Is The Big Bang Theory A Dud?

bbIf the solar system was brought about by an accidental collision, then the appearance of organic life on this planet was also an accident, and the whole evolution of Man was an accident too. If so, then all our present thoughts are mere accidents—the accidental by-product of the movement of atoms. And this holds for the thoughts of the materialists and astronomers as well as for anyone else’s. But if their thoughts—i.e. of materialism and astronomy—are merely accidental by-products, why should we believe them to be true? I see no reason for believing that one accident should be able to give me a correct account of all the other accidents. It’s like expecting that the accidental shape taken by the splash when you upset a milkjug should give you a correct account of how the jug was made and why it was upset.”  C.S. Lewis

Crev.Info reports that NASA’s Hubble Space Telescope has uncovered the long-suspected underlying population of galaxies that produced the bulk of new stars during the universe’s early years. They are the smallest, faintest, and most numerous galaxies ever seen in the remote universe, captured by Hubble deep exposures taken in ultraviolet light.

According to Live Science  the lensing cluster, Abell 2744, is 3.5 billion light years away but the faint galaxies in the background are more than 12 billion light-years away.  Galaxies that far away (and thus further back in time) are not supposed to have heavy elements, because there had not been enough generations of stars to produce them.

Most of the galaxies then were close to 1,000 times smaller than our Milky Way, but astronomers said they were surprised to discover a few brighter, bigger galaxies sparkling out there.   It’s also a bit puzzling why the faint, small galaxies would be “undergoing a firestorm of star birth” in that epoch, but not today.

This is a work in progress.  Astronomers are still trying to tease out the small from the large galaxies and determine their distances.  Still, they would not expect mature galaxies at such an early epoch according to big bang theory.  “Early maturity,” contrary to the expectations of cosmologists, has been a running theme for the past 12 years.  Is the claim of a “firestorm of star birth” an instance of special pleading, an ad hoc theory-rescuing device?  Why else would dispersing gas be in a hurry to clump together?  The secularists’ own principle of uniformitarianism should render that explanation out of bounds.  It appears they are trying to rescue theory from observation.

While the  Big Bang is not the only plausible theory, it remains the most popular,  even with its many problems.  Critics claim that the big bang  suggests the universe began out of nothing. Proponents  say that such criticism is unwarranted  because the big bang doesn’t address the creation of the universe but rather the evolution of it.  Wun Yi Shu, a professor at the National Tsing Hua Universe in Taiwan suggests a universe with no Big Bang, no beginning and no end, that he feels addresses problems with the popular theory.

Theories concerning the mechanistic origin of the universe come and go.  Today’s “science” is tomorrow’s superstition. A few years ago scientists were touting the steady-state theory that asserted that new matter is constantly being created to replace that which is lost by the expanding universe,  as the most reasonable explanation of the origin of the universe.  Today most astronomers regard the steady-state theory as dead.”  

 The big bang is a dud, a large intellectual edifice based on very few  facts.

“The Bible describes a Universe created by God, maintained by him, and intimately and constantly directed by him, while science describes a Universe in which it is not necessary to postulate the existence of God at all”  Isaac Asimov


Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *