top of page

Origins: A case for a Creator through modern science


I would like to begin by saying that I am by no means a scientist, scholar or scientific journalist. I am however, a lover of knowledge and the way that knowledge can benefit me and the world around me. I believe that there is such a thing as “truth” and we have the ability to find it. In a world so ravaged by the idea that everything is relative, that nothing is absolutely true but is only true for you, the idea that there might be something that is absolutely true scares and often offends people. Truth is out there, I believe that we have been given the ability to see it, we just need to actually put the proverbial goggles on and actually take a look. In this paper I give (to the best of my knowledge) a good account for a Creator based on only empirical evidence and logic. I know that many people believe that science and faith are in a way at odds with each other but in my opinion they walk hand in hand. Take what I say with a grain of salt but also open your mind to the arguments I lay out. Okay, enough rambling… here we go.

In 1929, Edward Hubble proposed a theory. He proposed that our universe, the trillions of galaxies, solar systems, planets and stars, were rapidly expanding. Our whole universe was moving away from us very, very fast. Two men by the names of Ralph Alpher and Robert Herman decided that if this were true then there should be more heat near the center and then less and less heat at the edges as it expanded outward, a kind of map for the expansion of heat in the universe. In 1964, they found it, a blueprint for the expansion of the universe, this “map” is called cosmic background microwave radiation. This was like a bolt of lightning in the scientific community. If our universe is rapidly expanding and if we could turn back time and watch, it would shrink and shrink until finally there is only a tiny speck of matter, then…nothing. But how did this matter get here in the first place? And what started the rapid expansion and accumulation of matter that ultimately led to what we see today? How could all of this have started? One must ask his or herself something if they wish to answer it as scientifically as possible: “Do I believe in what is possible? Or what is probable?” As a scientist, you must choose the latter.

Back in 1915, Einstein proposed the general theory of relativity which explains how gravity works. Einstein discovered that his theory predicted that our universe was expanding, which stated that we had a beginning, which further stated that some outside force must exist. Needless to say, Einstein didn’t like this very much but couldn’t seem to find a way around his own evidence. So what he decided to do was stick in something called a “Cosmological Constant”. A variable for God if you will, basically an “I’ll deal with this later” kind of marker in his theories. Later, Hawking and a few other scientists discovered that it wasn’t just space, matter and energy that were expanding, but time as well. That space, time, matter and energy all had a beginning and at one time, did not exist. This means that the expansion of the universe, or the “The Big Bang” as it is better known, was not in fact an explosion but a beginning to everything, a point in time where time itself began. If we have an origin then we must have an originator. A person is brought into the world by male and female parents, a tree comes into the world by another tree, any object must come from something outside of itself. Something cannot come from nothing. Our physical universe is no different, it must come from something outside of itself, something transcendent.

“The biggest problem with the Big Bang theory of the origin of the Universe is philosophical, perhaps even theological, what was there before the bang?” -Paul Gribbon. Physicist, Nature [1976]

Even if you throw out everything I have said so far, there still so much evidence that it seems to look you dead in the eye, ask you to stand right where you are and then promptly drop a grand piano on your head. Take the amount of matter in our universe for example. The amount of matter in our universe is not growing or shrinking, it is a specific amount that conveniently (and perfectly) relates to our survival. The amount of matter in our universe is about 1 part in 10 to the 60th power. Too much matter and our universe would collapse in upon itself, too little and the stars and planets could not form, there wouldn’t be enough. Even if our universe had 1 in 10 to the 57th power of matter, the universe would collapse upon itself. Coincidence? Here are a few more… Nuclear force is what holds all matter together, electrons, protons, neutrons and atoms are all held together by it. If this nuclear force was a mere 2% stronger, many more elements would be added to the periodic table of elements but Hydrogen would be taken away, making life impossible. If it were 5% weaker, Hydrogen would be the only element, also making life impossible. Nuclear force is perfectly situated to allow for life in the universe. Another weird coincidence, if you wish to call it that, is that carbon (which makes life possible, if it did not exist, neither would we) is only created when a star dies and its remnants (stardust if you will) go out into the universe and create carbon. If it’s resonance was but 4% higher, it would not exist. If the resonance of Oxygen was but one half of a percent higher, Oxygen would not exist and only carbon would be left, which would also make life impossible.

