Explosive image from iStockphoto and string image from Mike Wade, stock.xchng.
by Gary Bates
Most people have heard of the expression ‘the big bang’. Its usage is
so prevalent among mainstream scientists and the media that it has become the accepted
‘fact’ for how the universe began. However, there are an increasing
number of secular scientists who are sceptical of this theory of cosmic evolution,
and much of their scepticism has been caused by increasing discoveries that fly
in the face of big bang theory. In May 2004 ‘An Open Letter to the Scientific
Community’ signed by dozens of secular scientists was advertised in the renowned
New Scientist. At the time of writing this article, the total number of
scientists signing the letter who are sceptical of the big bang has increased to
over 400.1
One of the great problems for those who believe that the universe came into existence
by itself is that the universe does not present itself in such a manner.
For example, the complexity of the observable universe fits better with the idea
that it has been specially created ex nihilo.2 The ‘first cause’ problem is one of
the great stumbling blocks for evolutionary cosmology. For example, consider the
following logically valid argument.
- Everything which has a beginning has a cause.
- The universe has a beginning.3
- Therefore the universe has a cause.4
In short, if the universe had a beginning, then it must have had a cause.
Looking like design
The so-called ‘Anthropic Principle’ derives from the observation that
many aspects of the universe give at least the appearance of having been
designed specifically for human life. There are an abundance of design features
that sit uncomfortably for those who believe that we exist as a result of some giant
cosmic lottery. So it is often claimed that there must be a myriad of other universes,
with different features, even different laws of physics. And in our own universe
the cosmic dice just happened to fall in such a way that the laws were those that
would allow humans to evolve. Which is why we are here in the first place to ask
such ‘anthropic’ questions. In other words, we are not here by design,
it just looks that way, perhaps due to ‘evolution by natural selection’
among various (unobserved) universes.
Attempts to prop up this [‘big bang’] theory in the face of increasing
problems have led to many weird hypotheses invoking mysterious unseen forces …
Even though the big bang is passionately held to by some advocates of design, it
also is used to attempt to avoid a Designer. The theory claims that all the matter,
space and energy of the entire universe pre-existed in a particle no bigger than
the head of a pin. Then, for no reason, it suddenly expanded, and the energy became
matter that formed galaxies, stars and ultimately people.
Attempts to prop up this theory in the face of increasing problems have led to many
weird hypotheses invoking mysterious unseen forces known as ‘dark matter’
and ‘dark energy’ to basically hold the universe together or to push
it apart.5 All of these
speculations attempt to avoid the obvious spiritual implications of design (Colossians 1:16–17).
A theory of everything?
Image iStockphoto
Many today propose that other universes may exist in parallel with our own. Some
believe that aliens may exist in these other universe(s) and have harnessed the
technology to flit between their own dimension and ours, and that this could account
for the myriad of UFO sightings and alien encounters over the years. But see Gary
Bates’s classic
Alien Intrusion: UFOs and the Evolution Connection.
One should consider that many of these ‘cosmic convolutions’ lack experimental
support and are speculative ideas dressed in convoluted mathematics. One such idea
is string theory. Although highly controversial, it has been gaining in popularity,
and research is well-funded, particularly by those trying to prop up big bang ideology.
See the box for a brief explanation of string theory. Although the box may not seem
like it, it is a ‘string theory for dummies’ type of explanation. But
don’t worry if you can’t understand it. No one really does, as we will
see. And there is not a single shred of experimental evidence to support the
claims. String theory is presently completely unobservable and untestable.
However, its advocates would also claim that it is not falsifiable, and therefore,
it might be correct. This is the nature of such ‘elegant’ theories.
One not infrequently hears similar claims about evolution in general.
The founder flounders!
A commentator in a popular science journal noted:
‘The suspicion is that they’re just floundering around doing ever more
esoteric mathematics, but not really making any progress at all. It’s a suspicion
confirmed … by David Gross, the Nobel Prize-winning American Theorist and
one of the founders of string theory. At a prestigious conference of the best and
brightest in physics he admitted: “We don’t know what we are talking
about.”’6
One of the reasons that many are excited about the potential of string theory is
that they hope it might evolve to become the elusive ‘theory of everything’—the
holy grail that has eluded physicists for decades. The fundamental forces that govern
our universe are gravity, electromagnetism, and the strong and weak nuclear forces
(that hold atoms together). String theory is an attempt to unify these forces into
one mathematical theory, an attempt that many physicists now believe to be impossible
anyway.
Dangerous allure for Christians
’We [string theory physicists] don’t know what we’re talking about’— David Gross,
Nobel Prize-winning American theorist and one of the founders of string theory
Like the expression ‘the big bang’, string theory is becoming part of
the common language of cosmology, and sadly, many professing evangelical Christians,
like the old-earth creationist Dr Hugh Ross, have jumped onto the string theory
bandwagon.7 Some, always
eager to find a way of not appearing too ‘out of kilter’ with the secular
scientific community, propose that the other dimensions invoked by string theory
could be the ‘other’ spiritual dimensions mentioned in Scripture.
