I recently read an article where the Big Bang Theory was presented as a credible scientific theory and I took a bit of time to read some information online about this theory.
One of the facets of science is mathematics--I began looking at the Big Bang Theory through the spectrum of math and probability and came to the conclusion that it is an improbable theory. To be viable scientifically, there should be a quantifiable probability that it would even be possible.
Let's ignore for the moment that there is no viable explanation of where the initial atoms came from. Or that, in all the vastness of the known universe these atoms could somehow find each other to initiate the explosion. (This alone, if quantified as a mathematical probability, would likely exceed a googolplex--or a googol raised to the googoleth power--a number that is so big that it cannot be written by a human in an entire lifetime.)
Additionally, you have the obvious fact that there is no scientific evidence in any other case of order coming from chaos. Or, if it is possible, what are the odds? How could you quantify the odds of order coming from chaos? The initial odds are so staggering as to preclude any further belief that this could be true.
With each step of order that came from the Big Bang, the odds of possibility decrease exponentially. Can you imagine the mathematical probability of each of the following being possible as a direct or indirect result of an explosion (however far removed in time from the initial blast):
- An explosion big enough to expand matter throughout the known universe but not eradicate all life forms?
- An explosion that created or began the evolution of the universe, our solar system, the earth, wind, rain, snow, frost, hail, clouds, light, darkness, life, variety of plants, animals, repetitive seasons, predictable weather, emotions, morals (this list could go on endlessly)?
When I considered the incredible complexity of the individual components listed above, I realized again that the mathematical probability that all of this order came from chaos requires more faith than I have.
I simply believe in intelligent design. Life is complicated enough without trying to believe in something that is mathematically (and scientifically) impossible. God has been too good to me for me to try to explain Him away.
Nathan McVeigh from Denver, Colorado on July 08, 2013:
Well said, Lowell's Notes. Thank you for taking the time to address this common misconception. You made a very good point that order can hardly come from chaos. I've always been amazed at how some people will say the opposite to 'disprove' intelligent design, but at the same time call you crazy to suggest that something like a computer, a watch, or even an 'exit' sign can be created by chaos.
za105 on May 22, 2013:
That is a sadly typical response, Lowell's Notes, to Christians by atheists. It amazes me how much hate can be attributed to people who believe in God. As I consider this, I realize the hate is largely focused on Christians, and many other religions are revered, because the west has little understanding of them. Christians (well, the ones who are trying to live according to their beliefs) don't hate atheists as atheists hate Christians; Christians don't insult atheists and call them foolish, as atheists call Christians, even though from the Christian mindset, atheism is nonsense and absurd; Christians don't personally attack and slander atheists, as atheists often do Christians. So why do atheists hate Christians so much? From the Christian worldview (which involves dimensions atheists refuse to recognize, the spiritual dimension, making atheists unable to communicate on the subject), the powers of darkness wish to stamp out Christianity and God's love with hate and destruction, and those who reject God are used by the powers of darkness, because in refusing to recognize the existence of the spiritual realm, they have no defenses against its power. A man who blindfolds himself has no defenses against falling off a cliff, and no ability to run from wild animals.
A digression from this main topic, which I love. I've read some of Stephen Hawkings attempts at explaining away (or really, he attempts to excuse himself from explaining) the big bang's origin. Mindblowing how people hate the concept of God so much they won't even consider it as the self-evident key to life.
From one who met van Gogh years ago (metaphorically speaking), I know his paintings are real, and when others try and explain his art as "big splatter theory" and skirt around the SELF-EVIDENT truth that his paintings were painted by a human, I have a mixture of wonder, amazement, and pity.
Michele Travis from U.S.A. Ohio on January 15, 2013:
As for the big bang, time did not exist. If time did not exist. If time did not exist, nothing could move. If nothing could move, then how could enough pressure have built cup to cause the big bang?
LD Lewis (author) on November 10, 2011:
I receive a lot of comments trying to "educate" me about the reality of the big bang theory, nearly all also include comments about how God doesn't exist. I choose not to post these comments, not because I am in any way intimidated by them, but because I simply refuse to use my little space on Hubpages to give voice to these people. I am greatly entertained by how many conflicting variations have been presented to me as "facts" as people try to straighten me out. Everyone is so confident that they have superior information. ...so why don't all of their theories agree with each other? My article came about as a whimsical idea after reading an article in a science magazine...but it apparently really strikes a chord of hate in a lot of people.
Julip Manor from Kingwood, Texas on June 30, 2011:
In order for something to be science it must be able to be repeated in a lab????? What a concept. No one is able to create matter! (Matter cannot be created or destroyed????)This principal is equivalent to the conservation of energy, in the sense when energy or mass is enclosed in a system and none is allowed in or out, its quantity cannot otherwise change (hence, its quantity is "conserved"). The mass of an isolated system cannot be changed as a result of processes acting inside the system. The law implies that mass cannot be created or destroyed, although it may be rearranged in space and changed into different types of particles; and that for any chemical process in a closed system, the mass of the reactants must equal the mass of the products.
