Tag Archives: physics

31 Nobel Prize Quotes That Challenge the ‘Faith vs. Science’ Myth – Smart Faith | Cross Examined

You have seen it on social media or even books. Someone gambling his head that faith impedes the progression of science. Faith, they say, is believing something without evidence or in spite of, and science relies on evidence to reach at truth. This gives the false impression that the majority of scientist are atheist, or at least non theist. It’s even considered conventional wisdom for many (maybe you thought it too).

But in reality… this is just plain doodoo.

Faith vs. Science?

First, because it starts with a false definition of faith like the one mentioned above. Pistis, the Greek word for faith, means trust and is the word used in the Bible. Trust cannot be conceived without reasonable justification. The biblical faith doesn’t shy away from doubt. Doubt and faith aren’t mutually exclusive.

Second, if you start with scientism or naturalism as your worldview, by default you will reject any argument or evidence that points to the existence of the supernatural.[1] There is no objectivity there. It’s just closed minded.

Third, this is not just factually wrong. The opposite is factually true.

Pie Chart distributing the religion of nobel prize winners between 1901 and 2000.

Source: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Religion_of_Nobel_Prize_winners.png

[This Chart depicts the] “Distribution of Nobel Prizes by religion between 1901–2000, the data tooks [sic] from Baruch A. Shalev, 100 Years of Nobel Prizes (2003), Atlantic Publishers & Distributors, p.59 and p.57: between 1901 and 2000 reveals that 654 Laureates belong to 28 different religion. Most 65.4% have identified Christianity in its various forms as their religious preference. Overall, Christians have won a total of 78.3% of all the Nobel Prizes in Peace, 72.5% in Chemistry, 65.3% in Physics, 62% in Medicine, 54% in Economics and 49.5% of all Literature awards.

Atheists, agnostics, and freethinkers comprise 10.5% of total Nobel Prize winners; but in the category of Literature, these preferences rise sharply to about 35%. A striking fact involving religion is the high number of Laureates of the Jewish faith — over 20% of total Nobel Prizes (138); including: 17% in Chemistry, 26% in Medicine and Physics, 40% in Economics and 11% in Peace and Literature each. The numbers are especially startling in light of the fact that only some 14 million people (0.2% of the world’s population) are Jewish. By contrast, only 5 Nobel Laureates have been of the Muslim faith-0.8% of total number of Nobel prizes awarded — from a population base of about 1.2 billion (20% of the world‘s population).”[2]

Before We Proceed

Before getting into the cognitive-dissonance-inducing quotes, let me make some caveats.

  • The experts quoted here have different religious beliefs and affiliations.
  • This list does not prove the existence of any God or truthfulness of any particular religion any [given] scientist professes.
  • This also does not disprove atheism or any non-theist worldview, since, as mentioned at the beginning, there is a small percentage of non-theists that were and are Nobel prize winners.
  • This list does not prove the opposite, namely, that the majority of scientist in these fields are religious. It might be the case that religious people are a minority.
  • Finally, it just disproves the false assumption that faith in God and the supernatural impedes the progression of science (when in fact, it gave birth to science, but that might be a future post) or that science and faith are incompatible.

The list will be divided by fields for easy search with their respective sources. The experts range from different nationalities and times with no specific order. This list only composes the fields of chemistry, physics and medicine. Literature, economics and peace are not included. Without further ado, enjoy the quotes.

Chemistry

  1. “God did create the universe about 13.7 billion years ago, and of necessity has involved Himself with His creation ever since. The purpose of this universe is something that only God knows for sure, but it is increasingly clear to modern science that the universe was exquisitely fine-tuned to enable human life. We are somehow critically involved in His purpose.”
    — Richard Smalley. Chemist.
    — Nobel Prize: For the discovery of fullerenes.
    — Source: Remarks by Richard Smalley at 2005 Alumni Banquet, Hope College.
  2. “Well, we are supposed to love the Lord our God with all our heart with all our mind and with all our strength. But that is separate from loving our neighbor as ourselves. It means that nature is God’s creation. So we should love nature and understand nature the best we can in order to show our love for the creator.”
    — John B. Goodenough. Materials scientist, a solid-state physicist.
    — Nobel Prize: For the development of lithium-ion batteries
    — Source: Transcript of an interview with John B. Goodenough.
  3. “God is Truth. There is no incompatibility between science and religion. Both are seeking the same truth. Science shows that God exists.”
    — Dereck Barton. Organic chemist.
    — Nobel Prize: For his contribution to the development of the conformational analysis as an essential part of organic chemistry.
    — Source: Barton, as cited in Margenau and Varghese 1997, Cosmos, Bios, Theos: Scientists Reflect on Science, God, and the Origins of the Universe, Life, and Homo sapiens, 144.
  4. “I think only an idiot can be an atheist. We must admit that there exists an incomprehensible power or force with limitless foresight and knowledge that started the whole universe going in the first place.”
    — Christian Anfinsen. Biochemist.
    — Nobel Prize: For his work on ribonuclease, especially concerning the connection between the amino acid sequence and the biologically active conformation.
    — Source: Anfinsen, as cited in Margenau and Varghese, ‘Cosmos, Bios, Theos’, 1997, 139.
  5. “Certainly science, especially physics and chemistry, is a very important part of my identity. But I also consider myself a religious person, and in two senses: one, based on my liberal Jewish upbringing which I have passed on to my children; the other, a kind of nondenominational deism which springs from my awe of the world of our experiences and is heightened by my identity as a scientist. It also includes a conviction that science alone is an insufficient guide to life, leaving many deep questions unanswered and needs unfulfilled.”
    — Walter Kohn. Physicist.
    — Nobel Prize: For his work on the development of the density functional theory.
    — Source: Reflections of a Physicist after an Encounter with the Vatican and Pope John Paul II (April 20, 2001, University of California, Santa Barbara)

