Steve Schramm
[Originally published as the second section of TCQ Week 5: Astronomy and the Bible]
What About the Big Bang?
In the past three decades, the landscape of Christian beliefs about science has changed dramatically. Before the 1990s, it would be difficult to find many Christians who believed in an old earth or universe, and virtually impossible to find those who believed in Darwinian evolution.
While many have come to accept evolution, the opposition remains strong. However, the opposition against believing in an old earth or universe is not as strong. The primary reason for this shift is the supposed overwhelming evidence for the Big Bang.
What is (and Isn’t) the Big Bang?
Contrary to popular belief, the Big Bang is not an explosion of any kind. Here’s an attempt at a simple explanation:
The Big Bang theory suggests that the universe started as an extremely hot and dense point about 13.8 billion years ago. This point then expanded rapidly and continues to expand today. As it expanded, the universe cooled down, allowing particles to form atoms. These atoms eventually came together to form stars and galaxies. The theory is supported by several key observations, including the cosmic microwave background radiation, the abundance of light elements, and the redshift of galaxies, which shows that the universe is still expanding.
Before this theory was suggested, most scientists believed in an eternal universe model. The BBT was initially rejected because it sounded too much like Genesis 1:1! In fact, even the name Big Bang — which caught on — was originally used by Sir Fred Hoyle to make fun of the theory during a BBC radio broadcast.
Here’s a closer look at the reasons why almost every scientist agrees with this model today:
Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation:
After the Big Bang, the universe was incredibly hot and filled with energy. As it expanded, it cooled down. About 380,000 years after the Big Bang, the universe had cooled enough for protons and electrons to combine and form neutral hydrogen atoms.
This process released a huge amount of light, which has been traveling through the universe ever since. Today, this light is very faint and spread out, but it can still be detected as microwave radiation.
Scientists use special instruments to measure this radiation, called the cosmic microwave background (CMB). The CMB supposedly gives us a picture of what the universe looked like when it was very young, and it matches the predictions made by the Big Bang theory.
Abundance of Light Elements:
In the first few minutes after the Big Bang, the universe was extremely hot and dense. During this time, nuclear reactions occurred, similar to those that happen in the core of stars today. These reactions produced the simplest and lightest elements: hydrogen, helium, and small amounts of lithium.
As the universe expanded, it cooled down, and these nuclear reactions slowed and eventually stopped. The result was that the universe was left with a lot of hydrogen and helium, which are still the most common elements we see in the universe today.
Scientists have measured the amounts of these light elements in the oldest stars and in interstellar gas clouds. They find that the proportions of hydrogen, helium, and lithium generally match the “predictions” made by the Big Bang theory. It suggests that the early universe went through a hot, dense phase that created these elements.
Redshift of Galaxies
When we observe distant galaxies, we notice that their light is stretched out, making it appear more red. This effect is called redshift, and it occurs because the galaxies are moving away from us as the universe expands.
The greater the distance to a galaxy, the faster it seems to be moving away. This relationship is known as Hubble’s Law. The redshift of galaxies supports the idea that the universe is expanding from an initial point, as described by the Big Bang theory.
By measuring the redshift of many galaxies, scientists have determined that the universe has been expanding for about 13.8 billion years. This expanding universe fits the Big Bang model, where everything started from a single, incredibly hot and dense point.
Problems and Alternatives
Throughout this class, I have told you we’ll be taking a positive approach to the question of whether science can prove the Bible wrong, rather than a negative one. It’s time to put my money where my mouth is and explain why.
As Christians, we tend to get frustrated when we see the world sinning. But pastors and teachers are quick to remind us that we should expect the world to sin — they’re sinners! When mainstream scientists come up with ideas like the Big Bang, they are simply doing what is natural. They follow unbiblical thinking to its logical conclusion and end up with results that — surprise! — don’t align with the Bible.
So when a scientist comes to believe in the Big Bang or evolution, for example, it’s not without evidence. There is evidence! The big question is whether their explanation is the correct explanation of the evidence.
Is it possible to understand the evidence for the Big Bang another way? Yes.
Here are two general problems with their use of this evidence for the Big Bang:
Assumptions
Remember uniformitarianism? This is the idea that the processes we observe in the universe today have always been operating in the same way throughout the past.
