

The Origin of the Universe
Rich Milne


What Was the Big Bang?
"If you're religious, this is like looking at God."(1)
A mystic, describing his vision in a trance? A poet, looking at the beauty of nature and seeing God? No, a Berkeley astrophysicist
commenting on the data he was making public in 1992 that seemed to confirm a basic expectation of the Big Bang theory. 

Just what is the Big Bang theory of the origin of the universe? One scientist summed it up succinctly by saying: "The explosion 
from zero volume at zero time of a corpuscle of energy equivalent to the mass and radiation that now constitute the Universe."
(2) What does that mean? It means that everything we now see or know about was once compacted into an unimaginably small 
blip that suddenly expanded in a huge explosion that created the very space and time it was expanding into. Or as Calvin of 
Calvin and Hobbes put it, "The Horrendous Space Kablooie."

The Big Bang has become as much a part of our common science knowledge as dinosaurs, something we speak about with the 
same sense of familiarity we talk about atoms. But, like atoms, how much do we really know about this wondrous explosion of everything? 

In this essay we'll talk about what scientists mean by the Big Bang theory, why it's often in the news, why some scientists oppose it, 
what it tells us about our home the universe, and what we as Christians can learn from all of this. (cont'd) 

Science is often seen as attacking the God of the Bible, but in this case scientific discoveries seem to be revealing God's work.
The Bible begins with the statement that God created the heavens and the earth, leaving no doubt that all we see had a beginning 
and had a Creator.

But by the 1700s many people accepted an earlier theory that Immanuel Kant made more popular. The theory held that the universe
is an infinite expanse with no beginning and no end. This fit the philosophy of the time, as people did not want to think that they might
 have to face judgment by a God who had the power to both begin and end the universe.

In the roaring twenties, Edwin Hubble had begun to investigate mysterious masses of stars called nebulae. Some thought we were
 all part of one giant galaxy; others thought there might be a whole world of galaxies outside our own. Hubble was able to show
 that there are many galaxies besides our own. In 1929 he announced we were in a huge universe, so big it would take light billions
 of years to travel across it. Not only was it immense, but every part was moving away from every other part at incredible speeds,
 some receding at 100 million miles an hour!

Priests do not enter into this story very often, but in the late 20s and early 30s a Belgian priest and mathematics teacher by the name
 of Georges Lemaître (who was fond of saying "There is no conflict between science and religion") first constructed and then published 
a theory that changed the course of cosmology in the twentieth century. Taking Hubble's observation that the galaxies were rapidly 
receding from one another, he ran the theory backwards to a time when all the matter in the universe was very close together. 
He called this the "primordial atom" and imagined a beginning when the whole universe exploded like "fireworks of unimaginable 
beauty" with a "big noise."(3) Thus was born the Big Bang theory. 


Why Is Everybody Excited?
Geffory Burbidge has been complaining recently that his colleagues in astronomy have been all too quick to join "the First Church 
of Christ of the Big Bang." And what is causing this big rush? Findings from the Hubble Space telescope and the COBE (Cosmic 
Background Explorer) satellite that are confirming the Big Bang theory in unprecedented detail.
When the Big Bang was originally formulated about sixty years ago, not much thought was given to the conditions of the universe at
 the very beginning. But by the early 60s some scientists had realized that such an incredibly hot origin might have left slight traces
 behind. There might still be a whisper of the beginning of everything. This whisper would be a very small remnant of the heat of that
 first fiery instant.  In 1965 two Bell scientists announced they had indeed found such a remnant, a cosmic background radiation.
 This radiation, the signature of the heat of a long ago creation, was very close to what several theorists had rather off-handily
 predicted some years before. Their paper had gone unnoticed because there was at that time no way to measure such a small 
signal, but when Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson, of Bell Laboratories, published their short article, it was quickly seen as 
confirmation of the Big Bang, and they received the Nobel Prize in 1978. Then, in 1989, the United States launched the COBE
 satellite to look for details of the cosmic background radiation. The first evidence looked promising, but showed a background
 radiation so smooth that it was hard to understand how any cosmic structures like stars or galaxies could have formed. Unless
 there were some differences in the initial temperature of space, there would have been no reason for matter to cluster and form stars. 