Physics

  1. “This much I can say with definiteness — namely, that there is no scientific basis for the denial of religion — nor is there in my judgment any excuse for a conflict between science and religion, for their fields are entirely different. Men who know very little of science and men who know very little of religion do indeed get to quarreling, and the onlookers imagine that there is a conflict between science and religion, whereas the conflict is only between two different species of ignorance.”
    — Robert A. Millikan. Experimental physicist.
    — Nobel prize: for his work on the elementary charge of electricity and on the photoelectric effect.
    — Source: Autobiography (1950). Chapter 21: “The Two Supreme Elements in Human Progress”. p 279.
  2. “If we count the galaxies of the universe or demonstrate the existence of elementary particles, in an analog way we can’t probably have proof of the existence of God. But as a researcher, I’m deeply moved by the order and beauty I find in the cosmos and the interior of material things. As an observer of nature, I can’t help thinking there is a higher order. The idea that all this is the result of fortune or pure statistic diversity for me is completely unacceptable.”
    — Carlo Rubbia. Physicist and director of the European Organization for Nuclear Research (CERN)
    — Nobel Prize: For work leading to the discovery of the W and Z particles at CERN.
    — Source: C. Rubbia, Neue Zürcher Zeitung, March 1993.
  3. “Science, with its experiments and logic, tries to understand the order or structure of the universe. Religion, with its theological inspiration and reflection, tries to understand the purpose or meaning of the universe. These two are cross-related. Purpose implies structure, and structure ought somehow to be interpretable in terms of purpose.”
    — Charles H. Townes. Physicist.
    — Nobel Prize: 
    For fundamental work in the field of quantum electronics.
    — Source: “Logic and Uncertainties in Science and Religion,” in Science and the Future of Mankind: Science for Man and Man for Science, pp. 296–309.
  4. “As we conquer peak after peak we see in front of us regions full of interest and beauty, but we do not see our goal, we do not see the horizon; in the distance tower still higher peaks, which will yield to those who ascend them still wider prospects, and deepen the feeling, the truth of which is emphasized by every advance in science, that ‘Great are the Works of the Lord’.”
    — Joseph John Thomson. Physicist
    — Nobel Prize: For the discovery of the electron.
    — Source: Thomson 1909, Nature, vol. 81, p. 257
  5. “If there are a bunch of fruit trees, one can say that whoever created these fruit trees wanted some apples. In other words, by looking at the order in the world, we can infer purpose and from purpose we begin to get some knowledge of the Creator, the Planner of all this. This is, then, how I look at God. I look at God through the works of God’s hands and from those works imply intentions. From these intentions, I receive an impression of the Almighty.”
    — Arno Penzias. Physics.
    — Nobel Prize: For the discovery of the cosmic background radiation which substantiated Big Bang theory.
    — Source: Penzias, as cited in ‘The God I Believe in’, Joshua O. Haberman editor, New York, Maxwell Macmillan International, 1994, 184
  6. “One way to learn the mind of the Creator is to study His creation. We must pay God the compliment of studying His work of art and this should apply to all realms of human thought. A refusal to use our intelligence honestly is an act of contempt for Him who gave us that intelligence.”
    Ernest Thomas Sinton Walton. Physicist.
    — Nobel Prize: for his pioneering work on the transmutation of atomic nuclei by artificially accelerated atomic particles
    — Source: V. J. McBrierty (2003): Ernest Thomas Sinton Walton, The Irish Scientist, 1903–1995, Trinity College Dublin Press.
  7. “Can a good scientist believe in God? I think the answer is: Yes. In the first place, a scientist, more than other scholars, spends his time observing nature. It is his task to help to unravel the mysteries of nature. He comes to marvel at these mysteries. Hence, it is not hard for a scientist to admire the greatness of the creator of nature. From this it is only a step to adore God.”
    Victor Franz Hess. Physicist
    — Nobel Prize: 
    For the discovery of cosmic rays.
    — Source:
     The American Weekly. “My Faith”. November 3, 1946.
  8. “The book of nature which we have to read is written by the finger of God.”
    Michael Faraday. Scientist.
    — Nobel Prize: 
    For establishing the existence of the magnetic field, discovered electrolysis, diamagnetism, electromagnetic induction and benzene.
    — Source: Seeger, Raymond. 1983. “Faraday, Sandemanian,” in The Journal of the American Scientific Affiliation, 35 (June 1983): 101.
  9. “Both religion and science require a belief in God. For believers, God is in the beginning, and for physicists He is at the end of all considerations… To the former He is the foundation, to the latter, the crown of the edifice of every generalized world view.”
    Max Planck. Physicist. Founder of quantum physics.
    — Nobel Prize: In recognition of the services he rendered to the advancement of Physics by his discovery of energy quanta.
    — Source: Scientific Autobiography and Other Papers as translated by F. Gaynor (1949), p. 184 — Religion and Natural Science (1937)
  10. “In view of such harmony in the cosmos which I, with my limited human mind, am able to recognize, there are yet people who say there is no God. But what makes me really angry is that they quote me for support of such views.”
    Albert Einstein. Physicist.
    — Nobel Prize: for his services to Theoretical Physics, and especially for his discovery of the law of the photoelectric effect.
    — Source: Statement to German anti-Nazi diplomat and author Prince Hubertus zu Lowenstein around 1941, as quoted in his book Towards the Further Shore : An Autobiography (1968) — Attributed in posthumous publications.
  11. “Overpoweringly strong proofs of intelligent and benevolent design lie all around us; and if ever perplexities, whether metaphysical or scientific, turn us away from them for a time, they come back upon us with irresistible force, showing to us through Nature the influence of a free will, and teaching us that all living things depend on one ever-acting Creator and Ruler.”
    William Lord Kelvin. Physicist and mathematician. Founder of Thermodynamics and Energetics
    — Nobel Prize: his achievements in thermodynamics.
    — Source: Address of Sir William Thomson, Knt., LL.D., F.R.S, President,” in Report of the Forty-First Meeting of the British Association for the Advancement of Science, held at Edinburgh in August 1871, pages lxxxiv-cv., 100–101.
  12. “I believe in God, who can respond to prayers, to whom we can give trust and without whom life on this earth would be without meaning (a tale told by an idiot). I believe that God has revealed Himself to us in many ways and through many men and women, and that for us here in the West the clearest revelation is through Jesus and those that have followed him.”
    Nevill Francis Mott. Physicist.
    — Nobel Prize: For his work on the electronic structure of magnetic and disordered systems, especially amorphous semiconductors.
    — Source: Mott, as cited in Nevill Mott: Reminiscences and Appreciations, E.A. Davis — editor, London, Taylor & Francis Ltd, 1998, 329.
  13. “I believe in God. In fact, I believe in a personal God who acts in and interacts with the creation. I believe that the observations about the orderliness of the physical universe, and the apparently exceptional fine-tuning of the conditions of the universe for the development of life suggest that an intelligent Creator is responsible. I believe in God because of a personal faith, a faith that is consistent with what I know about science.”
    William D. Phillips. Physicist.
    — Nobel Prize: For development of methods to cool and trap atoms with laser light.
    — Source: Phillips, William D. 2002b. A letter to the compiler T. Dimitrov. May 19.
  14. “Those who say that the study of science makes a man an atheist, must be rather silly people.”
    Max Born, Physicist.
    — Nobel Prize: For his fundamental research in quantum mechanics, especially for his statistical interpretation of the wavefunction.
    — Source: Frederick E. Trinklein, The God of Science (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1971), 64.
  15. [When asked if he believed in God as a natural scientist] “Naturally, yes. I grew up as a strict Catholic, and I think that I benefited from that.”
    Peter Grünberg. Physicist.
    — Nobel Prize: For his discovery with Albert Fert of giant magnetoresistance.
    — Source: Cicero: Magazin für Politische Kultur, December 2007.
  16. “For myself, faith begins with the realization that a supreme intelligence brought the universe into being and created man. It is not difficult for me to have this faith, for it is incontrovertible that where there is a plan there is intelligence. An orderly, unfolding universe testifies to the truth of the most majestic statement ever uttered: ‘In the beginning God. . . ”
    — Arthur Compton. Physicist.
    — Nobel Prize: for his discovery of the effect named after him.
    — Source: “Why I Believe in Immortality,” This Week, (Sunday supplement to the New Orleans’ The Sunday Item-Tribune; April 12, 1936), 5 ff. Reprinted in Christian Science Sentinel, 62: 32, (August 6, 1960), 1411.
  17. “In the history of science, ever since the famous trial of Galileo, it has repeatedly been claimed that scientific truth cannot be reconciled with the religious interpretation of the world. Although I am now convinced that scientific truth is unassailable in its own field, I have never found it possible to dismiss the content of religious thinking as simply part of an outmoded phase in the consciousness of mankind, a part we shall have to give up from now on. Thus in the course of my life I have repeatedly been compelled to ponder on the relationship of these two regions of thought, for I have never been able to doubt the reality of that to which they point.”
    — Werner Karl Heisenberg. Theoretical physicist.
    — Nobel Prize: For the creation of quantum mechanics.
    — Source: Heisenberg, Scientific and Religious Truth (1973)
  18. “It seems to me that when confronted with the marvels of life and the universe, one must ask why and not just how. The only possible answers are religious. . . I find a need for God in the universe and my own life.”
    — Arthur L. Schawlo. Physicist.
    — Nobel Prize: for their contribution to the development of laser spectroscopy.
    — Source: H. Margenau, Cosmos, Bios, Theos: Scientist Reflect on Science, God, and the Origins of the Universe, Life, and Homo Sapiens (1992).
  19. “I think both science and religion are necessary to understand our relation to the Universe. In principle, Science tells us how everything works, although there are many unsolved problems and I guess there always will be. But science raises questions that it can never answer. Why did the big bang eventually lead to conscious beings who question the purpose of life and the existence of the Universe? This is where religion is necessary.”
    — Antony Hewish. Radio astronomer
    — Nobel Prize: For their pioneering research in radio astrophysics: Ryle for his observations and inventions, in particular of the aperture synthesis technique, and Hewish for his decisive role in the discovery of pulsars.
    — Source: Antony Hewish, “A letter to the compiler T. Dimitrov. May 27” (2002).

