Cosmology

Explaining the

Universe
The Universe—A Wonderful Creation
The Planets
Helix Nebula

NGC 7293 - The closest

planetary nebula, gas
expelled from a bright
central star (~450 ly)
A Spiral Galaxy

M81 - ~12 million ly

Sombrero galaxy

M104 – A edge-
on spiral, the
first galaxy
found with a
large red-shift
(1000 km/s),
~50 million ly.
Colliding galaxies

Stefan’s
Quintet (Arp
319)
consists of 5
interacting
galaxies,
~345 million
ly.
Galaxies at the end of the universe

The Hubble Ultra

Deep Field (HUDF),
a million-second-long
exposure (2004)
contains ~10,000
galaxies in a patch of
sky one-tenth the
diameter of the
Moon.
What Is Cosmology?
 The science of the universe as a whole

 The object is to describe and explain the

universe

Recent advances (e.g., Hubble telescope)

have yielded a vast collection of
observations

We try to explain the data in terms of

cosmological models
Biblical Cosmology?
Does Genesis 1 teaches erroneous ancient cosmology?

.
Plato’s Cosmology (400 BC)

A simplified
representation
of reality

Note the five

elements

Circular motion
reflects eternal
perfection
Medieval Cosmology

Models may
incorporate
theological and
philosophical
beliefs.

Note heaven
beyond the stars
Dante’s Cosmology

Note purgatory
and the 9 levels
of hell
Retrograde Motion - Mars

Explaining the motion of

planets requires a more
sophisticated model
Epicycles

An epicycle
reproduces
retrograde
motion within
the constraint of
circular motion.
Epicycles On Epicycles

Adding enough
epicycles can
attain any
desired accuracy,
like Fourier
Series

Ptolemy:
models are useful
fictions, aiming at
accuracy and simplicity
Uses of Cosmological Models

1. A simplified, qualitative representation

of reality, reflecting philosophical and
theological truths (Plato, Dante)

2. A simplified set of mathematical

equations, yielding quantitative
accuracy in calculation & prediction,
saving the appearances (Ptolemy).
Copernicus’ Model

Is a model a useful fiction

or a representation of
reality?
Tycho Brahe’s Model

Both models are

observationally
equivalent.
Which is the true
one?
Modeling Reality
A cosmological model bridges the gap
between one’s conception of reality and
appearances, thus strengthening the case
for that conception of reality.

Copernicus was not widely accepted until

his model was tied to a physical model,
after 1650 (Descartes, Newton).

Relativity gives Copernican and Tychonian

models equal physical support.

So how do we choose?

What does absolute motion mean?

Naturalist Origins – The Big Bang
Observational Support for Big Bang

1. Galactic red-shifts

2. Relative abundances (75% H, 24% He)

3. Micro-wave background radiation

Difficulties with Cosmology

● Only one universe – can’t compare with similar objects

● Can observe only from one position at one time

● Can observe only emitted radiation

● Distant objects are hard to distinguish from background

● Distances are hard to measure

● Conditions in early universe can’t be reproduced in

laboratories
Assumptions in Big Bang Cosmology

● Local laws of physics hold universally

● General Relativity

● Theoretical high energy particle physics

● Materialism – everything is derived from matter

● No non-material causes
Problems of Verification

● Untestability of First Kind (inherently untestable)

Can’t observe anything before 300,000 yr after BB
Can’t observe extra dimensions
Can’t reproduce high energy to confirm hypothetical
entities in particle physics

● Untestability of Second Kind (effectively untestable)

standard model of particle physics has >20
adjustable parameters, etc.
Big Bang Problems
● Old galaxies at high red-shifts
● No time to form huge structures of galaxies
● Horizon problem – uniform radiation implies mixing
● Some primordial stars have much heavy metal
● According to some cosmologists, energy is not conserved

“The conclusion, whether we like it or not, is obvious: energy

in the universe is not conserved. The conservation of energy
principle serves us well in all sciences except cosmology. “
(Harrison, Cosmology)

● Cosmological constant should be much larger than

observed (off by 10120)
● Anomalous & quantized red-shifts
● Mysterious missing mass & dark energy
Saving the Theory

● To save big bang cosmology from falsification

(the horizon problem) inflation was invented.

● But the observed mass of the universe is only a

few percent of that predicted by inflation.

● To save inflation, the missing mass was

postulated to be unobservable “dark matter”.

● But nucleo-synthesis can’t produce much more

normal matter than is observed.

● To save “dark matter” esoteric new forms of

matter are postulated, none as yet observed...
● And so on...
Making Models Fit Reality
Any statement can be held true come what may, if we
make drastic enough adjustments elsewhere in the
system.

