Image credit: European Southern Observatory

In my previous blog article, I explained and described how science today reveals exponentially more about God, his attributes, and his plans for humanity than it did just a century ago. This exponential increase in revelation from the book of nature provides the fuel for the ministry of Reasons to Believe. Because of this increase, we are seeing unprecedented numbers of skeptics becoming faithful followers of Christ.

Still, many more people are turning away from faith, raising a paradox. Why, if there is so much more revelation of God coming from the scientific disciplines, do we see in several parts of the world such a rise in the percentage of the population that identifies themselves as atheists, agnostics, or deists?

In this blog article I will explain and describe how, in a different context, science reveals much less about God than it did a century ago. I will explain why, consequently, in some parts of the world atheists and agnostics today make up a still small but larger percentage of the population than in the past. Below, I will address three different arenas where nature reveals less about God.

Less Revelation from the Heavens

In a recent issue of Science Advances, an international team of 10 light-pollution scientists reported that more than 80 percent of the world’s population and more than 99 percent of the US and European populations live under artificial light–polluted skies.¹ Figure 1 shows the current status of light pollution for the world.

Figure 1: World Map of Artificial Sky Brightness at 1 A.M. Local Time

The intensity of light pollution is such that today a third of the world’s population is unable to see the Milky Way when they look up at the sky on a moonless night.² For Europe, the percentage of humans unable to see the Milky Way is 60 percent, and for North Americans, the percentage is 80 percent.³

Even in the least light-polluted parts of the world, artificial-light pollution is noticeable. The featured image for this article shows the Milky Way from the European Southern Observatory in a northern mountain range of Chile. As spectacular as this view of Milky Way is, it is diminished by artificial lighting.

In their research paper, the team of 10 scientists showed that artificial-light pollution is about to become much worse. Light-emitting diode (LED) lighting is rapidly replacing high-pressure mercury and sodium lighting. LED lighting for equal photopic flux increases light pollution by 2.5 times. Figure 2 shows the anticipated increase in artificial-light pollution for Europe.

Figure 2: Maps of Europe’s Artificial Night Sky Brightness
Map A shows the present light pollution for Europe at 1 a.m. local time. Map B shows the expected light pollution when LED lighting replaces high-pressure mercury and sodium lighting.

Personally, I have found the large cities of Asia to be the worst for light pollution. Not only was I unable to see the Milky Way on a clear moonless night in Seoul, Shanghai, or Hong Kong, but I was unable to see a single star in the night sky.

Psalm 97:6 states,

The heavens proclaim his [God’s] righteousness, and all peoples see his glory. (NIV)

This Bible text presumes that people can see the heavens. If they cannot see the Milky Way or any stars at all, how can they possibly perceive, from viewing the heavens, God’s righteousness and glory?

On a positive note, I have witnessed, several times, the impact that a first-time sighting of the Milky Way can have on human beings. Without exception, people are awestruck. I have heard non-Christians in such circumstances tell me that they were having a spiritual experience. In such settings it is so much easier to engage people in meaningful spiritual conversations than it is in light-polluted cities.

Less Revelation from Birds and Mammals

Job 12:7 encourages us to let animals reveal truth to us:

But ask the animals, and they will teach you, or the birds in the sky, and they will tell you. . . . (NIV)

“Animals” in the verse above refers to land mammals. Much of the rest of the book of Job explains how our contact with wild birds and mammals teaches us important spiritual lessons—lessons about ourselves, about God, and about how we can enter into a relationship with God.

A few of those lessons include the following:⁴

1. As birds and mammals were designed to relate to a higher species (us humans), we humans were also designed to relate to a higher Being.
2. As birds and mammals are motivated to serve and please a higher species, so too are we humans motivated to serve and please a higher Being.
3. As our sin and evil causes birds and mammals to flee from us rather than to seek us out and relate to us, serve, and please us, our sin and evil also causes us to run away from God or pretend he does not exist.
4. As it takes a higher being to tame a bird or mammal, it similarly takes a higher Being to tame a human being.
5. As the full potential and capability of a bird or a mammal is only manifested when the bird or mammal is strongly bonded to a higher being—namely, a human being—only when a human is strongly bonded to God is the full potential and capability of that human realized.

