‘It is possible to believe in both the Big Bang theory and religious teachings about the origins of the universe.’
This question comes from the GCSE 2020 Themes paper. As such, you could answer it by comparing the Big Bang Theory with the creation story of any religion. Here, however, we are going to consider how you might answer it from a Christian perspective. This is because it overlaps with one of the topics on the Christianity specification, so the model essay below would also work well on that paper (for example, see the 2020 Short Course and 2022 GCSE).
The Big Bang Theory
To begin, we need to have a little knowledge of the Big Bang Theory. Basically, most scientists today argue that our universe began to exist around 13.8 billion years ago as a result of an event known as ‘the Big Bang’. Now, they do not understand this event as well as they would like, and there are lots of competing theories about how exactly it unfolded, and how long ago it actually took place. But, the point is that they basically agree that some kind of ‘Big Bang’ was the cause of our universe. The reason for this agreement is that the Big Bang Theory explains two things about the universe which would otherwise be very hard to make sense of.
Red Shift
The first thing is that the universe is getting larger. To put it very simply, if you point a powerful telescope at a distant star, you will notice that its light appears red, rather than the usual white. Scientists call this phenomenon ‘Red Shift’. Light takes on this red tint when the light source is moving away from the viewer. So the distant star’s reddish colour tells us that the star is moving away from us. Interestingly, this is true of every distant star that we can see. Scientists therefore argue that the universe is expanding, rather than standing still. This means that last year, the universe was a little smaller than it is now. A billion years ago, it was smaller still. And 10 billion years ago it was very much smaller. Based on its current size and rate of expansion, scientists estimate that the expansion began around 13.8 billion years ago, and it is this event that they have named ‘the Big Bang’ (Dobrijevic and Howell 2023; Cooper 2023).
Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation
The second thing which the Big Bang Theory explains is the presence of Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMBR). This is a type of radiation which seems to exist throughout the universe. Radiation has to come from somewhere, and how the entire universe came to be filled with CMBR needs an explanation. One way of explaining this, is that it was created by the Big Bang. Indeed, the scientists who first came up with the Big Bang Theory actually predicted that the event had saturated space with radiation. At the time, they had no way of testing this, but when powerful radiation-detecting tools were developed in the mid 1960s they were able to show that the expected radiation did indeed exist (Dobrijevic and Howell 2022; Cooper 2023).
Because the Big Bang Theory explains the presence of Red Shift and CMBR, most scientists are happy to accept it as the best explanation for how the universe began. I have gone into a little detail about what these things are, but you would not need to do this in your essay. Similar questions do exist on the A-Level Religious Studies exam, and if you were answering a question like this for the A-Level you would want to be able to explain at least the basics of Red Shift and CMBR. However, at GCSE level it is enough to be able to name them, and explain that they are two pieces of scientific evidence which support the truth of the Big Bang Theory.
Religious Teachings
Now, we need to compare the Big Bang Theory to a religious explanation of how the universe began. As noted, we will take the Christian creation story as our example. As you may be aware, there are actually two creation stories in the Bible. The first chapter of the Bible describes God creating the universe over six days. God begins by creating light and dark, then sea and sky, then land and plants, then the sun and moon, and finally land creatures and humans (Genesis 1). On the seventh day, God rests (Genesis 2. 1–3). This is followed by a second creation story (the story of Adam and Eve), which describes in detail God’s creation of humans, how they came to reject God’s authority, and the consequences of this decision (Genesis 2–3). You will want to know both creation stories for the exam, but for this question, we are only going to focus on the first one, as it most clearly relates to the Big Bang Theory.
Now, there are a number of differences between the Big Bang Theory and the biblical creation story. Here we will focus on just one — the difference in time. The Big Bang theory says that our current universe took 13.8 billion years to form, while the biblical creation story says it was formed over just six days. Since most people would agree that is 13,800,000,000 years ≠ 6 days, it follows that only one of these can be correct. But how to decide? Here is where we meet the three groups of people whose arguments we will explore in our essay: atheists, Young Earth Creationists, and Theistic Evolutionists.
Atheists
Atheists (people who deny the existence of God) argue that we should accept the Big Bang Theory, and reject the biblical creation story. The reason is that they argue we should only accept ideas that are supported by evidence. For example, Atheist Richard Dawkins argues that evidence, and ONLY evidence, is ‘a good reason for believing something’. In comparison, he rejects tradition, authority, and revelation as bad reasons for believing. So we should only believe in things which are supported by evidence, which he defines as ‘actually seeing (or hearing, feeling, smelling . . .) that something is true’ (1995). Using this standard, the Big Bang Theory has the advantage, because it is supported by our observation of Red Shift and CMBR. In contrast, there is no evidence (again, defined as ‘actually seeing’) to support the biblical creation story. So, from an atheist standpoint, you should accept the Big Bang Theory, and reject the biblical story.
Young Earth Creationists
Young Earth Creationists (a type of Christian) argue that we should accept the biblical creation story, and reject the Big Bang Theory. Unlike Dawkins and other atheists, they claim that authority is a valid reason for believing an idea. Indeed, they point out that we believe most of what we believe because it was taught to us by trustworthy authorities (e.g. parents, (some) teachers, and so on). Young Earth Creationist Ken Ham asks ‘Who is the ultimate authority, God or man, and what is the final authority, God’s word or man’s word’? (2017: 34). The answer, of course, is God, who Christians believe to be not only all-knowing, but also the creator of the universe. Ham points out, ‘God was the eyewitness to all the events of Genesis 1–11, and it is his inspired, inerrant [i.e. flawless] record’ (2017: 30). No one has more authority to explain the origins of the universe than the one who actually made it. Using this standard, you should accept the biblical creation story because it comes from a totally reliable authority (i.e. God), and reject the Big Bang Theory instead.