The totality of our knowledge, from the most casual

matters of history to the profoundest laws of atomic
physics, is a man-made fabric which impinges on
experience only along the edges.
Willard Van Orman Quine

The Duhem-Quine Thesis

We can construct a model with any given feature, if we

make drastic enough changes elsewhere in the model.
Observational Fact - Red Shifts of Galaxies
● Lines in light spectra from galaxies are shifted to the red

● The amount of red shift is proportional to distance

Do Red shifts Support the Big Bang?
● Red shifts would be expected if galaxies are moving
away from us

Moving toward Moving away

● Red shifts are interpreted as being caused by the

expansion of space
Data Under-determine Theory
Galactic red-shifts could be
due to:
● expanding space (big bang)

● motion through space

● gravity

● decreasing speed of light

● shrinking atoms

● increasing mass of particles

● tired light
Alternative Cosmologies

● Beginningless Big Bang

Cosmology
(Gamow, Linde)

● Meta-Galaxy (Alfven)

● Spherically symmetric

● Static Cosmologies
(Ellis, Arp,
Crawford, Troitski)
Biblical Cosmology

Goals 1. Critique non-biblical cosmologies

Big bang anomalies
Evidence of recent creation

2. Explain reality within a Biblical framework

Biblical Cosmology - Origins
Main Challenge – Star-light in a big universe

Possible Strategies

● Instrumentalism – theories just useful fictions (G. Clark)

● Different clock rates (Humphries, Hartnett)

● Variable speed of light (Setterfield)

● Illusionary History (Tipler – Multiple black holes)

● Mature Creation (Philip Gosse)

 Different Clock Rates

● Russell Humphreys (1994) Starlight and Time

– white-hole cosmology – earth near center
- problem: no actual time dilation or blue shifts

● John Hartnett (2007)

Starlight, Time and the New Physics
- 5-d cosmology (time, space, speed)
- earth near center
- problem: no detailed calculations, novel
physics.
Different Clock Rates

● These models are ad hoc and have

not been worked out in detail. They still
require mature creation at least for Sun
and nearby stars. They void much
astronomical evidence for young
universe.

● You could get almost the same effect

by postulating that the rotation of the
earth was slower for first 3-4 days,
except for the problem of vegetation on
Day 3.
Variable Speed of Light
● C Varies with time
Barry Setterfield – c was infinite at creation
- can explain also rapid radio-active decay in past
- evidence for cdk over last 300 hundred years dubious
- light from distant galaxies should still reflect large c in
doppler shifts, etc.

● C Varies with position

- c is very large far from earth.
- c is very large in weak gravitational fields.

● C Varies with direction – infinite towards earth

-Jason Lisle (Anisotropic synchrony, Answers
Research Journal, Sept. 2010)
Illusory History--Multiple Black Holes
Cosmologist Frank Tipler
“It is thought to be impossible to construct a falsifiable
theory consistent with the thousands of observations
indicating an age of billions of years, but which holds that
the Universe is only a few thousand years old…

I consider such a view to be a slur on the ingenuity of

theoretical physicists: we can construct a falsifiable theory
with any characteristics you care to name.”

(“How to Construct a Falsifiable Theory in Which the

Universe Came into Being Several Thousand Years Ago”,)

A few thousand years ago the universe was dense with

black holes, causing illusory histories.
Mature Creation – The Sun
Most of the previous creationist cosmologies still need
some degree of mature creation – for Earth, Sun, nearby
stars, Galaxy….

The Sun created in mature,

fully functioning form,
would include photons at
its surface that would
appear to have a 100,000
year history behind them.
Mature Creation - The Galaxy

The Galaxy, created in mature

functional form would include
gravitons and photons that appear
to have come from distant parts of
the Galaxy

M81 - ~12 million ly

(95,000 ly across)
Mature Creation – A Cluster of Galaxies

A cluster of galaxies,
created in mature
functional form would
include gravitons and
photons that appear to
have come from distant
parts of the cluster.

Hence, it is natural that

the universe, created in
mature form, would
include photons that The Coma Cluster
appear to have a long 321 million ly away
history.
Mature Creation and Science
A modern cosmologist who is also a theologian with
strict fundamentalist views could construct a universe
model which began 6000 years ago and whose edge
was at distance of 6000 light years…

A benevolent God could easily arrange the creation so

that suitable radiation was travelling toward us from the
edge of the universe to give the impression of a vastly
older universe.

It would be impossible for any scientist on earth to refute

this world picture experimentally or observationally;
all he could do would be to disagree with the author’s
cosmological premises.
(cosmologist George Ellis)
Mature Creation and Science
The theory is free from self-contradiction and is
consistent with all the facts ot experience we have to
explain;

it certainly does not multiply hypotheses beyond

necessity since it invokes only one; and it is certainly
beyond future refutation.

