The Big Bang: Friend or Foe?

The Big Bang:Friend or Foe? Dr. Kirk Bertsche BASS 2011

Convincing evidence for existence of God and divine creation, consistent with the Biblical record Craig, Ross, McGrath, et al Atheistic, evolutionary attack on existence of God, His creative work, and the Scriptures Morris, Ham, DeYoung, Lisle, et al Opposite Perspectives on the Big Bang • What does the Big Bang really claim? • How should we think about the Big Bang?

Edgar Allan Poe (1809-1849)Professional Author • Mystery and humor writer • Science buff; had telescope as teenager • Wrote Eureka, A Prose Poem (1848) • Considered by Poe to be his greatest work • An imaginative attempt to explain “the Material and Spiritual Universe,” “its Essence, its Origin, its Creation, its Present Condition and its Destiny” • Concept of Big Bang • Solution to Olbers’ Paradox (Why is night sky dark?) • Not well received (but Einstein liked it)

Poe’s Big Bang (1848) • Observations: • Stars look like birdshot on the side of a barn • Seems to have spread out from a single point • Claims: • Universe began as a single “primordial particle” willed by “Divine Volition” to divide and spread out to become the present universe • Universe will re-collapse to single particle due to gravity

Albert Einstein (1879-1955)Father of Modern Physics • Photoelectric effect (1905) • Nobel Prize in Physics, 1921 • Special Theory of Relativity (1905) • General Theory of Relativity (1916) • Basis for Expansion of Universe • Einstein added arbitrary “Cosmological Constant” so universe wouldn’t expand • Possibly due to pantheistic religious views

Georges Lemaître (1894-1966)Astronomer and Catholic Priest • Fan of Edgar Allan Poe • Proposed first scientific theory of expanding universe (1927) • Based on general relativity of Einstein • Implies a beginning to the universe • Suggested that universe may have begun with a “single quantum” — Nature 127 (1931), n. 3210, p. 706

Edwin Hubble (1889-1953)Astronomer • Experimental evidence of expansion of universe (1929) • “Hubble Law”: Recession rate vs distance is roughly linear (Ned Wright’s Cosmology Tutorial, www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright)

Measuring Speed and Distance • Speed: “Doppler shift” • Like approaching or receding train whistle • Distance: “Standard candles” • Type Ia Supernovae

Arthur Eddington (1882-1944)Astrophysicist • Experimentally confirmed Einstein’s general theory of relativity (1919) • Lemaître’s mentor • Embraced Lemaître’s expansion of universe • Resisted Lemaître’s Big Bang • “Philosophically, the notion of a beginning of the present order of Nature is repugnant to me … I should like to find a genuine loophole.” (Nature 127 (1931) n. 3203, p.450)

George Gamow (1904-1968)Theoretical Physicist, Cosmologist • Worked out theory of nucleosynthesis (creation of atomic nuclei) in a Big Bang scenario (1948) • Explained present abundance of H and He • Predicted presence of cosmic background radiation due to Big Bang, ~5K (1948)

Fred Hoyle (1915-2001)Astronomer and Mathematician • Rejected Big Bang and championed “steady state hypothesis” (1948) • New galaxies being created as universe expands • Coined term “Big Bang” (BBC, 1949) • Explained nucleosynthesis of heavy elements in stars and supernovae (1957) • Predicted previously unknown resonant state in 12C, later found by Fowler • This “fine tuning” of carbon implied design, left Hoyle (an atheist) “greatly shaken”

Arno Penzias(1933-) & RobertWilson (1936-) • Experimental observation of cosmic background radiation (1962) • ~2.7 K blackbody spectrum • Predicted by Big Bang theory • Not predicted by steady-state theory • Nobel Prize in physics, 1978

The Scientific Method

Uniformity of CMBR • Why so uniform, even between distant points in opposite directions? • Inflation theory--Alan Guth • But can’t be perfectly uniform, or we wouldn’t have clumping of matter • Incorporated in inflation theory • Measured/verified by COBE and WMAP--George Smoot and John Mather • Nobel Prize in physics, 2006

Full Sky Anisotropy Temperature range +/- 200 microKelvin NASA WMAP image (map.gsfc.nasa.gov)

Dark Matter • Not enough visible matter in universe to fit Big Bang (need ~5x more!) • Not enough in galaxies to fit rotation • “Dark matter” “seen” by gravitational lensing NASA image of “bullet cluster”

