Double Your Ark Encounter Donation Impact

Physics Theories to Explain Big Bang

by Dr. Elizabeth Mitchell on September 29, 2012
Share:

MSNBC: “Will science someday rule out the possibility of God?Cosmologist asserts physics theories will explain the big bang without a “supernatural jumpstart.”

Because modern science has discovered so much about how nature works, Cal Tech cosmologist Sean Carroll predicts in his essay “Does the Universe Need God?” that forthcoming cosmological models will eliminate any need for a belief in God. “As we learn more about the universe,” Carroll says, “there's less and less need to look outside it for help.”

Carroll writes that by making “some assumptions about the types of matter and energy that pervade the universe, we can play the movie backwards in time to reconstruct the past history of our universe.”1 Evolutionary cosmologists extrapolate back 13.7 billion years to the big bang. Carroll considers the big bang model “established beyond reasonable doubt”2 because cosmologists can model what happened from a split second after the big bang until now. The only question that remains, he says, is what happened in the moment before.

Theistic evolutionists like to suggest that God was the cosmic trigger-puller who subsequently fine-tuned the results.

Theistic evolutionists like to suggest that God was the cosmic trigger-puller who subsequently fine-tuned the results. But Carroll contends that as contemporary physics theories are experimentally tested, the need for such divine initiation will vanish. Carroll writes:

Over the past five hundred years, the progress of science has worked to strip away God’s roles in the world. He isn’t needed to keep things moving, or to develop the complexity of living creatures, or to account for the existence of the universe. Perhaps the greatest triumph of the scientific revolution has been in the realm of methodology. Control groups, double-blind experiments, an insistence on precise and testable predictions—a suite of techniques constructed to guard against the very human tendency to see things that aren’t there. There is no control group for the universe, but in our attempts to explain it we should aim for a similar level of rigor.3

“None of this amounts to ‘proof’ that God doesn’t exist, of course,” Carroll admits. “Such proof is not forthcoming; science isn’t in the business of proving things.”4 And he concedes “the idea of God” might serve useful functions, such as motivating people to follow rules or helping them deal with death. But Carroll sees no need for God to explain how we got here. And why we’re here, he says, is irrelevant.

Knowing how something works does not reveal how it originated in the unobservable past. Despite Carroll’s claims, understanding how something in nature works does not mean God didn’t design it. (In fact, Romans 1:20 indicates that even from the time of creation enough could be discerned to call attention to God’s creative power.5) And though Carroll asserts that science can explain the increasing complexity of life, evolutionary science has never demonstrated a mechanism through which new genetic information to fuel upward molecules-to-man evolution can be acquired. Carroll’s convenient way of minimizing God to a useful role only in the mysterious is absurd. Such is analogous to saying if we can figure out how an inventor’s product works, we can revoke his patent and claim the device sprang into existence through a random convergence of fortuitous events.

The danger of theological compromise as practiced by theistic evolutionists is clear from Carroll’s essay. Carroll counters the theistic evolutionary contention that God triggered the big bang by saying, like Lawrence Krauss (as discussed in item 2 today), that the laws of physics alone were sufficient to get things going. To the claim that God fine-tuned the universe, Carroll insists an infinite number of parallel universes made all options open, and only the ones that work (like ours) survived. (See Faith in the Multiverse, for more on this.) And to the theistic evolutionist compromise that God used evolution, Carroll asks why nobody thought of it before Darwin popularized evolutionary theory.

When people dispute and reinterpret the Bible with every wind of man’s ideas instead of testing man’s fallible ideas against the Word of the infallible God, they destroy all foundation for belief. To spar with those who do not believe in God using a compromised interpretation of God’s Word is pointless. Theistic evolutionists pick and choose how to reinterpret the Bible in order to shove fallible human ideas into it. Therefore they argue from a position of no authority. They have already denied God’s authority and His ability to clearly communicate the truth in His Word.

