Customer Reviews

Dismantling the Big Bang

5 star:		(8)
4 star:		(0)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(2)
1 star:		(1)

 

 

I recieved this book as a gift from a "born again" friend who thought it would convince me that the universe was created by the Christian god. My friend had not read the book previously - if he had he would have been too embarrased to let anyone else read it.

There is no science in this book, the authors merely mock science as they attempt to convince the reader that the words of Bronze Age, tent dwelling, nomadic, goat herders have more authority in the subject of scientific inquiry than all the scientists who have contributed to the knowledge and understanding that we have accumulated up to the present.

At one point while attacking a statement about gods made by the late Carl Sagan, the authors write: "we believe Dr. Sagan is aware of his error now". This superstitious drivel is reminiscent of the commonly repeated Evangelical saying: "Darwin is now a creationist in hell".

The book is a joke. Far from convincing the reader that any credibility exists in Creationism it shows how far removed from reality the ideas of Creationism are.

If you have some time to kill, reading this book will open your eyes to the self deception and dishonesty that are required for believers to swallow this garbage. You will be amazed.

The text is fairly accessible, thought it helps to have some college level physics. It is not as some reviewers have said biased toward Christianity. Yes, the creation perspective is presented but the discussion is on big bang theory, evidence for and against the theory. As a Christian, I actually thought the Big Bang was in effect how creation occur, but not quite as this book clearly explains. Like evolution, any time some new facts or experimental results cast doubt on Big Bang, the dogmatic believers in Big Bang (as in Evolution) dismisses it. Anyway, read the book and decide for yourself.

I bought this book believing it to be a critique of the Big Bang model, done with scientific rigour. The book is useful in presenting and reviewing work by others (notably H. Arp) that seriously questions the Big Bang (and by extension, current cosmological wisdom).
However, the authors' sole purpose - agenda - was to promote a religious paradigm with primary reference to the Big Bang theory.
There is no effort to review work being done by scholars on alternative models to the current gravity-based cosmology.
For those who wish to persue scholarly discussion, I would not recommend this book.

I was reading this book at the same time I was watching The Teaching Company courses on astronomy by some of the world's leading scientists. Those scientist put forward explanations on star and galaxy formation as though they were detailing well-established science, such as how a human embryos form in the womb. Among other things, the authors of this book put forward contrary evidence about star/galaxy formation - evidence from WITHIN the scientific community - admitting that no one has any valid naturalistic explanation for how they formed, and, moreover, that we may NEVER know.

This book offers some interesting and novel insights on the scientific aspects of the creation vs. evolution debate, and also offers some profound theological insights. Hartnett is a welcome new (to me) voice in creationism. God-willing he will contribute much more to the argument for a God-created universe.

A must read for the inquiring mind; a bang on the head for the mindless, godless dyed-in-wool evolutionist.

Me thinkest that thou protesteth too much ....

For all of you wannabe scientists ..... You work entirely too hard trying to dispute God's work and words...
If you spent just half of the time and effort you would find real answers instead of the drivel found here in these opinions ....

When you have lived a little .... (something past 35 probably) you will indeed see and discover things that defy the total efforts of all of the arrogant wannabee's ....

As to the Big Bang theory ... yes, I believe in it .... God said Bang .. and it happened.

Good luck and God Bless

Bill

"Dismantling the Big Bang" is an excellent book about the big bang, its problems, and other cosmological origins models (including young-age ones). Of the books I've read on this topic, these authors have done the best job at clearly explaining what can be complicated ideas. The book was very readable (written in a conversational tone) and easy to follow. It included black and white photographs and illustrations. I'd highly recommend it for high school students and adults.

Chapter 1 gave a historical overview of cosmological ideas throughout recorded history. Chapter 2 explained the basic assumptions that everyone has to make in the study of origins. Chapter 3 explained what chance and physics can account for in cosmology. Chapter 4 explained the Big Bang model (including the variations that are commonly held), what it can't and doesn't explain, and other problems. Chapter 5 explained how people try to measure age when they don't actually know the starting date and the assumptions made in these methods. It also covered some of the different young-age creationist origin models for the universe and how they deal with the "distant starlight" problem.

