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?
Evolution is fundamentally incompatible with the scientific method. That is, if neo-Darwinian evolution is true, then there would be no rational basis for trusting in scientific procedures. Conversely, if science is a reliable tool for understanding how the universe works, then particles-to-people evolution cannot be true.
When Charles Darwin wrote “On the Origin of Species” in 1859, he employed an ingenious trick to persuade people of evolution. He linked evolution to natural selection, implying that natural selection was the mechanism of evolution. This was a clever trap because when something false (evolution) is linked with something true (natural selection), people are often fooled.
Our critic this week is Dr. William Lane Craig, a philosophy professor and Christian apologist. Although Craig defends Scripture in some areas, he adamantly denies literal (6-day) creation in favor of the big bang and secular timescale.
Our feedback this week once again comes from Peter who is still convinced that I have misrepresented the presuppositional method. Peter claims that (1) all forms of circular reasoning are fallacious and (2) that the presuppositional method as advanced by Bahnsen and Van Til does not involve any circular reasoning.