THE

CREATORANDTHE

COSMOS

HOWTHEGREATESTSCIENTIFICDISCOVERIESOFTHECENTURYREVEALGOD

HUGHROSS,Ph.D.

©1993,1995,2001byReasonsToBelieveAllrightsreserved.Nopartof thispublicationmaybereproducedinanyformwithoutwrittenpermissionfromNavPress,P.O.Box35001,ColoradoSprings,CO80935.www.navpress.com

LibraryofCongressCatalogCardNumber:92-64094ISBN1-57683-288-0

Photograph:©StockImagery

Unlessotherwiseidentified,allScripturequotationsinthispublicationaretakenfromtheHOLYBIBLE:NEWINTERNATIONALVERSION®(NIV®).Copyright© 1973, 1978, 1984 by International Bible Society. Used by permission ofZondervan PublishingHouse.All rights reserved.Another version used is theKingJamesVersion(KJV).

Ross,Hugh(HughNorman),1945–Thecreatorandthecosmos:howthegreatestscientificdiscoveries

ofthecenturyrevealGod/HughRoss.p.cm.

Originallypublished:ColoradoSprings,Colo.:NavPress,c1993.Includesbibliographicalreferencesandindex.ISBN1-57683-288-0(pbk.)1.Creation.2.Anthropicprinciple.3.God—Proof,Cosmological.I.Title.BS651.R762001231.7'652—dc212001030509

CONTENTSListofFiguresandTablesPrefacetotheThirdEditionAcknowledgmentsChapterOneChapterTwoChapterThreeChapterFourChapterFiveChapterSixChapterSevenChapterEightChapterNineChapterTenChapterElevenChapterTwelveChapterThirteenChapterFourteenChapterFifteenChapterSixteenChapterSeventeenChapterEighteenChapterNineteenAppendixSummaryofScientificEvidencesforaBigBangCreationEvent

LISTOFFIGURESANDTABLES

Figures4.1TheCosmicBackgroundExplorer(COBE)Satellite4.2COBE’sFirstMeasurementsof theSpectrumof theCosmicBackgroundRadiationattheNorthGalacticPoleoftheHeavens4.3MicrowaveMapof theWholeSkyMade fromOneYearofData Taken by COBE’s Differential Microwave Radiameters(DMR)4.4 The Latest COBE Satellite Results of the Spectrum of theCosmicBackgroundRadiation4.5APhotoAlbumHistoryoftheUniverse5.1TheSkyOverMt.Erebus?5.2SimpleGeometry5.3JustAsPredicted6.1ThePrincipleofInvariance6.2Hubble’sOriginalVelocity-DistanceRelation6.3EinsteinandHubble7.1BigBangGrowthVersusSteadyStateGrowth7.2 Images from the Hubble Space Telescope of New-BornQuasars8.1TheInfinitelyOscillatingUniverseModel8.2ThermodynamicDissipationWithinanOscillatingUniverse9.1BinaryPulsar9.2 The First Image of a Complete Einstein Ring at OpticalWavelengths10.1God’sTimeFrameRelativetoOurTimeFrame12.1QuantumTunneling17.1AnAnalogyforSomeoftheStepsNeededintheAssemblyofLifeMolecules

Tables5.1LatestMeasurementsoftheCosmicExpansionRate5.2LatestMeasurementsoftheOldestPopulationIIStars5.3ExoticMatterCandidates8.1MechanicalEfficienciesofSomeCommonSystems

10.1 Some Bible Verses Teaching God’s Extra-DimensionalCapacities14.1EvidencefortheFine-TuningoftheUniverse16.1 Evidence for the Fine-Tuning of the Galaxy-Sun-Earth-MoonSystemforLifeSupport16.2AnEstimateof theProbability forAttaining theNecessaryParametersforLifeSupport

PREFACETOTHETHIRDEDITION

ThefirstandsecondeditionsofTheCreatorandtheCosmosfocusedattentionon twentieth-century scientific discoveries that contributedmost profoundly tothecredibilityoffaithintheGodoftheBible.Sincethedawnofthetwenty-firstcentury,severalmorescientificdiscoveriesofgreattheologicalimportancehavebeenmade.Therefore,Ihaverewrittenmuchofthebook,givingitatwenty-firstcenturyfacelift.This third edition includes more than seventy pages of new content. Three

newchaptersandanappendixhavebeenadded.Thenumberofreferencestothescientificliteraturehasnearlydoubled.Thiseditionhasbenefitedsignificantlyfromthecommentsandsuggestionsof

peoplewhowere compelled by their reading of the second edition to committheir lives to JesusChrist.Thanks to themand to themanyother friendswhorecommendedimprovements,readerswill,Itrust,findmuchinthisthirdeditiontofurtherinspireandstrengthentheirfaithintheawesomeCreator.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTSMywife,Kathy,deservesthemostcreditforthisbook’stimelypublication.Hersupport and encouragement during times of stress and deadlines for this andotherprojectsallowedmetopersevere.Inadditiontodoingthemajorityoftheeditingandrewriting,shespentmanyhoursdiscussingwithmethepointsofthisbookandhelpingmetocommunicatethemmoreclearly.JanetKobobel, former director of publications forReasonsToBelieve,was

alsoamajorcontributortotheeditingandrewriting.Severalofthewordpicturesused to clarify technical points are hers. She also kept us coordinated andhandledcommunicationswiththepublisher,artists,andothers.I benefited greatly from discussions with Drs. David and Lynn Carta, Sam

Conner, and Allan Sandage. And all of them provided me with importantresearch papers and references. Mal Scharer spent many hours in variouslibrarieshuntingdownadditionalreferences.Sheila Cherney obtained all of the photographs and permissions. Patty

Bradburyprovidedextracareformysons,JoelandDavid,enablingKathyandmetoworkasateam.ThankstoTaniTrostandSandraFrantzfortheirtirelessworkinproofreadingthetextandinupdatingtheindexes.Lastly,IwanttothankLaurenLibbyandDr.JerryWhiteofTheNavigators

and Melissa Munro, Greg Clouse, and Pat Miller of NavPress for theirenthusiasmandsupportofthisthirdedition.

CHAPTERONE

THEAWE-INSPIRINGNIGHTSKY

WhenIwaseight,Istartedsavingtobuyatelescope.Ittookseveralyears,butfinally Ipulled togetherenoughcoins topurchase theoptics.Withmyfather’shelp,Idesignedandbuiltamountand,at last,peeredthroughthe telescopetotheheavensabove.I was stunned. I had never seen anything so beautiful, so awesome. The

spectaclewastoogoodnottoshare.Icarriedmyinstrumentfromthebackyardto the front so I could invitemy neighbors to joinme.But no invitationwasnecessary. No sooner had I planted my telescope on the sidewalk than anenthusiasticcrowdformed,acrowdthatstayedlateintothenight.ThateveningIbegantorealizemanypeople,maybeallpeople,arefascinated

withthestarryhosts.Ioncethoughtthatthesheerimmensityoftheheavenswasresponsible for that fascination.That’spart of it, but there’smore.There’s themystery of what’s really out there, what those specks of light may be, themysteryofhowtheyallgotthereandofwhatliesaboveandbeyond.Gazingatthenightskyseemstoraiseprofoundquestionsnotonlyabouttheuniversebutalsoaboutourselves.

TheUniverseandYouCosmology is the study of the universe as a whole—its structure, origin, anddevelopment.It’snotasubjectjustforivorytoweracademics.Cosmologyisforeveryone.Inthewordsofhistorian,economist,andcollegepresidentDr.GeorgeRoche,

“Itreallydoesmatter,andmatterverymuch,howwethinkaboutthecosmos.”{1}Roche’s point is that our concept of the universe shapes our worldview, ourphilosophyoflife,andthusourdailydecisionsandactions.Forexample, if theuniverse isnotcreatedor is in somemanneraccidental,

then ithasnoobjectivemeaning,andconsequently, life, includinghuman life,hasnomeaning.Amechanicalchainofeventsdetermineseverything.Moralityand religion may be temporarily useful but are ultimately irrelevant. TheUniverse(capitalU)isultimatereality.Ontheotherhand,iftheuniverseiscreated,thentheremustberealitybeyond

the confines of the universe. The Creator is that ultimate reality and wieldsauthority over all else. The Creator is the source of life and establishes itsmeaning and purpose. The Creator’s personality defines personality. TheCreator’scharacterdefinesmorality.Thus, to study the origin anddevelopment of the universe is, in a sense, to

investigate thebasisforanymeaningandpurposeto life.Cosmologyhasdeeptheologicalandphilosophicalramifications.Unfortunately,manyresearchersrefusetoacknowledgethisconnection.Inthe

name of objectivity, they gather and examine data through a special pair ofglasses, the “God-is-not-necessary-to-explain-anything” glasses. It’s tough forthemtoadmitthatsuchlensesrepresenttheirtheologicalposition,theirpersonalfaith. I’ve also met researchers who read the universe through the “God-is-whoever-or-whatever-I-choose”glasses.Thoughnoone isperfectlyobjective,someresearchersarewilling togather

andintegratethedatatoseewhichtheoryoforiginsismostconsistentwiththefacts—whateverthattheorymaysayaboutthenecessityandcharacteristicsofanOriginator.

CosmologicalChauvinismBecause cosmology probes such weighty and personal matters, it has evokedpossessivenessandcompetition.This isperhapsmoreevident today thanever.Three groups vie for supreme authority on the subject: scientists, theologians,andphilosophers.The chauvinism of scientists is exemplified by a pep talk I heard in my

undergraduatedaysattheUniversityofBritishColumbia.“Notonlycanagoodphysicist do physics better than anyone else,” said the professor, “he can doanythingbetterthananyoneelse.”Heexpressedthebeliefthatsciencetrainingisessentialforgrapplingwiththechallengesofmodernlife.Inagraduatecourseon relativity,myprofessor lamented theologians’ pastmeddling in cosmology.“Today,”heboasted,“wehavebeenable toscaremostof theministersoutofcosmologywithastraightforwardapplicationoftensorcalculus.”{2}At ameeting of philosophers, I heard a distinguished speaker commiserate

withhispeersoverscientists’bunglingintrusionintocosmology.“Eventhebestphysicists,”hesaid,“arelousyphilosophers.”At a theology colloquium, I heard from the podium that theologians alone

havetherighttointerpretallsciencesincetheyaretrainedinthemotherofthesciences,theology.Thespeakerendedonadramaticnote:“Scientistshaveonlyobservations.Wehaverevelation!”Cosmologicalchauvinismisnotsimplyamanifestationofacademicpride.It

reflectsdecadesofincreasingspecializationineducation.Universitieslongagodropped theology from their science curriculum. Few, if any, seminaries drawstudents with a background in science. Philosophy students may touch upontheology and science, but usually not in depth. Theology and philosophystudentsmaystudythehistoryoftheirdisciplines,sciencestudentsrarelydo.The inevitable fruits of such specialization are polarization, conflict, and

misunderstanding, not to mention neglect of the ordinary people whose taxdollarssupportmuchoftheresearchincosmology.Irealizethatspecializationisnecessary to push forward the frontiers of knowledge, but imagine howmuchmoreefficientlyandeffectivelywecouldlearnaboutrealityifweweretotakeaninterdisciplinaryapproach,givingadequateattentiontohistoricalcontext.If specialists will stop intimidating each other and lay people and start

dialoguing in understandable terms, anyone who wants to can explore andintegratethefactsaboutouruniverse.Thenweall,novicesincluded,canenrichour understanding of the meaning and purpose for the universe, for life, forhumanity,andforeveryperson.

CHAPTERTWO

MYSKEPTICALINQUIRY

Myownthinkingaboutthemeaningoflifebeganwithmywondermentaboutthe cosmos. I was born shortly afterWorldWar II inMontreal, Canada.Myfatherwasaself-taughtengineer,andmymotheranurse.Beforeandduringmyearlyyearsmyfatherfoundedandbuiltupasuccessfulhydraulicsengineeringbusiness.The company’s rapid financial growth proved too great a temptationforDad’s financialpartner,whoonedaywithdrewall the fundsandvanished.Withhislastfewdollars,mydadbroughtmymother,mytwosisters,andmetoVancouver,BritishColumbia.Theneighborhood inwhichwesettledwaspoorbutculturallydiverse.OurneighborsweremostlyrefugeesfromeasternEuropeandAsia—peoplewho, likemyparents,had tastedsuccessbuteither lost itorleftitforsurvival’ssake.

AreStarsHot?Myparentssaytheycouldseeinmeanintensecuriosityaboutnaturefromthetime I started to talk. I recall one starlit evening when I was seven, walkingalong thesidewalkwithmyparentsandasking them if thestarsarehot.Theyassuredmethattheyareveryhot.WhenIaskedthemwhy,theysuggestedIgotothelibrary.TheyknewIwould.Myelementaryschoollibrarywaswellstockedwithbooksonastronomy.AsI

read,Iwasamazedtodiscoverjusthowhotthestarsareandwhatmakesthemburnsobrightly.Ifoundoutthatourgalaxycontainsahundredbillionsunsandthatouruniverseholdsmorethanahundredbilliongalaxies.Iwasastonishedbytheimmensityofitall.IwascompelledtofindouteverythingIcouldaboutit.InmyeighthyearIreadeverybookonphysicsandastronomyIcouldfindin

ourschoollibrary.ThenextyearIbegantodothesameinthechildren’ssectionoftheVancouverPublicLibrary.Bythat timeIknewIwantedtobeanastronomer.Manyofmyfriendsalso

were reading incessantly and choosing career directions. We didn’t think ofourselvesasprecocious.Thenonstoprainfall inVancouverencouragedalotofindooractivityandprovidedplentyoftimetothink.AtagetenIhadexhaustedthescienceresourcesof thechildren’sandyouth

sections of theVancouver Public Library andwas granted a pass to the adult

section.AfewyearslaterIwasgivenaccesstothelibraryoftheUniversityofBritishColumbia.BythetimeIwassixteen,Iwaspresentingpubliclecturesonastronomy and at seventeen won the British Columbia Science Fair for myprojectonvariablestars.AlsoatseventeenIbecamethedirectorofobservationsfor the Vancouver branch of the Royal Astronomical Society of Canada (anorganizationofprimarilyamateurastronomers).IfeltgladtohavefoundsoearlyinlifeapursuitIloved.

WhoDidAllThis?Evenasachild Ialways felta senseofaweconcerningnature. Itsbeautyandharmony, combinedwith its staggering complexity, leftmewonderingwho orwhatcouldberesponsibleforitall.Byage fifteen, I came tounderstand that some formof thebigbang theory

providedtheonlyreasonableexplanationfortheuniverse.Iftheuniversearoseoutofabigbang, itmusthavehadabeginning. If ithadabeginning, itmusthaveaBeginner.Fromthatpointon,IneverdoubtedGod’sexistence.But,liketheastronomers

whose books I read, I presumed that the Beginner was distant andnoncommunicative.Surely,Ireasoned,aGodwhobuiltauniverseofmorethanten-billion-trillion stars would not concern Himself with events on aninsignificantspeckofdustwecallEarth.

RulingOutHolyBooksMyhigh school history studies botheredmebecause they showedme that thepeoples of theworld typically take their religions seriously.Knowing that theEuropeanphilosophersof theEnlightenment largelydiscounted religion, I firstlookedforinsightfromtheirworks.WhatIdiscovered,however,werecirculararguments, inconsistencies, contradictions, and evasions. I began to appreciatenatureallthemore,foritneverpresentedmewithsuchtwists.Justtobefairandnottobuildacaseonsecond-handresources,Idetermined

toinvestigateformyselftheholybooksoftheworld’smajorreligions.IfiguredifGod, theCreator,was speaking throughanyof thesebooks (I presumedHewasnot),thenthecommunicationwouldbenoticeablydistinctfromwhathumanbeingswrite.Ireasonedthatifhumansinventedareligion,theirmessagewouldcontain errors and inconsistencies, but if the Creator communicated, Hismessagewould reflectHis supernature. Itwouldbe consistent likenature is. Ichosehistoryandscienceasgoodwaystotesttherevelationsonwhichvariousreligionsarebased.InthefirstseveralholybooksIexamined,myinitialhunchwasconfirmed.I

foundstatementsclearlyatoddswithestablishedhistoryandscience(see“The

ReincarnationConnection”subheadinchapter8,foranexample).Ialsonotedawritingstyleperhapsbestdescribedasesoteric,mysterious,andvague.Mygreatfrustrationwashavingtoreadsomuchinthesebookstofindsomethingstatedspecifically enough to be tested. The sophistry and the incongruity withestablishedfactsseemedoppositetotheCreator’scharacterassuggestedtomebynature.

AWordfromGod?IwasgettingalittlesmuguntilIpickedupaBibleIhadreceived(butnotread)from the Gideons at my public school. The book’s distinctives struck meimmediately.Itwassimple,direct,andspecific.Iwasamazedwiththequantityofhistoricalandscientificreferencesandwiththedetailinthem.It took me a whole evening just to investigate the first chapter. Instead of

anotherbizarrecreationmyth,herewasajournal-likerecordoftheearth’sinitialconditions—correctly described from the standpoint of astrophysics andgeophysics—followedbyasummaryofthesequenceofchangesthroughwhichEarth came to be inhabited by living things and ultimately by humans. Theaccountwassimple,elegant,andscientificallyaccurate.FromwhatIunderstoodtobethestatedviewpointofanobserveronEarth’ssurface,boththeorderandthe description of creation events perfectly matched the established record ofnature.Iwasamazed.ThatnightIcommittedmyselftospendatleastanhouradaygoingthrough

theBible to test the accuracy of all its statements on science, geography, andhistory. I expected this study to take about four weeks. Instead, there was somuchtocheckittookmeeighteenmonths.At theendof theeighteenmonths, Ihad toadmit tomyself that Ihadbeen

unsuccessfulinfindingasingleprovableerrororcontradiction.Thisisnottosaythat therewerenotanypassages in theBibleIdidnotunderstandorproblemsthat I could not resolve.The problems andpassages I couldn’t yet understanddidn’tdiscourageme,however,forIfacedthesamekindsofthingsintherecordofnature.But,justaswiththerecordofnature,Iwasimpressedwithhowmuchcouldbeunderstoodandresolved.I was now convinced that the Bible was supernaturally accurate and thus

supernaturally inspired. Its perfection could come only from the CreatorHimself.Ialsorecognizedthat theBiblestoodaloneinrevealingGodandHisdealings with humans from a perspective that demanded more than just thedimensionswemortals canexperience (length,width,height, and time).Sincehumans cannot visualize phenomena in dimensions they cannot experience,findingtheseideasintheBiblealsoarguedforasuperhumanauthor.

As a final exercise, I mathematically determined that the Bible was morereliable by far than some of the laws of physics. For example, I knew fromstudyingphysicsthereisroughlyaonein1080(that’sthenumberonewitheightyzeros following) chance of a sudden reversal in the second law ofthermodynamics. But I had calculated (with the help of skeptical friends) theprobabilityofthechancefulfillmentofthirteenBiblepredictionsaboutspecificpeopleandtheirspecificactions.Myconservativeestimateshowedlessthanonechance in 10138 that such predictions could come true without supernaturalintervention.{3} That meant the Bible was 1058 times more reliable than thesecondlawofthermodynamicsonjustthisonesetofpredictions.IalsoderivedasimilarconclusionbasedonthemanyinstancesinwhichtheBibleaccuratelyforecastedfuturescientificdiscoveries.{4}Acknowledging thatmy lifedependedmomentbymomenton thereliability

ofthesecondlawofthermodynamics,IsawthatmyonlyrationaloptionwastotrustintheBible’sInspirertoatleastthesamedegreeasIreliedonthelawsofphysics.Irealized,too,whataself-sufficientyoungmanIhadbeen.Afteralongevening of studying the salvation passages in the New Testament, I humbledmyselfbeforeGod,askingHimtoforgivemeofmyself-exaltationandall theoffensesresultingfromit,andcommittedmyselftofollowHisdirectivesformylife.At1:06inthemorningIsignedmynameonthebackpageofmyGideonBible,statingthatIhadreceivedChristasmyLordandSavior.{5}

NewEvidencesAll of the scientific andhistorical evidences I had collecteddeeply rootedmyconfidence in theveracityof theBibleandconvincedme that theCreatorhadindeed communicated through this holy book. I went on to become anastronomer, and my investigations into both the cosmos and the Bible haveshownmeamorewondrous,personalGodbehindnaturethanIcouldeverhaveimagined.Throughtheyears,newevidenceshaveconsistentlyariseninvariousfieldsof

science, making the case for Christianity even stronger. By 1986, severalbreakthrough discoveries uncovered proofs for the God of the Bible soconvincing that together with others I formed an organization, Reasons ToBelieve,tocommunicatethesenewevidencestoasmanypeopleaspossible.Now,severalyears later, anevenmoredramatic setof scientificdiscoveries

has come. One of them was called the greatest discovery of the twentiethcentury.Secularscientistsactuallyreportedtothemediathatthesenewfindingsreveal the faceofGodmoreclearly thanever.The followingchapters explorehow andwhy normally reserved scientists have beenmoved to speak in such

ecstaticterms.

CHAPTERTHREE

BIGBANG—THEBIBLETAUGHTITFIRST!Note:Thischapterwascomposedat thesuggestionandwith theassistanceofDr.JohnRea,professoremeritusofOldTestamentatRegentUniversity,VirginiaBeach,Virginia.

MostsciencetextbooksoncosmologycreditArnoPenziasandRobertWilsonwith thediscovery that theuniversebeganwithahotbigbangcreationevent.While they were the first (1965) to detect the radiation left over from thecreationevent,{6}theywerenotthefirstscientiststorecognizethattheuniverseis expanding from an extremely hot and compact beginning. In 1946 GeorgeGamow calculated that only a universe expanding from a near infinitely hotbeginning could account for the existing abundance of elements.{7} In 1929observationsmadebyEdwinHubbleestablished that thevelocitiesofgalaxiesresult from a general expansion of the universe.{8} Beginning in 1925 AbbéGeorgesLemaître,whowasbothanastrophysicist anda Jesuitpriest,was thefirstscientisttopromotetheideaofabigbangcreationevent.{9}Thefirsttheoreticalscientificevidenceforabigbanguniversedatesbackto

1916. That is when Albert Einstein noted that his field equations of generalrelativity predicted an expanding universe.{10} Unwilling to accept the cosmicbeginning impliedby suchexpansion,Einsteinalteredhis theory toalignwiththe common wisdom of his day. He capitulated with an eternally existinguniverse.{11}

BiblicalClaimsforaTranscendentCosmicBeginningAllthesescientists,however,wereupstagedatleast2,500yearsearlierbyJob,Moses,David, Isaiah, Jeremiah, andotherBible authors.TheBible’s prophetsand apostles stated explicitly and repeatedly the two most fundamentalpropertiesofthebigbang,atranscendentcosmicbeginningafinitetimeperiodago and a universe undergoing a general, continual expansion. In Isaiah 42:5bothpropertiesweredeclared:“ThisiswhattheLordsays—Hewhocreatedtheheavensandstretchedthemout.”TheHebrewverbtranslated“created”inIsaiah42:5isbara’whichhasasits

primarydefinition “bringing into existence somethingnew, something that didnotexistbefore.”{12}Theproclamation thatGodcreated (bara’) theentiretyof

the heavens is stated seven times in theOldTestament (Genesis 1:1, 2:3, 2:4;Psalm148:5;Isaiah40:26,42:5,45:18).Thisprincipleoftranscendentcreationis made more explicit by passages like Hebrews 11:3 which states that theuniversethatwehumanscanmeasureanddetectwasmadefromthatwhichwecannotmeasureordetect.Also,Isaiah45:5–22,John1:3,andColossians1:15–17 stipulate that God alone is the agent for the universe’s existence. Biblicalclaims that God predated the universe and was actively involved in causingcertain effects before the existence of the universe is not only found inColossians1butalsoinProverbs8:22–31,John17:24,Ephesians1:4,2Timothy1:9,Titus1:2,and1Peter1:20.

BiblicalClaimsforContinualCosmicStretchingThecharacteristicof theuniverse statedmore frequently than anyother in theBible is its being “stretched out.” Five different Bible authors pen such astatement in eleven different verses: Job 9:8, Psalm 104:2, Isaiah 40:22, 42:5,44:24, 45:12, 48:13, 51:13, Jeremiah 10:12, 51:15, and Zechariah 12:1. Job37:18appearstobeatwelfthversetomakethisstatement.However, thewordused there for “heavens” or “skies” is shehaqîmwhich refers to the clouds offine particles (of water or dust) located in Earth’s atmosphere,{13} not theshamayim, the heavens of the astronomical universe.{14} Three of the elevenverses—Job9:8, Isaiah44:24, and45:12—make thepoint thatGodalonewasresponsibleforthecosmicstretching.What is particularly interesting about the eleven verses is that different

Hebrewverbformsareused todescribe thecosmicstretching.Sevenverses—Job 9:8, Psalm 104:2, Isaiah 40:22, 42:5, 44:24, 51:13, and Zechariah 12:1—employ the Qal active participle form of the verb natah. This form literallymeans “the stretcher out of them” (the heavens) and implies continual orongoingstretching.Fourverses—Isaiah45:12,48:13,andJeremiah10:12,51:15—usetheQalperfectform.Thisformliterallymeansthat thestretchingoftheheavenswascompletedorfinishedsometimeago.ThattheBiblereallydoesclaimthatthestretchingoutoftheheavensisboth

“finished”and“ongoing”ismadeallthemoreevidentinIsaiah40:22.Therewefindtwodifferentverbsusedintwodifferentforms.Inthefirstofthefinaltwoparallelpoeticlines,“stretchesout”istheverbnatahintheQalactiveparticipleform.Inthesecond(final)linetheverb“spreadsthemout”(NASB,NIV,NKJV)ismathah(usedonlythisonetimeintheOldTestament)inthewawconsecutiveplusQalimperfectform,sothatliterallywemighttranslateit“andhehasspreadthemout.”TheparticiplesinlinesoneandthreeofIsaiah40:22characterizeoursovereignGodbyHisactionsinalltimes,sittingenthronedabovetheearthand

stretching out the heavens, constantly exercising His creative power in Hisongoingprovidentialwork.Thischaracterizationiscontinuedwithreferencetothepastbymeansofwawconsecutivewiththeimperfect, theconversiveformindicatingGod’s completed act of spreadingout theheavens.That is, this oneverse literallystates thatGodisbothcontinuing tostretchout theheavensandhasstretchedthemout.This simultaneously finished and ongoing aspect of cosmic stretching is

identical to the big bang concept of cosmic expansion. According to the bigbang,atthecreationeventallthephysics(specifically,thelaws,constants,andequations of physics) are instantly created, designed, and finished so as toguarantee an ongoing, continual expansion of the universe at exactly the rightrateswithrespecttotimesothatphysicallifewillbepossible.Thisbiblicalclaimforsimultaneouslyfinishedandongoingactsofcreation,

incidentally,isnotlimitedtojusttheuniverse’sexpansion.Thesameclaim,forexample, ismade forGod’s layingEarth’s foundations (Isaiah51:3,Zechariah12:1).This is consistentwith thegeophysical discovery that certain long-livedradiometric elementswere placed into the earth’s crust a littlemore than fourbillion years ago in just the right quantities so as to guarantee the continualbuildingofcontinents.{15}

BiblicalClaimsforCosmicCoolingFinally, theBible indirectly argues for a big bang universe by stating that thelaws of thermodynamics, gravity, and electromagnetism have universallyoperated throughout the universe since the cosmic creation event itself. Theprinciple here is that any physical system that continually expands under theoperationofthelawsofthermodynamics,gravity,andelectromagnetismmustbecoolingdown.Thatis,itmustbemuchhotterinthepastthanitisinthepresent.In Romans 8:20 we are told that the entire creation has been subjected to

“frustration” or “futility.”The next verse declares that all of creationwas andcurrently exists in a state of “slavery to decay” or “bondage to corruption.”Ecclesiastes 1 and Revelation 21 also support the conclusion that the wholeuniverse suffers fromprogressive decay.Genesis 2 and 3 teach thatwork andpain are part of the creation, both before and afterAdam’s rebellion in Eden.Such ongoing slavery to decay describes well the second law ofthermodynamics, the law of physics that states that as time proceeds, theuniversebecomesprogressivelymoredisordered,decayed,andrundown.InGenesis1andinmanyplacesthroughoutJob,Psalms,andProverbsweare

informed that stars and living organisms have existed since the early times ofcreation. As explained later in this book (see chapter 16), even the slightest

changes in either the laws of gravity, electromagnetism, or thermodynamicswouldmakethestarsthatarenecessaryforphysicallifeandphysicallifeitselfimpossible.

BigBangFundamentalsThat gravity, electromagnetism, and thermodynamics are consistentwith a bigbanguniverseshouldcomeasnosurprisetoscientists.Asexplainedinchapter5ofthisbook,stableorbitsofplanetsaroundstarsandofstarsaroundthecentersofgalaxiesarepossibleonlyinauniversedescribedbythreeverylargerapidlyexpandingdimensionsofspace.Manybigbang theoriesexist.What theyall share incommon,however,are

three fundamental characteristics: (1) a transcendent cosmic beginning thatoccurredafinitetimeago,(2)acontinuous,universalcosmicexpansion,and(3)acosmiccoolingfromanextremelyhotinitialstate.Allthreeofthefundamentalcharacteristics of thebigbangwere explicitly taught in theBible two to threethousand years before scientists discovered them through their astronomicalmeasurements.Moreover,theBiblealoneamongallthescripturesoftheworld’sreligionsexpoundsthesethreebigbangfundamentals.Scientificproofsforabigbanguniverse, therefore,candomuch toestablish theexistenceof theGodoftheBibleandtheaccuracyofthewordsoftheBible.

Beginner’sGuidetoModernBigBangCosmologyBig bang cosmology has become an explosive topic. Heated reactions—andbitter resistance—have arisen from opposite directions in the last century but,ironically,forthesametypeofreasons:religiousreasons.Onegroupofbigbangopponents includes those who understand the theory’s implications, and theother,thosewhomisunderstand.Peopleinthefirstgroupunderstandthatthebigbangdeniesthenotionofan

uncreatedorself-existentuniverse.Thebigbangtheorypointstoasupernaturalbeginning and a purposeful (hence personal), transcendent (beyond theboundariesofspace,time,matter,andenergy)Beginner.Anyonewhorejectsthereality ofGod or the knowability ofGodwould, of course, find such an idearepugnant, an affront to his or her religious or philosophical worldview.Similarly,itwouldoffendanyonewhowantstospelluniversewithacapitalU,whohas been trained to view the universe itself as ultimate reality and as thetotalityofallthatisreal.Again,areligiousresponse.Peopleinthesecondgrouphatethebigbangbecausetheymistakenlythinkit

argues for rather thanagainst a godless theory of origins.They associate “bigbang”withblindchance.Theyseeitasarandom,chaotic,uncausedexplosionwhenitactuallyrepresentsexactlytheopposite.Theyrejectthedateitgivesfor

thebeginningoftheuniverse,thinkingthattoacknowledgeafewbillionyearsisto discredit the authority of their holy books,whether theKoran, theBookofMormon,or theBible.Understandably, thesepeopleeitherpredict the theory’sultimate overthrow or choose to live with a contradiction at the core of theirbeliefsystem.Despiteoppositionfromoutspokenenemies,thefundamentalsofthebigbang

model,which isactuallyaclusterofslightlydifferingmodels,standsecure. Infact,themodelstandsmorefirmlythaneverwiththeaidofitsmostpotentandimportant allies: the facts of nature and the technological marvels that bringthemtolight,aswellasthemenandwomenwhopursueandreportthosefacts.Thefollowingchaptersofferasummaryoftheaccumulateddatasupportingthebigbang.

AProblematicTermThebigbang isNOTabig“bang”asmost laypeoplewouldcomprehend theterm.Thisexpressionconjuresupimagesofbombblastsorexplodingdynamite.Such a “bang” would yield disorder and destruction. In truth, this “bang”represents an immenselypowerfulyet carefullyplannedandcontrolled releaseof matter, energy, space, and time within the strict confines of very carefullyfine-tuned physical constants and laws that govern their behavior andinteractions.Thepowerandcarethisexplosionrevealsexceedshumanpotentialfordesignbymultipleordersofmagnitude.Why, then,would astronomers retain the term?The simplest answer is that

nicknames,forbetterorforworse,tendtostick.Inthiscasethetermcamenotfrom proponents of the theory but rather, as one might guess, from a hostileopponent.BritishastronomerSirFredHoylecoinedtheexpressioninthe1950sas an attempt to ridicule the big bang, the up-and-coming challenger to his“steadystate”hypothesis.Heobjectedtoanytheorythatwouldplacetheorigin,or Cause, of the universe outside the universe itself, hence, to his thinking,outsidetherealmofscientificinquiry.{16}For whatever reasons, perhaps because of its simplicity and its catchy

alliteration, the termstuck.Noone foundamorememorable, short-hand labelfor the “precisely controlled cosmic expansion from an infinitely or nearinfinitelycompact,hotcosmic ‘seed,’brought intoexistencebyaCreatorwholivesbeyondthecosmos.”Theaccuratebutunwieldygavewaytothewieldybutmisleading.

AMultiplicityofModelsThefirstattemptstodescribethebigbanguniverse,asmanyasadozen,provedsolidinthebroadsimplestrokesbutweakinthecomplexdetails.So,theyhave

been replaced by more refined models. Scientists are used to this process ofproposing and refining theoretical models. News reporters—even textbookwriters—sometimesmisunderstand,though,andinadvertentlymisrepresentwhatishappening.Reportsoftheoverthrowofthe“standardbigbangmodel”illustratethepoint.

That model, developed in the 1960s, identified matter as the one factordeterminingtherateatwhichtheuniverseexpandsfromitsstartingpoint.Italsoassumedthatallmatterintheuniverseisordinarymatter,thekindthatinteractsinfamiliarwayswithgravityandradiation.Subsequentdiscoveriesshowedthatthesituationismuchmorecomplex.Matterisjustoneofthedeterminersoftheexpansionrate,andanextraordinarykindofmatter(called“exotic”matter)notonly exists butmore strongly influences the development of the universe thandoesordinarymatter.The reported demise of the “standard big bang” model was interpreted by

some readers as the endof the big bang.On the contrary, the discoveries thatcontradictedthestandardmodelgaverisetoamorerobustmodel,actuallyasetofmodelsattemptingtoanswernewquestions.Morethanonce,asoneofthesemodelshasbeenreplacedwithamorerefinedvariant,newsarticlesheraldedtheoverthrowof the bigbang theorywhen they shouldhave specifieda big bangmodel.Currently,cosmologists(thosewhostudytheoriginandcharacteristicsofthe

universe)are investigatingat least threeor fourdozennewervariationson thebigbang theme.Scientists expect stillmore to arise as technological advancesmakenewdataaccessible.Thisproliferationofslightlyvariantbigbangmodelsactuallyspeaksofthevitalityandviabilityofthetheory.Itmakes sense that the firstmodelsproposedwere simpleand sketchy.The

observationsat that time,whileadequate tosupport thefundamentalprinciplesofthebigbang,wereinsufficienttoexploreandaccountforthedetails.Astheevidences have become more numerous and more precise, astronomers havediscovered additional details and subtleties, features previously beyond theircapabilitytodiscern.Newdetails,ofcourse,meanmoreaccurate“reconstructions”ofwhatactually

occurred“inthebeginning.”Eachgenerationofnewer,moredetailedbigbangmodelspermitsresearcherstomakemoreaccuratepredictionsofwhatshouldbediscoveredwiththehelpofnewinstrumentsandtechniques.Aseachwaveofpredictionsprovestrue,researchersgainmorecertaintythat

theyareontherighttrack,andtheygainnewmaterialwithwhichtoconstructmoreaccurateandmore intricatemodels.The testingof thesemodels, in turn,gives rise to a new level of certainty and a newgenerationof predictions and

advances. This process has been ongoing for many decades now, and itssuccesses are documented not only in the technical journals but in newspaperheadlinesworldwide.Let’stakealook.

CHAPTERFOUR

THEDISCOVERYOFTHETWENTIETHCENTURY

OnApril24,1992,newspapersaroundtheworldheraldedabreakthroughbyanAmericanresearchteam.Thediscoverymadethefront-pageheadlinesofTheLondonTimesforfiveconsecutivedays.AmericanTVnetworksgavethestoryasmuchasfortyminutesofprime-timenewscoverage.

ReactionsbyScientistsWhatwas all the fuss about?A teamof astrophysicists had reported the latestfindings from the Cosmic Background Explorer (COBE) satellite—stunningconfirmationofthehotbigbangcreationevent.Scientists extolled the event with superlatives. Carlos Frenk, of Britain’s

DurhamUniversity,exclaimed,“[It’s]themostexcitingthingthat’shappenedinmy life as a cosmologist.”{17} Cambridge University’s Lucasian professor ofmathematics, Stephen Hawking, known for understatement, said, “It is thediscovery of the century, if not of all time.”{18}MichaelTurner, astrophysicistwith the University of Chicago and Fermilab, termed the discovery“unbelievablyimportant.…Thesignificanceofthiscannotbeoverstated.TheyhavefoundtheHolyGrailofcosmology.”{19}Turner’s metaphor echoed a familiar theme. George Smoot, University of

California at Berkeley astronomer and project leader for the COBE satellite,declared,“Whatwehavefoundisevidenceforthebirthoftheuniverse.”{20}Headded,“It’slikelookingatGod.”{21}Theistic pronouncements abounded.According to science historian Frederic

B.Burnham,thecommunityofscientistswaspreparedtoconsidertheideathatGodcreatedtheuniverse“amorerespectablehypothesistodaythanatanytimein the last hundred years.”{22} Ted Koppel on ABC’s “Nightline” began hisinterview of an astronomer and a physicist by quoting the first two verses ofGenesis. The physicist immediately added verse three as also germane to thediscovery.Astronomers who do not draw theistic or deistic conclusions are becoming

rare, and even the few dissenters hint that the tide is against them. GeoffreyBurbidge,oftheUniversityofCaliforniaatSanDiego,complainsthathisfellow

astronomers are rushing off to join “the First Church of Christ of the BigBang.”{23}

ProofsoftheBigBangAll this excitement was generated because findings from the COBE satellitehelped solve a haunting mystery of the big bang model for the origin anddevelopment of the universe, thus confirming that model (actually a set ofmodels)andrefiningit.Basically thehot bigbangmodel says that the entire physical universe—all

thematter andenergy, andeven the fourdimensionsof spaceand time—burstforthfromastateofinfinite,ornearinfinite,density,temperature,andpressure.Theuniverseexpandedfromavolumeverymuchsmallerthantheperiodattheendofthissentence,anditcontinuestoexpand.BeforeApril1992,astrophysicistsknewagreatdealabouthowtheuniverse

began.Onlyonesmallbut importantcomponentwasmissing.Itwasasif theyknewhowthemachinewasassembledandhowitworkedexceptforonepart.Theyknewwhatthatpartshouldlooklike,andtheyknewapproximatelywhereto lookfor it.TheCOBEsatellite (seefigure4.1)wasdesignedspecifically tofindthismissingpart—namely, theexplanationforhowgalaxiesformoutofabigbang.Actually, the entire machine itself and many of its basic components were

predicted by physicists working in the early part of the twentieth century.RichardTolmanin1922recognizedthatsincetheuniverseisexpanding,itmustbe cooling off from an exceptionally high initial temperature.{24} The laws ofthermodynamicssaythatanyexpandingsystemmustbecoolingsimultaneously.GeorgeGamowin1946discoveredthatonlyarapidcoolingofthecosmosfromnear infinitely high temperatures could account for how protons and neutronsfused together, forming a universe that today is about 72% hydrogen, 25%helium,and3%heavierelements.{25}

TheCosmicOvenAstronomers knew, based on the deductions by Tolman and Gamow, that theuniverse’sbeginningandsubsequentdevelopmentresembledahotkitchenoven.When the door of the oven is opened, heat that was trapped inside escapes.Dissipationoftheoven’sheattakesplaceastheheatexpandsoutwardfromtheoven. Radiant energy that was confined to a few cubic feet now spreadsthroughoutthekitchen’sseveralhundredcubicfeet.Asitdoes,theovencavityeventuallycoolsdowntothetemperatureoftheroom,whichisnowjustalittlewarmerthanitwasbefore.If one knows the peak temperature of the oven cavity, the volume of that

cavity, and the volume of the room throughout which the oven’s heat isdissipated,thentheamountbywhichtheroomwillwarmupcanbedetermined.

Figure4.1:TheCosmicBackgroundExplorer(COBE)Satellite—CourtesyofJetPropulsionLaboratory,NASA.

Ifonewereusingtheopeningoftheovendoortodryoutsomewettowels,itwouldbeimportanttocontrolthetemperatureoftheovenaswellastherateatwhich theovendisperses itsheat to theroom.If theovenwere toohot,or thedispersiontooslow,thetowelswouldscorch.But,iftheovenweretoocool,ortheheatdissipationtoorapid(saytheroomwastoolargeorthetowelstoofaraway),thetowelswouldstaywet.Similarly,iftheuniverseweretoexpandtooslowly,toomanyofthenucleons

(protonsandneutrons)wouldfusetogethertoformheavierelements.Thiswouldresultintoofewofthelighterelementsessentialforlifechemistry.Ontheotherhand, if the expansionweremore rapid, toomanyof thenucleonswould fuseinto lighter elements. This would result in too few of the heavier elementsessentialforlifechemistry.Followingthisovenanalogy,Gamow’sresearchteamin1948calculatedwhat

temperature conditions would be necessary to yield the currently observedabundancesofelements.Theyconcludedthatafaintglowmeasuringonlyabout5°Centigradeaboveabsolutezero(that’s-273°Centigradeor-460°Fahrenheit)shouldbefoundeverywherethroughouttheuniverse.{26}Atthetime,suchalowtemperaturewashopelesslybeyondthecapabilitiesof

telescopes and detectors to measure. But by 1964 Arno Penzias and Robert

Wilson put together an instrument that successfully measured at radiowavelengthsthecosmicbackgroundradiation(i.e.,heat)tobeatatemperatureabout3°Celsiusaboveabsolutezero.{27}Sincethatinitialdiscovery,thecosmicbackgroundradiationhasbeenmeasuredtomuchgreateraccuracyandatmanymorewavelengths.{28} But atmost of thewavelengths the cosmic backgroundradiation remained blocked out by the earth’s atmosphere and, therefore, wasbeyond detection. Only a telescope operating in outer space could see wellenough.

FirstCOBEDiscoveryThe first COBE results, reported in January 1990,{29} showed the universe tomatchaperfectradiator,dissipatingvirtuallyallitsavailableenergy(seefigure4.2).Thedatashowedthebackgroundradiationtemperaturetobeverylowandsmooth.Noirregularitiesinthetemperaturelargerthanonepartin10,000weredetected.This extraordinarily low and smooth temperature in the cosmic background

radiationconvincedastronomers that theuniversemusthavehadanextremelyhotbeginningabout15to20billionyearsago.Thefindingessentiallyruledoutmany alternativemodels for the universe’s beginning such as the steady statemodel(seechapter7).Howwerescientistsable toconcludefromtheseCOBEfindingsahotandrelativelyrecentbeginningfortheuniverse?Forsomeclues,let’sreturntoouranalogyofthekitchenoven.

Figure 4.2: COBE’s First Measurements of the Spectrum of the CosmicBackgroundRadiationattheNorthGalacticPoleoftheHeavensThemeasuredtemperaturefor thebackgroundradiationwas2.735°Centigradeaboveabsolutezero.DeviationsbetweenCOBE’sresultsandthespectrumforaperfectradiator(curve)measuredlessthan1%overtheentirerangeofobservedfrequencies.

—CourtesyofJohnMather,Goddard,NASA.

Suppose the oven were surrounded by thousands of thermometers, eachplacedatexactlythesamedistancefromtheoven.Supposealsothatsometimeafter the oven had been heated, turned off, and its door opened, eachthermometer indicated exactly the same temperature. The only possibleconclusionwecoulddrawwouldbethatheatflowfromtheovencavitytotheroomtotallydominatedthenormaltemperature-disturbingairflowsintheroom.Such dominancewould imply that the original temperature of the oven cavitymusthavebeenverymuchgreaterthantheroom’stemperature.Inaddition,ifallthose thousands of thermometers indicated a very low temperature,wewouldconcludethatconsiderabletimehadpassedsincetheopeningoftheovendoor.

TheFantasticExplosion

The temperaturemeasurements fromCOBEprovide convincing evidence of ahot origin for the cosmos some billions of years in the past. Astronomersnormallyrefertothishotbeginningasthebigbangforaverygoodreason.Thecoolanduniformtemperatureofthecosmicbackgroundradiationandits

close fit to the spectrumof a perfect radiator establishes that the universe hassufferedanenormousdegradationofenergy,typicalofalargeexplosion.Energydegradation is measured by a quantity called entropy. Entropy describes thedegree towhichenergy inaclosedsystemdisperses,or radiates (asheat),andthusceasestobeavailabletoperformwork.Specificentropyisthemeasureforaparticularsystemoftheamountofentropyperproton.A burning candle is a good example of a highly entropic system, one that

efficiently radiates energy away. It has a specific entropy of about two. Onlyveryhotexplosionshavemuchhigherspecificentropies.Thespecificentropyofthe universe—about one billion—is enormous beyond all comparison. Evensupernovaexplosions,themostentropic(andradiant)ofeventsnowoccurringintheuniverse,havespecificentropiesahundredtimesless.Only a hot bigbang could account for such a huge specific entropy for the

universe.(Letmebequicktoaddforthosebotheredtolearnthattheuniverseisso“inefficient”amachine,thatonlyauniversewithahugespecificentropycanproducetheobservedabundancesofelements,thatis,theelementsnecessaryforlife.{30}Itcanalsobeshownthatifthespecificentropywereanygreateroranyless, stars and planetswould never have existed at any time in the universe’shistory.{31})

SecondCOBEDiscoveryThe smoothness of the cosmic background radiation helped confirm a hot bigbangbeginningfortheuniverse.Butitposedapotentialproblemforastageofdevelopment that scientists estimated would occur roughly a half billion to abillion years after the creation event. Astronomers knew that the backgroundradiationcouldnotbeperfectlysmooth.Atleastsomelevelofnon-uniformityinthecosmicbackgroundradiationwouldbenecessarytoexplaintheformationofstar clusters, galaxies, andclustersofgalaxies.Thewhole rangeof reasonabletheories for how galaxies can come together required temperature fluctuationsroughlytentimessmallerthanwhatCOBEhadthecapabilitytodetectin1990.Fortunately, the results announcedonApril 24, 1992,were between ten and ahundredtimesmoreprecisethanthemeasurementsfrom1990.These newly refined COBE measurements showed irregularities in the

background radiation as large as about one part in 100,000,{32} just whatastrophysiciststhoughttheywouldfind.{33}Thatmissingpieceofthemachinery

was located exactly where they suspected it might be. What’s more, themeasurementssolvedsomeintriguingmysteriesaboutthepieceitself—whatit’smadeofandhowitworks.Theycouldnarrowthegalaxyformationtheoriestothosethatincludebothordinarymatterandanamazingcomponentcalledexoticmatter.Moreonthisinchapter5,“Twenty-firstCenturyDiscoveries.”

ConfirmationsTobecompleteImustreportthatthesedramaticCOBEresults(seefigure4.3)did meet with some initial challenges from a few astronomers, includingGeoffrey Burbidge.{34} But their skepticism seemed unwarranted to otherastronomers since the temperature irregularities showed up at three differentwavelengthsofobservation.Withinafewmonths,corroborativeevidencebegantoaccumulate.Aballoon-

borneexperiment,makingmeasurementsatfourdifferentwavelengthsthatwereshorter than the three measured by COBE, showed temperature fluctuationsliningupperfectlywiththoseintheCOBEmaps.EdwardCheng,leaderoftheexperiment, concluded, “With two totally different systems, it’s very unlikelythatrandomnoisewouldgiverise to thesamelumpsat thesameplaces in thesky.”{35}Twelvemonths later, two radiometers operating inTenerife, Spain, detected

actual structure in the cosmic background radiation. Whereas the COBE andballoonmeasurementsweresensitiveenoughtoestablishthatfluctuationsinthecosmicbackgroundradiationdidindeedexist,theycouldnotdelineatewithanyaccuracy the location and size of individual features. This delineation wasachieved through fully independent radiometers operating at three differentwavelengths, longer thanthewavelengthsobservedbyCOBEandtheballoon-borne instruments.The angular scale (size of the angle in the sky overwhichmeasurements were made) was 5.5°. Fluctuation structures as large as tendegreesacrosswerefound,and theamplitudeof thesestructures iscompletelyconsistentwiththeearlierstatisticaldetectionsbyCOBEandtheballoon-borneexperiment.{36}A few weeks after the release of the Tenerife results, cosmic background

radiation fluctuations on angular scales of about 1° were detected. ThesemeasurementsalsoareconsistentwiththedetectionsbyCOBEandtheballoon-borneexperiment.{37}Sincethen,overadozendifferentsetsofnewobservationshaveconfirmedthe

cosmicbackgroundradiationfluctuations.{38} Infact, thelatestobservationsareof such high quality that they are shedding light as well on other creationparameters, such as the values of the cosmic mass density, the cosmological

constant,andthequantitiesofvariousformsofexoticmatter(seethefollowingtwochapters).Independentconfirmationcomesfromavarietyofrecentdetectionsofexotic

matter (see “Twenty-first Century Discoveries” subhead in chapter 5). Theimportantpointtorememberisthatgalaxyformationnolongercastsashadowofdoubtonthebigbangscenario.

Figure4.3:MicrowaveMapoftheWholeSkyMadefromOneYearofDataTakenbyCOBE’sDifferentialMicrowaveRadiometers(DMR)TheMilkyWaygalaxylieshorizontalacrossthemiddleofthemap.DatafromallthreeDMRwavelengthswereusedtomodelandremoveemissionfromourgalaxy. This map revealed for the first time temperature fluctuations in thecosmicbackgroundradiation.Theamplitudesof the fluctuationsareconsistentwithexplaining thebirthandgrowthofgalaxiesusing largeamountsofexoticmatter.

—PhotocourtesyofJetPropulsionLaboratory,NASA.

ThirdCOBEDiscoveryDeviations between the 1990 COBE results and the spectrum for a perfectradiatormeasured less than 1% over the entire range of observed frequencies(seefigure4.2).DatareleasedfromtheCOBEresearchteam(seefigure4.4)atan American Astronomical Society meeting in January 1993 reduced thedeviationtolessthan0.03%.Thenewdataalsoyieldsthemostprecisemeasureto date of the temperature of the cosmic background radiation, 2.726°Kelvin(that is 2.726° Centigrade above absolute zero), ameasure that is accurate towithin 0.01°K{39} and completely consistent with newer independentmeasurements.{40}

Figure 4.4: The Latest COBE Satellite Results of the Spectrum of theCosmicBackgroundRadiationDeviations between COBE’s measurements and the spectrum for a perfectradiator (curve) are less than 0.03% over the entire range of observedfrequencies. This is the strongest direct evidence to date for a hot big bangcreationevent.

—CourtesyofJohnMather,Goddard,NASA.

Thesenewresultsdomorethanjustprovethattheuniversebeganwithahotbigbang.Theytelluswhichkindofhotbigbang.The1990resultsleftroomforthepossibilitythatthebigbangcouldhavebeenatightlyspacedsuccessionof“little”bangs.Thenewresultsruleoutthatpossibility.Theuniversemusthaveeruptedfromasingleexplosiveeventthatbyitselfaccountsforatleast99.97%oftheradiantenergyintheuniverse.Withasingleexplosivecreationeventaccountingforsomuchoftheradiation

intheuniverse,astronomerscanconcludethatthetemperaturefluctuationsinthecosmicbackgroundradiation,notdisturbancesarisingfromsmallerevents,musthave transformed the smooth primordial cosmos into today’s universe ofclumpedclustersofgalaxies.

WatchingtheUniverseCoolDownAstronomersnowhaveopticaltelescopessolargetheycandirectlywitnesstheuniverse getting colder and colder as it gets older andolder.That is, they can

demonstratethroughdirectobservationsthattheuniversewashotterinthepastthan it is in the present. By comparing the actual past temperatures of theuniverse with the temperatures predicted by a hot big bang creation event,astronomerscanofferasimpleanddramaticproofforcosmiccreation.Let me clarify that the temperature 2.726°K for the cosmic background

radiationisfornearbyregionsofspace.Becauseradiationfromgreatdistancestakesmuchlongertoreachus,temperaturesatsuchdistancesrevealtheheatofthecosmosatearliertimes.Ifthehotbigbangmodeliscorrect,observationsatgreat distances should yield significantly higher temperatures for the cosmicbackgroundradiation.Forthisreason,astronomersformanyyearshavedesiredtomeasurethecosmicbackgroundradiationatgreatdistances.In September 1994 that desire was fulfilled. The newly opened Keck

Telescope, the world’s largest optical instrument, enabled astronomers tomeasurespectrallinesofcarbonintwogascloudssodistantthattheirradiationrepresents an epoch when the universe was about one-fourth its present age.They were able to select lines that would provide a sensitive measure of thetemperatureofthecosmicbackgroundradiation.Accordingtothehotbigbangmodel, thebackground radiation for theuniverseat thisearlyepochshouldbe7.58°K.TheKeckTelescopeobservationsindicated7.4±0.8°K.{41}InthewordsofDavidMeyer,NorthwesternUniversityastrophysicist,thesemeasurementsare“strikinglyconsistentwiththeBigBangtheory.”{42}InDecember1996thesameteamofastronomersmadeasecondmeasurement

using the identical technique on a more distant gas cloud.{43} The measuredtemperature was just slightly above 8°K. The hot big bang model predicts atemperatureof8.105°K.Recently,adifferentteammeasuredagascloudwhosedistanceshowsus theuniverseataboutone-sixth itspresentage.Thedetectedbackgroundradiationtemperatureofjustunder10°Kmatchedthatpredictedbythehotbigbang.{44}Onceagain,all themeasurementsarestrikinglyconsistentwithabigbangcreationevent.

ABigBangPictureAlbumThesimplest-to-graspevidenceinsupportofthebigbangcomesfrompictures.Withthehelpofvariousimagingdevices,onecanactuallyenjoyakindoftime-lapse photo of the big bang. The images show the universe in its various“growing up” stages, much as a time-lapse camera captures the opening of aflower,orasaphotoalbumdocumentsthedevelopmentofapersonfrombirthonward.Suchanalbumismadepossiblebylight(orradiation)traveltime.Observing

adistantgalaxy,forexample,some5billionlight-yearsdistantisequivalentto

seeing that galaxy 5 billion years ago,when the light now entering an Earth-basedtelescopebeganitsjourneythroughspace.Inonesense,astronomerscanonlycaptureglimpsesofthepast,notofthepresent,astheypeeroutintospace.Thanks to theKeck andHubbleSpaceTelescopes, astronomersnowhave a

photohistoryoftheuniversethatcoversnearly14billionyears.Itbeginswhenthe universewas only about half a billion years old and follows it to “middleage,” where it yet remains. The sequence of images in figure 4.5 presentshighlights from this cosmicphoto album.Photo (A) shows theuniverse at theequivalent of infancy, before galaxies exist. The images in (B) depict the“toddler”stage,whennewly-formedgalaxiesaresotightlypackedastoripthespiral arms off one another; the youthful universe, a time when most of thegalaxiesarestillactivelygeneratingnewstarsandgalaxycollisionsarefrequent;andtheuniverse’sentrancetomiddleage,atimewhennearlyallgalaxieshaveceasedformingnewstarsandgalaxycollisionsarerare(C).Figure 4.3 deserves special attention. It captures that moment in cosmic

history when light first separated from darkness, before any stars or galaxiesexisted.Itshowsustheuniverseatjust300,000yearsofage,only0.002%ofitscurrentage.Theseimagestestifythattheuniverseisanythingbutstatic.Itexpandedfrom

a tinyvolumeandchangedaccording toapredictablepatternas itgrew,abigbangpattern.Apictureisstillworthathousandwords,perhapsmore.{45}

—CourtesyofR.Windhorst(ArizonaStateUniversity)andNASA(topleftpanel);STScI/NASA(toprightpanel);andSTScI/NASA(bottompanel)

Figure4.5:APhotoAlbumHistoryoftheUniverse(A)Theeighteendimclumpsofstarsshownaboveareintheprocessofcoming

togethertoformaproto-galaxy.Thelook-backtimeisabout12billionyears.(B)TheseHubbleSpaceTelescopeimagesshowellipticalandspiralgalaxiesat

stages roughly equivalent to infancy, childhood, youth, andmiddle age (itscurrentdevelopmentalstage).

(C)As the two galaxies of theAntennae collide, they ripmaterial away fromeach other. Such collisionswere common in the past but are less commonnowthattheuniverseismorespreadout.

TEN-DIMENSIONALCREATION

Throughoutthe1980sandearly1990stheoreticalphysicistsrecognizedthattheresimplywasnotenoughroomwithinthedimensionsoflength,width,

height, and time for all the symmetries demanded by both gravity andquantummechanics.In1996ateamledbyAndrewStromingerdiscoveredthat only in ten space-time dimensions (nine space and one time) couldgravityandquantummechanicssuccessfullycoexistatallepochsofcosmichistory.Thistheoreticalcalculationwassubsequentlysupportedbyseveralobservationalconfirmations.The picture of creation that arises out of this new result proceeds as

follows:1.Atthecreationeventtenspace-timedimensionsinstantlyand transcendently appear. They reside within aninfinitesimalvolume.2.Allninespacedimensionsrapidlyexpand.3. At 10-43 seconds (a ten millionth of a trillionth of atrillionthofatrillionthofasecond)afterthecreationevent,sixoftheninespacedimensionsceaseexpanding.4. Thereafter, the space dimensions of length, width, andheightcontinuetorapidlyexpand.

Presently, the six tiny space dimensions are very tightly wrapped uparound the three large spacedimensions.Except for the interiorsofblackholes,thetinyspacedimensionstodayplaynoroleinthedynamicsoftheuniverse.Formoredetailsonthediscoverythatcreationisten-ratherthanfour-dimensionalandthesignificanceofthisdiscoveryforestablishingtheChristianfaith,seemybook,BeyondtheCosmos.{46}

StabilityofStarsandOrbitsProvesBigBangPerhapsthemostconcretebigbangevidenceisthatstableorbitsandstablestarsare possible only in a big bang universe. Physical life would be impossibleunlessplanetsorbitwithstability,starsburnwithstability,andstarsorbitgalaxycoreswithstability.{47}Such stability demands gravity, not just any force of gravity, but gravity

operating according to the inverse square law. Gravity operating at that leveldemands three large rapidly expanding dimensions of space—the big banguniverse.Intwodimensionsofspace,gravitywouldobeyadifferentlaw(objectswith

mass would attract one another in proportion to the inverse of the distanceseparatingthem).Infourspacedimensions,gravitywouldobeyadifferentlaw(massive bodies would attract one another in proportion to the inverse of thecubeofthedistanceseparatingthem).Suchdistinctlawsguarantee,forexample,thatplanetseitherwouldbeejectedawayfromtheirstarsorgobbledupbythem.

Stability under the influence of gravity, in turn, demands that the threedynamic space dimensions be large (significantly unwound from their originaltightcurl).{48}Otherwisegalaxieswouldbesoclosetogetherastowreakhavocon stellar orbits, and stars would be so close together as to wreak havoc onplanets’orbits.Whengalaxiesaretooclosetogether,galaxycollisionsandcloseencounters catastrophically disturb stars’ orbits. Likewise, when stars are tooclosetogether,theirmutualgravitationaltugscatastrophicallydisturbtheorbitsoftheirplanets.Thethreedimensionsofspacemustbeexpandingataparticularrate,aswell.

A universe that expands too slowlywill produce only neutron stars and blackholes.Auniversethatexpandstoorapidlywillproducenostarsatallandthusnoplanetsand,ofcourse,nostableorbits.The simple fact is this: humans do observe that galaxies, stars, and planets

exist, and that they existwith adequate stability to allowhumans to exist andobservethem.Thisfact,initself,arguesforthebigbang.Infact,itarguesforaspecificsubsetofbigbangmodels.

MountingEvidencesThesetwentieth-centuryevidencesforabigbangcreationeventareimpressiveenoughby themselves.Thedawnof the twenty-first centurybringsevenmorespectacular evidences to an already overwhelming vindication of the Bible’sdoctrineofcosmiccreation.Suchevidencesarethesubjectofthenextchapter.

CHAPTERFIVE

TWENTY-FIRSTCENTURYDISCOVERIES

The journal Science gave “the discovery of the cosmological constant” the“breakthrough of the year” award for 1998.{49} It turns out the announcementwaspremature.NotuntilAprilof2000diditbecomeclearthatsuchaconstantmustexist.Thatthecosmologicalconstantqualifiesasthebreakthroughoftheyear,ifnot

thedecadeorthecentury,arisesfromitsimplicationthatthebigbangisthemostexquisitelydesignedentityknown toman. In thewordsofphysicistLawrenceKrauss, a self-described atheist, the cosmological constant “would involve themostextremefine-tuningproblemknowninphysics.”{50}

WhatIstheCosmologicalConstant?When Albert Einstein first proposed his theory of general relativity heimmediately noted that it predicted that the universe was expanding from abeginning, from an infinitesimal volume. This flatly contradicted the reigningcosmologicalmodelofhisday.Thatmodelproposedaninfinitelyolduniverseheldinastaticstatethroughoutinfinitetime.Therewereseveralphilosophicalbiasesexpressedinthisinfinitelyold,static

universe.OnewastogivethemechanismsofnaturalevolutionidealchemistryforinfinitetimesothatGodneednotbeinvokedtoexplainlife.{51}Tosavethestaticuniversemodel,Einsteinintroducedadhocintohisgeneral

relativityequationsacosmologicalconstanttoperfectlycancelofftheeffectsofgravity everywhere in the universe.{52} When astronomers proved that theuniverse indeed was and is expanding from a cosmic beginning, Einsteinrejected his proposed cosmological constant calling it “the greatest blunder ofhisscientificcareer.”{53}Now, more than 60 years later astronomers have resurrected Einstein’s

constant from oblivion. However, the value they are attaching to it is verydifferentandtheirrationaleforitlikewiseverydifferent.What exactly is this cosmological constant? It is best described as a self-

stretchingpropertyofthespace-timefabricoftheuniverse.Theconstantwouldimply that space, independent ofmatter and independent of any heat or light,stretches itself. Moreover, the larger the space-time envelope of the universe

grows, themore stretching energy that it gains. It is this gaining of stretchingenergythatcausessomesciencewriterstorefertothecosmologicalconstantasananti-gravityfactor.Theeffectofthecosmologicalconstantonthespace-timeenvelope of the universe is to make two massive bodies appear to repel oneanother.Moreover, the fartherapart twobodiesare fromoneanother themorestrongly they will appear to repel one another. It is this outcome of thecosmological constant that prompted Stephen Hawking to joke that thecosmologicalconstantisrepulsiveinbothsensesoftheword.In contrast, gravity acts as a brake on cosmic expansion. In junior high

physicsclasseswealllearnedthat,accordingtothelawofgravity,twomassivebodies attract one another and that the closer two massive bodies are to oneanotherthemorestronglytheywillattract.Sincetheuniversecontainsalotofmass,gravityworkstopullthemassivebodiestogetherandtherebyslowsdowncosmicexpansion.Whentheuniverseisyoungand,therefore,morecompact,gravity’seffecton

cosmicdynamicswouldbepowerfulwhileacosmologicalconstant’swouldbeweak. However, when the universe is old and, therefore, more spread out, acosmologicalconstant’seffectwouldbestrongwhilegravity’swouldbeweak.Thus,ifgravityaloneinfluencescosmicdynamics,astronomerswillobservethatthroughout cosmic history the expansion of the universe slows down. Theslowing down effect will be seen to get progressivelyweaker as the universeages.However,ifbothgravityandapositivecosmologicalconstantareoperable,astronomers will see cosmic expansion transition from slowing down tospeedingup.

TheDiscoveryThe yardstick of choice for measuring cosmic expansion throughout the pasthistoryoftheuniversearetypeIasupernovae(see“TypeIaSupernovae”laterinthischapter).TypeIasupernovaeareverybrightand thuscanbeseenatgreatdistances that correspond to when the universe was billions of years youngerthanitisnow.All type Ia supernovae have the identical brightness. So, astronomers, by

comparing the light they actually see from different type Ia supernovae, candeterminehow far awayeach type Ia supernova is fromus.The spectral linesastronomersmeasureinthelightfromaparticularsupernovatellthemhowfastthatsupernovaismovingawayfromus(see“RedshiftVelocities”sectionlaterinthis chapter). Thus, with measurements on dozens of type Ia supernovae ofwidely differing brightnesses astronomers can determine the universe’sexpansion rate over a broad range of look-back times. (The look-back time is

howmuchtimeittakeslighttotravelfromthesupernovatous.)TheresultsfromasupernovaresearchteamledbyAdamRiess{54}prompted

the1998breakthroughoftheyearaward.However,noattemptwasmadeintheiranalysis to take into account the clumpy character of the universe (theobservationthatmatterintheuniverseisclumpedintogalaxies,stars,anddarkmatter of various forms). As noted by cosmologists six decades ago, anydeparture from a perfectly uniform universe (smooth matter distribution) willresultinaslightlyfasterexpansionrate.{55}Therefore,beforeonecanclaimthediscoveryofacosmologicalconstant,onemustseparatethefasterexpansionduetocosmicclumpingfromthatduetoacosmologicalconstant.A second team of thirty-one astronomers cooperating inwhat is called The

SupernovaCosmologyProjectpublishedresultsintheJune1,1999issueoftheAstrophysicalJournal.{56}Withforty-two typeIasupernovae in theirdatabanktheywere able to consider the effect of small-scale clumping ofmatter. Theydemonstrated that for all realistic models of cosmic clumping a cosmologicalconstantmust exist. Also, the uncertainties in theirmeasurements weremuchlessthanthatofthepreviousattempt.GiventhattypeIasupernovaearereliabledistance indicators, there was no little basis for doubting the existence of acosmologicalconstant.ApossiblehitchinthereliabilityoftypeIasupernovaeasdistanceindicators

was raised just days after the second team published their paper. Threeastronomers from theUniversity ofCalifornia, Berkeley and one fromMountStromloObservatoryinAustralianotedthatfortennearbytypeIaeruptionsthetimeittookfortheexplosionstoreachtheirpeakbrightnesswasabouttwodayslongerthanfortypeIasupernovaatmuchgreaterdistances.{57}Duringthenexteight months similar concerns and concerns about the effects of intergalacticdustandotherenvironmentaldifferencesfordistantsupernovaewereraisedbyfiveotherresearchteams.{58}Bymid2000,however,theseconcernswerelargelyallayedbyastronomersatLawrenceBerkeleyNationalLaboratoryandtheSpaceTelescope Science Institute, who demonstrated that the small discrepanciesbetweendistantandnearbytypeIasupernovaemadenosignificantdifferenceinthereliabilityoftypeIasupernovaeasdistanceindicators.{59}What the type Ia supernovaobservationsdemonstrated is that theuniverse’s

rateofexpansionwasslowingdownforthefirst8or9billionyearsofitshistoryand speeding up for the last 6 or 7 billion years. The latest datawere preciseenough to yield, as well, the best measurements to date on the age of theuniverse(14.5or14.9billionyearsdependingonthemethodofcalculation){60}and the cosmic mass density (0.28 of what would be necessary to halt theexpansionoftheuniverse).{61}

Remarkably, in the same issue of the Astrophysical Journal in which TheSupernova Cosmology Project’s paper appeared were other papers whichindependentlyconfirmedbothoftheSCPgroup’smeasurementsontheageandmassdensityoftheuniverse.{62}Threeadditionalpapers in recent issuesof theAstronomicalandAstrophysicaljournalsgivethemostaccuratemeasurementstodateontheagesoftheoldeststarsinourgalaxy,inthesupergiantgalaxyM87,and in the Fornax dwarf galaxy. These ages are all at slightly more than 13billionyears.{63}Assuch, they resolve thewidelypublicizedproblemwhen, in1995, certain measurements of cosmic expansion rates appeared to make theuniverseaboutabillionyearsyoungerthantheoldeststars.{64}A Canadian team of astronomers lead by Richard Richer has recently

produced evidence that the population ofwhite dwarf stars in the halo of ourgalaxyismuchlarger thanwhathadpreviouslybeenpresumed.{65}Thiswouldimply that the universe cannot be younger than 14.5 billion years.{66} This, inturn,meansthatacosmologicalconstantapproximatingthevaluedeterminedbyTheSupernovaCosmologyProjectmustexist.

