Big Bang - Boom? Part 2

In addition to the mystery of the “Trigger” of the Big Bang and the “inflation” process (to explain the unexpectedly consistent temperatures), science has been wrestling with two other strange things about our universe. They don’t really have an explanation for these phenomena so they refer to them as Dark Matter and Dark Energy.

Dark Matter

The force of gravity is something we can all relate to – it’s what keeps us from floating off our chairs and into space. And most of us know that we would weigh less on the moon since it is smaller than the earth and has less gravity. Many also understand that it is the force of gravity that keeps planets and moons in stable orbits. For those who might not understand how this works, think of the moon and the earth. The earth has a strong gravitational pull on the moon, basically trying to crash the moon into the earth. So why doesn’t the moon crash into the earth? The moon is circling the earth at a very high rate of speed (1.03 km per second), and this speed is the perfect speed needed to keep the moon from getting closer to the earth (picture a ball on the end of a string – if you hold the end of the string and spin the ball fast enough above your head, the string gets tight and the ball “orbits” your hand. Slow down and the string starts to sag and the ball will crash into you. Spin it too fast and you won’t be able to hang on and the ball will fly away from you, maybe crashing into a window.)

The earth and all the other planets in our solar system also orbit the sun in the same way. Solar systems are often grouped together and they will also be in orbit around each other.

To help understand how the universe was formed, scientists studied galaxies and noticed something peculiar. Some galaxies were in orbits that appeared to be moving way too fast for the amount of matter that they could detect. Basically, there wasn’t enough mass to create the amount of gravity needed to keep the system from flying apart. Yet, there they were – these super fast spinning galaxies.

So, to make a long story short, scientists came up with the term “dark matter” to explain there must be something else that is making the gravity stronger. This special something must have similar gravitational properties like normal matter, but we can’t detect it using normal methods (like reflecting light or emitting radiation). Some scientists estimate that dark matter makes up 80% of all matter in the universe. Of course, the concept of dark matter is strictly theoretical – we can’t prove it exists since we can’t detect it. But since these fast spinning galaxies exist, there must be something that holds them together. Something that doesn’t conform to the laws of physics. Something we can’t detect with any scientific instrument yet created. Something is holding this universe together – or should I say Someone is holding this universe together?

Dark Energy

Another unexpected discovery made relatively recently is that the universe is still expanding, and is expanding at a faster rate than before. This is counter intuitive. Basic physics tells us that once an object has been set in motion and has achieved a stable velocity, it can’t speed up unless it receives more energy. If anything, objects should tend to slow down due to the gravitational pull of other objects. Some models of the universe suggest the expansion of the universe was actually slowing down about 5 billion years ago. Yet, the universe appears to be still expanding and expanding faster than previously thought. So, once again science proposes another special something that doesn’t conform to normal physics and is responsible for the additional energy that would fuel our expanding universe. They call this special something “dark energy” because, like dark matter, we can’t detect it or prove it exists. Another special Something that our universe needs to survive.

Conclusion

My explanations of the Trigger, Inflation, Dark Matter, and Dark Energy are very basic and anyone with a degree in physics could likely point out several things wrong with my posts. And I want to be clear that I’m not trying to point out any weaknesses or failures on behalf of scientists who are trying to explain our universe. But I think there are some key things we can learn from the science of the Big Bang.

1. Many people, Christians and scientists alike, underestimate the significance of the basic premise of the Big Bang Theory – it confirms the first three words of the Bible “In the beginning”. Prior to the Big Bang Theory, most scientists (including Einstein) understood the universe to be static (never changing). This was in stark contrast to the Biblical creation story which clearly stated the universe had a beginning and was created by God out of nothing. As the Big Bang Theory was first introduced, many people in the scientific community were against it because of the “religious implications”. Ironically, many people in the church community felt the Big Bang Theory was a threat to them because it provided an explanation of the origin of the universe without the need for a God. But think about this for few moments. If the Bible was just an ancient book written by men, how and why would they come up with the idea that the entire universe was created all at once out of nothing? All evidence at that time (and up until about 50 years ago) pointed to a universe that was never changing, always there. How could the Bible be right, if it was written by mere mortal men? Was it just a lucky guess or coincidence that they got this right?
   
