As November 18, 1989, dawned over the west coast of the United States, the launch sequence clock for a Delta rocket with a cargo designed to help answer theological as well as scientific questions ticked toward zero. "All systems are go," announced the launch control. The powerful engines roared to life, and the rocket, trailing smoke and fire, accelerated toward the South Pole. Elated scientists breathed a sigh of relief as the precious cargo moved into position to begin the first phase of the most extensive study of the origin of the Universe ever under taken. (Throughout this article Universe [capitalized] refers to the collection of galaxies, while universe refers to the space between the galaxies. By studying the universe, cosmologists infer the properties of the Universe.)
The cargo that the rocket put into space is called the cosmic background explorer (COBE). COBE carries three extremely sensitive instruments: the differential microwave radiometer, the far-infrared absolute spectrometer, and the diffuse infrared background experiment. The sensitivity and precision of these instruments is 100 times greater than that achieved by ground-based instruments.
In addition to COBE, NASA has now launched the Hubble Space Telescope, and will soon launch a gamma ray telescope and X-ray and ultraviolet telescopes. In addition to the cosmological mission to space, the construction of a superconducting supercollider (a proton accelerator) is in progress. The chief purpose of all these projects is to tackle questions concerning the origin of the Uni verse we live in. In the next 10 years the government of the United States will spend more than $10 billion supporting science in an attempt to find the answer to the riddle of Creation.
Why is the U.S. government spending such a large sum of money on an inquiry that seems to have as much to do with theology as science? Recent advances in quantum cosmology and high-energy physics have cast serious doubt on the validity of scientific theories of the origin of the universe that assume no need for a Creator. Summarizing the goals of basic research in physics, Dr. Robert K. Adair, associate director of the Brookhaven National Laboratory, states: "We will say that we must study the discrete and continuous, and we must consider variance and invariance, or change and conservation. The consideration of these sets of antonyms leads us to the study of the character of elementary particles and fundamental fields of forces, and to the analysis of space and time, the structure of our universe, and the evolution and origin of that universe; indeed, to an understanding of the Grand Plan of the Master Architect."1
Is our Universe the product of intelligent design or an accident? Did the Uni verse originate from preexisting matter, or did it come into being out of absolutely nothing? How could the observed Uni verse originate out of nothing and be the way we see it today? These questions have taken the highest priority in scientific research and will be the main subject of study and debate for the remainder of this century and even longer. Scientists are now convinced that further advances in our knowledge about the Universe we live in cannot be realized without a serious consideration of questions that up until now have been left to the province of theology.
Wrong assumptions
What troubles scientists the most is the fact that recent advances in quantum cosmology show that the assumptions on which the most cherished theory about the origin of the Universe the big bang—is based are wrong. The big bang theory assumes that the universe was smooth and homogenous matter at its beginning and predicts that it should be homogenous on the largest scales today. But the results of the most recent studies directly contradict these assumptions. Our Universe is not homogenous on the large scale, and hence could not have originated from a big bang that yielded a smooth and homogenous Universe. Confounded and dismayed scientists are in total disbelief in the wake of mounting evidence in favor of an intelligent process behind the origin and existence of our Universe.
Theorists hoped that COBE would provide the information necessary for the rescue of the big bang theory. The far-infrared absolute spectrometer on board COBE is designed to determine the spectrum of background radiation the hypothetical relic of the big bang explosion. This background radiation is the universal bath of radio radiation that theorists consider the faint glimmer of the big bang, observable at about three degrees above absolute zero. In order to save the big bang theory, COBE would have to discover that this leftover radiation is lumpy, not smooth. The lumpiness would explain why certain areas of the universe ended up comparatively heavily populated with matter, while other areas are vacant.
But for those who wanted to rescue the big bang theory, COBE has created headaches, not a cure. The initial COBE data shows that the early universe was very smooth the background radiation is the same in all directions and gives no sign of turbulence in the early universe. Turbulence would be required for the formation of large structures in the big bang universe. There is now no way to reconcile the predictions of any version of the big bang theory with the reality of the observed universe. There is no way to get from a perfectly smooth big bang to the lumpy universe we observe today. Cur rent data makes it more logical to believe in a universe created by the fiat of an Intelligent Designer than in a self-creating and self-organizing universe.
To make things more troublesome, the most recent studies of the large structures in the universe reveal that matter is even less evenly distributed throughout the universe than was originally postulated. Galaxies are found in large clusters with enormous voids between them. The universe appears lumpier than previously expected. Scientists are in shock realizing that the most widely accepted theory about the origin of the Universe will re quire a major revision, or may need to be abandoned entirely. The COBE data is proving that the big bang is a big whim per of a theory.
When the American Astronomical Society (AAS) announced that their annual meeting, to be held in January 1990 in Arlington, Virginia, would be dedicated to presentation of the initial results of COBE observation, they had no idea that this would be a historic meeting. So intense was the worldwide interest in COBE results that the meeting was the largest gathering of scientists in the history of the AAS. The world's most prominent cosmologists and theorists came, hoping that COBE would yield at least some data that could help them to find a solution to the problems plaguing the big bang theory. But as they listened to report after report, the aura of high expectancy turned into a somber realization that this historic gathering of scientists might be remembered as a funeral service for the beloved big bang.
