The Giant Arc is the curved line of dots in the center
The standard model of cosmology maintains that matter in the universe should be more or less evenly distributed across space. This homogeneous view of the cosmos was based on what astronomers could observe using the instruments available when they developed the first cosmological theories. If the creation started with a singularity, the cosmos as a whole should be relatively even. Gravitational interactions would make some local lumps in the creation, but matter should be evenly distributed through the cosmos as a whole.
In 2021, researcher Alexia Lopez was analyzing the light from distant quasars when she detected a giant arc of galaxies in the constellation of Bootes. It spanned a massive 3.3 billion light years in diameter. That structure is one-fifteenth of the radius of the observable universe. Known as the “Giant Arc,” it violates the homogeneous view of the cosmos, which says that everything should be evenly distributed with no noticeable irregularities.
As the Webb telescope sends more observations to researchers, old theories of galactic formation and the origin of the cosmos may have to be discarded, and new ideas advanced. Nevertheless, the fundamental question of creation continues to lead back to the same conclusion: there was a beginning to time, space, and matter/energy.
The object here is discovering the process God used to make everything we see. The complexity of the creation process was so great that it is very difficult to attribute it to some accidental incidents. The statement in Proverbs 8 gives us more understanding as Wisdom talks about being present before the creation. We see evidence of that in every discovery in astrophysics.
Science fiction has toyed with the idea that there are many universes parallel to one another, each having people like us on a planet like ours – but different. Hollywood has used this theme in ever-increasing numbers of films in which characters move from one universe to another. The current Academy Award-winning movie Everything Everywhere All at Once is a prime example. Or who can forget the famous Christmas film It’s a Wonderful Life in which George Bailey (James Stewart) sees an alternative universe in which he never lived. Between It’s a Wonderful Life 75 years ago and today’s Everything Everywhere All at Once, the multiverse fad has been used to present many stories. But is it real?
Movies and TV often depict parallel universes that resemble our own but with opposing characters or circumstances, such as in the Star Trek episode Mirror, Mirror, or the 1998 movie Sliding Doors. Atheists have proposed the idea of multiple universes entirely different from each other. Knowing that the odds of explaining the fine-tuning of our universe without design or purpose are infinitely small, they suggest that with an infinite number of universes, life will eventually happen by chance alone. We just happen to live in the one universe that got everything right.
However, the multiverse fad is not confined to entertainment and atheism. Some scientists, both unbelievers and believers, propose a multiverse theory. There are three main versions: (1) Eternal inflation presents the idea that pocket universes continuously pop into existence with stars, planets, and galaxies like ours. (2) String theory suggests the cosmos is made up of tiny, undetectable vibrating strings in the fabric of space-time in which an unlimited number of universes come into existence all by chance. (3) The many worlds idea is a product of quantum mechanics in which the splitting of space/time produces an ever-growing array of universes. In this concept, every universe would look the same and have the same history – so in another universe, there would be a copy of you reading an article like this one.
These ideas may be helpful for producing science fiction books or movies or giving imaginative material for debate among intellectuals, but they are not science. To be scientific, something must have evidence that allows it to be tested and falsified. If you can’t test a theory, it is pure speculation and has no scientific basis. No multiverse theory is supported by evidence. The mathematics used to support the theories have literally billions of possible solutions and don’t contribute to their validity.
The bottom line is that the multiverse fad is an interesting facet of human imagination. Skeptics can try to use it to discount God’s creation of the cosmos, but that is not science and does not contribute to our knowledge. Massive evidence shows God created the cosmos and created humans uniquely in His image. Science and faith are friends, and the Bible equips us to live in this constantly changing world.
A new report shows that rain, carbon dioxide, and various kinds of rocks are major players in controlling Earth’s climate. The study, led by Penn State University, pooled data from 45 soil sites and many watersheds worldwide to see how the weathering of rocks combines with rain to stabilize climate. You might call it Earth’s thermostat in the rocks.
We know that volcanoes have emitted large amounts of carbon dioxide, potentially turning the planet into a greenhouse. However, rain dissolves the carbon dioxide out of the air, creating a weak acid that falls to the surface. The acid wears away the rocks in Earth’s crust, and carbon is part of the byproducts of this action. Streams and rivers carry the carbon to the ocean, where it is eventually locked away in sedimentary rocks.
