Duane T. Gish, Ph.D.

Vice-President of the Institute for Creation Research. Considered to be the foremost Creationist debater in the world today. His Ph.D. (Biochemistry) is from the University of California at Berkeley.

Master Books; P.O. Box 1606; El Cajon, CA 92022; (800-999-3777)

Institute For Creation Research; P.O. Box 2667; El Cajon, CA 92021

(619-448-1121)                                                                                                                     click on URL ( URL = http://www.ICR.org/ )

The following is an attempted word-for-word transcript of the video "The Origin Of The Universe" by Dr. Duane T. Gish. The transcript may not be 100% complete and the spelling may not be 100% correct but an attempt has been made to be as complete and accurate as possible.

(Transcriber, J. K. Hyder, Astronomy Instructor, EPCC; El Paso, TX)
 
 

We want to discuss the subject of the origin of the universe. In any evolutionary continuum, you must explain where the universe came from because you must have a universe to have a solar system, you must have a solar system to have the earth, you must have the earth where life could have evolved. So, everything must begin with some theory on the origin of the universe.

What we would like to do is to review the nature of our universe, its immensity, its complexity. What is it that we must explain, either by some naturalistic mechanistic evolutionary process, or by the Biblical proclamation "In the beginning, God created the Heavens and the Earth."

A star is a very complex, improbable arrangement of matter. If we bring a bottle of gas into the auditorium & and open it up what would happen? Naturally, spontaneously all by itself, the gas would diffuse out evenly in all directions, eventually leave the building, diffuse into space & then if we wait long enough, eventually into inter-galatic space. We know that is what happens naturally. We would not expect for this gas to go into a corner & concentrate itself into a very dense ball at a very high temperature. But, that is exactly what a star is, a very highly concentrated form of matter at a very high temperature.

When we take hundreds or thousands of these stars & put them in a cluster, that is an even more improbable arrangement of matter, a much more complex arrangement of matter.

Now when we take a hundred billion of these stars & put them in the form of a galaxy, that is an even more improbable arrangement of matter. The Andromeda Galaxy (is an example).

We are told that there are about 100 billion galaxies in the universe at least or more. There are about 100 billion stars in the form of a galaxy. To get the 100 billion stars together in the galaxy, that is even very much more improbable, harder to imagine.

We have different kinds of galaxies. There are spiral galaxies & there is our own Milky Way Galaxy, which is a spiral galaxy. We rarely see our own Milky Way Galaxy today because we live in these big cities with all that light. If we get out in the country & look up we see this marvelous Milky Way Galaxy. Our Sun is one of 100 billion stars in this Milky Way Galaxy.

If we look at the portion of the universe that we are most familiar, (we look at) the Solar System. We have 9 planets in our solar system & at the present we have discovered about 60 moons. We are discovering additional moons all the time. One of our recent discoveries of our space program is that Neptune has 8 moons rather than just 2. Recently the 18th moon of Saturn was discovered.

Jupiter has the 4 Galilean moons called so because Galileo was able to visualize them with his crude telescope. Saturn has a system of rings. The rings form a difficult problems for the evolutionists. Evolutionists

have suggested that everything in the solar system had evolved 4.5 to 5 billion years ago. That means our sun, planets, moons, asteroids, comets all came into existence all at the same time some billions of years ago.

Now, they have discovered that the rings of Saturn have a very complex structure that cannot be maintained for billions of years. So now they must imagine that Saturn evolved some 5 billions of years ago but these rings came into existence much more recently. That is a very difficult problem in physics to try to imagine something like that.

Our space program has produced problem after problem for the evolutionists, they are always astounded when they get new information, when they see these difficulties. Improbability piled upon improbability really equals impossibility ...

Since the evolutionists imagined that the solar system all evolved out of some homogeneous cloud of gas they expected and predicted that there would be many similarities between the various planets in the solar system. What they have discovered is precisely the opposite. Each planet is uniquely different from all other planets.

Take Venus for example ... practically everything about Venus is different than here on the earth. Venus has a very dense atmosphere that consists mainly of carbon dioxide & with some sulfuric acid in its atmosphere. It has a surface temperature of about 750 C while our own planet has a surface temperature of less than 20 C. The amount of argon 36 on Venus is about 100x that here on earth, very unexpected results.