   
   
2. The laws of physics are not completely universal. Science is suggesting that there must be some things (dark matter, dark energy) that do not follow the laws of physics, yet these things have a profound and sustaining impact on the entire universe. Without these mysterious things, the universe could not exist. If scientists can now accept there must be something that transcends our known universe, perhaps it is now a shorter leap of faith to accept that the God spoken of in the Bible is the One responsible for the effects attributed to Dark Matter and Dark Energy. I don’t know about you, but whenever I think about this, a song pops into my head (“He’s got the whole world, in His hands…”).

As always, I welcome your comments and questions.

Jac

Big Bang - Boom?

The generally accepted scientific theory for how the universe began is referred to as the Big Bang Theory (not to be confused with the TV show). Very simply, the Big Bang Theory states that our entire universe began about 14 billion years from a single dot that contained all the stuff (matter and energy) that makes up all the stars and planets. The dot was infinitely dense and infinitely small – referred to as a singularity. For some yet unknown reason, that dot suddenly expanded and as it expanded, the particles and energy immediately started arranging themselves into atoms and molecules eventually creating all matter, energy, planets, and stars. At one point there was nothing, then there was everything.

The Big Bang Theory is a relatively new scientific discovery, gaining scientific acceptance between 1949 and 1969. Prior to this, most scientists felt the universe was relatively static and had always existed (it never had a beginning), thus in conflict with the Biblical Creation account. So when science finally accepted the Big Bang Theory, they had to (somewhat reluctantly) agree that at least the first three words of the Bible – “In the beginning” – were correct. Our universe had a beginning.

For the past 50 years or so, many scientists have been working to refine the Big Bang Theory and figure out a few key questions – what triggered it? why is the background radiation (think temperature) of the universe the same in every direction? Why is gravity much stronger than it should be based on how much matter we can detect? Why does the universe appear to be expanding even faster than before (shouldn’t it be slowing down)?

What’s interesting is how science is handling the answers to these four perplexing questions. As I review their responses in this post and the next one, keep a few things in mind. The scientific method has a few key assumptions – one of the essential assumptions is that everything must adhere to scientific laws (such as the laws of physics). So science simply can’t accept something that doesn’t conform to basic laws (like suggesting there is a heavenly being who is not affected by gravity or time). The extension of this assumption is that if something appears to defy scientific laws, it means we just don’t understand how it works yet.

The Trigger

Before the Big Bang, everything was crammed together into a single dot. Even the concept of empty space didn’t really exist yet. And gravitational theory says that large, dense objects have extremely strong gravitational forces that prevent things from leaving them. So, if everything was inside this dot, and the gravity was infinitely strong – what could have triggered an event so powerful that it could overcome the power of infinite gravity? This is a perplexing question. If everything was inside the dot, the bang must have started from the inside (since there is nothing outside the dot). But what mechanism could be responsible for overcoming an infinitely strong gravity – gravity that is so strong that the smallest particles of matter (protons, neutrons, electrons) have collapsed and there is no motion? Why did it start at that particular time? Why not sooner, or later? How long did that dot exist before the Big Bang?

Some scientists speculate that time itself didn’t exist before the Big Bang. Hmm … sounds familiar. I think I read that in a Book written a few thousand years ago. Before God created the universe, time (as we experience it) did not exist. As for the trigger, there are some theories that suggest that something (neither matter nor energy) must have existed outside of the dot in order to have triggered the event. This special something is not bound to the laws of physics as we know them - perhaps a parallel universe existing in a different space-time dimension. Wait a minute – doesn’t this contradict one of the basic assumptions of science that everything must conform to the laws of the universe? Ok, let’s assume the trigger was something that existed outside of the dot that does not conform to the laws of the universe. That opens a nice doorway for me to introduce scientists to Someone who doesn’t conform to the laws of the universe and actually claims to be the Trigger of the created universe.

Inflation

Let’s move on to the next issue with the Big Bang. If the Big Bang was a random, uncontrolled event (ie no Intelligent Being was in charge), then we should expect that the results should be somewhat random also. Think about what happens when things explode in the movies – some particles are brighter than others because they have different temperatures, and there is no set pattern as to why some are hotter than others. So if there was this incredible rapid random expansion of this dot, we should expect that some sections of the aftermath are hotter than others. This is exactly what scientists expected to find / prove to support the Big Bang Theory. They directed their telescopes across the sky and recorded the “temperature” of the universe in different locations.

