One of the biggest problems of the Big Bang theory is that it needs too many theoretical issues to permit wiggle room to account for its discrepancies. In my previous blog I attempted to show how the arms of a spiral galaxy would collapse in an old universe after only a few turns. Since according to the naturalists’ point of view, the Milky Way galaxy (and every other galaxy) is billions of years old, our sun should have orbited our galactic center at least 20 times. Yet, even if our solar system orbited our galactic center only 4 or 5 times, the spiral arms of the Milky Way would no longer be visible. Yet, they are!
If this matter remained unaddressed by naturalists, they would have to admit the Big Bang Theory, which takes billions of years to viably produce a universe such as ours, is fundamentally wrong, and needs to be discarded. But, this would be anathema in most scientific circles. It would result in admitting that their worldview is painfully bankrupt, and the only viable explanation left is that of the creationists. So, something had to be done.
Decades ago they invented the theory of dark matter which would provide enough gravitational force to preserve the present appearance of spiral galaxies. Otherwise they would appear a lot like a ball of stars with more in the center than at the parameter, not to mention the fact, that without the large, theoretical mass, galaxies might never even have formed on their own. Stars would simply move away from each other in the ever expanding universe. Nevertheless, it must be kept in mind that the only reason for the existence of dark matter is to allow the universe to be old. If the universe is relatively young, dark matter is not needed to account for spiral galaxies all over the universe.
It was postulated that just as one would throw a ball up into the air, and the ball would begin to slow down before it would return to the earth, so, too, the expanding universe should be slowing down and would eventually collapse in on itself, no doubt in preparation for another big bang. Yet, after decades of seeking to measure this slowing down of the expansion of the universe, it was found that instead the expansion rate is accelerating! Notice:
“In one of the great results of twentieth century science, NSF-funded astronomers have shown both that the universe does not contain enough matter in the universe to slow the expansion, and that the rate of expansion actually increases with distance. Why? Nobody knows yet.”
Did the naturalists come to the conclusion that the Big Bang Theory is wrong—that their worldview should be discarded? No! They invented another unseen, undetectable commodity—dark energy! They needed something to account for the ever increasing velocity of the expanding universe. According to previous theories, there simply wasn’t enough energy in the universe to account for the acceleration.
What does all this mean? Well, according to present estimates, 96% of all the matter and energy in the universe must be assumed in order to support the Big Bang Theory. In other words, we cannot see or even detect 96% of the universe! It wonders me, however, how one could call this science—that is, not being able to see or detect nearly all the postulated universe, yet, if I believe in God who cannot be seen or detected by science, that is unscientific. While I admit belief in God is not supposed to be scientific, it is certainly **just as** scientific as an unseen, undetectable—yet real (supposedly)—universe.
 National Science Foundation Advertisement, “Astronomy: Fifty Years of Astronomical Excellence,” Discover, September 2000, p. 7.