
Chapter 1
The Creation of the Universe From
Nothingness
In its standard form, the
big bang theory assumes that all parts of the universe began expanding
simultaneously. But how could all the different parts of the universe
synchronize the beginning of their expansion? Who gave the command? 
Andre Linde, Professor of Cosmology 2
A century ago, the creation of
the universe was a concept that astronomers as a rule ignored. The
reason was the general acceptance of the idea that the universe
existed in infinite time. Examining the universe, scientists supposed
that it was just a conglomeration of matter and imagined that it
had no beginning. There was no moment of "creation"–a moment when
the universe and everything in it came into being.
This
idea of "eternal existence" fit in well with European notions stemming
from the philosophy of materialism. This philosophy, originally
advanced in the world of the ancient Greeks, held that matter was
the only thing that existed in the universe and the universe existed
in infinite time and will exist endlessly. This philosophy survived
in different forms during Roman times but in the Late Roman Empire
and Middle Ages, materialism went into decline as a result of the
influence of the Catholic church and Christian philosophy. It was
after Renaissance that materialism began to gain broad acceptance
among European scholars and scientists, largely because of their
devotion to ancient Greek philosophy.

The
German philosopher Immanuel Kant was the first person to advance
the assertion of "the infinite universe" in the New Age. Scientific
discoveries, however, invalidated Kant's assertion.
|
It was Immanuel Kant who,
during the European Enlightenment, reasserted and defended materialism.
Kant declared that the universe exists for all time and that every
probability, however unlikely, should be regarded as possible. Kant's
followers continued to defend his idea of an infinite universe along
with materialism. By the beginning of 19th century, the idea that
the universe had no beginning–that there was never any moment at
which it was created–became widely accepted. It was carried into
the 20th century through the works of dialectical materialists such
as Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels.
This notion of an infinite universe
fit in very well with atheism. It is not hard to see why. To hold
that the universe had a beginning could imply that it was created
and that, of course requires a creator–that is, Allah. It was much
more convenient and safer to circumvent the issue by putting forward
the idea that "the universe exists for eternity", even though there
was not the slightest scientific basis for making such a claim.
Georges Politzer, who espoused and defended this idea in his books
published in the early 20th century, was an ardent champion of both
Marxism and materialism.
Putting his trust in the validity
of the "infinite universe" model, Politzer opposed the idea of creation
in his book Principes Fondamentaux de Philosophie when he wrote:
The
universe was not a created object, if it were, then it would have
to be created instantaneously by God and brought into existence
from nothing. To admit creation, one has to admit, in the first
place, the existence of a moment when the universe did not exist,
and that something came out of nothingness. This is something to
which science can not accede. 3
Politzer supposed that science
was on his side in his defense of the idea of an infinite universe.
In fact, science was to prove that the universe indeed had a beginning.
And just as Politzer himself declared, if there is creation then there
must also be a creator.
The Expansion of Universe and the Discovery
of the Big Bang
The 1920s were important years
in the development of modern astronomy. In 1922, the Russian physicist
Alexandra Friedman produced computations showing that the structure
of the universe was not static and that even a tiny impulse might
be sufficient to cause the whole structure to expand or contract according
to Einstein's Theory of Relativity. George Lemaitre was the first
to recognize what Friedman's work meant. Based on these computations,
the Belgian astronomer Lemaitre declared that the universe had a beginning
and that it was expanding as a result of something that had triggered
it. He also stated that the rate of radiation could be used as a measure
of the aftermath of that "something".
The theoretical musings of these
two scientists did not attract much attention and probably would
have been ignored except for new observational evidence that rocked
the scientific world in 1929. That year the American astronomer
Edwin Hubble, working at the California Mount Wilson observatory,
made one of the most important discoveries in the history of astronomy.
Observing a number of stars through his huge telescope, he discovered
that their light was shifted towards the red end of the spectrum
and, crucially, that this shift was directly related to the distance
of the stars from Earth. This discovery shook the very basis of
the universe model held until then.
