[Originally published as Facts?]
The following was published in the May 22, 2004 issue of New Scientist:
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. 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. But the big bang theory can’t survive without these fudge factors.
The idea of the big bang is already based upon never witnessed entities. As more struggles with the theory are raised, the response is to simply establish more hypothetical ideas. In other words, the big bang is not a fact. It isn’t even a good theory, as expressed by its own proponents.
In spite of this, many believe that science has proven the big bang ontological argument. One belief determines subsequent beliefs. In other words, beliefs have consequences and lead us down certain paths with certain destinations. Proverbs states it this way: “There is a way that seems right to a man, but its end is the way to death.” (Proverbs 14:12)
I experienced this just yesterday at the South rim of Grand Canyon. I was leading a tour with a wonderful couple from Tennessee. As we stood at Grand View overlook, we were discussing the layers of marine sediments exposed before us. The geology of Grand Canyon indicates rapid deposition.
I was proposing the flood of Genesis 6–9 as the event that provided for their rapid deposition. A gentleman was standing next to me and was listening to the conversation. He politely refuted my claim by stating that it was “proven” that these rocks predated mankind by a billion years. Therefore, they could not be associated with Noah’s flood.
I expressed to him that was only true if he understood and trusted the methods of dating rocks that we have available to us today and the host of assumptions that are related to those methods. I asked him if he believed we had irrefutable methods of providing ages to the rocks before us. He became a bit more uncertain. I then asked him that if there was no irrefutable evidence to prove these rocks predated man, would it be possible that they were deposited during the flood of the Bible? He acknowledged the possibility, but our conversation continued for a while longer.
This illustrates the point above.
This man began our conversation believing that it was a fact that these rocks predated mankind. That belief required him to reject the Bible as providing a true, historical account of an event in our past that provides an explanation for the appearance of our world today.
There is a way that seems right to a man, but its end is the way to death. Let’s be discerning as to what we accept as fact. Let’s be humble with what we present as fact. 2 Corinthians 5:7 says, “For we walk by faith, not by sight.”