In Part 3, I asked the following four questions that would become the framework for that section and for this (Part 4) section:

• How did scientists receive the Big Bang theory?
• How was it evaluated?
• Do modern astrophysical studies support it?
• What has been its influence upon the church?

We covered a big stretch of territory in Part 3 to address the first two bullet points.  Part 4 will focus upon the latter two.

*   *   *

Do Modern Astrophysical Studies Support the Big Bang Model?

Yes!  And God’s fingerprints are clearly obvious to the astrophysicists, even though their complex observations and horrendous math may be incomprehensible for many of us.

Over 30 parameters in the Big Bang model have been identified since about 1985 with numerical values that require extreme accuracy.  In other words, the model becomes non-functional with even tiny variations in the values—they have extremely small tolerances. Listed below are five examples and their dates of discovery (much of this information and the following quotes from reputable scientists were identified and compiled by the Reasons to Believe organization, https://reasons.org/):

Electromagnetic Force Constant:  This is our old friend from Blogs #8 and #9 (God’s Omnipotence:  The Power in a Butterbean)—the electromagnetic force that binds an atom’s electrons to its nucleus.

• If 4% stronger – no electron sharing, i.e. no covalent bonds; hence, no oxygen or carbon
• If 4% weaker – electrons fly-off nucleus, no carbon or oxygen

[2000, “Stellar Production Rates of Carbon and Its Abundance in the Universe”, Science]

Mass Ratio of Neutrons to Protons (1:7):  The model predicts that this ratio is set within a few seconds following the creation event.

• If < 0.1% – Stars collapse into neutron stars
• If > 0.1% – Too few neutrons; predominantly hydrogen in universe

[1986, John  Barrow and Frank Tipler, “The Anthropic Cosmological Principle”]

Fine Structure Constant:  Relates electric charge of electron, Plank constant, speed of light, and how light interacts with electromagnetic force.

• +05% – Else, no star formation

[2002, Kazuhide Ichikawa and M. Kawasaki, “Constraining the Variation of the Coupling Constants with Big Bang Nucleosynthesis,” Physical Review]

 Mass Density of the Universe:  Density of the universe during its early inflationary moments.

• 1 part in 10⁶⁰ –  Yes, that’s one part in 10 with 60 zeroes following, or else no galaxies.

[1998, Lawrence M. Krauss, “The End of the Age Problem, and the Case for a Cosmological Constant Revisited,” Astrophysical Journal]

A good friend of mine in Anchorage (AK), Patrick McGuire, was also a peer of mine within BP.  He is an engineer with a strong mathematics background.  He illustrated the incredibly tiny tolerance of the mass density parameter with a great example.  Imagine summing the mass of every planet, star, moon, black hole, and dust within our galaxy—and then summing each of the billions of galaxies in the universe.  How much mass would equate to 1 part in 10⁶⁰ . . . about one Alaska mosquito.  According to the model, universal expansion would fail if even a mosquito’s mass was missing from the total mass. It’s a great illustration of an incomprehensibly tiny tolerance.  And that’s nothing compared to our last example, referred to as “The most extreme fine‑tuning problem known in physics.”

Space Energy Density (Cosmological Constant):  This parameter is the self-stretching property of the universe which controls its expansion rate.

• 1 part in 10¹²⁰ –  one part in 10 with 120 zeroes following, or no universe!!

[1998; Lawrence M. Krauss, “The End of the Age Problem, and the Case for a Cosmological Constant Revisited,” Astrophysical Journal]

 Do you recognize God’s handiwork in these examples?  There are no natural, physical laws that require these parameters to be maintained at such extremely specific values, but they were—and the statistics say it’s impossible.  And yet, here we are reading about it.  Let’s review a few quotes from several scientists for their perspective.  We’ll start with a research paper that addresses our last example, the Space Energy Density Cosmological Constant (Figure 1):

1. Dyson, M. Kleban, and L. Susskind; in Journal of High Energy Physics (2002)

Title: Disturbing Implications of a Cosmological Constant

Quotes within article:

• “Arranging the universe as we think it is arranged would have required a miracle.”
• “An external agent (external to space and time) intervened in cosmic history for reasons of its own.”

 

Notice the paper’s title.  I suspect the authors would not have been so troubled if they knew and honored the One whose “eternal power and divine nature have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made” (Romans 1:20).  They certainly seem to have made the connection.

Paul Davies, Professor of Theoretical Physics (former atheist); The Cosmic Blueprint (Figure 2):

• “Evidence for design of the universe and of earth for human life could rightly be described as overwhelming”
• “It seems as though somebody has fine-tuned nature’s numbers to make the Universe.”

 

Sir Fred Hoyle (Figure 3), Professor of Astronomy, Cambridge; coined the term “Big Bang” (see Part 3):

• “A superintellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology…The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question.”
• “The big bang theory requires a recent origin of the Universe that openly invites the concept of creation.”

