about the big bang?
Even the idea that the universe is expanding
is under attack by some astronomers.
In his book, A brief history of Time,
the well-known British physicist, Stephen W. Hawking, identifies the
ultimate question behind everything. ‘Today we still yearn to know
why we are here and where we came from.’1
In the last chapter of his book he says:
‘We find ourselves in a bewildering world.
We want to make sense of what we see around us and to ask: What is
the nature of the universe? What is our place in it and where did
it and we come from? Why is it the way it is?’2
Hawking concedes that the important question
of why the universe exists cannot be answered by means of equations
‘Even if there is only one possible unified
theory, it is just a set of rules and equations. What is it that
breathes fire into the equations and makes a universe for them to
Nevertheless, he concludes his book by
limiting himself to the equations, instead of looking for their
‘However, if we do discover a complete
theory, it should in time be understandable … by everyone, not
just a few scientists. Then we shall all … be able to take part in
the discussion of the question of why it is that we and the
universe exist. If we find the answer to that, it would be the
ultimate triumph of human reason—for then we would know the mind
Like so many other astronomers and physicists,
Hawking tries to explain the universe without acknowledging its
Creator. But Isaac Newton (1642–1727), possibly the greatest
physicist of all time, and a predecessor of Hawking in the same
chair at Cambridge University, firmly believed that the solar system
was created by God.
The idea that the solar system emerged from a
swirl of matter began with Immanuel Kant (1724–1804). Many
present-day cosmologists describe the cosmos in terms of
evolutionary development and most of them accept the so-called big
According to this theory, the universe began
about 10 to 20 thousand million [10–20 billion—Ed.] years ago as an
inconceivably small volume of space (or a single point of vast
energy) which has been expanding ever since. The most important
observation supporting the concept of an expanding universe is the
‘red shift’ of light from distant stars.
This inferred expansion cannot be observed
directly, but light coming from distant galaxies seems to have
longer wavelengths (i.e. gets ‘redder’) as the distance increases.
This is attributed to either the Doppler effect (that the
wavelengths of light are ‘stretched out’ when galaxies move away
from one another) or the relativistic stretching of the space
between the stars as the universe expands. The big bang theory
suggests that the cosmos was originally compressed into a hot and
dense ‘cosmic egg,’ and as the universe aged, it expanded.
Space does not permit a full discussion of the
evidence for and against the big bang. However, many discoveries
made in recent years with improved instruments and improved
observational methods have repeatedly shaken this theory.5
Interpretations of the available facts in terms of currently held
cosmological models very quickly lead to unresolvable
inconsistencies. There is an increasing number of astronomers who
raise substantial arguments against the theory.
If the universe came from a big bang, then
matter should be evenly distributed. However, the universe contains
an extremely uneven distribution of mass. This means that matter is
concentrated into zones and planes around relatively empty regions.
Two astronomers, Geller and Huchra, embarked on a measuring program
expecting to find evidence to support the big bang model. By
compiling large star maps, they hoped to demonstrate that matter is
uniformly distributed throughout the cosmos (when a large enough
scale is considered).
The more progress they made with their
cartographic overview of space, the clearer it became that distant
galaxies are clustered like cosmic continents beyond nearly empty
reaches of space. The big bang model was strongly shaken by this
It should be added that the visible galaxies
do not contain enough mass to explain the existence and distribution
of these structures. But the big bang model was not discarded.
Instead, the existence of a mysterious, unknown, and unseen form of
matter (‘dark matter’) was postulated. Without any direct evidence
for its existence, this ‘dark matter’ is supposed to be 10 times the
amount of visibly observed mass.
