Are certain scientific discovers evidence against the Big Bang?


(Jennifer Wilkinson) #1

I am researching the Big Bang, and I read the blog post Rethinking the Big Bang, which lists problems with the Big Bang theory. I don’t have a strong science background, so I would love feedback on whether these are valid arguments against the standard Big Bang model. The blog covers the following points:

  • Mature distant galaxies
  • Blue stars
  • Arms in spiral galaxies
  • Double stars
  • No exotic particles
  • Horizon problem
  • Stars and planets from clumps
  • Magnetic fields
  • Comets

I have concerns about how the Big Bang fits with the Genesis account, but my current goal is not to disprove the Big Bang completely. My friends tend to believe there is no need for God because science has the answers. Books like Darwin’s Black Box and Signature in the Cell have helped me understand the difficulty (impossibility?) science has in answering origin of life questions. I’m amazed at the signals of transcendence we find in molecular biology. Are there similar clues to transcendence in the origin of the universe? What questions are left unanswered in the scientific models?


(Andrew Bulin) #2

John Lennox seems to approach these questions in his book God’s Undertaker: Has Science Buried God? with a degree of pessimism at the motive for the scientists doubting the Big Bang (see chapter 4, “A Designer Universe?”).

Stephen Hawking adopts a similar view: ‘Many people do not like the idea that time has a beginning, probably because it smacks of divine intervention.’

I don’t have a lot of details on the arguments against, but I think the majority of Lennox’s book deals with those Darwinians who believe there is either the Big Bang or God. It may present another perspective.


(Roger Greene) #3

Hi Jennifer, I happened to be reading John Lennox’s new book “can science explain everything?” And thought this section relevant to your question.

“Doesn’t the Big Bang explanation contradict the creation explanation? Not at all. For the Big Bang is not an explanation at all. It is simply a label saying there was a beginning. It says nothing about how the universe came to exist in the first place. The Bible is giving a reason for the existence of the universe. It says God created it: there was a beginning cause by God, and if some people wish to label that beginning the Big Bang, that is fine. It was a Big Bang caused by God.”

Now, you can go on to debate the age of the universe and all that, but the point is the Big Bang does not prove or disprove anything. The main question to ask would be what or who started the universe?

The Naturalist view would be that the universe came into being from nothing by no one. The Christian view would be the universe came into being from nothing by God.

Since nothing can’t create something, it seems a bit silly to follow a Naturalistic framework.


(Jennifer Wilkinson) #4

@andrew.bulin and @rgreene, thanks for your feedback. Your comments have helped me clarify my question. I realized it has more to do with the age of the earth than I first thought. I disagree with the Big Bang because an old earth would imply death before sin, which I cannot reconcile with the character of God and the narrative of salvation. I might pursue that as a separate topic on this forum sometime, but for this topic, I’ll stick to science.

I don’t think it would be intellectually honest of me to tell my friends that the Big Bang theory proves the universe had a beginning because I’m rejecting most of the rest of the theory for theological reasons. I can’t pick and choose when I want to cite the theory and when I don’t.

However, a couple books and articles I’ve read indicate there are some serious scientific problems with the standard Big Bang model. If the Big Bang really has a problem with distant starlight, people can’t use distant starlight as an absolute reason for rejecting a young earth.

I’d like to understand this better for my own peace of mind, and I think it could open some interesting conversations with my friends.


(Roger Greene) #6

Hi Jennifer, I don’t know your friends or their particular objections, but I would caution against diving so deeply into the minutia of the Big Bang Theory model and what it would result in. Not because I think it will harm your argument, but in my experience chasing down individual scientific evidence with someone leads around in circles. When I’ve discussed things like distant starlight, rock strata, fossil records, etc. the discussion goes nowhere because they rely on the same evidence being interpreted through a different world view. Many people have K-college worth of years spent studying the universe from a Naturalistic perspective and a Christian interpretation of evidence does little to knock them off their position. Since it is a different interpretation of the same evidence. In my experience that road is a red herring and when pressed someone really has a problem with why God would allow suffering, or the idea of judgement, or something of that kind.

Even so if you want to pursue the conversation you have, I think it would be good to point out the commonality. Both your world view and theirs can agree that the universe had a beginning. Your disagreement lies on what incited that beginning. In your view God did it, in theirs nothing did it. You can bypass arguments over the evidence for a beginning by simply moving to the most important part: who or what started it all. Because their model cannot explain that at all.

If you can make that case and they accept that there is a God, then you can move on to the specifics of who God is and then return together to examine each individual piece of scientific evidence, because it certainly warrants investigation.

I hope that helps.


(Jennifer Wilkinson) #7

Good advice, @rgreene. Thanks!