 |
| Half Dome and Yosemite Valley - Viewed from the top of Cloud's Rest 9/3/15 Scale: 1 vertical mile from valley floor to top of Half Dome. |
Should I invite a Vegan to run the grill at my Tri-tip
BBQ? Should I purchase a weight loss book and prop
it prominently on my wife's dusty treadmill? Some questions seem
pregnant with an obvious and emphatic "No" answer. Many would say
that the question "Can Biblical Creation and the Big Bang Theory
Coexist?" is destined for the same negative response. While some
"enlightened" thinkers may reject the question as superfluous and
answer the opposite, "of course." You, like I, may take a more
cautionary approach and say "define your terms," and in a moment I
will. A conspiracy between Creation and the Big Bang may have never hit
your radar. Well, now it has. And, as you read this sentence, I
think I know something about you. You are curious and courageous. You have pushed past the heat and noise emitted
from the incendiary terms within the title of this paper and are pressing
in to see what can be found beyond. Welcome.
A little about me: I'm not a physicist;
I'm not a scientist of any sort; nor am I a theologian. So the very idea
of me addressing this issue may seem ludicrous on the surface. However, I was
born into a generation of freethinkers, my dad strongly encouraged me to form
my own opinions, and I naturally crave truth. Conventional wisdom
is anathema to me. When I see it coming I am immediately put on
guard. I am a fan of philosophy and logic. But I don't claim that
all of my actions or motives are purely logical, and if put on trial for being
a philosopher, my case would be summarily thrown out of court. Thus, having
listed all of the reasons why I am not necessarily qualified to speak on this
irrational topic, I will proceed to unhesitatingly do just that.
This is not a treatise on either the
Big Bang Theory or Creation.It's an extended thought experiment that I don't see
as contradicting what is generally believed about either of those two events. In full disclosure, I have to admit that I am a firm believer in Creation
and have in the past always rejected the Big Bang Theory. However, a few
weeks ago I began a thought experiment that has culminated in me writing this
article.
But first those definitions:
"The Big Bang Theory"
"The Big Bang theory," according
to Wikipedia, which we know to be the source of all authoritative answers,
"is the prevailing cosmological model for the universe from
the earliest known periods through its subsequent large-scale
evolution. It states that the universe expanded from a very high
density state, and offers a comprehensive explanation for a broad range of
observed phenomena, including the abundance of light elements, the cosmic
microwave background, large scale structure, and Hubble's Law. If the
known laws of physics are extrapolated beyond where they are valid, there is a
singularity. Modern measurements place this moment at approximately 13.8
billion years ago, which is thus considered the age of the universe."
"Creation"
Creation is far more simple. In six
consecutive days at the beginning of time, God created everything within our
universe; starting with light on day one, and culminating with the creation of
Adam and Eve, the first humans, on day six.
Let's allow those definitions to
represent a wide range of debatable variations under which such volatile terms
as these are often buried. I am not interested in debating those
variations here. Each variation could be debated, supported, and undermined in
a dozen papers such as this. I would like to keep to the surface
definitions and see what we can derive from a big picture approach.
So, having broadly defined our terms, I
would like to explore whether or not the Big Bang Theory and Creation can
coexist. I will present four thought experiments in the following paragraphs
to guide that exploration. We will consider "apparent age," the
expansion of the universe, a neutrino spewing supernova, and a Divine
imagination. Throughout the paper, and most certainly in the end, my
opinion will emerge. I will pose some questions throughout. I would
like to think that this work will help answer those questions.
Allow me then to begin the first
thought experiment with an illustration that I have presented on numerous
occasions. As I stated earlier, I am a believer. I believe that God
created the universe. I understand that you may not hold my beliefs, but I invite you to still join me in the experiment.
Experiment #1
Let us imagine that on day one, in the
pristine garden where the first humans, Adam and Eve, have been placed, they
have been afforded one additional element not listed in the book of Genesis; a
chainsaw. Now let us imagine that Adam goes out into the forest to cut down a
very large tree. Eve is nervous - as all good wives should be as they
watch their husbands feather the trigger of a grumbling chain saw - but
especially considering that well, Carhartt camouflage, cut-retardant, chainsaw
chaps weren't exactly the fashion yet.
