Can Biblical Creation and the Big-Bang Theory Co-exist?

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.