Nothing to Go On

Materialist Explanations for the Origin of the Universe Come Up Empty

Arguments for a beginning of the universe go back thousands of years. In fact, most cultures throughout history have believed that the universe was created by an intelligent agent. For example, in ancient Greece, Plato and his followers argued that the universe was the product of a powerful supreme being. Others, however, claimed that the universe is eternal in age and constant in size, and that its origin requires no explanation. This model later came to be called the static universe.

In the sixth through tenth centuries, early Christian and Muslim philosophers attempted to settle the issue with the kalam argument. This argument for a first cause has three parts:

1. Anything that begins to exist has a cause.
2. The universe began to exist.
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause.¹

Refusing to accept that the universe had a cause, materialists fought against the kalam argument by claiming that the universe never began to exist. Many scientists tended to agree with the materialist philosophy, adopting the belief in an infinitely old universe.

Scientific evidence was not able to address this controversy one way or another until 1915, when Albert Einstein proposed his general theory of relativity. When Einstein developed his theory, he accepted the view common among his scientific peers that the universe was infinitely old. But his equations conflicted with the idea of an eternal universe by predicting an expanding universe, thus implying a beginning of space and time. To offset that expansion, he inserted a numerical constant (the cosmological constant) into his equations. This allowed Einstein to preserve belief in an eternal, static universe.

When Einstein later became convinced that the universe was not eternal, he referred to his introduction of the cosmological constant as "the greatest blunder of my life."² However, scientists now believe that Einstein's error was not in the use of such a constant, but in giving it a value that supported an eternal universe, thus letting philosophical bias influence his science. What convinced Einstein and others that the universe is expanding, and has not existed eternally?

Evidence for a Beginning

In 1927, Belgian astronomer Georges Lemaître theorized that the universe began with a single explosion from a densely compacted state.³ That explosion eventually became known as the Big Bang.

Two years later, astronomer Edwin Hubble published a study supporting Lemaître's theory. Hubble's study indicated that all galaxies are receding from one another and that the universe is, in fact, expanding. How did Hubble make this discovery?

The next time an ambulance drives past with its siren blaring, pay attention to the pitch of the sound. As the ambulance approaches, the pitch is high, but as it screams past, the pitch suddenly drops. This is called the Doppler effect. The Doppler effect states that sound waves are heard with a higher frequency when the source of the sound is moving toward you, but with a lower frequency when it is moving away from you.

Although light waves behave differently than sound waves do, a similar effect takes place—also called the Doppler effect. Light waves coming from an approaching object will have their frequency shifted up toward the blue end of the spectrum of visible light. Correspondingly, light waves coming from a receding object are stretched to a lower frequency, and thus shifted down toward the red end—a phenomenon known as the redshift.

Hubble's research confirmed that galaxies are receding from one another by discovering a disproportionately high level of red light coming from virtually every galaxy. If every observable galaxy is moving away from every other, the universe is expanding.

Philosophical Objections

Faced with such supporting evidence, scientists accepted an expanding universe, but many still resisted the concept of a beginning. As physicist Hubert Yockey reports: "In spite of other successes of the general theory of relativity, the Big Bang, and in particular the idea that the universe had a beginning, was fought bitterly every step of the way."⁴ Yockey might have had in mind astronomers like Sir Arthur Eddington, who in 1931 stated, "Philosophically, the notion of a beginning of the present order of Nature is repugnant. . . . I should like to find a genuine loophole."⁵

For a time, the Steady State theory seemed to provide such a loophole. This philosophically motivated theory accepted the evidence that the universe is expanding, but proposed that there was no actual beginning because the universe has been expanding eternally. This seemingly impossible claim was justified by theorizing that matter was constantly being created to fill the new space.

The End of the Debate over the Beginning

In 1948, physicist George Gamow provided a way to settle the controversy between the Big Bang and Steady State theories. He and other cosmologists theorized that if the universe began with a Big Bang, there would be radiation left over from this explosive event. This radiation was discovered in the 1960s, but the debate continued because the measurements were made using earthbound instruments with limited accuracy.

