【编者按】关于宇宙的由来，人类一直没有一个固定的答案。《圣经》启示的上帝创造天地一说固然绝对，却因与今相隔时代久远且缺乏相应的科学依据而被很多人当成是神话故事。难道这一切真的就无从考证？不，现当代天文学家层出不穷、有意无意的发现，正在帮助我们从一个理性的角度越来越了解和接近宇宙起源的真相。文中，梁斐生博士从天文学的角度出发，通过数位诺贝尔奖得主的发现证实了宇宙有起源、从无到有、被造等客观事实——这与《圣经》的创世观点，不谋而合。梁博士曾任职加拿大国防部多年，致力于国防太空、通讯卫星、反飞弹防御及核子辐射研发工作，著有《从圣经揭开动荡世代的奥秘》。
圣经开宗明义第一句就宣告：“起初，上帝创造天地。”（创世记一1）可到了1789年，法国化学家拉瓦锡（Lavoisier）从实验证明，物质是永恒的，不能消灭，也不能凭空产生。于是很多人相信圣经与质量守恒定律无法共存，宇宙绝不可能是上帝从无变有的创造。
1917 年，爱因斯坦从相对论的数学程式发现宇宙在不断地扩张或收缩，但是因为当时学术界普遍的信念是：宇宙是静止永恒不变的。为了使数学程式迎合当时的“知 识”，爱氏特别引进一个常数，抵销宇宙不断扩张或微缩的可能性。当时的比利时神父，天文数学家李密特（Georges Lemaitre）已指出，这个常数做成爱氏的方程式不稳定。李氏从相信圣经的角度看，宇宙应该是由一个宇宙蛋（cosmic egg）爆炸而成。
到了1931年，美国天文学家哈勃（Edwin Hubble）借助当代最大的望远镜观察，发现大多数星系都有红移现象，不断向外迅速扩展。这时爱因斯坦才承认，他所附加的宇宙常数是一生中最大的错误，同时亦接受了“宇宙有起源的必须性”。
1940 年代，留美俄裔物理学家伽莫（George Gamow）进一步提倡宇宙起源爆炸论（The Big Bang Theory），却备受当时天文学界的冷嘲热讽。著名的无神论哲学家罗素（Bertrand Russell，1872-1970）说：“整个宇宙的产生只是偶然，我们没理由相信宇宙有任何起源，以为凡事必有起源是因为想像力贫乏。我 们现在找到许多被认为是自然规律的事，不过是人类的习惯用法。”芝加哥大学的亚特乐（Mortimer Adler）在《How to Think About God（怎样思想上帝）》一书中，也拒绝相信宇宙有任何起源的可能，因为“如果宇宙有起源，就得先假定有一个创始者”。
【第一对获奖者，证实宇宙有起源】
1965 年美国贝尔（Bell）研究所的彭西亚斯（Arno Penzias）和威尔逊（Robert Wilson），无意中测量到宇宙起源大爆炸余留至今的微波辐射，正好符合伽莫的理论：假如宇宙真由激变性大爆炸（Catastrophic Cosmic Explosion）形成，那么温度高达两千亿的原始火球（Primordial Fireball）可能至今仍保存辐射背景的踪迹。
1978年，彭、威二人获诺贝尔物理奖，是因证实宇宙有起始的第一对物理学家。彭氏表示：“天文学叫我们认识一件独特的事：宇宙是无中生有的。当中须要非常微妙的平衡和精确的条件，才可产生生命，可能背后是有计划（或超自然）的因素。”
【第二对获奖者，发现宇宙诞生的证据】
接 下去美国太空总署（NASA）为解决宇宙创始之谜，于1989年发射了宇宙背景探险号（Cosmic Background Explorer, COBE）人造卫星。1992年4月23日，太空物理学家史莫特（George Smoot）公布，发现了宇宙起源爆炸所引发的微波。史氏说：“微波中较小的已形成天河系（clustered galaxies）和太空中广阔无边的空间。”霍金称这“若非是有史以来至大的发现，便是世纪创举”。