Richard Yuretich, a program director of the National Science Foundation’s Division of Earth Sciences, says that the breakdown of rocks into soil “removes significant amounts of carbon dioxide and water from the atmosphere, processes that are also related to temperature.” As the temperature rises, the rate of carbon sequestration increases, helping to control the greenhouse effect. This process creates what is essentially Earth’s thermostat to help maintain a relatively constant temperature.
This new research will significantly impact our understanding of climate change. It helps us understand how Earth’s design has allowed a constant temperature throughout the past’s varied activity of carbon emissions. How much effect it will have in the future as humans add more carbon dioxide to the atmosphere remains to be seen. However, there have been past periods of significant volcanic activity, so the carbon dioxide levels have not been static.
Earth’s thermostat in the rocks is just one more example of how the planet’s design has made it possible for life to exist during climate changes. We know that the thermostat in our car or home was designed with intelligence. Likewise, the thermostat built into our planet is also not some accidental device but is essential for the existence of life on Earth.
In 1960 radio astronomer Frank Drake began research to find alien civilizations in deep space by aiming an 85-foot radio telescope at some sun-like stars. He found nothing, but it was the beginning of a program known as SETI – Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence. The program has continued for 63 years, with many radio telescopes listening for messages from space. Researchers have spent thousands of hours and millions of dollars with zero results. They have detected no deep-space radio signals containing any intelligence – only noise.
Radio signals continuously originate from stars, nebula, and other space objects, but it is all noise. How do the SETI scientists know it’s just noise and not intelligence? Intelligence has a pattern. They may not understand the language, but they can tell language from random noise. They can distinguish random, accidental, chance blips from something created by an intelligent being.
Thus, scientists have confidence that they know the difference between information transmitted by an intelligent being and random noise when listening for messages from space. How about when examining the DNA within living cells? Does the complex pattern of information that creates the blueprint within each living cell show intelligence behind it – or is it random noise? Does it resemble a computer program written by a super-intelligence, or does it display random, accidental chance? If we can tell the difference between intelligence and randomness in space, why can’t we tell the difference in our own bodies? Is the problem that some people want to find signs of intelligence in deep space but don’t want to see it within our cells?
Frank Drake admitted that in 1974 he transmitted an encoded message toward a star cluster 25,000 light-years away in the constellation Hercules. That means the message should reach its target in 25,000 years (minus 49 years). If any intelligent being gets the message and responds immediately, the return message will take 25,000 years. Unfortunately, Drake died in 2022, at age 92, without getting a message back.
Is it possible that there really is an intelligent Being out there listening and waiting to hear from us? Is it possible that Being is not limited by time and space? Is it possible that the Being has already communicated with us by coming to Earth and taking on human form? Is it possible that while spending time and money listening for messages from space, we are not listening to Him?
“How much does planet Earth weigh?” We can’t put the planet on a scale, and the correct question is, “What is Earth’s Mass?” The scientific literature tells us Earth’s mass is six ronnagrams. That is six followed by 27 zeros (6,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 g). Newton’s law of gravitation is expressed in the equation F=G(mm’/x2). The m and m’ are the masses of two objects, x is how far they are from each other, and G is the gravitational constant which makes the equation work. The value of G is 6.67430 x 10-11, that is .0000000000667430.
Any two objects with mass will attract each other. For example, you and the Earth are attracting each other, and you are attracted to the person sitting next to you, such as your spouse or significant other. So why don’t you feel that attraction to each other? (Gravitationally, that is.) If you put your mass and the other person’s mass into that equation, you will find that the force is extremely small. However, if you were in outer space and floating isolated from any other mass, you and that person would be drawn together.
So what is the point? This design of the gravitational constant is an amazing display of God’s wisdom and intelligence. Earth’s mass is so large that you can feel its attraction for you. That prevents you from flying off into space while allowing all of life to have mobility on the planet’s surface. The attraction of gravity on all objects in space pulls them together, with the force depending on the mass of the objects. The matter clumps into meteoroids, asteroids, and comets if the mass is relatively small. Greater mass results in stars and planets, with gravity pulling them into spherical shapes. Gravity also keeps solar systems and galaxies from flying apart. The gravitational constant acting on mass allows the cleansing of debris from space and the continuing production of new astronomical bodies.
