Since February 10, the media have been abuzz with the story that two quantum physicists have “corrected” Einstein’s theory of general relativity to demonstrate that the big bang never happened. The two physicists—Ahmed Farag Ali (a professor at Benha University in Egypt) and Saurya Das (a professor at University of Lethbridge in Alberta)—claim the universe might have existed forever. Their paper, “Cosmology from Quantum Potential,” first appeared as a preprint in April 2014 and was published in Physics Letters B in February 2015.¹ Anyone can read the entire paper free of charge.

As you can well imagine, concerned believers have bombarded my Facebook pagewith questions. Has one of Christianity’s core beliefs (“In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth”) just been falsified? Did the Bible get it wrong about the beginning of the universe? Is God irrelevant? Are astronomers mistaken about the big bang? Have the space-time theorems been invalidated?

The short answer to all these questions is no. The longer answer is that there are at least four reasons to doubt the vanquishing of the big bang.

****

Reason #1

Physics Letters B offers authors considerable latitude to speculate and engage in “what if” physics. Published works there do not necessarily need to pertain to known physical reality. In fact, the paper was published in the journal’s theory section, not in the astrophysics and cosmology section.

Reason #2

The first two lines of the abstract are the most important thing to note about the paper: “It was shown recently that replacing classical geodesics with quantal (Bohmian) trajectories gives rise to a quantum corrected Raychaudhuri equation (QRE).” A geodesic is simply the shortest possible path between two points along a curved or flat space-time surface. In cosmology, a freely moving or falling particle always travels along a geodesic.

Cosmologists use geodesics to build models of the universe. These models establish that there is a “point,” or an infinitely small volume, in the universe’s past where all the geodesics converge, giving rise to a singularity. This singularity is: (1) the beginning of the universe, including the beginning of space and time; and (2) the basis of the space-time theorems,² which imply that a causal agent beyond space and time is responsible for bringing matter, energy, space, and time into existence.

Quantal Bohmian trajectories are, by definition, paths along which particles travel where it is impossible for the paths to cross each other or converge. Farag Ali and Das’ starting assumption—that geodesics can be replaced wholesale by quantal Bohmian trajectories—rules out the possibility of a singularity occurring at any time or anywhere in the universe. Thus, the conclusion that their cosmological model “gets rid of the big bang singularity and predicts an infinite age of our universe”³ is not a conclusion; it’s simply a restatement of their starting assumption.

Reason #3

The observable predictions made by Farag Ali and Das’ cosmological model are largely indistinct from those made by big bang creation models. The only possible distinctive is a prediction of a tiny mass for the graviton; standard particle physics models predict a zero mass. (The graviton is a hypothetical elementary particle thought to mediate the force of gravity. Physicists believe it to be massless because gravity appears to have an unlimited range of operation.) However, the proposed tiny graviton mass is still orders of magnitude below what any conceivable instrument could possibly detect.

Without a testable distinctive, their model as it presently stands is scientifically irrelevant. Farag Ali and Das fully acknowledge this weakness, pointing out that their work is in a preliminary stage of development. They also acknowledge that theirs is not a quantum gravity model. A quantum gravity model would explain the operation of the universe when it was younger than 0.000000000000000000000000000000000000000001 seconds, when not just gravity but also quantum mechanical effects influenced the universe’s dynamics. So far, scientists lack experimental, observational, and theoretical tools to explore this early era. Most physicists believe such tools are forever beyond their reach.

Reason #4

Farag Ali and Das’ proposal appeals to David Bohm’s quantum potential theory. Bohm (1917–1992) was a quantum physicist who in later life became known for intense interest in New Age mysticism and the paranormal. Bohm believed a deeper reality existed beneath quantum mechanics, namely a sub-quantum field called the quantum potential. In Bohm’s quantum potential theory, space, time, and causality are no longer the dominant factors determining the relationships among the universe’s physical components. Such redefinitions of space, time, and/or causality allow both New Age practitioners and physicists like Farag Ali and Das to argue against the beginning of the universe and the existence and operation of God.