史 莫特宣称：“我们找到的是宇宙诞生的证据。”“好像张开了眼，看到上帝一样。其中的秩序是多么精美、多么均衡和精密！让我们联想到宇宙背后必有设计。当我 们解释宇宙大爆炸遗留下的微波，简直像读到上帝第一天创造宇宙的日志。有什么比这工作更神圣？”当记者询及究竟是什么力量促成宇宙原始大爆炸及这微细的波 浪，史莫特认真地回答：“上帝可能是它的设计者。”著名的无神论哲学家弗卢（Anthony Flew）说：“现代宇宙学令顽固的无神论者汗颜，因宇宙学者已经提供哲学上认为不可能的证据─宇宙是有起始的。”
2006年，史莫特和美国太空总署的马瑟（John Mather）双双获得诺贝尔物理奖，成为因证实宇宙有起源而获诺贝尔奖的第二对物理学家。
【第三对获奖者，证实从无变有的可能】
2012年7月4日，欧洲核子能中心（CERN）宣布，在欧洲地下100米的大型强子对撞实验中，观察到科学界寻觅近半个世纪的“上帝粒子”，证实他们所提出的希格斯场（Higgs field）的存在，使无质量的光子和粒子转变为具有质量的物质。
因为涉及质量从无到有的过程，甚有上帝从无到有的创造意味，因而被称为“上帝粒子”。无神论者霍金曾打赌不可能找到“上帝粒子”，至此只得认输。
2013年，因为提出“上帝粒子”的英国物理学家希格斯（Peter Higgs）和比利时的恩格勒特（Francois Englert）一同获得诺贝尔物理奖，是为印证宇宙起源的第三对学者。
【可能第四对获奖者：发现引力涟漪】
2014年3月19日，《以色列时报》以头条标题报导：“以色列正统物理学家声称：宇宙大爆炸的新证据支持圣经的创造论。”
以色列巴伊兰大学（Bar-Ilan University）前物理学系主任阿维泽尔（Aviezer）表示：“这些引力波证实宇宙大爆炸的发生。”“宇宙大爆炸与创世记的记载完全吻合。”
“如果不讨论是谁，或因什么缘故而引起宇宙大爆炸，宇宙创始的大爆炸过程与创世记完全吻合。若一定要我提出一个理论来解释创世记，我会选大爆炸。”
“根据创世记，宇宙的创造是由能量和光的球从虚无突然出现，与宇宙大爆炸论所描述的能量和光球完全一样。”“多个世纪以来，无中生有的创造被认为是不可能，今天却被视为科学事实。”
他又补充，接受这个学说与宗教无关，并引用霍金的话说：“实际的创始点是在目前已知的物理学范围以外。”
近期现代宇宙学的作者，加州大学的绍基（Joseph Silk）教授说：“大爆炸是现代版的宇宙创始。”
英 国举世闻名的天文和数学家彭罗斯（Roger Penrose）在其著作《The Emperor's New Mind（国王的新思）中指出，要造成类似今日我们所居住的宇宙，设计的精确度必须达到(10^10)^123分之一。从任何数学角度来看，(10^10)^123分之一的精确度绝不能用偶然和巧合解释。
贾斯特罗（Jastrow）是美国太空总署的创始人之一，他说：“现在我们看到太空的证据怎样指向圣经的创世观点。”
曾获英国最负盛名科普利荣誉奖的英国科学家惠特克（Edmund Whittaker）认为，宇宙的起源是因“上帝按自己的意思，从虚无创造大自然”。
彭西亚斯说：“迄今从观察或收集所得的天文数据，全都支持宇宙是被造的。”
史莫特说：“毫无疑问，大爆炸论与基督教从无变有的创造论平行共存。”
Science Increasingly Makes the Case for God
The odds of life existing on another planet grow ever longer. Intelligent design, anyone?
