The Bible and the “Big Bang”
March 26, 2010
If you've watched "What's in the Bible?" #1, you probably noticed that I made a very brief, joking reference to the "big bang theory" when we talk about Creation. I've had a few fans write to complain about the joke, because they believe the big bang theory is anti-Christian, and therefore shouldn't be mentioned in any way in a Christian video. At first I was surprised by the response, since the reference was just a humorous aside, but I'm thinking now I probably need to address it head-on before too many people get concerned at Phil making "un-Christian" jokes. So let's talk a bit about the big bang theory, because it actually isn't un-Christian at all. Actually, it's quite the opposite.
Here's what I mean: The big bang theory states that the universe is expanding in all directions from one point (which is verifiably true), and therefore must have come into existence at one point in time and space. In other words, the universe has a beginning. This was a very radical thought at the time it was suggested because many scientists, especially atheist scientists, previously maintained that the universe was "eternal." It "always was." This was their best way of getting around a need for God. "We don't need an eternal God to explain the universe," they would say, "because the universe itself never had a beginning. The universe itself is eternal."
When other scientists discovered the expanding universe and suggested that the universe DID in fact have a beginning (the "big bang" theory), many atheist scientists initially opposed the new idea because it sounded too much like the Genesis account of Creation. If the universe had a beginning, once again we need to explain who or what made it start. Who set off the "big bang" that flung the universe into existence? Scientists who aren't opposed to the idea of God of course said, "God! He's the force that created the universe!" In fact, the astrophysicist who found the evidence proving the universe is expanding actually said it was like "seeing the footprints of God." He knew his discovery once again supported the idea that there was a Creator behind the universe.
A stickier issue is when to date the big bang. When did it happen? Some scientists, of course, would say "billions and billions of years ago," whereas some Christians would say, "No, if Genesis 1 is literal, it couldn't be more than 6000-7000 years ago." The big bang theory doesn't speak to a date at all. So either point of view could be true, and still work just fine with the big bang theory. Which is why I felt comfortable making my reference in "What's in the Bible?"
I hope that explanation helps. Again, rather than feeling the big bang theory is "anti-biblical," many scientists believe it actually supports the Bible. The big bang theory cries out for a Creator. That's why I included it in my show.
As always, I hope any of you who have a concern about something you see in one of my films will drop me a note and ask about it. I really do think these issues through, and I'm more than happy to explain my reasoning to the people I'm serving with my ministry!
Now I'm going to get back to trying to explain all the violence in the book of Joshua…
Posted in Random Thoughts..., What's in the Bible?
March 26th, 2010 at 11:54 am
And this is why we love you! Phil, you obviously demonstrated your knowledge in this matter and I know that I would rather my kids be able to speak intelligently about these issues than be completely ignorant of their existence. Thanks for being willing to address the issue so head on and we look forward to future installments of WITB.
March 26th, 2010 at 12:27 pm
that made me think of a bumper sticker i had on my old car. i got it from family bookstores. its said: “Big Bang Theory: God spoke, and BANG, it was!”
March 26th, 2010 at 12:28 pm
I didn’t mind the joke, but I appreciate you taking the time to address a concern of your viewers. What a guy!
I happen to be reading Joshua these days too. Coincidence!?!? Eh.
March 26th, 2010 at 1:02 pm
Personally, I was impressed and very glad you addressed the fact that people of faith believe different things when it comes the creation and that it is OK. I thought it was great that you mentioned that much of the debate comes from semantics. I especially like that you made the point that whatever you believe, the main issue is that God was the one who did the creating. Thank you Phil for what you do and how you do it. You are one of the few breaths of fresh air in a grimy sea of Christian media.
March 26th, 2010 at 3:30 pm
While I don’t believe your theory holds much water, I know christians have different beliefs surrounding how God made the universe.
March 26th, 2010 at 4:01 pm
I’m not sure you’re right about the big bang theory not having any implications about the date of the beginning. If we can infer a single point of origin based on the expansion, then it seems like we could use the rate of speed to infer the time that has passed since that expansion began.
March 26th, 2010 at 5:03 pm
Reedo -
Yes, in fact that IS one of the methods for dating the universe. Those that hold to a “Young Earth” position have this same problem with light from deep space, though. We can see objects that are millions of light years away - meaning it has taken millions of years for the light to get here. The solution for Young Earth folks is that physics have changed. Light used to go faster. The same argument would be made about the expansion of the universe - that it originally went much faster. So the expansion of the universe (and therefore the big bang theory) presents no more challenge to Young Earth Creationists than the fact that we can see stars collapsing millions of light years away. Same problem. Same solution.
