Cosmology: “In The Beginining” Controversy

In honor of Stephen Hawking’s 70thbirthday a conference was held.  And in this conference, there were two proposals posed being featured and one of which posed the greatest threat to the existing ‘models’ in cosmology.  You see, back in the 1970’s there was an uproar over a book called; “God and the Astronomers” by astronomer Robert Jastrow.

What was the uproar about? In the book, astronomer Robert Jastrow suggested that the universe had a beginning and he was very surprised on how much opposition came from cosmologists as a result. This is because they knew fully well if the universe had a beginning, this would suggest it was created out of nothing and they found that to be implausible therefore leaving the door open for a creator.  So  secular cosmologists embraced the idea of an eternal universe or universes that have no beginning.

Not only was the conference honoring Stephen Hawking’s 70th birthday but also it was a conference that was trying to carefully explain the universe with a beginning while being concerned about making any inferences towards God being the creator. In New Scientist, “the universe is not eternal, resurrecting the thorny question of how to kick-start the cosmos without the hand of a supernatural creator.”

Stephen Hawking told his audience in a pre-recorded speech, “A point of creation would be a place where science broke down. One would have to appeal to religion and the hand of God,’   Sadly, Hawking is wrong, science doesn’t break for a creator, science has broken down for natural causes being the creator of the universe. Take the big bang ‘theory’ for an example, if it was true then scientists would be observing a chronological structure of different stages concerning galaxies development as one looks deeper into space. But like in biology, this hasn’t been the case, astronomers have discovered galaxies and stars that are more fully ‘evolved’ in a segment of distant space where it was thought to represent the early, immature universe. One such discovery was discovered not long ago, a cluster of galaxies known as CL J1449+0856.

Stephen Hawking likes to invoke the “M-theory” at the very core of his beliefs.  But calling “M” a theory is a bit misleading because currently M-Theory is really not a theory at all, rather it’s a collection of different ideas (stories) with no observational or experimental data. He also invokes physical laws as the origin for the beginning of the universe.


“… physical laws can never provide a complete explanation of the universe. Laws themselves do not create anything, they are merely a description of what happens under certain conditions.”  -Professor and creationist at Oxford, John Lennox

John is correct, giving natural laws such profound abilities is not science but merely a man-made story in attempt to replace an intelligent creator namely, God. Back to “in the beginning”, there is a reason why a proposal of this kind has come out despite many objections for suggesting similar things in the past. New Scientist states this about the current status about an eternal universe, “cosmologist Alexander Vilenkin of Tufts University in Boston explained last week, that hope has been gradually fading and may now be dead.”

Here are some of the reasons why these models have failed and considered to be “dead”

The “cosmic egg” model where the universe hatches out of an existing eternal state.  Last year, “Vilenkin and graduate student Audrey Mithani showed that the egg could not have existed forever after all, as quantum instabilities would force it to collapse after a finite amount of time (” 

The universe bouncing eternally in an organized state from expansion to contraction. This doesn’t fit the laws of the physical universe, because “disorder increases with time.”  So after each cycle the universe increases in chaos, so given the old universe time frame, it would have already reached maximum disorder.

Inflation with eternal life.  Extrapolated from Alan Guth’s 1981 inflation proposal where universes forming and inflating spontaneously forever and ever. Why does this model fail? Because equations still require a boundary in the past as pointed out by Vilenkin and Guth back in 2003.

No model of an eternal universe has been shown to work. New Scientist calls it a “Genesis Problem”. Science has not broken down, it’s as good as ever and it is confirming God’s word! What is breaking here are these man-made stories from unbelievers who are bent on disproving God.

7 thoughts on “Cosmology: “In The Beginining” Controversy

  1. Hey Eelco, I hope all is well with you! I almost thought that was someone trying to impersonate you with the full name…lol There is a distinction between various cosmologists but that’s an interesting response because it was the only thing you found wrong with it. Don’t you believe in eternal universe or more than one universe with no beginning?

  2. No, there are just cosmologists. Oh, and there is lots more wrong with it, but I cannot be bothered anymore, as you keep ignoring anything that’s written here anyway. You are not interested in dialogue, just a (repetitive) monologue.
    And I don’t believe. Scientists do not believe, they test theories.

