JOURNAL OF CREATION 27(1) 2013 || BOOK REVIEWS Godless universe untenable A Universe from Nothing: Why There is Something Rather Than Nothing Lawrence M. Krauss Free Press, New York, 2012 Dan W. Reynolds theists insist that all of nature Acan be explained on its own terms without invoking a supernatural creator. Some argue, as does Lawrence Krauss (figure 1) in his recent bookA Universe from Nothing, that modern science has now made it plausible that space-time, matter-energy, and even the universe can emerge from nothing. As we shall see, these ideas are self- contradictory and not aligned with science is based on observation and current thinking—even in the secular experiment, religion on unprovable scientific community—concerning the faith. He dislikes the definition possibility of a universe existing in the of nothing as the absence of the eternal past. Krauss does provide his potential for existence (he has trouble readers with interesting insights into arguing against it). He starts off on a physics, the big bang theory, virtual philosophical note and ends on one, particles, dark matter, inflation theory, with his science offered in between. He the ‘landscape’ of a multiverse, dark energy, relativity, string theory, and thinks that the direction of scientific science associated with these topics. discovery is progressively eliminating However, he does not successfully the need for God as an explanation show how the universe could emerge for natural phenomena and the origin from nothing. Much of what is in of everything. He thus thinks God is Krauss’ book was brought out in a the ‘god of the gaps’ that science will debate with William Lane Craig in eventually eliminate, although the real 2011 at NC State University, a debate arguments are based on what we do Craig won in my opinion. The debate is know not on gaps.2 Much of his science 1 available for viewing on the internet. is speculative. He seems to be saying Lawrence M. Krauss, Ph.D., is that what is scientifically plausible Foundation Professor in the School is so compelling that theism is of Earth and Space Exploration and automatically an inferior explanation. the Physics Dept., Co-Director of the Cosmology Initiative, and Inaugural He does admit, however, that science Director of the Origins Initiative at may never have an unambiguous Arizona State University. explanation for the origin of the Krauss begins by making it clear universe. In a debate, he said he could he dislikes theism. He argues that become a deist. 30 BOOK REVIEWS || JOURNAL OF CREATION 27(1) 2013 Preface evidence for and against their theories, Background Radiation (CMB) and and 3) experimental results are king the abundance of light elements (H, Krauss admits his atheism. He asks: regardless of personal preference. D, He, Li) support the big bang model. if God is the answer to the origin to Strictly, his statement is self- However, he fails to explain why the universe, then who created God? refuting, because there is no scientific the CMB fails to cast the shadows Real Christian apologists, including way to test those three premises. expected from the big bang.5 his opponent Craig, have long argued As meta-scientific philosophy, that it’s only things that have a these guidelines for science are beginning that have a cause. Christians Chapter 2—A Cosmic Mystery commendable, but Krauss does not believe that God is self-subsistent Story: Weighing the Universe consistently follow them. For example, and exists outside of time and had William Dembski and several others no beginning, properties Krauss Astronomers have been puzzled that in the Intelligent Design Movement wishes nature had. He claims that the visible matter in the universe can’t have shown convincingly that the fine science is epistemologically superior account for the rotational behaviour tuning of physics and the information to revelation, and that theology has of spiral galaxies; there is not enough in biomolecules are strong evidence not added to knowledge for hundreds mass. So astronomers have proposed for the creative work of an intelligence of years. He overlooks that modern an invisible halo of ‘dark matter’. In science arose from a culture that and not the result of random natural reality, their physics is deficient— 3 assumed a Judea-Christian worldview, processes. Indeed, Krauss believes Carmelian special relativity explains which believed a reasonable creator we are getting close to showing the galactic rotation curves without would have made a reasonable how abiogenesis may have occurred needing the fudge factor of ‘dark 6 creation. He admits that Isaac Newton on Earth when in truth no such matter’. was probably the greatest scientist breakthrough is near. At best, science Another related problem is that the that ever lived, but overlooks that has possibly shown how two of the visible