The Creation of the Universe
its standard form, the big bang theory assumes
that all parts of the universe began expanding
simultaneously. But how could all the different
parts of the universe synchronize the beginning
of their expansion? Who gave the command?
Andre Linde, Professor of Cosmology 2
A century ago, the creation of the universe
was a concept that astronomers as a rule ignored.
The reason was the general acceptance of the
idea that the universe existed in infinite time.
Examining the universe, scientists supposed
that it was just a conglomeration of matter
and imagined that it had no beginning. There
was no moment of "creation"-a moment when the
universe and everything in it came into being.
This idea of "eternal existence" fit in well
with European notions stemming from the philosophy
of materialism. This philosophy, originally
advanced in the world of the ancient Greeks,
held that matter was the only thing that existed
in the universe and the universe existed in
infinite time and will exist endlessly. This
philosophy survived in different forms during
Roman times but in the Late Roman Empire and
Middle Ages, materialism went into decline as
a result of the influence of the Catholic church
and Christian philosophy. It was after Renaissance
that materialism began to gain broad acceptance
among European scholars and scientists, largely
because of their devotion to ancient Greek philosophy.
The German philosopher Immanuel Kant was
the first person to advance the assertion
of "the infinite universe" in the New Age.
Scientific discoveries, however, invalidated
It was Immanuel Kant who, during the European
Enlightenment, reasserted and defended materialism.
Kant declared that the universe exists for all
time and that every probability, however unlikely,
should be regarded as possible. Kant's followers
continued to defend his idea of an infinite
universe along with materialism. By the beginning
of 19th century, the idea that the universe
had no beginning-that there was never any moment
at which it was created-became widely accepted.
It was carried into the 20th century through
the works of dialectical materialists such as
Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels.
This notion of an infinite universe fit in
very well with atheism. It is not hard to see
why. To hold that the universe had a beginning
could imply that it was created and that, of
course requires a creator-that is, Allah. It
was much more convenient and safer to circumvent
the issue by putting forward the idea that "the
universe exists for eternity", even though there
was not the slightest scientific basis for making
such a claim. Georges Politzer, who espoused
and defended this idea in his books published
in the early 20th century, was an ardent champion
of both Marxism and materialism.
Putting his trust in the validity of the "infinite
universe" model, Politzer opposed the idea of
creation in his book Principes Fondamentaux
de Philosophie when he wrote:
The universe was not a created
object, if it were, then it would have to be
created instantaneously by God and brought into
existence from nothing. To admit creation, one
has to admit, in the first place, the existence
of a moment when the universe did not exist,
and that something came out of nothingness.
This is something to which science can not accede.
Politzer supposed that science was on his side
in his defense of the idea of an infinite universe.
In fact, science was to prove that the universe
indeed had a beginning. And just as Politzer
himself declared, if there is creation then
there must also be a creator.
The Expansion of Universe
and the Discovery of the Big Bang
The 1920s were important years in the development
of modern astronomy. In 1922, the Russian physicist
Alexandra Friedman produced computations showing
that the structure of the universe was not static
and that even a tiny impulse might be sufficient
to cause the whole structure to expand or contract
according to Einstein's Theory of Relativity.
George Lemaitre was the first to recognize what
Friedman's work meant. Based on these computations,
the Belgian astronomer Lemaitre declared that
the universe had a beginning and that it was
expanding as a result of something that had
triggered it. He also stated that the rate of
radiation could be used as a measure of the
aftermath of that "something".
The theoretical musings of these two scientists
did not attract much attention and probably
would have been ignored except for new observational
evidence that rocked the scientific world in
1929. That year the American astronomer Edwin
Hubble, working at the California Mount Wilson
observatory, made one of the most important
discoveries in the history of astronomy. Observing
a number of stars through his huge telescope,
he discovered that their light was shifted towards
the red end of the spectrum and, crucially,
that this shift was directly related to the
distance of the stars from Earth. This discovery
shook the very basis of the universe model held
According to the recognized rules of physics,
the spectra of light beams travelling towards
the point of observation tend towards violet
while the spectra of light beams moving away
from the point of observation tend towards red.
(Just like the fading of a train's whistle as
it moves away from the observer) Hubble's observation
showed that according to this law, the heavenly
bodies were moving away from us. Before long,
Hubble made another important discovery; The
stars weren't just racing away from Earth; they
were racing away from each other as well. The
only conclusion that could be derived from a
universe where everything moves away from everything
else is that the universe constantly "expands".