TYPEIASUPERNOVAE

Asupernovaisthecatastrophicexplosionthatoccursattheendpointofstellarburningforverymassivestars.Atthebrightestpartofitsexplosionasupernovawilloutshineagalaxyofahundredbillionstars.Themoremassive theexploding star, thebrighter theexplosion.Astarwill

notbecomeasupernovaunlessitsmassattheendofitsburningcycleexceeds1.4solarmasses.AtypeIasupernovaisaburntoutstar(calledawhitedwarf)whosemasslies

just below the 1.4 solar mass limit that gains mass by accretion from acompanion star (its gravity is strong enough to tear mass away from itscompanion).Whenthemassofthewhitedwarfreachesthe1.4solarmasslimitit becomes a supernova. Because all type Ia supernovae have the samemass,theyallmanifest thesamepeakbrightness.Therefore, theyaregoodindicatorsofdistance.

REDSHIFTVELOCITIES

The lines thatastronomerssee inastar’sspectrumindicate thewavelengthsatwhich certain elements and compounds in the star are either emitting orabsorbinglight.Ifthestarismovingtowardus,thewavecrestsbecomebunchedtogetherandthusappeartousatshorterwavelengths.Ifthestarismovingawayfromus, thewavecrestsbecomestretchedout and thusappear tousat longerwavelengths. By measuring the amount by which a star’s spectral lines are

shifted toward longer (that is, redder)wavelengths, astronomers candeterminethevelocityatwhichthatstarismovingawayfromus.

—CourtesyofTheBoomerangCollaboration

Figure5.1:TheSkyOverMt.Erebus?Ifa35-mmcameracoulddetectmicrowavelight, thiswouldbetheviewfromtheBoomeranglaunchsiteinAntarctica.Theshadedsplashesshowtemperaturefluctuationsinthecosmicmicrowave

backgroundradiationfromthecosmiccreationevent(twoimagescombinedforillustration).

Flat-OutConfirmedAt anApril 25, 2000 news conference,NASAannounced the eagerly awaitedresults of the “Boomerang” experiment. Using high altitude balloons sent upfromAntarctica,where thecold,dry, thin, stableairpermits themostaccuratemeasurements,NASAresearchersgatheredsufficientdatatodeterminethattheuniverse’sgeometryisverynearlyflat.DetailsappearedintheApril27issueofNature{67} and some spectacular graphics and video clipswere featured on thewebsiteofoneof theresearchers.{68}Thebottom lineof thishighly technical,hard-to-explaindiscoveryisthis:theshortestdistanceabeamoflightcantravelbetweentwodistantgalaxiesisastraight(ornearlystraight)line,ratherthanacurved line. The universe, though four-dimensional, is flat in that the four-

dimensionalsystemlackscurvature.This discovery of a flat or nearly flat universe yielded three important

affirmations of the biblical creation account. First, it confirmed a predictionastronomersmade about the cosmic background radiation, a prediction arisingfrom the current best model for the origin of the universe, a model perfectlyalignedwithbiblicalcosmology.Second,incombinationwiththemeasurementsof themassdensityof theuniverse, itestablishedavaluefor thecosmologicalconstant. This value, in turn, established more powerfully than ever the highdegreeofdesignandfine-tuningtheuniverserequiredin itsmomentoforigin.Third, it revealed thatwe humans have the “good fortune” to exist at the onemoment in cosmic history when the universe is most completely and clearlydetectable.Shortly after theCosmicBackgroundExplorer (COBE) satellite established

the existence of temperature fluctuations in the cosmic background radiation,astrophysicists predicted a pattern for these fluctuations that a transcendentcosmic creation leading to the possibility of physical life would produce.Researchers showed that the amplitude of the temperature differences in thecosmicbackgroundradiationwouldshowupinaparticularpattern,abellcurvepattern, determined by the “slice of space” studied—and depending on thegeometryoftheuniverse.Hereisawordsketchofthedetails(seefigure5.3forclarification):A telescope with the capacity to distinguish temperature details ten “moon

diameters”apartwoulddetectlesstemperaturevariationthanwouldatelescopecapableofseeingtemperaturedetailsjustone“moondiameter”apart.But,that’sroughly where the curve should turn around. A temperature variation peak atone,two,orthreemoondiametersresolutioniswhatwewouldexpectfromahotbig bang creation event. Thus, a telescope capable of measuring details in asmallerskysegment,saya tenthofamoondiameteracross,shoulddetect lesstemperaturevariationthanwouldtheone-moon-diameterdetector.The predicted pattern is precisely what many independent research groups

haveobserved.{69} Inparticular, theBoomerangmeasurementsweremadeatsomany different angular resolutions and with such precision that the team hasbeen able to make, for the first time ever, an accurate determination of thegeometryoftheuniverse.Thisbreakthroughcausedquiteastirinthemedia.

—CourtesyofTheBoomerangCollaboration

Figure5.2:SimpleGeometryCosmological simulations predict that if the universe has a flat geometry (inwhichstandardhighschoolgeometryapplies), thegreatestdifferencesbetween“hotspots”and“coldspots”willbeobservedwhenthetelescopeis tunedto1degreeofangularresolution(bottomcenter).If,ontheotherhand,thegeometryof space is curved, the greatest temperature differenceswill appear at angularresolutionseithermuch largerorsmaller than1degree(bottomleftandright).ComparisonwiththeBoomerangimage(top)indicatesthatspaceisverynearlyflat.

WhytheExcitementOver“Flatness”?Few news reporters have been able to explain for lay readers the scientificsignificance of theBoomerang findings—only that theyare significant.Fewerstill,perhaps,arethosewhograspthetheologicalsignificance.Inanutshell,thefindingsanswerquestionsaboutwhattheuniversecontainsandhowitdevelopsover time.Theseanswers, in turn,magnify theaccuracyofbiblicalcosmologyandthenecessityofthebiblicalCreator.Research through the past decade had already yielded a relatively precise

measure of themass density of the universe. Thatmeasure took into accountbothordinarymatter(matterthatstronglyinteractswithradiation—forexample,protons, neutrons, and electrons) and exotic matter (matter that very weaklyinteracts with radiation—for example, neutrinos), and the total fell short—bysome 67 to 85%—of the mass density that would give the universe a flatgeometry.{70}TheBoomerang results showed that the total density of theuniverse—mass

densityplusanothertypeofdensitycalled“spaceenergy”density,alsoknownasthecosmologicalconstant—adduptoavaluesomewherebetween88and112%ofwhatwouldbenecessary fora flatgeometrycosmos.Anotherhighaltitudeballoon experiment performed over Texas determined a value for the spaceenergy density term between 85 and 125% of cosmic flatness.{71} From thesenumbersweknowthepossiblerangeofvariationfromperfect flatnessandweknowthatthespaceenergycomponentisabout70to80%ofthetotalcontentofthecosmos.Within three months additional confirmation was achieved. Astronomers

measured the velocities of various galaxies over a broad range of distances todetermine how much the individual velocities differed from the big bangexpansion velocity of the universe.{72} As noted by Jewish astronomers IditZehavi and Avishai Dekel, much of the relative differences in velocity onlycould be attributed to the space energy density, or the cosmological constant.Theywereabletoconclude,roughly,thatthespaceenergydensitytermisaboutfourtofivetimesgreaterthanthemassdensityterm.TheBoomerangfindingshavepropelled this investigationfar forward.They

provideameasurementsoaccurateastoremoveanyreasonabledoubtabouttheexistence of a space energy density term. They provide a measurement soaccurateastoprovidenewdetailsaboutwhatmakesupthecosmos.Itshowsusthatmostofthemassoftheuniverseis“exotic”innatureandthat,mostlikely,mostofthatexoticmatteris“cold”(madeupofparticlesthatmovemuchmoreslowlythanthespeedoflight).Thesenewdetailsgiveusaclearerpictureofthecharacteristics of our cosmic home and, at the same time, add to the body ofevidencesupportingthebiblicalcreationmodel.Establishing that the expansion of the universe is governed by two factors,

massdensityandspaceenergydensity,pointstoanastonishingdegreeoffine-tuning.Infact,forlifetobepossibleintheuniverse,thatis,toobtainthestarsand planets necessary for physical life, the value of themass densitymust befine-tuned to better than one part in 1060 and the value of the space energydensitytobetterthanonepartin10120.Again,inthewordsofLawrenceKrauss,this is “themost extreme fine-tuningproblemknown inphysics.”{73} Just howextremeisnotedinthe“ExtremeDesign”sectionbelow.

Figure5.3:JustAsPredictedThepointson thisgraph indicate the temperaturedifferencesbetween the“hotspots” and “cold spots” that dominate theBoomerang images.The line showsthecurvepredictedbythemodelforageometricallyflat,hotbigbanguniverse.Giventheclosefitbetweenthedatapointsandthepredictedcurve,themodel’saccuracyisaffirmed.

LookingAheadIfthehotbigbangcreationmodelwherecolddarkexoticmatteristhedominantformofmatter is correct,we can anticipate that ongoingmeasurementsof thetemperaturedifferences in thecosmicbackgroundradiationwill revealnot justone well-defined peak in the amplitude of those differences but several. Twoexperiments have already been scheduled. One is simply a more advancedversionoftheBoomerangstudy,anditshouldproduceresultsasearlyas2003.The other, which promises yet another breakthrough in precision, is a NASAsatellitescheduledforlaunchin2007withthefirstresultsdueasearlyas2008.

EXTREMEDESIGN

Theologically, the space energy density demonstrates that forphysicallifetobepossibleatanytimeorplaceinthehistoryoftheuniversethevalueofthemassdensityoftheuniversemustbefine-tuned to within one part in 1060, and the value of thecosmological constantmust be fine-tuned to within one part in10120.{74} To put this in perspective, the best example of humanengineeringdesignthatIamawareofisagravitywavetelescopecapableofmakingmeasurementstowithinonepartin1023.This

implies that the Creator at a minimum is ten trillion trilliontrillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion times moreintelligent, knowledgeable, creative, and powerful than wehumans.To word it another way, before this discovery the most

profounddesignevidencescientistshaduncoveredinthecosmoswasacharacteristicthathadtobefine-tunedtowithinonepartin1040.Thanks to this twenty-first centurydiscovery, the evidencethatGodcreatedanddesignedtheuniverseforthebenefitoflifeandhumanbeingsinparticularhasbecome1080timesstronger(ahundred million trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trilliontimesstronger).

Given how spectacularly research on the cosmic background radiation hasconfirmed the hot big bang creation model, not to mention all the otherconfirmations of thatmodel (seeAppendix “Summary of ScientificEvidencesforaBigBangCreationEvent”),astrophysicistseagerlyanticipatethesuccessofthese experiments. Somehints of a second amplitude peak, for example, havealreadybeenobserved.{75}Whatfuelstheirexcitementisthepossibilitythatwewillsoonbeabletomakeveryprecisedeterminationsof

•theageoftheuniverse•theuniverse’sexpansionrateatvariousepochssincecreation•themassdensityoftheuniverse•thespaceenergydensityoftheuniverse•howmuchofthevariousformsofordinaryandexoticmatterexist,and•whetherornottheuniversemanifestsa“quintessence”property.

Such an accurate and detailed picture of cosmic creation holds powerfulpotential to promote a Christian worldview amid a secularist society, mostimportantly to encourage personal faith in Jesus Christ. It may also help insettlingcreationdisputeswithintheChristiancommunity.Weneednotwaitforthese new advances, however. The information already at hand can make amightyimpact!

FacingaNewChallengeQuintessence is the term some physicists have attached to a hypothesizedphenomenon thatwould reduce, they suggest, the necessity of extreme designinherent in thecosmicdensity terms.Non-theistic astronomers’disdain for theimplicationsof thosemeasurementsbecomesevident inabstractsof theirmostrecentresearchpapers.AstronomersIditZehaviandAvishaiDekelwrite,“This

typeofuniverse…requiresadegreeoffinetuningintheinitialconditionsthatisinapparentconflictwith‘commonwisdom.’”{76}PhysicistN.Straumannsays,“Weare…confrontedwithadisturbingcosmiccoincidenceproblem.”{77}Quintessence, they hope, may offer an escape—or will it? If quintessence

represents a variation over time in the term describing the pressure of theuniversedividedbythetermdescribingitsdensity,andifonecarefullychoosesthe initial value of this pressure-to-density ratio, and if one sets its rate ofvariation toaspecificvalue, thenperhapsasignificantamountof theapparentdesigninthecosmicdensitytermscouldberemoved.Todatenoevidenceforquintessenceexists.However,weknowtheuniverse

containsexoticmatter.Iftherightkindofexoticmassparticlesexist,andiftheyexistinthejustrightabundancewiththejustrightdistribution,thenthedesiredquintessencewouldbecomepossible.At this point most readers will have figured out that this appeal to

quintessence is simply a design trade-off. Design eliminated from the cosmicdensitytermswouldbereplaced,atleastinpart,bynewdesigninthepressure-to-densityratioorinthekind,amount,anddistributionofexoticmassparticles.As one group of astronomers has pointed out, the discovery of quintessencecouldactuallyconfrontnon-theistswithevenmoreevidence fordesign than itwouldeliminate.{78}Human limitations will always hinder our assessment of cosmic design.

Researcherswilleitherunderestimateoroverestimatethetruelevelofdesigninany given characteristic. Sometimes they will see it where it is not manifest;sometimestheywilloverlookitwhereit is.However,themorewelearnaboutthe universe, themore indications of designwe discover (see chapters 14 “A‘JustRight’Universe,”and16“Earth:ThePlaceforLife”).Themorewelearnabouttheuniverse,themoreaccurateourestimatesofthelevelofdesigninitscharacteristics.ThestrengthofthecasefortheGodoftheBiblecanbejudgedbythedirectionofthetrendline.Throughtheyears,aswelearnmoreandmoreabout the universe, the longer—not shorter—grows the list of features thatreflectfine-tuningandthemoreexquisitethatfine-tuningappears.

APreciseMomentinTimeInarecentAstrophysicalJournalarticle,LawrenceKraussandGlennStarkmantogether lament thefutureofastronomy.{79}Why thedespair?Thevalueof thespaceenergydensity tellsus that fromnowon theuniversewill expand fasterandfaster.Thisacceleratingexpansionimpliesthatmoreandmoreobjectsintheuniverse will eventually disappear from our view. Distant objects currentlyobservablewillbemovingawayfromusatvelocitiesexceedingthevelocityof

light.Thus,theywillbebeyondthetheoreticallimitsofanyexistingorpossibletelescopes.Astronomerswill have less and less of the universe to look at andenjoy.ContemplationofthisfactgivesChristiansasenseofwonder,notdespair.It

showsthatGodcreatedhumanityattheprecisemomentinhistoryandenabledus todevelop thenecessarystandardof livingand technologywhenwewouldhave the optimal view of the extent and splendor of His creation. If we hadarrivedearlierincosmichistory,wewouldseelesssincetheageoftheuniverselimitsboththedistanceouttowhichwecanseeandthenumbersandkindsofobjectsthatwouldhaveformedintheuniverse.Ifwehadarrivedlater,wewouldseelessbecauseoftheacceleratingexpansionoftheuniverse.Nowisthebestpossibletimetobeanastronomer.Now“theheavensdeclare

[more loudly than ever] the glory of God.” (We also are at the best possiblelocation. See chapter 14.) We have hope, not despair. God, the Creator, haswritten thatassoonasHecompletes theconquestofevil,Hewill replace thisawesomeuniversewithoneevenmoreglorious,farbeyondourcapacitytothinkorimagine.{80}

HeliumAbundanceMatchesBigBangPredictionWhilethediscoveriesofthecosmologicalconstant(spaceenergydensityterm)and a nearly flat geometry for the universe easily rank as the most dramaticcosmicdiscoveriesofthedawnofthetwenty-firstcentury,theyarebynomeanstheonlynewevidencesforabigbangcreationevent.Thebigbangtheorysaysthatmostoftheheliumintheuniverseformedverysoonafterthecreationevent.Accordingtothebigbang,theuniversewasinfinitelyornearlyinfinitelyhotatthe creation moment. As the cosmos expanded, it cooled, much like thecombustionchamberinapistonengine.By the time theuniversewasonemillisecondold ithadsettleddown intoa

sea of protons and neutrons. The only element in existence at that time wassimplehydrogen,describedbyasingleproton.Forabouttwentyseconds,whenthe universe was a little less than four minutes old, it reached the righttemperaturefornuclearfusiontooccur.Duringthattime,protonsandneutronsfusedtogethertoformelementsheavierthansimplehydrogen.Accordingtothetheory,almostexactlyone-fourthoftheuniverse’shydrogen,

bymass,was converted into helium during that twenty-second period. Exceptfortinyamountsoflithium,beryllium,boron,anddeuterium(whichishydrogenwithbothaprotonandaneutroninitsnucleus),allotherelementsthatexistintheuniversewereproducedmuch later, alongwitha littleextrahelium, in thenuclearfurnacesatthecoresofstars.

Oneof thewaysastronomerscan test thebigbang theory is tomeasure theamountofheliuminobjectsthataresofaraway(and,hence,arebeingviewedsofarbackintime)thattheypredatesignificantstellarburning.Asecondwayisto examine objects in which little stellar burning has ever occurred. That is,astronomers can find andmakemeasurements on relatively nearby objects inwhichstarformationshutdownquickly, tooquickly tocontributesignificantlytothetotalheliumabundance.In1994astronomersmeasured for the first time theabundanceofheliumin

very distant intergalactic gas clouds.{81} These measurements, confirmed byadditional measurements,{82} revealed the presence of helium in the quantitypredictedbythebigbangmodel.In the last1999 issueof theAstrophysicalJournal,a teamofAmericanand

Ukrainianastronomerspublishedyetanotherproofforthehotbigbangcreationevent.{83}The six researchersused theMultipleMirror andKeck telescopes tocheckthequantityofheliumintwoofthemostheavy-element-deficientgalaxiesknown (blue compact galaxies I Zwicky 18 and SBS 0335-052). Theydetermined that helium comprised 0.2462 ± 0.0015 of the totalmass of thosegalaxies.After subtracting the tinyamountof star-producedhelium in the twogalaxies, they derived a primordial helium abundance of 0.2452 ± 0.0015,consistentwiththefindingsindistant,ancientobjects.Thisvalueissoclosetothe big bang prediction that the team concluded it “strongly supports thestandardbigbangnucleosynthesistheory.”{84}Duringthemonthssincethatpublicationwasreleased,Canadianastronomers

have refined the data of the American-Ukrainian team.{85} Their correction(based on the elimination of data from hot-star-excited nebulae within thegalaxies) yielded a primordial helium abundance 1.5% higher and 20%moreaccuratethanthefirstsetoffigures.Thenewvalue(0.2489)issoveryclosetothetheoreticallyexpectedvalueastobeindistinguishable.{86}As an added bonus, the data that led to the calculation of the primordial

heliumabundanceyielded adeterminationof thenumberof “species”of lightneutrinos(that is, lowmassneutrinos)=3.00±0.15.{87}Thisnumbersupportsyetanothernewevidenceforthebigbangcreationeventdescribedlaterinthischapter(see“NeutrinoMass”subheadinchapter5).

DeuteriumandLithiumAbundancesWhateverquantityofdeuterium(heavyhydrogen)andlithiumexiststodaywasproducedduringthefirstfourminutesofcreation, thebigbangtheorytellsus.Notallthatdeuteriumandlithiumremains,however,forstellarburninggobblesupthoseelements,ratherthanproducingmore.

Inseekingtomeasuretheabundanceofdeuteriumandlithiumandtocomparethat amount with the amount predicted by the big bang model, astronomersfocused again on extremely distant systems, also on nearer systems in whichlittlestellarburninghasoccurred.WithsignificanthelpfromtheKecktelescopes{88}andfromthe“HubbleDeep

Field” image (a “picture” assembled from layersupon layersofHubbleSpaceTelescope exposures to the same part of the sky),{89} seven different teamsproduced measurements.{90} In their words, the deuterium and lithiumabundancesfitthebigbangpredictions“extremelywell.”{91}

DensityofProtonsandNeutronsThebigbangtheoryfailstoproducethestarsandplanetsnecessaryforlifeandtheelementsnecessaryforlifeunlessthecosmicdensityofbaryons(protonsandneutrons)takesonaspecificvalue.Thisvalueisabout4or5%ofthemaximummassdensitythatwouldstillpermittheuniversetocontinueexpandingforever,whatastronomerscall thecriticaldensity.Therefore,anobvioustestof thebigbangwouldbetoseeifthebaryondensityisclosetothis4to5%ofthecriticaldensity.Until recently, thedeterminationofprimordialhelium,deuterium,or lithium

abundanceswastheonlyreliablewaytogetameasureofthedensityofbaryonsin the universe.The best results came from the seven teamsmentioned in thetwosectionsabove.Theydeterminedthatthecosmicbaryondensityisequalto0.04to0.05ofthecriticaldensity.Duringthe lastyearastronomershavedevelopedthreenewandindependent

methods for measuring the cosmic baryon density. The most spectacular andaccurate of these three newmethods comes from theBoomerangmaps of thetemperature fluctuations in the cosmic background radiation. From the NorthAmerican test flightof theBoomerangballoon thecosmicbaryondensitywasmeasured at 0.05 of the critical density.{92} The other two methods gave anaverage value of roughly 0.03.{93} These independent confirmations of thecosmicbaryondensitydeducedfromprimordialhelium,deuterium,andlithiumabundancesgiveyetmoreevidenceforabigbangcreationevent.

CosmicExpansionVelocityMatchesBigBangPredictionAn obvious way to test the big bang is to affirm that the universe is indeedexpandingfromaninfinitesimalvolumeandtomeasuretherateofitsexpansionfromthebeginninguptothepresentmoment.Whilethistaskmayseemsimplein principle, in practice it is not. Measurements of adequate precision areenormouslydifficulttomake.Onlyinthelastfewyearshavemeasurementsasaccurate(ornearlyso)astheotherbigbangproofsbecomepossible.

Fivemethods(someindependent,someslightlydependent)formeasuringthecosmicexpansionratehavenowbeendevelopedandapplied(seetable5.1).Theaverageofthefiveyieldsarateof64kilometerspersecondpermegaparsec(amegaparsec = the distance light travels in 3.26 million years). Running theexpansionbackwardatthisrateimpliesthattheuniverseisapproximately14.6billionyearsold.The newly discovered space energy density term adds another half billion

years, suggesting that the universe is about 15.1 billion years old. This figureservesasaconfirmationofthemodelbecauseofitsconsistencywithotherageindicators,includingthecosmicbackgroundradiation,theabundanceofvariousradiometric elements,{94} and themeasured ages of the oldest stars (see Table5.1).

Table5.1:LatestMeasurementsoftheCosmicExpansionRateAstronomers have developed and refined fivemeasuring tools for determiningtherateofexpansionfortheuniverse,orwhattheycallthe“HubbleConstant.”Amegaparsec=thedistancelighttravelsin3.26millionyears.

{95}{96}{97}{98}{99}

StarPopulationsFitBigBangBig bang theory proposes that three distinct generations of stars formed atcertain intervals after the creation event.Astronomers creatively refer to thesegenerations as Population III, Population II, and Population I stars. Thenumberingsystemseemsreversed,sincePopulationIIIstarsaretheoldest,butthe latter were the last to be discovered and studied; hence, the confusingnumberingsystem.Accordingtothebigbang,PopulationIIIstarsformedwhentheuniversewas

barelyahalfbillionyearsold.Bythattime,matterhadcondensedadequatelyforstarstobegincoalescing.However,sincetheuniversehadexpandedsolittleasyet,theaveragedensityofgaseswasmuchhigherthantoday’sobserveddensity.Thus,nearlyalloftheearlieststarsweresupergiantstars.{100}Suchstarsburnup

veryquickly(astronomicallyspeaking),inlessthan10millionyears.Theyendwithcatastrophicexplosions,dispersingtheirashesthroughoutthecosmos.Given the brief burning time and early formation of such stars, big bang

theoristsconcludethatfew,ifany,PopulationIIIstarsshouldstillbeobservable.However, their remains should be. Population III stars leave a distinctivesignatureofelementsintheirscatteredashes.Thissignatureisfoundinall thedistantgascloudsoftheuniverse.Recently, there has emerged evidence that some of the rare low-mass

Population III starsmayhavebeen found.{101}Their lowmassmeans that theycanburnlongenoughforastronomerstobeabletofindthemtoday.Theyhavebeen difficult to detect, though, because they absorb the ashes of the giantPopulation IIIs, thus takingonadisguise.Recently,however, stellarphysicistshave developed tools for distinguishing Population III survivors from theyounger Population II stars that form from the ashes of Population IIIsupergiants.{102}ThebigbangtheorymakesthreemajorpredictionsaboutPopulationIIstars:

(1)thisgroupshouldbethelargestofthestarpopulations,giventhatitformedwhen galaxies were young and at their peak star-forming efficiency; (2) theyshouldbemorenumerousincertainlocations,suchasglobularclusters,whereearly star formationproceedsmost efficiently, and (3) they shouldcome inallsizes, all mass categories from low to high, not favoring one category overanother.All three predictions are borne out by astronomers’ observations overthelastfewdecades.The third generation of stars, the Population I stars (includingEarth’s sun),

formed from the scatteredashesof the largestPopulation II stars.TheseashesareeasytodistinguishfromPopulationIIIashesbecausetheyareat least50%richer inheavyelements (thoseheavier thanhelium).Thegaseousnebulae (orgasclouds)scattered throughout thespiralarmsof theMilkyWayand thegasstreams theMilkyWay galaxy steals from nearby dwarf galaxies are actually“ashheaps”ofgiantPopulationIIstars.The big bang theory says that star formation shut down for the most part

shortlyaftertheformationofPopulationIIstars.Thus,mostgalaxiesaredevoid,ornearlydevoid,ofPopulation I stars.Thebigbangalso says that in the fewgalaxies where Population I stars do form, the most intense period of starformationwas the past fewbillion years, and themost intense regions of starformationare thedensestareas,suchas thenucleiandspiralarms.(Somealsowould have formed in what astronomers call “irregular” galaxies.) All thesecharacteristicshaveprovedtrue,confirmedbyobservations.DoesthebigbangallowforPopulationIVstarstoforminthefuture?Yes,it

does.But, itpredicts that thispopulationshouldbe tinycompared to theotherthree. Everywhere astronomers look in the universe, they see signs that starformation will soon shut down totally, even in those galaxies still active informingstars.(“Soon”toanastronomerisnottomorrowornextyearbutafewbillionyears hence.)Astronomers anticipate, for example, that theMilkyWaygalaxywillexperiencea“brief”burstofstarformationwhenitpullstheLargeMagellanicCloud(itscompaniongalaxy)intoitscoreregionsome4or5billionyearsfromnow.Alreadytheuniverseisoldenoughtomakesuchincidentsrare.

OldestStarsTellTheirStorySincethebigbangtheoryindicateswhenthePopulationIIstarsformed—theerawhengalaxiesbegan to takeshape, roughly .5billion to1.5billionyearsafterthe creation event—astronomers can test the theorybydetermining the ageofthe oldest visible stars.By adding .5 to 1.5 billion years to that age, they cancompare the sum with the creation dates suggested by other independentmeasures.One difficulty of this seemingly simple test is that stars, like some people,

sometimes hide their agewell. Stars in dense clusters, however, can bemoreeasilydated thanothers,andglobularclustersappear tocomprise theoldestofthePopulationIIstars.Table5.2liststhemostaccuratedatingofglobularclusterstars in five different galaxies. It also includes the limit researchers recentlyplacedontheoldestwhitedwarfstarsinEarth’sgalaxy.

Table5.2:LatestMeasurementsoftheOldestPopulationIIStars

{103}{104}{105}{106}{107}{108}{109}{110}

Thenumbers indicate that globular clusters formedwithin a 2- to 3-billion-yeartimewindow,roughlyconsistentfromgalaxytogalaxy.IfoneaddstotheiragestheyearspriortoPopulationIIstarformation(1billion±0.5billionyears),thederivedagefitsremarkablywellallothermethodsfordetermininghowlong

theuniversehasbeenexpandingfromthecreationevent.

ExoticMatterMeasurementsAs noted already, the mass density of the universe has two components: (1)ordinary matter, that is, matter that strongly interacts with radiation—forexample,protons,neutrons, andelectrons and (2) exoticmatter, that is,matterthatveryweaklyinteractswithradiation—forexample,neutrinos.Becauseofitsstrong interaction with radiation, astronomers have a relatively easy timedetecting and measuring the amount of ordinary matter in the universe (see“Density of Protons and Neutrons” subhead in chapter 5). An exotic matterparticleliketheneutrino,however,cantravelthrough600trillionmilesofliquidwaterwithoutanyinteraction.But,allmatter,whetherordinaryorexotic,exertsa gravitational pull. Therefore, astronomersmeasure gravitational disturbancesthroughouttheuniversetodeterminethetotalamountofmatterintheuniverse.Subtracting themeasured amount of ordinarymatter from the total amount ofmatterrevealstheamountofexoticmatter.AsIdescribedinthesecondeditionofthisbook,astronomersdevelopedeight

different methods during the 1990s to measure the total amount of cosmicmatter.{111} While all of these methods produced consistent results, the mostreliable proved to be gravitational lensing, cosmic expansion rate measures,detectionofdiffusehotintergalacticgas,anddeterminationsoftheonsetofstarand galaxy formation in the history of the cosmos. From the nine bestmeasurements based on these methods astronomers have determined that thetotal amount of matter in the universe adds up to about 29% of the criticaldensity (the maximum mass density that would still permit the universe toexpandforever).{112}To this determination a new method has been added. At the June 2000

meeting of the American Astronomical Society, a large team of American,Australian, and British astronomers announced that they had successfullymeasuredtheredshifts(see“RedshiftVelocities”sectionearlierinthischapter)of106,585galaxieslocatedinatwo-degreefield(apieceoftheskyaboutfourmoondiameterswide).{113} Each redshift had two components: one due to theuniverse’s expansion and a secondmuch smaller component arising from thegalaxy’sindividualmotionthatresultsfromthegravitationaltugsitexperiencesfrom neighboring galaxies. A straightforward statistical analysis of theseindividualgalaxymotionsestablishesthetotalmassdensityoftheuniverse.Thematter density value that comes out of the team’s analysis is one-third of thecritical density.{114} This value agrees, within the measuring errors, with theprevious mass density measurements. It also agrees with an analysis of the

relativevelocitiesofgalaxypairsintheMarkIIIsurvey{115}andwiththeresultsfromdetailedsimulationsfortheformationandclusteringofgalaxies.{116}ThegoodnewsisthattheTwoDegreeFieldSurveyisjustthebeginning.By

the end of 2001 the same team will have measured 250,000 galaxies. Come2004,theSloanDigitalSkySurveywillcompleteredshiftmeasuresonamillionothergalaxies.Then, astronomerswill get theirwish—a truly accurate cosmicmassdensitymeasurement.The currently availablemass densitymeasurements, nonetheless, leave little

doubtthatmostofthematterintheuniverseisexotic.Theratioofexoticmattercompared to ordinarymatter is roughly five to one. This ratio is just what isneeded in a big bang scenario to explain the observed characteristics andpopulationsofthestarsandgalaxies.

NeutrinoMassForastronomerstheicingonthecakeoftheirexoticmassdensitymeasurementswould be to actually detect some specific exotic mass particles. For over adecade physicists have noted that probably the easiest candidate would beneutrinos. Here, detecting neutrinos is not the problem. Physicists have beendetecting themsince1956.Thechallenge is toprove thatneutrinoshavemassand,ifpossible,toaccuratelymeasurethemassoftheneutrino.Froma1997physicsconferenceinItalycamethenewsthatdifferentresearch

groupsindependentlydetectedneutrinomass.Tobemoreprecise,theyobservedneutrinososcillating,thatis,spontaneouslyswitchingfromoneflavortoanother.{117} (Neutrinos come in three different varieties or flavors, namely, electron,muon,andtau.)Oscillationmeansmass.Neutrinoscanoscillateonlyiftheyhavemass.Thecaseforneutrinomasswasmademorecompellingbecausetworadically

differenttypesofdetectorscameupwiththesameresult.Onewasa50,000-tonwatertanksurroundedby13,400photodetectors.Theotherwasathousandtonsof corrugated iron interspersed with charged particle detectors.{118} Additionalevidence came in 1998 when the group using the 50,000-ton water tankconfirmed neutrino oscillation from two sources: solar neutrinos{119} andneutrinosintheearth’satmosphere.{120}Confirmingtheresultsfromthetwodifferentoscillationexperimentsiswhat

is called the “missing solar neutrinos” problem. Solar physicists now canunderstandwhytheirneutrinodetectorshavefoundonlyathirdoftheneutrinosthat they calculate the sun’snuclear furnacemust produce.Their detectors aretunedtopickupjustoneflavorofneutrino.The“missing”neutrinosapparentlyweremissedwhentheyoscillated.Theneutrino“deficit”isnodeficitatall.

Neutrino oscillations only tell us that neutrinos have mass, not how muchmass. But, they do establish the lower limit of that mass—at least a fewbillionthsthemassofanelectron,andpotentiallytheycanrevealthedifferencesinmassamongthethreeneutrinoflavors.Severalresearchlabsareattemptingtomakedirectmeasurementsofneutrino

mass,usingsomethingcalled“neutrinolessdoublebetadecay”experiments. In1997aRussian-Germancollaborationdeterminedthattheneutrinomasscanbeno greater than 0.48 electron volts (that’s slightly less than a millionth of anelectronmass).{121}The difference between the lower and upper limits on the neutrinomass is

nearlyafactorofathousandtimes.Fortunately,anewexperimentwasdevisedin1999thatholdsthepromiseofanaccuratemeasureoftheneutrinomass.Itisabetadecayexperimentbasedontheemissionspectrumoftheelementrhenium.AnItalianresearchteamshowedthatthereisenoughdetailintherheniumbetadecayemissionspectrumtomeasuretheneutrinomass.{122}Withinayearortwoofthepublicationofthisbookareasonablyprecisedeterminationoftheneutrinomassshouldbeavailable.Even the presently available neutrino mass limits, however, have

cosmological significance. Neutrinos are copiously produced in both the bigbangcreationeventandinstellarburning.Thebigbangbyitselfgeneratesaboutten billion neutrinos for every baryon (proton or neutron) that exists in theuniverse.Thus,neutrinosadduptoatleast0.05to5%ofthecriticaldensity.The bottom line, then, is that not only have astronomers shown that exotic

matterexistsinthecosmos,theyalsohaveidentifiedaparticlethatcontributesasmall fraction of that exotic matter. And, a small fraction contribution isconsistent with the best available cosmologicalmodels. Thosemodels predictthatmostoftheexoticmattershouldbe“cold”andonlyasmallfraction“warm”or“hot.”Hotexoticmatterismadeupofparticlestravelingatvelocitiesclosetothat of light. Such particles typically havemasses far below that of a proton.Coldexoticmassparticlesareparticlesmovingatlowvelocities.Typically,theirmassesaremuchabovethatofaproton.Assuch,theyaremuchmoredifficulttodetect.Nevertheless, experiments are underwaywith the possibility of findingthem.{123}

Table5.3:ExoticMatterCandidatesThesecandidatescouldmakeuptheproportionofthemassoftheuniversethatdoes not strongly interact with radiation (note: 10-5 = .00001 and 106 =1,000,000).

TheologicalReactiontoBigBangCosmologyThoughthecaseforthebigbang,thatis,atranscendentcosmiccreationevent,restsoncompelling,somemightsayoverwhelming,evidence,thetheorystillhasits critics. Some skepticism may be attributable to the communication gapbetweenscientistsandtherestoftheworld.Someoftheevidencesaresonewthatmostpeoplehaveyettohearofthem.Someoftheevidences,includingtheolderones, are so technical that fewpeopleunderstand their significance.Theneed for better education and clearer communication remains. In fact, itmotivatesthepublicationofthisbook.Communication and education gaps explain only some of the skepticism,

however. Spiritual issues are also involved. The few astronomers who stilloppose the big bang openly object not on scientific grounds but on personal,theologicalgrounds.Inmyfirstbook,TheFingerprintofGod,Itellthestoryofastronomers’early

reactiontofindingsthataffirmedacosmicbeginning,henceBeginner.{124}Someopenly stated their view of the big bang as “philosophically repugnant.” Fordecadestheyinventedonecosmichypothesisafteranotherinafutileattempttoget around the glaring facts. When all their hypotheses failed the tests ofobservationalchecks,manyofthoseastronomersconceded,perhapsreluctantly,thecosmicprizetothebigbang.Today,onlyahandfulofastronomersstillholdoutagainstthebigbang.Their

resistance,however,isbasednotonwhatobservationsandexperimentscantestbut rather onwhat observations and experiments can never test. Though theirarticles appear in science journals, they engage in metaphysics rather than inphysics,intheology(moreaccurately,anti-theology)ratherthanscience.Thesemetaphysicalgymnasticsdisguisedassciencearethesubjectofchapters6,7,8,11, and 12. In chapters 9 and 10 I describe powerful new evidences that theCAUSE of the universe transcends matter, energy, and the ten space-time

dimensionsassociatedwithmatterandenergy.Inchapters13–17Ilookathownew scientific discoveries identify many of the personal attributes of theuniverse’sCAUSE.WewillseehowthenewsciencerevealsnotonlythatagodexistsbutexactlywhatkindofGodcreatedtheuniverse.

CHAPTERSIX

EINSTEIN’SCHALLENGE

UntilAlbertEinstein’stheoryofgeneralrelativitycamealongintheearlypartofthetwentiethcentury,scientistssawnoreasontoquestionthenotionthattheuniverse is infinite and everywhere the same. After all, the philosophical andscientificunderpinningsof thisviewhadbeenhammered intoplacebyoneofthemostinfluentialthinkersofalltime,ImmanuelKant(1724–1804).

AnInfinitePerspectiveKant reasoned thatanInfiniteBeingcouldbereflected innothing less thananinfiniteuniverse.{125}How theuniverse came tobe is immaterial and thereforeunknowable, according toKant. He concerned himself with how the universeworks. His studies convinced him that everything in the universe could beaccountedforbythelawsofmechanicsdescribedbySirIsaacNewton(1642–1726).Onthatassumption,hebuiltthefirstinaseriesofmechanisticmodelsfortheuniverse.Kant extended his reasoning beyond physical science into the realm of

biology.He saw that a static (life-favorable conditions persisting indefinitely),infinitely old, and infinitely large universe would allow the possibility of aninfinitenumberofrandomchances.Withaninfinitenumberofbuildingblocks(atomsandmolecules) andan infinitenumberof chances to assemble them inrandomways(appropriatephysicalandchemicalconditionsexistingforinfinitetime), anykindof finalproductwouldbepossible—evensomethingashighlycomplexasaGermanphilosopher.{126}Hisattempttoconstructamodelforlife’soriginwasabandonedonlywhenhe realized that a scientificunderstandingoftheinternalworkingsoforganismswasmissing.PerhapsthemajorcreditforDarwinismandthemultitudeofismsthatsprang

fromitbelongstoImmanuelKant.{127}

THEPARADOXOFTHEDARKNIGHTSKY

Whydoesitgetdarkwhenthesunsets?Thisquestionisnotsotrite as it sounds. In the context of an approximately static,infinitelyold,andinfinitelylargeuniverse,thelightfromall thestarswouldadduptoaninfinitebrightness.

Thebrightnessofalightsourceisdiminishedbyfourforeverydoublingofitsdistance.Forexample,alightbulbatthecenterofaone-footdiameterglobewillilluminatetheglobe’ssurfacefourtimes brighter than the same bulb at the center of a two-footdiameter. This is because the two-foot diameter globe has asurface area four times larger than the one-foot diameter globe.So,sinceJupiter,forexample,isfivetimesmoredistantfromthesun than Earth, the sunlight it receives is twenty-five timesdimmer.Consequently,ifstarsareevenlyspacedfromoneanother,the

light received from themonEarthdoubles for eachdoublingofthediameterofspace.Thisisbecausewitheachdoublingofthedistance fromEarth, the volume of space, and thus the numberstars within that volume, increases eight times, while the lightreceivedfromthestars,onaveragetwiceasdistant,decreasesbyonly four times. Hence, if the distance from Earth is doubledindefinitely,toaninfinitedistance,theaccumulatedlightfromallthestarsmustreachinfinitebrightness.Sothenightskyshouldbeinfinitelyluminous.This conclusion, nevertheless, did not stop proponents of an

infiniteuniverse.Theyclaimedcloudsofdustbetween the starswould absorb starlight sufficiently to allow the night sky to bedarkeven inan infiniteuniverse.Theyoverlooked (until1960),however, a basic principle of thermodynamics that states, givensufficient time, a body will radiate away as much energy as itreceives. Therefore, even that interstellar dust eventuallywouldbecomeashotasthestarsandradiatejustasmuchenergy.Thus,theuniverse in some respectmustbe finite. (See“HubbleTimeandYoung-UniverseCreationism”sectioninchapter7.)

AsFarAstheEyeCanSeeAsevidencethatwhatwethinkaboutthecosmosmatters,nocenturypriortothenineteenth had seen such dramatic change in people’s concepts about life andreality. The view of an infinite cosmos in which these changes were rootedreceivedgreater andgreater theoretical andobservational support.As strongeropticscarriedastronomersdeeperintotheheavens,alltheycouldseewasmoreof the same kinds of stars and nebulae (gas clouds) they had already seen upclose.Thousands of stars and a few dozen nebulae became billions of stars and

millions of nebulae. It seemed endless.Astronomers and laypeople alikewereboggledbytheimmensityofitall.Further support for Kant’s model of the universe came from the amazing

triumphofNewton’slawsofmotion.Asastronomersdocumentedthemotionsofplanets,ofsatellitesorbitingtheplanets,ofcometsandasteroids,ofbinarystars,and of stars in star clusters, everything matched what those laws predicted.Kant’sclaimthateverythingaboutandintheuniversecouldbeaccountedforbythelawsofmechanicswassubstantiallybolstered.Thecombinationoftheastronomers’observationsandanapparentanswerto

the paradox of the dark night sky (see “The Paradox of theDarkNight Sky”sectionearlier in this chapter) resulted in theelevationofKant’s cosmologicalmodel fromanhypothesis to a theory.By the endof thenineteenth century itwascastinconcrete.

EinsteinDiscoversRelativityTheconcretebegantocrack,however,almostbeforeitdried.Asphysicistsmadetheir first accuratemeasurements of the velocity of light, they were taken bysurprise (see figure 6.1). A revolutionwas beginning. Here is what would bededuced:(1)Noabsolutereferencesystemexistsfromwhichmotionsinspacecanbemeasured;and(2)thevelocityoflightwithrespecttoallobserversnevervaries.Thevelocitiesoftheobserversareirrelevant.

Figure6.1:ThePrincipleofInvarianceIfa ship’scaptainwere joggingaroundhisvesselat10mphwhile thecurrentflowed at 10 mph, the captain would be moving at 20 mph (relative to theground)whenjogginginthedirectionofthecurrent,and0mphwhenjogginginthe opposite direction. This law we have known since the days of Galileo.However, in velocity of light experiments, the motion of the observer proves

entirely irrelevant. The velocity of light does not varywith themotion of theobserver.

In1905aGerman-bornSwissengineernamedAlbertEinstein(1879–1955),who studied physics in his spare time, published several papers of enormoussignificance.Twoofthemspelledouttheseconclusionsabouttheconstancyofthevelocityof light.{128}Hecalled the findings theprincipleof invariance,butothersreferredtothemasrelativity,andthatnamestuck.Once this initial theoryof relativity (later dubbed “special” since it focused

only on velocity) was solidly established,{129} Einstein went to work on theextensionofthetheory,aneffortthatdemandedeveryounceofhisgenius.Theresults,publishedin1915and1916,{130}weretheequationsofgeneralrelativity,equations that carry profound implications about the nature and origin of theuniverse.

EinsteinDiscoverstheBeginnerForone,theseequationsshowthattheuniverseissimultaneouslyexpandinganddecelerating.Whatphenomenonbehavesthisway?Thereisone:anexplosion.Whenagrenade,forexample,isdetonated,thepiecesofthegrenadeexpand

outward from the pin assembly. As they do, they collide with material (airmolecules,buildings,furniture,etc.)thatslowsthemdown(deceleration).Iftheuniverseistheaftermathofanexplosion,thentheremusthavebeenabeginningtotheexplosion—amomentatwhichthepinwaspulled.Bythesimplelawofcauseandeffect,itmusthavehadaBeginner—someonetopullthepin.Einstein’sownworldviewinitiallykepthimfromadoptingsuchaconclusion.

Rather,hehypothesized in1917a self-stretchingpropertyof space thatwouldperfectlycancelout thedecelerationandexpansion factors{131} (see “Einstein’sRepulsive‘Force’”sectionlaterinthischapter).Thisperfectcancellationwouldpermittheuniversetoremaininastaticstateforinfinitetime.Einstein’sattemptedpatch jobdidnotholdup,however.AstronomerEdwin

Hubble (1889–1953) in1929proved fromhismeasurementson fortydifferentgalaxies that the galaxies indeed are expanding away from one another.Moreover,hedemonstratedthatexpansionwasinthesamemannerpredictedbyEinstein’s original formulation of general relativity{132} (see figure 6.2). In theface of this proof, Einstein grudgingly abandoned his hypothesized self-stretchingspacepropertyandacknowledged“thenecessityforabeginning”{133}and “the presence of a superior reasoning power.”{134} As noted in “TheDiscovery”subheadinchapter5,however,aninternationalteamofastronomershas discovered that Einsteinwas right about the existence of a self-stretchingpropertyofspacebutquitewrongaboutthevalueoftheconstantgoverningthe

self-stretchingproperty.Thediscoveryestablishes that theuniversealwayshasbeenexpandingandwillcontinuetoexpandataneveracceleratingrate.

Figure6.2:Hubble’sOriginalVelocity-DistanceRelation{135}The velocities (kilometers per second) at which several galaxies are movingaway from us are plotted against estimated distances. One parsec equals 3.26lightyears,whereone lightyearequals5.9 trillionmiles.Thecross representsthe mean of measurements made on twenty-two other galaxies. Allmeasurementsshownhereweremadebefore1929.AsHubble’splotdemonstrates,themoredistantthegalaxy,thefasteritmoves

awayfromus.Sucharelationshipbetweenvelocityanddistanceimpliesthattheentireuniversemustbeexperiencingageneralexpansion.

—FromtheProceedingsoftheNationalAcademyofSciences.

Einstein’sGodEinstein’s“superior reasoningpower,”however,wasnot theGodof theBible.Thoughheconfessedtotherabbisandpriestswhocametocongratulatehimonhis discovery of God that he was convinced God brought the universe intoexistenceandwasintelligentandcreative,hedeniedthatGodwaspersonal.Ofcourse,thoseclergyhadastockresponsetoEinstein’sdenial:Howcana

Beingwhoisintelligentandcreativenotalsobepersonal?Einsteinbrushedpasttheir objection, a valid one, by raising the paradoxofGod’s omnipotence andman’sresponsibilityforhischoices:

IfthisBeingisomnipotent,theneveryoccurrence,includingeveryhumanaction, every human thought, and every human feeling and aspiration isalsoHiswork;how is it possible to thinkofholdingmen responsible for

their deeds and thoughts before such an almighty Being? In giving outpunishmentandrewardsHewouldtoacertainextentbepassingjudgmentonHimself.HowcanthisbecombinedwiththegoodnessandrighteousnessascribedtoHim?{136}

EINSTEIN’SREPULSIVE“FORCE”

Einstein’s equations of general relativity predicted an explodinguniverse and, hence, the need for a beginning. To avoid theconclusion of a beginning (and thus a Beginner), Einsteinsuggested, through an added term to his equations, that theremight exist the equivalent of an undiscovered force of physicsoperatingeverywhereintheuniverse.Gravity tells us that two massive bodies will attract one

another.Italsotellsusthestrengthoftheattractionwillincreasethecloserthetwobodiesapproachoneanother.Einstein’s added term is really a hypothesized self-stretching

propertyofthespacedimensionsorspacefabricoftheuniverse.Thelargertheuniversegrows,thatis,themorestretchedoutthespacefabricoftheuniversebecomes,themoreenergythatfabricgainstocontinuethestretching.The net effect of Einstein’s added term (neglecting the

fundamental forces) is thatallbodieswouldappear to repeloneanother. Moreover, the strength of the apparent repulsionincreases the more apart bodies are from one another. Einsteinproposedavaluefortheconstant(helabeleditthe“cosmologicalconstant”)governingtheself-stretchingpropertyofspacesothateverywhere and at every time in theuniverse the self-stretchingproperty would perfectly cancel out the effects of gravity.Thereby,theuniversewouldforeverremaindynamicallystatic.Einstein’scosmologicalconstantwasaconvenientloopholefor

himforanotherreason.Thoughnoastronomerhadeverdetectedthe constant’s effect, Einstein and others could claim that thereason was the limited distance of our probing out into thecosmos. Today that excuse is gone. Astronomers not only areseeingouttothefarthestreachesofthecosmos,theyareabletomakecosmicexpansionmeasuresofunprecedentedaccuracy.Recently (see“TheDiscovery” subhead inchapter5), a large

teamofastronomersdiscoveredthatEinsteinwasrightabouttheexistence of a cosmological constant but quite wrong about its

value. Their discovery establishes that the universe always hasbeen expanding and will continue to expand at an everacceleratingrate.

NoneoftheclergyEinsteinencounteredevergavehimasatisfactoryanswerto his objection. Typically, they responded by saying that God has not yetrevealedtheanswer.TheyencouragedhimtoendurepatientlyandblindlytrusttheAll-KnowingOne.Regrettably,Einstein lacked the persistence to pursue an answer further.He

took for granted the biblical knowledge of these religious professionals andassumed that the Bible failed to adequately address this crucially importantissue.Ofwhatvalue,then,couldsucha“revelation”be?LackingasolutiontotheparadoxofGod’spredestinationandhumanbeings’

freechoice,Einstein,likemanyotherpowerfulintellectsthroughthecenturies,ruled out the existence of a personal God. Nevertheless, and to his credit,Einstein held unswervingly, against enormous peer pressure, to belief in aCreator.IamgrievedthatnooneeverofferedEinsteintheclear,biblicalresolutionto

theparadoxheposed.(Ioffersucharesolutioninmybook,BeyondtheCosmos.{137})IamalsosadthatEinsteindidnotlivelongenoughtoseetheaccumulationof scientific evidence for a personal, caringCreator (see chapters 14 and 16).Thesemighthavesparkedinhimawillingnesstoreconsiderhisconclusion.

Figure6.3:EinsteinandHubblePhotoshows(fromleft)AlbertEinsteinandEdwinHubbleattheMountWilson100-inch telescope near Pasadena, California, where Hubble made hisobservations that demonstrated the galaxies are expanding away from oneanother.

—PhotocourtesyofTheHuntingtonLibrary.

CHAPTERSEVEN

CLOSINGLOOPHOLES:ROUNDONE

Einstein fought the idea of a beginning, but other researchers fought harder.Why?Considerhowmuchwasatstake,howmanyideas,theories,andismshadalready been built on the foundation of an infinitely old universe. If thatfoundation was removed and replaced by one with completely differentspecifications,much ormost ofwhat had been built on top of itwould cometumblingdownoratleastrequiremajorreconstruction.Foundationalchangesofmajorproportionhaveoccurredinhistory,butonly

throughtimeandstruggle.TherevolutionlaunchedbyCopernicus(1473–1543),shifting people’s concept of reality from an Earth-centered to a sun-centeredastronomical system, took well over a century. Some still resist it today.Ironically,theresistancetobothCopernicus’sandEinstein’sworkwasfueledbyfear of what their new view said about God and the Bible. Sixteenth-centuryscholarsfeareda lossofrespect forboth.Twentieth-centuryscholarsfearedanincreaseofrespect.ThedesiretokeepGodoutofthepicturewasnohiddenagendabutaclearly

expressedone.BritishcosmologistSirArthurEddington(1882–1944)expressedhis feelings clearly: “Philosophically, the notion of a beginning of the presentorder ofNature is repugnant.… I should like to find a genuine loophole.”{138}“We[must]allowevolutionaninfinitetimetogetstarted.”{139}The battlewas on to protect certain belief systems, especially evolutionism

(the belief that inorganic material evolves into simple cells and later intoadvancedlifewithoutanyinputfromadivineBeing),andtodefeatthenotionofabeginning,withitsobviousimplications.

TheHubbleTimeEdwinHubble’sresearchnotonlyconfirmedthattheuniverseisexpandingbutalsomeasuredtherateofitsexpansion.Withthatmeasurement(adjustedalittlefortheslowingdowncausedbygravity)andaroughestimateofthedistancetothe farthest-out galaxies, it was no complicatedmatter to produce a ball-parkfigureforwhentheuniversebegan—theHubbletime.Itwassomewhereintherangeofafewbilliontoseveralbillionyears.

HUBBLETIMEANDYOUNG-UNIVERSECREATIONISM

Ironically,oneoftheattemptedendrunsaroundtheHubbletimehasbeenmadeby avocal segmentof theChristian community.Rather than seeing the Hubble time as a proof for a recentcreationevent and thus a strike againstmaterialist philosophies,theysee itasproof foranancientcosmoswith timeenoughforstrictlynaturalevolutionaryprocessestowork.Likemanypeopleofthenineteenthcentury,theyseemsoboggledbythebillionsofyearsthattheylikensuchatimeframetoinfinitetime.This group of creationists insists that a literal reading of the

Bibledemandsacreationdateforthecosmosofonlysomesixtoten thousand years ago. They interpret the creation days ofGenesis1assixconsecutivetwenty-four-hourperiods.Not all Bible-believing Christians accept this interpretation,

however.AsmanyHebrewscholarspointout,aliteralreadingofGenesis can just as well support six geologic epochs for thecreationdays.Botha literalandconsistent readingof theBible,aninterpretationthatintegratesallrelevantBiblepassages,lendsample support for the creation days being long time periods.FromthisviewastronomyandtheBiblearenot inconflictoverthe creation date; they agree. Readers interested in more detailabout this creation-date controversy from both a biblical andscientificperspectivewillfinditinmybook,CreationandTime(ColoradoSprings,CO:NavPress,1994).

Whatever illusions certain paleontologists and origin-of-life theorists mayhaveembraced,astronomersrecognizedthatbillionsofyearswashopelesslytoobrief for atoms to assemble into living things free of any input from a divineDesigner (see chapter 16).{140} Therefore, many of them invested enormousenergy and creativity in attempts to escape the limits imposed by theHubbletime.Twoofthesemodelsbecameespeciallypopular.

SteadyStateUniverseIn 1948 three British astrophysicists, Herman Bondi, Thomas Gold, and FredHoyle, circumvented the beginning via “continual creation.”{141} Their modelssuggestedthatcreationofmatterisanactofnature,evenalawofnature,notaone-timemiraclefromoutsidenature.Skippingpastanyattempt toexplaintheexpansionoftheuniverse,theyproposedthatthevoidsresultingfromexpansionare filledby thecontinual, spontaneousself-creationofnewmatter (see figure

7.1).

Figure7.1:BigBangGrowthversusSteadyStateGrowthInabigbanguniversethedensityofmatterthinsoutandthemeanageforthegalaxiesadvances.Allbigbangmodelspredictafiniteagefortheuniverse.Inasteadystateuniversenewmatterisspontaneouslyandcontinuouslycreated.Thedensity of matter remains the same, and the mean age for the galaxies isconstant.Ona large scale,nothingchangeswith time.All steadystatemodelsassume that the universe is infinite in age and extent. Since the light of verydistantgalaxiestakesconsiderabletimetoreachus,astronomerscanlookbackintothepasttoseewhichgrowthpatterntheuniversefollows.

Thechampionsofthissteadystatehypothesismadetheirtheologicalpositionclearfromthestart.BondiandHoyledeclaredtheiroppositiontothenotionthatanythingcouldtranscendtherealmofnature.{142}Hoylemadenobonesabouthisopposition toChristianity.Tohis thinking,“theUniverse iseverything”and tosuggestotherwiseis“crackpot.”{143}

FailingtheTestDuring the last threedecadesaseriesofcomplexobservationaland theoreticaltestswasdevelopedtoproveordisprovethesteadystatemodel.{144}Amazingly,thesimplesttest,devisedbySirJamesJeansinthe1920s,wasappliedlastofall.Jeans pointed out that a universe that has no beginning and no end shouldmanifest a “steady” population. That is, the number of stars and galaxies in

various stages of development should be proportional to the time required topassthroughthesestages.Thereshouldbebalancednumbersofnewlyformed,young,middle-aged,elderly,andextinctstarsandgalaxies.{145}Whatdowe find?Ahostof “youthful” stars,withages ranging froma few

daystoabout14billionyears.If14billionyearsseemsold,letmeassureyou,itis not, compared to most stars’ life expectancy. The majority of stars in theuniversearecapableofburningformorethan80billionyears.{146}In the population of galaxies, the steady state model met with yet more

trouble.All,ornearlyall,areapproximatelythesameage.Weseevirtuallynonewlyformedgalaxies.Theveryfewthatarereported,mostastronomersagree,are the aftermaths of collisions between mature galaxies. Galaxies in theuniverse are so tightly packed that such collisions are expected to occur fromtimetotime.As for older galaxies, we see none at all. Neither are there any extinct

varieties. The death knell rang for steady state models when Americanastronomer Donald Hamilton determined that all the galaxies were formed atapproximatelythesametime,{147}asthebigbangpredicts.Undertheweightoftheseandatleastnineotherindependentrefutations,{148}

plusnewevidencethat thedarknessofintergalacticspacemustresultfromthefinite ages of all the galaxies{149} (see “The Paradox of the Dark Night Sky”sectioninchapter6),thesteadystatemodelseventuallystaggeredandfell.

Quasi-Steady-StateUniverseAsnotedinbooksbybothChristian{150}andnon-Christianastronomers,{151}andevenbysteadystatemodelproponentsthemselves,{152}steadystatemodelshavebeen decisively proven wrong by observational advances. In addition to thefailures already noted in this chapter, the established character of the cosmicbackground radiation, the abundanceof the elements, thedispersal ofgalaxieswithrespecttotime,thecosmicentropymeasure,andtheacceleratingexpansionof the universe clearly refute the possibility that we live in a steady stateuniverse.

EVOLUTIONASEVIDENCEFORCREATION

Outsideofthecontextofthephysicalsciences,andespeciallyinthe biological sciences, evolution is seen as the adversary ofcreation. In the clash between the steady state and big bangmodels, however, we witness the apparent irony that newevidencesfortheevolutionoftheuniverseactuallyestablishthattheuniversewascreatedintherelativelyrecentpast.

In the physical sciences evolution typically is defined aschange taking place with respect to time. Such a definition istheologically neutral. No claim is made as to whether theobservedchangesarenaturallydrivenorsupernaturallydriven.InthisrespecttheBibleis“evolutionary”initsteachingsoncreationsinceitframesthecreationaccount intoachronologyofchangethroughtime—thirteenmajorcreationeventssequencedoversixcreationdays.The theological thrust of the steady statemodelswas that no

personal involvement from God was necessary to explain ourexistence.Steadystatesaystheuniversehasnotevolvedandthatit has existed for infinite time. Thus, the dice of chance couldhave been thrown an infinite number of times under favorablenatural conditions to explain the assembling of atoms intoorganisms.But, observational proofs now affirm that the universe has

evolved,verysignificantly, fromabeginning just severalbillionyears ago.{153} Thus, our existence cannot be attributed to thenaturalrealm’sluckythrowofthedice(outofaninfinitenumberof throws).Moreover, thebigbangdetermines that thecauseoftheuniverseisfunctionallyequivalenttotheGodoftheBible,aBeingbeyond thematter,energy, space,and timeof thecosmos(seechapters9and10).

Rather than concede a cosmicBeginner, however, proponents of the steadystatetheoryhavemodifiedtheirmodelsintowhattheytermaquasi-steady-stateuniverse. Instead of new matter continuously coming into existence fromeverywhere in the universe, in the quasi-steady-state model new matter issporadically created in the nuclei of large active galaxies (galaxies withexplosiveeventsoccurringintheircores).{154}In contrast with the big bang interpretation, quasi-steady-state proponents

would replace a single primordial fireball arising from a transcendent creationeventabout15billionyearsagowithagreatmanytime-separated“primordial”fireballswhichwould result from the creation and ejectionofmatter from thecentersoflargegalaxies.Ratherthanattributingtheactivityinthenucleioflargegalaxies to black holes sucking in matter, they claim that these nuclei arespewing out matter as a result of some hidden creation mechanism. Quasarswould not be very distant super-energetic galaxies but rather relatively nearbyhot spots ejected from regular galaxies. In the quasi-steady-state model, even

thoughtheuniversecontinuallyexpands,itmaintainsroughlythesamedensitythroughnewlycreatedmatterfillingin thevoidsofspacegeneratedbycosmicexpansion.Like in the steady statemodel, theuniversewouldhavean infinitepast.

RefutationsofQuasi-Steady-StateCosmologyManyquasarimagesindeeddoappearadjacenttogalaxyimages.However,suchappearances are alsowhat onewould expect in a big bang universe.With theuniverseonly15billionyearsold,foregroundgalaxiesstillsocrowdthefieldofview that it is inevitable for background quasars to appear adjacent to them.Also,itisnolongertruethatobservationsofquasarsappearonlyasverybrightpointsoflight.Withtheadventoftelescopesaspowerfulasthe400-inchKeck,astronomershavebeenabletodetectfaintwispsofgalaxypartsenvelopingthequasars. Thus, quasars are not isolated point sources.Apparently, they are thenucleiofenormousgalaxiesintheirearly,formativestages.Bigbangastronomersdeducethatquasarsaregiantblackholesresidingatthe

centers of supergiant galaxies and are fueled by huge amounts of gas beingsuckedintotheblackholes.Astheuniverseexpandsandgalaxiesbecomelesscrowded together, theamountofgas fora supergiantgalaxy reachesapeak intimesomewherebetweenthegalaxy’sinfancyandearlyadulthood.Aproblem,however,isthatsomequasarsaresopowerfulthatnoteventhemaximumgasinasupergiantgalaxywouldprovideitwithenoughfuel.Togetthepoweroutputuptotheobservedlevels,ayoung,supergiantgalaxywouldneedtostealalotofgasfromnearbygalaxies.According to recent Hubble Space Telescope images, this latter scenario

accuratelydescribeswhatistakingplace.Infigure7.2weseeonelargegalaxycolliding with a supergiant galaxy at about a million miles per hour. Thiscollisionprovidesall thegasneededtosustainthequasarinthenucleusofthesupergiant.{155}

—CourtesyofNASA

Figure7.2:ImagesfromtheHubbleSpaceTelescopeofNew-BornQuasarsIn the image on the left a large galaxy (center) is collidingwith a supergiantgalaxy(bottom)ataboutamillionmilesperhour.

Inabigbanguniverseweexpectyounggalaxiestobepackedtogethermoretightlythantheyaretoday.HubbleSpaceTelescopeimagesprovidesupportforthistighterpacking.{156}Therefore,wewouldexpectquasarstobemostabundantwhentheuniverseisafewbillionyearsold.Specifically,wewouldexpectnoquasars toexist today, that is, atdistances

correspondingtoshort light-travel times.This isbecausetoomuchgasalreadyhasbeenconsumed.Consequently,atdistancescorrespondingup toabouthalftheageoftheuniverse,quasarsshouldberare.However,atdistancesequivalentto about a fifth the age of the universe, they should be abundant. Finally, atdistancesequivalenttoaboutatenththeageoftheuniversetheyshould,again,be rare. This is because at one-tenth of cosmic history, insufficient condensedgascloudswouldhaveformedtosustainmorethanafewquasars.Reliable space density surveys of quasars began to be published in 1994,

1995, and 1996. These surveys confirmed the big bang predictions whilecontradicting the quasi-steady-state predictions.{157} Since then, newerobservationshavesubstantiallyaddedtotheweightofevidenceforthebigbangandagainstthequasi-steady-state.{158}Quasi-steady-stateproponentsare forced todeny thatgiantblackholesexist

in the central cores of giant active galaxies. While for two decades nowastronomers’ observations have established that supermassive, supercondensedbodiesmustexistinthecoresofgiantgalaxies,theycouldnotdefinitelyprovethattheywereblackholes.Thischangedrecentlywhenresearchersfoundawayto measure the spin velocities in the inner regions surrounding suchsupercondensedbodies.Thesevelocitiesmeasuredclosetoone-thirdthevelocityof light, a result that can only be explained if the supercondensed bodies areblackholesexceedingamillionsolarmasses.{159}Quasi-steady-stateproponentsgotoextremelengthsarguingthattheshifting

of the spectral lines of quasars toward longer or redderwavelengths does notimply that the quasars are at great distances. (Remember that in the big bangmodel,theredshiftofanobjectisanindicatorofdistance,sothatthegreateritsredshift,thegreateritsdistance.)Theyclaimthehighvelocitiesindicatedbytheredshifts result fromthequasarsbeingejectedfromgalacticnuclei,not fromabigbangcosmicexpansion.Whileveryfewastronomershaveeveracceptedthisproposition for the reasons stated above, a direct refutation has seemedimpossible given the extreme distances of quasars implied by the big bang

theory. The problem is that the big bang distances are out of reach for alldistancemeasuringmethods except for those based on the shifting of spectrallines.Thisimpasseondistancemeasuringmethods,however,wasbrokenthispast

June. At radio wavelengths it is possible to link widely separated telescopestogether to build an interferometer with the equivalent resolving power of a6,000 mile diameter telescope. Exploiting such an instrument, a team ofAmerican astronomers achieved a direct distance measurement based on thetrigonometricmethodfamiliartolandsurveyorsforthequasar,3C279.{160}Theydetermined that 3C 279 must be at least 5.9 billion light years away. Thisestablishes that thebigbang interpretationofquasars is correct and thequasi-steady-stateinterpretationiswrong.In the quasi-steady-state model all the helium in the universe comes from

nuclearburning that takesplace inside stars.Toaccount for all theheliumweobserveintheuniversesuchburningmustproceedforatleastahundredbillionyears. Astronomers fail to see any stars or galaxies anywhere in the universeolder than 14 billion years.Moreover, while stars are efficient in distributingelements heavier than helium to the interstellarmedium (through explosions),mostoftheheliumproducedbystarsremainstrappedinsidedeadstars.Theratioof heavy elements to helium in both the interstellarmedium and intergalacticmedium isconsistentwith thebigbang.That same ratiocontradicts thequasi-steady-statemodel.Many other refutations of the quasi-steady-state model abound. The most

significantthatremainarethedensityofbaryons(protonsplusneutrons)intheuniverse,{161} the density of exotic matter,{162} and the characteristics of thecosmicbackgroundradiation.{163} In thefaceofall thisevidence,amajorbookhas just been released by the three remaining proponents of the quasi-steady-statemodel,{164} namely Fred Hoyle, Geoffrey Burbidge, and Jayant Narlikar.Ironically,furtherdiscoveriesmadesincethatbookwenttopressnowdecisivelyruleoutthepossibilityofaquasi-steady-stateuniverse.One form of the steady state model that is still seriously entertained by

astronomers iswhat iscalled the“eternal inflation”model.Here, thecontinualcreationofprotonsandneutronsissupplantedbythecontinualcreationofentireuniverses. Big bang universes are presumed to spontaneously appear asexpanding bubbles in an infinite and eternal quantum-fluctuating space-timefoam.Thismodelisasubsetofthemultipleuniversemodels.Theyarediscussedinchapter15underthesubhead“AnInfinityofUniverses?”

PhilosophicalEndRun

The defeat of the steady state model and its offspring, the quasi-steady-statemodel, led non-theistic astronomers to express first a momentary lament andthen a newfound hope. The prestigious British journal Nature published thisstatementfromphysicistJohnGribbin:

ThebiggestproblemwiththeBigBangtheoryoftheoriginoftheUniverseis philosophical—perhaps even theological—what was there before thebang?Thisproblemalonewassufficient togiveagreat initial impetus totheSteadyStatetheory;butwiththattheorynowsadlyinconflictwiththeobservations, the best way round this initial difficulty is provided by amodel in which the universe expands from a singularity [that is, abeginning],collapsesbackagain,andrepeatsthecycleindefinitely.{165}

Gribbin signaled thechange inanewdirection for thosecommitted to findingsome way around a transcendent cosmic creation event just some 15 billionyearsago.

