What if the Big Bang was really a Big Bloom—not an enormous explosion, but a rapid and wondrous unfolding like a flower emerging from a densely-packed bud?

April 15, 2004
Dear Concerned Citizen,

In science today, we are under the tyranny of an image, the image of an explosion—the Big Bang. Ironically, this term was not derived from evidence but from contempt. Sir Fred Hoyle (1915-2001), the celebrated astronomer, was so incensed at the notion that the universe might have a beginning that he began to refer to proponents of this view as believing that the universe started in some kind of a “big bang.”

He was quite surprised when the fires of his sarcasm, rather than withering his opponents, inadvertently coined the now commonly accepted term.

Interestingly enough, the astronomy magazine Sky and Telescope had a contest in 1994 to rename the Big Bang. There were over 10,000 entries, but the judges were unable to find a more golden term to coin. Thus, they declared the “Big Bang” it shall remain.

But what if the Big Bang was really a Big Bloom—not an enormous explosion, but a rapid and wondrous unfolding like a flower emerging from a densely-packed bud? Then the term “Big Bang” would be disastrously inaccurate. Happily, scientists are gathering more and more evidence that Bloom should replace Bang as the most accurate image of our cosmic origin.

To give ourselves a metaphor, imagine being invited to two events. The first is called “The Big Bang: See a House Blown Up!” You arrive at the address, a house sitting in a field, and settle into a lawn chair a comfortable distance away. The host announces: “Behold! The Big Bang!” and immediately the 3-bedroom brick farmhouse explodes into a cloud of smoke. As the wind slowly dissipates the smoke, you see a large pile of debris—glass shards, jagged pieces of wood, broken bricks, and dust.

The second event is called “The Big Bang: See a House Blown Up!” You arrive at the address, fully expecting a repeat, but in the field, instead of a house, you find a large pile of debris—glass shards, jagged pieces of wood, broken bricks, and dust. You settle into your lawn chair a little bemused. Just then, the host announces: “Behold! The Big Bang!” and immediately the pile of debris explodes into a cloud of smoke. As the wind clears away the smoke, you see a 3-bedroom brick farmhouse.

Obviously the first event conforms to what we mean by “bang,” because an explosion increases disorder (what scientists call “entropy”). But what of the second event? There was an explosion, but we would justly accuse the second host of great irony in the use of the term and great cleverness in his use of explosives. Obviously, he somehow rigged the whole thing in the finest detail, and we would rightly conclude his mastery of physics, chemistry, and architecture bordered on the divine.

Now what if you received an invitation: “The Big Bang: See the Universe Blown Up!” what would you witness? As it turns out, the more scientists dig into the complexities of the cosmos, the more it appears to be like the second event.

The evidence? To begin with the beginning, if the universe originated in an explosion, it was very precisely and very suspiciously calibrated down to the finest details. And further, this cosmic fine-tuning seems to be defined by a goal, the eventual existence of complex, biological life. Indeed, scientists are going even further, and arguing that the fundamental laws and forces of nature, the chemical elements and basic compounds, the 3-dimensionality of space, and more, all lead to the strange and welcome conclusion that we may well be the goal of the universe. Thus, the science of cosmology has become not just biocentric, but anthropic (from the Greek anthropos, human being).

If we could replay the cosmic tape, then, we would not see a chaotic explosion that merely scatters debris, but a well-orchestrated unfolding, a Big Bloom governed by humanly unimaginable precision. If the Bloom were compressed into a fourteen-minute tape, the first third of a minute would be dark and brooding anticipation, like the buds of flowers waiting to burst. Suddenly, there would be blinding light, and the first stable elements that had been kneaded in darkness, would emerge as the initial unfolding of the infinitely dense original bud. Over the next ten minutes, we would see the universe bloom at the speed of light, expanding in every direction even as the elements swirled and condensed into the first stars, the fiery furnaces that would forge the heavier elements needed for the ultimate intricacies of complex life.

Near the end of this phase, we would see our own solar system form. In the last three minutes of the tape, we would witness a dizzyingly rapid crescendo of creation upon Earth, with the most intricate, spiraling integration of biologic complexity in the last half minute, as species after species of living being arose, bursting forth with staccato regularity in every imaginable form occupying every imaginable nook. In the last fraction of a fraction of a second, human beings would arrive, somehow the crown and glory of the bloom, the only known creature capable of science.