The problem faced by humans living in the twenty-first century is that the majority of the world’s humans live in huge metropolitan cities where they are cut off from significant contact with wild birds and mammals. They are especially cut off from birds and mammals that have never been abused by humans. Thus, they are not being exposed to the spiritual lessons provided through regular contact with wild birds and mammals that have never been threatened, hunted, or abused by humans.

On another positive note, I have experienced the impact of taking highly educated people out of the city and into a pristine natural environment where I encourage them to take time to be still and calmly observe wildlife. Seeing how motivated certain wild birds and mammals are to hang around us can be spiritually impactful. In such settings I have seen scientists, who in their university offices were very resistant to discussing Christianity, suddenly become eager to discuss spiritual matters.

Less Revelation from Natural Beauty

As I explained in my most recent book, Improbable Planet, we are living during a very narrow window of time in which the surface of Earth possesses more stunning, spectacular natural beauty than it ever has before.⁵ Spending time in such beautiful natural settings can be spiritually uplifting. It appeals to our aesthetic senses. It compels contemplation about why such beauty exists and what it means for our purpose in life. An example of how spiritually impactful beautiful nature scenes can be is what I saw happen to my colleagues in the astronomy department when I was a research fellow at the California Institute of Technology. In the hallways of the Robinson Laboratory of Astronomy and Astrophysics, all but a few of my fellow research astronomers were resistant to any kind of meaningful spiritual dialogue. However, when I would take some of them into the high alpine meadows of the Sierra Nevada mountain range not far from the Owens Valley Radio Observatory, everything changed.

I would ask them for their impression of the scene before us. They would say it was beautiful beyond description. I would then ask them why the scene was so beautiful. That question consistently led to an hour or several hours of discussion about God, Christianity, the universe and Earth’s design and purpose, and God’s purpose in creating human beings.

On one occasion in those high alpine meadows, I didn’t need to say a word. The atheist astronomer I was hiking with stopped and said to me, “Something weird is happening to me. I think I am having a spiritual experience.”

Explaining the Rise of Atheism
Throughout the latter part of the twentieth century and on into the twenty-first century, there has been a steady rise in the percentage of the world’s population who identify themselves as either atheists, agnostics, or deists. This steady rise is correlated with the increasing percentage of the world’s population who live in cities with inhabitants exceeding 1 million.

People living in cities of population sizes exceeding 1 million rarely, if ever, see the Milky Way, much less a hundred stars in the nighttime sky, wild birds and mammals in their natural environments, or beautiful natural scenic wonders. Much of the book of nature is cut off from them, especially those parts of the book of nature that most clearly reveal God, his attributes, and his plans for his creation and humanity. No wonder so many city dwellers struggle to find God. They may possess PhDs in the scientific disciplines from the top universities in the world, but because they are cut off from nature, in some respects they are more ignorant about science than people who lived thousands of years ago.

Many of you have asked me why I post so many of my nature photos on my Facebook page. It is because I not only want to show people God’s increasing revelation through emerging scientific discoveries in the scientific literature, but also want to show people the revelation from wild, unspoiled nature. My prayer is that the few photos I post will help reverse the trend of people living in the twenty-first century seeing less of God’s natural creation.

Endnotes

1. Fabio Falchi et al., “The New World Atlas of Artificial Night Sky Brightness,” Science Advances 2 (June 2016): e1600377, doi:10.1126/sciadv.1600377.
2. Ibid., 1.
3. Ibid.
4. I describe and explain these lessons and others in more depth in my book Hidden Treasures in the Book of Job: How the Oldest Book in the Bible Answers Today’s Scientific Questions (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2011), 119–73,
5. Hugh Ross, Improbable Planet: How Earth Became Humanity’s Home (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2016), 211–12.

