by Lee Strobel
To this day, the theistic consequences of having a beginning to the universe are readily apparent even to atheists. In his bestseller A Brief History of Time, theoretical physicist Stephen Hawking wrote, “So long as the universe had a beginning, we could suppose it had a creator.”9
I asked Strauss, “What compelled virtually all scientists to conclude that the universe had a beginning—even though some of them had to be dragged kicking and screaming to that conclusion?”
“Back in the 1920s, the Russian mathematician Alexander Friedman and the Belgium astronomer George Lemaître used Einstein’s theories to formulate a model showing that the universe was expanding,” he said. “So if you play the tape of the universe backward, it shrinks down to . . .”
“The big bang,” I offered.
“Yes, that was the term that British astronomer Fred Hoyle came up with. He was an outspoken atheist who was being derogatory and poking fun at the idea, but the term stuck.”
In fact, Hoyle was so anxious to get rid of the universe’s beginning that he later developed the steady state theory, which conceded that, yes, the universe is expanding, but it is generating its own new matter as it goes and therefore never had a beginning that would require a creator.
His theory did succeed in doing away with a starting point, but it has been universally rejected by cosmologists today because of mounting evidence that the universe did have a beginning more than thirteen billion years ago.
Confirming the Big Bang
I asked Strauss, “What were the scientific discoveries that confirmed the big bang theory?”
“There were three of them,” he replied. “First, in 1929, the American astronomer Edwin Hubble discovered the so-called ‘red shift’ in light coming from distant galaxies, which is the result of galaxies literally flying apart from each other at enormous speeds. So this showed that our universe is rapidly expanding.
“Second, in 1964, Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson measured the cosmic background microwave radiation, which showed that the leftover heat from the big bang was minus 450 degrees Fahrenheit. This is exactly what we would expect if the big bang occurred.
“The third discovery involves the origin of light elements. Heavier elements formed later in stars and were expelled into space by supernovae, but very light elements like hydrogen and helium had to be forged in a much hotter environment like the big bang. When we measure the amount of these two elements in the universe, we find they are precisely what the theory predicted to within one part in ten thousand.”
“The case, then, is airtight to you?” I asked.
“Given the evidence, in my opinion not believing in the big bang is like believing the Earth is flat. To me, the data is that strong. The big bang is the origin of everything we know—space, time, matter, and energy.”
“Any caveats?”
“Maybe one. We can’t measure what happened in the initial split second after the big bang. This is when most scientists believe inflation began, momentarily expanding the universe faster than the speed of light.”
I held up my hand. “Whoa, wait a second,” I said. “I didn’t think anything could go faster than the speed of light.”
“Nothing inside the universe can, but space itself can actually expand faster than light. So we’ve lost all information about what happened before inflation started at about a trillionth of a trillionth of a trillionth of a second after the big bang. We need a quantum theory of gravity to describe what occurred, and we don’t have that yet.”
“Nevertheless,” I said, “you believe everything goes back to a beginning?”
“Yes, I think that’s clear. Some people like to propose exotic theories for what happened in those microseconds. But cosmologist Lawrence Krauss, who’s an outspoken atheist, conceded in a recent debate that the universe probably did begin to exist, even given quantum theories of gravity.”10
“As more and more discoveries are made, is the evidence for the big bang getting stronger or weaker?”
“Stronger, for sure,” he said. “For instance, we’ve been studying the cosmic background radiation with increasing precision through the Planck satellite, and it’s still pointing toward the big bang. Not only does all the evidence confirm that the universe is expanding, but it’s actually accelerating.
“In addition, three prominent cosmologists in 2003 formulated what is called the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin theorem,11 which says that any universe that is expanding, on average, throughout its history, cannot be infinite in the past but must have a beginning. If that theorem is correct, it applies to our universe—regardless of what happened in the microseconds after the big bang.”
The Problem of a Cosmic Beginning
William Lane Craig is one of many philosophers who offers various arguments for the existence of God. But if you count the number of articles published in philosophy journals in recent years, you’ll find more discussion about Craig’s kalam cosmological argument than any other contemporary defense of theism. The Cambridge Companion to Atheism says, “Theists and atheists alike ‘cannot leave Craig’s Kalam argument alone.’”12
The argument derives its name from the Arabic for “medieval theology,”13 which is appropriate since it was first formulated by eleventh-century Muslim philosopher Abû Hâmid Muhammad ibn Muhammad al-Ghazâlî. His reasoning is summarized in three steps:
1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
2. The universe began to exist.
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause.14
I asked Strauss, “What’s your assessment of the kalam argument?”
“It’s extremely strong,” he said. “Think about it: Is there anything that comes into existence without a cause behind it? Some scientists say there may be uncaused quantum events, but I think there are good reasons to be skeptical about that.15 And we know from the evidence that the universe did come into existence. If those two premises of the argument are true, then the conclusion inexorably follows: the universe has a cause.”
