From the SelectedWorks of Jordan P Ballard
2013
How Did the Universe Begin?
Jordan P Ballard
Available at: http://works.bepress.com/jordan_ballard/17/
HOW DID THE UNIVERSE BEGIN?
Jordan P. Ballard
1 Table of Contents
Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Did the Universe have a Beginning? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2-17
Philosophical Arguments for the Beginning of the Universe. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3-4
Scientific Arguments for the Beginning of the Universe. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4-15
Universes with No Beginning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-15
Steady State Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7
Oscillating Models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8-9
Vacuum Fluctuation Models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .9-11
Chaotic Inflationary Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .11-12
Quantum Gravity Models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12-13
String Theory Scenarios . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13-14
Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14-15
Biblical Arguments for the Beginning of the Universe . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .15-16
Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .16-17
How Did the Universe Begin? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .17-27
Critiquing the Big Bang Theory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18-27
Evidence for the Big Bang . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .18-19
Problems with the Big Bang . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19-27
The Singularity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20-21
The Inflation of the Universe . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .21-23
Missing Antimatter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23-24
Star and Galaxy Formation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24-25
Solar Systems, Planets, and Moons . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .25-27
Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .27
Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .28-31
Appendix 1: An Open Letter to the Scientific Community . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .32-34
Appendix 2: Radiometric Dating . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .35-37
Appendix 3: The Distant Starlight Problem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38-42
Bibliography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .43-50
2 Introduction
The origin of the universe is one of the important and perplexing subjects known
to mankind. The subject is important because of its implications for mankind’s place in
the universe, and it is perplexing because of the vastness and complexity of everything in
the universe, from the distant galaxies to the virtual particles of the quantum vacuum.
Two basic questions about the origin of the universe must be addressed. First is the
question, “Did the universe have a beginning?” which can be answered by utilizing three
sources of information: philosophy, science, and theology. The second question is, “How
did the universe begin?”1 For Christians today, there are two competing models: youngearth creationism and old-earth creationism. Although the majority of Christian scholars
today favor old-earth creationism, the big bang theory is fraught with problems.
Therefore, this paper will demonstrate that there are strong arguments for the beginning
of the universe, with the implication that God created the universe ex nihilo as the Bible
teaches, and that there are insurmountable problems working against the big bang theory,
with the implication that Christians should avoid using cosmic evolution in their
interpretation of the Bible and in their apologetics.
Did the Universe have a Beginning?
Before turning to the question of how the universe began, one must first answer
the question of whether or not the universe in fact began to exist. If the universe is
eternal, then either matter is all that exists (materialism), which entails that God does not
exist if God is thought to exist immaterially, or the universe is eternal, in which case
1
The question, “How did the universe begin?” comes from the first chapter in Keith Ward, The
Big Questions in Science and Religion (West Conshohocken, PA: Templeton Press, 2008), though the
approach to answering this question here differs from Ward’s.
3 matter and God coexist in a dualistic sense. Either scenario is contrary to the Christian
doctrine of God, so it important for Christians to determine whether or not the universe
began to exist. The beginning of the universe is supported by philosophical arguments,
scientific evidence, and the revelation in the Bible.
Philosophical Arguments for the Beginning of the Universe2
In the history of philosophy, Aristotle was well known for his belief that the
universe is eternal. In his view, every object comes into existence from a substratum of
matter (e.g., fruit comes from seeds).3 No one ever encounters something which did not
come from some other form of matter, so matter must be eternal. Thus, the universe must
be eternal. This idea was challenged by the medieval Muslim philosopher al-Ghazali.4 He
reasoned that the universe cannot be eternal in the past because when today arrived, the
series of past events came to an end. But an infinite series cannot come to an end, so the
past cannot be infinite. Another way to state the point is that if the universe were eternal
in the past, then today would never have arrived. This would be like trying to count down
from negative infinity to zero. A second argument from al-Ghazali is that an infinite past
would lead to absurdities. For example, if two planets, which orbit at different speeds,
have been orbiting forever, then the number of orbits each has completed will be the
same number (infinity) even though the planets orbit at different speeds. Even stronger is
2
This section follows the argumentation in William Lane Craig, Reasonable Faith: Christian
Truth and Apologetics, third edition (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 2008), 96-98, 116-24. See also J. P.
Moreland and William Lane Craig, Philosophical Foundations for a Christian Worldview (Downers Grove,
IL: IVP Academic, 2003), 470-76; Paul Copan and William Lane Craig, Creation out of Nothing: A
Biblical, Philosophical, and Scientific Exploration (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2004), 197-217.
3
Aristotle, Physics I, 7, accessed November 23, 2013,
http://classics.mit.edu/Aristotle/physics.1.i.html.
4
Craig, Reasonable Faith, 96-97.
4 philosopher William Lane Craig’s contention that infinity does not exist in reality. While
infinity exists as a concept in mathematics, such absurdities as the orbiting planets or the
infamous Hilbert’s Hotel would obtain if infinity existed in the reality.5 In summary, the
universe must have begun to exist because it is impossible to traverse a past infinite series
of events and because an infinite past requires an infinite number of things (days or
events), which cannot exist in the real world.6
Scientific Arguments for the Beginning of the Universe
In addition to philosophical arguments for the beginning of the universe, there are
two evidences from modern science which point to the beginning of the universe: the
expansion of the universe and the Second Law of Thermodynamics. From Newton to
Einstein, the standard belief in cosmology was that the universe is infinite and static.
Newton’s argument for the static universe was based on his belief that the effects of
gravity are universal. If gravity were universal, and if the universe were finite, then the
gravitational attraction among the stars would have caused them to collapse upon one
another at the center of the finite universe. Since this has not happened, then the universe
must be eternal and infinite.7 When Einstein developed his general theory of gravity, he
5
See ibid., 116-20. One common objection is known as “Zeno’s paradox.” Zeno stated that before
Achilles could cross from one side of the stadium to the other, he would have to pass through an infinite
number of subdivided distances. Before he could cross halfway, he would have to cross one quarter of the
way. Before he could cross one quarter of the way, he would have to cross one eight of the way, and so on
to infinity. Since Achilles can obviously cross from one side to the other, then Zeno thought it possible to
traverse an actual infinite. This objection does not work for two reasons, though. First, the subdivision of
distances still amounts to a potential infinite; no one will ever finish subdividing to infinity. Second, the
paradox is not analogous to the past eternal universe. The distance that Achilles would have to traverse is
finite, but the universe would be beginningless and endless (ibid., 121-23).
6
For more details and for answers to other objections, see William Lane Craig and James D.
Sinclair, “The Kalam Cosmological Argument,” in The Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology, eds.
William Lane Craig and J. P. Moreland (West Sussex, UK: Wiley-Blackwell, 2009), 103-124.
5 realized that the gravitational force of objects in space precluded the idea of a static
universe for the same reasons. He even added a repelling force to his equation in the form
of a cosmological constant to keep the universe static. When the expansion of the
universe was confirmed by Hubble’s observations of redshifted galaxies in 1929, Einstein
recognized his addition of the cosmological constant as the biggest blunder of his career.8
Today, most scientists accept the expansion of the universe based on the Doppler
interpretation of redshift in distant galaxies.9 What this means in terms of cosmic history
is that the universe must have had a beginning, for it could not have been in a state of
expansion forever.
The second scientific principle to consider is the Second Law of Thermodynamics
which states that the energy of the universe is constant and that the entropy of the
universe tends to a maximum.10 In a closed system, the useable energy in the universe
will eventually dissipate until the universe reaches equilibrium in a “heat death” (or “Big
Chill”). If the universe were a closed system, which scientists assume, then the universe
would have reached a state of equilibrium by now if it were eternal. Since the universe
has not reached equilibrium, then it cannot be eternal.11 In other words, the universe could
7
Tai L. Chow, Gravity, Black Holes, and the Very Early Universe: An Introduction to General
Relativity and Cosmology (New York: Springer, 2010), 114.
8
See Alex Williams and John Hartnett, Dismantling the Big Bang: God’s Universe Rediscovered
(Green Forest, AR: Master Books, 2005), 47-49; Lawrence M. Krauss, A Universe from Nothing: Why
There is Something Rather than Nothing (New York: Atria, 2012), 56-57.
9
See Clifford A. Pickover, The Physics Book (New York: Sterling, 2011), 354.
10
11
Pickover, The Physics Book, 210.
Physicist Ludwig Boltzman thought that the universe is in a state of equilibrium and that the
universe just appears to be old, but this hypothesis failed to gain a following in the scientific community
(see Craig, Reasonable Faith, 141-42).
6 not have been running out of useable energy forever. This means that the universe must
have had a beginning a finite time ago.12
Universes with No Beginning13
The expansion of the universe and the Second Law of Thermodynamics today are
accepted by nearly all in the scientific community.14 When one extrapolates back in time,
space and time are contracted to a point called a singularity about 14 billion years ago. As
Barrow and Tipler state, “At this singularity, space and time came into existence; literally
nothing existed before the singularity, so, if the Universe originated at such a singularity,
we would truly have a creation ex nihilo.”15 If the universe, including all matter, space,
energy and time, had a beginning at the big bang, then either the universe created itself
out of nothing, which is absurd,16 or else the universe was created by someone or
something which exists outside of space and time. The traditional definition of God as a
being who exists outside of space and time fits the bill,17 but because of the theistic
implications of the Standard Model, some scientists have created alternative explanations
to the absolute beginning at the big bang. These will be examined and critiqued next.
12
Ibid., 141.
13
This section follows the overview and critiques from Craig, Reasonable Faith, 128-50. For a
more technical discussion, see Craig and Sinclair, “The Kalam Cosmological Argument,” 125-82.
14
The expansion of the universe is still doubted by some dissenters to the Standard Model (e.g.,
Hilton Ratcliffe, The Static Universe: Exploding the Myth of Cosmic Expansion [Montreal: C. Roy Keys
Inc., 2010]).
15
John Barrow and Frank Tipler, The Anthropic Cosmological Principle (Oxford: Oxford
University Press, 1988), 442.
16
Atheist philosopher Daniel Dennett suggests that the universe may have created itself ex nihilo
in what he calls “the ultimate bootstrapping trick” (Daniel C. Dennett, Breaking the Spell: Religion as a
Natural Phenomenon [New York: Penguin Group, 2006], 244). This, however, seems absurd. In order to
exercise creative powers, the universe would have to exist prior to its own creation.
17
See Craig, Reasonable Faith, 150-56.
7 Steady State Model
In 1948, Hermann Bondi, Tommy Gold, and Fred Hoyle proposed the Steady
State Model. Based on their Perfect Cosmological Principle, which assumes that the
universe looks the same in all places at all times, these scientists believed that as the
universe expands, new matter is produced to counterbalance the dilution in density due to
the expansion. Although this sounds far-fetched, the steady-state theorists believed their
hypothesis to be no less fantastic than a universe miraculously appearing from nothing as
in the Standard Model. One problem with the Steady State Model is that the continual
creation of matter was said to be too small to detect. In addition, the Steady State Model
could not adequately explain some of the data from astronomy such as the differences in
radio wave emissions in the past universe and the presence of quasars which appeared to
have formed only during one particular interval of cosmic history. After some fierce
debates in the 1950s between Fred Hoyle and big-bang proponent Martin Ryle, the
Steady State Model was largely abandoned with the discovery of the cosmic microwave
background radiation (CMBR) in 1964, one of the successful predictions of the Standard
Model.18 In 2000, Hoyle and others proposed the Quasi-Steady State Theory which could
now account for the CMBR and even explain some of the evidence better than the big
bang, but it was too late to sway big-bang advocates.19
18
John D. Barrow, The Book of Universes: Exploring the Limits of the Cosmos (New York: W. W.