There are many other things like this that have turned out to be so different from planet to planet that it is a great puzzle for the evolutionists. It is very difficult to imagine how all these unique conditions could have risen from some homogeneous cloud of dust.

Mars, the mysterious planet. People have long speculated that there may be life on Mars. ... Before we went to Mars, most evolutionists expected and predicted that we would find life on Mars. Life has evolved here on the earth, under the conditions that existed here. On the planet Mars there is an atmosphere, a thin atmosphere but there is an atmosphere there with the necessary gases, with all that energy coming in from the sun, so there is the requirements for life to evolve.

So, they expected to find life on Mars or at least to find some evidence of a molecule that could lead to life or that had come from some living organism. They equipped that lander to examine the soil & because Carl Sagon suggested that there might be even big forms of life on Mars they mounted a video camera to make sure they would not miss something walking around.

On the other hand, the creationist scientist predicted they would find NO trace of life on Mars. Now when we landed on the surface of Mars what did we find? Did we find what the evolutionists expected & predicted on the basis of their evolutionary theory or did we find what the Creationists expected & predicted? Well, we found absolutely no evidence of life on Mars, NO life whatsoever could be detected there on any scale whatsoever. They could not even find one single molecule of amino acid or sugar that would be the requirement for life. They found nothing.

You see, there is a complete failure of evolutionary prediction there in a natural experiment. There are no scientists there with their apparatus to impose any artificial conditions, perfectly natural conditions, & we see the predictions based on evolution & creation. The predictions of the creationists were met explicitly but there was complete failure of predictions based on evolution theory. ... certainly there was no life found on Mars.
 
 

We also explored the surface of the moon. When our astronauts came back they quarantined them, they kept them in isolation until the rocks could be tested to see if they might contain some exotic organism ... As it turned out those rocks are just as clean as any rocks could be. There are no organism material on the moon.

How did all this happen? Where did it come from? How did it get here? There are two theories, the & that theory of evolution of special creation. According to evolution one of the most popular theories on the origin of the universe is the Big Bang theory. According to this theory some billions of years ago, they are not quite sure how many billions of years. They used to say 20 billion years but not long ago they lost 10 billion years, but somewhere between 10 & 20 billion years.

What they suggest is that some billions of years ago that all the matter & energy of the universe was compressed into a huge cosmic egg, a plasma ball composed of subatomic particles & radiation. Nobody has the foggest notion of where the cosmic egg came from or how it got there. Someone has suggested that a cosmic chicken laid the cosmic egg. ... at any case there it was & then for some equally strange reason this cosmic egg exploded & out of that explosion essentially 2 things were generated, H & He gases, the two lightest elements in the entire universe. There was no Nitrogen, no Nickle, no Carbon, Sulfer, Iron, etc. Just H & He & mainly H. These gases then expanded out into the vast expanse of the universe. That's all there was H & He. You might just as well say that the universe was H gas.

Then we are told that somehow from this highly dispersed gas that stars created themselves, then galaxies created themselves, our solar system created itself, life evolved on this planet & that 1st speck of life evolved into everything living & that has ever lived, including people, you & me.

We have 30 trillion cells in our bodies, of more than 200 varieties. We have 12 billion brain cells in our 3 lb brains and since each brain cell is connected to about 10,000 other brain cells, that means we have 120 trillion connections, the most complex arrangement of matter known in the universe.

According to this theory, we have gone from H gas to people. Someone has said that if this is true, then we can say that H is an odorless, tasteless, invisible gas, that if given enough time becomes people. That is what evolutionist believe because according to their theory there was nothing but H gas then & now there are people.

So where did we come from? They believe we came from H gas. I think it is incredible what an unbeliever must believe to be an unbeliever. As a scientist (Ph.D. - biochemistry) I find that notion absolutely unbelievable, that anyone could believe that, but they do believe it.

If that is true, there are certain consequences, we can make certain predictions about the nature of the universe. First of all, based on this assumption of this big bang and these gases having diffused out in all directions, the evolutionists predicted the universe would be homogenous. That is, no matter which direction you looked, if you look far enough you would see the same # of galaxies. The gas would diffuse out in all directions evenly, so the matter in the universe would be distributed evenly. It is called the Cosmological Principal, this idea that the universe must be homogenous, equal distribution of matter in all directions. That is what they had predicted about the nature of the universe.