While it originated in the earth sciences, Big Bang proponents use this principle to support their conclusions by assuming that the same physical laws and processes, such as gravity and the speed of light, have always been constant. They look at the current expansion of the universe, as evidenced by the redshift of galaxies, and extrapolate backwards in time to a point where all matter and energy were concentrated in a single, incredibly dense and hot point.
By applying the principle of uniformitarianism, they conclude that the universe has been expanding over the past 13.8 billion years, leading to the Big Bang theory as the best explanation for the origin and development of the universe.
Remember — for them, everything must happen in a naturalistic way, absent of supernatural creation. If this assumption is wrong, their conclusion is not reliable.
Explanations vs. Predictions
A scientific theory is judged by how well it explains existing data and predicts new data. If a theory explains most of what we know, it has good explanatory power. If it doesn’t, it should be modified or replaced. When predictions made by a theory match experimental results, the theory is confirmed. If they don’t match, the theory is disproved and needs to be adjusted or discarded.
In other words, a great theory can explain and predict.
The only clear prediction of the Big Bang model is the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation. The other two pieces of evidence, the expansion of the universe and abundance of light elements, are explanations — not predictions.
The expansion of the universe was an observation that needed to be explained. The Big Bang was developed to help explain this. Similarly, with the light elements, knowledge of their abundance was input into the model. Dr. Danny Faulkner writes:
“The big-bang cosmology does predict the abundances of the light elements, but most people fail to realize that information concerning elemental abundances was input in creating the model. Knowledge of the light element abundances was required in constraining which subset of possible models was viable. In fact, small changes in our understanding of these abundances have allowed cosmologists to fine-tune their models. It would be most strange if a model did not “predict” the parameters that were input for the theory.”
I have a simple point here: For an unbeliever, the Big Bang model is the only game in town. It’s the only thing that even comes close to a reasonable explanation for the origin of the universe. And with that, it has all these challenges:
- It doesn’t make sense that something could come from nothing
- It requires uniformitarian assumptions
- It has only three main “evidences” to stand on
- It has only ONE successful prediction (which has alternative explanations)
- It is constantly being revised and updated to match and explain observations
But the problems run even deeper. For example, its only prediction, the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation, can be explained by other models. Depending on your view of the firmament in Genesis 1, you could even make a case that the Bible predicted the CMBR long before the Big Bang theory did.
Further, the Big Bang has “The Horizon Problem” to deal with. The horizon problem arises because the Big Bang theory predicts that different regions of the universe shouldn’t have had time to interact and reach the same temperature. When we look at the cosmic microwave background radiation, we see that it is almost uniform in temperature across the entire sky. Given the vast distances between these regions, they should have been outside each other’s “horizon” and unable to share information or heat.
The theory of cosmic inflation offers a solution. Inflation proposes that, very early in the universe’s history, there was a brief period of extremely rapid expansion. During this time, all parts of the universe were close enough to interact and reach a uniform temperature. After this inflationary period, the universe continued to expand at a slower rate, but the uniformity was already established.
However, the inflation theory is a “rescuing device” invented by Big Bang proponents to solve a problem. But there’s no mechanism for such an inflation theory inherent in the Big Bang model. There is room for such a thing, however, in the creationist view, if God wanted to create a vast universe within a short period of time.
As that quickly moves us into the question of how we can see light from distant stars, we’ll go into more detail in our next main section.
Is the Big Bang Biblical?
Regardless of science, the Bible is our final authority. Since it matters for history and speaks about the origin of the universe, we must consider what the Bible allows for. This is crucial because many Christians now believe in the Big Bang, not just secularists.
Last week, we discussed how the Bible seems to teach a young age for the earth and universe. Since the Big Bang assumes an old age for the universe, it’s clear the Bible does not support it. The mistake many well-meaning Christians make is to equate “general revelation” with “modern science,” as we talked about in Lesson 2. They assume the Big Bang can be easily compared to Genesis 1:1 (“In the beginning, God”).
But that’s where the comparison ends. The unfolding of life in the biblical account is very different from the Big Bang storyline. In the Bible, the earth is created before the sun, plants before animals, and all land animals together. The Big Bang model has the sun before the earth, plant life after animal life, and animal life emerging over billions of years.
This isn’t just a difference between two models; it’s a difference between two worldviews. Unfortunately, some have confused these worldviews and mixed them together, which I believe is a serious mistake.
