Big Bang

James Boyd's image for:
"Big Bang"
Image by: 

The concept of a Big Bang is still vehemently denied by some who find the theory unacceptable. The problem with all of the arguments that there was no such thing is that the arguments are based on backwards logic. "I do not like the conclusions; therefore I do not accept the evidence". This is a decidedly anti-scientific point of view. It starts with the desired result and then looks to find whatever evidence may be found that would lead to the preordained conclusion, rather than starting by looking at evidence and trying to determine where that evidence leads.

A commonly used statement goes something like this: "A disordered system will not randomly result in an ordered one. For example, you will never create a functional automobile by randomly piling up car parts." At first glance it makes sense. According to the second law of thermodynamics, entropy in a closed system always increases. A local decrease in entropy, meaning a more orderly state locally, is always accompanied by an increase in entropy in the larger system, of which the local system is just a part.

When examined according to modern physicists' theories of the very early structure of the universe, a few microseconds after the big bang (before that there are no viable theories as to the nature of things; our current understanding of physical laws simply does not apply at that kind of extreme temperature and pressure), the universe was in a state of extreme order and uniformity. As particles began to have a life of their own and attain some degree of stability, the organization began to break up and things became a bit more disorderly. So the expansion of the universe and the formation of particles, which resulted in the formation of star, galaxies, planets, and us, is actually an example of the increase in entropy, with disorder increasing as the universe expands. This disorder will, eventually, result in (according to one version of the theory of the long-term structure of the universe) a state in which the entire universe is one uniform collection of microwave radiation (also known as heat). Action will cease, and the operation of entropy will also cease, because there is no lower level of energy.

This concept of a universe-wide "heat death" has been rejected by a great number of people, mostly because they do not like it. When was that ever a consideration as to whether or not a scientific concept was valid? It is based on the attitude that if the facts do not concur with my ideology, the facts must be wrong. It is, fundamentally, an attitude created out of fear. The particular iron-clad ideology that some people seem to subscribe to gives them an inner feeling of righteousness and anything that threatens to shake that inner confidence must be opposed at all costs. It is an attitude for weaklings and cowards.

The world is what it is, regardless of what you believe. If you are so weak and afraid that you refuse to accept the reality of the world around you, then maintain your silly "faith", if it suits you. Proclaim it in your churches and expound it on the street corners. But do not try to present it as "scientific", because it is not. It is the antithesis of science, and I have neither the time nor the inclination to pay much attention to your nonsense. Go to another country. Go to another planet. Crawl in a hole and pull it in after you. I do not care as long as you go away. You are weak, cringing, and boring. Just vanish.

More about this author: James Boyd

From Around the Web