God: Fact or Fiction?: Exploring the Relationship Between Science Religion and the Origin of Life

by Brendan Roberts

  The radiation residue permeating the universe though weak could be easily detected with simple radio telescopes at microwave frequencies. Therefore in 1964 the Russian physicist, Yakov Zeldovich and his associates, ID Novikov and AG Doroshkevich proposed that the existence of the radiation might be tested by radio astronomy, a radio telescope.

  At Bell Laboratories, Holmdel, New Jersey two astronomers Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson were using very sensitive cryogenic microwave receivers for radio astronomy, a horn antenna. Unaware of the work of the Russians they were agitated because a perplexing static they could not eradicate was obstructing their work. Strangely, the sound did not vary no matter what direction they aimed their antenna or what time of day or season. The sound appeared to be coming from the entire universe;2 the unevenness of the sound detected was startling evidence that it indeed permeated the entire universe. However the background radiation was apparently the same emanating from every direction.

  The solution to this quandary came when a satellite called the Cosmic Background Explorer was launched in 1989. It was designed to detect unevenness in the cosmic background radiation. The mission was such a success that the satellite detected the ripples (variations) in the temperature of the background radiation (light, radio and other electromagnetic waves). This splendid success led George Smoot, the leader of the mission, to exclaim, ‘If you’re religious, it’s like looking at God’.3

  Big Crunch – Fact or Fallacy? Scientists have deduced two possibilities regarding the future of the universe. The first is that the universe will expand forever. But the other theory is much scarier and would change the universe as we know it. The Big Crunch Theory holds that the universe will expand a limited distance due to the consumption of available energy. Depending on whether there is enough matter, eventually gravity will pull harder and overcome the expansion. Hence the expansion of the universe will slow to a halt. Then the incredible forces of contraction will build to an unsustainable peak; the universe will collapse faster and faster until it is squashed into another explosion, another Big Bang. Then maybe it will expand again and thus the Big Bang, Big Crunch cycle would be repeated forever. Astronomer and renowned author, Carl Sagan, a trumpeter of such a theory, believed in its eternal process. He likened it to an accordion opening and closing.4

  Astronomers conducted tests to ascertain whether there was enough matter in the universe for the Big Crunch and the results were startling; a team of six from Britain, Australia and China discovered that the universe contains a mean density of only 14% of matter that is required for the universe to collapse back on itself. They concluded that the Big Crunch theory was flawed; it was indeed a fallacy. Author Harold Slusher painstakingly illustrates another defect of the theory. We can calculate the amount of gravity required to hold the galaxies together and knowing this allows for the calculation of the amount of mass it would take for them to remain together. For example, in the Coma Cluster for every seven kilograms of mass required to gel the cluster, only one kilogram can be found. But when the investigation is widened to other clusters then things get much worse. The unaccounted for mass ranges from two to ten times the required mass; and in the Virgo Cluster 98% of the mass expected can’t be found.5

  Why can only one seventh of the amount of matter required to hold the universe together be detected? This incredible discrepancy is leaving neo-Darwinist astronomers baffled.

  Authors Charles Colson and Nancy Pearcey in How Now Shall We Live refute the Big Crunch and the notion that the universe could have been in existence forever. Sagan’s assumption contradicts basic laws of physics. Colson and Pearcey state: ‘even an oscillating universe would use up the available energy in each cycle, and it would eventually run down’.6

  Big Bang Expansion Rate There was an intricate fine tuning necessary for a Big Bang. Professor of Philosophy and Religion, Stephen Davis explains that if the rate of expansion relative to the total mass was too rapid then no gases and thus galaxies would have formed because the total mass would have overwhelmed the gravitational attraction of the various pieces of matter to each other. Alternatively if the rate of expansion was too slow then too much gravitational attraction would have resulted in the universe collapsing back into itself.7

  James Porter Moreland, a Distinguished Professor of Philosophy at Talbot School of Theology, Biola University, California also attests to the fine-tuning needed: ‘A reduction by one part in a million million would have led to collapse before the temperature could fall below ten thousand degrees. An early increase by one part in a million would have prevented the growth of galaxies, stars, and planets.’8