Norton & Company, 2011), 123-47.
19
For an overview of the Quasi-Steady State Model, see Williams and Hartnett, Dismantling the
Big Bang, 283-85.
8 Oscillating Models
In the 1960s and 1970s, some scientists proposed oscillating models of the
universe whereby the universe expands and contracts in an infinite number of cycles.
Even though the universe is currently in a state of expansion, the force of gravity will
eventually cause the universe to contract into a “Big Crunch.” If matter were distributed
unevenly, then the contraction would avoid a singularity, and the universe would bounce
back into a new expansion phase. The universe would thus be beginningless and endless.
This would also explain why the universe has not reached a state of equilibrium as the
Second Law of Thermodynamics demands. There are several problems with the
oscillating models. 1) Hawking and Penrose demonstrated that a singularity cannot be
avoided even if the matter density of the universe were unevenly distributed.20 2) There is
no known mechanism to cause the universe to bounce back from a state of contraction.21
3) There does not appear to be enough mass density to reverse the cosmic expansion.22 4)
The redshift of supernovae suggest that the expansion rate of the universe is increasing,
not slowing down.23 5) Entropy would be conserved in each cycle such that the
expansions would get bigger and bigger in each cycle. As one extrapolates back in time,
the cycles would be smaller and smaller to the point that there would be an absolute
20
See Stephen Hawking and Roger Penrose, The Nature of Space and Time (Princeton, NJ:
Princeton University Press, 1996), 19-20.
21
Alan H. Guth, The Inflationary Universe: The Quest for a New Theory of Cosmic Origins (New
York: Basic Books, 1997), 26n.
22
Stephen Hawking, The Illustrated A Brief History of Time, updated and expanded edition (New
York: Bantam Books, 1996), 60-61.
23
See Craig, Reasonable Faith, 130. There are other interpretations of the redshift besides
acceleration (see Williams and Hartnett, Dismantling the Big Bang, 273-94).
9 beginning about 100 cycles ago.24 6) The radiation from star formation in previous cycles
would still be leftover. Since we can detect a certain amount of blackbody radiation in
our present universe, then the number of cycles must be finite in a closed system.25 7) An
oscillating universe would require unimaginable fine-tuning.26 In summary, the
oscillating models are littered with problems, and they do not avoid the absolute
beginning of the universe.
Vacuum Fluctuation Models
In 1973, physicist Edward Tryon proposed the idea that our universe is the result
of a fluctuation in the eternally existing quantum vacuum. His assumptions were that the
universe is a closed system with a zero net value for all conserved quantities (such as
energy) and that according to quantum field theory, every quantum fluctuation could
happen on a statistically random basis. In response to the question of why our universe
appeared, Tryon states that “our Universe is simply one of those things which happen
from time to time,” even though our universe is quite rare.27 Physicist Alan Guth picked
up the theory in 1978 and has since developed the idea, adding his theory of cosmic
inflation of a factor of at least 1025 at 10-30 seconds after the big bang to solve some of the
problems in the initial proposal from Tryon and for the Standard Model in general
(discussed below).28 According to Guth, everything was created from nothing so that “the
24
Joseph Silk, The Big Bang, third edition (New York: W. H. Freeman and Company, 2001), 380.
25
Silk, The Big Bang, 380.
26
Craig, Reasonable Faith, 145.
27
Edward P. Tryon, “Is the Universe a Vacuum Fluctuation?” Nature 246 (December 14, 1973):
28
Guth, The Inflationary Universe, 14.
396-97.
10 universe is the ultimate free lunch.”29 This idea has also been recently defended by
physicist Lawrence Krauss.30 In addition, it is believed that there would be an infinite
number of fluctuations of true vacuum in the primordial false vacuum with the result that
we actually live in a multiverse.31 Postulating an infinite number of universes takes care
of any fine-tuning improbabilities that may exist about our particular universe.
As interesting as vacuum-fluctuation models are, there are several problems
which undermine the efforts of Krauss and others to avoid the absolute beginning of the
universe. 1) It is disingenuous to speak of creation ex nihilo when “nothing” really means
“something” – namely, the quantum vacuum.32 Krauss admits as much in his book: “By
nothing, I do not mean nothing, but rather nothing – in this case, the nothingness we
normally call empty space.”33 The quantum vacuum is actually a sea of virtual
(unobservable) particles, which is not nothing.34 The existence of the eternal quantum
vacuum and the laws of physics are left unexplained.35 2) In order for virtual particles to
pop into existence in the quantum vacuum, space itself would have to exist as the place
29
Ibid., 15.
30
Krauss, A Universe from Nothing, 99.
31
Guth, The Inflationary Universe, 245-52.
32
See the scathing review of A Universe from Nothing in The New York Times (David Albert, “On
the Origin of Everything,” The New York Times, March 23, 2012, accessed November 20, 2013,
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/25/books/review/a-universe-from-nothing-by-lawrence-mkrauss.html?_r=0).
33
Krauss, A Universe from Nothing, 58 (emphasis original).
34
Silk, The Big Bang, 387.
35
Guth admitted in a 2002 interview that there is no known explanation for the origin of the laws
of physics. See Brad Lemley and Larry Fink, “Guth’s Grand Guess,” Discover (April 2002), accessed
November 25, 2013, http://discovermagazine.com/2002/apr/cover#.UpQYP-BJts8.
11 where the virtual particles appear.36 3) According to the Heisenberg Uncertainty
Principle, the larger the energy in the fluctuation, the shorter the time that it will last. A
universe such as ours with a large quantity of energy would vanish immediately. The
solution to this problem is the assertion that the total energy of the universe is exactly
zero as the Standard Model and inflationary theory predict, but this is merely an
assumption, not an observation. No one is able to definitively calculate the total energy of
the universe.37 4) If our universe were one of an infinite number of universes bubbling out
of the quantum vacuum, then the expanding universes would have eventually coalesced
in an infinite universe. If this were the case, then we should be observing an infinitely old
universe, but this is not what we observe. One way to avoid this problem would be to
supposed that the false vacuum itself is expanding, but this would lead right back to the
beginning of the expansion of the vacuum.38 Thus, the vacuum-fluctuation models do not
avoid the absolute beginning of the universe.
Chaotic Inflationary Model
Another alternative, known as the Chaotic Inflationary Model, was proposed by
Russian cosmologist Andrei Linde in 1980s.39 In this model, cosmic inflation will
eventually produce other domains which recede from one another as the wider universe
continues to expand indefinitely. In other words, the expanding universe will produce
other universes forever. Linde took this model of the future and projected it onto the past
36
Jake Hebert, “A Universe from Nothing?” accessed November 19, 2013,
http://www.icr.org/article/universe-from-nothing.
37
Ibid.
38
Craig, Reasonable Faith, 132.
39
For a summary of the model, see ibid., 132-34.
12 to avoid the singularity of the Standard Model. Similar to the vacuum-fluctuation models,
he believed that our own universe is just a bubble in the larger multiverse. The problem
with this model was pointed out in 1994 by Arvind Borde and Alexander Vilenkin who
stated that any inflationary universe could be infinite in the future but could not be
infinite in the past.40 The 2003 Borde-Guth-Vilenkin theorem further strengthened the
conclusion that an inflating universe cannot be past eternal.41
Quantum Gravity Models
Another model of the universe which attempts to avoid the beginning of the
universe is Stephen Hawking’s “no boundary” model which eliminates the singularity by
using imaginary numbers for the time variable in Einstein’s gravitational equations to
describe the state before Planck time. In this scenario, the universe would have no edge
as one goes back in time.42 Instead the universe would be rounded off like the surface of
the earth so that “the universe would be completely self-contained and not affected by
anything outside itself. It would neither be created nor destroyed. It would just BE.”43 The
question of what happened before the big bang would be meaningless.44 One problem
with this scenario is that it does really not avoid the singularity. According to Barrow,
“This type of quantum universe has not always existed; it comes into being just as the
40
For an explanation of the theorem, see Robert J. Spitzer, New Proofs for the Existence of God:
Contributions of Contemporary Physics and Philosophy (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2010), 33-43.
41
Cited in Craig, Reasonable Faith, 134. There are some exceptions to this theorem, though. See
Craig and Sinclair, “The Kalam Cosmological Argument,” 141-ff.
42
See Hawking, The Illustrated A Brief History of Time, 172-81;
43
Ibid., 175; cf. Stephen Hawking and Leonard Mlodinow, The Grand Design (New York:
Bantam Books, 2010), 130-35.
44
Hawking and Mlodinow, The Grand Design, 135.
13 classical cosmologies could, but it does not start at a Big Bang where physical quantities
are infinite and where further initial conditions need not be specified.” It’s just that there
is no definite point of creation.45 Another problem with the model is Hawking’s use of
imaginary time. While this may be a “computational convenience” for scientific
theories,46 the idea of “imaginary seconds” or “imaginary minutes” in the physical world
is meaningless and distorts the distinction between time and space.47 Hawking himself
realizes this difficulty and admits, “When one goes back to the real time in which we live,
however, there will still appear to be singularities.”48 Therefore, the no-boundary model
does not avoid the absolute beginning of the universe.
String Theory Scenarios
String theory (or superstring theory) is the idea that the fundamental building
blocks of matter, quarks, are themselves composed of tiny, one-dimensional vibrating
strings that may exist in as many as six or seven dimensions in addition to our normal
four-dimensional space-time. The strings are too tiny to observe, and the extra
dimensions are curled up so small that we do not detect them.49 While several string
scenarios have been proposed,50 one string scenario offered by physicists Paul Steinhardt
and Neil Turok avers that our universe is a brane world which occasionally collides with
45
John D. Barrow, New Theories of Everything: The Quest for Ultimate Explanation (Oxford:
Oxford University Press, 2007), 90-91.
46
Alex Vilenkin, Many Worlds in One (New York: Hill and Wang, 2006), 182.
47
Craig, Reasonable Faith, 136.
48
Hawking, The Illustrated A Brief History of Time, 179.
49
Don Lincoln, Understanding the Universe from Quarks to the Cosmos, revised edition (London:
World Scientific, 2012), 428-43; Michio Kaku, Parallel Worlds: A Journey Through Creation, Higher
Dimensions, and the Future of the Cosmos (New York: Anchor Books, 2005), 16-18.
50
Craig, Reasonable Faith, 136-39.
