|
Feedback archive →
Feedback 2009
String theory “philosophy”challenged
Published: 13 June 2009(GMT+10)
Photo stock.xchng
This week, Marnix K. From the Netherlands objected to a comment made in
Gary Bates’s article about string theory.
Dear Mr Bates,
In your article “Is ‘string’ the next big
thing?”, you write: “Evolutionary ideas like string theory start
from a worldview framework that there is no God.”
I have two questions about this. First, why do you call string theory an “evolutionary
idea”? I’m presuming you are relating string theory to evolution theory
in some way, but the rest of the article does not give any further details about
such a relation.
Firstly, thank you for your email. The big bang is fundamental to cosmic evolution
or the idea that somehow the universe made itself. The article majored on the varying
ideas that emanate from big bang philosophy, such as
dark energy and
dark matter etc. that are used to solve some of the “science”
problems of the big bang. It then went on to say that string theory is just another
one of these ideas with no basis in experimental science. And as I mentioned and
showed in the article it is not just creationists who point out these problems.
Late last year a secular conference called
Crisis in Cosmology 2: Challenges to Consensus Cosmology and the Quest for a New
Picture of the Universe was held to further challenge those struggling to
hang onto the untenable big bang.
A quick Internet search using the words “string theory” with “big
bang” will reveal the relationship. Some models of string theory attempt to
explain the initial conditions of the universe before expansion occurred by saying
that the theoretical early universe existed as
brane that filled space. A popular physics website explains it like this.
“ … they can use string theory to devise explanations for some grand
problems in cosmology, such as the state of the universe—its shape, size,
etc.—just after the Big Bang, when quarks roamed freely. Along these lines,
a group of theoretical physicists has recently published an interesting string-theory
scenario that describes a new way to approach the development of the Big Bang. They
propose that the universe began as a type of theoretical space-filling object called
a ‘brane.’”1
This is in contrast with the conventional big bang idea that the universe existed
as a singularity
before expansion. That is, that all space, matter and energy existed at a point
that was no bigger than the head of a pin and then for some unknown reason it expanded
(or inflated) and energy became matter, stars, galaxies, planets and even the space
in which they exist (and ultimately human beings). There are obvious problems with
that idea, because the laws of physics actually break down at the point of the singularity—or
it would be more truthful to say “the laws of physics don’t even exist”
prior to, or, at this point in the development of the universe. Hence the ever-increasing
elegant theories that attempt to solve these problems. For example, on a recent radio program, science writer Michael Brooks explained:
“String theory, our best hope for a theory that describes all the forces and particles of nature, is driven by a battle. The fight centres around questions of how string theorists should interpret an anomaly, in this case an observation that suggests the universe's expansion is speeding up. Having failed in every attempt to account for this observation, some string theorists are suggesting that certain aspects of the universe are simply unknowable. Others are horrified by this apparently defeatist attitude. The controversy surrounding the issue has come to be known as the ‘string wars ’. ”2
This is because, quite simply, the big bang operates outside of the realm of operational science and has more to
do with a philosophical worldview (see point 2 of your question shortly). But notice
that in either the singularity or the string theory model there is a preexisting
belief that the big bang occurred. The aforementioned article goes on to say:
“He and his group propose that time began when, via a Big Bang-like event,
the brane decayed into closed strings (loops) that propagated off to create the
ordinary matter that makes up the universe. This scenario, while avoiding the mathematical
problems of a singularity, also helps explain some other issues.”
The universe looks designed
Creationists have long pointed out that the observable universe does not fit the
standard big bang model because the universe displays homogeneity.
Creationists have long pointed out that the observable universe does not fit the
standard big bang model because the universe displays homogeneity. For example,
the famous astronomer Edwin Hubble (after whom the Hubble Space telescope was named),
said:
“Such a condition [these red shifts] would imply that we occupy a unique position
in the universe analogous, in a sense, to the ancient conception of a central earth.
The hypothesis cannot be disproved but it is unwelcome. … But the unwelcome
supposition of a favored location must be avoided at all costs. Such a favoured
position, of course, is intolerable; moreover, it represents a discrepancy with
the theory, because the theory postulates homogeneity [smoothness or evenness].”3
The reason he said that it must be avoided at all costs is because it looked like
our Milky Way galaxy might actually be at the centre of the universe, which
of course would imply that it was therefore designed. Cosmologist George Francis
Rayner Ellis also stated:
“People need to be aware that there is a range of models that could explain
the observations. … For instance, I can construct you a spherically symmetrical
universe with earth at its center, and you cannot disprove it based on observations.