Chapter 6 covered what the Bible says about the origin of and in general about the universe and how that compares to what we obverse in the universe today. It briefly covered the theological and linguistic problems with several of the compromise positions (which say God created, but the universe is billions of years old). Chapter 7 compared the Big Bang model to the biblical model to see which best fit the evidence. There's also a comparison chart in Appendix C. Chapter 8 took a brief look at the current trends in cosmology to see where future study will probably be concentrated.

The appendixes included a brief look at other naturalistic models for the origin of the universe, an explanation of the theological consequences of compromise, a chart comparing the Big Bang model to the biblical explanation for the origin of the universe, and an open letter by (naturalistic) cosmologists stating that the Big Bang model has fatal flaws and that funding and scientific magazine space should also be given to alternative models.


I received this book as a review copy from the publisher.

This is a book that challenges today's default worldview and obviously there are some who don't like their applecart upended. I'll admit the sweeping assertions seemed at time a bit strained, till the evidence supporting them began to pile up. Schoolyard name calling (see other reviews) is a poor answer to the evidence brought to bear in this book. I highly recommend this for any individual who is willing to think critically and read a different view, written by individuals obviously quite familiar with the issues involved. Not all agree with the Big Bang as currently theorized, and not all of these are creationists, young earth or otherwise. Perhaps that is what disturbs the one-star reviewers the most. It's the same reaction that greets critics of Darwinism and we've all been down this road before: if you're not at least willing to listen and think, as least stop the hysterical noise so the rest of us can!

Dismantling the Big Bang - God's Universe Rediscovered
by Alex Williams and John Harnett, Ph.D.
Master Books, 219 pgs including the Index

Let me just preface by making a small apology for the length of this review. I ask for any reviewers patience as the complexities of the subject matter and the abuse it suffers in this work require a lengthy review. I actually consider this particular version of this review to be just that, a version or draft. There are many issues I did not address that I may in the future if time permits.

Here are some examples of the writing you'll find in this book,

EXAMPLE 1: In which the authors show their complete disrespect for people who lived "before television". Even if the authors aren't serious, including this condescending and ignorant tone about people's of the past is in very bad taste and ends with me shaking my head in disbelief. Just listen to this awkwardly worded nonsense:

"Early cosmology was easy. All you had to do was to look at the night sky. Well, you had to look at it for a long time, and you had to look at it night after night all year round. But before television there was nothing much else to do at night anyway, and before streetlights and cities it was also much easier to see the night sky and it blaze of glorious starlight."

EXAMPLE 2: In which the authors let us know that they are going to dismiss "an interesting theory" and make some grave, yet erroneous, claims at someone else's expense, giving the reader a real taste of where their vision of life leads them.

"The purpose of this book is threefold. First, we aim to moderate the extremes of naturalistic thinking. The late Dr. Carl Sagan once wrote that the big-bang theory appeared to be so successful in explaining the origin of the universe that it left `nothing for a Creator to do.' In this book we will demonstrate that big-bang cosmology is not at all successful in explaining the origin of the universe. It is an interesting theory, but it simply doesn't work in practice. We believe that Dr. Sagan is now aware of his error."

On pages 25-27 we find a prime example of just how mixed up the author's are, both "spiritually" and "materially". On page 25, in their "Spirit Universe" section the author's cite John 4:24, Gen. 1 and Heb. 1:3; Col. 1:17 to defend the following statement:

"The physical is thus a product of the spiritual, and depends upon it for its continuing existence."

Then on page 27, they feel compelled to inform the reader that, "At no time does the Bible suggest that the heavenly bodies are moved by spirit beings."

And in the very next paragraph on page 27, they inform us that, "One of the great achievements of scientific cosmology was to show that spirit beings are not necessary to explain the movements of the heavenly bodies--just gravity and the laws of motion are sufficient. Atheists trumpet this advance as a fatal blow to theism, but biblical creationists see it simply as an advance in our understanding of how the world works."