March 26th, 2010 at 5:21 pm
“While I don’t believe your theory holds much water…”
Erlend - Which theory? The Big Bang theory? Or the theory that the Big Bang theory supports the Bible? Not quite following you there…
Phil
March 26th, 2010 at 5:36 pm
Why so many feel the need to put science and God’s word at odds just baffles me. Thanks, Phil, for explaining something that really shouldn’t have required an explanation at all. I admire your openness on the ambiguities of the Creation and how it all happened (and how long it took, and were they literal days, etc.); I think that’s wise when presenting The Bible. To be dogmatic about things that ultimately don’t matter just drives people away.
March 26th, 2010 at 11:49 pm
That’s sad, that we Christians are so concerned about “protecting” people from the world that a fellow Christian cannot even make a gag out of it. Another matter Mr. Vischer, is that both the Big Bang theory and the Creationism theory, are just theories. NO ONE KNOWS how it all happened. But what we do know, is that God said it, and BANG, it happened. Mr. Vischer, are saying that you believe in the Big Bang theory? Or are you merely saying that people have different oppinions of the earth’s creation. I watch a show called, “The Big Bang Theory” (Oh NO! HEATHEN!), but it just shows that there are other beliefs of how the world began. For me…does it matter? If God made it, why question His supremacy?
March 27th, 2010 at 11:19 am
Phil, Thanks for all of your work that explains biblical principles to kids. I love VeggieTales! I am concerned that as you explain what’s in the Bible, you will be held to a higher standard of literal interpretation. The Big Bang Theory is generally understood to be anti-christian and developed to explain an alternative to creation. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang.
March 27th, 2010 at 3:16 pm
The first issue is our view regarding Bible Authority. Do we believe that Genesis 1 is authoritative? Do we believe that it is just as inspired by the Holy Spirit as the Gospels are? Why do we believe in the Resurrection? Why do we believe in the Virgin Birth? Why do we believe that Lazarus rose from the dead? We believe these things because it is written in the Gospels. Most Christians don’t have a problem with this. They believe that the Gospel writers wrote accurately as they were inspired by the Holy Spirit to write. My next question is, do we believe that Genesis 1 is just as inspired and authoritative as the Gospels are? Can we trust Genesis - is it a true historical account? If we say we believe the Gospels and yet question Genesis we are being very inconsistent in our Biblical interpretation and belief. The same book - the Bible - both records the Resurrection and Creation. We have to make a decision - will we trust it in Genesis in the face of modern scientific theories?
The framework of the Big Bang and it’s chronology are in a different order than is recorded in Genesis 1. So, what will we believe? The current scientific theory or the chronology found in Genesis 1? I’m so glad that Moses who wrote Genesis 1 went against the main stream of belief about Creation in his generation. In Acts 7 it says that Moses was taught in all the wisdom of Egypt, yet he wrote by the inspiration of the Spirit, a creation narrative which went against the mainstream teaching of his generation. Moses did not compromise, why should we? There is no room to go into arguments concerning the fallacies of these scientific theories, but know that at the foundation of all of these theories have upon them the spirit of atheism and agnosticism and men who think God is an outdated idea. One more question, why do we accept billions of years and a big bang yet reject man evolving from lower primates - both ideas came from the same men. I would say that the modern church is being very inconsistent - we have compromised. We pick and choose which parts we want to believe. I say let us uphold Biblical authority and believe it’s record in spite of our generation. People say that how God did it does not matter yet God gave us 31 verses in Genesis 1 explaining how and when he did.
Hebrews 11:3 - Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the Word of God so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.
March 28th, 2010 at 1:31 am
That was a very interesting post! I didn’t know that there was that much to the big bang theory (ya learn new things evey day!).
March 28th, 2010 at 9:37 am
Manny -
It depends on what you mean by “Big Bang Theory.” The fact that the universe is expanding can be proven scientifically, so yes, I believe the universe is expanding. That fact has led some to suggest that, therefore, the universe had a beginning. Do I believe that is true? Yes, because it is exactly what the Bible teaches. In one sense, that’s the Big Bang theory. The universe started with some kind of force that brought everything into existence and sent all matter spreading out through space. Do I know for a fact that this is how it really happened? No. I wasn’t there. But it sure sounds like the Genesis account of God “creating the heavens and the Earth,” doesn’t it?
March 28th, 2010 at 10:44 am
I loved how you addressed the issue of the age of the universe in WITB. You showed both opinions, explained them, and added it is OK to disagree on some things. I see the big bang issue as another of those differences of opinion.
