The Big Bang, second edition

I understand that there are conservative Christians who reject the idea of a Big Bang. I suppose that most of these, at least the ones who can give a good reason for such rejection, do so either because they believe that the earth is only a few thousand years old, or because, in their minds, the Big Bang is associated with evolution, which they reject.

As to the first, it is possible, indeed, that the earth is only a few thousand years old. (But see this post, and others, on a book by a believing Christian, scientist, and Bible scholar, David Snoke, entitled A Biblical Case for an Old Earth.) Even if the earth were only a few thousand years old, the Bible does not explicitly say that the universe is the same age as the earth. I don't see anything in the Bible that would rule out an ancient universe.

I also take two Biblical statements seriously. These are Psalm 19:1-4 and Romans 1:20, both of which tell us that one of God's ways of revealing himself to us is through what nature tells us. Much of what nature tells us, especially about things which are very small, very large, or very far away, or were very long ago, can come to us only though scientific findings. These findings may be mistaken at times, but they should certainly not be rejected out of hand. There is good scientific evidence that there was a Big Bang, and that it took place a very long time ago.

The Big Bang was not proposed as some sort of anti-God crusade. On the contrary, the first good evidence for a Big Bang was discovered by accident, by scientists who weren't looking for such evidence. The Big Bang, as an explanation for the origin of the universe as we know it, is taken by some scientists, even unbelieving scientists, as evidence for the existence of a divine Creator. For example, here's what the late Robert Jastrow wrote, about the discovery of evidence for the Big Bang, in his book, God and the Astronomers:
For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries. (New York: Warner Books, 1978, pp. 105-106.) Jastrow, according to the Wikipedia article on him, was not a Christian, but an agnostic. However, he believed that science had no explanation for what came before, or caused, the Big Bang, and acknowledged that the Judeo-Christian religions do have an explanation, namely that an eternal God began the universe with a supernatural act, or acts, such as the Big Bang. When the Big Bang theory was first proposed, as Jastrow indicated, there were scientists who were pretty upset about the idea, because there was no good explanation for what caused it, or what, if anything, came before it. There still isn't an explanation that has been proved experimentally, although there have been attempts at such explanations, most notably by Stephen Hawking.

Acceptance of the idea of a Big Bang was slow. The evidence for a Big Bang is good, considering how long ago it would have happened, and the idea is accepted by most scientists. The evidence for it, to me, is an important part of God's revelation to us.

As to the connection to evolution, there is no direct connection. In the first place, evolution, like any controversial subject, should be defined before it is discussed at all. This, unfortunately, happens only rarely. In the second place, evolution is a biological process. The Big Bang was a physical process.

What Christians should be concerned about, even if they have the wrong name for it, is not evolution, but naturalism. That's what most conservative Christians really mean when they say that they don't believe in evolution. (At least some types of evolution, biological processes, are well established. The most ardent Young-Earth Creationist scientists believe that humans evolved into more than one type since the time of Noah, for example.) Naturalism is the idea that there are natural, as opposed to supernatural, explanations for everything. It is, therefore, a form of atheism. Naturalism is believed by many scientists, and others, although there is no definitive evidence for it. The most prominent naturalist is Richard Dawkins, a competent biologist, but also a popular writer, crusading against Christianity and other religions. But even Dawkins does not claim that he has disproved God's existence, which would prove naturalism.

The Bible begins with a statement that, if true, destroys naturalism: In the beginning, God created . . . Genesis 1 doesn't tell us when, why, or how. It does tell us that there was a Who. Naturalism says that there wasn't, and isn't, any Who. Christians believe that there was, and is. Undoubtedly, some people who believe in naturalism do so because, if it were true, it would mean that there are no Divinely created moral laws, and they want to believe that there aren't any such.

If someone says that the Big Bang event proves that there is no God, they are mistaken. There is no such proof. On the contrary, supposing that God started the universe with a Big Bang makes good sense. If someone says that evolution, however defined, proves that there is no God, they are similarly mistaken. There is no such proof. On the contrary, God may have used natural selection, the Big Bang, or both, as part of His method of making things like they are now. As I see it, knowledge and prior planning like that would be as wonderful, or more so, as creating every type of atom, and every type of living thing, from scratch.

As Hebrews 11 puts it: 3 By faith, we understand that the universe has been framed by the word of God, so that what is seen has not been made out of things which are visible (World English Bible, public domain).

This post is revised from a previous one, now removed. Thanks for reading.