Medicine

  1. “I have said for years that speculations about the origin of life lead to no useful purpose as even the simplest living system is far too complex to be understood in terms of the extremely primitive chemistry scientists have used in their attempts to explain the unexplainable that happened billions of years ago. God cannot be explained away by such naive thoughts.”
    — Ernst Boris Chain. Biochemist.
    — Nobel Prize: for the discovery of penicillin and its curative effect in various infectious diseases.
    — Source: Chain, as cited in The Life of Ernst Chain: Penicillin and Beyond by Ronald W. Clark, London, Weidenfeld & Nicolson, 1985, 147–148.
  2. “Only the scientist manages to understand something of that mysterious language that God has written in Nature; and it has only been given to him to unravel the marvelous work of Creation in order to render to the Absolute the most pleasant and accepted cult, that of studying his portentous works, in order to know, admire and revere him in and through them.” [Translated by me from Spanish to English]
    — Santiago Ramon y Cajal. Neuroscientist, pathologist, and histologist.
    — Nobel Prize: In recognition of his work on the structure of the nervous system.
    — Source: Reglas y consejos sobre la investigación científica. Los tónicos de la voluntad.
  3. “…[N]o scientific discovery was so fraught with significance as the revelation of the law of love by Jesus the Crucified. For this law is, in fact, that of the survival of human societies.”
    — Alexis Carrell. Surgeon and biologist.
    — Nobel Prize: For his work on vascular suture and the transplantation of blood vessels and organs
    — Source: Reflections on Life, 1952, Chap. 3, Part 6
  4. “Science and religion are very much alike. Both are imaginative and creative aspects of the human mind. The appearance of a conflict is a result of ignorance. We come to exist through a divine act. That divine guidance is a theme throughout our life; at our death the brain goes, but that divine guidance and love continues. Each of us is a unique, conscious being, a divine creation. It is the religious view. It is the only view consistent with all the evidence.”
    — Sir John Carew Eccles. Neurophysiologist and philosopher.
    — Nobel Prize: For his discoveries concerning the ionic mechanisms involved in excitation and inhibition in the peripheral and central portions of the nerve cell membrane.
    — Source: The Intellectuals Speak Out About God: A Handbook for the Christian Student in a Secular Society (1984). p 50.
  5. “Is the Church inimical to science? Growing up as a Catholic and a scientist — I don’t see it. One truth is revealed truth, the other is scientific truth. If you really believe that creation is good, there can be no harm in studying science. The more we learn about creation — the way it emerged — it just adds to the glory of God. Personally, I’ve never seen a conflict.”
    — Joseph Murray. Professor of Surgery at Harvard Medical School; chief plastic surgeon at Children’s Hospital Medical Center, Boston.
    — Nobel Prize: For work that “proved to a doubting world that it was possible to transplant organs to save the lives of dying patients.”
    — SourceNational Catholic Register (December 1–7, 1996) (Murray, as cited in Meyer 1996)
  6. “When it comes to the origin of life there are only two possibilities: creation or spontaneous generation. There is no third way. Spontaneous generation was disproved one hundred years ago, but that leads us to only one other conclusion, that of supernatural creation. We cannot accept that on philosophical grounds; therefore, we choose to believe the impossible: that life arose spontaneously by chance!”
    — George Wald. Professor of Biology at Harvard University (1948–1977).
    — Nobel Prize: For his work on the biochemistry of vision.
    — Source: George Wald, 1954, “The Origin of Life,” Scientific American, 191 [2]: 48. [It should be noted he was an atheist when he said this. He later become a deist.]
  7. “This day relenting God Hath placed within my hand A wondrous thing; and God Be praised. At His command, Seeking His secret deeds With tears and toiling breath, I find thy cunning seeds, O million-murdering Death. I know this little thing A myriad men will save. O Death, where is thy sting? Thy victory, O Grave?”
    — Ronald Ross. Professor of Tropical Medicine at Liverpool University (1902–1912); Vice President of the Royal Society (1911–1913).
    Nobel Prize: For his remarkable work on malaria. This poem was written on August 20, 1897, the same day he made his landmark discovery that malaria is transmitted to people by Anopheles mosquitoes.
    — Source: Ronald Ross, Memoirs, London, John Murray, 1923, 226.

Hopefully, these quotes are sufficient to convince you that such conflict is nonexistent. Therefore, keep believing. Keep inquiring.

Am I missing someone? If you know any Lauret scientist in any of these categories that is not in the list, but you think it should, comment his/her name with title, why it was given the prize and a verified quote with source.

Some information presented in this list was collected form the free eBook 50 Nobel Laureates and Other Great Scientists Who Believe In God. This eBook includes the field of literature, economics and peace.

References:

[1] Editor’s Note: “Scientism” is the idea that science is the sole arbiter of knowledge, everything is else is subjective opinion, fiction, or foolishness. “Naturalism” is the idea that the only thing/s that exist is nature; there is no supernatural realm.

[2] https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Religion_of_Nobel_Prize_winners.png

Recommended Resources:

Why Science Needs God by Dr. Frank Turek (DVD and Mp4)

Science Doesn’t Say Anything, Scientists Do by Dr. Frank Turek (DVD, Mp3, and Mp4)

Oh, Why Didn’t I Say That? Does Science Disprove God? by Dr. Frank Turek (DVD and Mp4)

I Don’t Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist (Paperback), and (Sermon) by Norman Geisler and Frank Turek 


Miguel Rodriguez is the founder of Smart Faith, a platform dedicated to helping Christians defend their faith with clarity and confidence. After experiencing a miraculous healing at 14, he developed a passion for knowing God through study and teaching. He now serves as the Director of Christian Education and a Bible teacher at his local church while also working as a freelance email marketer. Living in Orlando, Florida, with his wife and two daughters, Miguel seeks to equip believers with practical and intellectual tools to strengthen their faith. Through Smart Faith, he provides apologetics and self-improvement content to help Christians live with wisdom and integrity.

Originally posted at: https://bit.ly/3Zuhby7

The post 31 Nobel Prize Quotes That Challenge the ‘Faith vs. Science’ Myth – Smart Faith appeared first on Cross Examined.

https://crossexamined.org/31-nobel-prize-quotes-that-challenge-the-faith-vs-science-myth-smart-faith/

Why Cosmic Background Radiation Demonstrates the Universe Had a Beginning | Cold Case Christianity

In 1964, two American physicists and radio astronomers, Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson, made an important discovery. They were unable to eliminate the radio signal “noise” from their large antenna at the Bell Telephone Laboratories in New Jersey, regardless of where in the universe they tried to point their instrument. They consulted with colleagues to determine the cause of this noise. Another physicist suggested the noise might not be coming from the antenna at all. Instead they might be detecting the residual background radiation caused when the universe first came into being. Penzias and Wilson proved this to be correct, winning a Nobel Prize for their discovery in 1978.

Numerous additional experiments and observations have since established the existence of cosmic background radiation, including data from the Cosmic Background Explorer satellite launched in 1989, and the Planck space observatory launched in 2009. For many scientists, this discovery solidified their belief the universe had a beginning.

An illustration may be helpful. I served for three years on our SWAT unit, and during that time, we were repeatedly asked to flush out barricaded suspects. We employed a “flashbang” grenade in nearly all these SWAT entries. These are designed, of course, to “flash” and “bang”; they make a lot of noise, light and heat. We typically threw a grenade in the room where the suspect was barricaded (usually through a window). When the grenade hit the ground, it exploded violently, lighting the room, deafening the suspect, and filling the space with debris and heat. In that instant, as the suspect was distracted, our team came in from the opposite corner. Flashbangs are excellent distraction devices because they leave a lingering impact in the space where they are deployed.

GCS Chapter 01 Illustration 05

Illustrations from God’s Crime Scene

In a similar way, if the universe leapt into existence, expanding from a state of tremendous heat, density and expansion, we should expect find evidence of lingering impact. The cosmic background radiation is the residual evidence of this cosmic “flashbang.” The pervasive radiation testifies to the extreme environment at the earliest moments of the universe.


The pervasive radiation testifies to the extreme environment at the earliest moments of the universe.
Share on X


Of course the Cosmic Background radiation, in and of itself, doesn’t demonstrate conclusively the universe had a beginning. But when this single piece of evidence is assembled with other important pieces of evidence I’ve described in God’s Crime Scene, the cumulative case is overwhelming:

GCS Chapter 01 Illustration 06

If the universe (all space, time and matter) did, in fact, come into existence from nothing, the consequences are important.
Share on X


The vast majority of astrophysicists and scientists embrace “Big Bang” cosmology as the “Standard Cosmological Model”. If the universe (all space, time and matter) did, in fact, come into existence from nothing, the consequences are important. “Big Bangs” require a “Big Banger”, and the Christian worldview provides a non-spatial, a-temporal, and non-material “Banger” capable of causing such a universe to spring into existence. I’ve described a very small part of the evidence in this short blog post. For a much more robust account of the evidence and the inadequacy of naturalism to explain the origin of the universe, please refer to God’s Crime Scene, Chapter One – In the Beginning: Was the Universe an Inside Job?

For more information about the scientific and philosophical evidence pointing to a Divine Creator, please read God’s Crime Scene: A Cold-Case Detective Examines the Evidence for a Divinely Created Universe. This book employs a simple crime scene strategy to investigate eight pieces of evidence in the universe to determine the most reasonable explanation. The book is accompanied by an eight-session God’s Crime Scene DVD Set (and Participant’s Guide) to help individuals or small groups examine the evidence and make the case.

The post Why Cosmic Background Radiation Demonstrates the Universe Had a Beginning first appeared on Cold Case Christianity.

How the WMAP satellite confirmed nucleosynthesis predictions and falsified atheism | WINTERY KNIGHT

Prior to certain scientific discoveries, most people thought that the universe had always been here, and no need to ask who or what may have caused it. But today, that’s all changed. Today, the standard model of the origin of the universe is that all the matter and energy in the universe came into being in an event scientists call “The Big Bang”. At the creation event, space and time themselves began to exist, and there is no material reality that preceded them.

So a couple of quotes to show that.

An initial cosmological singularity… forms a past temporal extremity to the universe. We cannot continue physical reasoning, or even the concept of spacetime, through such an extremity… On this view the big bang represents the creation event; the creation not only of all the matter and energy in the universe, but also of spacetime itself.

Source: P. C. W. Davies, “Spacetime Singularities in Cosmology,” in The Study of Time III, ed. J. T. Fraser (Berlin: Springer Verlag ).

And another quote:

[A]lmost everyone now believes that the universe, and time itself, had a beginning at the big bang.

Source: Stephen Hawking and Roger Penrose, The Nature of Space and Time, The Isaac Newton Institute Series of Lectures (Princeton, N. J.: Princeton University Press, 1996), p. 20.

So, there are several scientific discoveries that led scientists to accept the creation event, and one of the most interesting and famous is the discovery of how elements heavier than hydrogen were formed.

