IMPACT June 1991
No. 216 -- BIG BANG THEORY COLLAPSES
                                    by Duane T. Gish, Ph.D. *

"Down with the Big Bang;" "The Big Bang Theory Goes Kerplooey;" The
Big Bang Theory Explodes;" "Sorry Big Bang Theory is a Dud;" "Map
Challenges Theory of universe ;" "Astronomers' New Data Jolt Vital
part of Big Bang theory;" "Quasar Clumps Dim Cosmological Theory."
These have been titles of a few of the articles found in newspapers
and science journals in the last two or three years, as the Big Bang
theory has received one body blow after another. And why not? We know
that the universe did not begin with a big bang -- it will end with a
big bang, for  "but the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the
night; in the which the heavens shall pass away  with a great
noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also
and the works that are therein shall be burned up" (II Peter 3:10).
Cosmologist have thus miserably failed as to the time, nature, and
cause of the Big Bang.
	The Big Bang theory concerning the origin of the universe was
spawned about 50 years ago, and soon became the dogma of the
evolutionary establishment. It has many dissenters, however,
including the British astronomer Sir Fred Hoyle, the Nobel laureate
Hannes Alfven, and astronomers Geoffrey Burbidge and Halton Arp.
According to the Big Bang theory, some 10 to 20 billion years ago,
all of the matter and energy of the universe was compressed into a
cosmic egg, or plasma ball, consisting of sub-atomic particles and
radiation. Nobody knows where the cosmic egg came from, or how it got
there -- it was just there. For some equally inexplicable reason, the
cosmic egg exploded. As the matter and radiation expanded, so the
theory says, it cooled sufficiently for elements to form, as protons
and electrons combined to form hydrogen of atomic weight one, and
neutrons were subsequently captured to form helium of atomic weight four.
Most of the gas that formed consisted of hydrogen. These gases, it is
then supposed, expanded radially in all directions throughout the
universe until they were so dispersed that an extermely low vacuum
and temperature existed. No oxygen, nitrogen, phosphorus, carbon,
sulfer, copper, iron, nickel, uranium, or other elements existed. The
universe consisted essentially of hydrogen gas. Then somehow, we are
told, the molecules of gas that were racing at an enormous speed in a
radial direction began to collapse in on themselves in local areas by
gravitational attraction. The molecules within a space of about six
trillion miles diameter collapsed to form each star, a hundred
billion stars somehow collected to form each of the estimated 100
billion galaxies in the universe, and our own solar system formed
about five billion years or so ago from a cloud of dust and gas made
up of the exploded remnants of previously existing stars. No
satisfactory theory exists to explain any of these events, but
cosmologists remained firm in their conviction that all of these
marvelous events would eventually yield to credible explanations. But
now a cruel fate has befallen the grandest theory of all -- the
Big Bang theory.
	Based on the Big Bang theory, cosmologists predicted that the
distribution of matter throughout the universe would be homogeneous.
Thus, based upon the so-called Cosmological Principle, it was
postulated that the distribution of galaxies in the universe would be
essentially uniform. No matter in which direction one looked, if one
looked far enough, one would see the same number of galaxies. There
would be no large scale clusters of galaxies or great voids in space.
Recent research, however, has revealed massive superclusters of
galaxies and vast voids in space. We exist in a very "clumpy" universe.
	The present crisis in Big Bang cosmologies began in 1986,
when R. Brent Tully, of the University of Hawaii, showed that there
were ribbons of superclusters of galaxies 300 million light-years
long and 100 million light-years thick, stretching out about a
billion light-years, and seperated by voids about 300 million
light-years across.(1) These structures are much too big for the Big
Bang theory to produce. At the speeds at which galaxies are supposed
to be moving, it would require 80 billion years to create such a huge
complex, but the age of the universe is supposed to be somewhere
between 10 and 20 billion years.
	In November of 1989, Margaret Geller and John Huchra, of the
Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, announced the results of
their research. Their map of the sky revealed what they termed the
"Great Wall" -- a huge sheet of galaxies 200-million light years
across and 700 million light years long.(2) A team of American,
British, and Hungarian astronomers, it is reported, discovered even
larger structures.(3) They found galaxies clustered into thin bands
spaced about 600 million light years apart. The pattern of these
clusters stretched across about one-fourth of the diameter of the
universe, or about seven billion light years. This huge shell and
void pattern would have required  nearly 150 billion light years to
form, based on there speed of movement, if produced by the standard
Big Bang cosmology. 
	Even more recently (January 3, 1991), Will Saunders and nine
fellow astronomers published the results  of their all-sky redshift
survey of galaxies detected by the Infrared Astronomical Satellite.
This survey revealed the existence of a far-greater number of massive
superclusters of galaxies than can be accounted for by the Big Bang