  The eminent physicist and author Professor Stephen W. Hawking is one of the most intelligent people of the 21st century. He also supports the notion of fine tuning and collapsing of the universe if the rate of expansion one second following the Big Bang had been reduced by one part in a hundred thousand million million.9 Wow! How precise the Big Bang actually had to be! Hawking also demonstrates that Einstein’s General Theory of Relativity implied that the origin of space and time is from the Big Bang and end in black holes.10

  We are thus inclined to ask: Was this fine tuning the result of blind chance? Or was it the result of a Creator far greater in intelligence, life-giving power and thus nature than us?

  Big Bang Vs Naturalism The reality of the Big Bang Theory ‘deals a near fatal blow to naturalistic philosophy’.11 Those who follow this philosophy believe that an unbroken cause and effect can be traced back forever. However, their theory is challenged by the Big Bang Theory. Resistance has swept through the naturalist community of scientists; the physicist Arthur Eddington sums up the belief of many of his colleagues, that the idea of a beginning is ‘philosophically repugnant’.12

  A definite beginning is repugnant to those whose blood boils against the notion of a Creator. It forces them to face the philosophical and religious question: What existed before the Big Bang? They are faced with the fact that from the Big Bang the universe came into being together with space, time, matter and energy.13 As there must be a first cause of an event then whatever caused this space, time, matter and energy must have been outside these elements. This points to a Creator, not bound by our time, a Being who could have existed forever.

  Some philosophers and scientists, who try to disprove the notion of God, insist that if God exists then the beginning of the universe shows that God is just a first cause that started things off and has left the world to self-exist. Others accept that a Creator could create the foundational nature (plants, birds, animals, humans, etc) and the laws of nature (such as time, space, gravity, motion, and photosynthesis) but exclude the possibility that a Creator can be active in the universe. I will elaborate on this throughout God: Fact or Fiction? – especially in the chapters On the Wings of Faith and Reason and Miracles.

  Eternal Universe? The Big Bang Theory and the fact that the universe is continuing to expand are exhilarating revelations. They do not disprove that a Creator ever existed. It is fascinating to read teenagers claiming that we come to exist by chance and that logical sense dictates that an omnipotent (unlimited power) and omniscient (all-knowing and all-wise) Being can’t exist. One young man on the internet equated the existence of a divine Being with the existence of fictional green eyed monsters. But as we say in philosophy if it is possible in principle then it can be possible in fact. The universe had to begin somehow – from compressed space exploding, the Big Bang. There is more evidence pointing towards the existence of a Creator than disproving God from this theory.

  With the cataclysmic explosion we are left with a few basic questions which will be covered throughout this book: How did the Big Bang happen? When did it occur? Who or what caused it? Why? Empirical science can only answer the how and when. The other questions are left to the sciences of philosophy and theology.

  Origin of the Universe St Augustine of Hippo was born in Tagaste, North Africa in AD 354 to rich parents. After a rather wild adolescence, including father
ing a child out of wedlock, he was a marked man because his Mum ardently prayed for his conversion. Her heartfelt desire was rewarded and he converted back to Christ. In 387 he was baptised by St Ambrose; four years later he was ordained a priest; and then after three years he was consecrated the Bishop of Hippo in North Africa. He became one of the greatest figures in the history of Christian spirituality, leaving behind his legacy, his autobiographical Confessions.

  Paul Davies, the renowned author and Australian physicist holds that the boundary of time is marked by the infinite density of matter and infinite squashing of space. He says:

  The conclusion that seems to force itself upon us is that the Big Bang was the ultimate beginning of all physical things: space, time, matter and energy. It is evidently meaningless to ask (as many people do) what happened before the Big Bang, or what caused the explosion to occur. There was no before.14

  Philosophically you can’t say that space can be squashed infinitely. While it is meaningless, in relation to our space and time to ask what happened before the Big Bang, it is not meaningless to ask: What made it happen? Whatever caused it had to be outside space, time, matter and energy. It is logical to conclude a Creator caused it, beyond the limitations of the existence we are currently in.

