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


    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


    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.