O R I G I N   O F   T H E   W O R L D

Dr. R. Gange

Who Has The Answer?

Creation and evolution have become household words. Why? -
Because more and more lives are being touched by the question.
Old time religion is being tested as never before. Debates are
springing up all over the country. Cherished beliefs are being
challenged. Sides are being drawn. Each is sure that the other
is wrong. The question is: Who's right?

This new look into origins is viewed with mixed emotions. Some
welcome the question as long overdue. Others regard the issue as
a threat to human progress.

The motive behind defending 'Creation' on the one hand or
'Evolution' on the other is not always apparent. Many people
take the Bible seriously. They're sure God can't be wrong. Nor
would He lie. They defend Creation because it's taught in the
Bible. On the other hand others are convinced that Evolution is
true. They're sure science isn't wrong. Nor would it lie. They
defend Evolution because they think the facts have 'proved' it.

Seminaries and churches are divided on the issue. In the home
children are asking difficult questions. Parents are searching
for answers. They soon learn that many high school teachers
aren't sure which way to go. Everythin seems unsettled.

For the Christian the question is more difficult. There are many
who feel that the Bible has a stake in the Creation Evolution
outcome. Yet they are bewildered as to what the facts actually
teach. For example, who of us hasn't read of the court case in
Arkansas? But different people report different things.

One well known theologian wrote about the Arkansas court case.
He said creationism suffered defeat due to a 'biased judge' and
'secular humanism'. Elsewhere, another Chriatian published a
different view. He said creation was 'religion in disguise'.
Therefore it was unscientific and didn't belong in our school.
He said the judge was correct in his decision. The real question
is: Who do we believe?

To answer this question, we must leave Arkansas. We need to look
elswhere. A large number of people want to know the truth about
'origins'. In other words, they want to know about the origin of
life, and whether man evolved from apes, or was created as 'man'.
However it's doubtful they'll find an answer ina court of law.
True - testimonyu from different people can be interesting. But
even the experts disagree. Besides, truth about 'origins' must
be based upon actual facts in the physical world. We know that
science is a quest for such truth. Thus it seems reasonable to
use science rather than law as our starting point.
 

ARE THINGS ETERNAL?

Many people have sought the truth regarding 'origins'. But they
appear to be divided. Those who believe the Bible is true feel
they have found the truth. For them the answer is: "God
created'. Others have turned to science for the answer. Here
the situation seems less settled. It's interesting that many are
ablt to trust science, yet still believe: God created. They're
convinced there is no problem. They feel sure that their beliefs
are in harmony with the facts of science.

However, others aren't as sure. Of thses, thjere are some who
hold that there is no God. Thus the answer can't be: 'God
created'. Furthermore, they argue another thing. They say even
if God exists, He did not create the world. When asked 'Who
did?' - Thhey answer: 'N one'. Their reason is that they
believe: 'The world had no beginning'.

We see this on university campuses. Searching minds tend to
believe that our world could not have been created by a "God".
The reason they give is simple. They say God didn't create the
world because ........ or the world did not have a beginning.
Why? Because a very basic scientific law says so.

It's called the 'First Laaw Of Thermodynamics'. This law teaches
that a natural process can't gring into existence something from
nothing. Since there are things all about us, the conclusion is
that they must have been here forever.

Thus they claim that the 'First Law' forbids creation. They say
the world couldn't have had a beginning because it's impossible
for things to just "pop" into existence. According to the 'First
Law', no nautral process can bring into existence 'something'
from 'nothing'. Thus everything in the world must be eternally
existing. True, the form of things may have changed. But the
'basic stuff' is said to have been here forever.

For example, water can be seen as a liquid, or in the form of
steam, or as a block of ice. But no matter how it appears,
what's said is that it must have always existed. Not perhaps in
the form we recognize today. But it must have always been ther
in some form. Thje claim is that everything is eternally
existing.

Hers's another example. It's believed that billions of yhears
ago the universe contained very hot gase. These gases were in
the form of a "plasma" in eternity past. It's said they
condensed into the rocks we see today. True - rocks are solid
objects. But billions of years abo it's believed their basic
'stuff' was in the form of 'gas'.

The point is this: No matter what we see or touch - it's eternal.
At least that's what some say the 'First Law' teaches. Why? -
Because a natural process can't make something from nothing.
Since there are 'somethings' all about us, they must have been
here forever!
 

IS THE QUESTION IMPORTANT?

If the 'atomic stuff' that makes up water or rocks has always
existed, then this 'stuff' could not have had a beginning. But,
if there was no beginning, then there was no creation. And if
there was no creation, then "God" could not have created. The
real question before us is: What's true? Do the facts of science
really teach that our world is eternal? Or has science
discovered evidence showing that there really was a beginning?

