Lesson 4 – In the Beginning – God or Particles?
The Big Bang and the Anthropic Principle

It is I who made the earth, and created man upon it. I stretched out the heavens with My hands.
- Isaiah 45:12

By wisdom the LORD laid the earth’s foundations, by understanding He set the heavens in place.
-- Proverbs 3:19


The first question any worldview must answer is how did the universe begin? In the past few decades, science has completely reversed itself on the question of the origin of the universe. For thousands of years most cultures as well as the scientific community believed the universe to be eternal. The idea that the universe had a beginning was an article of religious faith standing in lonely opposition to firmly established science. Only in the 20th century did several lines of scientific evidence converge so that secular scientists came to believe that the universe had a beginning. Those main lines of evidence were:

1. Einstein’s equations of General Relativity predicted that space and time had an origin therefore the universe was not eternal.

2. Modern telescopes and instrumentation revealed that all the stars and galaxies are moving away from one another (the red shift) and by projecting this expansion back in time one must conclude that the universe had a beginning – a point in time of creation.

3. Philosophically, two of the most fundamental laws of physics -- the 1st and 2nd Laws of thermodynamics -- implied that something external to the universe must have caused it to come into being a finite time ago:

• 1st Law – “Matter and energy cannot be created nor destroyed.” That is, the universe just can’t create itself. Something cannot come into physical existence “out of nothing.” Since matter is real, its very existence is evidence that a transcendent (beyond nature) process created it.



• 2nd Law – The universe is running down, like a wound-up clock, to a “heat death.” There had to be a time when it was wound up initially, otherwise it would have “died” by now. The unavoidable conclusion -- there must have been a “beginning time” for the universe.

Creation is no longer merely a matter of religious faith. Today it is a legitimate scientific conclusion that is based on the most straightforward reading of the evidence.

The lines of scientific evidence coalesced in the 1960’s leading to the formulation of what is known as The Big Bang Theory. The name evokes images of Genesis 1 and would deliver a near fatal blow to Naturalism if the evidence was ever taken to its logical conclusion. Naturalists simply have no way to avoid the challenge posed by the big bang without twisting themselves into impossible logical contortions. Therefore, to escape the obvious conclusion many simply ignore the discussion. Others, redefine “science” in such a way that discussion is suppressed -- the ACLU approach. Others co-mingle the philosophy of Naturalism with science. Others just attack the implications as “philosophically repugnant.” Some acknowledge the implication of a god that might have started the whole thing, but certainly is out of the picture after that (the Deist approach). Others attempt to tweak their theories to disprove the implications of the big bang -- even Einstein attempted this approach! Some craft fanciful tales such as imaginary time or quantum fluctuations (the universe popping into existence out of nothing), or infinite number of universes, or self-generation, or endless oscillations. None of these so-called theories carry as much credence as the “God Hypothesis.”

A second major line of scientific evidence supporting the Christian worldview is known as Intelligent Design. The message Dave and Katy Mulholland caught at Epcot (Lesson 1) was that Planet Earth “just happened” to be the right size, “just happened” to be the right distance from the sun for life to arise; and, through a process of random mutation and natural selection (Darwinian evolution), humans “just happened” to appear on the scene. In other words, planet Earth and human beings are nothing more than cosmic accidents. But, are all these coincidences really just…coincidences? Or, did Someone design the universe that way? When Dave Mulholland investigated Intelligent Design he found that a dramatic shift in scientific thinking had taken place the last few decades. Today science has dramatic evidence that the universe and life itself is the product of purpose and design. From the perspective of the space age, it has become clearer that Earth is unique, not just some common planet with common conditions for life. Scientists are discovering that the physical structure of the universe is exactly what it must be in order to support life. Science has dubbed this phenomenon the Anthropic Principle.[i]

To date there have been dozens of fundamental variables and constants discovered that must be exactly what they are or the universe doesn’t work and life is not possible. These include – the earth being just the right size and just the right distance from the sun; the molecular structure of water being just right; the velocity of the big bang explosion being just right, and the force of gravity being just right. That the particles that make up the atom are just the right size with just the right charge, possessing just the right magnetic properties and held together with just the right nuclear forces. The statistical probability of all these “just the rights” happening without the intelligent intervention of a transcendent power is literally zero. There is no natural explanation, no natural law to account for this extraordinarily precise alignment of variables that make the earth capable of supporting life. If anything, it appears as if the laws of physics were exquisitely calibrated from the outset for the creation of human life. Scientists have no way of explaining it on naturalistic grounds and when they attempt to they become speculative at best and illogical at worst. Some speculate there may be an infinite number of universes of which ours just happens to be the one that works. Others speculate the “universe wants to be known,” ascribing human characteristics to it. One honest scientist, Patrick Glynn put it this way after studying the anthropic principle, “The main-stream scientific community has in effect shown its attachment to the atheistic ideology of the random universe to be in some respects more powerful than its commitment to the scientific method itself.”

