The “big bang” is a story about how the universe came into existence.
It proposes that billions of years ago the universe began in a tiny, infinitely
hot and dense point called a singularity. This singularity supposedly
contained not only all the mass and energy that would become everything
we see today, but also “space” itself. According to the story, the singularity
rapidly expanded, spreading out the energy and space.
It is supposed that over vast periods of time, the energy from the big
bang cooled down as the universe expanded. Some of it turned into matter—hydrogen and helium gas. These
gases collapsed to form stars and galaxies
of stars. Some of the stars created the
heavier elements in their core and then
exploded, distributing these elements
into space. Some of the heavier elements
allegedly began to stick together and
formed the earth and other planets.
This story of origins is entirely fiction.
But sadly, many people claim to
believe the big-bang model. It is particularly
distressing that many professing
Christians have been taken in by
the big bang, perhaps without realizing
its atheistic underpinnings. They have chosen to reinterpret the plain teachings
of Scripture in an attempt to make it mesh with secular beliefs about
There are several reasons why we cannot just add the big bang to the
Bible. Ultimately, the big bang is a secular story of origins. When first proposed,
it was an attempt to explain how the universe could have been created
without God. Really, it is an alternative to the Bible, so it makes no sense to
try to “add” it to the Bible. Let us examine some of the profound differences
between the Bible and the secular big-bang view of origins.
The Bible teaches that God created the universe in six days (Genesis 1;
Exodus 20:11). It is clear from the context in Genesis that these were days in
the ordinary sense (i.e., 24-hour days) since they are bounded by evening and
morning and occur in an ordered list (second day, third day, etc.). Conversely,
the big bang teaches the universe has evolved over billions of years.
The Bible says that earth was created before the stars and that trees
were created before the sun.1 However, the big-bang view teaches the exact
opposite. The Bible tells us that the earth was created as a paradise; the secular
model teaches it was created as a molten blob. The big bang and the Bible certainly
do not agree about the past.
Many people don’t realize that the big bang is a story not only
about the past but also about the future. The most popular version of the
big bang teaches that the universe will expand forever and eventually run out
of usable energy. According to the story, it will remain that way forever in a
state that astronomers call “heat death.”2 But the Bible teaches that the world
will be judged and remade. Paradise will be restored. The big bang denies this
crucial biblical teaching.
Scientific Problems with the Big Bang
The big bang also has a number of scientific problems. Big-bang supporters
are forced to accept on “blind faith” a number of notions that are
completely inconsistent with real observational science. Let’s explore some of
the inconsistencies between the big-bang story and the real universe.
Most people know something about magnets—like the kind found in
a compass or the kind that sticks to a refrigerator. We often say that magnets
have two “poles”—a north pole and a south pole. Poles that are alike will
repel each other, while opposites attract. A “monopole” is a hypothetical massive
particle that is just like a magnet but has only one pole. So a monopole
would have either a north pole or a south pole, but not both.
Particle physicists claim that many magnetic monopoles should have
been created in the high temperature conditions of the big bang. Since monopoles
are stable, they should have lasted to this day. Yet, despite considerable
search efforts, monopoles have not been found. Where are the monopoles?
The fact that we don’t find any monopoles suggests that the universe never
was that hot. This indicates that there never was a big bang, but it is perfectly
consistent with the Bible’s account of creation, since the universe did not start
The Flatness Problem
Another serious challenge to the big-bang model is called the flatness
problem. The expansion rate of the universe appears to be very finely balanced
with the force of gravity; this condition is known as flat. If the universe were the
accidental by-product of a big bang, it is difficult to imagine how such a fantastic
coincidence could occur. Big-bang cosmology cannot explain why the matter
density in the universe isn’t greater, causing it to collapse upon itself (closed
universe), or less, causing the universe to rapidly fly apart (open universe).
The problem is even more severe when we extrapolate into the past.
Since any deviation from perfect
flatness tends to increase
as time moves forward, it logically
follows that the universe
must have been even more
precisely balanced in the past
than it is today. Thus, at the
moment of the big bang, the
universe would have been
virtually flat to an extremely
high precision. This must have
been the case (assuming the
big bang), despite the fact that
the laws of physics allow for an
infinite range of values. This is
a coincidence that stretches
credulity to the breaking point. Of course, in the creation model, “balance” is
expected since the Lord has fine-tuned the universe for life.
Inflating the Complexities
Many secular astronomers have come up with an idea called “inflation”
in an attempt to address the flatness and monopole problems (as well as other
problems not addressed in detail here, such as the horizon problem). Inflation
proposes that the universe temporarily went through a period of accelerated
expansion. Amazingly, there is no real supporting evidence for inflation; it
appears to be nothing more than an unsubstantiated conjecture—much
like the big bang itself. Moreover, the inflation idea has difficulties of its own,
such as what would start it and how it would stop smoothly. In addition,
other problems with the big bang are not solved, even if inflation were true.
These are examined below.
Where Is the Antimatter?
Consider the “baryon number problem.” Recall that the big bang supposes
that matter (hydrogen and helium gas) was created from energy as the
universe expanded. However, experimental physics tells us that whenever
matter is created from energy, such a reaction also produces antimatter. Antimatter
has similar properties to matter, except the charges of the particles are
reversed. (So whereas a proton has a positive charge, an antiproton has a negative
charge.) Any reaction where energy is transformed into matter produces
an exactly equal amount of antimatter; there are no known exceptions.
The big bang…should have produced exactly equal amounts of matter and antimatter, and that should be what we see today. But we do not.
The big bang (which has no matter to begin with, only energy) should
have produced exactly equal amounts of matter and antimatter, and that
should be what we see today. But we do not. The visible universe is comprised
almost entirely of matter—with only trace amounts of antimatter
This devastating problem for the big bang is actually consistent with
biblical creation; it is a design feature. God created the universe to be essentially
matter only—and it’s a good thing He did. When matter and antimatter
come together, they violently destroy each other. If the universe had equal
amounts of matter and antimatter (as the big bang requires), life would not
Missing Population III Stars
The big-bang model by itself can only account for the existence of the
three lightest elements (hydrogen, helium, and trace amounts of lithium).
This leaves about 90 or so of the other naturally occurring elements to be
explained. Since the conditions in the big bang are not right to form these
heavier elements (as big-bang supporters readily concede), secular astronomers
believe that stars have produced the remaining elements by nuclear
fusion in the core. This is thought to occur in the final stages of a massive star
as it explodes (a supernova). The explosion then distributes the heavier elements
into space. Second- and third-generation stars are thus “contaminated”
with small amounts of these heavier elements.
If this story were true, then the first stars would have been comprised
of only the three lightest elements (since these would have been the only elements
in existence initially). Some such stars3 should still be around today
since their potential life span is calculated to exceed the (big bang) age of the
universe. Such stars would be called “Population III” stars.4 Amazingly (to
those who believe in the big bang), Population III stars have not been found
anywhere. All known stars have at least trace amounts of heavy elements in
them. It is amazing to think that our galaxy alone is estimated to have over
100 billion stars in it, yet not one star has been discovered that is comprised
of only the three lightest elements.
The Collapse of the Big Bang
With all the problems listed above, as well as many others too numerous
to include, it is not surprising that quite a few secular astronomers are
beginning to abandon the big bang. Although it is still the dominant model
at present, increasing numbers of physicists and astronomers are realizing
that the big bang simply is not a good explanation of how the universe
began. In the May 22, 2004, issue of New Scientist, there appeared an open
letter to the scientific community written primarily by secular scientists5
who challenge the big bang. These scientists pointed out that the copious
arbitrary assumptions and the lack of successful big-bang predictions challenge
the legitimacy of the model. Among other things, they state:
The big bang today relies on a growing number of hypothetical
entities, things that we have never observed—inflation, dark
matter and dark energy are the most prominent examples. Without
them, there would be a fatal contradiction between the observations
made by astronomers and the predictions of the big bang
theory. In no other field of physics would this continual recourse to
new hypothetical objects be accepted as a way of bridging the gap
between theory and observation. It would, at the least, raise serious
questions about the validity of the underlying theory.6
This statement has since been signed by hundreds of other scientists and
professors at various institutions. The big bang seems to be losing considerable
popularity. Secular scientists are increasingly rejecting the big bang in
favor of other models. If the big bang is abandoned, what will happen to all
the Christians who compromised and claimed that the Bible is compatible
with the big bang? What will they say? Will they claim that the Bible actually
does not teach the big bang, but instead that it teaches the latest secular
model? Secular models come and
go, but God’s Word does not need
to be changed because God got it
exactly right the first time.
The big bang has many scientific
problems. These problems
are symptomatic of the underlying
incorrect worldview. The big
bang erroneously assumes that the
universe was not supernaturally
created, but that it came about by
natural processes billions of years
ago. However, reality does not
line up with this notion. Biblical
creation explains the evidence in a more straightforward way without the
ubiquitous speculations prevalent in secular models. But ultimately, the best
reason to reject the big bang is that it goes against what the Creator of the
universe himself has taught: “In the beginning God created the heaven and
the earth” (Genesis 1:1).