In the News: Big Bang Problems Highlighted by the Evidence Again
| by | Jeff Miller, Ph.D. |
The dominant view of the origin of the Universe in the secular community, as well as a sizeable number of religious individuals, is the Big Bang Theory. The Big Bang Theory does not harmonize with Scripture on several counts,1 but neither does it harmonize with the scientific evidence, as two recent articles in major science magazines point out.
There are several scientific problems with Big Bang Theory that illustrate that it is an unscientific, irrational theory that amounts to a blind faith in naturalism. Some of the problems include:
- the origin of the laws of science;2
- the origin of matter/energy;3
- the smoothness problem;4
- the lack of evidence for dark energy5—a fudge factor added to the Big Bang model to try to explain space observations in light of the Big Bang; and
- the lack of evidence for inflation6—an imaginary, but necessary, process at the beginning of the Big Bang that was invented to try to solve other Big Bang issues, including the horizon and flatness problems.
Those significant obstacles are not the extent of the problems with the Big Bang, as was recently highlighted yet again in major science magazines. The Fermi Paradox is the name given to the concept that if cosmic evolution (i.e., the Big Bang coupled with Darwinian Evolution) is true, it would be inconceivable that other life—even advanced life—does not exist somewhere in the Universe with its billions of stars and even more planets. Writing in New Scientist, University of Sydney astrophysicist Geraint Lewis explains: “The size of the universe suggests advanced alien civilisations, or at least evidence of them, ought to be out there. Signs in the shape of transmissions or megastructures should be obvious. Instead, we find nothing. This ‘eerie silence,’ as cosmologist Paul Davies [Arizona State University—JM] puts it, inspired physicist Enrico Fermi to ask: ‘Where are they?’”7 How is the naturalist to explain the Big Bang Theory’s blatant contradiction with the evidence? The most recent response: maybe the aliens are sleeping. Lewis explains: “What if aliens are indeed out there, but are sleeping, awaiting a glorious future when the universe provides the right conditions for them to fulfil their ultimate ambitions?”8
It is shocking how far science has drifted from a reliance on being rational—only drawing conclusions warranted by the evidence. At least Lewis admits that “[e]voking sleeping aliens is a very long shot to solve Fermi’s paradox”9 and “is little more than guesswork” and “speculation” that “should be taken with a suitable pinch of salt”10—highlighting the fact that the Big Bang is still directly and hopelessly in contradiction to the observable evidence.
Add to Fermi’s Paradox another problem that still plagues Big Bang Theory: the missing antimatter in the Universe.Energy can be transformed into matter, according to the 1st Law of Thermodynamics,11but when it happens, an equal amount of antimatter (basically normal matter with a reversed charge on its particles) is always produced—without exception according to the laboratory evidence. So if the Big Bang is true and energy was transformed into all of the matter of the Universe at the beginning, there should have been an equal amount of matter and antimatter produced—but there clearly was not, or else when the two touched, they would have been immediately destroyed, releasing their energy. Today the Universe is virtually completely composed of regular matter. Elizabeth Gibney, writing in Nature, explains the dilemma for Big Bang believers: “As far as physicists know, matter and antimatter should have been created in equal amounts in the early Universe and so blasted each other into oblivion. But that didn’t happen, and the origin of this fundamental imbalance remains one of the biggest mysteries in physics.”12
Do not these many and diverse problems with the best model put forth by naturalists effectively constitute a falsification of modern naturalism? It seems apparent that the evidence is pointing in a totally different direction than a naturalistic model. But if naturalism does not fit the evidence regarding the origin of the Universe, then what does? Something supernatural.
ENDNOTES
1 Branyon May, et al. (2003), “The Big Bang—A Biblical Critique,” Apologetics Press, http://apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=12&article=56.
2 Jeff Miller (2012), “The Laws of Science—by God,” Reason & Revelation, 32[12]:137-140.
3 Jeff Miller (2013), “Evolution and the Laws of Science: The Laws of Thermodynamics,” Apologetics Press, http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=9&article=2786&topic=336.
4 J.V. Narlikar and T. Padmanabhan (1991), “Inflation for Astronomers,” Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics, 29:325-362, September.
5 David N. Spergel (2015), “The Dark Side of Cosmology: Dark Matter and Dark Energy,” Science, 347[6226]:1100-1102, March.
6 Jeff Miller (2015), “Big Bang Inflation Officially Bites the Dust,” Reason & Revelation, 35[6]:62-65.
7 Geraint Lewis (2017), “Dream On,” New Scientist, 235[3137]:24, emp. added.
8 Ibid., p. 24.
9 Ibid., p. 24.
10 Ibid., p. 25.
11 Miller, 2013.
12 Elizabeth Gibney (2017), “The Antimatter Race,” Nature, 548[7665]:20, emp. added.