Evolution Impossible (25 page)

Hoyle also recognized that it was even more ridiculous to suppose that carbon atoms could come together to form life-sustaining biopolymers as a result of random chaotic processes. He and fellow mathematician Chandra Wickramasinghe calculated that the chances that carbon atoms could form the number of enzymes for the simplest life — all forming together at the right time — diminished progressively so that even if the whole universe was soup, it would still be improbable.
³

It was Hoyle’s view that rather than accept the unimaginably small probability of life having arisen through the blind forces of nature, one would be less likely to be wrong to suppose that the origin of life was a deliberate intellectual act.
⁴

How the life-forming elements of carbon, oxygen, nitrogen, and hydrogen came into existence together with the other elements is usually explained in most college and university science classes in terms of “the big-bang theory.” This name was originally coined by Hoyle, who actually rejected the theory.
⁵

The big-bang theory is an incredible construct of still unproven astronomical assumptions, contrived to provide a natural explanation as to how the universe came to be. So let us now consider an overview of the commonly taught “hot big-bang theory.”

It is initially important to note there is a common misconception as to what the big-bang theory portrays. Many people, including some scien
tists and astronomers, understand the theory to describe the scenario of “something” (scientifically referred to as a “singularity”) with extreme properties such as infinite heat and infinite density, suddenly appearing in the vacuum of empty space and rapidly expanding in three-dimensional space. As this expanding energy/matter cooled, the galaxies and stars formed like islands in this space we know as the universe. However, the big-bang theory is actually even more contrived in that the theory proposes that space itself expanded in a fourth dimensional “hyperspace.”
⁶
This picture is difficult for most of us to grasp — but an analogy would be the expansion of a balloon as it is being inflated. If we drew little circles on the surface of the balloon, as it expanded the little circles would expand and also move farther apart from each other. In this case, we have a two-dimensional surface of the balloon expanding in three-dimensional space. An important observation is that the surface of the balloon has no center. The big-bang theory, by having three-dimensional space expanding in hyperspace (which incidentally has never been observed or detected and is simply a made-up assumption), implies that the universe would have no edge and therefore no center. This assumption, known as the
cosmological principle
or
Copernican principle
, was needed to develop a theory in which the universe has no center and would look spherically symmetrical wherever an observer was in the universe.

When we observe the universe from earth, it appears to be spherically symmetrical (isotropic) around us, as if we are near the center — in a special vantage point to study the structure and nature of space. However, some cosmologists wanted a theory in which the earth was not near the center of the universe. So by adopting the construct of hyperspace, cosmologists devised a theory explaining that we appear to be near the center of the universe because that is the way the universe looks wherever you are.
⁷
In other words, the big-bang theory has an assumption built into it to ensure that humans are not in a special place in the universe.

In an attempt to have a mechanical explanation of our origins rather than a supernatural one involving an Intelligent Creator, the big-bang theory contains a number of additional contrived assumptions. Some of these assumptions cannot be justified on the basis of what we know from established laws of physics.
⁸
In other words, they are made-up assumptions and totally unproven, but cosmologists and other scientists have to use these assumptions, otherwise they don’t have a big-bang theory.

For example, the big-bang theory requires a growing number of hypothetical entities that have never been proven and have never been observed. The most prominent of these are as follows:

inflationary theory

dark matter

dark energy

Without these totally made up and assumed conditions, the big-bang theory doesn’t work. In other words, what the theory predicts and what astronomers observe don’t match up. So the theorists develop new fudge factors to try to get the theory to work.

For example, cosmologists have to assume that when the “big bang” started, the universe expanded much more rapidly than would occur under the laws of physics that we can actually observe. That is, they have to assume there was some unknown special “inflation” energy field that caused extra rapid expansion — otherwise the theory cannot explain the observed smoothness (scientifically called
isotropy
) of the cosmic microwave background radiation.

Similarly, the big-bang theory predicts a very different ratio of matter to anti-matter in the universe compared to what we observe. So rather than discard the theory since it does not fit with what we observe, cosmologists instead propose that there must be some kind of “dark matter” that we can’t see, which is formed by some unknown law of physics.

“Dark energy” is a similar hypothetical entity. Without it, the theory predicts the ridiculous situation that the universe is billions of years younger than the age of some of the stars in our galaxy as calculated by other methods.

These major shortcomings of the big-bang theory have been known to scientists for decades.
⁹
In 2004, dozens of leading astronomers and physicists signed a published letter in
New Scientist
magazine, pointing out that the theory was continually resorting to new hypothetical entities to bridge the gap between theory and observation. Furthermore, the theory had failed to give any quantitative predictions that have been scientifically validated.
¹⁰

Prominent astronomers and cosmologists signing the letter included Halton Arp from the Max Planck Institute for Astrophysics in Germany, Hermann Bondi from the University of Cambridge, and Thomas Gold from Cornell University.
¹¹
Since the
New Scientist
article was published, two Crisis in Cosmology conferences have been held (in 2005 and 2008), and hundreds more astronomers, physicists, and other scientists have added their names to the list. Cosmic microwave background radiation is cited as one of the main evidences for the big-bang theory. However, at the 2008 conference, Oxford University-educated thermodynamics researcher Bernard Bligh presented rigorous thermodynamic calculations showing that the supposed initial “fireball” of the big bang could not have produced the actual perfect black-body type radiation that we clearly observe.
¹²

