The big bang model has undergone a tremendous amount of refinement since it became the dominant cosmogony a half-century ago. In the 1970s, cosmologists identified two problems for the big bang model, the horizon problem and the flatness problem. In the 1980s, cosmic inflation was developed to explain away these two problems. Cosmic inflation is a hypothetical brief hyper expansion of the universe (far faster than the speed of light) that occurred between 10-34 and 10-32 seconds after the universe came into existence. Cosmic inflation is widely accepted today, though there is no evidence for it.
Dark energy was invoked to explain the apparent acceleration in the expansion of the universe.
Another major revision to the big bang model was the inclusion of dark energy two decades ago. Dark energy was invoked to explain the apparent acceleration in the expansion of the universe. Acceleration was unexpected because the presence of matter in the universe ought to slow the rate of expansion, not speed it up. While the force responsible for this acceleration is called dark energy, no one knows the origin or nature of dark energy. The inclusion of inflation, dark matter, and many other major changes to the big bang have become par for the course within cosmology anymore, rendering the big bang model almost unrecognizable from its original form more than a half century ago.
And new variants appear quite frequently. For instance, a recently uploaded paper provides a new twist to cosmic origins. Fortunately, another astrophysicist has provided a succinct summary of what this paper proposes. Dark energy is very similar to the cosmological constant Albert Einstein introduced more than a century ago. Both are forces causing space to repel itself, thus accelerating expansion. The difference is that the cosmological constant is a constant repulsion throughout time, while dark energy is repulsion that varies over time. The meager evidence available now indicates a constant repulsion, but it is possible that a time-varying repulsion just doesn’t show up in the current data. The new study proposes that dark energy played an even more significant role in the early universe.
Cosmic inflation would have expanded the universe to the extent that the density of matter was very low. Most cosmologists assume that whatever caused inflation to begin and then stop also filled the universe with new matter. But this new study explores the possibility that it was dark energy that refilled the universe after the inflationary episode. The researchers propose that the introduction of new matter in the early universe this way would have left an imprint on the cosmic microwave background and the distribution of matter (galaxies) in the universe now. The authors of the paper attempted to show that their proposal fits the observed parameters of the universe today.
Ironically, evolutionists accuse Christians of bringing “Divine miracles” into science.
Will this new study become widely accepted and shape the direction of big bang modeling? It’s too early to tell. But notice the similarity to previous modifications of the big bang. This solution was proposed to solve a problem with the big bang model (the observed density of the universe is far too high if inflation is true). There is an unknown force involved. The behavior of this force is unknown. There is no evidence (testable predictions) of this solution. Ironically, evolutionists accuse Christians of bringing “Divine miracles” into science. Concurrently, in essence, they bring in their own “naturalistic miracles” into science. If this proposal becomes the norm, it will be despite no real evidence for it. Rather, it will become accepted by its necessity within the big bang model, because without it, the big bang model fails to explain the universe that we see. And, before this paper, many of us were never told that the problem with the big bang model that it proposes to solve even existed. However, it is taught dogmatically that the big bang had to be correct anyway.
Ultimately, the goal of this paper is to explain the thorny problem of why the universe exists. You see, the sudden appearance of matter and energy violates everything true science says about how the universe works. And science is supposed to answer the question of how―not why. Why is a question deemed more appropriate for philosophy and religion? At least that is how some patronizing scientists frequently lecture creationists when they think we have let God encroach into the realm of science. The problem with that is these same scientists often see no problem in encroaching upon the realm that they themselves have reserved for God. They take an unscientific approach to cosmology that illustrates the futility of man’s thinking when they reject God (Romans 1:18–21). Both good science and the Bible reveal that there is no real explanation for the origin of the world apart from God (John 1:3).