Science explains universe much better than theology
Zach Krajacic’s Viewpoints article is full of so many holes, it is difficult to know where to begin. First, the Big Bang theory is a naturalistic theory with naturalistic, not theological, implications, despite desperate attempts by theists to hijack the theory. The theory leaves nothing for God to do. Indeed, as far as we know, nature is a brute fact and requires no explanation beyond itself. In other words, nature has no need of any God. Nature is simply not as weak as most theists imagine it to be.
The author dogmatically claims that God has always existed. However, unsurprisingly, he provides no strong evidence to back up this extraordinary claim. This is nothing more than the common logical fallacy of special pleading, That is to say, we are supposed to believe that a possibly existent God has always existed, while everything and everyone else requires a cause or creator.
Actually, we cannot say definitively that the universe had a cause, and that it has not always existed. Indeed, there are many theoretical physicists who believe that the universe has always existed and is uncaused. The Big Bang could be just the point at which the universe began to evolve into its current state. This is speculative science, but it is still science.
The fact is that there might always be gaps in our knowledge about nature and the universe. However, those gaps are always best filled in with naturalistic explanations, rather than theistic ones. We used to believe that only theology – and not science – could explain light, magnetism, the formation of stars, linear motion, life’s diversity, reproduction, the age of planets and stars, etc. However, science now provides the far superior explanations. We have no good reason to suppose that naturalistic explanations will not continue to be best in furthering our understanding of the Big Bang and all other matters pertaining to the natural world.