Big Bang Intelligent Design Naturalism

Ethan Siegel asks why so few challenge the Big Bang

Spread the love

It only really became a standard idea in the 1960s:

As recently as 20 years ago, the Big Bang was one of many ideas that scientists continued to entertain: quasi-steady state theory, plasma cosmology, and quantized redshifts remained mainstays in the scientific literature. But today, it’s largely crackpots and a few fringe contrarians who muster even the flimsiest of challenges to the consensus position: that the Universe began with a hot Big Bang. Is the field of cosmology succumbing to groupthink, as its detractors often claim, or is the lack of alternatives justified? Let’s dive in and find out…

So what happened over the past few decades, that all of the major challenges to the Big Bang have fallen away? Two major events: the collection of large suites of high-quality data, which validated the Big Bang’s major predictions to incredibly high precision, and the fact that the main advocates of the alternatives — once they no longer became defensible on their own merits — got old and died.

If any scientifically viable alternatives to the Big Bang ever arise, almost every modern cosmologist would thoroughly welcome it, and then immediately put it to the test.

Ethan Siegel, “Why Isn’t Anyone Seriously Challenging The Big Bang?” at Forbes

Well, not so sure they would put it to anything like a serious test.

The Big Bang has been very unpopular. It reeks of purpose and is an incitement to theism. It survives only because the evidence rules out all alternatives, as Siegel notes.

But don’t mistake frustration on the part of naturalist atheists for acceptance.

This is the kind of thing naturalist atheists hate:

See also: The Big Bang: Put simply,the facts are wrong.

8 Replies to “Ethan Siegel asks why so few challenge the Big Bang

  1. 1
    Pearlman says:

    the empirical observations align far better w/ a big bang ala SPIRAL and not The big bang. SPIRAL being over 150T : 1 more reasonable a hypothesis based on size, density and entropy factor alone.
    It may be the only hypothesis that can be consistent w/ the Standard Model, General Relativity, have no material anomalies, and align w/ scriptural testimony.
    So while there are many hypothesis out there, to not study and fairly consider the one that makes this ID and YeC claim, is an act of willful scientific ignorance, which is a religious like decision to live in denial of the one reality. Pearlman SPIRAL on Keating Big Bang Checklist

  2. 2
    BobRyan says:

    Einstein’s cosmological constant should not work, since it was created when the universe was believed to be static. The moment it did was the moment Big Bang should have been tossed aside. Hubble’s discovery of galaxies being too new are nothing more than additional ammunition against Big Bang. Rather than one Big Bang, how about a series of smaller ones?

  3. 3
    bornagain77 says:

    Stephen Meyer – Stephen Hawking Speaks from Beyond the Grave

  4. 4
    Seversky says:

    Ethan Siegel Asks Why So Few Challenge The Big Bang

    I don’t think it’s from want of trying. It seems to be difficult to think of anything better.

    The Big Bang has been very unpopular.

    Has it? It seems to be pretty much the only game in town at the moment. I’d hardly call that unpopular.

  5. 5
    Querius says:


    Thanks–nice clip. The other origin theories currently being investigated all fail egregiously on parsimony. A major problem is the origin of information and it’s not likely that quantum gravity could be the source unless quantum gravity is sentient.

    I’d like to read more of Stephen Meyer’s comments so I just ordered his book. His research was meticulous in Signature in the Cell.


  6. 6
    tjguy says:

    The thing is, just because a theory is the best out of what you have, doesn’t make it accurate. It has plenty of problems in and of itself, both philosophical and scientific. It relies on so many theory saving rescue devices like hyper inflation, dark matter, dark energy, dark radiation, etc. etc. so it’s a bit embarrassing. What are the chances that all these ideas that were invented to keep the theory from failing, are actually accurate? Close to nil I would think, but if it’s all you got, you gotta simply believe.

  7. 7
    Querius says:

    The problem is that the Big Bang Theory does offer a credible explanation for the red-shifted light coming from stars and other strange phenomena such as stars apparently travelling faster than the speed of light and the presence of cosmic background radiation. It doesn’t explain the strange velocities of stars rotating around a galactic core or why the expansion of the universe is accelerating.


  8. 8
    Querius says:

    In case anyone is interested, I just started reading Stephen Meyer’s latest book, The Return of the God Hypothesis. Brilliantly written in a highly readable style!


Leave a Reply