I said, “Some skeptics, including the late astronomer Carl Sagan, suggest there might be merit to the idea of an oscillating universe, where the universe expands, then crunches back down, and then expands again—on for infinity, without a beginning. Is there evidence to back this up?”
“Not really. Entropy, which is roughly the amount of disorder, would continue to increase from one cycle to the next, meaning each succeeding oscillation would get bigger and bigger. Run the tape backward, and you get smaller and smaller oscillations, until you get to a beginning,” Strauss responded. “Besides, this would require that ‘dark energy,’ which scientists suspect is accelerating the expansion of the universe, would suddenly reverse itself and cause the universe to collapse. That’s stretching things beyond credulity.”
I said, “Others propose that the universe simply popped out of nothing, from the quantum foam fluctuations of empty space. Make sense?”
“Quantum foam is the space-time fabric of the universe. It’s not nothing. So if the universe popped out of it, where did the quantum foam come from? You’d have to account for that. Now, quantum fluctuations do allow brief periods of time when virtual particles pop into existence—caused by quantum energy—and then go back out of existence.”
“What’s the time scale?”
“Trillionths of a second,” he said. “So to postulate that something which happens in a trillionth of a second could create an entire universe that lasts billions of years is an extrapolation that seems extremely unreasonable to me. I’ll be honest: if this wasn’t a way to try to get around God, nobody would have ever thought of it, in my opinion.”
“In my interview, the skeptic Michael Shermer said the best answer to how the universe originated is simply, ‘We don’t know.’ He suggested there might be other possible explanations than ‘God did it.’”
“Look, we don’t live our lives based on obscure possibilities; we live our lives based on probabilities. Is it possible my wife poisoned my cereal this mornin
g? Anything is possible, but not everything is probable,” he replied. “The real question is: Given what we observe with the universe, what’s the highest probability? Everything tells us there was a real beginning. Everything else is a mere possibility, with no observational or experimental evidence to back it up.”
Craig came to a similar conclusion. “In a sense, the history of twentieth-century cosmology can be seen as a series of one failed attempt after another to avoid the absolute beginning predicted by the standard big bang model,” he wrote. “This parade of failed theories only serves to confirm the prediction of the standard model that the universe began to exist.”16
Perhaps Alexander Vilenkin, director of the Institute of Cosmology at Tufts University, put it best: “With the proof now in place, cosmologists can no longer hide behind the possibility of a past-eternal universe. There is no escape: they have to face the problem of a cosmic beginning.”17
Creation of the universe from nothing is an epic miracle, but there’s more. Just as the big bang wasn’t a haphazard event but a highly ordered phenomenon, the ongoing operation of the universe is an incredibly intricate dance that points toward the existence of a divine Choreographer.
Michael Strauss had much more to say about that, and I was leaning forward in anticipation.
CHAPTER 10
Our Miraculous Universe and Planet
Continuing the Interview with Dr. Michael G. Strauss
The late Christopher Hitchens, author of God Is Not Great and one of the most ardent atheists of recent times, was often asked which argument for God’s existence is the strongest.
It’s a question commonly posed to many skeptics—and Hitchens had a ready response. “I think every one of us picks the fine-tuning one as the most intriguing,” he replied.1
For University of Oklahoma physics professor Michael G. Strauss, the incredible precision of the universe and our planet is not just intriguing, but it’s compelling evidence for a miracle-working Designer.
“Over the last five decades, physicists have discovered that the numbers which govern the operation of the universe are calibrated with mind-boggling precision so intelligent life can exist,” he said as we continued our conversation in his home.
“And when I say mind-boggling, I’m not exaggerating,” he added with a smile. “Picture a control board with a hundred different dials and knobs, each representing a different parameter of physics. If you turn any of them just slightly to the left or right—poof! Intelligent life becomes impossible anywhere in the universe.
“Even just mistakenly bumping into one of those dials could make the world sterile and barren—or even nonexistent,” he said. “And that’s not only the opinion of Christian scientists. Virtually every scientist agrees the universe is finely tuned—the question is, how did it get this way?2 I think the most plausible explanation is that the universe was designed by a Creator.”
“Can you give me a few examples of the fine-tuning?” I asked.
“Sure,” answered Strauss. “One parameter is the amount of matter in the universe. As the universe expands, all matter is attracted to other matter by gravity. If there were too much matter, the universe would collapse on itself before stars and planets could form. If there were too little matter, stars and planets could never coalesce.”
“How finely tuned is the amount of matter?”
“It turns out that shortly after the big bang, the amount of matter in the universe was precisely tuned to one part in a trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion,” he replied. “That’s a ten with sixty zeroes after it! In other words, throw in a dime’s worth of extra matter, and the universe wouldn’t exist.”
A calculation puts the number in perspective: the visible universe is 27.6 billion light-years in diameter. (Each light-year is about six trillion miles.) A single millimeter compared to the diameter of the universe would still be incomprehensibly larger than this one finely tuned parameter!3
Strauss continued, “British physicist Paul Davies—who’s an agnostic—said ‘such stunning accuracy is surely one of the great mysteries of cosmology.’”4
“How does he try to explain it away?”