14 a parallel brane world to produce the cosmic expansion we observe. Thus, the universe is
in an eternal cycle of expansion and contraction with no absolute beginning, like the
oscillating models.51 The main problem with such scenarios, besides those already
mentioned for the oscillating models, is actually a problem with string theory in general,
namely that string theory is highly speculative and has no experimental support. As
Lincoln states, “…the failure of superstring theory to make experimentally verifiable
predictions relegates it to the ‘interesting idea’ bin for the foreseeable future.”52 In
addition, Craig points out that the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin theorem would still apply to
string scenarios so that an absolute beginning is unavoidable.53
Summary
Cosmologists in the past sixty years have spilled much ink to avoid the beginning
of the universe because of the theistic implications of the absolute beginning of space and
time in the Standard Model. The Steady State Theory is the one model which does not
assume an initial singularity, but each of the other models tries to explain what happened
before the big bang. The oscillating models and string scenarios project an endless cycle
of expansion and contraction. The chaotic inflationary model assumes that our universe is
a bubble off of another universe with “turtles all the way down.” The vacuum fluctuation
models assume the existence of an eternal quantum vacuum which birthed our universe
(and others). The quantum gravity model of Stephen Hawking assumes that there is no
edge or boundary (point of beginning) to space-time. Each of these models, however,
51
See Paul J. Steinhardt and Neil Turok, “A Cyclic Model of the Universe,” accessed November
26, 2013, http://www.physics.princeton.edu/~steinh/sciencecyc.pdf; idem., Eternal Universe: Beyond the
Big Bang (New York: Doubleday, 2007).
52
Lincoln, Understanding the Universe, 442; cf. Hawking and Mlodinow, The Grand Design, 140.
53
Craig, Reasonable Faith, 138-39
15 faces internal problems, and each is subject to the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin theorem which
states that any universe which is in a state of expansion cannot be past eternal. Thus, the
expansion of the universe and the Second Law of Thermodynamics confirm that the
universe had a beginning.
Biblical Arguments for the Beginning of the Universe
It will come as no surprise to most readers that the Bible teaches in both the Old
Testament and in the New Testament that the universe had a beginning. The first line of
the Bible reads, “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth” (Gen 1:1).54
This verse implies God’s existence at the beginning of creation as well as the fact that the
universe itself had a beginning.55 Other Old Testament texts which teach that God created
the world and everything in it include Exodus 20:11, Psalm 90:2, Proverbs 8:22-26, and
Isaiah 44:24. Since God created the universe itself, then creation cannot exist coeternally
with God. Hence, there must have been a beginning to creation. The New Testament also
states in several places that God created everything, implying a beginning to the universe
(John 1:3; Acts 4:24; Rom 11:36; 1 Cor 8:6; Col 1:16). There is even an explicit
statement that creation was ex nihilo in Hebrews 11:3: “By faith we understand that the
universe was formed at God’s command, so that what is seen was not made out of what
54
Most modern translations take Genesis 1:1 as an absolute clause as opposed to a construct clause
such as “In the beginning when God created….” The construct clause would imply that there was no
beginning to creation, at least not in Genesis 1:1. For a discussion and defense of the absolute translation,
see Copan and Craig, Creation out of Nothing, 36-49.
55
Since ancient Hebrew had no term for “universe”, the phrase “heavens and the earth” is best
understood as a merism depicting all of creation. For example, Wenham renders Genesis 1:1, “In the
beginning God created everything” (Gordon J. Wenham, Genesis 1-15, Word Biblical Commentary [Waco,
TX: Word, 1987], 15); cf. Gerhard von Rad, Genesis: A Commentary, revised edition, translated by John H.
Marks (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1973), 48.
16 was visible.”56 Jesus Himself also affirmed in many places that the world had a beginning
(Matt 19:4; 24:21; Mark 10:6; 13:19; Luke 11:50; John 17:5; cf. Rev 1:8; 21:6; 22:13). In
summary, the Bible teaches the eternality of God, the beginning of the world, and the
creation of all things by God from no preexisting material.
Conclusions
The beginning of the universe has been deduced philosophically long before the
discoveries of modern cosmology, and the expansion of the universe and the Second Law
of Thermodynamics provide inductive evidence that the universe is not eternal. The
efforts of some physicists and cosmologists to devise scenarios of the history of the
universe to avoid the absolute beginning have failed. Not only are such models highly
speculative, but also there are internal problems with each model as noted above. There
are two implications for the beginning of the universe. The first is the implication that the
universe must have had a Beginner who exists outside of space-time. As Craig has
argued, everything which begins to exist must have a cause for its existence. Since
philosophical and scientific arguments support the contention that the universe began to
exist, then it follows that the universe had a cause for its existence.57 This cause fits the
traditional, theistic concept of God – an extremely powerful and wise personal being who
exists apart from the world of matter, space, energy and time.58 The idea that no gods
were required for the universe to begin leaves the universe as a brute fact without
56
Copan and Craig, Creation out of Nothing, 78-83. The doctrine of creation ex nihilo is also
found in ancient Jewish literature as well as in many of the early Christian writings (see ibid., 93-145).
57
Craig, Reasonable Faith, 111.
58
Ibid., 152-56.
17 explanation in light of the evidence.59 Thus, the beginning of the universe is powerful
evidence for God’s existence. The second implication is that the Bible is in agreement
with the philosophical and scientific evidence for the beginning of the universe. The fact
that the Bible has taught the absolute beginning of the universe for thousands of years
before philosophy and modern science arose bolsters the credibility of the Bible, at least
on this matter.
How Did the Universe Begin?
Now that it has been established that the universe had a beginning, the question of
how the universe began must be decided next. At present, there are two competing
models. Young-earth creationism takes Genesis 1-11 as straightforward, literal history.
The universe was created in six, literal, twenty-four-hour days about six thousand years
ago, and the fossil record resulted from the global Flood in the days of Noah. Creationist
scientists and theologians from organizations such as Answers in Genesis (AiG), The
Institute for Creation Research (ICR), and Creation Ministries International (CMI) have
produced many excellent papers and books defending the young-earth view both
scientifically and biblically.60 Old-earth creationism takes Genesis 1-11 in a non-literal
manner, either in part or in whole, and adopts the Standard Model of cosmic evolution.
This model includes theistic evolution,61 progressive creationism,62 and other non-literal
59
Stephen Hawking and Leonard Mlodinow, “Why God Did Not Create the Universe: There is a
sound scientific explanation for the making of our world – no gods required,” Wall Street Journal,
September 4, 2010, accessed November 13, 2013,
http://search.proquest.com/docview/749445864?accountid=12085.
60
See the articles and resources at the ministry websites: www.answersingenesis.org;
www.icr.org; www.creation.com.
18 interpretations of Genesis 1-11, and it appears to be the majority view among evangelical
scholars today.63 In addition, many Christian apologists use big bang cosmology in their
arguments for God’s existence.64 But should Christian scholars and apologists align their
biblical interpretation and argumentation with the Standard Model? The follow
discussion will critique the big bang theory and demonstrate why Christians should be
skeptical of the secular account of cosmic evolution.
Critiquing the Big Bang Theory
Evidence for the Big Bang
The popular assumption is that the big bang enjoys overwhelming scientific
evidence, but the big bang theory is based on only three lines of evidence: the observed
Hubble expansion, the cosmic microwave background radiation, and the abundance of
light elements (hydrogen, helium, and lithium) in the universe which fit what is thought
to have happened in the big bang.65 How strong is this evidence for the big bang? It
61
E.g., Howard J. Van Till, “The Fully Gifted Creation (‘Theistic Evolution’),” in Three Views on
Creation and Evolution, eds. J. P. Moreland and John Mark Reynolds (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1999),
159-218; Darrell R. Falk, Coming to Peace with Science: Bridging the Worlds Between Faith and Biology
(Downers Grove, InterVarsity Press, 2004); Francis S. Collins, The Language of God (New York: Free
Press, 2006); Richard F. Carlson and Tremper Longman III, Science, Creation, and the Bible: Reconciling
Rival Theories of Origins (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2010); Peter Enns, The Evolution of Adam:
What the Bible Does and Doesn’t Say About Human Origins (Grand Rapids: BrazosPress, 2012).
62
E.g., Hugh Ross, Creation and Time (Colorado Springs, CO: NavPress, 1994); idem., A Matter
of Days: Resolving a Creation Controversy (Colorado Springs, CO: NavPress, 2004).
63
See Terry Mortenson, “Jesus’ View of the Age of the Earth,” in Coming to Grips with Genesis:
Biblical Authority and the Age of the Earth, eds. Terry Mortenson and Thane H. Ury (Green Forest, AR:
Master Books, 2008), 315-46.
64
E.g., Norman L. Geisler and Frank Turek, I Don’t Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist
(Wheaton: Crossway, 2004); Lee Strobel, The Case for a Creator: A Journalist Investigates Scientific
Evidence That Points Toward God (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2004); William Lane Craig, On Guard:
Defending Your Faith with Reason and Precision (Colorado Springs, CO: David C. Cook, 2010); Douglas
Groothuis, Christian Apologetics: A Comprehensive Case for Biblical Faith (Downers Grove, IL: IVP
Academic, 2011).
65
Krauss, A Universe from Nothing, 108.
19 should be noted that none of the three lines of evidence was predicted by the Standard
Model. The expansion of the universe was the observational evidence upon which the
model was founded. The CMBR was predicted to be anywhere from 5 K to 50 K in
temperature, but when it was discovered in 1964, it was measured to be 2.7 K. Therefore,
the CMBR was not a clean prediction of the Standard Model.66 The abundance of light
elements is explanatory rather than predictive. This information was put into the model
when it was formed.67 Therefore, none of the three lines of evidence was directly
predicted by the model. The reason why so many scientists adopted the Standard Model
is because the discovery of the CMBR seemed to contradict the Steady State Theory and
was taken as direct evidence of the big bang. Since the Steady State Theory could not
account for the CMBR, then the big bang was thought to be correct. But this reasoning
commits the juggernaut fallacy because it assumes that there are only two competing
models.68 The expansion, CMBR, and abundance of light elements can be explained by
several different models such that the big bang is not demanded by any of the evidence.69
Problems with the Big Bang Theory
The big bang theory faces difficulties at nearly every turn. Perhaps this is simply
the result of trying to study the vast cosmos, or perhaps this reflects the limitation of
66
Williams and Hartnett, Dismantling the Big Bang, 127.
67
Danny Faulkner, Universe by Design: An Explanation of Cosmology and Creation (Green
Forest, AR: Master Books, 2004), 33.
68
69
Williams and Hartnett, Dismantling the Big Bang, 53-55.
For some other cosmological models, see ibid., 273-94; cf. John Hartnett, “Does observational
evidence indicate the universe is expanding – part 1: the case for time dilation,” Journal of Creation 25, no.
3 (December 2011): 109-115, accessed December 1, 2013,
http://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j25_3/j25_3_109-114.pdf; idem., “Does observational evidence indicate
the universe is expanding – part 2: the case against expansion,” Journal of Creation 25, no. 3 (December
2011): 115-20, accessed December 1, 2013, http://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j25_3/j25_3_115-120.pdf.
