The Emperor's New Clothes Part 2 of a Two-Part Series

By Barbara S. Helmkamp, Ph.D.

“But he isn’t wearing anything at all!” cried the child while the crowd around him praised the emperor’s magnificent new clothes that were not there. These words bring such relief to the reader of the fairy tale who, by the end, has grown weary of the absurdity of it all. But what if the nakedness of the emperor were obscured by a thick fog on the day of the parade? Even the child looking on, with his exemplary honesty, would be deceived. If we were to say that the Big Bang theory is like the emperor’s suit of clothing, then the fog that obscures its folly is the unspoken commitment by so many scientists to shut God out, even against common sense.

As Christians, our faith begins with Christ. Yet Christ Himself presumed the Genesis account was true. (Luke 3 and Mark 10:6). Historically, Christians have confessed a six-day recent creation for the simple reason that this is what Genesis plainly teaches and what the totality of Scriptures clearly affirms.1 That Scripture alone defines Christian doctrine is in fact a “sola” of the Reformation. But since the time of Darwin, Christians have increasingly had to defend this confession, even among fellow Christians. Having a basic understanding of creation apologetics has become crucial, for the Gospel is emptied of meaning without Genesis as its historical and theological foundation. Do not forget that “…being prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you” (1 Peter 3:15 ESV) is the calling of every Christian.

Apologetics is both positive and negative. As Christians, we argue for some things, such as the historical validity of Biblical narratives, and against others, such as false worldviews. If you recall, in Part I of this article2 we looked at a Biblical creation model: that the currently held principles of relativity do in fact allow for the universe to be both big and young; that a six-day recent creation is in fact compatible with seeing stars which are billions of light-years away. (Of course, God’s Word is true even without Einstein!) What follows speaks against the Big Bang theory—against its foundation of atheism3 as well as its inconsistency with observation.4

Here’s how the popular story goes: About 15 billion years ago, there was an infinitely dense, infinitely hot, infinitesimally small, highly smooth5 four dimensional hyper-sphere “universe” that abruptly and mysteriously expanded into finite existence. It grew at one rate for a very little while, then “inflated” by a fantastic factor over a very short time, then slowed to yet another rate, at which it has continued expanding down to the present. After inflation, it experienced “density fluctuations” (cosmic storms, or explosions, perhaps) of unknown origin that produced cosmic clumpiness. The resulting “nebulae” (clouds) eventually condensed into primitive stars which recycled themselves into modern stars.

This may or may not seem reasonable, depending on your background, but it is important to see the “fog” emanating from the model’s geometry (shape, boundary conditions). You see, beyond earth’s home galaxy, the Milky Way, the universe has the unmistakable attribute of looking much the same in all directions. No matter where you aim your telescope, you find about the same density of galaxies and galaxy clusters and the same distribution of galaxy types. At face value, this sameness in all directions simply means the Milky Way is near the center of a finite cosmos. But this straightforward conclusion is rejected because it implies that the Milky Way, and thus the earth, is special, and according to Edwin Hubble himself, “…a favored location must be avoided at all costs.”6 As believers, we are reminded that humanity does have a central place in this universe as it is precisely as a man that God Himself came into this world to save us!

To avoid the theologically distasteful conclusion that we are the center of God’s universe, the Big Bang model is given an extra spatial dimension. (Your common sense should be saying: “What?”) This fourth dimension has no basis in direct observation; it is merely invoked so that the actual 3-D universe can become the “surface” of a 4-D “balloon” (you can’t imagine this—no need to try). Then, no matter where you are on this balloon surface universe, things will look about the same in all directions. Adding dimensions is a clever and sometimes useful mathematical trick, but it is important to stay grounded in reality, and to recognize this fog for what it is—a rejection of special creation.

Even if we swallow the concept of a fourth dimension,7 the Big Bang model faces serious problems when confronted with observations from astronomy. First, it predicts too little matter and energy for the universe as a whole. “Dark matter” (unknown stuff) has to be postulated because the Big Bang predicts five times more matter than is known to exist.8

Second, it offers no explanation for why the matter in the universe is concentrated in stars with essentially empty space in between. A smooth expansion is required given the smooth initial state.9 So where did the disruptions needed to birth nebulae and primitive stars come from? Third, the universe shows a remarkable pattern of spherical symmetry. Specifically, the galaxies in deep space lie on concentric shells, like the layers of an onion, with the Milky Way near the center.10 This symmetry, plainly seen from the Sloan Digital Sky Survey (a three billion light-year deep mapping project), blatantly contradicts the assumption of no favored location in the universe.11

As Christians, the point isn’t to blindly reject “science” because it’s not “faith” but we do need to be aware of the attempts of much of “science” to replace “faith” with something that can’t be proven but isn’t “God.” We should let science be genuinely science and God’s Word be God’s Word. Given the bankruptcy of the Big Bang theory of the origin of the universe,12 it is high time for Christians to defend with boldness the Biblical account of a six-day recent creation, along with its description of the fallen nature of mankind and our need for a Savior, rather than tolerating a myth for which “anything goes” but the God of the Bible. After all, God did become man in order to save the world He made.

“For we did not follow cleverly devised myths when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty.“ 2 Peter 1:16 ESV

Dr. Barbara S. Helmkamp has a Ph.D. in physics from Louisiana State University. She is currently teaching physics and chemistry at Credo Academy, a homeschool co-op in Denver and overseeing her daughters’ high school education. Barbara, her husband, Bob, and daughters are members of Christ Our Savior Lutheran Church in Elizabeth, Colorado.

  1. J. Heck, In the Beginning, God (St. Louis, MO: Concordia Publishing House, 2011).
  2. B. Helmkamp, “The Emperor’s New Clothes” Higher Things Magazine Vol. 12 No. 2, summer 2012.
  3. Related views include materialism (that everything is purely material, especially in relation to scientific inquiry), naturalism (that explanations involving deity are unacceptable), and agnosticism (that God is unknowable or nonexistent).
  4. A. Williams and J. Hartnett, Dismantling the Big Bang (Green Forest, AK: Master Books, 2005).
  5. Smoothness describes a high entropy state.
  6. E. Hubble, The Observational Approach to Cosmology (Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 1937), Ch 3.
  7. That is, the “no center” and “no edge” conditions that the extra dimension allows for.
  8. Black holes are not dark matter; while does not escape them, they are “visible” through their gravitational influence.
  9. This is required by the Second Law of Thermodynamics (total entropy must increase or remain the same).
  10. Imposing concentric “waves” on the 4-D surface – like the ripples formed when a stone is tossed into a pond – puts the earth at a preferred location again. See Russell Humphreys, Starlight and Time (Green Forest, AK: Master Books, 1994).
  11. See
  12. See