PROBLEMS WITH THE BIG BANG THEORY
There are some significant scientific problems with the Big Bang Theory of the origin of the universe. This second video and podcast episode, entitled “Big Bang in Trouble”, documents the increasing difficulty atheist scientists have in explaining the origin of the universe apart from a Creator God. It examines scientific evidence that is problematic for the Big Bang model of the universe’s origin and points to the fact that ‘something else’ must have been at working shaping and guiding the formation of the universe in the beginning.
WATCH OR LISTEN TO THIS EPISODE:
AUDIO PODCAST: “Big Bang in Trouble”
TRANSCRIPT
Welcome to Episode 2 of Evidence For Belief, a series which examines evidence for the existence of God. In Episode 1, we began to examine the Cosmological evidence for God’s existence – evidence which points to a finite beginning to the universe and which, in turn, seems to require a supernatural explanation – or an explanation from beyond the natural world.
In this episode, we are going to explore the popular Big Bang model of the universe’s origin because, as we are about to see, the Big Bang model is increasingly questioned within the scientific community. This is relevant for a discussion of evidence for God’s existence because it is becoming increasingly obvious that a supposed Big Bang ALONE cannot completely account for the universe that we observe today.
Big Bang theory proposes that the entire universe originated from a single point in space-time which expanded outward rapidly in an initial super-hot explosive event. English astronomer Fred Hoyle is credited with coining the term “Big Bang” during a talk for a March 1949 BBC Radio broadcast, when he referred to: “the hypothesis that all the matter in the universe was created in one big bang at a particular time in the remote past.”
In recent decades, however, some serious doubts have been cast upon the veracity of a supposed “big bang” as an explanation of the universe’s creation. One of the major problems is explaining how such an explosive event could account for the formation of galaxies and clusters of galaxies, which we observe throughout the universe today. If a big bang created the universe, it should have resulted in a fairly uniform dispersal of matter throughout the universe.
But this is not what we see. Instead, we find stars densely clustered together in galaxies, separated by vast distances of empty space. No computer models of a supposed big bang can show how these clusters of stars could possibly have formed.
Dr. James Trefil, professor of physics at Mason University, Virginia, comments:
“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 goes on to comment: ‘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.”[i]
Some scientists have also recently cast doubt on whether the universe is expanding at all, offering a different explanation for the observable doppler red shift of galaxies and the variance in Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation – both of which are cited by Big Band theorists to support their theory. Because of these and other observational anomalies that seem to contradict the Big Bang theory of the universe’s origin, a growing number of scientists are calling for the theory’s official demise.
More Problems with the Big Bang Theory
There are several other problems facing the Big Bang model of the origin of the universe. I am going to very briefly mention five of them but I won’t be attempting to explain them, because they are very technical. I’m simply listing them here:
- The Horizon Problem: Which points out that a supposed Big Bang could not
have produced the uniform ambient temperature of our widely expanded universe in such a short time of only 13.8 billion years. The far reaches of our universe could not have been in initial contact with each other in such a short period of time.
2. The Flatness Problem: Essentially, this points out the incredibly finely tuned density of matter in the universe which, it is argued, a random Big Bang could not have produced.
- The Matter-Antimatter Asymmetry Problem: A random Big Bang should have
produced equal amounts of matter and antimatter. However, the observable universe is overwhelmingly composed of matter, with very little antimatter. This asymmetry is a problem for Big Bang theorists.
- The Dark Matter and Dark Energy Problem: A Big Bang should have produced
huge amounts of dark matter and dark energy which appear to be required to explain the observed structure and expansion of the universe. But that is not what we observe at all. The amount of dark matter and dark energy that we have indirect evidence for is nowhere near enough compared to what should have arisen from a Big Bang.
- The Singularity Problem: The Big Bang theory implies that the universe began
from a singularity—a point of infinite density and temperature – but this defies the known laws of physics. The kind of singularity necessary to produce a Big Band in the beginning is actually impossible according to our current laws of physics.
In response to some of these problems, the Inflationary Model has been proposed, which posits that the universe expanded faster than the speed of light during the first microseconds after the initial Big Bang. This initial exponential expansion or inflation is thought to have lasted 10-33 seconds or one trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillionth of a second. This theoretical Inflationary model solves some of the problems we just briefly mentioned, such as the horizon problem, but it also creates other new problems and is disputed as a model by many scientists.
Scientists Respond to Problems with the Big Bang Theory
The problems I’ve very briefly outlined here have led a growing number of respected scientists to reject the notion of a Big Bang entirely. For example, in 1993, cosmologist Dr. Halton C. Arp, of the Mount Wilson Observatory, Pasadena, USA, wrote:
“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.”[ii]
Then in 2004, an “Open Letter To The Scientific Community” was published on the internet and was endorsed by 33 leading scientists,[iii]and it was subsequently republished in the “New Scientist” magazine,[iv]which called for the official demise of the Big Bang Theory. A subsequent article was then published on www.rense.com, entitled “Big Bang Theory Busted by 33 Top Scientists”.[v]
Since then, two Crisis in Cosmology Conferences have been held, in 2005 and 2008, and hundreds of other astronomers, physicists and other scientists have added their names to the list of those formally abandoning the theory. One of those is Dr. Tom Van Flandern, former chief Astronomer at the US Naval Observatory, who published a paper entitled, “The Top 30 Problems with the Big Bang”.