I don’t know how much that’s worth to you, because I’m not in your target audience. We’re Jewish. I watch WITB with my seven year old, and explain the differences between Judaism and Christianity while we’re watching it. I appreciate both the opportunity to teach my kids the Tanach (= Old Testament) and the opportunity to teach the difference between Judaism and Christianity. Jewish kids growing in a predominately Christian environment need to learn those things, just as Christian kids growing in a secular environment need to understand secularism and the arguments between it and Christianity.
However, if it does, please continue what you’re doing. Our kids will be exposed to other views than ours. They might as well learn about them from us, and learn the problems with those views at the same time. While they are still young enough to think their parents have worthwhile views.
March 28th, 2010 at 5:12 pm
Excellent explanation and a solid defense of why you feel the Big Bang Theory isn’t at odds with the Bible. I’ve never looked at it this way before, but you learn something new every day and I guess this is it for 3/28/10.
As a Christian, there were many moments in the 6.5 years I was in college studying animal science I wrestled with reconciling known scientific fact with knowing the Bible God’s word and without error. The hardest was natural selection and the whole package commonly known as evolution. It took an atheist pointing out to me that the theories on the origin of life and the theory of evolution/natural selection were separate and distinct things for me to realize that, excepting the atheistic explanation for origin of life, there wasn’t anything about natural selection and adaptation and survival of the fittest that was at odds with God’s word. I was a very happy girl that day. Credt also has to go to Ken Hamm’s videotaped lectures on evolution for helping me sort things out.
I’m with Ori. Keep doing what you’re doing. The world needs what you can provide.
March 28th, 2010 at 7:54 pm
I love the discussion Phil and how you expand our minds! To me a foundational and important truth in this conversation is that GOD did in fact create the universe and everything in it. Therefore, He has total ownership and control over all things. I think that’s why the atheist scientists didn’t want to acknowlege a Creator….they would have had to submit and be accountable to Him. If God is not our Creator He cannot be our King! At one point or another we all have to come to grips with
Gen. 1:1.
March 28th, 2010 at 8:29 pm
Genesis 1 starts with the earth and the heavens being there … it seems like the Gen 1 accounts focuses much more on the creation of bio-life on the earth. Hence the planet could be much older and yet the life on the earth newer. …. Gen 1 could be an account told from the surface of the source where God was moving away the clould cover. Take a look. See if that is not the case.
March 29th, 2010 at 1:00 am
I really appreciate the fact that you acknowledged there was disagreement.
March 29th, 2010 at 1:24 am
Well, I personally disagree with some of your logic. I think the dating is somewhat important, and the big bang theory, as scientifically defined, plays too much havoc on the literal interpretation of the rest of Genesis 1, even if the idea of a beginning is good. However, I think it’s great that you’re willing to admit that real Christians have some disagreement in some of these areas, and the answers aren’t quite as black and white as either side would like. What really gets to me is some of the comments I’ve seen around the net that the video would never work in their SS class, specifically because you took the “wrong” view in it.
March 29th, 2010 at 2:51 pm
preach brother preach!
March 29th, 2010 at 4:58 pm
How does uncertainty as to exactly how the world was created, or whether or not it was made in six literal days, equal a questioning of Biblical inerrancy? Where in the first 31 verses of Genesis does it say “And there was evening and there was morning - a twenty-four hour day, just like we have now.” If the days were 24 hours long, or 27 seconds long, or 2,700 years long, does it matter? Really? If God said it was a day, He’s the maker of days - He can make that day as long as He needs it to be.
March 29th, 2010 at 6:13 pm
reasons.org),Hugh Ross, founder of Reasons to Believe (www.reasons.org), has a phenomenal discussion harmonizing creation and science in his book. The Genesis Question. I’ve found his organization’s material to be excellent resources.
Great explanation Phil. We have nothing to fear from science. Quite the contrary actually.
March 29th, 2010 at 7:48 pm
whelp, whether you believe in the “theory” or not…you haven’t returned the dvd, and you’re still supporting Phil in his endeavors…so why not we all just drop it?
March 29th, 2010 at 9:45 pm
Hi Phil. This is off topice but, my dad says “hi” and that he loves your veggietales videos (for the record I love them also)!Great job with WITB so far can’t wait for the next one :D!
March 30th, 2010 at 8:27 am
Phil I was thrilled by your reference. As a children’s minister I thought, “Wow! Now my kids will have an opening to ask me what I know they are afraid to.” I’ve found that so many of them KNOW they can’t talk about church at school so they assume they can’t talk about school at church.
These new resources are, literally, saving my ministry right now. I’ve just lost a treasured Sunday School teacher and the kids aren’t ready for a replacement. As I watched the first two What’s in the Bible dvds I was convicted to write some games and dialog to go along with them so I could stretch it into a 2 hour curriculum option for April and May. The teacher that just passed away would’ve loved these!
