To what extent do you agree with the view that "The Big Bang Theory disproves the Biblical account of creation in Genesis"?

The “Big Bang Theory” has been constructed over many years with the discoveries and theories of many scientists. It states that the universe was created from one point, a “primeval atom” or “singularity” in the words of Lemaitre and Stephen Hawking, the force of which poured out every element and component that makes up the universe as we know it. The evidence for this comes from the fact that the universe has been demonstrated to be still expanding today. This was discovered by Hubble when he noticed that the electromagnetic radiation emitted from the stars was red on the spectrum meaning that they are being stretched – “Red Shift” – and therefore the universe must be expanding.

There are three different elements to the Big Bang Theory, one states that as the universe keeps expanding there is too little matter for gravity to take affect, and therefore an open universe is created whereby it keeps expanding for infinity. The second defines that there is sufficient matter to sustain an equal universe where expansion will eventually conclude and stabilize. Finally, the third, which is our present state as modern evidence would dictate, is whereby eventually there is so much matter that the progress reverses itself and comes back to the single point, a “closed” universe. This theory is called “The Big Crunch”, meaning the universe would ultimately last forever but would pass through different phases of existence, i.e. expanding then contracting.

The issue of the theory disproving the account of creation in Genesis is wholly up to how an individual interprets the bible. For fundamentalists and “Creationists” whom read the account literally, the science behind the theory does disprove the account as for example, there are discoveries of rocks and fossils dating back millions and millions of years, completely overriding the Creationist view that the world is only fifteen thousand years old. Science can also date waves of radiation back to the first milliseconds of existence, billions of years ago, again undermining the literal belief. For many people however, Genesis and the creation story can be described as allegorical and offers an explanation with a margin of self-imagination. For example, the statement “God made the world in seven days” may not literally mean seven days, rather a period of time open to questioning.

Science however can take us to the moment of “singularity” or creation, but not beyond and this is where the idea of God truly becomes open to discussion as science has no definite answer and the thought of an actual creator is not past intellectual logic. However, the perception of God and what he actually represents is variable. Stephen Hawking’s recent theory that gravity itself is enough to “light the blue touch paper” can in a way be perceived as God himself because who is to say that the fundamental physical laws which, arguably, could be the answer to the start of creation, are not in fact the creators of the universe and thus God?

Both science and the book of Genesis define that there was nothing, and then there was something, (for example in the bible it says, “In the beginning”). From this we can infer that whatever did spark existence was spontaneous and the only thing, i.e. nothing came before it. The idea of nothing is very hard to perceive intellectually and therefore the religious idea of God as an omniscient being is, although some would say allegorical, easier to grasp than scientifically stating that there was nothing because science relies on justifiable evidence and not beliefs, which in turn do not need to be reasonable nor provide confirmation. As God cannot be proved right or wrong, taking into account different perceptions of what he may actually be/represent, I feel that the Big Bang Theory can neither prove nor disprove the account of creation in Genesis as there are many similarities between them if the latter is read allegorically yet many obvious differences with literal interpretation.