Bad News for the Big Bang: Secular Scientists Claim Universe Shouldn’t Exist

Higgs Boson Credit Lucas TaylorLONDON – Nearly two years after the highly-publicized discovery of the elusive ‘God Particle,’ scientists have determined that the current Big Bang model cannot account for the existence of the universe.

As previously reported, scientists in Europe announced in 2012 that they had detected the Higgs boson, then confirmed their findings last year.  The Higgs boson, also known as “the God particle,” was widely heralded as a key to understanding the origins of the universe.

However, in a major setback to the secular Big Bang theory, scientists with King’s College in London announced this month that Higgs boson physics cannot account for the universe’s existence. The scientists came to this conclusion after modeling the hypothetical conditions of the universe immediately after the Big Bang.

“During the early universe, we expected cosmic inflation—this is a rapid expansion of the universe right after the Big Bang,” Robert Hogan, a physicist with King’s College, told LiveScience. “This expansion causes lots of stuff to shake around.”

However, Hogan added, the “shaking around” caused by the Big Bang would have brought catastrophic consequences to the early universe.

“If we shake it too much, we could go into this new energy space, which could cause the universe to collapse,” he said.

Incorporating “the God particle” into the Big Bang model only made matters worse.

  • Connect with Christian News

“What [the scientists] found was bad news for, well, everything,” LiveScience reports. “The newborn universe should have experienced an intense jittering in the energy field, known as quantum fluctuation. Those jitters, in turn, could have disrupted the Higgs field, in essence rolling the entire system into a much lower energy state that would make the collapse of the universe inevitable.”

Hogan plans to share his findings today at the Royal Astronomical Society meeting in Portsmouth, England. Meanwhile, some suggest that these findings are evidence that the Big Bang theory is a flawed model which cannot account for the origin of the universe.

“Of course another possibility is a creative designer,” one online commenter succinctly noted.

Dr. Danny Faulkner, an astronomer with Answers in Genesis, says the Big Bang theory has repeatedly conflicted with observational evidence.

“When we hear the term big bang theory, many people assume it was conceived in its present form and has remained unassailed ever since,” Faulker wrote in a recent article.

“In reality,” he continued, “it is a very pliable model. Several assumed variables in the equations have been changed to make the numbers match new findings. Today’s big bang model little resembles the one your grandfather learned, and it is likely to continue morphing. Are these improvements, or just rescuing devices?”

Likewise, Drs. Jake Hebert and Jason Lisle with the Institute for Creation Research propose that a belief in God—not the Big Bang theory—is ultimately foundational for understanding the universe’s existence.

“If God chooses to use a Higgs field to set the masses of all particles, He can certainly do so,” they wrote in an online article. “The fact that such physics is possible or even meaningful would only make sense in a created universe that is controlled by the mind of God anyway. The study of how God upholds the universe today is the very essence of science.”

Become a Christian News Network Supporter...

Dear Reader, has been of benefit and a blessing to you? For many years now, the Lord has seen fit to use this small news outlet as a strong influential resource in keeping Christians informed on current events from a Biblical worldview. Despite Facebook's recent algorithm changes, which has limited our readership, and, as a result, has affected operational revenue, we continue to strive to bring you the news without compromise and to keep Christ in focus. If you have benefited from our news coverage, would you please prayerfully consider becoming a Christian News supporter by clicking here to make a one-time or monthly donation to help keep the truth widely and freely published and distributed? May Christ continue to be exalted through this work!

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
  • Joe

    Let me see if I understand:

    Science answers questions we thought we’d never answer, rumblings about God follow Christians into the shadows. In the process of scientific method, science discovers new and as yet inexplicable things, rumblings about God start creeping about like roaches to piece together *faith* like so much glue.

    Okay, I think I got it. But I guess when one’s *faith* needs a God of the gaps, one isn’t really faithful. Interesting.

  • cybrogrey

    Faith resolves what science can’t explain. The efforts of scientists to plumb the immense depths of natural phenomena only strengthens the ultimate truth denied by all skeptics – that there is a Great Designer and Creator who made all things possible.

  • john baptist

    but maybe the have cam up with a new theory fo evolution da may imprss us anywe

  • Alec Livingston

    Its funny how secularists are spurred by the need to defute the Kalam Argumemt and then turn around and claim us as using “God of the gaps”.However as much as this article is good news, if many Christians spent as much time on the present as they did on the “creation vs.evolution” debate and debate and its many forms, I can’t fathom the profound effect it would have on the effort of the great commission (Mathew 28:18-20).

  • Yes

  • RickB.

    THE greatest conceit of a man is that he can create God out of his fallen earthly mind. That Gods word is not true & that he will figure out what is NOT meant to be figured out.THIS is still a defect in us related to the first sin of eating from the tree of knowledge against Gods warning.As people we dont want to look at our sins or orselfs really it is much much easier to look at others so we rebuke God for many selfish reasoms. What are yours? H

  • RickB.

    It takes the same amount of faith to believe in science as it does God. Do you know that?

    • C.P. Steinmetz

      No, I don’t believe it, because it is totally untrue.

      One doesn’t have ‘faith’ in science, one ‘believes’ in scientific explanations.

      “Faith” = belief in the absence of evidence or contrary to the evidence.

      “Belief” = belief because of the objective evidence.

      • Catherina Hayden

        Your definition of “faith” ( “Faith” = belief in the absence of evidence or contrary to the evidence.)is folly. Any “faith” which is not based upon reason supported by irrefutable evidence is truly folly.