Nucleosynthesis: forming heavier elements by fusion

Nucleosynthesis: forming heavier elements by fusion

Here’s the history of how that discovery happened, from the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) web site:

The term nucleosynthesis refers to the formation of heavier elements, atomic nuclei with many protons and neutrons, from the fusion of lighter elements. The Big Bang theory predicts that the early universe was a very hot place. One second after the Big Bang, the temperature of the universe was roughly 10 billion degrees and was filled with a sea of neutrons, protons, electrons, anti-electrons (positrons), photons and neutrinos. As the universe cooled, the neutrons either decayed into protons and electrons or combined with protons to make deuterium (an isotope of hydrogen). During the first three minutes of the universe, most of the deuterium combined to make helium. Trace amounts of lithium were also produced at this time. This process of light element formation in the early universe is called “Big Bang nucleosynthesis” (BBN).

The creation hypothesis predicts that there will be specific amounts of these light elements formed as the universe cools down. Do the predictions match with observations?

Yes they do:

The predicted abundance of deuterium, helium and lithium depends on the density of ordinary matter in the early universe, as shown in the figure at left. These results indicate that the yield of helium is relatively insensitive to the abundance of ordinary matter, above a certain threshold. We generically expect about 24% of the ordinary matter in the universe to be helium produced in the Big Bang. This is in very good agreement with observations and is another major triumph for the Big Bang theory.

Moreover, WMAP satellite measurements of mass density agree with our observations of these light element abundances.

Here are the observations from the WMAP satellite:

Scientific observations match predictions

Scientific observations match predictions

And here is how those WMAP measurements confirm the Big Bang creation event:

However, the Big Bang model can be tested further. Given a precise measurement of the abundance of ordinary matter, the predicted abundances of the other light elements becomes highly constrained. The WMAP satellite is able to directly measure the ordinary matter density and finds a value of 4.6% (±0.2%), indicated by the vertical red line in the graph. This leads to predicted abundances shown by the circles in the graph, which are in good agreement with observed abundances. This is an important and detailed test of nucleosynthesis and is further evidence in support of the Big Bang theory.

“An important and detailed test”.

For completeness, we should learn how elements heavier than these light elements are formed:

Elements heavier than lithium are all synthesized in stars. During the late stages of stellar evolution, massive stars burn helium to carbon, oxygen, silicon, sulfur, and iron. Elements heavier than iron are produced in two ways: in the outer envelopes of super-giant stars and in the explosion of a supernovae. All carbon-based life on Earth is literally composed of stardust.

That’s a wonderful thing to tell a young lady when you are on a date: “your body is made of stardust”. In fact, as I have argued before, this star formation, which creates the elements necessary for intelligent life, can only be built if the fundamental constants and quantities in the universe are finely-tuned.

Now, you would think that atheists would be happy to find observations that confirm the origin of the universe out of nothing, but they are not. Actually, they are in denial.

Here’s a statement from the Secular Humanist Manifesto, which explains what atheists believe about the universe:

Religious humanists regard the universe as self-existing and not created.

For a couple of examples of how atheistic scientists respond to the evidence for a cosmic beginning, you can check out this post, where we get responses from cosmologist Lawrence Krauss, and physical chemist Peter Atkins.

You cannot have the creation of the universe be true AND a self-existing, eternal universe ALSO be true. Someone has to be wrong. Either the science is wrong, or the atheist manifesto is wrong. I know where I stand.

Positive arguments for Christian theism

How the discovery of the cosmic microwave background radiation falsified atheism | WINTERY KNIGHT

Prior to certain scientific discoveries, most people thought that the universe had always been here, and no need to ask who or what may have caused it. But today, that’s all changed. Today, the standard model of the origin of the universe is that all the matter and energy in the universe came into being in an event scientists call “The Big Bang”. At the creation event, space and time themselves began to exist, and there is no material reality that preceded them.

So a couple of quotes to show that.

An initial cosmological singularity… forms a past temporal extremity to the universe. We cannot continue physical reasoning, or even the concept of spacetime, through such an extremity… On this view the big bang represents the creation event; the creation not only of all the matter and energy in the universe, but also of spacetime itself.

Source: P. C. W. Davies, “Spacetime Singularities in Cosmology,” in The Study of Time III, ed. J. T. Fraser (Berlin: Springer Verlag ).

And another quote:

[A]lmost everyone now believes that the universe, and time itself, had a beginning at the big bang.

Source: Stephen Hawking and Roger Penrose, The Nature of Space and Time, The Isaac Newton Institute Series of Lectures (Princeton, N. J.: Princeton University Press, 1996), p. 20.

So, there are several scientific discoveries that led scientists to accept the creation event, and one of the most interesting and famous is the discovery of the cosmic microwave background radiation.

Here’s the history of how that discovery happened, from the American Physical Society web site:

Bell Labs radio astronomers Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson were using a large horn antenna in 1964 and 1965 to map signals from the Milky Way, when they serendipitously discovered the CMB. As written in the citation, “This unexpected discovery, offering strong evidence that the universe began with the Big Bang, ushered in experimental cosmology.” Penzias and Wilson shared the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1978 in honor of their findings.

The CMB is “noise” leftover from the creation of the Universe. The microwave radiation is only 3 degrees above Absolute Zero or -270 degrees C,1 and is uniformly perceptible from all directions. Its presence demonstrates that that our universe began in an extremely hot and violent explosion, called the Big Bang, 13.7 billion years ago.

In 1960, Bell Labs built a 20-foot horn-shaped antenna in Holmdel, NJ to be used with an early satellite system called Echo. The intention was to collect and amplify radio signals to send them across long distances, but within a few years, another satellite was launched and Echo became obsolete.2

With the antenna no longer tied to commercial applications, it was now free for research. Penzias and Wilson jumped at the chance to use it to analyze radio signals from the spaces between galaxies.3 But when they began to employ it, they encountered a persistent “noise” of microwaves that came from every direction. If they were to conduct experiments with the antenna, they would have to find a way to remove the static.

Penzias and Wilson tested everything they could think of to rule out the source of the radiation racket. They knew it wasn’t radiation from the Milky Way or extraterrestrial radio sources. They pointed the antenna towards New York City to rule out “urban interference”, and did analysis to dismiss possible military testing from their list.4

Then they found droppings of pigeons nesting in the antenna. They cleaned out the mess and tried removing the birds and discouraging them from roosting, but they kept flying back. “To get rid of them, we finally found the most humane thing was to get a shot gun…and at very close range [we] just killed them instantly. It’s not something I’m happy about, but that seemed like the only way out of our dilemma,” said Penzias.5 “And so the pigeons left with a smaller bang, but the noise remained, coming from every direction.”6

At the same time, the two astronomers learned that Princeton University physicist Robert Dicke had predicted that if the Big Bang had occurred, there would be low level radiation found throughout the universe. Dicke was about to design an experiment to test this hypothesis when he was contacted by Penzias. Upon hearing of Penzias’ and Wilson’s discovery, Dicke turned to his laboratory colleagues and said “well boys, we’ve been scooped.”7

Although both groups published their results in Astrophysical Journal Letters, only Penzias and Wilson received the Nobel Prize for the discovery of the CMB.

