There was no big bang—“In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.”

The James Webb Space Telescope continues to yield surprising results as it probes the depths of outer space. And those “surprising results” often contradict what’s expected in the big bang model for the origin of the universe (based on naturalism—atheism), including a new study on the direction that galaxies rotate.

There are an estimated 200 billion galaxies in our universe, and this new study surveyed 263 of them to determine the direction that the galaxies rotate. And the result? Two-thirds rotate clockwise, a problem for big bang cosmology because:

[Evolutionary] astronomers have long posited that galaxies should be evenly split between rotating in one direction or the other. . . This stems from the idea that we live in an “isotropic” universe, which means that the universe looks roughly the same in every direction. By extension, galaxies shouldn’t have a preferred direction of spin from our perspective.

And yet, they do, at least based on this new study (though our astronomer, Dr. Danny Faulkner, says the results are likely to be disputed and may not be accurate). But we should note that the results of this study aren’t really “new”—the study lists papers going back to 1985 that report on this asymmetry of rotation. What is new is:

the number of galaxies they were able to survey,
how far away those galaxies are,
and the size of the asymmetry.

What was really surprising was that the deeper you go into space, the more pronounced this asymmetry gets, if the conclusion of the study is accurate.

So what does that mean for the big bang model? Well, all that will happen is the model will be tweaked . . . again. You see, the big bang is so “plastic” that it can always be tweaked to explain everything and anything—which means that it doesn’t actually explain anything! That’s because it is a belief about the past and not based on observational science.

How might it be tweaked? Well, the article gave two possibilities, and Dr. Faulkner summarized them for me:

What this asymmetry in galaxy rotation means for naturalistic theories is not clear. One of the possibilities discussed in the article is that our universe was birthed by a black hole from another universe, with the asymmetry in galaxy rotation being from the spin of the mother black hole. This sort of thinking is easy naturalistically because universes birthing other universes is very fashionable in that it solves many problems that the big bang model has. Admittedly, this is not the prevalent method by which cosmologists think universes are born, but it may become the dominant theme. The other possibility is uncertainty in the expansion of the universe, though it’s not clear to me how this would work.

When you read of astronomers arguing that maybe our universe was birthed from a black hole from another universe, it’s a reminder that people will believe in anything—even something ridiculous—rather than accept that the God of the Bible exists and created everything. And yet, every galaxy they studied (and every other galaxy) is daily proclaiming the Creator’s glory (Psalm 19), so they are without excuse (Romans 1:20).

by Ken Ham on March 24, 2025
Featured in Ken Ham Blog

Even though deep down in their spirit, they know God lives but refuse to acknowledge that Truth.

LadyGrace ·

I don't understand belief in the Big Bang theory. Behind everything there has to be a Creator and God did not leave us to guess on this. Is this plain as the nose on a person's face. Even Hawking said, "Essentially, "there was never a Big Bang that produced something from nothing. It just seemed that way from mankind's point of perspective."

We can say with confidence, physics has found no confirmed instances of something arising from nothing. And I doubt it ever does. The concept that "something cannot come from nothing" is often associated with the Law of Conservation of Energy, which states that energy cannot be created or destroyed, only transformed. This principle is also reflected in the Law of Conservation of Mass, which states that mass is neither created nor destroyed in chemical reactions.

DanielsASJ · 36-40, M

@ElRengo I can give you so many tables about this fake theory of Big Bang and evolution. Irony is that Modern Astronomy is not following the concept of science. They always use a catch phrase "May have, May be, May have been". Science is either Yes or No. Is washing Machine there? Yes, it's there. Is Microwave there? Yes, it's there. Are Radio waves there? Yes, they are just as sound waves.

What about Theory of Evolution? Monkeys 'may have' and then, when 'may have' comes, it's no longer Science.

Have you ever seen a scientist or an enginner claiming 400 years ago that We 'may have' washing Machine in the near future.

May have means "It is not there"

Whenever you doubt, just think like it's the actual case and act accordingly.

jehova · 31-35, M

My only response we simply do not know. The big bang might have been by design? If the universe is infinite what portion have we observed? So far? "They" (and you) and I don't KNOW anything to be 100% true or false. Our archive of data increases constantly to allow more accurate observations and conclusions.