February 1, 2016 spike

The Dangers of Compromising with the Big Bang Model

Many Christians are eager to ‘prove’ the truth of the Bible by using scientific evidence.

The Big Bang model is a very popular example of this. Many Christian authors have written books endorsing the Big Bang. And there’s at least one ministry that promotes the Big Bang as a “reason to believe” the Bible.

But this is a very dangerous approach. To justify the truth of the Bible with the Big Bang model is a fatally flawed approach.

Now, it’s true that science, insofar as it discovers the truth about the cosmos, will be consistent with the Bible.

But the Big Bang model isn’t good science. (Indeed, if you’ve seen my third DVD, you’ll know that it’s not even bad science—it’s anti-science, because it denies the fundamental assumptions about the Universe that make science possible.)

And even if the Big Bang seemed to be good science, it would still be dangerous to base our interpretations of Scripture on it, or on any other scientific model.

Scientific models come, and scientific models go. That’s how science works.

If you only trust the Bible because it seems to agree with the current opinions of secular scientists, you’ll be in big trouble when those scientists change their minds and switch to a different model.

We’re already seeing hints of this in cosmology. Many secular cosmologists are unhappy with the Big Bang model, since there’s a large (and growing) amount of scientific evidence against it.

The model is becoming top-heavy with just-so stories, special pleading, and magical ideas like inflation and dark energy, just to rescue it from the facts.

As a result, many cosmologists are investigating alternative models, such as cyclical/oscillating universes, top-down cosmology, multi-dimensional membrane universes, and many others.

So far, none of these alternative ideas have become the majority view. But some are getting popular in certain circles. Many are quite attractive to atheistic cosmologists because they (supposedly) eliminate any sort of a beginning to the cosmos. 1

It’s quite possible that within the secular scientific community, one of these ideas will replace the Big Bang soon.

After all, to replace the Big Bang model, an idea doesn’t have to be good. It just has to be a little less bad than the Big Bang model is.

And as the Big Bang model has been accumulating more and more bandages, this standard has been getting easier and easier to meet. So, the Big Bang model is ripe to be overthrown, and be replaced with something else.

This could happen quite soon.

Once it does, what will happen to those ministries who say that we should believe the Bible because the Big Bang proves it to be true?

What will happen to those Christians who mistakenly believe that secular scientific opinions (which change constantly) should be the foundation for our worldview?

And what will happen to those Christians who based their faith on this ‘shifting sand’ foundation?

The Bible alone is a trustworthy foundation.

And it alone should be our authority.




  1. For example, some of these ideas propose that our Universe is just one small part of an overall eternal reality of some sort. As I discussed in Volume III, these ideas are not scientific. But many atheists accept them anyway.



Image credit: skeeze via Pixabay