From a Christian worldview the evidence points to the transcendent God of Genesis 1. Christian scientists are beginning to emerge and give credible scientific scholarship showing that complex physical phenomena and life forms are the product of Intelligent Design and are not the product of chance or natural law. William Dembski in his book, The Design Inference, Eliminating Chance Through Small Probabilities (Cambridge University Press, 1998), gives powerful mathematical evidence the universe was designed. This can become a starting point for a scientific discussion embracing a biblical worldview of creation.

As Christians we need to turn around the perception that we are opposed to science. We must become knowledgeable about modern cosmology if we have any hope of engaging our culture on this topic. When Paul talked to the intellectuals on Mars Hill in Acts 17, he was knowledgeable about their worldview, including their poets, and argued for his worldview by first engaging them in theirs. Understanding the implications of the big bang theory (even if you don’t believe in it yourself) and the anthropic principle, and being able to articulate some simple scientific principles will help turn around the insidious stereotype of the Bible-believing Christian as a scientific reactionary. Instead, we will be in the position of being able to give good answers to the opposition using good science. Like Paul, we will subsequently be able to intelligently present the gospel message to a group that otherwise might never be reached.



The Big Bang

In the 1920’s American astronomer Edwin Hubble (1889-1953) began meticulously mapping the universe galaxy by galaxy with the most powerful telescope in the world at the time – the 100 inch telescope at the Mount Wilson observatory above Los Angeles. Before the 20th century, the basic method of calculating the distance and motion of stars and galaxies had changed little for 200 years. By Hubble’s time, however, three remarkable tools for examining the light emitted from the stars had been developed and radically changed astronomical measurements:

• Fraunhofer-lines. The light spectrum emitted by a star reveals its precise chemical make-up.


• Doppler-effect. A way of analyzing the starlight spectrum which enables the calculation of the speed and direction of the movement of distant stars and galaxies.


• “Twinkle-stars” (known as Cepheids). These are stars which literally “twinkle,” i.e., they vary predictably in the intensity of light they give out from one time period to the next. An astronomer can measure the distance and brightness of the Cepheids closest to earth. This measurement becomes a “yardstick” by which the distance to the Cepheids contained in remote galaxies can be measured.

With these tools Hubble determined:

• How far away each galaxy was from the earth by finding the Cepheid stars in it.


• What kind of stars (i.e., chemical make-up) each galaxy contained by analyzing their Fraunhofer-lines in the light spectrum.


• The direction and speed each the galaxy was moving by the Doppler effect in the light spectrum of the stars.

Hubble and his team patiently isolated the light from each distant galaxy, analyzed its spectrum and built up a complete picture of its composition, distance and movement. The most amazing thing they discovered was that not only were the galaxies much farther away from us than anyone had ever imagined, but that all the galaxies in the universe were moving away from planet earth.

By analyzing the Cepheid stars Hubble discovered that many galaxies were billions of light-years[ii] away from earth. By the Doppler-effect he discovered that the farther away a galaxy, the faster it was moving away;[iii] and that it was moving in a predictable, not random fashion. A model of this motion can be pictured by inflating a balloon which has spots marked on its surface representing the galaxies. As you blow-up the balloon the skin stretches and all the spots (galaxies) move farther away from each other with the “galaxies” the farthest away moving away the fastest.

What Hubble had discovered was so spectacular and so unexpected that its full significance was not immediately grasped. An expanding universe was a difficult concept for the majority of agnostic scientists to embrace since they had become firmly wedded to the idea of an infinite, unchanging and eternal universe.

Einstein's theories of relativity

A few years prior to Hubble’s work, Albert Einstein published several papers of enormous significance – on Special relativity (1905) and General relativity (1916). Among the radical and revolutionary ideas[iv] derived from his equations of relativity was one that the universe was simultaneously expanding and decelerating. There is only one physical phenomenon that behaves in that manner – an explosion. When a grenade, for example, is detonated the pieces of the grenade expand outward, but as they do they slow down (decelerate). Einstein’s theory suggested that the universe originated in an initial explosion! If that were true then sometime in the past the universe must have had a beginning. And, there must have been a place (called the “singularity”) and a moment in time at which the explosion began. Thus the Big Bang theory was born.

