BIBLE: Online Home Study Courses BUSINESS & COMMUNITY VALUES: Value Added CHRISTIAN BOOKS: Catalogue CHRISTIAN EDUCATION: Class Education DOCTRINE: Westminster Heritage Centre NEW BOOK: Cosmic War Survival NEWS: NEWS - NEWS - NEWS ONLINE MAGAZINE: Ultimate Truth ORIGINS: Creation Lab RTC Reformed Theological College Curriculum RESEARCH: Online Encyclopedia WORSHIP: Psalms
From ancient time man has looked to the stars to provide him with the answers concerning man's origin, life and destiny. We consequently begin our adventure in the boffin's observatory. There are a variety of choices open to us. The brave can choose an observatory on the top of an extinct volcano. There is one such at Roque de los Muchachos in the Canary Islands and another at Mauna Kea in Hawaii which houses the Keck reflector telescope with an aperture of almost 10 metres. The former is at an altitude of just over 2300 metres and the latter at over 4000 metres. Mauna Kea thus towers above much atmospheric interference but users need to be in good health as one's oxygen intake at that altitude is only 40% of the normal! The less intrepid who prefer to be nearer ground level can head for Siding Spring in New South Wales in Australia. However, it is not necessary to see in order to probe the depths of the universe. The Lovell telescope at Jodrell Bank in England collects and focuses radio waves. Such radio telescopes greatly extend the boffins' observations. The use of satellites can extend them even further by collecting X-rays and Gamma rays most of which do not penetrate the earth's atmosphere. The Hubble Space Telescope, being far above atmospheric interference, captures magnificent views of stars in distant galaxies. From such observations of the universe as it is now, astronomers theorise about how the cosmos might have come to be. If you have the opportunity to visit an observatory in person or by way of the net, you will not see the developments that are suggested as having taken place to bring the universe into existence because the astronomers' calculations require the origin of the cosmos to be placed 15,000,000,000 years ago!
The story goes like this. Fifteen billion years ago there was an explosion of inconceivable force (the Big Bang), which generated inconceivable temperatures. At 10-43 seconds (equal to
0.0000000000000000000000000000000000000000001 of a second)
after the big bang had taken place the temperature was
100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 degrees centigrade.
At this temperature it was impossible even for atoms to form. In a split, split, split second between 10-36 and 10-32 seconds following the Big Bang there was a period of cosmic inflation, which rapidly expanded the universe. This was followed by a period of much reduced expansion (10-32 to 10-5) during which inconceivable destruction took place. During this period the mindless quarks and antiquarks eliminated one another. These two kinds of particles can be characterised by being opposites of one another. Repeated collisions resulted in their mutual annihilation. Had there been exactly the same number of each then the mutual assured destruction involved in the collisions would have eliminated all the quarks and antiquarks to nothing. As there must have been a larger number of quarks than antiquarks a residue of quarks remained. It was the combination of these quarks that resulted in matter. At around 10-5 protons and neutrons began to form and from 100 seconds after the Big Bang nuclei of Hydrogen and Helium in ratio 10 to 1 resulted from the combination of protons and neutrons. This was followed by collisions of photons and electrons. Timescales now extend dramatically. Three hundred thousand years after the Big Bang most electrons and protons had united to form complete atoms. After one thousand million years stars and galaxies were forming as gravity pulled clusters of Hydrogen and Helium atoms together. Things were really moving now and after five thousand million years new stars and planets began to be formed by the formation and dispersal of carbon, nitrogen and oxygen. After fifteen thousand million years there was an inhabitable world.1 According to certain of the boffins this is how the cosmos came to be. The table below summarises the story.
Tabulation of the Boffins' History of the Cosmos
After Big Bang
Time in seconds
10-43 The temperature was too hot for atoms to form.
10-36 to 10-32 A period of cosmic inflation rapidly expanded the universe.
10-32 to 10-5 A period with a much-reduced rate of expansion.
Opposite particles known as quarks and antiquarks collided.
Collisions caused mutual annihilation with a residue of quarks.
Combination of surplus quarks resulted in matter.
10-5 Protons and neutrons begin to form.
100 onwards Nuclei of Hydrogen and Helium in ratio of 10 to 1 resulted from
combination of protons and neutrons.
Collisions of photons and electrons.
Time in years
300,000 Most electrons had united with protons to form complete atoms.