 

Arno Penzias (Figure 4), discovered cosmic background radiation, won Noble Prize in Physics; Cosmos, Bios and Theos (1992):

• “Astronomy leads us to a unique event, a universe which was created out of nothing, one with the very delicate balance needed to provide exactly the conditions required to permit life, and one which has an underlying – one might say supernatural – plan”.

 

George Greenstein (Figure 5), Professor of Astronomy, Amherst College, The Symbiotic Universe:

• “As we survey all the evidence, the thought insistently arises that some supernatural agency—or rather Agency—must be involved.”
• “Is it possible that suddenly, without intending to, we have stumbled upon scientific proof of the existence of a Supreme Being? Was it God who stepped in and so providentially crafted the cosmos for our benefit?”

 

Arthur Shawlow (Figure 6), Professor of Physics, Stanford; inventor of the Laser, and a Christian:

• “It seems to me that when confronted with the marvels of life and the universe, one must ask why and not just how. The only possible answers are religious… I find a need for God in the universe and in my own life.”

 

How has the Big Bang Model Influenced the Church?

We’ve spent considerable effort together to reach this point—the goal of the Creation Event Series.  I asked you the following question in Part 2 that I ask every class, and then I provided the five answers that are typically received. I’ve included the question and answers again, below.

“What do you know, or what have you been taught about the Big Bang?”

Please contemplate the classes’ answers in context with what we covered in Parts 1-3.

1. Scientists say it’s a giant explosion and all the stars and planets formed from the residue;
2. It’s a godless explosion—they use it to eliminate God from their models;
3. Scientists promote the theory because it provides the vast time required for evolution;
4. Scientists only work with data and never acknowledge God had a part in creation;
5. It’s the scientists preferred, go-to mechanism to explain how the universe began.

Do you see the discrepancies?  This series is not intended to promote the Big Bang model, but rather to assess and compare it with what is commonly taught in our church Bible classes. The church is often vehemently opposed to the model—but the opposition is based upon faulty information.  The model IS supported by scientific data and by scientists’ observations of “what has been made;” and, it DOES provide realistic answers to the following two questions I asked in Part 1:

• When did God stop “bara-ing” and start “yatsar-ing” His creation; and,
• What was the pre-existing material God used to “yatsar” (shape or sculpt) the Earth?

Unfortunately, much of the information and teachings by the church against the Big Bang model are simply incorrect.  And I’ll ask one final, but very important question:

“What sourced our (the Church’s) incorrect assertions?”

Let’s compare one final set of Big Bang interpretations between those of science and those of the Church, and I believe you will see a trend that may answer the question:

Scientific View of the Big Bang	Church’s View of the Big Bang
Hated by scientists – implies a “beginning” and thus inserts “God” into creation of the universe	Contrived by scientists to eliminate God and His work in creation
Despised for disproving “infinite age” of universe, as required for evolution	Despised by the Church as an effort by scientists to insert great age into universe to support evolution
Requires extreme “Manipulation” to achieve sustained expansion during initial moments of creation (via “Intelligent Design”)	Reduces the creation event to a godless “explosion” from which the universe evolved by naturalistic means
Recent astrophysical discoveries (e.g. 2.7 K cosmic background radiation) continue to support an expanding “expanse” from a creation event	Scientific evidence for Big Bang is flawed and/or misrepresented in order to support a naturalistic view of creation.
Science validates Psalms 19:1,2 – redshift of “expanse” testifies to God’s role in creation. Scientists are convicted–many don’t like it	Church refutes Psalms 19:1,2 by denying technical redshift evidence and other data of “expanse” as flawed. Refutes God’s testimony of creation

Do you see the pattern?  Each of the Big Bang observations from a scientific view has been twisted into something completely opposite that many in the church believe or teach… true deception and fingerprints of the great Deceiver—Satan himself.  God’s Word clearly states, “Look at my creation and see Me” (Psalm 19:1,2; Romans 1: 20-22).  The heavens tell of His glory, the redshifted expanse testifies to a Beginning and His work of creation.

Honest scientists see a connection between the Creation Event and a Creator.  But instead of the church building upon these scientific discoveries to encourage other scientists and nonbelievers, we refute it as lies.  This is clear deception by Satan to halt the advance of God’s Kingdom and promote division.

Satan knows too well that “God’s character, His divine nature and eternal power (Romans1:22)” are exposed and much too obvious through “what has been made,” and he’s done something about it.

What will you do?

 

¹Wikipedia; Big Bang; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang

Figure 1.  Quote within the prestigious, Journal of High Energy Physics [Issue 10, id. 011 (20020]

 

Figure 2.  Paul Davies (a former atheist) and his quotes about creation

 

Figure 3.  Sir Fred Hoyle’s quotes.  He formerly disliked the “Big Bang” and even coined the term.

Figure 4.  Quotes from Arno Penzias – the one who discovered the background cosmic radiation.

 

Figure 5.  Insightful quotes from George Greenstein.

 

Figure 6.  Arthur Shawlow, a Christian and inventor of the laser, and his quotes on the universe.