Why are scientists running away from The Big Bang?

Oh.  So the Big Bang didn’t happen – because science can’t come up with a cause for it.  Therefore, the universe has always existed?

A new “knowledge” (aka theory) was inevitable

From a Biblical / Christian perspective – let me propose two reasons why this new scientific theory had to come out – why it was inevitable –

1. It avoids the issue of having to explain why / how the Big Bang happened.  The Bible says very clearly why it happened – God said – and it happened.
2. And based on item #1 – and most importantly – it avoids the whole “God” issue.  If the Big Bang didn’t happen – if the universe existed since eternity past – then God isn’t “needed”, from their point of view.  Problem “solved”.

Does that mean there’s a problem now with what the Bible says?  
Not at all.
It means that Christians need to be aware of the change in “knowledge” – and why that change took place.  It’s not unlike what happened to the word “evolution” after Darwin came on the scene.  I have an article from my old site that I guess I need to move over here.  It talks about how evolution used to be used by Christians – including the aforementioned C. S. Lewis – to describe their own beliefs, including that God controlled the evolution of His creation from one phase to the next.  Post Darwin, the definition got changed because of a new popular use in the culture – and now Christians find themselves fighting against a word they used to embrace.
So – no – don’t run away from science.  Embrace it.  But also remember it.  When science tries to change the conversation – tries to just turn 180 degrees to do nothing other than take credit away from God – call it out.  Don’t forget it.  

Another “problem” – 

Another basic problem is that if the universe is expanding, it must have been expanding from an area that was, at one point, incredibly small and dense—perhaps even infinitely small and dense.

The new model moves away from the “expanding universe” theory. It also sidesteps the matter of the universe’s previous infinite size and density, which the paper calls the “smallness problem,” by relying on a “cosmological constant” term that puts the universe at a finite size.  In other words, instead of originating from a single point in a singularity, the universe has simply always been around. 

Let’s look at one sentence again –

It also sidesteps the matter of the universe’s previous infinite size and density, which the paper calls the “smallness problem,” by relying on a “cosmological constant” term that puts the universe at a finite size.

Really?  The universe has a finite size?  If that’s really true – then there must be an end to the universe somewhere.  It may be billions or trillions of light years away from us.  But if it really is finite – then it has boundaries.  
This begs a really important question –
What’s on the other side of the edge of the universe?

Yet another problem

The model also avoids utilizing the theoretical existence of dark energy to explain why the universe began to quickly accelerate about 7 billion years into its existence.

Yes – another issue side-stepped, in the interest of making this new theory work.  

You see – there’s have been all sorts of explanation of this acceleration phenomenon.  There are also claims that it can still be witnessed – even today – in some parts of the universe that are still developing.  Now – that’s all out the window.  
This begs the question – what do they do with all the “knowledge” that led to these claims that time wasn’t always constant?

You see the problem here.  If time isn’t always constant – then something has to exist outside of time.  That sounds too much like God.  So – anything that even remotely sounds like it’s operating outside of time just has to go.

Conclusion – problems with the Big Bang

The researchers told Phys.org that they were motivated to explore the theory after realizing what the implications were for problems related to the Big Bang. “It is satisfying to note that such straightforward corrections can potentially resolve so many issues at once,” Das noted.

I submit to you –

1. The “corrections” are not at all straightforward.
2. The biggest problem with the Big Bang is that more and more scientists who were also Christians – were proving that what the Bible say and what The Big Bang said – were very much in line with each other.  A new theory that could remove God from the equation had to be developed.  And we’re starting to see the beginnings of it here.
   

   ---

Ge 1:14 And God said, “Let there be lights in the expanse of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark seasons and days and years, 15 and let them be lights in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth.” And it was so. 16 God made two great lights—the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars. 17 God set them in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth, 18 to govern the day and the night, and to separate light from darkness. And God saw that it was good.

Ro 1:18 The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19 since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20 For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.
Ro 1:21 For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools 23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles.

I feel like events that call to mind these verses in Romans are coming up more often lately.  
Like it’s  target rich environment.  Too many times when there are attempts to remove God from day to day life.
Maybe Satan feels like it’s time for a massive attack?
The question becomes – are we going to just sit back and be targets – are we going to just be worn down?

Ro 1:28 Furthermore, since they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, he gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what ought not to be done. 29 They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, 30 slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; 31 they are senseless, faithless, heartless, ruthless. 32 Although they know God’s righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them.

This last set of verses – that’s for us.  Christians.  We cannot afford to reach the point where we did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God.  Otherwise – the verses after that will apply to us.

I’m not saying to go on the warpath and start shooting back and antagonize people.  But I am saying that we cannot afford to keep staying away from science.  What happened with the word evolution is really like shame on “us”.  When I first read what “evolution” used to mean – I was shocked.

We shouldn’t let the same thing happen here.  But if we don’t retain the unchanging knowledge of God – and also retain the changing knowledge of man (science) – it could very well happen again.  And then the next generation will be wondering what happened.  They’ll be wondering how we let science redefine words that we used to use.  Just like Christians used to use the word evolution to describe God’s influence over His creation.

Ro 1:20 For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.