An A to Z of Creationist Fallacies: B is for Big Bang

As it is with the origins of life, creationists are wont to try to include the “Big Bang” in the Theory of Evolution; which of course merely covers the adaptation of life over time, and has absolutely nothing to do with astrophysics or the apparent point of beginning of the universe. For some creationists this is a misunderstanding. For many, many more, who have already had their misconception explained to them, some of them many times, this is a misrepresentation and deliberate deception. It is bearing false witness, a falsehood – an outright lie.

The most common creationist misconception however is that mass suddenly exploded out of 'nothing' and thus created the universe, thus giving rise to the oft-used creationist analogy of throwing a grenade into a scrapyard and getting a car. This misunderstanding – or misrepresentation – is down to the rather unfortunate phrase “Big Bang”.

For a start, there never was a massive explosion at the supposed birth of the universe, certainly not an 'explosion' in the violent sense that most understand the word; consider that the term 'population explosion' means a huge jump in births, but there is no violence involved (well, yes, there can be some, but that's 9 months previously, it's reciprocal, and a helluva lot of fun). The more correct scientific term for the supposed start of the universe is the Initial Singularity. As the name suggests the Initial Singularity was a singularity of infinite density, which contained all mass, density, and spacetime compressed into a singular point, which expanded and inflated rapidly, creating the universe.

Why should science think this is the case? Because wherever we look in the universe, in whichever direction, all the distant stars and galaxies appear to be regressing away from us at enormous speeds. They are not of course, as the Earth, no matter what the creationists would have you believe, is not the centre of the universe. Therefore, if it's not all the other civilizations in the universe trying to get the hell away from mankind as quickly as possible, the only logical conclusion one is left with is that matter in the universe – including our own Earth, solar system, local star cluster, and our galaxy – must be rushing outwards from an initial singular point where and when it all began.

If some are failing to understand this, perhaps Douglas Adams put it simpler:

“Alright,” said Ford, “forget that. I mean … I mean, look, do you know – do you know how the Universe actually began for a kick off?”

“Probably not,” said Arthur, who wished he’d never embarked on any of this.

“Alright,” said Ford, “imagine this. Right. You get this bath. Right. A large round bath. And it’s made of ebony.”

“Where from?” said Arthur, “Harrods was destroyed by the Vogons.”

“Doesn’t matter.”

“So you keep saying.”

“Listen.”

“Alright.”

“You get this bath, see? Imagine you’ve got this bath. And it’s ebony. And it’s conical.”

“Conical?” said Arthur, “What sort of …”

“Shhh!” said Ford. “It’s conical. So what you do is, you see, you fill it with fine white sand, alright? Or sugar. Fine white sand, and/or sugar. Anything. Doesn’t matter. Sugar’s fine. And when it’s full, you pull the plug out … are you listening?”

“I’m listening.”

“You pull the plug out, and it all just twirls away, twirls away you see, out of the plughole.”

“I see.”

“You don’t see. You don’t see at all. I haven’t got to the clever bit yet. You want to hear the clever bit?”

“Tell me the clever bit.”

“I’ll tell you the clever bit.”

Ford thought for a moment, trying to remember what the clever bit was.

“The clever bit,” he said, “is this. You film it happening.”

“Clever.”

“That’s not the clever bit. This is the clever bit, I remember now that this is the clever bit. The clever bit is that you then thread the film in the projector… backwards!”

“Backwards?”

“Yes. Threading it backwards is definitely the clever bit. So then, you just sit and watch it, and everything just appears to spiral upwards out of the plughole and fill the bath. See?”

“And that’s how the Universe began is it?” said Arthur.

“No,” said Ford, “but it’s a marvellous way to relax.”

