Was There a Beginning?
Many astronomers worked hard to find conditions that would let stars make all the elements in their interiors. Some of them wanted to succeed because they didn’t like the idea of a beginning. Why was that? We will see shortly, but first there are prior, scientific questions.
The Objectivity of Science
Science teachers tell young people that scientists make observations, develop hypotheses, test their ideas with experiments, and finally propose theories in agreement with all the evidence. The teacher usually explains that this procedure is what makes science objective and distinguishes it from folklore and prejudice. But things are not quite so ideal and simple. It is hard to find scientists who are really objective. Science achieves objectivity through debate. Sometimes better explanations win out over prejudice. The process is slow, sometimes painful, and still uncertain.
A study of the history of science will show that our ideas have moved through a series of supposedly very clear examples called paradigms. We may think we have understood a particular phenomenon very well. Later research may find an exception to the paradigm.
For example, people saw how waves move through water. Later experiments proved that air carries sound waves. From this people concluded that all waves move in some material medium. In the 19th century people supposed that a kind of all-pervading solid substance called the luminiferous ether must fill the universe to transmit light waves. Today we know that such a substance does not exist, but light propagates through empty space anyway.
When the old paradigm no longer covers all cases, someone comes up with a new explanation that does. Eventually the better explanation may prevail, but not necessarily because it convinces everyone. Some old paradigms have disappeared only because the people who proposed them and believed them grew old and died.
Especially in origins research there are many pitfalls waiting to trap the unwary. Philosophical preferences have driven some famous people to wrong conclusions. Few people have sufficient humility to admit their errors when others show they are wrong. The truly great scientists are those who put their ideas to the test and refine them constantly.
Let’s examine the recent history of ideas about the universe. Some people have insisted that the universe had no beginning. That implies that the universe is infinitely old, eternal, and uncreated. Is this idea in line with the facts?
An Uncreated, Unchanging Universe
Are all present things a mere extension of what always was? Can the universe have always existed, more or less in the present form, unchanging in its average aspects? Many processes in nature are cyclical and some are renewed periodically. The writer of Ecclesiastes made his own study of the nature of things, and concluded that everything at present seems cyclic. He expressed his ideas this way:
1 The words of the Teacher [Or leader of the assembly; also in verses 2 and 12], son of David, king of Jerusalem: 2 “Meaningless! Meaningless!” says the Teacher. “Utterly meaningless! Everything is meaningless.” 3 What does man gain from all his labor at which he toils under the sun?
4 Generations come and generations go, but the earth remains forever. 5 The sun rises and the sun sets, and hurries back to where it rises. 6 The wind blows to the south and turns to the north; round and round it goes, ever returning on its course. 7 All streams flow into the sea, yet the sea is never full. To the place the streams come from, there they return again. 8 All things are wearisome, more than one can say. The eye never has enough of seeing, nor the ear its fill of hearing.
9 What has been will be again, what has been done will be done again; there is nothing new under the sun. 10 Is there anything of which one can say, “Look! This is something new”? It was here already, long ago; it was here before our time. 11 There is no remembrance of men of old, and even those who are yet to come will not be remembered by those who follow.
12 I, the Teacher, was king over Israel in Jerusalem. 13 I devoted myself to study and to explore by wisdom all that is done under heaven. What a heavy burden God has laid on men! 14 I have seen all the things that are done under the sun; all of them are meaningless, a chasing after the wind (Ecclesiastes 1:1–14).
Notice that the writer does not take responsibility for the attitude of the man called the Teacher. The writer of Ecclesiastes merely reports the Teacher’s words. The Teacher at first concluded from the cyclic nature of things that it was impossible for him to make any lasting improvement in human affairs even with sound teaching. This explains the Teacher’s tone of depression in the beginning of the book, his idea that everything is meaningless. Later the Teacher reaches different conclusions. Without going into those conclusions, let’s pause to consider what things would be like if everything in nature were cyclic.
The Teacher’s ideas may seem clear to those who are limited to the observations of a lifetime, or even to those who add what they can find out from history. But there is more evidence to take into account. Many processes seem endless on the Earth, but what about the Earth itself? Is the Earth eternal? There is nothing new under the sun, but is the Sun eternal? The words the earth remains forever clearly refer to the Earth’s future, not its past. Could the Earth have existed always, or is it merely ancient? Let’s examine the scientific evidence.
Evidence for a Beginning
The Age of the Earth
Toward the end of the 19th century new evidence was accumulating that the universe is not eternal.
Ocean Salinity
The passage above from Ecclesiastes provided one of the first clues that the Earth is not ageless. All streams flow into the sea, yet the sea is never full. To the place the streams come from, there they return again. Streams start with fresh water from rainfall, but as they flow, they leach salts out of the earth. Long before streams reach the sea, they have measurable salinity. The saltiness of the sea is much greater than that of the streams. This is because salt does not evaporate when the Sun shines on seawater. Salt accumulates in the sea, but water does not. Clouds carry the fresh, unsalted water vapor over the land. When mountain slopes force the clouds upwards the water vapor cools, and the water falls as rain to feed the streams. Therefore, the salt content of the oceans is always increasing.
In 1899 John Joly of the University of Dublin estimated the age of the Earth. He calculated that it would take 80 or 90 million years for the rivers to build up the sea’s salinity to its present value.[i] If the streams had been flowing forever then all the salts would be gone from the soil, and stream water would not have measurable salinity. The age Joly estimated for the Earth may be far from the true age, but one result is clear: The Earth is not eternal.
[i] Badash, Lawrence, “The Age-of-the-Earth Debate,” Scientific American (August 1989), pp. 92–96.
Radioactivity
Other evidence for the finite age of the Earth came from the discovery of radioactivity. Certain elements are unstable and radioactive. Occasionally one of the nuclei splits apart spontaneously. The process of splitting is called fission. It often releases gamma rays.
The crust of the Earth includes some radioactive elements. They gradually decay into stable elements like lead. The decay releases energy that heats the melted rock or magma under the crust of the Earth. Non-uniform deposits of radioactive elements are partly responsible for heating and lifting parts of the Earth’s crust. They create volcanoes, mountains, and continents. Without them the Earth might have dry land only at the frozen poles, and most life would be aquatic.
Natural Radioactive Elements
Natural radioactivity is evidence that the universe and the Earth have finite ages. It shows that matter is not eternal and unchanging. If matter had existed for an infinitely long time, by now all spontaneous fission and radioactive decay would have ceased. If the Earth were infinitely old, eternally existing, and uncreated, then long ago all the radioactive elements would have decayed completely.
If the same processes produced the Earth and the rest of the universe, then the rest of the universe should also have a finite age. But did the universe have a beginning? The answer began to come when we found out that the Earth is not the only part of the universe that has radioactivity. Astronomers discovered radioactive elements in the stars.
A study of the history of science will show that our ideas have moved through a series of supposedly very clear examples called paradigms. We may think we have understood a particular phenomenon very well. Later research may find an exception to the paradigm.
For example, people saw how waves move through water. Later experiments proved that air carries sound waves. From this people concluded that all waves move in some material medium. In the 19th century people supposed that a kind of all-pervading solid substance called the luminiferous ether must fill the universe to transmit light waves. Today we know that such a substance does not exist, but light propagates through empty space anyway.
When the old paradigm no longer covers all cases, someone comes up with a new explanation that does. Eventually the better explanation may prevail, but not necessarily because it convinces everyone. Some old paradigms have disappeared only because the people who proposed them and believed them grew old and died.
Especially in origins research there are many pitfalls waiting to trap the unwary. Philosophical preferences have driven some famous people to wrong conclusions. Few people have sufficient humility to admit their errors when others show they are wrong. The truly great scientists are those who put their ideas to the test and refine them constantly.
Let’s examine the recent history of ideas about the universe. Some people have insisted that the universe had no beginning. That implies that the universe is infinitely old, eternal, and uncreated. Is this idea in line with the facts?
An Uncreated, Unchanging Universe
Are all present things a mere extension of what always was? Can the universe have always existed, more or less in the present form, unchanging in its average aspects? Many processes in nature are cyclical and some are renewed periodically. The writer of Ecclesiastes made his own study of the nature of things, and concluded that everything at present seems cyclic. He expressed his ideas this way:
1 The words of the Teacher [Or leader of the assembly; also in verses 2 and 12], son of David, king of Jerusalem: 2 “Meaningless! Meaningless!” says the Teacher. “Utterly meaningless! Everything is meaningless.” 3 What does man gain from all his labor at which he toils under the sun?
