What do you think?
Rate this book
Origin of the Universe
50 pages, Paperback
First published July 1, 1980
3 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 of 1 review
February 14, 2025
ICR TECHNICAL MONOGRAPH NO. 8
Harold Slusher is a physicist associated with the Institute for Creation Research (ICR). [The validity of his Ph.D. from Indiana Christian University has been challenged, by the way.] He wrote in the Introduction to this 1978 book, “There are two very distinct ways of looking at the origin and history of the universe: creationist and evolutionist. They cannot both be right since they are contradictory. The evolutionist position holds to a materialistic explanation that says the origin of the universe can be explained completely on the basis of what we observe and study around us at present by just extrapolating this back in time… This naturalistic position says that the universe is all there is…. that matter and energy arose spontaneously from nothing or they have always existed; and that the physical and chemical laws are ‘just here.’
“On the other hand, the creationist position claims that the universe was created by God, an Agent external to this system of matter and energy which He created… The universe thus began in a highly ordered state with a low entropy and has since begun to run down and deteriorate and lose form and body. This position may involve a short time scale.” (Pg. 1)
He asks, “If the universe is expanding and the galaxies are moving away from us, how do we explain those few galaxies with spectra that are blue-shifted since this would indicate approach rather than recession?” (Pg. 10)
He argues, “Some of the difficulties inherent in the big-bang hypothesis are... It is predicated on the Doppler shift interpretation of the red shift of galaxies… some strong objections have been voiced against this interpretation… it leads to tremendously large magnitudes of the velocities of recession. The speeds in some cases approach the speed of light. Also, the ‘fact’ of galaxies moving apart can be explained by many other states of matter and energy than a primeval atom that exploded. For that matter, the alleged explosion produces radiation and high-speed elementary particles, not galaxies. The galaxies moving apart has nothing whatever to do with the expanding motion of debris from an explosion.” (Pg.19-20)
He asserts, “The naturalistic models described in this monograph are based on general relativity, which does not rest on any sort of experimental basis. The solar system tests of general relativity have not been successful thus far.” (Pg. 12)
He contends, “most people would recognize the present cosmic state as a ‘natural’ state that does not need to be explained with some singular event, such as the big bang. [A.D.] Allen shows that, in spite of the apparent orderliness of the universe as actually observed, the expansion of the universe under the Hubble’s law is a strictly random state. No more should be read into this big-bang than should be read into the random motion of the molecules in a cloud of gas.” (Pg. 23)
He adds, “There is no evidence that galaxies are slowing down in their headlong flight, nor that they have done so in the past, as they surely should because of mutual gravitation between the galaxies.” (Pg. 23)
He insists, “From the big-bang hypothesis it is predicted that all galaxies should be the same age. However, from the determiners of age established by evolutionists, galaxies are of all different ages. This great variety of galaxies is not surprising at all from the Creation.” (Pg. 24)
He asks, “The real universe represents a vastly smaller number of available quantum states than does the nature-myth called the big bang… How could all the gradients, differentiations, energy-transforming process, ordered bodies, etc., come about in a big bang (an entropy-producing process) without a violation of the entropy law[?]” (Pg. 27)
He states, “If this universe is ‘all there is,’ what could have caused a ‘cosmic egg’ sitting in equilibrium, presumably for an eternity, to begin to expand violently of its own accord, since this would be a violation of Newton’s first law?" (Pg. 28)
He adds, “If the motion of the elementary particles and the radiation were radically outward from the explosion and was also uniform in composition, density, etc., where did the rotational motion of stars, galaxies, clusters, etc., originate, since all the initial momentum was radial and not angular momentum?” (Pg. 29)
He asks, “where do the new hydrogen atoms required to keep density constant come from? Where does the infinite supply of hydrogen for new galaxy formation come from? According to Gold, they create themselves out of nothing… this is a self-contradictory concept… without a Creator.” (Pg. 31)
He asserts, “The big-bang cosmology starts off with a very compact and heavy body… and then, for reasons no one has been able to explain, some parts of the cloud stop expanding and continue to form the galaxies and those bodies within each galaxy, stars, and then as if by magic, start moving apart… to produce highly organized compact bodies, such as complex stars and planets.” (Pg. 48-49)
Slusher’s critique might have had some impact back in 1978, but cosmology has moved on considerably since then (e.g., the ‘Steady State’ model is gone; the Big Bang was not an ‘explosion’; the universe IS expanding at near the speed of light; Alan Guth's 'Cosmic Inflation' model, etc.).