CHAPTEREIGHT

CLOSINGLOOPHOLES:ROUNDTWO

Researchthatcrushedthesteadystateuniversemodelssimultaneouslybuiltupthebigbang,withitsimplicationsofabeginningandaBeginner.Cosmologistswho yet resisted this turn of research resurrected a model for the universeproposed thousands of years ago by Hindu teachers and later by Romanphilosophers—thereincarnatingoroscillatinguniverse.Theappealofthismodelis that it seems to allow for the relatively recent beginning (as in theHubbletime)whileretainingthepossibilityofinfiniteornearlyinfinitetime.

BouncingUniverseThefamiliar lawofgravitysays thatmassivebodies tend toattracteachother.Wealsoknowthatthemutualattractionofmassivebodiesintheuniverseactsasa brake on the expansion of the universe.As youmay recall from the earlierdiscussionofcriticalmass,theexpansionoftheuniversecouldbebroughttoahaltbygravityiftheuniversecontainedenoughmass.Butthat’snotallgravitycoulddo.Itcouldthrowtheexpansionintoreverseandshrinktheuniversebacktoatinyvolume.Here’swhere the oscillating universemodel shows imagination. It suggests

thatratherthancrunchingbackintoa“singularity”(aninfinitelyshrunkenspacerepresenting the boundary at which space ceases to exist or at which spacecomes into existence), the imploding universe somehow bounces back andbeginsanewcycleofexpansion.Someunknownbouncemechanismisinvokedtomakethishappen(seefigure8.1).According to Princeton physicist RobertDicke, an infinite number of these

cycles of expansion and contraction of the universe would “relieve us of thenecessityofunderstandingtheoriginofmatteratanyfinitetimeinthepast.”{166}Thecreationeventbecomesirrelevant,andourexistencecouldbeattributedtoone luckybounce.After all, givenan infinitenumberof cosmicbounces, it isargued that surely one would produce all the conditions necessary to convertparticlesandatomsintohumanbeingsthroughstrictlynaturalprocesses.

Figure8.1:TheInfinitelyOscillatingUniverseModelIntheoscillatinguniversemodelsuggestedbyphysicistslikeRobertDickeandJohn Gribbin, the universe alternates for infinite time between phases ofexpansion and contraction. Gravity halts the expansion and generates asucceedingphaseofcontraction.Anunknownphysicalmechanismisproposedto somehowbounce theuniverse fromaperiodofcontraction intoaperiodofexpansion, and the characteristics of the contraction and expansion phases arepresumednottovarysignificantlywithtime.

In1965,whentheoscillatinguniversemodelfirstemergedasaserioustheory,{167}manyastronomers launchedanall-outeffort tofindsufficientmasstohaltand reverse theexpansionof theuniverse.Asnoted inchapter5 (see subhead“ExoticMatterMeasurements”and“NeutrinoMass”),however,alltheevidence,both observational and theoretical, points in the opposite direction. Evenwiththeconsiderationofexoticmatter,thetotalmassfallsconsiderablyshortofwhatwould be needed to force an eventual collapse of the universe. The latestmeasurementsestablishacosmicmassdensitythatis0.3±0.1ofwhatisneededtoreversecosmicexpansion.{168}

TheReboundProblemBut missing mass is not the only difficulty. Even if the universe did containenough mass to reverse its expansion and even if a bounce mechanism werediscoveredordevisedtheoretically,thenumberofbouncesoroscillationswouldbelimitedbecauseofentropy(energydegradation).The second lawof thermodynamics tells us that the entropyof theuniverse

increases with time. This entropy increase means a decrease in the energyavailable to perform mechanical work, such as bouncing. So less and less

mechanical energy would be available with each bounce to make the bouncehappen.The decrease in mechanical energy from bounce to bounce has two

ramifications.First,itmeansthatwitheachbounce,theuniverseexpandsfartheroutbeforeitbeginscollapsing.Picturetheactionofaballattachedbyarubberbandtoawoodenpaddle.Whentherubberbandisnew,itselasticityisgreatest,and it yanks theball backpowerfully.But as it getswarmedup and stretchedseveraltimes,it losessomeofitspullontheball,andtheballgoesoutfartherfrom thepaddlemore easily.The effect for the cosmos is diagramed in figure8.2.

Figure8.2:ThermodynamicDissipationWithinanOscillatingUniverseEven if the universe conceivably could oscillate, it could not have beenoscillatingforinfinitetime.Thelawsofthermodynamicscompelthemaximumdiameter of the universe to increase from cycle to cycle. Therefore, such auniverse could look forward to an infinitely long future but only a finite past.Theultimatemomentofcreation,atmost,couldbepushedbackonlytoaboutatrillionyearsago.

Notice that as time goes on the humps grow larger and larger. Lookingbackwardin time, theygrowsmallerandsmaller toastartingpoint in thenot-too-distantpast.Fromtheperspectiveofphysics,theuniversecouldnotbouncemorethanaboutadozentimes—anumberfarshortofinfinity.

WILLTHEUNIVERSEEVERCOLLAPSE?

Discussion of the merits of an oscillating universe modelbecomes academic if the universe lacks the mass to halt its

expansionandforceasubsequentcollapse.With every passing year during the past dozen, the

observational evidence for a universe that continues to expandforever grew stronger and stronger while the evidence for auniverse that subsequently collapses grew weaker and weaker.The latest measurements now establish beyond any reasonabledoubtthatthereisinsufficientmasstohaltcosmicexpansion.{169}Asfurtherproofsagainstaneventualcollapse, thediscoveries

that the universe’s space fabric has an ongoing self-stretchingpropertyandthatithasaspatiallyflatgeometryestablishthattheuniversewillcontinuetoexpandforever.Moreover,theuniversewill expand at a progressively faster and faster rate. For moredetailsseechapter5throughfigure5.3.

Thesecondramificationofentropyliesinitseffectonthebounceenergy.Notonlyismechanicalenergyforcontractionlostwitheachbounce,butsoisenergyfor rebounding. Ifa rubberball isdroppedfromaheightof three feetaboveahardwoodfloor,itwillrebound,butitwillnotcomeupthreefeet.Someoftheenergy in the ball was radiated away through friction into heat when the ballmade contact with the floor. In fact, each time the ball hits the floor moremechanicalenergyisconvertedintoheat,andeventuallytheballstopsbouncing.Aballwithahighmechanicalefficiency,forexampleavolleyballblownupto

ahighairpressure,maybounceadozentimesbeforeitcomestoastoponthefloor.A ballwith a lowmechanical efficiency, for example a very soft foam-rubberball,maybounceonlytwicebeforeitstops.Buttheuniversehasfarlessmechanicalefficiencythanafoam-rubberball.In

1983 and 1984, American astrophysicists Marc Sher, Alan Guth, and SidneyBludmandemonstratedthatevenif theuniversecontainedenoughmasstohaltitscurrentexpansion,anyultimatecollapsewouldendinathud,notabounce.{170} In termsofmechanicalenergy, theuniversemoreclosely resemblesawetlump of clay than a pumped up volleyball (see table 8.1). Sher and Guthconfidentlyentitledtheirpaper“TheImpossibilityofaBouncingUniverse.”

Table8.1:MechanicalEfficienciesofSomeCommonSystemsIf theuniverseoscillates, thatmeans it isbehaving like anengineor a systemdesignedtoperformwork.Theabilityofasystemorenginetoperformworkortooscillatedependsonitsmechanicalefficiency.Theuniverseliterallyranksasthe worst engine in all existence. Its mechanical efficiency is so low thatoscillationisimpossible.

QuantumGravitySpeculationsSher,Guth,andBludmanweren’taloneindemonstratingtheimpossibilityofacosmic bounce. TwoRussian physicists, IgorNovikov andYakob Zel’dovich,developed their ownproof based on the geometry of collapsing structures.{171}But none of the five researchers dealt with the theoretical possibilities foroscillationthatarisefromthequantumgravityera,presumablybecausesolittleisyetknownaboutthatera(see“TheQuantumGravityEra”sectionlaterinthischapter).Butitdidseemtoofferaninfinitesimalstrawfordiehardstograsp.ArnoldSikkemaandWernerIsraelgraspedit,hypothesizingbizarreeffectsof

mergingblackholes in that split secondwhenall thematterandenergyof theuniversewouldstillhavebeencontainedinaverytinyvolume.{172}Thesemenhonestlyadmittedthatnoconsistenttheoryofquantumgravityyetexists.Itmustbe noted, too, that the oscillation theory they proposed yields at most only asharply limited number of bounces. It offers no escape from the notion of abeginninginthenot-so-distantpast.That slender straw grasped by Sikkema and Israel was crushed recently by

RussianphysicistAndréLinde.Atasymposiumonthelarge-scalestructureoftheuniverse,Lindedemonstrated that theuniverse,with thecharacteristicsweobserve,cannothavearisenfromabounceinthequantumgravityera.Why?Therearetwoconsiderations:

1.Duringthecollapsephasetowardahypotheticalbounceatleastoneregion or volume (technically called a “domain”) in the universewouldutterlyresistbeingcrushedtothetinyvolumenecessaryfortheexoticeffectsofquantumgravitytotakeover.{173}2. The bounce, if it could take place, would not produce sufficientmatter.{174}

Letmeexplain.Theuniverse,before thehypotheticalbounce,beginswithahuge amount of space curvature and little or no matter. But, as the universeexpands, space is stretched, reducing the curvature. This loss of curvature istransformed into matter, and in the process, a huge amount of entropy is

generated. Because of the enormous entropy produced, the process is notreversible. Matter cannot be converted back into the needed space curvature.Thus the universe we live in cannot be the product of oscillation even if thebouncesarehypothesizedtooccurinthequantumgravityera.

THEQUANTUMGRAVITYERA

Physicists are designing theories to cope with conditions before theuniversewaseven10-43secondsold(lessthanaquadrillionth-quadrillionth-trillionthsecond).At10-43seconds,theforceofgravitywithintheuniversebecomescomparable to the strongnuclear force.This forceholdsprotonsand neutrons together in the nucleus of the atom. At such a magnitude,gravitymay possibly bemodified by quantummechanical effects.Hencethisearlystageoftheuniverseiscalledthequantumgravityera.Since the energydensities that existduring thequantumgravity era lie

farbeyondthecapabilitiesofeventhemostpowerfulparticleaccelerators,manytheoreticianshavepresumedthattheyarethereforefreetospeculateanyphysical conditionsor, for thatmatter, anyphysical laws theydesire.However, since such physics is obviously beyond “The possibility ofobservationalverification,”itwould,bydefinition,falloutsidetherealmofscienceandintotherealmofmetaphysics.Nevertheless, even though the energies encountered are far beyond

currentexperimentalphysics,apowerfulobservationalcheckdoesexist—thepresentuniverse inwhichwe live. Ifaquantumgravity theorycannotexplainhowthepresentuniversedevelopedfromtheinitialquantumstate,itmustbeincorrect.Recently,astringtheorysolutionhasestablishedthatthecurrentlawsof

physics framed within ten space-time dimensions, six of which stoppedexpandingwhentheuniversewasonly10–43secondsold,holdallthewayback to the very beginning of the universe. The solution successfullypredictstheoperationofbothspecialandgeneralrelativityandcontainsanumber of predictions about conditions in the universe that have proventrue.Abriefdescriptionofthesolutionanditsramificationsisgiveninthenextchapter.Adetailedonecanbefoundinmybook,BeyondtheCosmos.{175}

ScalarFieldSpeculationsManytheoreticalattemptstoescapeasingularcosmicbeginninghaveshownuplately in the scientific literature.{176}They are all variations on a theme in thatthey all propose the introduction of some unknown, undiscovered physics to

alterthephysicswedoknow,canmeasure,andunderstand.Tobespecific,theyspeculatethatsomekindofunknownscalarfield(see“WhatIsaScalarField?”subhead) acts as a third factor, in addition to gravity and the self-stretchingproperty of the universe’s space fabric. This third factor, they presume, issufficientlydominantatcriticalepochsintheuniverse’shistorytotransformthecosmos froma systemmanifestinga single transcendentbeginning toone thathasmultiplenon-transcendentbeginnings.The transformation from a single transcendent beginning to multiple non-

transcendentbeginningsimpliesthatthecosmiclimitsthatdictateaCAUSEforthe universe indistinguishable from the God of the Bible might possibly bestretchedenoughtopermitalternateexplanations.Ratherthantakethespacetorespond toeverysuch theoreticalattempt, Iwillpickonehere that typifies thewholegroup.

WHATISASCALARFIELD?

Incosmologyascalarfieldiseitheraforceoranenergytermintheequationsofgeneralrelativitythataffectsthedynamicsoftheuniverse.Itcanbeconstantorafunction of either spatial position or time. As such, it can either augment orsubtract from the dynamical effects thatwould arise fromgravity alone. Suchadjustments togravitycanbeeither simpleorcomplex functionsof spaceandtime.In the standard big bang model there are no scalar fields. Gravity alone

determines the past, present, and future dynamics of the universe. Newobservationsclearlydemonstrate,however, that sucha simple interpretationoftheuniverseisincorrect.Thatis,thebigbangismorecomplex.The scalar fields that the new observations support pose no threat to the

conclusions of a carefully designed singularity beginning and of an equallycarefully designed cosmic expansion subsequent to the beginning. In fact, asexplainedinchapter5throughfigure5.3,theyconsiderablyaddtotheevidenceofsuchdesigns.

Fakir’s“No-Beginning”ModelIn an August 2000 issue of the Astrophysical Journal, Redouane Fakir, acosmologist at the University of British Columbia, published an article titled“GeneralRelativisticCosmologywithNoBeginningofTime.”{177}The authoradmitshechosethetitleforitsshockvaluesinceastrophysicistsfornearlytwodecades have been convinced that any cosmological model based on generalrelativity must produce the feature of a singular beginning (that is, a pastmomentwhenall thematter andenergy in theuniverseandall the space-time

dimensions that can be associatedwith thatmatter and energy had a commonbeginning).First, Fakir reviews just how strongly the singularity theorem{178} (see “So

What?”subheadinchapter9)establishthenecessityforatranscendentCAUSEfor the entire universe. He documents how the theorems prove a cosmicsingularitybeginningforbothauniversegovernedbyclassicalgeneralrelativityand for inflationmodels (models where a hyper expansion of the universe atmanytimesthevelocityoflightoccursduringafiniteperiodwhentheuniverseis very young, younger than 10-32 seconds). He also notes how the usualalternatives to general relativity, namely, scalar tensor theories of gravity (see“WhatIsaScalarField?”section),eitherproducedunstablesolutionsordemandconditionsthatarecontradictedbywellestablishedobservations.Fakir states in theabstractofhispaper,nevertheless, thathehasachieveda

cosmicmodelthat is“naturallyfreeofsingularitiesdespitethefact that itusesonlyclassicalgeneralrelativity.”{179}Acarefulreadofhispaperreveals,though,that Fakir’s model is not a no-beginning model. It is, in fact, a multiple-beginningmodel.Specifically,hetriestorevivetheoscillatinguniversemodelofthe1970swithitsinfinitenumberofcyclesofcosmicexpansionandcontractionextendingintoboththeinfinitepastandtheinfinitefuture.Fakir accomplishes his cosmic oscillations by introducing a time-varying

scalarfieldintohismodeltosupplementtheeffectsofgeneralrelativityandtheself-stretchingpropertyofthecosmicspacefabriconcosmicdynamics.(Thus,itis not a purely general relativisticmodel.) The strength of the scalar field heproposeswouldrisefromanear-zerovaluetoamaximumatthecosmicbouncepointandthendeclineagaintoanear-zerovalue.A crude visual picture of Fakir’s model would be a universe that contains

enoughmasstogravitationallybrakethecosmicexpansionsothatgrowthoftheuniverseisnotonlyhaltedbuteventuallyreversed.Duringthecontractionphaseof the universe the scalar field would gradually grow until it became strongenoughtoreversetheeffectofgravitationalcollapse.Fakiradmits that inhismodel,cosmicre-collapseoccursfar tooquicklyfor

starstoformunlessheintroducesalotmorefine-tuninginseveralofthecosmicparameters.{180}Philosophically,thisextrafine-tuningisself-defeating.Anyroleof God that might have been diminished inmonkeying with the beginning iscompensatedforbyanecessarilyincreaseddivineroleindesigningtheuniversesothatphysicallifebecomespossible.TherearemuchmoreseveredifficultieswithFakir’smodel.Hismodelonly

escapesasingularbeginningiftheuniverseisdynamicallyclosed,thatis,ifitisheadedforaneventualcollapse.However,asdescribed inchapter5 (see“The

Discovery”subheadthroughfigure5.2),mapsofthetemperaturefluctuationsinthe cosmic background radiation, published in 2000, combined withmeasurementsondistanttypeIasupernovae,publishedin1999,presentuswithundeniable evidence that cosmic expansion has transitioned from a gradualdeceleration to an exponentially increasing acceleration. In other words, theuniversewillexpandforeveratanincreasinglygreaterrate.Newmeasurementspublishedsincethoseresultswenttopressfurtheraddtotheweightofevidence.{181}

Asnotedalready,anotherseveredifficultyisthatthethermodynamicstateofour universe, or of any universe capable of sustaining physical life, will notpermitacosmicbounceeitherinthepastorthefuture.Onereasonforthisisthatthecosmicentropynecessaryforphysicallife(specifically,forlife-suitablestarsandplanets toformandremain)willnotallowtheheatenergyandmatter thatwas generated from the release of space curvature when the universe wasextremelyyoung(lessthan10-34secondsold)tobereversed.(Thatis, thisheatenergyandmattercannotbeconvertedbackintospacecurvature.)Severalmorereasons why cosmic bouncing is impossible are described in one of mypreviouslypublishedbooks.{182}

AlternativeScalarFields?Theproposalof somekindof scalar field tomodifyor replace the theologicalimplications of general relativity and the big bang is not new. As noted inchapter6,Einsteinhimselfmadesuchaproposalin1917.{183}SodidtheBritishmathematicianSirArthurEddingtonin1930.{184}In1961CarlBransandRobertDickeclaimedthatastrongscalarfield(specifically,thatthestrengthofgravityvaries significantly with time) would alter the beginning implied by generalrelativityalone.{185}Such proposals and others like them were subsequently struck down by

observationallimitsestablishedbyastronomers.Inadditiontotheobservationalconstraints alreadydescribed in thisbook, thenear spherical shapeof the sun,neutronstartestsofgeneralrelativity,measuresofthecosmicmassdensity,thecosmic space energy density, and the cosmic baryon (protons and neutrons)densityproducetightlimitsonthedegreetowhichanykindofscalarfieldcanmodifythebeginningimpliedbygeneralrelativityandthebigbang.The introduction of scalar fields into cosmicmodels is not always easy for

eventheeducatedreadertospot.Forexample,suggestionsthatcertainconstantsof physics, like the fine structure constants, the velocity of light, and theelectromagnetic and gravitational force constants, took on slightly differentvalueswhentheuniversewasmuchyoungerareall,infact,scalarfieldmodels.

Likewise, the cosmic quintessence discussed in chapter 5 (see “Facing aNewChallenge”subhead)isanappealtoacosmicscalarfield.Muchtighterconstraintsonsuchproposalsandappealsarecomingfromnew

measurements of distant galaxies, seismic activity on the sun, and physicslaboratory experiments. For example, results from the Global OscillationNetwork Group (GONG) and the Birmingham Solar Oscillation Network(BiSON)nowestablish that thegravitationconstantGvariesbynomore thanone part in a trillion per year.{186} Also, the motions of small-mass galaxiesseverely limit the sizeof anypossiblemodificationof local gravity relative toglobalgravity.{187}High-resolution spectra of quasars put the variability of theproton-to-electronmass ratio at less than one part in one hundred trillion peryear.{188} The electromagnetic fine structure constant can be expressed as afunction of either the velocity of light or the value of the electron charge.Laboratoryexperimentsandmeasuresofstarformationratehistories indistantgalaxiesestablish that itsvaluedepartsbynomore thanonepart inahundredthousandfromthemodernvalueatthatepochintheuniversewhengalaxiesfirstformed (about 13.5 to 14.0 billion years ago).{189} Compared to when starformationingalaxieswasatitspeak(roughlyseventotenbillionyearsago),theelectromagneticfinestructureconstantcoulddifferbynomorethanonepartinamillion relative to the modern value.{190} Within the last seven billion yearsessentially no room at all exists for changes in its value. While the averagereadermaynotgrasptheexactnatureandstrengthoftheseevidences,heorshecanappreciatethatthelistisextensive.These recently established limits are strong enough to eliminate any

reasonablepossibilityforanescape,duringcosmicallymeasurabletime,fromasingular cosmic beginning based on an hypothesized variability of either thegravitation constant, the proton-to-electronmass ratio, the velocity of light, ortheelectronchargevalue.Itistrue,however,thatsuchdemonstrations,however,placenolimitsonwhatmighthaveoccurredbeforecosmicallymeasurabletime,thatis,beforetheuniversewas10-19secondsold(atenmillionthofatrillionthofa second old). I will comment in chapters 12 and 15 on speculations aboutalternatephysicsduringthisfirstminisculemoment.In a work just submitted for publication, two cosmologists from Tufts

University demonstrated that “non-minimally coupled” scalar fields permitviolationsof thesecondlawof thermodynamics(thelawof increasingentropyor increasing disorder) over long periodswhereas “minimally coupled” scalarfieldsdonot.{191}Sincethepossibleviolationofthesecondthermodynamiclawwould place much, if not most, of particle physics, black hole physics, andquantummechanicsinjeopardy,proposingnon-minimallycoupledscalarfields

for our universe must be judged unreasonable. Without getting into all thetechnicalitiesof thedifferencesbetweenminimallycoupledandnon-minimallycoupledscalarfields,itisimportanttonotethatonlyappealstocertainkindsofnon-minimally coupled scalar fields allow for the possibility of escape fromacosmicsingularitybeginning.Inotherwords,anyreasonableorobservationallypossible cosmic scalar field leaves the singularity theorems unchallenged.Consequently, it is reasonable to conclude that the universe must have beencaused by an ENTITYwho transcends matter, energy, and all the space-timedimensionsassociatedwithmatterandenergy.

TheReincarnationConnectionMost Eastern religions, ancient and modern (including Hinduism, Buddhism,and most new age philosophies, among others), are rooted in the doctrine ofcosmicreincarnation,theoscillatinguniverse.ThepopularityoftheseteachingssoaredintheWestwiththepopularityoftheoscillatinguniversemodel.IwatchedthisphenomenonduringmygraduatestudentdaysattheUniversity

ofToronto.WhenseveralofmypeersembracedoneormoreofthemanyHinduorBuddhistsectsinvogue,Iaskedthemwhy.Theyquotedpassagesfromtheirscripturesconcerning thenever-endingcyclesofbirth,growth,collapse,death,andrebirthofthecosmosandofourselvesasonewithit,the“reality”describedbytheoscillatinguniversemodel.What clinched their commitment, they said, was the amazing accuracy of

Hindu scriptures in predicting the period of oscillation, the time betweensuccessiverebirths.Thesewritingssaid4.32billionyears.{192}Astrophysicistsoftheday(the1970s)said20to30billionyears—iftheoscillatinguniversemodelweretoprovecorrect.MyfriendsreasonedthatfortheancientHindustogetthatclosetotheright

answer,Hinduismmustbemorethanahumanlycraftedreligion.Itmustcomefromsomesuperhumansource.Thisbitofrationalsupport,combinedwiththeenchantmentofanythingnon-WesternandnontraditionalandanaversiontothemoralvaluesofChristianity,wasenoughtodrawthemintooneofthedaughterfaithsofHinduism.But the rational rug has now been pulled out. Reality is not described by

infinitecyclesofcosmicreincarnation.TheworldviewunderlyingHinduismanditsmanyderivativeshasprovenfalse.

CHAPTERNINE

SCIENCEDISCOVERSTIMEBEFORETIME

Withthecollapseoftheoscillatinguniversemodel,attemptstogetaroundtheHubble time (no more than about 16 billion years since the universe began)turned in a new direction. Holdouts for an infinitely old universe nowhypothesize that the fundamental laws of nature as we know them are eitherincorrectorbreakdownunderspecialconditions.

EscapefromRealityFrom this new battle front comes the work of amateur plasma physicist EricLerner,authorofTheBigBangNeverHappened.Lernernotesthatthelawsofnature cannot explain the amazing advance in complexity of living organismsthathastakenplaceonEarthoverthepast4billionyears.{193}Heacknowledgesthat this advance stands in violation of the second law of thermodynamics,whichsaysthatsystemstendtodegradefromhigherlevelsoforder,complexity,andinformationtolowerlevelsoforder,complexity,andinformation.SinceLernerrejects theexistenceofaCreator,he is forced toconclude that

the second law of thermodynamics broke down.{194}And if the second law ofthermodynamicsbrokedownfororganismsonEarth,itcouldhavebrokendownfortheentirephysicalcosmos,hesuggests.{195}Sincethesecondlawtiesinwithone of the ways we measure time (the rate at which entropy, or energydegradation,increases),Lernerconcludesthatourobservationsoftheageoftheuniverseareincorrect, that theycannotbeusedtoargueforabeginningof thecosmosjustsomebillionsofyearsago.Therewasnobigbang,hesays,thusnoCreator.The circularity of Lerner’s reasoning seems obvious. Starting with the

suppositionthatGoddoesnotexist,hereinterpretsthelawsofnature.Thenheuses his rewrite of reality to support the conclusion that God does not exist.Anotherdescriptionofhisworkis“escapefromreality.”AnobservationalrefutationofLerner’shypothesisarisesfromstellarphysics.

The kinds of stars that are necessary to make physical life possible in theuniverse are extremely sensitive to even slight changes in the major laws orconstants of physics. Therefore, the existence of stable burning stars of alldifferentmasses at all different distances from us (see chapter 14 for details)

establishestheconstancyofphysicsthroughoutthehistoryoftheuniverse.The constancyof physics follows since light fromverydistant stars takes a

muchlongertimetotraveltousthanlightfromnearbystars.Thus,bymeasuringthephysicalconditionofstarsatvaryingdistancesastronomerscanaffirmthatLerner’send-runaroundatranscendentcreationeventfails.Forthaterabeforestars existed, namely, the first half billion years or so of cosmic history, themeasuredphysicalconditionsofthecosmicbackgroundradiationalsoaffirmnochangeshaveoccurredinthephysicallawsandconstants.

No-GodoftheGapsEven working within the laws of physics, researchers with an anti-God biasoftenmakeblindleapsoffaithtoescapeanyevidenceofGod’sinvolvementinreality. For centuries Christians were criticized for their “God of the gaps.”Sometimes that criticism was deserved. Christians tended to use gaps inunderstandingordata tobuildacase forGod’smiraculous intervention.Then,when scientific discoveries uncovered a natural explanation for the “divinephenomenon,” ridicule was heaped not only on those proposing the divineexplanationbutalsoonbeliefinGod’sexistence.In the twentieth century we see the reverse of the God of the gaps. Non-

theists,confrontedwithproblemsforwhichampleresearch leads tononaturalexplanationsandinsteadpointstothesupernatural,utterlyrejectthepossibilityofthesupernaturalandinsistonanaturalexplanationevenifitmeansresortingtoabsurdity.For example, steady state models were supported by an imagined force of

physics for which there was not one shred of observational or theoreticalevidence. The oscillating universe model depended on an imagined bouncemechanism for which there was not one shred of observational or theoreticalevidence.Similarappealstoimaginedforcesandphenomenahavebeenthebasisfor all the cosmological models proposed to avoid the big bang with itsimplications about God.{196} The disproof of these models and the ongoingappeal by non-theists to more and more bizarre unknowns and unknowablesseemtoreflectthegrowingstrengthofthecasefortheism(seechapters7,8,12,and15).

TestingtheGapsIs it theGod-of-the-gapsor theno-God-of-the-gaps?Onewaytofindout is toeliminate the gaps through advancing scientific research. Increased knowledgeaboutthesystemmayrevealanaturalexplanationforthesupposedsupernaturalphenomenon.Conversely,increasedknowledgemaydemonstratethatthenaturalexplanationsfailwhilethesupernaturalexplanationsucceeds.

What matters are not isolated examples of theistic or atheistic researchersbeing proven wrong in their hypothesized explanations. Christian theists, forexample,believe that in therecordofnaturenaturalexplanationsare thenormand divine supernatural explanations are the exception. However, thedemonstrationthatoneoftheirsupernaturalexplorationsprovestobeanaturaloneposesnothreattotheirbeliefintheGodoftheBible.What counts is the overall trend. As we learn more and more about the

universe,Earth,andlife,doestheevidenceforGod’sexistenceanddesignofthenatural realm get stronger or weaker? If the atheist is right and the theist iswrong, then the more we discover about the cosmos, Earth, and life, theevidencefordivinetranscendenceanddesignwillbecomeweaker.Ontheotherhand,ifthetheistisrightandtheatheistiswrong,themorewelearnaboutthecosmos,Earth, and life, the evidence for divine transcendence anddesignwillbecomestronger.

TimeandItsBeginningEvenbefore thedeathof theoscillatinguniversemodel, a fundamental reasonwasuncoveredforthefailureofcosmologicalmodelsthatrejectedthefiniteageoftheuniverse.Inaseriesofpapersappearingfrom1966to1970,threeBritishastrophysicists, StephenHawking, George Ellis, and Roger Penrose, extendedthesolutionoftheequationsofgeneralrelativitytoincludespaceandtime.{197}Theresultwascalledthespace-timetheoremofgeneralrelativity.{198}This theorem is true under all possible physical conditions given that the

universe contains mass and that its dynamics are reliably described by theequations of general relativity. Recent efforts to escape the theologicalconsequences of the theorem has led to the discovery that its conclusions arevalidoverevenbroaderconditions.Notonlydoesthetheoremholdinauniversegovernedbyclassicalgeneralrelativity,italsoholdsforcosmicinflationmodels.{199}

Cosmicinflationmodelsareuniversemodelswhereascalarfieldproducesahyperexpansionoftheuniverseatmanytimesthevelocityoflightduringaverybrief period when the universe is younger than 10-33 seconds. As noted inchapters 7 and 8, all possible scalar field adjustments to classical generalrelativitythatareconsistentwithourobservationsoftheuniversearesubjecttothe transcendent cosmic creation event that flows out of the space-timetheorems. The theorems state that space and timemust have originated in thesamecosmicbangthatbroughtmatterandenergyintoexistence.In Hawking’s words, time itself must have a beginning.{200} Proof of the

beginningoftimemayrankasthemosttheologicallysignificanttheoremofall

time,assumingvalidityofthetheoryofgeneralrelativity.

ThumbsUpforGeneralRelativityWhatwasneeded tosolidify theproof for thebeginningof timewasevidencethat general relativity really does tell the true story about the dynamics of theuniverse.Fullyawareoftheimportanceofobservationalconfirmation,Einsteinproposedthreetestsatthetimeofhistheory’spublication.{201}Withintwoyears,in1919,ateamledbyBritishastronomerArthurEddingtonmettheconditionsforthefirst testwhentheyprovedthat thesun’sgravitybendsstarlightbyjustthe amount general relativity predicted.{202} This finding generated someexcitement, but with a probable error of about 10% in the measurement,scientistswerenotsatisfied.Intheyearsfollowing,progressinreducingtheerrorswasfrustratinglyslow.

By 1970 five more tests had been added to Einstein’s three. Accuracy ofconfirmationhadimprovedfrom10%to1%,{203}butstillnotenoughtoconvincealltheskeptics.Sometheoreticiansbegantospeculatethattheuniverse,thoughdominatedbygeneralrelativity,mightalsobeinfluencedtoatinydegreebyanunknown force field.{204} This speculation and imprecision cast just enoughdoubtonthespace-timetheoremtodampenenthusiasmforit,initially.However,asresearchhascontinuedthatsmallshadowofdoubthasshrunkto

thevanishingpoint.By1976anechodelayexperimentplacedonthemoonbyApollo astronauts reduced the uncertainty down to 0.5%.{205} In 1979measurements of the gravitational effects on radio signals further reduced theuncertaintytojust0.1%.{206}In1980ahydrogenmaserclock(basedonthelaserprincipleandnearlyahundredtimesmoreaccuratethanthebestatomicclock)aboard a NASA rocket confirmed general relativity to the fifth place of thedecimal.{207}Butall these testshavebeenmade in thecontextof thesun’sandtheearth’sgravity.Whatifthecontextweredifferent?

StrongFieldTestsComparedtothegravityofblackholes,neutronstars(starsthataresolidcrystalscomprisedofneutrons touchingoneanother fromthecentralcoresout to theirsurfaces),andtheuniverseinitsearliestmomentaftercreation,thegravityofthesun and the earth are weaker by more than a hundred thousand times.Astrophysicists have wondered for some time if departures from generalrelativitymightbeobservedforverystronggravitationalfieldevents.

Figure9.1:BinaryPulsarA pulsar is what remains from the supernova explosion of a very large star.During the supernovaevent, itundergoesacollapse so intense that itsprotonsandelectronsare fused intoneutrons.Asingle teaspoonfulof itsmatterwouldweigh more than two billion tons. A pulsar typically is only six miles indiameter,whereasanordinarystarliketheSunmeasuresaboutamillionmilesindiameter.

The first such tests were conducted in 1982 on the binary pulsar PSR1913+16.{208}Apulsarisarapidlyrotatingneutronstarwhosemagneticaxisissooffsetfromitsrotationaxisthatpowerfulpulsesofenergyarebeamedtowardthe earth every time it rotates. Most binary pulsars are systems in which anordinarystarorbitsapulsar(seefigure9.1).PSR1913+16isunusualinthatthestarorbitingthepulsarisalsoaneutronstar.(Notallneutronstarsemitpowerfulpulses.)Apulsar’sgravitationalpullonanordinarystarorbitingaboutitisveryintense.Thegravitational interaction between twoneutron stars orbiting aboutoneanotherismoreintenseyet.Initialexperimentsshowednodeparturesfromthepredictionsofgeneralrelativity.Butagaintheerrormarginwasabout10%.In January1992, an international teamof astronomers led byRussellHulse

and JosephTaylorpublished the resultsof tenyears’high-qualityobservationsnot only on this pulsar but also on two others.{209} The team applied threeseparate tests of general relativity to each of the pulsars. In each case generalrelativitypassedwith flyingcolors. In thecaseofPSR1913+16, theobservedresultsagreedwith thevaluespredictedbygeneral relativity toanaccuracyofbetterthan0.5%.The 0.5% accuracy figure for general relativity is based on one set of

experimental constraints only. General relativity predicts that, over time, twoneutron stars orbiting about one another will radiate so much gravitationalenergy that they will spiral inward toward one another causing their orbitalperiods to speed up. Careful measurements of the orbital periods for PSR

1913+16 year by year provide an ever more stringent test of the theory ofgeneralrelativity.Withmeasurementsnowextendingovertwentyyears(1974to1994),generalrelativityisconfirmedoveralltoanerrorofnomorethanonepartin a hundred trillion. In the words of Roger Penrose, “This makes Einstein’sgeneral relativity, in this particular sense, the most accurately tested theoryknowntoscience!”{210}Therestofthescientificcommunityagreed,awardingtoHulseandTaylortheNobelPrizeinphysicsfortheirbreakthroughefforts.

GeneralRelativityConfirmedinAllContextsWhile Hulse and Taylor’s measurements did convince the community ofphysicists and astronomers of general relativity’s reliability, there were still afew doubters among certain theologians and philosophers. They had beenwaitingforgeneralrelativitytobeprovedinallrelevantcontexts.But,thankstoadditionaldiscoveries,theirwaitisover.Previous to Hulse and Taylor’s work, general relativity had passed eleven

independent experimental tests.Whatwas lacking, however,were tests in andaroundblackholes, thedemonstrationofperfectornearperfect (and thereforeunambiguous) “Einstein rings,” and the demonstration of the predicted butelusive “Lense-Thirring effect.” These evidences now have been supplied bynewscientificobservations.As twoAustrianphysicists, JosephLenseandHansThirring,pointedout in

1918, general relativity predicts that any spinning massive body will drag ortwistthespace-timefabricinitsimmediateneighborhood.Specifically,generalrelativitystatesthatifadiskofmaterialorbitsaverydensebodylikeaneutronstar or black hole at an angle to the plane of the star or hole’s spin axis, thedraggingortwistingofspace-timethatispredictedwillcausethedisktowobblelikeachild’stop.Inturn,thewobblewillgenerateoscillationsintheintensityoftheX-rayradiationemittedfromthegasinthedisk.Thetheoryevenpredictstherateatwhichtheoscillationsshouldoccuraccordingtothespincharacteristicsoftheparticularneutronstarorblackhole.Ata1997meetingoftheAmericanAstronomicalSocietytwoseparateteams,

one from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and the other from theAstronomicalObservatoryofRomeandtheUniversityofRome,reportedonthefirsteverdetectionofsuchoscillations.TheAmericanteamobservedfiveblackholesanddiscoveredoscillationsas rapidas300 timespersecond.{211} In eachcasetheoscillationratewasexactlywhatgeneralrelativitypredicted.TheItalianteam observed several black holes and likewise the general relativisticpredictions were right on target. Recently, an independent study done withNASA’s Rossi X-ray Timing Explorer satellite confirmed the Lense-Thirring

effectonneutronstarsthatspin1,000timespersecond.{212}A fewweeks after the twisting of the space-time fabricwas first observed,

generalrelativitypassedthreemoretests.Onewasthefirstconclusiveproofforthe existence of stellar mass black holes. (General relativity predicts that agalaxy of our size and age should contain several stellar mass black holes.)Measurementsof theorbitalcharacteristicsofanopticalstarorbiting thex-raynova, A0620-00, established beyond all doubt that the nova exceeded themaximum mass for a stable neutron star (meaning that the star could notpossiblyhaveavoidedbecomingablackhole).{213}Sincethen,severalmoreX-raynovaehaveyieldedthesameconclusion.{214}General relativity also predicts the existence of supermassive (exceeding a

million solar masses) black holes in the nuclei of very large galaxies. Theexistence of such supermassive black holeswas established several years ago.Whatisnewisthefirsttimemeasurementofthevelocitiesoftheinnerregionsof the accretion disks surrounding these supermassive black holes.{215} Thesevelocities,measuringclosetoone-thirdthevelocityoflight,areconsistentwiththepredictionsofgeneralrelativity.Most people know that general relativity predicts that gravity will bend

slightly the lightof stars.Amuchmoredramaticanddefinitive testofgeneralrelativity can be had when a massive galaxy lies exactly on the line of sightbetween the observer’s telescope and a distant quasar. In this case generalrelativitypredictstheappearanceofan“Einstein”ringcenteredontheimageofthequasar.Now,forthefirsttime,anunambiguous,completeEinsteinringhasbeenseenatopticalandinfraredwavelengths.{216}Theaccompanyingimage(seefigure 9.2)wasmade by theHubble SpaceTelescope,what physicistAndrewWatsontermeda“dazzlingdemonstrationofEinstein’stheoryatwork.”{217}

Figure 9.2: The First Image of a Complete Einstein Ring at OpticalWavelengths

The last major prediction of general relativity still lacking observationalconfirmation was the Lense-Thirring effect for relatively weak gravitationalfields.Thepredictedeffectisincrediblysmallanduntilrecentlynoinstrumentsexistedwiththenecessarysensitivitytoeitherconfirmordenygeneralrelativityatthislevel.Whatdidthetrickwasafour-year-longstudyontwolaser-rangedsatellites,LAGEOSandLAGEOSII,orbitingtheearth.{218}FivephysicistsfromItalyandSpainestablishedthattheLense-Thirringeffectindeedexistsforweakfields of gravity and its value is within 10% of general relativity’s predictionwithaplusorminustotalerrorofabout20%.{219}Finally, a hypernova, the first one ever seen, was observed in 1998. A

hypernova is an explosion so intense that at certain wavelengths (gamma raywavelengths) and for a few seconds the energy release is the equivalent ofmillions of supernovae (a supernova at maximum light outshines a hundredbillionordinary stars).So intensewas this explosion that somecompared it tothebigbangitselfandspeculated thatperhaps itsenergyoutputwas toomuchforthelawsofphysics.{220}Abandoningthelawsofphysicswouldopenthedoorto abandoning all the physical evidence for divine creation. But, generalrelativity provides an easy, albeit dramatic, rescue. According to generalrelativity,themergerofneutronstarsand/orblackholeswillgenerateexactlythekindofgammarayburstthatwasobserved.{221}Infact,ifsuchaneventweretotakeplacenearourgalaxyratherthanmorethanhalfwayacrosstheuniverse,itwould produce the gravity waves predicted by general relativity and particlephysicsatastrongenoughlevelforustodetect.Ofcourse,ifsuchaneventwere

muchcloserthanthat,thehumanspecieswouldbeexterminated!Todayitcanbesaidthatnotheoryofphysicshaseverbeentestedinsomany

different contexts and so rigorously as general relativity.The fact that generalrelativityhaswithstoodallthesetestssoremarkablywellimpliesthatnobasisatallremainsfordoubtingtheconclusionsofthespace-timetheorem.

SoWhat?Thiscombinationoftestswiththeirsuccessiveshrinkingoferrorshaslaidtorestany nagging doubts about Einstein’s equations of general relativity. Sincegeneral relativity does describe accurately the dynamics of the universe, thespace-timetheoremscanbetrusted.The space-time theorems tell us that the ten space-time dimensions of the

universehaveexistedonlyforaslongastheuniversehasbeenexpanding,lessthan15billionyears.Timereallydoeshaveabeginning.Thelawofcausality(orthelawofstatisticalcorrelationinwhichquantumor

statistical mechanical effects are significant) says that effects emanate fromcausesandnot theotherwayaround.Thus,causesprecede theireffects.Time,then, can be defined as a dimension alongwhich cause-and-effect phenomenaoccur.While a fewphilosophersmight object to this causal timedefinition, it is a

definitionthatallowsalltime-dependentphenomenainthesciencestobetreatedconsistently.Itisthemostcommondefinitionoftimeemployedbythepopularmediaandinlaysociety.Sincenophysicallylivinghumantranscendsthespace-timefabricoftheuniverse(and,therefore,cannotobservetimefromoutsideorbeyond time), no such human can boast an absolute or complete definition oftime.Such an absolute or complete time definition, however, is unnecessary.We

simplyneedaconsistentdefinitionof time,andweneed touse thatdefinitionconsistently.So,wheneverIrefertotimeinthisbook,Imeanphysicaltime,thatis,timeasdefinedbycause-and-effectoperations.The lack of physical time, thus, implies no cause and effect. If time’s

beginning is concurrent with the beginning of the universe, as the space-timetheoremssay,thenthecauseoftheuniversemustbesomeentityoperatingintheequivalentofatimedimensioncompletelyindependentofandpreexistenttothetimedimensionof the cosmos.This conclusion is powerfully important toourunderstanding of who God is and who or what God isn’t. It tells us that theCreatoristranscendent,operatingbeyondthedimensionallimitsoftheuniverse.It tells us thatGod is not the universe itself, nor isGod containedwithin theuniverse.Pantheismandatheismdonotsquarewiththefacts.

Pantheismclaimsthereisnoexistencebeyondtheuniverse,thattheuniverseisallthereis,andthattheuniversealwayshasexisted.Atheismclaimsthattheuniversewasnotcreatedandnoentityexistsindependentofthematter,energy,andspace-timedimensionsof theuniverse.Butall thedataaccumulatedin thetwentiethandtwenty-firstcenturiestellusthatatranscendentCreatormustexist.Forallthematter,energy,ninespacedimensions,andeventime,eachsuddenlyandsimultaneouslycameintobeingfromsomesourcebeyonditself.Itisvalidtorefertosuchasource,entity,orbeingastheCreator,forcreating

is defined as causing something—in this case everything in the universe—tocomeintoexistence.Matter,energy,space,andtimeare theeffectsHecaused.Likewise,itisvalidtorefertotheCreatorastranscendent,fortheactofcausingtheseeffectsmusttakeplaceoutsideorindependentofthem.Notonlydoesscienceleadustotheseconclusions,butsoalsodoestheBible.

Itistheonlyholybooktodoso.

CHAPTERTEN

AGODOUTSIDEOFTIME,BUTKNOWABLE

When the atheist astronomer Geoffrey Burbidge complained that his peerswererushingoff to jointheFirstChurchofChristof theBigBang,hewasonthe right track.Thespace-time theoremsofgeneral relativity leadnot just toatheisticconclusionbutspecificallytotheGodoftheBible.Of all the holy books of the religions of the world, only the Bible

unambiguously states that time is finite, that time has a beginning, that Godcreatedtime,thatGodiscapableofcauseandeffectoperationsbeforethetimedimensionof theuniverseexisted,and thatGoddidcausemanyeffectsbeforethe timecomponentofouruniverseexisted.Someof theBibleversesmakingsuchstatementsaregivenintable10.1.Other holy books besides the Bible allude to extra dimensions, trans-

dimensionalphenomena,andtranscendence,buttheseallusionsareinconsistent.Thegodandthedoctrinesthesebooksproclaimalwaysareshapedandlimitedinsomewaybythedimensionsoflength,width,height,andtime.The Bible alone describes God as a personal Creator who can act entirely

independentof the cosmosand its ten space-timedimensions.TheGodof theBible is not subject to length, width, height, and time. He is the One whobrought them into existence.Moreover, theBible alone describes attributes ofGod that defy explanation in the limited context of four dimensions. SomeexamplesarethedescriptionofGodasaBeingwhoissingularandplural(theTrinity) and the simultaneity of free will and predestination. God’s extra-dimensionalattributesarediscussedbrieflyinchapter17andindetailinanotherofmybooks.{222}

Table 10.1: Some Bible Verses Teaching God’s Extra-DimensionalCapacities

InthebeginningGodcreatedtheheavensandtheearth.(Genesis1:1)

ByfaithweunderstandthattheuniversewasformedatGod’scommand,sothatwhatisseenwasnotmadeoutofwhatwasvisible.(Hebrews11:3)

The Hebrew phrase shamayim erets, translated “heavens and earth,” alwaysrefers to the entire physical universe. The Hebrew word for “created,” bara,means “tomake something brand-new or tomake something out of nothing.”Hebrews 11:3 states that the universe we can detect was made through thatwhich we cannot possibly detect. This means that the universe was madetranscendently,thatitcamefromasourceindependentofmatter,energy,length,width,height,andtime.

This gracewas given us inChrist Jesus before the beginning of time. (2Timothy1:9)

Thehopeofeternallife,whichGod,whodoesnotlie,promisedbeforethebeginningoftime.(Titus1:2)

Theseverses state that timehas abeginningand thatGodwas causingeffectsbeforethebeginningoftime.

“Youlovedmebeforethecreationoftheworld.”(John17:24)

Hechoseusinhimbeforethecreationoftheworld.(Ephesians1:4)

Hewaschosenbeforethecreationoftheworld.(1Peter1:20)

TheGreekwordfor“world”inthesepassagesiskosmos,whichcanrefertopartof the earth, the whole of planet Earth, or the entire universe.Most scholarsagree that the context of these verses implies the latter definition. Thus, Godagainisseenascausingeffectsbeforethecreationoftheuniverse,whichwouldincludeourdimensionoftime.

Throughhimallthingsweremade;withouthimnothingwasmadethathasbeenmade.(John1:3)

Forbyhimallthingswerecreated:thingsinheavenandonearth,visibleandinvisible,whetherthronesorpowersorrulersorauthorities;allthingswere created by him and for him.He is before all things, and in him allthingsholdtogether.(Colossians1:16–17)

Theseversesdeclare that JesusChristcreatedeverything.NothingwascreatedthatHedidnotcreate.Heexistedbeforeanythingwascreated.That is,Christwasnotcreated.

On the evening of that first day of the week, when the disciples weretogether,withthedoorslockedforfearoftheJews,Jesuscameandstoodamongthem.(John20:19)

Theywerestartledandfrightened,thinkingtheysawaghost.Hesaidtothem,“Whyareyoutroubled,andwhydodoubtsriseinyourminds?Lookatmyhandsandmyfeet.ItisImyself!Touchmeandsee;aghostdoesnothavefleshandbones,asyouseeIhave.”Whenhehadsaidthis,heshowedthemhishandsand feet.Andwhile theystilldidnotbelieve itbecauseofjoyandamazement,heasked them,“Doyouhaveanythinghere toeat?”They gave him a piece of broiled fish, and he took it and ate it in theirpresence.(Luke24:37–43)

Thedisciples understood the impossibility of a physical bodypassing throughphysicalbarriers.ThatiswhytheyconcludedthattheformofJesusinfrontofthem had to be ghostly or spiritual and not physical. But Jesus proved Hisphysical reality by allowing the disciples to touchHim and by eating food infrontofthem.Thoughitisimpossibleforthree-dimensionalphysicalobjectstopassthroughthree-dimensionalphysicalbarrierswithoutoneortheotherbeingdamaged,JesuswouldhavenoproblemdoingthisinHisextradimensions.Sixspatial dimensions would be adequate. He could simultaneously translate thefirstdimensionofHisphysicalityintothefourthdimension,thesecondintothefifth,and the third into thesixth.ThenHecouldpass through thewallsof theroomand transferHis three-dimensionalbody from the fourth, fifth, and sixthdimensionsbackintothefirst,second,andthird.

YourattitudeshouldbethesameasthatofChristJesus:Who,beinginverynatureGod,didnotconsiderequalitywithGodsomething tobegrasped,butmadehimselfnothing,takingtheverynatureofaservant,beingmadeinhuman likeness.Andbeing found inappearanceasaman,hehumbledhimself and became obedient to death—even death on a cross! ThereforeGodexaltedhimtothehighestplaceandgavehimthenamethatisaboveeveryname,thatatthenameofJesuseverykneeshouldbow,inheavenandonearthandundertheearth,andeverytongueconfessthatJesusChristisLord,tothegloryofGodtheFather.(Philippians2:5–11)

Thispassagesaysthat,incomingtoEarth,JesusChriststrippedHimselfoftheextra-dimensionalcapacitiesHesharedwithGodtheFatherandtheHolySpirit.ButthesecapacitieswererestoredtoHimonceHehadfulfilledHismissionofredeeminghumanbeingsfromtheirsin.

•••

Religions that view the Bible through the limited dimensionality of theuniverse inevitably deny portions of God’s transcendence. Judaism accepts

almost all the teaching of the Old Testament but rejects the New Testament.IslamandMormonism“accept”boththeOldTestamentandNewTestamentbutaddotherholybookstosupersedethem.TheJehovah’sWitnessesaccepttheOldandNewTestamentsbutchoosetochangeseveralhundredwordsinboth.Othercults such as Christian Science, Unity, and Religious Science simply ignore“unpleasant”passagesintheOldandNewTestaments.ThecommondenominatorinallthealternativestoChristianityisadenial,at

least in part, of God’s transcendence and extra-dimensional attributes. Forexample,thetri-unityofGodistaughtonlyintheChristianfaith.Sufficeittosay,Burbidge’sconclusionstands.Generalrelativityandthebig

bangleadtoonlyonepossibleconclusion:aCreatormatchingthedescriptionofJesusChrist.HeisourCreator-God.

ButWhoCreatedGod?AquestionchildrenoftenaskaboutGodis,IfGodcreatedus,whocreatedGod?Asophisticatedadultmightphrasethequestionthisway:GiventhatJesusChristcreatedtheuniverseandeverythinginit,includingallmatter,energy,andthetenspace-timedimensions,whocreatedHim?Actually,thequestionitselfyieldsanelegantproofforcreation.Theuniverse

andeverythinginitisconfinedtoasingle,finitedimensionoftime.Timeinthatdimension proceeds only and always forward. The flow of time can never bereversed.Norcanitbestopped.Becauseithasabeginningandcanmoveinonlyonedirection,timeisreallyjusthalfadimension.Theproofofcreationliesinthemathematicalobservationthatanyentityconfinedtosuchahalf-dimensionof timemust have a starting point or point of origination. That is, that entitymust be created.This necessity for creation applies to thewholeuniverse andultimatelytoeverythinginit.ThenecessityforGodtobecreated,however,wouldapplyonlyifGod,too,

wereconfinedtohalfadimensionoftime.Heisnot.Again,byourdefinition,timeisthatrealmordimensioninwhichcause-and-

effectphenomena takeplace.According to the space-time theoremsofgeneralrelativity, such effects asmatter, energy, length,width, height, six other spacedimensions, and time were caused independent of the time dimension of theuniverse. According to the New Testament (2 Timothy 1:9, Titus 1:2), sucheffectsasgraceandhopewerecausedindependentofthetimedimensionoftheuniverse.SoboththeBibleandgeneralrelativityspeakofatleasttheequivalentofoneadditionaltimedimensionforGod.Intheequivalentoftwoormoredimensionsoftime,anentityisfreefromthe

necessity of being created. If timewere two-dimensional, for example, both a

timelengthandatimewidthwouldbepossible.Timewouldexpandfromalineinto a plane (see figure 10.1). In a plane of time, an infinite number of linesrunninginaninfinitenumberofdirectionswouldbepossible.IfGodweretosochoose,Hecouldmoveandoperatealonganinfinitetimelinethatnevertouchesorcrosses the time lineofouruniverse.AsJohn1:3,Colossians1:16–17,andHebrews 7:3 say,Hewould have no beginning and no end.Hewould not becreated.

Figure10.1:God’sTimeFrameRelativetoOurTimeFrameIf time were two-dimensional rather than one-dimensional, it would be somekindofplaneratherthanaline.Inthiscase,aninfinitenumberoftimelines(A)would run in an infinite number of directions. This, according to generalrelativityandtheBible,isthesituationwiththeCreator.IftheCreatorweretosochoose,Hecouldmoveandoperateforinfinitetime,forwardandbackward,onatimeline(B)thatneverintersectsortouchesthetimelineofouruniverse(C).Assuch,Hewouldhavenobeginningandnoend.Hewouldnotbecreated.

Non-TheisticRebuttalsGeneral relativity and the big bang provide a formidable threat to rationalatheism. Committed atheists have recognized the threat and have attempted aresponse.TheCouncilforDemocraticandSecularHumanisminthewinter1992–1993

issue of theirmagazineFree Inquiry lined up four physicists to write articlesunder the banner “Does the Big Bang Prove the Existence of God?”{223} TheBritish journal Nature enlisted its physics editor, John Maddox, to write aneditorial titled“Downwith theBigBang.”{224}Atheistshave also attempted toreviveaplasmamodeloftheuniversetoreplacethebigbang.{225}

InthefirstofthefourFreeInquiryarticles,Jean-ClaudePecker,atheoreticalastrophysicist,questionswhethertheuniverseisexpanding,andifitis,whetherit isexpandingata rateconsistentwithstarandgalaxyclusterages.{226} In thesecond, plasma physicist Milton Rothman claims, “All of the God theoriescollapse when three serious questions are asked:Where did God come from,wheredidGodexistbeforetheuniverseexisted,andhowdidthisGodlearnhowto create?”{227} In the third, astrophysicist Victor Stenger looks to a naturalspontaneous generation process followed by some “natural processes of self-organization” as theway to avoid the need forGod’s participation.{228} In thefourtharticle,philosopherAdolfGrünbaumobjectstoatheisticexplanationforthe big bang since it “presupposes some completely fictitious super-time forwhichnoevidenceatallhasbeengiven.”Heclaimsthat“itmakesnosensetotrust [themakingof] time asbeingon aparwith [themakingof] objects likestarsoratoms.”{229}In the Nature editorial, John Maddox predicts that since young-Earth

creationists have “impaled themselves on the hook of trying to disprove therelativelyrecentgeologicalrecord,”itwillbeonlyamatteroftimebefore“theimpatientcreationistswillhavetoretreattotheBigBang”tosupporttheirbeliefincreation.Maddoxconcedesthatcreationists’beliefshave“amplejustification”in the big bang. For this very reason he declares the big bang “thoroughlyunacceptable”becauseitimplies“anultimateoriginofourworld”whosecauseorCauserliesbeyondtheuniverse.{230}What is Maddox’s escape plan? He pins his hopes on a paper by British

astrophysicistsDonaldLynden-Bell,J.Katz,andJ.H.Redmount,whichshowsthattheuniversemighthavebegunasalineinspace-timeratherthanasapoint.{231}

APointoraLine?Let’stackleJohnMaddox’sobjectionsfirst.Thespace-timetheoremofgeneralrelativity does imply that the universe originated from a singularity, butMaddox’s definition of that singularity is inaccurate. A singularity is not aninfinitelysmallpoint,ashesuggests,butratherthewholeofthree-dimensionalspaceshrunkendowntoasizeofzerovolume.Thusitdoesnotmatterwhethertheuniverseexpandsfromapointoraline.

Bothapointandalinehavezerovolume.Forthatmatter,anyone-,two-,three-,orN-dimensionalshapefortheoriginoftheuniversethathaszerovolumeyieldsa theisticconclusion. Inall suchcases theuniverseexhibitsabigbangandanultimateorigin for all thecosmic space-timedimensions.Therefore,Maddox’sargument fails. Based on his ownwords,Maddox’s rejection of the big bang

flows from his personal commitment to atheism rather than from scientificconsiderations.

ANumbersGameJean-Claude Pecker points to Halton Arp andWilliam Tifft’s observations ofabnormalredshifts(redshiftvaluesthatdonotmatchthedistanceestimatesfortheobjectsinquestion)forsomequasarsasevidencethattheuniversemaynotbe expanding. He ignores the fact that the universe’s expansion is wellestablished by the distances and velocities of galaxieswhere no abnormalitiesare seen.Moreover, recently, radio astronomers have confirmed the universe’sexpansion through direct geometric distancemeasures to both a galaxy and aquasar.{232} These direct measures unequivocally prove that redshift values domatchdistanceestimates.Besides,thepeculiarredshiftsofArpandTifftarewellaccountedforbytheoverlapofquasarandgalaxyimages.Galaxiesandquasarssocrowdthefieldofviewthatinevitablyonoccasionseveralwilllineupintheastronomer’slineofsight.Whatappearstobeananomalousredshiftmayinfactbeanothergalaxyatadifferentdistance.Acknowledging thatArp andTifft’s abnormal redshiftsmaynot prove truly

anomalous, Pecker nevertheless believes he might still have a loophole. Hespeculatesthattheagesoftheoldeststarsmightturnouttobeinconsistentwithmeasuresofthemassandtheexpansionratefortheuniverse.However, the track record of the observations is just the opposite. As the

measuring tools multiplied and precision of measurements progressed, thecorrelation between the measured ages of the oldest stars and the age of theuniverse has become much tighter. Since 1992, we have seen a tremendousimprovement in the accuracy of age determinations for the cosmos throughmeasurements of the universe’s totalmass, baryonmass (mass of protons andneutrons), and expansion rates and through measurements of the maximumduration of star burning. Such measures were discussed in chapter 5 (see“Cosmic Expansion Velocity Matches Big Bang Prediction” subhead) andremainincompleteagreement.

OtherEvaporatingConcernsMilton Rothman stumbles over the question, If God created us, who createdGod? It’s the time-line problem. Scientific and biblical answers exist, butRothmanseemsunawareof them.Hisrealbarriermaybehisrefusal toacceptanyrealitybeyondtheconcreteandtangible.Hestatesthattheonlyacceptabletheoryisonewhich“permitsquestionstobeansweredinanempiricalmannersothatwemayunderstandtheanswers.”{233}Victor Stenger’s appeal to spontaneous self-generation at the moment the

universebegan,followedbybillionsofyearsofself-organizationthatcontinuesrightthroughtothepresent,ispurelyspeculative.Notoneexampleofsignificantself-generationorself-organizationcanbefoundintheentirerealmofnature.Infact,natureshowsusjusttheopposite.(Exampleslikesnowflakesdonotcount.Theysimplymanifestorderwithlittleaccompanyingcomplexity.SeeArgument4inchapter14.)Withoutcausationnothinghappensandwithoutorganizationbyanintelligentbeing,systemstendtowardlowerandlowerlevelsofcomplexity.AdolfGrünbaum stumbles over the nature of time.Nowonder. Two of the

FreeInquiryauthorscorrectlyquoteSaintAugustineasstatingthattimedidnotexistbefore thebeginningof theuniverse.{234}SeveralChristian theologians tothisdayspeak,likeAugustine,ofGoddwellingintimelesseternity.ThisleadstotheverycontradictionsthatGrünbaumaddresses.ButtheBibleclaims(seeJohn17:4, Ephesians 1:4, Colossians 1:16–17, 2 Timothy 1:9, Titus 1:2, Hebrews11:3), and science confirms, that God was causing effects before the timedimension for our universe existed. (“Time” by our definition is that realmordimension inwhich cause-and-effect phenomena occur.) Once this concept oftimeisunderstood,Grünbaum’sobjectionstoGodasthecauseforexistenceoftheuniverseevaporate.TobefairtoAugustineandmanyAugustiniantheologians,Augustineclearly

taughtthatGodwasfullycapableofcause-and-effectphenomenonindependentofthetimedimensionofourcosmos.ItwouldbebettertoattributetoAugustinethattimeasweexperienceitdidnotexistbeforethebeginningoftheuniversenorwillitexistafterGodisfinishedwiththisuniverse.

TheBiggestChallenger?What some perceive as a more potent challenge to the big bang comes fromHans Alfvén’s plasma theory (plasma refers to high energy charged particlesdistributed insuchawaythat theyformaneutralgaseousmedium).Themainpointof theplasmamodel is thatgravitational theoriesaloneare inadequate toexplainthestructureanddynamicsofstellarsystems,galaxies,galaxyclusters,andeventhecosmositself.AccordingtoAlfvén,electromagneticeffectsmustplayanimportantrole.His

pointwasprovencorrect for thesolar systemas farbackas theearly ’60s.Atthat time it was demonstrated that strictly gravitational treatments could notpossiblyexplain thedevelopmentof theplanets inour solar system.However,the combination of gravity and electromagnetism, as formulated by Alfvén,providedthemissinganswer.{235}Alongsimilarlines,EricLernerrecentlyhasinsistedthatthebigbangcould

notexplaintheclumpingofgalaxiesintimescalesunderatrillionyears.{236}He

therefore suggested that the big bangmodel be dumped in favor of a plasmamodel. But the COBE satellite discovery of temperature fluctuations in thecosmicbackgroundradiation,confirmationsbyballoon-borneandground-basedmeasurements (see chapter 4), and positive detections of exotic matter (seechapter5)nowestablishthatLerner’sapplicationisunwarranted.Bothgalaxiesandgalaxyclusterscaneasilyformintherelativelybrieftimescalepermittedbythebigbangmodelwithoutanyneedforplasmaatall.Aguidingprincipleinastronomyresearchistodevelopexplanationswiththe

simplestpossibletheories.Allastronomersacknowledgethatmagneticfieldsarepresentingalaxiesandquasarsandthatthesefieldsplayasignificantroleintheproduction of non-thermal radiation (the explosive processes at work in thecenters of a small class of galaxies called “active galaxies”). However, themagneticfieldstrengthshereareathousandtimeslessthanforthesolarsystem.Forlargersystems—clustersofgalaxiesandclustersofclustersofgalaxies—themagneticfieldstrengthsaremuchweakerstill.Nowherehastheneedyetarisentointroduceelectromagneticeffectstohelpexplaincosmicdynamics.Ibelieve,however,thattheneedtoconsiderelectromagneticeffectswillarise

someday.Whenourobservationsbecomesufficientlydetailed, electromagneticrefinements to our gravitational theories shouldprovide a closer fit to the realuniverse. Let me emphasize that what I am predicting is an eventualelectromagnetic refinement of our best gravitational big bang models. Plasmawithoutsomekindofbigbangmeetswiththesamefailuretopredictobservablephenomenaasdoesthesteadystatemodel.What is encouraging to theists about these challenges from atheists is how

feebleeachargumentis.Theremainingattemptsbynon-theiststoescapetheisticimplicationsofgeneralrelativityandthebigbangallfallunderthecategoryofquantumgravityspeculations.Thesearedealtwithinthenexttwochapters.

CHAPTERELEVEN

ABRIEFLOOKATABRIEFHISTORYOFTIME

Several years ago I was invited to speak to a gathering of movie and TVwriters,directors,andproducers.MyideawastopresentscientificevidencesfortheGodoftheBible,butthegroupimploredmetocritiqueStephenHawking’sbookABriefHistoryofTime.AreviewofasciencetextforHollywoodmediapeople? It seemed bizarre. But, come the night of the event, the place waspackedwithtwicethenumberofpeopleexpected,andnearlyeveryonepresenthadreadthebook.What I learned that night is that British physicist Stephen Hawking has

become a folk hero formanyAmericans and a cult figure for new agers.Thefolkherostatusiseasytounderstand.Whocanhelpbutbestirredbythevalorofa man who must force the communication of his brilliant mind through theconstrictingbarriersofamyotrophiclateralsclerosis(LouGehrig’sdisease)?Hisstatusasacult figurecomesfromhisreputationforsuggesting that theoreticalphysicsrendersGodimpersonalandunnecessaryforourexistence.A Brief History of Time is Hawking’s fourth book, but his first aimed at a

popularaudience.Ithassoldverywell.Infact,itisthebestsellingsciencebookofalltimewithmorethansevenmillioncopiessold.Morerecentlyithasbeenmadeintoafeaturelengthfilmanddistributedtotheatersaroundtheworld.Mostof thebook relates thehistoryof theuniverse to the latestdiscoveries

aboutthetheoriesofgravity.Itisengagingiffornootherreasonthanthatoneofthe key history-makers is telling the story. The chapters on black holes areperhapsthemostlucideverwritten.Itsfewtechnicalflawsseemminor.Anyonedesiringtolearnaboutresearchontheapplicationofgravitationaltheoriestotheoriginanddevelopmentoftheuniversewillnotbedisappointed.

