A Biblical and Scientific Analysis of the Big Bang

February, 2007
Matt Promise BS

The Big Bang is defined today as, everything we see in the Universe today having evolved out of a random 1 explosion of matter 2 that took place between 10 and 20 billion years ago. But the author of this paper believes the Big Bang is not a theory. Why? Because a theory is defined as, a scientific hypothesis that survives experimental testing. Then, is the Big Bang a hypothesis? No. A hypothesis is defined as, a testable statement about the natural world. Then what is the Big Bang? It is merely an idea, defined as, a personal view or estimate.

COBE Image

NASA’s view of the Universe through liquid helium COBE’s eyes. Colors indicate warmer (red) and cooler (blue) spots. The image is a combination of diffuse infrared, far-infrared and microwave frequencies.

History of the Big Bang

Let’s look at the history of the Big Bang. Between 1927 and 1933, the idea of the universe beginning with an explosion was first proposed, from Einstein’s equations, though Einstein [at that time] and others believed in a steady state model of the universe. The idea would be called the Big Bang, a sarcastic term, in 1944.

According to Stuart Burgess, “Some Christians believe that God used a Big Bang to create the Universe. …A common objection put forward by Christians who support the Big Bang idea is ‘why has God made seeming evidence for the Big Bang?’ However, there is a very straightforward answer to this objection: there is no real evidence for the Big Bang idea. Even secular scientists can see the weaknesses in the Big Bang idea. The only reason that there is seeming evidence for the Big Bang is that secular scientists have deliberately made an atheistic theory of origins that appears to be compatible with the observed features of the Universe. But considering the ingenuity of man, it is not surprising that man has invented an elaborate big bang cosmology that superficially fits the evidence.”3

Why is the Big Bang So Important?

The Big Bang, evolution, etc. are the latest in a string of gradual and subtle attacks upon the foundation of the Bible and Christianity: the book of Genesis. The Big Bang and Scripture cannot both be equally true, and therefore uniting them together is impossible.

There are at last four dangers according to Burgess to embracing the Big Bang idea. First, “Naturalistic (as opposed to super-naturalistic) explanations of miracles inevitably involve speculations beyond what is revealed in Scripture. …[And] they [can] give the impression that God is constrained by natural laws.” 4 Second, “Naturalistic explanations may contain false theories. …Since modern theoretical physics is dominated by atheistic thinking, there is a real possibility that some of these theories are false theories.” 5 Third, “Naturalistic explanations tend to be very complicated...and abstract ...compared with the Biblical simplicity that the average man can understand” (contrary to Achan’s Razor). 6 Burgess continues, “The Big Bang idea is so complicated that there is little agreement about the validity of the idea even among creationist experts in mathematics.7…So how can the average person judge for himself if the Big Bang makes sense? 8 Fourthly, “[N]aturalistic explanations give respectability to atheistic ideas.” 9

Five Purported Evidences For the Big Bang

The first of at least five purported evidences for the Big Bang to be discussed in this article is the cosmic microwave background radiation, predicted in 1948 and accidentally discovered in 1964. The cosmic microwave background radiation is defined as microwave radiation coming from all directions in space at remarkably uniform intensity at a temperature of about 2.7°K (2.7°C above absolute zero, or 454°F below zero). It is supposedly an echo of a light flash of the Big Bang, stretched into microwaves, and cooled.

COBE (COsmic Background Explorer), a satellite launched in 1989, made observations of the cosmic background radiation. It found lumps, which seem to be clear proof of infant galactic material. But what is the significance of those lumps? If there were a Big Bang explosion at one time, any irregularities or lumps in the explosion would mean material is in clumps in some places, which would eventually turn into galaxies, stars, planets and people. On the other hand, a (nearly) perfectly smooth explosion would make galactic formation very hard to explain. COBE initially found very smooth radiation and then very small lumps. Did it find evidence of young galaxies?

Here are two problems with the small lumps found by COBE. First, the alleged bumps were well below the level of instrumental noise, and one COBE team member said, “You can’t point to any one point in the data and say, ‘ That’s signal and that’s noise.’ ” But the team was confident they had good statistical evidence for hot-and-old spots differing in temperature by about five parts out of a million. The team leader, George Smoot, admitted that he was “going out on a limb” until other experiments back him up. 