Subjects: God’s Existence

“We are all fallen creatures and all very hard to live with.”¹ 

—C. S. Lewis

Personally, I always feel more comfortable and confident talking about the biblical doctrine of justification than I do about the doctrine of sanctification. Probably because I feel my own progress in sanctification always leaves something to be desired. Nevertheless, here are some of my recent thoughts about the long and challenging process of being transformed into the image of Christ.

What Is Sanctification?

Evangelical theologian John Jefferson Davis offers this definition of sanctification:

“The Christian’s growth in holiness and conformity to the character of Jesus Christ through personal faith and obedience and the ministry of the Holy Spirit and the Word of God.”²

Interestingly, the theological traditions within Christendom have differing ideas about how sanctification comes about in the life of the believer. For example, even within evangelicalism some groups (such as the Holiness, Nazarene, and Pentecostal traditions) view sanctification as happening through spiritual crisis events and resulting in complete moral perfection, whereas other groups (such as the Lutheran, Reformed, and Anglican traditions) view it as a lifelong continual process that never reaches perfection in this life. My own studies in Scripture and in theology as well as in life experience persuade me that the latter view is closer to the truth, but I nevertheless can respect other traditions that understand the issue differently.

Two Views of Sanctification

I have long been associated with theological traditions that seem to me to talk a lot more about grace, faith, and justification than they did about repentance, good works, and sanctification. I’m not criticizing that perspective because I think an understanding of the depth of God’s grace is critical to understanding God’s entire plan of salvation, including justification, sanctification, and even glorification. So God’s grace (Greek: charis, or “unmerited favor”) is the foundation for the entire Christian experience. Yet I think Scripture is crystal clear that the grace that saves us through faith in Christ also motivates us to pursue a godly life (see Titus 2:11–15).

I always appreciate being reminded that salvation is a free gift of God. But I wonder why the message of sanctification is sometimes given far less emphasis. My impression is that the importance of sanctification can be underemphasized because it is at times such a difficult process and we see so little growth in Christ that we feel rather defeated. At points like this we need to remind ourselves of Paul’s incredible biblical promise: Nothing can “separate us from the love of God that is in Christ Jesus our Lord” (Romans 8:39).³ We need to realize that the Christian life with its everyday ups and downs can and should be lived by grace and in the critical understanding that God continually forgives and strengthens us for his service.

On the other hand, I have also talked with Christians of other traditions who greatly emphasize the living of the Christian life. These believers rightly affirm that the believer in Christ is a new creation in Christ Jesus (2 Corinthians 5:17). I appreciate their emphasis that God can and does transform the lives of his people and that Scripture implores believers to take sanctification very seriously (2 Corinthians 7:1; Galatians 5:24). These believers like to emphasize that grace is also a power that can serve to change the lives of believers.

I am greatly encouraged to know that I am not only saved by grace but that I can also live by grace and be empowered by God to resist sin. Yet I wonder if it is not also possible to exaggerate one’s level of sanctification because we are often oblivious to the depth of our sin even as Christians. For example, try giving up being selfish just for a day or two—it’s impossible! So some, or a lot, of what St. Augustine and Martin Luther called incurvatus in se (Latin: “curved in on oneself,” meaning inner selfishness) remains long after our conversion to Christ.

“Forgiven Sinners”

I think Luther’s famous statement in Latin: simul justus et peccator (“simultaneously righteous and sinful”) reflects both Scripture and our own experience. In our standing before God we have been declared forgiven and granted the imputed righteousness of Christ, or justification (Romans 5:1); yet in our present state we remain sinners. We have been forever changed but we still sin. So I think it best to consider ourselves after the new birth as “forgiven sinners.”

