Creationism vs Big Bang Cosmology in interpreting the discovery of the star astronomers deem: SMSS J031300.36-670839.3

star discovered to be the oldest ever found, by Dr. Stefan Keller with the SkyMapper telescope at the Siding Spring Observatory near Coonabarabran, New South Wales, Australia (AFP Photo / Space Telescope Science Institute) Star pointed out above is supposedly the oldest ever found, by Dr. Stefan Keller with the SkyMapper telescope at the Siding Spring Observatory near Coonabarabran, New South Wales, Australia (AFP Photo / Space Telescope Science Institute)

Big Bang Cosmologies vs Creationist Cosmologies: Two competing models that aim to interpret what is seen in the universe                                                   According to astronomer Dr. Danny Faulkner in his book “The Universe by Design”, (page 7): “Indeed, the standard big-bang model assumes a purely physical, natural origin to the universe, while we assume that God created the world and revealed some of his process of creation in Genesis.” 

To compare, the secular volume “Wordsworth Dictionary of Science & Technology” defines cosmology as: “The study of the universe on the largest scales of length & time, particularly the propounding theories concerning its origin, nature, structure & evolution.” (Page 204) The last word in that definition, “evolution”, is speaking of the particular worldview driving the standard Big Bang definition of cosmology or the study of the universe.

Today’s post aims to see how the Big Bang Model vs Creationist Models of the universe in interpreting the finding of a particular star in our Milky Way Galaxy. We can liken the application of a given scientific model to that of an interpreter coming to a given text of scripture. That is to say, the scientific data function as our text and the competing scientific models function as interpretations between which we have to discern which best explains what we are observing.                                                                                     

Explaining Origins science and Observational science                                         The models are different, and yet the data with which each deals with is the same. According to another astronomer, Dr. Jason Lisle of Answers in Genesis, any good scientific model must be able to both explain and predict physical outcomes with a minimum of arbitrary assumptions.  Also too, whichever model is the least complex and which explains and predicts the most outcomes in accordance with the data is by definition the best model. Models of origins are classified under what is termed “origins science”.

The data with which each model is attempting to interpret fits under the standard process of repeated testing to formulate a theory, or “observational science”. So the data with which we are working with in this post is the star: SMSS J031300.36-670839.3. Its distance is some 6,000 light years from the earth. Each star’s light spectra can be examined for various chemical elements, temperature and stage of the star’s life. That is the data – measured, cataloged and analyzed by telescopes and standard measuring techniques that detail the distance of the star, its luminosity and chemical make-up.  But now what about how the Big Bang and Creationist Astronomy may interpret evidence of this particular star?

Seeing how creationism and Big Bang models interpret the finding of the star  SMSS J031300.36-670839.3.                                                                              

1. WHAT BIG BANG ASTRONOMERS SAYS ABOUT THE STAR.                                   Whenever we consider what the Big Bang Model would expect to find, we discover additional arbitrary assumptions needing to be added to help the data (observational science) fit the Big Bang model (origins science). For example, the one article reporting the discovery of this star states: “This old star – catalogue number SMSS J031300.36-670839.3 – was found in our own Milky Way galaxy. It has a mass 60 times bigger than our Sun and is relatively close to us, some 6,000 light years from Earth. Dr Stefan Keller, head researcher at the Australian National University in Canberra, told Reuters that after 11 years of searching, his team had finally seen a unique chemical fingerprint of the star that was among the very first ones in the universe.”

The article goes on to describe how the star has been possibly contaminated by surrounding supernova explosions to make it appear as later generation star following the hypothesized “population III” or first generation of stars composed of only hydrogen, helium and lithium the Big Bang model. Such stars should be regularly found according to the Big Bang Model, and yet none have been discovered.  For this latest star to be one of those “population III” stars would demonstrate the validity of the Big Bang Model, which of course is not the case in this finding.

To understand why finding such stars are important to Big bang Astronomer, consider Dr. Stefan Keller’s statement about the star: “It’s giving us insight into our fundamental place in the universe. What we’re seeing is the origin of where all the material around us, that we need to survive, came from. The Big Bang model is much more than a hypothesis of origins, it is for many secularists their story regarding where they came from and sadly, does not include the supernatural origins of the universe as coming from the all-powerful, all-knowing God of the Bible.

