big bang theory

i wrote this this evening for an english class, i hope its an interesting read....



Three Parts Meteor, Two Parts Space Dust



Two prevailing schools of thought, Creationism and The Big Bang Theory, attempt to offer explanations as to not only our origins but our destinations as well. Is Creationism, the belief that the entire universe -including us- was designed by a master deity with an expressed purpose a plausible theory based on our technological and scientific breakthroughs? Or are we merely the end sum of a cataclysmic universe-wide equation as the Big Bang Theory purports?

Neither theory can be proven or overwhelmingly refuted (thus the age old debate rolls on) but with an open mind I believe that one would be doing themselves a disservice by blindly accepting the Big Bang Theory as the primary explanation for our origin.

While this has been the primary explanation given to school children since it was hypothesized in 1914, this theory doesn’t hold much water when subjected to serious scientific scrutiny. Much like earlier theories - such as the earth being flat, the sun orbiting the earth, or even more recently, Pluto being a planet- our attempts at pinning down unexplained events could very well be proved to be completely false.

The B.B.T relies on a few key hypothesis’ to support the overall theory, Dark Matter, Inflation and Dark Energy. The theory states that the Universe was basically a small “kernel” of dark matter that was kept in a state of limbo within a black hole by dark energy. Eventually, and for an unexplained reason, the kernel’s dark matter reached critical mass, actually causing a reversal in the effects of the black hole, resulting in “Inflation”. This inflation has been equated to that of an empty balloon suddenly expanding to infinity. Miraculously, the densely packed dark matter is now allowed to also “Inflate”, and eventually coalesces into what are known today as planets. Thus our universe is born and everything is good, right?

Well, the biggest problem with the B.B.T theory is the fact the majority of it is based on assumptions. Despite a tremendous amount of cosmological, and astrological breakthroughs and advances, our scientists have yet to discover a single example of dark matter, dark energy, or even the popular black hole. Moreover, our entire cosmological “knowledge” is based on the flawed, hypothesis that is the Big Bang Theory.

In an open letter from 33 respected secular scientists to the scientific community supporting the Big Bang Theory, the following assertion was made:

“In no other field of physics would this continual recourse to new hypothetical objects be accepted as a way of bridging the gap between theory and observation. It would, at the least, raise serious questions about the validity of the underlying theory.” - An Open Letter to the Scientific Community*

While it may prove convenient to simply overlook flaws in a theory, scientists are bound to a code of legitimacy and accuracy. To perpetuate a theory despite obvious conflicts is unethical to say the least

Now it is relatively easy to disassemble the framework of the B.B.T, it is infinitely harder to prove Creationism. Creationism at it’s most fundamental level is based on a God initiating the birth of our universe and everything dwelling within it. As religion is faith-based, it is impossible to prove, but one can prove to a certain degree of accuracy that the Christian model for Creationism is a viable theory unlike the B.B.T as it lacks self-destructive characteristics and contradictions.

The book of Genesis in the Bible makes the claim that the universe was created by God himself in 7 days. As there is no way of proving or refuting this claim, I believe the best route would be to present arguments for the legitimacy of the Bible as a whole.

One common argument against the Christian Creationist belief is that assuming the Bible is divinely inspired, it has been passed thru so many hands that there is no way it could be as accurate as the original manuscript. This argument holds no weight as the Bible has been subjected to many historical literary tests and passed all with flying colors. Tests that compare historical, anthropological and literary data to determine authenticity. Based on one test in particular, Homer’s “Odyssey” and “The Iliad” had 4-5,000 corresponding historical documents from that time period to support that copies we have now are indeed the same as the original. The New Testament alone had over 27,000 corresponding texts to support it’s accuracy. That’s over five times the amount of support that two of the oldest literary works we have can claim.

Secondly, consider the multitudes of people who have given their lives, figuratively and literally, to God Himself. Millions have willingly been martyred because of faith in an omniscient creator.

Of the twelve Apostles of Jesus, only one - John, who was banished to the island of Patmos after surviving being boiled in oil - escaped a martyr’s death. The eleven remaining apostles all died either by crucifixion, stoning, sword or spear. This begs the question, “Who would die such a horrible painful death for something they knew to be a lie?” No one would willingly give themselves up to such barbaric deaths if they knew it was all in vain All twelve apostles were present at the Resurrection of Christ and truly believed that God Himself had risen, the lives they led and the sacrifices they made are a testimony to their unwavering faith in God’s sovereignty.

Lastly, the human eyeball, with it’s ability to focus, adjust it’s aperture instantaneously, track objects, and perceive color is an engineering giant unequaled even compared to modern day super-computers. Each individual eye is composed of millions upon millions of neurons, synapses, rod and cones, all working in concert to convert light into images. Christian scientists have said that the eyeball is irreducibly complex, that is, that it would be impossible for the eyeball to evolve over time due to the fact that all aspects of the eye need to work in perfect harmony for it to work at all. None of the individual parts of the human eye serve a singular purpose, thus those “mutations” would themselves have been phased out by the evolutionary process.


“ To suppose that the eye, with all it’s inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest possible degree.”

- Charles Darwin

What does all of this mean? It means that to examine the human eyeball and infer that it is merely the end-sum of a universal equation that started with space dust is mathematically improbable and borderline preposterous . To further claim that everything around us, plants, animals, skyscrapers, computers or jet planes are also the fruitions of the B.B.T is a leap of faith that makes faith in Creationism look like a walk in the park.

To confidently claim that we have figured out the glorious complexity of our universe based on a flawed theory is to slam the door in the face of human intellect and ingenuity.
But to refuse to entertain the Creationism theory based on prejudice or because it’s lack of quantitative data is to impede human progress to an incalculable extent.










*www.cosmologystatement.org