Featured in:
Secular scientists blast the big bang
What now for naïve apologetics?
by Carl Wieland
It’s amazing to see how many Christian leaders have not merely tolerated the
‘big bang’ idea, but embraced it wholeheartedly. To hear their pronouncements,
believers should welcome it as a major plank in our defense of the faith. ‘At
last, we can use science to prove there’s a creator of the universe.’
However, the price of succumbing to the lure of secular acceptability, at least
in physics and astronomy, has been heavy. We have long warned that adopting the
big bang into Christian thought is like bringing the wooden horse within the walls
of Troy. This is because:
- The big bang forces acceptance of a sequence of events totally incompatible with
the Bible (e.g. earth after sun instead of earth before sun—see
Two worldviews in conflict and
How could the days of Genesis 1 be literal if the Sun wasn’t created until
the fourth day?)
- The big bang’s billions of years of astronomical evolution are not only based
on naturalistic assumptions, they are contrary to the words of Jesus Himself, who
said people were there from the beginning, not towards the end of an interminably
long ‘creation’ process (Mark
10:6)—see Jesus and the age of the world.
- The slow evolution of the stars, then solar system and planets (including earth)
in big bang thinking means that ‘big bang Christians’ are invariably
dragged into accepting ‘geological evolution’ (millions of years for
the earth’s fossil-bearing rocks to be laid down). So they end up denying
the global Flood, and accepting death, bloodshed and disease (as seen in the fossils)
before Adam. This removes the Fall and the Curse on creation from any effect on
the real world, as well as removing the biblical answer Christians have
always had to the problem of suffering and evil (God made a perfect world, ruined
by sin). See Terrorists and Death and
The god of an old earth.
- Marrying one’s theology to today’s science means that one is likely
to be widowed tomorrow.
In fact, the signs are strong that exactly that is happening, and that those who
have ‘bought’ the big bang for its allegedly irrefutable science have
been ‘sold a pup’. A bombshell ‘Open Letter to the Scientific
Community’ by 33 leading scientists has been published on the internet (www.cosmologystatement.org)
and in New Scientist (Lerner, E., Bucking the big bang, New Scientist
182(2448)20, 22 May 2004). An article on www.rense.com titled ‘Big
bang theory busted by 33 top scientists’ (27 May 2004) says, ‘Our ideas
about the history of the universe are dominated by big bang theory. But its dominance
rests more on funding decisions than on the scientific method, according to Eric
Lerner, mathematician Michael Ibison of Earthtech.org, and dozens of other scientists
from around the world.’
The open letter includes statements such as:
- ‘The big bang today relies on a growing number of hypothetical entities, things
that we have never observed—inflation, dark matter and dark energy are the
most prominent examples. Without them, there would be a fatal contradiction between
the observations made by astronomers and the predictions of the big bang theory.’
- ‘But the big bang theory can’t survive without these fudge factors.
Without the hypothetical inflation field, the big bang does not predict the smooth,
isotropic cosmic background radiation that is observed, because there would be no
way for parts of the universe that are now more than a few degrees away in the sky
to come to the same temperature and thus emit the same amount of microwave radiation.
… Inflation requires a density 20 times larger than that implied by big bang
nucleosynthesis, the theory’s explanation of the origin of the light elements.’
[This refers to the horizon problem, and supports what we say in
Light-travel time: a problem for the big bang.]
- ‘In no other field of physics would this continual recourse to new hypothetical
objects be accepted as a way of bridging the gap between theory and observation.
It would, at the least, raise serious questions about the validity of the underlying
theory [emphasis in original].’
- ‘What is more, the big bang theory can boast of no quantitative predictions
that have subsequently been validated by observation. The successes claimed by the
theory’s supporters consist of its ability to retrospectively fit observations
with a steadily increasing array of adjustable parameters, just as the old Earth-centred
cosmology of Ptolemy needed layer upon layer of epicycles.’
The dissidents say that there are other explanations of cosmology that do make some
successful predictions. These other models don’t have all the answers to objections,
but, they say, ‘That is scarcely surprising, as their development has been
severely hampered by a complete lack of funding. Indeed, such questions and alternatives
cannot even now be freely discussed and examined.’
Those who urge Christians to accept the big bang as a ‘science fact’
point to its near-universal acceptance by the scientific community. However, the
33 dissidents describe a situation familiar to many creationist scientists: ‘An
open exchange of ideas is lacking in most mainstream conferences … doubt
and dissent are not tolerated, and young scientists learn to remain silent if they
have something negative to say about the standard big bang model. Those who doubt
the big bang fear that saying so will cost them their funding.’
Evolutionist and historian of science, Evelleen Richards, has noticed that it’s
hard even for rival evolutionary theories to get a hearing when challenging
the ruling paradigm—see Science … a
reality check. This should give some idea of the difficulties biblical creationists
face.
But don’t we read, even in the daily newspapers, about many ‘observations’
that only ever seem to support the big bang? In fact, these prominent secular scientists
say:
‘Even observations are now interpreted through this biased filter, judged
right or wrong depending on whether or not they support the big bang. So discordant
data on red shifts, lithium and helium abundances, and galaxy distribution, among
other topics, are ignored or ridiculed.’
Science is a wonderful human tool, but it needs to be understood, not worshipped.
It is fallible, changing, and is severely limited as to what it can and cannot determine.
As CMI has often pointed out, instead of a scientific concept, the big-bang idea
is more a dogmatic religious one—based on the
religion of humanism. As these big-bang opposers point out:
‘Giving support only to projects within the big bang framework undermines
a fundamental element of the scientific method—the constant testing of theory
against observation. Such a restriction makes unbiased discussion and research impossible.’
Furthermore, contrary to the naïve pronouncements of many who should know better,
it is not in any sense a matter of ‘looking into a telescope and “seeing”?
the big bang billions of years ago.’ As always, observations are interpreted
and filtered through worldview lenses. Those who developed the big bang were guided
by secular worldview filters just as much as those who are now crying that the emperor
has no clothes. They wanted a universe that created itself; their opponents want
an eternal, uncreated universe. From a Christian perspective, both are in open defiance
of their Creator’s account of what really happened.
With Darwinism on the run, the Enemy of souls is seeking to seduce believers into
embracing a more subtle, yet far deadlier way of evading the authority of the Bible.
With progressive creationism/big-bangery rampaging through the evangelical community,
he must think he is on a winner.
For a powerful, profound exposition of all of the issues involved in this, today’s
most important evangelical compromise position, my colleague
Dr Jonathan Sarfati’s just-released book Refuting Compromise is not just a casual recommendation
‘for further reading’. Chapter 5 pokes holes into the big bang, showing
how it has become a ruling paradigm, supported by fallacious logic and ignoring
many scientific problems—some confirmed by the above letter from big-bang–dissenting
evolutionary cosmologists. It also shows how one can use a
‘first cause’ argument without needing the big bang. The book
is in fact destined to become a Christian classic, a culture-changing colossus of
‘cut-through-the-smokescreen’ clarity and logic. I urge all who are
reading this to get Refuting Compromise, read it, lend it and give
it out far and wide.
Related articles
(Available in
Romanian and
Russian)
| If you were to read an article every day from this site it would take you 20 years to read them all. Such a wealth of information didn’t arise by chance. Please help us to keep on keeping on.  | | |
|