Let's review all of the above and see if I have it straight. First, Carl Sagan is in Hell right now, burning in Eternal Torment; The Big-Bang is an "interesting theory" that doesn't postulate a "Beginner of Things" so it cannot be "at all successful in explaining the origin of the universe"; and "the heavenly bodies are a product of the spiritual", and these physical bodies "depend on the spiritual for their continuing existence", but not so much as to require "spirits", but simply physical laws such as "gravity and the laws of motion". In other words, a heavenly body's continued existence depends on the spiritual, but the mechanism is not spiritual, but material.

What a faith-based muddle.

We should remember all of the above, especially the statement regarding the success of modern science, always in our critique of this book using this same justification for big-bang cosmological discoveries, even applying this thinking to any discovery about our cosmic origins, where we will always consider "it simply as an advance in our understanding of how the world works."

There have been many models in natural philosophy (now science) that have had to be adjusted and/or overturned over the millennia. For our purposes there are two that come to mind: 1. Newton's Theory of Universal Gravitation; and 2. Ptolemy's Geocentric model of the solar system.

1. Einstein's extension of Newton's pioneering work on a Universal Theory
of Gravity invoked Gravity in his General Relativistic equations. This
Equation (known affectionately as "Einstein's Equation") has dictated
our thinking when it comes to describing spacetime around large
gravitational fields from its inception to the present day. Einstein
worked with Marcel Grossman to come up with a replacement for Euclidian
geometry for spacetime near a large gravitating body like the Sun which
we know to be well described by Riemannian geometry. This is an
example of a modification that does not make null-and-void the original
theory, but simply extends it to be sound under certain physical
conditions, in this case, very large gravitational fields. It should be
noted that Einstein's Theory reduces to Newton's for everyday levels of
gravity such as on the Earth.

2. Copernicus' Heliocentric model of the solar system completely replaced
Ptolemy's geocentric model by placing the Sun at the center of the Solar
System with the Planets rotating in orbits about it. This is an example
of when a theory completely replaces the existing theory.

The author's want you, the reader, to replace the Big Bang Model (BBM) of modern cosmology with their Biblical Model (BM). In other words, the BBM is Ptolemaic in the author's eyes and the BM is Copernican. But, as a scientific model, the earliest forms of the BBM (pre-inflation) plays like Newton's Theory of Universal Gravitation which needed to be modified rather than needing to be replaced entirely. And on that note, two comments: 1. Guth's inflation was arrived at independently of any desire (or even awareness initially) on his part to solve a problem of the BBM (primarily the fact that pre-inflation versions of the BB predict a universe consisting entirely of a homogeneous gas of hydrogen, helium and trace amounts of lithium, i.e., no stars and no us.); and 2. We may well see major modifications to Einstein's Theory of General Relativity as more and more astronomical data comes in from the astronomers, but, I'm afraid for the authors that, like Newton's theory of gravity, Einstein's will still apply when the parameters of spacetime are specified as we presently understand them. When added to high energy particle physics we can formulate "big-bang" nucleosynthesis, and when these two, General Relativity (GR) and High Energy Particle Physics (HEPP) are combined we have our best mathematically correct , for now, guides when building any cosmological model of cosmic origins. The BBM and it has been thoroughly tested and supported by the evidence.

The reason I ask the reader of this review to imagine a modification to GR comes from the fact that this is what the new observations (from gravitational lensing primarily) are telling us what the universe is actually doing right now. Imagine it. We can use CBR to see time and date stamps of the early universe and compare to what it is up to right now as we observe it. Fascinating. The author's would have you believe that these observations have to be reinterpreted in the framework of their BM, a universe that can only be understood if it fits with the Word of God.

The theorists are already modifying our understanding of the universe with the concepts of dark matter and energy. We are being asked by these author's to reject these ad hoc add-ons because their argument revolves around a preconceived notion that the BBM conflicts with the Christian BM. The author's want us to believe that the BBM is dead and that the add-ons are simply "beliefs" of atheists made up in order to save their beloved world-view of a big bang, godless universe. The truth is that the astronomical observations are forcing (and have been forcing) scientists to swallow any preconceived notions of what the universe is made of and how it behaves, and accept the evidence at face value.