Keep up the GREAT work. I can’t wait for the next installment:)
March 30th, 2010 at 11:35 am
I’m going to agree and disagree simultaneously. The history of the concept of the big bang was, in fact, very religious. The previous idea was that the universe existed eternally. LeMaitre, a Catholic Priest, in keeping with Catholic views on Genesis, proposed the idea of the Big Bang (he called it a universe from a cosmic egg). This did make the atheists upset, but LeMaitre and others convinced most people that their view was correct.
Stephen Hawking came up with what is the most widely-known version of the Big Bang theory, which is based on the assumption that the universe has no center and no edge (kind of like the surface of a balloon). Other forms exist. Carmeli’s version of the Big Bang, which has been expanded upon by John Hartnett, is compatible with young-earth creationism.
However, there is a large contingent of astrophysicists who still disagree. Arp, for instance, thinks we have misinterpretted the red shift data, and has provided a different cosmology (more similar to steady-state). Interestingly, the steady-state cosmology was one that was originally proposed by Christians, because it had God directly responsible for fixing the relationships in the heavens, and then these relationships simply kept going.
Krauss and Scherer proposed an even more interesting idea - they pointed out in their paper “The End of Cosmology” that the cosmology you detect may be radically different from the cosmology that is real. In their study, they showed that if the Big Bang is true, then, at a certain point in the future, the data will point to a static universe!
So, all in all, I would say that within cosmology, there is a wide range of opinion. It can’t be proven that the universe is expanding, and it certainly can’t be proven that it expanded from a single point. Either way is, at least in theory, compatible with Christianity. It is certainly an interesting question, and the difference between a universe that is 6,000 years old, 14 billion years old, and one that doesn’t show its age turns on some rather subtle pieces of data and mathematics, as well as whether or not we are gathering data at the right time in history. I think that scientists of all persuasions should pursue their ideas fully, but I also think that scientists and laypeople alike should take any cosmological “truth” with a grain of salt.
March 30th, 2010 at 9:28 pm
This is deep, man…
March 31st, 2010 at 12:25 am
Hey, the Big Bang Theory is totally compatable with Christianity! After all, God did create the universe, but the Bible doesn’t really say how. So let’s say that the universe really did begin when a ball of incredibly dense matter exploded. Who put the ball there in the first place? What was around the ball, if the universe didn’t exist? Sounds a lot like the empty darkness before God created the light and the dark . . . The universe might not necessarily have been created by just appearing fully formed. Maybe it was an ongoing, complicated process under the direction of God.
Not only that, I think even evolution is compatable with Christianity. Where does evolution deny God? God created the animals of the earth, but did he necessarily just procure them out of thin air? Maybe he created them by having them slowly change and alter their form, just like evolution says. If God can number the hairs of our heads and change our lives, he can surely direct the changes within our very cells.
You can’t learn about the construction of proteins or the science of our cells without seeing the hand of God in every step. The deepest theories of science are the ones that prove the existence of God the best. Besides, in the Bible God says, “I created you in your mother’s womb,” but we know that babies don’t just appear. They grow slowly in their mother’s womb, but they are still created by God. I think evolution and the Big Bang are both very possible theories, and very supportive of Christianity too. The theory does NOT challenge God. It just challenges people’s first interpretation of how God did what he did. Shouldn’t we be willing to change our views of how the world was created? This is beginning to sound like Galileo and the Sun going around the Earth . . . : )
March 31st, 2010 at 9:02 am
All I know is God said it, and it happened. That’s what really matters. Whether He used a bang, boom, poof, flash, or pow I really don’t care. I guess if you believe God created the world in 6 literal days, which He could have if he wanted to, then the Big Bang might mess with your theology. If you look at the Hebrew though a “day” could just as easily have been a period of time or an age or era. Like I said, I know He did it and that’s all that matters to me.
March 31st, 2010 at 3:24 pm
Yeah, I read about how atheists didn’t like the Big Band Theory in the book Case for a Creator. Although, I would like to mention that I feel like the supposed confusion over the word “day” was a bit of a cop out in the DVD. This supposed question has only arisen recently as a result of trying to reconcile the Bible with “science”. Not only that, but Genesis doesn’t just say “day” it further clarifies it as “a morning and an evening” just in case the reader isn’t sure what a day is.
April 1st, 2010 at 11:11 am
David, I guess the question is this - could God have made a day that was longer than 24 hours? The sun rose, the sun set, and there were 457 hours (or 4,570 or 45,700) in between. Could that have happened? Of course. Did He do that? We don’t know. So why debate it, or make it some silly bone of contention? I don’t see the point.
