Creation & Evolution Compatible or in Conflict
Science and the Big Bang Theory
Jay Seegert – Creation Education Center — http://www.cecwisc.org/
Contrary to what most people assume, the big bang theory is not a well-supported scientific theory, although most scientists operate on the assumption that it is.
Almost every area of science we have today was founded by a Bible believing Christian. Science owes its origins to Christianity.
Science is quite incapable of proving that God does or does not exist. Since scientists cannot directly prove or disprove the existence of God, all they can really do is try to argue against the existence of a “god” as they define Him.
Science is all about interpretation. All scientist, whether they are evolutionists or creationists, have the exact same facts. The main difference is how they look at (or interpret) the facts or evidence, which is strongly influenced by their worldview. Often the same facts are claimed as evidence by each side.
Most scientists believe our universe is expanding and that there was a starting point (a singularity). A legitimate scientific reason to believe that the universe had a beginning is an appalling thought to many scientists who realize it would be difficult to speak of a “beginning without a beginner” (or more scientifically, an effect without a cause).
Since “singularity” is outside the reach of true science and most scientists don’t want to invoke God as part of the equation (the cause), the issue of how we get something from nothing is largely ignored within the scientific literature.
A singularity is what we call a “thermodynamic dead end.” It’s not going anywhere. It cannot get itself out of this state. It’s stuck. Something else has to occur to get it off of dead center, so to speak. This “something else” is what they call the “big bang.”
The big bang isn’t theory that deals with how we got “something from nothing”, but how we got “something from something.” The big bang doesn’t even come into the picture until after we already “have something” — the “singularity” – the initial starting point.
In reality, the big bang merely attempts to explain how this singularity could have morphed into the universe that we are a part of today.
Contrary to what most people assume, the big bang theory is not a well-supported scientific theory, although most scientists operate on the assumption that it is. We need to keep in mind that most scientists do not have backgrounds in astronomy and physics and have never really done any studying in cosmology.
At least 218 scientists and engineers, 187 independent researchers and 105 others in 2008 signed an open letter to the scientific community. (Keep in mind that these signers were just the ones who were willing to go public with their dissension.) A partial follows.
The big bang theory 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. 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. But the big bang theory can’t survive without these fudge factors.
In cosmology today doubts and dissent are not tolerated, and young scientists learn to remain silent if they have something negative to say bout the standard big bang model.
Today, virtually all financial and experimental resources in cosmology are devoted to big bang studies. Funding comes from only a few sources, and all the peer-review committees that control them are dominated by supporters of the big bang. As a result, the dominance of the big bang within the field has become self-sustaining, irrespective of the scientific validity of the theory.
The late Geoffrey Burbridge (former professor of physics at the University of California, San Diego) writing in Scientific America stated: Big bang cosmology rests on many untested, and in some cases untestable assumptions. There are good reasons to think the big bang model is seriously thawed.
Our universe, according to the big bang theory, started off with only matter – no matter. The initial energy was later converted into matter. Whenever we see energy converted into matter today, it always produces precisely equal amounts of matter and something we call antimatter.
This being the case, when we scan the heavens, we should generally see equal amounts of matter and antimatter. The truth, however, is that our universe appears to consist almost entirely of matter, with only trace amounts of antimatter to have ever been discovered. This is strong evidence that the big bang, as purported by most scientists today, did not occur.
In the big bang view of secular scientists, initial stars contained no “heavy” elements (heavier than hydrogen and helium). The subsequent stars (second and third generation stars) would all contain traces of the heavier elements expelled by earlier supernova explosions. Some of these initial stars should still be around according to scientists’ calculations. However, in the billions of stars that we have observed, we have yet to find even one without any trace of heavier elements.
Professor Richard Lewontin (geneticist and one of the world’s leading evolutionists): We take the side of science …. for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.
In other words, expel God at all costs. The big bang was ultimately an attempt by scientists to explain the existence of the universe apart from God (using completely naturalistic explanations).