Most scientists today agree that our universe had a beginning. This traditional view is called the “Big Bang” and dominates our current “scientific” understanding of the origins of our universe. Was there really a Big Bang? Where is the evidence for it? How did scientists come to this conclusion? What is the logic behind it?
“In 1929, American astronomer, Edwin Hubble claimed that almost all galaxies appear to be moving away from our solar system. He based this claim on his observation that the light spectrum received from distant galaxies was slightly redshifted compared to that from closer galaxies. The greater the distance, the greater the redshift. Hubble concluded that this redshift was caused by a Doppler effect. Light generated from objects moving away would have a slightly stretched (longer) wavelength, resulting in a redder spectrum.”1
We should recognize that this assertion contains some assumptions. We don’t really know the initial spectrum of light emitted by these galaxies. We don’t know what energy loss might affect light transmitted over billions of light-years of distance. We only have access to light reaching us in our region of the universe. Also the redshift relationship is statistically derived with some outlier readings in which the light spectrum does not correlate with distance. But it seemed reasonable to interpret this as our universe expanding.
Cosmologists then extrapolate this cosmic expansion backward in time using the known laws of physics to arrive at a Big Bang Singularity. Why must we extrapolate back to a singularity? How else would you determine where everything started? Naturally you just take that expansion backwards as far as possible. This reflects Naturalism, a worldview in which only natural causes can be considered, and the universe is treated as a closed system. (It should be obvious that there is no explanation for where this singularity came from or what caused the expansion.)
That is the origin of the Big Bang Theory, lots of extrapolation and some assumptions. Not all agreed with it. Sir Fred Hoyle, published papers in 1948 arguing for a “Steady-State Theory”. Hoyle was also the first to use the term “Big Bang” for the proposed origin of our universe. He used the term derisively, but the name stuck.
The CMB or Cosmic Microwave Background radiation that was accidently discovered in 1964 seemed to confirm the Big Bang. This radiation could be a remnant of the early universe. However, the background radiation was later found to be remarkably uniform, creating another question for the theory.
Other discoveries created difficulties. The expansion rate had to be extraordinarily close to a critical value. If it had been slightly slower, gravity would have caused the universe to collapse; if slightly faster, matter would have dispersed too rapidly to form stars and galaxies. This remarkable balance is known as the flatness problem. A second difficulty, the horizon problem, arises because widely separated regions of the universe have nearly identical temperatures even though, under the standard expansion model, they could never have exchanged enough information or energy to become so uniform. Both problems are addressed by “cosmic inflation,” an extremely brief period of extraordinarily rapid expansion near the beginning of the universe.
The Big Bang theory now incorporates several other proposed phenomena, such as quantum gravity, repulsive gravity, dark matter, and dark energy. None of these has been empirically verified and they violate the known laws of physics.2 Today dark matter is said to make up about 85% of all matter in the universe, though no one has ever observed it. Dark energy is said to account for about 70% of the energy content of the universe, but it likewise cannot be detected. These patches are speculations, impossible to empirically verify, operating outside the laws of physics. These patches are required to maintain a materialistic naturalistic explanation for the origin of the universe.
“How ironic! Those who dismiss intelligent non-material explanations that involve design or purpose as ‘unscientific’ because they cannot be seen or tested, now rely on a cosmology built on invisible, untested ingredients. None of these components: singularity, inflation, dark matter, or dark energy has been directly observed. Each was added because the model didn’t work without it.”3
Even all of these additional theories are not enough to explain the reality we observe, so they are forced to suggest the existence of a multiverse consisting of an enormous, perhaps infinite number of universes, one of which happens to match the conditions necessary for our existence. This is not science, but a retreat to a strictly untestable philosophical belief.
The scientific method depends upon observation, the formation of a testable hypothesis, and empirical testing. Such an approach is intended to reduce bias based on personal beliefs and increases reliability. Yet the Big Bang account goes far beyond simple empirical observation and has become a modern mythology based on mathematical constructs with supernatural powers. It would be much more reasonable to admit that there is design and purpose implied in our existence.
1D.L. Weller, The Invented Universe: How Science Explains the Supernatural, WestBow Pres, 2025, p.15.
2D.L. Weller, pp.17-21,146.
3D.L. Weller, The Discovered Universe: Where Science Meets the Supernatural, Peregrine, 2025, p.15.
Junk DNA: The Secret of Evolution
In 1972 it was estimated that 90% of the mammalian genome was not used, and became referred to as junk DNA. However recent discoveries have forced us to revise this assessment. Unused genes may lie dormant and are passed on from generation to generation until needed, but then suddenly can …
Logical Fallacies: Tricks and Traps that Interfere with a Search for Truth
Logic is the art and science of reasoning well. Here are some traps to watch our for in your search for what is real. These may come up in a discussion, in your reading, or in your culture.
Only matter matters: You exist by chance and your purpose in life is survival
“The Cosmos is all that is or was or ever will be.” –Carl Sagan Naturalism says that only what can be tested and proven by science is real. When my biological functions cease, “I” cease to exist. Game over. Therefore, the goal is to increase biological life in quantity and …
Science defines reality: A hugely popular dumb idea
“We don’t believe in God, we believe in science”, said the couple. Many people today consider it uneducated to believe in God. This misunderstanding comes from two basic problems: not realizing the limits of science, and relegating the rest of human experience to superstition. “According to the scientific naturalist version of …
How to Overcome Extinction: Darwin and Genetics
“On the Origin of Species” by Charles Darwin in 1859 is considered to be the foundation of evolutionary biology. It postulates that complex life forms began from primitive life forms due to mutation. This theory is deeply entrenched in modern academia and is even proclaimed as fact on Wikipedia and …