Looks like you are using an old version of Internet Explorer - Please update your browser
Originally published in Creation 12(4):50-51, September 1990
One of the best ‘proofs’ of the evolutionary big bang idea was believed to be background radiation coming from all directions. This was postulated to be the residual ‘echo’ of this imagined primeval fireball.
Almost all cosmic evolutionary theories have used this big bang as the basic model. More and more detailed scenarios were produced, even concerning the early parts of the explosion itself. So much so that it seemed scientists were forgetting it was not in fact observed scientific truth.
It was not uncommon, for instance, to see statements in scientific journals proclaiming in frustration that the first 10–35 second of the explosion could not be properly fathomed, even though allegedly ‘everything from there on’ was known.
Of course, if findings are reported that appear to contradict a model, more adjustments to it can be made. This was the case when the universe was turning out to be much ‘lumpier’ than a standard big bang would predict.
But occasionally the weight of evidence grows so large against a model that the model itself must be abandoned, no matter how reluctantly. Cosmology may, in fact, be in the first stages of such a scientific ‘revolution’. The universe is not only turning out to be much lumpier than expected, but it possesses an astonishing regularity. The recent discovery of the largest structure in the universe, the ‘Great Wall’ of galaxies, was problem enough. Now it appears there is a literal ‘cosmic picket fence’ of a series of these massive ‘walls’, one behind another. In the words of astronomer David Koo, these structures are ‘so vast that even gravity hasn’t had enough time to form them’.
Even more horrifying to ‘big bangers’, the cosmic background radiation is even smoother than previously thought. A specially built probe able to detect irregularities of even one part in a million found none. Even the previously known structure of the universe required some irregularities in the background to preserve the viability of the big bang, because there should be a correlation between the real universe and the cosmic background that supposedly gave it birth. Now the universe is looking incredibly lumpy, and the background incredibly smooth.
In a review article, Jon Fairall states, ‘it is becoming increasingly difficult for scientists to imagine any possible theories that should be made to work’. … Of course, few consider creation as a logical alternative.
None of this is stated in any gloating sense, because creationist sub-models have also had to be reworked and abandoned before today. That’s the way science is done.
No matter how secure a ‘model’ associated with origins may seem to be, new evidence could come in that puts a whole new light on everything.However, what is happening in cosmology has some very important lessons. First, it underlines the obvious fact that humanity does not know everything, and never will. No matter how secure a ‘model’ associated with origins may seem to be, new evidence could come in that puts a whole new light on everything. The seemingly arrogant confidence placed in the big bang by many of its proponents should have had no place in real science.
Second, and even more important, it underscores once again the foolishness of adopting anything like this as ‘truth’, then trying to twist the Word of God to make it fit.
When, finally, the dust settles on this issue, the big bang will not be discarded until a new model is developed to take its place, one which will not gain popularity unless it is also evolutionary (that is, one which ‘explains’ a way for the universe to make its own complexity with no outside interference). Sadly, such is the religious reference frame for most researchers. It is not too difficult to predict that the new model will also be widely proclaimed as ‘truth’ and as ‘the way God must have done it’ by large numbers in the church, condemning as ‘unscientific’ those who adhere to the revealed truth of God’s Word.
(Based on information taken from an article by Jon Fairall in The Australian newspaper, 27 February 1990.)