ControversialTheologyA Brief History of Time is more than a popular-level text on gravitationaltheories. What makes Hawking’s book unique and controversial are itsphilosophicalandtheologicalpronouncements.Inhisfinalchapter,Hawkingdeclaresthegoalofhislifeandwork.Hebends

allhiseffortstowardansweringthesefundamentalquestions:“Whatisthenature

of the universe?What is our place in it andwhere did it andwe come from?Why is it the way it is?”{237} Hawking’s dream is to answer these questionsthrough physics alone. Thus far he gives no reason for his refusal toacknowledge, or accept, answers already given elsewhere, specifically in thepages of theBible. From his close contactwithChristians—including his ex-wife, Jane, and physics colleague Don Page—we can assume he is aware, atleast,thattheBibleaddressestheseissues.Yet,hechoosestoignoreitsanswers.InaninterviewfortheSundayTimesMagazine(London),JaneHawkingsaid,

Theredoesn’tseemtoberoominthemindsofpeoplewhoareworkingoutthese things for other sources of inspiration. You can’t actually get anansweroutofStephenregardingphilosophybeyondtherealmsofscience.…Icannevergetananswer,Ifinditveryupsetting.{238}

AnAbsentGodThethrustofHawking’sphilosophizinginABriefHistoryofTimeistodemeanGod’sroleintheaffairsoftheuniverseandtoelevatetheroleofthehumanrace.Spearheading this thrust is Carl Sagan, who foreshadows the theme in hisintroduction to the book.According to Sagan,ABriefHistory of Time speaks“aboutGod,orperhapsabouttheabsenceofGod.”Itrepresentsanefforttoposit“auniversewithnoedgeinspace,nobeginningorendintime,andnothingforaCreator to do” (emphasis added).{239} Ironically, this message contradicts theconclusionsfromHawking’sremarkableworkonsingularitytheorems,whichinHawking’sownwordsestablishesthat“timehasabeginning.”{240}Through the principle of cause and effect, this theorem pointed obviously,

perhapstooobviouslyforHawking,totheexistenceofsomeentitybeyondthedimensionsoftheuniversewhocreatedtheuniverseanditsdimensionsofspaceand time. Hawking’s only hope, then, for escaping the beginning, hence theBeginner,layinfindingsomepossiblepointintheuniverse’shistorywheretheequations of general relativity (on which his space-time theorem was based)mightbreakdown.Evenbeforewriting that book,Hawkingbegan to reveal hismembership in

the ranksof the loopholeseekers. In1983StephenHawkingandJamesHartleadvanced thenotion that sincewecannotdetermineconditions in theuniversebefore10-43seconds(or,0.0000000000000000000000000000000000000000001)afteritsorigin,perhapssomeunknownphenomenoninthatspeckoftimemighthavedisturbed thegovernanceofgeneral relativity.{241} (Note:Thisnotionwasadvanced before string theorists had demonstrated that a ten-dimensionalcreationcalculationestablishedthevalidityofall thephysical lawsbacktotheactual cosmic creation event.) If so, space, time,matter, and energymightnot

have originated from a true singularity (beginning from an infinitely smallvolume).Theywentontoproposethatjustasthebehaviorofahydrogenatomcanbedescribedbyaquantummechanicalwavefunction,somightthebehaviorof the universe. If that is the case, they claimed, the universe could have justpopped into existence out of absolutely nothing at what most would call thebeginningoftime.This fanciful hypothesis provides the basis for Hawking’s widely quoted

statement,“Theuniversewouldnotbecreated,notbedestroyed;itwouldsimplybe.Whatplace,then,foraCreator?”{242}Itisthebasis,too,fornewagers’andatheists’claimsthataccordingtoscienceapersonalCreator-Godneednotbetheagencyfortheoriginoftheuniverse.ToHawking’scredit,helateradmittedinABrief History of Time that the whole idea is “just a proposal: it cannot bededucedfromsomeotherprinciple.”{243}

FlawintheProposalEven ifHawking’s hypothesiswere true, therewould still be no escaping theneedforaCreator-God.AsHeinzPagels,atheoreticalphysicist,explains:

This unthinkable void converts itself into the plenum of existence—anecessaryconsequenceofphysicallaws.Wherearetheselawswrittenintothatvoid?What“tells”thevoidthatitispregnantwithapossibleuniverse?Itwouldseemthateventhevoidissubjecttolaw,alogicthatexistspriortospaceandtime.{244}

HawkinghasnotgottenaroundtheneedforaCreator.Neitherhasheescapedthe singularity.FrankTipler, another theoretical physicist, haspointedout thatHawking may simply be substituting, unawares, one kind of singularity foranother, more specifically a classical singularity of general relativity for aquantumsingularity:

Aquantumuniverse[suchasHawkingproposes]…necessarilyconsistsofnotjustonefour-dimensionalsphere,butrathertheinfinityofspheresofallpossibleradii.However,sinceitismeaninglessfortheradiusofaspheretobelessthanorequaltozero,afour-dimensionalsphereofzeroradiusformsa boundary to Hawking’s universe.… He [Hawking] has eliminated theclassical singularity—thebeginningof time—only to have it re-appear asthe“beginning”tothespaceofallpossiblefour-spheres.{245}

TheGodBeyondBoundariesHawking himself has argued the case against any real escape for the universefromthesingularityandtheboundaryconditions:

If the universe really is in such a quantum state, there would be nosingularities in the history of the universe in imaginary time.… Theuniverse could be finite in imaginary time but without boundaries orsingularities. When one goes back to the real time in which we live,however, therewillstillappeartobesingularities.…Onlyif[we]livedinimaginary timewould [we]encounterno singularities.…In real time, theuniversehasabeginningandanendatsingularitiesthatformaboundarytospace-timeandatwhichthelawsofsciencebreakdown.{246}

If we substitute biblical terminology here, we can say that God transcends“realtime”{247}—thatis,thesingletimedimensionofthephysicaluniverse.ThusHe isnotconfined toboundariesandsingularities.Bothhumanbeingsand thephysical universe, however, are limited to real time. Hence, they would beconfinedbyboundariesandsingularities.Though Hawking undoubtedly seeks to put some limits on the role of the

Creatoror,moreprecisely, toeliminate theneedofaCreator’s involvement intheexistenceanddevelopmentoftheuniverse,heisnottryingtoeliminateHimaltogether.Heemphaticallyrejectsthelabel“atheist.”Hecomescloser,perhaps,to fitting thedescriptionofadeist. InABriefHistoryofTime he says, “Theselaws[ofphysics]mayhaveoriginallybeendecreedbyGod,butitappearsthathe has since left the universe to evolve according to them and does not nowinterveneinit.”{248}Hegoeson toconclude that“with thesuccessofscientifictheoriesindescribingevents,mostpeoplehavecometobelievethatGodallowstheuniverse toevolveaccording toasetof lawsanddoesnot intervene in theuniversetobreaktheselaws.”{249}Hawking’sreasonsfortakingadeisticpositionliebeyondhisperceptionthat

it is the majority view. He made clear from the outset that he believes thereexistsacompletesetofphysicallawsthatyields“acompletedescriptionoftheuniversewe live in,”{250} and further, that these laws “would also presumablydetermineouractions.”{251}Accordingly,“If therewereacompletesetof laws,thatwouldinfringe[on]God’sfreedomtochangehismindandinterveneintheworld.”{252}

CanWeKnowAll?The most fundamental clash between Hawking’s philosophy and biblicalChristianity (not to mention physical reality) is Hawking’s belief that humanbeings can discover that “complete set of laws.”By this, hemeans not just acomplete andconsistentunified field theory (a theoryexplaininghowa singleprimal force splits into the strong and weak nuclear forces and theelectromagnetic andgravitational forces)but “a completeunderstandingof the

eventsaroundus,andofourownexistence.”{253}Elsewherehehassaidthathewants to “know themind of God.”{254} Since the existence of theGod of theBibleortheexistenceofsingularitieswouldguaranteethathisgoalcouldneverbereached,itisunderstandablethatheseekstodenyboth.Ironically, his goal is not just biblically impossible but was proven

mathematically impossible by Kurt Gödel in 1930. According to Gödel’sincompleteness theorem, “no non-trivial set of arithmetical propositions canhave its proof of consistencywithin itself.”When applied to the cosmos, thismeansitisintrinsicallyimpossibletoknowfromtheuniversethattheuniversecanonlybewhat it is.{255}Normal experience is sufficient to showmostofusthat our human limitations will never allow us to learn everything aboutourselves and the universe. The nature quiz thatGod posed to Job some fourthousand years agowould still stump even so brilliant and educated aman asStephenHawking(seeJob38–41).Moreironically,Hawking’sownwordsprovehisgoalimpossible.Heacknowledgestwounavoidablelimitationsonourquestformorescientificknowledge:

1.ThelimitationoftheHeisenberguncertaintyprincipleofquantummechanics (the impossibility for the human observer to measureexactlyboththepositionandthemomentumofanyquantumentity).2.Theimpossibilityofexactsolutionstoallbuttheverysimplestofphysicalequations.{256}

AsRomans1:19–22affirms,evenabrilliant researchscientistcanwastehisorherefforts,inthiscaseontheoreticallyimpossiblelinesofresearch,ifheorsherejectsclearevidencepointingtoGod.

AllThisforUsHawking also rejects the anthropicprinciple,which is theobservation that theuniverse has all the necessary and narrowly defined characteristics to makehumanlifepossible.Hawkingapparentlyfindsitimpossibletobelievethat“thiswhole vast construction [the universe] exists simply for our sake.”{257} Assupportforhisincredulity,hesaysthat“theredoesnotseemtobeanyneedforall those other galaxies, nor for the universe to be so uniform and similar inevery direction on the large scale.”{258} But, he ignores a growing body ofresearch.Theuniformity,homogeneity,andmassdensityoftheuniverseallmustbe precisely as they are for human life to be possible at any time in theuniverse’shistory{259}(detailsofthisarediscussedinchapters5and14).Atthecloseofhisbook,Hawkingsuggests thataunifiedfieldtheorymight

be “so compelling that it brings about its own [and theuniverse’s] existence.”

Evenifaunifiedfieldtheorydidnotcreateus,Hawkingclaims,theGodoftheBible is not a candidate sincewewould be stuckwith the question of “Whocreatedhim?”{260}Likesomanyothersbeforeandafterhim,thegreathistorianoftimefallsinto

the trap of assuming thatGod is confined to the same time limitations aswehumanbeings.Asexplainedinchapter10,Hawking’sowntheoremanswershisobjection,ananswerthatNewTestamentScripturehadgivenmorethannineteencenturiesearlier(seetable10.1).AttacksbyphysicistsandotherscientistsontheGodoftheBiblearenotnew.

TheBibleseemsanaffronttotheirintellectualprowess.Thisancient“religious”documentmakesmanypointedandchallengingstatementsaboutcosmicorigins,allofthemprovable.Whatanaffronttopride.IknowIfeltit.Thecalltohumilityandsubmission

inviewoftheawesomenessofwhatGodcreatedandwroteismorethansomearewillingtohandle.NosocietyhasseenasmuchproofforGodasours.Butneitherhasanyother

societyhadaccesstosomuchlearning,research,andtechnology.Theseareallthings human beings tend to take credit for, especially those who considerthemselves themasters of learning, research, and technology.This iswhat theapostle Paul meant when he commented that not many who are wise by theworld’sstandardsarecountedastruebelievers(1Corinthians1:20–26).

CHAPTERTWELVE

AMODERN-DAYGOLIATH

Severalyears agoanalarmsounded like theone that echoed through Israel’scampinthedaysofKingSaul.TheGoliath,thistime,wasquantummechanics(atheorydefiningtheenergyrelationshipsofparticle-sizedphysicalphenomenain termsofdiscrete levels).Manyprominent theologiansheralded thisgiantas“thegreatestcontemporarythreattoChristianity.”{261}BesidesStephenHawking,several famous physicists and many new-age proponents have proliferatedpopular books exploiting the difficult and mysterious nature of quantummechanicstounderminetheChristianviewoforigins.Theseattacksseemtoexpressagainthedefiantreactiontomountingevidence

from physics and astronomy that the universe—all matter, energy, space, andtime—beganinacreationevent,andthattheuniversewasstrategicallydesignedfor life, as the following chapters describe. This evidence is now sufficient toruleoutalltheologicaloptionsbutone—theBible’s.Obviously,thisunexpectedturnof researchprovesdiscomfiting to thosewho reject thenarrownessof themessageofsalvationinJesusChrist.Intheirinsistencethattheinescapablecreator-designercannotbetheGodof

theBible,researchersgropeforareplacement,anyreplacement.Threequantumpossibilities in addition to Stephen Hawking’s “universe as a wave function”(discussedinthepreviouschapter)havebeenproposed:

1.QuantumTunnelingBritishastrophysicistPaulDavies,inhisbookGodandtheNewPhysics,writtenin1983, lockedallcause-and-effectphenomenainto the timedimensionof theuniverse. Because the act of creating represents cause and effect, and thus atime-boundactivity, theevidencefor time’sorigin,saidDavies,arguedagainstGod’sagencyinthecreationofthecosmos.{262}Apparently,Daviesis(orwas)unawarethattheBiblespeaksofGod’scausing

effects even before the beginning of the time dimension of our universe. Asindicated in table 10.1, the Bible also speaks of the existence of dimensionsbeyondourtimeandspace,extradimensionsinwhichGodexistsandoperates.Daviesbeganbypointingoutthatvirtualparticlescanpopintoexistencefrom

nothingnessthroughquantumtunneling(seefigure12.1).Suchparticlescanbe

produced out of absolutely nothing, providing they are converted back intonothingness before the human observer can possibly detect their appearance.Thistypicallymeansthattheparticlessoproducedmustdisappearinlessthanaquintillionthofasecond.

Figure12.1:QuantumTunnelingInclassicalphysicsamarblereleasedfromheightHwillrolldownthesideofabowl and up the other side to the same height H, assuming the absence offriction. Since the lip of the bowl is at a height of H + ΔH, the marble willremainforevertrappedinsidethebowl.Buttheuncertaintyprincipleofquantummechanicsstatesthatforaquantumparticletheremustalwaysexistaminimumuncertaintyintheenergyoftheparticle.ThisuncertaintyimpliesthataquantumparticlereleasedfromheightHhasafinitepossibilityofexceedingH+ΔHontheotherside.ThesmallerΔHisrelativetoH,thegreaterthepossibility.Also,thefastertheparticlecantravelfromonesidetotheother(thelessshallowthebowl),thegreaterthepossibility.Soquantumtunnelingimpliesthataquantummechanicalparticle canescape from thebowl,whereas a typicalmarble couldnot.

Davies next appealed to the grand unified theories of particle physics tosuggest that by the same means the entire cosmos could have popped intoexistence.However, he forgot to acknowledge that for a systemasmassive astheuniverse,thetimeforittodisappearbackintonothingnessmustbelessthan10-103seconds(102zerosbetweenthedecimalpointandtheone),amomentabitbrieferthantheageoftheuniverse.Ironically,Davies’argumentagainstGod’screatingcanbeturnedagainsthis

hypothesis.Quantummechanicsisfoundedontheconceptthatquantumeventsoccuraccordingtofiniteprobabilitieswithinfiniteintervalsoftime.Thelargerthe time interval, thegreater theprobability thata specificquantumeventwilloccur. This means that if the time interval is zero, the probability for that

quantum event occurring is also zero. Because time beganwhen the universewas created, the time interval is zero, eliminating quantum tunneling as apossiblecandidatetobethecreatorofthecosmos.Ofcourse,somewillarguethatsincewemaynotknowexactlywhatoccurred

before the universe was 10-43 seconds old, the possibility may exist that therelationshipbetweentimeandtheprobabilityforcertainquantumeventsinthattiny time interval couldbreakdown.However, this argument isbasedonpurespeculation, actually multiple speculations. First one must speculate that aspecific breakdown occurred. Then one must speculate that the breakdownoccurredatpreciselytheneededmomentoftimeandlocationofspace.Finally,onemust speculate that this breakdown occurred in a such a fashion that thequantumtunnelingoftheentireuniversetookplace.Stringtheoryblocksthisattemptedloopholeoutright.Asmentionedinchapter

4 (see “Ten-Dimensional Creation” section) and described fully in my book,Beyond the Cosmos,{263} solving the creation problem (the perceivedincompatibilityofquantummechanicsandgravity)intenspace-timedimensionsnotonlypermitsgravityandquantummechanicseverywhereandeverytimetocoexist and operate, not only predicts both special and general relativity asnaturaloutcomesofthesolution,butdemonstratesthatthelawsofphysicsholdbacktothecreationeventitself.Whileitistruethatnotallofthefundamentalparticlespredictedby thesolutionhavebeendiscoveredyet,manyhave.Also,allsixoftheexperimentaltestsdesignedtocritiquethesolutionduringthepastthreeyearshaveshownitsvalidity.As every student of philosophy knows, anything can be speculated in the

realm of human ignorance, including even the nonexistence of the theoristengaged in the speculation. Inhis bookDavies acknowledged thenecessityofavoiding suchphilosophical conundrumsby repeatedly appealing toOckham’srazor.{264}Ockham’srazorisaguidingprincipleofWesternsciencethatthemostplausible explanation is that which contains the simplest ideas and fewestassumptions. The possibility of quantum tunneling as creator of the universefailstomeetthecriteriaofOckham’srazor.

WHATISNOTHING?

Physicists,unlikephilosophers,usefivedifferentdefinitionsofnothingintheirmodelsoncreation.TheaccuracyofthedeclarationthatGodcreatedthecosmosoutof“nothing”dependsonwhichdefinitionofnothing thestatement implies.Thesearethefive:(1)lackofmatter,(2)lackofmatterandenergy,(3)lackofmatter, energy, and the four large expanding space-time dimensions of theuniverse, (4) lack ofmatter, energy, and all ten space-time dimensions of the

universe,and(5)lackofanyentity,being,existence,dimensionality,activity,orsubstancewhatever.{265}TheBiblesaysGodcreatedtheuniversewedetectandmeasurefromthatwhichnohumancandetectandmeasure.Inotherwords,theuniversecamefromnothingasdefinedin#4above.

Davies deserves credit for ongoing reconsiderations and revisions of hisposition. Inabookpublished in1984 (Superforce), heargued that the lawsofphysics“seemthemselvestobetheproductofexceedinglyingeniousdesign.”6\{266}Inamorerecentbook(TheCosmicBlueprint,1988)heposedthisquestion:“Ifneworganizational levels justpop intoexistencefornoreason,whydowesee such an orderly progression in the universe from featureless origin to richdiversity?”{267} He concluded that we have “powerful evidence that there issomething going on behind it all” and the “impression of design isoverwhelming.”{268}Inhislatestbook,TheFifthMiracle,Daviesconcludesthat“theoriginof life is virtually impossible” and that “you couldbe forgiven forconcludingthatagenomereallyisamiraculousobject.”{269}Daviesseemstobemovingtowardsomeformoftheism.

2.InfiniteChancesIn spite of the spectacular successes by string theorists in demonstrating thattheirten-dimensionalcreationsolution(see“Ten-DimensionalCreation”sectionin chapter 4) is valid from the beginning of time (the creation event), severaltheoretical physicists, nonetheless, have speculated that quantum mechanicsbehavesinsomefundamentallydifferentwayinthatextremelyearlyinstantoftheuniverse’shistory (previous to10-43 secondsafter thecreationevent)whenallfourofthefundamentalforces(electromagnetism,weaknuclearforce,strongnuclearforce,andgravity)areunified.Whilesuccessfullypredictingspecialandgeneralrelativityandsolvingsomeoutstandingproblemsinthephysicsofblackholes, thesetheoreticianscounter that thefullpanoplyoffundamentalparticlespredictedbystringtheoryhasyettobediscovered.Untilknowledgeofalltheseparticles are in hand, they claim, wemight not be able to close the door onalternatequantumphysics.Seizing the opportunity to speculate, these physicists hypothesize that

sometimebeforetheuniversewas10-43 secondsold,differentquantumphysicsallowed a vast seething space-time foam to form. This foam, they suggest,somehowsplitofforbuddedaninfinitenumberofbabyuniverses.Theyfurtherhypothesize that each of these baby universes would take on characteristicsdistinctfromalltheothers.An infinite number of universes, all with different physical characteristics,

thesephysicistsstate,couldexplain,withoutinvokingadivineCreator,whyone

universe possesses so many properties that are so highly fine-tuned for theexistenceofphysicallife(seechapter14).Theirargumentisthatwithaninfinitenumberofuniverses,allwithdifferentphysicalcharacteristics,anythingwouldbepossible,evenauniverseasexquisitelyfine-tunedor“apparentlydesigned,”asours is forphysical life.Wheredid thespace-timefoamcomefrom?AndreLindéboldlydeclaresthat“nothingisunstable.”Inotherwords,heclaimsthatabsolute nothingness will spontaneously generate something. I have sixresponsestothislineofanalysisandspeculation:

1.Thereisnoescapefromatranscendentcreationact.Thespeculationof these physicists all depend on something beyond physics as weobserveit.ThisisnodifferentfromthecreationstatementsinHebrews11:3andGenesis1:1wheretheuniversethatwehumanscandetectissaid to have been made from that which we humans have nopossibilityofdetectingandthatoneuniverseatitsbeginningiscreatedbrandnew.2.Ifabsolutenothingnessspontaneouslygeneratesspace,time,matter,and/orenergy,thentheprincipleofcause-and-effecthasbeenviolated.This would undermine the entire foundation of all the sciences,mathematics, and logic. Overwhelming evidence supports thatfoundation. Not one shred of evidence negates it. If absolutenothingnessweretrulyunstable,asLindésuggests,thenevenourownrealm would be disturbed. That is, we should be observingspontaneouscreationswithinouruniverse.Wedonot.3.Absolute nothingness implies a zero information state.Howdid azero information system acquire its subsequent high informationconditionwithout the input of an intelligent, personalCreator?HowelsebutthroughapersonalCreatordidaprimevalradiationfieldcomeinto existence and give birth to such high information systems ashumanbeings?4.Theappealtoaninfinitenumberofuniversesisaflagrantabuseofprobability theory. It assumes the benefits of an infinite sample sizewithout anyevidence that the sample sizeexceedsone.Consider thefollowingexample.Ifapersonspins101567(thenumberonefollowedby 1,567 zeros) roulette wheels a thousand times each, by randomchance, one of these roulette wheels would be likely to produce athousand consecutive zeros. But, if a person had only one roulettewheel to spin, then regardless how many other spinning roulettewheels might conceivably exist, should that single roulette wheel

produce a thousand consecutive zeros, onemust rationally concludethewheelhadbeenmanufacturedtoproducenothingbutzeros.5.Whatwe seehere is another caseof the “no-Godof thegaps.” Itseemsthatmanynon-theisticscientists(andothers)arerelyingongapsin our knowledge, in this case a veryminute one, to provide awayaround the theistic implications of scientifically established facts.Surely,theburdenofprooflieswiththosewhosuggestthatmorethanoneuniverseexistsor thatphysicalconditionsorphysical lawsweretotallydifferentbefore10-43seconds.6.Theevidenceformorethanoneuniversewillneverbeforthcoming.The theory of general relativity implies that once physical observersexist in universeA, the space-time fabric of that universe can neveroverlap thespace-timefabricofanyotherpossiblyexistinguniverse.{270} Travel or contact between one universe and another that mightpossibly exist would be prohibited even in principle.{271} Therefore,evenifGoddidcreatetwentydifferentuniverses,philosophicallyandmathematically,thesamplesizeofuniversesforushumansisjustone,andaslongasweresideinthisuniverseitwillalwaysbejustone.

3.Observer-CreatedRealityInpopular-levelbooksonquantummechanicsacleardistinctionisseldommadebetween the physics, the philosophy, and the religion of quantummechanics.Therefore,letmebrieflyexplainthedifferences:

• The physics of quantum mechanics tells us there are certaininviolable principles operating on quantum entities. These principlesallowthehumanobservertopredictaccuratelytheprobabilityfortheoutcome of any particular quantum event (for example, an electronmovingfromoneenergyleveltoanother).•Thephilosophyofquantummechanicsistheattempttodescribethenature of cause and effect in quantumphenomena and, in particular,theroleofhumanobserversinsuchcauseandeffect.•Thereligionofquantummechanicsistheattempttodiscernwhoorwhatisultimatelybehindcauseandeffectinquantumevents.

Inthe’20sand’30s,thephysicsofquantummechanicswasquestioned,mostnotablybyEinstein.{272}But not anymore.The experimental evidence puts thephysicalprinciplesofquantummechanicsbeyonddispute.A remaining problem, however, lies in the wedding of one philosophical

interpretationofquantummechanicstothephysics.DanishphysicistNielsBohr

castsuchalargeshadowovertheearlyhistoryofquantummechanicsresearchthathis“Copenhageninterpretation”hasbeenassumedbymanytobeoneofitsbasicphysicsprinciples.Butthatisn’tthecase.NielsBohr,whooperated frompresuppositionsequivalent to those found in

Hinduism,declared that, in themicro-worldofquantumphenomena, reality intheabsenceofanobserverdoesnotexist.Moretothepoint,heclaimedtheactofobservingcreatesthereality.Thushenotonlybelievedaquantumeventcouldnot take place without an observer, but that the observer, through his or herobservations,actuallybroughtaboutthequantumevent.Bohrarrivedathisconclusionsbynotingadifference inaquantumparticle

beforeandafteritsdetectionbyanobserver.Beforeaspecificquantumparticleisdetected,onlyaprobabilityofwhereitmightbelocatedorofhowenergeticitis can be known. But after detection, the precise location or energy level isdetermined. This movement from imprecision to precision led Bohr and hisassociatesattheBohrInstituteforAtomicStudiesinCopenhagentobelievethattheobserveractuallygivesrealitytothequantumparticle.

ALTERNATIVEPHILOSOPHIESOFQUANTUMMECHANICS

Oflate,theflawsinthephilosophicalaspectsoftheCopenhageninterpretation of quantummechanics have proliferated a varietyof alternatives. At last count, ten independent philosophicalmodelshavebeendevelopedandseriouslyproposed:{273}

1.Acoherentrealityexistsindependentofhumanthinking.2. A common fundamental cause lies behind thecause-and-effectphenomenahumansobserve.3.Allpossibleoutcomeswillactuallyoccur.4. The act of observation dissolves the boundarybetweentheobserverandtheobserved.5.Theworldobeysanonhumankindofreasoning.6.Theworld is composedofobjects thatpossessattributeswhetherornottheobjectsareobserved.7.Theonlyobserverwhocounts is theconsciousobserver.8. The world is twofold, consisting of potentialsandactualities.9. The real essence of substances is beyond ourknowledge.

10. The physical realm is the materialization ofpurethought.

Since the foundingof theCopenhagen interpretationofquantummechanics,others,mainlynon-physicists,haveappliedBohr’sconclusionsaboutaquantumparticle to the entire universe. If an observer can give reality to a quantumparticle, they say,whynot to thewholeof thecosmos itself?Ofcourse, thesepeople assume that the observer in question is a human observer. From thisassumption,itseemslogicaltoconcludethathumanbeings,notGod,createdtheuniverse.Some of the logical flaws in this line of reasoning are obvious; others are

moresubtle:

• There is no movement from imprecision to precision in quantumphenomena.Allthathappensisthattheobservercanchoosewheretoputtheimprecision.Iftheobserverchoosestomeasurethepositionofthequantumparticle accurately,heor she loses thepotential for anyprecision in measuring the particle’s momentum. Conversely, if theobserver chooses tomeasure themomentumof the quantumparticleaccurately, the potential for any precision on the position of theparticlewillbeirretrievablylost.•Whilepurequantumeventsdoexhibiteffectsthataresignificantandimportant, they result in no permanent change to any part of theuniverse.• The observer does not give reality to the quantum entity. Theobserver can only choose what aspect of the reality he wants todiscern. Though in quantum entities, indefinite properties becomedefinite to the observer through measurements, the observer cannotdetermine how and when the indefinite property becomes definite.Thatis,atsomepointinthemeasurementsequence,thepurequantummechanical description becomes invalid and the physical systemassumes a specific physical state.However, exactlywhere andwhenthistransitionoccurscannotbedeterminedbyhumanobservers.•Ratherthantellingusthatwehumanbeingsaremorepowerfulthanweotherwisethought,quantummechanicstellsusthatweareweaker.In classical physics, no apparent limit exists on our ability to makeaccurate measurements. In quantum mechanics, a fundamental andeasily determinable limit exists. In classical physics, we can see allaspects of causality. But in quantum mechanics, some aspect ofcausalityalwaysremainshiddenfromhumaninvestigation.

•Experimentsinparticlephysicsandrelativityconsistentlyrevealthatnatureisdescribedcorrectlybytheconditionthatthehumanobserverisirrelevant.{274}•Thetimedurationbetweenaquantumeventanditsobservedresultisalwaysverybrief,brieferbymanyordersofmagnitudethanthetimeperiodseparatingthebeginningoftheuniversefromthebeginningofhumans.•Forboththeuniverseandhumanbeingstimeisnotreversible.Thus,no amount of human activity can ever affect events that occurredbillionsofyearsago.• There is nothing particularly special about human observers.Inanimate objects, like photoelectric detectors, are just as capable ofdetectingquantummechanicalevents.

Alltheseflawspunctuatewhatshouldbeobvioustousall—thehumanraceisneitherpowerfulnorwiseenoughtocreateauniverse.Tosaythatwecreatedourownuniversewouldimplythatwecancontroltimeandrestructurethepast.Astimeadvances,thequantummechanicalalternativestoGodbecomemore

andmoreabsurd.Today, therearescientistsandphilosophersandmysticswhoarewillingtoclaimthatwehumansarethecreator.Theprogressiontowardabsurdityunderscoresthesetwoobservations:

1.ThepersistenceofrejectionofGod’sexistenceandcreativeworkdespitethebuild-upofevidenceforbothsuggeststhatthesourceofrejectionisnotintellectual.Thiswasbroughthometomewhilereadinganarticleinoneofthe humanist magazines to which I subscribe. The article noted that“atheists,agnostics,humanists,freethinkers—callthemwhatyouwill—arealmost all former Christians.”{275} It seems the issue for these atheists,agnostics, humanists, and freethinkers is not so much the deficiency ofevidence for the Christian faith but rather the deficiencies of Christians.Theyseemtobereactingtotheirpast,holdingbitternessoverthewrongsorabuses they incurred in their experiences with Christians or with peoplewhocallthemselvesChristians.

2.TheappealtoincreasingabsurditiesinresponsetotheevidencesfortheGodoftheBibledemonstratesagainhowsecuretheseevidencesmustbe.Nothinginourhumanexperiencecanbeprovenabsolutely.Ourlimitationsin the space-time continuum of the cosmos guarantee this. But when aconclusionisopposedbyincreasinglyabsurdalternativeexplanations,thatindicatessomethingaboutthestrengthoftheconclusion.Forexample,the

Flat-EarthSocietystillhas“reasons”forrejectingtheconclusionthatplanetEarth is spherical.But the reasonspresented todayaremuchmoreabsurdthan those presented thirty years ago and far more absurd than thosepresentedahundredyearsago.Thus,thehistoryoftheirappealsforaflat-Earth interpretation reflect the growing certainty about Earth’s roughlyspherical shape. Likewise, the history of appeals for a non-theisticinterpretationforthephysicalrealmreflectthegrowingcertaintyabouttheexistenceoftheGodoftheBible.

CHAPTERTHIRTEEN

THEDIVINEWATCHMAKER

The evidence for design in the natural realm has always been a favoriteargument forGod’s existence.Though in the past it has been criticized for itslackofrigorandthoroughness,thedesignargumenthasconsistentlyprovedthemost compelling argument for God. That’s because the design evidence issimple,concrete,andtangible.

Paley’sWatchmakerArgumentA classic historical example of such tangible simplicity comes from theeighteenth-centuryBritishtheologian-naturalistWilliamPaleyandiscalled“theWatchmakerargument.”

In crossing a heath, suppose I pitchedmy foot against a stone, andwereasked how the stone came to be there; Imight possibly answer, that, foranythingIknewtothecontrary,itlainthereforever:norwoulditperhapsbeveryeasytoshowtheabsurdityofthisanswer.ButsupposeIhadfoundawatchupontheground,anditshouldbeinquiredhowthewatchhappenedtobeinthatplace;IshouldhardlythinkoftheanswerwhichIhadbeforegiven,thatforanythingIknew,thewatchmighthavealwaysbeenthere.…Thewatchmusthavehadamaker: that theremusthaveexisted, at sometime,andatsomeplaceorother,anartificerorartificers,whoformeditforthe purpose which we find it actually to answer; who comprehended itsconstruction,anddesigneditsuse.…Everyindicationofcontrivance,everymanifestationofdesign,whichexistedinthewatch,existsintheworksofnature;withthedifference,onthesideofnature,ofbeinggreaterormore,andthatinadegreewhichexceedsallcomputation.{276}

Nooneofsoundmind,Paleyexplains,wouldeverconcludethatawatchwastheproductofbitsofdust,dirt,androckbeingshuffled togetherundernaturalprocesses.Evenifthenaturalprocesseswereallowedtooperateforaverylongtime,therewouldstillbenorationalhopeforawatchtobeassembled.Yet,asall the naturalists of Paley’s day admitted and all the biologists of todayemphatically concur, the complexity and capability of living organisms fartranscendsanythingwe see in awatch. If awatch’s complexity andcapability

demand an intelligent and creative maker, surely, Paley reasoned, the livingorganismsonourplanetdemandaMakeroffargreaterintelligenceandcreativeability.

RebuttalsbyHume,Darwin,andGouldAspersuasive asPaley’sWatchmaker argumentmay seem, it hasbeen largelyrejected by secular scholars. The basis for the rejection stems from threerebuttals:onebyphilosopherDavidHume,onebybiologistCharlesDarwin,andonebypaleontologistStephenJayGould.Humearguedthat theanalogybetweenthewatchandalivingorganismwas

notcloseenough.Heclaimedthatalivingorganismonlyhastheappearanceofanengine,andthat,therefore,thecomplexityandcapabilityoflivingorganismswere only evidences forapparent design.As towhere the apparent design oforganisms came from, Hume hypothesized a universe composed of a finitenumberofparticlesall inperpetual randommotion for infinite time. Insuchauniverse, Hume declared, the random shuffling of matter eventually wouldproducecomplexbioformswelladaptedtotheirenvironment.Suchcomplexityandadaptationwouldbeartothecasualobservertheappearanceofdesign.{277}Darwin argued that observations within Earth’s biosphere established three

self-evident truths: (1) tremendous variations existed among populations oforganisms, (2) these variations could be inherited, and (3) all organismswereinvolvedinanintensecompetitionforsurvivalthatwouldfavorthepreservationbynatural selectionof superior variations.To these three cannowbe added afourth:New variations to replace those extinguished through natural selectionare generated by random changes, or mutations, in the genetic codes withinorganismsthatareresponsiblefor the inheritablecharacteristics.ManymodernDarwinists therefore conclude that randommutations and natural selection arecapableofexplainingallofthechangesinlifeformsthathaveoccurredduringthehistoryofourplanet.In summarizing the claims of such radical Darwinists, biochemist Jacques

Monodsays,“Chancealoneisatthesourceofeveryinnovation,ofallcreationin thebiosphere.Purechance,absolutelyfreebutblind,at theveryrootof thestupendousedificeofevolution.”{278}In his best-selling book The Blind Watchmaker: Why the Evidence of

Evolution Reveals a Universe Without Design, biologist and self-professedatheistRichardDawkinsdeclares,

Naturalselection,theblind,unconscious,automaticprocesswhichDarwindiscovered, andwhichwe nowknow is the explanation for the existenceandapparentlypurposefulformofalllife,hasnopurposeinmind.Ithasno

mindandnomind’seye.Itdoesnotplanforthefuture.Ithasnovision,noforesight,nosightatall.Ifitcanbesaidtoplaytheroleofwatchmakerinnature,itistheblindwatchmaker.{279}

This is theheartof thematerialists’ reply toPaley, theclaim that theapparentdesignandpurposeseeninEarth’slifeformsisnotrealbutrathertheproductofstrictlynaturalprocesses.Gouldattempts tobuttress theDarwinists’attackonPaleybypointingouta

numberof“baddesigns”innature.{280}Hearguesfromhisexamplesthatlivingorganismsdevelopedbyrandomtinkering,notas theresultofanyrealdesign.Specifically,hegivesthecredittoopportunisticutilizationofpreviouslyexistingparts.Inhismostfamousexample,heclaimsthatthepanda’sthumbisaclumsyadaptationofawristbone,nottheworkofadivinedesigner.

AReplytoHumeHume’sattackonPaley’swatchanalogyisunfoundedforthefollowingreason:While no mechanical engine is an organism, all organisms are engines. Anengine is any system capable of processing energy to perform work. Allorganismsdothis.Buttheydoalotmore.Thus,sincenoonewouldrationallyargue that a working engine designed by another human could be chance-assembledbypurelynatural processes, it is farmore ludicrous to suggest thatstrictlynaturalprocessescouldassemblelivingorganisms.Humemadehisargumentbeforeastronomerscouldmeasurethecosmos.He

did not know his necessary condition for the natural assembly of bioforms,namelyinfinitetime,wasfalse.Neitherdidheknowthatsuitableconditionsforlifechemistryhaveexistedforonlyabriefportionoftheuniverse’sduration.Humealsowrotebeforebiologistswerecapableofappreciatingtheincredible

complexityand functionalityof livingorganisms.Statisticalmechanics tellsusthatifthemeanstopreservetheinitialandintermediatestagesofassemblyareabsent, the greater the complexity and functionality of a system, the lessadvantageous additional time becomes for assembly by randomprocesses (theparts wear out too soon). Moreover, assembly is not enough. Just as theassembledwatchmust first bewound up and the time set before it is able tofunction, soalso somethingorSomeonemust set theassembledorganism intooperation.Thanks to the inventionofanewkindofmicroscope,Hume’sclaimthatno

strict analogy exists between a machine and an organism has been provenincorrect. For the last four years biochemists have possessed X-ray scanningelectronmicroscopes so powerful they canmap complex biologicalmoleculesdowntotheleveloftheindividualatomsthatmakeupthemolecules.

Design that has been hidden from view now has been exposed.One of theearliest molecules so mapped was the crystal structure of the F1-ATPaseenzyme. The Japanese team that produced the map discovered nature’s ownrotaryengine—nobiggerthantenbillionthsbytenbillionthsbyeightbillionthsof ameter.{281} This tiny motor includes the equivalent of an engine block, adrive shaft, and three pistons. It is a variable speedmotor that runs at speedsbetween0.5and4.0revolutionspersecond.Near the other end of the size spectrum is a map produced by a German

researchteamoftheyeast26Sproteasomemolecule.{282}Thismoleculecontainsover two million protons and neutrons. Its map reveals that it serves as anintracellularwaste-disposalandrecyclingsystem.Smallermoleculeswithinthecellattachproteinmarkers(calledubiquitin)tootherproteinmoleculesdeemedwaste material. (Apparently the cell’s command center informs the markermoleculeswhichproteinsarereadyfordisposal.)Sincetheseready-for-disposalproteinsresembletangledballsofyarn,thefirstjobofthe26Sproteasome,afteridentifyingataggedprotein,istounfold,untwist,andunravelit.Thisfunctionisperformedbyanapparatusatoneendoftheproteasome.Oncethe targetedprotein isstraightenedout, theproteasomeslowlydrags it

into its core and cuts the protein into segments. These segments are preciselymeasuredbya“ruler”insidetheproteasome.Thecut-uppiecesarethenejectedfromtheproteasome,anda“sanitation”fleet (otherproteins)drivesby topickthemupandsortthem,separatingthestuffthatcanbereusedfromthestuffthatcannot.Todate, several dozendifferent biologicalmolecules havebeen somapped.

Notonlydobiochemistsnowseestrictanalogiesinthesemoleculestohumanlydesignedmachines, theyareobservingdesignsthatareactuallysuperior toourbest human efforts. Nanomotors (motors that are just several billionths of ameter in diameter) designed and built by human engineers, for example, aremorethantentimeslessefficientthantheequivalentlysizedmotorsbiochemistsfindinbiologicalmolecules.Themolecular biologicalmachines biochemists have so farmapped do not

workinisolation.Theyarestrictanalogiestofactories.Thebiologicalmachinescooperatively support one another in their tasks. Thus, not only have all ofHume’srebuttalsbeenrefuted,Paley’sdesignargumentisnowacknowledgedasbeingfartooconservative.

TheOriginsQuestionAmajorflawintheattackbyradicalDarwinistsontheWatchmakerargumentistheir failure toaddress theoriginof life.TheDarwinistmechanismsofnatural

selectionandmutationsareuselessuntilthefirstlifeformisassembled.Inspiteofdecadesof intense research,origin-of-life scientistshaveyet todemonstratethefeasibilityofanymechanism(s)fortheassemblyofalivingorganismfrominorganic materials by strictly natural processes (see chapter 16). Here theanalogy with Paley’s watch remains quite close. Both have a high degree ofcomplexity,andbothmovefromzerofunctionalitytocompletefunctionality.Another flaw is that, just like Hume, Darwin failed to understand that the

geologicerasdonotprovideevenremotelysufficienttimeforlivingorganismstochangesignificantlybynaturalprocesses.Whileitisbeyonddisputethatlifeformshave changedvery significantlyover the courseof thehistoryofplanetEarth, only micro-evolutionary changes have been determined to occur bystrictlynaturalprocesses.Naturalselectioncanmoveaspeciesonlyalimiteddistancefromthespecies’

norm,andthegreaterthedistance,thelowertheprobabilityforsurvival.Agoodexample of these limitations is demonstrated in dog breeding. One cannotpossiblybreedadogsignificantlysmallerthanateacuppoodle.Moreover,suchapoodlerequiresanintenselevelofcarejusttosurvive.Moretellingly,ifallthedogbreedswereallowedtointeractsexually,theywouldquicklyrevertbacktotheirwilddogancestries.Formacro-evolutiontooccurbystrictlynaturalprocesses,multiplefavorable

mutationsmust take place simultaneously at a rate sufficient to overcome thenatural extinction rate. This leads to an insurmountable problem, a problem Iaddressmorefullyinmybook,TheGenesisQuestion.{283}

EvolutionReversalAccordingtothefossilrecord,moreandmorespeciesoflifecameintoexistencethroughthemillenniabeforetheappearanceofmodernhumans.Throughtime,thenumberofspeciesextinctionsnearlybalancedthenumberof introductions,butintroductionsremainedslightlymorenumerous.Everythingchanged,however,withthearrivalofthehumanspecies.Sincethe

firsthumanbeing,thenumberofspeciesgoingextincthasremainedhighwhilethenumberofnewspeciesappearingmeasuresavirtualzero.Estimatesof thecurrent rateofextinctionvary, froma lowofonespeciesperday toahighoffivespeciesperhour.{284}Thoughmanybelievethattheinfluenceofthehumanrace on that rate predominates, environmental experts are willing to say thateven ifnohumansexisted,at leastonespeciesperyearwouldstillgoextinct.{285}meanwhile,asbiologistsPaulandAnneEhrlichdisclose,“Theproductionofanewanimalspeciesinnaturehasyettobedocumented.”Furthermore,“inthevastmajorityofcases,therateofchangeissoslowthatithasnotevenbeen

possibletodetectanincreaseintheamountofdifferentiation.”{286}Obviously,atremendousimbalancebetweenextinctionsandspeciationnowexists.Theimbalancebetweenspeciationtodayandspeciationinthefossilrecordera

cannotbeexplainedbyradicallydifferentnaturalconditions.Theconditionsareknown, and they are not significantly different. What is different is God’sactivity.TheBibledeclaresthatsinceGodcreatedEveHehasceasedfromHisworkofcreatingnewlifeforms.Butinthefossilrecordera(God’ssixdaysofcreation),Godwasactiveincreatingmillionsofspeciesoflife,introducingnewspeciesandreplacingandupgradingallthosegoingextinctbynaturalprocesses.WhatthematerialistsfailtoaddressintheirDarwinistmusingsisthereversal

in the direction of biological evolution. Before the appearance of the humanrace, life on Earth was becoming progressively complex and diverse (duringGod’sdaysofcreation).Sincetheappearanceofhumanbeings,lifeonEarthhasbecomelesscomplexanddiverse(duringGod’sseventhdayofrest).Much more could be added to the argument against the materialistic

interpretation of life, such as the problems ofmass extinctions, similarities inchemistry and form among Earth’s species, the origin of sex, non-randommutations,missinghorizontal branches in the fossil record tree, geneticdecay,etc. But space does not permit. Modern research in astronomy, biology, andpaleontology,farfromdiscreditingPaley,fullyexoneratehim.

ABadDesign?AsforGould’sexamplesofbaddesign,threeresponsescometomind.Thefirstisthathisjudgingofcertainbiologicalcomponentsasbadislargelysubjective.Others have disagreed with his evaluations. In particular, Peter Gordon takesissuewithGould’s best-known example of the panda’s thumb.Gordon arguesthat rather than the thumb being clumsy and jury-rigged, it is a functional,originaldesign.{287}Gordon’sconclusionhasbeenestablished ina recentstudyby six Japanese biologists who used three-dimensional computed tomographyandmagnetic resonance imaging todemonstrate thatcertainbonesof thegiantpanda’s hand form a double pincer-like apparatus that allows the panda to“manipulateobjectswithgreatdexterity.”{288}Organisms are so complex that no biologist can claim to understand them

completely.Thus,evenbiologistsare inapoorposition to judge thequalityoftheCreator’swork.AsecondresponseisthattobelieveincreationbyGodisnottoclaimthatall

the development in organisms is strictly divine. In addition to divineintervention,naturalprocessesareobviouslyatworktochange,atleasttosomedegree, the form and function of organisms. Thus the second law of

thermodynamics, for example, would guarantee increasing degradation of thedivinedesigns.AthirdresponseisthatGouldprovidesnonewexplanationforthedesignin

the “previously existing parts.” All he can muster are the already discreditedDarwinistexplanations.

ABetterArgumentFar from being shattered, Paley’s Watchmaker argument stands firm. But anobviouswaytostrengthenPaley’sargumentistolookatthewholeinadditiontothe part. Paley did the only thing he could do: examine a tiny part of God’screation in search of evidence for Him. That left unanswered, however, therelationshipof thewhole to thepart.But this isa relationship thatcannowbeexplored.Theuniversenowhasbeenmeasuredandnewunderstandingsof thewholehelpustocomprehendmoreabouttheCreator.

CHAPTERFOURTEEN

A“JUSTRIGHT”UNIVERSE

Noothergenerationhaswitnessedsomanydiscoveriesabouttheuniverse.Noothergenerationhasseenthemeasuringofthecosmos.Forpreviousgenerationstheuniverseremainedaprofoundmystery.Butwearealivetoseeseveralofitsmysteriessolved.Not only can we measure certain aspects of the universe, but in these

measurementswe are discovering some of the characteristics of theOnewhofashioned it all. Astronomy has provided us with new tools to probe theCreator’spersonality.

BuildingBlocksProblemBeforethemeasuringofthecosmos,non-theistsassumedtheavailabilityoftheappropriate building blocks for life. They posited that, with enough time, therightnaturalprocesses,andenoughbuildingblocks,evensystemsascomplexasorganismscouldbeassembledwithoutthehelpofasupremebeing.Inchapters4,5,7,8,and9,wehaveseenthereisnotsufficienttime.Inthischapterwe’llconsider just how amazing it is that the universe provides the right buildingblocksandtherightnaturalprocessesforlife.Toput this situation inperspective, imagine thepossibilityof aBoeing747

aircraftbeingcompletelyassembledasaresultofatornadostrikingajunkyard.Now imagine how much more unlikely that possibility would be if bauxite(aluminumore)issubstitutedforthejunkparts.Finally,imaginethepossibilityif instead of bauxite, river silt is substituted. So, too, as one examines thebuildingblocksnecessaryforlifetocomeintoexistence,thepossibilityofthathappening without someone or something designing them stretches theimagination beyond the breaking point. Four major building blocks must bedesigned“justright”forlife.

1.GettingtheRightMoleculesForlifetobepossible,morethanfortydifferentelementsmustbeabletobondtogether to form molecules. Molecular bonding depends on two factors, thestrength of the force of electromagnetism and the ratio of the mass of theelectrontothemassoftheproton.Iftheelectromagneticforceweresignificantlylarger,atomswouldhangonto

electronssotightlynosharingofelectronswithotheratomswouldbepossible.But if the electromagnetic force were significantly weaker, atoms would nothang on to electrons at all, and again, the sharing of electrons among atoms,whichmakesmoleculespossible,wouldnottakeplace.Ifmorethanjustafewkinds of molecules are to exist, the electromagnetic force must be moredelicatelybalancedyet.Thesizeandstabilityofelectronorbitsaboutthenucleiofatomsdependson

theratioof theelectronmasstotheprotonmass.Unlessthisratioisdelicatelybalanced, the chemical bondings essential for life chemistry could never takeplace.

2.GettingtheRightAtomsLifemoleculescannotresultunlesssufficientquantitiesoftheelementsessentialforlifeareavailable,whichmeansatomsofvarioussizesmustbeabletoform.Forthattohappen,adelicatebalancemustexistamongtheconstantsofphysicswhich govern the strong and weak nuclear forces, gravity, and the nuclearground state energies (quantum energy levels important for the forming ofelementsfromprotonsandneutrons)forseveralkeyelements.In the case of the strong nuclear force—the force governing the degree to

whichprotonsandneutronssticktogetherinatomicnuclei—thebalanceiseasyto see. If this force were too weak, protons and neutrons would not sticktogether. In thatcase,onlyoneelementwouldexist in theuniverse,hydrogen,becausethehydrogenatomhasonlyoneprotonandnoneutronsinitsnucleus.On theotherhand, if the strongnuclear forcewereof slightlygreater strengththanwhatweobserveinthecosmos,protonsandneutronswouldhavesuchanaffinity for one another that not onewould remain alone.Theywould all findthemselvesattachedtomanyotherprotonsandneutrons.Insuchauniversetherewould be no hydrogen, only heavy elements. Life chemistry is impossiblewithouthydrogen;itisalsoimpossibleifhydrogenistheonlyelement.Howdelicate is thebalance for the strongnuclear force? If itwere just 2%

weakeror0.3%strongerthanitactuallyis,lifewouldbeimpossibleatanytimeandanyplacewithintheuniverse.{289}Are we just considering life as we know it? No, we’re talking about any

conceivable kind of life chemistry throughout the cosmos. This delicateconditionmustbemetuniversally.In the case of theweak nuclear force—the force that governs, among other

things, the rates of radioactive decay—if itweremuch stronger thanwhatweobserve, the matter in the universe would quickly be converted into heavyelements.Butifitweremuchweaker,thematterintheuniversewouldremainin

theformofjustthelightestelements.Eitherway,theelementsessentialforlifechemistry(suchascarbon,oxygen,nitrogen,phosphorus)eitherwouldnotexistatallorwouldexistinamountsfartoosmallforallthelife-essentialchemicalsto be built. Further, unless the weak nuclear force were delicately balanced,those life-essential elements that are produced only in the cores of supergiantstarswould never escape the boundaries of those cores (supernova explosionswouldbecomeimpossible).{290}Thestrengthoftheforceofgravitydetermineshowhotthenuclearfurnaces

inthecoresofstarswillburn.Ifthegravitationalforcewereanystronger,starswould be so hot they would burn up relatively quickly, too quickly and tooerratically for life. Additionally, a planet capable of sustaining life must besupported by a star that is both stable and long burning. However, if thegravitational forcewere anyweaker, stars neverwould become hot enough toignitenuclearfusion.Insuchauniversenoelementsheavierthanhydrogenandheliumwouldbeproduced.In the late1970s and early1980s,FredHoylediscovered that an incredible

fine-tuningof thenuclear ground state energies for helium,beryllium, carbon,andoxygenwasnecessaryforanykindoflifetoexist.Thegroundstateenergiesfortheseelementscannotbehigherorlowerwithrespecttoeachotherbymorethan4%withoutyieldingauniversewithinsufficientoxygenorcarbonforlife.{291}Hoyle,who haswritten extensively against theism{292} andChristianity inparticular,{293}neverthelessconcludedonthebasisofthisquadruplefine-tuningthat“asuperintellecthasmonkeyedwithphysics,aswellaswithchemistryandbiology.”{294}In 2000, a team of astrophysicists from Austria, Germany, and Hungary

demonstrated that the level of design for electromagnetism and the strongnuclear force ismuchgreater thanwhat physicists previously had determined.{295}Theteambeganbynotingthatforanykindofconceivablephysicallifetobe possible in the universe certainminimumabundances of both the elementscarbonandoxygenmustexist.Next,theypointedoutthattheonlyastrophysicalsourcesofsignificantquantitiesofcarbonandoxygenareredgiantstars. (Redgiantstarsarelargestarsthatthroughnuclearfusionhaveconsumedalloftheirhydrogen fuel and subsequently engage in the fusion of helium into heavierelements.)What the astrophysical teamdidwas tomathematically constructmodelsof

redgiantstars thatadoptedslightlydifferentvaluesof thestrongnuclear forceand electromagnetic force constants. They discovered that tiny adjustments inthevaluesofeitheroftheseconstantsimplythatredgiantstarswouldproducetoo little carbon, too little oxygen, or too little of both oxygen and carbon.

Specifically, they determined that if the value of the coupling constant forelectromagnetismwere4%smalleror4%largerthanwhatweobserve,thenlifewouldbeimpossible.Inthecaseofthecouplingconstantforthestrongnuclearforce,ifitwere0.5%smallerorlarger,lifewouldbeimpossible.Thesenew limitson the strengthsof theelectromagneticand strongnuclear

forces provide much tighter constraints on quark masses and on the Higgsvacuumexpectationvalue.{296}WithoutgettingintothedetailsofwhattheHiggsvacuum expectation value and quarks are all about, the new limits not onlydemonstrateanenhanceddesignforthephysicsofstarsandplanetsbutalsoanenhancedmathematicaldesignoffundamentalparticlephysics.

3.GettingtheRightNucleonsOnemustmonkeywith the physics of the universe to get enoughof the rightelementsforlife,andfurthertogetthoseelementstojointogethertoformlifemolecules.Onemustalsofine-tunetheuniversetogetenoughnucleons(protonsandneutrons)toformtheelements.Inthefirstmomentsaftercreation,theuniversecontainedabout10billionand

1 nucleons for every 10 billion anti-nucleons. The 10 billion anti-nucleonsannihilated the10billionnucleons,generatinganenormousamountofenergy.Allthegalaxiesandstarsthatmakeuptheuniversetodaywereformedfromtheleftovernucleons. If the initialexcessofnucleonsoveranti-nucleonswereanysmaller, there would not be enough matter for galaxies, stars, and heavyelementstoform.Iftheexcesswereanygreater,galaxieswouldform,buttheywould so efficiently condense and trap radiation that none of them wouldfragmenttoformstarsandplanets.The neutron is 0.138%more massive than a proton. Because of this extra

mass, neutrons require slightly more energy to make than protons. So as theuniversecooledfromthehotbigbangcreationevent,itproducedmoreprotonsthanneutrons—infact,aboutseventimesasmany.If theneutronwere justanother0.1%moremassive,sofewneutronswould

remainfromthecoolingoffof thebigbangthat therewouldnotbeenoughofthem tomake thenucleiof all theheavyelements essential for life.Theextramass of the neutron relative to the proton also determines the rate at whichneutronsdecayintoprotonsandprotonsbuildintoneutrons(oneneutron=oneproton+oneelectron+oneneutrino).Iftheneutronwere0.1%lessmassive,somany protons would be built up to make neutrons that all the stars in theuniversewouldhave rapidlycollapsed intoeitherneutron starsorblackholes.{297}Thusforlifetobepossibleintheuniverse,theneutronmassmustbefine-tunedtobetterthan0.1%.

Another decayprocess involvingprotonsmust also be fine-tuned for life toexist.Protonsarebelievedtodecayintomesons(atypeoffundamentalparticle).Isay“believedto”becausethedecayrateissoslowexperimentershaveyettorecordasingledecayevent(averagedecaytimeforasingleprotonexceeds4×1032 years).Nevertheless, theoreticians are convinced that protonsmust decayinto mesons, and at a rate fairly close to the current experimental limits. Ifprotons decay any slower intomesons, the universe of todaywould not haveenoughnucleons tomake thenecessarygalaxies,stars,andplanets.{298}This isbecause the factors that determine this decay rate also determine the ratio ofnucleonstoantinucleonsatthetimeofthecreationevent.Thus,ifthedecayratewereslower, thenumberofnucleonswouldhavebeentoocloselybalancedbythe number of antinucleons, which after annihilationwould have left too fewnucleons.If,however,thedecayrateofprotonsintomesonswerefaster,inadditionto

theproblemofatoolargeratioofnucleonstoantinucleons,therewouldalsobean additional problem from the standpoint of maintaining life. Because atremendousamountofenergyisreleasedinthisparticulardecayprocess,therateofdecaywoulddestroyorharmlife.Thusthedecayratecannotbeanygreaterthanitis.

4.GettingtheRightElectronsNot only must the universe be fine-tuned to get enough nucleons, but also aprecise number of electrons must exist. Unless the number of electrons isequivalenttothenumberofprotonstoanaccuracyofonepartin1037orbetter,electromagnetic forces in the universe would have so overcome gravitationalforcesthatgalaxies,stars,andplanetsneverwouldhaveformed.One part in 1037 is such an incredibly sensitive balance that it is hard to

visualize.The followinganalogymighthelp:Cover theentireNorthAmericancontinentindimesallthewayuptothemoon,aheightofabout239,000miles.(Incomparison, themoney topay for theU.S. federalgovernmentdebtwouldcoveronesquaremilelessthantwofeetdeepwithdimes.)Next,piledimesfromheretothemoononamillionothercontinentsthesamesizeasNorthAmerica.Paintonedimeredandmixitintothebillionpilesofdimes.Blindfoldafriendandaskhimtopickoutonedime.Theoddsthathewillpickthereddimeareonein1037.Andthisisonlyoneoftheparametersthatissodelicatelybalancedtoallowlifetoform.At whatever level we examine the building blocks of life—electrons,

nucleons, atoms, or molecules—the physics of the universe must be verymeticulously fine-tuned.Theuniversemustbeexactinglyconstructed tocreate

thenecessaryelectrons.Itmustbeexquisitelycraftedtoproducetheprotonsandneutrons required. Itmust be carefully fabricated to obtain the needed atoms.Unless it is skillfully fashioned, the atoms will not be able to assemble intocomplexenoughmolecules.Suchprecisebalancingofall these factors is trulybeyondourabilitytocomprehend.Yetwiththemeasuringoftheuniverse,evenmoreastoundingfactsbecomeapparent.

Cosmos’ExpansionThefirstparameteroftheuniversetobemeasuredwastheuniverse’sexpansionrate. In comparing this rate to the physics of galaxy and star formation,astrophysicistsfoundsomethingamazing.If theuniverseexpandedtoorapidly,matterwoulddispersesoefficientlythatnoneofitwouldclumpenoughtoformgalaxies.Ifnogalaxiesform,nostarswillform.Ifnostarsform,noplanetswillform. If no planets form, there’s no place for life. On the other hand, if theuniverseexpanded tooslowly,matterwouldclumpsoeffectively thatallof it,thewholeuniverse in fact,wouldcollapse intoa super-dense lumpbeforeanysolar-typestarscouldform.Thecreationeventitselfimbuestheuniversewithacertainrateofexpansion.

Subsequent to the creation event, the cosmic mass density and cosmic spaceenergy densitymodify in differentways the universe’s expansion velocity.Asdescribed in chapter 5 (see figure 5.2 through figure 5.3), for the universe toproduce all the stars and planets necessary to explain the possibility of Earthsustainingphysicallife,thevalueofthecosmicmassdensitymustbefine-tunedtobetterthanonepartin1060andthevalueofthespaceenergydensitytobetterthanonepartin10120.InthewordsofLawrenceKraussandmanyotherastrophysicists,thisonepart

in1060and10120isbyfarthemostextremefine-tuningyetdiscoveredinphysics.{299} An analogy that does not even come close to describing the precariousnature of this cosmic balance would be a billion pencils all simultaneouslypositioneduprightontheirsharpenedpointsonasmoothglasssurfacewithnoverticalsupports.

Relativity,QuantumUncertainty,andDimensionalityIn addition to requiring exquisite fine-tuning of the forces and constants ofphysics, the existence of life demands still more. It demands that thefundamentalparticles,theenergy,andthespace-timedimensionsoftheuniverseenable the principles of quantum tunneling and special relativity to operateexactlyastheydo.Quantumtunnelingmustfunctionnomoreorlessefficientlythanwhatweobserveforhemoglobintotransporttherightamountofoxygentothecellsofallvertebrateandmostinvertebratespecies.{300}Likewise,relativistic

corrections,nottoogreatandnottoosmall,areessentialinorderforcopperandvanadium to fulfill their critical roles in the functioningof thenervous systemandbonedevelopmentofallthehigheranimals.{301}Forquantumtunnelingtooperatesothathemoglobinfunctionsproperly, the

uncertainty in the Heisenberg uncertainty principle must be fine-tuned. Theuncertainty we observe is quite large. If the observer chooses to measure themomentumofaparticlewithprecision,heorshediscoversthatthepositionofthe particle is now known to only about ± half a mile. However, if theuncertainty in the position becomesmuch greater or smaller than half amile,hemoglobinwillnotfunctionasitdoesandadvancedlifebecomesimpossible.(There are other life-essential proteins like hemoglobin that depend on fine-tuned quantum tunneling.{302}) Counter to Einstein’s famous quote that “Goddoes not play dice,” this evidence demonstrates that, given God’s goals, Godmust play dice, but He has exquisitely designed the dice for the benefit ofphysicallife.For relativity to operate so that certain proteins containing copper and

vanadiumwill adequately support lifemeans that the value of the velocity oflightmustbefine-tuned.Thisprovesnottobetheonlyreasonwhythevelocityoflightmustbeheldconstantandfixedatthevalueof299,792.458kilometersper second.BecauseofEinstein’sequation,E=mc2, even small changes in c,thevelocityoflight,leadtohugechangesinE,theenergy,orm,themass.Thus,aslightchangeinlight’svelocityimpliesthatstarlightwilleitherbetoostrongortoofeebleforlifeorthatstarswillproducethewrongelementsforlife.Asexplainedinchapter4,stableorbitsofplanetsaboutstarsandofelectrons

aboutthenucleiofatomsareonlypossibleinauniversedescribedbythreelargeand rapidly expanding dimensions of space. In addition, six extremely tinydimensionsthatarepresentlydormantbutactivelyexpandedduringthefirst10-43 seconds of the universe’s history are critical for quantum mechanics andgravitytocoexist.Therefore,physicalliferequiresadifferentfine-tuningofthenumber of effective dimensions both in the present, namely four (three spaceplusone time), and in theearliestmomentof theuniverse’s existence,namelyten(ninespaceplusonetime).

MeasuringtheUniverse’sAgeThe second parameter of the universe to bemeasured was its age. Formanydecades astronomers and others have wondered why, given God exists, Hewouldwaitsomanybillionsofyears tomake life.WhydidHenotdo it rightaway?Theansweristhat,giventhelawsandconstantsofphysicsGodchosetocreate, it takes about ten to twelve billion years just to fuse enough heavy

elementsinthenuclearfurnacesofseveralgenerationsofgiantstarstomakelifechemistrypossible.Life could not happen any earlier in the universe than it did onEarth.Nor

couldithappenmuchlater.Astheuniverseages,starslikethesun—locatedinthe right part of the galaxy for life (see chapter 16) and in a stable nuclearburningphase—becomeincreasinglyrare.Iftheuniversewerejustafewbillionyearsolder,suchstarswouldnolongerexist.AthirdparameterthatIalreadydiscussedtosomeextentisentropy,orenergy

degradation.Inchapter4,Iexplainedtheevidencefortheuniversepossessinganextremeamountof specific entropy.Thishigh levelof entropy is essential forlife.Withoutit,systemsassmallasstarsandplanetswouldneverform.Butasextremelyhighastheentropyoftheuniverseis,itcouldnotbemuchhigher.Ifitwerehigher, systems as large as galaxieswouldnever form.Stars andplanetscannotformwithoutgalaxies.

StarMassesAfourthparameter,anotherverysensitiveone,istheratiooftheelectromagneticforce constant to the gravitational force constant. If the electromagnetic forcerelativetogravitywereincreasedbyjustonepartin1040,onlylargestarswouldform.And,ifitweredecreasedbyjustonepartin1040,onlysmallstarswouldform.Butforlifetobepossibleintheuniverse,bothlargeandsmallstarsmustexist.Thelargestarsmustexistbecauseonlyintheirthermonuclearfurnacesaremostof the life-essentialelementsproduced.Thesmall stars like thesunmustexistbecauseonlysmallstarsburnlongenoughandstablyenoughtosustainaplanetwithlife.{303}Considering again the piles of dimes, one part in 1040 looks like this: a

blindfoldedpersonrummagesthroughabillionpilesofdimes,eachpilethesizeofNorthAmerica,andreachingashighasthemoon,andpicksout,onthefirsttry,theonereddime.In the late ’80s and early ’90s, several other characteristics of the universe

weremeasured successfully.Eachof these, too, indicatedacareful fine-tuningfor the support of life. Currently, researchers have uncovered thirty-fivecharacteristicsthatmusttakeonnarrowlydefinedvaluesforlifeofanykindtopossibly exist. A list of these characteristics and the reasons theymust be sonarrowlydefinedisgivenintable14.1.Thelistoffinelytunedcharacteristicsfortheuniversecontinuestogrow.The

more accurately and extensively astronomers measure the universe, the morefinely tuned theydiscover it tobe.{304}Also, aswehave seen formanyof thealreadymeasuredcharacteristics,thedegreeoffine-tuningisutterlyamazing—

farbeyondwhathumanendeavorscanaccomplish.Forexample,arguablythebestmachinebuiltbymanisabrandnewgravity

wave detector engineered by California and Massachusetts Institutes ofTechnologyphysicists. Itmakesmeasurementsaccurate toonepart in1023.Bycomparison, fourdifferentcharacteristicsof theuniversemustbe fine-tuned tobetterthanonepartin1037forlifeofanykindtoexist(forcommentonwhylifemustbecarbon-based,see“AnotherKindofLife”subheadinchapter16).Mypoint is that the Entity who brought the universe into existence must be apersonalBeing,foronlyapersoncandesignwithanywherenearthisdegreeofprecision. Consider, too, that this personal Entity must be at least a hundredtrilliontimesmore“capable”thanarewehumanbeingswithallourresources.

Table14.1:EvidencefortheFine-TuningoftheUniverse{305}Morethantwodozenparametersfortheuniversemusthavevaluesfallingwithinnarrowlydefinedrangesforphysicallifeofanyconceivablekindtoexist.