Edwin Hubble discovered that the universe
was expanding. Eventually he found evidence
of the "the Big Bang", a cataclysmic event
whose discovery forced scientists to abandon
the notion of an infinite and eternal universe.
Hubble had found observational evidence for
something that George Lemaitre had "prophesized"
a short while ago and one of the greatest minds
of our age had recognized almost fifteen years
earlier. In 1915, Albert Einstein had concluded
that the universe could not be static because
of calculations based on his recently-discovered
theory of relativity (thus anticipating the
conclusions of Friedman and Lemaitre). Shocked
by his findings, Einstein added a "cosmological
constant" to his equations in order to "make
the answer come out right" because astronomers
assured him that the universe was static and
there was no other way to make his equations
match such a model. Years later, Einstein was
to admit that his cosmological constant was
the biggest mistake of his career.
Hubble's discovery that the universe was expanding
led to the emergence of another model that needed
no fiddling around with to make the equations
work right. If the universe was getting bigger
as time advanced, going back in time meant that
it was getting smaller; and if one went back
far enough, everything would shrink and converge
at a single point. The conclusion to be derived
from this model was that at some time, all the
matter in the universe was compacted in a single
point-mass that had "zero volume" because of
its immense gravitational force. Our universe
came into being as the result of the explosion
of this point-mass that had zero volume. This
explosion has come to be called the "the Big
Bang" and its existence has repeatedly been
confirmed by observational evidence.
There was another truth that the Big Bang pointed
to. To say that something has zero volume is
tantamount to saying that it is "nothing". The
whole universe was created from this "nothing".
And furthermore this universe had a beginning,
contrary to the view of materialism, which holds
that "the universe has existed for eternity".
The "Steady-state" Hypothesis
The Big Bang theory quickly
gained wide acceptance in the scientific world
due to the clear-cut evidence for it. Nevertheless
astronomers who favored materialism and adhered
to the idea of an infinite universe that materialism
seemingly demanded held out against the Big
Bang in their struggle to uphold a fundamental
tenet of their ideology. The reason was made
clear by the English astronomer Arthur Eddington,
who said "Philosophically, the notion of an
abrupt beginning to the present order of Nature
is repugnant to me".4
Another astronomer who opposed the Big Bang
theory was Fred Hoyle. Around the middle of
the 20th century he came up with a new model,
which he called "steady-state", that was an
extension of the 19th century's idea of an infinite
universe. Accepting the incontrovertible evidence
that the universe was expanding, he proposed
that the universe was infinite in both dimension
and time. According to this model, as the universe
expanded new matter was continuously coming
into existence by itself in just the right amount
to keep the universe in a "steady state". With
the sole visible aim of supporting the dogma
of "matter existed in infinite time", which
is the basis of the materialist philosophy,
this theory was totally at variance with the
"Big Bang theory", which defends that the universe
had a beginning. Supporters of Hoyle's steady
state theory remained adamantly opposed to the
Big Bang for years. Science, however, was working
The Triumph of the Big
In 1948, George Gamov carried George Lemaitre's
calculations several steps further and came
up with a new idea concerning the Big Bang.
If the universe was formed in a sudden, cataclysmic
explosion, there ought to be a definite amount
of radiation left over from that explosion.
This radiation should be detectable and, furthermore,
it should be uniform throughout the universe.
Sir Arthur Eddington's statement that "the
notion of an abrupt beginning to the present
order of nature was repugnant to him" was
an admission of the discomfort that the
Big Bang caused for materialists.
Within two decades, observational proof of
Gamov's conjecture was forthcoming. In 1965,
two researchers by the name of Arno Penzias
and Robert Wilson chanced upon a form of radiation
hitherto unnoticed. Called "cosmic background
radiation", it was unlike anything coming from
anywhere else in the universe for it was extraordinarily
uniform. It was neither localized nor did it
have a definite source; instead, it was distributed
equally everywhere. It was soon realized that
this radiation was the echo of the Big Bang,
still reverberating since the first moments
of that great explosion. Gamov had been spot-on
for the frequency of the radiation was nearly
the same value that scientists had predicted
it would be. Penzias and Wilson were awarded
a Nobel prize for their discovery.
In 1989, George Smoot and his NASA team sent
a satellite into space. Called the "Cosmic Background
Emission Explorer" (COBE), it took only eight
minutes for the sensitive instruments on board
the satellite to detect and confirm the levels
of radiation reported by Penzias and Wilson.