“Such Properties seem to run through the fabric of the natural world like a happy thread of coincidences. But there are so many odd coincidences essential to life that some explanation seems required to account for them. “ -Sir Frederick Hoyle, Astronomer. The Intelligent Universe, (1984)

About 3 min into the beginning, atomic nuclei were created. When we first came up with the theory of the Big Bang, the relative amounts of elements in the universe were predicted by the scientist of that day. This was their prediction:

-Hydrogen 73%

-Helium 26%

-Everything Else 1%

Fortunately for the Big Bang Theory what we find in our universe exactly matches the elements predicted by the scientists back in their day. These questions about the elements in our universe naturally takes one to our own cacophony of elements here on Earth. We hear about earth-like planets that are being found everyday in the news sites and in the papers. But what that actually means is that we have found a planet with any of these three things..

  1. It is about the size of our Earth.

  2. It has water somewhere on the surface.

  3. It has a star a lot like our Sun.

In reality, there are hundreds of “parameters” that must exist on a planet to make life happen. Here are a few of these parameters…

Parameter: Chance Probability:

  • Galaxy type 1%

  • Star distance relative to galactic center 2%

  • Star Mass 001%

  • Star Age 4%

  • Position & mass of Jupiter relative to Earth 01%

  • Planetary rotation period 1%

  • Surface gravity (escape velocity) 001%

  • Tectonic activity 05%

These are only a few of the 322 total parameters that must exist on the planet to make life possible. If any one of these 322 total parameters do not exist, neither would we.

“As we survey all the evidence, the thought insistently arises that some supernatural agency-, or rather Agency (capital) – must be involved. Is it possible that suddenly, without intending to, we have stumbled upon scientific proof of the existence of a Supreme Being?”

-George Greenstein, Astrophysicist, The Symbiotic Universe, (1988)

There are hundreds of cosmic “Coincidences” strung through the cosmos which lead us to ask ourselves: what are the theological implications of these recent findings in modern science?

“For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries.” -Robert Jastrow, Astrophysicist, New York TImes Magazine, (1978)

If this universe had an origin, the cause of this universe must be transcendent, something other than the physical nature of this universe. Science has discovered things that the Bible stated a long time ago.

“I find it quite improbable that such order came out of chaos. There has to be some organizing principle. God to me is a mystery but is the explanation for the macle of existence, why there is something instead of nothing.” -Allan Sandage, Astronomer. New York Times, (1991)

Here are some things that science just recently discovered were true but the Bible has declared for thousands of years:

  1. The Universe had a beginning:

“In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.” -Genesis 1:1

  1. The stuff of the universe did not exist at one time:

“We understand that the universe was formed at God’s command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible.” -Hebrews 11:3

  1. Whoever this Transcendent Being is, He is not bound by space and Time:

“This grace was given us in Christ Jesus before the beginning of time.” -Apostle Paul, 2 Timothy 1:9

The bible is the only holy book in the world that explicitly speaks about God working before the beginning of time. And it was only recently that we found out that Time at one point did not exist.

In conclusion, our society has believed for years that God and science were on opposite ends of the spectrum and could not coexist without compromising the facts or compromising faith, modern science thinks otherwise. Without knowing it, modern science has discovered that God and science are, from what our form of modern science can tell, inescapably connected. They are linked like a watch and it’s Maker, like a book and it’s Author. Yes, there are other possibilities, some say that we evolve to such an extent that we go back in time and create ourselves. Some say that our universe and it’s expansion act like a sort of giant trampoline, expanding and contracting. Yes, these are faintly possible, but are they probable? Is it probable that all of space, time and matter all came from chance? Emphatically, the answer is no. Science is not about what is possible, but about what is probable. The choice is ultimately yours though, do you take this evidence and use it? Or do you go look for loopholes and possibilities? What will you choose?

Work Cited:

“Tests of Big Bang: The CMB.” WMAP Big Bang CMB Test. N.p., n.d. Web. 29 Apr. 2014.

“Case Study: The Natural Abundance of Elements in the Earth & Universe.” – Chemwiki. N.p., n.d. Web. 29 Apr. 2014.

“What Is the Universe Made Of?” WMAP- Content of the Universe. N.p., n.d. Web. 29 Apr. 2014.

“Rare Earth Hypothesis.” Wikipedia. Wikimedia Foundation, 26 Apr. 2014. Web. 29 Apr. 2014.

“Einstein’s Relativity.” Einstein’s Relativity. N.p., n.d. Web. 29 Apr. 2014.

“The Beginning of Time – Stephen Hawking.” The Beginning of Time – Stephen Hawking. N.p., n.d. Web. 29 Apr. 2014.

“The Expanding Universe.” The Expanding Universe. N.p., n.d. Web. 29 Apr. 2014.


Featured Posts
Recent Posts
Archive
Search By Tags
Follow Us
  • Facebook Basic Square
  • Twitter Basic Square
  • Google+ Basic Square
bottom of page