April 1st, 2010 at 11:43 am
amazon.comWell, there’s this book: Genesis and the Big Bang: The Discovery Of Harmony Between Modern Science And The Bible that explains it well enough. At least for me….
April 1st, 2010 at 11:44 am
It seems to me that many things that are accepted and taught as fact are based on assumptions that scientists have made rather than facts based on true scientific observation. For example “the universe is expanding”. I’ve heard that over and over, yet I’ve also heard that some have studied and foundthat this is not true. But the mainstream science world only accepts and teaches the the things that line up with their predominately atheistic view point. At least that’s the predominate view point that the media pushes.
I agree with David that we try to reconcile the Bible with science, and that should not be. I also agree with whoever said true Christians who believe God’s Word have nothing to fear from science. I think true science is wonderful and fascinating. But so much that we hear from todays world of science is based on, as I said above, assumptions accepted as fact. The theory of (macro)evolution, for example, has no absolute proof. But it’s taught as fact because all the atheists can’t see any other way for life to begin. And anyone who disagrees is dismissed as an un-evolved, superstitious, religious fanatic.
They don’t REALLY know what happened on this planet beyond 6000-7000 years ago any more than Christians know EXACTLY how, and in what time frame, God made all things. But to make my rant pertinent to this blog- Phil, I think you handled this just fine! Giving different views and allowing the viewers to discuss, debate, and decide what they believe, and why they believe it, seems like a good thing to me. I just wish more people (especially the atheist scientists:)…and a lot of Christians, too) would just be honest and call speculation what it is- speculation!
I will add that I very much agree with Johnathan. Do we believe the Bible and trust that ALL of it is God’s inspired Word? I absolutely believe that Jesus is “the Way, the Truth and the Life,” God’s Son, through whom all things were made and all mankind reconciled to God. I believe that salvation from sin and death, regardless of your stance on evolution, creation, whatever, comes through Christ alone. But I really don’t see how you can have a life changing encounter with the Living God through His only Son and still buy into some of these “theories”. Either the Bible is God’s Word or it isn’t.
I don’t think anyone is going to hell for getting some of the details of our origins wrong. But without Jesus the Messiah, there is no salvation. Jesus is the Word.The Word is the Truth. The Truth will set you free!
….uh…..yeah….”What’s In The Bible” is awesome! “Jelly On [in God’s Spirit and Truth] Partner!”
April 1st, 2010 at 12:18 pm
relevantmagazine.comHey Phil.
I’m always impressed by the grace with which you manage the type of criticism that would drive me insane.
On a side note, i saw the following headline today: Goodnight Moon to be Added to Biblical Canon and assumed it to be a review of “What’s in the Bible?”
Looking forward to the next one.
peace… love… bdg…
April 1st, 2010 at 12:44 pm
Someone may have already mentioned this, but Vischer’s claim that the Big Bang theory is compatible with any age of the universe is inaccurate. The Big Bang theory makes very specific predictions about the age of the universe: roughly 14 billion years old. See here for more: http://biologos.org/questions/ages-of-the-earth-and-universe.
April 2nd, 2010 at 10:44 am
It always amazes me how a subject can ostracize and polarize Christians. I believe in the arena of debate where ideas are challenged. It help us define “iron sharpening iron”. This issue is one of God centeredness in our life and that is what you are presenting brother. God created the universe and the Biblical big bang theory, by God’s hand. it is His. Let’s submit to His bigness.
God Bless you Phil.
April 3rd, 2010 at 2:56 pm
Roger, you would never had said that if mainstream scientist didn’t insist on the universe being so old.
BTW, forgot to say how awesome the DVDs are. I agree with Phil’s blog posts on how they’re much needed. I’ve been teaching a Bible study to the youth at my uncle’s church and the JellyTelly Books of the Bible segments inspired me to go through each of the books of the Bible with the kids. Most of these kids don’t even know who the first king of Israel was and couldn’t even name a single Judge.
April 5th, 2010 at 1:37 pm
David, you are correct. More to the point, it never would have occurred to me to care one whit about the exact age of the planet, or how long a day was during the first six, or about when chronologically man was created. I would have seen no point in needing to know that. It has no effect on my faith, it raises no doubts in me about the vearcity of the Bible - it means nothing. I have often questioned why the secular world is so easily swayed by scientific “facts” that are based on a mountain of suppositions, as if those theories don’t require as much faith (if not more) than believing the Bible does, but that’s as far as I go. (Oh, and I’ve always wondered where the dinosaurs fit into all of it. But I don’t lay awake at night pondering that, either.)