Look at the thermodynamics of this origin of the universe. If everything started as H gas billions of years ago & this became more complicated & more complicated & here we are today as people. Then matter must have some intrinsic ability or natural tendency to transform itself from disorder to order, from simple to complex. After all, we have gone from the chaos of the big bang to the cosmos, from the simplicity of the H gas to the complexity of the human brain. Naturally, spontaneously, all by itself. So matter must have that tendency. We should have a natural law today that describes such a natural tendency of matter, this tendency of matter to promote itself to higher & higher levels of complexity & organization.

On the other hand, Creationists would not expect that at all. If God created this universe, we would not expect that matter would have some natural tendency to promote itself upward to higher & higher levels of organization. We would not predict that at all, we would not expect that.

But, if anything has happened since creation to change the original created state, and we know that it has, according to Scriptures, if something has happened since the original created state it could not cause matter to promote itself upwards to higher & higher levels of organization. The only thing possible that could happen, it might cause matter to go downward, it might cause matter to go to lower levels of organization. Based on creation we might expect matter to have a natural tendency to go from complex to simpler, from order to disorder.

We have two predictions then. Evolutionists say things went upward, things are still going upward, we have that natural tendency. The creationists say no, the tendency is downward. So we have diametrically opposed theories.

Lets go out in the real world & see what is going on. That's all that science is, science is common experience. All scientist do is go out there & find out what is going on & then they try to explain it. So lets go out there & take a look.

What do we find. First of all, there is no natural tendency for matter to promote itself to higher & higher levels of organization. No scientist has ever detected any natural tendency of matter to transform itself from disorder to order, from simple to complex. We don't see that happening, that is not a natural property of matter. Matter does not spontaneously do that. What we have seen is exactly the opposite tendency. All systems have a natural tendency to go from order to disorder, from complex to simple. That is what happens naturally & spontaneously whether we are talking about the scale of the galaxies or down to the level of the molecule.

I am going to allow Dr. Issacc Asimov to address this question of this tendency of matter. It is so universal, it is so all prevailing, so unfailing, it has been formulated as a formal natural law, the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.

What does Issacc Asimov, this man is an atheist, he is an evolutionist, a very strong anti-creationist, what does this scientist, this man who has written hundreds of books on science, what does he have to say about the 2nd law of Thermodynamics & what is going on in the universe today? ... This was published in Smithsonian Journal of June of 1970 on page 6. "Another way of stating the 2nd Law then is, the universe is constantly getting more disorderly. Viewed that way, we can see the 2nd Law all about us. We have to work hard to straighten a room, but left to itself it becomes dusty & musty even if we never enter it. How difficult to maintain houses & machinery & our own bodies in perfect working condition. How easy to let them deteriorate. If fact, all we have to do is nothing, & everything deteriorates, collapses, breaks down, wears out, all by itself, and that is what the 2nd Law is all about." (Smithsonian, June, 1970, p10)

If that is what the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics is all about, the most well established natural law known in science, then evolution is in trouble. Notice what he says "The entire universe is running down, is wearing out, is deteriorating, is constantly becoming less & less orderly."

What is happening is this, each star, our own sun for example is burning up, we are told, billions of tons of fuel each second. That is true of every star of the universe. They are burning up their fuel.

It is obvious that the fuel can't last forever. You see, if there is no God, or if God would not intervene, this universe is certain to die because inevidedly someday every star in this universe will have used its fuel. And if that should happen the lights will go out, there will be no more activity, there will be no life anywhere in the universe. Now the universe will still be here, but it will be a dead universe.

Now that is a certain natural destiny of our universe if there is no God. We (creationists) know God will not permit that to happen. We know God will intervene. God is going to destroy the present heaven & the earth as we read in 2nd Peter Chapter 3 that He is going to recreate a new heaven & a new earth that will be governed by different natural laws than the present universe. But, naturally, left to itself, that (a dead universe) is the certain destiny of our universe.

Now, this is the question with which I have challenged evolutionists time & time again, a challenge for which I have never received a rational answer. That is this, if the natural laws & natural processes which now govern the universe are leading inevitably to its death & destruction and if as evolutionists believe these natural laws & processes are all there is & all there ever has been, how could they create the universe in the 1st place?

Is it possible that the very natural processes that are now destroying the universe, could they have been responsible for its origin? What sort of tortured logic would have to be used to reach such an impossible conclusion? You see, the universe could not have created itself.