Then, in a dramatic press conference in 1992, George Smoot and others announced that they had found ripples of temperature
 differences in the radiation data. Even Stephen Hawking, the wheelchair-bound English astrophysicist, proclaimed, "It is the discovery
 of the century, if not of all time."(4) Every major newspaper in the world carried stories about the "echoes of creation." And many 
assumed that the Big Bang was proved.  But even as many scientists exulted in the new data, new questions also began to arise, 
but they were not questions about whether the Big Bang happened, but about how it progressed. For most scientists, the Big Bang 
theory is not "in trouble" as is sometimes reported. What is in question is how this sea of energy that was there in the first moments
 of the Big Bang was transformed into the myriad of galaxies, clusters, quasars, and other astronomical oddities. Science, by its very
 nature, attempts to find the best explanation for observed phenomena. But the Big Bang has drawn an impenetrable curtain across 
the stage of history. For some this is a frustration: "This view of the origin of the universe is thoroughly unsatisfactory . . . . [because]
 the origin of the Big Bang itself is not susceptible to discussion," fumes the editor of Nature.(5) But for others, the very impossibility 
of going behind the creation points to God in a powerful way. "For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal 
power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse" (Rom. 1:20). 


"Big Bang Theory Collapses" 

The banner headline in Nature magazine read "Down with the Big Bang."(6) Sounding more like a 60s chant about the Establishment, 
the editorial was, however, very serious. And Nature magazine is perhaps the most respected science publication in the world. Why 
was the editor so exercised about the leading cosmological theory? Because it was "philosophically unacceptable." "The origin of the 
Big Bang is not susceptible to discussion," fumed John Maddox. And besides that "Creationists . . . have ample justification in the 
doctrine of the Big Bang." So, for Maddox, a scientific theory that is only rivaled in acceptance by evolution is "thoroughly unsatisfactory" 
because (1) it says that scientists cannot know everything and (2) the theory might encourage belief in a creator. But materialists like 
Maddox are not alone. "Big Bang Theory Collapses" shouted the title of an article written in a creationist journal. It went on to make 
such remarks as "The Big Bang theory has received one body blow after another" and "A cruel fate has befallen the grandest theory
 of all." They reported the "death knell of the cold-dark-matter theory" as if this were the main theory cosmologists had developed.
 Remarks suggesting results from the COBE satellite "should really make them wish they had gone into some other field" came across
 as very unprofessional. The description of scientists as "smug in their assurance" about the cosmic background radiation seemed more
 descriptive of this article itself than the theory it was attempting to criticize. Young earth creationists find the Big Bang theory a failure
 primarily because it does not fit an interpretation of Genesis 1 that requires the universe be created less than 50,000 years ago. But what 
are the scientific problems with the Big Bang?  One continuing problem surrounding theories of the origin of the universe has been "How 
much matter is there in the universe?" It is generally agreed that there is indirect evidence of far more matter in the universe than we have
 been able to detect. But what form is this matter in? This so-called "missing mass" may, by some estimates, make up 90% of all the
 matter in the universe. But where is it? Several theories attempt to answer this question, but at the moment, there are not many ways 
to test competing theories. Another continuing problem is finding out what caused the clumpiness of the universe? When we look out
 into the sea of galaxies that surrounds our own, we find that the swirling pools of stars are not evenly distributed in space but rather
 segregated into "walls" separated by "voids." It is not yet known what accounts for this foam-like structure, but any theory of galaxy
 formation needs to provide an answer. So, while the Big Bang certainly has difficulties, and may be replaced some day, it has also 
been the basis for many correct predictions about the structure of the universe. Like any scientific theory, the Big Bang is not a static idea
 but a theory that is always open to new information that may change its basic form, or lead to its rejection, or merely confirm that it is
 indeed correct. But, especially for Christians, it's ironic that while most scientists have been searching for a naturalistic answer for the 
origin of the universe, they have instead, ended up with a theory that points strongly to a Creator. 