So, what all of these scientists are saying is that the Big Bang CANNOT have produced the universe that we observe today: There are just too many things we observe in the universe that can’t be explained by a Big Bang. The theory doesn’t fit with the observable facts!
Alternate Theories Proposed
With the Big Bang Theory now in doubt, at least among some scientists, a number of alternative models have been proposed over recent years (I mentioned a couple of these very briefly in Episode 1):
The Oscillating Universe model: This model proposes that the universe undergoes an infinite series of expansions and contractions (big bangs and big crunches).
2. 
The Ekpyrotic Universe model: This suggests the universe was created from the collision of worlds in a higher-dimensional space.
3. The Multiverse Hypothesis: This model proposes that our universe is just one of an infinite number of universes, with some versions of the theory proposing that “mother” universes give birth to “baby” universes.
4. Loop Quantum Model: This theory suggests that our universe could have come into existence not via a Big Bang, but via a “Big Bounce” from a previous contracting phase, by means of a quantum bridge to a pre-existing universe.
5. The Conformal Cyclic Model: This model suggests that the universe undergoes infinite cycles of expansion, with each cycle ending in a conformal transformation that leads to the next cycle.
6. The Holographic Model: This model suggests that the entire universe could merely be a two-dimensional information structure “painted” on the cosmological horizon, with the three-dimensional world being a projection of this information.
Are you confused yet? I confess I am!
The Purely Speculative Basis of These Theories
What I want you to notice is that all these models are hugely speculative. Each of them is entirely based on imagined forces and processes that have never been observed. NEVER!
But these can’t really be called scientific theories at all, because science, real science as opposed to pseudoscience, is based upon examination of evidence that is observable, measurable and repeatable. That is the fundamental basis of all scientific methodology. But these theories that we’ve briefly mentioned in this episode don’t meet ANY of that criteria. They are simply exercises in imaginative, wishful thinking rather than real science studying observable phenomena. In fact, it strikes me as hypocritical that atheist scientists commonly accuse Christians of holding to a non-scientific, non-evidential explanation of our origin, when they do that very thing themselves!
SUMMARY
So, to summarise …
The overwhelming cosmological evidence of the universe’s finite beginning (which we examined in Episode 1 and which is now widely acknowledged) has created a scramble among scientists to try to explain that origin. The FACT of the universe’s beginning is widely accepted, but HOW it began continues to bamboozle us. The laws of physics and cosmology simply can’t account for the universe springing into existence by itself from nothing.
Even the most popular theory, the Big Bang theory, is increasingly disputed today. Not only is it unable to explain where the stuff came from that went Bang in the first place, it also doesn’t adequately explain the current observable structure and behaviour of the universe.
We now understand that a BIG BANG ALONE – and I stress that word ALONE – cannot have created the universe that we observe today. What the current evidence is telling us is that if there WAS a Big Bang – and it’s still possible that there was – Something else had to have been at work ALONG WITH IT, forming and shaping the universe at the beginning of time to account for the structure and behaviour of the universe that we observe today.
This is an important point. I’m not saying that the Big Bang didn’t happen. There MAY have been a super-hot explosive event at the moment of the universe’s creation, and there are many scientists who are still convinced that it did occur. They posit that the overwhelming weight of evidence still does point toward a Big Bang.
But the key point is that a purely random explosive event COULD NOT BY ITSELF have brought about the ordered, structured universe that we see today. Something beyond that random explosive process HAD to have been at work in conjunction with any BIG Bang. There is a missing ingredient – some kind of powerful, intelligent, organising force that brought order from the chaos.
This missing “X factor” fits perfectly with the Christian worldview of an all-powerful Creator God.
God of the Gaps?
Now, of course, sceptics accuse Christians at this point of inventing a “God of the Gaps” – they say that we are proposing that “God must have done it” simply because we don’t yet understand how it happened scientifically. They say we are essentially chucking God into the puzzle to fill in the gap in our knowledge- to cover up for our current ignorance, but one day science will discover how the universe came into existence from natural causes.
But there are two problems with this argument. Firstly, those who accuse Christians of doing this are doing exactly the same thing, but instead of plugging the gap with God, they are plugging the gap with future science. They are saying, we don’t know how the universe was created, but future science will come to our rescue one day and we place our faith in future science. Atheists are doing exactly the same thing they accuse creationists of.