To measure the temperature of the universe, they actually measure the background microwave radiation. Instead of finding lots of random temperatures, they found very consistent temperatures. In fact, they found identical temperatures in completely opposite directions in space which meant that at some time, those regions must have been close together. But this would mean that the Big Bang was not a sudden event, but one that took a much longer time – perhaps years instead of seconds. But a “slow” Big Bang doesn’t follow the laws of physics – things that go “boom” start fast and then slow down, not the other way around. If it started slowly, the strong gravity should make it slow down even more and perhaps collapse it.

So, when this unexpected result was discovered, scientists needed to refine the Big Bang Theory. They couldn’t explain these results so they added a new step in this process that is referred to as “inflation”. After the initial expansion event, the relatively small universe found a new equilibrium – a somewhat stable state with a uniform temperature. It then “inflated” very quickly and fairly evenly (think of blowing up a balloon) thus explaining the uniform temperatures across the sky. But what would cause the inflation to happen? Scientists don’t have a clue. It doesn’t follow the laws of physics. It must have been something that doesn’t conform to the laws of physics. Hmm…maybe it was this mysterious Someone who triggered the event in the first place?

Next time I will review two more strange things about the Big Bang. Very dark things.

As always, I welcome your comments and questions.

Jac

Dinosaurs - Part 2

{Please read Dinosaurs – Part 1 before this one. Thanks.}

So if the “Literal Bible” and the “Liberal Bible” approaches aren’t very good, what is the better approach? Somewhere in the middle? A compromise? Not really. I don’t think it is wise or necessary to compromise scientific methodology, and I’m definitely not in favour of compromising the integrity of the Bible. To help you understand this third approach, I need that Canadian quarter I mentioned last time. Imagine you and I are sitting across the table from each other enjoying a cup of coffee. I pull out a quarter and hold it up between us so I’m looking at the back and you are looking at the front.

I ask you to describe what you see. The conversation might go something like this.

“I see a small circular object, it’s shiny with some raised lettering and a head embossed on the surface.”

I would of course agree with you and say that we are definitely looking at the same thing. Then I would ask you to describe the head in more detail.

“Well, it looks like a moose or maybe an elk, I can’t really tell the difference.”

I start laughing and wonder what the waitress put in your coffee, because it’s definitely not a moose or an elk, but a very regal looking woman. This is when you suggest my vision is faulty and insist it is definitely an animal not a person. So we start raising our voices, calling each other rude names and pounding the table until the waitress walks by, rolls her eyes at us, and flips the quarter over so you can see what I was looking at and I can see what you were looking at.

We then realize our mistake, apologize to each other and wonder why we got mad at each other. While we knew we were looking at the same object, and we agreed on almost everything we saw, we felt the minor differences were worth fighting over. And why did we see something different? Simply put, we were looking at the same object from a slightly different perspective. Now this is a simple example, and one that the waitress could solve very easy by simply turning the coin over, but I hope it gives you an idea of where I’m going.

When we view the miracle of Creation through the perspective of the Bible, it has the appearance of a relatively short event, but there are very few details. In my opinion, the Creation event is the single most incredible miracle ever performed by God (out of nothing He created everything), yet the Bible spends a relatively short time describing it. Perhaps it’s because the Creation of the universe is not the most important message of the Bible. (If you want to know the most important message of the Bible, you’ll need to read it on your own then come and talk to me in person about it.)

When we view the miracle of Creation through the perspective of science, it has the appearance of a very long event that took place a long time ago. There are lots of details, lots of ‘after the fact’ evidence, lots of theories (many that have been proven wrong or refined many times), lots of assumptions, but no firsthand accounts. No matter what science may say, all we will ever have regarding the origins of the universe and the creation of life are a set of theories that fit with observations we make today. We can’t observe the event first hand. We can’t re-create the conditions that existed prior to Creation in a laboratory and make another universe. We can’t conduct experiments to watch single celled organisms evolve into a fish – even the theory of evolution tells us this would take millions of years. But this is how science works. You observe evidence, develop a theory, then test the theory as much as you can. As long as you have no evidence that contradicts the theory, the theory stands and is accepted.