Furthermore, Dr. Richard Lieu and coworkers at the University of Alabama in Huntsville analyzed data from the NASA Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe associated with 31 galaxy clusters. They were looking for evidence of shadows that should be cast by foreground galaxies in the cosmic microwave background radiation from the supposed big bang. However, not a single shadow associated with any of the 31 clusters was detected, which is powerful, directly observable evidence that the big bang never happened.
¹³

In fact, the microwave background radiation we observe makes more sense and agrees with the calculated values if it is recognized as simply the temperature of space as heated by starlight.
¹⁴

Another major problem with the big-bang theory is that it is way out in its prediction of satellite galaxies. University of Cambridge–educated professor of astronomy at the University of Bonn in Germany Dr. Pavel Kroupa points out that we only observe about 1 percent of the number of these galaxies compared to what the theory predicts. He believes this is the clearest evidence that there is something badly wrong with the big-bang model for the origin of the galaxies we observe in space.
¹⁵

Another aspect of the big-bang model we noted earlier is that it describes an expanding universe. This expansion, if it were really occurring, would produce time-dilation phenomena resulting in two light curve-broadening effects for supernovae. However, it has now been discovered from the study of the widths of supernovae light curves that there is only a single broadening effect observed.
16
These observations again provide evidence that the big bang never happened. On the other hand, data from observed surface brightness measurements of galaxies is consistent with the calculations for a nonexpanding universe.
¹⁷

There are a number of other serious problems with the big-bang model that I have not discussed here as they are quite technical in nature.
¹⁸
It is possible to propose any number of alternative cosmologies because in reality we cannot really “prove” how our universe came to be on the basis of what we can observe today. The fact remains, however, that some models fit the observed data better than others and to date no mechanical model like the big bang or anything similar has been proposed that fits all the observed data we have now collected. On the other hand, the instantaneous creation model of a universe with the earth near the center fits well with what we actually observe.
¹⁹

The big-bang model is taught in schools, colleges, and universities simply because it is the most popular model among scientists who do not want to bring any notion of God into the classroom. They argue that creation is not a testable scientific theory and therefore cannot be taught in a science class. However, to try to save the big-bang theory, they see no problem in teaching inflation theory, which is a nontestable philosophical view. As internationally renowned astrophysicist George Ellis reminds us, a spherical symmetrical universe with earth at its center cannot be disproved on the basis of observations. He goes on to point out that cosmologists are using philosophical criteria to choose their model for the origin of the universe, and a lot of cosmology tries to hide that fact.
²⁰

When we consider the accumulation of knowledge of the physics and chemistry of our universe, the number of “just right for life to exist” scenarios in relation to our planet, and its location in our solar system, I believe the evidence overwhelmingly supports the philosophy that we came into existence as a result of the will of an all-powerful Creator God. There is presently no proven theory of how we came into existence. However, the fine tuning of the universe that we observe reinforces Professor Fred Hoyle’s decades-old suggestion that the universe and life are the result of a deliberate, intelligent act by a vastly superior intelligence.

1
. See, for example, N. Lubrick, “Goldilocks and the Three Planets,”
Astronomy,
vol. 31, no. 7 (2003): p. 36–41.

2
. F. Hoyle, “The Universe: Past and Present Reflections,”
Engineering and Science,
vol. 45, no. 2 (November 1981): p 8–12. See:
http://callteches.library.edu/3312/1/Hoyle.pdf
.

3
. F. Hoyle and C. Wickramasinghe,
Evolution from Space
(London: J.M. Dent & Sons, 1981), p. 23–33.

4
. Hoyle, “The Universe: Past and Present Reflections p. 12. See:
http://callteches.library.edu/3312/1/Hoyle.pdf
.

5
. See:
http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/2615
.

6
. W. Rindler,
Essential Relativity: Special, General and Cosmological,
second edition (New York: Springer-Verlag, 1977), p. 212–213.

7
. S.W. Hawking and G.F.R. Ellis,
The Large Scale Structure of Space-Time
(Cambridge, UK and New York: Cambridge University Press, 1973), p. 134–135.

8
. University of Tennessee astronomy lecture notes: “Problems with the Big Bang” see:
http://csep10.physics.utk.edu/astr162/lect/cosmology/bbproblems.html
.

9
. See, for example, E. Lerner,
The Big Bang Never Happened: A Startling Refutation of the Dominant Theory of the Origin of the Universe
(London: Vintage, 1992).

10
. E. Lerner, “Bucking the Big Bang,”
New Scientist
(May 22, 2004): p. 20.

11
. For the full list of signatories see:
http://cosmologystatement.org/
.

12
. H. Ratcliffe, “The Second Crisis in Cosmology Conference” (2008),
http://www.hiltonratcliffe.com/article008.htm
, accessed 11/13/2009.

13
. R. Lieu, J.P.D. Mittaz, and Z. Shuang-Nan, “The Sunyaev-Zel’dovich Effect in a Sample of 31 Clusters: A Comparison Between the X-ray Predicted and WMAP Observed Cosmic Microwave Background Temperature Decrement,”
Astrophysical Journal,
vol. 648, no. 1 (2006): p. 176–199.