    So what about your full name then ?

  3. There is a distinction between various cosmologists….

    Yes, there are distinctions between cosmologists, but “secular” is not one of them. All cosmologists are seculasr5, in that they explain the universe according to natural law. It would be nonsensical to explain it by supernatural fiat, because that explains nothing.

    One of the dodges that Michael uses repeatedly is the rhetorical device known as “framing.” It is well known to politicians and lawyers. It’s purpose is to lead the listener to a favorable position by inducing him to filter his perceptions in a particular way. In this case, by implying a distinction that does not in fact exist between “secular” scientists and a putative group of scientists that favor Michael’s position—when in fact no such group exists.

    Michael may think he’s being subtle in employing this device, but he’s not. I think everyone recognizes it as a clumsy attempt to persuade himself that his view have some modicum of validity because others share them. But there are certainly no cosmologists who share them . No. Michael is all alone in his dark corner.


    Michael’s conceit lies in the history of soi-disant “creation science.” 20th-century fundamentalism was a reaction against theology, science, and new social mores after World War I. These upheavals occurred just at the time America was transforming from an agrarian to an industrial society. People whose lives had not changed for several generations, and who had been physically isolated from others, were suddenly thrown into contact and forcefully exposed to new ideas that they could not comprehend.

    The reaction was called “Fundamentalism.” These people thought that they could return to a simpler early time when they could understand everything that went on around them. If the world grew more sophisticated and complex, they would retreat into simplistic ignorance.

    In the 1920s, evolution became a handy target. Whereas no group of Christians had any serious doubts about evolution at the turn of the 20th century—even biblical inerrantists were comfortable with it—the fundamentalists selected it as their bete noir. This surfaced in to public schools, with laws banning the teaching of evolution.

    In 1968, the US Supreme Court held these laws unconstitutional, because their only basis was promotion of a particular religious belief. So the fundamentalists hit upon an idea: How about “equal time” for evolution and other theories?? The only problem was, there were no other theories.

    So they dressed up Genesis as a “scientific” narrative, and called it “creation science.” The result of all this is that “creation science” is not a scientific or intellectual movement of any kind, and it never was. It was conceived solely as a political and legal device for the purpose of forestalling the teaching of evolution. This means , of course, that creationism is not only wrong, it is a total sham down to its very core. Not even its most fervent supporters hope to establish creationism as a basis for inquiry into how the world works—its sole purpose is to defeat the teaching of real science. Therefore, creationism is a lie, from beginning to end.

    A lie that not even its proponents believe.


    If we are going to full names, this message is brought to you by Olorin af Valinor, also known as Gandalf Greybeard.

  4. Even this dilettante dabbler knows that there are many incorrect statements in Michael’s post. In fact, almost everything except “and” and “the” is wrong.

    The key is to delve into what knits them all together into a skein of falsehood.

    In this case, it is the logical fallacy of false dichotomy. Michael posits only two cases: (1) an eternal universe, which does not require a creator, and (2) a universe having a beginning, which he ASSUMES to require an external—-therefore supernatural—power to bring it into being.

    However, the second case does not necessarily entail such a power. Here are a few other possibilities. Eelco can certainly name others.
    (1) What we call “the univerrse” is part of an unending cycle.[1]
    (2) Time itself had a beginning. Just as we might reach the edge of a space, we could reach the beginning of a time dimension.
    (3) Time is not a property of the universe. Some cosmologists think time itself is an illusion.
    (4) Time might be multidimensional, as space is.
    (5) Although the universe may exist in time, the natural force underlying it may exist outside of time.

    Creationists thrive on false dichotomies. If a scientist finds an error in an evolutionary phylogeny, then BOOM! Not only is evolution totally wrong, but creationism is right. If more mature galaxies are found in a volume where we might expect less mature ones, then ZAP! The universe was created in six 24-hour days.

    The rest of us understand how far-fetched these dichotomies are. They can only be understood as arising from desperation in the face of ever-mounting contrary evidence.


    [1] Michael’s argument about entropy is fatuous.

  5. Twinkle, twinkle, quasistar;
    Greatest mystery from afar.
    Brighter than a million suns;
    How unlike the other ones.
    Twinkle, twinkle, quasistar.
    How I wonder what you are!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s