The answer to this question impacts many lives. Thje reason is
that the Bible is on the line. If there was no 'beginning', then
the opening verse of every Bible is wrong. If this were the
case, the consequences would be staggering.

Millions of people all over the world see the Bible as a divine
revelation from God Himself. Were the opening words of the Book
of Genesis wrong, how could anyone bring themselves to trust the
other words? If the first verse of every Bible is untrue., how
can we believe the verses that follow?

The question of whether or not our world had a beginning is, in
this sense, a watershed issue. Many people believe that the
truth of the Bible rests on it. If there was no beginning, then
clearly mmeans:'God did not create'. The importance of this
particular inquiry thus lies in the yes or no answer which the
question implies.

Almost everyone agrees that the Bible takes a clear stnad on the
matter of Creation. Furthermore, everyhone seems settled as to
what the Bible teaches as regards the question. Thus, there
seems to be a genuine basis for agreement on at least two things:
(i) The Bible says that there was a beginning, and (ii) The
question has only a 'yes' or 'no' answer.

The stakes are high. The question is clear. The challenge is to
find the answer. Although scientific discovery can give rise to
wrong speculations, its facts are usually trustworthy. What are
the facts in this matter? And where can we go to find them?

Science has unveiled new knowledge. Many are convinced that this
knowledge sheds considerable light on the question of origins.
All we need to do is look at what's been learned. But make no
mistake - the Bible is on trial.. However, in this case, the
verdict will not be from theologians. Rather it comes from an
international jury of scientists whose work builds upon the
ecperience and knowledge of past generations.

For the most part, scientists have one goal. Their quest is
truth regarding the physical world inot which we are all born.
The Bible indentifies its content as au thored by the Creator of
our world. The Bible thus claims to be Truth. Is it? Was the
world made by a Supreme Intelligence who recorded HIs creation in
the Bible? If our world was created, then it had a 'beginning'.
What is the verdict from science? What are the facts?
 

IS THE BIBLE FICTION OR TRUTH?

What does modern science teach regarding 'origins'? In other
words, what are the actual data and their interpretations? Do
the latest scientific results show that our world traces back
into eternity past? Or do they say it was created? Has our
universe truly been here forever? Or did it have a beginning?
Are the things that we touch really made of 'stuff' that's
eternal? Or did this 'stuff' somehow pop into existence?

Some want to believe it was created. Others - that it's eternal.
But what do the facts teach? The answer is that they've been
understood to teach different things at different times. But
today we hjave many new facts. In the last 30 hyears, knowledge
has increased 6 fold. What does our new knowledge teach
concerning 'origins'? What's really true regarding our world?
It is eternal or created?

For many decades a nuymber of scientists believed that our world
was eternal. They believed in a 'Steady State' theory of the
universe. They felt that everything in the world had existed in
some form or other forever. Sopme were driven to this idea from
the 'First Law Of Thermodynamics'. They reasoned that a natural
process can't bring something into existence out of nothing.
Thus it was argued that everything must be eternally existing.

Today there's a problem with this idea. The beginning of the
universe has actually been measured. True - the measurement
indirect. But nonetheless it teaches that there actually was a
beginning. To give an example: Suppose someone fired a shotgun
in another room. If we walked into the room one minute later,
we'd see the smoke still drifing out from the end of
the barrel. In much the same way, the 'smoke' from the 'Big
Bang' is still drifting throughout our universe. This 'smoke'
shows a beginning.

Scientists have recently measured the 'smoke' from a 'Bib Bang'
billions of years aog. That's when we believe the universe
exploded into existence. This 'smoke' is known as the
'background radiation' of the universe. It was measured by two
scientists who recently received the NObel prize for their work.

Thus the idea that our world is eternal is now known to have a
problem. These measurements of what scientists call the
'background radiation' that fills our universe tell us something.
They show that our world actually had a beginning.

Also, the measured values of the radiation agree with the
predictions of certain "theoretical models". These mathematical
pictures describe how our world 'unfolded' after it came into
being. They also make predictions about atomic particles.
Measurements from a field of science called 'Particle Physics'
confirm many of these predictions. Thus, there is growing
confidence that our world actually had a 'beginning'.
 

DO STARS LAST FOREVER?

Are there other reasons why scientists believe the world had a
beginning? The answer is yes. These reasons embreace the stars.
Scientists have known for a while that 'matter' and 'energy' are
different forms of the same basic "stuff" - in much the same way
that ice and steam are differenct forms of water. When we study
the 'matter' and 'energy' of the stars, we learn something about
the origin of their material. And what we learn is that the
stars seem to have had a 'beginning'.