Scientists now admit, almost universally, the existence of the fine-tuning that allows the bang to end in a bloom. The commonsense conclusion: our universe was “rigged” from the beginning by a very clever Master of physics, chemistry, and architecture. As physicist John Polkinghorne has said, such cosmological fine-tuning means that “the universe is indeed not ‘any old world’ but the carefully calculated construct of its Creator.”

Others resist the commonsense conclusion that the theologians were right all along. Some, like Sir Martin Rees, Astronomer Royal at Cambridge, avoid this conclusion only by exchanging commonsense for nonsense, and conjecturing that there are a multitude of universes, and we just happen to be the lucky one.

Let us hope that, as more and more evidence of the extraordinary, providential ordering of the universe and earth itself is uncovered, that common sense will prevail.

When we consider what religion is for mankind and what science is, it is no exaggeration to say that the future course of history depends upon the decision of this generation as to the relations between them. -- Alfred North Whitehead, 1926

From eternity were the particles… and the particles became complex living stuff. And the living stuff became aware, and the living stuff conceived of God. -- Materialist Creed

For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities -- His eternal power and divine nature -- have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse. -- Romans 1:20

Sir Fred Hoyle became Britain’s best- known astronomer in the 1950’s for his radio broadcast lectures on The Nature of the Universe. He first used the term ‘Big Bang’ in a pejorative sense during one of those talks.

Hoyle never accepted the Big Bang theory, believing that the universe had no beginning. He continued to attack the Big Bang theory even as evidence accumulated to support its validity.

Excerpt below from The Steady-State, Big Bang and Religion by Owen Gingerich, Senior Astronomer emeritus at the Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory and Research Professor of Astronomy and History of Science at Harvard University.

"Taking a clearly partisan stance, (Hoyle) argued that, ‘On scientific grounds this big bang assumption is much the less palatable (than a steady state universe). (The Big Bang assumption) is an irrational process that cannot be explained in scientific terms.’
Finally, in a lecture entitled A Personal View, Hoyle expanded his discussion to include ethical and religious opinions as well, making trenchant criticisms of several Christian beliefs.

For better or worse, Hoyle’s outspoken statements linked the steady-state theory with atheism. Although the reviews of his book, The Nature of the Universe, rarely addressed a possible anti-religious connection with Hoyle’s cosmology, but it was not far beneath the surface.

Certainly by that time, 1953, the parallels between the big bang and the ‘Let there be light!’ of Genesis had become well known, for Pope Pius XII, a pontiff much interested in astronomy, had in 1951 presented a triumphalist address to the Pontifical Academy of Science, which concluded,

Thus, with the concreteness which is characteristic of physical proofs, it has confirmed the contingency of the universe and also the well-founded deduction as to the epoch when the world came forth from the hands of the Creator. Hence, creation took place. We say: therefore, there is a Creator. Therefore, God exists!

In the 1960s several new phenomena were discovered including the quasars and the background radiation left over from the primeval fireball. Such discoveries convincingly demonstrated that our observable universe has a history, and that it has not always presented the same face. These findings sounded the death-knell for the steady-state cosmology. This paved the way for widespread, although never universal, acceptance of the Big Bang cosmology.

In the late 1970s the astrophysicist Robert Jastrow recorded this state of affairs in a book entitled God and the Astronomers. There he argued that the convergence between Genesis and cosmology should cause agnostic scientists to sit up and take notice, and even be a little worried. In one memorable passage in his book Jastrow wrote:

At this moment it seems as though science will never be able to raise the curtain on the mystery of creation. For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries.

The band of theologians has an answer: God did it!"

The Cosmic Recipe For Our Universe Is Highly Improbable

Sir Martin Rees, Britain’s Astronomer Royal, wrote Just Six Numbers to show how the development of the universe is highly sensitive to cosmic forces imprinted in the Big Bang. If any one of these numbers were changed, some by as little as a millionth of a degree, then there would be no galaxies, no stars, no planets, and certainly no human life.

In short, for a universe to produce and sustain life it requires a very precise cosmic recipe.

This is what scientists mean when they say that the universe is highly tuned for human life. Though Rees believes this, he does not believe that God is responsible for this fine tuning. Instead, he believes that there have been billions of universes and we are just fortunate to exist in this one.

Ironically, because of recent advances in science regarding our understanding of the universe, it is taking greater and greater faith for Sir Rees and others like him to remain radical materialists.

The Convergence Of Science And Faith

"In 1959, a survey was taken of leading American scientists. Among the many questions asked was, "What is your concept of the age of the universe?" Now, in 1959, astronomy was popular, but cosmology - the deep physics of understanding the universe - was just developing.