Continued Scientific Resistance to Big Bang • Big bang is “philosophically unacceptable,” “an over-simple view … unlikely to survive the decade ahead.” It makes ultimate origin of world unanswerable by science, provides support for “moderate creationists” — John Maddox (physics editor for Nature), Nature 340 (1989), p.425

Cyclic Universe? • Allows eternal universe and Big Bang • Theoretical problems: • Richard Tolman, 1934: entropy must increase • Alan Guth, 1983: won’t “bounce,” but “thud” • Experimental problem: • Riess et al, 1998; Perlmutter et al, 1999: expansion rate of universe is increasing, not decreasing; dubbed “dark energy” (William Lane Craig, “The Ultimate Question of Origins”)

Fine-Tuning of Big Bang • Mass density of early universe must be very precisely tuned (Ned Wright’s Cosmology Tutorial, www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright) • Too high: universe collapses too early • Too low: universe expands too rapidly • Tuning precision: 10-60 of Planck scale • “Planck scale” is natural scale factor, set by quantum mechanics and Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle • How/why so finely tuned? • Unknown physics? Multiverse? Divine design?

Multiverse Theory • We are in one of an infinite number of parallel universes; ours happens to have just the right values to allow life • “To the hard-line physicist the multiverse may not be entirely respectable, but it is at least preferable to invoking a Creator. Indeed … physicists like Susskind and Weinberg are attracted to the multiverse precisely because it seems to dispense with God as the explanation of cosmic design.”— Bernard Carr, Universe or Multiverse? (Cambridge University Press, 2007) p. 16

Multiverse Theory • “It is trivially true that, in an infinite universe, anything that can happen will happen. But this catch-all explanation of a particular feature of the Universe is really no explanation at all. We should like to understand the bio-friendliness of this universe. To postulate that all possible universes exist does not advance our understanding at all.” — Paul Davies,Universe or Multiverse? Bernard Carr, ed. (Cambridge University Press, 2007) p. 494

Timeline of the Universe

Using Big Bang to Defend Biblical Message (Apologetics) • Beginning implies beginner • Cosmological argument for God • Extreme fine-tuning implies divine design • Anthropic argument for God

Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274)Philosopher and Theologian • Cosmological argument for existence of God • Everything (except God) has a cause • A causal chain cannot be infinite in length • Therefore, there must be a first cause, which must be God • Philosophical response • Why does the universe need a cause? Why can’t the universe itself be the first cause? • Infinite, beginingless universe popular since Aristotle

William Lane Craig (1949-)Philosopher and Apologist • Kalām cosmological argument • 1 Everything that begins to exist has a cause • 2 The universe began to exist • No actual infinite past regression can exist • Big Bang indicates finite past and beginning • 3 Therefore, the universe has a cause • Cause must transcend physical universe • This is a description of God

Hugh Ross (1945-)Astronomer and Apologist • “If time's beginning is concurrent with the beginning of the universe, … then the cause of the universe must be some entity operating in a time dimension completely independent of and pre-existent to the time dimension of the cosmos. This … tells us that God is not the universe itself, nor is God contained within the universe.”— The Creator and the Cosmos

Fine Tuning of Big Bang The above parameters are inter-related (not all independent of one another) See Hugh Ross, The Creator and the Cosmos for additional examples

Owen Gingerich (1930-)Professor Emeritus of Astronomy and History of Science, Harvard University • One of earliest Evangelical proponents of “fine tuning” arguments (1970s) • “Whether atheist or theist, a thoughtful person can only stand in awe of the way the universe seems designed as a home for humankind.” —God’s Universe (Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press, 2006), p. 40.

Cautions with Big Bang Arguments • Don’t oversell • Provides strong evidence of God • Does not provide proof of God • Don’t present a “God of the gaps” • Some fine-tuning evidence may eventually be explained through science • Whether or not explainable by science, fine-tuning is coherent with divine design and purpose

Owen Gingerich (1930-)Professor Emeritus of Astronomy and History of Science, Harvard University • “I am personally persuaded that through the eyes of faith one can see numerous vestiges of the designer’s hand in the universe. I have many good friends who cannot see it that way, so I am rather doubtful that one can argue a skeptic into faith with the evidences of science. Nevertheless, I find some of these circumstances of nature impossible to comprehend in the absence of supernatural design.” —“Modern Cosmogony and Biblical Creation” in Is God a Creationist? Ed. By Roland Mushat Frye (Scribner’s, 1983) p. 132.