Finally, in the early 1990s, precise measurements from NASA's Cosmic Background Explorer (COBE) satellite indicated that the universe was filled with radiation having the exact properties predicted by the Big Bang theory. The COBE measurements confirmed that all matter in the early universe exploded from a densely compacted state. Scientists now had conclusive evidence that the universe had a beginning. As astrophysicist Neil F. Comins explained it, "Detection of the cosmic microwave background is a principal reason why the Big Bang is accepted by astronomers as the correct cosmological theory."⁶

Theoretical physicist Stephen Hawking called the COBE research "the discovery of the century, if not of all time,"⁷ and physicist George Smoot, who won a Nobel Prize for this work, elaborated on the implications of the data: "What we have found is evidence for the birth of the universe. . . . [I]t is like looking at God."⁸

It is now widely accepted that the universe had a beginning. According to the kalam argument, this implies that the universe had a first cause. Needless to say, materialists disagree with this outcome. Forced to accept a beginning to the universe, they try to explain it without appealing to a first cause. A number of theories have been proposed in attempts to explain a materialistic origin of the universe.

Self-Creation

Some materialists have claimed that the universe created itself. As Stephen Hawking argued, "Because there is a law like gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing."⁹ But for anything to create itself, it would have to exist before it was created. Most people would agree that this is logically absurd. Oxford mathematician John Lennox observes that Hawking confused physical laws—which merely describe how the universe works—with ultimate explanations:

The laws of physics can explain how the jet engine works, but someone had to build the thing, put in the fuel and start it up. The jet could not have been created without the laws of physics. . . . Similarly, the laws of physics could never have actually built the universe. Some agency must have been involved.¹⁰

What options are left for materialists? Since they are unwilling to accept intelligent design as a first cause, they hold that ultimately the universe came into being by chance for no reason at all.

Betting on Chance

Oxford University scientist and author Peter Atkins parodies the book of Genesis with a summary of the materialistic view:

In the beginning there was nothing. Absolute void, not merely ­empty space. There was no space; nor was there time, for this was before time. The universe was without form and void. By chance there was a fluctuation. . . .¹¹

Atkins goes on to argue that this random, theoretical, primordial fluctuation spawned a chain of events that caused everything else—the chance universe.

While Atkins is correct that before the universe there was nothing, not even space or time, his argument does not account for the very beginning of everything. He says, "By chance there was a fluctuation." But if absolutely nothing existed, some questions arise.

• What was it that fluctuated?
• Why was there an environment that allowed for a "fluctuation"?
• What caused that non-existent something to fluctuate?

For many years, materialists have been attempting to answer such questions without much success.

Is "chance" an appropriate final explanation in science? When a person says that something happened "by chance," he may seem to be implying that chance actually caused the event. But "chance" cannot be the true cause.

For example, we often think of a coin toss before a football game as an example of "chance." When a referee flips the coin, there are a number of factors that will cause it to land with either the heads or tails side up, such as the weighting of the coin, the placement of the coin in his hand, the amount of applied force, wind, and gravity. Because many of these factors are difficult to predict or control beforehand, we attribute the outcome to "chance." But "chance" is not really the cause at all. That term is an expression of probability and is used simply to predict and describe events. It is not a causal agent.

Yet Atkins attributes the origin of the universe to chance. In this context, chance is not an explanation. It is the absence of an explanation.

Quantum Theory & the Kalam Argument

Though chance is not an explanation for the origin of the universe, some materialists try to give it a scientific facade by appealing to quantum theory. Most people know little about quantum theory and would probably like to keep it that way. However, a basic knowledge of the concept and its terminology can be helpful in understanding one of the materialists' most popular theories regarding the cause of the universe.

Quantum theory describes matter and energy in terms of subatomic units called "quanta." According to the theory, quantum events take place in a quantum vacuum where waves and particles seem to pop in and out of existence randomly, without any apparent physical cause.

Because there is no physical explanation for the origin of quanta, some physicists claim that this refutes the first part of the kalam argument: "Anything that begins to exist has a cause." Of course, there being no physical explanation for something does not mean that there is no explanation. After all, quantum theory predicts that quantum events will occur within a range of well-defined statistical probabilities—a highly ordered set of circumstances, which is unlikely if there is no underlying cause. This suggests that there is a cause for quanta, but that the cause is not physical.¹²

Quantum theory does not invalidate the kalam argument. Rather, it suggests that some events may originate from causes outside the physical universe—countering the philosophy of materialism.

Although the kalam argument still stands, what if it did not? Could materialists then avoid the inference to cosmic design?

Whether or not quanta have a cause, materialists would still have to explain how the vast, finely tuned universe suddenly came to exist—bringing with it the Big Bang origin of time and space, as well as the universal laws and constants. The immensity and complexity of that event points toward design, not unguided mechanisms.