Here is a definition of sanctification that I recently came across that I think is realistic but still hopeful:

“Sanctification is the long process by which the Holy Spirit uses our real circumstances and the collateral damage caused by living in a sin-shattered world to shape us into the image of Christ.”⁴

So sanctification is a work of God’s grace, but it definitely involves our active participation. According to Scripture, the grace that saves us also motivates us to pursue godly living (Ephesians 2:8–10; Titus 2:11–14).

Reflections: Your Turn

Is sanctification hard or easy? What does it mean to live by grace? Visit Reflections on WordPress to comment with your response.

Endnotes

1. C. S. Lewis, Letters to an American Lady (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1967), 110.
2. John Jefferson Davis, Handbook of Basic Bible Texts: Every Key Passage for the Study of Doctrine and Theology (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1984), 92.
3. While I realize some Christian traditions believe that Christ’s followers can permanently fall away and be lost, I think Scripture teaches that God will ensure that his people will persevere and be saved: John 6:37–39, 10:28–29, 17:11–12; Romans 8:30, 38–39; Philippians 1:6; 2 Timothy 1:12, 2:13, 4:18; 1 John 5:13.
4. John Koessler, “The Gift of Disillusionment,” Views (blog), Christianity Today, May 17, 2016, http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2016/may-web-only/gift-of-disillusionment.html.

Subjects: Doctrine, Theology

Do you like equations? During my short teaching stint, I encountered many people who find equations intimidating. Personally, I find it amazing that a few symbols on a piece of paper capture the behavior of remarkably complex phenomena. These equations help explain the most beautiful sights in creation. Here are some of the ones I am most thankful for.

Rayleigh Scattering:  I ∝ I_o / λ⁴

When light passes through a gas, the molecules scatter the light in a way that is dependent on wavelength. Shorter wavelengths (bluer light) are scattered much more than longer wavelengths (redder light). Rayleigh scattering often causes the Moon to appear red during a lunar eclipse because the atmosphere bends the Sun’s light towards the Moon. However, it also scatters the light, effectively removing all but the redder wavelengths. The main reason I give thanks for Rayleigh scattering is that without it, I would never see sunsets like the below image! It also provides the answer to the age-old question: Why is the sky blue?

Image 1: Sunset on November 19, 2016 as seen from my street. I love the way it looks like the sky caught fire! 

Snell’s Law: n₁ x sin (θ₁) = n₂ x sin (θ₂) 

According to Snell’s law, when light passes from one medium into another, it will change direction. Greater differences in the index of refraction (n) lead to larger changes in direction. On certain occasions ice crystals form high in the atmosphere. As light enters these ice crystals the different wavelengths of light will bend at a specified angle. As light exits, it will bend even more. All of this ultimately forms a halo around the Sun (and even the Moon). I find these unusual optical phenomena fascinating, especially the more I learn about how Earth’s habitability depends on the critical interaction between the Sun and Earth’s atmosphere.

Image 2: I witnessed this 22° halo around the Sun during a trip to Washington back in June 2013.

Buoyant Force: F_buoyant = ρ x g x V_f 

Oil sinks in water, as do rocks, lead weights, and bricks. To figure out whether an object will sink in another material, just figure out the weight of the material displaced by the object in question. If the weight of the object is greater than the weight of the displaced material, it will sink. This formula for buoyant force embodies this principle (originally developed by Archimedes). As remarkable as it sounds, applying this principle to Earth’s crust shows why continents rise above the surface of the ocean. Continental rocks float on top of the more dense ocean crust below. Basically, this equation describes a key component of why continents and mountains exist.

Image 3: Mount Fairweather in Glacier Bay National Park in Alaska. 

Newton’s Second Law: F = m x a

Sir Isaac Newton, known as the father of modern physics, delineated three important laws of motion (as well as did a lot of work with optics and theology). When dealing with motion, the second law provides a tremendous tool to understand how things move from their current positions to their locations in the future. Accounting for gravitational force and air resistance on the water, one can calculate how water travels over the beautiful waterfalls throughout creation! Slightly more complex calculations of the forces on water reveal why Earth still has an abundant water cycle, while Mars lost oceans of water.

