Which do you prefer to believe about the beginning of the universe Science or the Bible?

Answer 1

Another answer from our community:

There really isn't much difference between the Genesis 1:1 statement and the Big Bang theory - both say something came out of nothing. So I put The Bible first and then am quite happy with Science attempting to fill in the blanks of Scripture. IMO there is nothing more reliable than an eye-witness and that being was Jesus. Everything else is either from the laws of nature/physics observed in experimentation by various humans or postulations from assumed reactions of theories presented for discussion.

The biggest problem science has today, again IMO, is that their presenting of theory which is immediately assumed factual when it really isn't yet or will ever be. For me, this is the problem with evolution.

Another answer:

I also agree with the above. In fact I feel that the Bible account, if understood correctly, IS INDEED supported by FACTUAL science. Theories are just that.

In addition, if the Bible account is an accurate record of creation events in the Universe; then the Bible has the advantage of allowing us to learn about Jehovah God, the actual Creator; our Maker; our Father. From the Bible we learn that he is not nameless; but that he has a name. We learn the requirements to please our Father. We also are alerted to -- the future. These are not things we can learn by looking at the 'creative works.' We also learn about his qualities; the type of God he really is. Therefore we have the privilege to DRAW CLOSE to Jehovah thru the pages of the Bible. This is a treasure beyond words.

Another answer:

The theory of the 'Big Bang', which wasn't a bang but rather an expansion - but who still has the breath to combat the distortions of popular culture? - does not argue that everything came into existence from nothing. Instead, Cosmology's prevailing theory [the Big Bang theory] basically says that everything came from the extremely fast expansion of a gravitational singularity. Where that singularity has its origins is one of the great unknowns in Cosmology, but what happened afterwards is so well founded on sound scientific evidence, that there is no doubt among scientists in the appropriate field, that the Big Bang happened.

Concerning the unknown origin of the 'gravitational singularity', the same uncertainty goes for the origin of the Great Green Arkleseizure or Yahweh, or whatever other 'great-beginning-Deity' people might believe in. To notice the current incapacity of science to answer all questions and to attach a random supernatural belief to fill up the blanks, is not only counter-productive, but very misleading and, in my mind, unethical.

It is very well understood how the expansion happened, how galaxies form, how everything is still moving away from us in an increasingly greater speed, and how planets and stars form and eventually are obliterated. The field of Cosmology has very well established scientific theories based on evidence we possess and understand, the cosmic microwave background - the afterglow of the big bang, curved space, supernova and dark matter; are all examples of scientifically sound evidence which all support the theories science makes. And for the record: a scientific theory is not 'just a theory' as many like to point out, a scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment. Not something a 'scientist' dreamt up overnight.

Contrary to Cosmology, the idea that the entire universe was sneezed into existence, or was created from scratch by Yahweh or some other divine being; doesn't solve the problem of figuring out where all this came from because it is based on no evidence at all and solely supported by a huge dose of faith and some written work. Needless to say, I personally can't support any of that, and would much prefer actual evidence.

Another answer:

As explained and detailed in the above Answers, both Science [by Creation through Evolution] and the Bible [by Special Creation by God] have their own explanations for the beginning of the universe. It all comes down to 'Origins' and intellectual honesty. Science cannot explain the beginning of the universe for the following reasons:-

By definition, Science deals only with-

(i) what can be physically seen, smelt, etc,

(ii) the replication of experimental results by others

[There are more definitions, but for the sake of argument these will do]

(1)

As Science should thus theoretically deal only with the Physical and not Spiritual, Science cannot say only they can explain what happened before the creation of anything physical, yet then to say any Spiritual explanation is wrong and unscientific!

(2)

Science cannot explain what came before matter was formed. What came before matter? Was it a vacuum? But even the vacuum of Space has atoms in it. What about the interior space in Atoms? That can't be a vacuum either because it has 100+ Quanta particles in it! Was it Nothing? Nothing is the absence of something, but Nothing is still Something! What then?

(3)

In most schools today evolution is taught as a proven fact and explains the creation of everything. Students should be taught what Evolution teaches.

(4)

Science cannot explain how DNA came about. A person's DNA [deoxyribo nucleic acid] is made up of their own unique combination of the bases A, C, T, and G, with 3 Billion of these "genes" making up their very own "genome" or DNA Code. All codes need to be programmed by someone. A computer programme needs a programmer to put it all together: a computer programme is made up of combinations of "1"s ['ones'] and "0"s [zeros] and needs a computer programmer to create that programme: he can't have a bucket of "1"s on one side of him and a bucket of "0"s on the other and expect them to jump up by themselves and make their own computer programme. Yet this is what Science would have people believe what happened, and with not 2 but 4 elements! Science cannot explain how DNA came about, let alone where the Information to programme the DNA came from without reference to a programmer: the Bible explains this 'Programmer' is God.

(5 )

Science knows that planets are kept in their orbits by their Momentum, and also knows that their orbital times are slowing down, yet cannot explain what keeps them there and stops them falling into the Sun.

(6 )

Science has proven the universe is actually Finite and has only a Finite amount of Matter, yet cannot explain why it has an infinite amount of ZPE [Zero Point Energy]

The beginning of the universe is best explained by the Bible and not Science.

Another answer:

Since the theological concept of creation is taught as 'fact' in religious classes and Sunday schools, it is appropriate that the science, including the concept of evolution, be taught as 'fact' in science classes. Children are exposed to the two worldviews in appropriate settings and can, and do, make up their minds. Likewise, having been exposed to both religion and science I am in full agreement with the ability of science both to explain the beginning of the universe and its evolution and the evolution of life on earth (and no doubt on millions of other worlds).

Answer 2

There is an enormous difference between Genesis chapter 1 and science, including the Big Bang theory, so I prefer the scientific version thanks.

According to cosmology, the Big Bang theory if you prefer, the stars and the sun existed before the earth. Genesis 1:16-18 says that God put the sun and the moon and lights in the sky above the earth, and therefore later than the earth, after he had even made grass and trees to grow. How can that be?