Cosmology and the Bible

Age of the Universe (also see Addendum 1)

It is fair to say that dating the age of the universe is even more problematic than the dating processes to do with the earth, because the level of knowledge we have is so small compared to what we need to know. With regard to our solar system, there is good scientific evidence for it being young. The existence of comets (see http://creation.com/comets-and-the-age-of-the-solar-system); the instability of Saturn’s rings (see http://creation.com/the-age-and-fate-of-saturns-rings ); and the geologically active nature of the moons around Jupiter and Saturn (see http://creation.com/revelations-in-the-solar-system ) all point to a young solar system.

With regard to the other galaxies it is difficult to ascertain their age. One obvious method involves the number of light years it takes light to reach us from distant stars. If it takes billions of light years then it seems reasonable to talk of that being the minimum age of the universe. However, to arrive at this figure requires us to make assumptions about the speed of light and the nature of the cosmos which we cannot properly test. As James Gunn of Princeton University points out in a recent article in the Journal of Science:

'Cosmology may look like a science; but it isn't a science. A basic tenet of science is that you can do repeatable experiments, and         you can't do that in cosmology.'

The most reasonable response to the question of the age of the universe is to observe that we have too little scientific information to arrive at a useful  conjecture, and that in the bible we have clear evidence of its youthfulness.

Another interesting aspect of modern cosmology that is worth considering is the position of the earth in regard to the universe. Since the time of Copernicus, scientific opinion has tended to project an ever-increasing sense that the earth does not hold a position of uniqueness in the universe – this is often called the 'Copernican principle'. We are “an insignificant rock orbiting an insignificant sun in an insignificant galaxy”; and now, with the concept of multiverses, I suppose we are in an insignificant universe!  All of this is contrary to the implicit significance of the earth when considered from the perspective of Genesis chapter 1, where the earth is created before the stars and sun. Furthermore, in Psalm 19:1 the psalmist describes the heavens as being created to declare the glory of God. Now this philosophical preference of the modern scientist for the earth to have a non-unique position in the universe, appears to be increasingly at variance with the evidence. In fact Hubble's initial reaction to the idea of the galaxies receding from us was one of horror, since that implied from these observations that we are at or near the centre of the universe (see http://creation.com/in-the-middle-of-the-action and http://www.icr.org/article/battle-for-cosmic-center/ ). To avoid this obvious conclusion he had to invent a concept called spatial curvature so that this effect might become the expected observation from any point of the universe. The following are quotes from the 'Observational view of cosmology' which reflect his concerns:

'Such a condition would imply that we occupy a unique position in the universe... but the unwelcome supposition of a favoured location must be avoided at all costs... it is intolerable; moreover, it represents a discrepancy with the theory because the theory         postulates homogeneity' p50-59

'Therefore in order to restore homogeneity, and escape the horror of a unique position, the departures from uniformity, which are         introduced by the recession factors must be compensated by the second term representing the effects of spatial curvature' p59

Confirmation that Hubble was not alone in viewing a unique position of earth with horror are these comments from Feynman's lectures on gravitation;

'… I suspect that the assumption of uniformity of the universe reflects a prejudice born of a sequence of overthrows of geocentric         ideas. … it would be embarrassing to find after stating that we live in an ordinary planet about an ordinary star in an ordinary galaxy, that our place in the universe is extraordinary... to avoid embarrassment we cling to the hypothesis of uniformity.'

                                          Feynman's lectures on gravitation penguin books p 166

Two points of interest can be drawn from this discussion. Firstly it is a powerful reminder that we must not fall into the trap of assuming our planet is insignificant just because it is small in comparison to the universe. God has invested it with great significance by placing us on it – after all we are created in the image of God – and furthermore He sent his only Son Jesus Christ to earth to redeem us. Neither of these events are insignificant, therefore we must strongly counter the modern concept of our insignificance. (It is true that people separated from God can make themselves insignificant, and as vanity, but that is not God's purpose for us).

Secondly this discussion highlights the fact that science is not as objective and neutral as it makes itself out to be. Rather, scientists have preconceived philosophical ideas which they expect to be supported by their scientific theories, as the following quote by George Ellis in 'Scientific American' 273 (4):28-29 illustrates:

'People need to be aware that there are a range of models that         could explain the observations... for instance, I can construct you a spherical symmetrical universe with the earth at its centre and         you cannot disprove it based on observations... you can only         exclude it on philosophical grounds. In my view there is absolutely nothing wrong with that. What I want to bring into the open is that we are using philosophical criteria in choosing our models. A lot of         cosmology tries to hide that.'

Notice that these scientists are not prepared to allow any amount of evidence to change their fundamental philosophical position. Just as the Pharisees and Sadducees were not prepared to allow any of Christ's miracles to deflect them from their fundamental belief that Jesus could not be God's chosen Messiah. As Jesus said of the Pharisees

'For judgement I have come into this world, that those do not see         may see; and that those who see may be made blind.' Then some

of the Pharisees who were with him heard these words, and said to him, 'Are we blind also?' Jesus said to them 'if you were blind you would have no sin; but now you say, ‘We see’. Therefore your sin         remains' John 9:39-41.

The folly of the Pharisees was their insistence that they could see clearly, when in reality they had made themselves the most blind people in Israel, by failing to see the obvious evidence of Jesus being the Messiah – namely His miracles. Likewise, it could be argued that those who defend an ancient earth, and that uphold the theory of evolution are blind to the clear evidence that the earth was recently created and full of biological entities that positively shout intelligent design (because of the enormous amount of sophisticated information encoded within their cellular structure - see http://creation.com/15-questions ).

Addendum 1                                        Astronomy

With regards to astronomy there are high levels of uncertainty about the quality of the evidence we have for the understandable reason, we have a limited ability to gather this information because it is a big universe and we’re a small planet. This is particularly the case with regard to the 'starlight and time' problem – how can starlight that is measured as billions of lightyears away be a product of a young universe. Rather than attempt to prove or disprove the age the universe I propose look at a series of statements and see if they’re consistent with a young or old universe:

For more information see the following website https://answersingenesis.org/astronomy/solar-system/origin-of-the-solar-system/