Image 4: Water drops more than 80 feet as it travels from the top to the bottom of Wailua Falls (featured in the opening credits of Fantasy Island).

I vividly remember taking each of these four pictures, largely because they are not common occurrences (although the laws of physics describe them well). Sunsets and halos require special conditions in the atmosphere. Mountains and waterfalls require special configurations of the land and water on Earth. On many occasions, the busyness of the day distracts me from seeing the sunsets and mountains or causes me to drive right past the waterfalls. But when I stop to notice these remarkable views, they always induce a sense of awe and wonder, as well as draw me to worship the One who created them.

Subjects: Holiday, Lists, Laws of Physics

Faster than a speeding bullet! More powerful than a locomotive! Able to leap tall buildings in a single bound! . . . It’s a bird! It’s a plane! It’s . . . Mighty Moss Piglet!

The Super Ts

Actually, it’s just a tardigrade, and they aren’t really fast. Their name actually means “slow-stepper.” And they’re not really superheroes, but maybe they should be. They can withstand extreme environments including temperature ranges from near absolute zero to 300°F (well over the boiling point for water), high levels of radiation (hundreds of times the human lethal dose), the vacuum of space, pressures up to six times greater than the deepest ocean trench, and extremely low levels of life’s elixir—water! These creatures transform via cryptobiosis, a physiological state where metabolic processes seemingly cease. This poorly understood transformation allows cryptobiotic tardigrades to withstand extreme desiccation and extreme cold (even for decades) before being reanimated! It’s not exactly resurrection from the dead, but it’s a good case for elevating this microscopic organism to superhero-like status.

Due to their appearance and habitats, tardigrades have acquired the nicknames of water bears and moss piglets. First discovered in 1773, these micro-animals are rather cosmopolitan, showing up in a variety of earth habitats. Their translucent, segmented bodies facilitate microscopic visualization of simple neurological and muscular structures. In the past 18 months these eight-legged, microscopic wonders of survival have been drawn into a debate about the extent of horizontal gene transfer in the evolution of its highly unique phyla of animals, Tardigrada, containing more than 1,000 different species.

In 2015, researchers reported a tardigrade, Hypsibius dujardini, draft genome indicating signs of extensive horizontal gene transfer.¹ The report indicated that 17.5 percent of the 38,145 predicted genes in the 212.3 megabase (Mb) genome of the tardigrade depended upon transfer of foreign genes, primarily (>90 percent) of bacterial origin. However, subsequent sequencing by a second research group indicated <0.5 percent of genes in the 135 Mb tardigrade genome were acquired through functional horizontal gene transfer (~0.2 percent bacterial genes and another 0.2 percent foreign genes from nonmetazoan eukaryotes).² That’s a huge difference! These two studies highlight some very significant challenges that science faces in the modern genomic era and the era of an extended evolutionary synthesis.

Extended Evolutionary Synthesis 

The extended evolutionary synthesis (EES), addresses, among other things, an obvious inadequacy of gradual, unguided mutations under natural selection (neo-Darwinism) as a sufficient mechanistic explanation for the complexity and diversity of life on Earth. Therefore, adherents to an EES share common critiques of Darwinian and neo-Darwinian evolutionary claims to those raised by progressive creationists and other critics of Darwinian evolution.

EES appeals to various other naturalistic explanations and molecular mechanisms for the acquisition and accrual of large amounts of genetic information and material over relatively short transition times. These mechanisms include genome duplication, transposition/translocation, horizontal (or lateral) gene transfer, and endosymbiosis.³ The exact contributions and combinations of these mechanisms in accounting for a naturalistic explanation of life’s complexity, diversity, and history is unknown and has been referred to as the muddy middle layer of mechanism. EES and many theistic evolutionists believe the muddy middle layer will be clarified over time through progressive scientific studies and discoveries.