We should expect differences in these two perspectives – just like looking at two sides of the same coin. We should be slow to tell either side that what they observe is “wrong” if it if seems to contradict what we observe. Some of those differences might be resolved by finding the correct way to read a Bible passage (like the verses describing the movement of the sun being in contradiction with Galileo’s observations), others might be resolved through advances in science. But many differences will remain unresolved. I’m not expecting some breakthrough anytime soon that will show us how this all fits neatly together. We need to feel comfortable saying that we don’t know how they fit together and not be quick to make absolute statements that the science is wrong, especially if we have not fully researched and understand exactly what the science says (even many scientists don’t understand exactly what the science says or doesn’t say).

The great thing about science is that for the most part, it complements what the Bible tells us about our Creator. The Bible account of creation is pretty short on details. But when you add to that some of what science tells us, the miracle of creation becomes much larger, much deeper, much more “impossible” – it starts to add a sense of scope to how powerful our God must be. He didn’t create a single planet with a fabric sky with small dots for stars and larger ones for the sun and moon. He created a universe so big, so vast, so varied – it boggles our mind.

He didn’t create a few hundred or a few thousand different kinds of life – He created millions of types of life and we are still finding new ones in places where we didn’t think it possible for life to exist (the depths of the oceans near volcanic heat vents, under the polar ice caps, deep in rocks).

When you bring God into science, suddenly there is purpose and meaning for everything. The big bang was not a random event. Life didn’t just happen due to blind luck. I am not here simply to pass on my genes to the next generation. There is something beyond what we can observe in this reality – something much greater than we can imagine.

So what is a good response to someone who asks you how dinosaurs fit in with the Bible? Basically, my suggestion is to acknowledge that dinosaurs existed but there are differences between the scientific account of creation and the Biblical account of creation. We don’t know if or when those differences will ever be resolved, but we need to keep moving forward with both scientific exploration and understanding what the Bible tells us. We need to cooperate, not quarrel about who is right and who is wrong. We need to be willing to look at the miracle of creation from both sides, so it enriches our understanding of who we are and who God is.

Or you can pull a quarter out of your pocket and say – “take a look at this coin and tell me what you see”.

Questions and Comments?

1. Was the coin illustration useful? Can you think of other examples where changing our perspective changes what we see?
2. Are you willing to engage people in productive conversations about science and scripture, or will you still avoid them?

Jac

Dinosaurs - Part 1

I was asked to do a post on dinosaurs and how they fit in with the Bible. This is a great topic suggestion since it is something that most Christians will wrestle with from time to time. It’s also a great topic since it automatically leads to discussions about the age of the earth, the sequence of evolution, and ultimately how ought we to read the creation story in Genesis.

To start, we need to acknowledge that dinosaurs once existed on earth. There is an overwhelming amount of fossil evidence that makes it foolish for us to think otherwise. To put things in perspective, there are over 1000 different species of dinosaurs that have been discovered and named. One of the largest collections of dinosaur fossils discovered is near Drumheller, Alberta in place called Dinosaur Valley. If you are ever in that area, you should plan to make a stop at the Royal Tyrell Museum.

So since they did exist, when did they exist? This is where many Christians start to squirm a bit in their seats. The common scientific claim is that dinosaurs roamed the earth about 230 million years ago, and died out after a massive meteor hit the earth about 65 million years ago (see the Sept 20, 2010 posting called Asteroid Collision). And when people date the age of the earth using the Bible, they typically come up with 6500 years. So something doesn’t add up.

A second troubling claim of science is that dinosaurs died out long before man appeared on the planet, around 100,000 years ago. That’s a huge gap of time that we can’t fit anywhere in the 6 day creation week.

So how do we reconcile these differences? That’s the BIG question isn’t it? God has revealed His truth in the Bible, but He has also revealed His truth in His Creation. They seem to be out of alignment – how do we bring them together?