April 6th, 2010 at 9:36 am
answersingenesis.orgSome excellent resources on understanding the Bible and the literal understanding of the Genesis account of creation and the flood, along with the straw man of “deep time”:
http://www.answersingenesis.org and http://scripturosity.com/
April 6th, 2010 at 9:51 am
[…] Emeott posts the recommended child/volunteer ratios for kids ministry.Phil Vischer deals with the Big Bang controversy on his blogTamera Kraft writes about when “well meaning parents” become a frustration.Ryan Frank […]
April 10th, 2010 at 2:10 pm
It may have been referenced somewhere here so sorry if I duplicated something someonelse already wrote. I have seen a theory on Naked Archaeologist that using relativity the earth could have been made in 6 days from the perspective of the origin of the big bang. Millions of years could be a day depending on where you are observing from. That would be impressive.
April 28th, 2010 at 9:57 am
Hey Phil,
There is an awesome website called answersingenesis.com (or maybe it is .org?) which is dedicated soley to answering the science questions so many christians have. A man, Ken Ham has made it his life’s purpose to study creation and Genesis and the apologetics surrounding the issue.
When I see something on pbs nova or that type of show that causes me to have concerns or questions- I go to that resource and study until I feel satisfied with the answer. They address the big bang theory in detail.
But you know, creation is a great thing to discuss and so many christians shy away from this topic because of the controversy (I know, what controversy, God said it and I believe it, end of story!) and so many christians now don’t believe in Genesis which is sad. So, go check that site out and let me know what you think! Kudos! Love your new online stuff! God Bless! Georgiana
May 8th, 2010 at 9:36 am
The term ‘Big Bang’ is misleading in the sense that it implies a ‘jettisoning-type’ explosion of the sort that one might see, for example, in a quarry where dynamite is being used to blow up rock. This is not at all what is predicted to have happened in the Big Bang. There would have been no region outside of the universe into which matter could be jettisoned. Rather, it is thought that some kind of dark energy exerted a form of negative gravity or ‘antigravity’ that not only counteracted but also exceeded the gravitational pull of some hot dense matter. The rate at which this expansion occurred was critical- too fast an expansion would not have allowed galaxies and galaxy clusters to condense at later stages of the cosmic evolution. Conversely, too slow an expansion would have caused the universe to collapse in on itself as a result of the enormous gravitational pull. Such an awesome degree of fine-tuning, according to Ross, would have required high-level precision work. This precision, Ross suggests, would only be possible through the work of a creator capable of surpassing, by several orders of magnitude, the human capacity for design. If the expansion rate of the universe had been too fast, matter would not have been able to congeal into stars and galaxies and consequently no life would have been possible (i.e: no planetary systems would have evolved). Conversely, an expansion that was too slow would have resulted in a dense mass, as matter collapsed in on itself. Here too, the opportunities for life-supporting systems would have been extremely remote. Truly we can see that life on Earth today owes its existence to a very carefully controlled expansion rate in the first milliseconds that followed the birth of our cosmos.
The fine-tuning of our cosmic habitat has been a source of an intense amount of interest not only because of the necessarily-constrained expansion rate we discussed above but also because of the amount of matter that exists and existed in our cosmos. It is thought that matter (defining familiar particles such as protons and quarks) was counteracted in the early universe by an opposing type of particle called ‘antimatter’. If both matter and the more mysterious antimatter had existed in equal proportions in the early universe, both forms of particle would have annihilated each other. In other words, for matter to exist in the universe today, there must have been just slightly more matter than antimatter in the early universe. The difference in amounts is believed to have been so small (1 part in every billion). In other words, we owe our existence to the smallest of differences. Indeed if there had been an equal amount of matter and antimatter in the early universe, no planets, no stars, no galaxies and ultimately no life would ever have existed.
The ‘tight rope’-balancing act of the atomic world does not stop here. We can clearly see in the composition of atoms today that the masses of protons and neutrons, which make up the nuclei of atoms, have masses that differ by a mere 0.138%. With neutrons being just 0.138% heavier than protons, it takes a little bit more energy to generate a neutron. So delicate is this difference in energy requirements that if the neutron had been an additional 0.1% heavier, there would not have been enough neutrons generated throughout our cosmic history to allow the formation of the elements so essential for life. A 0.1% smaller neutron would also be catastrophic. Neutrons decay into protons and protons build up into neutrons. If indeed neutrons were 0.1% smaller in mass, there would be too much neutron buildup in the universe. These would quickly collapse into dense neutron stars or destructive black holes. This level of fine-tuning has strongly convinced Ross that only a grand designer could be responsible for both the inception and the subsequent development and creation of our cosmic habitat. Such a grand designer, physicist Ross asserts, had to be a personal being because only a personal creator could specify a universe at this level of precision. So many aspects of the cosmic fabric appeared to fit into the ‘things-could have-gone-horribly-wrong-if-not-done-this-way” criterion that it seemed only reasonable to conclude that our cosmic habitat had been very carefully crafted for the support of the diversity of life that we see on our planet today.