This 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, this law that tells us that there is this natural tendency to run down, to become more random, less complex, that law, the 2nd law of Thermodynamics applies without exception to an isolated system.

Now, in the evolutionary view the universe is an isolated system. Nobody did any work on it, nobody brought anything from the outside. Everything that took place within the universe & during its origin was a process of self-transformation.

The 2nd law of Thermodynamics says such a system can never become more complex, more highly organized, never. But it will inevidedly with time run down, deteriorate & become less complex, more disorderly. The 2nd law concerns energy decay "In any process (energy conversion) there is a net increase in entropy; i.e., a net decrease in the usefulness of the converted energy.

Yet, the evolutionists with the belief that the universe is an isolated system insist that the universe started in the chaos of the big bang, the simplicity of the H gas and transformed itself into the very very complex universe that we have today. Clearly a violation of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. It is irrational, it is un-scientific to believe that this universe created itself.

But it is rational, it is scientific, to maintain that the universe cannot be an isolated system. There must be something external to it, therefore supernatural, therefore responsible for its origin. That is rational. That is scientific. Who is the scientist? Who are the rational thinkers? The evolutionists or the creationists? Certainly not the evolutionists.

Now, furthermore, the evolutionists predicted that out of this big bang we would have a homogenous even distribution of matter throughout the universe. We have the cosmological principle that says our universe would be homogenous. Everywhere you look, if you look far enough, you will see the same number of galaxies. Now that was their prediction. Well, is that what we have in the universe today?

Furthermore, when they discovered that background radiation, the 2.7K background radiation that you see in every direction, supposed to be the left over whisper from the Big Bang. They said that was the final proof of the Big Bang, of the cosmic egg that exploded & spread out over the universe & it left over this radiation. Sure enough, everywhere we look the background radiation is exactly the same, 2.7K. That means (to the evolutionists) the universe is homogenous just as the evolutionists predicted, everything fits.

But, when they were finally able to investigate out there, in vast stretches of space, they discovered what the real universe is like. The real universe is not homogenous at all. The universe is very very lumpy.

Here is an article published in Science 81, June issue, pg 96 by Dr. Ben Patrusky titled "Why is the cosmos lumpy?" "Few cosmoslists today would dispute that our expanding universe began with a bang, a big hot bang, about 18 billion years ago. Paradoxically, no cosmologist can now tell you how the big bang (the explosion of a super hot, super dense atom), ultimately gave rise to galaxies, stars, & other cosmic lumps."

"As one sky scientist, I.B.M.'s Phillip E. Seiden, put it, the standard Big-Bang model does not give rise to lumpiness. That model assumes that the universe started out as a globally smooth homogenous expanding gas. If you apply the laws of physics to this model you get a universe that is uniform. A cosmic vastness of evenly distributed atoms with no organization of any kind. No galaxies, no stars, no planets, no nothing. Needless to say, the night sky, dazzling in its lumps, clumps & clusters says otherwise." (Science June 81, pg 96)

Since that article was published, they have discovered just how lumpy the universe really is. They have discovered that rather than the universe being homogenous, they have discovered massive super clusters of galaxies, millions of galaxies in one single cluster. Meaning that a very significant portion of the matter of the universe is there in that cluster. In other portions of the universe, they have found vast emptiness, vast voids in space. The discovered an area 300 million light-years across where there wasn't a single galaxy, just a great void in space.

So, we have a very clumpy universe. Massive concentrations of matter & great voids in space. Precisely the opposite predicted on the basis of the Big-Bang theory. Furthermore, if you have the very clumpy universe, then the background radiation should be clumpy, it should not be uniform. If the radiation is the leftover of the Big-Bang, & if the Big-Bang had to start out inhomogenous or clumpy so the background radiation should not be the same in all directions. They found absolutely no differences what-so-ever (in the background radiation).

So, they sent up COBE, cosmic background explorer, a spacecraft with a telescope to check out the background radiation, hoping to find some inhomogenous areas. They found none. The background radiation, which is supposed to be proof of the Big-Bang, is now going to be the death of the Big-Bang. you see, what we have today, the real universe, does not conform to (evolution) theory whatsoever.

How would you get galaxies? How would you get a star. How would you get those in the form of a galaxy. They (evolution) have no adequate theory whatsoever on galaxy formation. They have no adequate theory on star formation.

