The standard model of the universe is a theory of how the universe may have evolved. When we actually look at the stars, however, our observations don’t match the theory. Some steps are impossible, but the theory has not been discarded. Now, when believers don’t have all the answers, they’re accused of leaning on the “God of the gaps” logic. Are materialists willing to admit they lean on “wild science of the gaps” logic, when the facts don’t match their theory?
The first step that seems impossible is of course the singularity, where it all began. All matter and energy was concentrated in one location. Nothing can be observed from the earliest time of the expansion, so everything is based on theories about how fundamental particles might react in an extremely high-energy state. Why did it explode, and why did it not explode for an infinite time before that? It’s really not possible for the singularity to be stable for an infinite time in the past and then become unstable. That’s why complex speculation abounds, such as the many ideas about multiverses, which only pushes the problem back further, without a real solution.
The second difficulty is how stars could form from an explosion. If you blow up a sack of flour in the back yard, it goes everywhere, but doesn’t form clusters. Here’s a typical statement about star formation: “STARS form inside dense clouds of molecular gas, but the details of the process, such as the quantity of gas that goes into stars and the rate at which the gas collapses, are still unknown. The earliest stages of cloud collapse are particularly poorly understood; some theoretical models exist, but there has been no observational evidence to support them.” From what I have read so far, astronomers have seen stars explode, but they’ve never seen gas form a star. Gas naturally expands, so it’s not going to make stars.
A third difficulty is that galaxies and clusters of galaxies should fly apart. How they came together in the first place is just one problem, but then there’s not enough gravity to keep them together for very long. That’s a big problem. We can calculate the mass of stars and galaxies, and it doesn’t add up to what we’re seeing. It’s called “missing mass”, but it has been given the euphemism of “dark matter”, because it sounds more intentional and less of a problem. All galaxies are missing mass, often ten times what is actually there. Now they’re saying that most of the universe is make up of this magical stuff that is just gravity but can’t be seen or otherwise detected. Cyclotrons have frantically tried to produce dark matter. So now we’re supposed to follow materialists in believing in matter that can’t be seen? And that’s supposed to be more scientific than believing in God? The simplest explanation is that the theory doesn’t match the facts and that an old universe is impossible.
A fourth difficulty is that the universe is accelerating. It’s expanding faster and faster. According to normal science, that’s impossible. Objects don’t speed up or slow down without a force causing it. So now we have “dark energy” to explain that. We don’t know where it is, and we can’t observe it, but it’s necessary or else what we observe would be impossible. If dark energy doesn’t exist, then we would be led to believe that God controls everything, as in Colossians 1:17: “And he is before all things, and in him all things hold together.”
Almost nothing in the far universe is natural. Time is relative. Space is warped. Gravity is stretched. Stars and galaxies shouldn’t be there. Theories sound more like science fiction. One way or another, we live in a universe that is supernatural.