God and the Nobel Prize

A religious skeptic recently told a friend of mine, "If someone were to find proof of the existence of God, that person would win a Nobel prize." It is certainly true that proof of God would be a monumental accomplishment worthy of great recognition, though I'm not sure which Nobel prize would be given for such a discovery: chemistry? peace? literature? After thinking about this for a while, it could be argued that there has already been a Nobel prize awarded for a scientific discovery that gave "proof" of God: the Nobel prize in physics in 1978.

Of course, in a scientific context, nothing is ever really proven to be absolutely true. Our theories and hypotheses may be tested and verified to the point that we believe they are most likely universally valid, but we don't say they are absolutely proven because if we were to find any exception in any circumstance to any general law then that law would not be absolutely true. Nevertheless, we certainly have overwhelming evidence that certain ideas seem to be always correct and we can call that "proof" in the context of this discussion about proof of God. With such a definition, we could say that the theory of special relativity is proven or that the principle that energy is always conserved is proven.

The story of the 1978 Nobel prize actually begins in 1927 when the Catholic priest Georges Lemaitre proposed that the universe had a beginning, something he called the "primeval atom" or "cosmic egg."¹ Lemaitre’s idea was not taken too seriously by most scientists because it was published in a fairly obscure journal and there was no evidence for such a beginning. But that changed in 1929 when the astrophysicist Edwin Hubble published a paper showing that galaxies were moving apart from each other; the universe was expanding.² The implications of this discovery were recognized by scientists, theologians, and philosophers. If the universe were expanding now it must have started to expand at one point; it likely had a beginning. For many reasons, some philosophical and theological, scientists were reluctant to accept that the universe had a beginning. Many alternatives were proposed and evidence for these alternatives was actively searched for, with no positive results.

A Primer on Various Views About Origins

The Bible is very clear about the fact that God created the universe and that humans were created by God in his image, a distinction that separates humans from all the other animals. On the other hand, the Bible is not clear on when and how God created the universe and humans. Consequently, even among Christians who believe the Bible is the inspired and inerrant word of God there is a difference of opinion about the methods God used to create the universe.

Sometimes it is valuable to review the very basic ideas about a topic. One of my readers asked me if I could very simply describe each of the major views held by Christians about how and when God created the universe and humans. I am answering that question with this basic primer about views on origins held by Christians and non-Christians. These can be broadly classified into four categories by answering three questions: (1) Did God create the universe and humans? (2) Did the big bang occur? and (3) Does macroscopic evolution occur?

The first question is straightforward. Is God the ultimate creator of the universe and human life? The second question has to do with the origin of the universe. Did this universe come into existence about 14 billion years ago and did the planet earth form about 4.5 billion years ago? The third question asks whether or not macroscopic evolution is the mechanism by which all species came into existence. Although most evolutionists do not distinguish between microscopic and macroscopic evolution, that distinction is necessary when discussing origins. Microscopic evolution allows small changes within species. It is the process of minor genetic change that allows things like bacteria to become resistant to certain antibiotics. When distinguished from macroscopic evolution, microscopic evolution does not produce new species or major new functionality. The process of microscopic evolution is accepted by people in all four categories. Macroscopic evolution is the claim that all life has developed from previous common ancestors through a natural process in which those small genetic changes compound and eventually form new species and new functionality.

Was the Big Bang Really the Beginning?

The headline declared "The Big Bang Wasn't the Beginning, After All" and in the accompanying article astrophysicist Ethan Siegel made the definitive statement that "the Big Bang is not the beginning of the Universe!" That seems to settle the question once and for all, and to put all of us theists in our place. That declaration should shut the mouths of theists who keep insisting that the big bang is the beginning of the universe and that the origin of the universe requires some kind of transcendent cause, a cause that looks a lot like the traditional view of God. It appears that the headline and the decisive pronouncement by Dr. Siegal has made the argument for God from the origin of the universe null and void. That is, unless you actually read and understand the article itself.