A "Just Right" Universe

Imagine piles of dimes stacked on all of North America as high as the moon. More than you could possibly ever count. Then imagine a
 billion other continents covered over with more dimes. Now, somewhere in those billion piles, hide one red dime. What are the chances
 of taking a blind-folded person out into these piles and having them pick up the one red dime on the first try. Not likely? Well, the odds
 of the universe just happening to have the correct number of protons and electrons is the same as the odds for getting the red dime the first time
. And if the universe did not have just the right ratio of these particles, galaxies, stars, and planets could never have formed, let alone
 people and all the rest of nature.(8)

In the last fifteen years, scientists who study the make up of our solar system, and the stars in our galaxy, have come to the conclusion that 
unless conditions had been perfectly fine-tuned for us, life could never have arisen on planet Earth even by evolution. Every time we learn 
something about the form of the universe, we find new reasons to glorify God, and to thank Him for His creation. (cont'd) 


Arno Penzias, who with Robert Wilson was awarded the Nobel Prize for detecting the cosmic background radiation in 1965, much later
 remarked  that: "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."(9)

Robert Griffiths summarized it nicely when he said: "If we need an atheist for a debate, I go to the philosophy department. The physics 
department isn't much use."(10) Obviously those physicists know too much.  When Paul talks about what all people know about God, 
he points to the natural world as the foremost witness (Rom. 1:20). And, in these last years of the twentieth century, as we discover more
 and more about the conditions necessary for life, we find everywhere signs that we could not possibly be here by chance. Every detail 
of the basic structure of nature, even such things as how far away the moon is from the earth, must be fine-tuned to an unprecedented 
degree for us to live here on earth.  In the design of the universe, in the construction of our solar system, and in the very systems of our
 own earth, there is immense evidence of planning. The Big Bang theory provides strong evidence of fine tuning so clear that even a
 dogmatic atheist such as Sir Fred Hoyle was moved to affirm that "a superintellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with
 chemistry and biology"(11) to create a world for humans to live in.  Will we give glory to God for His great creation, or will we 
continue to proclaim that we are merely the chance creations of a random process of undirected evolution? The choice is ours. (cont'd) 

What Can Christians Learn?

"The scientist's pursuit of the past ends in the moment of creation. This is an exceedingly strange development, unexpected by all 
but the theologians. They have always accepted the word of the Bible: In the beginning God created heaven and earth."(12) This has been a 
difficult lesson for scientists, and many have yet to learn it. But what lessons can Christians learn from the search for Big Bang?

One of the primary lessons is that we need to know what it is a theorist is trying to prove. Often, as one reads the literature, one sees 
some rather clear statements about why certain possibilities are chosen. As is often the case, Sir Fred Hoyle is a good example: "This 
possibility [of a steady state universe] seemed attractive, especially when taken in conjunction with the aesthetic objections to the 
creation of the universe in the remote past."(13) Hoyle is very clearly saying that, because he disliked the idea that the universe might
 have been "created" sometime in the past, perhaps by God, he would seek to develop another theory that avoids that possibility.

A second lesson is that we must be careful of the role we give to science. A scientist very astutely observed that "We live...in an age 
obsessed with scientific sanctification and technological authority.' If creationism is judged scientific, America will respect it."(14) 
His point is that Christians, like everyone else, have fallen prey to the idea that if an idea is judged "scientific" it must be right. The 
phrase "scientific creationism" is an excellent example of this tendency. But is science really the final judge of truth? For the Christian, 
and anyone else who believes that not all of what makes humans both beautiful and unique is measurable, the answer must be "No." 
Science is a good companion, but not a good guide. Whenever Christians have wedded themselves to a scientific theory they have 
suffered through painful divorces when that theory has proved to be an unfaithful guide to the world. The church's acceptance of an 
Aristotelian unmoved earth is but one example of the church not recognizing that science can and will change. The Big Bang may be 
\today's best theory, but, as one of the best scientific authors on the Big Bang has written: "[O]ne ought to take the extrapolations 
back to the beginning of time with a healthy dose of skepticism. The Big Bang cosmology may yet be superseded."(15) 

Whether we are young earth creationists or materialistic evolutionists, this warning is equally true. The Big Bang is the best answer 
we have at this moment. It may change next year, and by next century it will almost surely have changed, perhaps dramatically. If 
science fully supports our view of Scripture now, will we be willing to change it when science changes? The Bible is beautifully clear that 
"The heavens are telling of the glory of God; And their expanse is declaring the work of His hands" (Psalm 19:1), but we must admit 
that we are not always clear exactly what the details of the message are. It is God's glory that we must be clear about. 



