On April 30, new images of several deep space galaxies and nebulae taken with the new main camera mounted aboard the Hubble Telescope were unveiled.

Breathtaking only begins to describe them.

Johns Hopkins University professor Holland Ford, the leader of the team that developed the Advanced Camera for Surveys, said the camera is "opening a wide new window into the universe." An Associated Press story reported that Ford also commented the ACS will afford scientists the opportunity to "look back in time and distance 13 billion years, giving astronomers a glimpse of the period of a few hundred million years in which stars and galaxies were beginning to form after the big bang."

Not so fast.

With every advance of modern science, man is capable of delving deeper into the hitherto unknown realms of both the microscopic world here on planet earth and deep space.

The most striking feature of these new discoveries is the revelation of design and purpose in the cosmos. Nothing this elegant could have possibly resulted from some cosmic accident such as the big bang.

Many scientists have been forced to rethink their models for the origin of the universe.

And the big bang looks like it might have just burst.

The April 26 edition of The Wall Street Journal featured an article written by Sharon Begley entitled "Latest Observations Steal the Thunder From Big Bang Theory."

The Big Bang Theory postulates that the universe began from a huge cosmic explosion some 14 billion years ago. "There was a genesis moment. . .when space and time began," the article explains.

The problem with the theory is simply this: Modern advances in science have demonstrated that there is simply no evidence for it. Recent observations made during the mid-1990's have required a series of mathematical fixes to correct for aberrations revealed by the new discoveries. It's finally gotten to the point where some cosmologists have given up on the theory altogether, proposing a "bouncing universe" instead, starting from "a random blip [that] got things rolling, creating an infinitesimal bit of space-time from nothingness."

If creationists were to offer such a theory -- that the cosmos was formed from "nothingness" -- they'd be accused of proffering psychobabble. But under the guise of science, such a postulate is easily swallowed. It demonstrates how desperate cosmologists have become to embrace any theory of origins so long as God is omitted from the equation.

It's virtually impossible to predict events that happened in the past by looking solely at the circumstantial evidence. Even in a court of law, witnesses to the actual crime are required for a solid conviction.

Unfortunately, for events that have happened in the distant past, before the appearance of man, there were no witnesses. All that's left for scientists to work with is conjecture and theory. Throw in a lot of physics and calculus and a convincing case can often be made to a scientifically illiterate public. . .until the next 'latest discovery' blows the most recent theory out of the water.

Let's be honest: If no one was there to witness any of this, then it really all does come down to faith doesn't it?

What's the difference between a scientist, proposing the creation of the cosmos from an "infinitesimal bit of space-time nothingness," to a scientific creationist stating that God created ex-nihilo?

The crux of the issue is simply which is more credible: that inanimate matter violated the inviolate laws of thermodynamics and managed somehow to spontaneously rearrange itself into an increasingly complex hierarchy of living organisms, or that a loving God designed it all with a specific purpose in mind?

"Nature might someday reveal which account of genesis is right," Ms. Begley concludes in comparing the various accounts of the origin of the cosmos.

"Real Answers™" furnished courtesy of The Amy Foundation Internet Syndicate. To contact the author or The Amy Foundation, write or E-mail to: P. O. Box 16091, Lansing, MI 48901-6091; amyfoundtn@aol.com. Visit our website at www.amyfound.org.