The horn antenna was designated a National Historic Landmark in 1990. Its significance in fostering a new appreciation for the field of cosmology and a better understanding of our origins can be summed up by the following: “Scientists have labeled the discovery [of the CMB] the greatest scientific discovery of the 20th century.”8

It’s the greatest scientific discovery of the 20th century.

In the New York Times, Arno Penzias commented on his discovery – the greatest discovery of the 20th century – so:

The best data we have [concerning the Big Bang] are exactly what I would have predicted, had I nothing to go on but the five books of Moses, the Psalms, the bible as a whole.

Just one problem with the greatest scientific discovery of the 20th century: atheists don’t accept it. Why not?

Here’s a statement from the Secular Humanist Manifesto, which explains what atheists believe about the universe:

Religious humanists regard the universe as self-existing and not created.

For a couple of examples of how atheistic scientists respond to the evidence for a cosmic beginning, you can check out this post, where we get responses from cosmologist Lawrence Krauss, and physical chemist Peter Atkins.

You cannot have the creation of the universe be true AND a self-existing, eternal universe ALSO be true. Someone has to be wrong. Either the science is wrong, or the atheist manifesto is wrong. I know where I stand.

Positive arguments for Christian theism

The Inexplicable Fine-Tuning of the Foundational Forces in Our Universe | Cold Case Christianity

The appearance of fine-tuning in our universe has been observed by theists and atheists alike. Even physicist Paul Davies (who is agnostic when it comes to the notion of a Divine Designer) readily stipulates, “Everyone agrees that the universe looks as if it was designed for life.” Oxford philosopher John Leslie agrees: “it looks as if our universe is spectacularly ‘fine-tuned for life’. By this I mean only that it looks as if small changes in this universe’s basic features would have made life’s evolution impossible.” The foundational “laws of nature” are amazingly fine-tuned; there is very little room for alteration. The smallest modifications of these laws would completely destroy the possibility of life in the universe. Theoretical physicist, Stephen Hawking says the laws of physics “appear fine-tuned in the sense that if they were altered by only modest amounts, the universe would be qualitatively different, and in many cases unsuitable for the development of life…The emergence of the complex structures capable of supporting intelligent observers seems to be very fragile. The laws of nature form a system that is extremely fine-tuned, and very little in physical law can be altered without destroying the possibility of the development of life as we know it. Were it not for a series of startling coincidences in the precise details of physical law, it seems, humans and similar life-forms would never have come into being.” The universe appears fine-tuned in three specific ways:

Forces Governing the Atom Are Favorable to Life:
The constants and proportions of the strong nuclear force, weak nuclear force, electromagnetic force and the force of gravity must exist within very narrow ranges in order for life to exist in the universe. The ratio of electrons to protons (both in their numbers and mass) must be precariously balanced. Stanford University physicist and cosmologist, Leonard Susskind, says, “The Laws of Physics begin with a list of elementary particles like electrons, quarks, and photons, each with special properties such as mass and electric charge. These are the objects that everything else is built out of. No one knows why the list is what it is or why the properties of these particles are exactly what they are. An infinite number of other lists are equally possible. But a universe filled with life is by no means a generic expectation…” If the value of this ratio deviated more than 1 in 1037, the universe, as we know it, would not exist today. If the ratio between the electromagnetic force and gravity was altered more than 1 in 1040, the universe would have suffered a similar fate. The nature of the universe (at the atomic level) could have been different, but even remarkably small differences would have been catastrophic to our existence.

Forces Governing the Matter of the Universe Are Favorable to Life:
On the macro-level, the size of the universe, its rate of growth, and the nature and existence of galaxies, stars, and planets depend largely on the force of gravity. While we sometimes take gravity for granted, the precisely calibrated gravity in the universe is puzzling; Susskind describes it as an “unexplained miracle.” If the expansion rate of the universe deviated by more than 1 in 1037, or the mass density of universe varied more than 1 in 1059, there wouldn’t be a single habitable galaxy or planet in the universe.

Forces Governing the Creation of Chemicals Are Favorable to Life:
The earliest elements in the universe, hydrogen and helium, are insufficient for the existence of carbon-based life forms unless joined by carbon, oxygen and the other necessary elements. These secondary elements were formed in stars, but the process by which these stars converted hydrogen and helium to carbon was an incredibly fine-tuned process. Even small alterations in the laws of physics would have prevented the formation of elements critical to the existence of life. Susskind puts it this way: “In the beginning there were only hydrogen and helium: certainly not sufficient for the foundation of life. Carbon, oxygen, and all the others came later. They were formed in the nuclear reactors in the interiors of stars. But the ability of stars to transmute hydrogen and helium into the all-important carbon nuclei was a very delicate affair. Small changes in the laws of electricity and nuclear physics could have prevented the formation of carbon.”

GCS Chapter 02 Illustration 02

Illustration from God’s Crime Scene

When we use exponential numbers like 1 in 1037, it’s easy to underestimate the precision these numbers represent. Let me give you a few illustrations to help you grasp the exactitude of these universal constants:

Astrophysicist Hugh Ross offers the following analogy: Imagine covering the entire North American continent in dimes and stacking them until they reached the moon. Now imagine stacking just as many dimes again on another billion continents the same size as North America. If you marked one of those dimes and hid it in the billions of piles you’ve assembled, the odds of a blindfolded friend picking out the correct dime is approximately 1 in 1037; the same level of precision required in the strong nuclear force and the expansion rate of the universe.

Philosopher Robin Collins describes it this way: Imagine stretching a measuring tape across the entire known universe. Now imagine one particular mark on the tape represents the correct degree of gravitational force required to create the universe we have. If this mark were moved more than an inch from where it is (on a measuring tape spanning the entire universe), the altered gravitational force would prevent our universe from coming into existence.

Paul Davies credits the following analogy to John Jefferson Davis: Imagine trying to fire a bullet at a one-inch target on the other side of the observable universe. The accuracy required to accomplish such a feat has been calculated at 1 in 1060. Compare this to the precision required in calibrating the mass density of the universe (fine-tuned to within 1 unit in 1059).

Hugh Ross also provides the following analogy: Imagine comparing the universe to an aircraft carrier like the USS John C Stennis (measuring 1,092 feet long with a displacement of 100,000 tons). If this carrier were as fine-tuned as the mass density of our universe, subtracting a billionth of a trillionth of the mass of an electron from the total mass of the aircraft carrier would sink the ship.