By Eric Metaxas Dec. 25, 2014 4:56 p.m. ET Wall Street Journal
In 1966 Time magazine ran a cover story asking: Is God Dead? Many have accepted the cultural narrative that he’s obsolete—that as science progresses, there is less need for a “God” to explain the universe. Yet it turns out that the rumors of God’s death were premature. More amazing is that the relatively recent case for his existence comes from a surprising place—science itself.
Here’s the story: The same year Time featured the now-famous headline, the astronomer Carl Sagan announced that there were two important criteria for a planet to support life: The right kind of star, and a planet the right distance from that star. Given the roughly octillion—1 followed by 27 zeros—planets in the universe, there should have been about septillion—1 followed by 24 zeros—planets capable of supporting life.
With such spectacular odds, the Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence, a large, expensive collection of private and publicly funded projects launched in the 1960s, was sure to turn up something soon. Scientists listened with a vast radio telescopic network for signals that resembled coded intelligence and were not merely random. But as years passed, the silence from the rest of the universe was deafening. Congress defunded SETI in 1993, but the search continues with private funds. As of 2014, researchers have discovered precisely bubkis—0 followed by nothing.
What happened? As our knowledge of the universe increased, it became clear that there were far more factors necessary for life than Sagan supposed. His two parameters grew to 10 and then 20 and then 50, and so the number of potentially life-supporting planets decreased accordingly. The number dropped to a few thousand planets and kept on plummeting.
Even SETI proponents acknowledged the problem. Peter Schenkel wrote in a 2006 piece for Skeptical Inquirer magazine: “In light of new findings and insights, it seems appropriate to put excessive euphoria to rest . . . . We should quietly admit that the early estimates . . . may no longer be tenable.”
As factors continued to be discovered, the number of possible planets hit zero, and kept going. In other words, the odds turned against any planet in the universe supporting life, including this one. Probability said that even we shouldn’t be here.
Today there are more than 200 known parameters necessary for a planet to support life—every single one of which must be perfectly met, or the whole thing falls apart. Without a massive planet like Jupiter nearby, whose gravity will draw away asteroids, a thousand times as many would hit Earth’s surface. The odds against life in the universe are simply astonishing.
Yet here we are, not only existing, but talking about existing. What can account for it? Can every one of those many parameters have been perfect by accident? At what point is it fair to admit that science suggests that we cannot be the result of random forces? Doesn’t assuming that an intelligence created these perfect conditions require far less faith than believing that a life-sustaining Earth just happened to beat the inconceivable odds to come into being?
There’s more. The fine-tuning necessary for life to exist on a planet is nothing compared with the fine-tuning required for the universe to exist at all. For example, astrophysicists now know that the values of the four fundamental forces—gravity, the electromagnetic force, and the “strong” and “weak” nuclear forces—were determined less than one millionth of a second after the big bang. Alter any one value and the universe could not exist. For instance, if the ratio between the nuclear strong force and the electromagnetic force had been off by the tiniest fraction of the tiniest fraction—by even one part in 100,000,000,000,000,000—then no stars could have ever formed at all. Feel free to gulp.
Multiply that single parameter by all the other necessary conditions, and the odds against the universe existing are so heart-stoppingly astronomical that the notion that it all “just happened” defies common sense. It would be like tossing a coin and having it come up heads 10 quintillion times in a row. Really?
Fred Hoyle, the astronomer who coined the term “big bang,” said that his atheism was “greatly shaken” at these developments. He later wrote that “a common-sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a super-intellect has monkeyed with the physics, as well as with chemistry and biology . . . . The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question.”
Theoretical physicist Paul Davies has said that “the appearance of design is overwhelming” and Oxford professor Dr. John Lennox has said “the more we get to know about our universe, the more the hypothesis that there is a Creator . . . gains in credibility as the best explanation of why we are here.”
The greatest miracle of all time, without any close seconds, is the universe. It is the miracle of all miracles, one that ineluctably points with the combined brightness of every star to something—or Someone—beyond itself.
Mr. Metaxas is the author, most recently, of “Miracles: What They Are, Why They Happen, and How They Can Change Your Life” (Dutton Adult, 2014).