According to the recognized rules of physics, the spectra of light
beams travelling towards the point of observation tend towards violet
while the spectra of light beams moving away from the point of observation
tend towards red. (Just like the fading of a train's whistle as
it moves away from the observer) Hubble's observation showed that
according to this law, the heavenly bodies were moving away from
us. Before long, Hubble made another important discovery; The stars
weren't just racing away from Earth; they were racing away from
each other as well. The only conclusion that could be derived from
a universe where everything moves away from everything else is that
the universe constantly "expands".
Hubble had found observational
evidence for something that George Lemaitre had "prophesized" a
short while ago and one of the greatest minds of our age had recognized
almost fifteen years earlier. In 1915, Albert Einstein had concluded
that the universe could not be static because of calculations based
on his recently-discovered theory of relativity (thus anticipating
the conclusions of Friedman and Lemaitre).

Edwin
Hubble discovered that the universe was expanding. Eventually
he found evidence of the "the Big Bang", a cataclysmic event
whose discovery forced scientists to abandon the notion of
an infinite and eternal universe.
|
Shocked by his findings, Einstein
added a "cosmological constant" to his equations in order to "make
the answer come out right" because astronomers assured him that the
universe was static and there was no other way to make his equations
match such a model. Years later, Einstein was to admit that his cosmological
constant was the biggest mistake of his career.
Hubble's discovery that the universe
was expanding led to the emergence of another model that needed
no fiddling around with to make the equations work right. If the
universe was getting bigger as time advanced, going back in time
meant that it was getting smaller; and if one went back far enough,
everything would shrink and converge at a single point. The conclusion
to be derived from this model was that at some time, all the matter
in the universe was compacted in a single point-mass that had "zero
volume" because of its immense gravitational force. Our universe
came into being as the result of the explosion of this point-mass
that had zero volume. This explosion has come to be called the "the
Big Bang" and its existence has repeatedly been confirmed by observational
evidence.
There was another truth
that the Big Bang pointed to. To say that something has zero volume
is tantamount to saying that it is "nothing". The whole universe
was created from this "nothing". And furthermore this universe had
a beginning, contrary to the view of materialism, which holds that
"the universe has existed for eternity".
The "Steady-state" Hypothesis
The Big Bang
theory quickly gained wide acceptance in the scientific world due
to the clear-cut evidence for it. Nevertheless astronomers who favored
materialism and adhered to the idea of an infinite universe that materialism
seemingly demanded held out against the Big Bang in their struggle
to uphold a fundamental tenet of their ideology. The reason was made
clear by the English astronomer Arthur Eddington, who said "Philosophically,
the notion of an abrupt beginning to the present order of Nature is
repugnant to me".4
Another astronomer who
opposed the Big Bang theory was Fred Hoyle. Around the middle of
the 20th century he came up with a new model, which he called "steady-state",
that was an extension of the 19th century's idea of an infinite
universe. Accepting the incontrovertible evidence that the universe
was expanding, he proposed that the universe was infinite in both
dimension and time. According to this model, as the universe expanded
new matter was continuously coming into existence by itself in just
the right amount to keep the universe in a "steady state". With
the sole visible aim of supporting the dogma of "matter existed
in infinite time", which is the basis of the materialist philosophy,
this theory was totally at variance with the "Big Bang theory",
which defends that the universe had a beginning. Supporters of Hoyle's
steady state theory remained adamantly opposed to the Big Bang for
years. Science, however, was working against them.
The Triumph of the Big Bang
In 1948, George Gamov carried George Lemaitre's calculations
several steps further and came up with a new idea concerning the
Big Bang. If the universe was formed in a sudden, cataclysmic explosion,
there ought to be a definite amount of radiation left over from
that explosion. This radiation should be detectable and, furthermore,
it should be uniform throughout the universe.

Sir Arthur
Eddington's statement that "the notion of an abrupt beginning
to the present order of nature was repugnant to him" was an
admission of the discomfort that the Big Bang caused for materialists.
|
Within two decades, observational
proof of Gamov's conjecture was forthcoming. In 1965, two researchers
by the name of Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson chanced upon a form
of radiation hitherto unnoticed. Called "cosmic background radiation",
it was unlike anything coming from anywhere else in the universe
for it was extraordinarily uniform. It was neither localized nor
did it have a definite source; instead, it was distributed equally
everywhere. It was soon realized that this radiation was the echo
of the Big Bang, still reverberating since the first moments of
that great explosion. Gamov had been spot-on for the frequency of
the radiation was nearly the same value that scientists had predicted
it would be. Penzias and Wilson were awarded a Nobel prize for their
discovery.