If the entire universe originated out of nothing from an initial explosion (an effect), then that “effect” must have had a “cause(r).” What or who then was the “cause(r)?” The theological implications were monumental. Atheism and Darwinism were based on an (incorrect) assumption that the universe was infinite and hence there was no need for a Creator. But, now science had discovered that the universe began to exist, therefore, the universe must have had a cause for its existence. Common sense as well as empirical science tells us that what begins to exist must have a cause for its existence. This is the age-old cosmological argument for God’s existence.[v]

Einstein’s worldview of an infinite universe initially kept him from adopting such a conclusion. Rather than change his worldview, in 1917 he hypothesized a new force in physics that would perfectly cancel out the deceleration and expansion factors in his General Theory. But, this attempted patch did not hold up. In 1929 Edwin Hubble proved his theory from measurements on 40 different galaxies and demonstrated that the expansion was exactly predicted by Einstein’s general relativity equations. Einstein grudgingly abandoned his hypothesized force and acknowledged “the necessity for a beginning” and the presence of “a superior reasoning power.”[vi] Unfortunately, Einstein’s “superior reasoning power” was not the God of the Bible. Other scientists, and many committed atheists like Cambridge University’s Fred Hoyle, tried desperately to come up with other explanations which would eliminate a moment of “creation,” but to no avail.[vii] Today there is no doubt among astronomers that the Big Bang occurred. But the exact mechanism of galaxy-formation, and whether or not the expanding universe keeps expanding forever, stabilizes, or collapses back on itself, remains in question. In any case, astronomers who are not drawing theistic conclusions are becoming rarer.

Background radiation (the “afterglow” of the big bang)

In 1964, Nobel laureates Arno Penzias and Bob Wilson of Bell Labs discovered the “remains” of the initial big bang explosion – an "afterglow" of the intense heat generated by the initial explosion. Measurable background radiation was predicted to exist, even after billions of years of cooling, to be constant and detectable in all directions at just a few degrees warmer than the lowest possible temperature (-273o C). In 1992 the COBE satellite discovered this “afterglow” and has provided additional strong evidence that the galaxies (and hence the stars and planets) were formed out of the Big Bang. Stephen Hawking called it, “the discovery of the century, if not of all time.” George Smoot said, “What we have found is evidence for the birth of the universe … It’s like looking at God.”

This is widely acknowledged as the strongest proof yet for the big bang theory. In 1994 the most powerful optical instrument of all time, the dual 400-inch Keck telescope in Hawaii opened. Astronomers have since been able to verify that the cooling-down curve of the Big Bang precisely matches what the theory predicts. The Hubble space telescope provided a stop-action view of galaxy development showing astronomers the epoch before galaxies existed. The building blocks of the universe, i.e., the small clumps of hot young stars of the galaxies, are visible in these images and have given the most compelling visual evidence that the cosmos arose from a powerful creation event.

Non-Christian testimonies to a “Creator”

Arno Penzias, a Nobel laureate in physics and past director of Bell Labs said, “Astronomy leads us to a unique event, a universe which was created out of nothing, and delicately balanced to provide exactly the conditions required to support life. In the absence of an absurdly improbable accident, the observations of modern science seem to suggest an underlying, one might say, supernatural plan.”

Paul Davies, a widely known professor of mathematical physics said, “The equations of physics have in them incredible simplicity, elegance and beauty. That in itself is sufficient to prove to me there must be a God who is responsible for these laws and responsible for the universe.”

Astronomer George Greenstein, “As we survey all the evidence, the thought insistently arises that some supernatural agency – or, rather Agency – must be involved. Is it possible that suddenly, without intending to, we have stumbled upon scientific proof of the existence of a Supreme Being? Was it God who stepped in and so providentially crafted the cosmos for our benefit?”

Mathematical physicist Robert Griffiths, “If we need an atheist for a debate, I go to the philosophy department. The physics department isn’t much use (anymore).”

Christian opposition to the Big Bang

At the same time atheistic and agnostic scientists are seeing hard evidence for the existence of God in big bang cosmology, many in the evangelical community reject the big bang theory. Their problem stems from the creation date, calculated by big bang cosmology to be approx. 16 billion years ago for the universe, and 5 billion years for the earth. Many Bible-believing Christians find these long ages hard to reconcile with Scripture, particularly with the the 6 “days” of creation in the Genesis account. They interpret the Hebrew word for day “yom” as a literal 24-hour day following the Bishop Ussher chronology.[viii] Therefore, they see the earth as 6,000 to 10,000 years old (in no case more than 50,000 years). Also, some are concerned that allowing for a creation that takes billions of years gives biological evolution sufficient time to work. Hence they conclude that the earth cannot be that old. Many churches and Bible colleges include belief in a young universe and young earth in their statement of faith. Some churches require this belief for leadership positions or membership.

