CLEARING THE PATH

As we have seen in previous chapters, the scientific evidence clearly contradicts any naturalistic explanation for the creation and development of life.  We have seen through many lines of evidence that evolutionary theory, in any of its forms, cannot explain the initial development or subsequent diversity of life in this planet.  Their search for a solution has proven so dire that many well know scientific authorities have resorted to the idea of panspermia (that life on earth began with organisms that floated here from outer space) to try to explain life on this planet in naturalistic terms.  They have no other choice based on the facts of science.

On this page we will focus on the actual beginning of the universe itself.  Scientific evidence strongly supports the idea that the universe had a beginning.  Robert Jastrow, founder and former director of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, has summarized the evidence in his book God and the Astronomers. Jastrow is not a creationist, but considers himself agnostic. He wrote:

Now three lines of evidence—the motions of the galaxies, the laws of thermodynamics, and the life story of the stars—pointed to one conclusion: all indicated that the Universe had a beginning. (1) 

Though the big bang theory today has a strong consensus among scientists, it was abhorred by the scientific community at first for its obvious theistic implications and did not fit their non-biblical preconceptions.  Hubble’s astronomical observation caused him to grudgingly accept “the necessity for a beginning.” (2)

Einstein tried to avoid the notion of a beginning by creating and holding onto his "cosmological fudge factor,” officially called his “cosmological constant,” in his equations until 1931.  He later admitted this addition was a “great mistake” (3) , and later wrote of his desire “to know how God created the universe.” (4) 

Astronomer Fred Hoyle disliked the idea of a beginning because, as he puts it: 

The big bang theory requires a recent origin of the Universe that openly invites the concept 

of creation. (5) 

Physicist Barry Parker sums up the feelings of most cosmologists: 

We could say that there was no creation, and that the universe has always been here.  But this is even more difficult to accept than creation… If we accept the big bang theory, and most cosmologists now do, then a ‘creation’ of some sort is forced upon us. (6)  

So obviously the evidence forced scientists to accept the fact of a beginning, even though it doesn't fit their preconceived, naturalistic leanings.  

In A Brief History of Time Stephen Hawking tried to propose a mathematical model to explain how time and space might be finite but without boundary, and maybe explain how the universe could have started from nothing without anything or anyone to start it.  However, he is quite clear in making the distinction between “the real time in which we live,” (7) which apparently contains black holes and a beginning, and his mathematical proposal which he calls “imaginary time,” (7)  He emphasizes that it is “just a proposal.” (8)  He goes on to state that “In real time the universe has a beginning…” (9) 

Now that 20th century science has supplied us with ample evidence that our universe had a beginning, we know that time is not infinite.  Its beginning requires an explanation.  Time, by definition, is that province where cause-and-effect events happen, where every effect must have its cause.  Logic demands that for every effect there must be a cause.  This is common sense, and no one has ever observed an exception.  Even the great skeptic David Hume agreed with this, stating:

I never asserted so absurd a proposition as that anything might arise without a cause. (10)

No scientific theory for the beginning of the universe has gotten around the need for an ultimate cause.  A series of causes cannot be infinite.  There must have been a first cause, which itself is uncaused.  Every phenomenon in the universe can be explained in terms of something else that caused it.  But when the phenomenon in question is the existence of the universe itself, there is nothing in the universe to explain it.  At least there is no natural explanation.  Nothing that is confined to time could have caused the universe. 

Even if a scientist could explain the evolution of the universe from the tiniest fraction of a second after the supposed big bang, science has no natural explanation for how matter and energy could have emerged from nothing before that.  So what has not and cannot be answered is where did the matter and energy come from before the big bang.  Modern science has no laws or observation to show how something could have come from nothing.  There isn't even a theory to propose such an event.  Ultimate origins are impossible to study since all the laws of physics—even the laws of general relativity—break down before “Planck time.” (11) 

According to modern physics, Planck time occurred 10^43/seconds after the big bang.  This is a fraction of a second which, if written out, would require a decimal point followed by 42 zeros followed by a 1.  Before this moment the particles we know today could not have existed.  Any scientists who claim that science tells them something about what happened before this time are not being honest.

Physicist Barry Parker writes that most scientists neglect anything that happened before Planck time.  But whether we neglect it or not, he says something must have preceded that moment: 

Unfortunately, a very critical event had happened—creation itself.  And without a theory to explain this event we can only guess what happened…. (12) 

It is wrong for anyone to say that science tells us anything about ultimate origins.  Scientists who have committed themselves to a non-biblical perspective have often used their platform as scientists to proclaim that the universe “could have come about by natural means” and that “the universe exploded out of nothingness.” as astronomer Victor J. Stenger states (13) but with no evidence to back up such claims.

