Does Science Support the Big Bang? | The Institute for Creation Research

Does Science Support the Big Bang?

Some Christians claim that God used the Big Bang (BB) as a means to create the universe, despite the obvious contradictions with the Genesis creation account—like stars existing before Earth and the billions of years of supposed time involved—and they cite “scientific” arguments for this claim. Upon closer examination, however, these arguments do not impress. Christians can refute them by noting inconsistencies between science and the BB.

For instance, many people think the universe is expanding as a result of a cosmic explosion. But is the BB really the only way to explain an expanding universe? A possible reason God might have imposed expansion upon His recently created universe would be to prevent the universe from collapsing in on itself due to its own gravity.

The BB supposedly explains low-energy cosmic microwave background radiation (CMBR) observed from all directions in space. According to the BB, the CMBR from one part of the sky should be essentially the same as that in any other part of the sky, but recent measurements by the Planck satellite confirm that this is not the case. The CMBR temperatures show subtle unpredicted patterns. This undermines the claim that the CMBR is an “afterglow” from the BB and that patterns in the CMBR provide smoking gun evidence for a component of the BB model called inflation.1

The BB model does a good job of accounting for the abundances of hydrogen and helium in the universe, but only because it contains a “free” parameter that scientists can choose to give the “right” answer.2 And even so, the BB can only produce enough protons and neutrons to account for 15 percent of the total amount of matter thought to exist, including so-called “dark matter.”3,4 Because of this, and because other known forms of matter do not have the correct properties for evolutionary models of star and galaxy formation, the BB needs 85 percent of all matter to exist in a never-before-observed form!2 Current versions of the BB obviously cannot account for this “exotic” dark matter, since nobody even knows what it is. Furthermore, BB interpretations also require the existence of a mysterious kind of dark energy. Overall, BB interpretations lead to the conclusion that 96 percent of the stuff in the universe—dark energy plus dark matter—is unknown!5

Finally, even though a manipulated BB model yields the correct observed percentages of hydrogen and helium, it cannot explain how these chemical elements could ever form into stars or galaxies.6,7

The BB is a bad scientific model. It does a very poor job of explaining the universe that God actually built. And we know from Scripture that God did not use the BB to create—He used His powerful spoken word.8

References

  1. Hebert, J. ‘Smoking Gun’ Evidence of Inflation? Creation Science Update. Posted on icr.org March 21, 2014, accessed May 12, 2014.
  2. Hebert, J. 2013. Dark Matter, Sparticles, and the Big Bang. Acts & Facts. 42 (9): 17-19.
  3. Dark matter. Science and Technology Facilities Council fact sheet. Posted on www.stfc.ac.uk, accessed May 13, 2014.
  4. Here we are not considering the possibility that large amounts of dark matter could be the result of unknown physics.
  5. Lemonick, M. D. Telescope to Hunt for Missing 96% of the Universe. Time. Posted on science.time.com February 20, 2013, accessed May 13, 2014.
  6. Lisle. J. 2012. Blue Stars Confirm Recent Creation. Acts & Facts. 41 (9): 16.
  7. Thomas, B. New Galaxy Model Leaves Old Questions Unanswered. Creation Science Update. Posted on icr.org May 5, 2011, accessed May 13, 2014.
  8. “For He spoke, and it was done; He commanded, and it stood fast.” Psalm 33:9

* Dr. Hebert is Research Associate at the Institute for Creation Research and received his Ph.D. in physics from the University of Texas at Dallas. Mr. Thomas is Science Writer at the Institute for Creation Research.

Cite this article: Various Authors. 2014. Does Science Support the Big Bang?. Acts & Facts. 43 (7).

The Latest
NEWS
Microscopic Ingenuity: Stentor and the Case for Intelligent Design
What if the smallest creatures held the biggest clues to life’s design? A 2025study in Nature Physics investigates the remarkable behaviors of...

CREATION PODCAST
Dr. Jeff Tomkins | A Scientist's Journey to Creationism | The...
ICR’s science staff have spent more than 50 years researching scientific evidence that refutes evolutionary philosophy...

NEWS
Early Fish Evolution?
The discovery of a new species of a plant or animal would probably not spark much excitement to the non-scientist. But in this case, the conditions...

NEWS
Make Plans to Attend Our Estate Planning Workshop at the Discovery...
Did you know that up to 75% of Americans over 18 have no retirement or estate plans? Don’t wait to prepare for the future. Join us on Saturday, October...

NEWS
Fossil Confusion in Ethiopia: Are Evolutionary Trees Built on...
A new study published in Nature describes the discovery of 13 fossilized teeth from the Ledi-Geraru site in Ethiopia. They have been dated to between...

NEWS
The Only Mesozoic Dragonfly in Canada—Is a Dragonfly
In 2023, an undergraduate student from McGill University discovered a new dragonfly species in Alberta, Canada. In fact, “This is the first ever...

CREATION PODCAST
Dr. Jake Hebert | Journey to ICR | The Creation Podcast: Episode...
ICR’s science staff have spent more than 50 years researching scientific evidence that refutes evolutionary philosophy...

NEWS
Oldest Evidence of Butterflies
Insects such as the ubiquitous butterfly belong to the huge phylum Arthropoda (creatures having paired, jointed appendages and a chitinous exoskeleton)....

NEWS
Another Big Mistake in Evolution
The strange and wonderful coelacanth1 has long been a challenge to evolutionists. The coelacanth has long been hailed as an ancestor...

ACTS & FACTS
ICR 2025 Resource Catalog
At the Institute for Creation Research, our mission is not only to conduct research demonstrating how science confirms Scripture but also to share this...