Here is an quote taken from a book, The Sun & Stars, by Dr. J. C. Brandt. "Contemporary opinion on star formation holds that objects called 'proto-stars', are formed as condensations from interstellar gas. This condensation process is very difficult theoretically and no essential theoretical understanding can be claimed. In fact, some theoretical evidence argues strongly against the possibility of star formation. However, we know stars exist, so we must do our best to account for them."

As one other astronomer said, "it would be very easy to explain why stars don't exist if they didn't exist." But they do exist. What this man is saying is that we don't have any adequate theory. The present theory on star formation suggested that stars formed from interstellar gas & dust. They have to have this interstellar gas & dust in their theory on stellar evolution because you can't get stars from just plain H. So they have this interstellar gas & dust & their theory is built around that. Even then they have a lousy theory, it really does not work.

Now, where does the interstellar gas & dust come from? It comes from a super-nova. What do you have to have to get a super-nova? You have to have a star. So, in their theory, you have to have stars to make stars. And where do stars come from in the 1st place? They don't explain that at all. If you have to have interstellar gas & dust for your theory on stellar formation, stellar evolution, & if that gas & dust comes from super-novas & super-novas comes from stars, then you have to have stars to make stars.

If you start with just H gas & He the theory doesn't work. If you have this highly dispersed gas, and supposedly from the Big-Bang theory the gas is rushing out at a radial direction at an enormous speed ... by gravitation attraction big huge areas of this gas contracted to form stars. There are some very serious problems with this theory because as the gas becomes more & more condensed, then it gets warmer & hotter. Now you have 2 forces at work. You have gravitational forces pulling in & gas pressure pushing out.

Astrophysicists have ways of doing this, they can calculate these two forces. ... As it turns out, the gas pressure pushing out exceeds the gravitational force pulling in by 50 to 100 times. Obsvously the star will not form spontaneously because the gas pressure pushing out is vastly greater than the gravity pulling in. So, these evolutionists must search around, grasping for straws, trying to explain how stars form.

One astronomer, A. G. Cameron, in an article in Scientific American, Sept. 1975 suggested that although it is true that gas pressure pushing out is greater than the gravity pulling in & ordinarily the star would not form. But, perhaps, there is a nearby super-nova, or interstellar magnetic charge or process that would provide the pressure & the push & thus the star would form.

Well, again, what do you have to have to have a super-nova? You have to have a star. If you are going to have interstellar magnetic events you have to have stars. Again, according to his theory, you have to have stars to make stars.

He admitted that if you just start with H & He gas you can't get a star. But if you have another nearby star that explodes maybe, somehow, that might give the necessary pressure. But that does not explain where the 1st stars came from. They just don't have any way to explain the origin of stars in the beginning. Certainly they can't explain the origin of galaxies.

Just recently, they discovered a galaxy so far out on the edge of the universe, they believe it must have formed only a billion years after the big bang. That is their theory. That is not nearly long enough, galaxies take billions of years to form. That is a real problem for them.

When they have the ability to look right out on the edge of the universe ... at least what they believe to be the edge of the universe, they are going to find galaxies right out on the edge of the universe. That means those galaxies would have had to have formed instantaneously & then they are going to be in a real problem.

What about the formation of our Solar System? ... Here is a book, "The Earth, Its Origin, History, & Physical Constitution" by Sir Harold Jefferies, a famous British astronomer ... He is discussing the origin of our solar system ... On page 359 he says "To sum up, I think that all suggested accounts of the origin of the solar system are subject to serious objections. The conclusion, in the present state of the subject would be that the system cannot exist" (Sir Harold Jeffreys; University Press, 1970). But the solar system does exist. But according to his theory, all the theories don't work, you just can't get the solar system, it just doesn't work, so we are just not here. ...

But, the solar system did not evolve (according to creation model). The (above) theory is on its (solar system) formation. Evolutionary theories just do not work. But it DOES exist because God created it.

These people are just playing games. Most people think that when they talk about the origin of the universe & the origin of planets, we think they are real top-notch serious scientist who are really discussing science.

None of those (evolution) theories can be really scientific theories because there were no human beings there when the universe came into existence, there were no human observers. We didn't see what happened, nobody saw what happened.

In science, to be really scientific, to be able to construct a scientific theory you must be able to see things happen. You must be able to design experiments, to test your theory & see what happens, & make predictions.