1.strongnuclearforceconstantiflarger:nohydrogen;nucleiessentialforlifewouldbeunstableifsmaller:noelementsotherthanhydrogen

2.weaknuclearforceconstantif larger: toomuch hydrogen converted to helium in big bang,hencetoomuchheavyelementmaterialmadebystarburning;noexpulsionofheavyelementsfromstarsif smaller: too little helium produced from big bang, hence toolittleheavyelementmaterialmadebystarburning;noexpulsionofheavyelementsfromstars

3.gravitationalforceconstantif larger: starswouldbe toohotandwouldburnup tooquicklyandtoounevenlyifsmaller: starswouldremainsocool thatnuclear fusionwouldneverignite,hencenoheavyelementproduction

4.electromagneticforceconstantif larger: insufficient chemical bonding; elementsmoremassivethanboronwouldbetoounstableforfissionifsmaller:insufficientchemicalbonding;inadequatequantitiesofeithercarbonoroxygen

5.ratioofelectromagneticforceconstanttogravitationalforceconstantif larger: no stars less than1.4 solarmasses, hence short stellarlifespansandunevenstellarluminosities

if smaller: no starsmore than0.8 solarmasses,hencenoheavyelementproduction

6.ratioofelectrontoprotonmassiflarger:insufficientchemicalbondingifsmaller:insufficientchemicalbonding

7.ratioofnumbersofprotonstoelectronsif larger: electromagnetism would dominate gravity, preventinggalaxy,star,andplanetformationifsmaller:electromagnetismwoulddominategravity,preventinggalaxy,star,andplanetformation

8.expansionrateoftheuniverseiflarger:nogalaxyformationifsmaller:universewouldcollapsepriortostarformation

9.entropyleveloftheuniverseifsmaller:noproto-galaxyformationiflarger:nostarcondensationwithintheproto-galaxies

10.baryonornucleondensityoftheuniverseiflarger:toomuchdeuteriumfrombigbang,hencestarsburntoorapidlyif smaller: insufficient helium from big bang, hence too fewheavyelementsforming

11.velocityoflightiffaster:starswouldbetooluminousifslower:starswouldnotbeluminousenough

12.ageoftheuniverseifolder:nosolar-typestarsinastableburningphaseintherightpartofthegalaxyifyounger: solar-type stars in a stable burning phasewould notyethaveformed

13.initialuniformityofradiationif smoother: stars, star clusters, and galaxies would not haveformedif coarser: universe by now would be mostly black holes andemptyspace

14.finestructureconstant(anumberusedtodescribethefinestructuresplittingofspectrallines)

if larger:DNAwouldbeunable to function;nostarsmore than0.7solarmassesif larger than 0.06:matterwould be unstable in largemagnetic

fieldsif smaller:DNAwouldbeunable to function;nostars less than1.8solarmasses

15.averagedistancebetweengalaxiesif larger: insufficient gas would be infused into our galaxy tosustainstarformationoveranadequatetimespanifsmaller:thesun’sorbitwouldbetooradicallydisturbed

16.averagedistancebetweenstarsiflarger:heavyelementdensitytoothinforrockyplanetstoformifsmaller:planetaryorbitswouldbecomedestabilized

17.decayrateoftheprotonifgreater:lifewouldbeexterminatedbythereleaseofradiationifsmaller:insufficientmatterintheuniverseforlife

18.12Carbon(12C)to16Oxygen(16O)energylevelratioiflarger:insufficientoxygenifsmaller:insufficientcarbon

19.groundstateenergylevelfor4Helium(4He)iflarger:insufficientcarbonandoxygenifsmaller:insufficientcarbonandoxygen

20.decayrateof8Beryllium(8Be)if slower: heavy element fusion would generate catastrophicexplosionsinallthestarsiffaster:noelementproductionbeyondberylliumand,hence,nolifechemistrypossible

21.massexcessoftheneutronovertheprotonifgreater: neutrondecaywould leave too fewneutrons to formtheheavyelementsessentialforlifeifsmaller:neutrondecaywouldproducesomanyneutronsastocauseallstarstocollapserapidlyintoneutronstarsorblackholes

22.initialexcessofnucleonsoveranti-nucleonsifgreater:toomuchradiationforplanetstoformifsmaller:notenoughmatterforgalaxiesorstarstoform

23.polarityofthewatermoleculeifgreater:heatoffusionandvaporizationwouldbetoogreatforlifetoexistifsmaller:heatoffusionandvaporizationwouldbetoosmallforlife’sexistence;liquidwaterwouldbecometooinferiorasolventfor life chemistry to proceed; ice would not float, leading to arunawayfreeze-up

24.supernovaeeruptionsiftooclose:radiationwouldexterminatelifeontheplanetif too far: not enoughheavy element ashes for the formationofrockyplanetsiftoofrequent:lifeontheplanetwouldbeexterminatedif too infrequent: not enough heavy element ashes for theformationofrockyplanetsiftoolate:lifeontheplanetwouldbeexterminatedbyradiationiftoosoon:notenoughheavyelementashesfortheformationofrockyplanets

25.whitedwarfbinariesif too few: insufficient fluorine produced for life chemistry toproceedif toomany: disruption of planetary orbits from stellar density;lifeontheplanetwouldbeexterminatedif too soon: not enough heavy elements made for efficientfluorineproductioniftoolate:fluorinemadetoolateforincorporationinproto-planet

26.ratioofexotictoordinarymatterifsmaller:galaxieswouldnotformif larger: universe would collapse before solar type stars couldform

27.galaxyclustersiftoodense:galaxycollisionsandmergerswoulddisruptstarandplanetorbits;toomuchradiationiftoosparse: insufficient infusionofgasintogalaxiestosustainstarformationforalongenoughtimeperiod

28.numberofeffectivedimensionsintheearlyuniverseif smaller: quantummechanics, gravity, and relativity could notcoexistandlifewouldbeimpossibleif larger: quantum mechanics, gravity, and relativity could notcoexistandlifewouldbeimpossible

29.numberofeffectivedimensionsinthepresentuniverseifsmaller:electron,planet,andstarorbitswouldbecomeunstableiflarger:electron,planet,andstarorbitswouldbecomeunstable

30.massoftheneutrinoifsmaller:galaxyclusters,galaxies,andstarswouldnotformiflarger:galaxyclustersandgalaxieswouldbetoodense

31.bigbangripples

ifsmaller:galaxieswouldnotform;universeexpandstoorapidlyiflarger:galaxyclustersandgalaxieswouldbetoodense;blackholeswoulddominate;universecollapsestooquickly

32.totalmassdensityifsmaller:universewouldexpandtooquicklyforsolartypestarstoformiflarger:universewouldexpandtooslowly,resultinginunstableorbitsandtoomuchradiation

33.spaceenergydensityif smaller: universe would expand too slowly, resulting inunstableorbitsandtoomuchradiationiflarger:universewouldexpandtooquicklyforsolar typestarstoform

34.sizeoftherelativisticdilationfactorif smaller: certain life-essential chemical reactions would notfunctionproperlyif larger: certain life-essential chemical reactions would notfunctionproperly

35.uncertaintymagnitudeintheHeisenberguncertaintyprincipleif smaller: oxygen transport to body cells would be too small;certain life-essential elements would be unstable; certain life-essentialchemicalreactionswouldnotfunctionproperlyiflarger:certainlife-essentialelementswouldbeunstable;certainlife-essentialchemicalreactionswouldnotfunctionproperly

GodandtheAstronomersThe discovery of this degree of design in the universe is having a profoundtheologicalimpactonastronomers.Aswenotedalready,Hoyleconcludesthat“asuperintellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry andbiology,”{306} andDavies hasmoved frompromoting atheism{307} to concedingthat“thelaws[ofphysics]…seemthemselvestobetheproductofexceedinglyingeniousdesign.”{308}Hefurthertestifies:

[There] is for me powerful evidence that there is ‘something going on’behinditall.Theimpressionofdesignisoverwhelming.{309}

Itseemsasthoughsomebodyhasfine-tunednature’snumberstomaketheUniverse.

Astronomer George Greenstein, in his book The Symbiotic Universe,expressedthesethoughts:

As we survey all the evidence, the thought insistently arises that somesupernaturalagency—or, rather,Agency—mustbe involved. Is itpossiblethatsuddenly,withoutintendingto,wehavestumbleduponscientificproofof the existenceof aSupremeBeing?Was itGodwho stepped in and soprovidentiallycraftedthecosmosforourbenefit?{310}

Tony Rothman, a theoretical physicist, in a popular-level article on theanthropic principle (the idea that the universe possesses narrowly definedcharacteristicsthatpermitthepossibilityofahabitatforhumans)concludedhisessaywiththesewords:

Themedieval theologianwho gazed at the night sky through the eyes ofAristotle and sawangelsmoving the spheres in harmonyhas become themoderncosmologistwhogazesatthesameskythroughtheeyesofEinsteinand sees the hand ofGod not in angels but in the constants of nature.…Whenconfrontedwiththeorderandbeautyoftheuniverseandthestrangecoincidences of nature, it’s very tempting to take the leap of faith fromscience intoreligion. Iamsuremanyphysicistswant to. Ionlywish theywouldadmitit.{311}

InareviewarticleontheanthropicprinciplepublishedinthejournalNature,cosmologists Bernard Carr and Martin Rees state in their summary: “Naturedoes exhibit remarkable coincidences and these do warrant someexplanation.”{312} Carr in a more recent article on the anthropic principlecontinues:

Onewouldhavetoconcludeeitherthatthefeaturesoftheuniverseinvokedin support of the Anthropic Principle are only coincidences or that theuniversewasindeedtailor-madeforlife.Iwillleaveittothetheologianstoascertaintheidentityofthetailor!{313}

PhysicistFreemanDyson concludedhis treatmentof the anthropicprinciplewith, “Theproblemhere is to try to formulate some statement of the ultimatepurpose of the universe. In other words, the problem is to read the mind ofGod.”{314} Vera Kistiakowsky, MIT physicist and past president of theAssociationofWomen inScience, commented,“Theexquisiteorderdisplayedby our scientific understanding of the physicalworld calls for the divine.”{315}ArnoPenzias,whoshared theNobelprize forphysics for thediscoveryof thecosmicbackgroundradiation,remarked:

Astronomyleadsustoauniqueevent,auniversewhichwascreatedoutofnothing,onewith theverydelicatebalanceneeded toprovideexactly the

conditions required to permit life, and onewhich has an underlying (onemightsay“supernatural”)plan.{316}

Years before communism’s fall, Alexander Polyakov, a theoretician andfellowatMoscow’sLandauInstitute,declared:

Weknow that nature is describedby thebest of all possiblemathematicsbecauseGod created it. So there is a chance that the best of all possiblemathematicswillbecreatedoutofphysicists’attempts todescribenature.{317}

China’s famedastrophysicistFangLiZhiandhiscoauthor,physicistLiShuXian, recently wrote, “A question that has always been considered a topic ofmetaphysicsortheologythecreationoftheuniversehasnowbecomeanareaofactiveresearchinphysics.”{318}Inthe1992filmaboutStephenHawking,ABriefHistoryofTime,Hawking’s

colleague, distinguished mathematician Roger Penrose, commented, “I wouldsay the universe has a purpose. It’s not there just somehow by chance.”{319}HawkingandPenrose’scolleagueGeorgeEllismadethefollowingstatementina paper delivered at the Second Venice Conference on Cosmology andPhilosophy:

Amazing fine-tuning occurs in the laws that make this [complexity]possible.Realization of the complexity ofwhat is accomplishedmakes itverydifficultnottousetheword“miraculous”withouttakingastandastotheontologicalstatusofthatword.{320}

StephenHawkinghimselfconcedes:

Itwouldbeverydifficulttoexplainwhytheuniverseshouldhavebeguninjustthisway,exceptastheactofaGodwhointendedtocreatebeingslikeus{321}

CosmologistEdwardHarrisonmakesthisdeduction:

Here is the cosmological proof of the existence of God—the designargument of Paley—updated and refurbished. The fine-tuning of theuniverseprovidesprimafacieevidenceofdeisticdesign.Takeyourchoice:blind chance that requiresmultitudes of universes or design that requiresonlyone.…Many scientists,when they admit their views, incline towardtheteleologicalordesignargument.{322}

AllanSandage,winneroftheCrafoordprizeinastronomy(equivalenttothe

Nobelprize),remarked,“Ifinditquiteimprobablethatsuchordercameoutofchaos.Therehastobesomeorganizingprinciple.Godtomeisamysterybutistheexplanationfor themiracleofexistence,why there issomething insteadofnothing.”{323}RobertGriffiths,whowon theHeinemann prize inmathematicalphysics, observed, “Ifwe need an atheist for a debate, I go to the philosophydepartment.Thephysicsdepartmentisn’tmuchuse.”{324}PerhapsastrophysicistRobert Jastrow, a self-proclaimed agnostic,{325} best described what hashappenedtohiscolleaguesastheyhavemeasuredthecosmos:

Forthescientistwhohaslivedbyhisfaithinthepowerofreason,thestoryends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he isabouttoconquerthehighestpeak;ashepullshimselfoverthefinalrock,he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there forcenturies.{326}

Inallmyconversationswith thosewhodoresearchon thecharacteristicsoftheuniverse,andinallmyreadingsofarticlesorbooksonthesubject,notonepersondeniestheconclusionthatsomehowthecosmoshasbeencraftedtomakeit a fit habitat for life. Astronomers by nature tend to be independent andiconoclastic.Ifanopportunityfordisagreementexists,theywillseizeit.Butontheissueofthefinetuningorcarefulcraftingofthecosmos,theevidenceissocompellingthatIhaveyettohearofanydissent.

TheCreator’sPersonalityDoes the fine-tuning imply purposeful design? So many parameters must befine-tunedand thedegreeof fine-tuning is sohigh,nootherconclusion seemspossible.AsHarrisonpointedout,theevidencepermitsonlytwooptions:divinedesign

or blind chance. Blind chance, as we saw in chapter 12, is ruled out sinceconclusions based on chance must be derived from known, not hypothetical,samplesizes.Theknownsamplesizefortheuniverse(s)isoneandalwayswillbeonlyone since the space-timemanifold for theuniverse is closed (meaningwe humans cannot, even in principle, ever discover anything about otherspossiblyexisting).Muchmore is going on, however, thanmere talk by astronomers about the

design of the cosmos for life support. Words such as somebody fine-tunednature, superintellect, monkeyed, overwhelming design, miraculous, hand ofGod, ultimate purpose, God’s mind, exquisite order, very delicate balance,exceedingly ingenious, supernatural Agency, supernatural plan, tailor-made,SupremeBeing,andprovidentiallycraftedobviouslyapplytoaPerson.Beyond

justestablishingthat theCreator isaPerson, thefindingsaboutdesignprovidesomeevidenceofwhatthatPersonislike.Onecharacteristic thatstandsoutdramatically isHis interest inandcarefor

living things,particularly thehumanrace.Wesee thiscare in thevastnessandqualityoftheresourcesdevotedtolifesupport.For example, the baryon density (density of neutrons and protons) of the

universe, as huge as it is, focuses on the needs of humans.How?The baryondensity determines how efficiently nuclear fusion operates in the cosmos.Thebaryondensitywemeasure translates intoaboutahundred-billion-trillionstarsfor the presently observable universe. As table 14.1 indicates, if the baryondensityistoogreat,toomuchdeuterium(anisotopeofhydrogenwithoneprotonandoneneutroninthenucleus)ismadeinthefirstfewminutesoftheuniverse’sexistence.Thisextradeuteriumwillcausethestarstoburnmuchtooquicklyanderraticallyforanyofthemtosupportaplanetwithlife.Ontheotherhand,ifthebaryondensityistoosmall,solittledeuteriumandheliumaremadeinthefirstfewminutesthattheheavierelementsnecessaryforlifewillneverforminstars.What this means is that the approximately hundred-billion-trillion stars weobserveintheuniverse—nomoreandnoless—areneededforlifetobepossibleintheuniverse.Godinvestedheavilyinlivingcreatures.Heconstructedallthesestarsandcarefullycraftedthemthroughouttheageoftheuniversesothatatthisbrief moment in the history of the cosmos humans could exist and have apleasantplacetolive.

Non-TheisticResponsesWhen it comes to the finely-tuned characteristics of the universe, non-theistsfindthemselvesinadifficultspot.Theevidenceistooweightyandconcretetobrush aside. The evidence is inanimate; so appeals to Darwinist hypothesescannot bemade. Appeals to near infinite time are thwarted by the proofs fortime’screationonlyafewbillionyearsago.Thefollowingfiveargumentsseemtocovertherangeofnon-theisticrepliestotheevidenceforcosmicdesign:

Argument 1: We would not be here to observe the universe unless theextremelyunlikelydidtakeplace.The evidence for design ismerely coincidental.Our existence simply testifiesthattheextremelyunlikelydid,indeed,takeplacebychance.Inotherwords,wewouldnotbeheretoreportonthecharacteristicsoftheuniverseunlesschanceproducedthesehighlyunlikelyproperties.Rebuttal:Thisargumentisfundamentallyanappealtoinfinitechances,which

already has been answered (see chapter 12). Another response has beendeveloped by philosopher Richard Swinburne{327} and summarized by another

philosopher,WilliamLaneCraig:

Suppose a hundred sharpshooters are sent to execute a prisoner by firingsquad,andtheprisonersurvives.Theprisonershouldnotbesurprisedthathedoesnotobservethatheisdead.Afterall,ifheweredead,hecouldnotobservehisdeath.Nonetheless,heshouldbesurprisedthatheobservesthatheisalive.{328}

To extend Craig and Swinburne’s argument, the prisoner could conclude,sincehe isalive, thatall thesharpshootersmissedbysomeextremelyunlikelychance.Hemaywishtoattributehissurvivaltoanincrediblebitofgoodluck,buthewouldbe farmore rational to conclude that thegunswere loadedwithblanks or that the sharpshooters all deliberately missed. Someone must havepurposed he should live. Likewise, the rational conclusion to draw from theincrediblefine-tuningoftheuniverseisthatSomeonepurposedweshouldlive.

Argument2:Thedesignoftheuniverseismereanthropomorphism.American astrophysicist Joseph Silk in his latest effort to communicate thephysics of big bang cosmology to lay people mocks the conclusion that theuniversehasbeenfine-tunedforthesupportoflife.Hecomparesthe“silliness”ofthedesignideawiththefollyofaflea’sassumptionthatthedogonwhichitfeedshasbeendesignedprecisely for itsbenefit.The flea’s error,he suggests,becomesalltooapparentoncethedogisoutfittedwithafleacollar.{329}Rebuttal:Silk’sargument ignoressomekey issues.While thefleamaybea

little self-centered in assuming that the dog was designed exclusively for it,there’snoreasontodenythatthedogwasdesignedforapurpose,orforseveralpurposes. (The myth that life is strictly the product of accidental naturalprocesses isaddressed inchapter17.)The fleacollaranalogymayarguemorestrongly for design (e.g., population control) than for lack of it. Moreimportantly,whilewecanimagineawiderangeofhostssuitableforthesupportof the flea, each of them requires elements of design to facilitate the flea’ssurvival. Though suitable hosts for the flea are relatively abundant, suitableuniverses for life are not. Astrophysicists have been unable to inventhypotheticaluniversessignificantlydifferentfromoursthatcouldsupporthumanbeingsor,forthatmatter,anyconceivablekindofphysical,intelligentlife.

Argument 3: Design arguments are outside the realm of science and,therefore,mustbeignored.The publications of the National Center for Science Education, among otheranti-creationistgroups, repeatedlyassert that science is“empiricallybasedandnecessarilymaterialist;miraclescannotbeallowed,”andthat“anytheorywitha

supernaturalfoundationisnotscientific.”{330}Sincethedesignargumentsimplysupernatural intervention, theycanbe justifiably ignoredbecause they“cannotbeconsideredscientific.”{331}Rebuttal:Toaffirmthatscienceandtheologyaremutuallyexclusivemaybe

convenient for materialists unwilling to defend their philosophy, but it isuntenable.Scienceisrarelyreligiouslyneutral.Similarly,religiousfaithisrarelyscientifically neutral. Both science and theology frequently address cause andeffect and processes of development in the natural realm. Both science andtheology deal with the origin of the universe, the solar system, life, andhumankind.When it comes to causes, developmental processes, and origins, two

possibilities always exist: natural or supernatural. To dogmatically insist thatsupernaturalanswersmustneverbeconsideredisequivalenttodemandingthatallhumanbeingsfollowonlyonereligion,thereligionofatheisticmaterialism.Ifind it ironic that in the name of religious freedom certain science educationproponents insiston riddingour teachingand research institutionsofany faiththatdarestocompetewiththeirown.

Argument4:Ordercancomeoutofchaos.The idea that under strictly natural conditions order can andwill arise out ofchaos was first proposed by David Hume nearly two hundred years ago.RecentlyithasbeenrevivedbychemistandNobelLaureateIlyaPrigogineinhisbook Order Out of Chaos,{332} and popularized by the blockbuster movieJurassicPark.Humemadetheclaimwithoutanyevidentialsupport.Prigoginepointed to several chemical reactions in which order appears to arise fromchaotic systems. Jurassic Park actually addresses a different subject, namelychaostheoryandfuzzylogic.Rebuttal:Theprinciplebehindchaostheoryandfuzzylogicisthatintrying

to predict the outcome or future state of exceptionally complex systems, theinvestigatorisbetteroffsettlingforapproximateanswersorconclusionsateachstepinthesolutionofaproblemratherthanexactanswersorconclusions.Thepresumptionof anatural self-orderingprinciple inchaotic systemsarises fromthe fact that the more complex a system, the greater the opportunity fordeparturesfromthermodynamicequilibriuminsmallportionsofthesystem(andthe greater the difficulty in determining what the thermodynamic equilibriumstates actually are). According to the second law of thermodynamics, entropyincreases in all systems, but entropy can decrease (i.e., order can increase) inpartofasystem,providinganextraincreaseofentropy(i.e.,disorder)occursina different part of the system. Because human investigators may be prone to

underestimate thecomplexityof somesystems, theyoccasionallyaresurprisedby how far from thermodynamic equilibrium a small portion of a system canstray. However, the thermodynamic laws predict that these departures aretemporary, and the greater the departure, the more rapidly the departures arecorrected.Without departures from thermodynamic equilibrium, raindrops and

snowflakes, for example, would not form. But, raindrop and snowflakeformation comes close to the self-ordering limits of natural process. Thoughsnowflakepatterns exhibit ahighdegreeoforder, their informationcontentorlevelofdesignremainsquitelow.ThedistinctionisroughlylikethedifferencebetweentheNewTestamentandabookcontainingthesentence“Godisgood”repeated 90,000 times. The latter shows considerable order but not muchinformation.Theformercontainsbothahighdegreeoforderandahighdegreeof information (ordesign).Prigogine’s examplesexhibit increases inorderbutwithout significant increases in information content. Natural processes cannotexplaintheexceptionallyhighlevelofdesignandinformationcontentinlivingorganismsorinthestructureoftheuniversethatmakeslifepossible.

Argument5:Aswecontinuetoevolve,wewillbecometheCreator-Designer.In their book The Anthropic Cosmological Principle, astrophysicists JohnBarrow and Frank Tipler review many new evidences for the design of theuniverse.{333}TheygoontodiscussversionsoftheanthropicprinciplelikeWAP(weak anthropic principle: conscious beings can only exist in an environmentwith characteristics that allow for their habitation), SAP (strong anthropicprinciple: nature must take on those characteristics to admit somewhere,sometime the existence of conscious beings), and more radical versions,including PAP (participatory anthropic principle: conscious observers arenecessary tobring theuniverse intoexistence,and theuniverse isnecessary tobring observers into existence). But what they favor is FAP (final anthropicprinciple).WithFAP,thelifethatexists(past,present,andfuture)willcontinuetoevolve

with the inanimate resources of the universe until it all reaches a state thatBarrowandTiplercallthe“OmegaPoint.”{334}ThisOmegaPoint,theysay,isanEntity thathas thepropertiesofomnipotence,omnipresence,andomniscience,withthecapacitytocreateinthepast.{335}Inotherwords,theCreator-Goddoesnot exist yet, butwe (all life and all inanimate structures in the universe) aregraduallyevolving intoGod.WhenGod is thus finallyconstructed,HispowerwillbesuchthatHecancreatetheentireuniversewithallofitscharacteristicsofdesignbillionsofyearsago.

In his latest book, The Physics of Immortality,{336} Tipler proposes thatevolution toward the Omega Point will occur through advancing computertechnology.Byextrapolatingcomputercapabilitydoublingtime(currently,abouteighteenmonths) somemillions of years into the future,Tipler predicts that afuture generation of human beings will be able not only to alter the entireuniverseandall the lawsofphysicsbutalso tocreateaGodwhodoesnotyetexist.Furthermore,wewillbeabletoresurrecteveryhumanbeingwhohaseverlivedbyrecoveringthememoriesthatonceresidedineachperson’sbrain.Rebuttal:ItishardtotreattheseFAPandOmegaPointhypothesesseriously.

In The New York Review of Books, noted critic Martin Gardner offered thisevaluationofBarrowandTipler’swork:

WhatshouldwemakeofthisquartetofWAP,SAP,PAP,andFAP?Inmynot so humble opinion I think the last principle is best calledCRAP, theCompletelyRidiculousAnthropicPrinciple.{337}

InThePhysicsofImmortalityTiplergrosslyoverestimatestheroleofhumanmemory and the future capability of computers. Just as computers cannotfunction with memory banks only, so, too, the human mind and humanconsciousnessdonotoperatebymemoryalone.Whileremarkableadvances incomputer technology are taking place now, the laws of physics imposepredictable finite limits on future computer hardware. As Roger Penrose hasdocumentedrigorouslyinTheEmperor’sNewMindandShadowsof theMind,theselimitsdonotevenpermittheduplicationofhumanconsciousnessletalonethefantasticcapabilitiesTiplersuggests.{338}Tipler’scosmicmodelonwhichhiswholepremiserestsisnowoutofdate.It

dependson theuniversepossessingenoughmatter to force theuniverse intoafuturestageofcollapse.But,aswenoted inchapter5,measurementsmade in1999and2000establishthatonlythree-tenthsofthemassnecessarytoforceafuture collapse of the universe exists. Moreover, the measured value for thespace energy density term guarantees that the universe not only will expandforever,itwillexpandatanexponentiallyincreasingrate.ButTiplerapparentlywantstoaltermuchmorethanjusttheuniverseandthe

lawsofphysics.Hebelieves,forexample,thatfuturecomputerswillbeabletoexpose people to game theory principles so effectively that all destructivethoughts andactionswillbepurgedandvillainyno longeroccur, even for thelikesofAdolfHitlerandMataHari.{339}InTipler’sreligion,theredemptiveworkof a Savior becomes unnecessary.Consider, however, that if Tipler’s proposalwere true, thebetterpeople comprehendgame theory, the lesspropensity theywouldexhibittocommitevil.UnfortunatelyforTipler,nosuchcorrelationisin

evidence.Tipler not only banishes hell but also redesigns heaven. Tipler’s “heaven”

brings relational (more accurately, sexual) bliss to everyman andwoman.Heproducesanequationto“prove”thatthiscomputergeneratedcosmicutopiawillbringawomantoeverymanandamantoeverywomancapableofdelivering100,000timestheimpactandsatisfactionofthemostfulfillingpartnereachcanimagine in life as we know it.{340} The popular appeal of such a notiondocuments the spiritual bankruptcyof our times.Evidently,manypeople havenevertastedanygreaterdelightthanwhatsexualexperiencecanbring.In an article for theSkeptical Inquirer,Gardner again brandished his satiric

knives:

IleaveittothereadertodecidewhethertheyshouldoptforOPT(OmegaPointTheology)asanewscientific religionsuperior toScientology—onedestined to elevate Tipler to the rank of a prophet greater than L. RonHubbard—oroptfortheviewthatOPTisawildfantasygeneratedbytoomuchreadingofsciencefiction.{341}

In their persistent rejection of an eternal, transcendent Creator, somecosmologists(andothers)areresorting to increasingly irrationaloptions.Thereisacertainlogictoit,however.IfforpersonalormoralreasonstheGodoftheBibleisunacceptable,thengivenalltheevidencefortranscendenceanddesign,thealternativesarelimitedtoflightsoffancy.Throughtime,asweunlockmoreofthesecretsofthevastcosmos,menand

womenwillbeevenmoreawedabouthowexquisitelydesignedtheuniverseis.Butwherewillthatawebeaimed—atthecreatedthing,orattheCreator?Thatiseachperson’schoice.

CHAPTERFIFTEEN

ALAYPERSON’SGUIDETOALTERNATECOSMOLOGIES

The laypersonmust first understand that, nomatter how tightly observationsconstrain the properties of the universe, there alwayswill exist some alternatecosmologies.Therealwayswillbesomepeople,whofornonscientificreasons,reject the big bang. As I pointed out in my book, The Fingerprint of God,atheisticandagnosticbiases forseveraldecadesdroveastrophysicists todoallthey could to dream up some alternative to the big bang.{342} There comes apoint,however,wheresuchattemptsceasetoberational.AnexampleoflossofrationalitycanbefoundintheFlat-EarthSociety.That

societystillpoints to“scientific”evidences for theirviewof theearth’sshape.However,oneofthereasonsscientistsandlaypeoplegivenocredibilitytotheseevidencesissimplybecauseadvancingknowledgeabouttheshapeoftheearthhas forced flat-earth proponents to appeal to progressively more absurdevidences for their position, and to ignore or “explain away” progressivelystrongerevidencesagainsttheirposition.

AskingProbingQuestionsAsimilartrackrecordfoundamongsomecosmologistssuggestsaquestionthatmaybehelpfulforlaypeopletoaskaboutanyparticularcosmologicalmodel:Asastronomers have learned more about the universe, has the evidence for thatmodel relative to others become stronger or weaker? A follow-up questionwouldbehowmuchstrongerorweaker?Ifonesuspectsbiasonthepartoftheexpert, one can ask how many astronomers actively advocate for the modeltodaycomparedtoayearago,fiveyearsago,andtwentyyearsago.Laypeopleoftenassumethateverycosmicmodelisundergirdedbyaprovable

or, at least, a testablemechanism. In fact, this is rarely thecase.Forexample,thereisnoevidencewhatsoeverforthecreationfieldofthesteadystatemodels.Astronomersandphysicistsneverhavewitnessedprotons,neutrons,oranyotherrealmass particles spontaneously popping into existence. Neither steady stateproponents nor anyone else has ever been able to conceive of a possibleexperimentoranobservationthatcouldaffirmtheexistenceofacreationfield.Therefore, at least for now, all creation field hypothesesmust be classified as

metaphysics,notphysics.Whatwouldhelplaydiscussionsoncosmologyarequestionsthatdistinguish

between physics and metaphysics. In terms of God’s role or lack thereof incosmology,audienceswouldbewisetodrawtheirconclusionsbasedprimarilyonwhatisknown,secondarilyonwhatmightbecomeknowablethroughfuturescientific advances, and not at all on what has little or no likelihood of everbeingdiscovered.Finally, audiences should always beware of any cosmology based on a

breakdown of known physical laws, where the physical evidence gives nowarrantforsuchabreakdown.Forexample,theappealtoaquantummechanicalspace-timefoamasasourceofaninfiniteornear infinitenumberofuniversesradically violates the laws of quantum mechanics. One law of quantummechanicsstatesthatthesmallerthetimeinterval,thesmallertheprobabilityforaquantumevent.Thesingularitytheoremsestablishthatatthecosmiccreationevent forouruniverse the time interval is zero (time is createdat the creationevent).Withazerotimeintervaltheprobabilityforababyuniversetopopintoexistencethroughaquantumeventwouldbezero.Anotherquantummechanicallawstipulatesthatthebiggerthemassbroughtintoexistencethroughaquantumfluctuationinthespace-timefabric,thefasterthatmassmustbereturnedtothespace-timecontinuum.Forsomethingasmassiveasourobservableuniverse,thereturn time must be briefer than 10–103 seconds (less than a trillionth of atrillionthofatrillionthofatrillionthofatrillionthofatrillionthofatrillionthofatrillionthofasecond).Clearly,ouruniverseisaweebitolder.Couldnottherestillbedifferentquantummechanicallawswhentheuniverse

isyounger than10-34 seconds thanwhen it is older thatmight overcome thesedifficulties? While the answer to this question is yes (it is possible),astrophysicists canpoint to no evidence for anydifferent quantummechanicallaws during the first trillionth of a trillionth of a trillionth of a second of theuniverse’s history.Given thatweknow thequantummechanical lawshold for99.9999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999% of theuniverse’s history, we should demand at least some physical evidence beforeconceding thatdifferentquantummechanical lawsoperatedduring thefirst10-49th of a percent of its history. Also, no longer can it be said that theincompatibilityofgravityandquantummechanicsduringthefirstsplitsecondofcosmic history demands alternate physical laws. The ten-dimensional stringtheoryIdiscussinBeyondtheCosmosdemonstrateshowgravityandquantummechanics can successfully coexist all the way back to the cosmic creationevent,tothatmomentwhentimebegins.{343}

AnInfinityofUniverses?The weight of evidence for a divinely designed universe is now sooverwhelming that it has forced astronomers and philosophers who reject theGod of theBible as theAuthor of the cosmos to propose the existence of aninfinite number of universes. These scholars readily concede that dozens ofdifferent characteristics of the universemust be exquisitely fine-tuned for anykind of conceivable physical life to be possible. They also concede that thedegreeoffine-tuningobservedismany,manyordersofmagnitudegreaterthanany degree of fine-tuning that we humans can manifest when we attempt tocreate.However,ratherthanconcedingthataGodwhoistrillionsoftrillionsoftrillionsof timesmore intelligent,knowledgeable,powerful,caring,andlovingthan us humansmust have designed the universe for our benefit, they insteadchoosetospeculate thataninfinitenumberofuniversesmustexistwhereeachuniverseisdifferentinitscharacteristicsfromalltheothers.Aninfinitenumberofdifferentuniverseswould imply thatnomatterhowunlikelyor fine-tunedasetofcosmiccharacteristicsmightbe,inatleastoneoftheinfinityofuniversesthosecharacteristicswouldbefound.Thus,theGodoftheBibleisreplacedbyChance,or,inthelanguageofnon-Christiancosmologists,byaninfinitenumberofrandomfluctuationsinsomekindofprimevalfield.ThefirstthingtonoteintheabovecommentaryisthatIpurposelycapitalized

chance.Wheredotheinfinitenumberofuniversescomefrom?Ifonesays,fromsomekindofprimevalfield,thenwheredoestheprimevalfieldcomefrom?Ifonesaysthat“nothing”isunstableand,therefore, that“nothing”mustproducesomething, then how is it that we never observe anything arising from“nothing”?Mypointisthat,ifyouaskenoughquestions,ultimatelyyouwillbeconfrontedwithanall-powerful,transcendent,uncausedCreator.The second thing to note iswhy is it necessary that the infinite number of

universesallbedifferent.IfthereisnoMINDbehindthebirthingprocess,couldnotalltheuniversesbeidentical,ormostoratleastsomeofthembethesame?And, why an infinite number? No process we observe delivers an infinity ofproducts. What if only a quintillion of universes are spawned? All of thesepossibilities,ofcourse,reducetheprobabilityofhavingonelikeoursappear.The third thing to note is that in spite of what many astrophysicists try to

suggest,theinflationaryhotbigbangmodelsarenotnecessarilylinkedtomulti-universemodels.Itistruethatgrowingevidencepointstoauniversewhereanextremelybriefperiodofhyperexpansion(atmanytimeslight’svelocity)takesplace during the first 10-33 seconds of cosmic history, and that many of themodelsproposed toexplain thishistoryaremulti-universe innature.However,there isno inflationarybigbangmulti-verse that cannotbe reconfiguredas an

inflationarybigbanguniverse.Themost important thing tonote is thatallappeals toan infinitenumberof

different universes as an escape from the conclusion of a divinely designeduniverse are forms of the gambler’s fallacy. To illustrate, consider thecircumstanceofapersonwhoflipsasinglecoininfrontofalargeaudiencetenthousand consecutive times,where that coin comes up heads all ten thousandtimes.Therationalpeopleintheaudiencewillconcludethat thecoinhasbeendesignedtocomeupheadsoneveryflip.Onecommittingthegambler’sfallacywillspeculatethatoutsidetheauditoriumtherepossiblycouldexist210,000coins(2×2×2×…10,000suchmultiplicationsequals~103,000coins).If210,000peopleflip those 210,000 coins 10,000 consecutive times each, that gambler wouldconclude that the laws of probability would predict that one of those 210,000succession of flips would produce one example of ten thousand consecutiveheads.On thisbasis, thatgambler concludes that thecoin in theauditorium isfairanddecidestobetontailsforthe10,001stflip.Thegamblerherecommitsthreemajorerrors.Hehasnoevidencethat210,000

coinsmust exist outside the auditorium.Hehas no evidence that all the coinsoutsidetheauditoriumareflippedtenthousandconsecutivetimeseach.And,heespecially has no evidence that all the coin flipping results outside theauditoriumaredifferentfromthosehehasobservedinsidetheauditorium.Where the coin sample size isonlyone, a rational conclusion todraw from

10,000consecutivecoinflipsyieldingnothingbutheadsisthatthecoinhasbeenpurposedor designed to alwaysproduce a heads result.The reasononemightconclude otherwise is if one has a nonrational conviction that no coins canpossiblybedesignedtoalwayscomeupheads.Wheretheuniversesamplesizeisonlyone,arationalconclusiontodrawfromcosmicfine-tuningthatismanyorders of magnitude greater than anything we humans can manifest in ourcreations,isthataBEINGmusthavepurposedordesignedtheuniverseinsuchamannerthatitcansupportphysicallife.Todootherwiseonlycanbebasedonthenonrationalconvictionthatnouniversecanpossiblybedesigned.Inthecaseoftheuniversewecandrawastrongerconclusionthanwecanfor

the coin.Whereas we know thatmore than one coin exists, we do not knowwhether more than one universe exists. Moreover, we will never gain thetechnological capacity to scientifically discover the existence of anotheruniverse.OnceobserversexistinuniverseA,thetheoryofgeneralrelativitytellsus that thespace-timemanifoldorenvelopeof thatuniversecanneveroverlapthespace-timemanifoldofanyotherpossiblyexistinguniverse.Inotherwords,ifGodmadetenuniverses,wewouldforeverlackthescientificmeanstodetectanyuniversebutourown.Thus, thesamplesizeofuniversesforushumansis

oneanditalwayswillbejustone.Speculatingthatthereareaninfinitenumberofuniverses“outthere”isaperfectlyacceptableoptionforthosewhochoosetodoso,butitisinthearenaofmetaphysics,notphysics.Theonlyrationaloptionforusrightnowandatanytimeinthefuture,regardlessofthespeculationsoftheoreticalphysicists,philosophers,andothers,isthatGodexquisitelydesignedtheuniverseforthebenefitofhumanity.Returning to the gambler, one could argue that his greatest error upon

witnessing10,000consecutiveflipsproducing10,000consecutiveheadswashisfailuretomorecarefullyinvestigatethepropertiesofthecoinbeforeplacinghisbet on the 10,001st flip. If he had done so, he would have seen additionalevidenceforpurposefulcoindesign.Forexample,hemighthavediscoveredthatthecoinhadheads imprintedonbothsides,orhemighthavenoted that ithadbeenweightedsothattheheadssidewouldalwayslandfaceup.Just like the gambler, astronomers and others can continue to make

measurementson theuniverse.Suchadditionalmeasurementswill confirm thepurposefulness of the universe for the support of physical life. Indeed, thisalready has been done. For the past forty years, the more astronomers havelearned about the universe, the stronger has become the conclusion that it isexquisitely designed for the support of physical life and especially for thesupportofhumanbeings.Foranyremainingskepticallsheorheneeddoiswaittwo or three weeks. In that time period additional measurements will revealwhethertheevidenceforcosmicdesignhasbecomeweakerorstronger.

CHAPTERSIXTEEN

EARTH:THEPLACEFORLIFE

The mind boggles in trying to grasp the minute detail the Designer wovetogether tomake theuniversesuitable for life.Thatsamebeautiful intricacy isapparentasone lookscloser tohome—atourgalaxy,oursun,ourneighboringplanets,ourearth,ourmoon,andmore.The first astronomers to provide evidence of these intricacies were Frank

Drake,Carl Sagan, and Iosef Shklovskii. They developed the evidence out oftheir desire to estimate the number of planets in the universe with favorableenvironments for the support of life. By 1966 Shklovskii and Sagan haddetermined it takesacertainkindof starwithaplanet locatedat just the rightdistance from that star toprovide theminimal conditions for life.{344}Workingwith just these two parameters, they estimated that 0.001% of all stars couldhaveaplanetcapableofsupportingadvancedlife.{345}Much subsequent evidence has shown that Shklovskii and Sagan

overestimated the rangeof permissible star types and the rangeof permissibleplanetarydistances,andtheyalsoignoreddozensofothersignificantparameters.Buttheirestimateofamillion-pluspossiblelifesitesforourgalaxypersisted.Itisthisoptimisticestimatethathasfueledthesearchforextraterrestrialintelligentlife.Inadditiontomuchprivatemoney,morethan$100millioninU.S.taxpayer

support has been devoted to the search for radio signals from extraterrestrialintelligent life.{346} With all the evidence for divine design (and against anaturalistic explanation) in the universe, one would think some caution (andsometheology)wouldbe inorderbeforecommitting thismuchmoney.Aswewillsee,theevidencefordivinedesignmountsdramaticallyaswemovefromalargesystem,liketheuniverseasawhole,tosmallersystemssuchasourgalaxy,ourstar,ourplanet,andlifeitself.

TheRightGalaxyClusterOurMilkyWayGalaxyresidesinaloosegroupingofgalaxiescalledTheLocalGroup. The Local Group is located on the far outer edge of the Virgosuperclusterofgalaxies.Thislocationmakesourgalaxyexceptional.Thevastmajorityofgalaxiesin

the universe find themselves in rich clusters of galaxies. As such, they aresubjecttofrequentcollisionsandmergerswithothergalaxies.{347}Thesemergersandcollisionscanbedevastatingforphysicallifesincetheydisturbastarwithalife-sustainableplanetintoadifferentorbitaboutthegalaxy.Thatdifferentorbiteitherexposestheplanettodeadlyradiationortoencounterswithotherstarsthatpulltheplanetoutofitssafeorbitalpathaboutitsstar.On the other hand, our galaxy cannot maintain its spiral structure without

absorbing largeamountsofgas anddust fromdwarfgalaxies in its immediateneighborhood.It’sthatspiralstructurethatallowedoursuntoformattherighttimeforlifeandtoremaininasafepathinitsorbitaboutthecenteroftheMilkyWay.Our galaxy has just the right number and kind of neighboring galaxies to

makelifepossibleonaspecialstarwithinit.Thoseneighboringgalaxiesareatjusttherightdistancesatjusttherighttime.Recentstudiesdemonstratethatonlyduring the time window when life is possible in our universe is our galaxyprotected from life-destroying encounters with its neighbors.{348} In fact,astronomers recently have determined that a life-destroyingmergermay be intheoffing.Fourbillionyearshence thegalaxyknownas theLargeMagellanicCloudwillmergewiththeMilkyWay.{349}

TheRightGalaxyNot all galaxies are created equal in terms of their capacity to support life.Popular media often give the impression that all galaxies are spirals like ourMilkyWay. Actually only 6% of the non-dwarf galaxies are spirals.{350} Theother94%areeitherellipticalorirregular.In elliptical galaxies star formation ceases before the interstellar medium

becomesenrichedenoughwithheavyelements.Forlife,stellarsystemsneedtoformlateenoughthattheycanincorporatethisheavy-element-enrichedmaterial.The problemwith large irregular galaxies is they have active nuclei. These

nuclei spew out life-destroying radiation andmaterial.Meanwhilemost smallirregulargalaxieshaveinsufficientquantitiesoftheheavyelementsessentialforlife.Physicists R. E. Davies and R. H. Koch recently published a paper on the

necessary cosmic conditions for the solar system to contain the elementsessential for life.{351} Since the 1960s astronomers have realized the emergingsolarsystemwouldneedcontactwithexplodedsupernovae remains topossesssufficientheavyelementsforrockyplanetsandlifechemistry.DaviesandKochestimatehowmanysupernovaemusteruptinourgalaxyto

produce the needed quantity of elements heavier than helium.The answer: an

averageofoneeverythreeyearsfromthetimeourgalaxyoriginated(about10billion years ago). Since the present rate is less than one supernova every 50years,theratemusthavebeenextremelyhighintheearlyhistoryofourgalaxy.This conclusionmatches the results from the best astrophysicalmodels and

observationsofstarformationinourgalaxy.Italsomatchestherequirementsforlife.SupernovaemustoccuringreatabundanceearlyinthehistoryofagalaxytosupplyenoughheavyelementenrichmenttoallowaplanetlikeEarthtoformasearlyasitdid.Italsoisessentialthatthesupernovaeventrateberelativelylowinthepresent

era. If it were not, the radiation from supernova eruptions would frequentlyexterminatelifeonEarth.Thefrequencyofsupernovaeruptions(perunitvolume)isstronglydependent

onlocation.Thesolarsystemmustbepositionedintherightpartofthegalaxy.Itmustbeatajustrightdistancefromaspiralarm.Itmustalsobeatajustrightdistancefromthecenterofourgalaxy.Butthereisonelife-essentialheavyelementthatisnotmadebysupernovae:

fluorine. It ismade in sufficient quantities only on relatively rare objects: thesurfaces of white dwarf stars bound into binary systems with larger stellarcompanions.Thelargerstarmustorbitcloselyenoughtothewhitedwarfthatitlosessignificantmaterialtothewhitedwarf.Atthesurfaceofthewhitedwarf,someof thismaterial isconverted to fluorine.Then thewhitedwarfmust losethis fluoridated material to interstellar space for it to be incorporated into afuturesolarsystem.Thissequencemeansthattheuniverse,ourgalaxy,andthesun’s position in our galaxymust assume narrowly specified characteristics ifEarthistoobtainthefluorineitneedsforthesupportoflife.The location, types, rates, and timings of both supernova events and white

dwarf binaries severely constrains thepossibilityof finding a life support site.The vast majority of galaxies are eliminated from contention, and the vastmajorityofstarsinthefewremaininggalaxiesalsoareeliminated.

AnotherKindofLife?The significance of these findings is underscored by JohnMaddox, a formermemberoftheeditorialboardofNatureandastaunchopponentoftheism,whoattemptedtofindawayaroundDaviesandKoch’simplicationsforcreation.{352}He suggested life need not be at all like terrestrial life as we know it.Whatsupportdidheoffer?None.As physicist Robert Dicke observed thirty-two years ago, if you want

physicists(oranyotherlifeforms),youmusthavecarbon.{353}Boronandsiliconaretheonlyotherelementsonwhichcomplexmoleculescanbebased,butboron

is rare and, where concentrated, is poisonous to life, and silicon can holdtogether nomore than about a hundred amino acids. Given the constraints ofphysics and chemistry, we can reasonably assume that physical life must becarbon-based.

LiveHereorNowhereWhatmakeslifepossibleonEarthisthatthesunislocatedinbetweentwospiralarmsatthe“corotationdistance”relativetothecenterofourgalaxy.Almostallthestarsinourgalaxyresideeitherinthecentralbulge,thespiralarms,orintheglobular star clusters. In all three of these locations the star densities are highenoughtodisrupttheorbitsofplanetslikeEarth.Moreover, thepresencethereofsupergiantstars,neutronstars,blackholes,and/orsupernovaremnantswouldexpose Earth-like planets to radiation intense enough to damage the planets’ionosphericandatmosphericlayers.AnewpieceofresearchbytwoRussianastronomersestablishesthatthesun

isspecialinanotherrespect.{354}Itstaysbetweenspiralarms.Thisisbecausethesun is one of those especially rare stars that are at the “galactic corotationradius.”Typically,thestarsinourgalaxyorbitaboutthecenterofourgalaxyataratedifferentfromthatofthespiralarmpattern.Ifsuchstarsarelocatedbetweenspiral arms, they will not remain there for very long. With a star revolvingaroundthegalaxy’scenterataratedifferentfromthespiralarmstructure, it isjust amatter of time before that star is swept inside a spiral arm.Only at thecorotationradiuscouldastarremainbetweentwospiralarms.Another way our sun is special is that it does not deviate much from its

Newtonian(thatis,nearlycircular)orbitaboutthecenterofourgalaxy.{355}Moststarsexhibitratherlargeup-and-down,back-and-forth,andside-to-siderandommotionsawayfromtheirnormalNewtonianorbitalpaths.Thesun’stinyup-and-downmotions keep us from getting too exposed to deadly radiation from thegalacticnucleusandfromsupernovaeremnants.{356}Now,weunderstandthatthesun’s tiny back-and-forth and side-to-side motions also play a crucial role inkeepingoursolarsystemfromgettingtooclosetoaspiralarm.

WindowtoGod’sGloryThesun’suniquelocationbenefitsusinyetanotherway.Wegetaclearviewofthe heavens. If we were in a spiral arm, 80 to 85% of the light from othergalaxieswouldbeabsorbedbyinterveningdust.{357}Ifwewerenearthegalacticbulge,inaglobularcluster,oreveninanopenstarcluster,thelightofotherstarswouldmakethenightskytoobright.Ifitwerenotforouruniquelocation,wewouldnothavehadthecapacitytodiscoverthatwedwellinaspiralgalaxy,thatover a hundred billion other galaxies exist, that the universe is continually

expanding,thatthereisacosmicbackgroundradiation,andthatouruniverseistraceablebacktoanexquisitelydesigned,transcendentcreationevent.Situatedwhereweare,however,wehavewhatcanbedescribedasawindow

seattothesplendorsoftheuniverse.Wearegrantedanunobstructedview,inalanguageunderstandabletoall,ofGod’sglory,power,andrighteousnesswrittenintheheavens.{358}

TheRightStarNotonlyisaparticularkindofgalaxyessentialforlife,thestararoundwhichalife-bearing planet revolves must be just right. As we have seen, it must belocatedintherightpartofthegalaxy.Itmustalsobeasinglestarsystem.Zeroortwo-plusstarsystemswillfail.Aplanetrippedawayfromitsstarwillbetoocoldforlife.Butifaplanetis

orbitingabinaryormultiplestarsystem,theextrastar(s)frequentlywillpulltheorbit of a planet small enough for life support out of the temperature zoneessentialforthatlifesupport.As Shklovskii and Sagan first pointed out, a life support planet must be

maintainedbyastarofveryspecificmass.Astarmoremassivethanthesunwillburntooquicklyandtooerraticallyforlifeontheplanettobesustained.Butthestar cannot be any lessmassive either. Smallermass stars havemore frequentandviolent flares.Also, the smaller themass of the star, the closer the planetmust be to that star tomaintain a temperature suitable for life chemistry.Thiscauses a problem because the tidal interaction between a star and its planetincreases dramatically as the distance separating them shrinks: Bringing theplanet just the slightest bit closer causes such a tremendous increase in tidalinteraction that the planet’s rotation period quickly lengthens from hours tomonths.Thisisthefate,forexample,ofbothMercuryandVenus.Thestarmustformatjusttherighttimeinthehistoryofthegalaxy.Ifitforms

toosoonor too late, themixofheavyelementssuitablefor lifechemistrywillnotexist.Itisalsoessentialthatthestarbemiddle-aged.Onlymiddle-agedstarsareinasufficientlystableburningphase.Onlystars intheverymiddlepartoftheirmiddle-agedphasemanifestsubduedenoughflaringtomakeadvancedlifesustainable.Evenstarsthatarethemoststableandinthemoststablepartsoftheirburning

cycles experience changes in luminosity that can be detrimental for life. Thesun’s luminosity, for example, has increasedbymore than35%since lifewasfirstintroducedonEarth.Suchachangeismorethanenoughtoexterminatelife.ButlifesurvivedonEarthbecausetheincreaseinsolarluminositywasexactlycancelled out each step of the way by a decrease in the efficiency of the

greenhouseeffectinEarth’satmosphere.Thisdecreaseingreenhouseefficiencyarosethroughthecarefulintroductionofjusttherightspeciesoflifeinjusttheright quantities at just the right times. The slightest “evolutionary accident”would have caused either a runaway freeze-up or runaway boiling (see“ClimacticRunaways”sectionbelow).Here, the materialists offer no explanation. How could strictly natural

Darwinistprocessespossiblyhaveanticipatedthephysicsofsolarburning?

TheRightPlanetAsbiochemistsnowconcede,forlifemoleculestooperatesothatorganismscanliverequiresanenvironmentwherewatervapor,liquidwater,andfrozenwaterareallstableandabundant.Thismeans thataplanetcannotbe tooclose to itsstarortoofaraway.InthecaseofplanetEarth,givenaparticularatmosphere,achange in thedistancefromthesunassmallas2%wouldrid theplanetofalllife.{359}The temperature of a planet and its surface gravity determine the escape

velocity, a measure of which atmospheric gases dissipate to outer space andwhich are retained. For a planet to support life, it is essential forwater vapor(molecular weight 18) to be retained while molecules as heavy as methane(molecularweight16)andammonia(molecularweight17)dissipate.Therefore,achange insurfacegravityor temperatureof justa fewpercentwillmake thedifference.While planet Earth has just the right surface gravity and temperature,{360}

ammoniaandmethane,infact,disappearmuchfasterthantheirescapevelocitieswould indicate. The reason is that chemical conditions in Earth’s upperatmosphere—also indicative of fine-tuning—work efficiently to break downbothmolecules.{361}

CLIMATICRUNAWAYS

Earth’s biosphere is poised between a runaway freeze-up and arunaway evaporation. If the mean temperature of the earth’ssurface cools by even a few degrees, more snow and ice thannormalwill form.Snowand ice reflect solarenergymuchmoreefficiently than other surface materials. The reflection of moresolarenergytranslatesintolowersurfacetemperatures,whichinturn cause more snow and ice to form and subsequently stilllowertemperatures.Ifthemeantemperatureoftheearth’ssurfacewarmsjustafew

degrees, more water vapor and carbon dioxide collect in the

atmosphere.This extrawater vapor and carbondioxide create abettergreenhouseeffectintheatmosphere.Thisinturncausesthesurfacetemperaturetoriseagain,whichreleasesevenmorewatervapor and carbon dioxide into the atmosphere resulting in stillhighersurfacetemperatures.

RotationandLifeTherotationperiodofalife-supportingplanetcannotbechangedbymorethanafew percent. If the planet takes too long to rotate, temperature differencesbetweendayandnightwillbetoogreat.Ontheotherhand,iftheplanetrotatestoorapidly,windvelocitieswillrisetocatastrophiclevels.AquietdayonJupiter(rotation period of ten hours), for example, generates thousand mph winds.Thoughourhurricanesandtornadoesaretoughtoendure,wearebetteroffwiththeiroccasionalblaststhanwewouldbewithmoreextremedifferencesbetweendayandnighttemperatures.Our present-day hurricanes provide some notable benefits. Recent studies

doneoffAustralia,Bermuda,andNicaraguaestablishthathurricaneshelpusinfiveways:

1.They significantly increase the diversity of species in the habitats theyaffect.{362}2.Theycounterbalancetheoceans’tendencytoleachcarbondioxidefromthe atmosphere. This leaching, if unchecked,would result in catastrophiccoolingoftheplanet.{363}3.Theyhelpdispersegreenhousegasesglobally.{364}4. They prevent heat buildup by shading local areas of the oceans thatnormally trap thesun’sheat.Suchshadingsavessomeseacreatures fromextinction.{365}5.Theyhelpregulatethesalinityoftheoceans,thesaltcycle,andthewatercycle.{366}

Rotation periods of life-supportable planets, however, are not constant.ThoughEarthdoesnotsuffercatastrophictidalinteractionwiththesunasVenusdoes, it still experiences enough that its rotation period is gradually braked.Everyyear,Earth’s rotationperiod is slowedby the sun andmoonby a smallfraction of a second. If Earth wasmuch younger than its 4.6 billion years, itwouldberotatingtooquicklyforlife.Ifitweremucholder,itwouldberotatingtoo slowly.Sinceprimitive life can toleratemore rapid rotation thanadvancedlife, life can and did survive being placed on Earthwhen Earthwas only 0.7billionyearsold.

In addition to the length of the rotation period, the rate of change in thatperiodisalsosensitiveforlifesupport.Eachspeciesthathasexistedthroughouttheearth’shistoryhashada rangeof tolerable rotationperiodsanda rangeoftolerablechangeinthatperiod.Asitturnsout,mostofthespeciesthathaveeverexisted throughout the earth’s history could not have survived if the earth’srotational slowing had been greater or lesser than a certain narrow range(roughlybetweentwoandfourhoursperdayperbillionyears).Two additional factors have been identified. One is that the more rapid

rotationofEarthinthepastdecreasedthesizeofweathersystems(relativetothesurfaceareatheycovered)andconcentratedthemalongtheequator.{367}Thenetresultwas thatextra lightandheat from thesunnecessaryat that time for lifesupportdidindeedreachtheearth’ssurface.Theotheristhatthepercentageofthe earth’s surface area coveredbywaterwas greater in the past.{368}Volcanicactivityandplatetectonicscausedcontinentstoriseandincreaseinareauntiltherateoferosionbalancedtheincrease.Sincewaterbodiesabsorbandretainheatfar more effectively than land masses, the larger ocean area of the pastcontributedsignificantlytothewarmthoftheearlyEarth’sclimate.Even tectonic plate activity (often expressed as earthquakes) is a sensitive

parameter for life. Without earthquakes, nutrients essential for life on thecontinentswould erode and accumulate in the oceans.However, if earthquakeactivityweretoogreat,itwouldbeimpossibleforhumanstoresideincities.OnEarth, thenumberand intensityof earthquakes is largeenough to recycle life-essentialnutrientsbacktothecontinentsbutnotsointensethatdwellingincitiesisimpossible.

TheRightPlanetaryCompanionsLatein1993,planetaryscientistGeorgeWetherill,oftheCarnegieInstitutionofWashington, D.C., made an exciting discovery about our solar system. Inobserving computer simulations of our solar system, he found that without aJupiter-sized planet positioned justwhere it is, Earthwould be struck about athousand timesmore frequently than it isalreadybycometsandcometdebris.{369}Inotherwords,withoutJupiter,impactssuchastheonethatwipedoutthedinosaurswouldbecommon.{370}Hereishowtheprotectionsystemworks.Jupiteristwoandahalftimesmore

massivethanalltheotherplanetscombined.Becauseofitshugemass,thushugegravity,anditslocationbetweentheearthandthecloudofcometssurroundingthesolarsystem,Jupitereitherdrawscomets(bygravity)tocollidewithitself,as it did in July 1994,{371} or, more commonly, it deflects comets (again bygravity) right out of the solar system. InWetherill’s words, if it were not for

Jupiter,“wewouldn’tbearoundtostudytheoriginofthesolarsystem.”{372}Neitherwouldwebearoundifitwerenotfortheveryhighregularityinthe

orbits of both Jupiter and Saturn. Also in July 1994, French astrophysicistJacquesLaskardeterminedthatiftheouterplanetswereless[orbitally]regular,thentheinnerplanets’motionswouldbechaotic,andEarthwouldsufferorbitalchangessoextremeastodisruptitsclimaticstability.{373}Inotherwords,Earth’sclimatewouldbeunsuitableforlife.(Asit is,thetinyvariationsinJupiterandSaturn’s orbitsmay someday, but not soon, bounce lightweightMercury rightout of the solar system.)Thus, even the characteristics of Jupiter andSaturn’sorbits must fit within certain narrowly defined ranges for life on Earth to bepossible.

TheRightColliderThe rule of thumb in planetary formation is that the greater a planet’s surfacegravityandthegreateraplanet’sdistancefromitsstar,theheavierandthickeritsatmosphere. And yet Earth departs dramatically from that rule. Theoretically,Earthshouldhaveanatmospheremuchheavierandthicker thanthatofVenus,butinfactithasoneaboutfortytimeslighterandthinner.ThesolutiontothismysteryapparentlylieswithEarth’smoon.Mostmoonsin

our solar system form out of the same solar disk material that generates theplanets. As such, they are relatively small compared to their planets. A fewmoons orbiting the outer planets are foreign bodies that have been captured.Earth’smoon,however,istheexception.Itorbitsaplanetthatisclosetothesunanditishugecomparedtoitsplanet.ThemoonisyoungerthanEarth.AccordingtoApollolunarrocksamples,itis

only 4.25 billion years old compared to Earth’s 4.57 billion years. The samerocks gathered by Apollo astronauts tell us the moon’s crust is chemicallydistinct from Earth’s. Astronomers have seen andmeasured themoon’s slow,steadyspiralingawayfromEarth.Theircalculationssuggestthatthemoonwasincontact,ornearcontact,withEarthalittleover4.25billionyearsago.Themoon’s distinct chemicalmake-up and its younger age establish that it

andEarthdidnotformtogether.Themoon’smovementawayfromEarth{374}andthe measured slowing of Earth’s rotation imply{375} some kind of collision ornearcollisionmorethan4billionyearsago.Onlyonecollisionscenario fitsall theobservedEarth-moonparametersand

dynamics:abodyatleastthesizeofMars(ninetimesthemassofthemoonandone-ninththemassofEarth)andpossiblytwiceaslargemadeanearlyhead-onhitandwasabsorbed, for themostpart, intoEarth’score.{376}Sucha collisionwouldhaveblasted almost all ofEarth’s original atmosphere into outer space.

The shell or cloud of debris arising from the collision would orbit Earth andeventuallycoalescetoformourmoon.ThisremarkableeventdeliveredEarthfromalife-suffocatingatmosphereand

produced a replacement atmosphere thin enough and of the right chemicalcompositiontopermitthepassageoflighttoEarth’ssurface.ItboostedthemassanddensityofEarthhighenoughtoretain(bygravity)alargequantityofwatervapor(molecularweight18)forbillionsofyears,butnotsohighastokeeplife-threatening quantities of ammonia (molecular weight 17) and methane(molecularweight16).ThiseventsoboostedtheironcontentofEarth’scrustastopermitahugeabundanceofoceanlife(thequantityofiron,acriticalnutrient,determinestheabundanceanddiversityofmarinealgae,whichformthebaseofthefoodchainforalloceanlife),whichinturnpermittedadvancedlandlife.{377}It played a major role in salting Earth’s crust with a huge abundance ofradioisotopes—the heat fromwhich drivesmost of Earth’s exceptionally highratesof tectonicsandvulcanism.{378} (Heavy elements from thebody collidingwith Earth were largely transferred to Earth whereas the light elements wereeither dissipated to the interplanetary medium or transferred to a cloud thatwould eventually form the moon.) This collision gradually slowed Earth’srotationratesothatawidevarietyoflowerlifeformscouldsurvivelongenoughtosustaintheexistenceofadvancedlifeforms.Because the moon is so large relative to our planet, it exerts a significant

gravitational pull onEarth.Thanks to this pull, coastal seawaters are cleansedand their nutrients replenished. Themoon, again because of its great size andproximity to Earth, stabilized the tilt of Earth’s rotation axis, protecting theplanet from life-extinguishingclimaticextremes{379} (see “ClimaticRunaways”sectionearlierinthischapter).In summary, this amazing collision, for which we have an abundance of

circumstantial evidence, appears to have been perfectly timed and designed totransformEarthfroma“formlessandempty”placeintoasitewherelifecouldsurviveandthrive.Infact,thedegreeoffine-tuningfavorabletolifemanifestedinthissingleeventarguespowerfullyonitsownforadivineCreator.Eveniftheuniverse contains as many as 10 billion trillion planets (1022), we would notexpectevenone,bynaturalprocessesalone,toendupwiththesurfacegravity,surfacetemperature,atmosphericcomposition,atmosphericpressure,crustalironabundance, tectonics, vulcanism, rotation rate, rate of decline in rotation rate,and stable rotation axis tilt necessary for the support of life.{380} To thosewhoexpressthedesiretoseeamiracle,wecanassurethemtheyarelookingatonewhenevertheygazeupatthemoon.

VitalPoisonsThe Food andDrugAdministration recently issuedwarnings about overdoingdietarysupplementsofchromium,molybdenum,selenium,andvanadium.Eachoftheseelements,insufficientquantity,becomesadeadlypoison.Ontheotherhand,alackofanyoneoftheseelementswillkillus.Eachofthemisessentialfor building proteins that are vital for our existence. There is a fine line, forexample, between too little vanadium in the diet and toomuch.Molybdenumalsoplaysa crucial andunique role innitrogen fixation, theprocessbywhichnitrogenfromtheatmospheregets fixed intochemicals thatcanbeassimilatedbyplants. Infact, thenitrogenfixationnecessaryfor lifeon the landwouldbeimpossibleunlessjusttherightamountofmolybdenumexistsinthesoil.Thesefourelementsarenottheonlyelementswhosequantitiesmustbefine-

tuned for life’spossible existence.Weall know thedevastating effectsof irondeficiency.However,toomuchironinthedietcanprovejustasdamaging.Otherelements whose abundances must be carefully controlled are arsenic, boron,chlorine, cobalt, copper, fluorine, iodine, manganese, nickel, phosphorus,potassium,sulfur,tin,andzinc.Alltheseelementsareessentialforadvancedlifebuttoomuchofanyoneofthemproveslethal.{381}The relative abundance of elements measured in the earth’s crust is very

different from thatof anyother solar systembody.Theearth’s crustmanifeststhe precise quantities of all the life-essential elements necessary to permit theexistenceofadvancedlandlife.

ExtrasolarPlanetsAt the time thisbookwent topress,astronomershaddiscovered52confirmedplanetsoutsideofoursolarsystemorbitingnormalstars(starsburningthroughthenuclearfusionofhydrogenintohelium).{382}OneisassmallasafewtimesthemassofEarth.{383} Six are in themass range ofSaturn (Saturn= 95Earthmasses).{384} The rest range from half a Jupitermass to about a dozen Jupitermasses(Jupiter=317Earthmasses).The sample of discovered extrasolar planets is biased toward the largest

planets. They are much easier to observe. Also, the predominant observingtechnique biases the sample toward planets that are closest to their stars.Nevertheless,inspiteofthesepresentbiases,itisbecomingcleartoastronomersthatoursolarsystemisexceptional.Theage-oldmythsthatextrasolarplanetarysystemswouldbecommonandwouldresembleourownareprovingincorrect.Astronomers are finding planets around only themostmetal-rich stars. (To

astronomers, anything that is not hydrogen or helium is ametal.) Thismakessensesinceittakesaminimumquantityofmetalsjusttomakeplanetformation

possible. The metallicity cutoff astronomers observe for planetary systemseliminates 98% of the stars in our galaxy as candidates for planetarycompanions.{385}The2%ofthestarsthataremetal-richenoughtoformplanetsare,withvery

few exceptions, younger than the sun. This makes sense, too. The older ourgalaxybecomes,themoremetal-richthegascloudsthatformnewstarsbecomeasaconsequenceofolderstarsexplodingtheirashestotheinterstellarmedium.Oursunisoneofthoseveryfewstarsbothmetal-richandrelativelyold.Whilethepresentageofoursunisnotessentialforthesimplestlifeforms,itiscriticalforadvancedlife.Stars that areoverlymetal-richpresent theproblem that theywillmake too

manyplanets,moons,asteroids,andcomets.Theseextrabodiesintroducechaosinto the planetary system, which leads to either too many collisions or thedisruptionofplanetaryorbits.The planets seen orbiting other stars, at least so far, are nothing like the

planetsinoursolarsystem.TheplanetthatisafewtimesthemassofEarthisinasystemwithnogasgiants (that is,noplanets themassofSaturnorgreater).Theextrasolargasgiantsastronomersobserveeitherorbittooclosetotheirstarsor orbit their stars with eccentric orbits (that is, orbits where the distancebetween theplanetand thestarvarygreatly).Eitherway,hypothesizedplanetslikeEarth insuchsystemswould lose theircapacity tosupport life.Therefore,notonlyareplanetarysystemsrelativelyrare,ofthesystemsthatdoexist,few,ifany,arelikeoursolarsystem.

ManyFine-TunedCharacteristicsWeseeherethatEarthispreparedforphysicallifethroughavarietyoffinely-tuned characteristics of our galaxy group, galaxy, star, planet, collider, andmoon.Thisdiscussionbynomeansexhauststhelistofcharacteristicsthatmustbe fine-tuned for physical life to exist. The astronomical and geophysicalliterature now includes discussions on more than a hundred differentcharacteristicsthatmusttakeonnarrowlydefinedvalues.Thelistofdesigncharacteristicsforoursolarsystemgrowslongerwithevery

yearofnewresearch.Whatwere2parametersin1966grewto8bytheendofthe1960s,to23bytheendofthe1970s,to30bytheendofthe1980s,tothecurrentlistof123.Asamplingoftheparametersthatmustbefine-tunedforthesupportofphysicallifeispresentedintable16.1.

Table 16.1: Evidence for the Fine-Tuning of the Galaxy-Sun-Earth-MoonSystemforLifeSupport{386}

Thefollowingparametersofaplanet,itsmoon,itsstar,anditsgalaxymusthavevalues falling within narrowly defined ranges for life of any kind to exist.Characteristics#5and#6arerepeatedfromtable14.1sincetheyapplytoboththeuniverseandthegalaxy.

