How does the Big Bang FIT with the creation story in the bible?

Question

I'm writing an essay and it is meant to explore how the Big Bang and Evolution might fit with the christian creation story in genesis. I have no clue what to write. I'm not stuck on how it fits with evolution,(i've got some pretty good ideas for that) i'm stuck on how it fits with the Big Bang. Any ideas and points I could make?

Answer 1

Unless this is for a creative writing class, I don't know what you're going to do. The Big Bang (a mocking term coined by a physicist who disagreed to link the idea of an expanding universe to a British slang for sex) theory and the theory of Evolution by Natural Selection are scientific models that have been tested experimentally. These models not only explain natural phenomena and observations, they make predictions that have been verified by experiment.

The Big Bang theory has been updated but the essential idea of a universe expanding from a point where space-time began remains. This theory explains and predicts such things as red shift, isotopic abundances of elements and the microwave background radiation.

The Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection has nothing to do with the Big Bang. It explains what drives evolution, or the change in gene frequency in a population over time. It has survived 150 years of testing and is the foundation of all of modern biology.

There is absolutely no connection between these experimentally verified, scientific models and a creation myth be it the judeo-christian version (which one? there are two versions in genesis alone) or any of the other many myths cooked up by people to explain the unknown.

Creation myths attempt to explain the unknown by invoking magic. Everything is explained by magic. They make no predictions, they only seek to explain. They don't explain how these supernatural beings use their magic. They don't tell how these deities will act in the future.

That doesn't mean that one of these myths aren't correct. They just can't be proven right or wrong. There is no way to disprove the existence of these deities but that's not in any way special. There is no way to prove that leprechauns and faeries don't exist.

Unlike just-so creation stories, scientific theories can be falsified because they make predictions. As soon as an experiment disagrees with the predictions of theory, that theory has to be modified or replaced. Any connection between creation and science is purely accidental.

Answer 2

Evolution is both theory and fact. We see that something is there, that life arose from a common ancestor. The Theory is just attempting to explain how this came about. There is a huge distinction between the two, and people can't grasp that. It's important to note there are also several other methods that show an Earth that is billions of years old. The amount of misconceptions surrounding evolution is ridiculous. Like the fake thermodynamics contradiction. It drives me mad! A lot of people don't understand that the Big Bang does not address the creation of the universe, rather it says something happened and then it expanded. The Big Bang was originally the idea of a creationist to make his beliefs sound more plausible. Overall, the origin of the universe is unknown. There are ideas out there, but nothing that's definitive. As a naturalistic pantheist, I have no problem saying I don't know what happened and that I don't feel the need to say, "God did it." The universe does not require an intelligent creator to be created. People choose to not accept what's right in front of their face because they have a holy book telling them otherwise. They cannot think for themselves. They believe what is taught to them in church, from TV and/or their family/friends.

Answer 3

The fit is that there are two pieces to the Big Bang theory.

The first is what happened from an instant after the Big Bang to now. Science can tell you a lot about that, because there is evidence (data).

The second is why the Big Bang occured and exactly how it started. Science has no evidence for that, only guesses. "Let there be light" is just as good a guess.

A famous and respected scientist (Brian Greene) said it well. "The Big Bang theory says nothing about what banged, why it banged, how it banged, or even if it banged at all." Scientific truth.

http://www.amazon.com/Fabric-Cosmos-Space-Texture-Reality/dp/0375727205

Here's a website from a man of faith, who is also a very real scientist. He not only accepts the Big Bang, but that the Earth is 4.5 billion years old. And he finds no problems fitting those things into a powerful faith.

http://www.reasons.org/about/index.shtml

"The mission of Reasons To Believe is to show that science and faith are, and always will be, allies, not enemies."

Answer 4

From a scientific point of view, there is no connection; but there is some interesting history here.

The Big Bang theory was first proposed by Georges Lemaitre, who was a Catholic priest. When Pope Pius XII learned about this theory, he became an enthusiastic supporter because he saw a connection between the scientific "big bang" and the moment of creation described in Genesis. (Prior to this time, scientists didn't think that the universe had a definite beginning.)

Pius was so enthusiastic that he wanted to officially endorse the theory, but Lemaitre asked him not to. Lemaitre realized that if a religious leader officially endorses a scientific theory, he could appear foolish later if the theory is found to be wrong. (Keep in mind that this was when the Big Bang was not nearly as widely accepted as it is now.)

If you want to learn more about this, type the following into a search box:
Lemaitre Pius "big bang"

Answer 5

The Big Bang was first thought up by a Christian priest (who later became a monsignor). It was the best hypothesis (then called the Primeval Atom) to explain what was observed in the universe. It fitted quite well with the Christian spirit because it gave the universe a starting point (a moment of creation, if you need one).

The alternative theory was called Solid State. It called for an eternal universe (no need for a creation, therefore no need for a creator) and it happens that it was defended by three well known scientists who were self-proclaimed atheists. However, at the time, most scientists -- believers or non-believers -- went with the Solid State Theory because it was the simplest theory available that explained things. The idea of going with the simpler of two theory is called Occam's razor -- another scientific principle invented by a Christian friar (William of Ockham) -- he had called it, in Latin, lex parsimoniae: the law of parsimony.

They (the "Solid Staters") are the ones who gave the name Big Bang to the other theory, to try and ridicule it (because evrybody knew that an "explosion" is impossible if there is nothing to explode into).