1,000 million Stars & galaxies formed as gravity pulled clusters of Hydrogen and
Helium atoms together
5,000 million Formation and dispersal of carbon, nitrogen and oxygen produced new stars
and planets
15,000 million Inhabitable World
What are we to make of the story of the universe that we have just recounted? Astronomers debate the history and structure of our universe under the title of cosmology. The theory of the Big Bang developed in the early Twentieth century when Sir Isaac Newton's theory of a static universe that was neither expanding nor contracting was replaced by Einstein's general theory of relativity and the concept of an expanding universe. Some seek to evade the problem of the origin of the universe by assuming that it always has been and always will be. The ancient Greek idea of a universe that has always existed found expression in modern times in the 'steady-state' theory developed in the mid-Twentieth century. According to the steady-state theory there never was a Big Bang. The universe is to be viewed as without beginning and without end in process of continuous creation. The 'perfect cosmological principle' maintained that wherever a person should be in the universe at any time of observation all things would appear about the same. Such a view now finds little favour with astronomers.2 But does it help to put the Big Bang in its place? The answer to this question is - apparently not. Despite all of the achievements of modern science we have to realise that the origin of the Cosmos remains a mystery for scientists. It has nothing to say on the subject. The origin of matter and energy is impenetrable, as honest boffins will admit. Let us put a question to Patrick Moore the famous astronomer. What can astronomy tell us about the origin of the universe? He would reply as follows:
We have to realize that space, time and matter all came into existence simultaneously; this was the start of 'time' and we cannot speculate as to what happened before that, because there was no 'before'. We can work back to 10-43 of a second after the Big Bang, but before that all our ordinary laws of physics break down, and we have to confess that our ignorance is complete. ... In any case we are not talking about the origin of the universe at all; we are discussing its evolution, which is by no means the same thing.3
This is an important statement by a well-known astronomer and its significance should be digested. We should note the following: (a) Scientists theorise on the basis of the known laws of physics. (b) Moore admits that the application of these laws could not take us prior to 10-43 of a second after the Big Bang. (c) In consequence the application of physics could at the most provide a theory of development (evolution) of the cosmos not a theory of the origin of the cosmos. (d) We must consequently conclude that the scientist's ignorance of the origin of the universe is 'complete'. If we want to address the origin of the cosmos we are compelled to think in terms of a beginning of all things and to consider how time and space, energy and matter could have come to be. As to theories of development based upon some Big Bang, it is evident that they rely upon present observations to write a history of the universe. The present structure is used to determine the past development. Although the history of the universe determines the present structure it by no means follows that present observations can correctly determine origins. The reason for this is obvious. An observer in the present can only theorize concerning the origin of the universe that he sees on the basis of assumptions made. If any of the assumptions should be invalid the whole model constructed on the basis of those assumptions would be invalid too. As Paul M. Steidl explains:
A cosmological model, like all others, begins with a set of assumptions about the nature of the universe, and usually includes a set of mathematical equations embodying these assumptions. These equations are expressions of physical laws, the most important of which for cosmology is the description of gravity. When the scientist formulates his model, he decides how he wants his universe to behave by his selection of assumptions and equations. Once these assumptions are established, the mathematics which he uses is followed to its logical end. The solutions of the equations are the predictions of his model. The last step is to compare these predictions with actual observations. If the observations are not consistent with the predictions, the model must be revised or discarded.4
It follows that astronomers' statements concerning the history of the universe depend upon the assumptions adopted. These assumptions determine the equations employed and consequently the predictions made. The only scientific test is when the predictions are compared with actual observations. If these observations contradict the predictions then the model must be discarded or revised. If the observations are consistent with the predictions then the theory can claim that there is no direct evidence against it but it cannot claim that it is established. As Steidl explains with respect to the observations:
Often the evidence is quite general and is consistent with a number of different models. In fact, there is literally an infinite number of models which are more or less consistent with the evidence.5
We must conclude that science alone cannot provide us with a complete cosmology. However accurate our knowledge of the structure of the cosmos as a result of contemporary observations, physical science has no way of knowing how the present structure of matter relates to its origin. Moore is explicit on the point that we have no way of applying our present laws of physics, which concern the structure of matter, to the origin of matter. Statements about the latter are not scientific but speculative and 'our ignorance is complete'. Such speculative views attribute the origin of the world to an impersonal chaotic explosion followed by undirected developments where chance, not design, gave rise to the amazing structures of the cosmos. Such approaches really involve stargazing. Like the builders of Newgrange their proponents look to the stars to provide answers which the stars are not capable of giving. The mathematical values utilised are inconceivable for the human mind, which in itself might suggest to a reasonable person that a higher intellect would be necessary to comprehend the dimensions of what is involved in the cosmos.
Notes and References
1. For technical summary see Patrick Moore, Atlas of the Universe (London: Philip's, 1994) pp.190-191.
2. Ibid.
3. Ibid.
4. Paul Steidl, The Earth, the Stars and the Bible (USA: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company, 1979) p.189.
5. Ibid.