The mathematics of inflation, worked up by Guth to solve the magnetic monopole problem of HEPP, directs us to consider the first major phase in our universe's history. The author's want us to think of inflation as no better than an ad hoc explanation. I will say this, in that the pre-inflation BBM did not predict inflation, it has a look and feel of being ad hoc. The actual history of the discovery of inflation demands that the reader understand that this is not how it was added to the model. Guth's solution was made independent of any desire to fix the BBM. It is absolutely essential, in my opinion, that the reader understand this concrete fact. In the process of developing the mathematics to solve HEPPs magnetic monopole problem, Guth realized that his discovery, when applied to the BB, eloquently solved two of the outstanding problems of the BBM (the homogeneity and flatness problems).

Modern cosmology is asking us to think of the universe as evolving through various stages. Our present understanding of dark energy directs us to consider it as the latest phase of the evolution of our universe. Astronomers are observing the acceleration of the universe and then simply making formal statements in order to explain it. They are not adding it to the big bang in order to save it, as the author's so often imply in their book.

The universe, not atheistic naturalism, is asking us to think about how Einstein's Equation might be modified to meet the observations coming in from practicing astronomers. And, have no doubt that his Equation has served us quite well up to this point and we can have confidence that if we need to make modifications to it, that what it has provided under certain conditions will continue to be sound gravitational physics, just as Newton's is fine under even weaker gravitational fields. Likewise, we can be sure that the BBM stands up well under the present direction of GR . Even in the extreme case that we find out that Dark Matter and Dark Energy require a completely new theory, it will be based upon the observational findings coming in right now from observatories around the world.

Now, the BM has existed in its unmodified form for all these years and has contributed nothing more to our understanding of the Universe. Why insist upon it at this point? The BBM has no quarrel with it. Hasn't it stood all these years as a religious statement of Who created the Universe? What does it have to offer today that it didn't offer in the first few minutes after its being written down (and eventually disseminated to the masses through the invention of Guttenberg's printing press)? It continues to offer a final statement as to the nature of a Creator and His Creation, giving the believer His inspiration. What more should we ask it to do than this? I find that the suggestions in this book bring the Spirit of God down to the level of Matter, making them equals. This to me makes a mockery of God and ends in framing His Word in terms of sin, disease and death. Thus, from the statements I've made above, I not only reject the Dismantling book as scientifically inspired, I also reject the Dismantling book as an inspiration of the Holy Spirit.

In the end, the book boils down to whether or not the Author's have scientific evidence for a 6000 year old Earth. They do not, asking the reader to jump through even bigger hoops than those found in the BBM. In the section Time Scales, on pages 196 - 198, the authors show that the ages of the age of the earth ranges from "much less than 30,000 years" (based upon erroneous estimates of the age of earth's atmosphere) to up to 62,000,000 years. The time-dilation theory of Humphrey's has long ago been refuted as well. The author's continue to cite his work (Hartnett even going so far as to write his own book on it) despite the problems it suffers (which boil down to a misapplication of time-dilation in Einstein's theory of relativity) long after it has been placed in the waste bin of incorrect theories.

This is not to say that the authors don't raise some interesting questions. The biggest problem right now in modern cosmology is not "dunkle Materie" but "dunkle Energie", otherwise known as the problem of the Cosmological Constant (which is related to Dark Energy). Theory differs from the evidence by 10 raised to the 120th power. As Dr. Gates put it in her book 2009 release of "Einstein's Telescope", "Oops." The authors single out Stephen W. Hawking for not mentioning the theoretical miss as he only puts together a graph of the observational evidence, leaving out mention of the theoretical prediction.

The author's like to pick on Carl Sagan and Stephen Hawking. The mention of this oversight by Professor Hawking apparently is made in an attempt to show him refusing to admit the BBM has problems. I investigated other books to see if this "problem" is not being mentioned, in an attempt to justify the author's point. Including Dr. Gates direct mention of it in a dubious light, I have found it also mentioned directly in "The Inflationary Universe", 1997 by Alan H. Guth; in "The Runaway Universe - The Race to Find the Future of the Cosmos", 2000 by Donald Goldsmith (pgs. 201-202); indirectly in the "The Omega Point", 1988 by John Gribbin (pgs. 125-126); in "Understanding the Universe", 2004 by Don Lincoln (pgs. 447-448); in "Principles of Physical Cosmology", 1993 by P.J.E. Peebles (pg. 313); in "An Integral Theory of Everything", 2004 by Ervin Lazlo (pg. 62); and in "The Big Bang Theory", 2002 by Karen Cox (pg. 143). My point is to show that this is a known issue between particle physics theory and observations, not with the BBM.

