Two views of the BibleWhen I was a kid, we seldom went to church. I grew up in wha...
Why test people?God knows all things, because He is omnipotent. It is writt...
God’s disproportionate systemHave you heard the question, 'What kind of God would condemn...
Copyright 2007 TheBook.co.za
What is so big about the Big Bang?
|Created by Gerard de Vos|
Category: Evolution related
The Collins English Dictionary defines the Big Bang as follows: ‘A cosmological theory postulating that approximately 12 billion years ago all the matter of the universe, packed into a small super dense mass, was hurled in all directions by a cataclysmic explosion. As the fragments slowed down, the galaxies and stars evolved, but the universe is still expanding.’
The Big Bang sounds quite plausible. But it is normal when trying to get rid of the Creator, God, that scientists are not always in agreement. Here are a few of their discrepancies:
1. The idea of self-creation violates the law of non-contradiction, namely that every effect must have a cause. Where did ‘all the matter of the universe, packed into a small super dense mass’, come from? It couldn’t just have been there. Did the universe exist to cause its own existence? Obviously the notion that nothing exploded into being 15 -18 billion years ago is philosophical nonsense (R C Sproul, Defending Your Faith, Crossway Books, 2004, p 112, 113).
2. There are many conflicting theories on the origin of the universe.
a) The idea that there was a Big Bang is supported by the expansion of the universe (The Doppler effect produces redshifts, that is, stars are moving further away. This is observed in many galaxies, and it convinced Hubble that the universe is expanding). Abbe Lemaitre, used Einstein’s law of relativity and the Doppler effect to prove the expansion of the universe. He turned it around and postulated that the universe could then have shrunk back to a Primeval atom and have had an explosive beginning.
b) Fred Hoyle and Herman Bondi proposed the Steady State theory (the universe does not expand, but remains the same size as it moves in a certain direction). Atheists wanted a way for the universe to come into existence without the need for a moment of creation, or Lemaitre’s Primeval atom (D Filkin, Stephen Hawkings’s Universe, BBC Books, 1997, p 92). But the Steady State theory fell in disfavour after the discovery of Cosmic Microwave Radiation (CMB) by Penzias and Wilson in 1965 (ibid, p 100).
3. The Big Bang is not clear scientific fact. Opponents of creation by God declare that the universe cannot be a few thousand years old. How can light from distant stars reach the earth in such a short time? But defenders of the Big Bang face a similar problem. The temperature of the universe is uniform. It is called thermal equilibrium. If the Big Bang took place it should be cooler on the edges and hotter in the middle and it is not. This is a huge problem for Big Bangers. Other problems are galaxy formation, star formation, the faint young sun paradox, et cetera (J Sarfati, Refuting Compromise, Master Books, 2004, p 156-178). Alton Arp and Geoffrey Burbidge discovered a quasar that is embedded in the galaxy NGC 7319 very close to its centre. Can a distant quasar lie in a nearby galaxy (Creation, Vol 29, no 2, March/May 2007, p 24-27)?
4. Scientist do in general agree on the anthropic principle. That means that the universe and the earth is in a very delicate, precise balance to function perfectly. For example, the moon is just the right distance from the earth, and the gravitational pull, electromagnetism, weak and strong nuclear force constant, ratio of electron to proton mass, velocity of light, and others are perfectly co-ordinated. There are so many precise constants that it cannot be attributed to chance (T Woodward, ibid, p 160,161; H Ross, The Creator and the Cosmos, NavPress, 1993, p 111-130). The fine tuning of the universe cannot be rejected.
Scientists do not all agree with the Big Bang postulation. A letter was written by about 30 scientists expressing their dissatisfaction with the Big Bang (New Scientist, May 22-28, 2004, p 20, quoted by A Williams and J Harnett, Dismantling the Big Bang, Master Books, 2005, p327-328).
Summary: The Big Bang has serious flaws, but atheistic astronomers will defend it to the end. The naturalistic origin myth must be kept alive.