Another objection to big bang cosmology is that its mechanism resembles that of biological evolution and so is rejected out of hand. Cosmological evolution is the process by which the galaxies, stars and planets were formed. According to cosmological evolution, fundamental particles clumped together to form atoms of all the elements,[ix] and the elements combined to form the molecular building blocks of all the matter in the universe. Over time the elements “evolved” by well-known natural laws of nuclear and chemical action to form the galaxies, stars and planet earth. This is seen as too parallel to the chance/natural selection mechanism of biological (macro) evolution, which is rejected by most non-scientific evangelicals.

Many evangelical scientists particularly in the Life-Sciences embrace some form of biological evolution but also hold that the process involves God in some way. This blend of theism and evolutionism is called theistic evolution.

The 6 “days” of creation in Genesis

Genesis 1 states unequivocally that within “six days” God miraculously created the universe and everything in it, including human beings whom He specially created in His image. Young-earth creationists insist that the literal interpretation of the Hebrew word for day “yom” demands a 24-hour day. Old-earth creationists and theistic evolutionists say that “yom” can refer to a “time period of indeterminate length” (even billions of years) rather than a 24-hour period.

“Young-earth” creationists say that nothing in Scripture permits a view that the days of creation are anything other than 24-hours. They say that only extra-biblical influences – such as theories of modern science, the views of higher criticism of the Bible, or attacks against the historicity of Scripture would lead one to interpret the days of Genesis 1 as long epochs. They say that old-earth creationists and theistic evolutionists have subjugated Scripture to certain theories currently popular in big bang cosmology; and that cosmological theories have been imposed on Scripture as an interpretive grid and allowed to redefine the length of the creation days compromising the authority of Scripture from the start. To them, old-earth creationism and theistic evolution diminish the biblical emphasis on creation by divine fiat, and that sets up a scenario whereby God tinkers with His creation over long periods of time until the world is finally ready to be inhabited by humankind. In their view, such an approach is not evangelical and inevitably leads to people moving away from an evangelical understanding of Scripture.[x]

“Old-earth creationists” and “theistic evolutionists” and others who interpret “yom” as an indefinite time period offer evidence for their position as follows:

• The Hebrew word for day, “yom” is used in Scripture to denote any number of time-periods, as it is in English: a 24-hour time period; a 12-hour time period from sunrise to sunset; or an indefinite, but finite period of time, e.g., in the day of Noah; a long time; at the end of the age – all translate from “yom.”


• Our idea of a 12 or 24-hour day comes from an astronomical phenomenon, i.e., the rotation of the earth on its axis within the light beam produced by the sun. According to Genesis 1:1-5, “light,” (day) and “darkness” (night) were called into existence and named on Day 1. But the sun was not created until the fourth day (Genesis 1:14-19). If the sun didn’t exist until Day 4, then the understanding of “day” based on the rotation of the earth should be open to interpretations other than the one assumed true by the Ussher chronology.


• Moses wrote in Psalm 90:4, “For a 1000 years in your sight is like a day that has just gone by, or like a watch in the night (4 hours).” Peter wrote in 2 Peter 3:8, “With the Lord a day (24 hours) is like a 1000 years, and a 1000 years are like a day.” Hosea prophesied that, “after 2 days He will revive us (Israel); on the 3rd day He will restore us.” Commentators over the centuries have noted that this “day” can refer to a year, years, a thousand years, or perhaps a longer period of time.


• In the Genesis account, God’s 7th day (yom) of creation is a “day of rest” – the period of time after God’s creative activity. Therefore, we are currently living in that yom and it has been going on since the creation of mankind on Day 6. If the 7th yom refers to such a long period of time, so can the first six.[xi]


• Genesis 1:24-31 says that the land mammals as well as Adam and Eve were created on the 6th day. Adam named all the animals and then apparently worked with them long enough to discover that none of them were a suitable helper or companion. It appears that many days’, months’, or perhaps years’ worth of activity was taking place on this 6th yom.


• The language and figures of speech used in passages such as: Psalm 90:2-6, Proverbs 8:22-31, Ecclesiastes 1:3-11, Micah 6:2, Habakkuk 3:6, and 2 Peter 3:5 all depict the immeasurable antiquity of God’s plans and of the earth.