In 2001 NASA then launched the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) to continue where COBE left off. Although WMAP mapped the universe with greater precision than COBE, there are still problems with noise and other complications due to the universe supposedly being much smaller and opaque when the radiation now being observed was supposedly emitted in the young universe. Also, lumps are not a problem for a young universe, since they should exist due to irregular groupings of gas out there obscuring galactic light.

A second problem with COBE’s results is that the “bumps” are too small to explain the formation of galaxies, and especially of massive galactic structures, clusters, and super clusters of galaxies. In 1989 came the discovery of the “Great Wall” of galaxies, a sheet of Galaxies 500 million light-years long, 200 million light-years wide, and approximately 15 million light-years thick, with the dimensions of the structure being limited only by the scale of the survey. It is located between 200-300 million light-years from Earth.10

The universe has too much large-scale structure (giant “walls” and voids) to form from a Big Bang type explosion and to form if the background radiation is as smooth as it is. And no matter how large a scale we look at the universe, we continue to see nonhomogeneous structure, which is increasingly hard to explain as coming from a Big Bang explosion, smooth or otherwise.

Red Shifting of Galaxies

What is redshifting? Redshifting is when light emitted by an object (e.g., a galaxy) is shifted toward longer wavelengths (i.e., toward the red end of the visible light spectrum). 


The history of red shifting of galaxies goes back to 1929, when Edwin Hubble (the guy for whom the telescope was named) discovered the redshifting of galaxies and proposed (against Einstein and others) that the universe is expanding, but may not be, writing, “If the redshifts are a Doppler shift ... the observations as they stand lead to the anomaly of a closed universe, curiously small and dense, and, it may be added, suspiciously young. On the other hand, if redshifts are not Doppler effects, these anomalies disappear and the region observed appears as a small, homogeneous, but insignificant portion of a universe extended indefinitely both in space and time.11

There are two facts about redshifting of galaxies, as seen from earth’s vantage point: (1) the light of galaxies is redshifted, and (2) the greater the distance from Earth, the greater the redshifting.

Redshifting is seen by some as proof of galaxies moving away from us, but redshifting of galaxies can be caused by one of at least three things:

1. It can be caused by an object moving away from an observer, as the emitted light waves are apparently “stretched” due to the object’s movement in the opposite direction of its motion. The same principle is heard by an observer as a train recedes while blowing its horn; the sound waves are “stretched”, causing the sound to shift to a longer (lower) frequency, and hence the sound is lowered in pitch to the observer. But at least 780 objects in the universe have redshifts that cannot be explained by the Doppler theory. Also, over 1,000 scientific papers have been written by professionals against a Doppler explanation for the redshifting of galaxies.’ 12

2.  Redshifting can be caused by dust between a galaxy’s light and our eyes. And more dust means more redshifting. Assuming a somewhat uniform distribution of dust between galaxies, a greater distance means more dust and therefore more redshifting for objects that are a greater distance from us. This increase in redshifting as distance increases is observed and is therefore consistent with what would be expected if there were indeed a uniform distribution of dust between galaxies.

3.  A third possible cause of redshifting of galaxies is based on a reduction of the speed of light over time. This idea was proposed by the Russian astronomer V. S. Troitskii in 1987,13 who claims his model fits the available data as well as the current Big Bang cosmology.14 Dozens of light-speed measurements taken over the past 300 years and measured as carefully as possible with available technology of the various time periods yield pretty convincing evidence for an increasing reduction of the speed of light. Those measurements, even taking into consideration the various levels of imprecision, do not allow for a horizontal line to be plotted through the data points on a speed-versus-time graph. Then the second law of thermodynamics requires that the lost energy not disappear into thin air, but be transferred into a lower form of energy. This may explain both the redshifting of galaxies and the cosmic microwave background radiation, coming from all directions and always at the same wavelength, and normally used to “prove” the Big Bang.

Although this idea is rejected by Dr. D. Russell Humphreys15, a man I respect greatly, I believe the data speaks quite clearly for itself and is worthy of serious consideration. 