Harold Slusher is a physicist associated with the Institute for Creation Research (ICR). [The validity of his Ph.D. from Indiana Christian University has been challenged, by the way.] He wrote in the Introduction to this 1978 book, “There are two very distinct ways of looking at the origin and history of the universe: creationist and evolutionist. They cannot both be right since they are contradictory. The evolutionist position holds to a materialistic explanation that says the origin of the universe can be explained completely on the basis of what we observe and study around us at present by just extrapolating this back in time… This naturalistic position says that the universe is all there is…. that matter and energy arose spontaneously from nothing or they have always existed; and that the physical and chemical laws are ‘just here.’
“On the other hand, the creationist position claims that the universe was created by God, an Agent external to this system of matter and energy which He created… The universe thus began in a highly ordered state with a low entropy and has since begun to run down and deteriorate and lose form and body. This position may involve a short time scale.” (Pg. 1)
He asks, “If the universe is expanding and the galaxies are moving away from us, how do we explain those few galaxies with spectra that are blue-shifted since this would indicate approach rather than recession?” (Pg. 10)
He argues, “Some of the difficulties inherent in the big-bang hypothesis are... It is predicated on the Doppler shift interpretation of the red shift of galaxies… some strong objections have been voiced against this interpretation… it leads to tremendously large magnitudes of the velocities of recession. The speeds in some cases approach the speed of light. Also, the ‘fact’ of galaxies moving apart can be explained by many other states of matter and energy than a primeval atom that exploded. For that matter, the alleged explosion produces radiation and high-speed elementary particles, not galaxies. The galaxies moving apart has nothing whatever to do with the expanding motion of debris from an explosion.” (Pg.19-20)
He asserts, “The naturalistic models described in this monograph are based on general relativity, which does not rest on any sort of experimental basis. The solar system tests of general relativity have not been successful thus far.” (Pg. 12)
He contends, “most people would recognize the present cosmic state as a ‘natural’ state that does not need to be explained with some singular event, such as the big bang. [A.D.] Allen shows that, in spite of the apparent orderliness of the universe as actually observed, the expansion of the universe under the Hubble’s law is a strictly random state. No more should be read into this big-bang than should be read into the random motion of the molecules in a cloud of gas.” (Pg. 23)
He adds, “There is no evidence that galaxies are slowing down in their headlong flight, nor that they have done so in the past, as they surely should because of mutual gravitation between the galaxies.” (Pg. 23)
He insists, “From the big-bang hypothesis it is predicted that all galaxies should be the same age. However, from the determiners of age established by evolutionists, galaxies are of all different ages. This great variety of galaxies is not surprising at all from the Creation.” (Pg. 24)
He asks, “The real universe represents a vastly smaller number of available quantum states than does the nature-myth called the big bang… How could all the gradients, differentiations, energy-transforming process, ordered bodies, etc., come about in a big bang (an entropy-producing process) without a violation of the entropy law[?]” (Pg. 27)
He states, “If this universe is ‘all there is,’ what could have caused a ‘cosmic egg’ sitting in equilibrium, presumably for an eternity, to begin to expand violently of its own accord, since this would be a violation of Newton’s first law?" (Pg. 28)
He adds, “If the motion of the elementary particles and the radiation were radically outward from the explosion and was also uniform in composition, density, etc., where did the rotational motion of stars, galaxies, clusters, etc., originate, since all the initial momentum was radial and not angular momentum?” (Pg. 29)
He asks, “where do the new hydrogen atoms required to keep density constant come from? Where does the infinite supply of hydrogen for new galaxy formation come from? According to Gold, they create themselves out of nothing… this is a self-contradictory concept… without a Creator.” (Pg. 31)
He asserts, “The big-bang cosmology starts off with a very compact and heavy body… and then, for reasons no one has been able to explain, some parts of the cloud stop expanding and continue to form the galaxies and those bodies within each galaxy, stars, and then as if by magic, start moving apart… to produce highly organized compact bodies, such as complex stars and planets.” (Pg. 48-49)
Slusher’s critique might have had some impact back in 1978, but cosmology has moved on considerably since then (e.g., the ‘Steady State’ model is gone; the Big Bang was not an ‘explosion’; the universe IS expanding at near the speed of light; Alan Guth's 'Cosmic Inflation' model, etc.).
Displaying 1 of 1 review