I have found that there are three typical approaches that people take to this reconciliation. The first one is what I’ll refer to as the “Literal Bible” – people start with the position that the Genesis account of creation in 6 days of 24 hours each is irrefutable. This implies that dinosaurs were created during that week, and existed at the same time as humans. So, the dating methods used for determining when dinosaurs existed must be wrong. The fact that no dinosaur fossils have be found near human bones (or other mammal bones) is strictly a coincidence. There are oblique references to large animals found in the Bible (see Job 40:15-24 for a description of the behemoth, or Psalm 104:25,26 for the leviathan), and many attribute these to dinosaurs. Organizations such as Answers in Genesis have gone to great lengths to make science fit into the “literal Bible”. I applaud their efforts and their desire to provide alternative explanations for scientific evidence that fits into Biblical accounts. This works for many people, but not for me. I find they can alienate people in the scientific community by criticizing their work and dismissing what most scientists accept as factual information regarding things like the age of the earth. I also fear they may be making the same mistake the church made with Galileo regarding the scientific discovery that the sun does not orbit the earth but the earth orbits the sun. The church threatened Galileo with expulsion unless he recanted. Over 400 years later, the church admitted the scientific evidence was overwhelming and finally issued an apology. They accepted that the Biblical verses they originally felt were in contradiction with science were poetic and metaphorical, not scientific. But that event was one of the pivotal moments that started the breakdown in the relationship between the church and science. If we want to reach out to the scientific community and let them know that they can believe in God and still be scientists, I don’t think telling them that their basic assumptions are all wrong is a good starting point.

The second typical approach is at the other extreme end of the spectrum in what I’ll refer to as the “Liberal Bible” – people start with the position that science is essentially correct and that the creation account in Genesis is not meant to be taken literally. They use science to guide how the Bible ought to be read. If there appears to be a contradiction between science and a Bible verse, we shouldn’t take that Bible verse literally. So when the science tells us that the earth is billions of years old and formed over millions of years, this means the creation story in Genesis shouldn’t be taken literally. They argue that the creation story is presented in a format that gives us a pattern for how we should live our lives – work six days then have a day of rest. It’s not meant to be a play-by-play account of the process God used to create the universe. Basically, this group takes the opposite approach to the “literal Bible” group. Instead of making science fit into the Bible, they make Biblical accounts fit in with scientific evidence. Most of the people in this camp accept the earth is billions of years old, life started with single celled organisms and evolved into all other life forms we have today (including humans) over millions of years, a global flood never occurred (only a regional flood affecting a limited area), and dinosaurs died millions of years before humans were created. Many Christians are not comfortable with this approach since it allows science to direct how we should read the Bible, and in their eyes, it diminishes the mystery and power of God. There is the fear that as science continues to advance, the Bible becomes less relevant. Overall, this approach works better with people who have a scientific background, but doesn’t often build bridges with people who have traditional views about the inerrancy of the Bible.

So if these two extreme approaches don’t work for you, what approach can we take? That will be covered in the next post and here’s a hint – a Canadian quarter makes an appearance.

Questions and Comments?

1. Have you had conversations with people about dinosaurs and the Bible? How did that go?
2. Have you checked out Answers in Genesis or similar websites? What do you think of their approach?

Jac

Labels

Our society is obsessed with labels. We put them on everything – food, clothing, vehicles, and chemicals. Labels on things like food are a pretty good idea, especially if you have food allergies or dietary restrictions. But labels are useful only when two conditions are met – they must be accurate and they must be universally understandable.

Consider the danger if a food manufacturer left off a key ingredient for a breakfast bar – say peanuts – and someone bought the product assuming it was nut free and gave it to their child who had a nut allergy.

We put a lot of trust in labels, and we frequently make decisions based on what we understand a label to mean. Sometimes these decisions are literally life or death decisions.

The practice of labeling things has also extended to people. Individuals or groups of people are often referred to by a “label”. This could be based on what country they are from (American, German), the colour of their skin (white, black), their sexual orientation (gay, straight), their age (toddler, teenager), their religion (Catholic, Muslim), or any of a number of categories we try to pigeonhole people. But as soon as we place a label on someone, we run the danger of that label being inaccurate and / or not universally understood.

