Does the Big Bang Theory Explain Adequately the Origins of the Universe?

As Stephen Hawking, Paul Davies and others suggest, most scientists seem to believe the universe began with the Big Bang. That means the universe began as a very high-density and high-temperature state that subsequently expanded to the point where it is now.

Supposedly, after the initial expansion, the universe cooled sufficiently to allow the formation of subatomic particles and then atoms. The stars and galaxies formed later. Scientists suggest that the expansion of the universe is accelerating in more recent times. Apparently measurements of the expansion rate of the universe motivated scientists to estimate the occurrence of the Big Bang at roughly 13.8 billion years ago and thus gives us the approximate age of the universe. They claim that the known physical laws of nature can be used to calculate aspects of the universe in detail back in time to the initial state of extreme density and temperature, or in other words, back to creation.

To explain the beginnings of life, Paul Davies described three principle theories. Before presenting the three theories, Davies exclaims, “To be sure, we have a good idea of the where and the when of life’s origin, but we are a very long way from comprehending the how.” The first theory to explain the beginning of life is the chemical self-assembly in a watery medium somewhere on the earth. Second, he mentions viable microbes traveled to earth from space and in particular from Mars. Third, the idea suggests that life began deeply inside the earth. Most of the development of life occurred in the last billion years, says Davies. Do any of these theories really explain the beginning of life? How did the beginning activity start? Who or what started that activity? Those questions seem to remain unanswered. So, if the activities are not described or explained clearly and if the questions are not answered, how can they actually explain anything? Let alone, reality.

Repeatedly in his books, Davies makes comments, such as “Life is not haphazard complexity, it is organized.” If life is organized, how is it organized and who or what makes it organized?

Davies admits that some “science” is not really actual experiments to find the truth, “So far most of the ‘experiments’ have been computer simulations rather than the real thing [i.e. actual experiments].” Computer simulations have significant limitations. If the simulation is not comprehensive enough, it can lead to inaccurate, if not, wrong conclusions. It is wise to remember ANY little flaw in the computer program can produce false results. The old saying about computers remains valid: “Garbage in, garbage out.” How do scientists know absolutely that those computer programs do not contain flaws in the program? Of course, they don’t know. And can’t prove it either.

Recently, I saw some writings that now deny the Big Bang theory as the truth. This opens the question of creation among scientists to explore anew. If the scientists cannot explain the “how” of life’s origin, as Paul Davies says, how can that theory be accurate or even adequate?

What do you think? Can we rely on the Big Bang theory? Or is it doubtful? It would be great to hear from you at my email address Let me know what you think. By sharing ideas we can learn and grow together.