• The Hebrew word ‘ereb can mean “evening” or refer to the “ending of a time period.” The Hebrew word boqer, translated as “morning” can be interpreted as the “beginning” or “dawning” of a time period[xii] such as the “dawning of a new age.”


• Exodus 20:10-11 is often given as proof positive for the 24-hour day interpretation, “For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth … but He rested on the seventh (the Sabbath day).” However “Sabbath” can also refer to a full year, e.g., the Sabbath year of Leviticus 25:4. Sometimes it refers to 7 X 7 = 49 years (see Leviticus 25:11). The pattern established in Exodus 20 is the principle that “one out of every seven “yoms” is to be set aside to honor God. It does not necessarily establish a pattern of 24-hour days. Age-long creation days can fit the pattern just as well.

Theistic Evolution

Theistic Evolution is a term given to the idea that God uses evolution (in some fashion) as the mechanism to create the heavens, the earth, and all the species of life. God gave, and continues to give, existence to His creation which He gifted from the beginning with the capabilities to bring forth all the forms, processes, and events we observe.

Theistic evolutionists vary greatly in how they believe God intervenes in the evolutionary processes, and their varied beliefs are influenced by the subtle details of their particular theological orientation and/or their scientific training. Most think that biological evolution has great explanatory power and has proven effective in generating testable hypotheses in a wide range of scientific disciplines. They believe that new scientific discoveries and new models are progressively closing many previous gaps in our knowledge and understanding of evolutionary history and mechanisms. While many unanswered questions remain, they accept that biological evolution occurs (random mutation and natural selection). Most theistic evolutionists rely on God’s intervention to explain certain unique aspects of evolution which are currently unexplained, and perhaps unexplainable by science. For example, the origin of life, consciousness, and the soul; or major leaps in development, such as mankind from the lower animals.

Life scientists in this category think that common descent of all living things (common ancestry) is well-supported by diverse lines of evidence in geology, paleontology, biology, and genetics; and that evolutionary processes are not antithetical to God's creative action. They think that nothing in Scripture provides a theological basis for rejecting the descent of all living beings from a common ancestor, including humans. However, this view is problematic to many students of an inerrant Bible.

Most theistic evolutionists think there is an inherent degree of randomness in nature that God built in from the beginning. To some this gives theological support to the notion of man’s free will. Some think that quantum mechanics reveals that the universe has a fundamental random or probabilistic aspect to it, even though this continues to be hotly debated. Since quantum systems are, in one way or another, intrinsically unpredictable, this leads them to argue that God uses evolution to direct matter and energy toward the end He desires, but in a manner which seems unpredictable and random to us. In actuality, however, it involves the hand of God.

An excellent point-counterpoint comparison of young-earth creationism, old-earth (progressive) creationism, and theistic evolution is given in, Three Views on Creation and Evolution, by J. P. Moreland & John Mark Reynolds, (Zondervan Publishing House, 1999).

Naturalism’s objections to a creation event

Despite the many scientists who see God as the Personal Agent who created the universe through the Big Bang, atheists and agnostics who are committed to naturalism strive to come up with alternative theories about the creation event and how “something” could be created out of “nothing.”

Some of these theories postulate the origin of the universe as a “fluctuation in the energy of the primordial vacuum.” A “quantum vacuum” plays a role very analogous to that of God in the biblical doctrine of creato ex nihilo, i.e., it brings the universe into existence without a material cause. These models were popular in the 1970’s but today they do not find wide acceptance, even being abandoned by their original proponents. It is sobering to note how eagerly and uncritically theories like this have been adopted by popular science writers as plausible scenarios for the appearance and evolution of our universe, even long after their demise.

In his best-selling book, A Brief History of Time, (Bantam Books, 1988), world-famed physicist Stephen Hawking describes a model of the universe that is “completely self-contained and not affected by anything outside itself. It would be neither created nor destroyed. It would just BE.” Hawking says that his theory “has profound implications for the role of God in the affairs of the universe…. So long as the universe had a beginning, we could suppose it had a creator. But if the universe is really self-contained, having no boundary or edge, it would have neither beginning nor end. What place, then, for a creator?” More recently Hawking claimed that in his model, the universe “would quite literally be created out of nothing at all, because there is nothing outside the universe.”

The problems with his claim are numerous. First of all, Hawking’s model evokes imaginary numbers[xiii] for the time variable in Einstein’s equations. Imaginary quantities in science are without physical significance. This is a mathematical trick that is helpful in the manipulation of formulas, but has no physical significance. It makes no more sense to speak of imaginary time than it does to speak of imaginary readers of this paper. Also, Hawking fails to consider the philosophical basis of Euclidian geometry upon which his theory rests. It appears that philosophical and/or psychological factors, rather than scientific ones, are driving the formulation of these “theories.”