… You can only exclude it on philosophical grounds. In my view there is absolutely
nothing wrong in that. What I want to bring into the open is the fact that we are
using philosophical criteria [beliefs] in choosing our models. A lot of cosmology
tries to hide that.”4
The same physics website that I mentioned earlier also comments on the homogeneous
appearance of the universe, but also in an attempt to explain it away. I.e. “It
shouldn’t look like this if there was a big bang.”
“For example, to us, the universe looks the same in every direction. Within
this brane model, the homogeneity of the universe could be explained as the result
of an early universe with homogenous initial conditions, such as a brane that evenly
filled space.”1
Notice that they admit that the universe appears homogeneous, but that their string
theory model can explain this “problem”, that is, it should not look
like this if there was a big bang event. String theory is clearly a subset of a
big bang belief system so this also applies to the second part of your question.
The big bang, and string theory which is being used to support it, are ideological
attempts to explain away the appearance of design in the universe (no first cause
etc.) and therefore explain the universe without God. While some Christians think
that God may have “lit the fuse” of the big bang, it should be remembered
that the big bang itself is “evolving”. For example, the very fact that
there are some many differing models of the big bang demonstrates its philosophical
nature. Logically, not all theories can be correct and if Christians align their
theology with one particular view then they risk having to revise their theology
later on when the theory changes or is modified. They will be like the man that
built his house on sand whom Jesus spoke about in Matthew 7:26-27.
Second, isn’t it true that “any” science should be accessible
and checkable by anyone, regardless of his worldview? For example, I cannot use
my Bible as a scientific argument, to show someone else that it is not possible
for a kind to evolve into another kind, or that life has not spontaneously arisen
from non-life. But I can (and should) use verifiable data, which is then perhaps
interpreted differently based on our worldviews. This implies that “God exists”
or “there is (probably) no God” both are statements outside of the realm
of science.
This is correct up to a point, but it depends on how you define “science”.
Many Christians are unaware that their tacit acceptance of the widespread view that
“creation is religion, but evolution is science” not only lets evolutionists
define “science”, but also leaves Bible-haters a free rein to play “switcheroo”
with history. (As every skilled debater knows, whoever defines the terms wins the
debate.) You see, the Genesis account is a record of history,
and evolution is also alleged history. So when the secularists demand,
for example, that creation should not be taught in science classes (but of course
they demand that evolution be taught in science classes) they are actually substituting
the true account of history with their own (false) version, and calling it “science”.
Nobody can know definitively what happened before they were born, unless they have
access to (and trust) a true eyewitness account. Consider
this advice to Christian students from CMI geologist
Dr Tas Walker:
Realize that if the events described were not observed (e.g. if they’re making
claims about a time before the researchers were born) then they are telling you
a story—an attempt to construct an evolutionary ‘history’ that
fits the present evidence. Once you are alert to this you will not be tricked into
accepting their evolutionary way of thinking. (Cf. the Scriptures’
emphasis on the importance of eyewitnesses—Deuteronomy 19:1-5; Job 38:4,21; 2 Corinthians 13:1.)
There is scientific evidence that is consistent with biblical history, and which
does not fit the evolutionary “history” (e.g.
carbon 14 found in coal and diamonds, or
helium diffusion in granites). The same evidence might also be interpreted
within an evolutionary framework. And evolutionists cannot escape the truth of Romans 1:20, e.g. the evidence of the complexity of the
cell is consistent with it having being designed. To rely on unknown imaginary forces
to create the complex machinery of the cell is surely unscientific, by any reasonable
definition! We understand that complex machines require a designer—and there
are incredibly complex machines in nature. The
anthropic principle suggests there is a designer who must be outside of
our time and space and before all things (Colossians 1). Sure, the evidence is still interpreted according
to one’s worldview, but it actually points to design, whereas, cosmic
or biological evolution seeks to explain away the implications of that evidence
just like Hubble above.
So, if I understand things correctly, science is done as if there were no God.
