One of the more popular primetime television programs hails by the same name as a common component within the theory of evolution. While the aforementioned television program bases itself on a group of physicists and other scientists, it continues to prey upon the general mindset within society that humanity embraces a truly ridiculous notion as to the origin of life. In answering the questions involving the earliest notions of life, many respond with what we refer to as the “Big Bang Theory.” Such is truly a joke, because science cannot deal with origins—science deals with that which is observable and repeatable for experimentation, and matters of origins fall outside of such. Not only will we address this aspect of evolution, but in this issue, we want to examine some other problems with the theory of evolution.
The Big Bang theory bases itself on the assumption (the problem begins right here when we try to gain facts from an assumption) that hydrogen and helium atoms, formed from some sort of original “cosmic egg” that is smaller than a single proton, gave rise to 99% of all matter in the universe.
The first big problem with the Big Bang theory is the dependence it has on chance. This is a prime factor in the entire process, including the origin of the universe. We need to be asking (in loud voices, mind you) scientists and other citizens who have been duped by evolution, “How did the first DNA come into existence?” Of course, DNA is the building block of life. There are four different types of subunits in the DNA molecule, which compose very lengthy units within the molecule. Twenty different amino acids comprise the protein molecules, which end up forming a long and intricate chain of protein molecules, each one possessing hundreds of amino acids. The complexity of such is really unparalleled—any slight change anywhere in this chain may often be detrimental, but scientists want us to believe that the first living organism came from an explosion, and continued to mutate over billions of years to produce what we now have! Considering the role of chance in this equation, what are the odds? Suppose we have one million monkeys all typing on typewriters at the rate of ten keys per second, twenty-four hours a day, hitting the keys entirely at random. We want them to produce the phrase “THE BIG BANG THEORY!” Would they succeed once every 41 billion years? The odds for the Big Bang Theory actually occurring would be even more staggering than this!
A second problem with the Big Bang theory lies in its dependence upon spontaneous generation—life spontaneously forming. Yet, there is no scientific evidence to support the theory of spontaneous generation. Noted atheist and evolutionist Wallace Matson stated, “…Pasteur showed conclusively that there is no such thing as spontaneous generation—all living things are generated from seed” ( The Existence of God , p. 128). The evolutionist readily admits the scientific law of biogenesis—life only comes from life. Dr. McNair Wilson, former editor of the Oxford Medical Publications, said, “Modern medicine and surgery are founded on the truth enunciated by Pasteur, that life proceeds only from life and only from life of the same kind and type.” Ah, if only they knew that Moses said this long, long before Pasteur “discovered” this (cf. Gen. 1:24). Sir Fred Hoyle and his colleagues were among the first to propose that the universe is expanding—matter is continuing to generate spontaneously. Yet, scientific data has clearly debunked his ideas, including the First Law of Thermodynamics—neither matter nor energy can be created or destroyed in nature.
A third complementary problem lies in what the Hebrew writer wrote, “ For every house is built by someone, but He who built all things is God ” (Heb. 3:4). Every cause has an effect. The effect is the universe— what is the cause? The Big Bang theory tries to provide an answer in the universe being eternal, but it cannot scientifically or accurately answer this important question, because the Second Law of Thermodynamics disproves such. In other words, what was there before the bang? Therefore, it is a lie by which many are deceived and many others are continuing to propagate!
Back in 1992, the British journal Nature provided the following comment: “The simple conclusion, that the data so far authenticated are consistent with the doctrine of the Big Bang, has been amplified in newspapers and broadcasts into proof that ‘we now know’ how the universe began…is cause for some alarm” (p. 731). Therefore, as we see from this aspect of evolution, as well as all aspects, the theory of evolution is nothing more than an unproven hypothesis, and it will never be anything more than this!