  But science can’t tell us what caused the Big Bang. It has its limitations. Cardinal Dulles explains these limitations of science: ‘It can tell us a great deal about the processes that can be observed or controlled by the senses and by instruments, but it has no way of answering deeper questions involving reality as a whole.’15 It can’t tell us the cause of the existence of the universe, the reason why it and thus we exist, what our ultimate destiny will be, nor how we should treat ourselves and others in order to be fully human persons.

  Some people claim that a Being created the universe and then left it to its own devices. But throughout this book I will illustrate that a loving God created the world, has operated in human history and revealed Himself to mankind.

  Who Created God? The most common question in response to the claim that God created the cosmos is: So who created God? A Creator of our universe would not be bound by our time, space, matter or energy.

  We can reason that such a being is the source of all existence; all creation is contingent on the Creator of everything. Therefore if there was no time – no before or after – then He would be eternal. Because God is eternal and able to create our magnificent universe by willing it into existence, also by His very will He holds the whole universe in existence.

  So if no one created God, and God created the universe, then He is eternal. Therefore He still exists. So what are we doing? Are we trying to seek the truth? Are we spending time in getting to know the truth? As I will portray later, often those who convert from atheism to a belief in a Creator do so intellectually first and later by faith.

  Summary We have explored such concepts as the Big Bang Theory; the expansion rate of the universe; and that it is possible in principle that the Big Bang reveals a Creator, outside of space, time, matter and energy. This theory haunts some and exonerates others. Maybe some are haunted because they view such a Being as a just or even vindictive judge, rather than primarily as a merciful and loving parent.

  It’s intriguing exploring the fact that no one created God. While some die-hards would be thrilled if God had been killed, later I will share my conviction that the Creator of the universe is in fact very much alive, and has an active interest in His creation. But the big question is: Now that such a theory reveals a Creator, do other areas of science reflect the existence of God, an Intelligent Designer? The truth will be revealed as we explore further.

  Notes

  1. Amir Aczel. God’s Equation: Einstein, Relativity, and the Expanding Universe (New York: Four Walls Eight Windows, 1999), pp. 7-8.

  2. RH Dicke, R.H and Peebles P.J.E and Roll, P.G and Wilkinson, D.T. “Cosmic Black-Body Radiation”, Astrophysical Journal 142 (1965), 414-419; AA Penzias, RW Wilson, “A Measurement of Excess Antenna Temperature at 4080 mc/ s,” Astrophysical Journal 142 (1965), pp. 419-421.

  3. For Smoot’s description of the research see George Smoot and Keay Davidson, Wrinkles in Time (New York; Morrow, 1993).

  4. Carl Sagan. Cosmos (New York: Random, 1980), p. 259.

  5. See Harold Slusher. Age of the Cosmos (San Diego: California: Institute for Creation Research, 1980), p. 12.

  6. Colson & Pearcey, Now How Shall We Live (Illinois: Tyndale House Publishers Inc, 1999), p. 60.

  7. See Stephen T. Davis. God, Reason & Theistic Proofs (Grand Rapids; Michigan: WMB Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1997), p. 108.

  8. J.P Moreland. Scaling the Secular City: A Defense of Christianity (Grand Rapids; Michigan: Baker Book House, 1987) pp. 52-3.

  9. See Stephen W. Hawking. A Brief History of Time (New York: Bantam Books, 1988), p. 291.

  10. See www.hawking.org.uk /index.php/about-stephen/briefhistory.

  11. Colson & Pearcey, Now How Shall We Live, p. 59.

  12. See Arthur Eddington, as quoted in Hugh Ross, “Astronomical Evidences for a Personal, Transcendent God,” in The Creation Hypothesis, ed. J.P. Moreland (Downers Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity Press, 1994), pp. 145-46.

