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