Big bang's problems
What is the problem with the big bang? A little background may prove helpful here. Edwin P. Hubble's discovery that the universe is expanding stimulated development of the first comprehensive theory about the origin of the Universe. Scientists reasoned that if the universe is expanding, then at some point in the past it had to be very small, so the big bang theory was born. By applying the constant of expansion in a sort of reverse engineering procedure, scientists concluded that the Universe originated from a ball of extremely dense and hot matter. According to this theory, the explosion of extremely dense matter filled space with a homogeneous soup of evenly distributed particles from which eventually, under the influence of gravity, galaxies, stars, and planets were formed.
A scientific theory, if it is to be accepted, must make a verifiable prediction. The big bang made two predictions that can be verified or refuted by observation. One prediction is that the explosion of primordial matter would leave be hind an echo in the form of microwave and infrared radiation at the temperature of about three degrees above absolute zero, and that this radiation should have the same intensity in all directions. The other prediction is that the galaxies that resulted from the hot soup of particles would be uniformly distributed through out the universe.
The predicted background radiation was discovered in 1965 by two scientists working at Bell Laboratories. This discovery was hailed worldwide as an undeniable confirmation of the big bang theory. Cosmologists were convinced that they had found the ultimate answer to the riddle of Creation. But the excited and proud scientists had no idea that the very evidence they took as confirmation of the big bang theory would later prove that it is highly improbable that the big bang theory is correct.
The big bang's problems began with the advent of supercomputers that gave scientists a means by which to model the theory mathematically. The mathematical model of the big bang was supposed to have shown, by simulation, how large-scale structures evolved from a superdense primordial fireball. But to the scientists' amazement, the model showed that if our universe began as the big bang theory claims, the large structures we ob serve could not have developed.
Furthermore, the mathematical model showed that the big bang's universe should be approximately 7.6 billion years old, and that this is not a sufficient time for gravity alone to construct the Universe we observe today. The model also showed that if the early universe were smooth with evenly distributed matter, gravity could not have formed the large-scale structures in the universe. Apparently some other force, unknown to scientists, must have been responsible for setting the initial conditions for the creation of the Universe.
To make things worse for the big bang theory, in 1981 astronomers from Harvard University discovered a surprising bubble 100 million light-years wide dubbed a "hole in space." This discovery, contrary to the prediction of the big bang theory, showed that on the large scale, matter is not evenly distributed in the universe.
In desperation, cosmologists postulated that there should have been significant lumpiness present in the early universe. The lumpiness in the early universe would have caused the localized concentration of particles, thus enabling the force of gravity to construct galaxies. This lumpiness, if it existed, should have left an imprint in the form of peaks in the background radiation. To resolve the dilemma, scientists commissioned an extensive study of the large-scale structures in the universe. In addition, the COBE satellite was launched to search for the peaks in the background radiation.
The first convincing indication that something is seriously wrong with the assumptions on which the big bang theory is based came in 1989 when several teams of astronomers reported the discovery of unexpectedly large structures with enormous voids between them. The one that stands in contrast to the "hole in space" is the "great wall" discovered by astronomers at the Howard- Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics. The wall is estimated to be 500 million light-years across and 15 million light-years thick. These structures the clusters of galaxies are too large to be formed by gravitational clumping out of particles that the big bang would have distributed evenly throughout the universe.
COBE—last hope for the big bang
The last glimmer of hope for the severely wounded big bang theory rested with the data obtained by COBE. But scientists working with COBE instruments at several wavelengths of micro wave and infrared radiation reported that there is no sign of lumpiness in the early universe that could have initiated formation of large structures. So puzzled and stumped were scientists present at the January 1990 meeting that George F. Smoot, who leads the team at the University of California at Berkeley that is mapping the smoothness of the radiation, reportedly remarked that scientists might have to go to the tooth fairies to help them explain what they have observed.2
John C. Mather of the NASA Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Maryland, expressed the mystery this way: "I am completely mystified how the present-day structure [of the universe] has come to exist without having left some trace at the level of sensitivity that we know we have with our apparatus. There should have been some kind of energy release [after the big bang]. But there isn't anything there."3
Reporting on the January 1990 meeting, Jay Malin concludes: "The difference between the smooth echoes and present-day structures is what stumped the astronomers. The lifetime of the universe is not long enough for gravity alone to be responsible for matter having clumped together out of an evenly mixed universe some other major event or process has to be responsible."4
Just what that other process is eludes scientific inquiry. Some scientists are reluctantly suggesting that a force external to our Universe is responsible for selection of the initial conditions. Some have even been willing to attach the name God to that force.
Results of the latest scientific re search have discredited the standard theories about the universe that assume no need for a Creator. Many cosmologists are now convinced that we live in a Universe that is so arranged that it came into existence in an instant at the moment of Creation. Because of this fact, cosmologists are beginning to realize, and even to admit (albeit reluctantly), that cosmological research has advanced to the point where it is essential to consider creation from absolutely nothing. This has become the ultimate problem for the new cosmology, a real possibility to be pondered by scientists for years to come.
Scientists may not be ready quite yet to admit and teach creation ex nihilo openly, but the evidence is mounting in favor of intelligent design. If we could view our Universe from the outside, we would certainly find imprinted on its surface: "Made by God"!
1. Robert K. Adair, The Great Design (New York: Oxford University Press, 1987), p. 13.
2. Jay Mallin, "Satellite's Smooth Discoveries Baffle Big Bang Scientists," Washington Times, Jan. 19, 1990, p. Bl.
3. Science News, vol. 137, p. 36. (Bracketed material in original.)
4. Mallin.