Just Another Quantum Particle?

Some materialists postulate that the universe arose from nothing, as a random event, in the same way that quantum particles do. There are at least three problems with this claim.

First, quantum particles arise in a quantum vacuum, but a quantum vacuum is not the complete absence of everything; quantum theory does not address the origin of the particle-producing quantum vacuum. As philosopher and cosmologist William Lane Craig writes with James D. Sinclair, a quantum vacuum "is not nothing but is a sea of fluctuating energy endowed with a rich structure and subject to physical laws."¹³ Thus, Craig asks, "what is the origin of the whole quantum vacuum itself?", adding, "You've got to account for how this very active ocean of fluctuating energy came into being."¹⁴

Second, philosopher of physics Bruce Gordon explains that quantum theory is merely a description of observed phenomena, not an explanation for it:

A common misunderstanding . . . is that quantum theory . . . actually explains the phenomena it describes. It does not. Quantum theory offers mathematical descriptions of measurable phenomena with great facility and accuracy, but it provides absolutely no understanding of why any particular quantum outcome is observed.¹⁵

Third, if the universe arose in the same way quanta do, materialists should realize that quanta may be best explained by a non-physical cause. In the same way, the beginning of our universe some 13 billion years ago also requires an explanation outside of the universe.

Much like Peter Atkins's inadequate appeal to a random fluctuation in the void, quantum theory does not explain why a fluctuation-producing void exists in the first place, nor why quantum particles suddenly appear. This is a common theme among materialistic theories: materialists are forced to argue that natural phenomena appear abruptly, without any clear explanation.

After years of effort, materialists have not explained the origin of the universe. The materialist arguments we have discussed here do not refute the evidence for a beginning of the universe, nor do they remove the necessity of a first cause.

—This article was adapted from the textbook Discovering Intelligent Design (Discovery Institute Press, 2013) by Gary Kemper, Hallie Kemper, and Casey Luskin, and is printed here with permission. For more information, visit discoveringid.org.

Notes
1. See William Lane Craig, The Kalam Cosmological Argument (Wipf & Stock, 2000).
2. Donald Goldsmith, Einstein's Greatest Blunder? The Cosmological Constant and Other Fudge Factors in the Physics of the Universe (Harvard Univ. Press, 1995), 7.
3. See Georges Lemaître, Annales de la Société Scientifique de Bruxelles Tomme XLVII, Series A, Première Partie (April 1927); Georges Lemaître, "A Homogenous Universe of Constant Mass and Increasing Radius accounting for the Radial Velocity of Extra-galactic Nebulae," Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 91 (March 1931), 483–490.
4. Hubert P. Yockey, Information Theory and Molecular Biology (Cambridge Univ. Press, 1992), 212.
5. Sir Arthur S. Eddington, "The End of the World: From the Standpoint of Mathematical Physics," Nature 127 (March 21, 1931), 447–455.
6. Neil F. Comins, Discovering the Essential Universe, 4th ed. (W. H. Freeman, 2009), 406.
7. Stephen Hawking, quoted in "Professor George Smoot," Current Biography 55 (April 1994): http://aether.lbl.gov/www/personnel/Smoot-bio.html.
8. George Smoot, quoted in Dennis Overbye, "2 Americans Win Nobel in Physics," New York Times (Oct. 4, 2006): nytimes.com/2006/10/04/science/04nobel.html.
9. Stephen Hawking and Leonard Mlodinow, The Grand Design (Bantam, 2010), 180.
10. John Lennox, "As a scientist I'm certain Stephen Hawking is wrong. You can't explain the universe without God," Daily Mail Online (Sept. 3, 2010): dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1308599/Stephen-Hawking-wrong-You-explain-universe-God.html.
11. Peter Atkins, Creation Revisited: The Origin of Space, Time and the Universe (W. H. Freeman, 1992), 149.
12. See Bruce L. Gordon, "A Quantum-Theoretic Argument Against Naturalism," in The Nature of Nature: Examining the Role of Naturalism in Science, eds. Bruce L. Gordon and William A. Dembski (ISI Books, 2011).
13. William Lane Craig and James D. Sinclair, "The Kalam Cosmological Argument," in The Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology, eds. William Lane Craig and J. P. Moreland (Wiley-Blackwell, 2009), 183.
14. William Lane Craig quoted in Lee Strobel, The Case for a Creator (Zondervan, 2004), 101.
15. Ibid., note 12.