I recommend you do read the article. It is a very nice synopsis of the historical development of our current understanding about the origin of the universe. In the article, Dr. Siegal describes the observation that space itself is expanding and cooling, leading to the conclusion that the universe was once much more dense and hot in the past. He recounts the "breathtaking confirmation" of the big bang made in 1964 by Arno Penzias and Bob Wilson, who discovered the Cosmic Microwave Background radiation, the residual heat from the hot big bang. He steps us back through time as the universe becomes hotter and denser and we encounter three milestone events, a time when it was so hot that neutrons and protons could not form nuclei, a time when matter and antimatter could spontaneously form from energy, and a time when a quark-gluon plasma existed with no individual protons or neutrons. He affirms that all of these events have been confirmed to be true in that we've observed the physics that explains these events in the laboratory, and made observations that remarkably match theoretical predictions.

Is the Evidence for the Big Bang Really Weak?

When I was a teenager and young adult I read a few books by Christians who wrote about the subject of science and Christianity. All of those books promoted a young earth that was only a few thousand years old and questioned the validity of scientific discoveries and ideas that led scientists to believe the universe and earth were billions of years old. As a young adult I did not really have the knowledge or resources to ascertain the strength or validity of their arguments. However, when I was working on my Ph.D. in particle physics I decided that if I were to eventually be a scientist, as well as a Christian, then I should do my own independent study of what the Bible says about science and the evidence from nature, and consider the strength of the arguments I had been presented. By that time in my life I had taken formal science, theology, and logic classes and had the tools to personally investigate the truth about this subject.

Every once in a while something will come up that reminds me of my journey as a young adult to find the truth and prompts me to share my findings with others. As I have stated in my last few posts, a reader of my blog directed me to a few videos by young earth creationists and reiterated some of the arguments they made about the scientific evidence regarding the age of the universe. As I watched those videos and read the questions posed, I was taken back to my days when I was first investigating these subjects. Though the subject and context are different, the statements made on the videos that tried to cast doubt on the scientific discoveries about the age of the universe follow the exact same pattern used by proponents of a young universe decades ago. If you are a Christian or non-Christian, young earth creationist or old earth creationists, and you want to know what is the truth, not simply be indoctrinated, then it is worthwhile to consider these kinds of videos and the validity of their arguments. As a Christian, I follow and worship the God of all truth, so I have no concerns about investigating the truth and seeing where it leads. Only someone who is so indoctrinated in their beliefs that they don't care about the truth would be reluctant to critique the evidence for their beliefs to see if it stands up to facts and reasons. So let's investigate some of the details and tactics used by speakers in these videos to promote a young universe in an attempt to understand both truth and the God of all truth.

The Big Bang: Are We Missing Crucial Pieces?

In the last three blog posts I have discussed some of the details still being investigated about the big bang and subsequent development of the universe and our solar system. Some of these issues are used by young earth creationists who claim the universe is only a few thousand years old in an attempt to discredit the big bang. I have addressed (1) poor strategies used to cast doubt on certain scientific discoveries, (2) issues with the formation of our solar system, and (3) fine tuning observations that are addressed by cosmic inflation. These particular subjects were brought up by a reader of this blog who asked about them and directed me to a few videos by young earth creationists. The list of questions asked by this reader have all been answered except for two: what about the missing antimatter, and what about the missing population III stars? Let's try to determine whether these are truly missing and, if so, what does their absence say about our understanding of the origin of the universe.

Some "Problems" with the Big Bang

In 1936 Albert Einstein wrote, "One may say 'the eternal mystery of the world is its comprehensibility.' ...The fact that it is comprehensible is a miracle."¹ This remark is often paraphrased as, "The most incomprehensible thing about the universe is that it is comprehensible." Of course I agree with this statement made by one of the smartest human beings who ever lived. Like Einstein, I find it quite remarkable that our universe is comprehensible and that we can discover and explain how it works and then precisely describe its workings using the language of mathematics. One of the most amazing facts that has been discovered by observing the universe has to do with its very origin and subsequent development. It is unlikely that any scientist who lived when Einstein was born in 1879 would have predicted that our universe would provide unambiguous insight about its history almost all the way back to its very beginning. Yet that is exactly what has occurred. From Edwin Hubble's 1929 discovery that all galaxies are moving apart from each other with a relative speed that is linearly dependent on their separation distance, to Arno Penzias' and Robert Wilson's 1964 discovery of the cosmic microwave background (CMB) radiation which is the residual heat from the infancy of our universe, to the accurate measurements of the CMB spectrum made by the Planck satellite in 2010, the universe has provided an amazing, accurate, and remarkable story of its beginning. All of the observational evidence and theoretical calculations tell a consistent story about the big bang origin of our universe: that all of space, time, matter, and energy came into existence nearly 14 billion years ago.