4 Generations come and generations go, but the earth remains forever. 5 The sun rises and the sun sets, and hurries back to where it rises. 6 The wind blows to the south and turns to the north; round and round it goes, ever returning on its course. 7 All streams flow into the sea, yet the sea is never full. To the place the streams come from, there they return again. 8 All things are wearisome, more than one can say. The eye never has enough of seeing, nor the ear its fill of hearing.
9 What has been will be again, what has been done will be done again; there is nothing new under the sun. 10 Is there anything of which one can say, “Look! This is something new”? It was here already, long ago; it was here before our time. 11 There is no remembrance of men of old, and even those who are yet to come will not be remembered by those who follow.
12 I, the Teacher, was king over Israel in Jerusalem. 13 I devoted myself to study and to explore by wisdom all that is done under heaven. What a heavy burden God has laid on men! 14 I have seen all the things that are done under the sun; all of them are meaningless, a chasing after the wind (Ecclesiastes 1:1–14).
Notice that the writer does not take responsibility for the attitude of the man called the Teacher. The writer of Ecclesiastes merely reports the Teacher’s words. The Teacher at first concluded from the cyclic nature of things that it was impossible for him to make any lasting improvement in human affairs even with sound teaching. This explains the Teacher’s tone of depression in the beginning of the book, his idea that everything is meaningless. Later the Teacher reaches different conclusions. Without going into those conclusions, let’s pause to consider what things would be like if everything in nature were cyclic.
The Teacher’s ideas may seem clear to those who are limited to the observations of a lifetime, or even to those who add what they can find out from history. But there is more evidence to take into account. Many processes seem endless on the Earth, but what about the Earth itself? Is the Earth eternal? There is nothing new under the sun, but is the Sun eternal? The words the earth remains forever clearly refer to the Earth’s future, not its past. Could the Earth have existed always, or is it merely ancient? Let’s examine the scientific evidence.
Evidence for a Beginning
The Age of the Earth
Toward the end of the 19th century new evidence was accumulating that the universe is not eternal.
Ocean Salinity
The passage above from Ecclesiastes provided one of the first clues that the Earth is not ageless. All streams flow into the sea, yet the sea is never full. To the place the streams come from, there they return again. Streams start with fresh water from rainfall, but as they flow, they leach salts out of the earth. Long before streams reach the sea, they have measurable salinity. The saltiness of the sea is much greater than that of the streams. This is because salt does not evaporate when the Sun shines on seawater. Salt accumulates in the sea, but water does not. Clouds carry the fresh, unsalted water vapor over the land. When mountain slopes force the clouds upwards the water vapor cools, and the water falls as rain to feed the streams. Therefore, the salt content of the oceans is always increasing.
In 1899 John Joly of the University of Dublin estimated the age of the Earth. He calculated that it would take 80 or 90 million years for the rivers to build up the sea’s salinity to its present value.[i] If the streams had been flowing forever then all the salts would be gone from the soil, and stream water would not have measurable salinity. The age Joly estimated for the Earth may be far from the true age, but one result is clear: The Earth is not eternal.
[i] Badash, Lawrence, “The Age-of-the-Earth Debate,” Scientific American (August 1989), pp. 92–96.
Radioactivity
Other evidence for the finite age of the Earth came from the discovery of radioactivity. Certain elements are unstable and radioactive. Occasionally one of the nuclei splits apart spontaneously. The process of splitting is called fission. It often releases gamma rays.
The crust of the Earth includes some radioactive elements. They gradually decay into stable elements like lead. The decay releases energy that heats the melted rock or magma under the crust of the Earth. Non-uniform deposits of radioactive elements are partly responsible for heating and lifting parts of the Earth’s crust. They create volcanoes, mountains, and continents. Without them the Earth might have dry land only at the frozen poles, and most life would be aquatic.
Natural Radioactive Elements
Natural radioactivity is evidence that the universe and the Earth have finite ages. It shows that matter is not eternal and unchanging. If matter had existed for an infinitely long time, by now all spontaneous fission and radioactive decay would have ceased. If the Earth were infinitely old, eternally existing, and uncreated, then long ago all the radioactive elements would have decayed completely.
If the same processes produced the Earth and the rest of the universe, then the rest of the universe should also have a finite age. But did the universe have a beginning? The answer began to come when we found out that the Earth is not the only part of the universe that has radioactivity. Astronomers discovered radioactive elements in the stars.