One can only be bewildered at how uncritically the popularizers of science have accepted Hawking’s claim to have eliminated the need for a Creator. Exuberant John Gribbin exclaims,[xiv] “Hawking’s universe holds out the prospect of combining General Relativity and cosmology in one grand theory of creation… There is no need to invoke miracles, or new physics, to explain where the universe came from….It is now possible to give a good scientific answer to the questions, ‘Where do we come from?’ without invoking .. God… It is the metaphysicians who are out of a job.”

In reality, all attempts to explain how material effects could arise out of nothing (e.g., a “quantum vacuum”); or by employing a mathematical expediency (viz., “imaginary time”) have failed. If the universe began with an initial cosmological singularity, then the kalam cosmological argument is the best logical deduction that the cause of the origin of the universe is a transcendent Personal Agent.

By 1997, Dr. Hawking had apparently softened on his imaginary time explanation. In his famous 1997 TV science documentary and companion book, Stephen Hawking’s Universe, The Cosmos Explained, (Basic Books, 1997), he said in the Foreward, “The laws of science that we have discovered show how one event is caused by another. It is natural to ask: What happens as one follows this causal chain of events back in time? Is there a first cause or does the chain go back forever? This is the chicken and egg question. The remarkable discovery that we have made this century is that there is indeed a first event, the Big Bang, which is maybe more like an egg than a chicken, though not really like either. At the Big Bang, the universe and time itself came into existence, so this is the first cause. If we could understand the Big Bang we would know why the universe is what it is.”

The Anthropic Principle

As scientists probe the complexities of the universe from the microscopic to the macroscopic; with the electron microscope to the Keck telescope, they eventually come to a remarkable observation -- that the physical structure of the universe is exactly what it needs to be in order to support life. In other words, if the universe were “tweaked” slightly some other way, it would turn into an inhospitable place and life would not be possible. Listen to what world-class agnostic scientists have concluded --

Freeman Dyson of the Institute for Advanced Study at Princeton: “As we look out into the Universe and identify the many accidents of physics and astronomy that have worked together to our benefit, it almost seems as if the Universe must in some sense have known we were coming.”[xv]

Sir Fred Hoyle of Great Britain: “A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a super-intellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature.”[xvi]

Paul Davies: “A clear inspection shows that the Earth is endowed with still more amazing “conveniences.” Without the layer of ozone above the atmosphere, deadly ultraviolet radiation from the sun would destroy us, and in the absence of a magnetic field, cosmic subatomic particles would deluge the Earth’s surface. Considering that the Universe is full of violence and cataclysms, our own little corner of the cosmos enjoys a benign tranquility. To those who believe that God made the world for mankind, it must seem that all these conditions are in no way a random or haphazard arrangement of circumstances, but reflect a carefully prepared environment in which humans can live comfortably, a pre-ordained ecosystem into which life slots naturally and inevitably—a tailor-made world.”[xvii]

Stephen Hawking: “The laws of science, as we know them at present, contain many fundamental numbers, like the size of the electric charge of the electron and the ratio of the masses of the proton and the electron. … The remarkable fact is that the values of these numbers seem to have been very finely adjusted to make possible the development of life. …One can take this either as evidence of a divine purpose in Creation and the choice of the laws of science, or as support for the strong anthropic principle.”[xviii]

The Anthropic Principle states that the seemingly arbitrary and unrelated constants in physics have one strange thing in common -- these are precisely the values you need if you want to have a universe capable of supporting life. The universe gives the appearance that it was designed to support life on earth. It says that the physical structure of the universe is exactly what it must be in order to support life.

For a familiar example, take water. Unlike most other substances, when water freezes, it expands and floats. If water didn’t have this unique property, then in cold weather, lakes and rivers would freeze all the way down to the bottom, and all fish would die.

Or think about the position of our planet. If Earth were only slightly closer to the sun, it would be too hot to support life. But if Earth were farther away from the sun, it would be too cold to support life. Isn’t it a marvelous “coincidence” that our planet is just where it is in the solar system?

Another cosmic “coincidence” is the strength of gravity. Assuming that the universe began with a big bang, if the force of gravity had been just slightly stronger, that extra tug would long ago have pulled the cosmos together and caused it to collapse in on itself. On the other hand, if the force of gravity had been just the tiniest bit weaker, then it wouldn’t have been strong enough to condense the original gas cloud into stars and galaxies.