A third purported evidence for the Big Bang is Einstein’s Theory of Relativity, which supposedly proves the Big Bang to be true. But Einstein’s equations don’t work in extreme conditions as found in the Big Bang (essentially a superdense black hole, where the normal laws of physics break down). According to Burgess, “...mathematics is so flexible, and people are so ingenious, that there is always likely to be an answer to any technical criticism made against the Big Bang hypothesis” 16

A fourth purported evidence for the Big Bang is Dark Matter. There are basically four types of dark matter: (1) cold gas clouds, (2) invisible matter in the halo of a galaxy, keeping that galaxy from tearing itself apart from rotating several times over millions of years, (3) something that enables galaxies to stay together and distinct over billions of years, and (4) supposed otherwise missing matter from the universe that would keep the universe from expanding indefinitely.17 In light of the second option, secular astronomers had a problem with dwarf galaxies, which are small galaxies with a faster rotation than larger galaxies. The problem with dwarf galaxies is that their faster rotation does not fit the old universe model of the Big Bang. The dwarf galaxies’ rotation would have caused them to disperse in about 50-100 million years (<1% of the supposed lifetime of the universe). To solve the problem, evolution sought for an out. Anything that contradicts the starting point collapses the whole model. Updating the model is never an option. Therefore Dark Matter was invented.

Cold Dark Matter and Hot Dark Matter

“The composition of dark matter is unknown, but may include new elementary particles such as WIMPs (Weakly Interactive Massless Particles), axions, and ordinary and heavy neutrinos, as well as astronomical bodies such as dwarf stars, planets collectively called MACHOs (MAssive Compact Halo Objects), and clouds of nonluminous gas. Current evidence favors models in which the primary component of dark matter is new elementary particles, collectively called non-baryonic dark matter.” 18

However, the invention of dark matter created a new problem. If it prevented dwarf galaxies from dispersing, it would have the same effect on large galaxies. This would also contradict the evolution model. To solve this problem, the hypothesis was updated to include cold dark matter and hot dark matter. Cold dark matter slows down the dispersion of stars in dwarf galaxies without slowing down their rotation. Hot dark matter travels at or near the speed of light, thus allowing larger galaxies to stay within the evolution model. Keep in mind that there is no evidence for dark matter and its only purpose is to constrain the observable science so that it fits evolution.

Conveniently, the dark matter cannot be seen, and the theory cannot be proved or disproved. Whatever dark matter is made of is difficult to detect. Although many experiments have been undertaken to detect neutrino masses and WIMPs, no conclusive evidence has yet been found and the search for what the constituents are in dark matter goes on. It is interesting how this explanation implies that it is a fact while admitting that it has never been observed. If dark matter makes up 90% of the galaxy, shouldn’t [Voyagers 1 or 2 or] Pioneer[s] 10 [or 11] have encountered it in their multi-billion mile [journeys] beyond the [confines of our] solar system? After all, one of the functions of Pioneer and Voyager was to measure the magnetic fields, radiation belts, atmosphere and other data from the planets in our outer solar system. Pioneer [and Voyager] have not encountered dark matter. Dark matter also has not slowed down the flight of [any of those four] probes. Also, no dark matter has hindered any transmissions back to earth. An 8-watt transmitter is compared to the power of a nightlight. Pioneer [and Voyager] do not give off much energy. Unlike a star, it does not take much interference to block the signal of an 8 [or 20]-watt radio’.

Is it possible that dark matter may not exist? Why does dark matter exist only where it fits evolution’s interest but does not interfere in any other way? Could this be blind faith and not invisible matter? 

The current supposed evidences for dark matter are the Bullet Galaxy and the Einstein Cross. ‘The Bullet Cluster emits X-rays, which fits naturally with [astronomer Halton] Arp's observations of similar galaxy clusters. It is not necessary, or even likely, that a collision is required to explain the X-rays or the bullet shape of the emission. The shape is typical of the “bow shock” of many jets, as is the “trailing” pink clump, somewhat arc-shaped. The jet is evidence of “eject[ing] material in opposite directions,” and the clumps of galaxies at each end are evidence of “it eventually age[ing] into … clusters….” Even the “hot gas” is not required: The x-rays are synchrotron (non-thermal) radiation, produced by fast electrons spiraling in the strong magnetic field of the jet. Instead of colliding, the cluster is forming, exhibiting expected features of such clusters: x-ray jets, arcs, and filaments; a profusion of irregular and disturbed small galaxies; discrepant redshifts. The Bullet Cluster is therefore much closer than astronomers calculate from the erroneous redshift/distance equation. That means the X-ray energy emitted is far less than calculated and it is not unusual. The cluster is not "the most energetic event known in the universe" but a minor ejection event in nearby galactic space.’ 19 And the Einstein Cross, upon careful observation, does not mathematically fit the requirements for a gravitational lensing of one hidden quasar behind a ‘galaxy plus dark matter’ into four separate images of the same quasar, but rather it strongly suggests, if not demands, that the four quasar images are actually four distinct quasars.20

