The Universe Just Got Much Bigger—On Paper
Every now and then I come across an article on modern “scientific” findings that absolutely stuns me, not necessarily because of the newest “findings,” but because of how casually information that was declared to be so scientifically accurate can be disregarded with a few computer keystrokes. Last week research was discussed that will forever change the way we look at the Universe (if you read the right article), and the irony is that you probably are not even aware of it.
For many years, cosmologists (scientists who study the Universe and its supposed origins) have explained to us that our Universe appears to be approximately 28 billion light years across. A light year is the distance light travels in one year. Since light travels at about 186,000 miles per second, the distance it covers in one year is about 5.9 trillion miles. That means if light were to start at one end of our Universe, travelling 186,000 miles per second, it would take 28 billion years to get to the other side. At least that is what we have been told for about a decade.
New studies, however, indicate that cosmologists have been wrong, on a grand scale, about the size of our Universe. Last week, Ed Oswald wrote an article for Yahoo! Tech titled, “How Big is the Universe? Attempting to Answer One of Astronomy’s Most Complex Questions.” In the article, he explained the complicated processes of how cosmologists attempt to measure the size of the Universe. Using the latest information, he wrote, “Physicists…now believe the radius of the observable universe is now roughly 46.5 billion light years away.”1 That is much bigger than we were told it appeared in years past. But Oswald does not stop there. He goes on to make clear that the galaxies that we see at the edge of our Universe are too “well-formed” to have appeared immediately following the Big Bang. (He incorrectly assumes the reality of the Big Bang.)2 That being the case, he mentions researchers at Oxford who believe that our Universe could be “as big as 250 times the size of our observable universe. Try to wrap your mind around that.”3
So what does all this mean? First, it shows us the serious limitations of science. We are often told to bow to the modern dating methods of the Universe, conform to the “real science” that proves the Bible false, and admit the validity of “current scientific findings.” Yet, we learn every day how limited and incorrect these often are. We are told that such is the nature of science; that it is a “self-correcting” endeavor, so that the most current material must be accurate. That simply is not the case. Many times, what passes for science in cosmology is not self-correcting, it is self-refuting. What we learn from situations in which the size of the Universe can greatly expand on paper is that those researchers who purported to present scientific facts about the Universe’s age, size, or composition were giving us nothing of the sort. They were wrong, the whole time. What happens, then, to the person who demanded that we shove the “modern scientific findings” into the biblical account and make it fit? He is left holding a battered Bible in one hand, and useless, “outdated” (read that as false) cosmology in the other.
Furthermore, the better we understand the Universe, the more we realize that atheistic, Big Bang explanations are not scientifically adequate to explain its origin. Before this latest “discovery,” the atheistic understanding of the origin of the Universe already had a real problem explaining how a tiny “singularity” could explode and bring into existence a 28-billion-light-year Universe. Now the problem has been further compounded, since the Universe appears to be much larger, maybe even 250 times bigger for all we know. Atheism’s conundrum is that to get a 93-billion-light-year Universe from a tiny singularity violates the Law of Cause and Effect that says for every material effect there must be a cause that was greater than it. What in the world is big enough to give us a 93-billion-light-year Universe? A tiny singularity smaller than the period at the end of this sentence is not a legitimate, scientific answer.
The apostle Paul wrote, “For since the creation of the world His [God’s] invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead.” The only plausible explanation for a Universe that is 93 billion light years across is an eternal, all-powerful Creator.
1 Ed Oswald (2016), “How Big is the Universe? Attempting to Answer One of Astronomy’s Most Complex Questions,” Yahoo! Tech, https://www.yahoo.com/tech/big-universe-attempting-answer-one-230016820.html.
2 Branyon May, et al. (2003), “The Big Bang—A Scientific Critique,” Apologetics Press, http://www.apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=9&article=1453&topic=57.