  13. Stephen Hawking and Roger Penrose. “The Singularities of Gravitational Collapse and Cosmology” Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, Series A, 314 (1970): pp. 529-48.

  14. Paul Davies. The Last Three Minutes (London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson, 1994), p. 24.

  15. Avery Cardinal Dulles, First Things: A Journal of Religion, Culture and Public Life, October 2007.

  CHAPTER 2

  ORIGINS OF EVOLUTION A dazzling flash of lightning mercilessly strikes molecules in a pool deserted by the tide. As you gaze in wonder you see life slowly and meticulously evolving into the first protein molecules, and then forming into bacteria, to fish, to amphibians, to mammals and eventually into humans. The process takes a staggering number of years to get to humans, perhaps billions of years. This is the theory of macroevolution. When a Creator is excluded then it is claimed that this happens purely by luck, a random role of the dice. Though Darwin believed Natural Selection chooses what organisms to modify, the first evolved protein molecules would have had to organise at random, that is by luck.

  Micro and Macroevolution The evolution theory can be split into two definitions: micro and macro evolution. Microevolution is the hypothesis that change has occurred within a species as a result of adaptation to the environment. This could be due to climate change or a fight for survival because of predators.

  Macroevolution is the theory that all species of plants and animals evolved from different species. Moreover the atheistic view of macroevolution called neo-Darwinism, excludes a Creator from this theory as in principle it reduces everything down to matter only and excludes purpose, mind and intention.

  Evolutionary Origins

  We will cover two major questions in this chapter: What is the origin of the theory of evolution? What questions does it fail to answer? Most people attribute the theory of evolution to Darwin. But shortly we will examine whether the principles behind evolution existed far before his time. Charles Darwin was born in February, 1809 in Shrewsbury, England. He wrote his first notebook of facts concerning the origin of species in July 1837 when he was 28 years old. He was inspired by the relationships between living and extinct species during his five-year voyage around the world on the ship, HMS Beagle. The mission of the crew was to chart poorly known areas of the South American coastline. But Darwin spent most of his time on-shore, studying, and collecting thousands of specimens of fossils, plants, and animals. The apex of his observations was the slight variations among species, especially variations found on the remote Galapagos Islands. On each new island he discovered species living in isolation from neighbouring islands amidst similar environmental conditions. The main species he studied were the land and marine iguana which he observed basking on the rocks like sunbathers at the beach. At first he was puzzled about the
nature of selection as he questioned how selection could be applied to organisms in a state of nature.1

  Natural Selection Darwin’s relief came six years later, in October, 1838 when reading the famous Essay on Population by Reverend Thomas Malthus. Through this essay he was able to assimilate his argument regarding the intense struggle for the existence of living things, compared to rate at which the food supply increased. Thus Darwin adopted the bedrock of his theory. Because of the struggle for existence that he observed in animals and plants he concluded that ‘favorable variations would tend to be preserved and unfavorable ones to be destroyed’.2 The result would be the formation of new species.

  But was this really such a breakthrough for Darwin or did he in fact dredge the theory from past centuries? The truth will soon be apparent. His theory of evolution rested on the foundations of Natural Selection which rejected unfavourable variations in organisms and species and accepted good variations. But how could nature, which has no mind, work on such a principle?

  Darwin’s theory of Natural Selection encompassed several ideas which are divided into the following categories: ♦ Random variations. ♦ Struggle for survival. ♦ Survival of the fittest. Darwin believed that species are modified from a long course of descent through successive, slight and favourable variations. Integral to this modification was the use and disuse of parts.3

  Once again we see that only favourable variations are selected. One puzzle of macroevolution concerns the existence of intermediate proof of evolution whereby a species changes into another species. This proof should be inherent in the fossil discoveries. In Darwin’s day the amount of fossil discoveries was minuscule. But Millions of fossils have been discovered since Darwin’s era. Has any proof of macro evolution ever been discovered? The evidence is not as abundant or conclusive as Darwin hoped.