January 16, 2012 1 Comment
According to a recent article in New Scientist magazine, physicists “can’t avoid a creation event.” (sorry, you have to be a subscriber to read the full article.) It boils down to the need to show that the universe could have been eternal into the past. Not eternal and there needs to be a creator. Even uber-atheist Stephen Hawking acknowledges that a beginning to the universe would be “a point of creation… where science broke down. One would have to appeal to religion and the hand of God.”
Apparently, there are three established theories for how to get around the idea of a creator of the big bang. But cosmologist Alexander Vilenkin demonstrated last week how all of those theories now necessitate a beginning:
1. The leading idea has been the possibility that the universe has been eternally expanding (inflating). Recent analysis, however, shows that inflation has a lower limit preventing it from being eternal in the past.
2. Another possibility was the cyclic model, but Vilenkin has shot a hole in that one as well, courtesy of the second law of thermodynamics. Either every cycle would have to be more disordered, in which case after an infinite number of cycles, our current cycle should be heat death (it isn’t), or the universe would have to be getting bigger with each cycle, implying a creation event at some cycle in the past.
3. The final hope for the atheistic point of view was a lesser known proposal called the cosmic egg. But Vilenkin showed last year that this could not have existed eternally due to quantum instabilities.
Is science slowly coming to terms with the idea of an intelligent designer of the universe? The evidence is overwhelming and Occam’s Razor points to a designer, yet science clings to the anti-ID point of view as if it is a religion.