In my last note I mentioned just a few reasons that we can believe that there is a God using only science, but sometimes you run into problems. My problem again deals with space but this time it deals with the anthropic constant of the speed of light. We know the speed of light does not change from its value of 299,792,458 meters per second. If the universe were as young as Creationists believe then how would starlight be at the earth, but if it were as old as Darwinists believe then why is there the presence of blue stars? This causes a problem on both Creationist and Darwinist side of science.

I have been reading a lot about this issue called the distant starlight problem. Let me just say that we should accept that science is secondary to our acceptance of scriptural inerrancy. Paul F. Taylor used the best wording to another object we should keep in mind between operational science and origins science, “We need to be aware of the difference between operational science and origins science. Operational science is the result of experimental data or observations taken in the present, subject to peer review, and capable of repetition. Origins science is an extrapolation of presently observed phenomena into the past, in a manner which is not repeatable.” Pretty much anything in this field of study is a theory or a model and not necessarily true.

There are many theories which have major downfalls in trying to explain the distant starlight problem. One popular, problematic “solution” is called the in-transit model. We can only see stars because their light has reached us but some stars are millions or billions of light years away. The in transit model says that since God can make things with the appearance of age then he created the light from these stars in-transit. But there is one HUGE problem with this theory that makes it unacceptable. We would be looking at events that never happened in this case. We would see light from a star that the star itself never admitted thus we would be seeing a star that doesn’t yet exist or movies of events that never actually happened in history. It would be against God’s character to show us these movies of fictional time. It would be like God lying to us and as we know God keeps his promises and does not lie.

Then on the other side of the debate we have Darwinists saying that it is simple, give light enough time and it will reach us, problem solved. The furthest light we can see is around thirteen billion light years away, thus the universe is about thirteen billion years old. But we have reasons to believe this is not true either. There is the problem of blue stars.

We have reason to believe that stars are only a phenomenon of when the universe was created. For stars are made almost entirely of Hydrogen and helium gas. The combined mass of these gases give stars strong gravitational pulls, which prevents gas from dispersing into space. It is believed that nebula are birth places for stars for they are a “cloud” of extremely low-density hydrogen and helium gas. Just condense this gas and then gravity would keep the gas together and then you would get a star. However, gas has a tendency to want to expand, not contract. If gas did start to compress under spontaneous circumstances then pressure would increase, and so would the magnetic field and rotation speed, all these factors would strongly resist any further compression and no star could be born. Plus we have a class of rating stars; for stars like the sun, which consist of about 2% metals (anything heavier than helium), they are classified as population I stars. Some stars have fewer metals maybe one hundredth of the amount in population I stars then these are called population II stars. Lastly, if stars are constantly being made then we should have population III stars in which there is essentially no metals at all, the problem is that there are none of these stars. This goes back to disproving the universe is static as I also shed reasonable doubt of in my last note.

Now that I have explained why stars are most likely a phenomenon from the creation we come back to the problem of blue stars. Blue stars are blue because they burn hotter than the sun and because they burn hotter, they burn up their fuel quicker as well. Astronomers estimate that hot blue stars could last but a few million years at most. Since blue stars are found in virtually all spiral galaxies including our own, this can tell us that they are not living up to the Darwinist time scales. If the universe is billions of years old and new stars are not being born then how are there blue stars in our galaxy which is postulated to be over a billion years old? This could not happen, for even if they did exist and given the large amounts of time it would take for their light to reach us then in a couple million years their light would come and pass from our sight and there would be absolutely no blue stars, especially in our own galaxy.

We have the possibility of the universe being billions of years old now pretty discredited but that still does not answer how we have starlight striking the earth if the universe isn’t billions of years old. The question is: how is there light hitting the earth from galaxies millions and billions of light years away? We know that the universe has relatively young qualities, and that just giving billions of years doesn’t solve problems, it only creates more. Right now I believe we can say we just don’t know enough about this issue and is something that science is not yet able to understand. We try and try but every scientific model has some fatal blunder in its logic that it falls apart.