Carroll acknowledges that “assumptions” underlie the certainty of the big bang.

Finally, Carroll acknowledges that “assumptions” underlie the certainty of the big bang. Yet assumptions are by nature unverifiable. He also claims events beginning one second after the big bang are in “the realm of empirical testability.”6 In such he confuses historical and experimental science. How atomic particles and molecules and energy behave now is testable, but that behavior does not reveal how they came to exist. Carroll writes:

Cosmologists sometimes talk about the Big Bang, especially in popular-level presentations, in ways that convey more certainty than is really warranted, so it is worth our time to separate what we know from what we may guess.7

The problem is, Carroll has trouble seeing that the cosmological events about which he is certain are also guesses since he has rejected the only eyewitness account of those origins in favor of unverifiable uniformitarian assumptions. Curiously, Carroll rightly extols the virtues of “control groups, double-blind experiments, and insistence on precise and testable predictions” and even admits “there is no control group for the universe.” Yet he claims that the cosmological ideas defining the events of our origins are beyond doubt. He is certain that cosmological models will ultimately displace God and close the book on Genesis when they are finally tested experimentally. Yet they can never be tested experimentally because the time of origins is in the untestable past. Computer models based on the same unverifiable assumptions as the theories they “test” cannot possibly prove those theories true, being at best electronic examples of circular reasoning.

Bible-believing Christians didn’t invent God to fill in the answers science can’t provide. Observable science actually affirms biblical truth.8 We need to “look outside” for help not just to know where we came from but also to know where we’re going. We are accountable to our Creator, the holy God of the Bible against whom we all have rebelled. We trust what the Bible says from the first verse, and so we understand our need for a Savior not just to deal with life’s issues on this side of the grave (and even to understand why there is a grave) but to be prepared for the eternity to come. The cross is not a crutch—it is the answer to every person’s deepest need, whether he admits it or not.


Remember, if you see a news story that might merit some attention, let us know about it! (Note: if the story originates from the Associated Press, Fox News, MSNBC, the New York Times, or another major national media outlet, we will most likely have already heard about it.) And thanks to all of our readers who have submitted great news tips to us.

(Please note that links will take you directly to the source. Answers in Genesis is not responsible for content on the websites to which we refer. For more information, please see our Privacy Policy.)

Footnotes

  1. preposterousuniverse.com/writings/dtung
  2. preposterousuniverse.com/writings/dtung
  3. preposterousuniverse.com/writings/dtung
  4. preposterousuniverse.com/writings/dtung
  5. Many point to the malfunctions and deleterious mutations in nature and claim God must have been a bad Designer, but understanding the curse (Romans 8:22) that came upon all of creation when Adam sinned should put that argument to rest.
  6. preposterousuniverse.com/writings/dtung
  7. preposterousuniverse.com/writings/dtung
  8. We do not claim to “prove” the Bible with science. Rather, what we see in the world—studied through scientific observations and tests in every area—is completely in accord with what we read in God’s Word. Only worldview-based interpretations differ. Thus, “junk” DNA is not “junk” after all (News to Note, September 15, 2012), organs thought to be evolutionary vestiges are found to have functions (Setting the Record Straight on Vestigial Organs), discoveries in geology are consistent with global Flood models (Doesn’t the Order of Fossils in the Rock Record Favor Long Ages?, News to Note, May 26, 2012), fossils of Ice Age humans are understood through the record of post-Flood humanity's behavior (When Did Cavemen Live?), and even the discoveries in astronomy make sense in light of Scripture (The Universe Confirms the Bible). (A recently released DVD Science Confirms the Bible summarizes much of that information.)

Recommended Resources

Newsletter

Get the latest answers emailed to you or sign up for our free print newsletter.

See All Lists

Answers in Genesis is an apologetics ministry, dedicated to helping Christians defend their faith and proclaim the gospel of Jesus Christ.

Learn more