Remember, however, that Adam was
created in perfection. His skills with a chainsaw would be phenomenal. Thus,
after a few moments of chaotic noise, the two would watch a tree crash
tragically through the canopy and underbrush. We can imagine Eve walking up to
the felled tree and placing her hand on the stump. But what is this? What
are these concentric circles? She runs her hand across the rough surface - what
is she doing?
Is it possible that she is fingering
and counting the growth rings of the tree? How can this be? The tree has
existed for approximately 3 days. The tree should be one giant growth ring, and
yet in our thought experiment it is very difficult for us to imagine what a
singular growth ring might look like. In our mind's eye we all envision the
well-known minute variegated pattern of yearly growth.
Let's run the experiment again in
another part of the garden. We follow the pair as they leave the forest and
walk out into the middle of a swiftly flowing stream. As the pair approached
the stream, they stepped gingerly on pink fleshy feet, tender against the
angular stones. However, here where they have paused in the middle of the
stream, the rocks are more kind. The water has worn them smooth. But
again, how can this be? How can water that has been flowing for so short a
time, have worn these rocks so smooth?
In the above experiment we demonstrate
a concept often referred to as "apparent age." This concept in brief,
states that at creation everything including Adam and Eve appeared to have been
around for some time. All grass was not tiny shoots emerging from the
soil, trees were not minuscule seedlings without bark or fruit, and all
geological and geographical features were not pristinely undisturbed like the
surface of a lake or the curve of a marble. Possibly, my experiment is even
misleading, as Adam and Eve's feet must have been created already calloused and
resilient.
A historical account was carved into
the universe - even as time began. This basic building block, apparent
age, is important as we continue the larger thought experiment, and the
concept will be a foundation from which we continue to build. Let me warn
you here though, that I am not insinuating that God is in any way
deceiving us. Rather, He left historical documentation for prior events -
that didn't really occur. I know - that's a leap. But, suspend your
criticism and disbelief for a moment. We will come back to this in a
little while.
Now, before we move on to the next
phase of the experiment, I want to address one more issue with regard to age.
In order to have age you must have time. As Christians, we accept the Biblical
statement that for God, on thousand years is as a day and conversely, a day -
one thousand years. While I have no problem with this element of
theology, and I certainly agree that God is above and beyond time and is not
restricted by our understanding of time, the thought experiments I am
performing are not based on God's elevation above time. It was Albert Einstein
whose biography first introduced me to the thought experiment, and it is
Albert Einstein who gave the world the space-time continuum. However, while I
am using thought experiments, the space-time continuum, fortunately, will
also not be important in understanding the thought experiments.
What is going to be
important is a healthy imagination. I am not going to attempt to change your
theology, your fundamental beliefs about science, or your mind. I simply want
you to imagine, follow my line of reasoning, and join me at the conclusion of the
experiments to assess what we have observed.
So then, let's move on to the second
experiment.
Experiment #2
For this experiment you will need to imagine an elongated cone. Imagine an elongated cone not unlike the shouting device a cheerleader might use on the sidelines of a football game. For our purposes let's imagine this cone is, maybe four feet long, with the smaller end pointing to the left and the larger end pointing to the right. Then, let's immediately break with the idea of something to shout through and bring the cone to a single closed point at our left. We are going to imagine that this cone represents the passage of time. In a way, it's a sort of three-dimensional timeline that expands from left to right.
We will then need to put graduated
lines along the cone to indicate dates. The wide end of the cone, the rim, will
need to represent today's date. Tomorrow will cause the cone to grow larger and
longer, extending to the right. Moving backward in time along the narrowing
neck, we'll draw a line where we see man land on the moon, another at
Napoleon's fatal pause in Moscow, then Rome's demise, the destruction of
Solomon's temple and Abraham's sojourn from Ur of the Chaldees. Finally, somewhere at the midpoint of the cone, we arrive at a widely
debated range where we'll draw a wide line, representing the date of creation. Creationists actually cannot agree on the exact date of Creation, so we
are going to give it a range of six thousand to ten thousand years ago - and
not argue about it. Ok?
