Today most cosmologists believe the universe had a beginning in the Big Bang. However, a beginning for the universe strongly suggests an intelligent causal agent to wind things up, as it were. Since the majority of cosmologists are committed to naturalism, they have been forced to search for a cosmological silver bullet: an explanation for how the universe could spring into existence uncaused.
The oscillating universe theory is one such silver bullet. It tries to get around the question of how the universe began by suggesting the universe oscillates. But if this is true, what caused the oscillations to begin? Another theory, recently put forward, was of multiple overlapping universes existing simultaneously. For this to be true there would have to be some sort of “universe factory” to crank out universes. Ignoring the obvious requirement for a higher intelligence to design such an unlikely universe factory, these same scientists keep grasping for some sort of naturalistic explanation where there is none.
Deist or Theist?
Suppose you were a devoted atheist until you sat down and pondered all this. Then, after researching the particulars on your own, with an open mind, you came to the same conclusion I’ve presented here: There must be a God. The next logical query would be whether this God is personal or impersonal. A deist is a person who believes God is an impersonal distant intelligence who does not interact with His creation. A theist is a person who believes God is personally involved with and cares deeply about His creation, even having personal relationships with individuals. If you are wondering which kind of God to believe in, perhaps you should continue to examine the evidence to determine which is more likely, and therefore more believable.
The Kalam principle suggests a personal Creator. If a man were to walk into a kitchen and find a pot of water boiling, he might ask his wife why the water is boiling. His wife could explain it in terms of kinetic energy or she could say she was making him tea. The former explanation is impersonal (scientific only) while the latter is personal. Since there is no scientific (impersonal) explanation for creation, the reason must be personal. Moreover, if God is indeed personally involved with His creation, it seems logical to seek Him if we are to seek our origin and thus our destiny.
What are the odds of a livable planet?
The odds of life being possible anywhere in the universe is astronomically low. To have the correct combination of gravity, atmosphere, temperature, water, minerals, radiation and radiation shielding, solar characteristics, lunar characteristics, and so forth requires a lengthy list of measured constants to be in perfect alignment. Suppose there were only ten such diverse variables. Suppose each variable had only ten possible values. Life requires each of the ten dials to be set correctly. If any one dial is off, even by a value of 1, life cannot exist. That means the odds of a particular solar system having a habitable planet is one in 10 billion. Most stars do not have the energy range, light range, size, or stability of our sun. Most planets we’ve been able to observe orbiting distant stars are not the perfect distance from their star and not of appropriate mass or composition. Most stars are not of the right composition. Near the center of the Milky Way there is tremendous violent radiation making life anywhere near the nucleus highly unlikely. Of the few planets discovered around other stars, they have been found to have radically oblong orbits compared with the orbits of most of our planets. Earth is in the right part of the galaxy. It is orbiting a star of the correct size and composition, at the right distance and speed, with the right solar and lunar gravitational forces, the right magnetic force, the right ozone, the right outer radiation belt, the right amount of hydrogen and helium in the atmosphere, the right amount of oxygen, the right amount of water, the right temperature range, and in general, all the right chemistry to support life. Given these factors, the odds of getting a habitable planet elsewhere in the universe are considerably lower than one in ten billion, yet here we are.
Nuclear chemistry, the Big Bang and Creation cosmology
Nuclear chemistry doesn’t support Big Bang cosmology. Rather it points to a created cosmology. Here’s why.
First, according to the Big Bang theory, large clouds of swirling dust in space spun out into solar systems. Initially all the dust which a solar system is made from is essentially uniformly randomly scattered bits of the same stuff. But if this theory is correct, why is the sun almost entirely hydrogen while the planets are all made of almost entirely heavier elements? Centrifugal force throwing heavy elements out does not account for the observed phenomena.
Second, fusion of light elements gives off energy. This is why the fusion reactions in our sun emit so much energy. Fusion of any elements even slightly heavier, of helium or lithium for example, produces a small fraction of the energy compared to hydrogen fusion. It takes more energy to fuse two elements into a new element (as heavy or heavier than iron) than the fusion reaction gives off. Elements significantly heavier than iron give off more energy than they absorb when they undergo a fission reaction, the nuclear process of breaking a heavy element down into two or more smaller elements with a net release of energy.
Third, all matter is made up of atoms (or parts of atoms). If the sun is made of light elements and the planets are made of heavy elements, there must have been some sort of sorting process. Centrifugal force can’t account for it for at least two reasons: First, the lighter elements should have been thrown to the outside with gravitational forces drawing the heaviest elements to the center. However, in the case of the sun and planets, the opposite is observed, and second, when a spinning mass ejects parts, those parts spin out in the same direction. Two planets spin backward, several moons spin backward, and one planet spins almost completely sideways. The planets all spin at different rates and different angles, in both directions, yet all orbit the sun at the perfect speed given their mass and distance.
Finally, consider the quantum process of fusion itself occurring continuously in our sun. According to Einstein’s special theory of relativity, mass and energy can be equated using a constant value. In the fusion process, energy is given off because the net mass is reduced by the fusion reaction. In other words, a helium atom with two protons is lighter than the sum of two hydrogen atoms. It is logical that in a given sample, the new mass would be less than the original mass, and the density would be higher. The combined effect would be to reduce the total volume required to hold the sample. In a sample the size of the sun, the same logic implies the sun should be shrinking. Of course the laws of physics are a little more complicated, but the basic logic does apply to hydrogen and helium.
Although there’s been a great amount of debate in the astrophysics community, numerous studies since the 1960s, including a recent study measuring gravity waves in the sun, indicates the sun is shrinking at a rate of up to 4.5 km per year. The average data suggests a likely real shrink rate closer to about 2 km per year. If we trace these laws backward in time 1 million years, adding the “shrink rate” back to the sun’s mass for each year of regress, the sun’s surface should be 1 million km closer to earth, which, of course would make life impossible given the time frame assumed by cosmologists for that period in earth’s history. This is significant, because even if the burn rate of the sun isn’t constant, (or if you assume the size reduction is related to the helium/hydrogen ratio, further assuming the sun began as 100% hydrogen), at a billion years old, the earth would have either started out inside the sun or would have continually drawn closer to the sun with time. All this assumes a purely naturalistic cosmology, which doesn’t account for the observed data.
The Case for a Creator: Part I Popular Evidence for Evolution
The Case for a Creator: Part II Homologous Embryos
The Case for a Creator: Part III Causality and Cosmology
Editor's Note: Lance Ponder A.K.A. FKI Professor is the author of Ask James One, and a frequent MTW contributor.