As scientists, we dare not fail in acknowledging that mechanisms like horizontal gene transfer (HGT), genome duplication (whole or partial), and transposition contribute significantly to biological functions and adaptive mechanisms. As I’ve said elsewhere, I actually think molecular mechanisms such as these point to brilliant, insightful engineering that will assure the survival and thriving of species in response to ever-changing, challenging environments. (See “Demystifying Evolution” and “Do Devils Evolve” for related articles.)

However, I believe that a naturalistic appeal to these varieties of mechanisms as those responsible for the evolutionary history and complexity of life will make it ever more difficult to draw meaningful scientific conclusions practical for application from the data. The first publication of the tardigrade draft genome highlights this hazard.

Misinterpreting the Data—HGT, Convergence, or Contamination?

Horizontal, or lateral, gene transfer refers to the real or presumed transfer of genetic material from one organism to another. In single-cell organisms HGT occurs via human intervention in the laboratory or in nature by the uptake of genetic material from the environment. Both cases where this occurs are known as transfection. HGT also occurs through vector-mediated transfers by viruses (transduction), or by direct transfer from one organism to another (conjugation). Successful transfer of genetic information affects all subsequent progeny in unicellular organisms. However, in multicellular organisms HGT is typically vector-mediated (via viruses) or, presumably, through direct environmental uptake of bacteria or single-cell organisms (parasites or symbionts). In multicellular organisms, HGT only affects subsequent generations and progeny if the transfer occurs in the germ line.

In the first publication of the tardigrade draft genome, researchers were quick to interpret data within the genomic sequences as that of bacterial and non-metazoan eukaryotic foreign DNA acquired by HGT. This interpretation of the data fits nicely into a neo-Darwinian or EES understanding of universal common descent where more complex organisms must co-opt genetic material necessary for survival from other simpler organisms, since accruing point mutations over time is not sufficient or efficient enough to ensure survival. Appealing to HGT to account for tardigrade genomic sequences allowed the researchers to further speculate that the tardigrades’ abilities to survive extreme environments were achieved by co-opting bacterial systems that allow bacterial extremophiles to thrive under similarly harsh conditions. The researchers’ commitment and desire to show an evolutionary relevance led them to some poor and hasty conclusions. This is so often true in vast troves of the scientific literature today, since such speculation is much simpler than the hard work of designing well-controlled functional experiments that prove rather than just infer significant function.

In the second genome publication, the researchers were much more meticulous in their work and sequencing, and seemingly much more committed to getting at the truth than advancing a particular interpretive paradigm. Carefully evaluating sequence scaffolds and controlling assembly parameters, they found that only ~0.5 percent, not 17.5 percent, of the genome may be associated with HGT from bacteria and non-metazoan eukaryotes. Of course the 0.5 percent may be of functional significance, acquired through HGT, and relevant to understanding the tardigrade organism, but all of that is yet to be analyzed and far from being proven.

When are evolutionary stories telling us nothing substantive? Forcing a universal common descent model onto the interpretation of the data in order to account for the presence of specific genomic components in various organisms is bad and hasty science. We have no idea if the ~0.5 percent of the genome is truly indicative of HGT, convergence, or even residual contamination in the DNA sequences. Only good research will address these questions.

Joining the Questioners

Does the evolutionary paradigm facilitate scientific advancement and contribute to a reliable, growing foundation of knowledge? Or is a blind assumption of universal common ancestry clouding the waters by promoting inference-only scientific conclusions? If we want to gain true knowledge and understanding that can be harnessed for practical applications and advancements, researchers must do the hard work—looking for genes and regulatory mechanisms and proving associated functions—rather than just inferring function or lack of function based on evolutionary rhetoric. Inference is not evidence—it is just inference.

Inference may be right and it may be wrong. And hasty, inference-laden assumptions, received with uncritical open arms, embracing any evolutionary conclusion will continue to swamp the scientific literature with premature claims that cloud access to true scientific knowledge. A commitment to progressive creationism actually forces the scientist to do the hard work of linking form and function for each organism of interest before publishing. Progressive creationism is a paradigm that will push us to scientific conclusions of greater integrity and reliability.

