Big Bang Theory
The Big Bang Theory vs. God’s Word
A number of conservative Bible students have tried, “over and over again,” to get John Clayton to see that it is a serious compromise of scriptural truth to give credence to the big bang theory. In this article, we examine this materialistic concept of the origin of the universe.
Basically there are two views of the origin of the universe. One of these is the supernatural position set forth in the book of Genesis (chapters one and two), with ample confirmation from other inspired writings. The Genesis narrative affirms that God created the heavens and the earth on the first day of the initial week of earth’s history. Subsequently, during the remaining five days of creation activity, attention was directed to this planet, the abode of man—who was uniquely fashioned in the image of the Creator (Genesis 1:26, 27). The sun, moon, and stars were also made (vv. 14ff). The Scriptures make it perfectly clear that the whole creation (inorganic and organic) came into being during this six-day period (see Exodus 20:11).
The second view of the beginning of the universe is wholly materialistic. Modern “scientism” prefers to grapple with its problems without appealing to God, although, as science writer Lincoln Barnett observed, “this seems to become more difficult all the time” (1957, 22). Isaac Asimov wrote: “The Bible describes a Universe created by God, maintained by him, and intimately and constantly directed by him, while science describes a Universe in which it is not necessary to postulate the existence of God at all” (1981, 13).
Theories concerning the mechanistic origin of the universe come and go. Today’s “science” is tomorrow’s superstition. A few years ago scientists were touting the steady-state theory as the most reasonable explanation of the origin of the universe. It asserted that new matter is constantly being created to replace that which is lost by the expanding universe. “Today most astronomers regard the steady-state theory as dead” (Weaver 1974, 625). The current inclination concerning the beginning of our universe is known as the big bang theory, but even the “bang” notion is receiving competition from a newer view called the plasma theory (DeYoung 1992, i-iv).
In one of his books, Dr. Robert Jastrow asserts that in the beginning “all matter in the Universe was compressed into an infinitely dense and hot mass” that exploded. Over many eons, supposedly, “the primordial cloud of the Universe expands and cools, stars are born and die, the sun and earth are formed, and life arises on the earth” (1977, 2-3). Dr. Jastrow is describing, of course, what is commonly known as the big bang theory, and it does not require much critical acumen to conclude that the concept is evolutionary to the core.
Where the cosmic egg came from no one seems to know. Certainly no cosmic chicken has been located! Some allege that the egg always existed. They speculate that it possibly resulted from some earlier universe that collapsed upon itself. This assumes that matter is eternal. But this idea is refuted by our knowledge of physics (e.g., the second law of thermodynamics). Jastrow concedes that “modern science denies an eternal existence to the Universe, either in the past or in the future” (15). Others, like Professor Victor Stenger of the University of Hawaii, muse that perhaps the universe came from nothing (the egg laid itself!):
Dr. Mart de Groot, who views the big bang concept as “a possible way of understanding the opening statement of the Bible, ‘in the beginning God . . .’,” admits that there is an objective difficulty to the theory. And it is this: even if the “primordial matter” exploded, he says, resulting in our present universe, “what is the origin or source of this matter?” He confesses that “probably the most serious shortcoming of the big bang is its inability to go back to the very beginning of time and space” (1999, 20-23). The theory has far more shortcomings than the matter of “matter commencement”!
(1) The big bang scenario speculates that the marvelously ordered universe randomly resulted from a gigantic explosion—a “holocaust,” to use Jastrow’s term. Never in the history of human experience has a chaotic explosion been observed producing an intricate order that operates purposefully. An explosion in a print shop does not produce an encyclopedia. A tornado sweeping through a junkyard does not assemble a Boeing 747. No building contractor dumps his materials on a vacant lot, attaches dynamite, and then waits for a completed home from the resulting bang. The idea is absurd. Evolutionist Donald Page was correct when he wrote: “There is no mechanism known as yet that would allow the Universe to begin in an arbitrary state and then evolve to its present highly ordered state” (1983, 40).
(2) If the universe started with an explosion, one would expect that all matter-energy should have been propelled radially from the explosion center—consistent with the principle of angular momentum. It would not be expected that the universe would be characterized by the curving and orbiting motions that are commonly observed, e.g., the revolution of our earth around the sun (cf. Morris 1984, 150).