In 1989, George Smoot and
his NASA team sent a satellite into space. Called the "Cosmic Background
Emission Explorer" (COBE), it took only eight minutes for the sensitive
instruments on board the satellite to detect and confirm the levels
of radiation reported by Penzias and Wilson. These results conclusively
demonstrated the existence of the hot, dense form remaining from
the explosion out of which the universe came into being. Most scientists
acknowledged that COBE had successfully captured the remnants of
the Big Bang.

The cosmic
background radiation discovered by Penzias and Wilson is regarded
as incontrovertible evidence of the Big Bang by the scientific
world.
|
More evidence for the Big Bang was forthcoming. One piece had to do
with the relative amounts of hydrogen and helium in the universe.
Observations indicated that the mix of these two elements in the universe
was in accord with theoretical calculations of what should have been
remained after the Big Bang. That drove another stake into the heart
of the steady state theory because if the universe had existed for
eternity and never had a beginning, all of its hydrogen should have
been burned into helium.
Confronted by such evidence,
the Big Bang gained the near-complete approval of the scientific
world. In an article in its October 1994 issue, Scientific American
noted that the Big Bang model was the only one that could account
for the constant expansion of the universe and for other observational
results.
Defending the
steady-state theory alongside Fred Hoyle for years, Dennis Sciama
described the final position they had reached after all the evidence
for the Big Bang theory was revealed:
There was at that time
a somewhat acrimonious debate between some of the proponents of
the steady state theory and observers who were testing it and,
I think, hoping to disprove it. I played a very minor part at
that time because I was a supporter of the steady state theory,
not in the sense that I believed that it had to be true, but in
that I found it so attractive I wanted it to be true. When hostile
observational evidence became to come in, Fred Hoyle took a leading
part in trying to counter this evidence, and I played a small
part at the side, also making suggestions as to how the hostile
evidence could be answered. But as that evidence piled up, it
became more and more evident that the game was up, and that one
had to abandon the steady state theory..5
Who Created the Universe From Nothing?
With this triumph of the Big
Bang, the thesis of an "infinite universe", which forms the basis
of materialist dogma, was tossed onto the scrap-heap of history. But
for materialists it also raised a couple of inconvenient questions:
What existed before the Big Bang? And what force could have caused
the great explosion that resulted in a universe that did not exist
before?
Materialists like Arthur Eddington
recognized that the answers to these questions could point to the
existence of a supreme creator and that they did not like. The atheist
philosopher Anthony Flew commented on this point:
Notoriously,
confession is good for the soul. I will therefore begin by confessing
that the Stratonician atheist has to be embarrassed by the contemporary
cosmological consensus. For it seems that the cosmologists are providing
a scientific proof of what St. Thomas contended could not
be proved philosophically; namely, that the universe had a beginning.
So long as the universe can be comfortably thought of as being not
only without end but also beginning, it remains easy to urge that
its brute existence, and whatever are found to be its most fundamental
features, should be accepted as the explanatory ultimates. Although
I believe that it remains still correct, it certainly is neither
easy nor comfortable to maintain this position in the face of the
Big Bang story. 6
Many scientists who do not
force themselves to be atheists accept and favor the existence of
a creator having an infinite power. For instance, the American astrophysicist
Hugh Ross proposes a Creator of universe, Who is above all physical
dimensions as:
By
definition, time is that dimension in which cause-and-effect phenomena
take place. No time, no cause and effect. If time's beginning is
concurrent with the beginning of the universe, as the space-time
theorem says, then the cause of the universe must be some entity
operating in a time dimension completely independent of and pre-existent
to the time dimension of the cosmos. …It tells us that the Creator
is transcendent, operating beyond the dimensional limits of the
universe. It tells us that God is not the universe itself, nor is
God contained within the universe.7
Objections to Creation and Why They are Flawed
It is patently obvious that
the Big Bang means the creation of the universe out of nothing and
this is surely evidence of willful creation. Regarding this fact,
some materialist astronomers and physicists have tried to advance
alternative explanations to oppose this reality. Mention has already
been made of the steady state theory and it was pointed out it was
clung to, by those who were uncomfortable with the notion of "creation
from nothingness", despite all the evidence to the contrary in an
attempt to shore up their philosophy.
