Evolution Exposed, Exposed, Chapter 2: The Big Bang?

Continuing our discussion of AiG's Exposing Evolution high school textbook supplement.  There is both an earth sciences and biology edition available.  For the sake of this series, I'll be using the most recent edition, which happens to be the one on Earth Science.

In this chapter we are told that the Big Bang was developed using naturalistic and uniformitarian principles. Over the last century, the Big Bang has won out over many other competing models, such as the Steady State model which attributed an eternal value to the universe, and is now widely supported as the model for the origins of the universe. The discussion in Chapter 2, as expected, questions the legitimacy of the Big Bang model as an explanation of material origins and hinges its discussion on Chapter 1 which, as we discussed in the last post, questions the legitimacy of science as a whole in order to legitimize its own version of pseudo-science. Once again, evidence for or against evolution and an old earth, although pertinent to the conversation, is not the subject of these posts. This book is aimed toward Christian high school science students. So, as a scientist and a Christian, I’m more interested in the underlying philosophies being fed to impressionable students. The facts will work themselves out if they choose to pursue an education and career in science.

Once again, the author defines naturalism as a belief system denying that an event or object has a supernatural significance. As such, it leaves no room for a creator. As the logic follows, the Big Bang exists “to describe the creation and evolution of the universe by natural laws alone.” Uniformitarianism is defined as the doctrine that observation of present day processes can be used to model and estimate change that has occurred in ages past. The author argues that these two assumptions, naturalism and uniformitarianism, along with man’s fallen state, skew the interpretation of the evidence and argues the merits of the Big Bang. In addition, the article notes known problems with the Big Bang model.

As an alternative to the Big Bang model, the book offers the Biblical Creation model and lists creation, the curse, and the flood (catastrophe for the alliteration lovers) as major events leading to the current state of the universe. This model is legitimized not by its scientific backing, but by the notion that both this model and the Big Bang model are based on a certain measure of faith. The influence of evidence on faith is not discussed. What follows is not a list of predictions made by the model or an explanation of how the evidence fits this particular model better than the proposed Big Bang model. Rather, you’ll read a defense against the star light travel conundrum with a reference to three possible (yet suspect) solutions. A few more difficulties with the Big Bang model are brought up to discourage any buy-in from the student, but no alternatives fitting the creation model are offered other than, “Bible –believing Christians can still rest assured that God has revealed truth to us in the Bible.” The student will read, “Starting with the Bible as a foundation for thinking about the world leads to a different interpretation of the data than does starting with the assumptions of naturalism and uniformitarianism.” After which you’d expect to see a novel, honest, integrity driven interpretation of the data. I’m still looking. Maybe it’ll be in the next chapter.

The Big Bang model exists because it best explains the available evidence not because it seeks to eliminate God. It says nothing on the role of God in creation. Naturalism does not deny a supernatural event. It just doesn’t look for one. If you feel you must dismiss the Big Bang theory, do it on theology alone. AiG attempts to argue both Theology and Science and traps itself in inconsistency. On one hand, they argue the Big Bang’s inability to explain everything as a failure yet offer little observational evidence to support their own theories. They argue for designed natural law but refuse to follow its logical end out of fear of naturalism. The Big Bang’s inability to satisfy all questions says more about our finite understanding of the universe than its failure as a model. Questioning the assumptions and predictions of a model are good and should be encouraged. However, critiquing well established dogma in the absence of offering productive refinements does little for the advancement of anything. This is where my frustration with AiG lies. What I’m reading is a text book supplement for science students that discourages science. Science is portrayed as flawed, anti-theistic, and in some respect, sinister. What I see is not young earth creationism, but instead anti-evolutionism. Their defense of creationism has no intention of being scientific.

A few questions to continue to take the discussion from the last post a little further...

This book makes much of the assumptions made by scientists and their handling of the evidence. Let’s flip the coin. What are some assumptions this view makes when reading the first chapters of Genesis?
How should scripture influence the interpretation of scientific data?