John Boslough in his book, Stephen Hawking’s Universe, quotes Bohm concerning his mystical physics:

By understanding Eastern mysticism…physicists can free their minds, at least briefly, from this self-created prison [of imposing discrete categories on experience] in order to attain an instant of scientific creation.⁴

Boslough then recounts Hawking’s acerbic response:

I think it is absolute rubbish….The universe of Eastern mysticism is an illusion….A physicist who attempts to link it with his own work has abandoned physics.⁵

****

The impossibility of studying the first 10^-43 seconds of the universe’s history gives rise to speculative papers like Farag Ali and Das’. One can always appeal to the unknowable to argue against something’s existence. Philosophically, however, arguments regarding the universe’s origin, God’s existence, and God’s hand in creation must be founded on what scientists know, not on what we don’t know.

For example, though I have been married for 37 years, I still lack complete knowledge about my wife. Since I lack such complete knowledge, it could be said that I lack absolute proof of her existence. I could appeal to what I do not know about her to speculate that perhaps she is just an illusion or some kind of sophisticated hologram. The counter to such speculation would be additional experiments and observations to test the reality of my wife’s physical existence. If that additional testing consistently yields increasing evidence for her actual existence, I can confidently conclude that she really does exist.

The same methodology compels me to conclude that the God of the Bible exists, that the universe has an actual beginning, and that God created our universe of matter, energy, space, and time specifically for humanity’s benefit. Hebrews 11:6 promises that if we will diligently seek out the evidence for God, we will find it.

In Joshua 10, Joshua prayed for the Sun to stand still and God answered his prayer and the Sun stopped in the middle of the sky and delayed going down for about a full day. In Isaiah 38, the Lord provided a sign to Hezekiah that he would live longer by having the shadow cast by the Sun go back 10 steps. What was going on here? Is there a hypernatural explanation for this?

****

Joshua 10 is a bit ambiguous about the nature of the “long day.” It is possible to interpret the event as an extra-long night rather than an extra-long day. In fact, most Old Testament scholars assert that the extra-long night is the most likely interpretation. Furthermore, the original Hebrew text does not require any adjustment in the positions or movements of the Sun, Moon, or Earth.

What the text demands is God bringing an extra period of light or darkness into the Valley of Aijalon. God could have brought about such effects through a supernatural meteorological event that blanketed the region with heavy darkness or refracted or reflected extra light into the desired location. Alternately, God could have shone his Shekinah glory into the Valley of Aijalon or used His “hand” to block out the Sun and Moon’s light.

Isaiah and the chroniclers describe a more outstanding miraculous event in Isaiah 38–39, 2 Kings 20, and 2 Chronicles 32. After the miraculous defeat of the Assyrian army, Judah’s King Hezekiah became deathly ill. The Lord healed him and gave him a sign to confirm his healing—moving the shadow of Hezekiah’s sundial back by 40 minutes.

This backward movement of sundial shadows was also witnessed in Babylon. Interestingly, the Babylonians recognized their god Marduk could not perform such a miracle. Therefore, they sent a delegation to Jerusalem to find out from the real God the reason for the event.

The miraculous movement of the sundial shadows could have occurred over the entire region extending from Jerusalem to Babylon or it may have been limited to just the cities of Jerusalem and Babylon. God could have manipulated meteorological conditions at the same time in both Babylon and Jerusalem. It is hard to imagine, however, God manipulating meteorological conditions so that sundials over the entire region between Jerusalem and Babylon would have their shadows shifted by 40 minutes without bringing about far more disturbing meteorological consequences. Alternatively, God could have temporarily shone some kind of transcendent light, like His Shekinah glory, into the cities of Jerusalem and Babylon or even upon the entire region between Jerusalem and Babylon.

Does science make the case for God, or not? It depends on whom you ask. Author and TV host Eric Metaxas argued the affirmative position in a recent (December 2014)Wall Street Journal piece.¹ A month later in response to Metaxas’ article, the New Yorker published an opposite position² from theoretical physicist Lawrence Krauss. Rather than weigh in with my perspective (I find science and the Christian faith to mutually reinforce one another), I want to draw some insight from each article in order to help engage the conversation more effectively. I’ll start by examining Krauss’ article, and in part two, I’ll address Metaxas’ original article.