Carl Sagan opened his book and television series entitled Cosmos with the proclamation, “The Cosmos is all that is or ever was or ever will be.” (14)  However, in all the pages (and hours) following that statement he gave no scientific reasons for making such a claim.  In all his discussions of the big bang, he offered no theory to justify his faith that the cosmos can explain its own existence.  Sagan apparently mistakes the limitations of science for the limitations of reality. Science cannot discover what happened before the big bang, therefore, he seems to reason, nothing could have happened before the big bang.

John Mather, NASA’s principal investigator of the cosmic background spectral curve with the COBE satellite stated:

We have equations that describe the transformation of one thing into another, but we have no equations whatever for creating space and time.  And the concept doesn’t even make any sense, in English.  So I don’t think we have words or concepts to even think about creating something from nothing.  And I certainly don’t know of any work that seriously would explain it when it can’t even state the concept. (15)

In other words, any kind of naturalistic creation from absolutely nothing remains as unthinkable in this scientific age as it always has been.  Some cosmologists would like to imply that they have found a way to explain this cosmological reality, but nothing could be farther from the truth.  After thousands of years of thought, humankind is limited to the same explanation it has had from the beginning: a supernatural explanation, something outside the universe and outside of nature. 

Skeptics then have asked “who created God?”  When an atheist claims the universe has no cause, this clearly defies scientific logic.  But when a believer in God states that a limitless Being from outside of time and space created the universe, he is not only giving a logical answer but is giving the only answer—because nothing that is already a part of the universe could have created it.  The fact that we time-bound creatures cannot picture how the Creator can live outside of time, without a beginning, does not change this fact.

Atheists may then conclude that we are saying that God came from nothing.  This is not true.  Bible believers do not say that God came from nothing.  According to the Bible, there was never a time before God, when there was nothing (Psalm 90:2).  God always existed.  The atheist may say there’s just as much reason to believe that the universe always existed.  Again, this is untrue.  We have no reason to believe that the universe always existed and as stated above we have many scientific reasons to believe that it had a definite beginning. 

The universe cannot explain itself and has no reason for being in itself.  The God of the Bible, however, has specifically defined Himself from ancient times as a self-existing entity.  He lives eternally, depending on nothing outside of Himself. 

Scientists who have been honest about the question of where matter and energy originated have admitted that the problem is impossible to solve through science.  Internationally respected astronomer (and self-confessed agnostic) Robert Jastrow admits that scientists have been “traumatized” by coming up against a problem that must forever remain beyond them. (16) 

After considering the discovery that our universe had a beginning and that science is incapable of ever discovering what went before, Jastrow concludes his book this way:

For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream.  He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries. (17)

On previous pages we have covered a great deal of evidence that indicates that all life on earth must be the product of an intelligent designer.  And as stated above, science indicates that the universe had a definite beginning.  Considering all the evidence of science, it is perfectly reasonable to believe that an intelligent, all powerful Being created the universe.  So if there is a supernatural creator, what can we logically know about him?  We can start our inquiry by discussing the specific characteristics that the Creator must possess.  Each characteristic contributes something to our knowledge of the Creator and, taken together, formulate a picture of who that Creator may be. (18) 

Logic demands that the Creator must be completely independent of His creation.  He must not be dependent upon any of the things that depend on Him for their existence.  God must be above and beyond the boundaries of His creation. 

The Creator must be unlimited, because if he were limited, he would have to be limited by some other thing.  So this entity which requires nothing else for its existence must be without limits—infinite.  It is common sense that only a God with incredible power could create and sustain the whole universe.

Also, logic tells us that an effect cannot be greater than its cause.  Thus the Creator must be greater in power than anything in the universe.  In fact, he must be greater than the sum of all the powers in the universe.  Further, once we accept the idea that the universe had a Creator, we must also accept the fact that all the miracles of the Bible are quite plausible and easily explained.  What can be too hard for the God who created our entire universe?!!

Even atheist Carl Sagan admitted that the design of the universe is far beyond anything that man could devise.  The Creator must not only have great power, but also great intelligence.  It is reasonable to assume that the Creator knows all about His own creation.  In recent history humans have only begun to appreciate the complexities of the atom, of DNA, of the symmetry and harmony of nature’s laws. As Einstein said:

…the harmony of natural law…reveals an intelligence of such superiority that, compared with it, all the systematic thinking and acting of human beings is an utterly insignificant reflection. (19) 

Scientists have come to expect a unified framework for nature’s laws because all our experience in discovering them shows that they work together with tremendous precision to make life possible. There is a supreme rationale behind them.  The laws of the universe yield evidence of perfect forethought, not arbitrary patchwork.  Stephen Hawking has stated: 

If the universe is governed by rational laws, which I believe it is, these laws shouldn’t be an arbitrary patchwork, but should fit together into some unified framework. (20) 

Surely these rational laws are fully comprehended by the One who set them up, even if science is not yet able to uncover all their mysteries.