The author's make a statement that "most people believe - because they are being taught it - that modern physics" can now tell us how the universe began.

In rebuttal to this accusation, let me quote from Alan Guth's book, "The Inflationary Universe", pgs 86 - 87.

"It is often said--in both popular-level books and in textbooks--that this singularity marks the beginning of the universe, the beginning of time itself. Perhaps this is so, but any honest cosmologist would admit that our knowledge here is very shaky. The extrapolation to arbitrarily high temperatures takes us far beyond the physics that we understand, so there is no good reason to trust it. The true history of the universe, going back to `t = 0,' remains a mystery that we are probably still far from unraveling."

So, we must conclude that "honesty" still exists in modern cosmology. This honesty would require that all models of cosmic origins, including the BM, admit that nobody knows how the universe came to be. When, in the distant future, science makes a prediction about the "t = 0" moment (perhaps using mathematical physics not yet thought up) and we devise a way to test the predictions of the math, well, honesty demands of us that we still have to admit, "Its just our hypothesis (predictions) being met with our best observations to date."

Let me further add that if God exists, then His sovereignty is not challenged by a lack of faith in Him. As for His involvement in science, man should investigate the world he lives in and not simply take quotes from the Bible to get theoretical insights that are then backed by the words in the Bible. Finally, when is it necessary, while investigating the material world, to involve God in the process? If by implication the authors are suggesting that when a process that involves God (and presumably His Word) and a discovery is made that contradicts the faith of the believer or his interpretation of scripture, that the believer is never to contradict the Biblical Model, well, there you would have it wouldn't you, a perfect scenario for prejudice and bias.

If I were to have a conversation right now with the YECs Alex Williams and John Hartnett I would address what I consider the intellectual dishonesty in their presentation of the big-bang model. For instance, it is, in my opinion, intellectually dishonest:

1. To state that there is a correlation between atheism and the lack of
need for a god or gods in science. For instance, if I were to state
that, "Science is atheistic.", I would be making a completely different
assertion than stating that, "Science makes no claims as to the
existence of a god or gods." It is in the first sense that the
authors mean to paint the big-bang model of modern cosmology;

2. To label any cosmological model as "atheistic", specifically in our
case, the big-bang model, which makes no claims to the existence of a
god or gods. The big-bang model originated independently of any
materialist/spiritualist bias in fact, for those early scientists making
the discoveries who might have liked to have been provided something
along the lines of a "steady-state" universe, i.e., one that has existed
forever exactly as it is when they looked at it and would be the same an
infinite time in the future, this picture of an expanding universe
really wrankled them, you can be sure of that.

3. To raise the specter of a scientist who has since passed (Carl Sagan) as
representative of the views of other scientists, in general, and,
especially, as representative of views currently held by the scientific
establishment;

4. To state that a religious model can be on a par with a scientific model
simply because they both depend on starting assumptions that come from a
subjective "world-view";

5. To then raise a religious model up to a standard it clearly doesn't
deserve by simply claiming some sort of victory by divine fiat which the
author's do quite clumsily at the end of the book.

The authors are Young Earth Creationists (YECs). That is, the earth is young, maybe no more than 6000 years old. The author's never make their case, making the same fallacious arguments that have been refuted years ago. My personal opinion regarding YECs is that they are treading in dangerous territory. What happens if and when the evidence isn't forthcoming? Will they be forced to retreat back into a "take it on faith stance?" My fear would be that this would undermine their religious stance, too. Why take the risk?