A fifth purported evidence for the Big Bang is that radioactive dating seems to prove the universe to be billions of years old. Radioactive elements such as uranium turn into lead, which in turn changes into potassium, and finally into argon. This dating method is used by evolutionists to go back into the distant past. Parent elements decay into daughter elements overtime. But three assumptions have to be made in order for radioactive dating to work properly: 21

1.   There must be no parent atoms present in the rock in the beginning, which is impossible to determine centuries later.

2.   No daughter atoms must be added to or removed from the rock over the entire lifetime of the rock. But contamination is easy through heating, deforming of rocks, and percolation of water carrying daughter product atoms to or from the rock.

3.   The rate of radioactive decay must be constant throughout the lifetime of the rock, but recent evidence suggests that neutrino, neutron, cosmic radiation and/or reduction in the speed of light may alter that rate.

Dramatically different results have come from identical data samples on more than one occasion, resulting in much confusion over the reliability and over-reliance upon radioactive dating methods to determine the age of rocks that are supposedly more than mere thousands of years old. Isochron dating, proposed by RATE (RAdioisotopes and the Age of The Earth), a team of godly scientists, strongly suggests that supposed ancient rock samples are actually quite young, according to their findings.22

Six Problems With the Big Bang Idea

There are at least six problems with the Big Bang idea. First, it, ‘...cannot explain where the first matter came from. In fact, there can never be a satisfactory scientific explanation to this problem because science is based on the fact that something cannot be created from nothing in a natural process.’ 23 But a Big Bang requires ludicrous and illogical ideas to be accepted, such as matter coming out of nothing ‘In an article intriguingly titled, “Everything for Nothing”, a theoretical physicist at the Institute for Advanced Studies in Austin, Texas, notes that in 1990, Alexander Vilenkin of Tufts University “proposed that the universe is created by quantum tunneling from literally nothing into the something we call the universe.” 24 The Universe creating itself (existing before it exists) violates the logical Law of Non-Contradiction. According to information theory, information cannot spontaneously arise by random processes. …Information does not come about by accident’ 25

A second problem with the Big Bang is that since it is a natural (or anti-supernatural) idea, it can never correctly explain the formation of the universe.

Thirdly, neither can, ‘…it…explain why the Universe started at a particular time.’ 26

Fourth, stars appear to be aging much faster than current stellar theories allow. When a star has exploded as a supernova, the huge expanding cloud of debris is called a SuperNova Remnant (SNR). A well-known example is the Crab Nebula, produced by a supernova so bright that it could be seen during daytime for a few weeks in 1054. By applying physical laws (and using powerful computers), astronomers can predict what should happen to this cloud. According to their model, the SNR should reach a diameter of about 300 light years after 120,000 years. So if our galaxy was billions of years old, we should be able to observe many SNRs this size (300 light years). But if our galaxy is 6,000 to 10,000 years old, no SNRs would have had time to grow to the 300 light year size expected in a universe that is billions of years old. So the number of observed SNRs of a particular size is an excellent test of whether the galaxy is old or young. The results are consistent with a universe thousands of years old, and don’t fit with an old universe (Table 1).

Table 1 

Supernova

Remnant Stage

Number of observable SNRs
predicted if our galaxy were:

Number of SNRs

actually observed

billions of years old
7,000 years old
First 2 2 5
Second 2,260 125 200
Third 5,000 0 0

 
A young universe model fits the data of the low number of observed SNRs. If the universe was really billions of years old, there are 7,000 missing SNRs in our galaxy. 

