First Things
A Common Sense Approach to Origins

“Big Bang” Issues

According to the plot of the movie “The Fugitive,” pharmaceutical company Devlin MacGregor had discovered that their new wonder drug Provasic (RDU-90) was dangerous and potentially lethal. Knowing that the future of the company depended on the success of the drug, they falsified the test results and got the drug approved by the FDA. Then they launched a crusade to sell the wonder drug. Rather than admit the danger, Devlin MacGregor committed the worst kind of fraud that put lives at risk.

In 1929, astronomer Edwin Hubble discovered the universe was expanding. This discovery contradicted theories of the scientific community related to the big bang. They were convinced that gravity was causing the universe to collapse. This fit with the theory some scientists had advanced that the universe had expanded and then, through the force of gravity, contracted some unknown number of times in the past in a yo-yo fashion. This, of course, would put the origin of matter so far back in time that they could not be expected to explain the origin of matter.

Then in 1998, scientists discovered the universe was not only expanding, but that it was expanding at an ever increasing rate. For big bang proponents, this was like a pharmaceutical company learning that their wonder drug was potentially lethal. There was no way that a big bang taking place roughly fourteen billion years ago could explain the universe expanding at an ever increasing rate.  At first glance, it looked like the only natural causes theory for the existence of the universe had been proven false.

Did proponents of natural causes and the big bang announce that they had discovered facts that brought  the big bang theory into question? They did not. Instead, they announced the discovery that the universe is full of dark energy and dark matter that explain the inexplicable. How did they know dark matter and dark energy exist? The only answer they could give is that they must exist because the universe is expanding at an ever increasing rate and that is the only explanation if the big bang is true.

Did anyone consider it was time to rethink the entire natural causes view of origins. Apparently not. Is it possible that some in the scientific community thought about that? It is hard to believe on one did.

Today dark matter and dark energy are spoken of as though there is no doubt of their existence. No one has seen any evidence of their existence except that the universe is expanding at an every increasing rate which could not be true if the universe originated by a natural causes big bang. No instruments have detected dark matter or dark energy. What has always been viewed as empty space is not described as a universe full of the dark matter and dark energy.

Why compare the campaign to establish the presence of dark matter and dark energy with a fictitious case of fraud by a pharmaceutical company? After all, no one is put in danger by coming up with the dark matter and dark energy theory, right? That is not true if the Bible is true. Human beings who accept the natural causes view of origins ignore the message of the Bible. According to the Bible, this puts their eternal life at stake. Devlin MacGregor could kill people physically. The natural causes view of origins endangers peoples’ souls.

And There’s More: The ever increasing expansion of the universe is not the only problem with the big bang theory. It is the latest and it is huge, but the big bang theory has a litany of issues to overcome. These include:

  1. The assumption that the compressed initial seed of matter (whose existence is assumed by the big bang theory) wanted to explode into a universe and was only constrained by a matching force of gravity.
  2. The recognition that the universe would have to have inflated (expanded at a speed significantly greater than the speed of light) in order to overcome difficulties with the average mass density.
  3. The sudden disappearance of the force of gravity (that had been restraining the seed of matter) so that the seed could explode and expand at Planck time speeds (a time measurement equal to a billionth of a billionth of a billionth of a billionth of a second required to explain how quickly the universe expanded).
  4. The concept that the seed of matter would break up into minuscule particles with incredible consistency and utility as the building blocks of atoms.
  5. The concept that these particles, traveling at the speed of Planck time as the universe expanded and getting further and further from each other as the density of the universe decreased would eventually be brought together as the result of their gravitational pull toward each other that could only be described as minute. (For comparison, think in terms of the pellets coming out from a shotgun and consider at what point gravity would cause these pellets to come together if the gun was shot in outer space.)
  6. The concept that the particles would join up and form atoms as just the right building blocks that broke off the initial seed attracted one another in just the right amounts so that, with the consistency one would expect from a very efficient assembly line, uniform atoms developed in numbers too numerous for words.
  7. The concept that these atoms, traveling at speeds at least equivalent to the speed of light, would be drawn together with the same “gravity did it” explanation when the atoms would be significantly further apart from each other (time having past and the density of the universe continuing to dissipate at speeds that are incomprehensible to us) and the gravitational pull between the atoms would be only slightly more than the gravitational pull between the initial particles.
  8. The concept that these atoms, continuing to travel at roughly the speed of light since there would be nothing to slow them down, would drift together over time to form planets and stars and galaxies.
  9. The concept that newly formed planets would somehow drift into orbits that would be so precise that the speed of the planet would be neither too slow (in which case the earth would have been drawn into the sun) or too fast (in which case the earth would have gotten further and further from the sun until it would have broken away from the sun’s gravitational pull altogether). This precision evaded the rocket scientists in the early days of the space program despite their best efforts to achieve precisely balanced orbits, but the big bang theory requires that they developed, purely by chance, precision that has enabled the earth to orbit the sun for billions of years without getting too close or too far away.
  10. The concept that the particles that drifted together to form the earth formed, purely by chance, deposits of minerals that were sufficient in size and close enough to the surface of the earth that they could be economically extracted. Given the time suggested for the particles to drift together to form the earth, it seems more likely that, if like particles attracted like particles, all of the gold would have been in one place and all of the silver would have been in another place or, if like particles did not attract like particles, the particles would be so dispersed that extracting the minerals would be economically unfeasible.

The natural causes community knows the big bang theory had serious problems before the expansion of the universe issue surfaced. Given that development, honest seekers for truth could be expected to announce that the big bang theory is shaky at best and that many significant issues need to be addressed before anyone trusts the big bang theory as a basis for any significant life decision. Sadly, that level of honesty has not been displayed. On the contrary, efforts to sell the natural causes view including the big bang theory have escalated with an implication that those who do not accept that the big bang is factual are lacking in education, in intelligence, or both. This is unworthy of the scientific community given the prestige and influence they have in America.