number of protons and neutrons Newton was drawn closer to God by four nucleotides of RNA might have are less than expected based on the 4 his discoveries. emerged naturally. But that is only the abundances of the light elements. Krauss says ‘nothing’ has physical first step of a thousand-mile journey Where is the missing matter? properties because he assumes to explaining abiogenesis (chemical One method for weighing a the eternal operation of quantum evolution). galaxy cluster is to take advantage mechanics. However, theologians say of a phenomenon called gravitational lensing. Predicted by Einstein, a quantum vacuum is not ‘nothing’; Chapter 1—A Cosmic Mystery gravitational lensing occurs when ‘nothing’ is the absence of the potential Story: Beginnings for existence. Krauss says that if that the light from a very distant object is so, then even God can’t create Krauss explains how Einstein’s passes through the vicinity of a large the universe. But this definition of General Theory of Relativity, our best mass (e.g. galaxy cluster) on its way ‘nothing’ simply means the absence theory of gravity, has been supported to an observer on Earth. According of the possibility for existence within by observations such as the precession to relativity, matter bends space. The itself, and does not exclude the of the planet Mercury’s orbit and the bent space around a galaxy cluster potential for creation ex nihilo by God. expansion of the universe. But then would cause the light of the distant Since God exists independently and he makes a leap to claiming science object to be bent or lensed on its way to separately from the universe, then He has shown that the universe emerged Earth. The amount of bending depends is the initial ‘something’ from which from a hot big bang 13.72 billion years on the mass of the galaxy cluster. all else came. It is self-contradictory ago and continues to expand, and had Astronomers can determine how much to say something (the universe = a beginning. But as we will see, he normal matter is in a galaxy cluster by everything in nature) can create itself thinks ours is but one of an infinite the light from it. The entire mass of the because if the universe were able to number of universes that have been galaxy cluster can be determined by create itself, it would have to already popping out of nothing for all eternity. the amount of gravitational lensing of exist (quantum mechanics) and would Krauss explains the evidence for the very distant objects. What astronomers not need creating. expansion of the universe from Edwin have found is that gravitational lensing Krauss says: 1) science is the best Hubble’s work on galactic redshifts. says there is much more mass present way to know things because it follows Hence Hubble found empirical support in the galaxy cluster than can be the evidence wherever it leads, 2) for general relativity. Krauss also accounted for by normal visible scientists must be willing to find asserts that the Cosmic Microwave matter alone. Once again, ‘dark 31 JOURNAL OF CREATION 27(1) 2013 || BOOK REVIEWS open geometry, the expansion would fields (electromagnetic, gravitational). exceed the gravity of the matter in Hawking radiation, predicted to be a the universe and the universe would mechanism by which black holes could continue to expand. In a flat universe, ‘evaporate’, depends on the existence the gravity and expansion of the of virtual particles, but has not been universe are balanced so that the observed so far. universe expands but at a progressively Krauss says a universe where the slower pace. In a closed universe, total mass/energy is balanced by the reversal of the expansion could occur potential gravitational energy has before stars and galaxies have time zero net energy and so could pop to form. In an open universe, the into existence from nothing without expansion could be so fast that gravity violation of the first law. Such a would never able to pull the light universe should, however, collapse and elements together to form stars. Only disappear in periods shorter than the in a flat universe are the gravitational Planck time unless inflation allows it forces and expansion rate balanced to exist beyond the Planck time. so that gravity can form stars and Krauss also says that this proves you galaxies that then continue to exist. can get something from nothing given According to measurements of the the energetics of empty space and the CMB, our universe has a flat geometry. law of gravity. So he says you can get a Figure 1. Lawrence M. Krauss. But when it comes to observed matter, universe from nothing if you can start the universe seems open: “several with empty space with non-zero energy measurements currently seem to and the laws of gravity and quantum matter’ is hypothesized, and once suggest a density of only a fraction Ω mechanics.