The appearance of fine-tuning in our universe has been observed by theists and atheists alike.
Share on X


Starting to appreciate the level of fine-tuning in the foundational particles and forces in the universe? A small change in the value of any one particle or force would have a major impact on the larger systems and outcomes. These fine-tuned relationships (sometimes jokingly referred to as “happy cosmic accidents”) are critically important to life in the cosmos. If just one of these parameters were altered, critical difficulties would result at every level of the universe. According to theoretical physicist Michio Kaku, “…it’s shocking to find how many of the familiar constants of the universe lie within a very narrow band that makes life possible. If a single one of these accidents were altered, stars would never form, the universe would fly apart, DNA would not exist, life as we know it would be impossible, Earth would flip over or freeze, and so on.”

In my book, God’s Crime Scene: A Cold-Case Detective Examines the Evidence for a Divinely Created Universe, I describe the fine-tuning of the universe in a much more robust manner and examine the explanations given by naturalists who want to stay “inside the room” of the natural universe for an answer. For a much more thorough account of the inadequacy of naturalism in this regard, please refer to God’s Crime Scene, Chapter Two – Tampering With the Evidence: Who Is Responsible?

For more information about the scientific and philosophical evidence pointing to a Divine Creator, please read God’s Crime Scene: A Cold-Case Detective Examines the Evidence for a Divinely Created Universe. This book employs a simple crime scene strategy to investigate eight pieces of evidence in the universe to determine the most reasonable explanation. The book is accompanied by an eight-session God’s Crime Scene DVD Set (and Participant’s Guide) to help individuals or small groups examine the evidence and make the case.

The post The Inexplicable Fine-Tuning of the Foundational Forces in Our Universe first appeared on Cold Case Christianity.

The peril of AI and the path to transcendent hope | Denison Forum

A man's profile mirrored by an illustration of a person's profile composed of circuitboard lines. By WhoisDanny/stock.adobe.com. AI intelligence, hope in God.
  • NOTE: Jimmy Carter, the 39th US president and Nobel Prize recipient, died yesterday at his home in Plains, Georgia, at the age of one hundred. We will be publishing a Daily Article Special Edition this morning in response.

I am focusing today on hope that transcends every challenge we face. But to get to the good news, we need to set the stage.

Today’s headlines illustrate the fragility of life: from the passenger plane that skidded off a South Korean airport runway yesterday, killing all but two of the 181 people on board; to the Azerbaijan Airlines plane crash for which Russian President Vladimir Putin apologized; to a weekend storm system that killed at least four people across the South; to the death of longtime sports announcer Greg Gumbel at the age of seventy-eight.

And there’s this: Nobel Prize-winning physicist Geoffrey Hinton, often called the “godfather of artificial intelligence,” is warning that AI could wipe out the human race within the next decade. He said the technology is developing “much faster” than he expected and could make humans the equivalents of “three-year-olds” and AI “the grown-ups.”

In his view, “We’ve never had to deal with things more intelligent than ourselves before.”

Is that so?

“Dark matter” and “dark energy”

Scientists tell us that the universe began around 13.8 billion years ago with an event called the Big Bang that suffused space with light. In that moment, they say, the universe was a septillion (one followed by twenty-four zeroes) times hotter than the center of our sun today. However, they still do not know what caused the Big Bang. Nor do they know how the universe will end.

They also note that the galaxies of our universe are “rotating with such speed that the gravity generated by their observable matter could not possibly hold them together; they should have torn themselves apart long ago.” They theorize that unknown matter is giving them the mass and thus the gravity they need to stay intact, calling it “dark matter.” They calculate that it outweighs visible matter roughly six to one.

Since “dark matter” by definition does not absorb, reflect, or emit light, physicists can only infer its existence from the gravitational effect it seems to have on visible matter.

Then there’s “dark energy,” comprising approximately 68 percent of the universe, which they credit for causing the universe to expand at an accelerated rate. Once again, they do not know what it is or exactly how it works. A new paper claims that dark energy doesn’t even exist, proposing other explanations for our expanding universe.

From the macro to the micro: scientists tell us that the strongest force in the universe, aptly called the “strong force,” binds together the nuclei in the atoms that comprise the physical universe. It is one hundred trillion trillion trillion times stronger than the force of gravity and accounts for around 99 percent of the mass in the visible universe. Without it, nothing we can see would exist.

“Greeted by a band of theologians”

The event science theorizes as a Big Bang is described in Scripture this way: “God said, ‘Let there be light,’ and there was light” (Genesis 1:3). The New Testament adds the trinitarian note,  “All things were made through [Christ], and without him was not any thing made that was made” (John 1:3). It adds, “The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it” (v. 5).

So we have a biblical explanation for the light that began the universe. What about the rotational forces that should tear the universe apart, the energy that theoretically causes it to expand, and the “strong force” that binds mass together?

Consider this statement: “By [Christ] all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things were created through him and for him. And he is before all things, and in him all things hold together” (Colossians 1:16–17, my emphasis).

I am reminded of the NASA physicist Robert Jastrow, who famously wrote in God and the Astronomers:

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; and as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries.

“Is anything too hard for the Lᴏʀᴅ?”

It is obviously very bad news if an intelligence greater than ourselves wishes us harm. If, however, such an intelligence wishes us well, that is outstanding news. It means that this entity has the knowledge and ability to do for us what we cannot do for ourselves.

Now, suppose that this power can work not only on us but also in us, transforming both our external universe and our internal lives in ways we cannot even imagine.

This is just what the Bible proclaims:

To him who is able to do far more abundantly than all we ask or think, according to the power at work within us, to him be glory in the church and in Christ Jesus throughout all generations, forever and ever (Ephesians 3:20–21, my emphasis).

Here’s the catch: Unlike the forces that hold our physical universe together or an artificial intelligence that could one day surpass us, “the power at work within us” requires our cooperation to experience his best. For example:

  • “He himself is our peace” (Ephesians 2:14), but we must admit that we are at war with God, others, and ourselves, and seek what he alone can give.
  • He assures all who know him personally, “I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more” (Jeremiah 31:34), but we must admit our sin and seek his forgiving grace.
  • “He who began a good work in you will bring it to completion at the day of Jesus Christ” (Philippians 1:6), but we must settle for nothing less than his perfect will for our lives (Romans 12:2).

Here’s the bottom line: We experienced God’s best in 2024 to the degree that we sought his provision and submitted to his Spirit. The same will be true in 2025.

Our omniscient, omnipotent Father still asks,

“Is anything too hard for the Lᴏʀᴅ?” (Genesis 18:14)

The answer depends not on him but on us.

Monday news to know:

*Denison Forum does not necessarily endorse the views expressed in these stories.

Quote for the day:

“Prayer is the slender nerve that moves the muscle of omnipotence.” —Charles Spurgeon

The post The peril of AI and the path to transcendent hope appeared first on Denison Forum.

