The originations of the Big Bang theory and its implications point to a Supernatural beginning
One observation underlying the big bang theory is the redshift of starlight as generally interpreted as a Doppler effect. The Doppler effect as defined by www.freedictionary.com is
“1. (General Physics) a phenomenon, observed for sound waves and electromagnetic radiation, characterized by a change in the apparent frequency of a wave as a result of relative motion between the observer and the source.”
“the beginning seems to present insuperable difficulties unless we agree to look at it as frankly supernatural.” Arthur Eddington, The Expanding Universe (New York: Macmillan, 1933), 124.
The big bang theory originated in the 1960’s when Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson, two radio engineers working at Bell Labs, discovered radiation coming equally from multiple points in space. The theory states that stars and galaxies, via the Doppler effect, move away from Earth, stretching out (reddening) emit wavelengths of light. This was thought to confirm the suspicions of scientists that believed the earth began in a single explosion about 15 billion years ago.
The evidence, suggests the big bang theory, exists in the waves of radiation and the expansion of various galaxies and their components outward into space. This continuing expansion is called the "Hubble Constant."
This claim is one of the serious flaws to the big bang theory that render it highly improbable.1 Why? The law of conservation of energy is the fundamental principle of physics that the total energy of an isolated system is constant despite internal changes. The claim that the universe is not an isolated system, but rather a growing one violates the law of conservation of energy, considered by many to be the most important of all physical laws. The conservation of energy is also violated by the fact that distant galaxies are accelerating away from us when they should be decelerating.2
“The evidence is accumulating that redshift is a shaky measuring rod.”3
A second serious flaw is the redshift light offered as proof. Redshifted light from galaxies has some inconsistencies in features with the Doppler effect. Redshifts from objects moving away from earth would be expected to have continuous values, but instead tend to cluster at specific, evenly spaced values.4 There is a lot left to learn about redshifts and cannot be relied upon to base the big bang theory on.
Next, the cosmic microwave background (CMB) radiation predicted by big bang cosmologists’ have been ‘adjusted’ after-the-fact to agree with observed temperatures.5 The expected temperature wasn’t the 30 degrees Kelvin as initially predicted by rather 3 degrees calculated 20 years earlier.6 The after-the-fact adjustment, without scientific reasoning, shows the weakness of this theory.
Similarly, the ratio of helium to hydrogen in a big bang has been merely adjusted to accommodate current date.7
Other blows to the theory of the big bang are the bunching of distant galaxies8, galaxy rotation9, and the lack of equal parts matter and antimatter. “…To avoid violating the most fundamental laws of physics ─ matter and antimatter should have been created [in a big bang] in exactly equal amounts. And then they should have promptly wiped each other out.”10
Assuming the big bang was proven, it presents problems for evolutionists who need nearly unlimited time to support their theory of incremental change. A set time of any kind is unwelcome news. Even if the big bang proved true, it doesn’t eliminate God’s divine hand in the creation of Earth and the universe, it lends proof of it. Prior to this moment there would have been no laws of science and no planets, particularly planets that were set into perfect positions and orbits.
“Despite the widespread acceptance of the big bang theory as a working model for interpreting new findings, not a single important prediction of the theory has yet been confirmed, and substantial evidence has accumulated against it.”11
A famous paper by physicist Stephen Hawking and mathematician Roger Penrose in 1970 proved that with the given general relativity and the amount of matter in the universe, it must have had a beginning.12 This moment of creation is termed “singularity” by scientists, an original point at which neither space nor time nor scientific laws are in effect.13 Scientifically, there is nothing that can be explained beyond this point. Some source, outside of all laws of science, led to the fine-tuning of the earth to support life, create life, and the laws of nature that would guide everything (gravity, tides, temperatures, etc.). As Dinesh D’Souza wrote, “If the universe was produced outside the laws of physics, then its origin satisfies the basic definition of the term miracle.”14
The origin of laws of nature lack a scientific explanation as they suddenly popped into place. Why is there a mathematical formula to explain so many aspects of physics? If the earth and its ensuing life were random, how did the orderly, mathematical laws of nature originate?
The creation of planet earth still required fine tuning to allow life. This fine tuning is nothing short of a mathematical impossibility that science will never overcome. That fine-tuning will be addressed in a later segment.
References:
1Peter Coles, “The End of the Old Model Universe,” Nature, Vol. 393, 25 June 1998, p. 741.
2Walt Brown, “In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood,” 8th edition, © 2008 by Walt Brown, p. 30.
3Margaret Burbridge (former director of the Royal Greenwich Observatory and past president of the American Association for the Advancement of Science) as quoted by Govert Schilling, “Radical Theory Takes a Test,” Science, Vol. 291, 26 January 2001, p. 579.
4William G. Tifft, “Properties of the Redshift,” The Astro-physical Journal, Vol. 382, 1 December 1991, pp. 396-415.
5William C. Mitchell, Big Bang Theory Under Fire,” Physics Essays, Vol. 10, No. 2, June 1997, pp. 370-379.
6Tom Van Flandern, “Did the Universe Have Beginning? Meta Research Bulletin, Vol. 3, No. 3, 15 September 1994, p. 33.
7Mitchell, Ibid., p.7.
8Ron Cowen, “Light from the Early Universe,” Science News, Vol. 153, 7 February 1998, p. 2.
9William R. Corliss, Stars, Galaxies, Cosmos: A Catalog of Astronomical Anomalies (Glen Arm, Maryland: The Sourcebook Project, 1987), p. 177.
10Tim Folger, Antimatter,” Discover, August 2004, p. 68.
11Flander, Ibid, p. 25.
12S.W. Hawkings, R. Penrose, The Singularities of Gravitational Collapse and Cosmology, Vol. 314, Issue 1519, 1/27/70.
13Ibid.
14Dinesh D’Souza, What’s So Great About Christianity, (Carol Stream, IL: Tyndale House Publishers, Inc., 2007), 122.
How does the bible weigh in? The very first reference to the expanding universe comes from the bible in Isaiah 42:5, “This is what God the LORD says ─ he who created the heavens and stretched them out, who spreads out the earth and all that comes out of it…” The Hebrew verb translated “created” in Isaiah 42:5 is ‘bara’ which has as its primary definition “bringing into existence something new, something that did not exist before.”15 Although this verse is consistent with the big bang theory, scientists have overreached in assuming redshift lights have proven the formation of the universe via a big explosion of one massive rock. This verse doesn’t say the universe is endlessly expanding just that it was stretched out.
Only the Bible cites “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth,” that the universe had an absolute beginning. Genesis, 1:1. A lingering question is whether earth was just a rock until God transformed it into ‘earth’ as cited in the bible. If the planet itself originated from the big bang, then new-earth creationists would argue for the later.