The are in. This space borne instrument adds further evidence to support the inflationary Big Bang model.
It confirms that the following took place. The universe grew from the size of a marble to a volume larger than all of observable space in less than a trillion-trillionth of a second. Try to wrap your mind around that fact.
The WMAP is just the latest and most accurate confirmation of the inflationary Big Bang model. We had the Cosmic Background Explorer which verified the cosmic background radiation (CBR) followed by more precise measurements taken by the Boomerang, DASI and MAXIMA experiments. The WMAP offers even greater precision. They all show the same thing. The data is converging. The inflationary Big Bang model flexes its muscles once again.
Astronomer and evangelist Hugh Ross states the following,
The theological significance of the WMAP measures is huge. Here’s why: The most spectacular evidence for supernatural design of the cosmos resides in its density characteristics. For physical life to be possible—anywhere, anytime—the mass density of the universe can differ by no more than one part in 1060, and the space energy density by no more than one part in 10120.2 Thus, achieving confirmation of these density parameters strengthens the observational case for a Creator, one who is orders of magnitude more intelligent, more knowledgeable, more creative, and more powerful than humans can even imagine.
When big bang predictions can be refined to the degree of accuracy manifested in the WMAP results, the argument for a transcendent creation event grows tighter than ever. Not only can we point to potent evidence that the Creator must transcend matter, energy, space, and time, but we can also demonstrate the reliability of Scripture. The Bible accurately predicted three fundamental features of all current big bang models (initial singularity, continuous expansion, continuous cooling) thousands of years before any scientist had discovered these cosmic features.3
It is the evidence for design that blows the mind. The space energy density, that Ross talks about and the WMAP findings confirm, is known as dark energy. It is a property of our universe that acts like anti-gravity. In fact, it is the dominant characteristic in our universe. is dark energy. Dark energy is one finely tuned entity. The amount of dark energy in our universe cannot vary by more than one part in one to the ten raised to the 120th power -- OR NO LIFE IS POSSIBLE AT ANY TIME, ANY WHERE IN THE UNIVERSE.
It is the most finely tuned of all of the properties of the universe. Thank God it is just right.
The more we learn about our universe, the more reasons we have to praise God.
This is pretty cool research, and I agree that the evidence is certainly consistent with a creator. But, I don't think it constitutes positive evidence for a creator (hopefully that distinction is clear). If "X" is some feature of the universe that is required for life, then it is hardly surpising that when we look at the universe, we find "X." After all, we are alive.
It may be true that if certain parameters were changed slightly, life would be impossible, but we don't really know whether those parameters could be anything other than what they are. Do we really have a way of calculating the a priori probability of other values for those parameters? It seems a little like the winner of a raffle prize trying to calculate the probability of his win without knowing the number of tickets sold or the method by which the winning ticket was selected.
On a related note, I'm always baffled when young earth creationists speak sneeringly of the the big bang and dismiss Hugh Ross. Of all the scientific discoveries of the 20th century, it's the one that seems most congruent with a literal reading of Genesis.
Posted by: Nick | March 21, 2006 at 09:39
Nick,
re: "I don't think it constitutes positive evidence for a creator"
Not sure what you mean by positive evidence. Can you clarify?
"but we don't really know whether those parameters could be anything other than what they are."
Unless you can envision life in a universe with no stars and no galaxies, it is pretty safe to say that life could not exist by altering (at least some) of the constants of nature -- like the fine structure constant or the cosmological constant just to mention a few.
"Do we really have a way of calculating the a priori probability of other values for those parameters?"
I will do a post on where those extreme probability values for the cosmological constant come from -- the short answer is, from Dr. Lawrence Krauss and his team at Case Western University.
Implicit in your question is the "other universes" question -- i.e. could other universes with other constants be a realistic possibility -- Krauss and his team address that question too, I believe. I need to do a little research first, tho.
The anthropic arguments almost always generate the same types of objections -- you are alluding to them by bringing up the raffle ticket example and the "we are here to observe the universe so what is the big deal" rejoinder.
Those are interesting philosophical questions -- I will open a thread to discuss with you and whoever else wants to show up.
"On a related note, I'm always baffled when young earth creationists speak sneeringly of the the big bang and dismiss Hugh Ross."
I agree. I am saddened by the YEC attack on Ross and his organization. It detracts from the cultural conversation between Christians and non-Christians -- it is draining and unhelpful.
Posted by: Mr. Dawntreader | March 22, 2006 at 09:21
Not sure what you mean by positive evidence. Can you clarify?
Will try to below.
Unless you can envision life in a universe with no stars and no galaxies, it is pretty safe to say that life could not exist by altering (at least some) of the constants of nature
I don't dispute that.
Implicit in your question is the "other universes" question -- i.e. could other universes with other constants be a realistic possibility
Yeah, more or less. Seems like there are three possibilities:
a. Other constants are not a realistic probablility. The constants could not have been other than they are. In that case, the observation that the constants allow life tells us nothing new. Since we already know that life exists, we already knew that the constants had values that support life. This would be the equivalent of winning a lottery that has only one ticket, the winning one.
b. The constants could have had other values. There are other theoretical universes that would not support life. This would be the equivalent of winning a lottery for which many tickets are sold and there is no guarantee that there is actually a winning ticket.
c. The constants could have had other values that don't support life, and all possible universes exist. This would be the equivalent of a lottery for which many tickets are sold, and every ticket is a winner.
