AIG: Why Big Bang Theory is False

We always try to bring you cutting-edge research from the world of creation science, so we must tell you about the latest from Answers in Genesis (AIG), one of the major sources of young-earth creationist wisdom. AIG is the online creationist ministry of Ken Ham (ol’ Hambo), the Australian entrepreneur who has become the ayatollah of Appalachia.

Their article is The Big-Bang God or the God of Scripture? It’s rather long and we could comment on virtually every sentence, but that would become tedious. Instead we’ll just give you the highlights, trusting that you’ll click over there to read it all for yourself. Here are some excerpts, with bold font added by us:

Some people have suggested that God (or a god) used a “big bang” to create the universe. The big bang is the secular model of how the universe formed. However, the consistent Christian has no need to speculate on how and when God might have created the universe.

No need to speculate? That’s great! AIG continues:

The Creator himself has left a written record that summarizes His creative acts — a record that contradicts the big-bang model on many points. Sadly, many people are inclined to ignore what God has said about what He did. Instead, they rely on secular philosophy to reconstruct a past that contradicts the recorded history and eyewitness testimony of the Bible.

Secular philosophy? How horrible! Let’s read on:

Can you imagine if people applied such thinking to other fields of study? What if someone rejected recorded history and claimed that World War I never happened because his philosophy does not allow for the possibility of a world war. Would this be reasonable?

Uh, no. That wouldn’t be reasonable. Nor is it even remotely a reasonable comparison. We continue:

These days, it is common for people to reject the possibility of a supernatural, biblical creation simply because they embrace the philosophy of naturalism — the belief that “nature is all that there is.”

Naturalism [the absence of unevidenced miracles] and uniformitarianism [application of the observed unchanging laws of nature] are the driving philosophies behind the big bang. That is, the big-bang model attempts to describe the formation of the entire universe by processes currently operating within the universe. Stars, planets, and galaxies are all said to have formed “naturalistically” — by the laws of nature currently in operation. The expansion of the universe is assumed to be naturalistic and uniformitarian in the big-bang model.

How foolish to rely on silly, non-scriptural stuff like reason and logic, and empiricism, and the scientific method, and Occam’s razor. Buncha balderdash! Here’s more:

The big bang is simply one of many incorrect conclusions derived from secular assumptions. It is not compatible with the Bible. Therefore, Christians should reject it.

Obviously! Moving along:

The big bang accepts the secular order of events, not the biblical order. For example, stars come before the earth in the big bang, but the order is reversed in the Bible. The big bang teaches that the universe is billions of years old, whereas the Bible teaches only thousands of years. The big bang teaches that the first stars formed by natural processes, but the Bible teaches that God made the stars.

The choice is clear. Another excerpt:

Many people don’t realize that the big bang is not only bad theology, but it is bad science as well. Is the big bang the same kind of science that put men on the moon, or allows your computer to function? Not at all. The big bang isn’t testable, repeatable laboratory science.

Wow — they’re right! Scientists can’t duplicate the universe in the lab. On with the article:

It doesn’t make specific predictions that are later confirmed by observation and experimentation.

Uh … what about the prediction and later discovery of the cosmic microwave background radiation? Well, never mind. Here’s one final excerpt from the article’s last paragraph:

There simply is no rational reason to believe in the big bang. It is not compatible with the Bible, and it’s not good science.

So there you are. It’s either the big bang or literal Genesis. But be warned: The big bang leads to the Lake of Fire. It’s up to you, dear reader.

Copyright © 2012. 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

8 responses to “AIG: Why Big Bang Theory is False

  1. What a rich load of cow droppings.

    Once again, AiG invokes the great circular argument; i.e. God created natural laws and minds that reason logically, therefore if one argues logically that Genesis is false, based on natural laws and other evidence, then one proves that Genesis is true since one could not make such an argument otherwise. If one points out that there is no evidence for the premise that God created natural laws or reason, or even that God exists at all, then one is told that we have God’s infallible word that he exists – the Bible. If one points out that the bible is an arbitrary compendium of ancient writings by anonymous authors, then one is informed that it is indeed the word of God, because it says so. Repeat ad nauseum.

    BTW – there is an excellent, easy to understand explanation of why we have a universe with almost all matter an no antimatter (mentioned in the article as a flaw in the big bang model) on Ethan Siegel’s blog recently: http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2012/03/why_is_there_something_instead.php

  2. Is the big bang the same kind of science that put men on the moon, or allows your computer to function? Not at all.

    Here’s some irony: the cosmic microwave background was (in part) discovered because of the noise it produced on Penzias and Wilson’s radio antenna. They kept trying to find and elimate the source, bu they couldn’t find one – the noise seemed to come from everywhere!
    It also makes white noise on analog, antenna-using TV sets. Though not much, and nobody has those any more.

    So yes, in a broad sense, it is exactly the sort of science that allows your TVs and satellite dishes and radio transmitters to function.

  3. @eric: You’re on the right track. The reason for both the cosmic microwave background (CMB) and the noise in your TV is based on the fact that they both have a temperature higher than absolute zero. In your TV, you can even calculate roughly how much noise based on “kTB” (Boltzmann’s constant x temp x bandwidth) made popular by Johnson and Nyquist. But the noise in your TV is not coming from CMB; the noise in your TV is predominantly either from internal noise or what’s being collected from external sources via the antenna. The CMB is at a much higher frequency (hundreds of GHz), whereas the workings of your TV are roughly 1 GHz or less.
    BUT… you’re ABSOLUTELY, POSITIVELY correct that the “Big Bang” science *IS* the same science that put men on the moon AND allows for computers to function AND helps to explain the CMB AND helps us to understand the noise in your TV. Denial of any of this is pure, unadulterated stuff coming out of the south end of a northern-bound bull.

  4. “What if someone rejected recorded history and claimed that World War I never happened because his philosophy does not allow for the possibility of a world war.”

    This sentence threw me because it sounded just like a criticism of Ham’s own views. Just replace “established science” for “recorded history” and “religion” for “philosophy” and it sums up just about every Christian argument against science I can think of.

  5. aturingtest

    “However, the consistent Christian has no need to speculate on how and when God might have created the universe…
    The Creator himself has left a written record that summarizes His creative acts…”
    No need to speculate- no need to wonder why and how, it’s all there in the book. And these are the people who say “atheism robs life of mystery and wonder.” This is true if your definition of “wonder” is “to gape mindlessly at things.”
    I dunno, SC- after reading the rest of your extracts from that mindless dribble (from a mouth gaping open in dull, stupid , and deliberate incomprehension, rather than any true sense of wonder), I have to say-
    Fish. Barrel. AK-47.
    BTW- “buncha balderdash!” I’ve decided that is going to be my next child’s name, male or female, complete with the !

  6. wow, I’m utterly astounded by the “logic” employed by AIG.

    @aturingtest: I’ve seen far better names than that in my practice. If it weren’t a HIPAA violation, I could share them, but as I’m hoping there is only one of some of these kids, I shouldn’t share as they could be too “identifiable.”

  7. Is the big bang the same kind of science that put men on the moon, or allows your computer to function? Not at all.

    Come on, we all know that our Bible studies got us to the moon!

  8. That’s the thing that really gets me about creationists and particularly young earthers… for the modern scientific consensus to be wrong about the age of the universe we would have to be so wrong that most of our technology wouldn’t work. From medicines and radiation oncology to nuclear energy and gps/spaceflight it wouldn’t work if we were totally wrong. You can’t get this stuff by accident.