T-bone on June 20, 2011:
What makes you think there is life during the big bang that must somehow not be destroyed during it? Life is believed to developed in the billions of years following the big bang. The big unexplained question about the big bang theory is what caused it, not what happened after. After it started, it's easy to see gravity at work, bringing particles together, forming planets and stars, things we see still happening in space.
A MOM IN NEED OF YOUR NOTES on March 01, 2011:
thank you for posting this. I'm smarter today because of you :))
NamikazeH4 on December 20, 2010:
Very well written, I applaud.
While humans might want to make everything Scientific, there are some things that cannot be explained scientifically because it's the work of God.
I find it funny that some Scientist refused to believe in God when it all comes down to Him.
True Truthseeker on May 15, 2010:
Drawing Conclusions. .
The Song of Creation composed in Sanskirt over 3,000 years ago is part of the Rig-Veda, a Hindu
holy book. In this work, the poet doubted that even the many Hindu gods know "how creation happened" because "gods themselves are LATER than creation."
Likewise, writings from Egypt and Babylon contain similar MYTHS about the birth of their gods in a
universe that already existed. NOTABLY, these myths COULD NOT SAY WHERE THE
ORIGINAL UNIVERSE CAME FROM.
THE BIBLE ON THE OTHER HAND BEGINS: ":In the beginning God created the heavens and
the earth." Genesis 1:1. This statement was written by Moses who "talked" with the Living God, some
3,500 years ago. The Bible describes God as a Spirit [John 4:24], not visible to our eyes. The effects
of invisible heavenly bodies such as neutron stars and black holes are detectable by TODAY'S
scientists by the effects they produce, making the concept of invisibilty plausible to even the cynical.
It is widely AGREED among scientists that the universe had a BEGINNING. It is also agreed
by MOST, that BEFORE THE BEGINNING something REAL must have existed.
Whatever THEY may speculate and postulate WHAT existed, MOST presuppose the
existence of something, something WITHOUT A BEGINNING, THAT EXTENDED BACK TO
The issue NOW BECOMES, some THING eternal, or, some ONE eternal.
Considering the following should help you to decide.
1. In time prior to Louis Pasteur many believed in SPONTANEOUS GENERATION-- the
notion that life could arise spontaneously from nonliving matter.
2. In the 17th century, Italian physician Francesco Redi proved that maggots appeared in
rotten meat ONLY AFTER flies had laid eggs on it.
3. Pasteur after PROVING that ALL LIFE AROSE FROM OTHER LIFE, EVEN
TINY ONES LIKE BACTERIA [MICROBES], in 1864 he announced: "Never will the
doctrine of spontaneous generation recover from the mortal blow struck by this simple
4.The Russian biochemist Alexander I. Oparin offered a few theories as to how life began on
earth. This resulted in a plethora of tests in the labs since 1950 to generate life from nonliving
matter, ALL HAVE FAILED MISERABLY.
5. Professor Maciej Giertych, a noted geneticist stated in a documentary film when being
interviewed: "We have become aware of the massive information contained in the genes. There
is no known way to science how that information can arise spontaneously. It requires an
INTELLIGENCE; it CANNOT ARISE FROM CHANCE EVENTS. Just mixing letters does
not produce words." He continued: "For example, the very complex DNA, RNA, protein
replicating system in the cell MUST HAVE BEEN PERFECT FROM THE VERY START. If
not, life systems could not exist. THE ONLY LOGICAL EXPLANATION IS THAT THIS
VAST QUANTITY OF INFORMATION CAME FROM AN INTELLIGENCE."
6. Dr. Richard M. Restak describes the human brain as having somewhere in the region of
50 BILLION neurons with a MILLION BILLION synapses [connections], and with an
overall firing rate of perhaps 10 MILLION BILLION TIMES PER SECOND.
7. Robert Ornstein and Richard F. Thompson, biology professors, wrote: "The ability of the
human mind to learn-- to store and recall information-- is the most remarkable phenomenon in
the biological universe. Everything that makes us human-- language, thought, knowledge, culture
is the result of this extraordinary capability."
8. There are complex cycles that help to maintain life, as we know it. Food for flora and fauna
results from these cycles viz a viz. WATER CYCLE, CARBON CYCLE, PHOSPHORUS
CYCLE, AND NITROGEN CYCLE. ALSO PHOTOSYNTHESIS OF PLANTS,
RESPIRATION OF BOTH PLANTS AND ANIMALS ARE ALL INTER-RELATED AND
Origin of the Universe: Gen. 1:1: "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." In 1978, astronomer Robert Jastrow wrote: "Now we see how the astronomical evidence leads to a biblical view of the origin of the world. The details differ, but the essential elements in the astronomical and biblical accounts of Genesis are the same: the chain of events leading to man commenced suddenly and sharply at a definite moment in time, in a flash of light and energy."__ God and the Astronomers (New York, 1978), p. 14.
Isaiah 40:26: "Raise your eyes high up and see. Who has created these things? It is the One who is bringing forth the army of them even by number, all of whom he calls even by name. Due to the abundance of dynamic energy, he also being vigorous in power, not one [of them] is missing.