The big-bang model of modern cosmology derived from the Primeval Atom suggested by Lemaitre, who predicted a beginning to the universe when he completed his study of Einstein's Theory of General Relativity. As the authors report in their book, "Big Bang" was a derisive term suggested by Hoyle, a proponent of his Steady-State model. Hoyle was, at that time, an atheist and any suggestion that the universe had a beginning (suggesting that it had a Beginner), was anathema to Hoyle. It is ironic that the very model that points to a Beginner (at least to the minds of early 20th century astronomers) is now being dismantled by believers in said Beginner.

A. Zee, in his wonderful book "An Old Man's Toy" reminds us of the very wise words of Lemaitre. When Lemaitre got word that Pope Pius XII had declared that the big-bang "could be made the antecedent of the scholastic syllogism concluding to the Catholic concept of creation", he felt compelled to offer the following explanation about the suggestion of a cosmic beginning to his fellow physicists. He wrote, "As far as I can see, such a theory remains entirely outside any metaphysical or religious question. It leaves the materialist free to deny any transcendental Being. He may keep, for the bottom of space-time, the same attitude of mind he has been able to adopt for events occurring in nonsingular places of space-time. For the believer, it removes any attempt to familiarity with God, as were Laplace's chiquenaude or Jean's finger. It is consonant with Isaiah's speaking of the Hidden God, hidden even in the beginning of creation." (Pgs 79-80 from An Old Man's Toy by A. Zee)

And this separation of materialism and spiritualism has allowed them to coexist, each answering a very human need to have answers to the deeper questions. The authors believe that naturalistic thinking has hijacked main stream science today, but will never be able to steal the soul of life and the faith of the believer. In my six month study of modern cosmology, spurred on by the contents of this book, I have come to think that the creationist agenda demonizes his religion, making of it a mockery, and is the biggest threat to the consonance of the very faith he wishes to spread. Attempting to make objective predictions from faith based subjective interpretations of scripture has led to the multitude of erroneous creationist claims.

Finally, the question of our exact origins is only approximated by science. It will always remain this way. We are human beings, not gods. The big-bang model has scientific evidence to back it up. Where it is weak, it can be challenged by new scientific evidence or a new interpretation of existing scientific evidence. But to add a "god" and its one particular creation myth to the story is unscientific. If the authors were serious, they would have challenged the predominantly held theory of the Big Bang, only, and left the rest to their private thoughts. The scientific and theological comparison summaries at the end of the book do much worse than simply "strain credibility". These types of conclusions are the core of the problem with creationism as a science or, as it goes, toward speaking in matters of scientific investigation. The personal bias and subjectivity in it renders it meaningless as objective dialogue.

This book is probably slightly above the average person's reading level, but with a little patience I believe anyone can read it. Hartnett and Williams explain the history of cosmology and then describe each step of Big Bang cosmology. As each chapter unfolds, Hartnett and Williams help the reader understand how improbable the Big Bang really is. Contrary to a few reviews I read before buying the book, I did not find much in the book that wasn't science. It's true that there is some speculation, and, since the authors are presumably Christian, there is some theology present. However, the theological aspects of the book are minimal, actually. I definitely recommend it!

I purchased this book perhaps two months ago or so (January of 2006). I finished it within 24 hours. That is not to imply it is a simple book, nor that I am incredibly intelligent, but that I found it to be highly interesting, well-written, and very informative. Of course, I had a slight, educated layperson, familiarity with some of the issues the book raises (the formation of galaxies, the age of the Universe, starlight, etc.), so the going was a bit easier for me than perhaps many might find. Even so, the book is very clear, and very "easy" to read ("easy" in the sense of understandable, not in the sense of simple or simplistic).

I would have to go back through the book to detail any specific issue, but I don't feel that is necessary (especially given my lack of actual expertise in any of the areas). It is very thorough and wide-ranging in dealing with topics relevant to addressing "Big Bang" theory - the authors even provide a summary towards the end of the book of some other cosmological models.

I would highly recommend this book for anyone interested in the origin of the Universe, and in the legitimacy of "Big Bang" theory. This, along with "Starlight and Time" by Dr. Russell Humphreys, is one of my two favorite books which deal with the origin of the Universe from a Creationist perspective.

My thanks to the authors for their work.