When speaking about the Big Bang Theory, physicist and cosmologist, Alan Guth, described the expanding universe as “the ultimate free lunch.” That idea is very appealing. Nearly everyone likes to get something for free or next to it. For example, how many of us have ever entered free contests to receive a prize, whereby all we have to do is give our names and wait for someone to randomly pick the winner out of jar full of slips of paper, so we can take home our booty?
Nevertheless, a free lunch is not truly scientific. Someone, either the receiver or the giver must pay for it. Rather, science is based upon the idea that for every event, there is a cause. Yet, naturalists claim the universe is uncaused! That is, the universe “…is all that is or ever was or ever will be,” or it came into existence “out of nothing and by nothing.” Both propositions oppose known laws of physics. Matter is not eternal, and the universal law of entropy tells us that the universe cannot have always existed. It had to have had a beginning. On the other hand, an uncaused beginning such as the Big Bang Theory suggests, contradicts Newton’s Laws of Motion. Yet, we have naturalists who not only believe in one or the other of these theories but, also, teach them as science. Let me repeat: science is based upon the idea that for every event or action there must be a cause. Nevertheless, Big Bang theorists will tell us, in the name of science, that the universe is uncaused! Is this science? I must conclude: no, it is not science. What passes itself off as science is really an ideology.
Ideologies are worldviews, and “there are four things which worldviews characteristically do…” Worldviews tell stories that identify us: “In the beginning God…” or “in the beginning the Big Bang… Worldviews offer answers to basic questions about our existence: “God created the world and everything in it” and “It is absolutely safe to say that if you meet someone who claims not be believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid or insane (or wicked).” Worldviews provide symbols that explain the story about one’s identity, like the cross, church buildings and Christmas; or like Charles Darwin, cavemen and Neanderthal. Worldviews call for action like WWJD, evangelism and Sunday school activity or The Origin of Species, uniformitarianism and converting state-funded schools and universities to one’s point of view.
Naturalism, in order to defend its worldview must explain the universe in terms of its own ideology, i.e. what makes sense to one not believing in God. It would be anathema for the naturalist to explain the singularity of the origin of the universe in terms of an intelligent cause or design. The problem for creationism is that naturalists have been so successful in their task of convincing others of the ‘correctness’ of natural origins that their model has become synonymous with science. While they do deserve kudos for their zealous labors, their acceptance by the state and its educational institutions is not proof of the correctness of naturalistic theories (evolution, big bang, uniformitarianism etc.).
Perhaps an example could illustrate my point better. It is a scientific fact that light travels, today, at 186000 miles per second. Here’s the problem: how are we able to account for our ability to see distant starlight from the earth—starlight supposedly billions of light years away? Naturalism, defending its worldview, must conclude that the universe is billions of years old to account for our ability to see at such a great distance and postulate the Big Bang. Is this scientific fact or is it the naturalist’s model presented to explain the problem? It is a **model** that explains the problem according to the naturalists worldview.
On the other hand other models could also be presented to reply to the problem of distant starlight. I addressed this issue in a previous blog-post. There are several models concerning starlight that are at least as valid as that of the naturalists. The Riemannian space model is one, another would be Dr. Russell Humphrey’s model concerning starlight and time differential whereby, time on earth was at one time much slower than that of distant starlight at the borders of the universe. This theory requires the earth to be near the center of the universe. Other theories involve our not knowing how light travels through space or what the actual distances are between us and the stars.
Naturalism is an ideology that seeks to explain the origin of the universe in terms of its own worldview, in the same manner that Christianity does. The truth can be more readily seen, not by guessing which one it true, or which one seems to have more authority (sway in the state-funded educational institutions), but which one is more plausible.
 As quoted by Stephen Hawking (1988). A Brief History of Time, p. 129.
 Carl Sagan, Cosmos, 1980, page 4.
 Sir Anthony Kenny, professor at Oxford University, says a proponent of the big bang theory and at least “an atheist must believe that, the universe came out of nothing and by nothing.”
 See N.T. Wright; The New Testament and the People of God, p.122-4.
 Richard Dawkins Put Your Money on Evolution; New York Times, April 9 1999; page 35
 Rounded off, and this does not take into consideration that light may have traveled faster closer to the beginning of the universe.
 See “Distant Starlight and the Young Earth” concerning Dr. Humphrey’s hypothesis