The second problem with this argument is that belief in a Creator God is not being introduced arbitrarily here, out of the blue as it were. The evidence – both scientific and philosophical – actually POINTS US toward a Creator – and there’s a WHOLE lot more evidence that I will share with you in the ensuing episodes in this series. But even if we just consider this one area of cosmological evidence that we’ve examined so far, a logical and common-sense consideration of the issue of ultimate causation actually REQUIRES a supernatural explanation. A supernatural explanation for the universe’s origin appears to be INEVITABLE!
Whatever “natural” explanations that science proposes or might propose in the future – whether they be quantum forces, dark energy fluctuations or pre-existing non-materialistic processes – they all require a cause themselves. And whatever caused them, requires an explanation of ITS cause. And so you are left with an infinite regression of causes. Now, in the next Episode we are going to examine the concept of INFINITY and see that it doesn’t actually work in the real world. You can’t have an infinite regression of causes or events.
The Impossibility of a Natural Cause
But leaving that aside for the moment, the scientific search for a NATURAL CAUSE for the NATURAL world is DOOMED to failure for one very simple reason: Nature can’t create itself! It’s like trying to lift yourself up off the ground by pulling on your own boot laces. And when scientists speculate about possible “NATURAL” forces or energies that might have combined to create our physical universe, they are still talking about “NATURE” – and no matter how many steps back they go in the causative chain, the question remains, Where did those forces or energies or processes come from? What or who made them?
Stephen C. Meyer, the author of “The Return of the God Hypothesis”, was recently interviewed by Piers Morgan in his program, Piers Morgan Uncensored, and during the interview he said this:
“At the point where matter, space and time begin to exist, the materialist is really up against a huge conundrum, because prior to the origin of matter, there is no matter to do the causing. That’s what we mean by the origin of matter. That’s where it starts. And so if you want to invoke a cause which is sufficient to explain the origin of matter, you can’t invoke matter. Materialistic explanations are, in principle, insufficient. You need to invoke something which is external to the material universe and is not bound by time and space as well. And that starts to paint a picture of the kind of cause you would need that has the attributes that are traditionally associated with God.”
It’s a really good point! Logic dictates that only something BEYOND nature, something OUTSIDE nature, something or someone SUPERNATURAL could have created nature. Nature CANNOT have created itself!
So for the Christian, the concept of a Creator God is not merely a convenient “God of the Gaps”, filling in for our temporary ignorance, it is the only logical conclusion that the evidence is pointing us toward! Belief in a Creator is not a convenient filler to compensate for our lack of scientific thinking; it’s the logical conclusion of the scientific evidence! And any other explanation for the universe that involves the proposal of supposedly natural causes is ultimately self-defeating and illogical.
But, of course, there remain many people for whom belief in God is unpalatable and unacceptable, and they will believe ANYTHING in preference to that. Those who are determined to explain the origin of the universe APART from a metaphysical, supernatural cause, are left chasing their tails and clinging to ever more fanciful and bizarre theories.
The quote by Christopher J. Isham, that I shared in the first episode is worth repeating here. Dr Isham was one of Britain’s leading cosmologists, and an astrophysicist at Imperial College of London. He wrote:
“The idea that the question of ultimate origin supports theism is greeted with obvious unease by atheist physicists. At times this has led to wild scientific theories being advanced with a tenacity which so exceeds their intrinsic worth that one can only suspect the operation of psychological forces lying very much deeper than the usual academic desire of a theorist to support his or her theory.”
The evidence of Cosmology points us to a Creator, and any attempt to explain the universe apart from a Creator inevitably leads to a breakdown in logic and does not solve the problem of ultimate causation.
Genesis 1:1 is actually the best explanation for the origin of the universe: it fits the scientific evidence, perfectly: “In the beginning God created the heavens and the Earth.”
In the next episode, we are going to explore a couple of lesser known but equally compelling arguments for the universe having a beginning and, therefore, a cause outside of itself. And as you will see, these arguments centre around the impossibility of infinity as a real number in the physical universe.
For more information on any of these topics, you can check out my books which are available on my website, smartfaith.net, where you can also subscribe to my weekly blog.
THANKS FOR WATCHING EPISODE 2!
PLEASE CHECK OUT EPSODE 3.
AND IN THE MEANTIME, HAVE A GREAT DAY!
FOOTNOTES:
[i] J. Trefil, The Dark Side of the Universe. Charles Scribner’s Sons, Macmillan Publishing Company, New York, USA, pp. 3, 55, 1988.
[ii] Halton C. Arp, quoted in E.P. Fischer (Ed.), Neue Horizonte 92/93—Ein Forum der Naturwissenschaften—Piper-Verlag, München, Germany, pp. 112–173, 1993
[iii] http://blog.lege.net/cosmology/cosmologystatement_org.pdf
[iv] Lerner, E., Bucking the big bang, New Scientist 182(2448)20, 22 May 2004
[v] “Big Bang Theory Busted by 33 Top Scientists”, www.rense.com, 27 May 2004.