The Evidence Explained
Learning Intentions:
By the end of the lesson you will be
able to…
1. Explain in detail at least two piece of
evidence to support the Big Bang theory.
2. Have though about possible strengths and
criticisms of the Big Bang theory.
3. State at least two strengths and two
criticisms for the Big Bang theory.
Is there any
evidence?
Scientists would argue that
there is physical evidence
for the Big Bang:
1. Redshift effect of galaxies (The Expanding
Universe)
2. Cosmic Background Radiation Heat (CMB)
3. Relative Abundance of the elements
1. Redshift effect
• Edwin Hubble discovered that light
coming from distant galaxies was all
shifted towards the red end of the
spectrum.
• This meant that things in the universe
were moving apart from each other.
2.Cosmic Background Radiation
• 1965- two astronomers, Arno Penzias and
Robert Wilson, found that radio reception had
a noisy fuzz associated with it (white noise).
• The fuzz seemed to be coming from every
point in the universe and was measured as
having a temperature of -270 degrees.
• Physicists agreed this was leftover ‘heat’ in
the form of radiation, which was still cooling
from the Big Bang.
3. Relative Abundance of the
elements
• The Universe today contains the elements,
the basic atomic and chemical building blocks
for everything that exists.
• The amounts for these (their relative
abundance) in the universe today points very
strongly towards a particular process of their
‘creation’ in the past- evidence points towards
the Big Bang.
• E.g., the proportionate of Hydrogen in the
Universe today is exactly what you would
expect if the Universe had been started off
by the Big Bang
What caused the Big Bang?
• In physics, the Big Bang requires no other
cause than the laws of nature
• BUT, did the laws of nature come into
existence before the Big Bang? If so, where
did they come from?
• OR did they come into being at the moment of
the Big Bang? If they did, how could they
have caused it?
Turn to the backs of your jotters and
write down an explanation of what
happened during the big bang.
Strengths of the Big Bang theory
• You could link it with Christian beliefsif you don’t believe the Big Bang “just
happened” you could argue that God
caused it.
• It offers a rational explanation for
something which occurred by definition
without anyone there to observe it.
• There is a strong scientific basis for
the theories from a variety of fields of
scientific enquiry
What are some of the
criticisms of this argument?
In groups of four:
Try to come up with at least two
possible criticisms of the Big Bang
theory.
You have 5 minutes!!!
Criticisms
• Based on circumstantial evidence
• It’s so complex that it is not a useful
way for ordinary people to understand
how the universe began
• Does not offer any explanations as to
the meaning and purpose of human life
or our place in the Universe
Textbooks:
• Read pages 106-110
• Answer INT 1 questions and INT 2
questions on page 111
Two Views of the Big Bang
1. Big Bang theory is wrong, Genesis is
right
2. Big Bang theory is right, Genesis is
wrong
Big Bang theory is wrong,
Genesis is right
• Most people don’t understand the
theoretical ‘evidence’ behind the Big
Bang
• There are a lot of assumptions in
scientific method
• The theoretical calculations could be
wrong
• The Bible does not mention a Big Bang.
Creationists would argue God created
the world in 6 days.
• If science challenges your beliefs, you
need to hold onto your faith, no matter
how convincing the arguments are
• ‘Creation Research society’- “Genesis is
a factual presentation of simple historic
facts” , e.g., Noah and flood
Creation Scientist
Movement
• “The Bible is the written word of
God...It is the supreme authority in all
matters of faith and conduct.”
Big Bang is right, Genesis is wrong
• Many scientists would argue that although
their calculations cannot ‘prove’ the Big Bang,
they are as close as you can get without
physically witnessing it.
• More reliable argument than saying ‘God’
created the universe
• A piece of writing written long before the rise
of modern science explaining the origins of
the universe shouldn’t be taken seriously.
• Richard Dawkins- having faith in the
creation of a Universe by a God is
behaving in a way where your mind is so
open that your brain is in danger of
falling out.
• Further evidence will be found
• Interpretations of the evidence are not
blind subjectivity, they are the best
interpretations of the available
evidence
Compatibility of the two views:
• ‘Hartle-Hawking theory’- the Universe
came out of nothing
• It could be argued that this is
similar to the Christian view: God
created the world out of nothing
• Creation Scientists- believe in the theory
of ‘Intelligent Design’- uses scientific
evidence to support the view that God
created the Universe and challenges the
scientific evidence that there’s no need
for a creator
• Their explanations may be different,
but not necessarily contradictory
(NOMA concept- science explains how,
religion explains why)
• Perhaps science explains the physical
elements of the beginning of the
Universe while religion explains the
spiritual ones.
• Creation by God is perhaps outside the
scope of scientific enquiry
• Christians can accept the Big Bang if
they are prepared to accept that the
Biblical creation story isn’t literally true
• Perhaps science and the Big Bang
explains the mechanics of the
beginnings of the Universe while
Christian beliefs explain the meaning
and purpose behind it all.