Tardigrade Superheroes

Perhaps these tardigrade superheroes will help deliver us from speculative science driven by ever more creative evolutionary narratives. The first two reports of tardigrade’s genomic analyses have certainly highlighted a major hazard in scientific literature—showing that researchers too quickly assume too much about draft genome sequences. When others build on these assumptions, the literature becomes a fog of self-supporting assertions often built on very little data and mountains of speculation.

Certain critiques raised by the EES toward neo-Darwinian evolution are extremely helpful in opening up scientific inquiry. But perhaps these critiques do not take us far enough from freeing scientific inquiry from the endless inferences built on naturalistic assumptions and commitments to universal common ancestry. Unswerving commitment to a universal common ancestry paradigm plus the mechanisms of EES may lead to greater mayhem and confusion in the absence of real, functional, and mechanistic data. Dogmatic evolutionary theory may one day destroy scientific access to reality.

We should always ask ourselves, what’s best for getting at the underlying truth? As we discover more and more scientifically, I am convinced it will point more and more to the complexity of God’s brilliant, insightful designs. God’s revelation in nature will become more and more apparent as he desires for more people to see him, seek him, and find him in redemptive reconciliation.

Endnotes

1. Thomas Boothby et al., “Evidence for Extensive Horizontal Gene Transfer from the Draft Genome of a Tardigrade,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA 112 (December 2015): 15976–81, doi:10.1073/pnas.1510461112.
2. Georgios Koutsovoulos et al., “No Evidence for Extensive Horizontal Gene Transfer in the Genome of the Tardigrade Hypsibius dujardini,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA 113 (May 2016): 5053–8, doi:10.1073/pnas.1600338113.
3. Perry Marshall, Evolution 2.0: Breaking the Deadlock between Darwin and Design (Dallas: BenBella Books, 2015).

Subjects: Animals

Featured image: Artistic impression of two pulsars orbiting around a common center of mass 
Credit: Michael Kramer, Jodrell Bank Observatory, University of Manchester

The most rigorous and compelling proof that the universe was created by an Agent that transcends space and time comes from the theory of general relativity. The best confirmation that general relativity is a true theory comes from measurements on the binary pulsar B1913+16. Thanks to a new study, that best confirmation has now become even better.

Astronomers have been studying the binary pulsar PSR B1913+16 for nearly four decades. In a recent issue of the Astrophysical Journal, astronomers Joel Weisberg and Yuping Huang published their analysis of 9,257 pulse times-of-arrival measurements taken over 35 years on PSR B1913+16.¹

PSR B1913+16 is a pair of neutron stars where one of the neutron stars is a pulsar. The two neutron stars orbit one other with a period of 7.75 hours and an orbital separation of just 3 light seconds (a little more than twice the separation of the moon from Earth or about 2/3 the diameter of the sun). The pulsar rotates on its axis about 17 times per second. Thus, it sends out a strong pulse of radiation every 59 milliseconds.

The theory of general relativity predicts that neutron stars orbiting close to one another will radiate gravitational waves. This radiation will cause the neutron stars to experience a decay in their orbit—that is, the neutron stars will orbit closer and closer to one another as gravitational energy is radiated away by the gravitational waves.

The easiest and most accurate way to measure the orbital decay is to determine changes in the timing of periastron of the orbit. Periastron refers to the position in the orbit at which two stars orbiting one another are closest to one another. The orientation of periastron in PSR B1913+16’s orbit has been observed to change by 4.2° per year. Figure 1 shows the observed change in the timing of periastron with date from 1975–2003 compared to what the theory of general relativity would predict.²

Figure 1: Orbital Decay of the Binary Pulsar PSR B1913+16 (1975–2003)
The data points show the observed change in the epoch of periastron with date. The parabolic curve shows the change in epoch predicted by the theory of general relativity.