Over the decades starting in the early twentieth century, the scientific evidence that supports the big bang origin has become stronger and stronger. As described in a previous post, scientists were reluctant to accept the big bang partially because of its philosophical implications. If our universe had a beginning then it may have had a beginner. But because of the overwhelming evidence, scientists now agree about the origin of the universe and its development from about a trillionth of a second after its origin until now, although there is much discussion about what may have happened before that time since we have little observational evidence concerning the first trillionth of a second of our universe.

Addressing Challenges to the Ancient Universe

As a scientist who is also a Christian I am sometimes criticized by both scientists and Christians for my beliefs and statements. Some of my scientific colleagues think I am deluded or crazy because I believe in a personal God while some of my Christian brothers and sisters think I am a heretic or blinded because I believe in the big bang. In this blog, in my speaking, and in my writing I try to show that belief in the biblical God, the Bible itself, and the science of the big bang are not only based on abundant evidence, but are completely compatible with each other.

Within the Christian community, particularly in the United States and a few other countries, there are a significant fraction of people who have a firm belief that the Bible teaches the universe is only a few thousand years old and that all of the science that seems to point to a much older universe is a misrepresentation or misunderstanding of the facts of nature. In previous posts (such as here and here and other places) I have mentioned this belief in young earth creationism (YEC) that is held by some Christians including certain Christian leaders I have great respect for. There are true followers of Jesus with diverse views about the age of the universe and how God created the universe and created humans. The views are so widely varied that I would estimate something like two-thirds of Christians will some day find out that they were wrong in their beliefs about how God created the universe and humans and in what time frame. Furthermore, the issue of the age of the universe and God's method of creation is a "non-essential" issue, one that does not affect a person's eternal destiny. In such issues Christians need to follow the advice of Marco Antonio de Dominis who was the first to write, "In essentials, unity; in non-essentials, diversity; in all things, charity."

The Creator Revealed: Now a Lighthouse Book

Every once in a while it is a good idea to break out of the usual routine and do something different. So in this post, rather than my usual discussion of science and Christianity, I'm going to share some encouraging news and even indulge in some self promotion. About six months ago my book The Creator Revealed: A Scientist Examines the Big Bang and the Bible was published by WestBow press. When the book was first published I devoted a blog entry to outline the contents of the book, discuss some of my motivation for writing it, and describe some of the story of how it eventually was published. As I said in my previous post, "There are many good books that discuss the relationship of science and Christianity and describe how science agrees with and supports the Bible. But almost all of those books are written in relatively technical language that can be difficult to read and understand, even for well-educated people who may not be scientifically minded. In contrast to most books on this subject, The Creator Revealed is written in simple conversational language that is entertaining and engaging."

The encouraging and exciting news is that Westbow Press will soon be re-releasing The Creator Revealed within their "Lighthouse Recognition Program." This program is reserved for Westbow books that have shown growth and promise within the marketplace. Lighthouse books are published with the special Lighthouse logo as can be seen in the picture of the new back cover above.

Affirming the Truth

What is a "Creationist" and why is there a common perception among many people that creationists blatantly ignore the obvious facts about the universe? How does this perception impact the most important Christian message about the person of Jesus including his death and resurrection which brings reconciliation between God and people?

To most people I talk with, a creationists is someone who believes that God created the universe about 6000 years ago and that the Bible teaches that fact. The perception is that the creationist chooses to ignore the overwhelming evidence about the age and history of the universe, while clinging to an ancient and unreliable book. The obvious conclusion is that if the Bible is completely wrong in its statements that deal with the scientific facts about the origin of the universe, then it is also completely wrong and unreliable when it talks about who Jesus was, his purpose on earth, and his resurrection. Not only have I talked with non-Christians who reject Christianity because the "unreliable" Bible can't be trusted, but I have also talked with Christians who are struggling with whether or not they can trust their Bible and trust God, and with "ex-Christians" who say that they left their faith because of the supposed unreliability of the Bible, pointing particularly to the story of creation which obviously does not align with the overwhelming evidence from nature.

