If you have seen any science documentaries on TV you have no doubt heard of the strong force. This is not to be confused with the Star Wars movie depiction of “The Force”. The strong force in science is a reference to the mechanism that holds the nucleus of an atom together. For what I understand as logic, the strong force is an argument for creation and consequently, a Creator.
How scientism approaches the strong force
Supposedly science is not biased in its approach. Science promotes itself as being able to explain every phenomenon by some natural process. But, consider their definition of the strong force.
A residual effect of the strong interaction, mediated by mesons, and binding protons and neutrons together within atomic nuclei.
A force between elementary or subatomic particles that holds quarks together to form protons and neutrons, and also binds protons and neutrons together in the atomic nucleus. The strong nuclear force is one of the four basic forces in nature, along with gravity, the electromagnetic force, and the weak nuclear force. Also, called strong interaction.
Each of these definitions come from the American Heritage Student Science Dictionary. This is the common definition found in almost all dictionaries.
Notice that there is no clear definition of the strong force. There is a description of what it does and what is brought about. But, there is no clear definition of the “strong force”.
It appears that science does not have the capability of knowing just what the strong force is. Science can tell what it does. But it lacks the knowledge to define it clearly. So far, it seems that science does not have the means to totally comprehend the strong force.
Strong force as opposed to weak force
Once again let’s go to the American Heritage Student Science Dictionary for a definition of the “weak force”.
A force that causes subatomic particles within the nuclei of atoms to decay or break up into smaller particles and to give off energy as radiation. The weak nuclear force is one of the four basic forces in nature, being weaker than the strong nuclear force and the electromagnetic force but stronger than gravity. Also, called weak interaction.
As you can see, again we see only the effects of the “weak force”. Though it is called “weak”, it is stronger than gravity. That means that of all the forces in the universe, supposedly, gravity is the weakest. Consider that point from time to time.
There is still no clear and precise definition of the weak force. It is becoming more and more evident that science is not the ultimate knowledge producer that was thought.
How could the big bang overcome the strong
If the “strong force” is the strongest of forces, how did another force overcome it? I speak in relation to the “Big Bang” scenario. Of course, science, assuming that it knows all, declares that natural law was not in effect at that point. Are they assuming a supernatural occurrence? Anything outside of the natural should be considered supernatural.
If science is to be consistent they must remain in the natural. To not do so makes them whimsical and disqualifies them from logical reasoning.
If the Big Bang could overcome the strong force, there must be a stronger source. Secular science says that all things must be constrained to the natural. That being so, science may have to reconsider its approach to the forces found in nature. Otherwise, they may have to let a “divine foot in the door”.
Science has a conundrum.
How could helium form after the big bang?
As if the big bang and the strong force were not a big enough problem, what about helium. I speak of helium not to exclude the other elements, but to easily define the problem. It is promoted by the Big Bang that helium formed when two hydrogen atoms combined in the young universe.
There is only one problem with the picture. Two protons are not attracted to one another. In fact, they repel one another. Have you ever tried to connect the north poles of two magnets? Depending on the strength of the magnets it is almost impossible to do. That is the problem that must be overcome to combine two hydrogen atoms to form a helium atom. The strong force is the tool that must be utilized to hold the protons together.
Of course, science sidesteps the issue by claiming quantum physics. This is almost like mystical science because it is merely a mental exercise. Quantum physics is not empirical science. It is mental gymnastics. It is not applicable to physical science.
Scientifically speaking, helium could not be formed from hydrogen after the big bang. The strong force would have to be in existence. If it were, the big bang could not happen. Of all things, science should be logical. Clearly, in the past century, we have seen science become a religion instead of a search for knowledge.
Because science today has become a tool of secularism it has abandoned one of its greatest tools. That tool is logic. Ocham’s Razor is one of the tools of logic. It simply says the simplest, least complicated explanation is usually the correct.
A prime example of this razor was the adoption of the Copernican System over the Ptolemaic System. The Ptolemaic said the earth was the center of the solar system. As knowledge of the solar system increased they were constantly adding addendums to the system. The celestial bodies were constantly being adjusted with epicycles to make them fit the system.
When Copernicus proposed that the sun was the center of the solar system, all the epicycles could be done away. Of course, we know even better that Copernicus was correct.
I say the above to get to this point. Secular scientists are constantly tweaking their versions of how the universe and life came to be. If one is to be honest, they have more “epicycles” than Ptolemy could ever conceive of. Why not be scientific and use a little logic. When you look at the strong force as an argument for creation, then things become much more logical.
The law of cause and effect
There is a law of science which is well-established and has never been proven wrong. It is the law of cause and effect. It simply states that “the cause is always greater than the effect.” It answers the question, “Which is greater?” The answer is, “The cause.”
That is always the case. We have looked at the strong force. From all that we can find about the science of this force, there is nothing stronger. That is true if we limit our search to purely natural things. But, is that true science. If we are honest, the strong force is an argument for creation, not the big bang.
If science is the search for knowledge and truth, then to limit the scope is to deny the definition. Truth is truth, it does not matter if it is natural or spiritual.
If the effect we observe is the “strong force”, then the cause must be the “stronger force”. Or maybe better stated, it is the “strongest force”. A true scientist will not rule out this possibility because it is a logical assumption.
An all-powerful Creator
To propose an all-powerful Creator in light of the foregoing arguments is not illogical. In fact, the Biblical account of creation provides a logical presentation in line with Ocham’s Razor. There is not one thing in science that does not fit with the logic laid out in the biblical history of man.
To limit what we see in creation to only natural causes is illogical. The results are that scientists become more and more storytellers instead of presenters of knowledge. Try to read a scientific paper based on secular science and you will find more speculation that real science.
If just the strong force were the only argument for creation, that would probably be enough. Considering that it addresses the fundamental building block of all nature, it is a foundational reason.
However, it is only one of many scientific reasons that creation by a Creator should be part of science. We take so much of what scientists say simply because they are scientists. It would be wise that we begin to consider all areas of science. If science is the search for truth, then we must begin with truth itself.
There was one person who said this, “I am the way, The Truth, and the life.” He was either a liar or he was telling the truth. It would be worth every scientist’s while to find out which is correct. I have studied the man over fifty years and have found that everything he said was true.
I challenge you to do the same. If you are close minded and think you already have all knowledge, you may not wish to learn of him. His name is Jesus of Nazareth. His title is the King of Kings and Lord of Lords. He is the Creator and Sustainer of the universe. If you want to learn truth, study under Him.
You can begin by reading the textbook of creation. We call it the Holy Bible.
If you accept my challenge you will embark on the greatest adventure you will ever take. May God bless you and prosper you in your adventure.