, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Most modern cosmologies assume as a primary condition of the Big Bang that the universe had no edge or center. This implies that although time may be affected differently in various areas of space due to matter clumping, overall the universe is homogeneous and has roughly the same age.

If this assumption is exchanged for the biblical model of a starting condition that did have an edge and a center (the deep of Genesis 1) and we dump this into the Big Bang theory, General Relativity begins to affect time dramatically. At the center (where Earth is located) much more mass was present and thus “slowed” time down. Conversely, at the “edge” time would move faster. In this paradigm, from Earth’s perspective one gets 6,000 years, but at the edge of the universe one gets 15 billion years (remember, time as a physical property is relative).[1]

Historical economist David Landes notes in his work, Revolution in Time, that the seventeenth century scientist Christiaan Huygens (considered one of the greatest scientists of all time) as late as 1690 contested Denis Papin’s opinion that the metal pendulum rods of clocks expanded when going from cooler to warmer climates, which affected the oscillation and thus their measure of time. Huygens was supported in his belief through the science of the day. Careful observers took their finely engraved brass rulers and measured the brass pendulums for a base line. They took these same rulers and remeasured the pendulums in the tropics. Unsurprisingly, the pendulums were of the same length as when they left northern climes.[2]

We face a similar conundrum in our day. Albert Einstein is regarded as arguably the greatest mind of the twentieth century. His insights into time, gravity, and quantum mechanics paved the way for the nuclear/information age we live in. The anchor of his insights was C, the constancy of the speed of light in a vacuum from all frames of reference.[3] As a universal physical constant, the speed of light is the time measuring stick we use to determine the age of the universe. But what if it isn’t constant?

Constancy is a needed lens in the construction of scientific theories. Unlike God, we were not there in the beginning. We can at best guess what occurred in ancient times. Absent eyewitness records, we are forced to extrapolate, to backward engineer, beginning states from current ones. Our fist assumption is that the rules that hold true today held true then. Though simplifying, it is a deceiving assumption.

2 Peter 3:3-4
3 knowing this first: that scoffers will come in the last days, walking according to their own lusts,
4 and saying, “Where is the promise of His coming? For since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of creation.” NKJV [Emphasis added.]

“All things continue as they were from the beginning of creation” is the assumption of constancy. It forms a main plank in the scoffers’ platform. Scriptures, and some scientists, disagree with the notion of all physics being the same in the beginning as they are now.

Barry Setterfield is a scientist who has analyzed all the data available regarding the speed of light.[4] Over the past 300 years, the speed of light has been measured 164 times by 16 different methods. The analysis of the data indicates that the speed of light has been degrading (i.e. slowing down) noticeably even in the past 300 years.[5] What has been the effect of 6,000 years of a universe in entropy?

Physicist João Magueijo in his book, Faster than the Speed of Light, speculates that the speed of light might have been 1032 times faster in the early universe than it is now.[6] He credits the slowdown in the speed of light and the resultant discharge of the vacuum energy with the appearance of matter in the universe.[7] In other words, light slowing down caused the creation of matter.[8] If Magueijo’s speculation is correct, the light of distant galaxies took less than 15 billion years as we measure time today.

The Chances of Evolution

Evolutionary theory is the greatest mental stronghold in the arena of the sciences today. What began as a biological theory on the origins of life has bled into the paradigm of virtually every other discipline. Not only biologists, but cosmologists, anthropologists, psychologists, sociologists, philologists, and even economists begin with evolutionary assumptions (and not without dire consequences).

If we were to simplify the argument of creation versus evolution down to two words, they would be design and chance. A logical formula for design would be as follows:

Matter + Energy + Information = Life[9]

A similar formula for evolution would look like this:

Matter + Energy + Chance Chemistry = Life[10]

Since evolutionary theory is based on chance combinations of different elements over time, what are the chances that life could develop by happenstance?

Chances of a free-living, single-celled organism (i.e. bacterium) resulting from chance combinations of preexisting building blocks: 1 in 10100,000,000,000.

Chances of only the proteins of an amoebae developing by chance: 1 in 1040,000.

