Recently a YEC biblical creationist friend wrote me with a proposal in relation to a biblical creationist discussion group’s consideration about how the big bang cosmology proposed by Abbott Georges Lemaître might be applicable to creationist cosmology.
Some of us have been looking at the cosmology of G. Lemaître. His model starts with a cold big bang which almost instantly produces all the elements via the breakdown of a vast ‘polyneutron.’ This model seems especially interesting because:
1. we are short on viable cosmological models;
2. it is historically the first big bang model;
3. it was developed by a Christian, possibly inspired by the Holy Spirit;
4. the model is very unique and out of the box;
5. it was nearly buried for about half a century, and is now “re-surfacing”;
6. it allows a near-instant creation of all the elements, and at all the right ratios;
7. it has been considered a viable model by Nobel Laureates, Harvard Professors, etc.
8. it predicted that cosmic rays would be high speed atomic nuclei.
9. it predicted cosmic expansion would be accelerating.
Regarding the last point, a quote from Wikipedia: “In 1931, Lemaitre was the first scientist to propose the expansion of the universe was actually accelerating which was confirmed observationally in the 1990s through observations of very distant Type IA supernova with the Hubble Space Telescope.”
7 Reasons to reject Lemaître
I see you are interested in and discussing Lemaître’s cosmology. I assume you are interested in it from the point of view of adapting it to a YEC creation scenario. But I would caution you to consider the following.
Abstract: In creationist cosmologies do we expect to find a systematic trend of decreased metallicity in stars as a function of redshift? Some may claim such a systematic decrease is a ‘lay down misere’1 in favour of the standard big bang model. Here I show that that is not the case, and when the assumptions are changed so does the outcome. Therefore such a claim does not automatically rule out creationist cosmologies with no such redshift dependence. First published in Journal of Creation 29(1):3-5, April 2015. (This article is TECHNICAL.)
In astronomy, metallicity applies to all elements other than hydrogen and helium. The term ‘metal’ in astronomy describes all elements heavier than helium.2,3 A systematic trend of weighted mean metallicity as a function of look-back time in the Universe is sometimes shown in support of the standard big bang model.4 Though stated some find that this trend is not always so well supported by the observational data.5
Does this rule out certain creationist cosmologies? Take for example, Lisle’s Anisotropic Synchrony Convention (ASC) model,6 which essentially describes all galaxies with the same youthful age of about 6000 years but includes the notion of a mature creation. According to Lisle no ages of any structures in the universe should be greater than 6000 years, therefore based on evolutionary assumptions, if some object appears older due to so-called maturity, i.e. a fully formed galaxy, then that is in-built maturity that was from the creation.7
Astrophysicists have measured the temperature of the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) radiation and its small variations (anisotropies) but also they have found it is partially polarized. They make the claim that,1
The largest contribution to the polarization was imprinted during the epoch of recombination, when local quadrupole intensity fluctuations, incident on free electrons, created linear polarization via Thomson scattering.2 [emphasis added]
This is a key element in the alleged evolution of the big bang universe. The big bang supposedly produced a super-hot plasma of electrons, protons, and photons, and this plasma was opaque. The “epoch of recombination” is assumed to have occurred about 380,000 years after the bang, when it was cool enough for electrons to combine with protons to become neutral hydrogen atoms. This made space transparent to photons, so the CMB radiation separated from matter in the big bang fireball, called ‘photon decoupling’. Once radiation decoupled from matter it travelled freely throughout the universe, no longer interacting with matter. Thus it should carry information of the physics from the early universe. This radiation, allegedly, after it cooled by about a factor of 1100, is observed at the earth as the CMB radiation.
‘Dark matter’ is an essential ingredient to form stars naturally given only standard known physics. ‘Dark matter’ is a hypothetical exotic form of matter, unknown to laboratory physics, which does not interact with or emit light in any way, hence it is invisible to all forms of detection within the electromagnetic spectrum, from radio-waves to gamma radiation. ‘Dark matter’ itself, therefore, is outside of standard known physics. It is made-up stuff that has been given one special property, which is that it gravitates, that is, unlike normal matter, it is a source of gravity only.
Detection of ‘dark matter’
But has dark matter been discovered by any direct measurement? That is apart from inferring its existence due to anomalies like galaxy rotation curves where the motions of stars and gases in the arms of spiral galaxies do not follow the expected Keplarian law in line with standard Newtonian physics? No, it has not and that is after 40 years of searching in laboratory experiments. Yet it is believed to exist—a ‘god of the gaps’—and is essential, otherwise many astrophysical observations just do not agree with those expected by application of standard laws of physics. See Fig. 1 for image of dark matter.
Theoretical physicist Mordehai Milgrom has proposed an alternative to dark matter, called Modified Newtonian Dynamics (or MOND) wherein he slightly changes the law of gravitation on the very large-scale of galaxies to solve the problem of galaxy rotation curves and dynamics of galaxies on larger scales.