Stars are made up of 'matter'. Improved telescopes show that the
stars in the universe are destroying themselves. Whawt's
happening is they are creating 'energy' at the expense of the
'matter' of which they're composed. Scientists have shown that
the process by which stars sell of their 'matter' for 'energy'
requires the universe to have a beginning. Let's see why.

In simple terms, the universe is expanding. But as it expands, t
he stars destroy t hemselves and create energy. If the universe
were expanding forever, the stars would have "forever" to destroy
themselves. Thus no stars should exist today.

Is there any way for the stars to destroy themselves "forever"
and yet still exist today? Yes - but only if there's an
unlimited amount of matter to destroy. To believe the universe
expands forever is to believe in a limitless source of new
matter. Otherwise the stars must diminish in number andf
eventually perish.

The question of how the stars could continue to exist while
destroying themselves 'forever' is a hard one to answer. One
obious answer is that they aren't here forever. Otherwise we
require a universe of limitless resources. But is such a
universe rational? Think for a minute. It would be a universe
of unlimited matter through unlimited space expanding over
unlimited time. But now we have a universe that can neither be
verified nor falsified. Thus its an unscientific universe.

To answer this objection, the idea of an eternal universe was
modified. A new theory was born - called the "Oscillating
Universe". This idea is that although the universe exists
forever, it gets bigger and smaller. Sometimes it expands.
Other times it contracts. During our life time it's getting
bigger. In future generations it will get smaller. It thus
oscillates in and out with the passage of time. True - the stars
destroy themselves, but whereas the universe gets smaller, they
are 'recreated'. This explains how stars con continue to exist
in a universe that's here 'forever'. They disappear as the
universe gets bigger. But then come back when it gets smaller.
 

CAN SPACE GO IN AND OUT?

To summarize: an oscillating universe is eternally existing.
It's like a 'cosmic yo yo'. Today it's expanding. But
eventually it will get smaller. The idea is that it goes in and
out continaully.

The question is: Can the universe reverse itself? Is it able to
go out - and then come back in - and go back out again - and so
on indefinitely? The answer is no. In many ways the universe is
like a car going down a narrow one way street. If there's no way
to turn around, the car must continue in the same direction.
Likewise with the universe. Measurements show that the universe
is travelling down a narrow one way street. It can't go
backwards.

This means the universe can't go in and out repeatedly. But why?
The reason is that the stars are destroying themselves and
creating energy. This energy heats up the universe. If the
universe reversed itself along the same path it went out, it
would need to cool down. But the cooling process means that
energy must change back into matter along the same path it was
created. Here we have a problem. The reversible change of
energy back into matter is prohibited by what scientists call the
'Second Law Of Thermodynamics'. We'll say more about this
'Second Law' at another time. But what it means is that the
universe can't go in and out repeatedly. Thus it has not been
expanding forever. Therefore, it must have had a 'beginning'.

Perhaps a simple picture can help us to better understand what's
been said. In your mind's eye imagine that the entire world
consists of nothing but an ice cube. Now suppose that the ice
cube expands and in doing so gets warmer. Two things happen: One
is tha the ice cube gets bigger. The other is that as it gets
bigger, the ice cubve begins to melt and change into water.

The water that once was an ice cube continues to grow. It gets
larger and larger. Finally we imagine it to be as large as an
ocean. Let's assume that the ocean can't get any larger. The
water won't 'stretch' any more. At this point the ocean starts
to shrink. In our mind's eye, we see it getting smaller. And as
it gets smaller, the water gets colder. Soon it begins to
freeze. Eventually it changes back to an ice cube. The ice cube
itself gets smaller. Eventually it returns to its original size.

Once back to its original size, the ice cube stops shrinking.
Once more it starts to grow . As it grows, it again changes into
water. The water expands until it reaches the size of an ocean.
The ocean then starts to shrink. As the water gets smaller, it
freezes back into an ice cube. Once back to its original size,
the ice cube starts to expand again, and the whole cycle repeats
itself over and over.

This is a picture of what people thought our world was doing.
This is a picture of a 'pulsating universe'. Loosely speaking,
the 'matter' can be thought of as ice. The 'energy' can be
thought of as water.

But let's take a closer look. As the water expands, some of it
becomes steam. The stea, can be t hought of as energy we can't
get back. With each cylce, less energy is available to cool back
into matter. If our world were here FOREVER, no energy would
remain to cool back into matter. It would all be gone. All the
water would have changed into steam. Thus, the universe can't
cylce in this way. It can't go in and out forever.
 