Scientific Predictions and the Bible: Unknown Facts Revealed by God

If the Bible is inspired from the one true God then we would expect its statements about science to be compatible with the characteristics of that God as revealed in the Bible as discussed in the first part of this four part series on Scientific Predictions and the Bible. The scientific statements in the Bible should be accurate, culturally relevant, and instrumental in God's primary goal of redeeming individual people so that they can have a relationship with him. It is also reasonable to propose that scientific statements in the Bible may have a kind of dual understanding just as certain Messianic prophecies have a dual fulfillment as discussed in the second part of this four part series. In this third blog entry on the subject let's look at some cases in the Bible where there is an accurate scientific statement that was not known when the Bible was written but has since been verified.

The Creator Revealed

Have you ever wanted a simple explanation of how modern scientific discoveries about the origin of the universe harmonize with the account of creation in the Bible? Would you appreciate examples of modern scientific discoveries that support the biblical record and give evidence for God, written in language that is easy to understand and enjoyable to read? If so, then you will want to buy my just released book, The Creator Revealed, A Physicist Examines the Big Bang and the Bible.

There are many good books that discuss the relationship of science and Christianity and describe how science agrees with and supports the Bible. But almost all of those books are written in relatively technical language that can be difficult to read and understand, even for well-educated people who may not be scientifically minded. In contrast to most books on this subject, The Creator Revealed is written in simple conversational language that is entertaining and engaging. One person who reviewed the book wrote, "In The Creator Revealed, Michael Strauss writes about the mounting scientific evidence for the complete trustworthiness of the Bible and the Christian faith in a winsome, humorous style that puts the cookies on the bottom shelf so that children, youth, and science-challenged adults can understand his thesis that science is the ally of the Christian faith, not the enemy."¹ The major strength and distinctive of this book is that "winsome, humorous style" that will help people understand and appreciate the truth revealed through both science and Scripture.

The Dark Side

In the 1920's a number of experiments observed that certain nuclei would decay by emitting a "beta" particle in a process called beta decay. Although the beta particle itself was shown to simply be an electron, the process of beta decay exhibited some strange and unexplained properties. In particular, the decay products did not conserve energy, momentum, or angular momentum. Up until that time, all known physical processes had conserved these three quantities. That is, the amount of energy, momentum, and angular momentum at the end of any process was exactly the same as the amount at the beginning of the process. However, beta decay seemed to violate these well known conservation laws. A number of explanations were proposed including the possibility that these conservation laws were not absolute. However, one explanation seemed much more simple and elegant. The physicist Wolfgang Pauli proposed that another particle was also emitted during beta decay along with the electron, but this other particle was nearly impossible to detect. For all practical purposes it was invisible to any experimental detectors of the time. Now it may seem crazy to postulate an unknown, nearly undetectable particle simply to preserve well-established laws of physics, but consider the genius of this idea. By simply proposing the addition of one unknown entity all of the problems with beta decay could be solved. Enrico Fermi named the unknown particle a "neutrino," or "little neutron" in Italian. It took about 25 years to experimentally confirm the existence of this particle, but eventually the neutrino was discovered in 1956. The simple but elegant introduction of a nearly undetectable neutral matter particle was the solution to multiple problems.

Today we have a similar situation to that of the 1920's. When we observe the cosmos we find that there are a number of problems that seem to violate well established laws of physics. Einstein's theory of general relativity, which describes how gravity works, is a remarkably successful theory with tremendous predictive power, but when we try to use that theory to explain certain observed effects, the theory doesn't quite work. For instance, when we watch how fast the stars in galaxies rotate about the galactic center we find that the outer part of the galaxy doesn't obey Einstein's theory if we assume that we can actually see all of the matter in the galaxy. (See the graph at the end of this blog post.) We also find that the large scale distribution of galaxies throughout the universe has some problems if we assume that we can observe all of the matter that is there. (See the opening figure of this blog post.) In addition, we know that gravity can actually bend the path of light, but the amount of bending we observe is much greater than what we would expect using the theory of general relativity and the amount of visible matter.