Job 38: 9 says: When I put the cloud as its garment, and THICK GLOOM as its SWADDLING
The ABOVE is in AGREEMENT with the undermentioned.
Genesis 1:1, 2 relates to a time before the six “days”. When these “days” commenced, the sun, moon, and the stars were already in existence, their creation being referred to at Genesis 1:1. However, prior to these six “days” of creative activity “the earth proved to be formless and waste and there was darkness upon the surface of the watery deep.” (Ge 1:2) Apparently, a swaddling band of cloud layers still enveloped the earth, preventing light from reaching the surface.
It seems that this was a gradual process, as is indicated by translator J.W. Watts: “And gradually light came into existence.” (Ge 1:3, A distinctive Translation of Genesis).
God brought about a division between the light and darkness, calling the light Day and the darkness Night. This indicates that the earth was rotating on its axis as it revolved around the sun, so that its hemispheres, eastern and western, could enjoy periods of light and darkness-Ge 1:3,4.
It is noteworthy that at Genesis 1:16 the Hebrew verb ba.ra’, meaning “create” is not used. Instead, the Hebrew verb ‘a.sah’, meaning “make, is employed. Since the sun, moon, and stars are included in “the heavens” mentioned in Genesis 1:1, they were created long before Day Four. On the fourth day God proceeded to “make” these celestial bodies occupy a new relationship toward earth’s surface and the expanse above it.
When it is said, “God put them in the expanse of the heavens to shine upon the earth,” this would indicate that they now became discernible from the surface of the earth, as though they were in the expanse. Also, the luminaries were to “serve as signs and for seasons and for days and years,” thus later providing guidance for man in various ways.- Ge 1:14.
Length of Creative Days
The Bible does not specify the length of each of the creative periods. Yet all six of them have ended, it being said with respect to the sixth day (as in the case of each of the preceding five days): “And there came to be evening and there came to be morning, a sixth day.” (Ge 1:31) However, this statement is not made regarding the seventh day, on which God proceeded to rest, indicating that it continued. (Ge 2:1-3) Also, more than 4,000 years after the seventh day, or God’s rest day, commenced, Paul indicated that it was still in progress. At Hebrews 4:1-11 he referred to the earlier words of David (Ps 95:7,8,11) and to Genesis 2:2 and urged: “Let us therefore do our utmost to enter into that rest.” The Thousand Year of Jesus Christ, who is Scripturally identified as “Lord of the Sabbath” (Mt 12:8), is evidently part of the great Sabbath, God’s rest day. (Re 20:1-6) This would indicate the passing of thousands of years from the commencement of God’s rest day to its end.
That a day can be longer than 24 hours is indicated by Genesis 2:4, which speaks of all the creative periods as one “day.” Also indicative of this is Peter’s inspired observation that “one day is with Jehovah as a thousand years and a thousand years as one day.” (2Pe 3:8).
Shape of Planet Earth:
Isaiah 40:22: "There is One who is dwelling above the circle of the earth." In ancient times the general opinion was that the earth was flat. It was not until over 200 years after this Bible text had been written that a school of Greek philosophers reasoned that the earth likely was spherical, and in another 300 years a Greek astronomer calculated the approximate radius of the earth. But the idea of
David Lim from Singapore on April 01, 2010:
Out of chaos, there is order. Well said, Lord Seeker.
LD Lewis (author) on February 01, 2010:
I'm sure the creation was not a quiet event. There very well could have been a big bang as vanderhaven commented, "God spoke and Bang it happened".
Lord seeker from Ozark Mountains of Missouri on January 18, 2010:
Interesting hub, what if God is orchestrating His creation through the "big bang"?
Waren E from HAS LEFT THE BUILDING............ on October 03, 2009:
The big bang theory was made up to deny God's existence,by the same organizations of the past that said the earth was flat,those liars with there bogus theories can't fool anyone but themselves nowadays..LOL!
vanderhaven on October 03, 2009:
God spoke it and Bang! it happened. :)
I am dealing right now with a fourth grader who comes home and is full of all kinds of questions and certain things at school are taught to her as Fact. She has a hard time putting all the pieces together and believing both her teacher and her parents. I try to show her and teach her that there are things called THEORIES and somehow I pray that the truth of it all will shine through to her and all confusion will be erased.
Great hub. :)
prasetio30 from malang-indonesia on September 28, 2009:
this is my lesson when I was in Senior High School. And it always become mystery for me. There is no proof about this theory.
Tyhill27 from Red Deer, Alberta on September 19, 2009:
Great thoughts on the big bang thery, It's hard to believe that I was thought this thery in school as a young teenager. The thery needs to be burned in the science lab!
Barbara from Stepping past clutter on September 19, 2009:
YES! Where did the first atom come from? Or the first teensy weensy whatever we haven't even discovered yet? I can totally believe the Big Bang as a theory explaining how the planets got where they are and all of that. But what came first? Something had to exist before all of that. I love science and the amazing creativity that has shaped it into medical miracles and landing on the moon and refrigerators, but to say that it explains everything is simply ego at work!
sheryld30 from California on September 19, 2009:
You are right. It doesn't even sound scientifically correct.