Sorry for all of the fits and starts,
but we need to pause the experiment again, for just a moment, because this thought experiment is going to require the use of another concept. This
next concept is the expansion of the universe. I know little to nothing about redshift in observing the stars, and the physics required to understand how it
is that the universe is not only expanding but also accelerating. However, it is now almost universally accepted that the universe is
actively expanding and accelerating. It was this discovery, by Edwin
Hubble in the early 1900's that, to the chagrin of creationists, gave
substantial credence to the Big Bang Theory. The thought was, in short, if we
can calculate how rapidly the universe is expanding, then we can turn the
telescope and the math the other direction and estimate at what point the
universe began.
It is at this point where creationists,
justifiably, begin to get nervous. The Biblical account seems to indicate a
relatively young earth, give or take six to ten thousand years old. It would be
horrific, if in looking backward through the telescope, they see that the
beginning of the universe was something older than ten thousand years. Without
the constraints of the Biblical account, however, secular scientists happily
postulate that the origin of universe can be calculated by looking backward
through the telescope. The mathematics and physics required to calculate this
are again, well beyond my capabilities, however the mathematics and physics can
be proved sound. As a believer in the Biblical account of Creation how can this
be reconciled?
Well, I suspect you're already a step
ahead of me. You are remembering the foundation that we laid in the first thought
experiment. Apparent age can surely account for the fact that the universe is
in active expansion. I agree with you on this point, so with that established, let's go back to where
we left off our second experiment and the cone.
Since we are using our imaginations
anyway, let's shrink ourselves down and take a walk. Let's step across the rim
of the cone, through the wide mouth of today, and take a short stroll through
history in reverse. Depending on how small you've made yourself, it will
take you more or less time to reach the date of Creation; but when we all
arrive, we'll congregate there for a moment. Now, let's turn back toward the
wide opening and see where we came from. We see several thousand years of
history expanding out before us. We see the geological effects of weather patterns, the
effects of a worldwide flood, earthquakes, volcanoes, and continental drift. If we pull out our telescopes, we can peer into the cosmos and observe the minute slipping of
galaxies in their outward trajectories, described by the exterior surface of
our cone.
This wide line where we stand, which we
drew around the outside of the cone representing the 6 days of creation, let's
say, represents the first stage in the expansion of the universe - a
substantial starting point to be sure. This is the hard part for the secularist, who keeps glancing back over his shoulder. For the last six to ten thousand years, while
galaxies and stars float apart, the universe has expanded from that
original state - until it reaches the rim of the cone, the ring that represents
today's date. So what we have at the large end of the cone, is the extent of
the universe's expansion over the last few thousand years. This is a vast
oversimplification, but experiments are good for that.
Now, still standing on the date-line of
creation, turn with me to face the opposite direction. This is where the
secularists have an advantage. The secularist will easily look back from this
historical point in time with utter disregard for the date of Biblical
creation. The secularist looks back through a nearly incalculable period
of time, toward an event that is almost universally accepted as being, the Big
Bang. And as logical creatures, we frankly have a hard time making our gaze
stop even at that event, for certainly something must have been going on before
that - no? However, for my argument and for my experiment we will have to limit
ourselves to the vast time between the single point at the cone's origin, the
Big Bang, and where we now stand on the day of Creation.
When we were facing toward the mouth,
we traced the galaxies in their ever expanding trajectory along the outside of
the cone. Now that we have spun on our heels and face the small end of
the cone, let's run the whole system in reverse and imagine those same galaxies
rushing back toward us in the opposite direction from that which they have
always moved. Now, imagine that they don't stop beside us on this
date-line of Creation, but instead keep rushing back toward that singular point
in the tip of the cone. We quickly realize that our cone is way too
small. Far into the distance race those galaxies, slowly-but-surely
drawing together toward some cataclysmic event.
