Big Bang: the Universe

	As the Viking probes conducted their exploration of Mars  in  1976, some scientists offered the world an exciting prospect.  If evidence  of life was not found on Mars, they said, the  theories about evolution of life on Earth would have to undergo major  re-evaluation.   Such promises seemed especially safe as  scientists declared  that conditions on Mars were not unlike those on  Earth millions of years ago.  These speculations were front page news.
	In  fact,  the  probes did report the  presence  of  carbon, nitrogen, oxygen and hydrogen.   The billion dollar project  also found  a  total lack of organic material.  The failure  of  the probes  to find what they were looking for was reported in  small articles buried  inside the newspapers.  Not  surprisingly,  the promised re-evaluation of evolutionist thinking did not occur.
	Scientists  such  as NASA consultant Richard  Hoagland  were quick to shrug off the failure to find life on Mars.
	"Europa  seems  to have what these other worlds do  not,  an ocean of water - the prime prerequisite for life as we know  it," Hoagland said in 1979 of one of Jupiter's moons.^1  By then  probes had  failed to uncover evidence of life on Mars, Jupiter and  one of  Saturn's moons.  According to Hoagland, life not  only  could exist on Europa, but it should exist because, he claimed,  conditions  had been suitable about a billion years before.   However, no life was detected.
	In the previous study we discussed some general facts about the evolution/creation debate.  We noticed that problems arise when  facts encounter theories.  We also stated that no scientific fact  has ever been found to contradict the Bible.
	Before continuing our discussion, we should define the word, "evolution."   There is no disagreement that  changes  do  occur within the limits of given groups.  We are referring, though,  to the  "molecule  to man" type of organic  evolution  which  claims that,  "all  the  living forms in the world have  arisen  from  a single source which itself came from an inorganic form."  According  to  this theory, the universe is between 10 and 20  billion years  old.   The consensus seems to focus on about  15  billion years.  Our  solar system and thus our planet would be about  4.5 billion  years old.  Biological life would have appeared about  2 billion  years ago, with man showing up in the last  3.6 million years.
	As our discussion progresses we will see that these  figures are purely arbitrary and are chosen simply because the evolutionists assume that periods of such length are required to fit their theories.  But we should take a moment to make a note of how  the evolutionists  deal with scientists who do not agree  with  them.  One  approach  is to claim that such scientists are  involved  in fields which have nothing to do with the discussion.  Biologists, for example, frequently claim that chemists or physicists have no input since the question is one of biology.  This is not true, of course, since evolution involves all areas of science.
	Another  attempt  to silence scientists who  do  not  accept evolution  involves character attacks on these  scientists  themselves.   It is suggested that they are on the lunatic fringe  of their disciplines, or that they are unpublished impostors who are basically uneducated.
	"Any  bozo can get a Ph.D. in molecular biology,"  Bill  Aldridge, executive director  of the  National  Science  Teachers Association, claimed when he rejected a text book which took  an unbiased look at the origin of life.

