The Bible: Commentary and Controversy

I’m probably the farthest thing from a “scientist,” leaning more toward the “creative.” But I have some pretty simple questions about the Big Bang theory for which I can find no satisfactory answer from the scientific community. Like “What was there before the Big Bang?” I mean, if the Big Bang was the result of a singularity expanding, or blowing up, where did the singularity come from? The one that exploded into trillions of stars, and an immeasurable amount of matter? No one seems to be able to answer that question, at least to my satisfaction. Steven Hawking obviously thinks that’s a frivolous question; he says it’s irrelevant. Time began with the Big Bang. Okay, I’ll accept that time as we know it began then, but that’s begging the question.

And if that was the beginning of the universe — If nothing else existed at that time, If there was no “space” – where was the “big bang” located when it went bang? What did it “bang” into? And if it did bang (scientists don’t like the word “explode” to describe it, because it “wasn’t an explosion in the usual sense”) how did it bang into nothingness? The simplest answer, and the one that makes most sense, is the universe was “created.” But that requires belief in a God, or Person, or Consciousness, or Thing that existed before the universe, and that’s incredibly difficult for some folks to believe. So they have to invent something else,

Many years ago, “scientists” invented the “luminiferous ether” to explain how light moved through the air. Seems like they’re doing the same kind of thing with the Big Bang. Either they completely disregard it, or they invent some wild theory to “fit” the circumstances.

Recently scientists have found an anomaly with the balance of microwave activity in the universe. From this has come a theory that there are many universes banging around out there, on levels we can’t see, and that one of them somehow came in contact with our empty one and that’s where the Big Bang came from. Of course it’s much more detailed and complicated than that, but that’s it in essence.

If you tell a scientist that God created the universe, or created DNA, or did any of a dozen other things, the scientist will probably put his fingers in his/her ears and cry “God gap, God gap, God gap. When you can’t find any other answer you just throw God in there.” Well, yeah.  And when scientists can’t find an answer for a set of circumstances they just seem to throw whatever’s handy in there.

I think perhaps it was Dawkins who talked about the origin of life, saying with the billions of planets out there, things got just right, and with a little luck, life appeared.  That’s miles from the real quote, but it’s substantive enough. (Actually, I never thought “luck” was an essential part of scientific equations.)  But if I say “I think it was caused by an intelligent agent” I’m laughed out of the building. They can have their “science” gaps, but deny me my “God” gap.

They throw the Creationists in my face and say the world is obviously older than 5,000 years. Well, I’m not a fundamental Creationist, so that rebuttal doesn’t apply. So I say to them, “What was there before the big bang?” And they give me stuff about parallel universes. Which really, in my humble opinion, is a whole lot harder to believe in than creation by an intelligent agent (God).

Which brings up a point. Data is data. It doesn’t propose or deny theories or hypotheses; it simply exists. Data, at least accurate data, is simply information. From that information we can draw theories or hypotheses, but when we do, we leave science behind and become philosophers. Science researches, discovers, organizes, and presents the data. Theorists (philosophers) interpret it. Someone once said “There are lies, damn lies, and statistics.” Because the only limit to a theory based on data is that it must somehow fit the data (circumstances).

Big Bang? Let’s see. Multiple universes. Collision. Yeah, that’s it. (applause).

Big Bang? Let’s see. God. What? Get off the stage, moron. (Vegetables thrown).

The “scientists” say because you can’t prove or disprove the existence of God, you might as well believe in the Tooth Fairy, Santa Claus, and leprechauns, because you can’t prove or disprove their existence, either. A dopey argument in my estimation, but one that would make a lot more sense if they could prove the existence of multiple universes. Which they can’t. Any more than they could prove the existence of luminiferous ether.

I understand it’s hard to accept an intelligent agent if you equate its existence with belief in the Tooth Fairy and Santa Claus.  But science is supposed to be even-handed and unprejudiced. So why not accept the existence of God as a theory at least as plausible as multiple universes? And one more niggling question. If there are multiple universes, where did they come from? One problem, of course, is that existence of an intelligent agent might also mean the existence of a set of moral standards to live by. And we certainly don’t want that, do we?