form of heat) from the hot coffee to the cool air, warming up the air slightly. When the coffee is hot, there is available energy because of the temperature difference between the coffee and the air. As the coffee cools down, the available energy is slowly turned to unavailable energy. At last, when the coffee is room temperature, there is no temperature difference between the coffee and the air, i.e. the energy is all in an unavailable state. The closed system (consisting of the room and the coffee) has suffered what is technically called a "heat death." The system is "dead" because no further work can be done since there is no more available energy. The second law says that the reverse cannot happen! Room temperature coffee will not get hot all by itself, because this would require turning unavailable energy into available energy.

Now consider the entire universe as one giant closed system. Stars are hot, just like the cup of coffee, and are cooling down, losing energy into space. The hot stars in cooler space represent a state of available energy, just like the hot coffee in the room. However, the second law of thermodynamics requires that this available energy is constantly changing to unavailable energy. In another analogy, the entire universe is winding down like a giant wind-up clock, ticking down and losing available energy. Since energy is continually changing from available to unavailable energy, someone had to give it available energy in the beginning! (I.e. someone had to wind up the clock of the universe at the beginning.) Who or what could have produced energy in an available state in the first place? Only someone or something not bound by the second law of thermodynamics. Only the creator of the second law of thermodynamics could violate the second law of thermodynamics, and create energy in a state of availability in the first place.

As time goes forward (assuming things continue as they are), the available energy in the universe will eventually turn into unavailable energy. At this point, the universe will be said to have suffered a heat death, just like the coffee in the room. The present universe, as we know it, cannot last forever. Furthermore, imagine going backwards in time. Since the energy of the universe is constantly changing from a state of availability to one of less availability, the further back in time one goes, the more available the energy of the universe. Using the clock analogy again, the further back in time, the more wound up the clock. Far enough back in time, the clock was completely wound up. The universe therefore cannot be infinitely old. One can only conclude that the universe had a beginning, and that beginning had to have been caused by someone or something operating outside of the known laws of thermodynamics.

http://english.pravda.ru/science/earth/16-03-2010/112596-beginning-0

We've all asked the question from the age of 2. Why did the universe have a beginning but not God? If God didn't have a beginning why should the universe have a beginning. Couldn't the universe just have always existed? Why a need for God?

Tactical Operational Missile Complex Tochka-U in Action
More...

The answer is found in understanding why the universe had to have a beginning. Science supports Einstein's claim that the universe is a closed system. That means it has finite energy. Even though energy cannot be created or destroyed (by any natural processes), over time the useful energy in the universe becomes more and more useless. This is known in science as the Second Law of Thermodynamics. If the universe were eternal then all of the energy would have become totally useless by now and I wouldn't be writing this article and you wouldn't be reading it either!

Isn't the Second Law of Thermodynamics merely an expression of probability? Yes, but the probability is so high and certain that the odds of just one calorie of energy spontaneously defying the Second Law would be trillions times trillions to one, and the universe is made up of far more than just one calorie of energy!

We know from the First Law of Thermodynamics in science that matter/energy cannot be created from nothing by any natural process. Since the second law teaches us that the universe does not have the ability to have sustained itself from all eternity and first law teaches us that the universe could not have brought itself into existence, the only logical and rational conclusion is that a supernatural power (God) brought the universe into existence. Furthermore, the complexity and order in the universe logically points to a supreme mind. Disorder in the universe is because of chance but the high degree of order can only be rationally explained due to a supreme mind or intelligence.

Natural laws may explain how the order in the universe operates, but mere undirected natural laws are insufficient to explain the origin of that order. Even in life, once there is a complete and living cell then the code and mechanisms exist to direct the formation of more cells. The problem is how did life come about when there was no already existing directing code and mechanism in nature.

And what about the stars? Oh, yes, gravity may explain how the order found in the precise courses of trillions of stars is maintained, but mere undirected gravity cannot explain the origin of that order!

What about natural selection? Natural selection is a passive process in nature making sure that only the fit survive. Natural selection doesn't produce anything. It can only "select" from what is produced. Natural selection is not an energy converting and directing mechanism, and natural selection only operates once there is life and reproduction and not before.

God's nature doesn't require that He have a beginning. God is self-sustaining. The universe is not. And because the universe is not ultimately self-sustaining, the universe requires creation (a beginning) as well as a supreme designer and a supreme sustainer. In other words, the universe requires God.

Ultimately, however, scientists concede that the Second Law of Thermodynamics will conquer the entire universe and the universe, if left to itself, will end in what scientists predict will be a heat death because all of the energy in the universe will reach a uniform state where no more work of any kind will be possible. Even a contracting and expanding universe would no longer be possible in such a state. This proves, as mentioned earlier, that the universe could not be eternal or otherwise it would have long ago reached this point of uniform energy decay or level.

All of this simply supports the belief that an intelligent power outside of nature and the universe was responsible for its origin and order.

Science cannot prove that we came about by creation or by chance processes, but educators and students should be free to investigate and make up their own minds as to which position the scientific evidence best supports.

Belief in neither chance origins nor creation is necessary to the actual study of science itself. One can understand the human body and become a first class surgeon regardless of whether he or she believes the human body is the result of the chance forces of Nature or of a Supreme Designer.

It takes faith to believe we're here by chance or by design. The latter is the wiser faith.