I just finished reading an article titled, “We now know the big bang theory is (probably) not how the universe began.” It was written by Ethan Siegle, who is a Ph.D. astrophysicist, and the author of the book “Starts with a Bang.” The article seeks to show that the idea of the universe having its origin with a big bang, expanding from a a state of “infinitesimal sizes and infinite densities and temperatures”, is not a valid explanation for the beginning of the universe.
The big bang theory has been used for decades as the explanation for the existence of the universe as we observe it today. It has had almost universal acceptance among naturalists, as it has been the most effective naturalistic explanation for things being the way they are.
The article notes that the only way to get back far enough in the past to a posited big bang is through extrapolation. In other words, measurable data can take you back only so far, and no farther. In order to get to the very beginning, you have to take the data, and then “guess” where it would go from there. The author states, “But extrapolating beyond the limits of your measurable evidence is a dangerous, albeit tempting, game to play.”
Now, let us represent the article clearly. Siegle is not saying the science is entirely wrong. He is not a creationist. He is simply stating that observable data contradicts the big bang theory. Instead, he supports the idea of cosmic inflation. In taking this view, the author makes the following interesting statement, “Lastly, and perhaps most importantly, we can no longer speak with any sort of knowledge or confidence as to how—or even whether—the universe itself began … Inflation could have gone on for an eternity, it could have been preceded by some other nonsingular phase, or it could have been preceded by a phase that did emerge from a singularity.”
It is interesting for a scientist to admit that we are not able through observation to determine how the universe began. Also, that it is possible that the previous state of cosmic inflation “could have gone on for an eternity.” It is not often that you have scientists using the word eternity—a word that is most commonly found in religious discussions. The author still advocates for a big bang, he just states that it “wasn’t the beginning we once supposed it to be.”
My Observations
There are a few observations to be made in examining this material. First, the article expresses the limitation of the scientific method. The scientific method is a wholly naturalistic effort to explain the world around us. It uses observable data to hypothesize and theorize natural explanations for why things are, and why they act as the do.
In this it is mostly effective. God established physical laws when He created the universe. The universe is a cosmos. It is governed by law, and so acts in explainable and understandable ways. However, science as it is practiced today is wholly naturalistic. It rejects anything beyond the natural realm.
So, when we look at the Bible miracles (Jesus walking on the water, or turning water into wine as examples), science has no way of dealing with these “supernatural” events. What is the recourse? They deny them. Miracles do not fit the narrative of science, so miracles didn’t happen.
The same thing is true with the creation account. It is simple for the believer in God to explain how the universe came to be. “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth” (Genesis 1:1). But the naturalist will not accept that explanation because it falls outside of the scientific method of establishing truth. Please understand that the scientific method does not disprove God’s existence, it is simply that the method is self-limiting to natural explanations for the world around us.
The problem is, as Siegle stated, when it comes to the “beginning”, the scientific method is incapable of stating how the universe began. In contrast, faith can explain both how it began, and why it is as it is. The explanation is GOD! God created it that way. It is a simple answer, but not simplistic. It is a supernatural explanation for why things are as they are, rather than a natural one.
Think about it. Natural explanations (the scientific method being one), can’t account for the existence of the supernatural. However, faith in God can account both for supernatural realities, as well as the natural ones.
One final point. Some Christians have been unduly influenced by the big bang theory. It is the position of some that the observable data requires a view that the earth and universe are billions of years old. Such a view subjugates the clear reading of scripture to naturalistic theories concerning the age of the earth and the origin of the universe. This is problematic. “Indeed, let God be true, but every man a liar.” (Romans 3:4).
Christians should not fear science, or the scientific method. It has an important place in the knowledge that man has accrued through the ages. It, however, is not designed to explain the full truths of the existence both of man and the universe. The fact that science can not account for God and His work is does not invalidate either! Science can’t travel back far enough to explain the beginning, but FAITH CAN!