20 historical science or the limitation of our current knowledge. Whatever the case may be,
Christians should be informed that the Standard Model must make many ad hoc
assumptions to explain cosmic evolution from the singularity to the formation of earth.
The Singularity
When one rewinds the cosmic expansion, the universe would have been
contracted into a singularity of infinite density. A singularity is thought to be like a black
hole in that matter is so compact and the force of gravity so strong that nothing can
escape. The difference is that a black hole has an event horizon, but a singularity does
not. Once matter has reached the state of a singularity, it cannot return to other states of
matter. The singularity represents a thermodynamic dead-end.70 How, then, did the
universe begin from such an initial state? To date, cosmologists have no explanation for
why the big bang began at all. Carl Sagan called this “the greatest mystery we know.”71
Part of the problem is that scientists do not currently possess a quantum theory of gravity,
which unites general relativity with quantum theory, to understand what happened at the
start of the big bang.72 Perhaps scientists will one day derive a quantum theory of gravity,
but until they do, the explanation of how the universe was able to escape the singularity
remains a mystery. Invoking string theory and brane worlds will not help either. This
70
Williams and Hartnett, Dismantling the Big Bang, 96-102.
71
Carl Sagan, Cosmos (New York: Ballentine Books, 1985), 200.
72
Sadri Hassani, From Atoms to Galaxies: A Conceptual Physics Approach to Scientific
Awareness (Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press, 2010), 585.
21 simply amounts to using one unknown to explain another unknown.73 The expansion of
the singularity is assumed in the model, but it is inexplicable.74
The Inflation of the Universe
In order to avoid recollapsing back into a singularity, the universe is thought to
have undergone an instantaneous inflation at 10-36 seconds after the big bang. During the
inflation, it is believed that the universe doubled in size about 100 times in a fraction of a
second. After the inflation, the universe would be about 1030 times its original size.75
Inflation is needed to solve several problems within the Standard Model – namely, the
Flatness Problem, the Horizon Problem, and the Monopole Problem.76 The Flatness
Problem refers to the fact that the geometry of space appears to have zero curvature. If
there had been any density fluctuations in the early expansion just after the big bang,
gravity would have caused the universe to recollapse into a singularity.77 The inflation of
the universe would have been so large that it would have ironed out any fluctuations and
would have produced a flat universe.78 This eliminates any fine-tuning difficulties with
the big bang and explains the flat universe we observe today.
The Horizon Problem pertains to the fact that the CMBR appears to be the same
temperature in all directions. How did the CMBR attain such homogeneity? The mixing
73
Williams and Hartnett, Dismantling the Big Bang, 104-105.
74
Ibid., 121.
75
Guth, The Inflationary Universe, 175.
76
Houjun Mo, Frank van der Bosch, and Simon White, Galaxy Formation and Evolution
(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010), 152-ff.
77
Williams and Hartnett, Dismantling the Big Bang, 121-22.
78
Guth, The Inflationary Universe, 176-80.
22 must have taken place very early in the universe when light could have traveled to all
parts of the tiny universe in a short period time. Once the radiation was homogenized,
inflation caused the CMBR to expand to its present state. Thus, inflationary theory is
invoked to solve the problem.79 The Monopole Problem describes the situation in the
early universe when it is believed that the four fundamental forces of nature were not yet
operable. The magnetic force would not have been combined with the electric force, so
there would have been separate negatively- and positively-charged particles (electrons
and protons) as well as separate “north” and “south” magnetic monopoles. Why do not
encounter such monopoles today if they were everywhere present in the early universe?
Inflationary theory suggests that the rapid inflation diluted the universe so much that
encountering magnetic monopoles would be quite rare.
Although inflationary theory solves some problems with the Standard Model, it
faces its own difficulties. 1) Inflation solves the fine-tuning difficulties of the Flatness
Problem, but it requires fine-tuning for the inflation itself. If the inflation had been
smaller by only one part in a hundred thousand million million, the universe would have
recollapsed into a singularity.80 If the inflation were too great, then the universe would
have blown apart and resulted in a Big Chill with no production of matter or galaxies.81 2)
Regarding the Monopole Problem, the dilution would also apply to other elementary
particles in the universe which we regularly encounter, so it must be assumed that the
79
Ibid., 180-86.
80
Hawking, The Illustrated A Brief History of Time, 156.
81
Williams and Hartnett, Dismantling the Big Bang, 108-110.
23 elementary particles were produced after the monopoles were dispersed.82 3) There is no
known cause for the inflation or for how to stop the inflation.83 According to Kaku, there
have been over fifty proposals to explain what caused the inflation and what eventually
terminated it, but there is no consensus among scientists.84 4) There are no direct
observational tests for inflation. According to Faulkner, the appeal of inflationary theory
is “a result of its ability to solve some cosmological problems.”85 Therefore, inflationary
theory, though widely accepted today, appears to be an ad hoc assumption needed to
solve some of the problems in the Standard Model.86
Missing Antimatter
During the third epoch of the Standard Model, hydrogen, helium, lithium, and
deuterium nuclei formed, but no complete atoms would have formed since the intense
radiation would have stripped away any electrons from the nuclei.87 Quantum pair
production would have taken place at this time as well. In the laboratory, scientists have
discovered that when energy is converted to matter, an equal amount of antimatter is
produced. Quantum pairs include electrons and anti-electrons (positrons), protons and
anti-protons, and so on. When the pairs meet, the matter and antimatter annihilate each
other and convert back to energy. With an assumption of zero net energy, as in the
82
Ibid., 123.
83
Robert Newton, “Light-Travel Time: A Problem for the Big Bang,” September 1, 2003,
accessed December 1, 2013, http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/cm/v25/n4/light-travel-time.
84
Kaku, Parallel Worlds, 14.
85
Faulkner, Universe by Design, 43.
86
Williams and Hartnett, Dismantling the Big Bang, 124.
87
Ibid., 117.
24 Standard Model, there would be an equal amount of matter and antimatter in the universe.
The problem is that our universe consists almost entirely of matter with only traces of
antimatter. The implication is that the universe was not produced by quantum pair
production.88 One possible solution to this problem is that there may be entire antimatter
galaxies which have not yet been observed, but such galaxies would collide with matter
and would give off high-energy radiation which we do not observe. A more popular
solution is that the vast amount of antimatter was annihilated in the very early universe.
Hawking suggests that a grand unified theory which unites the fundamental forces of
nature may one day explain this phenomenon,89 but the annihilation of antimatter at
present is another ad hoc assumption of the Standard Model.90
Star and Galaxy Formation
During the third epoch of the big bang – from about 300,000 year onward – the
universe would have been a mass of expanding gas. Around one billion years after the big
bang came the epoch when stars and galaxies were supposed to have formed.
Unanswered questions here abound. First, one has to explain how an expanding mass of
gas, which has been homogenized by inflation, will stop expanding and contract to form
local stars and galaxies. The second question is how to prevent the contracting gas from
collapsing into a singularity again.91 In 1996, Hawking put galaxy formation at the
88
Ibid., 126.
89
Hawking, The Illustrated A Brief History of Time, 101-103.
90
Williams and Hartnett, Dismantling the Big Bang, 126. For other theories, see Silk, The Big
Bang, 393-ff.
91
Williams and Hartnett, Dismantling the Big Bang, 128.
25 bottom of his list of unsolved problems.92 In 2001, he suggested that galaxies may have
formed from the influence of dark matter on a parallel brane world.93 In his 2002 lectures,
galaxy formation is still among his unsolved problems.94 In 2010, Hawking and
Mlodinow suggest that the tiny fluctuations in the CMBR also reflect tiny fluctuations in
density that are needed for stars and galaxies to form.95 During the inflationary era, the
tiny fluctuations expanded to become galaxy-sized objects. Even if this were the case, the
problem of collapsing into stars and galaxies without becoming black holes persists. It
must be assumed that gas clouds fragmented in spiral galaxies and merged in elliptical
galaxies. These constitute further ad hoc assumptions for the Standard Model.96
Solar System, Planets, and Moons
From about five billion years ago onward, the universe is thought to have
developed solar systems, planets, and moons. In the Standard Model, the initial
generation of stars, known as Population III stars, contained only hydrogen, helium,
lithium, and deuterium. Eventually, these stars exploded, and Population II stars formed
shortly thereafter. Nuclear fusion took place in the explosion of the first generation of
stars so that the second generation would contain heavier elements. Finally, the third
generation of stars formed – Population I stars, which include our sun and most of the
stars we observe. The difficulty in this scenario is explaining how one generation of stars
92
Hawking, The Illustrated A Brief History of Time, 156.
93
Stephen Hawking, The Universe in a Nutshell (New York: Bantam Books, 2001), 186-88.
94
Published in Stephen Hawking, The Illustrated Theory of Everything: The Origin and Fate of
the Universe (Beverly Hills, CA: Phoenix Books, 2009), 70-71.
95
Hawking and Mlodinow, The Grand Design, 136-39; cf. Silk, The Big Bang, 170-ff.
96
Williams and Hartnett, Dismantling the Big Bang, 131-32.
26 produces another generation of stars which eventually results in our sun. Gravity would
cause the collapse of a gas cloud after a supernova, but the kinetic energy of the gas
molecules is greater than the gravitational attraction alone; another force is needed. It is
assumed that there were density fluctuations which compressed the gas cloud as a whole
to cause it to collapse into a star again. The force of the fluctuation would have to be
extremely precise, though, to overcome the kinetic energy without producing a black
hole. The source of the density fluctuations remains a mystery. The source cannot be
supernovae because that would present a chicken-and-egg problem. The density
fluctuations amount to another ad hoc assumption.97 In addition, Population III stars have
never been observed even though they would stand out quite distinctly from Population I
and II stars.98 It must be assumed that Population III stars formed first.
The formation of planets and moons within a solar system such as our own is also
plagued with uncertainties. One has to explain how rocky, gaseous, and icy planets such
as those in our solar system formed from a cloud of gas. The Standard Model has planets
evolving from the stardust of supernova explosions. The rocky planets (Mercury, Venus,
Earth, Mars) evolved by the accretion of dust granules which first formed
“planetesimals” (like meteorites) before they had enough gravity to attract more material.
The major problem with this theory is that there is no known mechanism which would
cause the dust granules to stick together to form objects the size of planetesimals. The
same sticking problem applies to the formation of the gas giants (Jupiter and Saturn) and
97
98
Ibid., 143-47.
Rod Bernitt, “Stellar evolution and the problem of first stars,” Journal of Creation 14, no. 1
(April 2002): 12-14, accessed December 1, 2013, http://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j16_1/j16_1_1214.pdf. Amazingly, a recent book on stars and galaxies contains references to Population I and II stars but
has no mention of Population III stars (Lauren V. Jones, Stars and Galaxies, Greenwood Guides to the
Universe, eds. Timothy F. Slater and Lauren V. Jones [Santa Barbara, CA: Greenwood Press, 2010]).
27 ice planets (Uranus, Neptune, and Pluto).99 It must be assumed that these planets formed
by some sticking process. Several theories of lunar formation have been offered over the
years, but none has solved all of the problems for the formation of earth’s moon, let alone
the other moons in our solar system.100
Summary
In summary, then, it must be stated that the Standard Model is based on evidence
which can be explained by other models and faces problems for every epoch of cosmic
evolution. There is no explanation for why the singularity began to expand, and an even
greater expansion is required in the form of inflation to overcome the gravitational force
which would cause the big bang to recollapse into a singularity and to solve the Flatness
Problem, the Horizon Problem, and the Monopole Problem. Again, inflationary theory is
an assumption built into the model, not a direct observation. Cosmologists must make
other assumptions about the annihilation of antimatter and about how stars, galaxies,
solar systems, planets, and moons formed. The bottom line is that most of these
assumptions are ad hoc – that is, made for this purpose.
Conclusions
99
Williams and Hartnett, Dismantling the Big Bang, 151-57.
100
One early theory was that the earth spun so fast that a chunk of rock flew off and eventually
evolved into the moon, but this theory has been rejected. Another theory is that the gravitational force of
the earth captured the moon, but this would have produced a slingshot affect rather than truly capturing the
moon into orbit. A third theory is that the earth and the moon were formed from the same planetesimal.
One problem with this theory is that the moon has a low iron content compared to the earth. The theory
which has gained the most supporters today is that a protoplanet the size of Mars struck the early earth
about 4.5 billion years ago, and the chunk which broke off of the earth evolved into the moon. One problem
with this theory is that the geochemical data does not support it. See Michael Oard, “Problems with ‘giant
impact’ origin of moon,” Journal of Creation 14, no. 1 (April 2000): 6-7, accessed December 1, 2013,
http://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j14_1/j14_1_06-07.pdf; Brian Thomas, “Impact Theory of Moon’s
Origin Fails,” accessed December 1, 2013, http://www.icr.org/article/7736/.
28 In conclusion, this paper has demonstrated that there are convincing arguments
for the beginning of the universe from philosophy, science, and theology. The implication
is that the universe had a transcendent Cause which most people call “God.” Since the
Standard Model posits a beginning to matter, energy, space, and time, it may be useful in
apologetics to appeal to the big bang to argue for the existence of God. For example,
Christian apologist William Lane Craig uses big bang cosmology in his kalam
cosmological argument and in his teleological argument from the fine-tuning of the
universe. But should Christians follow Craig’s example and adopt the big bang theory
wholesale?101 This author thinks not for three reasons. 1) The big bang theory contradicts
the teaching of Scripture about creation.102 This point cannot be explored in great depth
here, but the trend among evangelical scholars to regard Genesis 1-11 as merely
theological and not historical seems to underline this point.103 The two accounts cannot be
fit together without serious exegetical gymnastics.104 2) The nature of science is that
theories and models are continuously revised or discarded when new evidence comes in.
In fact, Faulkner has compared the big bang models of 1984 with the models in use 25
years later, and he states that the earlier model bears almost no resemblance to the big
101
Craig is certainly not alone here. In addition to scholars and apologists mentioned in notes 63
and 64 above, Hugh Ross’ ministry, Reasons to Believe, fully endorses cosmic evolution (see
www.reasons.org).
102
See Jason Lisle, “Does the Big Bang Fit with the Bible?” in The New Answers Book 2, ed. Ken
Ham (Green Forest, AR: Master Books, 2008), 103-110.
103
E.g., John H. Walton, The Lost World of Genesis One: Ancient Cosmology and the Origins
Debate (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2009).
104
Hugh Ross is one who tries to fit the big bang with the Bible, but not without great difficulty.
See the extensive critique of his exegesis in Jonathan Sarfati, Refuting Compromise: A Biblical and
Scientific Refutation of “Progressive Creationism” (Billions of Years) As Popularized by Astronomer Hugh
Ross (Green Forest, AR: 2004).
29 bang models of today.105 It seems unwise to align one’s biblical interpretation or
apologetics with such an elastic theory. Someone may respond that while the details of
cosmic history are debated, the big bang event itself is an established fact of science. This
raises the next point.
3) There are many scientific problems with the Standard Model which call into
question its legitimacy as a scientific theory. Some of these problems have been
delineated in this paper. Perhaps these problems are evidence of design (God of the gaps),
or perhaps these problems will be solved by scientists in the future. However, the
problem solving in the Standard Model so far has amounted to storytelling and ad hoc
assumptions. There is another possibility: the big bang never happened. This is the
conclusion of a large number of scientists who published an open letter to the scientific
community in New Scientist in 2004. In the letter, the original signers stated that the
fudge factors of the Standard Model like inflation, dark energy, and dark matter are
merely “hypothetical entities” used to bridge the gap between theory and observation (see
Appendix 1). Since its publication, over 500 scientists and independent researchers from
around the world have voiced their disapproval of the big bang theory by adding their
105
For example, models of the past did not take into account the concept of inflation, a concept
which is indispensable to the big bang model today. The estimates for the age of the universe and the rate
of expansion are also different today than in the past. On the one hand, this may reflect the self-correcting
discipline of science. On the other hand, cosmologists in the 1980s had complete confidence in their
models even though the same cosmologists have changed their models considerably over the years.
Faulkner summarizes as follows:
The [big-bang] model has become very plastic. That is, any unexpected new observation or
problem can be solved by the appropriate addition of some new effect or some new field…it, too,
can endure modification ad infinitum. At some point we must question whether the big-bang
model really is a good theory in the sense that it could be falsified by some new hypothetical
result.
See Danny Faulkner, “What about Cosmology?” in The New Answers Book 3, ed. Ken Ham (Green Forest,
AR: Master Books, 2009), 205-210.
30 signatures to the letter.106 Why is it, then, that so many scientists still accept the Standard
Model? According to big-bang critic Hilton Ratcliffe, undergraduate students largely
accept the Standard Model without question, and graduate students are too busy trying to
finish their degrees to question the paradigm in which they are operating.107 If the open
letter is an indication of the future of cosmology, then biblical interpretations and
apologetics which incorporate the big bang may soon become obsolete.
In conclusion, Christians should avoid using the big bang in their biblical
interpretation and apologetics once they learn to question the assumptions built into the
secular theories of cosmic evolution. The world needs a revolution for cosmic evolution
like the Intelligent Design movement has pioneered for biological evolution, and there is
no need for Christians to discard a literal reading of Genesis 1-11 because of the big bang
theory. The same can be said for the challenges to the young-earth model from
radiometric dating (see Appendix 2) and the observation of distant starlight in our
universe (see Appendix 3). Each of these issues can be adequately explained in a youngearth creation model. In fact, there are many evidences from cosmology which fit much
better in a young-earth model, such as the presence of comets in the solar system, the
moon recession, the Faint Young Sun Paradox, earth’s magnetic field decay, and the
observation of spiral galaxies.108 The answer to the question, “How did the universe
106
“An Open Letter to the Scientific Community,” accessed November 1, 2013,
http://www.cosmologystatement.org. Of course, the vast majority of the signers are not favoring biblical
creation, but their skepticism towards the big bang is warranted nonetheless.
107
108
Ratcliffe, The Static Universe, 20.
See Don B. DeYoung and Jason Lisle, “Does Astronomy Confirm a Young Universe?” in The
New Answers Book 3, ed. Ken Ham (Green Forest, AR: Master Books, 2010), 187-94; Jason Lisle, Taking
Back Astronomy (Green Forest, AR: Master Books, 2011), 53-70; Danny Faulkner, “Galaxies –
31 begin?” is found in the pages of the Bible. God created the world in six literal days about
six thousand years ago. This author hopes that Christian scholars and apologists will
return to this historic position when they come to grips with the insurmountable problems
with the Standard Model.
Unexplained Spirals,” accessed November 17, 2013,
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v6/n1/galaxies.
32 Appendix 1: An Open Letter to the Scientific Community
Published in New Scientist, May 22, 2004
www.cosmologystatement.org
The big bang today relies on a growing number of hypothetical entities, things that we
have never observed-- inflation, dark matter and dark energy are the most prominent
examples. Without them, there would be a fatal contradiction between the observations
made by astronomers and the predictions of the big bang theory. In no other field of
physics would this continual recourse to new hypothetical objects be accepted as a way of
bridging the gap between theory and observation. It would, at the least, raise serious
questions about the validity of the underlying theory.
But the big bang theory can't survive without these fudge factors. Without the
hypothetical inflation field, the big bang does not predict the smooth, isotropic cosmic
background radiation that is observed, because there would be no way for parts of the
universe that are now more than a few degrees away in the sky to come to the same
temperature and thus emit the same amount of microwave radiation.
Without some kind of dark matter, unlike any that we have observed on Earth despite 20
years of experiments, big-bang theory makes contradictory predictions for the density of
matter in the universe. Inflation requires a density 20 times larger than that implied by big
bang nucleosynthesis, the theory's explanation of the origin of the light elements. And
without dark energy, the theory predicts that the universe is only about 8 billion years
old, which is billions of years younger than the age of many stars in our galaxy.
What is more, the big bang theory can boast of no quantitative predictions that have
subsequently been validated by observation. The successes claimed by the theory's
supporters consist of its ability to retrospectively fit observations with a steadily
increasing array of adjustable parameters, just as the old Earth-centered cosmology of
Ptolemy needed layer upon layer of epicycles.
Yet the big bang is not the only framework available for understanding the history of the
universe. Plasma cosmology and the steady-state model both hypothesize an evolving
universe without beginning or end. These and other alternative approaches can also
explain the basic phenomena of the cosmos, including the abundances of light elements,
the generation of large-scale structure, the cosmic background radiation, and how the
redshift of far-away galaxies increases with distance. They have even predicted new
phenomena that were subsequently observed, something the big bang has failed to do.
Supporters of the big bang theory may retort that these theories do not explain every
cosmological observation. But that is scarcely surprising, as their development has been
severely hampered by a complete lack of funding. Indeed, such questions and alternatives
cannot even now be freely discussed and examined. An open exchange of ideas is lacking
in most mainstream conferences. Whereas Richard Feynman could say that "science is
the culture of doubt", in cosmology today doubt and dissent are not tolerated, and young
scientists learn to remain silent if they have something negative to say about the standard
33 big bang model. Those who doubt the big bang fear that saying so will cost them their
funding.
Even observations are now interpreted through this biased filter, judged right or wrong
depending on whether or not they support the big bang. So discordant data on red shifts,
lithium and helium abundances, and galaxy distribution, among other topics, are ignored
or ridiculed. This reflects a growing dogmatic mindset that is alien to the spirit of free
scientific inquiry.
Today, virtually all financial and experimental resources in cosmology are devoted to big
bang studies. Funding comes from only a few sources, and all the peer-review
committees that control them are dominated by supporters of the big bang. As a result,
the dominance of the big bang within the field has become self-sustaining, irrespective of
the scientific validity of the theory.
Giving support only to projects within the big bang framework undermines a fundamental
element of the scientific method -- the constant testing of theory against observation.
Such a restriction makes unbiased discussion and research impossible. To redress this, we
urge those agencies that fund work in cosmology to set aside a significant fraction of
their funding for investigations into alternative theories and observational contradictions
of the big bang. To avoid bias, the peer review committee that allocates such funds could
be composed of astronomers and physicists from outside the field of cosmology.