Evolutionists might like to think that. But in fact, the great scientific advances
in history were made by scientists like
Sir Isaac Newton who in fact accepted that there is a Creator God, and,
not surprisingly, found evidence of His handiwork in the things He had made. Also,
if you wanted to define “science” to include speculation about what
might have happened in the past that resulted in the world we have today, then it
ought to be categorised as historical or origins science, which deals with past
events that we were not there to observe as opposed to operational science (see
next). I can do an experimental test to determine if the
theory of gravity works (I can hold a ball and let if fall to the ground).
But I cannot go back in time machine to observe or do the same sort of empirical
testing for past events.
But doing science in that way, and then concluding “there is probably no god”,
is of course saying that the world is pink just because my glasses are.
How does one define science?
I think you have misunderstood the limitations of science and would do well to research
this site to better understand how our pre-existing beliefs or worldview assumptions
actually influence the way we conduct science. The type of science to which you
are referring is better known as operational
or experimental science. As Dr Jonathan Sarfati explains in chapter one
of his book Refuting
Evolution:
“Science does have its limits. Normal (operational) science deals only with
repeatable observable processes in the present. This has indeed been very
successful in understanding the world, and has led to many improvements in the quality
of life. In contrast, evolution is a speculation about the unobservable and unrepeatable
past. …
“In dealing with the past, ‘origins science’ can enable us to
make educated guesses about origins. It uses the principles of causality (everything
that has a beginning has a cause) and analogy (e.g., we observe that intelligence
is needed to generate complex coded information in the present, so we can reasonably
assume the same for the past). But the only way we can be really sure about the
past is if we have a reliable eyewitness account. Evolutionists claim there is no
such account, so their ideas are derived from assumptions about the past. But biblical
creationists believe that Genesis is an eyewitness account of the origin of the
universe and living organisms. They also believe that there is good evidence for
this claim, so they reject the claim that theirs is a blind faith.
“Creationists don’t pretend that any knowledge, science included, can
be pursued without presuppositions (i.e., prior religious/philosophical beliefs).
Creationists affirm that creation cannot ultimately be divorced from the Bible any
more than evolution can ultimately be divorced from its naturalistic starting point
that excludes divine creation a priori.”
Therefore it is true, but not a negative thing, to say that “string theory
start[s] from a worldview framework that there is no God.”
In other words, God is excluded even if the evidence points to Him
I disagree, but please let me explain. Because I have an a priori assumption
that God is the Creator of the universe—the One who created space and time
itself. Therefore my view is that the quest for knowledge and scientific investigation
should be conducted in the light of this belief. I would go even further to say
that I think it is not helpful to investigate science, especially origins science,
without an understanding of the One who created the very laws of physics by which
we exist. Understanding God as our Creator also provides meaning and purpose for
very existence, and explain why we live in such a special place in a special universe.
In addition, a medical doctor when confronted with the issue of whether to abort
a baby or not might be influenced by the evolutionary teaching he learnt at university.
Therefore, thinking that an embryo
is not fully human he might not realise that
abortion is actually killing a child. Contrastingly, administering antibiotics
for an infection or developing cures is in the realm of operational science and
has nothing to do with his beliefs about origins, and such a belief has no influence
on the way he might administer such cures.
To summarize, I believe it would have been better to leave the entire quoted sentence
out of this article, since it is not necessary to support the key idea of the article,
and indeed detracts from it.
But equally the evolutionist and indeed the string theory advocate would also say
that it is unscientific to investigate the universe with the assumption that God
is Creator. Hopefully, I have shown you that their type of science is conducted
within their own philosophical framework that starts from the assumption that there
is no God. In other words, God is excluded even if the evidence points to Him (see
Hubble and Ellis quotes above) i.e. the implication of design, and thus, a Creator.
To me that is just plain bad science, because good scientific investigation should
lead you wherever the evidence takes you, regardless of the implications. I think
it was important to point that out in the article.
Thanks,
No problems—all the best.
Gary Bates
Related resources
References
- New String-Theory Notion Redefines the Big Bang,
www.physorg.com/news63041667.html, 26 May 2009. Return to text.
- The Science Show, ABC Radio, www.abc.net.au/rn/scienceshow/stories/2009/2584860.htm, 30 May 2009. Return to text
- Edwin Hubble, The Observational Approach to Cosmology
(Oxford, UK, Clarendon Press, 1937), p. 50, 51, 59. Return to text.
- Gibbs, W. Wayt, 1995. Profile: George F.R. Ellis; Thinking
Globally, Acting Universally. Scientific American 273(4):28,
29. Return to text.
|