These results conclusively demonstrated the
existence of the hot, dense form remaining from
the explosion out of which the universe came
into being. Most scientists acknowledged that
COBE had successfully captured the remnants
of the Big Bang.
cosmic background radiation discovered by
Penzias and Wilson is regarded as incontrovertible
evidence of the Big Bang by the scientific
More evidence for the Big Bang was forthcoming.
One piece had to do with the relative amounts
of hydrogen and helium in the universe. Observations
indicated that the mix of these two elements
in the universe was in accord with theoretical
calculations of what should have been remained
after the Big Bang. That drove another stake
into the heart of the steady state theory because
if the universe had existed for eternity and
never had a beginning, all of its hydrogen should
have been burned into helium.
Confronted by such evidence, the Big Bang gained
the near-complete approval of the scientific
world. In an article in its October 1994 issue,
Scientific American noted that the Big Bang
model was the only one that could account for
the constant expansion of the universe and for
other observational results.
Defending the steady-state
theory alongside Fred Hoyle for years, Dennis
Sciama described the final position they had
reached after all the evidence for the Big Bang
theory was revealed:
There was at that time a somewhat
acrimonious debate between some of the proponents
of the steady state theory and observers who
were testing it and, I think, hoping to disprove
it. I played a very minor part at that time
because I was a supporter of the steady state
theory, not in the sense that I believed that
it had to be true, but in that I found it so
attractive I wanted it to be true. When hostile
observational evidence became to come in, Fred
Hoyle took a leading part in trying to counter
this evidence, and I played a small part at
the side, also making suggestions as to how
the hostile evidence could be answered. But
as that evidence piled up, it became more and
more evident that the game was up, and that
one had to abandon the steady state theory.5
Who Created the Universe
With this triumph of the Big Bang, the thesis
of an "infinite universe", which forms the basis
of materialist dogma, was tossed onto the scrap-heap
of history. But for materialists it also raised
a couple of inconvenient questions: What existed
before the Big Bang? And what force could have
caused the great explosion that resulted in
a universe that did not exist before?
Materialists like Arthur Eddington recognized
that the answers to these questions could point
to the existence of a supreme creator and that
they did not like. The atheist philosopher Anthony
Flew commented on this point:
confession is good for the soul. I will therefore
begin by confessing that the Stratonician atheist
has to be embarrassed by the contemporary cosmological
consensus. For it seems that the cosmologists
are providing a scientific proof of what St.
Thomas contended could not be proved philosophically;
namely, that the universe had a beginning. So
long as the universe can be comfortably thought
of as being not only without end but also beginning,
it remains easy to urge that its brute existence,
and whatever are found to be its most fundamental
features, should be accepted as the explanatory
ultimates. Although I believe that it remains
still correct, it certainly is neither easy
nor comfortable to maintain this position in
the face of the Big Bang story. 6
Many scientists who do not force themselves
to be atheists accept and favor the existence
of a creator having an infinite power. For instance,
the American astrophysicist Hugh Ross proposes
a Creator of universe, Who is above all physical
time is that dimension in which cause-and-effect
phenomena take place. No time, no cause and
effect. If time's beginning is concurrent with
the beginning of the universe, as the space-time
theorem says, then the cause of the universe
must be some entity operating in a time dimension
completely independent of and pre-existent to
the time dimension of the cosmos. …It tells
us that the Creator is transcendent, operating
beyond the dimensional limits of the universe.
It tells us that God is not the universe itself,
nor is God contained within the universe.7
Objections to Creation
and Why They are Flawed
It is patently obvious that the Big Bang means
the creation of the universe out of nothing
and this is surely evidence of willful creation.
Regarding this fact, some materialist astronomers
and physicists have tried to advance alternative
explanations to oppose this reality. Mention
has already been made of the steady state theory
and it was pointed out it was clung to, by those
who were uncomfortable with the notion of "creation
from nothingness", despite all the evidence
to the contrary in an attempt to shore up their
There are also a number of models that have
been advanced by materialists who accept the
Big Bang theory but try to exorcise it of the
notion of creation. One of these is the "oscillating"
universe model; another is the "quantum model
of universe". Let us examine these theories
and see why they are invalid.
The oscillating universe model was advanced
by the astronomers who disliked the idea the
Big Bang was the beginning of the universe.
In this model, it is claimed that the present
expansion of the universe will eventually be
reversed at some point and begin to contract.
This contraction will cause everything to collapse
into a single point that will then explode again,
initiating a new round of expansion. This process,
they say, is repeated infinitely in time. This
model also holds that the universe has experienced
this transformation an infinite number of times
already and that it will continue to do so forever.
