Creation Factsheet No. 27: Big Bang Problems

Factsheet No. 27


THE 'big bang' theory of the origin of the universe is spoken of as though it were an established fact. It is good, therefore, to be reminded of some of the theory's shortcomings and problems. It is obvious that the theory is not based upon scientific observation and is untestable, which, strictly speaking, disqualifies it from being a true scientific theory.

The whole idea is based upon the extrapolation of the apparent expansion of the universe, and arriving back at a point about 15 billion years ago when all the matter and energy which make up the universe was concentrated in a tiny, super-dense core about the size of the full stop at the end of the sentence. We mention the apparent expansion of the universe because it could well be simply that, due to the decay of the speed of light ('c') since creation. Australian researcher Barry Setterfield presented evidence for this some 20 years ago. Although his theory was scorned by evolutionary cosmologists, the idea resurfaced in a Scientific American (April 2003) with a review of book by Joao Magueijo who has proposed that 'the speed of light was much faster in the early universe.1 This could actually mean the universe is contracting, not expanding! However, even if the universe is expanding now, this does not necessarily mean that it began with all the energy and matter compressed into a tiny atom. Exponents of this standard 'big bang' theory face some serious problems, some of which are detailed below.

Picture of a Big Bang


This well-known scientific law states that with the passing of time there is a deterioration in everything. Things go from order to disorder and chaos, but those who believe in the 'big bang' have to believe that the opposite happened — that order increased! Dr. Henry Morris comments: 'Explosions produce disorder, not order! The primordial super-explosion surely would have produced absolute chaos and the most utter disorder. If the universe is indeed a closed system, as evolutionary cosmogonists allege, then how in the name of sense and science could this primeval chaotic disorder have possibly generated the beautifully organized and complexly ordered universe that we now have?'2 Believers in the 'big bang' can choose to believe that the Second Law of Thermodynamics was, for some reason, not active back in the beginning, but this is purely an act of faith.


The imagined primeval explosion somehow had to produce a universe with structure. Why are there galaxies, stars and planets in our universe? How could matter flying outwards from a massive explosion begin to rotate to form swirling galaxies? And why do we find large concentrations of matter in some parts of the universe and vast empty spaces in others? A uniform expansion would have resulted in an even distribution of matter. These problems have forced some scientists to suggest that the primeval atom had 'lumps'. One believer in the 'big bang', researcher Robert Scherrer, has described it thus: 'The universe couldn't have started out completely smooth, or it would have stayed completely smooth and we wouldn't have stayed ended up with galaxies, stars, planets and people. On the other hand, if matter in the universe had started too lumpy, these lumps would have grown enormously by now, probably turning into massive black holes that could swallow up all the matter and our chances for existence.'3 What is the suggested solution to this impasse? That the distribution of matter in the beginning was not quite uniform; there was a very slight imbalance, enough to allow sufficient gravitational attraction to form galaxies, but not enough to form black holes; it had to be just right. How such a state of affairs could have existed Scherrer admits to be a 'mystery'. So we have another act of faith on the part of evolutionary cosmogonists.

Hubble Telescope View of Galaxies (NASA photo)

Hubble telescope view of galaxies (NASA photo)


'Big bang' theorists believe that this hypothetical primeval explosion produced matter and anti-matter which, theoretically, should have been present in equal amounts. The problem is that when these particles and anti-particles collide — as they would have done — they annihilate one another. Gary Bennett, of the U.S. Dept. of Energy writes: 'Today's universe of matter very nearly disappeared forever in that instant.' 'Why didn't it, then?' 'Only a slight overabundance of particles relative to anti-particles allowed particles to win out — and our present universe to exist.'4 So theorists have to believe that there was more matter than anti-matter, otherwise we wouldn't be here! Another act of faith.


In the beginning, according to evolutionary cosmogonists, there was only hydrogen — the simplest and lightest of all elements. The heavier elements are formed step by step, as atoms collided and combined to make higher and higher 'mass numbers'. Gary Bennett writes: 'Making more complex elements was quite difficult under the conditions prevailing at the end of the Big Bang. Several nuclear bottlenecks blocked the way.' 'One problem is that nature does not appear to like certain combinations of particles — Mass numbers 5 and 8 are both unstable. If a helium-4 nucleus absorbs a neutron to become helium-5 it immediately decays, and the same applies if two helium-4 nuclei try to bond to form mass number 8. Says Gary Bennett: 'These two unstable mass numbers stood like a wall in the way of making more complex elements.' 'So why didn't our universe remain a mixture of hydrogen and helium? Once again the evolutionists' faith comes to the rescue. It is proposed that these unstable mass numbers were somehow leap-frogged over; that when the numbers 5 and 8 were reached, another nucleus immediately collided with them to make a more stable mass number before they had time to the decay!

Mass Numbers Stood Like a Wall

'Two unstable mass numbers stood like a wall....'

Some secular scientists are aware of the problems with the 'big bang' hypothesis. Astronomer David Darling writing about the problem of creating something out of nothing, commented, 'Don't let the cosmologists kid you.... there is a very real problem in explaining how it all got started in the first place.'5 Isn't it easier to believe what the Bible says about the creation of the universe? 'By the word of the Lord were the heaven's made, their starry host by the breath of his mouth.'? (Psalm 33:6)


  1. Review of Faster Than the Speed of Light: The story of Scientific Speculation.
  2. The Biblical Basis for Modern Science: Baker Book House 1984, pp. 150-151.
  3. From the Cradle of Creation: 'Astronomy' Vol. 16, No. 2, February 1988, pp. 40-41.
  4. Cosmic Origin of the Elements; 'Astronomy' Vol. 16, No. 8, August 1988, pp. 18-21.
  5. New Scientist, Sept. 14th 1996, p. 49.

Factsheet published regularly by Creation Resources Trust, PO Box 3237, Yeovil, BA22 7WD.

Registered Charity No. 1016666. www.c-r-t.co.uk © 2003

Quickly Find the Next Factsheet that Interests You!!