Why We Know Our Universe, And Everything In It, Had A Beginning first | Cold Case Christianity

My career as a Cold Case Detective was built on being evidentially certain about the suspects I brought to trial. There are times when my certainty was established and confirmed by the cumulative and diverse nature of the evidence. Let me give you an example. It’s great when a witness sees the crime and identifies the suspect, but it’s even better if we have DNA evidence placing the suspect at the scene. If the behavior of the suspect (before and after the time of the crime) also betrays his involvement, and if his statements when interviewed are equally incriminating, the case is even better. Cases such as these become more and more reasonable as they grow both in depth and diversity. It’s not just that we now have four different evidences pointing to the same conclusion, it’s that these evidences are from four different categories. Eyewitness testimony, forensic DNA, behaviors and admissions all point to the same reasonable inference. When we have a cumulative, diverse case such as this, our inferences become more reasonable and harder to deny. Why did I take the time to describe this evidential approach to reasonable conclusions? Because a similar methodology can be used to determine whether everything in the universe (all space, time and matter) came from nothing. We have good reason to believe our universe had a beginning, and this inference is established by a cumulativediverse evidential case:

Philosophical Evidence (from the Impossibility of Infinite Regress)
Imagine a linear race track with a start and finish line. Now imagine you’re a new police recruit and I’ve asked you to put on your track shoes and step into the starting blocks for a physical training (PT) test. The finish line is one hundred yards away. As you place your feet in the blocks and prepare to run, I raise the starting pistol. Just before I fire it, however, I stop and tell you to move the start line and blocks back six inches. You reluctantly do that. Again I raise the pistol to the sky—only to command you, once again, to move the line back six inches. You grudgingly comply. Imagine this continues. Question: Will you ever reach the finish line? No. Unless there is a beginning, you’ll never get to the finish. In a similar way, time also requires a beginning in order for any of us to reach a finish; unless time has a beginning, we cannot arrive at the finish line we call “today.”

Theoretical Evidence (from Mathematics and Physics)
Albert Einstein’s calculations related to the general theory of relativity 1916 indicated the universe was dynamic (either expanding or contracting). The notion of a static universe was so common at the time, however, that Einstein applied a mathematical “constant” to his calculations to maintain the unchanging, uniform nature of the universe he hoped for (he later referred to this effort as “the biggest blunder he ever made in his life” ). Einstein’s calculations suggested the universe was not eternally old and unchanging. Alexander Friedmann, a Russian mathematician working with Einstein’s theories in the 1920’s, developed a mathematical model predicting an expanding universe. This conclusion inferred the universe must have had a beginning from which it was expanding.

Observational Evidence (from Astronomical Data)
Vesto Slipher, an American astronomer working at the Lowell Observatory in Flagstaff, Arizona, spent nearly ten years perfecting his understanding of spectrograph readings. His observations revealed something remarkable. If a distant object was moving toward Earth, its observable spectrograph colors shifted toward the blue end of the spectrum. If a distant object was moving away from Earth, its colors shifted toward the red end of the spectrum. Slipher identified several “nebulae” and observed a “redshift” in their spectrographic colors. If these “nebulae” were moving away from our galaxy (and one another) as Slipher observed, they must have once been tightly clustered together. By 1929, Astronomer Edwin Hubble published findings of his own, verifying Slipher’s observations and demonstrating the speed at which a star or galaxy moves away from us increases with its distance from the earth. This once again confirmed the expansion of the universe.

Thermal Evidence (from the Second Law of Thermodynamics)
Imagine walking into a room and observing a wind-up toy police car. The longer you watch it roll, the slower it moves. You realize the car is winding down—that is, the amount of usable energy is decreasing. It’s reasonable to infer the car was recently wound up prior to your entry into the room. The fact the toy car is not yet completely unwound indicates it was wound up recently. If the car had been wound much earlier, we would expect it to be motionless by the time we entered the room. In a similar way, the fact our universe still exhibits useful energy—even though the Second Law of Thermodynamics dictates we are on our way to a cosmic “heat death”—indicates a beginning. Otherwise, and if the universe were infinitely old, our cosmos should have run out of usable energy by now. We can reasonably infer it was once tightly wound and full of energy.

Quantitative Evidence (from the Abundance of Helium)
As Astronomer Sir Fred Hoyle studied the way elements are created within stars, he was able to calculate the amount of helium created if the universe came into being from nothing. Helium is the second most abundant element in the universe (Hydrogen is the first), but in order to form helium by nuclear fusion, temperatures must be incredibly high and conditions must be exceedingly dense. These would have been the conditions if the universe came into being from nothing. Hoyle’s calculations related to the formation of helium happen to coincide with our measurements of helium in the universe today. This, of course, is consistent with the universe having a moment of beginning.

Residual Evidence (from the Cosmic Background Radiation)
In 1964, two American physicists and radio astronomers, Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson detected what is now referred to as “echo radiation”, winning a Nobel Prize for their discovery in 1978. Numerous additional experiments and observations have since established the existence of cosmic background radiation, including data from the Cosmic Background Explorer satellite launched in 1989, and the Planck space observatory launched in 2009. For many scientists, this discovery alone solidified their belief the universe had a beginning. If the universe leapt into existence, expanding from a state of tremendous heat, density and expansion, we should expect find this kind of cosmic background radiation.


The evidence for the beginning of the universe is decidedly diverse
Share on X


There are numerous, diverse lines of evidence pointing to the same reasonable inference. As we assemble the philosophical evidence from the impossibility of infinite regress, the theoretical evidence from mathematics and physics, the observational evidence from astronomical data, the thermal evidence from the second law of thermodynamics, the quantitative evidence from the abundance of helium, and the residual evidence from the cosmic background radiation, we quickly recognize the different nature of these varied forms of evidence. That’s what makes the case so powerful. Just like my criminal cases, when multiple divergent lines of evidence all point to the same conclusion, you can trust you’re making a proper inference. The evidence for the beginning of the universe is decidedly diverse:

GCS Chapter 01 Illustration 06 (Large)

I’ve briefly excerpted this case from one chapter in my book: please read God’s Crime Scene: A Cold-Case Detective Examines the Evidence for A Divinely Created Universe.

For more information about the scientific and philosophical evidence pointing to a Divine Creator, please read God’s Crime Scene: A Cold-Case Detective Examines the Evidence for a Divinely Created Universe. This book employs a simple crime scene strategy to investigate eight pieces of evidence in the universe to determine the most reasonable explanation. The book is accompanied by an eight-session God’s Crime Scene DVD Set (and Participant’s Guide) to help individuals or small groups examine the evidence and make the case.

The post Why We Know Our Universe, And Everything In It, Had A Beginning first appeared on Cold Case Christianity.