Building on last week, Will Barlow continues to describe and analyze issues with the Big Bang Theory. He considers standard biblical and scientific objections brought forward by young earth creationists. After responding to these objections, he shows how each of the main Christian views of origins deals with the Big Bang.
Listen to this episode on Spotify or Apple Podcasts
See below for notes.
—— Links ——
- We are doing follow-up discussions to these episodes on YouTube. Check them out!
- See other episodes in this Scripture and Science Class
- Check out Barlow’s previous podcast episodes
- Learn more about and support the church Barlow and his team are starting in Louisville, KY, called Compass Christian Church
- Find more articles and audios by Barlow on his website: Study Driven Faith
- Support Restitutio by donating here
- Designate Restitutio as your charity of choice for Amazon purchases
- Join our Restitutio Facebook Group and follow Sean Finnegan on Twitter @RestitutioSF
- Leave a voice message via SpeakPipe with questions or comments and we may play them out on the air
- Intro music: Good Vibes by MBB Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported (CC BY-SA 3.0) Free Download / Stream: Music promoted by Audio Library.
- Who is Sean Finnegan? Read his bio here
—— Notes ——
The Big Bang
In basic terms, what does the Big Bang theory say?
• The Universe began approximately 13.7 billion years ago
• Space and matter have been expanding and cooling since then
What is the current state of the Big Bang?
• We will never be able to travel back in time to observe the beginning
• Physicists used high-energy collisions to test hypotheses related to the Big Bang
• There is a physical restriction on understanding the first moment of the Big Bang
Are there viable alternatives to the Big Bang?
• Oscillating universe — Universes expand and contract until the right one pops out
• Multiple Universes — Infinite number of Universes exist beyond our ability to observe them
• Inflationary models
• Hawking’s theory
YEC and the Big Bang
How does YEC view the Big Bang?
• In short, YEC reject several aspects of the Big Bang
• YEC make both Scriptural and scientific arguments to defend their position
Scriptural Objections
What objections do YEC make about the Big Bang from Scripture?
“The Bible tells us that God created heaven, earth, and everything within them in the span of six days (Exodus 20:11) and rested on the seventh day. This is the basis for our work week (Exodus 20:8). In contrast, the big bang model claims that the universe and earth formed over billions of years.”
“Genesis tells us that God created the stars on the fourth day—three days after the earth was created. In contrast, the big bang model claims that stars existed billions of years before the earth.”
“The Bible tells us that the earth was made from water (2 Peter 3:5; Genesis 1:2–9; Psalm 24:2), but the standard secular model teaches that the earth began as a molten planet which cooled over millions of years, and that the oceans were the result of asteroid or meteor impacts, or from dissolution of comets as they entered earth’s atmosphere.”
Scientific Objections
What objections do YEC make about the Big Bang from science?
Missing Monopoles: The Big Bang should have produced massive particles with only one charge (either positive or negative)
Too Little Antimatter: The Big Bang should have produced equal amounts of matter and antimatter, but instead, slightly more matter than antimatter exists.
No Population III Stars: The Big Bang should have produced only hydrogen, helium, and lithium. These theoretically combined to form the first stars, but we can’t find any.
No Evidence for Inflation: One problem with the cosmic microwave background radiation is that it appears to have reached an impossible thermal equilibrium. Inflation theories have been proposed to solve this but there’s no evidence for rapid early inflation.
Scientific Objections
How do YEC explain the distant light reaching us?
• Exponential decay of the speed of light
• Used historical sources cataloguing the speed of light
• Propose that light reached its final speed in 1960
Answering YEC Scriptural Objections
Creation in six 24-hour days, not 13.7 billion years
• Day-Age: Each day could be longer
• Gap: 13.7 billion years between vs. 1 and 2
• Walton: ANE people not interested in physical creation
Creation of Earth before Sun
• Day-Age: Perspective of Earth observer
• Gap: Reconstitution of Sun on day 4, could be function/purpose oriented
• Walton: Creation is function oriented
Earth made from water
• Day-Age: This is not meant to be a physical description
• Gap: Reconstitution of Sun on day 4, could be function/purpose oriented
• Walton: Fits ANE understanding of the world
Missing monopoles and CMBR problems
• Rapid early inflation would dilute the monopoles, making them harder for us to observe
• This also solves the cosmic microwave background radiation problem
Too little antimatter
• This actually just refutes an atheistic Big Bang model
• OEC believe that God’s hand guided creation, so this result is what a OEC would expect to see
No population III stars
• Actually, scientists have found metal-light stars already (at the far edge of what we can observe) – one generation removed from population III
• Just because we haven’t observed something does not mean that it doesn’t exist
“Appearance of Age” and the Big Bang
• The “Appearance of Age” YEC view will agree with the scientific evidence
• They will say that God is testing us to choose between His Word and science
• The Day-Age view will agree with the scientific evidence for the Big Bang
• Schroeder’s model actually uses the Big Bang and general relativity
Gap Theory and the Big Bang
• The Gap Theory view will agree with the scientific evidence for the Big Bang
• No reason to argue against the scientific evidence when a long time could have elapsed between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2
Non-Literal Views and the Big Bang
• Collins will agree with the scientific evidence for the Big Bang
• Walton’s Temple view does not even think about modern cosmology, so he doesn’t really care
Choices
• Attack the scientific evidence for the Big Bang and hold a YEC view
• Accept the scientific evidence for the Big Bang and hold an OEC view
• Attack or accept the scientific evidence and hold a non-literal view
First time I heard about the Big Bang my mind immediately thought of a seed. Simple really isn’t it, life bursting out of nothing. Yes a seed is something but when you hold a acorn and think it’s got the mighty oak tree in it that’s a lot of something coming from nothing. Big bang is just a seed on a grand scale, lol
Yes, there are many different ways to harmonize scripture and scientific theories. I find the most comprehensive and compelling, both scientifically and scripturally is “In the Beginning” by Walter Brown, PhD.