Cautions with Big Bang Arguments • Addresses only “first cause” of creation • Doesn’t necessarily lead to biblical God • Can lead to deism (Flew) • Can lead to panspermia (Hoyle) • Misses God’s ongoing providential activity in sustaining universe • Misses God’s activity in redeeming mankind

George MurphyPhysicist and Theologian • We emphasize the maintainence of the universe through the laws of nature as much as any initial calling into being of those laws. … The idea of maintainence or sustenance as an essential part of the doctrine of creation might have saved a good deal of grief if it had been stressed in debates about creation and evolution. —“A Positive Approach to Creation”JASA 32(December 1980): 230-236

Case Studies • Fred Hoyle (1915-2001) • “Greatly shaken” by fine-tuning of carbon atom • Converted to “panspermia” • Anthony Flew (1923-2010) • Leading philosopher • Converted from atheism to theism/deism, in response to scientific evidence for design • Richard Smalley (1943-2005) • Nobel Prize in Chemistry, 1996 • Became Christian in 2004, partly due to “fine-tuning” evidence

Hugh Ross (1945-)Astronomer and Apologist • Big Bang evidence points to the existence of a Creator • Observations of nature (e.g. fine tuning) imply that the Creator is powerful, wise, and loving • We each have a conscience and know that we do fall short of our own standards (and those of the Creator) • The powerful, wise, loving Creator has made a way to correct this situation (based on The Fingerprint of God, p. 181-182)

Christian Opposition to Big Bang • Big Bang fundamentally atheistic/evolutionary • Misunderstands Big Bang • Scientific explanations oppose God • Deistic, unbiblical perspective • Perceived conflicts with Genesis account • Timescale, sequence of Creation • Interpretation of Genesis is interesting, complex • Can still use Big Bang as apologetic argument

Henry Morris (1918-2006)Hydraulic Engineer and Apologist • Rejected timing and sequence of Big Bang • Doubted expansion of universe • “… the big-bang idea of the unobserved past is not even good science.” — Is the Big Bang Biblical? (Green Forest, AR: Master Books, 2003)

Interpretive Questions: Gen 1 • What is its relation to ANE literature & culture? • How does v.1 function? • A summary statement of the 6 Days? • The first action, done before v.3? • What is nature of the 6 Days? • Literal time periods, each 24-hours? • Literal time periods, each very long? • Non-literal, literary construction? • What happened on the 6 Days? • Original creation of universe? • Re-creation of earth after destruction? • God’s proclamation of what He did/would do? • Interpretation of Gen 1 is not simple!

Evangelical Perspectives on Genesis 1 • Recent, Six-Day Creation • Gap Theory • Day-Age Creation • Days of Proclamation (or Revelation) • Framework View • Ancient Near Eastern Cosmology View

Summary • Big Bang shows evidence of: • Beginning, implying Beginner • Fine tuning, coherent with divine purpose • A powerful and effective apologetic argument • Use it! • Beware of its limitations • Edgar Allan Poe

Recommended Resources • Secular Perspectives • Davies, Paul. The Goldilocks Enigma. New York: Houghton Mifflin, 2007. • NASA WMAP “Universe 101” http://wmap.gsfc.nasa.gov/universe/ • Kalām Cosmological Argument • Craig, William Lane. “The Existence of God and the Beginning of the Universe” 1991. www.leaderu.com/truth/3truth11.html • Craig, William Lane. “Creation and Big Bang Cosmology” 1994. www.leaderu.com/offices/billcraig/docs/creation.html • Craig, William Lane. Reasonable Faith. 3d ed. Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 2008. • Fine-Tuning • Craig, William Lane. “The Teleological Argument and the Anthropic Principle” 1990. www.leaderu.com/offices/billcraig/docs/teleo.html • McGrath, Alister. A Fine-Tuned Universe. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 2009. • Ross, Hugh. The Fingerprint of God. Revised ed. New Kensington, PA: Whitaker House, 2000. • Ross, Hugh. The Creator and the Cosmos. 3d ed. Colorado Springs, CO: Navpress, 2001. • Zweerink, Jeffrey. Who’s Afraid of the Multiverse? Pasadena, CA: Reasons to Believe, 2008.

The Big Bang: Friend or Foe?