In our previous article, we investigated the standard model (the big bang) on scientific grounds. We found that the big bang is not scientific in the sense that none of its major steps have been verified by the scientific method. However, there are things that are reasonable and true that cannot be verified by science. So we must ask, is the big bang reasonable? Are there good reasons to believe it despite its lack of scientific verification?
The big bang is a secular story of the origin of the universe. It was designed to explain the origin of stars, planets, galaxies, and even the universe itself without any need for God. The big bang is not compatible with the history recorded in Genesis. But if we didn’t have Genesis, would it be reasonable to believe in a big bang? Does the big bang have scientific merit?
How did the universe begin? In almost all public schools and universities, the most commonly promoted idea of universal origins is the big bang. Is the big bang really a reasonable theory about how the universe began? Can it be reconciled with Scripture? Is it based on good science?
Our feedback this week is from Colin who had previously claimed that the Bible was not historically reliable. He continues his case here, along with my responses in purple. He made a lot of assertions and copied various internet links. But did he present any actual evidence for his claims?