Does the Big Bang Contradict Creation?
But in the twentieth century, several things happened that radically contradicted the idea of an infinitely old universe. First, two scientists noticed that all galaxies seemed to be receding from each other - the same way dots drawn on a balloon get farther away from each other as the balloon is inflated. Then, Einstein's theory of general relativity demonstrated that the universe must be expanding. Later, astronomer Edwin Hubble noted how starlight was shifting to the red spectrum as we observed them, demonstrating that not only stars and galaxies were moving away from each other, but the very space between them was stretching.(1)
The implications of a universe that wasn't infinitely old made things very problematic for those who felt it came too close to describing a biblical-type creation. In fact, a famed astronomer named Fred Hoyle advanced an alternate theory known as the "Steady State Universe". In this model, Hoyle and others proposed that matter was being formed all the time, so it only looks like the universe came from a singularity. Unfortunately, in the 1960's scientists discovered background radiation that proved the steady-state model wasn't tenable. Now, almost all scientists accept the fact that the universe had a beginning a finite time ago.
Bangs Have Bangers!
So what was it about the idea of a universe that came about from some type of "big bang" that worried scientists to such an extent they would try to explain it away? Well, there are two main issues at stake and both argue for the existence of God.
We define the universe as comprising time, energy, matter and space. Science is the field of observing how each of these phenomena act and react. Outside of the observable universe science must be silent; one cannot apply the scientific method without observable data. But this is exactly what we have in some type of big bang event. What exactly was it that "banged" to cause the universe to come into existence? If matter, space and time are all a part of our universe, then what was before that? Out of nothing, nothing comes is the logical dictum, so there must have been something out there, but that something must not be material, it must not be spatial and it must not be time-constrained. Well, God fits these criteria. He is spirit, not matter and as spirit He transcends space. Also God is defined as eternal; therefore He can be outside of time.
Beyond the fact that God fits these basic criteria, there is the question of why the universe "banged" into existence at all. In other words, even if the potential conditions for the big bang existed logically prior to the event, what change occurred to make the event happen? Or, to put it another way, who did the banging? Let's look at our balloon again as an analogy. A balloon on a table has all of the components necessary to be inflated: there is sufficient air to fill it and its latex makeup will allow it to expand and trap air. Yet, it doesn't trap air and expand all by itself; someone must come up with the idea of forcing the air into the balloon and then act to make that happen. An inflated balloon is an effect and the person pushing air into the balloon is the cause.
Similarly, it takes an intelligence to cause a change in timeless eternity. If the pre-universe conditions were in stasis and then there was a bang, then an intelligence had to act in order to make that change happen. This idea was first recognized by Thomas Aquinas in his Five Ways argument.(2) Basically, he said you can look at a current instance of an event and question "what caused this to happen?" When you find the action that caused that event you turn around and ask, "Well, what caused the action to happen?" But, that action had a preceding cause of its own, so you then ask again "what caused that to happen?". Without a starting point, you end up asking the question "what then caused that to happen?" infinitely - which will never give you an answer. It becomes logically inconsistent to keep pushing the cause back one step further - this is what is known as an infinite regress. Therefore, you need a first cause to start the process, but something that doesn't need a cause for itself - namely God.
The Heart of the Issue
For Christians, the heart of the issue really comes down to the question "Does the concept of a Big Bang type creation event undermine Scripture?" I could argue that the broad concept in fact does the opposite. The Big Bang theory validates the Christian concepts of a finite universe, an initial beginning and a creation of time and space. Today, we see apologists arguing for the existence of God using the Kalam argument. The Kalam states everything that has a beginning must have a cause. The universe has a beginning. Therefore, the universe must have a cause. Further, that cause must have exerted intelligence to desire change and a will to make the change happen.
Astronomer Hugh Ross goes even farther, though. He states that although there are many competing models and theories on the Big Bang event, each with its own details, all agree on two basic premises: At some certain point in the past the universe began to exist and it has been expanding ever since. Ross argues that both these premises are clearly taught in Scripture. He writes, "The Bible's prophets and apostles stated explicitly and repeatedly the two most fundamental properties of the big bang, a transcendent cosmic beginning a finite time period ago and a universe undergoing a general, continual expansion. In Isaiah 42:5 both properties were declared, 'This is what the Lord says-He who created the heavens and stretched them out.'"(3) Ross notes also that there are at least eleven Bible verses that talk about God's "stretching out" the universe.(4)
http://www.comereason.org/Big-Bang-vs-Creation.asp
