Question:

I have read your material on evolution being “scientific” and your view of
the Big Bang. Would you object to the Big Bang being taught in school as
it is not “science” any more than intelligent design? One cannot do an
experiment to prove or disprove Big Bang. Have you read the book by
Jonathan Sarfati’s, Ph.D. Refuting Compromise? He has a very interesting
explanation on why the Big bang theory was invented in the first place. He
also goes into great depth on the meaning of “day” in Genesis.

Answer:

The Big Bang is not in the same category as intelligent design. The Big
Bang is every bit as much scientific as quantum mechanics and germ theory.
We have abundant experimental evidence in agreement with this
model/theory. The fact is that we can do experiments to test this
theory!!! For example, the data discovered in the 1920s and 30s proves
that the universe is rapidly expanding. In addition, the background
microwave radiation which fills the universe is in complete agreement with
the Big Bang model. What is interesting about this is that the existence
of this radiation was predicted from the Big Bang model, which is the
strongest kind of support for a scientific theory. In addition to this,
the ration of hydrogen to helium to other elements predicted by the model
is matched exactly by the known proportions in interstellar media. Bottom
line, every line of scientific evidence we have is in agreement with the
Big Bang model. No other model comes even close to being able to predict
the data we have available with regard to the current state of and the
history of the universe. Bear in mind that as we look into extremely deep
space, we are looking into the past. When we look at a galaxy which is
ten billion light years away, we are presumably looking at light which
left that galaxy ten billion years ago.

As you are well aware, I am in absolute agreement with Intelligent
Design. I see design everywhere I look in the universe. I teach about
intelligent design often in my classes here at a public university. Just
last week in Organic Chemistry I taught about the wonderful and fortunate
properties of carbon for the sustenance of life. I chatted with a student
after class about that, and he came to church this Sunday. Intelligent
design has great explanatory powers, but it is not a scientific theory per
se, because it is not subject to experimentation. We cannot do an
intelligent design experiment. There is nothing equivalent to the
background cosmic microwave radiation to look to for experimental
confirmation of design. Design is shown through the complexity of life,
through the fine tuning of the cosmic constants, through the amazing
series of lucky accidents which allows advanced life to exist on the earth
and so forth. Nevertheless, intelligent design is not a scientific theory
in the sense that it can be tested by experiment and it is not refutable
by experiment.

Now, if you were asking about string theory, then you would have some
agreement from my corner. This theory is extremely speculative. It
cannot be checked, at least not directly, by any workable experiment.
String theory is speculative, but the Big Bang theory is not.

Yes, I have read Sarfati?s Refuting Compromise. I have read his
explanation and found in unconvincing. I appreciate the sincerity of this
author, but find his way of dealing with the science to be biased. His
explanation of the Big Bang may be interesting, but it does not hold water
from the point of view of the evidence. In fact, he does not so much
disprove the theory as provide philosophical/theological arguments against
it. It is not particularly helpful to provide a philosophical argument
against a scientific theory, just as it is not particularly helpful to
provide a scientific argument against a philosophy. Such arguments are
fine, but what are we to do with the science? The Big Bang theory was
invented by people who had very strong philosophical reasons NOT to
believe in it. In fact, many cosmologists in the 20s-40?s rejected the
Big Bang, not because of lack of experimental support, but because the Big
Bang implies that there was a creator. The Big Bang is your friend. It
provides proof positive in a Creator. I can honestly say that I do not
know if the Big Bang happened. Obviously I was not there. It is possible
that God created the universe with an appearance of age?a universe which
is expanding?a universe which is filled with microwave radiation and so
forth. Personally, I am not tied in to this theory as a scientist. All I
can say is that the universe was created, and the evidence we have at our
disposal is in good agreement with the Big Bang model.

If you want me to respond to any particular single aspect of what Sarfati
says, I will be happy to do this. I do have the book, so it will not be
too hard for me to do that if you like.

John Oakes, PhD

Your brother in Christ,

Leroy Walters, St. louis, Mo.636-343-9355