We know that the light is here, we know that speed of light is constant in a vacuum and can only slow down due to it passing through a substance. Previously, I thought that the earth was around before the seven day creation period (to allow the light to hit it before the development of life on earth). But the conflicting evidence of blue stars presented a challenge to that belief, and if the estimates of the earth’s age of being 10,000 to 7,000 years old by some Christian scientists are true, it raises the question of how light could already be here.

This is only a small argument about a bigger picture of an infinite God. It amazes me what an incredibly intricate universe we do have, no matter how old it is. To quote a phrase from the light bulb in The Brave Little Toaster, “Fact is…we just don’t have enough facts.” Some things are not intellectually able to be processed because “without faith it is impossible to please [understand] God” Hebrew 11:6. No matter if Darwinist science or Christian science has the time scale right God is still ALWAYS glorified by his awesome creation.

Finely Tuned Universe

David wrote in Psalms 19 “The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands.” Only after a brief glimpse of astronomy we can see just what a wonderful maker our Savior truly is and what praise he is due. Also, if we look at the fine tuning of the Earth, it points to how perfect every little detail is put into place. Let us first start out with Albert Einstein’s Theory of General Relativity, a theory that is now proven to five decimal places. Einstein called this theory “irritating” for it showed a universe that had a beginning and that beginning was absolutely nothing. All space, all matter, all time had a definite beginning and that beginning came from nothing. Understand this, all matter, time, and space came from ABSOLUTELY nothing (Aristotle said it best, “Nothing is what rocks dream about.”) meaning there would have to be some divine intersession to create something from nothing. For even chance and eternity couldn’t randomly make something out of nothing at all. To further understand the evidence for this beginning we look at some of the clues that we have been able to explore. A very prominent view of the universe is that it is infinite and static. Isaac Newton was very confused when he developed his theory of gravity for it explained that everything in the universe is attracting each other and if the universe were infinite then everything would have run into each other. Later the theory of relativity was developed and said that the universe was either collapsing or expanding. Not till 1929 was it that Edwin Hubble found what is called a redshift (if it were collapsing we would see a blueshift) and we now know that the universe is indeed expanding and had a beginning for doubt. Radiation from the beginning has also been witnessed. Stumbled upon by two Bell Lab scientist Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson in 1956. One day the two kept picking up weird radiation on their antenna and no matter where they pointed it the strange radiation was still there. For they even thought it could have been bird droppings, but once that was removed the radiation was still there. These two men had discovered the afterglow of the explosion that created the universe. Now it is known as cosmic background radiation, but this is essentially light and heat from the initial explosion. We can no longer see the light because the expansion of the universe has stretched the wavelengths to slightly shorter than those produced by a microwave oven. After the discovery of the radiation scientists predicted that there would be fluctuations in the temperature of the cosmic background radiation that would allow matter to congregate through gravitational pull into galaxies. In 1989 NASA launched a $200 million satellite called COBE that carried extremely sensitive equipment that could possibly pick up these pockets of cosmic radiation. In ’92 the project leader George Smoot announced the COBE’s findings and he was quoted in newspapers all over the world with, “If you’re religious, it is like looking at God.” For the COBE did not only find ripples but the astronomers were shocked to find out the precision of these pockets. They were so accurately tweaked that it allowed for just enough matter to congregate, allowing galaxy formation, but not too much matter to cause the universe to collapse back on itself. In fact the pockets are so exact (down to one part in one hundred thousand) that Smoot called them “machining marks from the creation of the universe” and “The fingerprints of the maker,” because any slight flux one way or the other and none of us would be here! I have showed you what is given as proof for a figuratively called Big Bang. These findings are fascinating to study for there is so much scientific evidence behind this beginning from nothing. It is so intriguing it brings up the question that if there is no God, then why is there something rather than nothing at all? Now I want to go into some mathematical constants called authropic constants that surround every part of our existence. These constants (120 or so) are so precise that the slightest change one way or the other would absolutely prohibit life of any sort to exist. Let me just list a couple:

