Looks like you are using an old version of Internet Explorer - Please update your browser
The Australian: Science collides with a Big Bang
A few scientists, most prominently Cambridge’s Neil Turok and Princeton’s Paul Steinhardt, have proposed a “revolutionary model of how the universe began,” which is angering traditional advocates of big bang model. Although Turok and Steinhardt still believe in the big bang, they do not accept that it was a beginning in the sense of the beginning of time, matter and energy. Rather, they believe that time, matter and energy are eternal, and the big bang that they believe began this universe was simply the result of “the collision of our universe with another one existing in another dimension.”
One important question regards those who use big bang model to “prove” God.
Of course, this development shows once again how scientific models come and go, and even popular theories later may fall into neglect; in addition, we see the extreme natural scenarios cosmologists must postulate to explain where the universe came from.
One important question regards those who use big bang model to “prove” God. These individuals use a syllogism that states (sometimes in slightly different terms):
(Note that we at Answers in Genesis don’t disagree with this logic; however, we don’t see it as a proof of God, but rather just another confirmation that logic is consistent with the biblical worldview.)
Individuals often support the second point in the syllogism by referencing the alleged truth of big bang model. But what happens if mainstream science changes its perspective on cosmology—will these apologists abandon big bang model then?
Remember, if you see a news story that might merit some attention, let us know about it! (Note: if the story originates from the Associated Press, Fox News, MSNBC, the New York Times, or another major national media outlet, we will most likely have already heard about it.) And thanks to all of our readers who have submitted great news tips to us.