CREATIONISM IS CORRECT - Part 1

Here's a little something for any Christians out there, or anybody who's open


to the  possibility that  there might be  a reason to  believe in  a Creator.


                         CREATIONISM IS CORRECT - Part 1


                               By J. Adams


                             April 7th, 1995


                             -The Beginning-


        In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth...


                    (The first sentence of the Bible)



               "It would be very difficult to explain why


            the universe should have begun in just this way,


   except as the act of a God who intended to create beings like us."


           (Stephen Hawking, 'A Brief History of Time', p.127)





    As  man  has  observed  the  cosmos  around  him  with  increasingly


sophisticated tools,  the picture that  has  emerged  is  one  of  God's


Creation.  Yet,  due  to  an  irrational  "secular"  bias,  science  has


persistently failed to see what the evidence clearly shows: our universe


was created by an omnipotent God for a divine purpose.


    In modern cosmology,  the leading explanation for  the  history  and


status  of  the  observable  universe  is  known  as the Big Bang model.


According to this model,  the universe had a beginning- and an explosive


one  at  that.  At  the Big Bang,  the Moment of Creation,  the universe


began with zero size and infinite heat and energy.  This  pure,  unified


energy was released into what we perceive as a space-time continuum thus


giving rise to today's observed universe.


    In  denying  the  role  of  our Creator,  science has systematically


misjudged their observations and sought to believe the  universe  had  a


random origin when,  in fact,  this is clearly not the case.  Instead of


theorizing that there was a potent  Moment  of  Creation  at  which  God


unleashed the energy to be used for His works, science hypothesizes that


the universe was the chance outcome of a meaningless Big Bang.


    Increasingly,  however,  the accumlating evidence is undermining the


secular  scientific  view  of the cosmos.  The universe that has emerged


from the so-called "Big Bang" is of  such  improbable  organization  and


orderliness  that  it  goes  against  reason  to argue that it is not of


intelligent,  purposeful design.  Consider,  for instance,  some of  the


questions  Stephen Hawking posed about the nature of the universe in his


book, 'A Brief History of Time':





    1.  Why was the early universe so hot?





    2.  Why  is  the universe so uniform on a large scale?  Why does


        it look  the  same  at  all  points  of  space  and  in  all


        directions?  In particular,  why is the microwave background


        radiation so nearly the  same  when  we  look  in  different


        directions?  It is a bit like asking a number of students an


        exam  question.  If  they  all give exactly the same answer,


        then you can be sure they have communicated with each other.


        Yet, in the model described above, there would not have been


        time since the big bang for light to get  from  one  distant


        region  to  another,  even  though  the  regions  were close


        together in the early universe.  According to the theory  of


        relativity,  if light cannot get from one region to another,


        no other information can.  So there would be no way in which


        different regions in the early universe could have  come  to


        have had the same temperature as each other, unless for some


        unexplained  reason they happened to start out with the same


        temperature.





    3.  Why did the universe start out with so nearly  the  critical


        rate of expansion that separates models that recollapse from


        those  that go on expanding forever,  so that even now,  ten


        thousand million years  later,  it  is  still  expanding  at


        nearly  the  critical  rate?  If  the  rate of expansion one


        second after the big bang had been smaller by even one  part


        in  a  hundred thousand million million,  the universe would


        have recollapsed before it reached its present size.





    4.  Despite the  fact  that  the  universe  is  so  uniform  and


        homogeneous   on   a   large   scale,   it   contains  local


        irregularities,  such  as  stars  and  galaxies.  These  are


        thought  to  have  developed  from  small differences in the


        density of the early universe from one  region  to  another.


        What was the origin of these density fluctuations?


                          (Hawking, pp.121-122)





    To  answer  these  questions Hawkings first presents the idea of the


anthropic principle.  According to this principle we  see  the  universe


the way it is because we exist:





       According  to  this  theory,  there are either many different


    universes or many different regions of a single  universe,  each


    with  its own initial configuration and,  perhaps,  with its own


    set  of  laws  of  science.  In  most  of  these  universes  the


    conditions would not be right for the development of complicated


    organisms;  only  in  the few universes that are like ours would


    intelligent beings develop and ask the  question:  'Why  is  the


    universe  the  way we see it?' The answer is then simple:  If it


    had been different, we would not be here! (Hawking, pp.124-125)





    The  egocentrism of modern man is quite evident in this perspective.