The value of the gravitational constant (G) allows the creation of the universe, the Milky Way galaxy, our solar system, and planet Earth. It is just one of many mathematical constants that must be just right to allow matter and life to exist. How did such numbers get chosen? Is this some cosmological accident, or is it the product of intelligence?
Atheists respond by suggesting there are an infinite number of universes with different constants. We just happen to be in the one that got everything right. Unfortunately, there is no way to test this multiverse theory scientifically. It is more like a religious idea that has no purpose except to avoid believing in the existence of an intelligent Creator.
The gravitational constant is only one of many constantsthat must be fine-tuned for the existence of life in any universe. We have no reason to believe there are other universes, but if there are, they would also have to be created. We believe God created our universe for a purpose. The Bible gives a purpose for human life and states clearly that the creation described in Genesis 1:1 was by a God who created with Wisdom, as we read in Proverbs 8:1, 22 -31.
Many physical constants determine the structure of the universe. All of them have units or dimensions, such as the speed of light (c) or the gravity constant (G). That is, all of them except one. That one is the fine-structure constant represented by the Greek letter alpha (α). The fine-structure constant seems to be a random number with no units or dimensions, but it keeps showing up in physics calculations. It has been described as the most mysterious number in physics. American theoretical physicist Richard Feynman called it “a magic number that comes to us with no understanding by humans.”
Recognition of the fine-structure constant originated with German theoretical physicist Arnold Sommerfeld in 1916. Chemists can identify different elements in the lab by the spectral lines they emit or absorb when their electrons change energy levels. Astronomers analyze the spectral lines of stars to determine what elements they contain. Some spectral lines are split, showing a fine structure. To explain this, Sommerfeld introduced a new constant into his equations and called it the fine-structure constant. It has no units like the speed of light or other constants. It is just a number – a ratio.
The fine-structure constant shows the strength of the interaction between electrons and photons. It also shows up in many other ratios in physics. The value is approximately 0.007,297,352,569 or 1/137. Physicists consider it mysterious because they don’t know where it came from or why it has that value. They can’t explain why it exists at all. But if you are not a physicist, why should you care about the most mysterious number in physics?
If the fine-structure constant had any other value, life as we know it would not be possible. If you changed that number, you would change the universe. A different value for the fine-structure constant would change the size of atoms and alter chemistry and nuclear reactions. No stable matter, no life, and no intelligent beings would exist. We wouldn’t be here.
Richard Feynman wrote that “all good theoretical physicists put this number up on their wall and worry about it.” Apparently, they worry about where it came from and why it is what it is. Feynman further wrote, “You might say the ‘hand of God’ wrote that number, and ‘we don’t know how He pushed His pencil.”
Feynman was joking about the most mysterious number in physics, but we think it was written by the “hand of God.” We also believe “He pushed His pencil” so that He could create humans for a purpose. More on that tomorrow.
How was a man living over 2,000 years ago able to accurately calculate Earth’s circumference? How could he even know that Earth is spherical? How can some people today believe that our planet is flat when everyone has seen pictures of Earth taken by satellites in space?
Those may be too many questions at once. Let’s try looking at them one at a time. The first man to accurately calculate Earth’s circumference in about 240 B.C. was a Greek polymath named Eratosthenes. He was a brilliant mathematician, geographer, astronomer, music theorist, and poet, and his calculations were amazingly accurate.
A myth originated from a fiction work by nineteenth-century American author Washington Irving and other authors. Irving wrote a less-than-accurate “biography” of Christopher Columbus. In it, the Spanish authorities questioned Columbus’ plan to sail west to Asia by going east because they thought the ships would drop off the edge of a flat Earth. The truth is that European scholars at that time knew that our planet is a sphere. In fact, Columbus did too, but he believed that it was 25% smaller than it actually is. He should have paid more attention to Eratosthenes.
Ancient Greek scholars, as early as the fifth century B.C., recognized the spherical nature of the planet based on observations. (We have talked about that before.) So Eratosthenes set out to accurately calculate Earth’s circumference. Let’s look at a simplified description of how he did it.