    • Tanen

      It should take more faith to believe in science than to believe in God.
      God is holy,truthful, and knows everything.
      Scientists are corrupt,liars, and know very little.
      Whom should I trust???

  • Catherina Hayden

    To promote an idea that life can come from a Big Bang, which if it was true, would have sterilized the universe a trillion times over, is mind boggling. And then to spend money on ‘scientific experiments’ to try and prove that life could have originated from a so called Big Bang’ is even more mind boggling.

    Looking around me I see a wonderfully created creation around me. Why do humans ignore reality and hang onto make believe ‘facts’ dished up to them which looking around them does not even exits. Mind boggling……………..

    • C.P. Steinmetz

      Your post is quite interesting. First, this newly discovered information is not final, and does not necessarily negate the Big Bang theory. Second, spending “money on ‘scientific experiments’ to try and prove that life could have originated from a so called Big Bang’ is the only way to gain credible knowledge.

      You seem to think that if the Big Bang theory was falsified, that would somehow ‘prove’ your creationist views. Not so.

      You state: “Looking around me I see a wonderfully created creation around me. Why do humans ignore reality and hang onto make believe ‘facts’ dished up to them which looking around them does not even exits.” Since you seem to wave your hands and declare all scientific knowledge is trumped by a creation myth, the question is, which creation myth should one believe … the Rigveda, Egyptian, Sumerian, Germanic, Greek, etc.? They all have just as much in the way of objective evidence as your Judeo-Christian myth.

      Your views are truly “Mind boggling……………..”

      • Catherina Hayden

        You say: “You seem to think that if the Big Bang theory was falsified, that would somehow ‘prove’ your creationist views.” I do not think that, in fact I know the Big Bang theory would never fit as an explanation of how the cosmos came into being. How could any ‘life’ form originate from it? It just does not fit!

        In contrast to this theory, I have found nothing in the Bible that contradicts the reality around me and I know that science originated from the work and studies of scientists who were Christians.

        Scientific knowledge which is based on evidence and facts underwrites a creation by an Intelligent Creator. It is not a Judeo-Christian myth, it is a Judeo-Christian truth.

  • Don HAGNER

    By faith we understand that the worlds were prepared by the word of God, so that what is seen was not made out of things which are visible. (Hebrews 11:3 NASB)

  • Tobias

    It not surprising to read some anti-Christian comments here. It is after all why faith is faith. Its obvious that some posters have no interest in the subject, apart from attacking Christians or people who believe in God. To me there is no difference between the Creation and evolution or even science, but when I read that God is not involved in evolution I have to wonder how life and the universe can be seen as a ‘by chance’ happening. I don’t think many people actually grasp the complexity and odds of it all happening by chance. Let alone that by some miracle (some) humans have developed ‘consciousness’ and other species not.

    • C.P. Steinmetz

      You state: ” I don’t think many people actually grasp the complexity and odds of it all happening by chance.”

      You are so right about that. People have been totally mislead by religionists. The odds of it happening are 1 to 1 – because it happened. Odds only make sense if you are trying to predict a future event. So, at the beginning, if you tried to predict that things would turn out exactly as they did, the odds are impossibly large. But, looking back, the odds are irrelevant. In short, the ‘odds are against it’ argument is a false argument.

      • JohnPerth

        Um, you are partially correct. The fact that the universe obvious. However, this argument is not about did it happen, but what is the liklihood that it would happen spontaneously.

  • Jenny

    For those that do not believe in God, I hope that you would truly seek him out before you make your conclusion. If you earnestly seek God, you will find Him. Living as a Christian gave my Life purpose and undeniable joy. I did not just blindly believe in God, but through everything I could feel his loving presence. But even if there is no life after death, I would still have no regrets.

  • Angela

    Certainly, Science has been a great help to man especially proving eg.Job’s word, that the earth is a circle. Their findings or what they have not found or concluded has actually strengthened how awesome The Creator is. The quest to know more about the universe is a good sign of a need to find God! It’s just that the realization has not registered. Come on give them a chance do more findings even to our advantage. I guess they have the choice to spend time looking around. Proving and disproving. When things explode they sure dont become round, As asumed. Otherwise the moon will have the same substance and element as the earth. But Noo… both are soo different!

  • freejeff

    It’s pretty sad that these “Atheist” Self-proclaimed scientists, are compelled to troll this Christian news sites and bestow their vast amounts of knowledge on us uneducated bronze age goats….how so benevolent of you to share your precious knowledge with us

  • D. R. Mattfield

    Question #1: What exactly in the universe existed an hour, a day, a month, a year prior to this so called big band?
    Question #2: If the universe was void of a biased external influence of any matter, energy, gravity at the big bang moment, then wouldn’t said explosion result in a three dimensional equal propulsion of matter of equal dimensions, of equal energy and momentum equally in all directions of x, y and z axes?
    Question #3: If # 2 is true, then all matter following the bang should produce a forever swelling hollow sphere universe of shrinking density, but uniform or congruent matter, should it not?

  • Rich Gitschlag

    Can I get a real source please. I searched LiveScience for it, and couldn’t find the referenced article.

  • Pete

    In the beginning there was nothing. Then it exploded. And some of you think Christians are ignorant?

  • justaguy

    That’s the beauty of science people can come with any theory and we don’t have to believe them because they’re scientist .there’s peer review,experiment and does the theory plausible? Backed with the math of course
    So chill Jesus fans
    this doesn’t mean yahweh or Zeus or juju or flying spaghetti monster exist p