In a nutshell, it is saying that the orderliness of man and his universe


is simply a consequence of our good fortune in an  otherwise  disordered


reality that must exists elsewhere- beyond our sight.  It's like saying:


"Well,  everything I see indicates that the universe is  of  intelligent


design,  but since I don't believe in an omnipotent God and,  in fact, I


think I'm the only intelligent designer,  I'm going to imagine that  the


orderliness  I  see is only a fluke in the midst of vast chaos beyond my


sight." This is a gross self-delusion created to maintain an  egocentric


point-of-view.


    Fortunately, Hawking discounts the anthropic view and presents a far


more realistic explanation for the orderliness of the universe:





       One would feel happier  about  the  anthropic  principle,  at


    least in its weak version, if one could show that quite a number


    of  different initial configurations for the universe would have


    evolved to produce a universe like the one we observe.  If  this


    is the case,  a universe that developed from some sort of random


    initial conditions should contain a number of regions  that  are


    smooth  and  uniform  and  are  suitable  for  the  evolution of


    intelligent life.  On the other hand,  if the initial  state  of


    the  universe  had  to  be chosen extremely carefully to lead to


    something like what we see around  us,  the  universe  would  be


    unlikely  to  contain any region in which life would appear.  In


    the hot big bang model described above,  there  was  not  enough


    time  in  the  early  universe  for heat to have flowed from one


    region to another.  This means that the  initial  state  of  the


    universe  would  have  to  have had exactly the same temperature


    everywhere in order to account for the fact that  the  microwave


    background  has the same temperature in every direction we look.


    The initial rate of expansion also would have had to  be  chosen


    very  precisely  for  the rate of expansion still to be close to


    the critical rate needed to avoid recollapse.  This  means  that


    the  initial state of the universe must have been very carefully


    chosen indeed if the hot big bang model was correct  right  back


    to the beginning of time.  It would be very difficult to explain


    why  the universe should have begun in just this way,  except as


    the act of  a  God  who  intended  to  create  beings  like  us.


                         (Hawkings, pp.126-127)





    Rather  than  accept the existence of an omnipotent God and the idea


of Creation, however,  secular science has resorted to the equivalent of


"Ptolemic  epicycle"  models  of  the  Big  Bang-  what  I  refer  to as


irrationales.  The dominant theory of the Big Bang in cosmology today is


the inflationary  model  of  the  universe.  According  to  this  model,


introduced by MIT's Alan Guth, there was a brief, extraordinary phase of


inflation  in  the  early  universe.   This  expansion  is  said  to  be


"inflationary" because it entails that the universe once expanded at  an


increasing  rate  rather than at a decreasing rate as it does today.  By


introducing this inflation into the Big Bang model,  it  is  hoped  that


much of the uniformity of the observed universe can be explained without


reference  to  intelligent design by an omnipotent God.  In other words,


by introducing inflation into explanatory theory,  science has been able


to  sidestep  considering  God  and  has thereby been able to maintain a


secular, egocentric point-of-view.


    The  problem  with  inflation,  however,  is that it goes completely


against the laws of physics and observed reality.  According to the laws


of physics,  following the  release  of  energy  at  the  moment  of  an


explosion,  there  will  be  a decreasing rate of outward expansion over


time.  Yet, with the Big Bang physicists are now saying that there is an


exception to their rule.  If this were not enough,  the  inflation  that


physicists are speculating about would entail that the outward expansion


of the universe was,  for a brief time, at a rate in excess of the speed


of light.  Once again,  however,  this goes against all the observations


and  laws that go into contemporary physics.  Thirdly,  in order for the


inflationary model to be true,  the cosmological  constant  of  non-zero


energy  density  would  have to be smaller than current particle physics


theories indicate by a staggering factor of 10^120, or 1 followed by 120


zeros.  Lastly,  the universe required in the inflationary  model  would


have  to  be  10  million billion times larger than we observe it to be.


(Kafatos, 'The Conscious Universe', pp.156-157)


    Given  that  the  inflationary  model  is  grossly inconsistent with


modern physics and observed reality,  one should wonder why  the  theory


was ever proposed,  never mind popularly accepted.  The answer should be


clear.  Science is irrationally struggling  against  the  obvious  truth


revealed  in  religion  millenia  ago:  the  universe  was intelligently


designed and created by an omnipotent God.  Rather than allowing  reason


to guide science to truth,  however, man is being unreasonably misguided


into false beliefs- gross self-delusion- due to an irrational,  secular,


egocentric bias.