In response to Stephen Hawking's latest declaration that gravity alone explains the origin of the universe, Answers in Genesis declared that they actually agree with Hawking on one point: God did not use the Big Bang to create the universe. AiG stipulates that for a simple reason: the Big Bang is not an accurate model of universal origin.
As reported earlier, Stephen Hawking said that very existence of the law of gravity was sufficient to explain how the universe could come to be from nothing at all. The Reuters news service inferred from his remarks that Hawking was saying that the Big Bang was inevitable, given the law of gravity and other laws of physics.
Today Ken Ham, writing in his blog, promised a review of Hawking's latest book, The Grand Design, at AiG's weekly Web bulletin, News to Note. Until that happens, or the book appears on bookshelves, the accuracy of the Reuters article's inference is impossible to determine. Ham also reminded his readers that his colleagues had already dealt with the Big Bang, and found it not only incompatible with the Genesis account but also an inaccurate summary of the universe' early history.
The Big Bang model posits a singularity that expanded rapidly into a very hot space that cooled and formed hydrogen, helium, and traces of lithium. A singularity could scarcely be "an inevitable consequence of physical law" because it is beyond it. Furthermore, as this Examiner has pointed out, the concept becomes non-falsifiable: any of a number of scenarios are possible, and none of them are testable.
That aside, the Big Bang does project hydrogen and helium in a roughly 3:1 ratio, which most astronomers observe. But Jason Lisle (Lisle J, "Does the big bang fit with the Bible?," in War of the Worldviews, Ken Ham, ed., Answers in Genesis-US, 2005) points out several other predictions that classic Big Bang theory makes, that no one has observed. They are:
• Magnetic monopoles.
• Antimatter equal in quantity to the observed quantity of matter.
• The "first-generation" stars created in the immediate aftermath of the Big Bang, which should be comprised only of hydrogen, helium, and traces of lithium.
In fact, monopoles have never been isolated, antimatter has been seen only in the laboratory, and no one has reported one single star that does not have traces of elements heavier than lithium. (The heaviest trace element seen in any star is iron, as would be expected: iron, and particularly iron-56, has the highest binding energy per unit of atomic weight.) Under the classic theory, these first-generation stars should be able to survive longer than the universe itself; yet they are not in evidence.
Lisle also mentioned that the universe appears to be "flat," in that gravity exactly balanced its expansion. He found such an equisite balance too great a coincidence to accept. The Carmeli-Hartnett cosmological-relativity solution predicts a flat space, but classic Big Bang theory does not.
Various cosmologists and astronomers have invented a number of "fudges" to attempt to save the theory. Lisle and Danny Faulkner describe one: inflation, which allegedly occurred at a speed orders of magnitude faster than light. What started it, and then stopped it, is unclear. Nor is this kind of "inflation" evident today. The two more famous fudges are "dark matter and energy," invented to explain large far-off objects spinning more rapidly than their luminous masses would allow, and an apparent acceleration of universal expansion in the past. The Biblically compatible cosmogony of Hartnett obviates both, and posits a rapid expansion of the universe on Day Four of creation. (See also this series.)
Whether Hawking was actually defending the Big Bang, hopefully AiG's review will settle. In any event, the Big Bang has failed according to the very method that secular scientists profess to uphold. Astronomers have tested it and found it false, whether they want to admit that or not.
Like this article? Want to be notified of more? Click Subscribe, above.