If we are to ask of our concepts nothing more than that

they should correlate our present experience
economically, we must accept it in preference to any
other.

Nevertheless, it is doubtful if a single person does so.

(Herbert Dingle)
Would God Deceive Us?
Don Stoner (A New Look at an Old Earth, 1997, 87):
“Either God’s creation testifies that it is much older than
10,000 years or God has deceived us in his creation”.

Jitse vanderMeer (2009, “Primate ancestors”, p.9):

“If people living today would have been created by fiat
creation rather than by evolutionary creation, there
would have been no branching pattern unless the
Creator would have wanted us to believe there had
been a history which never actually occurred.

Since the Creator does not deceive us I conclude that

He created us by means of an evolutionary process
thereby giving us a real evolutionary history.”
Would God Deceive Us?

Rene Descartes (1596-1650)

(Meditations on First Philosophy, III-IV):

God is perfect, hence God cannot deceive. So God would

not permit me to be deceived concerning the truth of those
propositions that seem entirely clear to me, hence these
propositions must be true.

Note:
These authors do not consider the converse:
If God does not deceive, should we not take Him at His
Word?
Would God Deceive Us?
Scripture does say that God cannot lie (Titus 1:2, Heb.6:18),
but these remarks occur in an explicitly covenantal context
meaning that he cannot lie to believers because he has
promised not to.

Scripture specifically says that God deceives those who are

not believers (Ez.14:9, 2 Thes.2:11).

“Therefore God sends them a strong delusion, so that they

may believe what is false, in order that all may be
condemned who did not believe the truth…” (2 Thes. 2:11)

Ultimately all religious deception is traceable to Satan, “the

serpent of old . . . who deceives the whole world”
(Rev.12:9).
How will the World End?

Big Crunch or whimper

OR
Return of Jesus Christ?

Frank Tipler:
“Traditional religion must come to grips with the fleeting
existence of our species in history. It is our relative
insignificance in time, not space, which is the real challenge
posed by modern cosmology for traditional religion

The universe will last at least another 5 billion years…Almost

all Christian theologians adopt a much shorter perspective.
This is as great an error… as believing that the universe was
created a few thousand years ago.”
Will Christ Return?

Hans Kung (“The beginning of all things” 2007)

“Biblical miracles are metaphors, not historical events

that break any laws of nature.” (152)

“It is necessary to warn against theological fallacies

about the end of the world, as much as fallacies about
the beginning of the world (199).

“Just as the biblical narratives of God’s work in creation

were taken from the environment of the time, so too the
reports of God’s final work were taken from
contemporary apocalyptic…”
Parting with Big Bang Cosmology
Any genuine Christian must
believe in the physical
return of Christ.

This means parting with

secular cosmology at some
point (John Polkinghorne).

But if secular cosmology is

unreliable as to the future,
why should we believe it as
to the past?

The Last
Judgment
Michelangelo
Reality is More than the Observed
The universe is more
than matter

● Spiritual reality –
God, angels, demons-
can have physical
effects
● Present Heaven –
a physical place,
nearby, yet normally
not seen by us
● Cosmology applies
only to the observed
world, a thin shadow of
full reality
How Do You Explain…?
If the Bible is true how do you light from distant stars, etc.?

● It is always possible to construct theories consistent with

the observations and the biblical givens, particularly if we
allow for the possibility of miracles.

● The truth of the Bible should not rest on our ability to

explain it scientifically.

● If science cannot easily explain (Biblical) facts, this just

shows the limitations of human science, particularly
regarding origins.
An Illustration
Fitting a theory to a set of observations is much
like fitting a curve through a set of data points.
Biblical data Observations

Simplest theory
Extrapolated point
For example, was there enough water on the earth’s surface
for the Flood to cover the mountains?
Assessing Creationist Models

Advantages
● Based on Biblical truth
● Show consistency between Bible and observations

Limits
● Many Biblical models are possible – which one is true?
● Mature creation doesn’t explain observational details
● Limited apologetic value –assessment & choice depend on
worldview beliefs.
● Don’t tie Bible to any particular scientific theory

However
● We must consider comprehensive explanatory power
● Worldviews come as package deals
How do we choose a cosmology?

Worldview beliefs are unavoidable

What is the ultimate reality?

Matter

Mind - Spirit

How do we know truth?

Empiricism – through our senses

Rationalism – through our reason

Theism – through God’s Word

Conclusions
1. There is a huge gap between cosmological data and theory

2. Cosmology needs presuppositions; many are unverifiable

3. The same data can be explained by many cosmologies

4. Any favored cosmology can be saved by ad hoc devices

5. Cosmologies are assessed in terms of one’s worldview

6. Materialist & Biblical cosmology differ on origins, future,

nature of reality.

7. Biblical cosmology gives meaning to reality, purpose to our

life and hope for our future