There are also a number of models
that have been advanced by materialists who accept the Big Bang
theory but try to exorcise it of the notion of creation. One of
these is the "oscillating" universe model; another is the "quantum
model of universe". Let us examine these theories and see why they
are invalid.
The oscillating universe model
was advanced by the astronomers who disliked the idea the Big Bang
was the beginning of the universe. In this model, it is claimed
that the present expansion of the universe will eventually be reversed
at some point and begin to contract. This contraction will cause
everything to collapse into a single point that will then explode
again, initiating a new round of expansion. This process, they say,
is repeated infinitely in time. This model also holds that the universe
has experienced this transformation an infinite number of times
already and that it will continue to do so forever. In other words,
the universe exists for eternity but it expands and collapses at
different intervals with a huge explosion punctuating each cycle.
The universe we live in is just one of those infinite universes
going through the same cycle.
This is nothing
but a feeble attempt to accommodate the fact of the Big Bang to
notions about an infinite universe. The proposed scenario is unsupported
by the results of scientific research over the last 15-20 years,
which show that it is impossible for such an "oscillating" universe
idea to come into being. Furthermore the laws of physics offer no
reason why a contracting universe should explode again after collapsing
into a single point: it ought to stay just as it is. Nor do they
offer a reason why an expanding universe should ever begin to contract
in the first place.8
Even if we allow
that there is some mechanism by which this cycle of contraction-explosion-expansion
does take place, the crucial point is that this cycle cannot go
on for ever, as is claimed. Calculations for this model show that
each universe will transfer an amount of entropy to its successor.
In other words, the amount of useful energy available becomes less
each time and every "opening" universe will open more slowly and
have a larger diameter. This will cause a much smaller universe
to form the next time around and so on, eventually petering out
into nothing. Even if "open and close" universes can exist, they
cannot endure for eternity. At some point it becomes necessary for
"something" to be created from "nothing".9
Put briefly, the "oscillating"
universe model is a hopeless fantasy whose physical reality is impossible.
The "quantum model of universe" is another attempt to purge the
Big Bang of its creationist implications. Supporters of this model
base it on the observations of quantum (subatomic) physics. In quantum
physics, it is to be observed that subatomic particles appear and
disappear spontaneously in a vacuum. Interpreting this observation
as "matter can originate at quantum level, this is a property pertaining
to matter", some physicists try to explain the origination of matter
from non-existence during the creation of the universe as a "property
pertaining to matter" and present it as a part of laws of nature.
In this model, our universe is interpreted as a subatomic particle
in a bigger one.
However this syllogism is definitely
out of question and in any case cannot explain how the universe
came into being. William Lane Craig, the author of The Big Bang:
Theism and Atheism explains why:
A
quantum mechanical vacuum spawning material particles is far from
the ordinary idea of a "vacuum" (meaning nothing). Rather, a quantum
vacuum is a sea of continually forming and dissolving particles,
which borrow energy from the vacuum for their brief existence. This
is not "nothing," and hence, material particles do not come into
being out of nothing.10
So in quantum physics, matter
"does not exist when it was not before". What happens is that ambient
energy suddenly becomes matter and just as suddenly disappears becoming
energy again. In short, there is no condition of "existence from nothingness"
as is claimed.
In physics, no less than in other
branches of the sciences, there are atheist scientists who do not
hesitate to disguise the truth by overlooking critical points and
details in their attempt to support the materialist view and achieve
their ends. For them, it is much more important to defend materialism
and atheism than to reveal scientific facts and realities.