(From The Restaurant at the End of the Universe)

The man attributed with coining the phrase “Big Bang”, UK astronomer Fred Hoyle, did not even accept the initial singularity hypothesis, and is claimed to have come out with the words somewhat sarcastically. Hoyle agreed with the Steady State Universe hypothesis; which stated that as galaxies moved apart, new galaxies would be born from matter which was being constantly created. Unfortunately for Hoyle and other proponents of the Steady State Universe, radio signals from low source strengths turned out to be much higher than Steady State predicted. Then when the microwave background radiation of the universe was shown to be the same in all directions, as one would expect to find in a universe expanding from a singular point, that was the end for the Steady State hypothesis.

Now, the reader will notice I have somewhat conveniently skirted over just how the universe expanded out from the Initial Singularity. This is because I am by no means a genius, and I frankly hate quantum physics. However, I'll take a deep breath and give it a go. The hypothesis suggests that quantum fluctuations upset the equilibrium of the singularity. To explain, quantum fluctuations allow the creation of particle-antiparticle pairs of virtual particles. According to the model of inflation, these particles existed when inflation began were amplified and formed the seed of all current observed structure. This is important, as the vacuum energy of quantum fluctuations may also be responsible for the accelerated expansion of the universe – the “cosmic constant”.

And if anyone doesn't understand all that, let's not forget this is something which CERN and others are still working day and night upon, and the only honest answer I or anyone can give to the question of how the universe came into being is exactly the same as that which I gave for how life began in my first article in this series, A is for Abiogenesis; “I don't know.” Again, it is not unintelligent, ignorant, shameful, or foolish to say “I don't know.” to questions which are as yet unanswered. Far from it, it is they who claim their assumptions must be the truth who are being ignorant and foolish, and that is precisely what creationists do when they said “God did it”, when they do not have a single shred of evidence to back up that assumption.

Speaking of assumptions about things we do not know the answer to, it is an enormous assumption for the creationists to claim that the universe came from “nothing”. Certainly, nothing as far as our universe and the laws which govern it are concerned, but “nothing” is a strange concept.

As if trying to explain quantum fluctuations weren't enough, I am now going to complete screw the reader's mind up by speaking of “nothing”, as a concept. If I ask you to imagine nothing, what would you picture in your mind? A void perhaps, be it completely black or completely white? Nope. Sorry, you can't have that. A void, of any colour, is still something of substance. Remember, we are talking of a state beyond what we know, and of course to try to imagine nothing in it's truest form - “no thing” - is actually impossible for the human mind to comprehend.

So, now that I've given you all something to keep you awake tonight, let me just compound that by asking who are we to assume that nothing lies beyond our own universe. If you were sitting at home one evening and a drill bit suddenly came through a wall, you would not assume it came out of “nothing”, nor would you assume “God did it.”, and you would be more than a tad upset at your neighbour's over-ambitious attempts at home improvement. So it is to say that nothing lies beyond our universe is a gross assumption when we simply do not know if that is the case. Our universe may be part of a “multiverse”, in which several universes are conjoined to each other, and which share matter with each other. Other dimensions may lay beyond our universe, in which we may be but an experiment of some other creature's Petri dish. The possibilities are countless, and if there is something which lies beyond our universe, then there is absolutely no guarantee that the laws of physics which govern our universe would apply outside of it.

Creationists are first to scoff at any such ideas, which I personally find strange, considering that they nowadays are the first to claim that their God is outside of space and time. And I say nowadays because of the Receding God. For anyone unfamiliar with this term, it goes like this; First local gods were found in all things in nature around mankind, then when they were not found, the gods were found in the sky, which became the accepted view when the one God came to chase out the many. When God was not found in the sky, it was claimed he was in space. But since we know God is not in space, now the faithful claim that their God lies beyond space and time. I can therefore see why the idea of something outside of our universe may upset the faithful, as it would leave their God with nowhere left to run to. But they miss a point here; that while as an atheist I sincerely doubt it, given that there are limitless possibilities of what may lie beyond our universe, maybe, just maybe, our universe was created by a deity – perhaps even their own God.

But then, that just throws up another problem. For if the creationists insist that the “Big Bang” could not have come from “nothing”, then just what or who created their God, and when? But that's perhaps a subject for another article.