Changing My Mind

As far back as I can remember in my life I was interested in science and technology particularly in the manned exploration of space and the human endeavor to land a person on the moon. As a teenager and young adult, this interest in science combined with my Christian faith motivated me to read books on the integration of science with Christianity. Most of the books I read during those years promoted a "young earth" view of the Bible and science stating that the universe was less than 10,000 years old and that scientists were misinterpreting the data when they proposed that the universe started with a Big Bang almost 14 billion years ago. At that time I was not aware of much material written from a Christian and biblical perspective that promoted an "old earth" view of the Bible that agreed with the scientific timescale of the universe as determined by modern observations.

Reconciling Biblical Interpretation and Scientific Inquiry

In my previous post I pointed out some similarities between good scientific inquiry and good biblical interpretation. I suggested that certain scientific ideas and certain biblical ideas are so well established that, as more information is acquired, they may be modified but will not be overturned. I claimed that the Big Bang was such an idea and that the evidence for it is so compelling that the details of the origin of our universe may be revised, (particularly what happened in the first 10^-35 seconds or so), but that the theory itself was so well established it will not be overturned.

Some readers have asked me if I would give an example of a biblical conclusion that is so well established that it will not be overturned even with further observations and evidence. I would suggest one such idea is that the Bible is basically a reliable historical document. For nearly 200 years, critics have claimed that various historical places, events, and people mentioned in the Bible have not been discovered in archaeological excavations and this lack of confirmation shows the Bible is unreliable. Time and time again further archaeological findings have overturned the prevailing view and shown the Bible to be accurate. Some examples include the existence of a Hittite civilization, the existence and governorship of Pilate, the existence of King David, and the fact that people crucified could be buried in private tombs. Further discoveries should continue this trend and I expect that other events in the Bible that currently have little archaeological corroboration will eventually be confirmed.

The Six Days of Creation

Does the Bible teach that the universe was created a few thousand years ago? I know many people, both secular and religious, who believe that it does and, therefore, insist that the Bible is in conflict with the claims of Big Bang cosmology which require a universe that is about 13.8 billion years old. Of course the Bible does not say how old the universe is, so why do some people believe it teaches a "young" earth, only thousands of years old.  Such a claim is based on three propositions, all of which can be shown to be false, or at least not necessarily true. If the propositions are not correct, then there is no information in the Bible about the age of the universe. The propositions are (1) the genealogies in the Bible are basically complete, (2) the six days of creation in Genesis are consecutive 24 hour days, and (3) no time passes between the creation of the earth and the universe (as described in Genesis 1:1), and the subsequent six days of creation.

The Second Law of Thermodynamics: An excerpt from the Dictionary of Christianity and Science

On April 25, 2017, Zondervan will publish the Dictionary of Christianity and Science. This is the definitive reference book discussing the intersection of Christian faith and contemporary science.  It has been a project that has taken over five years to complete. The four general editors, Paul Copan, Tremper Longman III, Christopher L. Reese, and myself have worked with over 100 outstanding contributors and our amazing editor, Madison Trammel, to bring this book to fruition.

There are a few features of this book that separate it from other such works. While most articles in the dictionary are unbiased, for topics that are controversial among Christians, the Dictionary presents various advocacy articles with opposing views. For instance, different views on evolution and the length of the days of creation are included. These articles represent the viewpoint of the author and are not completely unbiased. This multiple presentation model serves as a great resource for each reader to understand the complexities of the issue and come to his or her own conclusions.

Most of the articles in the Dictionary relate the particular subject to some aspect of Christian thought. For instance, articles on Special Relativity or Conservation of Energy have a concluding paragraph that mentions how some aspect of that subject relates to the character of God. This feature that explicitly discusses the intersection of science and faith distinguishes this reference book from others.

I have written 22 of the 450 or so articles. If you preorder the Dictionary you will get a number of bonus features including a presentation slide deck discussing String Theory which includes one of the articles I wrote on that subject. As an introduction to the Dictionary the rest of this post reproduces the entry I have written on the Second Law of Thermodynamics. This reprint is copyrighted by Zondervan and the four general editors and is used by permission. At the end of this article I briefly discuss the relationship of the second law of thermodynamics to biological evolution. I want to point out that I am not advocating for evolution but just stating facts regarding whether or not evolution violates the second law of thermodynamics.

