The Big Bang - Fact or Faith?

The Big Bang Theory is the secular scientific explanation for the origin of the universe.  It is what is taught in schools across America as the absolute truth of how the universe was formed.  The theory holds that the universe came into existence suddenly out of nothing as a singularity 13.7 billion years ago. A singularity is defined as a zone of infinite density.  It is a point where gravitational pressure is so great that finite matter is compressed into infinite density.  This point is infinitesimally small and infinitely hot.  The theory cannot explain where this singularity came from or what existed before it.  Some have claimed that it came from nothing.
 
Right from the start this makes the Big Bang Theory an inadequate explanation.  Proponents of the theory are left with the gaping hole of being unable to explain from where this singularity came that started everything.  And for those who claim it simply came from nothing, that poses an even greater problem.
 
The First Law of Thermodynamics states that matter cannot be created nor destroyed.  Matter can only be converted into other matter.  Simply put, something cannot come from nothing.  This is a scientific law.  The hierarchy of the scientific method goes from hypothesis, to theory, to law.  Honest science would dictate that any hypothesis or theory that violates a law is flawed and therefore one must start over and develop a new hypothesis and build a new theory.  But instead, Big Bang Theory proponents have brushed off this contradiction by claiming that scientific laws themselves evolved and are not necessarily applicable at the start of the universe.  So it is ok for scientists to bend the rules of science to accommodate their explanation for the universe, but they afford absolutely no such accommodations to creationism (not that creationism necessarily violates true science).
 
There are three main problems with the Big Bang Theory that even scientists admit.  First is their inability to find magnetic monopoles in nature.  Scientists realize that the immense force of the Big Bang should have created an abundance of particles with only one magnetic pole (a magnetic monopole).  The problem is they have been unable to observe any such particles in nature.
 
The second problem is the Flatness Problem.  Almost all observational evidence indicates that the universe is flat, like a piece of paper on a table.  This means that the universe must have started at a point of extreme flatness with no curvature, because even the slightest curvature would have been amplified over the vast age scientists claim the universe to have.  This is important, because if the curvature of the universe was just a few percent off from perfect flatness within a few seconds after the Big Bang the universe would have either expanded so much that it would seem to be devoid of matter or re-collapsed before fusion ever began.  However, the probability that the universe started out at such a fine-tuned extremity is very low, which makes the claim that the universe is 13.7 billion years old questionable, to say the least.
 
The third problem is the Horizon Problem.  The observable temperature of photons in all regions of the universe is the same, based on what we’ve been able to measure thus far.  This is problematic, because one would expect significant temperature differences since the regions are separated by distances greater than any temperature transferring signal, including light, could have traveled in the time since the universe began.
 
Scientists have attempted to explain away the Flatness and Horizontal problems by creating the concept of inflation.  This concept holds that early on, the universe experienced a time of ultra-fast expansion.  This ultra-fast inflation would have expanded away any large-scale curvature of the universe, thus explaining why it is flat.  They also claim that the temperatures of the various parts of the universe reached equilibrium while they were close together before being pushed apart by the ultra-fast expansion, thus explaining the uniformity of temperature throughout the universe.
 
However, there are problems with the concept of inflation.  First, it requires conditions outside of known physics.  It requires a high density of energy that gravitationally self-repels.  This enhances expansion and causes it to speed up.  The problem is this inflationary energy is purely hypothetical and there is no direct evidence that it exists.
 
Another problem is that once inflation starts, it is impossible to stop.  This would result in a multiverse with an infinite number of universes.
 
Perhaps the biggest problem though, is that for inflation to have occurred requires conditions that would have been fine-tuned to a highly improbably degree – even greater than the improbability of the fine-tuning required for the Flatness problem it attempts to solve.
 
There are other problems with cosmic evolution including galaxies, planets, and moons rotating in different directions, the existence of comets that should have died out long ago, and spiral galaxies that indicate a universe much younger than claimed, just to name a few.  If you are interested in learning more about the flaws in cosmic evolution, I would encourage you to view the work done by Answers in Genesis and the Origins program on the Cornerstone Television Network – videos from both are available for free on YouTube.
 
The overarching theme regarding the Big Bang theory, and cosmic evolution in general, is one of scientists presenting a competing faith model as fact.  They feel free to mock the creationist view of a superior being (who we called God) creating the universe as unscientific but at the same time either compromise scientific laws, engage in highly improbably speculation, or simply make up concepts with no prior grounding in science to cling to a theory.  Faith is something that is meant to be clung to.  Scientific theories are meant to be tested and abandoned if proven unrealistic. 
 
What we are seeing increasingly in modern science as it relates to cosmic evolution is dogmatic thinking more akin to religious fervor than the open-minded, ever-curious attitude upon which modern science was built through sound observational experiments and honest conclusions.  It is just further evidence that when it comes to our origins, we are not engaged in a scientific debate.  We are in a battle of worldviews.  Which is why it is important for Christians to take steps to educate themselves and not trust everything coming from the scientific community at face value.  That’s not to say there are not good and honest scientists.  But we need to recognize that there is an agenda that permeates the field of science and it is an agenda that is against God.
​