(3) For years scientists have been attempting to measure the microwave radiation that is coming in from all parts of the universe. It is conjectured that this radiation is the left-over heat from the original big bang. The problem is, wherever this radiation has been measured, it has been found to be extremely uniform, which does not harmonize with the fact that the universe itself is not uniform; rather, it is “clumpy,” i.e., composed of intermittent galaxies and voids. If the big bang theory were true, there should be a correlation between the material composition of the universe (since everything emits thermal heat) and the corresponding radiation temperature. But such is not the case.
Over the past few years, the news media have made much of the report that new measurements of background radiation reveal some variation. The press has hailed this as proof of the big bang. The facts are:
(1) The temperature differential supposedly detected was only about thirty millionths of one degree, and there are other possible explanations for this circumstance apart from the hypothetical bang.
(2) Some of the scientists involved in the project question whether the instruments employed for measuring the radiation are sensitive enough to warrant the conclusions that are being drawn.
(3) Others, who claim that additional testing has confirmed their assertion of temperature “ripples,” confess now that it is “harder than ever” to explain “how these ripples grew into the starry structures that fill the universe” (Flam 1993, 31).
Even the respected science journal Nature suggested it is a “cause of some alarm” that the media have characterized this flimsy evidence as “proof” of the big bang (1992, 731). Why do some religionists gravitate to these groundless theories in deference to plain Bible statements?
We will not, at this point, discuss other flaws in the big bang hypothesis, but simply refer the reader to several other sources (Morris 1984, 149-151; Major 1991, 21-24; Morris 1992, d; Humphreys 1992, i-iv).
In addition to Clayton (cited above), Arlie Hoover, a professor at Abilene Christian University, has argued similarly:
The problem with this line of argument is this: In Hoover’s illustration, each of the possible answers—God, mother, hospital—can be supported with evidence. In the matter of the big bang, this alleged “cause” has not been proved. It is just that simple. But let us go back for a moment to the “Where did I come from?” question. Suppose one responded in this way: “From God. From the hospital. From the stork!” Is each of these answers equally valid? If not, where is the flaw?
(1) As noted earlier, the Bible plainly teaches that the entire universe, including the earth with its various “kinds” of biological organisms, came into being during the six, literal days of the creation week (Genesis 1; Exodus 20:11). The big bang theory postulates eons of time.
(2) Some, of course, contend that there may have been a vast “gap” between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2, thus accommodating the alleged time involved in the expansion and development of the universe following the big bang.
(3) It is argued that the “days” of Genesis 1 were not literal days.
(4) And perhaps there were “gaps” between the days of the creation week, etc.
But none of these twisted theories has an ounce of credibility if one seriously considers that God has communicated the historical record in an understandable fashion through his inspired word. Each of the theories mentioned above is designed to bring the Bible into harmony with evolutionary chronology. (For further study see Jackson 2003.)
The big bang myth allows that the sun was formed long before the earth. Various theories have been formulated to explain how the universe came to be organized after the initial explosion. Take your choice: the planetesimal theory, the nebular theory, the dust cloud theory. They all have one thing in common—they assert that the earth is a new-comer compared to the sun. However, the Bible teaches that the earth was created first, and the sun came later—on the fourth day of the first week (Genesis 1:1, 14-16). The same point can be made regarding the stars. The Bible puts them after the earth; the evolutionary model teaches otherwise. Of course some have attempted to solve this difficulty with yet another slippery compromise. They allege that the “creative acts” of Genesis 1 are not necessarily “in chronological order” (Willis 1979, 92).
The big bang theory supposes that the universe started with a chaotic explosion which then proceeded toward order. The Bible teaches the exact opposite. God created the universe as a beautiful and orderly masterpiece, but it has been degenerating toward disorder in the intervening millennia (Psalm 102:25ff; Hebrews 1:10-12).
Big bang cosmology postulates a universe that is nearly twenty billion years old, with the human race evolving only three or four million years ago. According to this view, a vast period of time separates the origin of the universe from that of mankind.
But the Scriptures affirm:
(1) The human family came into existence the same week as the universe (Genesis 1; Exodus 20:11). Man has thus existed from the beginning of the creation (Isaiah 40:21; Mark 10:6; Luke 11:50; Romans 1:20).