Allocating funding to investigations into the big bang's validity, and its alternatives,
would allow the scientific process to determine our most accurate model of the history of
the universe.
Signed: (Institutions are listed for identification only)
Halton Arp, Max-Planck-Institute Fur Astrophysik (Germany)
Andre Koch Torres Assis, State University of Campinas (Brazil)
Yuri Baryshev, Astronomical Institute, St. Petersburg State University (Russia)
Ari Brynjolfsson, Applied Radiation Industries (USA)
Hermann Bondi, Churchill College, University of Cambridge (UK)
Timothy Eastman, Plasmas International (USA)
Chuck Gallo, Superconix, Inc. (USA)
Thomas Gold, Cornell University (emeritus) (USA)
Amitabha Ghosh, Indian Institute of Technology, Kanpur (India)
Walter J. Heikkila, University of Texas at Dallas (USA)
Michael Ibison, Institute for Advanced Studies at Austin (USA)
Thomas Jarboe, University of Washington (USA)
Jerry W. Jensen, ATK Propulsion (USA)
Menas Kafatos, George Mason University (USA)
Eric J. Lerner, Lawrenceville Plasma Physics (USA)
Paul Marmet, Herzberg Institute of Astrophysics (retired) (Canada)
Paola Marziani, Istituto Nazionale di Astrofisica, Osservatorio Astronomico di Padova (Italy)
Gregory Meholic, The Aerospace Corporation (USA)
Jacques Moret-Bailly, Université Dijon (retired) (France)
Jayant Narlikar, IUCAA(emeritus) and College de France (India, France)
Marcos Cesar Danhoni Neves, State University of Maringá (Brazil)
Charles D. Orth, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (USA)
34 R. David Pace, Lyon College (USA)
Georges Paturel, Observatoire de Lyon (France)
Jean-Claude Pecker, College de France (France)
Anthony L. Peratt, Los Alamos National Laboratory (USA)
Bill Peter, BAE Systems Advanced Technologies (USA)
David Roscoe, Sheffield University (UK)
Malabika Roy, George Mason University (USA)
Sisir Roy, George Mason University (USA)
Konrad Rudnicki, Jagiellonian University (Poland)
Domingos S.L. Soares, Federal University of Minas Gerais (Brazil)
John L. West, Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology (USA)
James F. Woodward, California State University, Fullerton (USA)
35 Appendix 2: Radiometric Dating
The evolutionary conclusions from the results of radiometric dating on rock layers
and fossils have convinced many Christian scholars that the earth must be much older
than six to ten thousand years.109 The pronouncements from scientists that rocks are
millions or billions of years old seems foolproof when it is backed by the scientific
measurements of isotopes within the rock samples. While the scope of this appendix does
not include a lengthy discussion of radiometric dating beyond a brief summary,
creationists have written many popular-level articles110 as well as semi-technical111 and
technical books112 on the subjects of radiometric dating, fossilization, and the global
109
E.g., Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine (Grand
Rapids: Zondervan, 1994), 291-93; Millard J. Erickson, Christian Theology, second edition (Grand Rapids:
Baker Books, 1998), 405-406, 507-509; Gleason L. Archer, A Survey of the Old Testament Introduction,
revised and expanded (Chicago: Moody, 2007), 156-67.
110
See Mike Riddle, “Does Radiometric Dating Prove the Earth is Old?” in The New Answers
Book 1, ed. Ken Ham (Green Forest, AR: Master Books, 2006), 77-87; Bodie Hodge, “How Old is the
Earth?” in The New Answers Book 2, ed. Ken Ham (Green Forest, AR: 2008), 41-52; John Whitmore,
“Aren’t Millions of Years Required for Geological Processes?” in The New Answers Book 2, ed. Ken Ham
(Green Forest, AR: 2008), 229-44; Andrew Snelling, “Doesn’t the Order of Fossils in the Rock Record
Favor Long Ages?” in The New Answers Book 2, ed. Ken Ham (Green Forest, AR: 2008), 341-54; John
Morris, “Do Fossils Show Signs of Rapid Burial?” in The New Answers Book 3, ed. Ken Ham (Green
Forest, AR: 2010), 91-97; Andrew A. Snelling, “How Old Does the Earth Look?” in The New Answers
Book 3, ed. Ken Ham (Green Forest, AR: 2010), 143-50; Andrew A. Snelling and Tom Vail, “When and
how Did the Grand Canyon Form?” in The New Answers Book 3, ed. Ken Ham (Green Forest, AR: 2010),
173-85; Steven A. Austin, “Why is Mount St. Helens Important to the Origins Controversy?” in The New
Answers Book 3, ed. Ken Ham (Green Forest, AR: 2010), 253-62; Andrew A. Snelling, “What are Some of
the Best Flood Evidences?” in The New Answers Book 3, ed. Ken Ham (Green Forest, AR: 2010), 283-98;
Andrew A. Snelling, David Menton, Danny R. Faulkner, and Georgia Purdom, “What Are Some of the
Best Evidences in Science of a Young Creation?” in The New Answers Book 4, ed. Ken Ham (Green Forest,
AR: 2013), 111-29; John Whitmore, “What about Living Fossils?” in The New Answers Book 4, ed. Ken
Ham (Green Forest, AR: 2013), 143-50; Andrew A. Snelling, “Could the Flood Cataclysm Deposit
Uniform Sedimentary Rock Layers?” in The New Answers Book 4, ed. Ken Ham (Green Forest, AR: 2013),
173-86.
111
See Don DeYoung, Thousands…Not Billions (Green Forest, AR: Master Books, 2005); John
Morris, The Young Earth: The Real History of the Earth – Past, Present, and Future (Green Forest, AR:
Master Books, 2007); Mike Oard and John K. Reed, eds., Rock Solid Answers: The Biblical Truth Behind
14 Geological Questions (Green Forest, AR: Master Books, 2009); John Morris, The Global Flood:
Unlocking Earth’s Geologic History (Dallas, TX: Institute for Creation Research, 2012).
36 Flood. In summary, creationists make several arguments against the evolutionary dates
assigned to rocks and fossils.
1) Creationists believe that measuring decay rates of radioactive isotopes in the
present is good science, but extrapolating back to the past requires many assumptions.
What are measurable today are the amounts of parent and daughter isotopes (and ratio
between them) and the present rate of decay from the parent element to the daughter
element. Scientists must assume what the initial amounts of parent and daughter isotopes
were when the decay began, and they must assume that the system was closed (no
addition or subtraction of parent or daughter) and that the decay rate was the same in the
past as it is today.113
2) Radiometric dating is fallible. The fact that evolutionists apply multiple tests to
the same sample indicates that a single test in itself is not completely reliable. For
example, if the argon-argon test is trustworthy, then why compare it with a potassiumargon test for the same rock? Scientists would not need the additional test if the first were
infallible. Creationists claim that dates which do not fit the model are discarded because
of “contamination.” This happens when scientists state that a certain date or measurement
does not fit the known age of the sample. But the question remains as to how the
evolutionists know what the correct age is in the first place. If they knew the correct age,
112
See Larry Vardiman, Andrew A. Snelling, and Eugene F. Chaffin, eds., Radioisotopes and the
Age of the Earth: A Young-Earth Creationist Research Initiative (El Cajon, CA: Institute for Creation
Research, 2000); idem., Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth, Volume II (Dallas, TX: Institute for
Creation Research, 2005); Andrew A. Snelling, Earth’s Catastrophic Past: Geology, Creation & the Flood,
Volume 1 (Dallas, TX: Institute for Creation Research, 2009); idem., Earth’s Catastrophic Past: Geology,
Creation & the Flood, Volume 2 (Dallas, TX: Institute for Creation Research, 2009).
113
For a defense of radiometric dating and of an old earth, see the popular paper by Christian
geologist Robert C. Wiens, “Radiometric Dating: A Christian Perspective,” accessed November 10, 2013,
http://www.asa3.org/ASA/resources/Wiens.html. For a point-by-point response from a creationist
geologist, see Tasman B. Walker, “A Christian Response to Radiometric Dating,” accessed November 10,
2013, http://creation.com/images/pdfs/other/5292wiens_dating.pdf.
37 then why use radiometric dating? The correct age is the one already decided by the model
before a single test is performed. In addition, creationists point out that rock samples of
known ages from volcanoes, for example, often yield dates of millions of years even
though the rocks were formed right before the scientists’ eyes. Clearly, something is
flawed in the dating method or assumptions.
3) Creationists point to examples which seem to disprove the old-age assumptions
of evolutionists. For example, creation scientists have sent diamonds to be tested for
carbon-14. Evolutionary scientists never bothered to test diamonds for carbon-14 because
the half-life of carbon-14 is so short that all the carbon-14 would have disappeared if the
diamonds really took millions of years to form. The fact that diamonds have carbon-14
seems to indicate that they cannot be millions of years old.114 The same can be said for
carbon-14 recently found in dinosaur bones.115 These examples (and others) should at
least make the evolutionists question their assumptions, but the discordant data is either
discarded or explained away in order to preserve the evolutionary framework.
In summary, the nature of historical science demands that assumptions are made
since no one was around millions or billions of years ago to observe and record the
necessary data. Both creationists and evolutionists must make assumptions when trying to
determine what happened in the past, but creationists have demonstrated that the youngearth model is just as useful in explaining the data from geology. In some cases, as with
the carbon-14 in diamonds, the young-earth model better explains the data.
114
Jonathan Sarfati, “Diamonds: a creationist’s best friend,” Creation 28, no. 4 (September 2006):
26-27, accessed November 21, 2013, http://creation.com/diamonds-a-creationists-best-friend.
115
Carl Wieland, “Radiocarbon in dino bones,” accessed November 21, 2013,
http://creation.com/c14-dinos.
38 Appendix 3: The Distant Starlight Problem
Besides radiometric dating, the distant starlight problem is the other main obstacle
for some in believing in a recent creation. What scientists observe in the universe is that
many stars and galaxies are great distances away from earth, demonstrating that the
universe is billions of light years across.116 The problem is that it takes light a certain
amount of time to travel to earth so that we can see it. If stars are billions of light years
away from earth, then it is assumed that it took billions of years for the light to travel to
earth. Thus, the universe is either older than six to ten thousand years, or else there must
be another explanation for why we observe distant starlight in a young universe.
Some creationists of the past have answered this question by stating that during
the creation week light was created in transit in a mature, fully functioning creation.117
This seems to make sense since the stars were supposed to serve a functional role in
creation (Gen 1:14-17). Adam would not have to wait millions of years to see the stars;
they would have been visible since Day 4 of creation. The reason why many creationists
reject this explanation today is because it would make some objects such as supernovae
out to be mere illusions. It seems like deception to say that stars never exploded and that
the light was simply made that way.118 For this reason, creationists have sought other
explanations.
When it comes to measuring distant starlight, there are three variables: velocity
(speed), distance, and time (v = d/t). Creationists do not typically question measurements
116
A light year is the distance that light travels in a year. It is a measure of distance, not time.