A Universe From Nothing?

Could the universe spontaneously come into existence from nothing as the astrophysicist Lawrence Krauss has proposed in his 2012 book, A Universe From Nothing: Why there is something rather than nothing? And what is this "nothing" that Lawrence Krauss has proposed? Is it actually no thing? Does Krauss's proposal eliminate the theists' claim that the Big Bang beginning of the universe requires a transcendent cause that is not bound by space and time? The publication of this book generated a significant dialogue that dealt with these questions. Although initial publication of the book was five years ago I still consistently get asked questions about its content and the scientific validity of its proposals. I think it is important and valuable to address these issues from both a scientific and Christian perspective.

A Changing Arrow of Time?

This is one post I am not looking forward to writing.  Some of my readers have asked me to comment about alternative theories to the Big Bang which remove the necessity of our universe having a beginning.  I have been thinking for some time about how to write on this subject in a non-technical manner, which is the tone I strive for on this blog.  Because most of these ideas are quite theoretical, requiring complex mathematics and intricate nuances, it is quite a challenge for me to give an accurate and adequate description of most of these proposals, yet still be comprehensible.   Nevertheless, in this post I want to try to discuss the paper by Anthony Aguirre and Steven Gratton (AG) that describes a scenario which they claim requires no beginning.¹   I also want to give some thoughts on how their idea fits into the whole discussion of evidence for or against a deity, particularly the Christian God.  My attempt may be an epic fail.

In the model proposed by Aguirre and Gratton, they claim to avoid a beginning by proposing a thermodynamic arrow of time that points in different directions depending on whether the universe is expanding or collapsing.  To understand what this means I need to first take a diversion to discuss what the thermodynamic arrow of time means.  Actually, no one really knows for sure why we experience time moving forward but we do know that a quantity called entropy must increase in any non-reversible process.  Entropy strictly has to do with the number of microstates available to a system. The concept of a microstate can be illustrated by considering two six-sided dice. There is only one microstate available for the dice to roll 2: both must show a one. However, there are six possible microstates available for the dice to roll a 7. The combinations are 1 and 6, 2 and 5, 3 and 4, 4 and 3, 5 and 2, or 6 and 1. Because there are more available microstates, the dice will more often roll a 7. A macroscopic system with more available microstates has a greater entropy than one with fewer microstates. The second law of thermodynamics states that an isolated system will evolve spontaneously to the state with maximum entropy.   This is a statistical idea.  In general, all processes move toward those that are more statistically probable.  That gives us the arrow of time.   Time moves in the direction where entropy increases.

A Singularity at the Beginning?

A previous post about the Big Bang elicited a few comments and questions about alternative scenarios for the origin of our universe that would not require an actual beginning.  I'd like to respond to those questions, but I think it would be beneficial to first discuss some of the scientific challenges that are faced when we try to understand what happened in the first 10^-35 seconds of the universe.

One major challenge is to try to determine what laws of physics are applicable during that time.   This is a problem that you may have already heard about for it has to do with the incompatibility between Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity.  If you do a web search about this subject, you will find multitudes of articles written, from those that are quite basic to those that are quite technical.  The purpose of my blog is to describe things accurately, but simply, so my discussion will necessarily be basic.

Proof, Evidence, Science, and Christianity

In my previous post I said that the Big Bang was evidence for the existence of God, though not proof.  This raises the question of whether or not there is proof for God, or for that matter, whether or not there is proof for anything, even within the scientific realm.   

If by proof, we mean absolute certainty of truth without any doubt or possibility of exception, then proof is not possible within a scientific framework.  Proofs are only possible in logic and in mathematics where there are well defined rules within the discipline.  In those two fields, once a proposition has been proven, that proof is complete and will remain valid.  In contrast, scientific knowledge is the best explanation for the results of current experimental observations among all the available options.  As additional evidence and observations are made, the facts may require modifications and adjustments to the theory.  If an experiment is done that contradicts the current scientific paradigm, then that theory is not wholly true and must be refined or discarded.  Therefore, scientific ideas can be disproved, but never absolutely proven.