Let's take a minute to get our breath. Those exercises may have been rough for both the secularist and the
creationist. In order to successfully complete the last experiment, both
would have to do more than just a little stretching. But we survived, and
from here we can all move forward into the next experiment.
Experiment #3
In 1987 an event occurred which sent
shivers of excitement through the world of astronomers and astrophysicists.
On February 23, 1987, Astronomers Ian Shelton and Oscar Duhalde, from the
Las Campanas Observatory in Chile began cross referencing with other
astronomers and soon the word was out - the first recorded supernova since 1604
was observed in the Tarantula Nebula, nested within a relatively
small tangential galaxy called the Large Magellanic Cloud. The blue super-giant star, Sanduleak -69° 202 had met its demise. The supernova's light slowly waxed and then waned over several months.
But, this event grabbed the attention
of more than just astronomers. For 3/4 of a century, the hunt for the
sub-atomic neutrino had been on. Physicists had postulated the
existence of this particle for decades, and had only recently begun to perfect
huge ultra-sensitive neutrino detectors, of various designs. Many of the
detectors were assembled a mile or more underground in mines to prevent solar
gamma rays from confusing the detectors and throwing off calculations, and
would often be considered successful if an event allowed them to detect even 2
or 3 of the minute neutrino particles. Neutrinos are so elusive, that
billions blast around the universe, created and ejected by nuclear reactions
both around the cosmos and from our own planet in controlled nuclear reactors,
and literally pass right though matter, including the core of the earth,
largely without interacting with a single other atomic particle.
When word of the Supernova reached
neutrino obsessed physicists, they inhaled in a collective gasp, recognizing
this monumental opportunity. The cataclysmic death of a super-giant star had
been calculated to be an impressive source of neutrinos. Here was an
opportunity to not only verify that theory, but to also test the detectors at
the same time. Anxious hours ensued, while astrophysicists and
astronomers compared notes. The exact time that photons from the
supernova had first reached the retinas of earthbound astronomers was narrowed
down to a period of time no greater than a few hours. The physicists then
checked their neutrino sniffers and emerged jubilant. Within 2-3 hours of
the observation of the first light of the supernova, the neutrino detectors
scattered around the globe had registered a massive, unprecedented 24 hits, at
nearly the exact same time - stunningly close to the exact quantity the theories had
predicted. This was undeniable proof that the neutrinos
had originated in Sanduleak's spectacular funeral pyre.
The science and physics required to
understand a supernova, or discover the neutrino would
be stupefying to us average humans. But so far as scientific
studies and research go - it is sound, nearly undisputed scientific fact.
So where does our 3rd experiment begin? It began 168,000 years ago
when Sanduleak -69° 202, which shone from 168,000 light years away,
detonated.
If you believe the creation account, as
I do, you must recognize that in 1987, we witnessed an event - hang on - that
never happened. I don't know about you, but that sends chills up my
spine. The event never occurred, but the historical documentation for it
arrived in the mail on February 23, 1987. It's as if we have a crime, a
motive, and we even have the fingerprints of the criminal. We know his
name, we have a physical description. But the perpetrator never existed. Let that blow your mind for a few minutes.
Experiment #4
For our final thought experiment, let's
not imagine. Let us let God imagine. We are going to let God imagine what the
history of the Earth and the cosmos was, prior to his creating it all in six
days. He gave it weather patterns, intergalactic collisions, and other cataclysmic
events that would form, what we see now as our universe, into an actively
expanding and developing system.
Apparent age is again our ally here,
but we need more than that now. We need a God. We need a God with
an incredible imagination. We need a God who can imagine what events have
occurred in non-existent history to bring his creation, to the point of Creation. We stand amazed as we gaze into the heavens and then
stand stupefied as a telescope reveals singular stars to actually be
entire galaxies, so far away that their light was ancient before Adam ever
looked up in wonder on the evening of the sixth day. Then turning the
glass around, we squint spellbound over the shoulder of biologists who explain
the division of cells, and parse the elements of the human genome.