cosmologies.(4) 
	In an attempt to salvage the Big Bang theory, cosmologists
have invented hypotheses to explain the failures of their hypotheses.
One of these is the Cold Dark Matter (CDM) theory. According to this
theory, 90-99% of the matter in the universe cannot be detected. If
CDM existed, it would supply sufficient gravitational pull to create
large clusters of galaxies. The structures discovered durning the
past few years, however, are so massive that even if CDM did exist,
it could not account for their formation. Saunders and co-workers
thus state that the CDM model can be ruled out to at least 97%
confidence level. In the same issue of Nature, in which is found the
article by Saunders. et al, there appears an article by David Lindley
in the "News and Views" section (p. 14) entitled "Cold Dark
Matter Makes an Exit." Caltech cosmologist S. George Djorgovski,
taking into account the astronomical observations that contradict the
CDM theory, states that the demise of the notion of the existence of
cold dark matter is inevitable.(5)
	Also very recently, the U.S.-European Roentgen Satellite
(ROSAT), detecting x-ray emissions, discovered evidence of giant
superclusters of quasars on the edge of the universe, supposedly
eight to 12 billion light years from earth.(6) Physicist Paul
Steinhardt, of the University of Pennsylvania, states that "This may
be the start of the death knell of the cold-dark-matter theory." Even
if this hypothetical matter existed, it still could not explain the
existence of these giant clusters of quasars.
	If all of this weren't bad enough news for Big Bang
cosmologists, results from the Cosmic Background Explorer (COBE)
should really make them wish they had gone into some other field.
Based on the Big Bang theory, it was predicted that there should
exist a background radiation equivalent to a few degrees Kelvin. Sure
enough, in 1965, Anro Penzias and Robert Wilson, radio engineers at
Bell Telephone Laboratories in New Jersey, discovered a microwave
background radiation of 2.7K. Evolutionary cosmologists were
absolutely delighted. This discovery was considered proof of the Big
Bang, and Penzias and Wilson were duly awarded Nobel Prizes. It now
appears, however that the background radiation may turn out to be
additional evidence against the Big Bang theory, rather that its proof.
	Since the Big Bang theory predicted a homogenous universe
with matter evenly distributed throughout the universe (which it most
certainly is not, as described above), evolutionary cosmologists
expected that the background radiation would be perfectly smooth.
That is, no matter in  which direction one looked, the background
radiation would be the same. Just as predicted, the background
radiation was perfectly smooth. Theorists were delighted, smug in the
assurance that this background radiation was the leftover whimper of
the Big Bang. Now, however, it turns out that the universe is not
homogeneous, but is extremely lumpy, with massave superclusters of
galaxies and great voids in space. Thus, it the background radiation
is left over from the Big Bang, it should not be smooth, but be more
intense in certain directions that in others, indicating
inhomogeneities at the very start of the universe, immediately
following the initial moments of the Big Bang. Astronomers thus began
to search for differences in the background radiations. All
measurements showed it to be perfectly smooth. Thus COBE was launched
to an orbit 559 miles above the earth, carrying sensitive instruments
to measure the background radiation. Alas, preliminary data from COBE
announced in January, show absolutely no evidence of inhomogeneity in
the background radiation. It is perfectly smooth.(7)
	"No energetic processes, even unknown ones, could have
occured that were vigorous enough to either create the large-scale
structure astronomers have observed or stop their headlong motion
once created. There is simply no way to form these structures in the
20 billion years since the Big Bang."(8)
	Of course, the demise of the Big Bang theory will not
discourage evolutionary theorists from proposing other theories. In
fact, theories based on plasma processes and a revised steady-state
theory have already been advanced to replace Big Bang
cosmologies."(9,10,11) 
	Eventually, all such theories will fail, for "in the
beginning God created the heaven and the earth" (Geneses 1:1). "The
heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament showeth His
handiwork" (Pslam 19:1).

                             REFERENCES 
 1. R. B Tully, Astrophysics Journal 303:25-38 (1986).
 
 2. M. J. Geller and J. P. Huchra, Science 246:897-903 (1990).
 
 3. E. G. Lerner, Aerospace America march 1990, pp. 30-43.
 
 4. Will Saunders et al, Nature 349:32-38 (1991)
 
 5. T. H. Maugh, II Los Angeles Times, San Diego Edition, January 5,
    1991, p.A29.
    
 6. R. Cowen, Science News 139:52 (1991)
 
 7. Reference 3, p.41.
 
 8. Reference 3, p.42.
 
 9. Reference 3, p43.

10. A. L. Peratt, The Sciences, January/Febuary 1990, p24.

11. H. C. Arp, G Burbidge, F Hoyle, J. V. Narlikar, and N. C.
Wickamasinghe, Nature 346:807-812 (1990).

----------------------------------------------------------------------
*   Dr. Gish is Vice President of the Institute for Creation Research.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

REPRINTED WITH THE PREMISSION OF THE INSTITUTE FOR CREATION RESEARCH
For more information about ICR write to:
Institute for Creation Research
P.O. Box 2667, El Cajon, CA. 92021