“[The chance of spontaneous generation] is about the same as the probability that a tornado sweeping through a junk yard could assemble a 747 from the contents therein.” Sir Fred Hoyle[11]

Any event with an improbability greater than 1050 is considered absurd from a mathematician’s point of view. In other words, it would take a miracle for it to happen. The improbability of evolution on Earth sheds light on the possibility of life on other planets. Physicist Frank J. Tipler states:

“The consensus opinion of the evolutionary biologists is that the evolution of intelligent life is extremely improbable, so improbable that we are most likely the only intelligent species in the visible universe, quite possibly the only one in the entire universe!” Frank J. Tipler[12]

This statement by an atheistic, evolutionist scientist is startlingly candid. In essence, he is saying that the chances for evolution are so low that if you believe in evolution, that it happened at all means that it only happened here. “There is no E.T.,” he is saying, “our existence and the numbers prove it.” I suppose we could have saved him the trouble of the math by one simple question: on how many planets and for how many species does the Bible say Christ died?[13]

Not Enough Time

If the probability of chance combinations of preexisting building blocks developing a single-celled organism is only 1 in 10100,000,000,000, how much time would we need to make that happen? Or better yet, how many combinations? One would almost assume that you would need the 10100,000,000,000 chance collisions to happen to be assured of a positive result. If we had a chance combination every second of the history of the universe, that should do it, right? Wrong.

  • Even if we concede to a 15 billion year old universe, it only gives us 1018 seconds to play with, far short of the time we need. What if every particle in the universe bumped into every other particle in the universe every second of the universe. That should do it, right? Wrong.
  • There are only 1080 particles in the universe. If every particle had a chance combination every second of the life of the Universe, we would only achieve 1098 One followed by ninety-eight zeros falls well short of the 1 followed by one hundred billion zeros we need just to get a single-celled organism today, let alone the complex living organisms that have been on the planet for millennia.

Chance needs more time and lacks sufficient raw material to randomly bake the cake of life. I am reminded of the story about a group of brilliant genetic engineers. Once they figured out the process of cloning large mammals, they moved on to make other animals through spontaneous generation using basic raw materials. Certain they had the answers to life, they called God and informed Him that He and His creative power were no longer needed. They, the scientists, had figured it all out. They could take over from here. God could move on to bigger and better things.

God was unconvinced. He wanted the scientists to prove they were able to do what they claimed, so He called them to a challenge. “What do you want to do,” they asked. “Make frogs,” God said. “No problem,” the crack research team replied, “we’ll meet you on the school ground at three o’clock.”

The hour came and the parties faced off. “Are you ready, boys,” God asked kindly. “We’re all set,” they said. God nodded, bent down, and picked up a handful of dirt. The scientists smiled. They had this one in the bag. Two of them stooped down to gather some earth. “Uh, uh, uh,” God said, wagging His finger at them, “get your own dirt!”

Evolutionists have an ontological problem. All evolutionary paradigms begin with the presupposition that “dirt” has always been available. True materialists, evolutionists make matter eternal. Viewing the intellectual construct objectively, the trinity of evolution is god the matter, god the chance, and god the time. Those that worship them are an abomination. The created thing should never be worshipped as Creator. Faith in chance is a disavowal of God’s sovereignty. Time cannot tell us about the future, it can carry us there.

[1] This is a gross oversimplification of D. Russell Humphreys work. See D. Russell Humphreys, Ph.D., Starlight and Time: Solving the Puzzle of Distant Starlight in a Young Universe, Master Books, Inc., Green Forest, 1994. He calls it a “White Hole” cosmology.
[2] David S. Landes, Revolution in Time: Clocks and the Making of the Modern World, The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, Cambridge, 2000, p.
[3] This is the C in the famous equation E = MC2.
[4] In collaboration with Trevor Norman.
[5] Chuck Missler, Supplemental Notes: Stretching the Heavens and the Dilation of Time, Koinonia House Inc., 1999, p. 7.
[6] João Migueijo, Faster than the Speed of Light: The Story of a Scientific Speculation, Perseus Publishing, Cambridge, 2003, p. 160.
[7] Ibid., p. 162.
[8] I would say that our Superluminal Creator spoke a word more powerful than light, which brought about the creation. Everything we know of the physical universe followed after “Let there be light.”
[9] Chuck Missler, Supplemental Notes: The Creator Beyond Time and Space, Koinonia House Inc., Coer d’Alene, 1996, p. 10.
[10] Ibid.
[11] Ibid., p. 15-16 for both estimates of the odds and the Sir Fred Hoyle quote.
[12] Frank J. Tipler, The Physics of Immortality, Anchor Books, New York, 1994, p. 351.
[13] The question isn’t facetious. I have met plenty Christians who are captivated by the science speculation and science fiction of our time to the degree that they want to believe in extraterrestrial life. If by extraterrestrial life we mean free will moral agents deposited in living clay jars, such a position is not scripturally tenable. If one must have aliens from outer space, there are enough of them in the Bible to satisfy any E.T. fan. Jesus said He came from outer space (John 6:38; 8:23). Father God is in heaven. The angels (both standing and fallen) are from heaven as well. And if you are born again, you are an alien too, just one more happy planet pilgrim (Heb. 11:13; 1 Pet. 2:11).