In other words, the universe exists for eternity
but it expands and collapses at different intervals
with a huge explosion punctuating each cycle.
The universe we live in is just one of those
infinite universes going through the same cycle.
This is nothing but a feeble
attempt to accommodate the fact of the Big Bang
to notions about an infinite universe. The proposed
scenario is unsupported by the results of scientific
research over the last 15-20 years, which show
that it is impossible for such an "oscillating"
universe idea to come into being. Furthermore
the laws of physics offer no reason why a contracting
universe should explode again after collapsing
into a single point: it ought to stay just as
it is. Nor do they offer a reason why an expanding
universe should ever begin to contract in the
Even if we allow that there
is some mechanism by which this cycle of contraction-explosion-expansion
does take place, the crucial point is that this
cycle cannot go on for ever, as is claimed.
Calculations for this model show that each universe
will transfer an amount of entropy to its successor.
In other words, the amount of useful energy
available becomes less each time and every "opening"
universe will open more slowly and have a larger
diameter. This will cause a much smaller universe
to form the next time around and so on, eventually
petering out into nothing. Even if "open and
close" universes can exist, they cannot endure
for eternity. At some point it becomes necessary
for "something" to be created from "nothing".9
Put briefly, the "oscillating" universe model
is a hopeless fantasy whose physical reality
The "quantum model of universe" is another
attempt to purge the Big Bang of its creationist
implications. Supporters of this model base
it on the observations of quantum (subatomic)
physics. In quantum physics, it is to be observed
that subatomic particles appear and disappear
spontaneously in a vacuum. Interpreting this
observation as "matter can originate at quantum
level, this is a property pertaining to matter",
some physicists try to explain the origination
of matter from non-existence during the creation
of the universe as a "property pertaining to
matter" and present it as a part of laws of
nature. In this model, our universe is interpreted
as a subatomic particle in a bigger one.
However this syllogism is definitely out of
question and in any case cannot explain how
the universe came into being. William Lane Craig,
the author of The Big Bang: Theism and Atheism
mechanical vacuum spawning material particles
is far from the ordinary idea of a "vacuum"
(meaning nothing). Rather, a quantum vacuum
is a sea of continually forming and dissolving
particles, which borrow energy from the vacuum
for their brief existence. This is not "nothing,"
and hence, material particles do not come into
being out of nothing.10
So in quantum physics, matter "does not exist
when it was not before". What happens is that
ambient energy suddenly becomes matter and just
as suddenly disappears becoming energy again.
In short, there is no condition of "existence
from nothingness" as is claimed.
In physics, no less than in other branches
of the sciences, there are atheist scientists
who do not hesitate to disguise the truth by
overlooking critical points and details in their
attempt to support the materialist view and
achieve their ends. For them, it is much more
important to defend materialism and atheism
than to reveal scientific facts and realities.
face of the reality mentioned above, most scientists
dismiss the quantum universe model. C. J. Isham
explains that "this model is not accepted widely
because of the inherent difficulties that it
Even some of the originators of this idea, such
as Brout and Spindel, have abandoned it.12
A recent and much-publicized version of the
quantum universe model was advanced by the physicist
Stephen Hawking. In his book A Brief History
of Time, Hawking states that the Big Bang doesn't
necessarily mean existence from nothingness.
Instead of "no time" before the Big Bang, Hawking
proposed the concept of "imaginary time". According
to Hawking, there was only a 10-43 second "imaginary"
time interval before the Big Bang took place
and "real" time was formed after that. Hawking's
hope was just to ignore the reality of "timelessness"
before the Big Bang by means of this "imaginary"
Stephen Hawking also tries to advance different
explanations for the Big Bang other than
Creation just as other Materialist scientists
do by relying upon contradictions and false
As a concept, "imaginary time" is tantamount
to zero or non-existence-like the imaginary
number of people in a room or the imaginary
number of cars on a road. Here Hawking is just
playing with words. He claims that equations
are right when they are related to an imaginary
time but in fact this has no meaning. The mathematician
Sir Herbert Dingle refers to the possibility
of faking imaginary things as real in math as:
In the language of mathematics
we can tell lies as well as truths, and within
the scope of mathematics itself there is no
possible way of telling one from the other.
We can distinguish them only by experience or
by reasoning outside the mathematics, applied
to the possible relation between the mathematical
solution and its physical correlate.13
To put it briefly, a mathematically
imaginary or theoretical solution need not have
a true or a real consequence. Using a property
exclusive to mathematics, Hawking produces hypotheses
that are unrelated to reality. But what reason
could he have for doing this? It's easy to find
the answer to that question in his own words.
