The thrice-supported Big Bang

“ … A threefold cord is not quickly broken ” —Ecclesiastes 4:12. One cannot dismiss the Big Bang as “just a theory. ” Various lines of evidence confirm the “hot Big Bang ” as the best model for the origin of the universe. The most widely known piece of evidence is Hubble’s Law (galaxy redshifts), but the universal abundances of light elements and the cosmic microwave background radiation add convincing support to the hot Big Bang model. This paper discusses these three lines of evidence with emphasis on the last two. Theological implications of the Big Bang are also discussed. Among ancient Near Eastern cosmologies, only the Bible presents the universe as having a beginning ex nihilo. Two historic alternatives to the Big Bang that avoid a beginning are presented and rejected. Finally, Gentry and Humphreys have proposed young-earth creationist models contrary to the Big Bang. We find their galactocentric cosmologies fail scientific and theological scrutiny. T he hot Big Bang is widely accepted as the standard explanation for the ori-gin of the universe. According to this model, the universe began in an unimagin-ably hot, dense state that started to expand. In time, it cooled to the point where particles and atoms formed. Eventually, gravity orga-nized this matter into galaxies and associ-ated objects we observe today. The Big Bang is not “merely a theory. ” A number of cosmic observables are naturally explained only by Big Bang cosmology. These observables are Hubble’s Law (galaxy redshifts), the ratio of the abundances of light elements to hydrogen, and the cosmic microwave background radiation. These key pieces of evidence form the threefold cord of support for the Big Bang. This article serves as an introduction and/or a review for those who have heard about the Big Bang but who have not had time to investigate supporting evidence for its validity.1 In light of this evidence, we will see that opposing theories to the Big Bang— the steady state theory, oscillating universes, and recent young-earth proposals—lack sci-entific credibility. We also discuss theologi-cal implications of Big Bang cosmology