HAS SCIENCE SHOWN A BEGINNING?

Our universe is nmot a 'cosmic yo yo'. Thus when improved
telescopes were used to study the stars, figuragively speaking,
we learned that some of the 'water' was turning into 'steam'.
The 'ocean' (energy) shrinks back into the 'ice cube' (matter).
But part of the water is gone. This lost water is now steam.
TYhe 'steam' can be thought of as energy in a form that cannot be
recovered.

With each new expansion, more of the water would turn into steam.
On the return trip, even less water would be available for ice.
Wiht each cycle, addiitonal water would be lost as steam. In a
sense, this is what our stars do. When matter turns into energy,
it's like part of the water tunring into steam. We can't get all
of it back.

This means that the universe can't return along the same path it
goes out. The rezson is the 'Second Law Of Thermodynamics'. It
teaches that once matter changes into energy, the enrgy can't
reversibly change back into matter. Thus, the universe can't go
in and out. It can't oscillate. This means it's not been here
forever. Thjerefore, it must have had a beginning.

We can look at this a different way. Pretend the universe had no
beginning. In other words, assume that our world has been here
forever. Let's see where this idea leads.

Our telescopes show that the universe is getting larger all thje
time. It's like a big balloon that's wxpanding. Furthermore, it
seems to have iexploded in times past gfrom a single 'point in
space'.

As we've seen, the only way the universe can be here forever
while getting bigger from a tiny point is for it to be like a
'cosmic yo yo'. The idea is that it gets bigger - then smaller -
then bigger - then smaller - and so on. If true, we just happen
to be living at a time when the universe is getting bigger rather
than smaller.

But the problem is that with each new 'bounce', the universe must
grow to a larger size. The reason is the universe continually
heats up due to the stars destroying themselves and creating
energy. If it's hotter, then it's bigger.

But if the universe gets bigger with each new 'bounce', then it
must have been smaller on the preceding 'bounce'. In other
words, as we go back in time, with each earlier 'bounce', the
universe must have been smaller and smaller. Scientists have
shown that this progression back into time converges, stated
differently, could not have continued 'forever'. This means that
there had to have been a 'first bounce'. Thus the u niverse must
have had a 'beginning'.
 

CAN WE SEE A "BEGINNING" OTHER WAYS?

Imagine taking a motion picture of someone throwing a stone into
a pond. Later we play the movie both forward and backward to
people who were not at the pond. Do they know which way is
correct? Yes! But how? Because no one has ever seen ripples
start from the rim of a pond, move toward the center and hurl a
stone up and into the air. It's easy to see why. We can't
simultaneously start all of the forces around the rim of the pond
at exactly the same time. The reason is that signals take time
to rravel. The universe is like a pond. Physical matter from it
rim must rupple to its center. This requires simulataneous
cooperation among all the forces at its boundary. Otherwise
material along the rim will not later converge to a common point.

Were the universe bouncing in and out forever, it would need to
shrink back each time to the same starting point. If it's
impossible to simultaneously coordinate the forces around the rim
of a pond, imagine trying to do it around the 'rim' of a 30
billion light-year wide universe! This means the universe can't
reverse and shrink back to its starting point. Thus, it
therefore had a 'beginning'.

There is yet another way we know the universe had a beginning.
Scientists routinely study the light from stars. Light consists
of waves that differ from each material in a star. The different
lightwaves can be though of as the material's fingerprint.
Measurements of light from many stars show that the universe is
made up of the same atomic material that we find on Earth. A
scientific law governs how these materials can behave. This law
embraces physcial things on Earth, and in the universe at large.

We've already run into this law. It's the 'Second Law of
Thermodynamcis. Just a short time ago, this law had limitatiuon.
It could not be applied to the entire universe. But tecently it
was modified. The revision is called the "New Generalized Second
Law Of Thermocynamics". It is vastly more powerful than the
older "Second Law".

The 'New Generalized Second Law' teached that if the universe
were here forever, all of its material would be in a state of
rest. This is something we do not see when we study the universe
with our telescopes. But if the universe is not in a 'rest
state', it cannot be here forever. And if it hasn't been here
forever, then it must have had a beginning.

The universe, therfore, had a beginning - a fact taught by the
first verse of every Bible - and now accepted by the scientific
world. Every Bible begins with the statement: "In the beginning,
God created..." Now science says: "There was a beginning".

What you - the reader - do with such information is, of course,
another matter. Science can only point to what's true. But it
can't apply that truth to your life. Only you can do that. To
learn that our world had a beginning has far reaching
implications.