As instruments became better (and as some chance observations were made), it was found that Solid State failed to explain important observations (like the Cosmological Microwave Background radiation), while Big Bang not only explained them, but helped understand its detailed measurement and to predict other observations.

So, if you must try to combine Big Bang and Christian creation, then use the fact that Big Bang does provide a beginning (which is necessary if you want to believe in a creation and, therefore, in a Creator.

Big Bang is silent about how and why the universe began. It is a theory about how the universe evolves at it expands. In summary, as the energy cools down (because of the expansion), the forces separate and then matter "freezes out" from the energy (the analogy is like water droplets condensing from cooling steam). So at different steps ("days" of creation?), you get something different on which the future depends: first the sun, then the planet, then the water on the planet, then the one-cell life in the ocean...)

Evolution is something distinct from Big Bang. It states that given living organisms (without explaining where they come from), and environmental pressures:
1) lifeforms which are better adapted to the environment will have a better chance to survive, and
2) mutations occur within races that produce slightly different lifeforms: their long-term outcome depends on 1.

The similarity (in a Christian sense) is that God did not have to create every single atom that exists. He created a form of absolute energy and, from that pure energy, everything else flowed (including all matter and all forces). He did not have to create every single living cell. He only had to get the process of life started and everything else (all races and all forms of living creature) would evolve from it.

The newer thought is that the first one is sufficient. The matter created in the Big Bang, given enough time, does eventually create a first lifeform from which everything else evolves.

---

As for the story in Genesis, you'll have to beware whose version of Genesis you use. Many 'modern' translations have moved away from the original story. For example, I rarely used the King James version without cross-checking it against other versions (in other languages).

Simply that so many words have acquired new meanings over time.

As an analogy, just think of the word gay which, as recently as a century ago, had absolutely nothing to do about sex. And there are still other languages where the word can still be used in its real sense. Not in English (especially in North America).

---

For BB (and others):
"Why are you trying to make it fit?"

Because he's asked to do so in a essay. This does not automatically mean that he must show that they are the same.

Very often, in science, it is when we try to make things fit that we must explain what the differences are, and we must show that there are differences (in addition to any similarities). Just stating that they don't fit is not much more useful than simply stating that a (translation of a translation of an adaptation of a) book carries the absolute truth.

Answer 6

Like an aircraft carrier fits in a coin purse.

One example: chronology. The age of the Universe, accepted by biblical literalists for the last 400 years, is about 6000 years. This was "determined" by Bishop James Ussher, from studying the Bible. The scientific view, as derived from a mountain of evidence, independently, by several different branches of science differs from the Ussher chronology by the following:

Back to the first humans: 700 TIMES longer.
To the formation of the earth and solar system: 700,000 times longer.
To the beginning of the Universe: 2.2 million times longer.

Logically, one is forced to conclude that at least one of these two views is breathtakingly incorrect. There is no way they can be reconciled.

Dr. Bob, very interesting. I didn't know that. I would love to see the entry for this subject in the New Catholic Encyclopedia immediately following that.

Ashley, I think it would be scientifically reasonable to ask the good "Reverend Einstein" what is his evidence that God exists and what is the evidence that the bible is God's word. This poster is one of the few remaining who are actually still comfortable insisting on the absolute, literal interpretation. His view is not shared by anyone in the *real* scientific community and is at odds with what most Christians believe.

Ordinary..., why is it that so many of you fundies can never seem to learn how to spell "atheist"? And do you know for a fact that the first ones to propose the Big Bang were atheists? (Not that it would make any difference.)

Raymond, "Steady State." I know that's what you meant.

Gzlakewo..., Ashley was not asked to reconcile the existence of God with the Big Bang. She was asked to make the Bible story of creation fit with it. They are most definitely mutually exclusive, utterly contradictory and incompatible, and we have seen people on both sides of this argument who insist on that. Sorry, there is no comproimise, no friendly middle of the road here. No matter how nice anyone wants to be, the biblical story is disastrously and irreperably wrong.

Answer 7

Actually the two accounts (Biblical Creationism and Big Bang) do not necessarily nor need to contradict one another. The big problem is that the vast majority of the world want to put Religion and Science in opposite corners of the ring and make them come out swinging at one another.

The two theories can easily and peacefully co-exist. Now how you should proceed, well I guess I would suggest starting with solid research, and not allowing your opinions or paper to be influenced by the natural bias of others -- myself included.

Answer 8

You have selected an impossible task to carry out. Let's have a look at Genesis. In the beginning the Earth was without form and void, and the spirit of God moved over the waters. Question.. Where did the waters come from? God said "Let there be light!" Question..Where did the light come from, the sun had not yet been created? Explanation..The authors of that piece of fiction had no idea that the sun was above the the thick clouds on an overcast day,they assumed there must be another source of light, independent of the sun. God caused a firmament to appear to separate the waters above from the waters below. The waters above was rain, they had no idea of how rain got into the sky. God caused the dry land to come forth from the waters, he called this dry land, Earth. The authors had no idea of what a planet is, Earth is what called land. I could go on, but you must get the idea by now. I hope.

Answer 9

The big Bang does not fit in with the Biblical account of creation. You are going to have to make something up. Since the big Bang is all speculation anyways and is losing scientific standing among astronomers think of a short sci- fi story based on reading the first two chapters of Genesis. What you come up with will be just as good as some astronomers have come up with.

Answer 10

They need not be exclusive. The Bible is not a Physics book.
At this time time there is nothing to disprove that there is not a Supreme being and the cause of it all. There no paradoxes in the universe, but only more questions to answer! I believe this intuitively.