Life Requires a Miracle

According to Krauss, Metaxas argues that “the appearance of life in the universe requires a miracle,” and given the “miraculous” conditions necessary for life, “we must have come from a miracle at the hand of God” Though he mischaracterizes Metaxas’ point, Krauss highlights an issue that I think Christians need to think about more deeply: how does God work in creation?

We tend to think of miracles as requiring a suspension of the laws of physics. Thus, if scientists find an explanation for some phenomena, then God must not have been involved. Such a position represents a weak theology of creation because the Bible often points to God’s use of the laws of physics to bring about miraculous ends.

Later in his article Krauss says, “Arguing that God exists because many cosmic mysteries remain is intellectually lazy in the extreme.” I could not agree more. If Christians appeal to the “miraculous” in areas where scientists lack understanding, two problems arise. First, the realm of God’s involvement in creation will steadily decrease over time as we continue to comprehend the universe more thoroughly. Second, when confronted with difficult-to-understand phenomena, an appeal to God’s hand brings scientific investigation to a grinding halt.

The Improbable Happens All the Time

Metaxas’ article delineates a number of circumstances necessary for life to exist in the universe and notes the improbability of them all occurring. Krauss for the most part grants that the probability of these events is small but disputes Metaxas’ claim that these low numbers point toward a God.

In his first main response to Metaxas’ article, Krauss highlights that almost anything that happens requires a highly improbable sequence of circumstances preceding it. While this point is technically true, for it to carry any weight two things must also be true. First, the event must be ordinary. For example, the odds of being dealt any five cards are roughly 1 in 2.6 million. However, a royal flush in spades beats any other poker hand. Getting dealt a royal flush in spades after a single deal is remarkable. Second, other avenues of achieving similar outcomes must exist. Only one way exists to get a royal flush in spades whereas numerous hands (1,098,240 to be exact) result in a single pair.

When Krauss points out in a strict fashion that everything is improbable, he assumes that human life is nothing special and that many different avenues could lead to something akin to humans. He speculates that, if not for the asteroid that wiped out the dinosaurs 65 million years ago, “maybe giant intelligent reptiles would be arguing about the existence of God today.” He notes that many exoplanets as well as moons of Jupiter and Saturn may host possible life sites. Additionally, scientists continue to discover life in environments previously thought incapable of sustaining life. While fascinating discoveries, none of these advances currently demonstrate that alternate routes lead to intelligent life. Logic dictates that we rely on known data to support a position rather than use speculative future finds.

In his second main response to Metaxas’ article, Krauss argues that the physical processes that we understand now may drive life to form. Astronomers find complex precursors to life in space, and the geophysical and chemical environment on early Earth may support their production and build-up. Perhaps one day scientists will understand how life originates and will discover that it does not require anything beyond the laws of physics. However, given the data at hand today, one can rationally defend a position that the evidence points toward a Divine hand, but the data do not force you to do so.

Credibility Matters

Krauss rightly identifies some noticeable errors in Metaxas’ statements. For example, Metaxas states that a change in the ratio of the strength of the electromagnetic force to the strong nuclear force of even one part in 100,000,000,000,000,000 would prevent star formation, or cause the universe to not exist. My reading of the scientific literature puts the fine-tuning more on the order of a fraction of a percent for star formation, and who really knows what it would take to prevent formation of universes? I point out Metaxas’ errors because they can destroy credibility (as Krauss’ critique makes clear), and credibility is one of the most useful tools a Christian has in trying to persuade those skeptical of the Christian faith.

In reading Krauss’ piece, it seems most of his arguments center on disputing that science proves the existence of God or requires beyond-the-laws-of-physics miracles. Perhaps Christians should spend more time championing (and participating in) the pursuit of good science and articulating that strong, rational reasons exist for believing in the God of the Bible. In doing so, we would inevitably find the resources to develop arguments that would more persuasively show skeptics how the best findings of science can—and do—fit comfortably with the Christian faith.