In
the face of the reality mentioned above, most scientists dismiss
the quantum universe model. C. J. Isham explains that "this model
is not accepted widely because of the inherent difficulties that
it poses."11 Even some of the originators of this
idea, such as Brout and Spindel, have abandoned it.12
A recent and much-publicized version of the quantum universe model
was advanced by the physicist Stephen Hawking. In his book A Brief
History of Time, Hawking states that the Big Bang doesn't necessarily
mean existence from nothingness. Instead of "no time" before the
Big Bang, Hawking proposed the concept of "imaginary time". According
to Hawking, there was only a 10-43 second "imaginary" time interval
before the Big Bang took place and "real" time was formed
after that. Hawking's hope was just to ignore the reality of "timelessness"
before the Big Bang by means of this "imaginary" time.

Stephen
Hawking also tries to advance different explanations for the
Big Bang other than Creation just as other Materialist scientists
do by relying upon contradictions and false concepts.
|
As a concept, "imaginary
time" is tantamount to zero or non-existence–like the imaginary
number of people in a room or the imaginary number of cars on a
road.
Stephen Hawking also tries to
advance different explanations for the Big Bang other than Creation
just as other Materialist scientists do by relying upon contradictions
and false concepts.
Here Hawking is just playing
with words. He claims that equations are right when they are related
to an imaginary time but in fact this has no meaning. The mathematician
Sir Herbert Dingle refers to the possibility of faking imaginary
things as real in math as:
In
the language of mathematics we can tell lies as well as truths,
and within the scope of mathematics itself there is no possible
way of telling one from the other. We can distinguish them only
by experience or by reasoning outside the mathematics, applied to
the possible relation between the mathematical solution and its
physical correlate.13
To put it
briefly, a mathematically imaginary or theoretical solution need not
have a true or a real consequence. Using a property exclusive to mathematics,
Hawking produces hypotheses that are unrelated to reality. But what
reason could he have for doing this? It's easy to find the answer
to that question in his own words. Hawking admits that he prefers
alternative universe models to the Big Bang because the latter "hints
at divine creation", which such models are designed to oppose.14
What all this shows is that alternative
models to the Big Bang such as steady-state, the open and close
universe model, and quantum universe models in fact spring from
the philosophical prejudices of materialists. Scientific discoveries
have demonstrated the reality of the Big Bang and can even explain
"existence from nothingness". And this is very strong evidence that
the universe is created by Allah, a point that materialists utterly
reject.
An example
of this opposition to the Big Bang is to be found in an essay by
John Maddox, the editor of Nature (a materialist magazine), that
appeared in 1989. In "Down with the Big Bang", Maddox declares the
Big Bang to be philosophically unacceptable because it helps theologists
by providing them with strong support for their ideas. The author
also predicted that the Big Bang would be disproved and that support
for it would disappear within a decade.15 Maddox
can only have been even more discomforted by the subsequent discoveries
during the next ten years that have provided further evidence of
the existence of the Big Bang.
Some materialists do act with
more common sense on this subject. The British Materialist H. P.
Lipson accepts the truth of creation, albeit "unpleasantly", when
he says:
If
living matter is not, then caused by the interplay of atoms, natural
forces, and radiation, how has it come into being?…I think, however,
that we must…admit that the only acceptable explanation is creation.
I know that this is anathema to physicists, as indeed it is to me,
but we must not reject that we do not like if the experimental evidence
supports it.16
In conclusion, the truth disclosed
by science is this: Matter and time have been brought into being by
an independent possessor of immense power, by a Creator. Allah, the
Possessor of almighty power, knowledge and intelligence, has created
the universe we live in.
The Signs of the Qur'an
In addition to explaining
the universe, the Big Bang model has another important implication.
As the quotation from Anthony Flew cited above points out, science
has proven an assertion hitherto supported only by religious sources.
The truth that is defended by religious sources is the reality of
creation from nothingness. This has been declared in the holy books
that have served as guides for mankind for thousands of years. In
all holy books such as the Old Testament, New Testament, and the Qur'an,
it is declared that the universe and everything in it were created
from nothingness by Allah.