The Bible offers us the hope of another age in another world. It
teaches that God can create a new beginning in people. If this
world exists, why can't another? And if the Bible's first verse
is true, why can't the hope found in its later verse be also.

these emits a different kind of light. These optional
fingerprints allow us to identify the materials that make up
stars and, therefore, the universe...................

IS THE FIRST LAW OF SCIENCE WRONG?

The verdict from in international jury of scientists is: Our
world had a 'beginning'. But the notion that our world actually
had a beginnis is mind-boggling. Think about it! There was a
"time" when "time" didn't exist. Neither was there any "space".
But if there was 'nothing', where did we come from? How did it
happen? And 'Who' or 'What' was behind it?

But, if there was a beginning, we have a dilemma. Do you rmember
our earlier question? A natural process cannot bring something
into existence out of nothing. Does not this 'First Las Of
Thermodynamics' imply that everything in the universe is
eternmally old? kThis was the law that inspired the older
'Steady State" theory of the universe. Does it not teach that
our world's been here forever?

The answer is no. The reason is found in what this law actually
says. The 'First Law' teaches that a natural process cannot
bring into existence something out of nothing. If the 'First
Law' is correct - which seems to be the case...and if the
universe had a beginning - which seems to be scientifically
factual...it means that our universe did no come into existence
through a natural process.

If all of this is true, then it illuninates a profoundly
important insight concerning the origin of our world. The data
and understandings form twentieth century science - whjen taken
as a whole - teach two things: (1) That there was a 'beginning' -
and (2) A natural process didn't do it. Natural processes don't
pop things into existence out of 'nothing'. But things are in
existence all about us. There seems to be only on answer. An
unnatural process did it.

Science pointed its telescope toward the stars and after a
century of focusing saw the first verse of the Bible. The
twinkling stars say that Some One or Something created our world.
 

WAS OUR WORLD BORN SUPER NATURALLY?

Recent facts uncovered by modern science show that our world had
a beginning. But the First Law of science forbids a natural
process to bring something into being from nothing. One
conslusion is that something unnatural created the universe. If
our world didn't come from a naturla process, then it came from
an unantural process. Tje thought that our universe originated
supernaturally is unsettling to many people.

But the story doesn't end here. Scientists around the world are
developing "Grand Unification Thjeories". These exotic rules
embrace all of nature. Thjey link forces surrounding the atyom
wityh those that control the stats. In other words, they tie
together both the smallest and the largest things in the
universe. Thjey also help explain the bewildering list of over
200 atomic particles uncovered in the past several decased. In
addition, they provide insight into the results of high energy
experiments. For the first time we've begun to predict and
explain what we see. Thus, confidence is growing that the new
"Grand Unification Thjeories" are ture.

But the Grand Unification Theories have produced something else.
It's call the 'New Inflationary Theory of the Universe'. The
older "Big Bang' theory had at least 3 unanswered questions. The
first is how did different parts of the universe communicate
after it began? Scientists call this enigma "Casuality". The
second concerns the 'shape' of the space-time fabric. This
problem is known as "Flatness". The third is why does matter
cluster to form galaxies? We call this question "Homogeneity".

The new Inflationary Theory answers the first two - and promises
an answer to the third via quantum fluctuations ( a new insight
to cosmology).

But it does something else: It reveals the raw material used to
create the world. Unlike the 'Big Ban Theory', the New
Inflationary Theory tells us about the 'raw material' from which
our universe was born.

In the 'Big Bang Theory', our hands were tied. We could only go
back to a point called a 'Planck time'. It was like an
impenetrable wall beyond which we couldn't see. Thus we were
limited. We could never hope to know how the universe came into
being. We could never see back to the true "beginning".

The New Inflationary Theory is different. It gives us a picture
of our universe from the moment it unfolded. Were we to
summarize the new insight into one sentence, it would be this:
The equations can be understood to imply that our universe came
into existence...out of nothing. It's mind-boggling to think that
our entire universe began from nothing.

Yet there's something even more startling: The Bible contained
that knowledge thousands of years before man ever made or
conceived of a telescope. The first verse of the Bible teaches
that the world came into existence 'ex hihilo' (out of nothing).

An amazing thing has happened in the very day we live: Science
has caught up to Scripture. The Bible teaches that the world was
made from 'nothing'. Now science agrees. Furthermore, the
'First Law Of Thermodynamics' teaches that our world didn't come
from a natural process. As seen from the 'eyes' of science, a
natural process can't create something from nothing. Scripture
teaches that it was a supernatural process. The first verse of
every Bible reads: "In the beginning, God created". For a more
complete discussion, the reader is invited to read or download a
paper available on our website entitled: "Is Big Bang Biblical?"