Further Reading
Martin Rees (2001), Our Cosmic Habitat Weidenfeld and Nicolson Publishers, UK
Hugh Ross (2001), The Creator and the Cosmos, Published by NavPress, Colorado Springs, Colorado
Michael Denton (1998), Nature’s Destiny: How The Laws of Biology Reveal Purpose in the Universe, Chapters 1 and 2, 1st Edition Published by the Free Press, New York
May 8th, 2010 at 9:48 am
arn.orgHello again Phil,
And here is a poem that I wrote (I get poetic from time to time)…
http://www.arn.org/blogs/index.php/2/2009/06/30/beginnings_of_our_cosmic_abode
Our Remarkable Cosmic Abode
By Robert Deyes
“It is a remarkable thing”, said Sir Hart,
“that we find ourselves thinking of a cosmical start,
in which all that we know and we love came to be,
from a specified moment of time.”
“In fact time itself is said to begin”,
said Sir Hart as he pensively scratched at his chin.
“And as space expanded, we see from within,
that it started as small as a dime.”
“The expansion of space was controlled to a T,
as fine-tuned an expansion, we never did see,
like an archer who shoots an arrow will be,
so precise in his aim and his shot.
It is from the heat radiating from space,
that Wilson and Penzias came face to face,
with a finding that changed how we looked at our race,
for our cosmos was small as a dot.”
“It began at a point so incredibly small”,
said Sir Hart as he stood almost two meters tall,
indicating the tinniest dust on the wall,
“This is how we are told it began:
There was a brief period of hyperinflation
from which space arose from a point in creation,
not too fast or slow to ensure the formation,
of galaxies visible to man.”
For those who don’t like what the finding implies,
that there must be a maker who stretched out the skies,
so controlled an expansion we see with our eyes,
there is one riposte they propound.
“Our cosmos is one out of many” we’re told,
“so statistical chance will ensure that the mold,
of a cosmos conducive to life will unfold,
in one of the many around.”
“But where” we may ask “are the many around?”
“All those cosmic abodes that we’re told must abound,
having spawned from a sponge before time had been wound,
and from which ours arose as we see?”
There is no firm evidence that we observe,
that our universe here, so shaped like a curve,
is one of a ‘Multiverse’. Oh what a nerve!
Conjecture is all it could be!
May 30th, 2010 at 10:24 pm
Hi Phil,
I just saw WITB #1 tonight and laughed out loud at the big bang reference.
Thanks,
Diana
June 4th, 2010 at 10:33 am
Phil Vischer,
My wife and I were excited to learn of this project and were hoping as Sunday School teachers, they could be shown to our class at some point.
I just watched this section last night and was disappointed with the “Big Bang” reference. The term is so closely linked to evolution and mans theories on how the universe was created without the involvement of God. Using the term to describe Gods creative process causes confusion. I felt this could have been left out without affecting the content of the segment. I’m quite certain I would be fielding the same questions and concerns from parents hearing their kids talk about the Big Bang after church that you have received since producing this video. We watched the video with our kids and used it as an opportunity to explain what we believe, but would not be able to do the same in a Sunday School setting.
I also found it interesting that you continued on with the Adam and Eve and Noah stories without explaining that Christians disagree on whether these stories are true. I’ve found that Christians who have accepted old earth and evolution theories are unable to believe these stories because there is not much scientific evidence to support them.
I personally believe evidence the universe is expanding is not proof of a Big Bang beginning. I believe in a big God who is capable of creating the universe and setting it in motion.
June 8th, 2010 at 12:37 am
The universe could well be millions of years old, or at least parts of it. When God arrived to create our earth ~ in six literal days, by the spoken word of His mouth ~ it was already in existence as a formless lump of rock, covered with water.
We have been privileged to receive an exact timetable of our own earth from the moment God said, “Let there be light.” We do not have an exact timetable for the rest of the universe, the creation of Lucifer, the genesis of sin, or a hundred squillion other mysteries marked “unsolved” till we view them in the Kingdom.
June 23rd, 2010 at 9:35 pm
I like your explanation of the Big Bang and agree with it. Too many Christians don’t understand it. I hope your explanation clears some things up for people.
