New observations of the angular sizes of distant galaxies challenge one of the essential underlying assumptions of the big bang – that the “fabric” of space is expanding as galaxies recede. Without an expanding space, a big bang is impossible. These observations support a new creation-based model of cosmology – the Doppler model – which makes specific quantitative predictions about future observations.
Preliminary data and images from the James Webb Space Telescope (JWST) challenge secular ideas of galaxy formation and the big bang, but confirm biblical creation.
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?