The response to that survey was recently republished in Scientific American - the most widely read science journal in the world. Two-thirds of the scientists gave the same answer. The answer that two-thirds - an overwhelming majority - of the scientists gave was, "Beginning? There was no beginning. Aristotle and Plato taught us 2400 years ago that the universe is eternal. Oh, we know the Bible says 'In the beginning.' That's a nice story, it helps kids go to bed at night. But we sophisticates know better. There was no beginning.

That was 1959. In 1965, Penzias and Wilson discovered the echo of the Big Bang in the black of the sky at night, and the world paradigm changed from a universe that was eternal to a universe that had a beginning.

Science had made an enormous paradigm change in its understanding of the world. Understand the impact. Science said that our universe had a beginning, that the first word of the Bible is correct. I can't overestimate the import of that scientific "discovery." Evolution, cave men, these are all trivial problems compared to the fact that we now understand that we had a beginning."

Gerald L. Schroeder

A Radical New Theory: The Earth Is Designed For Discovery

Scientist, Guillermo Gonzalez and Philosopher, Jay Richards recently pooled their expertise to co-author Privileged Planet.

"In the book Gonzalez argues that the Earth is scientifically significant because life-sustaining elements found here allow humans to explore and study the universe.

'The places in the universe that are the most habitable offer the best opportunity for scientific discovery of the universe," he said. "This is a completely new argument, but based on publicly available scientific data.'

This argument is a rebuttal of astronomer Carl Sagan's principle of mediocrity. The principle states that because of Earth's small size and unimportant position, our planet is insignificant in the universe.

Gonzalez argues the Earth is important to the universe because elements known only on Earth allow life and scientific discovery.

Co-author Jay Richards, vice president and senior fellow of the Discovery Institute in Seattle, said one implication of Sagan's theory is the idea of the universe being created only by chance. He said "Privileged Planet" argues against this notion.”

Letters To The Editor

Responses to: Love In The Passion Of The Christ

Thanks for the article on love as an action, a decision, not a feeling. Interestingly, however, you make the statement that the movie makes it clear that we are to take up our cross and follow. I found this movie to be lacking at this very point. There is no sense that the suffering of Jesus can be seen in the people we encounter today, the poor, victims of war, those in prison, etc. Nor did I sense a call to take up the cross. We may bring that with us, but I did not get that sense from the movie itself. What did I miss in the movie?   P. P.

Chances are Christ did not have BLUE eyes, as your graphics depicts. Probably had a great tan, also.
Keep the faith alive.   D. C. S.

I found the "Passion of Christ" to be unscriptual and biased towards Catholic traditions not found in scripture.   D. T.

I am a man. I felt that I should remind you that God expressly forbids women to teach men. You should ensure that only other women receive your lessons.   J. M.

All the behaviors you mention--promiscuity, divorce, remarriage, and every other kind of sexuality devoid of commitment--arise from the false sense of love.

It is for this reason that I must dissert from your attempt to lump same-sex marriage into that toxic brew. Whether one calls it "marriage" or "civil union," it is important to understand that these relationships are precisely about commitment, sacrifice, forgiveness and long-suffering, just the way the best heterosexual marriages are.

They should be judged on their merits, and not lumped into the general moral degradation of our culture. It is far better to encourage gay people to life-long fidelity than to abandon them to a life of shadowy, secretive relationship. This, to my mind, is good social policy and also represents far more closely the Spirit and Mind of our Lord in the Gospels. Thank you for listening to a dissenting point of view.   G. S.

Responses to: "If Not Under God" Then "Under Whom"?

Words are just words if there is no meaning behind them. America is not a nation under God. We do not seek Him…His wisdom…His ways…

We do not walk according to His will. We do not honor Him in the way we live…the things we seek after or strive for. We are all about the American dream. We are under the delusion that we are a “Christian” nation. We are not. Saying it in a pledge does not make it so. Jesus came to bring in a new kingdom. It is not about America. It is about the kingdom of God which goes beyond races, nationalities, boundary lines. Those who choose to follow Him are part of the Kingdom of God and willingly place ourselves under God’s rule and authority.

America is not the kingdom of God. Words are just words unless there is truthfulness behind them.   L. B.

Reader To Reader Feedback

To Pastor A H,

How can a minister of the gospel totally miss the point? To remove references to God from public life is to allow the spirit of the anti-Christ to prevail!

Oh, and incidentally we recite the pledge of allegiance together with a pledge to the Christian Flag in our church and Christian school.   Pastor J. D.

Send your letter to the editor to feedback@tothesource.org.