2. A BLINDSPOT MISSED BY THE BIG BANG’S INTERPRETATION: A STAR IS INTERPRETED AS BEING OLDER THAN ITS HOST GALAXY!                                              The assumption about this star’s age is based upon similar other stars found in the farther reaches of the universe that the Big Bang Theory dates at over 13 billion years old. Being that the Big Bang Model assumes such stars at the edge of the universe to be the age they are by the types of galaxies they are in, then what follows is that if a star in our own galaxy has similar characteristics, it must be the same age. If this be the case, then that could spell trouble for the Big Bang Model. For one thing, this “old” of a star (Over 13 billion years old) appearing in our Galaxy (which NASA scientists, holding to a standard Big Bang Model, estimate to be over 12 billion years old) would mean that the star existed before its host galaxy! Compare article at –

3. WHAT CREATIONIST ASTRONOMY PREDICTS AND HOW IT CAN EXCEL IN ITS INTERPRETATION OF THIS PARTICULAR STAR                                                             Being that no one was around “in the beginning” of time and space, scientists of all strips formulate hypothesis and propose models to explain and predict why and what is occurring in the data of “observational science”. A Creationist cosmology would expect to find stars in our Milky Way Galaxy and at the edge of the observable universe to be composed of roughly the same levels of chemical compounds – which we do. Certain creationist models of origins suggest that we would find spiral galaxies at the farthest reaches of the observable universe like out own Milky Way – which observational science through the Hubble telescope has confirmed.  

Observations of galaxies billions of light years away yield forth stars that read the same age as the one above discovered within our own “cosmic neck of the woods”. Furthermore, creationists models of origins also predict that that no new stars would ever be formed after the creation week, and that any stars we do see are either in the process of dying out or are in their final stages – which again is confirmed by observation.

When comparing two models of origins, which ever one explains the most data being observed within the simplest way possible is most likely the best model to follow. As we have seen above, the Big Bang misses the point, whereas the creationist model of cosmic origins yields the simplest explanation: that the star SMSS J031300.36-670839.3 was created at the same time as our Milky Way and that our universe.

Conclusions:                                                                                                                                      We have briefly looked at one of the most recent astronomical discoveries of a star within our Milky Way Galaxy deemed the name: SMSS J031300.36-670839.3. The purpose of this post was to determine which model of cosmic origins can best help us understand this discovery with the fewest difficulties.  In comparing a typical creationist approach to cosmic origins vs the Big Bang, this blogger concludes that creationism is able to offer a more reasonable explanation of the star’s origin and place in our universe than the standard Big Bang cosmology.  This ought to alert the reader to the plausibility creationism can have as a valid approach to the study of God’s created world as spelled out in the scriptures.

About pastormahlon

By the grace of God I was converted to saving faith in Jesus Christ at the age of 10 and called into the Gospel ministry by age 17. Through the Lord's grace I completed a Bachelors in Bible at Lancaster Bible College in 1996 and have been married to my beautiful wife since that same year. We have been blessed with four children, ranging from 7-18 years of age. In 2002 the Lord enabled me to complete a Master of Arts in Christian Thought at Biblical Theological Seminary, Hatfield PA. For nearly 25 years I have been preaching and teaching God's Word and have been studying the original languages since 1994. In 2016 God called my family and me to move to begin a pastorate at a wonderful Southern Baptist Congregation here in Northern New York.
This entry was posted in Science. Bookmark the permalink.

One Response to Creationism vs Big Bang Cosmology in interpreting the discovery of the star astronomers deem: SMSS J031300.36-670839.3

  1. Eddie Arnold says:

    Georges Lemaître a Jesuit Priest first proposed what became the Big Bang theory which is widely accepted within the scientific community. Lithium though it was one of the three first elements together with helium and hydrogen to be synthesized in the Big Bang a giant explosion. Lithium is more abundant than predicted in later-generation stars, for causes not yet completely understood!
    God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness…. God said, “Let there be a vault between the waters to separate water from water.”
    He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth, and its people are like grasshoppers. He stretches out the heavens like a canopy, and spreads them out
    Hydrogen, helium, lithium or water (hydrogen and oxygen} and a vault (something else) then an explosion or the heavens being stretched out. Wow what a difference. If the bible is true then a close idea copied by a priest from it would be supportable data.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s