Figure 2 shows the observed change in the timing of periastron with date from 1975–2014.³ The newer measurements show an even more spectacular agreement with the prediction arising from the theory of general relativity.

Figure 2: Orbital Decay of the Binary Pulsar PSR B1913+16 (1975–2014)
Data points show the observed change in the epoch of periastron with date. The error bars on the post-1980 data points are much too small to show. Credit: Weisberg and Huang, Astrophysical Journal 

Until the publication of Weisberg and Huang’s paper, the best comparison of the observed orbital period decrease of PSR B1913+16 compared to the prediction of general relativity was 0.997±0.002.⁴ Weisberg and Huang’s work improves that comparison to 0.9983±0.0016.⁵ Their results remove any reasonable doubt for “the existence and strength of gravitational radiation as predicted by general relativity.“⁶

In their paper, Weisberg and Huang also announce two never-before-performed tests of general relativity. They successfully measured, for the first time in this system, the “two parameters characterizing the Shapiro gravitational propagation delay.” (The Shapiro gravitational propagation delay is the slowing down of the passage of light predicted by general relativity as that light experiences a change in gravitational potential caused by the gravitational field of a massive body.) Their measured values were consistent with general relativity’s predictions.⁷ They also successfully measured, for the first time in any system, the shape correction to the elliptical orbit of PSR B1913+16. The shape correction they measured was consistent with the prediction arising from general relativity.⁸

Even before the publication of Weisberg and Huang’s paper, general relativity ranked as the most exhaustively tested and best-proven principle in physics. With the addition of Weisberg and Huang’s research findings, general relativity is now even more exhaustively tested and better proven. Thanks to Weisberg and Huang’s additional tests of general relativity’s veracity, the conclusions of the space-time theorems are now even more solid than they were before.

The space-time theorems rest on just two significant (nontrivial) assumptions: (1) the universe contains bodies that possess mass, and (2) the equations of general relativity reliably describe the movements of massive bodies. Readers of this blog, by themselves, are adequate evidence that assumption #1 is correct. Thanks to Weisberg and Huang’s research findings and the research findings of others, no reasonable basis now exists for doubting assumption #2.

The most potent of the space-time theorems, the one proven by Arvind Borde, Alexander Vilenkin, and Alan Guth, states that all cosmological models are subject to an initial space-time singularity, regardless of assumptions about homogeneity, isotropy (or lack thereof), or energy conditions, including cosmological models that invoke an early hyper-inflation event.⁹ This beginning of space and time implies that an Agent operating from beyond space and time must have caused the universe to exist.

About a year after the publication of the theorem, Alexander Vilenkin wrote in a book, “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.”¹⁰ That problem is a causal Agent who transcends space and time. Such a causal Agent matches the description of the God of the Bible.

Endnotes

1. Joel Weisberg and Yuping Huang, “Relativistic Measurements from Timing the Binary Pulsar PSR B1913+16,” Astrophysical Journal 829 (September 2016): id. 55, doi:10.3847/0004-637X/829/1/55.
2. Joel Weisberg, David Nice, and Joseph Taylor, “Timing Measurements of the Relativistic Binary Pulsar PSR B1913+16,” Astrophysical Journal 722 (September 2010): 1030–34, doi:10.1088/0004-637X/722/2/1030.
3. Weisberg and Huang, “Relativistic Measurements,” 9.
4. Weisberg, Nice, and Taylor, “Timing Measurements,” 1034.
5. Weisberg and Huang, “Relativistic Measurements,” 1.
6. Ibid.
7. Ibid.
8. Ibid.
9. Arvind Borde, Alan Guth, and Alexander Vilenkin, “Inflationary Spacetimes Are Incomplete in Past Directions,” Physical Review Letters 90 (April 2003): id. 151301, doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.90.151301.
10. Alexander Vilenkin, Many Worlds in One: The Search for Other Universes (New York: Hill & Wang, 2007), 176.

Subjects: Cosmology, Inflation, Relativity, Origin of the Universe