One of the more comedic trends of modern history is the taking of bad science and turning it into moderate to good television. Such is the case with the big bang theory, the evolutionary explanation for the origin of the universe. Its name has been borrowed by a popular television series about a group of smart people. Having never seen the television show, I cannot vouch for its merits. However, having examined the science of the big bang theory, I can comment on its validity. This article will discuss what the science behind the big bang theory is and why it fails as an explanation for the origin of the universe.
The big bang theory is somewhat of a misnomer. Evolutionists claim that the theory is not an explosion in the sense that a hand grenade is explosive. Rather the theory refers to the incredibly rapid expansion of the universe from a tiny, nearly non-existent dot of energy, and matter. Once this tiny dot began to expand, it did so rapidly, some believe far faster than the speed of light, due to the pressure of having all the matter in the universe pent up inside. This tiny dot is known as a singularity. Exactly how this singularity came into existence is unclear, even to evolutionists. The rapid expansion of the universe would have produced tremendous amounts of heat which should have been spread throughout the universe by means of radiation. Temperatures are not expected to be identical throughout the universe The rapid expansion produced three elements which supposedly would later give birth to all the other elements. Those elements are hydrogen, helium and lithium. However, it would take 13 billion years for the galaxies and stars to form, as the three mother elements slowly fused into elements up to iron. There is a lot more complicated science involved than can be explained in this article but the above is a very basic overview of the theory evolutionists propose to account for the origin of the universe.
Evolutionists do acknowledge that there are problems with the big bang theory. Probably the most obvious one they acknowledge is that it conflicts with the first law of thermodynamics. The first law of thermodynamics states unequivocally that matter and energy cannot be created or destroyed. The Big Bang creates both. Further it struggles with the law of entropy, which states that everything tends to progress from order to disorder. Creating whole galaxies, stars, planets and so on is definitely a progression towards order, rather than away from it. However, there are other problems with the big bang theory, which evolutionists frequently gloss over.
One of the first problems with the big bang theory is the orbit of certain planetary moons and even some galaxies. Moons such as Triton, the largest moon of Neptune, orbit the planet in a retrograde fashion. This means that it orbits the opposite direction of Neptune. Other moons spin in a retrograde fashion as well, as does the planet Venus. This is not limited to planetary bodies however. Entire galaxies spin in reverse to the majority of galaxies in the universe. This is a huge issue because, were the big bang true, the expansion would have caused galaxies and planetary bodies to all rotate the same direction, due to the rush of energy forcing them outwards. The fact that some spin backwards challenges the big bang theory. A second problem is the flatness problem. The big bang theory predicts that the universe will be largely spherical. However, observation from cosmologists tells us that the universe is largely flat, rather than a three dimensional sphere. A third problem is the horizon problem. If the big bang were true and the universe extended from a central point, then we would not expect to see a universal temperature. However, no matter where cosmologists look, the observe a close to universal background temperature. This is a huge challenge to the big bang theory since not enough time has theoretically elapsed for the temperature to stabilize across the universe. A final problem is that of dark matter. Dark matter is supposedly the energy that holds the universe together but has never been observed, yet the big bang theory claims that nearly 90% of the known universe is made of dark matter. Incidentally, dark does not mean color here; in this sense it refers to an unknown variable. Thus evolutionists essentially made up a whole class of energy because they needed it to fit with their theory. Needing something to make a theory work does not equate with its existence, unfortunately for the evolutionist.
One final thought which challenges the big bang theory. The theory demands that a singularity somehow come into existence so it could rapidly expand outward. This begs a very serious question. Where did the singularity come from? The singularity has to have an origin of its own somewhere and somehow in the depths of space. Evolutionists have no explanation for its origin, something they freely admit. Yet there must be a naturalistic one if the big bang, and by extension evolution, is true. Without an explanation for the singularity, the big bang theory fails as true science. Of course, being that most it is modeled using computers anyway, this is hardly surprising. Computer programmers have a saying “GIGO” or “Garbage in, Garbage out”. In other words, what you put into a computer determines what you get out of it. Thus when evolutionary assumptions are fed into a computer, it should come as no surprise when that computer spits out information in line with those assumptions.
The Big Bang theory is replete with problems that vary from galaxy sized, to universal. Since no one observed the big bang and thus no one has observational evidence of its occurrence, it would be best to relegate the theory to the realm of bad hypothesis and try to find a new, more workable theory, or simply accept that Creation is the truth.