A and C are consistent with the possibility of a creator, but they don't constitute evidence for that creato. They just don't tell us anything one way or the other.
B. Could be either evidence for a creator or evidence that we are extremely lucky. How lucky (or how strongly it supports a creator) would depend on the probability values placed on the possibility of different constants. But, those probabilities won't help unless you can eliminate possibilities A and C first.
The anthropic arguments almost always generate the same types of objections -- you are alluding to them by bringing up the raffle ticket example and the "we are here to observe the universe so what is the big deal" rejoinder.
Yeah, that's why I've never found cosmological/anthropic arguments personally satisfying or useful as an apologetic tool. There are just too many unknowns and too much handwaving.
Posted by: Nick | March 22, 2006 at 09:52
BTW -- good book I'm reading now: Modern Physics and Ancient Faith by Stephen Barr. Barr is a pretty accomplished theoretical physicist. Lots of good stuff so far along some of these lines.
Posted by: dopderbeck | March 22, 2006 at 15:44
"Modern Physics and Ancient Faith by Stephen Barr. Barr is a pretty accomplished theoretical physicist. Lots of good stuff so far along some of these lines."
Good. I'll look forward to reading some posts on your blog about it. Maybe your scientist friend will show up to discuss your findings.
Posted by: Mr. Dawntreader | March 23, 2006 at 08:04
"B. Could be either evidence for a creator or evidence that we are extremely lucky. How lucky (or how strongly it supports a creator) would depend on the probability values placed on the possibility of different constants. But, those probabilities won't help unless you can eliminate possibilities A and C first."
If you believe in following the evidence where it leads ... which is what I hear most scientists encouraging us to do ... then B is the only option which has any evidence to follow.
There is zero evidence to support proposition A ... in other words, there is no evidence that proves that these constants cannot be different.
There is zero evidence to support proposition C ... nothing other than speculative musings that another universe exists.
The only evidence we have and can follow is that we have all of these constants ... they are what they are ... and they cannot vary at all or no life exists.
If we were presented this kind of evidence in another realm that is not so loaded with theological significance, a common sense conclusion would rule out luck.
E.g. If the same person won the powerball twenty years in a row, no one would conclude that that person is extremely lucky. Something else is going on.
If lightning struck the same piece of ground every time a thunder storm passed by, few would conclude that it was pure luck. Something else is going on.
What makes the anthropic arguments hard to swallow, is that the conclusion is theological. Romans 1 tells us that men will always suppress theological conclusions -- it is our sin nature to do so.
Posted by: Mr. Dawntreader | March 23, 2006 at 08:32
The only evidence we have and can follow is that we have all of these constants ... they are what they are ... and they cannot vary at all or no life exists.
So then, there is really no evidence to support proposition B, either (at least the part of proposition "B" that says that other values are possible). As you point out, all we have is the evidence that the constants are what they are. That information doesn't allow us to distinguish between the three propositions, because it is the starting point for all three propositions. We have no information whatsoever regarding any of the other parts of the three propositions. The data that might enable us to distinguish between them is unknown and may be unknowable.
As a theist, I conclude that the correct proposition is the variation of "B" that says the universe was created, but I don't draw that conclusion because I'm "following the evidence." At best, I can say that the evidence, such as it is, does not contradict that conclusion (the way that, for instance, a steady state universe would).
Posted by: Nick | March 23, 2006 at 10:07
Nick,
Two things to consider.
One, anthropic arguments come in two forms. You are only referencing one of the forms.
There is the mind-numbing fine tuning of the physical constants of nature. That is what you have been addressing.
There is also the rare earth hypothesis. This is the position that earth should have never happened, given what we observe in the universe.
In regards to the first argument, the best way to think of it is not in terms of probabilities. It is to think of it in terms of coming to grasp with the reality that our universe is rigged -- highly rigged -- to work just right. There is virtually no tolerance to change anything -- in this universe.
Now if you want to postulate imaginary universes where things could be different with different constants and so forth -- go for it. That goes beyond science, however.
Now, in terms of the rare earth hypothesis, you can truly use probabilities. We know, for example, that we need a middle aged sun for its stability -- we know that we need to be in a spiral galaxy -- we know that we need to be in the right proximity from the center of the galaxy, in the right part of one of the spiral arms ... we know we need water in some form ... and on and on and on.
Once you overlay all of those requirements, which SETI has to do already btw, then you begin to quickly gain the sense that the odds of any life supporting planet anywhere in this vast universe is for all intents, and purposes, zero. Earth should never have happened ... even with 10 billion trillion stars ... there are not enough stars by an enormous magnitude to have one life supporting planet.
This is where the probabilities can be helpful ... because they are based on what we know and can observe.
Posted by: Mr. Dawntreader | March 24, 2006 at 17:24