The fact that gravity is just the force needed to create the universe is, in the words of one scientist, “a gigantic fluke–or divine intervention.”

It’s the same with electrical force. Every tree, every blade of grass is made of atoms, which contain electrons and protons. The electron has an electrical charge that balances exactly the charge of the proton. What would happen if they weren’t precisely balanced? If, say, the electron carried more charge than the proton, every atom in the universe would be negatively charged. Since like charges repel, the atoms would repel each other, and the universe would explode apart.

The anthropic principle makes a chance creation so improbable as to be absurd. Christian astrophysicist Hugh Ross lists 47 specific physical phenomena that must be “just right” for life to be possible (see his website www.reasons.org). Dr. Ross concludes that “Divine fine-tuning seems incontrovertible.”[xix]

How does a Christian put all this together?

The biblical view of creation is that God created the world. The Bible is not in conflict with science; rather it is in conflict with any worldview that starts without a creator. Equally committed and sincere Christians have struggled with the interpretation of God’s process of creation and reconciling that with what we observe in nature through God’s general revelation. They have come to differing conclusions, which is to be expected as Genesis 1 & 2 does not give very many details of the process of creation. Whatever direct evidence remains of the creation events is very old and subject to interpretation. The Life Application Bible, (Tyndale House Publishers, 1991) reminds us that students of the Bible and of science should avoid polarizations and black/white thinking. Students of the Bible must be careful not to make the Bible say what it doesn’t say, and students of science must not make science say what it doesn’t say. The most important aspect of the continuing debate is not the process of creation, but the origin of creation. The world is not the product of blind chance and probability; God created it.

I have alluded to three dominant interpretations of the Genesis 1-11 passages. Of course, there is a spectrum of in-between and over-and-above positions as well. Much depends on how one chooses to interpret the Hebrew word for “day” – “yom.”

• 1. Young-earth creation: God created the heavens and the earth and all it contains in six, 24-hour yom some 6,000 to 50,000 years ago.


• 2. Old-Earth (progressive) creation: God created the heavens and earth in six indeterminate periods of time “yom” starting perhaps some 16 billion years ago as modern big bang cosmology proposes. God specially created man some 6,000 to 50,000 years ago.


• 3. Theistic evolution: God is the ultimate Creator of everything and He chose to use evolution (even biological evolution) as the mechanism for the creation of the universe and life in it.

Unfortunately, within the evangelical church there is much acrimonious debate among Christians who so strongly align themselves with one of the three positions that they forget who the enemy is. It certainly is not each other. It is the opposing naturalistic worldview that says God is irrelevant to these discussions. I encourage Christians to spend their debate time with non-Christians on whether or not God or Nature is the creator of everything. We should argue that “something cannot be created out of nothing” by natural means, and offer positive evidence that the God-hypothesis best fits the observable facts.

Our biblical mandate is to give one another the benefit of the doubt; and do so in a loving way. I think we should approach the dialog something like this:

Among Christians: Listen carefully to the other side and prayerfully consider what they are saying. Stick with what you currently believe unless the Holy Spirit convicts you to change your position. Learn the other positions so you can understand why a fellow Christian might hold it. Debate in a loving way, but show grace to those who disagree with you.

With non-Christians: Respond with something along the following lines: All Christians agree that God created the heavens and the earth. The real issue is not the process of evolution, nor the age of the earth, but that God not Nature created the material world and mankind. Some Christians believe that God created the universe instantaneously; some in six 24-hour days, some in six epochs of time. New discoveries in science, i.e., modern cosmology, give much support to creationism. It agrees with the Bible that a creation event occurred (big bang), and that the universe and Plant Earth is uniquely finely tuned to support life (anthropic principle).