117
E.g., Henry M. Morris, The Genesis Record: A Scientific & Devotional Commentary on the
Book of Beginnings (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1976), 65-66.
118
Faulkner, “What about Distant Starlight Models?” 258-29.
39 of distance,119 so they question either the assumption of speed or time. In 1987,
creationists Barry Setterfield and Trevor Norman published a technical paper arguing that
the speed of light was enormously faster in the past.120 In their view, the distant light
traveled to earth very quickly in only a short period of earth’s history. At first, many
creationists were excited about the idea, but it has since been largely abandoned because
of evidence that the speed of light has been the same in the past three centuries121 and
because changing the speed of light would drastically alter some of the other constants of
the universe.122
The models from Humphreys123 and Hartnett124 use time dilation to explain how
distant starlight is visible in a young universe.125 In Humphrey’s model, the universe was
created from a white hole with matter flying out as space was stretched out during the
creation week. According to general relativity, when space is stretched out, time
119
See Danny R. Faulkner, “Astronomical Distance Determination Methods and the Light Travel
Time Problem,” Answers Research Journal 6 (2013): 211-29, accessed November 15, 2013,
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/arj/v6/n1/astronomical-distance-light-travel-problem.
120
Barry Setterfield and Trevor Norman, “The Atomic Constants, Light, and Time,” accessed
November 15, 2013, http://www.setterfield.org/report/report.html.
121
See John G. Hartnett, “Is there any evidence for a change in c? Implications for creationist
cosmology,” Journal of Creation 16, no. 3 (December 2002): 89-94, accessed November 15, 2013,
http://creation.com/is-there-any-evidence-for-a-change-in-c; Gerald A. Aardsma, “Has the Speed of Light
Decayed?” accessed November 15, 2013, http://www.icr.org/article/283/.
122
Faulkner, “What about Distant Starlight Models?” 259. The variable speed of light is still an
area for research, though. See Carl Weiland, “Speed of light slowing down after all? Famous physicist
makes headlines,” Journal of Creation 16 no. 3 (December 2002): 7-10, accessed November 15, 2013,
http://creation.com/speed-of-light-slowing-down-after-all; Andrew Sibley, “Variable Speed of Light
Research Gets a Boost,” Journal of Creation 20, no. 1 (2006): 16-18, accessed November 15, 2013,
http://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j20_1/j20_1_16-18.pdf.
123
D. R. Humphreys, Starlight and Time: Solving the Puzzle of Distant Starlight in a Young
Universe (Colorado Springs, CO: Master Books, 1994).
124
John Hartnett, Starlight, Time, and the New Physics (Atlanta, GA: Creation Book Publishers,
125
See the helpful summaries in Faulkner, “What about Distant Starlight Models?” 260-61.
2007).
40 progresses at different rates depending on one’s location. Since the earth was near the
center of the white hole, then time passed on earth much slower than time near the
boundary of the white hole. Hartnett’s model uses Carmelian physics (named after Moshe
Carmeli, a Jewish physicist) which adds a fifth dimension of velocity (or redshift) to the
universe. On creation Day 4, when the fabric of space was being stretched out, the clocks
on earth were running normally, but the clocks in the cosmos were running extremely
fast. The universe is no longer expanding in such a rapid manner, but we still see the
effects of that initial expansion.126 Thus, Humphreys and Hartnett have the same result
with different explanations. Both of these models are still being developed, and perhaps
in the future cosmologists will give more credence to Carmeli’s model of the universe
which does not need the hypothetical entities of dark matter or dark energy.
Another explanation, known as the Anisotropic Synchrony Convention, is offered
by creationist astronomer Jason Lisle. This method uses position-based physics instead of
the common velocity-based physics. Most physicists have used the latter convention even
though Einstein left both options available. The basic ideas are that the speed of light
travels at different speeds in different directions (anisotropic) and that the speed of light
in one direction cannot be measured because time goes to zero at the speed of light. Thus,
it would take no time at all for light to travel from the stars to earth on Day 4 of creation
in a one-way direction. The function of stars to “give light on the earth” (Gen 1:15)
would have begun on the very day the stars were created. In this model, the light from
supernova 1987a reached earth instantaneously as the star exploded. Perhaps this is the
126
See Hartnett, Starlight, Time, and the New Physics, 99-111.
41 solution to the distant-starlight problem.127 However, Faulkner points out that one
problem with this model is that it is untestable.128
One other explanation offered by creationist astronomer Danny Faulkner is the
Dasha Solution derived from the Hebrew avd, “to sprout,” in Genesis 1:11. In Genesis
1:11-12, the Bible records God’s command to the land to produce vegetation. The text
says, “and it was so,” implying that the vegetation sprouted immediately from the ground.
What would have normally been a process of growth over some period of time happened
miraculously and instantaneously on creation Day 3 so that animals and man would have
food to eat on Days 5 and 6 (cf. Gen 1:29-30). Faulkner’s suggestion is that just as the
plant growth was miraculously expedited, so the normal travel of starlight may have been
sped up on Day 4. This may be likened to the stretching out of the heavens (e.g., Isa
45:12). Faulkner points out that time dilation or some other physical process may be able
to account for the starlight, but it cannot account for the rapid growth of plants.
Therefore, if the creation of starlight were like the dasha creation of plants, then no
physical mechanism is needed as an explanation. Admittedly, this solution is outside the
realm of testability since it was a miraculous creation.129
127
For more details, see Jason Lisle, “Distant Starlight: The Anisotropic Synchrony Convention,”
Answers 6, no. 1 (January-March 2011): 68-71, accessed November 19, 2013,
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v6/n1/distant-starlight. For a more technical discussion, see
Jason Lisle, “Anisotropic Synchrony Convention,” Answers Research Journal 3 (2010): 191-207, accessed
November 19, 2013, http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/arj/v3/n1/anisotropic-synchrony-convention;
Robert Newton, “Distant Starlight and Genesis: Conventions of Time Measurement,” Technical Journal
15, no. 1 (April 2011): 80-85, accessed November 19, 2013,
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/tj/v15/n1/starlight.
128
Faulkner, “What about Distant Starlight Models?” 262.
129
Ibid.
42 In summary, the distant starlight problem is one which creationists have been
working on for decades. Perhaps the solution is to be found in time dilation or c-decay, or
perhaps the creation of starlight was miraculous as in the Dasha Solution. Distant
starlight should not be a stumbling block for believing in the biblical account of a recent
creation when viable scientific explanations are available.
43 Bibliography
Aardsma, Gerald A. “Has the Speed of Light Decayed?” Accessed November 15, 2013.
http://www.icr.org/article/283/.
Albert, David. “On the Origin of Everything.” The New York Times. March 23, 2012.
Accessed November 20, 2013.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/25/books/review/a-universe-from-nothing-bylawrence-m-krauss.html?_r=0).
Archer, Gleason L. A Survey of the Old Testament Introduction. Revised and expanded.
Chicago: Moody, 2007.
Aristotle. Physics I, 7. Accessed November 23, 2013.
http://classics.mit.edu/Aristotle/physics.1.i.html.
Austin, Steven A. “Why is Mount St. Helens Important to the Origins Controversy?” In
The New Answers Book 3. Edited by Ken Ham, 253-62. Green Forest, AR: 2010.
Barrow, John D. New Theories of Everything: The Quest for Ultimate Explanation.
Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007.
_____. The Book of Universes: Exploring the Limits of the Cosmos. New York: W. W.
Norton & Company, 2011.
Barrow, John, and Frank Tipler. The Anthropic Cosmological Principle. Oxford: Oxford
University Press, 1988.
Bernitt, Rod. “Stellar evolution and the problem of first stars.” Journal of Creation 14,
no. 1 (April 2002): 12-14. Accessed December 1, 2013.
http://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j16_1/j16_1_12-14.pdf.
Carlson, Richard F., and Tremper Longman III. Science, Creation, and the Bible:
Reconciling Rival Theories of Origins. Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2010.
Chow, Tai L. Gravity, Black Holes, and the Very Early Universe: An Introduction to
General Relativity and Cosmology. New York: Springer, 2010.
Collins, Francis S. The Language of God. New York: Free Press, 2006.
Craig, William Lane. On Guard: Defending Your Faith with Reason and Precision.
Colorado Springs, CO: David C. Cook, 2010.
_____. Reasonable Faith: Christian Truth and Apologetics. Third edition. Wheaton, IL:
Crossway Books, 2008.
44 Craig, William Lane, and James D. Sinclair. “The Kalam Cosmological Argument.” In
The Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology. Edited by William Lane Craig
and J. P. Moreland, 101-201. West Sussex, UK: Wiley-Blackwell, 2009.
Copan, Paul, and William Lane Craig. Creation out of Nothing: A Biblical,
Philosophical, and Scientific Exploration. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2004.
Dennett, Daniel C. Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon. New York:
Penguin Group, 2006.
DeYoung, Don. Thousands…Not Billions. Green Forest, AR: Master Books, 2005.
DeYoung, Don B., and Jason Lisle. “Does Astronomy Confirm a Young Universe?” In
The New Answers Book 3. Edited by Ken Ham, 187-94. Green Forest, AR: Master
Books, 2010.
Enns, Peter. The Evolution of Adam: What the Bible Does and Doesn’t Say About Human
Origins. Grand Rapids: BrazosPress, 2012.
Erickson, Millard J. Christian Theology. Second edition. Grand Rapids: Baker Books,
1998.
Falk, Darrell R. Coming to Peace with Science: Bridging the Worlds Between Faith and
Biology. Downers Grove, InterVarsity Press, 2004.
Faulkner, Danny R. “Astronomical Distance Determination Methods and the Light Travel
Time Problem.” Answers Research Journal 6 (2013): 211-29. Accessed
November 15, 2013.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/arj/v6/n1/astronomical-distance-lighttravel-problem.
_____. “Galaxies – Unexplained Spirals.” Accessed November 17, 2013.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v6/n1/galaxies.
_____. Universe by Design: An Explanation of Cosmology and Creation. Green Forest,
AR: Master Books, 2004.
_____. “What about Cosmology?” In The New Answers Book 3. Edited by Ken Ham,
205-210. Green Forest, AR: Master Books, 2009.
Geisler, Norman L., and Frank Turek. I Don’t Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist.
Wheaton: Crossway, 2004.
Groothuis, Douglas. Christian Apologetics: A Comprehensive Case for Biblical Faith.
Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2011.
45 Grudem, Wayne. Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine. Grand
Rapids: Zondervan, 1994.
Guth, Alan H. The Inflationary Universe: The Quest for a New Theory of Cosmic
Origins. New York: Basic Books, 1997.
Hartnett, John. “Does observational evidence indicate the universe is expanding – part 1:
the case for time dilation.” Journal of Creation 25, no. 3 (December 2011): 109115. Accessed December 1, 2013.
http://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j25_3/j25_3_109-114.pdf.
_____. “Does observational evidence indicate the universe is expanding – part 2: the case
against expansion.” Journal of Creation 25, no. 3 (December 2011): 115-20.
Accessed December 1, 2013. http://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j25_3/j25_3_115120.pdf.
