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 this?
“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 light spectrum received from distant galaxies was slightly redshifted compared to that from closer galaxies. The farther 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 in our region of the universe. Also the redshift is statistically derived with some outlier readings where the light spectrum does not correlate with distance. But it seemed reasonable to claim that our universe is 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 is Naturalism, only natural causes can be considered, and this is a closed system. (It should be obvious that there is no explanation for where this singularity came from or what caused it to explode.)
That is the origin of the Big Bang Theory, lots of extrapolation and some assumptions. Not all agreed with this. Sir Fred Hoyle, published papers in 1948 arguing for a “Steady-State Theory”. Hoyle was even the first to use the term “Big Bang” for the explosion that was proposed to explain the 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 the result of the original explosion it is reasoned. However, we later realized that the background radiation detected is fairly uniform, whereas a massive explosion would not have this result.
Other discoveries created difficulties. The Big Bang explosion must have had sufficient power to send particles off in all directions at a speed that overcomes the influence of gravity that would pull it all back to the starting point. But if the explosion was too powerful there would not be sufficient attraction between the particles to clump them together into stars, planets, and galaxies. Yet this perfect balance is what must have happened in order for the Big Bang theory to be viable. This is called the flatness problem. The observed uniformity of the universe, which leads to the horizon and flatness problems, is explained through “cosmic inflation“, a period of more rapid expansion at the beginning of the explosion (perhaps a few seconds).
The Big Bang theory now requires many other speculative phenomena, such as quantum gravity, repulsive gravity, dark matter, and dark energy. None of these have been empirically verified and they violate the known laws of physics.2 Today dark matter is said to make up 85% of all matter in the universe, though no one has ever observed it. Dark energy is said to be 70% of the energy content in the universe, but it can not 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 those who advocate for the Big Bang are forced to suggest the existence of a multiverse consisting perhaps of infinite universes in order to get one that matches our perfect situation. This is not science, but a retreat to a strictly untestable philosophical belief. The scientific method requires not only an observation, but research, a testable hypothesis, and experimentation. Such an approach removes bias based on personal beliefs and ensures reliability. What we have in the Big Bang is 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 …