Eratosthenes was the librarian of the famous library of Alexandria in Egypt. Syrene was a city 5,000 stadia south in what is now Aswan, Egypt. (5000 stadia was approximately 800 km or 497 miles.) At noon on the summer solstice, Eratosthenes placed a rod vertically into the ground in Alexandria. At the same time, his assistant had placed a rod of the same length at Syrene. Since Syrene is very close to the Tropic of Cancer, where the Sun is directly overhead at noon on the solstice, the rod did not leave a shadow. In Alexandria, the rod produced a shadow of 7 degrees, which is 1/50 of the circumference of a circle. That means Earth’s circumference would be 50 times the distance from Alexandria to Syrene. Multiplying 50 times 5,000 stadia results in 250,000 stadia for Earth’s circumference. Depending on exactly how long a stadion was, that measurement is accurate to within -2.4% to +0.8%.
That answers the first two questions, but what about people today who believe the Earth is flat when there is plenty of evidence otherwise? That is an example of people believing what they want to believe and refusing to accept the evidence. There is a connection here to the so-called war between science and faith, and it relates to what we read in Romans 1:20. More on that tomorrow.
I have always enjoyed teaching units in my science classes that explore the design of chemical bonding and how it produces over 5000 naturally-occurring mineral species. We can learn some lessons by comparing chemical bonds and human relationships. Four different kinds of bonds form all those minerals:
IONIC BONDS. An ionic bond forms when two or more elements are held together by the giving and taking of electrons that exist in the outer energy levels of each atom. The classic example is sodium chloride, in which sodium gives up an electron, and chlorine takes on an electron. Both atoms are striving for stability, and they bond by one giving and the other getting. This kind of bond is not very strong. For example, halite, rock salt, is easily dissolved in water. Comparing these chemical bonds and human relationships, we see co-dependency as a similar type of bonding, and it, too, is not very strong.
COVALENT BONDS. Sharing of electrons creates this type of bond. This is the method of carbon bonding, which is the foundation of biochemistry. It is the bonding technique used to create life. In covalent bonding, the nuclei draw closer together, and the bond is very strong. A diamond is a classic example, and the contrast to halite is obvious. In human relationships, covalency is like marriage when both partners are respected and share in the bonding.
METALLIC BONDS. Elements in this bonding method have an outer layer of delocalized electrons that have fluid movement and are not tightly bound to individual atoms. This cloud of electrons gives a charge to the crystal and allows the material to be ductile, malleable, opaque, and a good conductor of heat and electricity. Copper is a classic example of this bonding. Humans with no solid attraction for others can be very singular in nature.
VAN DER WALLS BONDS. Rubbing a balloon on your shirt and sticking it to a wall exemplifies this very complex bonding. This bonding uses both ionic and covalent techniques. It has silicon-oxygen structures in layers with a variety of elements included in the layers. Examples are mica and clay. This layering prevents anything 90 degrees away from the plane of the layers from passing through it. That makes clay extremely useful in agriculture, landfills, and water reservoirs.
We can compare clay to God’s love for us. We see God’s genius as we use an electron microscope to examine clay crystals that are 1/256 mm or less in diameter. We can see the bonding God calls each of us to realize we don’t all bond in the same way. Our bonding with God gives us an understanding of the unique nature He has given us and everything around us. Geologist Jeffrey Greenberg wrote, “We do not worship Nature in Creation, but we worship the Creator and certainly should love the created as He does.”
One of the positive things about science is that its methodology allows change. When new data become available, theories are either supported or discarded, resulting in the constant evolution of what scientists believe to be true. This applies to our understanding of the uniqueness of planet Earth.
Experts from NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Centre have announced that a widespread assumption about life on other planets is not valid. Science has assumed that other stars similar to our Sun in size and type also have similar stability. The Sun has not changed significantly in brightness and temperature in the hundreds of years that scientists have been observing and measuring it. Recent measurements of similar stars show that three-quarters of them go through changes in both brightness and temperature.
Dr. Noah Tuchow of NASA says that the number of alien worlds that could contain life has been “vastly overestimated.” The planetary zone where water could exist as a liquid is known as the “Goldilocks Zone.” A planet would have to be orbiting a star with relatively constant heat output to be in such a zone. Planets that formed too close to be in the star’s habitable zone would have their water boiled away. Those that began beyond the habitable zone would have frozen water that would take a long time to melt. Either way, they would have a relatively short time to support life. This shows the uniqueness of planet Earth.
NASA has created a new label for planets that enter the habitable zone after their formation due to orbiting a changing star. They call it the “Belatedly Habitable Zone” (BHZ). Dr. Tuchow says, “A planet’s history dictates its current potential to host habitable conditions and life.”