_____. “Is there any evidence for a change in c? Implications for creationist cosmology.”
Journal of Creation 16, no. 3 (December 2002): 89-94. Accessed November 15,
2013. http://creation.com/is-there-any-evidence-for-a-change-in-c.
_____. Starlight, Time, and the New Physics (Atlanta, GA: Creation Book Publishers,
2007).
Hassani, Sadri. From Atoms to Galaxies: A Conceptual Physics Approach to Scientific
Awareness./ Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press, 2010.
Hawking, Stephen. The Illustrated A Brief History of Time. Updated and expanded
edition. New York: Bantam Books, 1996.
_____. The Illustrated Theory of Everything: The Origin and Fate of the Universe.
Beverly Hills, CA: Phoenix Books, 2009.
_____. The Universe in a Nutshell. New York: Bantam Books, 2001.
Hawking, Stephen, and Leonard Mlodinow. The Grand Design. New York: Bantam
Books, 2010.
_____. “Why God Did Not Create the Universe: There is a sound scientific explanation
for the making of our world – no gods required.” Wall Street Journal. September
4, 2010. Accessed November 13, 2013.
http://search.proquest.com/docview/749445864?accountid=12085.
Hawking, Stephen, and Roger Penrose. The Nature of Space and Time. Princeton, NJ:
Princeton University Press, 1996.
46 Hebert, Jake. “A Universe from Nothing?” Accessed November 19, 2013.
http://www.icr.org/article/universe-from-nothing.
Hodge, Bodie. “How Old is the Earth?” In The New Answers Book 2. Edited by Ken
Ham, 41-52. Green Forest, AR: 2008.
Humphreys, D. R. Starlight and Time: Solving the Puzzle of Distant Starlight in a Young
Universe. Colorado Springs, CO: Master Books, 1994.
Jones, Lauren V. Stars and Galaxies. Greenwood Guides to the Universe. Edited by
Timothy F. Slater and Lauren V. Jones. Santa Barbara, CA: Greenwood Press,
2010.
Kaku, Michio. Parallel Worlds: A Journey Through Creation, Higher Dimensions, and
the Future of the Cosmos. New York: Anchor Books, 2005.
Krauss, Lawrence M. A Universe from Nothing: Why There is Something Rather than
Nothing. New York: Atria, 2012.
Lemley, Brad, and Larry Fink. “Guth’s Grand Guess.” Discover (April 2002). Accessed
November 25, 2013. http://discovermagazine.com/2002/apr/cover#.UpQYPBJts8.
Lincoln, Don. Understanding the Universe from Quarks to the Cosmos. Revised edition.
London: World Scientific, 2012.
Lisle, Jason. “Anisotropic Synchrony Convention.” Answers Research Journal 3 (2010):
191-207. Accessed November 19, 2013.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/arj/v3/n1/anisotropic-synchronyconvention;
_____. “Distant Starlight: The Anisotropic Synchrony Convention.” Answers 6, no. 1
(January-March 2011): 68-71. Accessed November 19, 2013.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v6/n1/distant-starlight.
_____. “Does the Big Bang Fit with the Bible?” In The New Answers Book 2. Edited by
Ken Ham, 103-110. Green Forest, AR: Master Books, 2008.
_____. Taking Back Astronomy. Green Forest, AR: Master Books, 2011.
Mo, Houjun, Frank van der Bosch, and Simon White. Galaxy Formation and Evolution.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010.
Moreland, J. P., and William Lane Craig. Philosophical Foundations for a Christian
Worldview. Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2003.
47 Morris, Henry M. The Genesis Record: A Scientific & Devotional Commentary on the
Book of Beginnings. Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1976.
Morris, John. “Do Fossils Show Signs of Rapid Burial?” In The New Answers Book 3.
Edited by Ken Ham, 91-97. Green Forest, AR: 2010.
_____. The Global Flood: Unlocking Earth’s Geologic History. Dallas, TX: Institute for
Creation Research, 2012.
_____. The Young Earth: The Real History of the Earth – Past, Present, and Future.
Green Forest, AR: Master Books, 2007.
Mortenson, Terry. “Jesus’ View of the Age of the Earth.” In Coming to Grips with
Genesis: Biblical Authority and the Age of the Earth. Edited by Terry Mortenson
and Thane H. Ury, 315-46. Green Forest, AR: Master Books, 2008.
Newton, Robert. “Distant Starlight and Genesis: Conventions of Time Measurement.”
Technical Journal 15, no. 1 (April 2011): 80-85. Accessed November 19, 2013.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/tj/v15/n1/starlight.
_____. “Light-Travel Time: A Problem for the Big Bang.” September 1, 2003. Accessed
December 1, 2013. http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/cm/v25/n4/lighttravel-time.
Oard, Michael. “Problems with ‘giant impact’ origin of moon.” Journal of Creation 14,
no. 1 (April 2000): 6-7. Accessed December 1, 2013.
http://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j14_1/j14_1_06-07.pdf.
Oard, Mike, and John K. Reed, editors. Rock Solid Answers: The Biblical Truth Behind
14 Geological Questions. Green Forest, AR: Master Books, 2009.
Pickover, Clifford A. The Physics Book. New York: Sterling, 2011.
Ratcliffe, Hilton. The Static Universe: Exploding the Myth of Cosmic Expansion.
Montreal: C. Roy Keys Inc., 2010.
Riddle, Mike. “Does Radiometric Dating Prove the Earth is Old?” In The New Answers
Book 1. Edited by Ken Ham, 77-87. Green Forest, AR: Master Books, 2006.
Ross, Hugh. Creation and Time. Colorado Springs, CO: NavPress, 1994.
_____. A Matter of Days: Resolving a Creation Controversy. Colorado Springs, CO:
NavPress, 2004.
Sagan, Carl. Cosmos. New York: Ballentine Books, 1985.
48 Sarfati, Jonathan. “Diamonds: a creationist’s best friend.” Creation 28, no. 4 (September
2006): 26-27. Accessed November 21, 2013. http://creation.com/diamonds-acreationists-best-friend.
_____. Refuting Compromise: A Biblical and Scientific Refutation of “Progressive
Creationism” (Billions of Years) As Popularized by Astronomer Hugh Ross.
Green Forest, AR: 2004.
Setterfield, Barry, and Trevor Norman. “The Atomic Constants, Light, and Time.”
Accessed November 15, 2013. http://www.setterfield.org/report/report.html.
Sibley, Andrew. “Variable Speed of Light Research Gets a Boost.” Journal of Creation
20, no. 1 (2006): 16-18. Accessed November 15, 2013.
http://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j20_1/j20_1_16-18.pdf.
Silk, Joseph. The Big Bang. Third edition. New York: W. H. Freeman and Company,
2001.
Snelling, Andrew A. “Could the Flood Cataclysm Deposit Uniform Sedimentary Rock
Layers?” In The New Answers Book 4. Edited by Ken Ham, 173-86. Green Forest,
AR: 2013.
_____. “Doesn’t the Order of Fossils in the Rock Record Favor Long Ages?” In The New
Answers Book 2. Edited by Ken Ham, 341-54. Green Forest, AR: 2008.
_____. Earth’s Catastrophic Past: Geology, Creation & the Flood, Volume 1. Dallas,
TX: Institute for Creation Research, 2009.
_____. Earth’s Catastrophic Past: Geology, Creation & the Flood, Volume 2. Dallas,
TX: Institute for Creation Research, 2009.
_____. “How Old Does the Earth Look?” In The New Answers Book 3. Edited by Ken
Ham, 143-50. Green Forest, AR: 2010.
_____. “What are Some of the Best Flood Evidences?” In The New Answers Book 3.
Edited by Ken Ham, 283-98. Green Forest, AR: 2010.
Snelling, Andrew A., David Menton, Danny R. Faulkner, and Georgia Purdom. “What
Are Some of the Best Evidences in Science of a Young Creation?” In The New
Answers Book 4. Edited by Ken Ham, 111-29. Green Forest, AR: 2013.
Snelling, Andrew A., and Tom Vail. “When and how Did the Grand Canyon Form?” In
The New Answers Book 3. Edited by Ken Ham, 173-85. Green Forest, AR: 2010.
Spitzer, Robert J. New Proofs for the Existence of God: Contributions of Contemporary
Physics and Philosophy. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2010.
49 Steinhardt, Paul J., and Neil Turok. “A Cyclic Model of the Universe.” Accessed
November 26, 2013. http://www.physics.princeton.edu/~steinh/sciencecyc.pdf;
_____. Eternal Universe: Beyond the Big Bang. New York: Doubleday, 2007.
Strobel, Lee. The Case for a Creator: A Journalist Investigates Scientific Evidence That
Points Toward God. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2004.
Thomas, Brian. “Impact Theory of Moon’s Origin Fails.” Accessed December 1, 2013.
http://www.icr.org/article/7736/.
Tryon, Edward P. “Is the Universe a Vacuum Fluctuation?” Nature 246 (December 14,
1973): 396-97.
Van Till, Howard J. “The Fully Gifted Creation (‘Theistic Evolution’).” In Three Views
on Creation and Evolution. Edited by J. P. Moreland and John Mark Reynolds,
159-218. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1999.
Vardiman, Larry, Andrew A. Snelling, and Eugene F. Chaffin, editors. Radioisotopes and
the Age of the Earth: A Young-Earth Creationist Research Initiative. El Cajon,
CA: Institute for Creation Research, 2000.
_____. Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth, Volume II. Dallas, TX: Institute for
Creation Research, 2005.
Vilenkin, Alex. Many Worlds in One. New York: Hill and Wang, 2006.
von Rad, Gerhard. Genesis: A Commentary. Revised edition. Translated by John H.
Marks. Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1973.
Walker, Tasman B. “A Christian Response to Radiometric Dating.” Accessed November
10, 2013. http://creation.com/images/pdfs/other/5292wiens_dating.pdf.
Walton, John H. The Lost World of Genesis One: Ancient Cosmology and the Origins
Debate. Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2009.
Ward, Keith. The Big Questions in Science and Religion. West Conshohocken, PA:
Templeton Press, 2008.
Wenham, Gordon J. Genesis 1-15. Word Biblical Commentary. Waco, TX: Word, 1987.
Whitmore, John. “Aren’t Millions of Years Required for Geological Processes?” In The
New Answers Book 2. Edited by Ken Ham, 229-44. Green Forest, AR: 2008.
50 _____. “What about Living Fossils?” In The New Answers Book 4. Edited by Ken Ham,
143-50. Green Forest, AR: 2013. Wieland, Carl. “Radiocarbon in dino bones.” Accessed November 21, 2013.
http://creation.com/c14-dinos. _____. “Speed of light slowing down after all? Famous physicist makes headlines.”
Journal of Creation 16 no. 3 (December 2002): 7-10. Accessed November 15,
2013. http://creation.com/speed-of-light-slowing-down-after-all. Wiens, Robert C. “Radiometric Dating: A Christian Perspective.” Accessed November
10, 2013. http://www.asa3.org/ASA/resources/Wiens.html. Williams, Alex, and John Hartnett. Dismantling the Big Bang: God’s Universe
Rediscovered. Green Forest, AR: Master Books, 2005.