A fifth problem with the Big Bang is that there are numerous crucial requirements that have been met within a fraction of a percent for life to exist 27: Some of those requirements are: the strong nuclear force constant, electromagnetic force constant, ratio of electron to proton mass, decay rate of protons, 12C to 16Q nuclear energy level ratio, ground state energy level for 4He, polarity of the water molecule, supernovae eruptions (as stated earlier), mass of the neutrino, size of the relativistic dilation factor, uncertainty magnitude in the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, Earth’s ideal position from the sun, Earth’s safe position from extreme radiation sources, extreme similarity in God’s creation, extreme diversity in God’s creation, admissions by some members of secular science.

Finally, the Big Bang requires things to be getting more and more complex, from essentially nothing, while scientific observation and Scripture show that things started complex and perfect, and have been deteriorating, rusting, corroding, and dying since then because of sin. 


1 Burgess, S (2001) He Made the Stars Also, Day One Publications, Epsom, Surrey, 36-37

2 Ibid., 35

3 Ibid., 45

4 Ibid, 47

5 Ibid.

6 Or ‘Ockham’s razor’, ‘Occam’s razor’, ‘the Principle of Parsimony’, ‘the Principle of Simplicity’, or ‘the Principle of Economy’. Defined as, ‘the simplest of two or more competing theories is preferable, and that an explanation for unknown phenomena should first be attempted in terms of what is already known. <http://forums.livingwithstyle.com/archivelindcx.pbp/t442108.html>, accessed 2004. 

7 Burgess, 47. Stuart Burgess cites ByI, J (2001) God and Cosmos, Banner of Truth, Carlisle, PA, 193

8 Ibid., 48

9 Ibid. 

10 Author unknown, <http://www.newtonphysics.com.ca/BIGBANG/Bjgbang.html>, accessed 2004. Author cites Geller MJ, Huchra JP (1989) Mapping the Universe, Science 246: 897-903

11 < http://www.holoscience.com/news.php?article=stb9s0ye >, accessed February 2007, cites Royal Astronomical Society Monthly Notices, 17, 506, 1937). Emphasis is mine.

12 Author unknown, <http:/www.newtonphysics.on.ca/BIGBANG/Bigbang.html>, accessed 2004, astronomer Halton Arp’s 1987 book Quasars, Redshifts and Controversies provides an extensive review of nonvelocity redshifts, as does a lengthy 1989 review article by the Indian astrophysicist Narlikar, JV. A catalogue of 780 references to redshift observations inexplicable by the Doppler effect was published in 1981 by Reboul, KJ under the title, Untrivial Redshifts: A Bibliographical Catalogue. Many other papers indicate that non-velocity redshifts have been observed.

13 Byl, J (2001) God and Cosmos: A Christian View of Time, Space, and the Universe, The Banner of Truth Trust, Edinburgh UK,52, cites Troitskii, VS (1987) Physical Constants and Evolution of the Universe, Astrophys Space Sci 139:389-411

14 < http://www.ldolphin.org/cdkgal.html>, accessed 2004, cites Troitskii, VS, (1987) Physical Constants and Evolution of the Universe, Astrophys Space Sci 139:389-411

15 Humphreys, R (2004) Starlight and Time, Master Books, Green Forest, AR, 46-49

16 Burgess, 41

17 Williams, A, Hartnett, J, (2005) Dismantling the Big Bang, Master Books, Green Forest, AR, 136-137

18 < http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_matter >, accessed February 2007.

19 < http://www.holoscience.com/news.php?article=stb9s0ye >, accessed February 2007.

20 Ibid.

21 Huse, S. (1993) The Collapse of Evolution, Baker Books, Grand Rapids, MI, 34-36

22 DeYoung, D (2005) Thousands… Not Billions, Master Books, Green Forest, AR, 35-39.

23 Burgess, 40

24 Morris, H (1994) Back To Genesis: The Big Bust, Institute For Creation Research, El Cajon, CA, page b. Morris cites Puthoff, H, (1990) Everything for Nothing, New Scientist, 127:55

25 <http://www.rationalist.org.uk/newhumanist/issue02summer/creationism.shtml>. Accessed 2004. McIntosh, A., Professor of Thermodynamics and Combustion Theory, University of Leeds and Burgess, S., is Reader in Engineering Design, University of Bristol..

26 Burgess, 40

27 Burgess, 42