(2) Human antiquity extends to only a few thousand years before Christ, as evinced by the genealogical records of the Lord’s ancestry all the way back to Adam, the first man (1 Corinthians 15:45). There are some two millennia spanning the present back to Jesus Christ; another two thousand years push history back to the time of Abraham. There are only twenty generations between Abraham and Adam (Luke 3:23-38). Even if one concedes that some minor gaps exist in the Old Testament narrative (cf. Genesis 11:12; Luke 3:35-36), surely no responsible Bible student will contend that twenty billion years can be squeezed into those twenty generations. The universe thus cannot be billions of years old.
Big bang chronology and biblical chronology are woefully at variance.
In view of that, it can hardly be classified as “science.”
Basically there are two views of the origin of the universe. One of these is the supernatural position set forth in the book of Genesis (chapters one and two), with ample confirmation from other inspired writings. The Genesis narrative affirms that God created the heavens and the earth on the first day of the initial week of earth’s history. Subsequently, during the remaining five days of creation activity, attention was directed to this planet, the abode of man—who was uniquely fashioned in the image of the Creator (Genesis 1:26, 27). The sun, moon, and stars were also made (vv. 14ff). The Scriptures make it perfectly clear that the whole creation (inorganic and organic) came into being during this six-day period (see Exodus 20:11).
The second view of the beginning of the universe is wholly materialistic. Modern “scientism” prefers to grapple with its problems without appealing to God, although, as science writer Lincoln Barnett observed, “this seems to become more difficult all the time” (1957, 22). Isaac Asimov wrote: “The Bible describes a Universe created by God, maintained by him, and intimately and constantly directed by him, while science describes a Universe in which it is not necessary to postulate the existence of God at all” (1981, 13).
Theories concerning the mechanistic origin of the universe come and go. Today’s “science” is tomorrow’s superstition. A few years ago scientists were touting the steady-state theory as the most reasonable explanation of the origin of the universe. It asserted that new matter is constantly being created to replace that which is lost by the expanding universe. “Today most astronomers regard the steady-state theory as dead” (Weaver 1974, 625). The current inclination concerning the beginning of our universe is known as the big bang theory, but even the “bang” notion is receiving competition from a newer view called the plasma theory (DeYoung 1992, i-iv).
The Theory Defined
The big bang concept alleges that some twenty billion years ago (give or take ten billion), all of the matter in the known universe was tightly packed into a microscopic cosmic “egg.” One writer expresses it this way: “Astonishingly, scientists now calculate that everything in this vast universe grew out of a region many billions of times smaller than a single proton, one of the atom’s basic particles” (Gore 1983, 705). This is truly an incredible statement!In one of his books, Dr. Robert Jastrow asserts that in the beginning “all matter in the Universe was compressed into an infinitely dense and hot mass” that exploded. Over many eons, supposedly, “the primordial cloud of the Universe expands and cools, stars are born and die, the sun and earth are formed, and life arises on the earth” (1977, 2-3). Dr. Jastrow is describing, of course, what is commonly known as the big bang theory, and it does not require much critical acumen to conclude that the concept is evolutionary to the core.
Where the cosmic egg came from no one seems to know. Certainly no cosmic chicken has been located! Some allege that the egg always existed. They speculate that it possibly resulted from some earlier universe that collapsed upon itself. This assumes that matter is eternal. But this idea is refuted by our knowledge of physics (e.g., the second law of thermodynamics). Jastrow concedes that “modern science denies an eternal existence to the Universe, either in the past or in the future” (15). Others, like Professor Victor Stenger of the University of Hawaii, muse that perhaps the universe came from nothing (the egg laid itself!):
[T]he universe is probably the result of a random quantum fluctuation in a spaceless, timeless void . . . the earth and humanity, are not conscious creations but an accident. . . . [I]t is not sufficient merely to say, “You can’t get something from nothing.” While everyday experience and common sense seem to support this principle, if there is anything that we have learned from twentieth-century physics, it is this: Common sense is often wrong, and our normal experiences are but a tiny fraction of reality (1987, 26-27).One thing is certain: one is required to lay aside his “common sense” in order to accept the foregoing incomprehensible speculation. None of these materialistic theories has any credibility—biblically or scientifically. Some scientists should take a hint from the Scottish skeptic David Hume: “I have never asserted so absurd a proposition as that anything might arise without a cause” (1932, 187).