The Creator must exist outside of time.  Nothing in the universe can go back before the creation event, but the Creator must, if He started the process.  From our perspective, He is without beginning or end.  His perspective is outside of time, so beginnings and endings are meaningless.  He simply is. 

No other religious writings tell of a deity who fits the picture of a timeless God as well as the Bible. When the Bible writers say that “with the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day” (2Peter 3:8, Psalm 90:4), they proclaim a divine perspective that we only now are beginning to grasp as the relativity of time.  One of the most fundamental principles of Einstein’s theories is that there is no absolute time.  Each observer has his own measure of time, according to his perspective.  So this obviously makes sense.

As stated, logically, we must deduce that only an entity outside the universe could have created it.  The Creator may interact with the four dimensions of our space-time, but must Itself be beyond them, beyond the physical.  Jesus emphasized that God is Spirit, and those who worship Him must do so in spirit and in truth (John 4:24).  Unlike almost every other religious writing, the Bible did not allow images to be made of God, indicating that He is not merely a physical God who belongs to this world. 

Though this God is spirit, we may logically infer that He is more than some amorphous, purposeless blob, because of the obvious purpose and will shown in His tremendous design of the universe.  The more physicists learn about the universe, the more they come to appreciate how impossible it would be for all the right conditions for life to come together in our universe by chance.  

Stephen Hawking describes how the values of the many fundamental numbers in nature’s laws “seem to have been very finely adjusted to make possible the development of life,” (21) and how God appears to have “very carefully chosen” the initial configuration of the universe. (22)  “Carefully choosing” and “finely adjusting” are clearly acts of the will. 

Prominent scientists have written of the clear evidence of purpose or intention in the creation of intelligent life in the universe.  Purpose is perhaps the most important attribute of personhood,.  The fact that the Creator has this attribute suggests that He possesses personhood in some form. Certainly this makes more sense than to think that personhood—the highest state of mind we know—is something that we possess but that God lacks. (23)

Nobel Laureate Steven Weinberg, who personally hovers somewhere between agnosticism and atheism, writes that if there is a God, it is meaningless to think of Him merely as “our better nature” or “the universe” or “energy.” He writes:

It seems to me that if the word “God” is to be of any use, it should be taken to mean an interested God, a creator and lawgiver who has established not only the laws of nature and the universe but also standards of good and evil, some personality that is concerned with our actions, something in short that it is appropriate for us to worship. This is the God that has mattered to men and women throughout history. (24)

This definition fits the biblical concept of God.  A person with an unbiblical viewpoint may ask: “Why would God, who has no need of the world, have reason to create it.”  This question has an easy answer for those who accept the Bible’s description of a God who made humans in His own image and who has all the attributed of personhood, including a will.  Such a God has no needs—and yet has desires.  He had no need to create the universe or us in order to sustain His existence, but it pleased Him to do so. 

Thus our very existence is evidence for a personal God, a God who has desires, as opposed to an impersonal force.  It certainly makes sense that this Creator would have wanted to communicate His will to His creation.  As we will see in later pages, there is ample evidence that He did communicate with us, through His prophets, and in the form of the Holy Bible.

The evidence on this page has highlighted the fact that scientific evidence proves that the universe had a beginning and therefore must have had a Creator.  Through logic we have determined that the characteristics of this Creator clearly fit the God of the Bible.  There is nothing historically or archaeologically that can prove that the Bible could not be the message to us from this Creator, but only that it definitely could be. 

It is my contention that the Holy Bible is in fact God’s Word, which was transmitted to us through his prophets, and that the Bible gives us the answers to all of these ultimate questions we have discussed.  But are there any other scientific ways of strengthening this view that the Bible is in fact the Word of God? 

I believe the study of archaeology and of prophecy provide this final evidence.  There are no other books, religious or secular, with the manuscript evidence or archaeological evidence which verify their reliability and authenticity as compared the Bible.  Even more compelling is that in no other book, again neither religious nor secular, do we find the accuracy of fulfilled prophecy.  The evidence is clear for anyone who is willing to consider it with an open mind. 

On the next page we will examine the evidence for the reliability of the Bible itself.  The purpose is to demonstrate that the books of the Bible which we possess today are essentially the same books that were written thousands of years ago and that they were transmitted to us accurately.  Further, we will show that the Old Testament we hold today is the same as the one that was available in Jesus’ time.  

We will also see that the books of the New Testament are reliable accounts of Jesus’ life and the beginning of the Christian era.  We will follow that page with two pages covering the archaeological evidence that verifies the historical accuracy of the Bible, followed by the evidence of fulfilled prophecy, which will hammer home the Divine inspiration of the Bible.