“He said cosmic inflation might force the universe to have exactly the right amount of matter.”
“Does that make sense?”
“Even if you assume cosmic inflation is a mechanism that works, it doesn’t make the fine-tuning problem go away.”
“Why not?”
“Here’s an illustration. If I tried to pour gasoline into my lawn mower through a really small hole, it would be very difficult. Why? Because the hole is finely tuned. But if I take the same fuel and pour it into a funnel, then I can easily fill the gas tank. Now, does the fact that I have a funnel—a mechanism that works—mean that I’ve eliminated the fine-tuning problem? No, of course not. If I have a mechanism that works, it also points to a designer.”
“So,” I summarized, “even if cosmic inflation is true, it merely moves the design issue back one stage.”
“Right,” Strauss said.
Putting a Zero on Every Particle
Then Strauss offered another fine-tuning example from something he studies in his research—the strength of the strong nuclear force. “This is what holds together the nucleus of atoms,” he explained. “Ultimately, it’s the strength of this force that produces the periodic table of elements.”
I pictured in my mind the colorful periodic table I studied in chemistry class, which displays all naturally occurring elements from atomic numbers 1 (hydrogen) to 94 (plutonium), as well as several heavier elements that have only been synthesized in laboratories or nuclear reactors.
“What happens if you manipulate the strong nuclear force?” I asked.
“If you were to make it just 2 percent stronger while all other constants stayed the same, you’d add a lot more elements to the periodic table, but they would be radioactive and life-destroying. Plus, you’d have very little hydrogen in the universe—and no hydrogen, no water, no life.”
“What if you turned the knob the other way?”
“Decrease the force by a mere 5 percent, and all you’d have would be hydrogen. Again, a dead universe. Another area of my research involves quarks, which make up neutrons and protons. If we change the light quark mass just 2 or 3 percent, there would be no carbon in the universe.”
“And no carbon means—what?” I asked.
Strauss gestured at the two of us. “That you and I wouldn’t be sitting here.”
The examples could go on and on; in fact, entire books have been written about them. Here’s another illustration: the ratio of the electromagnetic force to the gravitational force is fine-tuned to one part in ten thousand trillion trillion trillion.
Astrophysicist Hugh Ross said to understand that number, imagine covering a billion North American continents with dimes up to the moon—238,000 miles high. Choose one dime at random, paint it red, and put it somewhere in the piles. Blindfold a friend and have him pick out one dime from the billion continents. What are the odds he’d choose the red dime? One in ten thousand trillion trillion trillion.5
But the most extreme example I’ve seen comes from Oxford mathematical physicist Roger Penrose, who partnered with Stephen Hawking to write The Nature of Space and Time.
His calculations show that in order to start the universe so it would have the required state of low entropy, the setting would need to be accurate to a precision of one part in ten to the power 10125.
This mind-blowing number, Penrose said, “would be impossible to write out in the usual decimal way, because even if you were able to put a zero on every particle in the universe, there would not even be enough particles to do the job.”6
Building a Life-Sustaining Planet
These extraordinary cosmic “coincidences” have not escaped secular scientists. “There is, for me, powerful evidence that there is something going on behind it all,” said Paul Davies, a professor of physics at Arizona State University. �
��It seems as though somebody has fine-tuned nature’s numbers to make the universe . . . The impression of design is overwhelming.”7
British cosmologist Edward R. Harrison doesn’t hesitate to draw conclusions from the universe’s razor-sharp calibration. “Here is the cosmological proof of the existence of God,” he said flatly. “The fine-tuning of the universe provides prima facie evidence of deistic design.”8
And Strauss wasn’t done yet. “Not only is our universe precisely calibrated to a breathtaking degree, but our planet is also remarkably and fortuitously situated so life would be possible.”
“In what way?” I asked.
“To have a planet like ours where life exists, first you need to be in the right kind of galaxy. There are three types of galaxies: elliptical, spiral, and irregular. You need to be in a spiral galaxy, like we are, because it’s the only kind that produces the right heavy elements and has the right radiation levels.
“But you can’t live just anywhere in the galaxy,” he continued. “If you’re too close to the center, there’s too much radiation and there’s also a black hole, which you want to avoid. If you’re too far from the center, you won’t have the right heavy elements; you’d lack the oxygen and carbon you’d need. You have to live in the so-called ‘Goldilocks Zone,’ or the galactic habitable zone, where life could exist.”
“Are you referring to intelligent life?” I asked.
“Anything more complex than bacteria,” he said.
Then he continued, “To have life, you need a star like our sun. Our sun is a Class G star that has supported stable planet orbits in the right location for a long time. The star must be in its middle age, so its luminosity is stabilized. It has to be a bachelor star—many stars in the universe are binary, which means two stars orbiting each other, which is bad for stable planetary orbits. Plus, the star should be a third-generation star, like our sun.”