Of course, it is reasonable to assume that there is another realm or dimension in
which angels and/or God may exist, and Paul spoke about a ‘third heaven’
(2 Corinthians 12:2).8
These may be compartments or areas of a spiritual realm or dimension, though not
necessarily extra dimensions in themselves.9
The Bible does not speak about other dimensions specifically, and speculating on
such matters in too much detail can lead to positions bordering on the heretical.10 This is one of the problems
of taking the currently popular views of secular evolutionary scientists and trying
to adapt them to Scripture.
Here’s the kicker
Evolutionary ideas like string theory start from a worldview framework that there
is no God. Therefore it is dangerous practice to intermarry secular guesswork with
the Bible. For example, like the big bang, there are many versions of string theory.
So which one should we hang our theology on? If the secular theory changes tomorrow,
do we then revise our theology? Finally, when the Bible cannot be twisted sufficiently
to incorporate man-made ideologies that we assume to be correct, what happens to
one’s faith?
It’s a much more reliable practice to start with Scripture when trying to
understand our world and universe. The reality is there is still so much we don’t
understand. But we can trust God. After all, He is the One who created it all to
begin with. He encourages us to ‘Trust in the Lord with all your heart, And
lean not on your own understanding; In all your ways acknowledge Him, And He shall
direct your paths’ (Proverbs 3:5–6).
String Theory
Figure 1. Conventional point-like particles as compared to the theory that
subatomic particles exist as closed strings. Left picture shows the merging of two
point like particles, where the right picture shows two loops merging to form a
single loop particle.
Classical physics treats particles basically as zero-dimensional point-like objects,
and quantum mechanics recognizes that they can also behave in wave-like fashion.
But completely distinct from this physics, string theory proposes that they may
instead exist as one-dimensional loops or ‘strings’ (see figure 1) that
cut across or exist in nine spatial (and one time) dimensions compared to the three
spatial (and one time) dimensions we understand and use in relativity theory.1 Some
suggest that these strings exist as higher dimensional objects called branes (membrane-like
structures) that act like vibrating flat sheets or tubes etc.2 These ideas can even
be extended to support the idea of multi-universes coexisting with our own, and
that our own universe (the big bang) was the result of the collision of two of these
branes in some higher-dimensional hyperspace. The goal is to get the universe to
create itself—that way, no first cause would be needed, hence no God.
Notes
- Supersymmetric version of string theory adds another dimension, i.e. totalling 11
and then other modifications require as many as 26 dimensions.
- M-theory extends the strings to branes.
|
Related resources
References and notes
- An Open Letter to the Scientific Community (published in
New Scientist 22 May 2004) <www.cosmologystatement.org>, 21 February
2007; see CMI commentary, Wieland, C., Secular scientists blast
the big bang: What now for naïve apologetics?, Creation 27(2):23–25,
2005; <creation.com/bigbangblast>. Return to text.
- Latin meaning ‘out of nothing’.
Return to text.
- Creationists and most evolutionary cosmogonists agree that
the universe had a beginning. Return to text.
- Sarfati, J., Refuting Compromise, Master Books, Green Forest, USA,
p. 179, 2004; If God created the universe, then who created
God? Journal of Creation 12(1):20–22, 1998,
<creation.com/whomadeGod>. Return to text.
- See Hartnett, J., Has ‘dark
matter’ really been proven? Clarifying the clamour of claims from colliding
clusters, <creation.com/collide>, 8 September 2006. Return
to text.
- The last word, ‘Strings and M-theory are based on little
more than fancy maths and a grab-bag of ideas’, BBC Focus, p. 98,
May 2006. Return to text.
- For a thorough refutation of Hugh Ross’s theological
and scientific claims, read
Refuting Compromise by Jonathan Sarfati, and for a refutation of
big bang teaching, see Dismantling the Big Bang by Alexander Williams
and John Hartnett (both available from CMI). Return to text.
- See also Grigg, R., The Gospel in time
and space, Creation 21(2):50–53, 1999. Also
<creation.com/timespace>. Return to text.
- Logically, God must exist outside of our spacetime because
He created it in the first place. However, He also interacts in our own spacetime
dimension. Return to text.
- Even self-described Ross supporter, the philosopher/apologist
William Lane Craig, has severely criticised Ross’s teachings on this: ‘
… I find his attempt to construe God as existing in hyperdimensions of time
and space and to interpret Christian doctrines in that light to be both philosophically
and theologically unacceptable,’ Hugh Ross’ extra-dimensional deity:
a review article, J. Evang. Theol. Soc. 42(2):293–304,
1999. Return to text.
|
