Is the Big Bang a Faithful and True Account?
Today we will apply the advice of apologist Sean McDowell. McDowell, son of "Evidence that Demands a Verdict" apologist Josh McDowell and an author and college professor in his own right, suggests:
With his PhD and years of experience, starting no doubt as a child at the foot of his apologist father, many Christians turn to McDowell for advice on witnessing. And what he provides above is solid advice. So here's the question: is using the Big Bang as a witnessing tool to back up the Biblical account being faithful to Christ? Let me answer as Jesus often did: with a question. Would you use the details of the back story of Superman to support the miraculous powers of Jesus? Such a story (a work of fiction I would remind you) might go something like this:
Would this be a good way to spread the gospel? I'm quite sure Sean McDowell would tell you no. Why? Because it is not faithful to Christ. And it's not faithful to the message of the gospel. Like the devil in "The Exorcist" it mixes lies with the truth - a common tactic of the evil one. But poison coated with candy is still poison. So while some of the details look familiar - because some of the details are true, overall the story is false. It's one big lie. It's a whole other story. It's not the message of Christ. It is not faithful to what the gospels depict. Because of all the insertions of details from the comic book tales of Superman, it's not true. And so overall I will tell you it's an inaccurate account not to be believed.
Yet this is precisely what many apologists do when they buy into the lie that with the big bang, "we are dealing with the scientific version of the story of Genesis" as Prof Avi Loeb of Harvard puts it. And so such apologists join with Bible doubting, God denying secular scientists, and insist on claiming that the Big Bang is true so they can use it as evidence of the Biblical creation. Many big name apologists and defenders of the faith fall into this trap. Names such as William Lane Craig (who I studied apologetics under at Trinity Seminary), Hugh Ross and his "Reasons to Believe" ministry. And many Intelligent design advocates and think tanks such as the Discovery institute.
Here we have the reverse situation of an observation I made in my previous article: Whereas ID proponents accuse creationists of trying to squeeze the Bible into science; here we see the big bang supporters trying to squeeze the big bang into the Bible. Many of them really believe the big bang is a scientific presentation of the Genesis creation account. But as I have pointed out a number of times, the two accounts are irreconcilable. They vary in many aspects, and particularly in time duration, purpose and sequence.
I have spoken much of the time difference between the two versions (6 days to create the universe according to the bible versus Billions of years according to the big bang) including in my previous article, so I will not re-examine that here. The difference in purpose is obvious: the purpose of the big bang is to explain why the universe exists without invoking God. The Biblical account exists to give us the true history of the universe while introducing us to the creator of that universe.
Which leads us to the evidence for the third leg of the trio of differences noted above which I will present here: differences in the sequence of events. The Biblical sequence of events is clear. Here is a simplified version of it:
1. Earth was created first, out of water
Comparing to the two versions:
Genesis starts with the earth made from
The earth is older than the stars
according to the biblical account
God created humans on day six
So even if you believe in the day-age theory (each day in Genesis represents millions or billions of years), and think things happened sequentially in the same manner, even that theory fails. Clearly even the sequence of events and the details of those events between the two are irreconcilable.
There's a classic line made by Jack Nicholson's character in "A Few Good Men." The defense attorney, played by Tom Cruise, is pressing for the truth from the self-assured, arrogant Col. Jessep played by Nicholson. In response to a demand for the truth the colonel barks out "You can't handle the truth." That is a classic not only because it fits the character, scene and movie so well, but because it has such wide spread application. Many times when people can't handle the truth they make up stories to avoid it. Stories like the Big Bang and Darwinian evolution - because they can't handle the truth of having to account to an all powerful creator. This is also true for many Christians who want to squeeze the big bang into the Bible, apparently because they can't handle the truth that the Big Bang account of origins is irreconcilable with the Biblical account of events. (A note to old earth/big bang believing Christians and Intelligent Design advocates - if the shoe fits...)
So back to McDowell's advice: "Arguments must be presented in a way that is faithful to Christ." Christ said,
Jesus affirms the Genesis creation account by quoting from it, and in doing so re-affirms many truths such as: a creator of all things (ʹο κτισάς ), two sexes (male and female) existing from the beginning, and that beginning was the beginning that Genesis refers to - the 6 day creation beginning - not millions of years later. He also affirms the biblical reason for and model of a family. The big bang affirms none of these truths.
I understand why people are tempted to
use the Big Bang to defend the faith. In this age of science, it seems
like an open door to a science consuming generation. I also understand
(as I point out in my previous article), some Christians are ashamed to
admit to believing in the Genesis account of origins. But in this year
of the 500th anniversary of the reformation, I ask you: Is selling
people on the false idea of the big bang in order to interest them in
the faith any different from the medieval Roman Catholic church
selling people on the false idea of indulgences to support the church
all those years ago? Would you support the Catholic Church resuming
the practice of selling indulgences while teaching as truth the false
story of their application? If you are against that abuse, why are
you not against the abuse of the addition of the big bang to the Bible?
Duane Caldwell | posted November 14, 2017
3. The Kalam
Cosmological argument is a cornerstone of Craig's apologetics, thus
confirmation of the minor premise "The universe began to exist" is a key
component. Therefore Craig has defended the Big Bang and used it in his
apologetics for years, and you can find many examples of it. A couple of
examples, his book which he used as one of the texts in his Apologetics
class at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School:
4. Hugh Ross is one of
many defending the Bible by trying to use the Big Bang as support of a Biblical creation,
though the facts don't fit. One of his many articles on that topic:
5. "ID's Top Six - The Origin of the Universe", Evolution News | @DiscovderyCSC, November 7, 2017, https://evolutionnews.org/2017/11/ids-top-six-the-origin-of-the-universe/Back
6. My previous article
"Are You Ashamed to be a Creationist" highlights 4 evidences of a young
9.Carlos Frenk, Director
of the Institute for Computational Cosmology, Durham University, using a
super computer simulation claims stars will form, but will explode
before galaxies can form. The only way to get the universe we see today
is to include dark matter in the simulation. For more see:
10. JET – Joint European Torus – the World’s Largest experimental fusion reactor.
More recently there's a report:
"Jet research has confirmed that when
hydrogen plasma reaches 180 million degrees,
11. To create stars
like our sun, Dr. Stefan Keller of the Australian National University
12. Big Bang theorists
use the problematic Nebular Theory for their creation story of planets.
play games on whether the theory of evolution includes
evolution because Darwin didn't include it in his theory. Darwin started
with two reproducing members of a species. But evolutionists use
the term to explain life without intervention from God therefore they
must necessarily include chemical evolution under the generic term
"evolution" or they have no way to account for the origin of life.
14. The rallying cry
and the first of the five pillars of the reformation is "sola scriptura"
- only by scripture: the scriptures are the only infallible guide for
life and doctrine. For the other pillars, see
15."Martin Luther posts
95 these", History.com staff, History.com, 2009,
"500 Jahre Reformation"(500 Years of
| Fotolia (used by permission);
(Composite by Duane Caldwell)