Big Bang Intelligent Design

The trouble so many brilliant people have gone to in order to refute the Big Bang

Spread the love

Overall, the anti-Big Bang quests tend to make one believe, if nothing else did, that there must be something in the Big Bang. A useful summary by Brian Miller:

Physicists such as Stephen Hawking and Laurence Krauss have asserted that the mathematics behind solving the wave function demonstrate how our universe did not necessarily have a beginning, and they argue that our universe could have appeared from “nothing.” Yet both of these claims are incorrect.

With regard to the first claim, Hawking solved the wave function using a mathematical trick where the time variable was replaced with imaginary time. The exact details are not crucial to understand. This substitution not only enabled him to solve the wave function, but it also eliminated the beginning of time in his analysis because the original time variable was replaced. In describing his work, Hawking declared that he had eliminated the need for God to explain the origin of the universe:

So long as the universe had a beginning, we would suppose it had a creator. But if the universe is really completely self-contained, having no boundary or edge, it would have neither beginning nor end; it would simply be. What place, then, for a creator?5

In reality, Hawking’s mathematical trick altered the equations in such a way as to disassociate the new time variable from anything real6 in the physical universe. More importantly, at the end of his calculation, he transformed back into real time, at which point the beginning of the universe reemerged. Hawking even admitted this point…

Brian Miller, “Efforts to Resist the Big Bang and Its Implications for Cosmic Design” at Evolution News and Science Today (March 2, 2022)

When evidence is sought merely to refute something one must take that fact into account.

You may also wish to read: The Big Bang: Put simply,the facts are wrong.

2 Replies to “The trouble so many brilliant people have gone to in order to refute the Big Bang

  1. 1
    doubter says:

    There do appear to be some weaknesses or flaws in the Big Bang theory, as much as it is intuitively obviously supportive of the inferred fact that there must have been an original creative event of everything including the existing system of natural laws that are finely tuned to allow and foster life as we know it.

    It’s interesting to review the supposed scientific evidence against the Big Bang that has been compiled by a young Earth creationist organization called the Institute of Creation Research (ICR), at . This article is entitled Does the Cosmic Microwave Background Confirm the Big Bang?, by Jake Hebert, PhD.

    This Big Bang research survey appears to point out some perhaps significant flaws in the current prevailing consensus about the reality of the Big Bang, and shows that despite their devotion to a Scriptural young earth creationist stance (totally opposed to the ancient Big Bang creative event 13.8 billion years ago) these people in ICR can certainly grasp involved scientific/cosmological and astrophysical theory. Of course in my opinion the overall Young Earth Creationist belief system (with the exception of the falsity of Darwinism) is untenable considering the mountain of evidence that has been accumulated by mainstream science over the last two centuries, evidence which is fully accepted by the DI.

    “Three main arguments are commonly used to support the Big Bang model of the universe’s origin:

    – The apparent expansion of the universe, inferred from redshifted spectra of distant galaxies;
    – The fact that the Big Bang can account for the observed relative abundances of hydrogen and helium;
    – The observed cosmic microwave background (CMB) radiation, thought to be an “afterglow” from a time about 400,000 years after the supposed Big Bang.

    Although an expanding universe is consistent with the Big Bang, it doesn’t necessarily demand a Big Bang as its cause. One could imagine that for some reason God imposed an expansion on His created universe, perhaps to keep the universe from collapsing under its own gravity. Of course, this assumes that the prevailing interpretation of the redshift data is correct, which some scientists are starting to question. (Note: see Halton Arp.)

    The second argument isn’t as impressive as it sounds. The Big Bang model is able to account for the observed abundances of hydrogen and helium because it contains an adjustable parameter called the baryon-to-photon ratio. Big Bang scientists simply choose a value for this parameter that gives them the right answer. Even so, it’s not clear that the Big Bang can account for the total number of atoms (per unit volume) in the universe. And even with this adjustable parameter, the Big Bang cannot correctly account for the observed amounts of lithium isotopes.”

    The third argument concerns the cosmic microwave background radiation. According to the ICR article, this isn’t a slam-dunk either.

    “To summarize concerning the CMB, the Big Bang assumes that the universe is isotropic — space should basically look the same in all directions. Since the universe is assumed to be isotropic, the CMB should also be isotropic. And the CMB is very isotropic, which would seem to be a plus for the Big Bang model. But Big Bang cosmologists realized that isotropy was extremely unlikely, so they proposed inflation to explain why the CMB was isotropic. But there is no evidence supporting inflation theory, and the theory has become so weird that it’s now being harshly criticized by other secular scientists. Also, the small-scale temperature differences in the CMB were about 10 times smaller than predicted, so the Big Bang was tweaked to bring these temperature differences into agreement with the model. But the high-resolution Planck data show that subtle large-scale features in the CMB are present—features that are not supposed to exist if inflation is correct!

    But it gets worse. Some of these large-scale temperature differences in the CMB seem to be aligned with our solar system. As acknowledged by outspoken Big Bang proponent Lawrence Krauss:

    “But when you look at CMB map, you also see that the structure that is observed, is in fact, in a weird way, correlated with the plane of the earth around the sun. Is this Copernicus coming back to haunt us? That’s crazy. We’re looking at the whole universe. There’s no way there should be a correlation of structure with our motion of the earth around the sun—the plane of the earth around the sun—the ecliptic. That would say we are truly the center of the universe.””

  2. 2
    BobRyan says:

    A scientific hypothesis is what scientists do when the SWAG it. Scientific Wild A#@ Guess. a theory is where they SWAG it based on evidence and what can be replicated, but based only on what is known. When information comes out that disproves the original evidence, all theories should return to the original SWAG and start again based on what is known.

    Scientists become attached to beliefs, which is why evidence does not matter. Big Bang should have been tossed years ago, but too many cling to it as if it is a law.

Leave a Reply