Higgs Boson—The "God Particle"?

From Issue: R&R – June 2011

[NOTE—For updates to this article, see Higgs Boson—The “God Particle”? (Update) and Higgs Boson—The “God Particle”? (2nd Update)]

The Higgs Boson particle, presumptuously called the “God Particle” by some physicists, is a theoretical elementary particle that is predicted by the Standard Model of particle physics, but which has yet to be observed by physicists through experimentation. It is “thought to be the fundamental unit of matter” (“Has Quest for the Elusive…?” 2011). In theory, the particle could explain how other elementary particles have mass. But why do some call it the “God Particle”? To Big Bang-believers, the Higgs Boson is “a theoretical energy particle which many scientists believe helped give mass to the disparate matter spawned by the Big Bang” (“Scientists Close in…,” 2010). Big Bang theorists consider its existence “crucial to forming the cosmos after the Big Bang” (“Scientists…,” emp. added). Therefore, the particle is god-like to such sadly deluded individuals.

Recently, in an article titled, “Has Quest for the Elusive ‘God Particle’ Succeeded?,” Fox News reported on a “controversial rumor…based on a leaked internal note from physicists at the Large Hadron Collider (LHC)” that began circulating in the public eye (“Has Quest…”). The rumor suggests that the LHC, a particle accelerator located in Switzerland, may have run across proof of the Higgs’ existence. The leaked note “details an unexpected ‘bump’ in emissions that may be proof of the long-sought particle” (“Has Quest…”). Wait a minute. A “bump” could be proof of the Higgs Boson? Surely such an occurrence, which could be the result of any number of possibilities, would not constitute valid proof of anything to scientists. Although many scientists these days would consider such a vague incident enough proof to satisfy their longings, James Gillies, a spokesman for the European Organization for Nuclear Research responsible for building the LHC, admitted that “the leaked note faces several layers of scrutiny before it could be submitted for publication [in a scholarly scientific publication—JM].” He explains: “Things such as this show up quite frequently in the course of analysis…. It’s way too soon to get excited, I’m afraid. It’s not the physics find of the millennium, unfortunately” (“Has Quest…,” emp. added). So, atheistic evolution still stands as scientifically impossible.

As stated above, evolutionists consider the existence of the Higgs Boson “crucial to forming the cosmos after the Big Bang” (“Scientists…,” emp. added). Notice that without the existence of this theoretical particle, Big Bang theorists recognize that the Universe could not even form after the Big Bang theoretically occurred. Its existence would not prove that the Universe did form in the manner suggested by Big Bang Theory. Its existence would not even prove that the Universe could form after a hypothesized Big Bang occurred. Further, its existence would not prove that the Big Bang itself could occur at all. Its existence would not prove that matter could exist forever or pop into existence out of nothing, one of which must be true in order for the Big Bang to even get started. And its existence would certainly not prove that the scientific laws governing the Universe could write themselves into existence. However, without the existence of the particle, theorists know the Big Bang could not happen. Thus, discovery of its existence would not prove anything in the end, but only allow evolutionists to cross one of the many chasms that stand in the way of their theory even being considered a remote possibility. In other words, the Big Bang has not even reached square one in the realm of proof. It still lies firmly in the realm of impossibility. Bottom line: the Creation model still stands as the most logical explanation for the origin of the Universe—the model that matches the scientific evidence.


“Has Quest for the Elusive ‘God Particle’ Succeeded?” (2011), Fox News, April 25,

“Scientists Close in on God Particle” (2010), Fox News, July 27,


A copied sheet of paper

REPRODUCTION & DISCLAIMERS: We are happy to grant permission for this article to be reproduced in part or in its entirety, as long as our stipulations are observed.

Reproduction Stipulations→