Truth That Matters

"What will it profit a man if he gains the whole world, and loses his own soul?" - Jesus Christ

The Big Bang Theory

There are various theories about the origin of the universe. The one that enjoys the most support today in the scientific establishment is the Big Bang Theory, which states that the universe began about 12 billion years ago as an infinitesimally small capsule of energy that rapidly expanded and formed everything we now see. The image shows NASA's idea of what the early universe may have looked like according to this theory. The following are some of the problems with this theory:-

Baryon asymmetry: According to the Big Bang Theory, all matter today has arisen from energy. When energy gets converted to matter, it forms equal amounts of matter and anti-matter. But as far as we know, there is much more matter in the universe today than anti-matter. This is a mystery, and is being researched actively by scientists today.

Lumpiness: The known laws of physics, when applied to the Big Bang Model, predict that the universe should be just an expanding cloud of gas. However, the universe has a lot of "lumps". Stars and planets are concentrations of matter in a space that is almost empty. Stars are organized into galaxies, and galaxies themselves are organized into clusters and super-clusters. The Sloan Great Wall super-cluster of galaxies has a length of nearly 1% of the known universe. Such lumpiness is totally inconsistent with the big bang theory. According to the Big Bang Theory, star clusters formed at different times and places, so they should show a lot of variation, but their observed composition (the proportion of small, medium and big stars) is nearly the same in all the star clusters that have been studied (see T. Abel, G.L. Bryan, and M.L. Norman, "The formation of the first star in the universe", Science 295:93-98 (2002)).

Dark matter: Not only should galaxy clusters not form, but if they formed, they should have been pulled apart by now due to their relative motion and the expansion of the universe. But they are still together - the gravitation between galaxies in clusters has been unexpectedly strong (if the Big Bang really took place). Huge amounts of invisible "dark matter" have been invoked to explain this. "Dark matter" is a classic example of how enthusiasts of a theory can invent non-observed entities to deal with observations that otherwise don't agree with their theory.

There is an interesting implication of dark matter: If 80% of the universe is "dark", and thus unknown, no current theory can claim to "explain" the universe!

Isotropy: The Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (supposedly the after-glow of the Big Bang) supposedly comes from a period after the big bang when everything was supposed to be isotropic (same in every direction), so it should be isotropic, but it is not. It suggests a cosmic south pole, north pole and equator. Dr Max Tegmark of the University of Pennsylvania, who processed the data, called the result bizarre, unexpected and without explanation (he is quoted in the BBC News report: "Map Reveals Strange Cosmos"). In the Sloan Digital Sky Survey, the galaxies appear to be in concentric shells centered on our galaxy and they are far more dense close in than farther out. This is in total opposition to the predictions of the big bang theory.

Fine tuning: If the initial expansion claimed by the Big Bang was a little too slow, gravity would have overpowered the universe and contracted it back to a capsule within a fraction of a second. If the expansion was a little too fast, lumps could never form, and thus we wouldn't exist. The "window" of variation permissible is 1 part in 10 raised to 60. To get a feel for this, imagine two numbers: 1 and 1.0000..(59 zeroes)..1. The expansion rate should be between these two values. Our very existence, assuming a Big Bang scenario thus implies a very precise expansion rate, and it is unreasonable that a random explosion would have just the right expansion rate. [See Alan Guth, "Inflationary Universe: A Possible Solution to the Horizon and Flatness Problems" Physical Review D 23 (2):347-356 (1981)]

The origin of the "cosmic egg": According to the Big Bang Theory, the big bang is a "singularity" - a moment where the laws of physics do not apply; in other words, it is a MIRACLE. Thus, Big Bang proponents are guilty of double standards when they frown on the Biblical creation account, which involves miracles.

Abundance of the elements: According to the Big Bang Theory, the current abundance of the 92 elements requires many generations of massive stars recycling elements again and again. But such stars would become black holes - then the number of black holes should have been comparable to the number of living stars, but there are only a few dozen candidates for black holes in our galaxy (as against 100 billion stars).

For a more detailed analysis of the flaws of the Big Bang Theory, see:-

  • "Bye Bye Big Bang: Hello Reality" - William Mitchell
  • "Big Bang Blasted" - Lyndon Ashmore
  • "Dismantling the Big Bang" -  Alex Williams and John Hartnett

New Scientist published an Open Letter to the Scientific Community written by secular scientists unhappy about the strong arm tactics used by Big Bang proponents to silence dissent. Other secular scientists have also expressed their skepticism.

What about the solar system?

The prevailing atheistic scientific explanation for the formation of our solar system is the nebular hypothesis:-

A swirling cloud of gas and dust formed the sun, and the left over dust particles accreted to form the rocky planets (Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars). Some of the left over gas became Jupiter and Saturn, and the ice fragments consolidated to become Uranus, Neptune and Pluto.

The following are the problems with the nebular hypothesis:-

Firstly: As mentioned above, the laws of physics when applied to gas clouds does not suggest that they would consolidate to form stars or gaseous planets - unless one resorts to just-so stories: "Gravitationally unstable cloud", "near-critical initial density", "shock waves", "extremely low temperatures sustained for a very long time", etc.

Secondly: The "sticking problem" is the observation that bits of rock and dust that collide don't tend to stick to each other. The asteroids and meteors look like the fragments of a broken planet rather than stuff on its way to becoming a planet. Evolutionists may take comfort in the fact that ice sticks better than rock, but the icy planets are so far out (where it is cold enough for ice to exist), where material is so sparse, that it should have taken forever for them to accumulate as much matter as they have.

Thirdly: Several features of our solar system inconsistent with the nebular hypothesis are explained away by inventing stories about collisions. The only "evidence" for these collisions is that such collisions are needed to rescue the nebular hypothesis. (The argument goes like this: God does not exist, so the nebular hypothesis must be true, so there must be some explanation. We are able to invent explanations, therefore the nebular hypothesis must be true; therefore God does not exist. There is a three-thousand year old response to this argument: Psalm 14:1)
 
Fourthly: The sun's isotopic composition is very different from that of the earth (isotopes are different forms of the same element). For instance, the sun has much more oxygen-16 and much more nitrogen-14 relative to the earth. This contradicts the idea that the sun and earth were formed from the same cloud of gas (which is fundamental to the nebular hypothesis).

Fifthly: The faint young sun paradox is the following observation. According to the stellar evolution cycle (part of the nebular hypothesis) the sun should have been far too cold to support life on earth 3.5 billion years ago. Yet the theory of organic evolution claims that life formed from chemicals on earth 3.5 billion years ago.

Conclusion

To summarize, the physical universe cannot be explained as a result of natural processes (since the best naturalistic theories fail miserably). In fact, observations of the physical universe strongly suggest that it was designed by an extremely intelligent and powerful Creator (Psalm 19:1).

What about Evolution Theory, the atheistic explanation for living things?