This is based on the First Law of Thermodynamics. Remember the “conservation of matter and energy” law? This argument alone erases any need to add millions and billions of years as a smokescreen to think if much time is allowed anything is possible. This is errant reasoning, but it is used a lot by those whose position runs counter to truth.

Many science laws are clearly theistic in what they state.

Wouldn’t it be great if once again our children could go to school and realize that biblical teaching from Sunday school was being reinforced? Take a look at one of the first laws taught in a science classroom. Most of us learned it as the law which deals with the conservation of matter (mass) and energy.

The First Law of Thermodynamics

In science, it is the First Law of Thermodynamics, also referred to as the Premier Law of the Sciences. It can be expressed in various ways. Here is a commonly taught expression: “Matter and energy cannot be created or destroyed but can be converted from one form to the other.” What does the first part say? It says that matter and energy cannot be created! In the natural realm these two “things” cannot come into existence! Every student’s hand should be in the air waving with excitement, as they ask, “How then, teacher, did they get here?” Now shouldn’t everyone be asking that question? If matter and energy cannot come into existence by natural means, what is left? It must have been supernatural! Again, just as the Bible teaches in Genesis, it indeed was a supernatural event. In Christian theology the term is Ex Nihilo, Latin for “out of nothing.” Is it no wonder then that the natural mind cannot explain origins?

But we’ve only begun. Take the cell theory (it should be a law because not one exception to it has ever been noted), which states, “All cells come from pre-existing cells.” How did the first cell get here? Any attempts scientists make to get around this theory and the Law of Biogenesis in biology are done by stepping out of science and into the metaphysical zone—whereby they expound on their beliefs and hopes to shore up their worldview of naturalism.

Oh, they clothe it in science language and then “unscientifically” refer to their beliefs as “hypotheses.” Now, understand it is not wrong to have a hypothesis about something unknown. However, when your hypothesis is not testable (cannot be falsified), or worse, when it runs counter to presently held science knowledge, it is not to be accepted as science!

For more on this book, see the release page.