Can that be done in the origin of the universe? Not really, because we weren't there, we didn't see what happened, & you can't really repeat the origin of the universe today can you.

So what are these people doing. Lets hear what one of them has to say. "We are playing games, cosmology is the best sport of all because it is the ultimate game." (George Abell). They are just playing games.

That is all right for them to play games if they let everybody know that they are playing games & if they establish the rules. Their rules are that we must explain not only the operation of the universe according to natural laws, & we creation scientists agree with that. If we are going to explain the orbits of comets, how the sun generates its energy, how living things operate, how they reproduce & develop, we use only natural laws & processes for that. How else can a scientist operate.

Certainly, we believe that God created a lawful universe. He established the universe to operate according to certain natural laws. As we try to explain these things we utilize only natural laws & process to do so.

But, the evolutionist goes beyond that. He steps outside of the limits of empirical science. He insists that we must not only use those natural laws & processes to explain the operation of the universe, but he insists that we must use those same natural laws to explain the origin of the universe & the beginning of things & the origin of man & the origin of all living organisms.

Now, that is where we part company. What the evolutionist is doing is not empirical science. These are things that no one has observed or can observe, you can't repeat them today, you can't create a universe, you can't cause life to come into existence in the lab, you can't test a theory of how a fish may have evolved into an amphibian, etc. Therefore, these evolution theories are not scientific theories.

Of course, creation & evolution have scientific characteristics, we can discuss them in the light of the science of Thermodynamics, in the view of the probability laws, in the view of natural process that are in operation today & as we look at the idea that life has evolved, we look at the fossil record & consider what it looks like. Does it conform to creation or does it conform to evolution? We can do that, so creation & evolution have scientific characteristics. We can discuss them in scientific terms. But NEITHER is a scientific theory.

Creation & evolution are inferences based on circumstantial evidence. We see therefore that evolution is not a scientific theory & the claims of evolutionists that we must restrict discussion of origins in the public school classrooms based strictly on evolution is totally invalid. They are insisting that when we consider the origin of the universe, of our solar system, of the origin of life, that we think as atheists, that we consider only the possibility that this happened in purely a naturalistic mechanistic means without any intervention of God or any super natural being. Now, that is totally invalid.

Most people in the U.S. are not atheists, they believe that God does exists, & if God exists, then creation is not only a possibility but inevitable. But this is what these people (evolutionists) insist.

Dr. Abell said they are playing games, but they have set the rules. They have excluded the very possibility of creation, they won't even consider that. If you exclude the very possibility of supernatural creation than evolution is certain to win.

But, we creation scientist insist that if you admit the possibility of super-natural creation evolution is certain to lose, because it is contrary to those natural laws and processes which the evolutionists say they believe.

There are many other difficulties with this notion that the solar system & universe evolved. They are finding many anomologies. The meteorites, they analyze meteorites for the ratios of certain isotopes. Turns out to be very different from what we have here on the earth & other planets. All kinds of difficulties. Of course, any theory we expect to have difficulties. But, as I mentioned earlier, improbability piled upon improbability is impossibility.

The best conclusion, the best science today demonstrates that this universe is a manufactured article. It did not evolve from some homogenous cloud of dust & gas.

The Scriptures tell us that "The heavens declare the glory of God, and the firmaments (that is the space of the heavens) shows the handywork of God" Psalm 19:1. How that is true, so that none of us has any excuse. In the things that God has made we can very clearly discern certain unseen attributes of God, His divinity, His power, His creation, so that, the Bible tells us in Romans 1:20 "For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse."

So, we give honor to God, as the Master and Creator of the universe, and to Him we give that glory, that honor, and that position.

(commentary at end of video):

What we can learn from this is that any attempt to explain the universe, the earth, the origin of life, the origin of man, on strictly natural principles without recourse to a supernatural designer is doomed to failure.

Good books on the subject:

1. Astronomy & the Bible - Questions & Answers; Donald B. DeYoung:

100 of the most asked questions about astronomy, has a section on the Big Bang theory.

2. The Biblical Basis for Modern Science; Dr. Henry M. Morris:

This gives a biblical understanding of the origin of the stars, their purpose, and a critique of the standard theories and why they don't work.

Can be ordered from:

Institute For Creation Research (ph 1-800-999-3777 or

P.O. Box 2667 ( 619-448-1121)

El Cajon, CA 92021                                                                     (or click on URL    www.ICR.org      to see www page)