Our point is the uniqueness of planet Earth, not whether it is the only place where life exists. However, if life exists elsewhere, God created it. Every discovery scientists make shows that Earth is an extraordinary place and our Sun is an exceptional star. Considering what we have learned about the cosmos, the statement of Psalms 19:1 is more meaningful today than when it was written thousands of years ago: “The heavens declare the glory of God, and the sky shows His handiwork. Day to day they utter speech, and night to night they show knowledge.”
Please go to our doesgodexist.org website to see a chart titled “Evidence for Design in the Universe,” listing 47 of the vast number of variables required for a life-sustaining planet. The constancy of the parent’s star adds one more limiting variable to what it takes to have a world able to support life.
Years ago, I heard a joke that went something like this. Scientists developed a massively powerful computer that could answer any question. The researchers asked the computer, “How did the universe begin?” The computer whirred, lights flashed, and out popped this answer: “See Genesis 1:1.” That joke originated when computers filled a large room, had spinning reels of tape and flashing lights, and used punch cards. Now, computers are small, use keyboards and monitors, have voice recognition, and speak in many languages. Soon we may have quantum computers with capabilities only dreamed of today. Have you ever tried asking a computer if God exists?
A topic that has received much publicity in recent months is artificial intelligence (AI). As computers become more humanlike with their ability to speak and answer questions, we are coming to depend on them more and more. Knowledgeable people suggest that the growth of AI will dramatically affect business, medicine, and entertainment. Other areas expected to face major changes because of AI are work, war, and education.
Recently, I have seen articles concerning a new AI development that worries educators. It’s called ChatGPT. This app can do more than answer questions. It can write essays. A student with an assignment to write a 500-word essay on a subject can input the topic and let ChatGPT write the paper. I decided this would be a good opportunity for asking a computer if God exists.
Going back to that old story, I asked the computer, “How did the universe begin?” ChatGPT responded with a 237-word essay on the Big Bang that agreed with current scientific theories. It was nicely worded, grammatically correct, and would probably satisfy a school teacher. However, it didn’t fully answer the question, just as the Big Bang theory does not.
Then I asked ChatGPT to write an essay about proving the existence of God. The result was 430 words that read in part:
“One of the most commonly cited arguments for the existence of God is the cosmological argument. This argument states that the universe had a beginning, and that everything that begins to exist must have a cause. Therefore, it is reasoned that the universe must have been caused by something that exists outside of the universe, and that this cause is God. This argument is based on the principle of causality, which states that for every effect, there must be a cause. Another argument for the existence of God is the teleological argument. This argument states that the universe is complex and ordered, with many intricate systems and processes that work together in harmony. This complexity and order is argued to be the result of an intelligent designer, which is God. The design argument is based on the idea that the universe is too complex and ordered to be the result of chance, and that it must have been created by an intelligent being. A third argument that is often used to prove the existence of God is the moral argument. This argument states that humans have a moral sense, and that this moral sense must come from a higher being, which is God. The moral argument is based on the idea that moral laws and values cannot be explained by natural causes, but must be the result of an intelligent and moral being. Some people argue that the existence of God can be known through personal experience, through faith. They believe that God can reveal himself in personal experiences, such as through prayer, meditation, or other spiritual practices. They argue that the existence of God is something that can be known through a personal relationship with God, and not something that can be proven through reason or science.”
That summarized the arguments for God’s existence. Then, however, I decided to make the question more direct by asking a computer if God exists. So I asked ChatGPT, “Does God exist?” The answer came back in 195 words that concluded with:
“Ultimately, the question of whether or not God exists is a matter of personal belief and faith. It is important for individuals to form their own opinions on the matter based on their own experiences, beliefs and personal understanding of the world.”
Since ChatGPT never referred me to Genesis 1:1, I decided to ask, “What do we learn from Genesis 1:1?” I received this response:
“It teaches that God is the creator of all things, including the heavens and the earth. Additionally, it implies that God’s creation of the universe was a purposeful and deliberate act, rather than the result of chance or natural processes.”
I certainly can’t argue with that. I conclude that asking a computer if God exists will never result in a definitive answer to the question. Each of us must reach our own conclusion based on examining the evidence with an open mind.