Is the big bang evolution story of the Universe really science? And is the big bang a valid starting point to argue that science supports the biblical narrative history from the Genesis account and elsewhere? Can we consider a big bang creation in our apologetics?
Foundations for our apologetics
In apologetics1 we are engaged in a spiritual war, which we fight on a daily basis. We win some battles, we lose some, but we know that the war will eventually be won by God. He has told us that fact. Often however our comrades in arms, i.e. other Christians, may themselves not clearly see the enemy’s tactics. That does not mean they cannot see the enemy but may be they are too close in battle to see the whole war.
Faithful are the wounds of a friend; but the kisses of an enemy are deceitful. Proverbs 27:6 (KJV)
Sometimes we must criticise what our friends have said in an effort to prevent the enemy from developing a breach in the wall of truth and eventually destroying the foundations. In this case our friends are our fellow Christians who have gotten off the track by absorbing too much of the pagan culture in which they live.
Notes of a lecture on starlight and time. Do they present an insurmountable problem for biblical creationists? The lecture was given August 1st, 2015. See Age and Reason Seminar Adelaide for details.
Here is the problem. The universe is truly vast in size, in fact, tens of billions of light-years in size. One light-year is about 10 trillion kms. It is the distance light travels in one year. By taking a literal history from Genesis chapters 5 and 11 you can calculate that the universe is only about 6000 years old. If so, how does starlight get to earth from a distance greater than 6000 light-years? Shouldn’t we only be able to see to a distance of 6000 light-years in the universe?
Is this a brick wall? Does it mean the bible must be wrong? Distances are billions of light-years. Surely that must mean light took billions of years to travel here from the distant cosmos? How do you explain that?
Ok, lets first look at some simple maths.
Distance = Speed x Time
So if you drive your car a distance of 100 kms and travel at 50 km/hr it will take you 2 hours. 10 billion light-years represents a distance in the Universe to some of the most distant galaxies like those pictured here in what is called the Hubble Ultra-Deep Field 2014.
A cosmogony of an expanding universe that avoids the big bang beginning
Rainbow gravity is an idea developed in theoretical quantum cosmology that attempts to explain the existence of this universe without a Creator or a beginning.1 Such a universe has been called a ‘rainbow’ universe because in it different wavelengths of light experience spacetime differently, and as a result, the infinitely dense singularity can be avoided, meaning that the big bang never happened.
Though not a new idea, research published in 2013 on the concept by theoretical physicist Adel Awad of the Center for Theoretical Physics at Zewail City of Science and Technology in Egypt, has again offered a solution to the difficulty that the materialists face—the beginning of time.
The Creator tells us:
Ecclesiastes 3:11 He has made every thing beautiful in His time: also He has set the world in their heart, so that no man can find out the work that God makes from the beginning to the end. (KJVER)
It would seem that God has made it extremely difficult if not impossible for man to discovery exactly how He created the Universe in the beginning. And yes, it had a beginning.
Evolution, in the cosmic sense, from the nothingness of the universe before the big bang and the alleged initial singularity, from which all energy, and hence all matter (i.e hydrogen gas), is alleged to have arisen, to the formation of our solar system, to the origin of life itself, to the evolution of man on Earth, has many fatal flaws. For that reason the title of this book (about these issues) makes use of the plural form of the expression “Achilles’ heels”.
In cosmology it is cosmic evolution that can be shown to be nothing more that cosmic mythology — a philosophical belief system. Cosmology when it tries to answer the question of the origin of the Universe itself is rendered not to be science but a philosophy, nothing more than a meta-physical belief system.
I am often asked this question: Is the Universe expanding?
Previously I have challenged the notion expansion of space or expansion of the Universe as an interpretation of cosmic redshifts. The whole notion is integrally linked with the standard big bang model for the origin and history of the Universe. Also I have written that the interpretation of cosmological redshifts, as resulting from expansion of space, is just another big bang fudge factor. Quite obviously if the Universe is not expanding then there was no big bang. Hence the expanding universe must be vigorously defended by those who hold to such beliefs.
A team of astronomers led by Joseph Hennawi of the Max Planck Institute for Astronomy, using the W.M. Keck observatory in Hawaii, have discovered the first quadruple quasar: four quasars with approximately the same redshift of about z ~ 2 and located on the sky in close proximity. The online article1 from Max Planck Institute is titled “Quasar quartet puzzles scientists” with the subtitle “Astronomers must rethink models about the development of large-scale cosmic structures.” This is a discovery of the first known group of four quasars with the same redshift found in the same location on the sky. A research paper has been accepted for publication in the journal Science and a preprint is now available.2
The quartet resides in one of the most massive structures ever discovered in the distant universe, and is surrounded by a giant nebula of cool dense gas. Either the discovery is a one-in-ten-million coincidence, or cosmologists need to rethink their models of quasar evolution and the formation of the most massive cosmic structures.1