In the only book revealed by
Allah that has survived completely intact, the Qur'an, there are
statements about the creation of the universe from nothing as well
as how this came about that are parallel to 20th-century knowledge
and yet were revealed fourteen centuries ago.
First of all, the creation of
this universe from nothingness is revealed in the Qur'an as follows:
He(Allah) is the Originator of the heavens
and the earth…(Surat al-Anam: 101)
Another important aspect revealed
in the Qur'an fourteen centuries before the modern discovery of
the Big Bang and findings related to it is that when it was created,
the universe occupied a very tiny volume:
Do those who are disbelievers not see that
the heavens and the earth were sewn together and then We unstitched
them and that We made from water every living thing? So will
they not have faith? (Surat al-Anbiya': 30)
There is a very important choice of words in the original
Arabic whose translation is given above. The word ratq translated
as "sewn to" means "mixed in each, blended" in Arabic dictionaries.
It is used to refer to two different substances that make up a whole.
The phrase "we unstitched" is the verb fataqa in Arabic and implies
that something comes into being by tearing apart or destroying the
structure of ratq. The sprouting of a seed from the soil is one
of the actions to which this verb is applied.
Let us take a look at the verse again with this knowledge
in mind. In the verse, sky and earth are at first subject to the
status of ratq. They are separated (fataqa) with one coming out
of the other. Intriguingly, cosmologists speak of a "cosmic egg"
that consisted of all the matter in the universe prior to the Big
Bang. In other words, all the heavens and earth were included in
this egg in a condition of ratq. This cosmic egg exploded violently
causing its matter to fataqa and in the process created the structure
of the whole universe.
Another truth revealed in the
Qur'an is the expansion of the universe that was discovered in the
late 1920s. Hubble's discovery of the red shift in the spectrum
of starlight is revealed in the Qur'an as :
It is We Who have built the universe with
(Our creative) power, and, verily, it is We Who are steadily expanding
it. (Surat adh-Dhariyat: 47)
In short, the findings of modern
science support the truth that is revealed in the Qur'an and not
materialist dogma. Materialists may claim this all to be "coincidence"
but the plain fact is that the universe came into being as a result
of an act of creation on the part of Allah and the only true knowledge
about the origin of universe is to be found in the word of Allah
as revealed.
2. Andrei Linde, "The Self-Reproducing
Inflationary Universe", Scientific American, vol. 271, 1994, p. 48
3. George Politzer, Principes Fondamentaux de Philosophie,
Editions Sociales, Paris 1954 ,p. 84
4. S. Jaki, Cosmos and Creator, Regnery Gateway, Chicago,
1980, p. 54
5. Stephen Hawking, Evreni Kucaklayan Karinca, Alkim
Publishing, 1993, p. 62-63
6. Henry Margenau, Roy Abraham Vargesse. Cosmos, Bios,
Theos. La Salle IL: Open Court Publishing, 1992, p. 241
7. Hugh Ross, The Creator and the Cosmos: How Greatest
Scientific Discoveries of The Century Reveal God, Colorado: NavPress,
revised edition, 1995, p. 76
8. William Lane Craig, Cosmos and Creator, Origins
& Design, Spring 1996, vol. 17, p. 19
9. William Lane Craig, Cosmos and Creator, Origins
& Design, Spring 1996, vol. 17, p. 19
10. William Lane Craig, Cosmos and Creator, Origins
& Design, Spring 1996, vol. 17, p. 20
11. Christopher Isham, "Space, Time and Quantum Cosmology",
paper presented at the conference "God, Time and Modern Physics",
March 1990, Origins & Design, Spring 1996, vol. 17, p. 27
12. R. Brout, Ph. Spindel, "Black Holes Dispute",
Nature, vol 337, 1989, p. 216
13. Herbert Dingle, Science at the Crossroads, London:
Martin Brian & O'Keefe, 1972, p. 31-32
14. StephenHawking, A Brief History of Time, New
York: Bantam Books, 1988, p. 46
15. John Maddox, "Down with the Big Bang", Nature,
vol. 340, 1989, p. 378
16. H. P. Lipson, "A Physicist Looks at Evolution",
Physics Bulletin, vol. 138, 1980, p. 138  |