In 2009 the European Space Agency launched a satellite designed to record and map cosmic background radiation. In the time the satellite has been in orbit, scientists have compiled a 50 million pixel image of that radiation. Basically, 15 months were spent recording the radiation, and filtering out dust emissions and radio frequencies.
From this data and image, stellar evolutionists have postulated a new age for the universe. The new guess is that it is 13.81 billion years old, about 80 million years older than previously believed.
This estimate regarding the age of the universe is not a radical departure from previous ones. According to an article by Michael Rundle, which appeared in the Huffington Post, UK, on March 21, 2013, the new date comes as scientists adjust the “Hubble constant” due to their observations. The Hubble constant is the rate at which the universe is currently expanding.
Consider the following quote from the article :
The data suggests the universe is slightly older than previously thought – 13.81 billion years, 80 million years more than our previous best guess. That’s based on new observations of the Hubble constant, the rate at which the universe is expanding. The new estimate of 67.3 km/s/Mpc is slower than previously thought.
The paragraph is enlightening, as it explains how stellar evolutionists arrive at their conclusion that the universe is billions of years old. Their guesses are predicated upon two suppositions. First, that the universe was formed from an explosion that emanated from a specific, singular point in the distant past. This is why the theory is referred to as the Big Bang. Second, that the universe is expanding at the same rate today as it was when the universe was first formed. In other words, the rate has been constant from the beginning of the universe until today. This supposition, or doctrine, is known as uniformitarianism.
This “scientific” view is limited because it can’t be demonstrated. That is why it is appropriately called a supposition. Perhaps it is a reasonable one as the “supposer” takes a naturalistic view of the formation of the universe. However, it can’t be proven because scientists are unable to visit the past to measure the rate of the universe’s expansion at any specific point.
So, it must be emphasized that these age estimates are based upon that naturalistic understanding of our universe. Stellar evolutionists deny the concept of an omnipotent Creator. Nevertheless, the universe as it presently exists can be accounted for simply and accurately by a supernatural explanation. “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. The earth was without form, and void; and darkness was on the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters. Then God, said, ‘Let there be light’; and there was light” (Genesis 1:1-3).
The text from Genesis reveals an instant appearance of light. Later, on the fourth day, Genesis reveals that God created the sun, moon and stars within the framework of a 24 hour day. According to the supernatural account of creation in the book, the current state of the universe was arrived at instantaneously, in contrast to the multiple billions of years postulated by stellar evolutionists. In other words, the Hubble constant is completely irrelevant if one accepts the existence of God.
The evolutionist stacks the deck when he claims that an appeal to science is the only rational way to arrive at the age of the universe. It is not, and it is not even the best means of explaining either its age or its existence. The appearance of design in the cosmos demands an omnipotent designer. So, the supernatural (divine) explanation given in Genesis 1 is not only possible, it better suits the evidence supplied by the universe itself!