Dr. Mart de Groot, who views the big bang concept as “a possible way of understanding the opening statement of the Bible, ‘in the beginning God . . .’,” admits that there is an objective difficulty to the theory. And it is this: even if the “primordial matter” exploded, he says, resulting in our present universe, “what is the origin or source of this matter?” He confesses that “probably the most serious shortcoming of the big bang is its inability to go back to the very beginning of time and space” (1999, 20-23). The theory has far more shortcomings than the matter of “matter commencement”!
Flaws in the Big Bang Scenario
There are a number of logical problems with the big bang scheme of origins:(1) The big bang scenario speculates that the marvelously ordered universe randomly resulted from a gigantic explosion—a “holocaust,” to use Jastrow’s term. Never in the history of human experience has a chaotic explosion been observed producing an intricate order that operates purposefully. An explosion in a print shop does not produce an encyclopedia. A tornado sweeping through a junkyard does not assemble a Boeing 747. No building contractor dumps his materials on a vacant lot, attaches dynamite, and then waits for a completed home from the resulting bang. The idea is absurd. Evolutionist Donald Page was correct when he wrote: “There is no mechanism known as yet that would allow the Universe to begin in an arbitrary state and then evolve to its present highly ordered state” (1983, 40).
(2) If the universe started with an explosion, one would expect that all matter-energy should have been propelled radially from the explosion center—consistent with the principle of angular momentum. It would not be expected that the universe would be characterized by the curving and orbiting motions that are commonly observed, e.g., the revolution of our earth around the sun (cf. Morris 1984, 150).
(3) For years scientists have been attempting to measure the microwave radiation that is coming in from all parts of the universe. It is conjectured that this radiation is the left-over heat from the original big bang. The problem is, wherever this radiation has been measured, it has been found to be extremely uniform, which does not harmonize with the fact that the universe itself is not uniform; rather, it is “clumpy,” i.e., composed of intermittent galaxies and voids. If the big bang theory were true, there should be a correlation between the material composition of the universe (since everything emits thermal heat) and the corresponding radiation temperature. But such is not the case.
Over the past few years, the news media have made much of the report that new measurements of background radiation reveal some variation. The press has hailed this as proof of the big bang. The facts are:
(1) The temperature differential supposedly detected was only about thirty millionths of one degree, and there are other possible explanations for this circumstance apart from the hypothetical bang.
(2) Some of the scientists involved in the project question whether the instruments employed for measuring the radiation are sensitive enough to warrant the conclusions that are being drawn.
(3) Others, who claim that additional testing has confirmed their assertion of temperature “ripples,” confess now that it is “harder than ever” to explain “how these ripples grew into the starry structures that fill the universe” (Flam 1993, 31).
Even the respected science journal Nature suggested it is a “cause of some alarm” that the media have characterized this flimsy evidence as “proof” of the big bang (1992, 731). Why do some religionists gravitate to these groundless theories in deference to plain Bible statements?
We will not, at this point, discuss other flaws in the big bang hypothesis, but simply refer the reader to several other sources (Morris 1984, 149-151; Major 1991, 21-24; Morris 1992, d; Humphreys 1992, i-iv).
Fatal Compromises
It is to be expected, of course, when “science” announces some amazing new “discovery,” which purportedly supports its view of the origin of the universe, that liberal religionists will jump on the band wagon—in this case the “bang” wagon—affirming that such is consistent with the Genesis record. When the big bang theory was first heralded, Pope Pius XII wrote that “scientists are beginning to find the finger of God in the creation of the universe.” More recently (1990), Gerald L. Schroeder, an Israeli nuclear physicist, wrote a book titled, Genesis and the Big Bang. Therein he contended that there is no contradiction between the biblical account of creation and the current big bang theory (see Ostling 1992, 42-43).In addition to Clayton (cited above), Arlie Hoover, a professor at Abilene Christian University, has argued similarly:
It is entirely possible, though not at all firmly established, that God used a big bang as His method of creation. You cannot affirm it as a certainty, but neither can you deny it apodictically. Because the Bible does not specify how God did it, we are left to choose the hypothesis that seems to have the best supporting material . . . nothing in the biblical doctrine excludes the big bang (1992, 34, 35).In an incredible display of illogical meandering, the professor attempted to show why it is possible to accept both the big bang concept and the Genesis account. He suggested, for example, that the question, “Where did I come from?” can be answered a number of correct ways: from God, from mother’s womb, from a hospital, etc. Similarly, he says, one might suggest that the universe came both from God and the big bang.