A critic of the big bang theory, Ernst Peter
Fischer, a physicist and biologist of Constance, Germany, reflects
on its popularity. He refers to the:
‘… warning given by [physicist and
philosopher] Carl Friedrich von Weizsäcker … namely that a society
which accepts the idea that the origin of the cosmos could be
explained in terms of an explosion, reveals more about the society
itself than about the universe. Nevertheless, the many
observations made during the past 25 years or so which contradict
the standard model, are simply ignored. When fact and theory
contradict each other, one of them has to yield.’6
Another critic of the big bang theory, Halton
C. Arp, was attached to the world-famous Mount Wilson Observatory
near Pasadena, USA, and to the Las Campanas Observatories in
California. He explains the reasons for rejecting the big bang model
in a notable article, ‘Der kontinuierlicher Kosmos’ (The continuous
‘Since antiquity, ideas of the universe have
varied widely, depending on assumptions about factual
observations. The current idea of a big bang has been the standard
model for about 60 years. But, in the mean time, the number of
observations that negate the assumption that the red shift of the
light of distant galaxies can be explained by recessive motions,
In other words, even the idea that the
universe is expanding is under attack by some astronomers.
Arp continues his criticism of the big bang
theory and calls for it to be rejected by the scientific community.
‘In my opinion the observations speak a
different language; they call for a different view of the
universe. I believe that the big bang theory should be replaced,
because it is no longer a valid theory.’8
Professor Hans Jörg Fahr of the Institute for
Astrophysics at Bonn University, Germany, writes of the demise of
the big bang theory in his book, Der Urknall kommt zu Fall (The
Demise of the Big Bang).
‘The universe originated about 20 thousand
million years ago in a cosmic explosion (the big bang), it has
been expanding ever since, and it will continue to do so until the
end of time … This sounds convincing, and it is accepted by all
present-day mainstream “natural philosophers.” But it should be
obvious that a doctrine which is acclaimed noisily, is not
necessarily close to the truth. In the field of cosmology the
widely supported big bang theory is not more convincing than other
alternatives. In fact, there are surprisingly many alternatives.’9
Dr James Trefil, professor of physics at Mason
University, Virginia, accepts the big bang model, but he concedes
that a state of emergency exists regarding fundamental aspects of
explaining why the universe exists.
‘There shouldn’t be galaxies out there at
all, and even if there are galaxies, they shouldn’t be grouped
together the way they are.’ He later continues: ‘The problem of
explaining the existence of galaxies has proved to be one of the
thorniest in cosmology. By all rights, they just shouldn’t be
there, yet there they sit. It’s hard to convey the depth of the
frustration that this simple fact induces among scientists.’10
It is a great pity that many Christians are
willing to ‘re-interpret’ the infallible Word of God to fit a
fallible, man-made theory like the big bang. Such ideas are
ultimately devised to counter the biblical record, which is firmly
against cosmic evolution over billions of years. Those who urge
trying to harmonize the big bang with Scripture find it only natural
to go on to other evolutionary ideas, such as a ‘primitive earth’
gradually cooling down, death, and struggle millions of years before
the Fall, and so on.
My considered opinion is that as long as we
try to explain the universe apart from the Creator and without
regard to biblical affirmations given by him, we will continue to be
dazzled by a succession of ingenious cosmological ideas, none of
which will remotely resemble the truth.11
This article was adapted from Dr Gitt’s book
Stars and their Purpose: Signposts in Space.
Stars could not have
come from the ‘big bang’
Evolutionists generally believe that stars formed by the
collapse of gas clouds under gravity. This is supposed to
generate the millions of degrees required for nuclear fusion.
clouds would be so hot that outward pressure would prevent
collapse. Evolutionists must find a way for the cloud to cool
down. One such mechanism might be through molecules in the cloud
colliding and radiating enough of the heat away.
according to theory, the ‘big bang’ made mainly hydrogen, with a
little helium—the other elements supposedly formed inside stars.
Helium can't form molecules at all, so the only molecule that
could be formed would be molecular hydrogen (H2).
Even this is easily destroyed by ultraviolet light, and usually
needs dust grains to form—and dust grains require heavier
elements. So the only coolant left is atomic hydrogen, and this
would leave gas clouds over a hundred times too hot to collapse.
Loeb of Harvard’s Center for Astrophysics says: ‘The truth is
that we don't understand star formation at a fundamental level.’1
- Marcus Chown,
‘Let there be light’, New Scientist 157(2120):26-30,
7 February 1998.
Print this page | Back