Walt Brown received a Ph.D. in mechanical engineering from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), where he was a National Science Foundation Fellow. He has taught college courses in physics, mathematics, and computer science. Brown is a retired Air Force full colonel, West Point graduate, and former Army Ranger and paratrooper. Assignments during his 21 years of military service included: Director of Benét Laboratories (a major research, development, and engineering facility); tenured associate professor at the U.S. Air Force Academy; and Chief of Science and Technology Studies at the Air War College. For much of his life Walt Brown was an evolutionist, but after years of study, he became convinced of the scientific validity of creation and a global flood. Since retiring from the military, Dr. Brown has been the Director of the Center for Scientific Creation and has worked full time in research, writing, and teaching on creation and the flood. A free PDF copy of the current 9th edition of this lavishlly illustrated book of over 630 pages is available at https://hpt.rsr.org Many ongoing science discussions held in the basic framework of Dr. Brown’s theories are found at Real Science Radio — rsr.org . An excellent six-part video presentation of key aspects of Dr. Brown’s work is found at https://scripturalscrutiny.com/2017/04/06/294/ Lessons 8 – 10.
Thanks for the comment, Rob! I have downloaded the book and will take a look. I have heard a little about “hydroplate” theory already, but it doesn’t hurt to take another look.
I do not mean to sound hypercritical, but the “tone” that seems to be set in the word choices you use and the way you say things sound like you are casting doubt on the validity of scripture. I recognize that the bible is NOT a science manual. However, what it specifically says about any topic, if it is the “word of God”, should be simply read literally. There are not “different ways to read Genesis.” If there are, then there are also “different ways” to read the rest of scripture.
When you say, “They see. . .” and “That’s how they read Genesis.”, it begs the question, “How else should you read the words?” If the Bible says one thing and Big Bang says another, as a believer, how can you and why would you choose something other than scripture?
You mentioned that the goal of science is to find “another” explanation for the beginning of the universe. Every other “theory” begins with the rejection of the Genesis account. Trying to add words or meaning to the simple account in scripture so that extra-biblical ideas can be infused sounds like a dangerous proposition. You essentially render the Genesis account to just another “theory” and not inspired scripture.
The options of “water” versus “molten lava” should be obvious. The Bible says water, and Big Bang says lava. Again, “let God be true and every man a liar.” Why cast dispersion on scripture? Why do you not simply believe the Bible? If science can “never be able to explain the true beginning” looking for those answers sounds like climbing a long ladder that is leaning against the wrong wall.
You mentioned that scientific evidence is based on “The furthest away light we can see from distant objects.”, and “That’s the best number we can put on it right now.” What exactly does this mean? How are the distances calculated? Is it really measurable? What measurement process is used? Essentially the 13.7 billion years is a SWAG. Yes, that is a “Scientific Wild-Assed Guess.” It has no validity other that a group that supports it because they do not want to believe “In the beginning God created – – -.”
“Seeing” something in the distance does not necessarily lend itself to any measurement of distance. Also, remember that “seeing” something from earths perspective is not definitive. We cannot prove or disprove any of the three models of the universe based on our “observation” from earth. Any of the three are equally valid. None are based on any “scientific evidence.”
You mentioned the Bib Bang “pointing to God.” How does the Big Bang point to God? Saying that scripture is “used to attack” is not the same as “rightly dividing” that scripture and pointing out how it contradicts another teaching. You mentioned how objections are “posed” against the Big Bang theory. In reality the Big Bang theory, along with the other four that you mentioned are theories that are “posed” against scripture.
Do monopoles even exist? Or is this just another element of someone’s imagination that sprung from the imaginative Big Bang theory? You mentioned “the only elements that would have existed at the beginning” but failed to mention who might have made the elements.
You said CBR “lent credibility to the BB model” then basically said CBR showed that thermal equilibrium should not exist. Sounds like CBR disproved Big Bang. CBR also proved that all “energy” is sourced from earth, which according to scripture is the first “thing” that God “made.”
Reference to the Babylonian and Egyptian myths regarding the earth being created from water essentially makes the Genesis account a competing “Biblical myth.” It also puts the Bible in a lesser category of ancient writings. Again, this is all a subtle implication based on how the point was made.
“God testing” or “duping” is nonsense. Who is “They” that keeps saying this? Just because “they” believe the Genesis account doesn’t mean “they” can’t say stupid things. And just because “they” say stupid things it doesn’t mean the Genesis account is any less true.
“Attacking scientific evidence” is not the same as pointing out that the “scientific evidence” does not match what scripture says. Is the Bible verbally plenary or not? If not, then you again cast dispersion on the God who supposedly inspired it through His spirit.
The final proposition is still Chronological Snobbery. God didn’t correct their view of intestines versus the brain, because there was nothing to “correct.” Where in scripture does it say that the intestines send signals to the body? You cannot conflate the physical and the non-physical. The visceral reactions of the “bowels” is exactly that. A physical response brought on by an emotional reaction that originated in the mind. Note that the matter is the mind and emotions, not the brain and the heart. Nowhere does the bible say the intestines send signals to the body. In many places scripture describes how the intestines (or bowels) physically reacted to the signals that obviously came from the physical brain. However, it is the mind and the emotions, not the physical brain and heart that run the show.
I may have gotten a bit carried away. I still appreciate how you are helping everyone think through things they may not have bothered considering before. Your presentations are very well presented. Thanks again!!