The problem with this line of argument is this: In Hoover’s illustration, each of the possible answers—God, mother, hospital—can be supported with evidence. In the matter of the big bang, this alleged “cause” has not been proved. It is just that simple. But let us go back for a moment to the “Where did I come from?” question. Suppose one responded in this way: “From God. From the hospital. From the stork!” Is each of these answers equally valid? If not, where is the flaw?
The Bible versus the Big Bang
Are the Bible and the big bang theory in agreement? No. And informed persons, on both sides of the issue are aware of this fact. Paul Steidl, an astronomer, has noted:[N]o astronomers would ever think of the big bang as the creation event of Genesis. The big bang was invented specifically for the purpose of doing away with the creation event. An astronomer would laugh at the naivety of anyone who chose to equate the two events (1979, 197).Evolutionist Paul Davies, in a discussion of the big bang, says that this theory of origins “differs greatly in detail from the biblical version.” He then quotes Ernan McMullin of Notre Dame University:
What one cannot say is, first, that the Christian doctrine of creation “supports” the Big Bang model, or second, that the Big Bang model “supports” the doctrine of creation (1983, 17-20).The fact is, there are significant contradictions between the big bang theory and the Bible record. Let us reflect on some of these:
(1) As noted earlier, the Bible plainly teaches that the entire universe, including the earth with its various “kinds” of biological organisms, came into being during the six, literal days of the creation week (Genesis 1; Exodus 20:11). The big bang theory postulates eons of time.
(2) Some, of course, contend that there may have been a vast “gap” between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2, thus accommodating the alleged time involved in the expansion and development of the universe following the big bang.
(3) It is argued that the “days” of Genesis 1 were not literal days.
(4) And perhaps there were “gaps” between the days of the creation week, etc.
But none of these twisted theories has an ounce of credibility if one seriously considers that God has communicated the historical record in an understandable fashion through his inspired word. Each of the theories mentioned above is designed to bring the Bible into harmony with evolutionary chronology. (For further study see Jackson 2003.)
The big bang myth allows that the sun was formed long before the earth. Various theories have been formulated to explain how the universe came to be organized after the initial explosion. Take your choice: the planetesimal theory, the nebular theory, the dust cloud theory. They all have one thing in common—they assert that the earth is a new-comer compared to the sun. However, the Bible teaches that the earth was created first, and the sun came later—on the fourth day of the first week (Genesis 1:1, 14-16). The same point can be made regarding the stars. The Bible puts them after the earth; the evolutionary model teaches otherwise. Of course some have attempted to solve this difficulty with yet another slippery compromise. They allege that the “creative acts” of Genesis 1 are not necessarily “in chronological order” (Willis 1979, 92).
The big bang theory supposes that the universe started with a chaotic explosion which then proceeded toward order. The Bible teaches the exact opposite. God created the universe as a beautiful and orderly masterpiece, but it has been degenerating toward disorder in the intervening millennia (Psalm 102:25ff; Hebrews 1:10-12).
Big bang cosmology postulates a universe that is nearly twenty billion years old, with the human race evolving only three or four million years ago. According to this view, a vast period of time separates the origin of the universe from that of mankind.
But the Scriptures affirm:
(1) The human family came into existence the same week as the universe (Genesis 1; Exodus 20:11). Man has thus existed from the beginning of the creation (Isaiah 40:21; Mark 10:6; Luke 11:50; Romans 1:20).
(2) Human antiquity extends to only a few thousand years before Christ, as evinced by the genealogical records of the Lord’s ancestry all the way back to Adam, the first man (1 Corinthians 15:45). There are some two millennia spanning the present back to Jesus Christ; another two thousand years push history back to the time of Abraham. There are only twenty generations between Abraham and Adam (Luke 3:23-38). Even if one concedes that some minor gaps exist in the Old Testament narrative (cf. Genesis 11:12; Luke 3:35-36), surely no responsible Bible student will contend that twenty billion years can be squeezed into those twenty generations. The universe thus cannot be billions of years old.
Big bang chronology and biblical chronology are woefully at variance.
Conclusion
The big bang theory is without validity. It has the support of neither genuine science nor responsible biblical exegesis. For once we agree with several evolutionists who admit: “Cosmology is unique in science in that it is a very large intellectual edifice based on very few facts” (Arp et al. 1990, 812).In view of that, it can hardly be classified as “science.”
posted by Believer | 3:21 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home