Hawking admits that he prefers alternative universe
models to the Big Bang because the latter "hints
at divine creation", which such models are designed
What all this shows is that alternative models
to the Big Bang such as steady-state, the open
and close universe model, and quantum universe
models in fact spring from the philosophical
prejudices of materialists. Scientific discoveries
have demonstrated the reality of the Big Bang
and can even explain "existence from nothingness".
And this is very strong evidence that the universe
is created by Allah, a point that materialists
An example of this opposition
to the Big Bang is to be found in an essay by
John Maddox, the editor of Nature (a materialist
magazine), that appeared in 1989. In "Down with
the Big Bang", Maddox declares the Big Bang
to be philosophically unacceptable because it
helps theologists by providing them with strong
support for their ideas. The author also predicted
that the Big Bang would be disproved and that
support for it would disappear within a decade.15Maddox
can only have been even more discomforted by
the subsequent discoveries during the next ten
years that have provided further evidence of
the existence of the Big Bang.
Some materialists do act with more common sense
on this subject. The British Materialist H.
P. Lipson accepts the truth of creation, albeit
"unpleasantly", when he says:
matter is not, then caused by the interplay
of atoms, natural forces, and radiation, how
has it come into being?…I think, however, that
we must…admit that the only acceptable explanation
is creation. I know that this is anathema to
physicists, as indeed it is to me, but we must
not reject that we do not like if the experimental
evidence supports it.16
In conclusion, the truth disclosed by science
is this: Matter and time have been brought into
being by an independent possessor of immense
power, by a Creator. Allah, the Possessor of
almighty power, knowledge and intelligence,
has created the universe we live in.
The Signs of the Qur'an
In addition to explaining the universe, the
Big Bang model has another important implication.
As the quotation from Anthony Flew cited above
points out, science has proven an assertion
hitherto supported only by religious sources.
The truth that is defended by religious sources
is the reality of creation from nothingness.
This has been declared in the holy books that
have served as guides for mankind for thousands
of years. In all holy books such as the Old
Testament, New Testament, and the Qur'an, it
is declared that the universe and everything
in it were created from nothingness by Allah.
In the only book revealed by Allah that has
survived completely intact, the Qur'an, there
are statements about the creation of the universe
from nothing as well as how this came about
that are parallel to 20th-century knowledge
and yet were revealed fourteen centuries ago.
First of all, the creation of this universe
from nothingness is revealed in the Qur'an as
He(Allah) is the Originator
of the heavens and the earth…(Surat al-Anam:
Another important aspect revealed in the Qur'an
fourteen centuries before the modern discovery
of the Big Bang and findings related to it is
that when it was created, the universe occupied
a very tiny volume:
Do those who are disbelievers
not see that the heavens and the earth were
sewn together and then We unstitched them and
that We made from water every living thing?
So will they not have faith? (Surat al-Anbiya':
There is a very important choice of words in
the original Arabic whose translation is given
above. The word ratk translated as "sewn to"
means "mixed in each, blended" in Arabic dictionaries.
It is used to refer to two different substances
that make up a whole. The phrase "we unstitched"
is the verb fatk in Arabic and implies that
something comes into being by tearing apart
or destroying the structure of ratk. The sprouting
of a seed from the soil is one of the actions
to which this verb is applied.
Let us take a look at the verse again with
this knowledge in mind. In the verse, sky and
earth are at first subject to the status of
ratk. They are separated (fatk) with one coming
out of the other. Intriguingly, cosmologists
speak of a "cosmic egg" that consisted of all
the matter in the universe prior to the Big
Bang. In other words, all the heavens and earth
were included in this egg in a condition of
ratk. This cosmic egg exploded violently causing
its matter to fatk and in the process created
the structure of the whole universe.
Another truth revealed in the Qur'an is the
expansion of the universe that was discovered
in the late 1920s. Hubble's discovery of the
red shift in the spectrum of starlight is revealed
in the Qur'an as :
It is We Who have built
the universe with (Our creative) power, and,
verily, it is We Who are steadily expanding
it. (Surat adh-Dhariyat: 47)
In short, the findings of modern science support
the truth that is revealed in the Qur'an and
not materialist dogma. Materialists may claim
this all to be "coincidence" but the plain fact
is that the universe came into being as a result
of an act of creation on the part of Allah and
the only true knowledge about the origin of
universe is to be found in the word of Allah
as revealed to us.