New Book Says Universe Came from Nothing | The Institute for Creation Research

New Book Says Universe Came from Nothing

If by definition something can never come from nothing, how could anything exist unless Someone put it there? This question has been used as a classic argument for the existence of God—an argument that theoretical physicist Lawrence Krauss tries to tackle in his new book, A Universe from Nothing. Although the book's counterarguments were designed to close the door on God, they actually distill to failed atheist tactics.

Krauss, fully convinced of the Big Bang, asserted that recent scientific discoveries show that something actually can come from nothing, and that the universe and all its laws did come from nothing. He wrote:

Everyone (with the exception of certain school boards in the United States) now knows that the universe is not static but is expanding and that the expansion began in an incredibly hot, dense Big Bang approximately 13.72 billion years ago.1

"There is a valuable lesson here," he continued. "As [Belgian priest and astronomer Georges] Lemaitre recognized, whether or not the Big Bang really happened is a scientific question, not a theological one."1 This lesson certainly is important, but not because it is true—it is, in fact, exactly wrong. Its importance lies in the author's misuse of it to promote faith in God's non-existence.

In this bait-and-switch tactic, Krauss tried to covertly transpose the question of ultimate origins from the realms of theology and philosophy to the realm of science. This way, he can claim authority on the matter and then dictate its terms.

But strict science tests that which is repeatable, and history is not repeatable. Science did not write the Big Bang story. That required immense imagination and deliberately ignoring a wide range of scientific observations that contradict the Big Bang, such as the universe's clumpy mass distribution and galaxies that appear to be billions of years more mature than the model predicts.2,3,4

Krauss cited Edwin Hubble's now famous scientific observation of redshifted starlight, which is a repeatable observation and is therefore science. But to interpret this as being caused by expansion is not directly scientific. And to extrapolate an expanding universe backward in time all the way to when everything supposedly burst forth from nothing is philosophically motivated history, not science at all!

Whether intentional or not, Krauss baited the reader by rightly ascribing astronomical observations to science, and then in the same breath switched to ascribing historical speculation to science.

Nothing is supposed to mean just that—"no thing," which involves the complete absence of any matter or force or space. So, the only way that a universe could come from nothing is if "nothing" is redefined. Krauss unashamedly did just this. According to the Arizona State University news release announcing his new book, "nothingness is unstable….nothing doesn't mean 'nothing' anymore."5 Of course, only "something" can become unstable, not "nothing."

History is not primarily the domain of science. And bait-and-switch definitions such as Krauss' are not science, either. They are philosophy—bad philosophy at best, and evil at worst.

References

  1. Krauss, L. M. 2012. A Universe from Nothing: Why There Is Something Rather Than Nothing. New York: Free Press.
  2. See An Open Letter to the Scientific Community, published in Lerner, E. 2004. Bucking the big bang. New Scientist. 182 (2448): 20.
  3. First Galaxies Born Sooner After Big Bang Than Thought. Space.com. Posted on space.com April 14, 2011, accessed May 17, 2011.
  4. Lisle, J. 2008. The Big Bang: God's Chosen Method of Creation? Answers. 3 (1): 24-29.
  5. Cassis, N. Book explores discoveries in cosmology and how our universe could have come from nothing. Arizona State University news release, December 12, 2011.

* Mr. Thomas is Science Writer at the Institute for Creation Research.

Article posted on January 20, 2012.

The Latest
NEWS
Embarrassment Continues over Evolutionary Blunder about “Junk...
Recent research from the Okinawa Institute of Science and Technology Graduate University (OIST) continues to highlight how evolutionary theory influenced...

NEWS
God’s Plan Is Best: Salmon Need Saltwater Acclimation
Once again, results are better when aquaculture imitates the natural life cycle of Atlantic salmon.1,2 In other words, the closer fish farmers...

NEWS
Inside August 2020 Acts & Facts
Have you heard about ICR’s new President and Chief Operating Officer, Dr. Randy Guliuzza? What can we learn from an old prayer? Is creation evidence...

NEWS
After 30 Years, Red Kites Soar in British Skies
Good news is always welcome. So, it’s good to learn of another conservation comeback. This time it’s the red kite happily soaring in Great...

CREATION PODCAST
Meet Dr. G
Hear the history and heart of ICR’s newly appointed President and Chief Operating Officer, Dr. Randy Guliuzza. He has served as ICR’s National...

ACTS & FACTS
'Doing Business' in Good Times and Bad
No doubt many of you, like me, have been earnestly looking for the return of the Lord Jesus Christ. He called all believers to be godly “salt”...

APOLOGETICS
Sentinels Are Needed in Perilous Times
Watch out! Dangers lurk everywhere—these are surely perilous times.1 One of the apologetics-exhorting themes in Jude’s epistle...

ACTS & FACTS
Why Don't Raindrops Bomb Butterfly Wings?
Okay, I admit most folks have probably not thought to ask this creation question. But a bigger question gets answered when we examine the fantastic...

ACTS & FACTS
Believe Anyway
by Scott Arledge and Brian Thomas, Ph.D. Some within the creation community make the claim that they would believe God’s Word about the age...

DISCOVERY CENTER
The ICR Discovery Center for Science & Earth History Updates*
Plan your trip at ICRdiscoverycenter.org, where you’ll find ticket information, discounted rates for nearby hotels, and links to other...