The whole issue of stereotyping comes into play here – we make a lot of assumptions about someone as soon as we slap a label on them. And in my experience, it seems to be hard-wired into my brain to put labels on people as soon as I can. When I’m introduced to someone and learn something definitive about them – such as their occupation – I start referring to them in my mind by that attribute (Bob the accountant). And then I start making assumptions about them based on that attribute (Bob probably drives a Honda, makes secure investments, and pays off his credit card every month). I assume I know a lot about a person based on very little personal information, and I might not make an effort to get to know them better and find out if my label is correct or not. In some cases, learning just a little bit about someone might cause me to avoid future contact with them or even break off a friendship.

A few years ago I met someone at a card game, and when we decided to order pizza he mentioned he couldn’t have bacon or ham. I immediately labeled him as being Jewish because of his refusal to eat pork. He looked a bit Jewish and his family was important to him, so it seemed like a good assumption to make. A few months and several card games later, I discovered he wasn’t Jewish but actually Muslim. My label was wrong and it led me to make certain assumptions about him without taking the effort to learn more about him. And learning he was Muslim broke a few assumptions I had always had about what a Muslim looked like, what they wear, how they act.

Labeling people based on their religion is quite common, and has been going on for a long time. Throughout history there are far too many examples of wars and even genocide triggered by “religion”. Some of these, like the “crusades”, took place many years ago. But others like the genocide in Bosnia or Rwanda happened very recently. What is common about these events is that “labels” were used to create an “us” versus “them” scenario and de-humanize the “enemy”. It’s somehow more palatable for us to kill an enemy who is faceless and nameless. When we use the label, we forget that our enemy is a person just like us, with families, jobs, hopes, dreams – and created in the image of God.

Many people feel the world would be a much better place without religion. I think what they really mean is that the world would be a better place if we stopped labeling people and stereotyping. The acts of aggression and wars that were done in the name of religion had nothing to do with the true values espoused by those religions – they simply leveraged the use of religious labels and stereotyping to convince people their cause was noble and just.

I signed up on Facebook a while ago, and when completing my profile I considered what to put for “religious views”. I could have put “Christian”, or “Protestant”, or “Evangelical”, or a number of other possible religious labels. If you have checked out my FB profile, you will already know that what I put down was “too complicated for one sentence”. I did this deliberately to avoid using a typical religious label. I want people to engage me in a conversation about my religious views. I don’t want them to read a label and make a bunch of assumptions about what I believe, how I act, or what I value. In turn, I try to avoid the trap of making assumptions about people who might use one of those labels. Simply telling me you are a Christian isn’t the end of that conversation, but the beginning. I want to know more.

I have met several people who want no part of organized religion. They consider themselves to be spiritual, perhaps even call themselves Christians, but they will never belong to a church. This is unfortunate because they are making a lot of assumptions about a label. They view “religion” or “churches” as faceless organizations with certain attributes that they don’t like. But every church I have ever been involved with is not a stereotypical church. Every single one of them has been made up of people – ordinary people like you and me. Imperfect, but forgiven. Striving to do what they believe is right, and often getting it wrong. But they are people worth the time to get to know.

My challenge for you is to make sure you go beyond the labels our society puts on people. Don’t assume you know everything about someone because you know something about them. Think about the people Jesus picked to be His disciples and closest friends – fishermen, labourers, tax collectors, and prostitutes. Jesus didn’t care what label society had placed on these people. He didn’t care what others thought about who He should be hanging around. He went beyond those labels and looked into the hearts of those around Him.

Consider this somewhat cryptic exchange between Jesus and Peter as recorded in Mark 8:27 to 30.

Jesus and his disciples went on to the villages around Caesarea Philippi. On the way he asked them, “Who do people say I am?" They replied, "Some say John the Baptist; others say Elijah; and still others, one of the prophets." "But what about you?" he asked. "Who do you say I am?" Peter answered, "You are the Christ." Jesus warned them not to tell anyone about him.

Society had labeled Jesus as being John the Baptist, Elijah, or a prophet. But since Peter had spent time with Him, he knew Jesus was the Christ or Messiah (the Anointed One). Modern society has similar labels for Jesus – one of the prophets, a good role model, a mythical person. Our challenge as believers is to help people get beyond those labels and discover who Jesus really is.

Questions and Comments?

1. Have you ever fallen into the trap of making assumptions about someone based on a label and later found out you were wrong?
2. Do you think the label “Christian” is understood well enough to be accurate description of who you are and what you believe?

Jac