July 3rd, 2010 at 3:05 pm
Phil, have you accurately described the Big Bang theory? Yes, it suggests an expanding universe, but does it not also indicate that this all began from the explosing of a single piece of matter? If this is the case, then clearly this contradicts the Bible, in that Genesis depicts God creating people and things very differently.
August 1st, 2010 at 12:12 am
answersingenesis.orgI for one was extrememly upset when I saw this video at a friend’s house….she was playing it for my children, to entertain them. I LOVE Veggietales, so thought, COOL! Must be fun. But, my 3 and 6 year old were bored. I happened to walk in the room and see you discussing the Creation issue and that there are differing beliefs. The Bible is very clear in that the earth was created in 6 literal days….just like our week. Why, in Exodus, would it say God made the world in 6 days and rested on the 7th if in fact it meant millions of years? God made the world over millions of years and then rested for a million? Is He still resting or what? NOT MY GOD…He never rests!! And, another note…same Hebrew word used in Genesis 1 as in Noah’s account with the 40 DAY flood. I have never heard of anyone saying that flood lasted millions of years and the word day there is not to be taken literally. (Although I know just b/c I have never heard it doesn’t mean the idea does not exist–certainly not!). I would advise you, Phil, and everyone who commented here on this and ALL Christians world wide to go to http://www.answersingenesis.org/ and get some REAL answers about all this and see how science EVERY SINGLE TIME backs up what the Bible says! Every time. THANKS!!! -Carolyn
August 4th, 2010 at 1:30 pm
These are the kinds of arguments that just turn people away from Christianity. Why must we argue about these things? Ultimately, why does it matter? If God wanted to make one day (the sun rose and the sun set) 24 hours long, and the next 2,473 years long, He could. Perhaps He did when he created the world. If He did, that does not in any way diminish what God did. Suggesting what Mr. Vischer suggests here does not in any way threaten the concept of Biblical inerrancy, at least not in my view. So why be so rigid?
August 8th, 2010 at 9:35 am
Any scenario that allows for a large number of years for one day of creation, seems to require death before sin. That does not seem compatible with the body of scripture and therefore Christ. Can anyone explain how we get from thousands if not millions of years to Adam and not have death enter the world before sin?
August 16th, 2010 at 3:52 pm
Does the death of animals come as the result of sin? That’s what you seem to be getting at here. Were animals destined to live forever as well as man until the Fall? I have no idea about this - I’m genuinely asking. I understand that the death of man couldn’t come until after the Fall, but animals - I have no clue. And does the fact that God doesn’t mention giving us animals as food mean we (meaning not just men, but the beasts) were vegetarians before the Fall? This is very intriguing stuff.
August 18th, 2010 at 5:00 pm
mountainspringscc.comHey Phil,
just got your first “Whats in the Bible” and watched it with the kids. First we watched episode 1 and thought it was truly awesome. I Pastor a church in canada and love to find good resources that actually teach kids the word of God. I use ot be a comedian before getting saved so I thought the whole veggie tale concept was a riot. Thanks.
Ironically and maybe not coincidently I watched Ken Hamms DVD on the 6 day creation right before watching part 2 of whats in the Bible. I wonder if the timing is the Lord’s or not, cause after watching it I was amazed at what it said about the modern “softening of the 6 day creation” Ken takes 40 minutes to give the most amazing presentation on why 6 days is 6days I have seen. Anyway, then we watched part 2 of whats in the bible the next day and I have to say I was saddened in how you covered the “day” part. Now as a brother in Christ I must say I love your stuff and your videos they are great and to be honest I think pre-ken hamms video I probably would have said the same stuff. But after watching it I thought I have to somehow invite Phil to watch it. I am not a part of Ken Hamms Ministry in any way I was simply blown away by the solid evidence for a 6 day creation and also for the severe problems all other versions present- especially to kids.
I am not some dogmatic creationist I am simply a brother in the Lord encouraging you to re-look at this.
If you feel you need to chat with me about this contact me through http://www.mountainspringscc.com
God bless you and thank you for your ministry and love for kids and the Lord!
In Christ
Joel
August 26th, 2010 at 6:41 pm
Hi Dana - I think the other view on the “death” topic would be that the death that sin brought into the world was separation from God. Death entered the world through Adam, “life” entered through Christ. Meaning eternal life - presence with God. Paul contrasts “death” that came through Adam with “life” that comes through Christ. Some would say “death” and “life” are meant to be interpreted physically, others would say spiritually. (Which, of course, wouldn’t apply to plants and animals.)
My purpose isn’t to take sides, but rather to point out that there is more than one side.
Phil