------

[i] From the Greek “anthropos” meaning “man.” The term "anthropic principle" was first introduced in 1973 during the celebration of Copernicus’ 500th birthday as if to proclaim that humanity holds a special place in the universe after all.
[ii] A “light-year” is a standard measurement of astronomical distance. It is the distance traveled by a light beam in one year. Since light travels at approx.186,200 miles per second, a light-year works out to be just over 6 trillion miles.
[iii] This kind of Doppler-effect is referred to as the red-shift. When the light of a star is beamed through a prism (refracted), it reveals its spectrum of colors from red to blue-violet. The Fraunhofer-lines are seen as dark bands in the spectrum. In addition to indicating the precise chemical make-up of the star, the position of these lines tell us if the light source is moving. If the lines are shifted (in frequency) toward the “red end” of the spectrum (lower frequency), the light-source is moving away. If the lines are shifted toward the “blue end” (higher frequency), the light source is moving toward the observer. An analogy is the frequency shift in sound one experiences when an approaching train whistle is blowing. The whistle-sound “appears” to be higher in frequency when approaching and lower in frequency when moving away. The whistle’s actual pitch hasn’t changed at all. Its pitch just “appears” higher or lower because of the motion of the train -- higher pitch (frequency) when approaching, and lower pitch (frequency) when receding. The same is true of light sources, including those astronomical observations of stars and galaxies.
[iv] For example, the speed of light is a universal constant independent of the motion of any reference point; time, length, mass and velocity dilate (stretch) as a function of their motion; mass and energy are equivalent (E=mc2); light beams are deflected by gravitational fields; the gravitational force of a body red-shifts its spectral (Fraunhoffer) lines.
[v] The kalam comological argument for the existence of God was first formulated by medieval Islamic theologian al-Ghazali:
1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause
2. The universe began to exist
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause
The only way the universe could have a cause that happens at some indeterminable time in eternity-past, is through the free-will action of a Personal Agent who chooses to create the universe at that point in time.
[vi] Einstein said, “My religion consists of a humble admiration of the illimitable superior spirit who reveals himself in the slight details we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble minds. That deeply emotional conviction of the presence of a superior reasoning power, which is revealed in the incomprehensible universe, forms my idea of God.” The Universe and Dr. Einstein, Lincoln Barnett (William Sloane Associates, 1948)
[vii] Hoyle proposed the “steady-state” theory which states that in our expanding corner of the universe, as galaxies grew farther and farther apart, new stars would evolve to help fill the gaps left by the expansion. This theory has an obvious problem: Where had the hydrogen come from to make the stars in the first place? It is summarily rejected by most all cosmologists.
[viii] James Ussher (1581-1656) was an Irish Protestant bishop and scholar best known for his chronology of Genesis which dated the creation of the world to 4004 B.C. This dating was inserted into the marginal notes of the Authorized (King James) Version of the Bible and became entrenched. American Congregational minister and writer Cyrus Scofield (1843-1921) was perhaps the most responsible person for setting the agenda for the modern American fundamentalist movement. His teachings still form the theological core for Bible schools around the world. The Scofield Reference Bible, which adopted dispensational, pre-millennial and pre-tribulational theology, sold over 2 million copies in 1909. In 1917, Bishop Ussher’s 4004 B.C. creation chronology was added to it. By 1967, however, Ussher’s early dating of the creation event was dropped from The New Scofield Reference Bible, but the influence of the earlier editions remains quite strong to this day.

[ix] Elements are the “elemental” chemical substances that compose all matter and are fundamentally composed of atomic particles – protons, neutrons and electrons in varying, but systematic configurations. There are more than 100 elements in the universe (Periodic Table), e.g., hydrogen (H2), helium (He), oxygen (O2), carbon (C), iron (Fe), gold (Au), uranium (U), etc. Atoms of elements can combine to form molecules of more complex substances, e.g., 2 atoms of hydrogen and 1 atom of oxygen can link up to form 2 molecules of water (H2O). The element carbon (C) has a special place in chemistry because it can link up with itself, as no other element can, to make long molecular chains which are the fundamental chemical building blocks of life (e.g, amino acids, proteins, enzymes, etc.)
[x] The Battle for the Beginning, John MacArthur (W Publishing Group, 2001). Also, The Biblical Basis for Modern Science, Henry Morris, (Baker Book House, 1984).
[xi] See Psalm 95; Hebrews 4:4-11; John 5:16-18.
[xii] Old Testament Word Studies, William Wilson, (Kregel Publications, 1978); A Hebrew and English Lexicon of the OT, Brown, Driver & Briggs, (Clarendon Press, 1968); Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament, Archer & Waltke, (Moody Press, 1980).
[xiii] Imaginary numbers are multiples of the square-root of [–1], denoted by the letter “i.” Imaginary numbers are a mathematical device and do not (and can not) represent physical objects since no “real” number can be the square root of [–1].
[xiv] In Search of the Big Bang, John Gribbin, (Bantam Books, 1986).
[xv] Scientific American, September, 1971, Freeman Dyson.
[xvi] Astrophysics Journal Supplement, Vol. I (1954), Fred Hoyle. See also Galaxies, Nuclei and Quasars, (Harper & Row, 1964).
[xvii] Other Worlds, Paul Davies, (Simon & Schuster, 1980).
[xviii] A Brief History of Time, Stephen Hawking, (Bantam Books, 1988).
[xix] The Creator and the Cosmos, Hugh Ross, (NavPress, 1993).