1.galaxyclustertypeif too rich: galaxy collisions and mergers would disrupt solarorbitiftoosparse:insufficientinfusionofgastosustainstarformationforalongenoughtime

2.galaxysizeif too large: infusion of gas and starswould disturb sun’s orbitandignitetoomanygalacticeruptionsiftoosmall:insufficientinfusionofgastosustainstarformationforalongenoughtime

3.galaxytypeif too elliptical: star formation would cease before sufficientheavyelementbuild-upforlifechemistryif too irregular: radiation exposure on occasion would be toosevere and heavy elements for life chemistry would not beavailable

4.galaxylocationif too close to a rich galaxy cluster: galaxy would begravitationallydisruptedif too close to very large galaxy(ies): galaxy would begravitationallydisrupted

5.supernovaeeruptionsiftooclose:lifeontheplanetwouldbeexterminatedbyradiationif too far: not enough heavy element asheswould exist for theformationofrockyplanetsiftooinfrequent:notenoughheavyelementashespresentfortheformationofrockyplanetsiftoofrequent:lifeontheplanetwouldbeexterminatediftoosoon:notenoughheavyelementasheswouldexistfor theformationofrockyplanetsiftoolate:lifeontheplanetwouldbeexterminatedbyradiation

6.whitedwarfbinariesif too few: insufficient fluorine would be produced for lifechemistrytoproceed

if toomany:planetaryorbitsdisruptedbystellardensity; lifeonplanetwouldbeexterminatedif too soon: not enough heavy elements would be made forefficientfluorineproductionif too late: fluorinewouldbemade too late for incorporation inprotoplanet

7.proximityofsolarnebulatoasupernovaeruptioniffarther:insufficientheavyelementsforlifewouldbeabsorbedifcloser:nebulawouldbeblownapart

8.timingofsolarnebulaformationrelativetosupernovaeruptionifearlier:nebulawouldbeblownapartiflater:nebulawouldnotabsorbenoughheavyelements

9.parentstardistancefromcenterofgalaxyif farther: quantity of heavy elements would be insufficient tomakerockyplanetsif closer: galactic radiation would be too great; stellar densitywoulddisturbplanetaryorbits

10.parentstardistancefromclosestspiralarmif too near: exposure to harmful radiation would be too great;gravitational disturbances of planetary orbits and/orasteroid/cometbeltsmaybetoogreat

11.z-axisheightsofparentstar’sorbitiftoogreat:exposuretoharmfulradiationfromthegalacticbulgeandnearbyspiralarmswouldbetoogreat

12.numberofstarsintheplanetarysystemifmorethanone: tidal interactionswoulddisruptplanetaryorbitoflifesupportplanetiflessthanone:heatproducedwouldbeinsufficientforlife

13.parentstarbirthdateif more recent: star would not yet have reached stable burningphase;stellarsystemwouldcontaintoomanyheavyelementsif less recent: stellar system would not contain enough heavyelements

14.parentstarageifolder:luminosityofstarwouldchangetooquicklyifyounger:luminosityofstarwouldchangetooquickly

15.parentstarmassif greater: luminosity of star would change too quickly; starwouldburntoorapidly

if less: range of planet distances for life would be too narrow;tidal forceswoulddisrupt the lifeplanet’s rotationalperiod;UVradiation would be inadequate for plants to make sugars andoxygen

16.parentstarmetallicityiftoosmall:insufficientheavyelementsforlifechemistrywouldexistiftoolarge:radioactivitywouldbetoointenseforlife;lifewouldbepoisonedbyheavyelementconcentrations

17.parentstarcolorifredder:photosyntheticresponsewouldbeinsufficientifbluer:photosyntheticresponsewouldbeinsufficient

18.H3+productionif too small: simplemolecules essential to planet formation andlifechemistrywouldnotformiftoolarge:planetswouldformatwrongtimeandplaceforlife

19.parentstarluminosityrelativetospeciationifincreasestoosoon:runawaygreenhouseeffectwoulddevelopifincreasestoolate:runawayglaciationwoulddevelop

20.surfacegravity(escapevelocity)ifstronger:planet’satmospherewouldretaintoomuchammoniaandmethaneifweaker:planet’satmospherewouldlosetoomuchwater

21.distancefromparentstariffarther:planetwouldbetoocoolforastablewatercycleifcloser:planetwouldbetoowarmforastablewatercycle

22.inclinationoforbitif toogreat: temperaturedifferenceson theplanetwouldbe tooextreme

23.orbitaleccentricityif too great: seasonal temperature differences would be tooextreme

24.axialtiltifgreater:surfacetemperaturedifferenceswouldbetoogreatifless:surfacetemperaturedifferenceswouldbetoogreat

25.rateofchangeofaxialtiltif greater: climatic changes would be too extreme; surfacetemperaturedifferenceswouldbecometooextreme

26.rotationperiod

iflonger:diurnaltemperaturedifferenceswouldbetoogreatifshorter:atmosphericwindvelocitieswouldbetoogreat

27.rateofchangeinrotationperiodiflonger:surfacetemperaturerangenecessaryforlifewouldnotbesustainedifshorter:surfacetemperaturerangenecessaryforlifewouldnotbesustained

28.planetageiftooyoung:planetwouldrotatetoorapidlyiftooold:planetwouldrotatetooslowly

29.magneticfieldifstronger:electromagneticstormswouldbetoosevereif weaker: ozone shield would be inadequately protected fromhardstellarandsolarradiation

30.thicknessofcrustif thicker: too much oxygen would be transferred from theatmospheretothecrustifthinner:volcanicandtectonicactivitywouldbetoogreat

31.albedo(ratioofreflectedlighttototalamountfallingonsurface)ifgreater:runawayglaciationwoulddevelopifless:runawaygreenhouseeffectwoulddevelop

32.asteroidalandcometarycollisionrateifgreater:toomanyspecieswouldbecomeextinctifless:crustwouldbetoodepletedofmaterialsessentialforlife

33.massofbodycollidingwithprimordialEarthif smaller: Earth’s atmospherewould be too thick;moonwouldbetoosmallifgreater:Earth’sorbitandformwouldbetoogreatlydisturbed

34.timingofbodycollidingwithprimordialEarthifearlier:Earth’satmospherewouldbetoothick;moonwouldbetoosmalliflater:sunwouldbetooluminousatepochforadvancedlife

35.collisionlocationofbodycollidingwithprimordialEarthif too close to grazing: insufficient debris to form large moon;inadequate annihilation of Earth’s primordial atmosphere;inadequatetransferofheavyelementstoEarthif tooclosetodeadcenter:damagefromcollisionwouldbe toodestructiveforfuturelifetoexist

36.oxygentonitrogenratioinatmosphere

iflarger:advancedlifefunctionswouldproceedtooquicklyifsmaller:advancedlifefunctionswouldproceedtooslowly

37.carbondioxidelevelinatmosphereifgreater:runawaygreenhouseeffectwoulddevelopif less: plants would be unable to maintain efficientphotosynthesis

38.watervaporlevelinatmosphereifgreater:runawaygreenhouseeffectwoulddevelopifless:rainfallwouldbetoomeagerforadvancedlifeontheland

39.atmosphericelectricdischargerateifgreater:toomuchfiredestructionwouldoccurifless:toolittlenitrogenwouldbefixedintheatmosphere

40.ozonelevelinatmosphereifgreater:surfacetemperatureswouldbetoolowif less: surface temperatureswould be too high; therewould betoomuchUVradiationatthesurface

41.oxygenquantityinatmosphereifgreater:plantsandhydrocarbonswouldburnuptooeasilyifless:advancedanimalswouldhavetoolittletobreathe

42.seismicactivityifgreater:toomanylife-formswouldbedestroyedif less:nutrientsonocean floors fromriver runoffwouldnotberecycled to continents through tectonics; not enough carbondioxidewouldbereleasedfromcarbonates

43.volcanicactivityiflower:insufficientamountsofcarbondioxideandwatervaporwould be returned to the atmosphere; soilmineralizationwouldbecometoodegradedforlifeifhigher:advancedlife,atleast,wouldbedestroyed

44.rateofdeclineintectonicactivityifslower:advancedlifecouldneversurviveontheplanetiffaster:advancedlifecouldneversurviveontheplanet

45.rateofdeclineinvolcanicactivityifslower:advancedlifecouldneversurviveontheplanetiffaster:advancedlifecouldneversurviveontheplanet

46.oceans-to-continentsratioif greater: diversity and complexity of life-forms would belimitedif smaller: diversity and complexity of life-forms would be

limited47.rateofchangeinoceans-to-continentsratio

ifsmaller:advancedlifewouldlacktheneededlandmassareaif greater: advanced life would be destroyed by the radicalchanges

48.globaldistributionofcontinents(forEarth)if too much in the southern hemisphere: seasonal differenceswouldbetoosevereforadvancedlife

49.frequencyandextentoficeagesif smaller: insufficient fertile, wide, and well-watered valleysproduced for diverse and advanced life forms; insufficientmineralconcentrationsoccurfordiverseandadvancedlifeifgreater:planetinevitablyexperiencesrunawayfreezing

50.soilmineralizationiftoonutrientpoor:diversityandcomplexityoflife-formswouldbelimitediftoonutrientrich:diversityandcomplexityoflife-formswouldbelimited

51.gravitationalinteractionwithamoonifgreater: tidaleffectsontheoceans,atmosphere,androtationalperiodwouldbetoosevereif less: orbital obliquity changes would cause climaticinstabilities;movement of nutrients and life from the oceans tothe continents and vice versa would be insufficient; magneticfieldwouldbetooweak

52.Jupiterdistanceifgreater:toomanyasteroidandcometcollisionswouldoccuronEarthifless:Earth’sorbitwouldbecomeunstable

53.Jupitermassifgreater:Earth’sorbitwouldbecomeunstableif less: toomany asteroid and comet collisionswould occur onEarth

54.driftinmajorplanetdistancesifgreater:Earth’sorbitwouldbecomeunstableif less: toomany asteroid and comet collisionswould occur onEarth

55.majorplaneteccentricitiesifgreater:orbitoflifesupportableplanetwouldbepulledoutof

lifesupportzone56.majorplanetorbitalinstabilities

ifgreater:orbitoflifesupportableplanetwouldbepulledoutoflifesupportzone

57.atmosphericpressureif too small: liquid water would evaporate too easily andcondensetooinfrequentlyif too large: liquidwaterwouldnotevaporateeasilyenough forland life; insufficient sunlight would reach planetary surface;insufficientUVradiationwouldreachplanetarysurface

58.atmospherictransparencyif smaller: insufficient range of wavelengths of solar radiationwouldreachplanetarysurfaceif greater: too broad a range of wavelengths of solar radiationwouldreachplanetarysurface

59.chlorinequantityinatmosphereif smaller: erosion rates, acidity of rivers, lakes, and soils, andcertainmetabolicrateswouldbeinsufficientformostlifeformsif greater: erosion rates, acidity of rivers, lakes, and soils, andcertainmetabolicrateswouldbetoohighformostlifeforms

60.ironquantityinoceansandsoilsifsmaller:quantityanddiversityoflifewouldbetoolimitedforsupportofadvancedlife;ifverysmall,nolifewouldbepossibleiflarger:ironpoisoningofatleastadvancedlifewouldresult

61.troposphericozonequantityif smaller: insufficient cleansing of biochemical smogs wouldresultif larger: respiratory failure of advanced animals, reduced cropyields,anddestructionofozone-sensitivespecieswouldresult

62.stratosphericozonequantityif smaller: toomuchUV radiationwould reach planet’s surfacecausingskincancersandreducedplantgrowthif larger: too little UV radiation would reach planet’s surfacecausingreducedplantgrowthandinsufficientvitaminproductionforanimals

63.mesosphericozonequantityif smaller: circulation and chemistry of mesospheric gases sodisturbedastoupsetrelativeabundancesoflifeessentialgasesinloweratmosphere

if greater: circulation and chemistry of mesospheric gases sodisturbedastoupsetrelativeabundancesoflifeessentialgasesinloweratmosphere

64.quantityandextentofforestandgrassfiresif smaller: growth inhibitors in the soilswould accumulate; soilnitrification would be insufficient; insufficient charcoalproduction for adequate soil water retention and absorption ofcertaingrowthinhibitors.if greater: too many plant and animal life forms would bedestroyed

65.quantityofsoilsulfurifsmaller:plantswouldbecomedeficientincertainproteinsanddieiflarger:plantswoulddiefromsulfurtoxins;acidityofwaterandsoil would become too great for life; nitrogen cycles would bedisturbed

66.biomasstocometinfallratioif smaller: greenhouse gases accumulate, triggering runawaysurfacetemperatureincreaseiflarger:greenhousegasesdecline,triggeringarunawayfreezing

ChancesforFindingaLifeSupportPlanetEachofthese66parametersmustbewithincertainlimitstoavoiddisturbingaplanet’s capacity to support life. For some, including many of the stellarparameters,thelimitshavebeenmeasuredquiteprecisely.Forothers,includingmanyoftheplanetaryparameters,thelimitsarelesspreciselyknown.Trillionsofstarsareavailableforstudy,andstarformationisquitewellunderstoodandobserved. On the other hand, only 61 planets have been studied, and thoughastrophysicists have developed a good theory of planetary formation withsignificantobservationalconfirmation,notall thedetailshaveyetbeenworkedout.Let’s look at how confining these limits can be.Among the least confining

wouldbe thenumberof stars in theplanetary systemand thedistributionofaplanet’scontinents.Thelimitshereare loose,eliminatingperhapsonly20%ofallcandidates.Moreconfiningwouldbeparameterssuchastheplanet’srotationperiodanditsalbedo(reflectivity),whicheliminateabout90%ofallcandidatesfromcontention.Mostconfiningofallwouldbeparameterssuchas theparentstar’smassandtheplanet’sdistancefromitsparentstar,whicheliminate99.9%ofallcandidates.

Ofcourse,notallthelistedparametersarestrictlyindependentoftheothers.Dependencyfactorscouldreducethedegreeofconfinement.Ontheotherhand,all theseparametersmustbekeptwithin specific limits for the total timespanneeded to support life on a candidate planet. This increases the degree ofconfinement.Anattemptatcalculatingthepossibilitythatarandomlyselectedplanetinour

universewillpossess thecapacity to supportphysical life ispresented in table16.2.AlthoughIhave tried tobeoptimistic (that is,conservative) inassigningtheprobabilities,Ireadilyadmitmanyoftheestimatesmayneedtobemodified.Future research shouldprovideuswithmuchmoreaccurateprobabilities. If

past research is any indication, however, the number of parameters shouldincrease and the probabilities decrease. Indeed, the parameter list has grownfrom41 to 128 between the second edition of this book and the present thirdedition,whiletheprobabilityforfindingaplanetanywhereintheuniversewiththecapacitytosupportphysicallifehasshrunkfrom10-53to10-144.With considerable security, therefore,we candraw the conclusion that even

withahundredbilliontrillionstarsintheobservableuniverse,theprobabilityoffinding, without divine intervention, a single planet capable of supportingphysicallifeismuchlessthanoneinatrillion,trillion,trillion,trillion,trillion,trillion,trillion,trillion,trillion,trillion,trillion.Theoddsactuallyarehigherthatthe reader will be killed by a sudden reversal in the second law ofthermodynamics.{387}

HABITABLEZONES

The environmental requirements for life to exist depend quitestronglyonthelifeforminquestion.Theconditionsforprimitivelifetoexist,forexample,arenotnearlyasdemandingastheyareforadvancedlife.Also,itmakesabigdifferencehowactivethelife formisandhowlong it remains in itsenvironment.On thisbasistherearesixdistinctzonesorregionsinwhichlifecanexist.Inorderofthebroadesttothenarrowesttheyareasfollows:

1.forunicellular,lowmetabolismlifethatpersistsforonlyabrieftimeperiod2.forunicellular,lowmetabolismlifethatpersistsforalongtimeperiod3.forunicellular,highmetabolismlifethatpersistsforabrieftimeperiod4.forunicellular,highmetabolismlifethatpersistsforalongtimeperiod

5. for advanced life that survives for just a brieftimeperiod6. for advanced life that survives for a long timeperiod

Complicating factors, however, are that unicellular, lowmetabolism life ismore easily subject to radiation damage andhasavery lowmolecular repair rate.Theoriginof lifeproblem(seechapter17)also ismuchmoredifficult for lowmetabolismlife. Given how little we still know about the complexities oforganismsandtheirinterdependentrelationswithoneanotherandtheirenvironment,noattemptismadeintable16.2todistinguishbetween possibly different habitable zones. Future research,however,maymakesuchdistinctionspossible.

Table 16.2: An Estimate of the Probability for Attaining the NecessaryParametersforLifeSupport{388}

Gotowww.reasons.org/probabilities-life-earth-2001foralistofparameters.

[Foranupdatedlistoftheparameterssince2001,whenthe3rdeditionofCreatorandtheCosmoswaspublished,gotohttp://www.reasons.org/fine-tuning.]

Probabilityforoccurrenceofall128parameters≈10-166Maximumpossiblenumberofplanetsinuniverse≈1022

Thus,lessthan1chancein10144(trilliontrilliontrilliontrilliontrilliontrilliontrillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion) exists that evenone suchplanetwouldoccuranywhereintheuniverse.

These factors would seem to indicate that the local group of galaxies, theMilkyWaygalaxy,thesun,Jupiter,Saturn,thecolliderwiththeprimordialearth,the earth, and the moon, in addition to the universe, have undergone divinedesign. It seems apparent that personal intervention on the part of theCreatortakesplacenotjustattheoriginoftheuniversebutalsomuchmorerecently.Inotherwords,Earth seemsmore than simply “the pick of the litter,” the planetselected from the Creator’s searching through the vastness of the cosmos forlife’sbesthome.Rather,theremotenessoftheprobabilityoffindingaplanetfitfor life suggests that the Creator personally and specially designed andconstructed our galaxy group, our galaxy, our sun, Jupiter, Saturn, Earth’scollider,themoon,andEarthforlife.Ifdivinedesignisessentialtoexplainthepropertiesofsimplersystemssuch

astheuniverse,ourgalaxy,andthesolarsystem,thenGod’sinvolvementisevenmore essential to explain systems as complex as organisms, including humanbeings.AsforthemillionsofdollarsspentinthepastbytheU.S.governmentonthesearchforextraterrestrial intelligence,formerSenatorWilliamProxmiremayhavesaiditbest.WewouldbefarwisertohavespentthemoneylookingforintelligentlifeinWashington.

HOWMANYPLANETSDIDGODCREATEFORLIFE?

Whilethereisnottheremotestchancethatthenaturalconditionsandphysicallawsoftheuniversewillspawnaplanetcapableofsustainingphysicallife,thereisnothingtostoptheCreatoroftheuniversefrommiraculouslydesigningseveralplanets,ratherthanjustoneplanet,withthecapacitytosupportlife.Thequestionofhow many planets God created for physical life is open tospeculation.Some theologians and scientists argue that since God so

obviously enjoys creating He would not limit Himself to justplanetEarth.OtherscholarspointoutthattheBiblerevealsGodasaBeingwhoconservesHismiracles.Inotherwords,theGodoftheBibleappearstoperformonlythosemiraclesnecessarytoachieveHispurposes.Theonlypossibility theBibledefinitivelyrulesoutisanotherplanetintheuniversewithphysicalintelligentlifethathasfallenintoastateofspiritualrebellionagainstGod’sauthority. The book of Hebrews, chapters 9 and 10, states thatJesusChristdiedonetimeatoneplaceforallsinners.

CHAPTERSEVENTEEN

BUILDINGLIFE

Inpreviouschapterswelookedatsomeoftheburgeoningevidencefordivinedesign in the universe, our galaxy, our sun, our planet, and our moon. ThisglowingtestimonytotheworkoftheDesignerpales,however,incomparisontotheevidencethatresidesinlivingorganisms.Fortheuniverseandthesolarsystem,somecharacteristicsmustbefine-tuned

to better than one part in 1037 for life to be possible. But, the fine-tuningsnecessary to build an independent, functioning organism require precisioncraftingbeyondwhatpeoplehaveeverimaginedpossible,precisiontoonepartinanumbersobigthatitwouldfillthousandsofbookstowriteout.

TheTimeScaleWhenitcomestotheoriginoflife,manybiologists(andothers)havetypicallyassumed that plenty of time is available for natural processes to perform thenecessary assembly. But discoveries about the universe and the solar systemhave shattered that assumption. What we see now is that life must haveoriginatedonEarthquickly.Inearly1992,ChristopherChybaandCarlSaganpublishedareviewpaperon

theoriginsoflife.{389}Originsispluralforagoodreason.Researchindicatesthatlifebegan,wasdestroyed,andbeganagainmanytimesduringthaterabeforeitfinallytookhold.Fullyformedcellsshowupinthefossilrecordasfarbackas3.5billionyears,

and limestone, formed from the remains of organisms, dates back 3.8 billionyears. The ratio of 12carbon to 13carbon found in ancient sediments{390} alsoindicates a plenitude of life onEarth for the era between 3.5 and 3.86 billionyearsago.Now, the earth’s crust remained molten until 3.9 billion years ago. Life

obviouslycouldnotsurviveonorinamoltencrust.Thatleavesjust40millionyearsbetweentheearth’smoltenstateandthefirstdefinitiveevidenceoflife.Buttheerabetween3.86and3.5billionyearsagoalsohaditsgravedangers

for life. Though the research is recent, it leaves no room for doubt (based ondating of lunar craters and on comparisons of craters on themoon,Mars, andMercury) that Earth and other bodies close to the sun experienced heavy

bombardmentbymeteors,comets,asteroids,anddust in theirearlyhistory.{391}From about 4.3 until 3.9 billion years ago, the bombardment of Earthwas sointense that no life could have survived it and the earth’s crustwas kept in amolten state. From3.9 until 3.5 billion years ago, the bombardment graduallydecreased to itspresentcomparatively low level.Butduring those400millionyears at least thirty life-exterminating impacts must have occurred. Thesefindings have enormous significance to our theories about the origin of life.TheyshowthatlifespranguponEarth(andre-sprang)inwhatcouldbecalledgeologic instants, periods of 10-million years or less (between devastatingimpacts).{392}Fromtheperspectiveofourlifespan,a40-million-year(forthefirstoriginof

life)ora10-million-year(forthesubsequentoriginsoflife)windowmayseemlong,butitisimpossiblyshorttothoseseekingtoexplainlife’soriginswithoutdivineinput.

LaboratoryPrebioticSoupsAttemptstoshowthatlifecananddoescometogetheronitsownhaveresultedin experiments with prebiotic soups (warm ponds enriched with life-buildingmolecules). Even under the highly favorable conditions of a laboratory, thesesoupshavefailedtoproduceanythingremotelyresemblinglife.Oneproblemisthat theyproduceonlya randomdistributionof left-and right-handedprebioticmolecules. (Many prebiotic molecules, notably all but one of the bioactiveaminoacids,occurintwomirror-imageformsthatarearbitrarilytermedleft-andright-handed.) Life chemistry demands that all the nucleotide sugars be right-handedandallthebioactiveaminoacidsthathavemirror-imageforms(19outof20)beleft-handed.Withallourlearningandtechnologywecannotevencomeclose in the lab to lining up molecules with the correct handedness andassembling them together in the correct sequence to make life. How can weexpectlifetobringitselftogetherinjustafewmillionyearsinthechaoticworldofnature?Amazingly,ChybaandSaganfindhope in theextraterrestrialbombardment.

Glossing over the destructive effects of the collisions, they hypothesize apossibly beneficial effect. They suggest that this extraterrestrial bombardmentmayhave assisted life formationbydelivering concentrateddosesofprebioticmolecules.Howreasonableisthissuggestion?Thoughcomets,meteoritespartlycomposedofcarbon,andinterplanetarydustparticlesmaycarrysomeprebiotics,theycarryonlythesimplestonesandfartoofewofthemtomakeadifference.In fact, with every helpful molecule they may bring, come several more thatwouldget in theway—uselessmolecules thatwould substitute for the needed

ones.Andagain,theleft-orright-handednessproblempersists.(Thediscoveryofaslightexcessofleft-handedoverright-handedaminoacidsinafewmeteoriteshasprovedtobetheresultofterrestrialcontamination.){393}

AtmosphereProblemChyba,Sagan,andothersclingtoyetanotherslimchance.Theysuggestthattheatmospheric conditions 3.9 to 3.5 billion years ago might not have been toounfavorableforlife.Perhapstheconditionswerejustneutral.Unfavorableinthecontextoflifeassemblyisan“oxidizing”atmosphere,oneinwhichatomsandmolecules bond with oxygen atoms. Favorable would be a “reducing”atmosphere,oneinwhichatomsandmoleculesbondwithhydrogenratherthanwith oxygen atoms. Neutral, as Chyba and Sagan define it, would be anatmosphere that allows at least some hydrogen bonding. But this idea, too,reflectswishfulthinking.Atmospheric physicists established more than ten years ago that Earth’s

atmosphere has been fully oxidizing (enough free oxygen exists to oxidize allorganic substances) for the last 4 billion years.{394} Recently, a Romanianphysicist discovered why. The radiation released from the decay of uranium,thorium,andpotassium-40intheearth’scrustwilldissociatesomeofthewatermolecules in the primordial ocean into hydrogen and oxygen.{395} Thus, at themomenttheearth’scrustcoolsenoughtopermitanoceantoform,acontinuousproductionofoxygenintoboththeoceanandtheatmospherebegins.Under oxidizing conditions, processes producing amino acids (protein

building blocks) and nucleotides (DNA andRNA building blocks) operate 30million times less efficiently than they would under reducing conditions.{396}Natural primordial soups would contain far too few prebiotic molecules toovercome this inefficiency, not tomention the destructive chemical processes.Worseyet,theminuteaminoacidproductionwouldalmostentirelybecomposedof the simple acid, glycine.{397} Themore complex acids that are also neededwouldbevirtuallymissing.

MissingSoupThe 12carbon to 13carbon isotope ratio studies referred to earlier in this chapter(see “The Time Scale” subhead) distinguish between inorganic carbonaceousmolecules that form some of the critical building blocks of life and the samemolecules that result from the decay of once living organisms. Such studiesreveal that all of these carbonaceous molecules are post-biotic. None areprebiotic. In other words, there never existed at any point in Earth’s historyeitheraprebioticsouporaprebioticmineralsubstrate.Lackingaprebioticsoupor a prebiotic mineral substrate, there is no possibility of a naturalistic

explanationfortheoriginsoflife.Something called the oxygen-ultraviolet paradox explains why no evidence

for a prebiotic soup or a prebiotic mineral substrate has ever been found onEarth. As already noted, the existence of oxygen in the atmosphere and theoceanguarantees theshutdownofprebioticchemistry.Theabsenceofoxygen,however, means that intense ultraviolet radiation will penetrate Earth’satmosphereandupperoceanlayer.Suchultravioletradiationalsoguaranteestheshutdown of prebiotic chemistry. So, eitherway, a naturalistic explanation fortheoriginsoflifeonEarthisdoomed.

TheOddsTheproblemsofprimordial soupsarebig,butbiggeryet is the infeasibilityofgenerating,without supernatural input, an enormous increase in complexity.Awidegulfseparatesanaqueoussolutioncontainingafewaminoacidsfromthesimplestlivingcell.Yearsago,molecularbiophysicistHaroldMorowitzcalculatedthesizeofthis

gulf.Ifoneweretotakethesimplestlivingcellandbreakeverychemicalbondwithinit,theoddsthatthecellwouldreassembleunderidealnaturalconditions(thebestpossiblechemicalenvironment)wouldbeonechancein10100,000,000,000.{398} Most of us cannot even begin to picture a speck of chance so remote.Another way of depicting the assembly problem is schematically outlined infigure17.1.With odds as remote as 1 in 10100,000,000,000, the time scale issue becomes

completely irrelevant.Whatdoes itmatter if the earthhasbeen around for 10seconds,10thousandyears,or10billionyears?Thesizeoftheuniverseisofnoconsequenceeither.Ifallthematterinthevisibleuniversewereconvertedintothe building blocks of life, and if assembly of these building blocks wereattemptedonceamicrosecondfortheentireageoftheuniverse,theninsteadoftheoddsbeing1in10100,000,000,000,theywouldbe1in1099,999,999,916.

Figure17.1:AnAnalogyforSomeoftheStepsNeededintheAssemblyofLifeMoleculesLife molecules are composed of proteins and nucleic acids. The proteins, forexample,arebuiltfrom20distinctaminoacids,19ofwhichmustbeorientedina left-handed configuration. Moreover, most of these amino acids must besequencedinaspecificmannerandtoaspecificlength.Inthenaturalworldover80 distinct amino acids exist, 50% right-handed and 50% left-handed. Theproblem for life assembly is to select from the randomlyorientedaminoacidsonly those thatarecorrectlyoriented (stepA toB), then toselectoutonly thelife-specific amino acids (stepB toC), then to bond the amino acids togetherintoshortchains(stepCtoD), then tobondtheshortchains together tomakechainsofthenecessarylengths,typically,severalhundredaminoacidslong(stepD toE), and finally to select out those chains in the right order that have theaminoacidsinthepropersequences(stepEtoF).Meanwhile,thewholeprocessmust be protected so that the rate of formation remains sufficiently above therateofdestruction.

Non-Theists’ResponsesNon-theists typically counter Morowitz’ odds by pointing out that not everyamino acid and nucleotide must be strictly sequenced for life molecules tofunction.Theyareright,andthustheprobabilityforreassemblyimproves.ButMorowitz also assumed that all the amino acids were bioactive. In fact, onlytwenty of themore than eighty naturally occurring amino acids are bioactive,and only those that are left-handed can be used. So the probability declinesagain. Furthermore, Morowitz assumed totally favorable conditions, onlyconstructive chemical processes operating. Under natural circumstances,

destructive chemical processes operate at least as frequently as constructivechemicalprocesses.Thebottomlineistheoddsfortheassemblyofthesimplestlivingentityactuallygrowworseasmoredetailsarefiguredintothecalculation.Anotherattempttowiggleoutistosuggestthatthesimplestlivingentity3.5

billionyearsagowas far simpler thanwhatexists today.Thedifficultyhere isthat conditions onEarth 3.5 billion years agowere not enough different fromconditionstodaytowarrantsuchanidea.Infact,conditionsweresosimilarthatif lifewerespontaneouslygenerating3.5billionyearsago,wecouldexpect tosee it doing so today. Minimum complexity presents another problem.Organismsbelowacertainlevelofcomplexitycannotsurviveindependently.AsMorowitzdemonstrated,thisminimumcomplexityisnotmuchbelowwhatweseeinorganismstoday.Completegenomesequencesof thesimplest lifeformscapable of independent survival, life forms whose fossils are identical to themostancientfossilsknown,circa3.5billionyearsold,revealbetween1,400and1,900geneproducts.{399}Finally,asastronomerMichaelHartdemonstratedin1982,evenifyougrant

non-theiststheirwildestscenarioconcerningtheoriginoflife,itstillfails:

Letussuppose(veryoptimistically)that inastrandofgenesisDNAthereare no fewer than 400 positions where any one of the four nucleotideresidueswilldo,andateachof100otherpositionseitheroftwodifferentnucleotideswillbeequallyeffective,leavingonly100positionswhichmustbe filled by exactly the right nucleotides. This appears to be anunrealistically optimistic set of assumptions; but even so, the probabilitythat an arbitrarily chosen strandof nucleic acid could function as genesisDNAisonlyone in1090.Even in10billionyears, thechanceof formingsuchastrandspontaneouslywouldbeonly10-90times1060,or10-30.…Foreach of 100 different specific genes [theminimumneeded] to be formedspontaneously(intenbillionyears)theprobabilityis(10-30)100=10-3000.Forthemtobeformedatthesametime,andincloseproximity,theprobabilityisverymuchlower.{400}

Forthosewhowantthemostrealisticcalculationoftheoddsoflifeassemblyunder natural conditions, the papers{401} and book{402} by information theoristHubertYockeyareexcellent.

NewHopeinRNA?A smattering of papers published recently in Science momentarily lifted non-theistic biologists’ mood of despair. Those papers discussed what seemed apossiblewayaroundsomeofthecomplexitiesoflife.{403}Here’sthebackground.

Moleculesresponsibleforlifechemistrycannotfunctionbythemselves.DNA(molecules that hold the blueprints for the construction of life molecules),proteins (molecules that follow portions of the blueprints in building andrepairinglifemolecules),andRNA(moleculesthatcarrytheblueprintsfromtheDNAtospecificproteins)areallinterdependent.Thus,forlifetooriginatemechanistically,allthreekindsofmoleculeswould

need to emerge spontaneously and simultaneously from inorganic compounds.Even themost optimistic of researchers agreed that the chance appearance ofthese incredibly complex molecules at exactly the same time and place wasbeyondtherealmofnaturalpossibility.However,in1987anexperimentdemonstratedthatonekindofRNAcanact

as an enzyme or catalyst (an agent to facilitate a chemical process). It canfunctionlikeaprotein,atleasttoalimiteddegree.{404}Thisfindingledtosomeleaps of faith. Since it was assumed already that RNA could be more easilyconstructed under prebiotic conditions than DNA or proteins, the suggestionarosethataprimitiveRNAmolecule—capableoffunctioningasaproteinandasDNA—evolved by natural means out of a primordial soup. In time, this“primitive” RNA was said to specialize, evolving into the three kinds ofmoleculeswenowrecognizeasRNA,DNA,andproteins.The discoveries reported a few years ago showed yet more protein-like

capabilities of RNA molecules. A research group presented evidence that acertainRNAmoleculecouldstimulate twoaminoacids to join togetherwithapeptide bond (the kind of chemical bond formed in proteins).{405} A secondresearch team observed anotherRNAmolecule bothmaking and breaking thebondsthatjoinaminoacidstoRNA.{406}Thoughthesecapabilitiesplustheonesobserved earlier add up to only a tiny fraction of all the functions proteinsperform, several origin-of-life theorists have proposed that no proteins werenecessaryforthefirstlifeforms.Thesefindingsmayseemtomake“easier”theoriginoflifebystrictlynatural

processes, but that is not necessarily the case. Even if a single primordialmoleculecouldperformall the functionsofmodernDNA,RNA,andproteins,such amoleculewould have to be no less complex in its information content(i.e., its built-in “knowledge” of what to do) than the sum of modern DNA,RNA, and proteins. In otherwords, the task of assembling such an incrediblyversatile molecule is no easier than assembling the three different kinds ofmolecules.Theinformationcontentofthethreeissimplyconcentratedintooneenormously complexmolecule. Even Leslie Orgel, a leading proponent of anRNAoriginoflife,admitted,“Youhavetogetanawfullotofthingsrightandnothingwrong.”{407}

Another catch in these arguments is the false notion that RNA is easier toassemble thanproteinsorDNA.For20years researchersand texts taught thatRNAhadbeen synthesized ina labunderprebioticconditions.Thismythwasexploded by Robert Shapiro at a meeting of the International Society for theStudyoftheOriginofLifeheldatBerkeleyin1986.Some300ofthetoporigin-of-liferesearchersfromaroundtheworldwerepresent.Shapiro traced all the references to RNA synthesis back to one ambiguous

paperpublishedin1967.AtthesamemeetinghewentontodemonstratethatthesynthesisofRNAunderprebioticconditionsisessentiallyimpossible.Nooneatthemeetingchallengedthesoundnessofhisconclusion.ShapirothenpublishedhiscaseagainstRNAsynthesisinthejournalOriginofLifeandEvolutionoftheBiosphere,{408}acasethatremainsunchallengedtothisday.{409}Finally,RNAmoleculesandthenucleotidesthatcomprisethemareunstable

outside of cells.At the timeof life’s originEarth’s surfacewas relatively hot,probably between 80 and 90°C (176–194°F),with little temperature variation.{410} That is, Earth’s surface was without any cold spots. At these warmtemperaturesRNAnucleotidesequencesdecouple.Moreover,newexperimentalresultsdemonstratethatalloftheRNAnucleotidesthemselvesdegradeatwarmtemperatures. They can last only from 19 days to 12 years.{411} The mostoptimistic naturalist hypotheses demand that they hold together for manymillions of years. Even at water’s freezing point, cytosine (one of the RNAnucleotides)decomposesinlessthan17,000years.{412}Outsidethecell thereisnoenvironmentprovidingsufficientstabilityandprotectionforRNAmoleculesand theirnucleotidebases.ThismeansRNAmoleculescannotsurvivewithoutcells while cells cannot survive without RNA. Both must be constructedsimultaneously.

Error-HandlingCapabilityProteinsandnucleicacidsdemonstrateaconsiderabletoleranceforsubstitutionsofalternativeaminoacidsandnucleotidesatcertainsites.Thishasledtosomequestioning of their divine design. But as we saw in chapter 14, life cannotpossiblyexistintheuniverseunlessseveralsourcesofradiationexistathighlyspecifiedlevels.Theseradiationsourcesinevitablywillcausesomebreakdownorchanges in the structuresof lifemolecules.Therefore, it is essential for lifemoleculestobesodesignedthattheycanstillfunctionevenaftersufferingsomelimiteddestruction.One useful analogy for visualizing the error-handling capability of proteins

andnucleic acidswouldbecomputerprograms.Consider a computerprogramwith amillion lines of code which, in spite of the random destruction of ten

thousandlinesofcode,stillperformsits intendedfunction.Noonehaswrittensuchanerror-tolerantprogram.Itcouldbedone,butthetaskwouldbeordersofmagnitudemoredifficultthanwritingaprogramwheretheprogramerneednotworry about random destruction of his code. Likewise, the tolerance forsubstitutions in life molecules should drive us toward, not away from, theconclusionofdivinedesign.

LifeonMars?ThoughI’mconvincedthat theoriginoflifedefiesanaturalisticexplanation,Iamexpecting that life,or the remainsof life,willeventuallybediscoveredonMarsandpossiblyothersolarsystembodies.Myreasonhasnothingtodowithspontaneousgeneration.IthaseverythingtodowithMars’proximitytoEarth.In 1989, on ABC’s “Nightline” with Ted Koppel, two astronomers and a

science journalist declared that the discovery of life on Mars would providevirtual proof that life does indeed originate and evolve, and quite easily, bynatural processes. Here is their line of reasoning: So far, we know of life’sexistenceononlyoneplanetorbitingone staroutof10-billion-trillion stars inthecosmos.IflifeisfoundonMars,wewouldknowitexistsontwoplanets,butnotjustanytwoplanets, twoplanetsorbitingthesamestar.Insteadofjustonelifesiteoutof10-billion-trillioncandidates,wewouldhavetwolifesitesoutofnine(thenineplanetsofoursolarsystem).Suchafindingwouldsuggestthatlifeisabundantthroughoutouruniverse,abundantbyspontaneousgeneration.By their faulty reasoning and failure to acknowledge relevant data, these

influential men are setting their audience up for a deception. The remains, atleast, of many micro-organisms are likely to be found on Mars for no otherreasonthanthatMarsisonly35millionmilesawayfromEarth.Inotherwords,thesezealousevolutionists,benton searching for lifeonMars, seem to ignoreimportant facts about the transportability and survivability ofEarth life forms.Considerthefollowingdata:{413}

1.Meteoriteslargeenoughtomakeacratergreaterthan60milesacross will cause Earth rocks to escape Earth’s gravity. Out of1,000such rocksejected,on theaverage,291will strikeVenus,20gotoMercury,17hitMars,14makeittoJupiter,and1wouldgoallthewaytoSaturn.2. Balloon missions and experiments done from high-flyingaircrafthavefoundafewfloatingdiatoms(unicellularalgaewithsiliceouscellwalls)ataltitudes ranging from30,000 to130,000feet.3.Thesun’sradiationexertsapressurethatiscapableofwafting

tinylifeforms(sizesrangingfrom0.2micronstoabout1micron)outwardthroughthesolarsystemandperhapsbeyond.4.Manymicroorganisms can be kept at liquid air temperatures(about-200°Centigrade)formorethansixmonthswithoutlosingtheircapacitytogerminate.5.Severalmicrobialspeciesexposedforfivedaystothevacuumconditionsofouterspacedidnotlosetheirviability.6.Somemicrobesarecapableofabsorbing600kiloradsofx-rayradiationwithoutlosingtheirviability.7. Even very tiny amounts of graphite (of which there ismorethan an adequate supply in interplanetary space) will protectmicroorganisms from harmful ultraviolet radiation. The sun’sradiationpressurecanstillpushsuchtinygraphitegrainsthroughtheinnerpartofthesolarsystem.

Thus there are many reasons to believe that millions of Earth’s minutecreatures have been deposited on the surface ofMars and other solar systemplanets.Admittedly, conditionsonMarsareunfavorable for thegerminationof such

life except for only the briefest of moments. A liquid drop of water on theMartian surface, for example, evaporates in less than a second. Thus, living“adult”organismsshouldbequiterareonMars.But,weshouldnotbesurprisedtofindconsiderablequantitiesofsporesandtheremainsofbiologicalmaterial.Thediscoveryofmicrobial lifeandcreaturesperhapsas largeasnematodes

onMars—adiscoverywecanexpectastechnologycontinuestoadvance—willprobably be touted as proof of naturalistic evolution, when in truth it provesnothingofthekind.Itwillprovesomething,however,abouttheamazingvitalityofwhatGodcreated.

ForFurtherStudyBecauseoutstandingworkdonebyspecialistsisavailableontheoriginoflife,Ihavelimitedmydiscussionhere toabriefreview.For thosewhowantmore,IrecommendOrigins by Robert Shapiro (a non-theist),{414} Information TheoryandMolecularBiologybyHubertYockey(anagnostic),{415}andTheMysteryofLife’s Origin by Charles Thaxton, Walter Bradley, and Roger Olsen (allprofessingChristians).{416}

UniversalRevelationWhereverwelookintherealmofnature,weseeevidenceforGod’sdesignandexquisitecareforHiscreatures.Whetherweexaminethecosmosonitslargest

scale or its tiniest,His handiwork is evident.Whetherwework in disciplineswheresimplicityandrigorpredominate (forexample,mathematics,astronomy,and physics) or in disciplines where complexity and information predominate(forexample,biochemistry,botany,andzoology),God’sfingerprintsarevisible.Because of the quickening pace of technology and scientific research, the

pictureofGod’sattributesavailabletousthroughnaturegrowsclearer.Further,sinceall thenationsandculturesoftheworldaregainingscientificknowledgeandtechnologicalcompetence,thistestimonytoGodthroughnatureisreachingouttoallthepeoplesoftheearth,pavingthewayforasurgeofresponsetothegospel of Jesus Christ proclaimed by human messengers. Referring to God’srevelationthroughtheheavens,theapostlePaulstated:

Theirsoundhasgoneouttoalltheearth,andtheirwordstotheendsoftheworld.{417}

CHAPTEREIGHTEEN

EXTRA-DIMENSIONALPOWER

Aswe have seen in previous chapters, the recentmeasurings of the cosmoshave revealed not only the existence of God but also His transcendence, Hispersonality,andevenHiscareandloveforhumanbeings.Thesediscoveriesleadtosomeimportantconclusionsabout theawesomepoweravailable toGodandconsequentlytheextentofHisabilitytoblesshumankind.Becausehumanbeingscanvisualizephenomenaonlyindimensionsthatthey

can experience, in their attempts to describeGod, they characterizeHim as aBeingconfinedtoafour-dimensionalbox.OnereasonweknowtheBiblecomesfrom a supernatural source is that, just like the implications from the recentmeasuringsofthecosmos,itclaimsthatGodisnotsoconfined—Hetranscendsthetenspace-timedimensionsoftheuniverse.InitsuniqueinsistencethatGodmoves and operates in dimensions independent of length, width, height, andtime, theBiblenotonly insistsonextra-dimensional capacities forGod,but italsospecificallydescribeshowHefunctionsintheseextradimensions(seetable10.1).TheBible isunique, too, indescribingcertainattributesofGod,suchas the

Trinity—inwhichGod isdepictedsimultaneouslyas singularandplural, threePersonsbutoneessence.ItalsoportraysGodaspredeterminingeverythingforus while simultaneously giving us freedom of choice. These concepts areprovablecontradictionsifGodisconfinedtojustfourdimensions,buteachcanberesolvedbyaGodwhobothfillsall tencosmicspace-timedimensionsandtranscendsthem.LetusexaminetheTrinityandthenearnessofGodasspecificexamples.

TheTrinity:AnAbsurdity?Ironically, adherents of non-Christian religions—like Islam and the Jehovah’sWitnesses—often appeal to limited dimensionality as a proof againstChristianity. Often I have encountered apologists from such faiths who statecategoricallyChristianityisfalsesincetheTrinityismathematicallyabsurd.Myinitialresponseistoagree.TheTrinityisamathematicalabsurdityinthe

contextofagodlimitedinhisoperationstojustthefourdimensionsoflength,width, height, and time. Then I share with them the evidence from general

relativity, the big bang, and string theory for the existence of six moredimensions besides the four we humans experience. Since God created andcontrols all these dimensions, He must be able to operate in them. The newphysicsproves,too,thatHecancreatespace-timedimensionsatwillandthatHetranscends all the space-time dimensions He has created or could create. Atrinitarian nature is no problem for such a Being. Neither is His capacity topredetermineallofouractions,words,andthoughtsfrombeforeHecreatedtheuniversesome15billionyearsagowhileatthepresentmomentgrantingusthefreedomtochoosethoseactions,words,andthoughts.Giventhetimeandtheinterest,Icandemonstratetothoseskepticalaboutthe

Trinity, the simultaneity of God’s predetermination and human free choice,God’scapacitytobebothdeadandalive,andseveralotherparadoxicalChristiandoctrines of how the God who both fills and transcends ten space-timedimensions canmanifest such characteristics and capabilities. Indeed, thiswasthethemeofmybookBeyondtheCosmos.Thekeypoint,however, is thatwewould expectman-invented theologies to be constrained by the limitations ofhuman perspective while a theological message from a transcendent Beingshould at least in some ways transcend the limits of human perspective andvisualization.

NearnessofGodTheBibledeclaresforthrightlythatGodisveryclosetoeachandeveryoneofus.{418}But,itjustasforthrightlystatesthatGodisinvisible.{419}TheapostlePaulsays that no one has ever seen God, nor can see Him.{420} Evidently, it isimpossible for us humans tomake physical contactwithGod.How, then, canGodbesocloseandyetbebeyondphysicalcontact?An analogy that might help was developed partly by Edwin Abbott, a

nineteenth-centuryschoolmasterandpreacherwhopublishedthebookFlatland:ARomanceofManyDimensionsin1884.{421}Imagineauniversewhereonlytwodimensionsofspaceexistratherthanthree.Insuchauniverse,flatlanderswouldbeconfinedtoaplaneoflengthandwidthwithnopossibilityofoperatinginthedimensionofheight.Athree-dimensionalbeingthencouldapproachtheplaneofthe flatlanders and place his hand just a tenth of amillimeter above the two-dimensional bodies of two flatlanders separated from one another by just onecentimeter.Sincethethree-dimensionalbeingisslightlyabovetheplaneoftheflatlanders,thereisnopossibilitythattheflatlanderscanseehim.Andyet, thethreedimensionalbeingisahundredtimesclosertoeachoftheflatlandersthantheyaretooneanother.Aswiththeflatlanders,soitiswithhumanbeings.Godisclosertoeachofus

thanwe ever can be to one another.But becauseGod’s proximity to us takesplace in dimensions or realms we cannot tangibly experience, we cannotpossiblyseeHim.TheonlywaywecouldseeGodisifHeweretoplaceaportionofHisbeing

into our space-time fabric. This would be analogous to the three-dimensionalbeing poking his finger through the plane of the flatlanders. If one of theflatlandersweretoinvestigate,hewoulddrawtheconclusionthatthisvisitortotheir realm is a small circle. Butwhat if the three-dimensional beingwere torevealseparatelytothefriendofthatflatlanderthreeofhisfingers?Thefriendthenwoulddrawtheconclusionthatthevisitortotheirrealmwasnotonesmallcirclebutratherthreesmallcircles.WecouldthenimagineatheologicaldebatebetweenthetwoflatlandersthatwouldendupwiththefirstflatlanderfoundingtheChurchoftheOneCirclewhilethesecondwouldestablishtheChurchoftheThreeCircles.Thisanalogymayappearamusing,butitfairlyrepresentswhatnon-Christians

have done with the Trinity or Tri-Unity of God. Some have accepted God’ssingularitybutrejectedHispluralitywhileothersacceptHispluralityandrejectHissingularity.OnlyChristiansaccept thatGodissimultaneouslysingularandplural.

GoodThatHeGoesAway?JusthoursbeforeJesuswasarrestedbyHisenemiestobecrucified,HetoldHisdisciplesthatHewouldbeleavingthem.{422}HeinformedthemthatHewouldbereturningtoHisFather.AsHesaidthesethings,Hisdisciples’heartswerefilledwith sorrow.{423} It’s easy to understand their feelings but not so easy tounderstand His words of reassurance: “It is for your good that I am goingaway.”{424}HowcouldJesus’goingawaybegood?Andhowdoesthisstatementfitwith

Hispromisetobewiththemalways?Paul’slettertothePhilippiansshedssomelight:

[ChristJesus],beinginverynatureGod,didnotconsiderequalitywithGodsomethingtobegrasped,butmadehimselfnothing,takingtheverynatureofaservant,beingmadeinhumanlikeness.Andbeingfoundinappearanceasaman,hehumbledhimselfandbecameobedient todeath—evendeathonacross!ThereforeGodexaltedhim to thehighestplaceandgavehimthenamethatisaboveeveryname.{425}

JesusChristwasfullyGod,sharinginallthepower,alltheauthority,andallthe extra-dimensional capabilities God possesses. But for our sake, Christ

lowered Himself and accepted the weakness and limitations of a human. Hecame into our dimensions to show us God, whom we could never otherwisepicture, to give us an example of humility, and to pay the price for ourredemption.AfterfulfillingHispurposeincoming,Jesusonceagaintookupallthepower,authority,andextra-dimensionalcapacitiesthatwererightfullyHisasGod.It iseasytoempathizewiththedisciples’grief.Whowouldwanttogiveup

the tangiblenearnessof Jesus, seeingHis face,hearingHiswords, feelingHistouch,walkingatHisside?Butasahuman,Jesuscouldbeinonlyoneplaceatatime,holdingoneconversationatatime,performingonemiracleatatime,etc.Heneededrest,too.Imagine all that He could gain by giving up His physical presence and

regainingHisextra-dimensionalnearness.AsHetoldHisdisciples,theywoulddogreatermiraclesthantheonesHehadperformedinfrontofthem.{426}Further,Hewouldneverleavethem,neverfallasleeponthem,neverwalkawaytotakecareofsomeoneelse’sneed.{427}Hecouldliveinthem,aswellasbesidethem.ThesamepowerfulpromiseismadetoeverypersonwhogiveshisorherlifetoChrist.

CHAPTERNINETEEN

THEPOINT

Severalyearsago, I spokeataprestigiousAmericanuniversity toagroupofaboutfortyscienceprofessors.Ipresentedmuchoftheinformationthatappearsin thepagesof thisbook.Afterward, I conversedwith fourphysicsprofessorsandaskedfortheirresponse.Oneof thefoursaidhecouldnotdeny the truthofmymessage.Theothers

nodded inagreement. Iasked if theycouldsee, then, the rationalityof turningovertheirlivestoJesusChrist.Anotherofthefourspokeup,saying,yes,theycouldseeit,buttheyweren’tyetreadytobethatrational.Thisstatementwasnotabrush-off.Eachmanwentontonamehisreasonsfor

resistance.One confessedhis unwillingness to giveup sexual immorality.TheothersspokeofdeepwoundsinflictedlongagobypeoplewhocalledthemselvesChristians.What each of themneeded and showedwillingness to receivewascompassion—nottomentionfurtherdialogue.Other professors expressed their need for more time to assimilate the

information, tocheck references,and to investigate theBible for themselves. Icouldempathize.Afterall, it tookme twoyearsofstudy tobecomewilling toentrustmylifetoGod’scareandkeeping(seechapter2).The beauty of the scientific (and other) evidences God has allowed us to

discover about Him is that these meet the needs of two large segments ofsociety: (1) those whose barriers to personal faith in Christ are intellectual,barriersofmisinformationandmisunderstanding,and(2)thosewhosebarrierstofaithcomefrompersonalpainorstubbornrebellionlurkingunder thecoverofintellectualobjections.

DrawingNeartoGodItisawesomeandwonderfultobeholdthecharacteroftheCreatorinwhatHehasmade, but not everyone seems to see it. In the elegant architecture of theuniverse,agalaxy,thesun,theplanets, theearth, themoon,ahumanbeing,oreven the simplest living thing, some people are struck by thewisdom, power,andcareoftheCreator,whileothersseeanamazingcoincidenceortheworkofsomeunidentifiedextraterrestrials.ThebookofHebrewsdeclares, “Anyonewho comes to [God]must believe

thatheexistsandthatherewardsthosewhoearnestlyseekhim.”{428}Inasense,thisverse sets fortha testof theheart.Thepersonwhowants todrawnear toGodmustbe(andwillbe)humble-heartedenoughnotonlytoseeandacceptHisexistencebutalsotoseeandtrustHisgoodness,Hislove.Israel’sKingDavidsaid,“TheLORDisclosetothebrokenhearted,”and“The

LORDisneartoallwhocallonhim,toallwhocallonhimintruth.”{429}Drawing near to God, calling on Him “in truth,” begins with humbly

acknowledgingwhoweare—Hiscreationandnooneelse’s,foolishlyinclinedtoplaceourselvesorothersinGod’splaceofauthorityoverourlives—andwhoHeis—theDivineMakerandProviderofallthings,includingawayacrossthegulfthatdividesusfromHim.Nature itself shows us these truths. But the Bible brings us the details and

clarifies specifically how God bridges that gulf to bring us to Himself in apersonal,everlastingrelationship.Hiscare forusanddesire todrawusneararebestdemonstrated inChrist’s

coming to Earth to pay the death penalty for our rebellious nature. TheBiblesaysthatwe“whooncewerefarawayhavebeenbroughtnearthroughthebloodofChrist.”{430}Thewayhasbeenmade,ithasbeenmadeclear,andithasbeenprovenbythe

resurrectionofJesusChrist—atestablefactofhistory.{431}ButknowingthewayandknowingGodarenotoneandthesamething.The crucial difference lies in our moving beyond acceptance of facts to

acceptanceofHim.AcceptanceofHislifeinexchangeforours,ofHisdeathinexchange for ours, of His goodness in exchange for ours, of His authority inexchange forours, evenofHis faithfulness in exchange forours—thiswill beoursteptowardHim.TheBibleassuresusthatifwedrawneartoHim,Hewilldrawneartous.{432}

WhyExtraEvidencetoThisGeneration?One question I hear often is, “Why has our generation been singled out toreceivesuchanabundanceofevidencesforGodandHisWord?”Whyhavewebeengivensomuchmoreproofthanpreviousgenerations?TheanswerIseefromtheBibleisthatGodmeasuresoutevidenceindirect

proportion to the level of resistance to His truth. Where the resistance isrelatively low, less hard evidence for the God of the Bible is necessary toovercome it. But where resistance, namely arrogance, is high, so also is thequantityandqualityofevidenceHeprovidestoovercomeit.Let’s consider our world, especially theWestern world.We have the most

wealth,themostdiscretionarytime,themosteducation,andthemosttechnology

of any previous generation. And how do we respond to these blessings? Theloudestvoicessaythatwehumansdeserveallthecredit.Theloudestvoicessaythat humanity is deity. Given such arrogance, nowonder evidences are beingfloodeduponus.Thoughtheoppositionseemsgreat,Godhasequippedustoovercomeit.He

says, “See, I have placed before you an open door that no one can shut.”{433}Let’smakegooduseof theseevidencestobuildourownfaithandthefaithofotherswhileHeisholdingthatdooropen.

APPENDIX

SUMMARYOFSCIENTIFICEVIDENCESFORABIGBANGCREATIONEVENT

Inthissimplelistingof30scientificevidencesforabigbangcreationeventasdescribed in theBible (seechapter3) I citeoneor twoprimary sources andasecondary source that gives an extensive list of other primary sources.Manyother sources can be found in the text of this book where many of theseevidencesaredescribedinmoredetail.

1.Existenceandtemperatureofthecosmicbackgroundradiation.{434}RalphAlpher andRobertHerman calculated in 1948 that cooling from abig bang creation eventwould yield a faint cosmic background radiationwithacurrenttemperatureofroughly5°Kelvin(-455°F).{435}In1965ArnoPenzias and Robert Wilson detected a cosmic background radiation anddeterminedthatitstemperaturewasabout3°Kelvin(-457°F).{436}

2.Blackbodycharacterofthecosmicbackgroundradiation.{437}Deviationsbetween the spectrumof the cosmicbackground radiation andthe spectrum expected from a perfect radiator measured to be less than0.03%overtheentirerangeofobservedwavelengths.{438}Theonlypossibleexplanationforsuchanextremelyclosefitisthattheentireuniversemusthave expanded from an infinitely or near infinitely hot and compactbeginning.

3.Coolingrateofthecosmicbackgroundradiation.{439}According to the big bang, the older, and hence more expanded, theuniverse becomes, the cooler will be the cosmic background radiation.Measurementsofthecosmicbackgroundradiationatdistancessogreatthatwearelookingbacktowhentheuniversewasjustahalf,aquarter,oraneighthofitspresentageshowtemperaturemeasuresthatarehotterthanthepresent 2.726°K by exactly the amount that the big bang theory wouldpredict.{440}Thatis,astronomersactuallywitnesstheuniversegettinghotterandhotterastheylookbackintime.

4.Temperatureuniformityofthecosmicbackgroundradiation.{441}Thetemperatureofthecosmicbackgroundradiationvariesbynomorethanonepartintenthousandfromonedirectionintheheavenstoanyother.{442}

Such high uniformity only can be explained if the background radiationarisesfromanextremelyhotprimordialcreationevent.

5.Ratioofphotonstobaryonsintheuniverse.{443}The ratio of photons to baryons (protons and neutrons) in the universeexceeds 100,000,000 to 1.{444} This proves the universe is so extremelyentropic(efficientinradiatingheatandlight)theonlypossibleexplanationis that theentireuniversemustbe rapidlyexploding froman infinitelyornearinfinitelyhot,densestate.

6.Temperaturefluctuationsinthecosmicbackgroundradiation.{445}Forgalaxies andgalaxyclusters to formoutof abigbangcreationeventtemperaturefluctuationsinmapsofthecosmicbackgroundradiationshouldmeasureatalevelofaboutonepartinahundredthousand.Thepredictedfluctuationsweredetectedattheexpectedlevel.{446}

7. Power spectrum of the temperature fluctuations in the cosmicbackgroundradiation.{447}Forabigbanguniversewithageometrysuitablefortheformationofstarsandplanetscapableofsupportingphysicallife,thetemperaturefluctuationsinthecosmicbackgroundradiationwillpeakatanangularresolutionclosetoonedegreewithafewmuchsmallerspikesatotherresolutions.Inotherwords,thepowerspectrumgraphwilllooklikeabellcurvewithafewsub-peakstothesideofthemainpeak.TheBoomerangballoonexperimentinApril 2000 confirmed this big bang prediction.{448} (See descriptions ondeuterium and lithium abundances for another confirmation of thisdiscovery.)

8.Cosmicexpansionrate.{449}A big bang creation event implies a universal expansion of the universefromabeginningseveralbillionyearsago.Themostcarefulmeasurementsofthevelocitiesofgalaxiesestablishthatsuchacosmicexpansionhasbeenproceedingforthepast14.9billionyears,{450}acosmicagemeasurethatisconsistentwithallothercosmicagemeasurements.{451}

9.Stableorbitsofstarsandplanets.{452}Ouruniversemanifestsstableorbitsofplanetsaboutstarsandofstarsaboutthenuclei ofgalaxies.Such stableorbits arephysically impossibleunlessthe universe is comprised of three very large and rapidly expandingdimensionsofspace.

10.Existenceoflifeandhumans.{453}Lifeandhumansrequireastablesolar-typestar.However: If theuniversecools down too slowly, galaxieswould trap radiation so effectively as toprevent any fragmentation into stars. If theuniverse cools too rapidly, no

galaxiesorstarswillevercondenseoutof thecosmicgas. If theuniverseexpandstooslowly,theuniversewillcollapsebeforesolar-typestarsreachtheirstableburningphase.Ifitexpandstoorapidly,nogalaxiesorstarswillevercondensefromthegeneralexpansion.

11.Abundanceofheliumintheuniverse.{454}According to the big bang, almost exactly one-fourth of the universe’shydrogen,bymass,wasconvertedintoheliumwithinthefirstfourminutesfollowingthecosmiccreationevent.Stellarburningprovidestheonlyotherpossiblesourceofhelium.Therefore,astronomerscantestthebigbangbymeasuringtheheliumabundanceingascloudsandgalaxieswherelittleorno star burning has taken place. When they do this they determine aprimordial helium abundance = 0.2489 ± 0.0015, a near perfect fit withwhatthebigbangpredicts.

12.Abundanceofdeuterium(heavyhydrogen)intheuniverse.{455}Onlythebigbangcanproducedeuterium.Stars,ontheotherhand,destroydeuterium. By measuring the deuterium abundance in gas clouds andgalaxieswhere littleornostarburninghasoccurred,astronomerscannotonlyprovethatweliveinabigbanguniversebutalsodeterminewhatkindofbigbangtheuniversemanifests.Themeasuredresultsareconsistentwiththesamekindofbigbangdemonstratedbyalltheotherbigbangtests.

13.Abundanceoflithiumintheuniverse.{456}Onlythebigbangcanproducelithium.Starsdestroylithium.Bymeasuringthe lithium abundance in gas clouds and galaxies where little or no starburninghasoccurred,astronomerscannotonlyprovethatweliveinabigbang universe but also determine what kind of big bang the universemanifests. Themeasured results are consistentwith the same kind of bigbangdemonstratedbyalltheotherbigbangtests.

14.Evidencesforgeneralrelativity.{457}Recent measurements now elevate the theory of general relativity to themostexhaustivelytestedandbestprovenprincipleinallofphysics.{458}Thesolutiontotheequationsofgeneralrelativitydemonstratethattheuniversemustbeexpandingfromabeginninginthefinitepast.

15.Space-timetheoremofgeneralrelativity.{459}AmathematicaltheoremprovenbyStephenHawkingandRogerPenrosein1970establishesthatiftheuniversecontainsmass,andifitsdynamicsaregovernedbygeneralrelativity,thentimeitselfmustbefiniteandmusthavebeen createdwhen the universewas created.{460} Also, theremust exist aCAUSE responsible forbringing theuniverse (whichmustbe expanding)into existence independent of matter, energy, and all ten of the cosmic

space-timedimensions.16.Spaceenergydensitymeasurements.{461}

AlbertEinsteinandArthurEddingtonbothdevelopedcosmologicalmodelswithoutabigbangbyaltering the theoryofrelativity to includeacosmicspaceenergydensityterm(a.k.a.thecosmologicalconstant)andassigningaparticularvaluetothatterm.Recently,astronomersdeterminedthatindeeda cosmic space energy density term does exist.{462} Its value, however,provesthatEinstein’sandEddington’smodelsareincorrect.Themeasuredvalueactuallyincreasestheevidenceforthebigbanginthatitestablishestheuniversewillcontinuetoexpandtoaneverincreasingrate.

17.Ten-dimensionalcreationcalculation.{463}A team led by Andrew Strominger demonstrated that only in a universeframedintenspace-timedimensionswheresixofthetendimensionsstopexpandingwhentheuniverseisa10millionthofatrillionthofatrillionthof a trillionth of a second old is it possible to have gravity and quantummechanicscoexist.{464}Thisdemonstrationalsosuccessfullypredictedbothspecialandgeneralrelativityandsolvedanumberofoutstandingproblemsinbothparticlephysicsandblackholephysics.Itimpliesthatthebigbangand the laws of physics are valid all the way back to the creation eventitself.

18.Stellarages.{465}According to the big bang theory, different types of stars will form atdifferentepochsaftercreation.Thecolorsandsurfacetemperaturesofstarstells astronomers how long they have been burning. These measuredburning times are consistent with the big bang. They also are consistentwithallothermethodsformeasuringthetimebacktothecosmiccreationevent.

19.Galaxyages.{466}Accordingtothebigbangtheory,nearlyallthegalaxiesintheuniversewillform early in its history within about a 4-billion-year window of time.Indeed,astronomersmeasurethegalaxiestohavethepredictedages.{467}

20.Decreaseingalaxycrowding.{468}The big bang predicts that galaxies will spread farther and farther apartfromoneanotherastheuniverseexpands.HubbleSpaceTelescopeimagesshowthatthefartherawayinthecosmosonelooks(and,becauseoflight’sfinitevelocity,thefartherbackintime)themorecrowdedtogetherarethegalaxies.{469} Infact, lookingbacktowhentheuniversewasbutathirdofits present age, the Space Telescope images reveal galaxies so tightlypacked together that they literally are ripping spiral arms away from one

another.21.Photoalbumhistoryoftheuniverse.{470}

Sincethebigbangpredictsthatnearlyallthegalaxieswillformataboutthesame time (see #18), and since galaxies change their appearancesignificantlyastheyage,imagesofportionsoftheuniverseatprogressivelygreaterandgreaterdistances(and,becauseoflight’sfinitevelocity,fartherandfartherbackintime)shouldshowdramaticchangesintheappearancesof the galaxies. Hubble Space Telescope images verify the predictedchangesintheappearancesofgalaxies.{471}

22.Ratioofordinarymattertoexoticmatter.{472}In abigbanguniverse, for thegalaxies and stars to formanddevelop sothat a site suitable for the support of physical life will be possible, thecosmosmustexhibitaratioofexoticmatter (matter thatdoesnot interactwellwith radiation) toordinarymatter (matter that strongly interactswithradiation) thatmeasures roughly fiveor six to one.Recentmeasurementsrevealjustsucharatiofortheuniverse.{473}

23.Abundanceofberylliumandboroninelderlystars.{474}Longbefore the first starscanpossibly form, thebigbang fireballduringthefirstfewminutesafterthecreationeventwillgeneratetinyamountsofboron and beryllium if, and only if, the universe contains a significantamountofexoticmatter.Astronomershaveconfirmedthatprimordialboronandberylliumexists in theamountspredictedby thebigbang theoryandtheirmeasurementsoftheamountofexoticmatter.{475}

24.NumbersofPopulationI,II,andIIIstars.{476}The big bang predicts that as the universe expands it will produce threedistinct populations of stars.At its current age the big bang also predictsthat astronomers should see certain specific numbers and masses of thethree different populations. Astronomers do indeed see the predictednumbersandmassesofstarsforthethreedifferentpopulations.

25.Population,locations,andtypesofblackholesandneutronstars.{477}Abigbanguniverseof thetypethatmakespossibleasitesuitablefor thesupport of physical life will after many billions of years of star burningproduce a relatively small population of stellar mass black holes and asomewhatlargerpopulationofneutronstarsinvirtuallyeverygalaxy.Largegalaxies are expected to produce supermassive (exceeding amillion solarmasses)blackholesintheircentralcores.Astronomers,indeed,observethepredictedpopulations,locations,andtypesofblackholesandneutronstars.{478}

26.Dispersionofstarclustersandgalaxyclusters.{479}

Thebigbangpredicts that as theuniverse expandsdifferent typesof starclustersandgalaxyclusterswilldisperseatspecificratesthatwillincreasewith time. It also predicts that the densest star clusterswill not disperse.However,theorbitalvelocitiesoftheirstarsaboutthecluster’scenterwill“evolve”towardapredictablerandomizedconditionknownasvirialization.Thevirialtimesdependontheclustermassandsizeandontheindividualmassesofthestars.Astronomersobservethedispersalratesandvirialtimespredictedbythebigbang.

27.Numberandtypeofspace-timedimensions.{480}Abigbanguniverseof thetypethatmakespossibleasitesuitablefor thesupportofphysical lifemustbeginwith tenrapidlyexpandingspace-timedimensions.Atabout10-43seconds(aboutatenmillionthofatrillionthofatrillionthofa trillionthofasecond)after thecreationeventsixof the tendimensionsmustceaseexpandingwhile theotherfourcontinuetoexpandatarapidrate.Severalexperimentsandcalculationsconfirmthatweliveinsuchauniverse.

28.Massesandflavorsofneutrinos.{481}All currently viable big bang models require that the dominant form ofmatterintheuniversebeaformofexoticmattercalled“colddarkmatter.”Astronomersandphysicistsalreadyknowthatneutrinosareveryplentifulin the universe and that they are “cold” and “dark.” Recent experimentsestablishthatneutrinososcillate(thatis,transform)fromoneflavorortypetoanother(thethreeneutrinoflavorsareelectron,muon,andtau).{482}Thisoscillationimpliesthataneutrinoparticlemusthaveamassbetweenafewbillionthsandamillionthofanelectronmass.Sucharangeofmassesfortheneutrinosatisfiestherequirementfortheviablebigbangmodels.

29.Populationsandtypesoffundamentalparticles.{483}Inthebigbangtherapidcoolingoftheuniversefromanearinfinitelyhightemperatureandanearinfinitelydensestatewillgenerateazooofdifferentfundamentalparticlesofpredictablepropertiesandpredictablepopulations.Particle accelerator experiments which duplicate the temperature anddensity conditions of the early universe have verified all the types andpopulations of particles predictedwithin the energy limits of the particleaccelerators.

30.Cosmicdensityofprotonsandneutrons.{484}Four independent methods for determining the density of protons andneutronsintheuniverseestablishthatthedensitymeasuredisthesameaswhatthebigbangpredictsforauniversethatcontainsthestarsandplanetsnecessaryforlife.

ENDNOTESONE—TheAwe-InspiringNightSky{1}GeorgeRoche,AWorldWithoutHeroes:TheModernTragedy(Hillsdale,MI:HillsdaleCollegePress,1987),120.

{2}HughRoss,BiblicalForecastsofScientificDiscoveries(Pasadena,CA:ReasonsToBelieve,1987).

TWO—MySkepticalInquiry{3}Thedetailsofthiscalculationarepresentedinashortpaperbytheauthorcalled“FulfilledProphecy:EvidencefortheReliabilityoftheBible”(Pasadena,CA:ReasonsToBelieve,1975).

{4}Adetailedaccountofmypersonalsearchfortruthisgivenonanaudiotape,AScientistWhoLookedandWasFound(Pasadena,CA:ReasonsToBelieve,1988).

{5}Adetailed account ofmypersonal search for truth is givenon an audioCD,AnAstronomer’sQuest(Pasadena,CA:ReasonsToBelieve,1993).

THREE—BigBang—TheBibleTaughtItFirst!{6}Arno A. Penzias and RobertW.Wilson, “AMeasurement of Excess Antenna Temperature at 4080Mc/s,”AstrophysicalJournal142(1965):419–421.

{7}GeorgeGamow, “ExpandingUniverse and theOrigin of theElements,”PhysicalReview70 (1946),572–573.

{8} Edwin Hubble, “A Relation between Distance and Radial Velocity among Extra-Galactic Nebulae,”ProceedingsoftheNationalAcademyofSciences,USA15(1929):168–173.

