top of page
  • Writer's pictureJoshua Spatha

Relevant Magazine Defends Big Bang Theory

Updated: Nov 3, 2019

Relevant magazine chose to side with the Pope in supporting weak science rather than the biblical texts and so Christianity continues to seek cultural "relevance" by ripping its own foundation out from under it. The article in question here is "Why Christians Shouldn't Feel Threatened by the Big Bang Theory". The subtitle is a half-true "Believe it or not, we came up with it." The entire argument is a straw man however- while a Catholic priest was indeed party to the theory's origins, the theory as proposed at the time allowed the possibility of God setting the event in motion. Today, God is not compatible at all with the theory as science has done everything in its power to explain the entire supposed event via naturalistic mechanisms. In other words, like biological evolution, the theory rejects the possibility of God. Relevant is making the case for an argument that does not currently exist in the scientific community- only in their imaginations. In doing so, they align themselves with a theory that is not only biblically unsupported, but actually scientifically weak. Who knew that selling out could be so cheap? The article starts out with the proposition of ancient alie- Wait. Stop right there. The Bible does not support the notion of life on other planets. It's not simply that the Bible is silent on the topic as many have suggested, it's that intelligent life on other planets is theologically and logically incompatible with the core of the Gospel message and the biblical narrative. Pardon the rabbit trail, but allow me this simple proof of my rather bold claim: 1. Scripture clearly states that Earth is the focal point of all creation (Gen 1:1, Mat 5:34-35 et al) 2. Scripture clearly states the exact purpose of the rest of the universe (the stars, moon, planets, comets etc.) was put in place for man's benefit- specifically for "signs, times and seasons" (Gen 1:14-19) 3. Scripture clearly states that man's sin brought the curse into all of creation [Greek: cosmos- literally the whole universe] (Rom 8:19-22) 4. Scripture clearly states that Christ died only once and only for mankind (Rom 6:10, Rom 5, 1 Pe 3:18, 1 Co 15:21) 5. Scripture clearly states that only humans and angels will be in eternity with God (Rev 21) Problems: 1. Intelligent life on other planets would conflict with the given purpose of all heavenly bodies as stated in Genesis and would shift away the stated focus of God on Earth and humanity as scripture plainly depicts. 2. Man sinned and that sin brought death and destruction into the entire universe. Intelligent life on other planets would also be affected and condemned to our fate as a result by no fault of their own. 3. Christ only came to Earth and only died once. He had to be a "kinsmen redeemer"- he had to become one of us to bear the penalty of sin for us. If intelligent life existed on other planets, God would have to do the same for them- but scripture explicitly states that He didn't. So for intelligent life to exist elsewhere in the cosmos, God must be seen as indifferent to their unjust suffering (they didn't sin after all) and uninterested in redeeming them and spending eternity with them. As this is completely incompatible with the character of God as described in the Bible, to believe in aliens, one must disregard the entire biblical text which establishes who God is, what His characteristics are and what He has done. Furthermore, even science doesn't actually support the idea of life on other planets. In fact science doesn't support life on this planet. That life happened once is a complete statistical impossibility- see the recent article "Science Increasingly Makes the Case for God." Back to the Big Bang: The Pope and Relevant magazine are defending the Big Bang theory as if it is both scientifically indisputable and biblically sound- but neither is the case. There of course is absolutely nothing in the creation account of Genesis that suggests the big bang happened- quite the opposite in fact. According to the theory, an explosion was the first act of "creation". Not so with the Genesis account- Earth was the first act, light was the second. According to the Big Bang theory, space, time, stars and galaxies came first, planets (including Earth) came much later. According to Genesis, again Earth came first and the rest of the heavenly bodies came later (the fourth day). One must disregard the Genesis account entirely to accept any naturalistic theories- and many do. But to say that such theories are compatible with the biblical text is absurd- so many instead say that such theories are compatible with the intent of the primitive biblical authors, who were simply doing their level best to describe the origins of the universe which was obviously unknowable to them and their scientific understanding at the time. In other words, Genesis is poetic and beautiful in structure and content, but not a trustworthy source- man's current theories are (nevermind the fact that they're constantly changing and have a track record of being innaccurate or wholly incorrect). At this point I am reminded of God's rebuke of Job in chapter 38. "Who is this that darkens counsel by words without knowledge?... Where were you when I laid the foundations of the earth? Tell me if you have understanding. Who set its measurements?... You know, for you were born then and the number of your days is great!" Ah, I love the smell of a sarcastic God in the morning... But wait, surely science has proven Genesis wrong and Big Bang right... Right? Not at all. In fact the Big Bang theory is so riddled with holes and problems that if a more viable naturalistic theory were to be proposed, Big Bang would most certainly be abandoned. It's currently winner by default because other naturalistic theories are even worse (see "spin-off theory" as a classic example- the idea that our universe popped into existence via a wormhole and is simply matter from a pre-existing universe). Note that I'm only including "naturalistic" theories because, well, invoking God is simply unthinkable. No, no, only ideas that can explain how everything came into ordered being all on their own need apply despite the complete and utter lack of evidence that things can come into ordered being on their own. But hey, being limited beings with limited information we have to make some assumptions, so let's begin with the one that God doesn't exist... As the problems with the Big Bang theory are numerous and I'm trying to save internet paper, I'll direct you elsewhere for the simplified list, so please direct your browsers to "The Top 30 Problems with the Big Bang." The truth is, every "proof" that has been presented in support of the theory has necessitated multiple fudge factors to make them viable, such as "dark matter" and "dark energy" which exist not in the observable universe, but only in baseless speculations defending an otherwise unworkable theory. Every prediction that the theory has celebrated being observed has had to be tweaked and altered in order to make the data fit the prediction- there is so much fudging that the theory is better suited for a baking, not science class. So I'm quite confused as to why the church would bend over backwards to accommodate the Big Bang. Let's stick with the plain text of scripture- its author is slightly more reliable and if we don't believe that to be true, then the Gospel message is a farce and we should abandon the faith entirely. For as Paul said, if the scriptures cannot be trusted, "Let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die." UPDATES:

A few other articles addressing problems with the Big Bang. The first link was from a secular source, these are from Christian scientists. Overview of problems, by Danny Faulkner, Ph.D. Big Bang Fails Lithium Test, by Brian Thomas, M.S. Big Bang fails Planck data test, by Jake Hebert, Ph.D. Other theories more accurate than Big Bang, by Henry Morris, Ph.D. A Better Alternative to Big Bang: For a theory that doesn't require Big Bang's fudge factors, fits the observable evidence nicely and supports the Genesis account, check out "Cosmological Relativity" published in 1996 by famed theoretical physicist Dr. Moshe Carmeli. For a layman's overview, read the book "Starlight, Time and th New Physics" by Dr. John Hartnett.


Recent Posts

See All
bottom of page