The origin of the universe remains quite a mystery to many scientists. In fact, despite what we were taught in science class with certainty, scientists are puzzled by things like dark matter, dark energy and inflation. They don’t really call them into question, but can’t prove their existence without circular reasoning.
Here are two articles from Phys.Org demonstrating this mystery. The first article describes unexpected discrepancies found when measuring the expansion of the universe, and the second discusses the search for dark energy.
The Hubble Constant is a law stating that the greater the distance between two galaxies, the faster they move apart. It describes how fast the universe expands from various points, and is used to measure the age of the universe understand its origin. However, no one knows the constant’s true value, and it remains a source of contention.
One thing we do know is that every galaxy appears to be moving away from earth, which makes it seem like we’re at the center of the universe, but most scientists assure us this is not the case because it would mean we’re in a privileged spot in the universe- which is unacceptable to a naturalistic worldview. Instead, they claim that wherever we may be in the universe, it will always appear as if every galaxy is moving away from us.
The invention of dark energy is also important to note. This material became necessary when astronomers measured the dimness of distant supernovae and found them to be dimmer and further away then expected. They concluded that the universe was not only expanding, but accelerating! And since they needed to explain what was causing this acceleration, they invented a mysterious force known as dark energy to account for the way everything was being pushed apart.
This brings me to Phy.Org’s article on measuring the expansion of the universe. It points to a brand new mystery. Researchers have discovered a discrepancy between the two different techniques used to measure expansion and have concluded that they may not be reliable. Further, this calls into question the very composition of the universe.
Researchers were shocked when they found that the two different approaches provide two different expansion rates. They expected one would validate the other. But if the results are correct, it means that the current interpretation of how the universe began must be discarded for a completely new one. This is big news because it could mean the end of the Big Bang!
Scientists aren’t ready to do this just yet, however, because they’re unsure if the complex measurements are correct, or if recalibration is needed.
But there’s more. It was assumed that measuring the velocity of distant objects was easy, and again, scientists used one of two techniques to do it. All they had to do was measure the redshift of an object- the redder the shift, the greater the velocity. However, after studying over 1,000 supernovae over the last 25 years, a discrepancy was found. The article claims that “the results from these two different techniques result in two different expansion histories for the universe, and therefore two different compositions”.
According to Associate Professor Charles Steinhardt, “If we are actually dealing with two disagreements, it means that our current model would be broken in an interesting way… In order to solve two problems, one regarding the composition of the universe and one regarding the expansion rate of the universe, rather different physical explanations are required than if we only want to explain a single discrepancy in the expansion rate.”
The second article from Phys.Org deals further with the mystery of dark energy. It admits that dark energy is some kind of mysterious force demanded by cosmological models to explain why the universe is expanding at an accelerated rate, and they realize that the “true nature” of dark energy evades science.
These researchers resort to an ‘early dark energy’ model (EDE) to provide a “possible” explanation to current models of accelerated expansion. Nonetheless, no one has been able to identify dark matter or confirm its existence.
The article concludes that it’s time for a “critical assessment of dark energy and the cosmological constant”. And I agree. I have long argued against these hypothetical entities being used to prop up outdated secular models for the origin of the universe. While I don’t expect these models to be abandoned in favor of a creationist one, I wouldn’t be surprised to see a new one developed. Still, I believe these two articles refute the secular models while favoring a universe created by God. The Bible provides a detailed, consistent account for the origin of the universe and earth, and I believe the evidence better supports special creation than any naturalistic explanation.