{9}GeorgesLemaître,“AHomogeneousUniverseofConstantMassandIncreasingRadiusAccountingforthe Radial Velocity of Extra-Galactic Nebulae,”Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 91(1931):483–490.TheoriginalpaperappearsinFrenchinAnnalesdelaSocietéScientifiquedeBruxelles,TomeXLVII,SerieA,PremierePartie(April,1927):49.

{10}AlbertEinstein,“DieGrundlagederallgemeinenRelativitätstheorie,”AnnalenderPhysik,49(1916):769–822. The English translation is in The Principle of Relativity by H. A. Lorentz, A. Einstein, H.Minkowski, andH.Weyl with notes by A. Sommerfeld and translated byW. Perrett and G. B. Jeffrey(London:MethuenandCo.,1923),109–164.

{11}AlbertEinstein,“KosmologischeBetrachtungenzurallgemeinenRelativitätstheorie,”SitzungsberichtederKöniglichPreussichenAkademiederWissenschaften(1917),Feb.8,142–152.TheEnglishtranslationisinThePrincipleofRelativity,175–188.

{12}R.LairdHarris,GleasonL.Archer,andBruceK.Waltke,TheologicalWordbookoftheOldTestament,vol.1(Chicago:Moody,1980),127.

{13}Harris,Archer,andWaltke,vol.2,916.

{14}Harris,Archer,andWaltke,vol.2,935.

{15}JackJ.Lissauer,“It’sNotEasytoMaketheMoon,”Nature389(1997):327–328;SigeruIda,RobinM.Canup,andGlenR.Stewart,“LunarAccretionfromanImpact-GeneratedDisk,”Nature389(1997):353–357;P.JonathonPatchett,“ScumoftheEarthAfterAll,”Nature382(1996):758;HughRoss,TheGenesisQuestion(ColoradoSprings,CO:NavPress,1998),31–33.

{16}FredHoyle,“ANewModelfortheExpandingUniverse,”MonthlyNoticesoftheRoyalAstronomicalSociety108(1948):372.

FOUR—TheDiscoveryoftheTwentiethCentury{17}NigelHawkes,“HuntOnforDarkSecretofUniverse,”LondonTimes25(April1992),1.

{18}Ibid.

{19} The Associated Press, “U.S. Scientists Find a ‘Holy Grail’: Ripples at Edge of the Universe,”InternationalHeraldTribune(London),(24April1992),1.

{20}TheAssociatedPress,1.

{21}ThomasH.MaughII,“Relicsof‘BigBang’SeenforFirstTime,”LosAngelesTimes,24April1992,A1,A30.

{22}DavidBriggs,“Science,Religion,AreDiscoveringCommonality inBigBangTheory,”LosAngelesTimes,2May1992,B6–B7.

{23} Stephen Strauss, “An Innocent’s Guide to the Big Bang Theory: Fingerprint in Space Left by theUniverseasaBabyStillHasDoubtersHurlingStones,”TheGlobeandMail(Toronto),25April1992,1.

{24}RichardC.Tolman,“ThermodynamicTreatmentofthePossibleFormationofHeliumfromHydrogen,”JournaloftheAmericanChemicalSociety44(1922):1902–1908.

{25}GeorgeGamow,“ExpandingUniverseand theOriginof theElements,”PhysicalReview70 (1946):572–573.

{26}RalphA.AlpherandRobertC.Herman,“EvolutionoftheUniverse,”Nature162(1948):774–775.

{27}ArnoA. Penzias andRobertW.Wilson, “AMeasurement of ExcessAntenna Temperature at 4080Mc/s,” Astrophysical Journal 142 (1965): 419–421; Robert H. Dicke et al., “Cosmic Black-BodyRadiation,”AstrophysicalJournal142(1965):414–419.

{28}GeorgeF.Smoot,“CommentsandSummaryon theCosmicBackgroundRadiation,”Proceedings oftheInternationalAstronomicalUnionSymposium,No.104:EarlyEvolutionoftheUniverseandItsPresentStructure,ed.G.O.AbellandG.Chincarini(Dordrecht,Holland;Boston,MA:ReidelPublishing,1983),153–158.

{29} Craig J. Hogan, “Experimental Triumph,” Nature 344 (1990): 107–108; J. C. Mather et al., “APreliminaryMeasurement of the CosmicMicrowave Background Spectrum by the Cosmic BackgroundExplorer(COBE)Satellite,”AstrophysicalJournalLetters354(1990):L37–L40.

{30}HughRoss,TheFingerprintofGod,2nded.rev.(Orange,CA:PromisePublishing,1991),87–88.

{31}Ross,124.

{32}GeorgeF.Smootetal.,“StructureintheCOBEDifferentialMicrowaveRadiometerFirst-YearMaps,”AstrophysicalJournalLetters396(1992):L1–L6;C.L.Bennettetal.,“PreliminarySeparationofGalacticand Cosmic Microwave Emission for the COBE Differential Microwave Radiometers,” AstrophysicalJournalLetters396(1992):L7–L12.

{33} E. L. Wright et al., “Interpretation of the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation AnisotropyDetected by the COBEDifferentialMicrowave Radiometer,”Astrophysical Journal Letters 396 (1992):L13–L18.

{34}GeoffreyBurbidge’s commentsweremadeon a radio talk showcalledLive fromLAwith host PhilReidonKKLAinLosAngeles,CA.TheprogramairedMay11,1992andincludedcommentsonthebigbangripplesdiscoveryfromDrs.G.DeAmici,GeoffreyBurbidge,RussellHumphreys,andHughRoss.

{35}RonCowen,“BalloonSurveyBacksCOBECosmosMap,”ScienceNews142(1992):420.

{36}S.Hancocketal.,“DirectObservationofStructureintheCosmicBackgroundRadiation,”Nature367(1994):333–338.

{37}A.C.Clappetal., “MeasurementsofAnistropy in theCosmicMicrowaveBackgroundRadiationatDegreeAngularScalesNear theStarsSigmaHerculis and IotaDraconis,”Astrophysical Journal Letters433(1994):L57–L60.

{38}C.L.Bennettetal.,“Four-YearCOBECosmicMicrowaveBackgroundObservations:MapsandBasicResults,”Astrophysical Journal Letters 464 (1996): L1–L4; C.M.Gutiérrez et al., “NewCosmologicalStructures on Medium Angular Scales Detected with the Tenerife Experiments,” Astrophysical JournalLetters480(1997):L83–L86;E.S.Chengetal.,“DetectionofCosmicMicrowaveBackgroundAnisotropyby the Third Flight of theMedium-Scale AnisotropyMeasurement,”Astrophysical Journal Letters 488(1997):L59–L62;B.Femeniaetal.,“TheInstitutodeAstrofísicadeCanarias-BartolCosmicMicrowaveBackgroundAnisotropyExperiment:Results of the1994Campaign,”Astrophysical Journal 498 (1998):117–136; Angelica de Oliveira-Costa et al., “Mapping the CosmicMicrowave Background Anisotropy:Combined Analysis of QMAP Flights,” Astrophysical Journal Letters 509 (1998): L77–L80; C. B.Netterfield et al., “A Measurement of the Angular Power Spectrum of the Anisotropy in the CosmicMicrowave Background,” Astrophysical Journal 474 (1997): 47–66; S. R. Platt, “Anisotropy in theMicrowaveSkyat90GHz:ResultsfromPythonIII,”AstrophysicalJournalLetters475(1997):L1–L4;K.Coble et al., ”Anisotropy in the Cosmic Microwave Background at Degree Angular Scales: Python VResults,”AstrophysicalJournalLetters519(1999):L5–L8;BharatRatraetal.,“UsingWhiteDishCMBAnisotropyDatatoProbeOpenandFlat-∧CDMCosmogonies,”AstrophysicalJournal505(1998):8–11;JoanneC.Bakeretal.,“DetectionofCosmicMicrowaveBackgroundStructureinaSecondFieldwiththeCosmicAnisotropyTelescope,”MonthlyNoticesoftheRoyalAstronomicalSociety308(1999):1173–1178;BharatRatra et al., “ARGOCMBAnisotropyMeasurementConstraints onOpen andFlat-∧ColdDarkMatterCosmogonies,”AstrophysicalJournal510 (1999):11–19;MartinWhite, JohnE.Carlstrom,MarkDragovan, and William L. Holzapfel, “Interferometric Observation of Cosmic Microwave BackgroundAnisotropies,” Astrophysical Journal 514 (1999): 12–24; Bharat Ratra et al., “Cosmic MicrowaveBackground Anisotropy Constraints on Open and Flat-∧ Cold Dark Matter Cosmogonies from UCSBSouthPole,ARGO,MAX.WhiteDish,andSuZIEData,”AstrophysicalJournal517(1999):549–564;E.Torbetetal“AMeasurementoftheAngularPowerSpectrumoftheMicrowaveBackgroundMadefromtheHigh Chilean Andes,” Astrophysical Journal Letters 521 (1999): L79–L82; A. D. Miller et al., “AMeasurementoftheAngularPowerSpectrumoftheCosmicMicrowaveBackgroundfroml=100to400,”AstrophysicalJournalLetters524(1999):L1–L4;E.M.Leitchetal.,“AMeasurementofAnisotropyintheCosmicMicrowaveBackgroundon7’-22’Scales,”AstrophysicalJournal532(2000),37–56.

{39}RonCowen,“COBE:AMatchMade inHeaven,”ScienceNews143(1993):43;J.C.Matheretal.,

“Measurement of the Cosmic Microwave Background Spectrum by the COBE FIRAS Instrument,”AstrophysicalJournal420(1994):439–444.

{40}KatherineC.Roth,DavidM.Meyer,andIsabelHawkins,“InterstellarCyanogenandtheTemperatureoftheCosmicMicrowaveBackgroundRadiation,”AstrophysicalJournal413(1993),L67-L71.

{41} Antoinette Songaila et al., “Measurement of the Microwave Background Temperature at Redshift1.776,”Nature371(1994),43-45.

{42}DavidM.Meyer,“ADistantSpaceThermometer,”Nature371(1994):13.

{43}K.C.Roth,A.Songaila,L.L.Cowie,andJ.Bechtold,“CIFine-StructureExcitationbytheCMBRatz=1.973,”AmericanAstronomicalSocietyMeeting,189,#122.17,December,1996.

{44} R. Srianand, P. Petitjean, and C. Leadoux, “The Cosmic Microwave Background RadiationTemperatureataRedshiftof2.34,”Nature408(2000):931–935

{45}In1998ReasonsToBelieveproducedaone-hour televisiondocumentary,JourneyTowardCreation,that portrayed through astronomical images, video clips, and computer animations a simulated trip fromplanetEarthtothemostdistantentitiesintheuniverse,ajourneytowardthecreationeventitself.ADVDisavailablewww.reasons.org.

{46}HughRoss,BeyondtheCosmos,2nded.(ColoradoSprings,CO:NavPress,1999).

{47}HughRossandGuillermoGonzalez,“YouMustBeHere,”FactsforFaith,vol.1,no.1(2000),36–41.

{48}StephenHawking,ABriefHistoryofTime(NewYork:BantamBooks,1988),163–165.

FIVE—Twenty-firstCenturyDiscoveries{49}JamesGlanz,“BreakthroughoftheYear:CosmicMotionRevealed,”Science282(1998):2156–2157;FloydE.Bloom,“Breakthroughs1998,”Science282(1998):2193.

{50} Lawrence M. Krauss, “The End of the Age Problem and the Case for a Cosmological ConstantRevisited,”AstrophysicalJournal501(1998):461.

{51}HughRoss,TheFingerprintofGod,2nded.(Orange,CA:NavPress,1991),27–29;ImmanuelKant,“UniversalNaturalHistoryandTheoryoftheHeavens,”inTheoriesoftheUniverse,ed.MiltonK.Munitz(Glencoe,IL:FreePress,1957),242–247.

{52} Albert Einstein, “Kosmologische Betrachtungen zur allgemeinen Relativitätstheorie,” inSitzungsherichtederKoniglichPreussischenAkademiederWissenschaften (1917),Feb.8,142–152.TheEnglishtranslationisinThePrincipleofRelativitybyH.A.Lorentz,A.Einstein,H.Minkowski,andH.WeylwithnotesbyA.SommerfeldandtranslatedbyW.PerrettandG.B.Jeffrey(London,UK:MethuenandCo., 1923), 175–188;AlbertEinstein, “DieGrundlageder allgemeinenRelativitätstheorie,”AnnalenderPhysik49(1916),769–822.TheEnglishtranslationisinThePrincipleofRelativity,109–164.

{53} A. Vibert Douglas, “Forty Minutes with Einstein,” Journal of the Royal Astronomical Society ofCanada50(1956):100.

{54}AdamG.Riessetal.,“ObservationalEvidencefromSupernovaeforanAcceleratingUniverseandaCosmologicalConstant,”AstronomicalJournal116(1998):1009–1038.

{55}RichardC.TolmanandMorganWard,“OntheBehaviorofNon-StaticModelsoftheUniverseWhentheCosmologicalTermIsOmitted,”PhysicalReview39(1932):841–843;JohnD.BarrowandJosephSilk,TheLeftHandofCreation:TheOriginandEvolutionoftheExpandingUniverse(NewYork:BasicBooks,1983),32.

{56}S. Perlmutter et al., “Measurements ofΩ and∧ from42High-Redshift Supernovae,”AstrophysicalJournal517(1999):565–586.

{57}JamesGlanz,“HasaCosmicStandardCandleFlickered?”Science285(1999):19.

{58}AdamG.Riess,AlexeiV.Filippenko,WeidongLi,andBrianP.Schmidt,“IsThereanIndicationofEvolutionofTypeIaSupernovaefromTheirRiseTimes?”AstronomicalJournal118(1999):2668–2674;Hideyuki Umeda, Ken’ichi Nomoto, and Chiaki Kobayashi, “The Origin of the Diversity of Type IaSupernovaeandtheEnvironmentalEffects,”AstrophysicalJournalLetters522(1999):L43–L47;AnthonyAguirre,“IntergalacticDustandObservationsofTypeIaSupernovae,”AstrophysicalJournal,525(1999):583–593; Tomonori Totani and Chiaki Kobayashi, “Evolution of Dust Extinction and SupernovaCosmology,”AstrophysicalJournalLetters526(1999):L65–L68;PersisS.Drell,ThomasJ.Loredo,andIraWasserman,“Type IaSupernovae,Evolution, and theCosmologicalConstant,”AstrophysicalJournal530(2000):593–617.

{59}LevR.YungelsonandMarioLivio,“SupernovaRates:ACosmicHistory,”AstrophysicalJournal528(2000): 108–117;GregAldering, RobertKnop, and PeterNugent, “TheRise Times ofHigh- and Low-RedshiftTypeIaSupernovaeAreConsistent,”AstronomicalJournal119(2000):2110–2117.

{60}S.Perlmutteretal.,581.

{61}S.Perlmutteretal.,579.

{62}BharatRatraetal.,“CosmicMicrowaveBackgroundAnisotropyConstraintsonOpenandFlat-LColdDark Matter Cosmogonies with UCSB South Pole, ARGO, MAX, White Dish, and SuZIE Data,”AstrophysicalJournal 517 (1999): 549–564;AaronD.Lewis,E.Ellingson,SimonL.Morris, andR.G.Carlberg, “X-Ray Mass Estimates at z ~ 0.3 for the Canadian Network for Observational CosmologyClusterSample,”AstrophysicalJournal,517(1999):587–608;JosephJ.Mohr,BenjaminMathiesen,andAugust E. Evrard, “Properties of the IntraclusterMedium in an Ensemble of Nearby Galaxy Clusters,”AstrophysicalJournal,517(1999):627–649.

{63}RaulJimenezandPaoloPadoan,“TheAgesandDistancesofGlobularClusterswiththeLuminosityFunctionMethod:TheCaseofM5andM55,”AstrophysicalJournal498(1998):704–709;DavidS.Graff,Gregory Laughlin, and Katherine Freese, “MACHOs, White Dwarfs, and the Age of the Universe,”AstrophysicalJournal499(1998):7–19;JudithG.Cohen,JohnP.Blakeslee,andAntonRyshov,“TheAgesandAbundancesof aLargeSampleofM87GlobularClusters,”AstrophysicalJournal 496 (1998): 808–826;R.Buopnannoetal.,“TheAgesoftheGlobularClustersintheFornaxDwarfGalaxy,”AstrophysicalJournalLetters501(1998):L33–L36.

{64}HughRoss,“NewsReportHypesCosmicAgeControversy,”Facts&Faith,vol.8,n.4(1994),1–2.

{65}TheVancouverSun,October1,1999,A1.

{66}DavidS.Graff,GregoryLaughlin,andKatherineFreese,7,18.

{67} P. De Barnardis et al., “A Flat Universe from High-Resolution Maps of the Cosmic Microwave

BackgroundRadiation,”Nature494(2000):955–959.

{68} Max Tegmark’s website at the University of Pennsylvania:www.hep.upenn.edu/max/boompa_frames.html.

{69}E.Torbetetal.,“AMeasurementoftheAngularPowerSpectrumoftheMicrowaveBackgroundMadefromtheHighChileanAndes,”AstrophysicalJournalLetters521(1999):L79–L82;C.M.Gutiérrezetal.,“The Tenerife Cosmic Microwave Background Maps: Observations and First Analysis,” AstrophysicalJournal529(2000):47–55;BharatRatraetal.,“CosmicMicrowaveBackgroundAnisotropyConstraintsonOpenandFlat-LColdDarkMatterCosmogoniesFromUSSBSouthPole,ARGO,MAX,WhiteDish,andSuZIEData,”AstrophysicalJournal517(1999):549–564;GraçaRochaetal.,“PythonI,II,andIIICosmicMicrowave Background Anisotropy Measurement Constraints on Open and Flat-L Cold Dark MatterCosmogonies,” Astrophysical Journal 525 (1999): 1–9; James Glanz, “Microwave Hump Reveals FlatUniverse,”Science283(1999):21.

{70}S. Perlmutter et al., “Measurements ofΩ andΛ from42High-Redshift Supernovae,”AstrophysicalJournal 517 (1999): 565–586;MeganDonahue andG.MarkVoit, “Ωm from theTemperature-RedshiftDistributionofEMSSClustersofGalaxies,”AstrophysicalJournalLetters523(1999):L37–L40;DavidH.Weinbergetal.,“ClosinginonΩM:TheAmplitudeofMassFluctuationsfromGalaxyClustersandtheLyaForest,” Astrophysical Journal 522 (1999): 563–568; G. Steigman and I. Tkachev, “ΩB and Ω o fromMACHOs and LocalGroupDynamics,”Astrophysical Journal 522 (1999): 793–801; J. Nevalainen,M.Markevitch, andW. Forman, “The Baryonic andDarkMatter Distribution in Abell 401,”AstrophysicalJournal526(1999):1–9;JosephJ.Mohr,BenjaminMathiesen,andAugustE.Evrard,“Propertiesof theInterclusterMediuminanEnsembleofNearbyGalaxyClusters,”AstrophysicalJournal517(1999):627–649;J.S.AlcanizandJ.A.S.Lima,“NewLimitsonΩ∧andΩMfromOldGalaxies atHighRedshift,”AstrophysicalJournalLetters 521 (1999):L87–L90;N.A.Bahcall et al., “TheMass-To-LightFunction:AntibiasandΩm´”AstrophysicalJournal541(2000):1–9;KentaroNagamine,RenyueCen,andJeremiahP.Ostriker,“LuminosityDensityofGalaxiesandCosmicStarFormationRateFrom∧ColdDarkMatterHydrodynamicalSimulations,”AstrophysicalJournal541(2000):25–36;StacyS.McGaugh,“BoomerangDataSuggestaPurelyBaryonicUniverse,”AstrophysicalJournalLetters541(2000):L33–L36.

{71}A.Melchiorri et al., “AMeasurement of Ω from the North American Test Flight of Boomerang,”AstrophysicalJournalLetters536(2000):L63–L66.

{72} Idit Zehavi and Avishai Dekel, “Evidence for a Positive Cosmological Constant from Flows ofGalaxies andDistantSupernovae,”Nature 401 (1999):252–254;AdamG.Riess, “UniversalPeekaboo,”Nature,401(1999):219,221.

{73}LawrenceM.Krauss,461.

{74}LawrenceM.Krauss,461,465.

{75}JamesGlanz,“MicrowaveHumpRevealsFlatUniverse,”Science283(1999):21;P.DeBarnardisetal.,957–958;WayneHe,“RingingintheNewCosmology,”Nature404(2000):939–940.

{76}IditZehaviandAvishaiDekel,252.

{77}N.Straumann,“TheMysteryoftheCosmicVacuumEnergyDensityandtheAcceleratedExpansionoftheUniverse,”EuropeanJournalofPhysics(2000):inpress.

{78}S.Perlutteretal.,584.

{79}LawrenceM.KraussandGlennD.Starkman,“Life,theUniverse,andNothing:LifeandDeathinanEver-ExpandingUniverse,”AstrophysicalJournal531(2000):22–30.

{80}Revelation21–22,TheHolyBible;HughRoss,Beyond theCosmos,2nd edition (ColoradoSprings,CO:NavPress,1999):217–228.

{81}P.Jokeosenetal.,“DetectionofIntergalacticIonizedHeliumAbsorptioninaHigh-RedshiftQuasar,”Nature370(1994):35–39.

{82}YuriI.Izotov,TrinhX.Thuan,andValentinA.Lipovetsky,“ThePrimordialHeliumAbundancefromaNewSampleofMetal-DeficientBlueCompactGalaxies,”AstrophysicalJournal435(1994):647–667.

{83}YuriI.Izotovetal.,“HeliumAbundanceintheMostMetal-DeficientBlueCompactGalaxies:IZw18andSBS0335-052,”AstrophysicalJournal527(1999):757–777.

{84}YuriI.Izotovetal.,776.

{85} D. R. Ballantyne, G. J. Ferland, and P. G. Martin, “The Primordial Helium Abundance: TowardUnderstanding and Removing the Cosmic Scatter in the dY/dZ Relation,” Astrophysical Journal 536(2000):773–777.

{86}D.R.Ballantyne,G.J.Ferland,andP.G.Martin,777.

{87}YuriI.Izotovetal.,776.

{88} Scott Burles, David Kirkman, and David Tytler, “Deuterium Toward Quasar Q0014+813,”AstrophysicalJournal519(1999):18–21;DavidKirkmanetal.,“QSO0130-4021:AThirdQSOShowingaLowDeuterium-To-HydrogenAbundanceRatio,”AstrophysicalJournal529(2000):655–660;SergeiA.Levshakov,WilhelmH,Kegel, andFumioTakahara, “TheD/HRatio at z=3.57TowardQ1937-1009,”AstrophysicalJournalLetters499(1998):L1–L4.

{89} E. Casuso and J. E. Beckman, “Deuterium, Lithium, and the Hubble Deep Field,” AstronomicalJournal118(1999):1907–1911.

{90} Sylvie Vauclair and Corinne Charbonnel, “Element Segregation in Low-Metallicity Stars and thePrimordial Lithium Abundance,” Astrophysical Journal 502 (1998): 372–377; D. A. Lubowich et al.,“DeuteriumintheGalacticCentreasaResultofRecentInfallofLow-MetallicityGas,”Nature405(2000):1025–1027;TakeruKenSuzuki,YuzuruYoshii,andTimothyC.Beers,“PrimordialLithiumAbundanceasaStringentConstrainton theBaryonicContentof theUniverse,”AstrophysicalJournal 540 (2000): 99–103; E. Vanioni-Flam, A. Coc, and M. Cassé, “Big Bang Nucleosynthesis Updates with the NACRECompilation,”Astronomy&Astrophysics360(2000):15–23.

{91}E.CasusoandJ.E.Beckman,1907.

{92} A. Melchiorri et al., “AMeasurement of from the NorthAmerican Test Flight of Boomerang,”AstrophysicalJournalLetters536(2000):L63–L66.

{93}AaronD.Lewis,E.Ellingson,SimonL.Morris,andR.G.Carlberg,“X-RayMassEstimatesatz~0.3for the Canadian Network for Observational Cosmology Cluster Sample,” Astrophysical Journal 517(1999): 587–608; Bo Qin and Xiang-PingWu, “Baryon Distribution in Galaxy Clusters as a Result ofSedimentation ofHeliumNuclei,”Astrophysical Journal Letters529 (2000): L1–L4;M. Fukugita, C. J.

Hogan,andP.J.E.Peebles,“TheCosmicBaryonBudget,”AstrophysicalJournal503(1998):518–530.

{94}HughRoss,TheFingerprintofGod,2nded.,89–90.

{95} D. B. Haarsma, J. N. Hewitt, J. Lehár, and B. F. Burke, “The Radio Wavelength Time Delay ofGravitationalLens0957+561,”AstrophysicalJournal510(1999):64–70;Kyu-HyunChae,“NewModelingof the Lensing Galaxy and Cluster of Q0957+561: Implications for the Global Value of the HubbleConstant,”AstrophysicalJournal524(1999):582–590;C.D.Fassnachtetal.,“ADeterminationofHowiththe Class Gravitational Lens B1608+656. I Time Delay Measurements with the VLA,” AstrophysicalJournal527 (1999):498–512;L.V.E.KoopmansandC.D.Fassnacht, “ADeterminationofHwith theClass Gravitational Lens B1608+656. II. Mass Models and the Hubble Constant from Lensing,”AstrophysicalJournal527 (1999):513–524;LiliyaL.R.WilliamsandPrasenjitSaha,“PixelatedLensesandHofromTime-DelayQuasars,”AstronomicalJournal119(2000):439–450.

{96}MasaruWatanabe,Takashi Ichikawa, andSadanoriOkamura, “AnUnbiasedEstimate of theGlobalHubble Constant in the Region of Pisces-Perseus,”Astrophysical Journal 503 (1998): 503–553; ShokoSakai et al., “TheHubbleSpaceTelescopeKeyProject on theExtragalacticDistanceScale.XXIV.TheCalibration ofTully-FisherRelations and theValue of theHubbleConstant,”Astrophysical Journal 529(2000):698–722;G.Theureau,“KinematicsoftheLocalUniverse.VI.B-BandTully-FisherRelationsandMean Surface Brightness,” Astronomy and Astrophysics 331 (1998): 1–10; Gustav A. Tammann,InternationalAstronomicalUnionSymposiumNo.183,CosmologicalParametersandtheEvolutionoftheUniverse,ed.K.Sato(Dordrecht,Netherlands:Kluwer,1999):31.

{97}AllanSandage,“BiasPropertiesofExtragalacticDistanceIndicators.VIII.HofromDistance-LimitedLuminosity Class andMorphological Type-Specific Luminosity Functions for Sb, Sbc, and ScGalaxiesCalibratedUsingCepheids,”Astrophysical Journal 527 (1999): 479–487; JeremyR.Mould et al., “TheHubble Space Telescope Key Project on the Extragalactic Distance Scale. XXVIII. Combining theConstraintsontheHubbleConstant,”AstrophysicalJournal529(2000):786–794;BradK.Gibson,PhilipR. Maloney, and Shoko Sakai, “Has Blending Compromised Cepheid-Based Determinations of theExtragalacticDistance Scale?”Astrophysical Journal Letters 530 (2000): L5–L8; Allan Sandage, R. A.Bell,andMichaelJ.Tripicco,“OntheSensitivityoftheCepheidPeriod-LuminosityRelationtoVariationsin Metallicity,” Astrophysical Journal 522 (1999): 250–275; G. Petural et al., “Hubble Constant fromSOSIEGalaxiesandHIPPARCOSGeometricalCalibration,”AstronomyandAstrophysics339(1998):671–677.

{98}S. Perlmutter et al., “Measurements ofΩ and∧ from42High-Redshift Supernovae,”AstrophysicalJournal 517 (1999): 565–586; Robert Tripp andDavid Branch, “Determination of theHubble ConstantUsingaTwo-ParameterLuminosityCorrectionforTypeIaSupernovae,”AstrophysicalJournal525(1999):209–214;A.Sahaetal.,“CepheidCalibrationofthePeakBrightnessofTypeIaSupernovae.IX.SN1989BinNGC3627,”Astrophysical Journal 522 (1999): 802–838; Saurabh Jha et al “TheType Ia Supernova1998bu inM96 and theHubbleConstant,”Astrophysical Journal Supplement 125 (1999): 73–89;B. R.Parodi,A.Saha,A.Sandage,andG.A.Tammann,“SupernovaTypeIaLuminosities.TheirDependenceonSecondParameters,andtheValueofHo,”AstrophysicalJournal540(2000):634–651.

{99}D.C.Homanand J.F.C.Wardle, “DirectDistanceMeasurements toSuperluminalRadioSources,”AstrophysicalJournal535(2000):575–585;JamesGlanz,“TheFirstSteptoHeaven,”Science285(1999):1658–1661;J.R.Hernsteinetal.,“AGeometricDistancetotheGalaxyNGC4258fromOrbitalMotionsina Nuclear Gas Disk,” Nature 400 (1999): 539–541; E. F. Guinan et al., “The Distance to the LargeMagellanicCloud from theEclipsingBinaryHV2274,”Astrophysical Journal Letters 509 (1998): L21–L24;G.Peturaletal.,“HubbleConstantfromSOSIEGalaxiesandHIPPARCOSGeometricalCalibration,”AstronomyandAstrophysics339(1998):671–677.

{100}VolkerBromm,PaoloS.Coppi,andRichardB.Larson,“FormingtheFirstStarsintheUniverse:TheFragmentationofPrimordialGas,”AstrophysicalJournalLetters527(1999):L5–L8.

{101}Masayuki Y. Fujimoto, Yasufumi Ikeda, and Icko Iben, Jr., “The Origin of ExtremelyMetal-PoorCarbonStarsandtheSearchforPopulationIII,”AstrophysicalJournalLetters529(2000):L25;A.Weiss,S. Cassisi, H. Schlattl, and M. Salaris, “Evolution of Low-Mass Metal-Free Stars Including Effects ofDiffusionandExternalPollution,”AstrophysicalJournal533(2000):413.

{102}MasayukiY.Fujimoto,YasufumiIkeda,andIckoIbenJr.,L25–L28;A.Weiss,S.Cassisi,H.Schlattl,andM.Salaris,413–423.

{103}EugenioCarretta,RaffaeleG.Gratton,GiselaClementini, andFlavioFusiPecci, “Distances,Ages,andEpochofFormationofGlobularClusters,”AstrophysicalJournal533(2000):215–235.

{104}BradK.Gibson et al., “TheSpectroscopicAgeof 47Tucanae,”Astronomical Journal 118 (1999):1268–1272.

{105}JenniferA.Johnsonetal.,“HubbleSpaceTelescopeObservationsoftheOldestStarClustersintheLargeMagellanicCloud,”AstrophysicalJournal527(1999),199–218.

{106} PaulW.Hodge,AndrewE.Dolphin, TobyR. Smith, andMarioMateo, “Hubble SpaceTelescopeStudiesof theWLMGalaxy. I.TheAgeandMetallicityof theGlobularCluster,”Astrophysical Journal521(1999),577–581.

{107}R. Buonanno et al., “The Ages of Globular Clusters in the Fornax Dwarf Galaxy,”AstrophysicalJournalLetters501(1998),L33–L36.

{108}RaulJimenezandPaoloPadoan,“TheAgesandDistancesofGlobularClusterswiththeLuminosityFunctionMethod:TheCaseofM5andM55,”AstrophysicalJournal498(1998),704–709.

{109}DavidS.Graff,GregoryLaughlin,andKatherineFreese,“MACHOs,WhiteDwarfs,andtheAgeoftheUniverse,”AstrophysicalJournal499(1998),7–19.

{110}JudithG.Cohen,JohnBlakeslee,andAntonRyzhov,“TheAgesandAbundancesofaLargeSampleofM87GlobularClusters,”AstrophysicalJournal496(1998),808–826.

{111}HughRoss,TheCreatorandtheCosmos,2nded.,(ColoradoSprings,CO:NavPress,1995),35–47.

{112}S.Perlmutteretal.,565–586;AaronD.Lewis,E.Ellingson,SimonL.Morris, andR.G.Carlberg,587–608;JosephJ.Mohr,BenjaminMathiesen,andAugustE.Evrard,627–649;N.A,Bahcalletal.,1–9;KentaroNagamine,RenyueCen,andJeremiahP.Ostriker,25–36;DavidH.Weinbergetal.,563–568;J.Nevalainen, M. Markevitch, and W. Forman, 1–9; J. S. Alcaniz and J. A. S. Lima, L87–L90; MeganDonahueandG.MarkVoit,L37–L40;AsanthaR.Cooray,“AnUpperLimitonΩmUsingLensedArcs,”Astrophysical Journal 524 (1999): 504–509; Masashi Chiba and Yuzuru Yoshii, “New Limits on aCosmologicalConstantfromStatisticsofGravitationalLensing,”AstrophysicalJournal510(1999):42–53;Stephano Borgani, Piero Rosati, Paolo Tozzi, and Colin Norman, “Cosmological Constraints from theROSATDeepCluster Survery,”Astrophysical Journal 517 (1999): 40–53;NetaA.Bahcall andXiaohuiFan, “TheMostDistantClusters:DeterminingΩm´”Astrophysical Journal 504 (1998): 1–6; James

σ8´RobinsonandJosephSilk,“StarFormationAsaCosmologicalProbe,”AstrophysicalJournal539(2000):89–97;EstherM.Hu,RichardG.McMahon,andLennoxL.Cowie,“AnExtremelyLuminousGalaxyatz=5.74,”AstrophysicalJournalLetters522(1999),L9–L12;B.F.RoukemaandG.A.Mamon,“Tangential

Large Scale Structure as a Standard Ruler: Curvature Parameters from Quasars,” Astronomy andAstrophysics 358 (2000): 395–408; B. Novosyadlyj et al., “Cosmological Parameters from Large ScaleStructure Observations,” Astronomy and Astrophysics 356 (2000): 418–434; P. Valageas, “WeakGravitational Lensing Effects on the Determination of Ω m and Ω∧ from SneIa,” Astronomy andAstrophysics 354 (2000): 767–786; J. F. Macias-Perez et al., “Gravitational Lensing Statistics withExtragalactic Surveys,” Astronomy and Astrophysics 353 (2000): 419–426; David M. Wittman et al.,“DetectionofWeakGravitationalLensingDistortionsofDistantGalaxiesbyCosmicDarkMatteratLargeScales,”Nature405(2000):143–148.

{113}KarlGlazebrook,“The2dFGRS–GalaxyPropertiesandEvolution,”AmericanAstronomicalSocietyMeeting196,#56.06,May2000;R.Bennett,“SurveyConfirmsCompositionoftheCosmos,ScienceNews157(2000):374.

{114}KarlGlazebrook,“The2dFGRS–GalaxyPropertiesandEvolution,”AmericanAstronomicalSocietyMeeting196,#56.06,May2000;R.Bennett,“SurveyConfirmsCompositionoftheCosmos,ScienceNews157(2000):374.

{115}R.Juszkiewiczetal.,“EvidenceforaLow-DensityUniversefromtheRelativeVelocitiesofGalaxies,”Science287(2000):109–112.

{116}F.R.Pearceetal.,“ASimulationofGalaxyFormationandClustering,”AstrophysicalJournalLetters521(1999):L99–L102;WesleyN.Colleyetal.,“TopologyfromtheSimulatedSloanDigitalSkySurvey,”AstrophysicalJournal529(2000):795–810.

{117}AndrewWatson,“CaseforNeutrinoMassGathersWeight,”Science277(1997),30–31.

{118}AndrewWatson,31.

{119}DennisNormile,“HeavyNewsonSolarNeutrinos,”Science280(1998):1839.

{120}DennisNormile,“WeighingInonNeutrinoMass,”Science280(1998):1689–1690.

{121}DennisNormile,“NewExperimentsStepUpHuntforNeutrinoMass,”Science276(1997):1795.

{122}F.Gattietal.,“DetectionofEnvironmentalFineStructurein theLow-Energyb-DecaySpectrumof187Re,”Nature397(1997):137–139.

{123}RonCowen,“VotesCastForandAgainsttheWIMPFactor,”ScienceNews157(2000):135.

{124}HughRoss,TheFingerprintofGod,2nded.,39–138.

SIX—Einstein’sChallenge{125}ImmanuelKant,“UniversalNaturalHistoryandTheoryoftheHeavens,”TheoriesoftheUniverse,ed.MiltonK.Munitz(Glencoe,IL:FreePress,1957),240.

{126}RudolfThiel,AndThereWas Light: TheDiscovery of theUniverse (NewYork:AlfredA.Knopf,1957),218;JohnHermanRandallJr.,TheCareerofPhilosophy,vol.2(NewYork:ColumbiaUniversityPress,1965),113;Kant,“UniversalNaturalHistoryandTheoryoftheHeavens,”242–247.

{127}HughRoss,TheFingerprintofGod,2nded.rev.(Orange,CA:PromisePublishing,1991),27–38.

{128}Albert Einstein, “Zur Elektrodynamik bewegter Körper,”Annalen der Physik 17 (1905), 891–921[HendrikA.Lorentzetal.,ThePrincipleofRelativity,withnotesbyArnoldSommerfeld,trans.W.Perrettand G. B. Jeffrey (London: Methuen and Co., 1923), 35–65]; Albert Einstein, “Ist die Trägheit einesKörpersvonseinemEnergieinhaltabhängig?”AnnalenderPhysik18(1905),639–644[Lorentzetal.,ThePrincipleofRelativity,67–71].

{129}RobertMartinEisberg,FundamentalsofModernPhysics(NewYork:JohnWiley&Sons,1961),37–38,75–76,580–592;JohnD.Jackson,ClassicalElectrodynamics(NewYork:JohnWileyandSons,1962),352–369;S.K.Lamoreauxetal.,“NewLimitsonSpatialAnisotropyfromOpticallyPumped201Hgand199Hg,”PhysicalReviewLetters57(1986):3125–3128.Thisrecentexperimentconfirmsthepredictionsofspecialrelativitytobetterthanonepartin1021.

{130}AlbertEinstein,“DieFeldgleichungenderGravitation,”SitzungsberichtederKöniglichPreussischenAkademie der Wissenschaften, 25 November 1915, 844–847 (the following reference includes thisreference);Albert Einstein, “DieGrundlage der allgemeinenRelativitätstheorie,”Annalen derPhysik49(1916),769–822[Lorentzetal.,ThePrincipleofRelativity,109–164].

{131} Albert Einstein,”Kosmologische Betrachtungen zur allgemeinen Relativitätstheorie,”SitzungsberischtederKöniglichPreussischenAkademiederWissenschaften,Feb.8,1917,142–152.TheEnglishtranslationisinThePrincipleofRelativitybyH.A.Lorentz,A.Einstein,H.Minkowski,andH.WeylwithnotesbyA.SommerfieldandtranslatedbyW.PerrettandG.B.Jeffrey(London,UK:MethuenandCo.,1923),175–188.

{132}Einstein,“DieGrundlagederallgemeinenRelativitätstheorie,”769–822[Lorentzetal.,109–164].

{133}A. Vibert Douglas, “Forty Minutes with Einstein,” Journal of the Royal Astronomical Society ofCanada50(1956):100.

{134}LincolnBarnett,TheUniverseandDr.Einstein(NewYork:WilliamSloaneAssociates,1948),106.

{135}EdwinHubble,“ARelationBetweenDistanceandRadialVelocityAmongExtra-GalacticNebulae,”ProceedingsoftheNationalAcademyofSciences,USA15(1929):168–173.

{136}AlbertEinstein,OutofMyLaterYears(NewYork:PhilosophicalLibrary,1950),27.

{137}HughRoss,BeyondtheCosmos,2nded.(ColoradoSprings,CO:NavPress,1999),151–193.

SEVEN—ClosingLoopholes:RoundOne{138}ArthurS.Eddington,“TheEndoftheWorld:FromtheStandpointofMathematicalPhysics,”Nature,127(1931),450.

{139}ArthurS.Eddington,“OntheInstabilityofEinstein’sSphericalWorld,”MonthlyNoticesoftheRoyalAstronomicalSociety90(1930):672.

{140}HubertP.Yockey,“OntheInformationContentofCytochromec,”JournalofTheoreticalBiology67(1977):345–376;HubertP.Yockey,“SelfOrganizationOriginofLifeScenariosandInformationTheory,”JournalofTheoreticalBiology91(1981):13–31;JamesA.Lake,“EvolvingRibosomeStructure:DomainsinArchaebacteria,Eubacteria,Eocytes,andEukaryotes,”AnnualReviewofBiochemistry54(1985):507–530; M. J. Dufton, “Genetic Code Redundancy and the Evolutionary Stability of Protein SecondaryStructure,”JournalofTheoreticalBiology116(1985):343–348;HubertP.Yockey,“DoOverlappingGenes

ViolateMolecularBiologyandtheTheoryofEvolution?”JournalofTheoreticalBiology80(1979):21–26;JohnAbelson,“RNAProcessingandtheInterveningSequenceProblem,”AnnualReviewofBiochemistry48(1979):1035–1069;RalphT.HinegardnerandJosephEngleberg, “RationaleforaUniversalGeneticCode,”Science142(1963):1083–1085;HansNeurath,“ProteinStructureandEnzymeAction,”ReviewsofModern Physics 31 (1959), 185–190; Fred Hoyle and ChandraWickramasinghe, Evolution from Space(NewYork:SimonandSchuster,1981),14–97;CharlesB.Thaxton,WalterL.Bradley,andRogerOlsen,TheMysteryofLife’sOrigin(NewYork:PhilosophicalLibrary,1984);RobertShapiro,Origins(NewYork:SummitBooks,1986),117–131;HughRoss,GenesisOne:AScientificPerspective,2nded.rev.(Pasadena,CA:ReasonsToBelieve,1983),9–10;HubertP.Yockey,“ACalculationoftheProbabilityofSpontaneousBiogenesis by Information Theory,” Journal of Theoretical Biology 67 (1977): 377–398;W.W. Duley,“Evidence Against Biological Grains in the Interstellar Medium,” Quarterly Journal of the RoyalAstronomical Society 25 (1984): 109–113; Randall A. Kok, John A. Taylor, andWalter L. Bradley, “AStatisticalExaminationofSelf-OrderingofAminoAcidsinProteins,”OriginsofLifeandEvolutionoftheBiosphere18(1988):135–142;JohnD.BarrowandFrankJ.Tipler,TheAnthropicCosmologicalPrinciple(New York: Oxford University Press, 1986), 560–570; Hubert P. Yockey, Information Theory andMolecularBiology(Cambridge,UK:CambridgeUniversityPress,1992),131–309.

{141}HermanBondiandT.Gold,“TheSteady-StateTheoryoftheExpandingUniverse,”MonthlyNoticesof theRoyalAstronomicalSociety 108 (1948), 252–270; FredHoyle, “ANewModel for theExpandingUniverse,”MonthlyNoticesoftheRoyalAstronomicalSociety108(1948):372–382.

{142}HermanBondi,Cosmology,2nded.rev.(Cambridge,UK:CambridgeUniversityPress,1960),140;Hoyle,“ANewModelfortheExpandingUniverse,”372.

{143}FredHoyle,TheNatureoftheUniverse,2nded.rev.(Oxford,UK:BasilBlackwell,1952),111;FredHoyle,“TheUniverse:PastandPresentReflections,”AnnualReviewsofAstronomyandAstrophysics 20(1982),3.

{144}Ross,TheFingerprintofGod,81–96;J.C.Matheretal.,“Measurementof theCosmicMicrowaveBackgroundSpectrumbytheCOBEFIRASInstrument,”AstrophysicalJournal420(1994):439–444;AlanDressler et al., “New Images of the Distant, Rich Cluster CL 0939+4713 withWFPC2,”AstrophysicalJournal Letters 435 (1994): L23–L26. J. C. Mather et al., “Meaurement of the Cosmic MicrowaveBackgroundSpectrumbytheCOBEFIRASInstrument,”AstrophysicalJournal420(1994):439–444;AlanDressler et al., “New Images of the Distant, Rich Cluster CL 0939+4713 withWFPC2,”AstrophysicalJournalLetters435(1994):L23–L26.

{145}SirJamesH.Jeans,AstronomyandCosmogony,2nded.rev.(Cambridge,UK:CambridgeUniversityPress,1929),421–422.

{146}ThomasL.Swihart,AstrophysicsandStellarAstronomy(NewYork:JohnWiley&Sons,1968),157–158.

{147}DonaldHamilton,“TheSpectralEvolutionofGalaxies.I.AnObservationalApproach,”AstrophysicalJournal297(1985):371–389.

{148}Ross,TheFingerprintofGod,81–96;J.C.Matheretal.,439–444;Dressleretal.,L23–L26.

{149}PaulS.Wesson,“Olber’sParadoxandtheSpectralIntensityoftheExtragalacticBackgroundLight,”AstrophysicalJournal367(February1,1991):399–406.

{150}HughRoss,TheFingerprintofGod,2nded.,69–96.

{151}RobertJastrow,GodandtheAstronomers,2nded.(NewYork:W.W.Norton,1992),67–85.

{152} Fred Hoyle, Geoffrey Burbidge, and Jayant V. Narlikar, A Different Approach to Cosmology(Cambridge,UK:CambridgeUniversityPress,2000),65–115.

{153}OneofthemorespectacularevidencesfortheuniversematuringwithtimewasarecentlyannouncedHubbleSpaceTelescopediscovery(MarkA.Stein,“Hubble’sGalaxyPhotosShowUniverseinFlux,”LosAngelesTimes,2December1992,B1,B4).AteamledbyastronomerAlanDresslerfoundthatforagalaxyclusterfourbillionlightyearsdistant(andhencefourbillionyearsyoungerthanours)theratioofyounger(spiral shaped)galaxies tooldergalaxies (elliptical shaped)wasabout six timeshigher than forourowngalaxycluster.Formoredetailsseemyarticle,“GalaxyFormationSupportsCreation,”Facts&Faith,theQuarterly Newsletter of Reasons To Believe, Spring 1993, 2–3. For a list of references to additionalevidencesfortheevolutionoftheuniverseseeTheFingerprintofGod,81–82,93–94.

{154}Hoyle,Burbidge,andNarlikar,107–337.

{155}GretchenVogel,“HubbleGivesaQuasarHouseTour,”Science274(1996):1468.

{156}FayeFlam,“TheSpaceTelescopeSpiesonAncientGalaxyMenageries,”Science266(1994):1806;HughRoss,“HubbleSpaceTelescopeCapturesInfancyofCosmos,”Facts&Faith,vol.9,no.2,1–2.

{157} S. J.Warren, P. C. Hewett, and P. S. Osmer, “AWide-FieldMulticolor Survey for High-RedshiftQuasars, z ≥ 2.2. III. The Luminosity,”Astrophysical Journal 421 (1994): 412–433;M. Schmidt, D. P.Schneider,andJ.E.Gunn,“SpectroscopicCCDSurveysforQuasarsatLargeRedshift.IV.EvolutionoftheLuminosityFunctionFromQuasarsDetectedbyTheirLyman-AlphaEmission,”AstronomicalJournal110(1995):68–77;J.D.Kennefict,S.G.Djorgovski,andR.R.deCarvalho,“TheLuminosityFunctionofz>4 Quasars from the Second Palomar Sky Survey,” Astronomical Journal 110 (1995): 2553–2565; J. P.OstrikerandJ.Heisler, “AreCosmologicallyDistantObjectsObscuredbyDust:ATestUsingQuasars,”AstrophysicalJournal278(1984):1–10;P.A.Shaveretal.,“DecreaseintheSpaceDensityofQuasarsatHighRedshift,”Nature384(1996):439–441;B.J.BoyleandT.diMatteo,“LimitsofDustObscurationinQSOs,”MonthlyNoticesoftheRoyalAstronomicalSociety277(1995):L63–L66;PatrickS.Osmer,“TheSharpEndofQuasars,”Nature384(1996):416.

{158} G. S. Wasserburg and Y.-Z. Qian, “A Model of Metallicity Evolution in the Early Universe,”AstrophysicalJournalLetters538(2000):L99–L102.

{159}G.S.Bisnovatyi-Kogan,“AttheBorderofEternity,”Science279(1998):1321.

{160}D.C.HomanandJ.F.C.Wardle,“DirectDistanceMeasurementstoSuperluminalRadioSources,”AstrophysicalJournal535(2000):575–585.

{161} Abraham Loeb and Eli Waxman, “Cosmic γ-Ray Background from Structure Formation in theIntergalacticMedium,”Nature405(2000):156–158;A.Melchiorrietal.,“AMeasurementofΩfromtheNorth American Test Flight of Boomerang,” Astrophysical Journal Letters 536 (2000): L63–L66; M.Fukugita, C. J. Hogan, and P. J. E. Peebles, “The Cosmic Baryon Budget,”Astrophysical Journal 503(1998): 518–530; BoQin andXiang-PingWu, “Baryon Distribution in Galaxy Clusters as a Result ofSedimentationofHeliumNuclei,”AstrophysicalJournalLetters529(2000):L1–L4;SeanG.Ryanetal.,“PrimordialLithiumandBigBangNucleosynthesis,”AstrophysicalJournalLetters530(2000):L57–L60.

{162}S.Perlmutteretal.,“MeasurementsofΩand∧ from42High-RedshiftSupernovae,”AstrophysicalJournal517 (1999):565–586;AMechiorrietal.,L63–L66;P.deBernardisetal.,“AFlatUniverse from

High-ResolutionMapsoftheCosmicMicrowaveBackgroundRadiation,”Nature404(2000):955–959;R.G.Carlbergetal.,“TheΩM-Ω∧DependenceoftheApparentClusterΩ,”AstrophysicalJournal516(1999):552–558;AaronD.Lewis,E.Ellington,SimonL.Morris,andR.G.Carlberg,“X-RayMassEstimatesatz~0.3fortheCanadianNetworkforObservationalCosmologyClusterSample,”AstrophysicalJournal517(1999),587–608.

{163} J.C.Mather et al., “Measurement of theCosmicMicrowaveBackgroundSpectrumby theCOBEFIRASInstrument,”AstrophysicalJournal420(1994):439–444;P.deBernardisetal.,955–959.

{164}FredHoyle,GeoffreyBurbidge,andJayantV.Narlikar.

{165}JohnGribbin,“OscillatingUniverseBouncesBack,”Nature259(1976):15–16.

EIGHT—ClosingLoopholes:RoundTwo{166}RobertH.Dickeetal., “CosmicBlack-BodyRadiation,”AstrophysicalJournalLetters142 (1965):415.

{167}Dickeetal.,414–415.

{168}Perlmutteretal.,565–586;AaronD.Lewis,E.Ellingson,SimonL.Morris,andR.G.Carlberg,587–608;JosephJ.Mohr,BenjaminMathiesen,andAugustEvrard,627–649;N.A,Bahcalletal.,1–9;KentaroNagamine,RenyueCen,andJeremiahP.Ostriker,25–36;DavidH.Weinbergetal.,563–568;Nevalainen,M.Markevitch,andW.Forman,1–9;J.S.AlcanizandJ.A.S.Lima,L87–L90;MeganDonahueandG.Mark Voit, L37–L40; Asantha R. Cooray, “An Upper Limit on ΩmUsing LensedArcs,”AstrophysicalJournal524(1999):504–509;MasashiChibaandYuzuruYoshii,“NewLimitsonaCosmologicalConstantfrom Statistics of Gravitational Lensing,” Astrophysical Journal 510 (1999): 42–53; Stephano Borgani,PieroRosati,PaoloTozzi,andColinNorman,“CosmologicalConstraints from theROSATDeepClusterSurvery,”AstrophysicalJournal517(1999):40–53;NetaA.BahcallandXiaohuiFan,“TheMostDistantClusters:DeterminingΩamσ8´”AstrophysicalJournal 504 (1998): 1–6; JamesRobinson and JosephSilk,“Star Formation As a Cosmological Probe,” Astrophysical Journal 539 (2000): 89–97; Esther M. Hu,RichardG.McMahon,andLennoxL.Cowie,“AnExtremelyLuminousGalaxyatz=5.74,”AstrophysicalJournalLetters522(1999):L9–L12;B.F.RoukemaandG.A.Mamon,“TangentialLargeScaleStructureasaStandardRuler:CurvatureParametersfromQuasars,”AstronomyandAstrophysics358(2000):395–408; B. Novosyadlyj et al., “Cosmological Parameters from Large Scale Structure Observations,”AstronomyandAstrophysics356(2000):418–434;P.Valageas,“WeakGravitationalLensingEffectsontheDeterminationofΩmandΩ∧fromSneIa,”AstronomyandAstrophysics354(2000):767–786;J.F.Macias-Perezetal.,“GravitationalLensingStatisticswithExtragalacticSurveys,”AstronomyandAstrophysics353(2000): 419–426; Karl Glazebrook, “The 2dFGRS – Galaxy Properties and Evolution,” AmericanAstronomicalSocietyMeeting196,#56.06,May,2000;R.Bennett,“SurveyConfirmsCompositionoftheCosmos,”ScienceNews157(2000):374;R.Juszkiewiczetal.,“EvidenceforaLow-DensityUniversefromtheRelativeVelocitiesofGalaxies,”Science 287 (2000): 109–112;F.R.Pearce et al., “ASimulationofGalaxyFormationandClustering,”AstrophysicalJournalLetters521(1999):L99–L102;WesleyN.Colleyetal.,“TopologyfromtheSimulatedSloanDigitalSkySurvey,”AstrophysicalJournal529 (2000):795–810.

{169}Perlmutteretal.,565–586;AaronD.Lewis,E.Ellingson,SimonL.Morris,andR.G.Carlberg,587–608;JosephJ.Mohr,BenjaminMathiesen,andAugustEvrard,627–649;N.A,Bahcalletal.,1–9;KentaroNagamine,RenyueCen,andJeremiahP.Ostriker,25–36;DavidH.Weinbergetal.,563–568;Nevalainen,M.Markevitch,andW.Forman,1–9;J.S.AlcanizandJ.A.S.Lima,L87–L90;MeganDonahueandG.Mark Voit, L37–L40; Asantha R. Cooray, “An Upper Limit on ΩmUsing LensedArcs,”AstrophysicalJournal524(1999):504–509;MasashiChibaandYuzuruYoshii,“NewLimitsonaCosmologicalConstant

from Statistics of Gravitational Lensing,” Astrophysical Journal 510 (1999): 42–53; Stephano Borgani,PieroRosati,PaoloTozzi,andColinNorman,“CosmologicalConstraints from theROSATDeepClusterSurvery,”AstrophysicalJournal517(1999):40–53;NetaA.BahcallandXiaohuiFan,“TheMostDistantClusters:DeterminingΩamσ8´”AstrophysicalJournal 504 (1998): 1–6; JamesRobinson and JosephSilk,“Star Formation As a Cosmological Probe,” Astrophysical Journal 539 (2000): 89–97; Esther M. Hu,RichardG.McMahon,andLennoxL.Cowie,“AnExtremelyLuminousGalaxyatz=5.74,”AstrophysicalJournalLetters522(1999):L9–L12;B.F.RoukemaandG.A.Mamon,“TangentialLargeScaleStructureasaStandardRuler:CurvatureParametersfromQuasars,”AstronomyandAstrophysics358(2000):395–408; B. Novosyadlyj et al., “Cosmological Parameters from Large Scale Structure Observations,”AstronomyandAstrophysics356(2000):418–434;P.Valageas,“WeakGravitationalLensingEffectsontheDeterminationofΩmandΩ∧fromSneIa,”AstronomyandAstrophysics354(2000):767–786;J.F.Macias-Perezetal.,“GravitationalLensingStatisticswithExtragalacticSurveys,”AstronomyandAstrophysics353(2000): 419–426; Karl Glazebrook, “The 2dFGRS – Galaxy Properties and Evolution,” AmericanAstronomicalSocietyMeeting196,#56.06,May,2000;R.Bennett,“SurveyConfirmsCompositionoftheCosmos,”ScienceNews157(2000):374;R.Juszkiewiczetal.,“EvidenceforaLow-DensityUniversefromtheRelativeVelocitiesofGalaxies,”Science 287 (2000): 109–112;F.R.Pearce et al., “ASimulationofGalaxyFormationandClustering,”AstrophysicalJournalLetters521(1999):L99–L102;WesleyN.Colleyetal.,“TopologyfromtheSimulatedSloanDigitalSkySurvey,”AstrophysicalJournal529 (2000):795–810.

{170}AlanH.GuthandMarcSher,“TheImpossibilityofaBouncingUniverse,”Nature302(1983),505–507;SidneyA.Bludman,“ThermodynamicsandtheEndofaClosedUniverse,”Nature308(1984):319–322.

{171} Igor D. Novikov and Yakob B. Zel’dovich, “Physical Processes Near CosmologicalSingularities,”AnnualReviewofAstronomyandAstrophysics11(1973):387–412.

{172} Arnold E. Sikkema and Werner Israel, “Black-hole Mergers and Mass Inflation in a BouncingUniverse,”Nature349(1991):45–47.

{173}André Linde, “Self-Reproducing Universe,” lecture given at the Centennial Symposium on LargeScaleStructure,CaliforniaInstituteofTechnology,Pasadena,CA,27September1991.

{174}Linde,“Self-ReproducingUniverse.”

{175}HughRoss,BeyondtheCosmos,2nded.(ColoradoSprings,CO:NavPress,1999),27–46.

{176}JaumeGarrigaandAlexanderVilenkin,“RecyclingUniverse,”PhysicalReviewD57(1998):2230–2244; E. Rebhan, “‘Soft Bang’ Instead of ‘Big Bang’: Model of an Inflationary Universe withoutSingularities andwith Eternal Physical Past Time,”Astronomy andAstrophysics 353 (2000): 1–9; J.M.Overduin, “NonsingularModelswith aVariableCosmologicalTerm,”Astrophysical Journal Letters 517(1999):L1–L4;MarkSincell,“HereticalIdeaFacesItsSternestTest,”Science287(2000):572–573.

{177} Redouane Fakir, “General Relativistic Cosmology with No Beginning of Time,” AstrophysicalJournal537(2000):533–536.

{178}StephenHawkingandRogerPenrose,“TheSingularitiesofGravitationalCollapseandCosmology,”Proceedings of the Royal Society of London,SeriesA,314 (1970): 529–548; StephenW. Hawking andGeorgeF.R.Ellis,TheLargeScaleStructureofSpace-Time(Cambridge,UK:CambridgeUniversityPress,1970); Jacob D.Bekenstein, “Nonsingular General-Relativistic Cosmologies,”Physical Review D, 11(1975):2072–2075;LeonardParkerandYiWang,“AvoidanceofSingularitiesinRelativitythroughTwo-

Body Interactions,” Physical Review D, 42 (1990): 1877–1883; Arvind Borde, “Open and ClosedUniverses,InitialSingularities,andInflation,”PhysicalReviewD,50(1994):3692–3702;ArvindBordeandAlexander Vilenkin, “Eternal Inflation and the Initial Singularity,” Physical Review Letters 72 (1994):3305–3308;ArvindBordeandAlexanderVilenkin,“ViolationoftheWeakEnergyConditioninInflatingSpacetimes,”PhysicalReviewD,56(1997):717–723.

{179}RedouaneFakir,533.

{180}RedouaneFakir,536.

{181} A. Melchiorri et al., “A Measurement of Ω from the North American Test Flight ofBoomerang,”AstrophysicalJournalLetters536(2000):L63–L66.

{182}HughRoss,TheFingerprintofGod,2nded.(Orange,CA:PromisePublishing,1991),98–105.

{183} Albert Einstein,”Kosmologische Betrachtungen zur allgemeinen Relativitätstheorie,”SitzungsberischtederKöniglichPreussischenAkademiederWissenschaften,Feb. 8, 1917, 142–152.TheEnglish translation is inThePrincipleofRelativitybyH.A.Lorentz,A.Einstein,H.Minkowski, andH.WeylwithnotesbyA.SommerfieldandtranslatedbyW.PerrettandG.B.Jeffrey(London,UK:MethuenandCo.,1923),175–188.

{184}ArthurS.Eddington,“OntheInstabilityofEinstein’sSphericalWorld,”MonthlyNoticesoftheRoyalAstronomicalSociety90(1930):668–678;HughRoss,TheFingerprintofGod,64–67.

{185} C.Brans and R. H. Dicke, “Mach’s Principle and a Relativistic Theory of Gravitation,” PhysicalReview124(1961):925–935.

{186} D. B. Guenther, “Testing the Constancy of the Gravitational Constant Using Helioseismology,”AstrophysicalJournal498(1998):871–876.

{187}MarkSincell,“HereticalIdeaFacesItsSternestTest,”Science287(2000):572–573.

{188}AlexanderY.Potekhinetal.,“TestingCosmologicalVariabilityoftheProton-To-ElectronMassRatioUsingtheSpectrumofPKS0528-250,”AstrophysicalJournal505(1998):523–528.

{189} Mario Livio and Massimo Stiavelli, “Does the Fine-Structure Constant Really Vary in Time?”AstrophysicalJournalLetters507(1998):L13–L15.

{190}MarioLivioandMassimoStiavelli,L14.

{191}L.H.FordandThomasA.Roman,“ClassicalScalarFieldsandViolationsof theSecondLaw,”gr-qc/0009076,Sept.21,2000,preprint.

{192}CharlesW.Misner,KipS.Thorne,andJohnArchibaldWheeler,Gravitation(SanFrancisco,CA:W.H.Freeman,1973),752.

NINE—ScienceDiscoversTimeBeforeTime{193}EricJ.Lerner,TheBigBangNeverHappened(NewYork:RandomHouse,1991),120,295–318.

{194}Lerner,7–8.

{195}Lerner,283–291,300–301.

{196}HughRoss,TheFingerprintofGod, 2nd ed. rev. (Orange,CA:PromisePublishing, 1991), 53–68,111–118.

{197} Roger Penrose, “An Analysis of the Structure of Space-time,” Adams Prize Essay, CambridgeUniversity (1966); StephenW.Hawking, “Singularities and theGeometry of Space-time,”Adams PrizeEssay,CambridgeUniversity (1966); StephenW.Hawking andGeorgeF.R.Ellis, “TheCosmicBlack-BodyRadiationandtheExistenceofSingularitiesinOurUniverse,”AstrophysicalJournal152(1968):25–36;StephenHawking andRogerPenrose, “TheSingularities ofGravitationalCollapse andCosmology,”ProceedingsoftheRoyalSocietyofLondon,SeriesA,314(1970):529–548.

{198}HawkingandPenrose,529–548.

{199}JacobD.Bekenstein,“NonsingularGeneral-RelativisticCosmologies,”PhysicalReviewD,11(1975):2072–2075; Leonard Parker and YiWang, “Avoidance of Singularities in Relativity through Two-BodyInteractions,”Physical ReviewD, 42 (1990): 1877–1883; Arvind Borde, “Open and Closed Universes,Initial Singularities, and Inflation,” Physical Review D, 50 (1994): 3692–3702; Arvind Borde andAlexander Vilenkin, “Eternal Inflation and the Initial Singularity,” Physical Review Letters 72 (1994):3305–3308;ArvindBordeandAlexanderVilenkin,“ViolationoftheWeakEnergyConditioninInflatingSpacetimes,”PhysicalReviewD,56(1997):717–723.

{200}JohnBoslough,“InsidetheMindofaGenius,”Reader’sDigest(February1984),120.

{201}AlbertEinstein,“DieFeldgleichungenderGravitation,”SitzungsberichtederKöniglichPreussischenAkademie der Wissenschaften, 25 November 1915, 844–847; Albert Einstein, “Die Grundlage derallgemeinenRelativitätstheorie,”AnnalenderPhysik49(1916),769–-822[HendrikA.Lorentzetal.,ThePrinciple ofRelativity, with notes byArnold Sommerfeld, trans.W. Perrett andG. B. Jeffrey (London:Methuen, 1923), 109–164]; Albert Einstein, “Erklärung der Perihelbewegung des Merkur aus derallgemeinen Relativitätstheorie,” Sitzungsberichte der Königlich Preussischen -Akademie derWissenschaften,18November1915,831–839.

{202}F.W.Dyson,ArthurS.Eddington,andC.Davidson,“ADeterminationoftheDeflectionofLightbythe Sun’s Gravitational Field, from Observations Made at the Total Eclipse of May 29, 1919,”PhilosophicalTransactionsoftheRoyalSocietyofLondon,SeriesA,220(1920):291–333.

{203}StevenWeinberg,GravitationandCosmology:PrinciplesandApplicationsoftheGeneralTheoryofRelativity (New York: J. Wiley and Sons, 1972), 198; Irwin I. Shapiro et al., “Mercury’s PerihelionAdvance:DeterminationbyRadar,”PhysicalReviewLetters28(1972),1594–1597;R.V.PoundandJ.L.Snider,“EffectofGravityonNuclearResonance,”PhysicalReviewLetters13(1964):539–540.

{204}C.BransandRobertH.Dicke,“Mach’sPrincipleandaRelativisticTheoryofGravitation,”PhysicalReview124(1961):925–935;J.W.Moffat,“ConsequencesofaNewExperimentalDeterminationof theQuadrupoleMoment of the Sun for Gravitation Theory,”Physical Review Letters 50 (1983): 709–712;George F. R. Ellis, “Alternatives to the Big Bang,”Annual Reviews of Astronomy and Astrophysics 22(1984):157–184.

{205}Irwin I.Shapiro,CharlesC.Counselman III, andRobertW.King, “Verificationof thePrincipleofEquivalenceforMassiveBodies,”PhysicalReviewLetters36(1976):555–558.

{206}R.D.Reasenbergetal., “VikingRelativityExperiment:VerificationofSignalRetardationbySolar

Gravity,”AstrophysicalJournalLetters234(1979):219–221.

{207}R.F.C.Vessotetal.,“TestofRelativisticGravitationwithaSpace-BorneHydrogenMaser,”PhysicalReviewLetters45(1980):2081–2084.

{208} J. H. Taylor, “Gravitational Radiation and the Binary Pulsar,” Proceedings of the Second MarcelGrossman Meeting on General Relativity, part A, ed. Remo Ruffini (Amsterdam: North-HollandPublishing,1982):15–19.

{209}J.H.Tayloretal.,“ExperimentalConstraintsonStrong-fieldRelativisticGravity,”Nature355(1992):132–136.

{210}RogerPenrose,ShadowsoftheMind:ASearchfortheMissingScienceofConsciousness(NewYork:OxfordUniversityPress,1994),230.

{211}RonCowen,“Einstein’sGeneralRelativity:It’saDrag,”ScienceNews152(1997):308.

{212}PeterG. Jonker,MarianoMéndez,andMichielvanderKlis,“DiscoveryofaNewThirdKilohertzQuasi-PeriodicOscillationin4U1608-52,4U1728-34,and4U163653:SidebandstotheLowerKilohertzQuasi-PeriodicOscillation?”AstrophysicalJournalLetters540(2000),L29–L32.

{213}G.S.Bisnovatyi-Kogan,“AttheBorderofEternity,”Science279(1998),1321.

{214}Ibid.

{215}Ibid.

{216}StephenBattersky,“ARinginTruth,”Nature392(1998):548.

{217}AndrewWatson,“Einstein’sTheoryRingsTrue,”Science280(1998):205.

{218} IgnazioCiufolini et al., “Test ofGeneralRelativity andMeasurement of theLense-ThirringEffectwithTwoEarthSatellites,”Science279(1998):2100–2103.

{219}IgnazioCiufolinietal.,2102.

{220}K.C.Cole,“MassiveBlastDeep inSpacePuzzlesExperts,”LosAngelesTimes,May7,1998,A1,A32.

{221}RalphWijers,“TheBurst,theBurster,andItsLair,”Nature393(1998),13–14.

TEN—AGodOutsideofTime,ButKnowable{222}HughRoss,BeyondtheCosmos,2nded.(ColoradoSprings,CO:NavPress,1999).

{223}PaulKurtz,FreeInquiry(Winter1992/93),10–15.

{224}JohnMaddox,“DownwiththeBigBang,”Nature340(1989):425.

{225}EricJ.Lerner,TheBigBangNeverHappened(NewYork:RandomHouse,1991);EricJ.Lerner,“TheBigBangNeverHappened,”Discover(June1988),70–79.

{226}Jean-ClaudePecker,“BigBangs,Plural:AHereticalView,”FreeInquiry(Winter1992/93),10–11.

{227}MiltonRothman,“WhatWentBefore?”FreeInquiry(Winter1992/93),12.

{228}VictorJ.Stenger,“TheFaceofChaos,”FreeInquiry(Winter1992/93),14.

{229}AdolfGrünbaum,“Pseudo-Creationofthe‘BigBang,’”FreeInquiry(Winter1992/93),15.