1.) Oxygen Level – If levels were any higher then fires would erupt spontaneously, and if they were any lower then all life would suffocate.
2.) Atmospheric Transparency – Any less and the earth would be bombarded by too much solar radiation, and any more and not enough radiation would reach the earth’s surface.
3.) Moon’s Gravitational Pull – If the pull was too great then tidal effects on the oceans, atmosphere, and rotational periods would be too severe; if less, orbital changes would cause climatic instabilities.
4.) Carbon Dioxide Levels – CO2 is one of the most influential greenhouse gases. A fluctuation would create two different extremes. Too much and we would be like Venus, like an oven. Or like Mercury where the temperature during the day can reach 800˚F and night can drop to a brisk -300˚F.
5.) Gravity – If the Gravitational constant were changed but 1x10^-38 then the sun would not exist.
6.) Centrifugal Force of Planetary Movements – If the planetary movements did not so precisely balance the sun’s gravitational forces, nothing could be held in orbit around the sun.
7.) Expansion of the Universe – If the expansion had occurred one millionth more slowly than it did then the expansion would have stopped and the universe would have collapsed on itself.
8.) Speed of Light – even the slightest variation of this constant would alter other constants in physics and preclude the possibility of life on Earth.
9.) Jupiter’s Orbit – Jupiter acts as a cosmic vacuum and its strong gravitational pull attracts asteroids and comets that might otherwise strike the earth.
10.) Thickness of Earth’s Crust – Greater and too much oxygen would be transferred to the earth’s crust to support life; less, and volcanic and tectonic activity would make the earth unsuitable for life.
11.) Rotation of the Earth – Longer than twenty-four hours and the temperature difference would be too great, but shorter and the atmospheric wind velocities would be too great.
12.) 23˚ Axis Tilt – A change either way and surface temperatures would be too extreme.
13.) Lightning discharge rate – Greater and there would be too much fire destruction, but less and there would be too little nitrogen fixing in the soil.
14.) Seismic Activity – Too much and there would be too much loss of life, less and nutrients from river run off and the bottom of the ocean would not be cycled back into continents through tectonic uplift (even earthquakes do their part to sustain life).

These are only fourteen of the 122 different Authropic Constants and astrophysicist Hugh Ross has calculated the probability that all these constants would exist for any other constant in the universe by chance (i.e. without divine design). We will assume there are around 10^22 planets in the universe and the chance that Ross came up with is a one in 10^138. To illustrate this concept consider there are only 10^70 atoms in the whole universe and if you put a zero on every atom in the universe, there would not be enough atoms to write all the zeros. So I believe it is pretty safe to say that there is no chance of any other planet in the universe that would have the same life supporting conditions that we have on earth. Arno Penzias, the co-discoverer of the cosmic radiation said this,

“Astronomy leads us to a unique event, a universe which was created out of nothing and delicately balanced to provide exactly the conditions required to support life. In the absence of an absurdly-improbable accident, the observations of modern science seem to suggest an underlying, one might say, supernatural plan.”

Through a little insight of science and astronomy we realize what David was saying in his psalm. He was praising the glory and strength of the Lord through his magnificent creation. David did not even have the knowledge of the scientific evidence that we have today but he saw through clear eyes. Such as, a quote of C.S. Lewis, “I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen: not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else.” Through science we can see but a part of God’s majestic beauty. Just imagine a God so immense that it will take all of eternity to learn everything there is to learn about God. What we see in the physical world God called ‘good’ and we cannot even fathom the wonders of heaven. 1 Corinthians 2:9 tells us “No eye has seen, no ear has heard, no mind has conceived what God has prepared for those who love him.” Through God’s merciful plan of redemption Jesus has paid the price for our iniquities and has given all people a chance to experience God’s creation the way God created it and David perceived it. Through faith.