Suppose you wanted to sue the state for teaching your child Christian fundamentalist creation in public school science class, for teaching that the universe is 6,000 years old, or for not allowing the teaching of evolution. The following is something that could be used in such a lawsuit. In arguments FOR creationism, I've never seen arguments against the validity of mathematics. Therefore, this argument is based on theoretical predictions from mathematics, undisputable observational confirmation of the mathematical predictions, and continuing validation by other scientists by different methods. I think it could be proved in a court of law that the universe happened as scientists say it did.

With any number of Ph.D. astrophysicists testifying, along with an equal number of "Barry Setterfields" (mentioned in my "Creationism vs. Science"), and a jury who at least took geometry, chemistry and physics in high school, it would be quite easy to prove in any court that:

• The universe is expanding.
  This was found mathematically by Einstein in 1917 (his cosmological constant), observed by Edwin Hubble in 1927, and verified repeatedly ever since.
• There is a tiny bit of heat permeating the universe.
  Cosmic Background Radiation (CMB). It's presence and temperature was predicted mathematically by Ralph Alpher & Robert Herman around 1950, observed accidently by Penzias and Wilson in 1965, and measured many times by different methods with increasing accuracy ever since. 2.725 degrees Kelvin, and in all directions.
• 74% of regular matter in the universe is hydrogen, 24% helium, and 2% all the rest.
  The Sun is an average star. All stars shine from nuclear fusion reactions. Nuclear fusion is pushing two hydrogen atoms to make helium, and on up through the elements. The heavier an element's atom, the less abundant the element. (Except for a few, depending on the number of protons and how nuclear fusion occurs.) But, stellar nuclear fusion does not explain the high abundance of helium.

Taking the above points a little farther, still in that courtroom,

• The universe used to be smaller.
• The heat permeating the universe used to be greater (in a smaller space).
• Something other than stellar nuclear fusion caused the high abundance of helium.

Since the universe used to be smaller, how small? Given the rate of expansion of the universe and calculating backward, the universe would have been a tiny dot 13.7 billion years ago. This dot would have had infinite temperature and density. The dot, and the origin of the Big Bang, is described at www.jdhartsell.com/science/index.html#bigbang. The age of the universe has been measured and/or computed by many different methods.

When the universe was a tiny dot, it is thoroughly accepted in the physics community that it was infinitely hot. Calculations show that the background temperature of the universe after 13.7 billion years of expansion should now be around 3^o Kelvin. Measurements show it to be 2.725^o Kelvin.

Since light (and heat) of the Sun and stars comes from nuclear fusion of hydrogen atoms into helium atoms, what happens when the hydrogen at the center gets low? The star compresses and the process continues with a hydrogen and helium atom fusing into lithium, two helium atoms fusing into beryllium, etc. This process continues up through the heavier elements. The bigger the star the farther this process goes. This is why the heavier an atom, the less abundant it is. For very large stars, fusion goes all the way to iron, and this is the farthest it can go. The star explodes as a supernova.¹ Elements heavier than iron, like gold, are fused in the force of the explosion. All this explains the observed relative abundance of all the chemical elements except for helium. This relative abundance, except for helium, can also be computed mathematically.

For the high abundance of helium, the density and temperature at the beginning of the expansion of the universe provides an explanation. It can be calculated that the observed abundance of hydrogen, helium, lithium and beryllium was created in fusion reactions in the first 3 minutes of the Big Bang. For a great article on this, see Astronomy magazine, Oct. 2007, "How the Big Bang forged the first elements", by Adam Frank (astrophysicist).

So, to summarize, taking the expanding universe and running backwards mathematically, you get a tiny dot 13.7 billion years ago. In the first 3 minutes of expansion you get the mathematically predicted and observed abundance of helium. Going forward to the present you get the mathematically predicted and observed background temperature of the universe. It's in the math.

Since Christian fundamentalists believe creation happened 6,000 years ago², we are left with the following two conclusions.

• God created the universe 6,000 years ago, but with the appearance of happening as scientists say.³ I think any Christian fundamentalist would be happy with this statement.
• The universe began by chance 13.7 billion years ago. Any astrophysict would accept this statement.

So now we must address "appearance of happening as scientists say". This means 6,000 years ago, and all at once, God created:

• The universe, with a size and rate of expansion that scientists say it had 6,000 years ago.
• The background "heat" the universe had 6,000 years ago.
• All the elements and at their present relative abundance. Elements formed inside stars has no effect on anything.

The Christian fundamentalists, who have not studied the subject, will say this must be how God did it.

As the arguments proceed from both sides, a jury of reasonable intelligence will surely go with the astrophysicists.

It can be proven in a court of law that the universe happened as scientists say it did.