{230}Maddox,425.

{231}DonaldLynden-Bell, J.Katz, and J.H.Redmount, “SheetUniverses and theShapes ofFriedmannUniverses,”MonthlyNoticesoftheRoyalAstronomicalSociety239(1989):201.

{232}J.R.Hernstein et al., “AGeometricDistance to theGalaxyNGC4258 fromOrbitalMotions in aNuclearGasDisk,”Nature 400 (1999): 539–541; D. C. Homan, and J. F. C.Wardle, “Direct DistanceMeasurementstoSuperluminalRadioSources,”AstrophysicalJournal535(2000):575–585.

{233}Rothman,12.

{234}AugustineofHippo,“Confessions,BookEleven,Chapters10–14,”TheFathersof theChurch,vol.21,Confessions,trans.VernonJ.Bourke(NewYork:FathersoftheChurch,Inc.,1953),339–344.

{235}FredHoyle,QuarterlyJournaloftheRoyalAstronomicalSociety1(1960):28–39;RobertJastrowandA.G.W.Cameron,ed.,OriginoftheSolarSystem(NewYork:AcademicPress,1963).

{236}Lerner,TheBigBangNeverHappened,23–25.

ELEVEN—ABriefLookatABriefHistoryofTime{237}StephenW.Hawking,ABriefHistoryofTime:FromtheBigBangtoBlackHoles(NewYork:BantamBooks,April,1988),171.

{238}BryanAppleyard,“AMasteroftheUniverse,”SundayTimesMagazine(London),19July1988,29.

{239}CarlSagan,“Introduction,”ABriefHistoryofTime:FromtheBigBangtoBlackHoles(NewYork:BantamBooks,1988),x.

{240}JohnBoslough,“InsidetheMindofaGenius,”Reader’sDigest(February1984),120.

{241}JamesB.HartleandStevenW.Hawking,“WaveFunctionof theUniverse,”PhysicalReviewD28(1983):2960–2975.

{242}LeonJaroff,“RoamingtheCosmos,”Time,8February1988,60;Hawking,136,141.

{243}Hawking,136.

{244}Heinz R. Pagels,Perfect Symmetry: The Search for the Beginning of Time (New York: Simon &Schuster,1985),243.

{245}FrankTipler, “TheMind ofGod,”TheTimesHigherEducation Supplement (London), 14October1988,23.

{246}Hawking,139.

{247}2Timothy1:9andTitus1:2.Seealsotable10.1.

{248}Hawking,122.

{249}Hawking,140.

{250}Hawking,13.

{251}Hawking,12.

{252}Hawking,166.

{253}Hawking,169.

{254}Hawking,175.

{255} Stanley L. Jaki,Cosmos and Creator (Edinburgh, UK: Scottish Academic Press, 1980), 49– 54;StanleyL.Jaki,GodandtheCosmologists(Washington,DC:RegneryGateway,1989),104–109.

{256}Hawking,168.

{257}Hawking,126.

{258}Hawking,126.

{259}HughRoss,TheFingerprintofGod,2nded.rev.(Orange,CA:Promise,1991),124–128.

{260}Hawking,174.

TWELVE—AModern-DayGoliath{261}AllenEmerson,“ADisorientingViewofGod’sCreation,”ChristianityToday,1February1985,19.

{262}PaulDavies,GodandtheNewPhysics(NewYork:SimonandSchuster,1983),25–43, specifically38–39.

{263}HughRoss,BeyondtheCosmos,2nded.(ColoradoSprings,CO:NavPress,1999),34–46.

{264}Davies,GodandtheNewPhysics,167–174.

{265}Hebrews11:3,TheHolyBible.

{266}PaulDavies,Superforce:TheSearch foraGrandUnifiedTheoryofNature (NewYork:SimonandSchuster,1984),243.

{267} Paul Davies, The Cosmic Blueprint: New Discoveries in Nature’s Creative Ability to Order theUniverse(NewYork:SimonandSchuster,1988),141.

{268}Davies,TheCosmicBlueprint,203.

{269}PaulDavies,TheFifthMiracle:TheSearchfortheOriginandMeaningofLife(NewYork:Simon&Schuster,1999),93,120.

{270}RichardJ.GottIII,“CreationofOpenUniversesfromdeSitterSpace,”Nature,295(1982):306.

{271}HeinzR.Pagels,“UncertaintyandComplementarity,”TheWorldTreasuryofPhysics,Astronomy,andMathematics,ed.TimothyFerris(Boston,MA:Little,BrownandCo.,1991),106–108.

{272}Ibid.

{273}NickHerbert,QuantumReality:Beyond theNewPhysics:AnExcursion intoMetaphysics and theMeaning ofReality (NewYork:Anchor Books, Doubleday, 1987), 16–29; Stanley L. Jaki,Cosmos andCreator (Edinburgh, UK: Scottish Academic Press, 1980), 96–98; James Jeans, “A Universe of PureThought,”QuantumQuestions, ed. KenWilber (Boston,MA: New Science Library, Shambhala, 1985),140–144;KenWilber,QuantumQuestions (Boston,MA:NewScienceLibrary, Shambhala, 1985), 145–146;PaulTeller,“Relativity,RelationalHolism,andtheBellInequalities,”PhilosophicalConsequencesofQuantumTheory:ReflectionsonBell’sTheorem,ed.JamesT.CushingandEmanMcMullin(NotreDame,IN:UniversityofNotreDamePress,1989),216–223.

{274}JamesS.Trefil,TheMomentofCreation(NewYork:CharlesScribner’sSons,1983),91–101.

{275}DavidDvorkin,“WhyIAmNotaJew,”FreeInquiry10,no.2(1990),34.DavidDvorkinpointsoutthat orthodox Jews and fundamentalist Christians share many beliefs in common and also share thetendencytoadddogmastotheirdoctrines.

THIRTEEN—TheDivineWatchmaker{276}WilliamPaley,NaturalTheologyonEvidenceandAttributesofDeity,18thed.rev.(Edinburgh,UK:Lackington,AllenandCo.,andJamesSawers,1818),12–14.

{277}David Hume,Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion, Fontana Library Edition (London: Collins,1963),154–156.

{278}JacquesMonod,ChanceandNecessity(London:Collins,1972),110(emphasisinoriginal).

{279}RichardDawkins,TheBlindWatchmaker:WhytheEvidenceofEvolutionRevealsaUniversewithoutDesign(NewYork:W.W.Norton,1987),5(emphasisinoriginal).

{280} Stephen JayGould,The Panda’s Thumb:More Reflections in Natural History (New York:W.W.Norton,1980).

{281}StevenM.Block,“RealEnginesofCreation,”Nature386 (1997):217–219;HiroyukiNoji,RyoheiYasuda, Masasuke Yoshida, and Kazuhiko Kinosita Jr., “Direct Observation of the Roatation of F1-ATPase,”Nature386(1997):299–302.

{282}MichaelGroll et al., “Structure of 26S Proteasome fromYeast at 2.4A°Resolution,”Nature 386(1997):463–471.

{283}HughRoss,TheGenesisQuestion(ColoradoSprings,CO:NavPress,1998),5057.

{284} J. Raloff, “Earth Day 1980: The 29th Day?” Science News 117 (1980): 270; Roger Lewin, “NoDinosaursThisTime,”Science221(1983):1169.

{285}PaulR.Ehrlich,AnneH.Ehrlich,andJ.P.Holdren,Ecoscience:Population,Resources,Environment(SanFrancisco,CA:W.H. Freeman, 1977), 142; PaulR.Ehrlich andAnneH.Ehrlich,Extinction: TheCausesandConsequencesoftheDisappearanceofSpecies(NewYork:Ballantine,1981),33.

{286}EhrlichandEhrlich,23.

{287} Peter Gordon, “The Panda’s Thumb Revisited: An Analysis of Two Arguments Against Design,”OriginsResearch,7,no.1(1984):12–14.

{288}HidekiEndoetal.,“RoleoftheGiantPanda’s‘Pseudo-Thumb,’”Nature397(1999):309–310.

FOURTEEN—A“JustRight”Universe{289}Richard Swinburne, “Argument from the Fine-Tuning of the Universe,” Physical Cosmology andPhilosophy,ed.JohnLeslie(NewYork:Macmillan,1991),160;HughRoss,TheFingerprintofGod,2nded.rev.(Orange,CA:Promise,1991),122.

{290}Ross,122–123.

{291} Fred Hoyle,Galaxies, Nuclei, and Quasars (New York: Harper and Row, 1965), 147–150; FredHoyle, “TheUniverse: Past andPresentReflection,”Annual Reviews of Astronomy andAstrophysics20(1982),16;Ross,126–127.

{292}FredHoyle,TheNatureoftheUniverse,2nded.rev.(Oxford,U.K.:BasilBlackwell,1952),109;FredHoyle,AstronomyandCosmology:AModernCourse(SanFrancisco,CA:W.H.Freeman,1975),684–685;Hoyle,“TheUniverse:PastandPresentReflection,”3;Hoyle,AstronomyandCosmology,522.

{293}Hoyle,TheNatureoftheUniverse,111.

{294}Hoyle,“TheUniverse:PastandPresentReflection,”16.

{295}H.Oberhummer,A.Csótó,andH.Schlattl,“StellarProductionRatesofCarbonandItsAbundanceintheUniverse,”Science289(2000):88–90.

{296}Oberhummer,Csótó,andSchlattl,90.

{297} John D. Barrow and Frank J. Tipler, The Anthropic Cosmological Principle (New York: OxfordUniversityPress,1986),400.

{298}JamesS.Trefil,TheMomentofCreation(NewYork:CollierBooks,Macmillan,1983),127–134.

{299} Lawrence M. Krauss, “The End of the Age Problem and the Case for a Cosmological ConstantRevisited,”AstrophysicalJournal501(1998):461.

{300}GeorgeF.R.Ellis,“TheAnthropicPrinciple:LawsandEnvironments,”inTheAnthropicPrinciple,F.BertolaandU.Curi,ed.(NewYork:CambridgeUniversityPress,1993),30;D.AllanBromley,“Physics:AtomicandMolecularPhysics,”Science209(1980):116.

{301}GeorgeF.R.Ellis,30;H.R.Marston,S.H.Allen,andS.L.Swaby,“IronMetabolism inCopper-DeficientRats,”BritishJournalofNutrition25(1971):15–30K.W.J.WahleandN.T.Davies,“EffectofDietaryCopperDeficiencyintheRatonFattyAcidCompostionofAdiposeTissueandDesaturaseActivityof Liver Microsomes,” British Journal of Nutrition 34 (1975): 105–112; Walter Mertz, “The Newer

EssentialTraceElements,Chromium,Tin,Vanadium,Nickel, andSilicon,”Proceedings of theNutritionSociety33(1974):307–313.

{302} Christopher C. Page et al., “Natural Engineering Principles of Electron Tunneling in BiologicalOxidation-Reduction,”Nature402(1999):47–52.

{303}JohnP.Cox andR.ThomasGiuli,Principles of Stellar Structure,Volume II:Applications to Stars(NewYork:GordonandBreach,1968),944–1028.

{304}Inmybooksonthissubjectthelistofknowncharacteristicsoftheuniversethatmustbefine-tunedforphysicallifetobepossiblegrewfrom15in1989,to16in1991,to25in1993,to26in1995,andnowto35.

{305}Ross, 120–128;Barrow andTipler, 123–457;Bernard J. Carr andMartin J. Rees, “TheAnthropicPrincipleandtheStructureofthePhysicalWorld,”Nature278(1979):605–612;JohnM.Templeton,“GodRevealsHimselfintheAstronomicalandintheInfinitesimal,”JournaloftheAmericanScientificAffiliation(December1984):194–200;JimW.Neidhardt,“TheAnthropicPrinciple:AReligiousResponse,”Journalof the American Scientific Affiliation (December 1984): 201–207; Brandon Carter, “Large NumberCoincidencesand theAnthropicPrinciple inCosmology,”Proceedingsof the InternationalAstronomicalUnion SymposiumNo. 63: Confrontation of Cosmological Theories withObservationalData, ed.M. S.Longair(Boston,MA:ReidelPublishing,1974),291–298;JohnD.Barrow,“TheLoreofLargeNumbers:Some Historical Background to the Anthropic Principle,”Quarterly Journal of the Royal AstronomicalSociety 22 (1981): 404–420; Alan Lightman, “To the Dizzy Edge,” Science 82 (October 1982): 24–25;ThomasO’Toole,“WilltheUniverseDiebyFireorIce?”Science81(April1981):71–72;Hoyle,Galaxies,Nuclei,andQuasars, 147–150;Bernard J.Carr, “On theOrigin,Evolution, andPurpose of thePhysicalUniverse,”PhysicalCosmologyandPhilosophy,ed.JohnLeslie(NewYork:Macmillan,1990),134–153;Swinburne,154–173;R.E.DaviesandR.H.Koch,“AlltheObservedUniverseHasContributedtoLife,”PhilosophicalTransactionsof theRoyalSocietyofLondonSeriesB,334 (1991):391–403;GeorgeF.R.Ellis, 27–32; Hubert Reeves, “Growth of Complexity in an Expanding Universe,” in The AnthropicPrinciple,ed.F.BertolaandU.Curi(NewYork:CambridgeUniversityPress,1993),67–84;Oberhummer,Csótó,andSchlattl,88-90;LawrenceM.Krauss,461–466;ChristopherC.Pageetal.,47–52;S.Perlmutteretal.,“MeasurementsofΩand∧from42High-RedshiftSupernovae,”AstrophysicalJournal517(1999):565–586;P. deBarnardis et al., “AFlatUniverse fromHigh-ResolutionMaps of theCosmicMicrowaveBackgroundRadiation,Nature494(2000):955–959;A.Melchiorrietal.,“AMeasurementofΩfromtheNorthAmericanTestFlightofBoomerang,”AstrophysicalJournalLetters536(2000):L63–L66;LawrenceM.KraussandGlennD.Starkman,“Life,theUniverse,andNothing:LifeandDeathinanEver-ExpandingUniverse,” Astrophysical Journal 531 (2000): 22–30; Volker Bromm, Paolo S. Coppi, and Richard B.Larson, “Forming the First Stars in theUniverse: The Fragmentation of Primordial Gas, “AstrophysicalJournal Letters 527 (1999):L5–L8; JaumeGarriga,TakahiroTanaka, andAlexanderVilenkin, “DensityParameterandtheAnthropicPrinciple,”PhysicalReviewD,60(1999):5–21;JaumeGarrigaandAlexanderVilenkin, “OnLikelyValuesof theCosmologicalConstant,”PhysicalReviewD, 61 (2000): 1462–1471;Max Tegmark andMartin Rees, “Why is the CosmicMicrowave Background Fluctuation Level 10-5?”Astrophysical Journal 499 (1998): 526–532; Jaume Garriga, Mario Livio, and Alexander Vilenkin,“CosmologicalConstantandtheTimeofItsDominance,”PhysicalReviewD,61(2000):inpress;PeterG.vanDokkumetal.,“AHighMergerFractionintheRichClusterMS1054-03atz=0.83:DirectEvidencefor Hierarchical Formation of Massive Galaxies,” Astrophysical Journal Letters 520 (1999): L95–L98;TheodoreP.SnowandAdolfN.Witt,“TheInterstellarCarbonBudgetandtheRoleofCarboninDustandLargeMolecules,”Science270(1995):1455–1457;ElliottH.Lieb,MichaelLoss,andJanPhilipSolovej,“StabilityofMatterinMagneticFields,”PhysicalReviewLetters75(1995):985–989;B.Edvardssonetal.,“TheChemicalEvolutionof theGalacticDisk. I.Analysis andResults,”Astronomy&Astrophysics 275(1993):101–152;HughRoss,“SparksintheDeepFreeze,”Facts&Faith,vol.11,no.1(1997),5–6;T.R.

GabellaandT.Oka,“DetectionofH3+inInterstellarSpace,”Nature384(1996):334–335;DavidBranch,

“DensityandDestiny,”Nature391(1998):23;AndrewWatson,“CaseforNeutrinoMassGathersWeight,”Science277(1997):30–31;DennisNormile,“NewExperimentsStepUpHuntforNeutrinoMass,”Science276 (1997): 1795; Joseph Silk, “Holistic Cosmology,” Science 277 (1997): 644; Frank Wilczek, “TheStandardModelTranscended,”Nature394(1998):13–15;LiminWangetal.,“CosmicConcordanceandQuintessence,”AstrophysicalJournal530(2000):17–35;RobertIrion,“ACrushingEndforourGalaxy,”Science287(2000):62–64;RolandBuser,“TheFormationandEarlyEvolutionoftheMilkyWayGalaxy,”Science287(2000):69–74;JossBland-HawthornandKenFreeman,“TheBaryonHalooftheMilkyWay:AFossilRecordof ItsFormation,”Science 287 (2000): 79–83;Robert Irion, “SupernovaPumps Iron inInside-OutBlast,”Science287(2000):203–205;GaryGibbons,“Brane-Worlds,”Science287(2000):49–50; AnatolyKlypin, Andrey V. Kravtsov, and Octavio Valenzuela, “Where Are the Missing GalacticSatellites?”AstrophysicalJournal 522 (1999): 82–92; InmaDominguez et al., “Intermediate-MassStars:UpdatedModels,”AstrophysicalJournal524(1999):226–241;J.Iglesias-PáramoandJ.M.Vilchez,“OntheInfluenceoftheEnvironmentintheStarFormationRatesofaSampleofGalaxiesinNearbyCompactGroups,”AstrophysicalJournal 518 (1999): 94–102;DennisNormile, “Weighing In onNeutrinoMass,”Science 280 (1998): 1689–1690; Eric Gawiser and Joseph Silk, “Extracting Primordial DensityFluctuations,”Science280(1998):1405–1411;JoelPrimack,“ALittleHotDarkMatterMatters,”Science280(1998):1398–1400;StacyS.McGaughandW.J.G.deBlok,“TestingtheDarkMatterHypothesiswithLowSurfaceBrightnessGalaxiesandOtherEvidence,”AstrophysicalJournal 499 (1998):41–65;NikosPrantzos and Joseph Silk, “Star Formation and Chemical Evolution in the Milky Way: CosmologicalImplications,” Astrophysical Journal 507 (1998): 229–240; P. Weiss, “Time Proves Not Reversible atDeepestLevel,”ScienceNews154(1998):277;E.Dweketal.,“TheCOBEDiffuseInfraredBackgroundExperiment Search for the Cosmic Infrared Background. IV. Cosmological Implications,”AstrophysicalJournal508(1998):106–122;G.J.WasserburgandY.-Z.Qian,“AModelofMetallicityEvolutionintheEarlyUniverse,”AstrophysicalJournalLetters538(2000):L99–L102;RonCowen,“CosmicAxisBegetsCosmicControversy,”ScienceNews151(1997):287.

{306}Hoyle,“TheUniverse,”16.

{307}PaulDavies,GodandtheNewPhysics(NewYork:Simon&Schuster,1983),viii,3–42,142–143.

{308}PaulDavies,Superforce(NewYork:Simon&Schuster,1984),243.

{309}PaulDavies,TheCosmicBlueprint (NewYork: Simon&Schuster, 1988), 203; PaulDavies, “TheAnthropicPrinciple,”ScienceDigest191,no.10(October1983),24.

{310}GeorgeGreenstein,TheSymbioticUniverse(NewYork:WilliamMorrow,1988),27.

{311}TonyRothman,“A‘WhatYouSeeIsWhatYouBeget’Theory,”Discover(May1987),99.

{312}CarrandRees,612.

{313}Carr,153(emphasisintheoriginal).

{314}FreemanDyson,InfiniteinAllDirections(NewYork:HarperandRow,1988),298.

{315}HenryMargenau and Roy AbrahamVarghese, ed.,Cosmos, Bios, and Theos (La Salle, IL: OpenCourt,1992),52.

{316}MargenauandVarghese,ed.,83.

{317}StuartGannes,Fortune13October1986,57.

{318}FangLiZhiandLiShuXian,CreationoftheUniverse,trans.T.Kiang(Singapore:WorldScientific,1989),173.

{319}RogerPenrose,inthemovieABriefHistoryofTime(Burbank,CA:ParamountPicturesIncorporated,1992).

{320}GeorgeF.R.Ellis,30.

{321}StephenHawking,ABriefHistoryofTime(NewYork:BantamBooks,April1988),127.

{322}EdwardHarrison,MasksoftheUniverse(NewYork:CollierBooks,Macmillan,1985),252,263.

{323}JohnNobleWilford,“SizingUp theCosmos:AnAstronomer’sQuest,”NewYorkTimes,12March1991,B9.

{324}TimStafford,“Cease-fireintheLaboratory,”ChristianityToday,3April1987,18.

{325}RobertJastrow,“TheSecretoftheStars,”NewYorkTimesMagazine,25June1978,7.

{326}RobertJastrow,GodandtheAstronomers(NewYork:W.W.Norton,1978),116.

{327}Swinburne,165.

{328}WilliamLaneCraig,“BarrowandTipleron theAnthropicPrincipleVersusDivineDesign,”BritishJournalofPhilosophyandScience38(1988):392.

{329}JosephSilk,CosmicEnigma(1993):8–9.

{330} NCSE staff, Education and Creationism Don’t Mix (Berkeley, CA: National Center for ScienceEducation, 1985), 3;EugenieC. Scott, “OfPandas andPeople,”National Center for Science EducationReports (January–February 1990), 18; Paul Bartelt, “Patterson and Gish at Morningside College,” TheCommittees of Correspondence, Iowa Committee of Correspondence Newsletter, vol. 4, no. 4 (October1989),1.

{331}EducationandCreationismDon’tMix,3;EugenieC.ScottandHenryP.Cole,“TheElusiveScientificBasisofCreationScience,”TheQuarterlyReviewofBiology(March1985):297.

{332}IlyaPrigogine and Isabelle Stengers,Order out ofChaos:Man’sNewDialoguewithNature (NewYork:BantamBooks,1984).

{333}BarrowandTipler.

{334}BarrowandTipler,676–677.

{335}BarrowandTipler,676–677,682;MartinGardner,“NotesofaFringe-Watcher:Tipler’sOmegaPointTheory,”SkepticalInquirer15,no.2(1991):128–132.

{336}Frank J.Tipler,ThePhysics of Immortality:ModernCosmology,God, and theResurrection of theDead(NewYork:Doubleday,1994).

{337}MartinGardner,“WAP,SAP,PAP,andFAP,”TheNewYorkReviewofBooks,vol.23,no.8,8May1986,22–25.

{338}RogerPenrose,TheEmperor’sNewMind(NewYork:OxfordUniversityPress,1989),3–145,374–451;RogerPenrose,ShadowsoftheMind(NewYork:OxfordUniversityPress,1994),7–208.

{339}FrankJ.Tipler,253–255.

{340}FrankJ.Tipler,256–257.

{341}Gardner,“NotesofaFringe-Watcher,”132.

FIFTEEN—ALayperson’sGuidetoAlternateCosmologies{342}HughRoss,TheFingerprintofGod,2nded.(Orange,CA:Promise,1991),27–118.

{343}HughRoss,BeyondtheCosmos,2nded.(ColoradoSprings,CO:NavPress,1999),34–46.

SIXTEEN—Earth:ThePlaceforLife{344}IosefS.ShklovskiiandCarlSagan,IntelligentLifeintheUniverse(SanFrancisco,CA:Holden-Day,1966),343–350.

{345}ShklovskiiandSagan,413.

{346}DavaSobel,“IsAnybodyOutThere?”Life(September1992),62.

{347}PieterG.vanDokkumetal.,“AHighMergerFractionintheRichClusterMS1054-03atz=0.83:Direct Evidence for Hierarchical Formation of Massive Galaxies,” Astrophysical Journal Letters 520(1999):L95–L98.

{348}Anatoly Klypin, Andrey V. Kravtsov, and Octavio Valenzuela, “Where Are the Missing GalacticSatellites?”AstrophysicalJournal522(1999):82–92;RolandBuser,“TheFormationandEarlyEvolutionoftheMilkyWayGalaxy,”Science287(2000):69–74.

{349}RobertIrion,“ACrushingEndforourGalaxy,”Science287(2000):62–64.

{350}Ron Cowen, “Were Spiral Galaxies Once More Common,” Science News 142 (1992): 390; AlanDressler et al., “New Images of the Distant, Rich Cluster CL 0939+4713 withWFPC2,”AstrophysicalJournalLetters435(1994):L23–L26.

{351}R.E.DaviesandR.H.Koch,“All theObservedUniverseHasContributed toLife,”PhilosophicalTransactionsoftheRoyalSocietyofLondon,SeriesB,334(1991):391–403.

{352}JohnMaddox,“TheAnthropicViewofNucleosynthesis,”Nature355(1992):107.

{353}RobertH.Dicke,“Dirac’sCosmologyandMach’sPrinciple,”Nature192(1961):440.

{354}YuN.MishurovandL.A.Zenina,“Yes,theSunIsLocatedNeartheCorotationCircle,”Astronomy&Astrophysics341(1999),81–85.

{355}GuillermoGonzalez,“SolarSystemBouncesintheRightRangeforLife,”Facts&Faith,vol.11,n.1

(1997):4–5;GuillermoGonzalez,“IstheSunAnomalous?”Astronomy&Geophysics(2000):inpress.

{356}Ibid.

{357}RayWhiteIIIandWilliamC.Keel,“DirectMeasurementoftheOpticalDepthinaSpiralGalaxy,”Nature 359 (1992): 129–130; W. C. Keel and R. E. White III, “HST and ISO Mapping of Dust inSilhouetted Spiral Galaxies,” American Astronomical Society Meeting, 191, #75.01, December, 1997;RaymondE.White III,WilliamC.Keel, andChristopher J.Conselice, “SeeingGalaxiesThroughThickandThin. IOpticalOpacityMeasures inOverlappingGalaxies,”AstrophysicalJournal542(2000):761–778.

{358}Psalm8:1–3,19:1–4,50:6,89:5,97:6;Romans1:20,TheHolyBible.

{359}MichaelH.Hart,“HabitableZonesaboutMainSequenceStars,”Icarus37(1979):351–357.

{360}GeorgeAbell,ExplorationoftheUniverse(NewYork:Holt,Rinehart,andWinston,1964),244–247;JohnC.BrandtandPaulW.Hodge,SolarSystemAstrophysics(NewYork:McGraw-Hill,1964),395–416.

{361}CharlesB.Thaxton,WalterL.Bradley,andRogerL.Olsen,TheMysteryofLife’sOrigin:ReassessingCurrentTheories(NewYork:PhilosophicalLibrary,1984),43–46,73–94.

{362} John Vanermeer et al., “Hurricane Disturbance and Tropical Tree Species Diversity,” Science 290(2000):788–791.

{363}NicholasR.Bates,AnthonyH.Knap,andAnthonyF.Michaels,“ContributionofHurricanestoLocalandGlobalEstimatesofAir-SeaExchangeofCO2,”Nature395(1998):58–61.

{364}Ibid.

{365}Ibid.

{366}D.M.Murphyetal.,“InfluenceofSeaSaltonAerosolRadiativeProperties in theSouthernOceanMarineBoundaryLayer,Nature392(1998):62–65.

{367}GregoryS.Jenkins,HallG.Marshall,andW.R.Kuhn,“Pre-CambrianClimate:TheEffectsofLandAreaandEarth’sRotationRate,”JournalofGeophysicalResearch,SeriesD,98(1993):8785–8791;K.J.ZahnleandJ.C.G.Walker,“AConstantDaylengthDuringthePrecambrianEra?”PrecambrianResearch37(1987): 95–105; R. Monastersky, “Speedy Spin Kept Early Earth From Freezing,” Science News 143(1993):373.

{368}W.R.Kuhn,J.C.G.Walker,andH.G.Marshall,“TheEffectonEarth’sSurfaceTemperaturefromVariations in Rotation Rate, Continent Formation, Solar Luminosity, and Carbon Dioxide,” Journal ofGeophysicalResearch94(1989):11,129–131,136;R.Monastersky,373.

{369}Theeditors,“OurFriendJove,”Discover(July1993),15.

{370}HughRoss,“Dinosaurs’DisappearanceNoLongeraMystery,”Facts&Faith,vol.5,no.3(1991),1–3.

{371}Mordecai-MarkLacLowandKevinZahnle,“ExplosionofCometShoemaker-Levy9onEntryintothe JovianAtmosphere,”Astrophysical Journal Letters 434 (1994): L33–L36; RonCowen, “By Jupiter!

CometCrashesDazzleandDelight,”ScienceNews146(1994):55.

{372}Theeditors,15.

{373}JacquesLaskar,“Large-ScaleChaos in theSolarSystem,”AstronomyandAstrophysics287(1994),112.

{374}NeilF.Comins,WhatIftheMoonDidn’tExist?(NewYork:HarperCollins,1993),53–65.

{375}NeilF.Comins,4–5,58;W.R.Kuhn,J.C.G.Walker,andH.G.Marshall,“TheEffectonEarth’sSurfaceTemperaturefromVariationsinRotationRate,ContinentFormation,SolarLuminosity,andCarbonDioxide,”JournalofGeophysicalResearch94(1989):11,129–131,136.

{376}NeilF.Comins,2–8;H.E.NewsomandS.R.Taylor,“GeochemicalImplicationsoftheFormationoftheMoonbyaSingleGiantImpact,”Nature338(1989):29–34;HughRoss,“LunarOriginUpdate,”Facts&Faith,vol.9,n.1(1995),1–3;JackJ.Lissauer,“It’sNotEasytoMaketheMoon,”Nature389(1997):327–328;SigeruIda,RobinM.Canup,andGlenR.Stewart,“LunarAccretionfromanImpact-GeneratedDisk,”Nature389(1997):353–357.

{377}LouisA.Codispoti,“TheLimitstoGrowth,”Nature,387(1997),237;KennethH.Coale,“AMassivePhytoPlankton Bloom Induced by an Ecosystem-Scale Iron Fertilization Experiment in the EquatorialPacificOcean,”Nature383(1996):495–499.

{378}P.JonathanPatchett,“ScumoftheEarthAfterAll,”Nature382(1996),758.

{379}WilliamR.Ward,“CommentsontheLong-TermStabilityoftheEarth’sOliquity,”Icarus50(1982):444–448; Carl D. Murray, “Seasoned Travellers,”Nature 361 (1993): 586–587; Jacques Laskar and P.Robutel,“TheChaoticObliquityof thePlanets,”Nature361 (1993):608–612;JacquesLaskar,F. Joutel,andP.Robutel,“StabilizationoftheEarth’sObliquitybytheMoon,”Nature361(1993):615–617.

{380}HughRoss,BigBangModelRefinedbyFire(Pasadena,CA:ReasonsToBelieve,1998),6–14.

{381}JohnEmsley,TheElements,3rded.(Oxford,UK:ClarendonPress,1998),24,40,56,58,60,62,78,102,106,122,130,138,152,160,188,198,214,222,230.

{382} A French observatory maintains an up-to-date database on every extrasolar planet that has beendiscovered.TheURLforthisdatabaseishttp://www.obspm.fr/encycl/encycl.html.

{383} S. H. Rhie et al., “On Planetary Companions to the MACHO 98-BLG-35 Microlens Star,”AstrophysicalJournal533(2000):378–391.

{384}RonCowen,“LessMassiveThanSaturn?”ScienceNews157(2000):220–222;HughRoss,“PlanetQuest—ARecentSuccess,”Connections,vol.2,no.2(2000):1–2.

{385} G. Gonzalez, “Spectroscopic Analyses of the Parent Stars of Extrasolar Planetary Systems,”Astronomy& Astrophysics 334 (1998): 221–238; Guillermo Gonzalez, “New Planets Hurt Chances forETI,”Facts&Faith,vol.12,no.4(1998),2–4.

{386}DaviesandKoch,391–403;Hart,351–357;Ward,444–448;Murray,586–587;LaskarandRobutel,608–612;Laskar,Joutel,andRobutel,615–617;NewsomandTaylor,29–34;Kaula,1191–1196;RobertT.Rood and James S. Trefil, Are We Alone? The Possibility of Extraterrestrial Civilizations (New York:

Scribner’sSons,1983);JohnD.BarrowandFrankJ.Tipler,TheAnthropicCosmologicalPrinciple(NewYork:OxfordUniversityPress,1986),510–575;DonL.Anderson,“TheEarthasaPlanet:ParadigmsandParadoxes,”Science22,no.3(1984),347–355;I.H.CampbellandS.R.Taylor,“NoWater,NoGranite—NoOceans,NoContinents,”GeophysicalResearchLetters,10(1983):1061–1064;BrandonCarter,“TheAnthropicPrincipleandItsImplicationsforBiologicalEvolution,”PhilosophicalTransactionsoftheRoyalSocietyofLondon, seriesA, 310 (1983), 352–363;AllenH.Hammond, “TheUniqueness of theEarth’sClimate,” Science 187 (1975), 245; Owen B. Toon and Steve Olson, “The Warm Earth,” Science 85(October 1985): 50–57;GeorgeGale, “TheAnthropicPrinciple,”ScientificAmerican245, no. 6 (1981),154–171;HughRoss,GenesisOne:AScientificPerspective(Pasadena,CA:ReasonsToBelieve,1983),6–7;RonCottrell,TheRemarkableSpaceshipEarth(Denver,CO:AccentBooks,1982);TerD.Haar,“OntheOrigin of theSolar System,” AnnualReviewofAstronomy andAstrophysics5 (1967): 267–278;GeorgeGreenstein,TheSymbioticUniverse(NewYork:WilliamMorrow,1988),68–97;JohnM.Templeton,“GodRevealsHimselfintheAstronomicalandintheInfinitesimal,”JournaloftheAmericanScientificAffiliation(December1984):196–198;MichaelH.Hart,“TheEvolutionoftheAtmosphereoftheEarth,”Icarus33(1978): 23–39; Tobias Owen, Robert D. Cess, and V. Ramanathan, “Enhanced CO2 Greenhouse toCompensate forReducedSolarLuminosity onEarlyEarth,”Nature277 (1979), 640–641; JohnGribbin,“The Origin of Life: Earth’s Lucky Break,” Science Digest (May 1983): 36–102; P .J. E. Peebles andJoseph Silk, “A Cosmic Book of Phenomena,” Nature 346 (1990): 233–239; Michael H. Hart,“AtmosphericEvolution,theDrakeEquation,andDNA:SparseLifeinanInfiniteUniverse,”PhilosophicalCosmologyandPhilosophy,ed.JohnLeslie(NewYork:Macmillan,1990):256–266;StanleyL.Jaki,Godand the Cosmologists (Washington, DC: Regnery Gateway, 1989), 177–184; R.Monastersky, 373; Theeditors,15;JacquesLaskar,109–113;RichardA.Kerr,“TheSolarSystem’sNewDiversity,”Science 265(1994):1360–1362;RichardA.Kerr,“WhenComparativePlanetologyHitItsTarget,”Science265(1994):1361;W.R.Kuhn, J.C.G.Walker, andH.G.Marshall, 11, 129–131, 136;GregoryS. Jenkins,HalG.Marshall,andW.R.Kuhn,8785–8791;K.J.ZahnleandJ.C.G.Walker,95–105;M.J.NewmanandR.T.Roos,“ImplicationsoftheSolarEvolutionfortheEarth’sEarlyAtmosphere,”Science198(1977):1035–1037; J. C. G. Walker and K. J. Zahnle, “Lunar Nodal Tides and Distance to the Moon During thePrecambrian,”Nature320(1986):600–602;J.F.KastingandJ.B.Pollack,“EffectsofHighCO2LevelsonSurface Temperatures and Atmospheric Oxidation State of the Early Earth,” Journal of AtmosphericChemistry 1 (1984): 403–428; H. G.Marshall, J. C. G.Walker, andW. R. Kuhn, “Long TermClimateChange and theGeochemical Cycle of Carbon,” Journal of Geophysical Research 93 (1988): 791–801;PieterG.vanDokkumetal.,L95–L98;AnatolyKlypin,AndreyV.Kravtsov,andOctavioValenzuela,82–92;RolandBuser,69–74;RobertIrion,6264;D.M.Murphyetal.,62–65;NeilF.Comins.,2–8;53–65;W.R.Kuhn,J.C.G.Walker,andH.G.Marshall,11,129–131,136;H.E.NewsomandS.R.Taylor,29–34;HughRoss,“LunarOriginUpdate,”1–3;JackJ.Lissauer,327–328;SigeruIda,RobinM.Canup,andGlenR. Stewart, 353–357; Louis A. Codispoti, 237; Kenneth H. Coale, 495–499; P. Jonathan Patchett, 758;WilliamR.Ward,444–448;CarlD.Murray,586–587; JacquesLaskarandP.Robutel,608–612; JacquesLaskar,F. Joutel, andP.Robutel, 615–617;S.H.Rhie et al., 378–391;RonCowen, “LessMassive thanSaturn?” 220–222; Hugh Ross, “Planet Quest—A Recent Success,” 1–2; G. Gonzalez, “SpectroscopicAnalyses of the Parent Stars of Extrasolar Planetary Systems,” 221–238; Guillermo Gonzalez, “NewPlanetsHurtChancesforETI,”2–4;theeditors,“TheVacantInterstellarSpaces,”Discover,April1996,18,21;TheodoreP.SnowandAdolfN.Witt,“TheInterstellarCarbonBudgetandtheRoleofCarboninDustand LargeMolecules,” Science 270 (1995): 1455–1457; RichardA. Kerr, “RevisedGalileo Data LeaveJupiter Mysteriously Dry,” Science 272 (1996): 814–815; Adam Burrows and Jonathan Lumine,“AstronomicalQuestionsofOriginandSurvival,”Nature378(1995):333;GeorgeWetherill,“HowSpecialIsJupiter?”Nature373(1995):470;B.Zuckerman,T.Forveille,andJ.H.Kastner,“InhibitionofGiant-PlanetFormationbyRapidGasDepletionAroundYoungStars,”Nature373(1995):494–496;HughRoss,“Our Solar System, the Heavyweight Champion,” Facts & Faith, vol. 10, no. 2 (1996), 6; GuillermoGonzalez,“SolarSystemBouncesintheRightRangeforLife,”Facts&Faith,vol.11,no.1(1997),4–5;C.R.Brackenridge,“TerrestrialPaleoenvironmentalEffectsofaLateQuaternary-AgeSupernova,”Icarus46 (1981), 81–93; M. A. Ruderman, “Possible Consequences of Nearby Supernova Explosions forAtmosphericOzoneandTerrestrialLife,”Science 184 (1974):1079–1081;G.C.Reidet al., “Effects of

IntenseStratosphericIonizationEvents,”Nature275(1978):489–492;B.Edvardssonetal.,“TheChemicalEvolutionoftheGalacticDisk.I.AnalysisandResults,”Astronomy&Astrophysics275(1993):101–152;J. J.Maltese et al., “PeriodicModulation of theOort Cloud Comet Flux by theAdiabatically ChangedGalactic Tide,” Icarus 116 (1995): 255–268; Paul R. Renne et al., “Synchrony and Causal RelationsBetween Permian-Triassic Boundary Crisis and Siberian Flood Volcanism,” Science 269 (1995): 1413–1416;HughRoss,“SparksintheDeepFreeze,”Facts&Faith,vol.11,no.1(1997),5–6;T.R.GabellaandT.Oka,“DetectionofH3

+inInterstellarSpace,”Nature384(1996):334–335;HughRoss,“LetThereBeAir,”Facts&Faith,vol.10,no.3(1996),2–3;DavudJ.DesMarais,HaroldStrauss,RogerE.Summons,and J.M.Hayes, “Carbon IsotopeEvidence for the StepwiseOxidation of the ProterozoicEnvironmentNature 359 (1992): 605–609; Donald E. Canfield and Andreas Teske, “Late Proterozoic Rise inAtmosphericOxygenConcentrationInferredfromPhylogeneticandSulphur-IsotopeStudies,”Nature382(1996):127–132;AlanCromer,UnCommonSense:TheHereticalNatureofScience (NewYork:OxfordUniversityPress,1993),175–176;HughRoss,“DriftingGiantsHighlightsJupiter’sUniqueness,”Facts&Faith,vol. 10, no. 4 (1996), 4;HughRoss, “New Planets RaiseUnwarranted SpeculationAbout Life,”Facts&Faith, vol.10,no.1 (1996),1–3;HughRoss, “Jupiter’sStability,”Facts&Faith, vol. 8, no. 3(1994), 1–2;ChristopherChyba, “LifeBeyondMars,”Nature 382 (1996): 577; E. Skindrad, “Where IsEverybody?” Science News 150 (1996): 153; Stephen H. Schneider, Laboratory Earth: The PlanetaryGambleWeCan’tAffordtoLose(NewYork:BasicBooks,1997),25,29–30;GuillermoGonzalez,“Mini-CometsWriteNewChapter inEarth-Science,”Facts&Faith,vol.11,no.3 (197),6–7;MiguelA.Go i,Kathleen C. Ruttenberg, and Timothy I. Eglinton, “Sources and Contribution of Terrigenous OrganicCarbon to Surface Sediments in theGulf ofMexico,”Nature 389 (1997): 275–278; PaulG. Falkowski,“EvolutionoftheNitrogenCycleandItsInfluenceontheBiologicalSequestrationofCO2intheOcean,”Nature387(1997):272–274;JohnS.Lewis,PhysicsandChemistryoftheSolarSystem(SanDiego,CA:AcademicPress,1995),485–492;HughRoss,“EarthDesignUpdate:OzoneTimesThree,”Facts&Faith,vol. 11, no. 4 (1997), 4–5;W. L. Chameides, P. S. Kasibhatla, J. Yienger, andH. Levy II, “Growth ofContinental-Scale Metro-Agro-Plexes, Regional Ozone Pollution, andWorld Food Production,” Science264 (1994): 74–77; Paul Crutzen andMark Lawrence, “Ozone Clouds Over the Atlantic,”Nature 388(1997):625;PaulCrutzen,“MesosphericMysteries,”Science277(1997):1951–1952;M.E.Summersetal., “Implications of Satellite OHObservations forMiddle Atmospheric H2O and Ozone,” Science 277(1997):1967–1970;K.Suhreetal.,“Ozone-RichTransientsintheUpperEquatorialAtlanticTroposphere,”Nature388(1997),661–663;L.A.Frank,J.B.Sigwarth,andJ.D.Craven,“OntheInfluxofSmallCometsintotheEarth’sUpperAtmosphere.II.Interpretation,”GeophysicalResearchLetters13(1986):307–310;DavidDeming,“ExtraterrestrialAccretionandEarth’sClimate,”Geology,inpress;T.A.MullerandG.J.MacDonald,“SimultaneousPresenceofOrbitalInclinationandEccentricityinProzyClimateRecordsfromOceanDrillingProgramSite 806,”Geology 25 (1997): 3–6;ClareE.Reimers, “Feedback from the SeaFloor,”Nature 391(1998):536–537;HilairyE.Hartnett,RichardG.Keil,JohnI.Hedges,andAllanH.Devol, “Influence of Oxygen Exposure Time on Organic Carbon Preservation in Continental MarginSediments,”Nature 391 (1998): 572–574; Tina Hesman, “Greenhouse Gassed: Carbon Dioxide SpellsIndigestionforFoodChains,”ScienceNews157(2000):200–202;ClaireE.Reimers,“FeedbacksfromtheSeaFloor,”Nature391(1998):536–537;S.Sahijpaletal.,“AStellarOriginfortheShort-LivedNuclidesintheEarlySolarSystem,”Nature391(1998):559–561;StuartRossTaylor,DestinyorChance:OurSolarSystemand ItsPlace in theCosmos (NewYork:CambridgeUniversityPress, 1998);PeterD.Ward andDonaldBrownlee, Rare Earth:Why Complex Life is Uncommon in the Universe (NewYork: Springer-Verlag,2000);DeanL.Overman,ACaseAgainstAccidentandSelf-Organization(NewYork:Rowman&Littlefield,1997),31-150;MichaelJ.Denton,Nature’sDestiny(NewYork:TheFreePress,1998),1–208;D.N.C.Lin,P.Bodenheimer,andD.C.Richardson,“OrbitalMigrationofthePlanetaryCompanionof51Pegasi to Its Present Location,”Nature 380 (1996): 606–607; Stuart J. Weidenschilling and FrancescoMazari,“GravitationalScatteringasaPossibleOriginorGiantPlanetsatSmallStellarDistances,”Nature384(1996):619–621;FredericA.RasioandEricB.Ford,“Dynamical Instabilitiesand theFormationofExtrasolarPlanetarySystems,”Science274 (1996):954–956;N.Murray,B.Hansen,M.Holman,andS.Tremaine,“MigratingPlanets,”Science279(1998):69–72.

{387} There exists, for example, a probability of a little less than one chance in 1080 that the hot airmoleculesarisingfromtheflamesonagasstoveinsteadofdissipatingthroughout theroomcouldbunchtogetherinsideasmallvolumeelement,movetowardyou,andburnaholethroughyourchestandintoyourheart.Thisprobability,however,issotinythatwecansafelyconcludethatsuchaneventcanneverhappenatanytimeinthehistoryoftheuniverseoratanylocationthroughouttheuniverse.

{388}All the references in#40aboveapply.What followsare references inaddition to those recorded in#40:YuN.MishurovandL.A.Zenina,81–85;GuillermoGonzalez,“SolarSystemBouncesintheRightRangeforLife,”4–5;GuillermoGonzalez,“Is theSunAnomalous?”(2000) inpress;RayWhite IIIandWilliamC.Keel,129–130;RaymondE.WhiteIII,WilliamC.Keel,andChristopherJ.Conselice,761–778;JohnVanermeeretal.,788–791;NicholasR.Bates,AnthonyH.Knap,andAnthonyF.Michaels,58–61;JohnEmsley,24,40,56,58,60,62,78,102,106,122,130,138,152,160,188,198,214,222,230;RobRye,PhillipH.Kuo,andHeinrichD.Holland, “AtmosphericCarbonDioxideConcentrationsBefore2.2BillionYearsAgo,”Nature 378 (1995):603–605;RobertA.Muller andGordon J.MacDonald, “GlacialCycles andOrbital Inclination,”Nature 377 (1995): 107–108;A.Evans,N. J.Beukes, J. L.Kirschvink,“Low Latitude Glaciation in the Palaeoproterozoic Era,” Nature 386 (1997): 262–266; Hugh Ross,“RescuedFromFreezeUp,”Facts&Faith,vol.11,no.2 (1997),3;HughRoss,“NewDevelopments inMartianMeteroite,”Facts&Faith, vol. 10, no. 4 (1996), 1–3;PaulParsons, “DustingOffPanspermia,”Nature383(1996):221–222;P.JonathanPatchett,“ScumoftheEarthAfterAll,”Nature382(1996):758;HubertP.Yockey,“TheSoup’sNotOne,”Facts&Faith,vol.10,no.4(1996),10–11;M.Schlidowski,“A3,800-million-yearIsotopicRecordofLifefromCarboninSedimentaryRocks,”Nature333(1988):313–318; H. P. Yockey, Information Theory andMolecular Biology (Cambridge and New York: CambridgeUniv.Press,1992);C.DeDuve,VitalDust(NewYork:BasicBooks,1995).SeealsoC.DeDuve,BlueprintforaCell:TheNatureandOriginofLife(Burlington,NC:NeilPattersonPublishers,1991);HughRoss,“WildFiresUnderControl,”Facts&Faith,vol.11,no.1(1997),1–2;PeterD.Moore,“FireDamageSoilsOurForest,”Nature384(1996):312–313;A.U.Mallik,C.H.Gimingham,andA.A.Rahman,“EcologicalEffectsofHeatherBurningI.WaterInfiltration,MoistureRetention,andPorosityofSurfaceSoil,”JournalofEcology 72 (1984): 767–776;HughRoss, “Evidence for Fine-Tuning,”Facts&Faith,vol. 11, no. 2(1997), 2; Herbert J. Kronzucker, M. Yaeesh Siddiqi, and Anthony D. M. Glass, “Conifer RootDiscriminationAgainstSoilNitrateandtheEcologyofForestSuccession,”Nature385(1997):59–61;JohnM.StarkandStephenC.Hart,“HighRatesofNitrificationandNitrateTurnoverinUndisturbedConiferousForests,”Nature385(1997):61–64;ChristineMlot,“TallyingNitrogen’sIncreasingImpact,”ScienceNews151(1997):100;HughRoss,“RescuedFromFreezeUp,”Facts&Faith,vol.11,no.2 (1997),3;HughRoss,“LifeinExtremeEnvironments,”Facts&Faith,vol.11,no.2(1997),6–7;RichardA.Kerr,“CoresDocumentAncientCatastrophe,”Science 275 (1997): 1265;HughRoss, “‘How’s theWeather?’—Not aGoodQuestiononMars,”Facts&Faith,vol.11,no.4(1997),2–3;StephenBattersby,“PathfinderProbestheWeatheronMars,”Nature388(1997):612;RonCowen,“MartianRocksOfferaWindyTale,”ScienceNews152(1997):84;HughRoss,“EarthDesignUpdate:TheCyclesConnectedtotheCycles,”Facts&Faith,vol.11,no.4(1997),3;HughRoss,“EarthDesignUpdate:OneAmazingDynamo,”Facts&Faith,vol.11,no.4(1997),4;PeterOlson,“ProbingEarth’sDynamo,”Nature389(1997):337;WeijiKuangandJeremy Bloxham, “An Earth-Like Numerical DynamoModel,”Nature 389 (1997): 371–374; XiaodongSongandPaulG.Richards,“SeismologicalEvidenceforDifferentialRotationoftheEarth’sInnerCore,”Nature382(1997):221–224;Wei-jiaSu,AdamM.Dziewonski,andRaymondJeanloz,“PlanetWithin aPlanet: Rotation of the Inner Core of the Earth,” Science 274 (1996): 1883–1887; Stephen H. Kirby,“Taking the Temperature of Slabs,”Nature 403 (2000): 31–34; James Trefil, “When the Earth Froze,”Smithsonian,December 1999, 28–30;ArnoldL.Miller, “BioticTransitions inGlobalMarineDiversity,”Science 281 (1998): 1157–1160; D. F. Williams et al., “Lake Baikal Record of Continental ClimateResponse toOrbital InsolationDuring the Past 5MillionYears,”Science 278 (1997): 1114–1117; S. C.Myneni,T.K.Tokunaga,andG.E.BrownJr.,“AbioticSeleniumRedoxTransformationsinthePresenceofFe (II,III) Oxides,” Science 278 (1997): 1106–1109; G. P. Zank and P. C. Frisch, “Consequences of aChange in the Galactic Environment of the Sun,” Astrophysical Journal 518 (1999): 965–973; D. E.Trilling,R.H.Brown,andA.S.Rivkin, “CircumstellarDustDisksAroundStarswithKnownPlanetary

Companions,” Astrophysical Journal 529 (2000): 499–505; Joseph J. Mohr, Benjamin Mathiesen, andAugust E. Evrard, “Properties of the IntraclusterMedium in an Ensemble of Nearby Galaxy Clusters,”Astrophysical Journal 517 (1999): 627–649; Gregory W. Henry et al., “Photometric and Ca II and KSpectroscopicVariations inNearbySun-LikeStarswithPlanets. III,”Astrophysical Journal 531 (2000):415–437;KimmoInnanen,SeppoMikkola,andPaulWiegert,“TheEarth-MoonSystemandtheDynamicalStabilityoftheInnerSolarSystem,”AstronomicalJournal116(1998):2055–2057;J.Q.ZhengandM.J.Valtonen, “On theProbabilityThat aCometThatHasEscaped fromAnotherSolarSystemWillCollidewith the Earth,” Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 304 (1999): 579–582; GregoryLaughlin and Fred C. Adams, “The Modification of Planetary Orbits in Dense Open Clusters,”AstrophysicalJournalLetters (1998):L171–L174;ShahidNaeemandShibinLi, “BiodiversityEnhancesEcosystemReliability,”Nature390(1997):507–509;S.H.Rhieetal.,“OnPlanetaryCompanionsto theMACHO98-BLG-35MicrolensStar,”AstrophysicalJournal533(2000):378–391.

SEVENTEEN—BuildingLife{389}ChristopherChybaandCarlSagan,“EndogenousProduction,ExogenousDeliveryandImpact-shockSynthesisorOrganicMolecules:AnInventoryfortheOriginsofLife,”Nature355(1992):125–132.

{390}Manfred Schidlowski, “A 3,800-million-year IsotopicRecord of Life fromCarbon in SedimentaryRocks,”Nature333(1988):313–318;S.J.Mojzsisetal.,“Evidence,forLifeonEarthbefore3,800MillionYearsAgo,”Nature384(1996),53–59.

{391}Kevin A.Maher and David J. Stevenson, “Impact Frustration of the Origin of Life,”Nature 331(1988), 612–614;VerneR.Oberbeck andGuyFogleman, “Impacts and theOrigin ofLife,”Nature 339(1989),434;NormanH.Sleepetal.,“AnnihilationofEcosystemsbyLargeAsteroidImpactsontheEarlyEarth,”Nature342(1989):139–142.

{392}MaherandStevenson,612–614.

{393}Daniel P.Glavin, JeffreyL.Bada,KarenL.F.Brinton, andGeneD.McDonald, “AminoAcids inMartianMeteoriteNakla,” 9thMeeting of the International Society for the Study of the Origin of Life,UniversityofCalifornia,SanDiego,July11–16,1999,#c6.4,BookofAbstracts,62;KeithA.Kvenvolden,“Chirality of Amino Acids in the MurchisonMeteorite—A Historical Perspective,” 9th Meeting of theInternationalSocietyfortheStudyoftheOriginofLife,UniversityofCalifornia,SanDiego,July11–16,1999,#i2.1,BookofAbstracts,40.

{394}CharlesB.Thaxton,WalterL.Bradley,andRogerL.Olsen,TheMysteryofLife’sOrigin:ReassessingCurrent Theories (New York: Philosophical Library, 1984), 69–98; Walter L. Bradley, privatecommunication(1993).

{395} IvanG. Dragonic, “Oxygen andOxidizing Free-Radicals in the Hydrosphere of Early Earth,” 9thMeetingoftheInternationalSocietyfortheStudyoftheOriginofLife,UniversityofCalifornia,SanDiego,July11–16,1999,#cA1.3,BookofAbstracts,34.

{396}ChybaandSagan,128.

{397}GordonSchlesingerandStanleyL.Miller,“PrebioticSynthesisinAtmospheresContainingCH,CO,andCO2,”JournalofMolecularEvolution19(1983):376–382.

{398}Robert Shapiro,Origins: A Skeptic’s Guide to the Creation of Life on Earth (NewYork: SummitBooks,1986),128.

{399} Elizabeth Pennisi, “Microbial Genomes Come Tumbling In,” Science 277 (1997): 1433; ColinPatterson,Evolution,2nded. (Ithaca,NY:ComstockPublishingAssociates,1999),23;GerardDeckertetal., “TheCompleteGenomeof theHyperthermophilicBacteriumAquifexAeolicus,”Nature392(1998):353–358; Andreas Ruepp et al., “The Genome Sequence of the Thermoacidophilic ScavengerThermoplasma Acidophilum,” Nature 407 (2000): 508–513; Carol J. Bult et al., “Complete GenomeSequenceoftheMethanogenicArcheon,MethanococcusJannaschii,”Science273(1996):1058–1073.

{400}MichaelH.Hart,“AtmosphericEvolution,theDrakeEquation,andDNA:SparseLifeinanInfiniteUniverse,”PhysicalCosmologyandPhilosophy,ed.JohnLeslie(NewYork:Macmillan,1990),263–264.

{401}HubertP.Yockey, “AnApplicationof InformationTheory to theCentralDogmaand theSequenceHypothesis,”JournalofTheoreticalBiology46 (1974):369–406;HubertP.Yockey,“On the InformationContent of Cytochrome c,” Journal of Theoretical Biology 67 (1977): 345–376; Hubert P. Yockey, “ACalculationof theProbabilityofSpontaneousBiogenesisbyInformationTheory,”JournalofTheoreticalBiology67(1977):377–398;HubertP.Yockey,“DoOverlappingGenesViolateMolecularBiologyandtheTheory of Evolution?” Journal of Theoretical Biology 80 (1979), 21–26; Hubert P. Yockey, “SelfOrganizationOriginofLifeScenariosandInformationTheory,”JournalofTheoreticalBiology91(1981):13–31.

{402} Hubert P. Yockey, Information Theory and Molecular Biology (Cambridge, UK: CambridgeUniversityPress,1992),231–309.

{403}M.MitchellWaldrop,“FindingRNAMakesProteinsGives‘RNAWorld’aBigBoost,”Science256(1992):1396–1397.

{404}ThomasR.Cech, “TheChemistry ofSelf-SplicingRNAandRNAEnzymes,”Science236 (1987):1532–1539.

{405} Harry F. Noller, Veronita Hoffarth, and Ludwika Zimniak, “Unusual Resistance of PeptidylTransferasetoProteinExtractionProcedures,”Science256(1992):1416–1419.

{406}JosephA.Piccirillietal.,“AminoacylEsteraseActivityoftheTetrahymenaRibozyme,”Science256(1992):1420–1424.

{407}JohnHorgan,“IntheBeginning,”ScientificAmerican(February1991),119.

{408}RobertShapiro,“PrebioticRiboseSynthesis:ACriticalAnalysis,”OriginofLifeandEvolutionoftheBiosphere18(1988):71–85.

{409}Horgan,119;RobertShapiro,“Protometabolism:AScenario for theOriginofLife,”TheAmericanScientist(July–August1992),387.

{410}RobertIrion,“OceanScientistsFindLife,WarmthintheSeas:RNACan’tTaketheHeat”Science279(1998),1303.

{411}RobertIrion,1303.

{412}RobertIrion,1303

{413} FredHoyle andChandraWickramasinghe,Evolution fromSpace (NewYork: Simon andSchuster,1981),39–61;IosefS.ShklovskiiandCarlSagan,IntelligentLifeintheUniverse(SanFrancisco:Holden-

Day,1966),207–211;theitemonmeteoritescamefromareportofacomputeranalysisthatwaspresentedattheTwentiethLunarandPlanetaryScienceConference(1989),Houston,Texas.

{414}Shapiro,Origins.

{415}Yockey,InformationTheoryandMolecularBiology.

{416}CharlesB.Thaxton,WalterL.Bradley,andRogerL.Olsen,TheMysteryofLife’sOrigin:ReassessingCurrentTheories(NewYork:PhilosophicalLibrary,1984).

{417}Romans10:18,NewKingJamesVersion.

EIGHTEEN—Extra-DimensionalPower{418} Genesis 16:13, 28:16; Deuteronomy 30:14; Psalm 34:18, 119:151, 145:18; Jeremiah 23:24; Acts17:28;andRomans10:8areafewofmanyexamples.

{419}Genesis28:16;Exodus33:20;Job9:11,37:23;andJohn6:46areafewofmanyexamples.

{420}1Timothy6:16.

{421}EdwinAbbott,Flatland:ARomanceofManyDimensions,withnotesbyDavidW.Davies(Pasadena,CA:GrantDaehlstrom,1978).

{422}John16:5–10.

{423}John16:6.

{424}John16:7.

{425}Philippians2:5–9.

{426}John14:12–14.

{427}Matthew28:20.

NINETEEN—ThePoint{428}Hebrews11:6.

{429}Psalm34:18,145:18.

{430}Ephesians2:13.

{431}J.N.D.Anderson,TheEvidencefortheResurrection(DownersGrove,IL:InterVarsityPress,1966).

{432}James4:8.

{433}Revelation3:8.

APPENDIX{434}HughRoss,TheFingerprintofGod,2nded.(Orange,CA:PromisePublishing,1991),84–87.

{435}RalphA.AlpherandRobertC.Herman,“EvolutionoftheUniverse,”Nature162(1948):774–775.

{436}ArnoA.Penzias andRobertW.Wilson, “AMeasurement ofExcessAntennaTemperature at 4080Mc/s,”AstrophysicalJournal142(1965):419–421.

{437}HughRoss,TheCreatorandtheCosmos,2nded.,22–24,26–27.

{438}JohnC.Matheretal.,“MeasurementoftheCosmicMicrowaveBackgroundSpectrumbytheCOBEFIRASInstrument,”AstrophysicalJournal420(1994):439–444.

{439}HughRoss,27–28.

{440}Antoinette Songaila et al., “Measurement of theMicrowave Background Temperature at Redshift1.776,”Nature371(1994):43–45.

{441}HughRoss,TheFingerprintofGod,2nded.,86–87.

{442} Juan M. Uson and David T. Wilkinson, “Improved Limits on Small-Scale Anisotropy in CosmicMicrowaveBackground,”Nature312(1984):427–429.

{443}HughRoss,85–86.

{444}GeorgeF.Smoot,“CommentsandSummaryontheCosmicBackgroundRadiation,”ProceedingsoftheInternationalAstronomicalUnionSymposium,no.104,EarlyEvolutionoftheUniverseandItsPresentStructure, ed.G.O.Abell andG.Chincarini (Dordrecht-Holland /Boston:D.Reidel Publishing, 1983),153–158.

{445}HughRoss,TheCreatorandtheCosmos,2nded.,19–26.

{446}S.R.D.Hancock,“DirectObservationofStructureintheCosmicBackgroundRadiation,”Nature367(1994):333–338.

{447}HughRoss, “Flat-OutConfirmed!TheFlatter-UniverseDiscoveryAffirms theBibleThreeWays,”FactsforFaith,vol.1,no.2(2000),26–31.

{448} P. DeBarnardis et al., “A Flat Universe from High-Resolution Maps of the Cosmic MicrowaveBackgroundRadiation,”Nature494(2000):955–958.

{449}HughRoss,TheFingerprintofGod,2nded.,79–84.

{450}S.Perlmutteretal.,“MeasurementsofΩand∧ from42High-RedshiftSupernovae,”AstrophysicalJournal517(1999):565–586.

{451} Lawrence M. Krauss, “The End of the Age Problem and the Case for a Cosmological ConstantRevisited,”AstrophysicalJournal501(1998):461–466.

{452}HughRoss,BeyondtheCosmos,2nded.(ColoradoSprings,CO:NavPress,1999),219.

{453}HughRoss,TheFingerprintofGod,2nded.,124.

YuriI.Izotovetal.,“HeliumAbundanceintheMostMetal-DeficientBlueCompactGalaxies:IZw18andSBS0335-052,”Astrophysical Journal 527 (1999): 757–777;D.R.Ballantyne,G. J. Ferland, andP.G.Martin,“ThePrimordialHeliumAbundance:TowardUnderstandingandRemovingtheCosmicScatterinthedY/dZRelation,”AstrophysicalJournal536(2000):773–777.

ScottBurles,DavidKirkman, andDavidTytler, “DeuteriumTowardQuasarQ0014+813,”AstrophysicalJournal 519 (1999): 18–21; David Kirkman et al., “QSO 0130-4021: A Third QSO Showing a LowDeuterium-To-Hydrogen Abundance Ratio,” Astrophysical Journal 529 (2000): 655–660; Sergei A.Levshakov,WilhelmH.Kegel, andFumioTakahara, “TheD/HRatio at z=3.57TowardQ1937-1009,”AstrophysicalJournalLetters499(1998):L1–L4;D.A.Lubowichetal.,“DeuteriumintheGalacticCentreAsaResultofRecentInfallofLow-MetallicityGas,”Nature405(2000):1025–1027.

E.CasusoandJ.E.Beckman,“Deuterium,Lithium,andtheHubbleDeepField,”AstronomicalJournal118(1999): 1907–1911; Sylvie Vauclair and Corinne Charbonnel, “Element Segregation in Low-MetallicityStarsandthePrimordialLithiumAbundance,”AstrophysicalJournal502(1998):372–377.

HughRoss,BeyondtheCosmos,2nded.,29–33.

P.Kaaret et al., “Strong-FieldGravity andX-RayObservations ofAU 1820-30,”Astrophysical JournalLetters520(1999):L37–L40.

HughRoss,28–29.

Stephen Hawking and Roger Penrose, “Singularities of Gravitational Collapse and Cosmology,”ProceedingsoftheRoyalSocietyofLondon,SeriesA,314(1970):529–548.

HughRoss,“Flat-OutConfirmed!”26–31.

P.DeBarnardisetal.,“AFlatUniversefromHigh-ResolutionMapsoftheCosmicMicrowaveBackgroundRadiation,Nature494(2000):955–958.

HughRoss,BeyondtheCosmos,2nded.,34–45.

GaryTaubes,“HowBlackHolesMayGetStringTheoryOutofaBind,”Science268(1995):1699;JuanMaldacena and Andrew Strominger, “Statistical Entropy of Four-Dimensional Extremal Black Holes,”PhysicalReviewLetters77(1996):428–229;CurtisCallan,Jr.andJuanMaldacena,“D-BraneApproachtoBlack-HoleQuantumMechanics,”NuclearPhysicsB472(1996),591–608.

HughRoss,TheFingerprintofGod,2nded.,90–93.

HughRoss,TheCreatorandtheCosmos,2nded.,60.

Donald Hamilton, “The Spectral Evolution of Galaxies. I. An Observational Approach,” AstrophysicalJournal297(1985):371–389.

HughRoss,“HubbleSpaceTelescopeCapturesInfancyofCosmos,”Facts&Faith,vol.9,no.2(1995),1–2.

FayeFlam,“TheSpaceTelescopeSpiesonAncientGalaxyMenageries,”Science266(1994):1806.

HughRoss,1–2.

FayeFlam,1806.

HughRoss,TheCreatorandtheCosmos,2nded.,31–47.

A. Melchiorri et al., “A Measurement of Ω from the North American Test Flight of Boomerang,”

AstrophysicalJournalLetters536(2000):L63–L66.

HughRoss,38–40.

DouglasK.Duncan,David L. Lambert, andMichael Lemke, “TheAbundance of Boron in ThreeHaloStars,”AstrophysicalJournal401(1992):584–595.

MasayukiY.Fujimoto,YasufumiIkeda,andIckoIben,Jr.,“TheOriginofExtremelyMetal-PoorCarbonStarsandtheSearchforPopulationIII,”AstrophysicalJournalLetters529(2000):L25–L28;A.Weiss,S.Cassisi, H. Schlattl, and M. Salaris, “Evolution of Low-Mass Metal-Free Stars Including Effects ofDiffusionandExternalPollution,”AstrophysicalJournal533(2000):413–423.

HughRoss,BeyondtheCosmos,2nded.,30–31.

G.S.Bisnovatyi-Kogan,“AttheBorderofEternity,”Science279(1998):1321.

HughRoss,CreationandTime(ColoradoSprings,CO:NavPress,1994),107–108.

HughRoss,BeyondtheCosmos,2nded.,29–45.

HughRoss,“MassMysteryNearlySolved,”Facts&Faith,vol.11,no.4(1997),6–7.

AndrewWatson,“CaseforNeutrinoMassGathersWeight,”Science277(1997),30–31.

JosephSilk,TheBigBang,revisedandupdatededition(NewYork:W.H.Freeman,1989),109–167.

A. Melchiorri et al., “A Measurement of Ω from the North American Test Flight of Boomerang,”AstrophysicalJournalLetters536(2000):L63–L66;AaronD.Lewis,E.Ellingson,SimonL.Morris,andR.G.Carlberg,“X-RayMassEstimatesatz~0.3fortheCanadianNetworkforObservationalCosmologyCluster Sample,” Astrophysical Journal 517 (1999): 587–608; Bo Qin and Xiang-Ping Wu, “BaryonDistribution in Galaxy Clusters as a Result of Sedimentation of HeliumNuclei,”Astrophysical JournalLetters529(2000):L1–L4;M.Fukugita,C.J.Hogan,andP.J.E.Peebles,“TheCosmicBaryonBudget,”AstrophysicalJournal503(1998):518–530.

TableofContentsTitlepageCONTENTSLISTOFFIGURESANDTABLESPREFACETOTHETHIRDEDITIONACKNOWLEDGMENTSCHAPTERONECHAPTERTWOCHAPTERTHREECHAPTERFOURCHAPTERFIVECHAPTERSIXCHAPTERSEVENCHAPTEREIGHTCHAPTERNINECHAPTERTENCHAPTERELEVENCHAPTERTWELVECHAPTERTHIRTEENCHAPTERFOURTEENCHAPTERFIFTEENCHAPTERSIXTEENCHAPTERSEVENTEENCHAPTEREIGHTEENCHAPTERNINETEENAPPENDIX