Is using the Big Bang to support creation a good idea? No – Better to enrage the dragon, than God
|A great and wondrous sign appeared in heaven: a woman clothed with the sun…
…Then another sign appeared in heaven: an enormous red dragon Rev 12.1,3
I’ve noticed a number of Christians – including some well known defenders of the faith – like to use the Big Bang as a way to ease a scientifically minded culture into belief in God since the Big Bang theory requires you believe that 1) the universe began 2) a finite amount of time ago, at a point in time, 3) out of nothing – just like the bible says. That leaves a perfect opening to present the Kalam cosmological argument which, briefly stated, says:
The Christian apologists then endeavor to show why the required creator is the God of the Judeo-Christian bible. So it’s easy to see the appeal of the argument, but it’s always seemed to me like a bad idea. Initially, I was going to use this article to go through the various reasons why the big bang is untenable, and Christians especially shouldn’t be relying on it to persuade people. Things like a required belief in 1) Cosmic Inflation, 2) a 13.9 billion year old universe 3) The scientific belief in a self caused “singularity” that defies the laws of physics. But I’ll save a discussion over those issues for another time.
Instead, I’ll give two reasons why using such an approach is a bad idea for Christians.
Why using the Big Bang to “prove” God’s existence is a bad idea.
2. Using Half Truths to persuade is not a strategy Jesus uses
The big bang contradicts the biblical account and so I can’t imagine Jesus talking about the Big Bang – as scientists discuss it – if asked about how the universe was created. On the other hand, I can easily imagine the dragon, the serpent, the liar and the father of lies (identified as the devil – John 8.44) who delights in half truths – taking delight in speaking about the big bang – and encouraging others to do so as well. He is a master of lies, innuendo and manipulation – and the big bang has all the elements he likes to play on – elements of truth (there was a beginning, etc.), parts that appear feasible, etc. – but as always – he twists the truth into falsehood. His first question to Eve (Did God really say… Gen 3.1) was really just the first volley in an all out attack on the character of God. An attack using a typical tactic that Jesus warned about – a wolf coming in sheep’s clothing, or in that case a character assassination coming as an innocent question.
Is using the Big Bang to persuade any different? No, it’s another example of the doctrine of demons. The power, majesty, love of beauty, wisdom, foresight and Love of God are all assassinated if one seriously believes the universe came about not by a God who directed its creation, but by mindless processes whose sum total of interactions results in the beautiful creation we see today. Such a belief is an affront to God that the deceiver no doubt delights in. On the other hand, what is it that the deceiver – the dragon hates? That enrages him?
The deceiver hates it when people stand for and tell the truth – when people hold to the testimony of the truth and will not be turned from it. Strictly speaking the testimony spoken of in the above verse from Revelation is the testimony of the Gospel of Jesus – that he died to pay for our sins and rose from the dead on the third day and all those who believe this, and trust him to save you from the wrath to come will be saved. That is the testimony; but in a broader sense the testimony is the truth that Jesus stands for. That truth includes the truth about the creation – and the one who created it.
Telling the truth enrages the dragon – as it does many atheists – as many people have noted3. I’m not saying you should tell the truth because it will enrage the dragon and atheists. No, you should tell the truth because 1. It’s the truth and 2. It’s pleasing to God. The result will be that you enrage Satan, the dragon (and likely a number atheists too but that’s not the goal); but better to enrage the dragon, than to enrage the creator of the universe. Now for those who believe God is only a God of love and does not express anger I leave you with this admonition from Jesus – a reminder that it is much better to enrage man – and the dragon – than God.
1. In particular, William Lane Craig, for whom the big bang forms a foundation for his preferred proof of the existence of God: The Kalam Cosmological Argument. Here is a sample of Craig being interviewed by Kirby Anderson. They start with the big bang on the table as a “given”. Craig indicates he has bought into the whole big bang paradigm including inflation, which I consider more storytelling by naturalistic cosmologists. For more on the problems with inflation, see Which theory has the fatal flaw, Big Bang or Creation? For a description of inflation, see here.
2 For more on the problems with the Big Bang, see:
3. One such example of Angry Atheists see: