Creationists and Cosmology, Part 4

YOUR Curmudgeon has written previously about ravings by creationists who object to the Big Bang. See: Creationists and Cosmology, Part 3 (which links to two earlier posts). We’ve also posted about a couple of letters-to-the-editor on the same subject: Creationist Wisdom #98 and Creationist Wisdom #106.

Creationists’ obsessive hostility is ironic, considering that when the Big Bang was first proposed by Georges Lemaître, an astronomer who was also a Catholic priest, it was initially met with skepticism, partly because it seemed so … well, so scriptural to have a sudden beginning for the universe. But as evidence piled up, scientists put aside their squeamishness and embraced Big Bang theory. Nevertheless, creationists are hostile to the Big Bang. Their anti-reality mindset is utterly incurable.

Today we bring you some excerpts from a new article at the website of Answers in Genesis (AIG), one of the major sources of creationist wisdom: Does the Big Bang Fit with the Bible?

It begins with their description of the Big Bang, and then they voice their displeasure. That’s where we’ll start, with some bold font we added for emphasis:

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 origins.

A tragic situation. Let’s read on:

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.

You didn’t know that, did you? Those wicked scientists — especially Georges Lemaître — sat down and concocted the Big Bang theory merely to provide a secular alternative to scripture.

After making that point, AIG reviews a few scriptural details and points out where science is wrong. For example:

The Bible teaches that God created the universe in six days … . 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. 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.


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.” But the Bible teaches that the world will be judged and remade. Paradise will be restored. The big bang denies this crucial biblical teaching.

Wow! Those scientists really messed it all up. AIG then spends several paragraphs on what they call “problems” with the Big Bang theory — the absence of magnetic monopoles, the flatness problem (solved by what is now called “inflation”), the insufficient quantity of antimatter, etc. We won’t spend time on such things, because we haven’t studied them (has AIG?); and even if they were a problem in cosmology these days, they aren’t addressed in scripture either. Let’s continue to the next part of the AIG article:

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

Ah yes … as with evolution, scientists are abandoning their worthless Big Bang theory. AIG even mentions a list of scientists who have signed on to some statement saying that they’re skeptics of existing theory. We don’t follow cosmology too closely, but it does seem that everyone in that field has his own pet tweak to offer. That’s to be expected in a relatively new field.

Here’s AIG’s conclusion, which we’ll break into two smaller paragraphs:

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.

They’ve identified the fundamental flaw — the assumption that “the universe was not supernaturally created.” The situation couldn’t be more clear. And now, here’s the article’s end:

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).

Well, there you are. So who are you going to believe — a bunch of godless scientists, or AIG’s interpretation of the good book?

See also: Creationists and Cosmology, Part 5.

Copyright © 2010. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.

add to del.icio.usAdd to Blinkslistadd to furlDigg itadd to ma.gnoliaStumble It!add to simpyseed the vineTailRankpost to facebook

. AddThis Social Bookmark Button . Permalink for this article

9 responses to “Creationists and Cosmology, Part 4

  1. Oh yes, the author of this salad of stupidity is non other than Jason Lisle, one of the dimmer bulbs at AiG. This cretin has made a career out of lying to children about science, which puts him somewhere in the constellation Pond Scum.

  2. Right. I hadn’t noticed. Dr. Jason Lisle, PhD., the creationist astrophysicist.

  3. retiredsciguy

    AIG: “The Bible says that earth was created before the stars and that trees were created before the sun.”

    Interesting. How is it that the sap didn’t freeze? After all, without the sun, the earth’s atmosphere would have been just above absolute zero. And did those early leaves have chlorophyll? For what purpose?

    I’m sure Jason Lisle and Ken Ham have answers to these questions, although I can’t see how they could make any sense.

  4. Gabriel Hanna

    Depends on if you read Genesis 1 or Genesis 2.

    The order in Genesis 1 is:

    Water and land
    Sun, moon, stars
    Fish and birds
    Land animals

    The order in Genesis 2:

    How he determines which of the two versions is the right one, he doesn’t say, but they can’t both be right.

  5. Gabriel Hanna says: “… but they can’t both be right.”

    I’m betting that they’re both right. It’s the only way to avoid the Lake of Fire.

  6. Yes, Your Curmudgeonlyness, you are correct. I don’t have a religion, but I have a personal relationship with a talking snake, who told me that without doubt, both Genesis I and II are correct.
    Says so, right there in the Wholly Babble.

  7. “Creationists’ obsessive hostility is ironic, considering that when the Big Bang was first proposed by Georges Lemaître, an astronomer who was also a Catholic priest”

    But, Curmie! Don’tcha know? Catholics is considered one of them dead churches. Cuz it sez so right thar in the Revuhlashuns. Duh.

  8. LRA says: “But, Curmie! Don’tcha know?”

    All I know is that your eternity is going to be a lot hotter than mine. Repent! It’s not too late.

  9. retiredsciguy

    LRA, I clicked on the link you provided, but I just don’t understand wtf it’s talking about. Guess I’ll have to get Ken Ham to interpret this “plain language”.