	When we consider evolutionary origins we must turn first  to the beginning of the universe.  According to the theory which  is currently popular, this involves what is known as the "Big Bang." According to the originator of this theory (George Lemaitre) the entire  universe started in a highly concentrated state and  initially  expanded at a rapid rate.  By highly concentrated, it  is meant  that  all  of the matter and energy in the universe  was contained  in a point the size of the head of a pin.  The expansion  slowed down and halted to allow galaxies to form, and  then the expansion continued.  It might be noticed that this  violates Newton's first law of motion, but perhaps this  doesn't matter. But it does matter to astronomer Sir Fred Hoyle.
	"The notion that galaxies form, to be followed by an  active astronomical  history, is an illusion," Hoyle  claims.   "Nothing forms;" he adds, "the thing is as dead as a doornail."
	Hoyle is undoubtedly considered by many evolutionists to  be on the lunatic fringe of his scientific field.  He is there,  not because of his lack of qualifications, but because they want  him there.   In  reality, Hoyle knows what he is talking  about.  Dr. Robert  Jastrow,  founder of NASA's Goddard Institute  for  Space Studies, has called Hoyle "one of the most original minds in 20th century  astronomy."  By the way, Hoyle does not claim to  accept the God of the Bible.
	What  evidence  is  presented to  support  the  "Big  Bang?"  Without getting  too technical, proposed signs include  a  shift toward red in the color of stars, and the presence of weak microwave radiation throughout space.  The idea is that, in an expanding  universe,  the light from  a star would shift colors  as  it moved  farther away.  And the explosion of the "Big  Bang"  would have left background radiation measurable today.  Other proposed theories explain these occurrences as well as or better than  the Big Bang.  For example, Barry Setterfield has conducted  research investigating the possibility that there has been a decay in  the speed of light. Oddly enough, his calculations point to an origin of the universe about 6000 years ago. The  so-called Hubble "constant" used to measure the radiation  has  been  increased to about twice  its original  figure, resulting  in a universe one-half the size and one-half  the  age previously calculated.  Dr. Halton Arp of the Mt. Palomar Observatory has concluded that red shift measurements may be  virtually useless for calculating the recession speed of distant galaxies.^2
	While evolutionists  try  to present the  front  that  they support  a single idea which has been  proven  once-and-for-all, this  is  far from the case.  Some believe that the  universe  is involved  in a never-ending cycle of expansion  and  contraction.  Others believe  that the "Big Bang" was a one-time  occurrence.  Some astronomers have even dared to propose theories which  place the earth at the center of the universe.
	"Can  we  really  be sure of the  standard  model?"   Steven Weinberg of Harvard asks in reference to the "Big Bang."   "Will new  discoveries overthrow it and replace the present  standard model with some other cosmogony, or even revive the  steady-state model?  Perhaps.  I cannot deny a feeling of unreality in writing about  the first three minutes (of the universe) as if we  really know what we are talking about."
	"The  more  the universe seems comprehensible (via  the  big bang)," Weinberg adds, "the more it seems pointless."^3
	Is it hard to see why we say that evolution is based more on faith than on fact?
	"To  get  a universe that has expanded as long as  ours  has without either collapsing or having its matter coast away  would have  required extraordinary fine tuning," University of  Chicago physicist  Michael Turner is quoted in the June  1983 issue  of National Geographic.
	Turner calculated the odds of achieving that precise  expansion  without  early homogenizing inflation as being  similar  to throwing an imaginary microscopic dart across the universe to the most  distant quasar and hitting a bull's-eye one  millimeter  in diameter. 
	"As  a  result of this," Hoyle comments about  the  problems encountered by the "Big Bang" theory, "the main efforts of investigators have been in papering over holes in the big bang theory, to build up an idea that has become ever more complex and cumbersome... I have little hesitation in saying that a sticky pall now hangs  over the big bang theory.  When a pattern of facts  become set  against  a theory, experience shows that the theory  rarely recovers."^4
	What a surprise!  What we have here is an encounter  between fact  and theory.  The sad thing is that the theory continues  to be expounded as fact, in  spite of the fact that the majority  of Americans  don't want it that way.  In 1980 a Gallup  poll  found that over half the population in the United States believe in  a literal,  specially  created Adam and Eve as the parents  of  the whole human race.  A 1981 Associate Press-NBC poll indicated that 86% of the population wanted creation taught alongside evolution in  the public schools.  According to a 1982 Gallup poll  44%  of the  people believe in a recent creation less than  10,000  years ago.  Only 9% believe that man has developed over millions  of years from less advanced forms of life.
	"In  the beginning God created the heavens and  the  earth." Those who reject  this basic truth are  enslaved  to  countless  speculations and theories.  Only the truth will set us free.  

Unless otherwise noted, "Scripture taken from the NEW AMERICAN STANDARD BIBLE(R), (C) Copyright The Lockman Foundation 1960, 1962, 1963, 1968, 1971, 1972, 1973, 1975, 1977. Used by permission."

1) UPI. “Jovian Moon May Have Incubated Life Under Sea.” Weatherford (Oklahoma) Daily News. Wednesday, December 26, 1979, p. 8. 
2) Thompson, Bert. 1987. Cosmic Evolution and the Origin of Life. Reason and Revelation VII/11 (November): p. 43.
3) Mulfinger, George, ed. 1983. Design and Origins in Astronomy. Norcross, Georgia: Creation Research Society. pp. 11-12.
4) Thompson, Bert. 1987. Cosmic Evolution and the Origin of Life. Reason and Revelation VII/11 (November): p. 43.