In beginning this report, I would like to say that I am intrigued by the scientific findings of the researchers concerning the mystery and grandeur of the universe. However, I am not at all persuaded concerning the theories, speculations etc., for reasons I will surely state soon.
Having been a chemistry student in college, it was interesting to learn about the calculations of physics and chemistry–particularly with distance, energy, and velocity. The microwave radiation particles left over from a previous cosmic explosion now being measured by modern antennas is believable. The black body radiation originating from a thermal equilibrium makes a lot of sense.
The book explains that photons are light waves, and one can see quite clearly that the sun emits these photons and, as a result, you have photosynthesis taking place in vegetation and protista kingdoms; life at large. I was amazed to learn that there are chlorophyll A, B, C and D, all working in photosynthesis at different light wavelengths. Wow, one angstrom unit is equal to one-hundred-millionth of a centimeter; and so we use scientific notation.
One item of particular interest to me was on page 137 stating that, “If the electrons in atoms and molecules felt the nuclear force, then there would be no chemistry at all but only nuclear physics. What a mystery, a proton-neutron balance.
Now I bring to light some questions that arose in my mind as I read this book. Why is it mentioned at the end of chapter three that nuclear particles could grow into stars, rocks and living beings? How is it that if the universe is cooling off and expanding slowly, are we not under the threat of freezing; annihilation? Why is nature mentioned at least three times in chapter seven? What exactly is nature? Does it have a purpose?
Again, I say that experiments are good and necessary providing they do not supercede a standard moral. I will now expound on the one thing that is needful here that will couple the “chance or purpose” of the universe with Science and Christianity. The grandeur of the universe, the heavens and stars, which man can see with the naked eye or with his instruments, creates an instinctive awe and respect. The more man observes the universe with his instruments, the more astonished he becomes.
The account of the creation of the universe is not solely Biblical in character, but implies that the creation has the intrinsic power to appeal to man’s intelligence. It is a fact that some people, including scientists, oppose the Biblical account of creation just because it is Biblical. This account of the creation has been a “disputed sign,” especially during the last four centuries. The true version of the creation should come from unprejudiced scientists who will analyse their findings and interpret them in their true nature in such a way that no one, now or in the future, can dispute them. The Biblical account is stated in a profound simplicity and in very concise expression without any hypothesis or theories. A man with an extraordinary personality penned the account with no technical terms, which were unknown at that time, but simply and systematically relates the creation of the universe in seven intervals.
There are two theories besides that of creation. One states that life has always existed. The other states that life came into being by a slow, gradual and natural development. Chance or purpose?
After close examination of the facts, it becomes crystal clear that the theory of evolution and origins of the universe do not provide concrete proof, contrary to popular attitudes. This becomes evident when one looks at the reports, articles and papers issued by the evolutionists and scientists when they use these words abundantly: if, seems, analogy, contrive, theoretical, must have been, probably etc.– all of them representing doubts, imaginations, guesses, and mere hopes. What is overlooked is that science itself religiously holds that nothing will be accepted which cannot “be proven” in the lab as a fact, which means no doubts or reservations.
The Christians respect the scientific findings which have been tested and proven as truths without any doubts, because they believe that these findings are a part of God’s creation, which has a plan and purpose for the honor and benefit of mankind. The Biblical account has not been proven inaccurate or obsolete. The universe shows God’s eternal power and Deity; it is the mirror in which man can see God only in part, but enough to rest his belief and curiosity on. Despite this visual evidence, man does not honor God or give thanks to Him, but becomes arrogant, pretending to be wise, when in reality he is not. This is the arrogance that prevents some men, including scientists and pseudo-theologians from accepting the creation by a supreme being.
How much of the national budget should go for cosmic research? Well, I’m not much of an economist but I know that if we take care of what’s down here on earth (our fellow sojourners), then God will surely take care of the universe, along with the baryons, hadrons, muons and neutrinos.
We must ask ourselves the following question: Is Steven Weinberg’s story going to hold any water?