All of that Divine creativity is too
much for us to comprehend - but it doesn't end there. That's simply the
beginning. What happened before the beginning is too much to grasp,
because it only happened in the mind of God. And yet, He gave us the historical
documentation for what he imagined. We look at continental drift,
geological strata, glacial carvings, the Grand Canyon, and the Himalayas - at a loss to adequately describe the processes that brought those about.
Many have tried to finger the Genesis account of the flood, or the
"days of Peleg" with most, if not all, of these baffling
geological anomalies. No doubt the Genesis flood gave the planet a face
lift, and certainly something happened in the days of Peleg, but why must we
reject the satellite proof of continental drift, in an attempt to defend the
Biblical account? Why claim that the flood somehow strategically carved a
canyon in the middle of the desert, then failed to extend it to the sea, in
order defend God's honor?
We don't discount geometry because
Pythagoras was likely an atheist, Decarte was a Catholic or Einstein a
Pantheist. Did their mistaken understanding of God affect their theology
- of course. Did it affect their application of science - certainly. Did it negatively affect their mathematical calculations - not likely. Likewise, in spite of the theologically challenged position of many
geologists, astronomers, and physicists, we can still admire their ability
to discern the historical account woven into the universe.
Conclusion:
Let me clarify a possible
misconception. I am not arguing for a gap theory. The gap theory asserts
that there is a gap or a series of gaps nestled within the Creation event,
which account for the hundreds of thousands of years or millions of years seen
in the geological and stellar historical documentation. I am not a gap
theorist. If some want to believe that, then that's fine. But a series of gaps
is not what I am arguing. If God wanted to incorporate a series of gaps into
Creation, then he certainly could have done just that. But again, that is not
what I'm arguing.
What I see is that, in spite of a six
day Creation event, there is historical evidence that supports an earth in
existence for tens of thousands, if not millions or billions of years. Since
the evidence exists, how is it that we cannot accept theories that would
support the geological and cosmological data? The Earth is old. The Earth
appears to be really, really old. The natural forces that would have
played upon our planet to get it to appear very old can be accounted for
scientifically. Why then would we pretend that those types of forces could not
have possibly played a role in the appearance of a very old Earth - just
because the scientists that discover them don't like our God?
This is where the argument becomes
difficult, because, I don't believe those ancient events actually took place. I don't believe the earth is any older than what can be deduced from the
Bible's own historical account, but the historical evidence of a much older Earth is right under our noses none-the-less.
I applaud physicists for at least
labeling the Big Bang, a theory. I'm not even willing to do that with
Creation. I don't believe in a "Creation Theory." I have
chosen to step beyond the scientific model for expression, and step into the
model of faith. I believe in Creation like I believe
in God. There is no question or possibility of a "Creation
Theory" revision. History cannot be revised. It is for this
very reason that, acceptance of the Big Bang Theory really doesn't pose any
problem for me. As a theory, I think it's pretty good science. However, as the origin of the universe, I believe it is a philosophical
rejection of the existence of God.
That is a huge distinction, so don't
miss it. Theories about how our universe came to be as it is, may
discover the workings of the imagination of a rather creative God. However, if those theories are applied to philosophy to disprove the
existence of God, they are doomed to foolishness on that account.
Let me be clear - I take the existence
of God on faith. I'm not in the God-proving business. God has done a good
enough job in proving Himself, and certainly needs nothing added by me. Let the Holy Spirit of God make believers out of theorists. I'm not
going to usurp that role.
My role is to communicate the truth of
the gospel of Jesus Christ, and worship. And, in the meantime, I will
enjoy His creation and His unbounded imagination as it is incrementally
revealed by modern science.
One final statement. In no way do
I support Darwinian evolution. The Big Bang Theory was held sacred by
Darwinians because it supposedly provided enough time for mankind to have
evolved. Even if the Darwinian science was not flawed - which I believe it is
- there would still be no possible way that Darwinian evolution could coexist
with Creation, and mankind's assignation as being created in the
image of God. Darwin was searching for an excuse to omit God and His
expectations for His creation, and he found what he was looking for. God
have mercy on any of us who finds success in that same endeavor.
Thanks Dad and D. Gardenghi for your help on this paper.