Theistic Evolutionists (or Evolutionary Creationists)
However, Young Earth Creationists are only one type of Christian. There are also Christians who see no contradiction between the Big Bang Theory and the biblical creation story. They are called Theistic Evolutionists, and they point out that the Bible includes many metaphors, and the creation story could easily be one of these. As Deborah Haarsma explains, God’s meets people where they are, and so ‘Genesis 1 deliberately uses concepts the first readers would understand rather than the modern scientific picture’ (2017: 130–131). In other words, God could presumably have explained the Big Bang theory using modern scientific language, but this would have been confusing and unhelpful to the original readers of Genesis, so God gave them metaphors instead. Indeed, it can be argued (though Haarsma herself does not make this point) that God actually prefers to teach in metaphors. For example, when asked by a teacher of religious law, ‘Who is my neighbour?’ Jesus (who Christians believe to be God incarnate) responded not by laying out a philosophical argument, but by telling the parable of ‘The Good Samaritan’ (Luke 10. 25–37). And in John’s Gospel, Jesus explains what God is like with a series of metaphors, such as ‘I am the bread that gives life’ (John 6. 35) and ‘I am the Good Shepherd’ (John 10. 11).
Theistic Evolutionists argue that the creation story in the Bible is actually more like the parable of ‘The Good Samaritan’ or one of Jesus’s ‘I am’ statements than it is like a science textbook. It tells us that God made the world, and it tells us some important things about the world — such as the fact that God considers it ‘very good’ (Genesis 1. 31) — but it is not a scientific explanation of how the world was made, because this would have been unhelpful to the original audience. Again, Haarsma explains, ‘the intent of Genesis 1 was not to address the “how” and “why” questions we ask in modern science [...] Instead, the biblical text focuses on the “who” and “why” of creation’ (2017: 131). Using this standard, you can accept both the Big Bang Theory and the biblical creation story. The Big Bang Theory tells us the exact steps by which the world came into being, and the creation story tells us who made the world, and why.
Structuring your answer
We now have all the information we need to answer this question. To begin, we need to pick one of these three positions and explain why it is more convincing than the other two. I recommend taking the Theistic Evolutionists’ point of view, because they have a simple response to the other positions. Essentially, you want to argue that both Atheists and Young Earth Creationists misunderstand the biblical creation story by taking it too literally.
Here is what the above points would look like as a 12-marker:
Atheists argue that it is not possible to believe in the Big Bang Theory and religious teachings about the origins of the universe, because they disagree about how long it took the universe to form. The Big Bang Theory says that the universe formed over billions of years, but the Bible says God created it in just six days (Genesis 1). These cannot both be true. Atheists argue that we should accept teaching that has more evidence to support it. The Big Bang Theory is supported by the presence of cosmic microwave background radiation and red shift. But there is no evidence to support the biblical creation story. So atheists conclude that we should only believe in the Big Bang theory, not the biblical creation story.
On the other hand, Young Earth Creationists argue that we should only believe in the biblical creation story, and not the Big Bang theory. They point out that God is all-loving and all-knowing. An all-knowing God knows better than we do how the universe was made. In fact, God makes this point in the Bible when God says, ‘Where were you when I made the earth’s foundation?’ (Job 38. 4). Further, an all-loving God would want to share the truth with God’s children. God even tells us, ‘I am the Lord, and I speak the truth; I say what is right’ (Isaiah 45. 19). God knows everything, and would not lie to us. So, Young Earth Creationists conclude that we should only believe in the biblical creation story, not the Big Bang theory.
However, I argue that both Atheists and Young Earth Creationists are wrong. Both mistakenly assume that the biblical creation story is literally true. But, I argue it is actually a metaphor. We know that God sometimes teaches using metaphors because Jesus (who was God incarnate) often used taught using metaphors like ‘I am the bread that gives life’ (John 6. 35) and ‘I am the good shepherd’ (John 10. 11). He also taught the parable of ‘The Good Samaritan’, which is just a story to help people understand God. Metaphors are a way of making difficult ideas easier to understand, and the creation of the universe is a very difficult idea. It makes sense then, that God would use metaphors to teach people about it.
To the atheists, I reply that the 'days' in Genesis do not have to be literal 24-hour days. The Bible tells us that God created the world in six ‘yom’, which is just a period of time. These ‘yom’ might be billions of years, and six 'yom' might well be 13.8 billion years. Therefore, there is no contradiction between the Big Bang theory and the biblical creation story. They are saying the same thing, but in slightly different language.
To the Young Earth Creationists, I reply that it does not make sense for an all-loving God to put Red Shift and CMBR into the universe unless they can be trusted. These things make the universe seem to be billions of years old, and force people to choose between trusting the Bible and trusting science. But forcing people to make a choice like that is not loving, and the Bible tells us that ‘God is love’ (I John 4. 8). It is more reasonable to think that the biblical creation story is a metaphor which describes the Big Bang in easy to understand language. It is therefore possible to believe in it and the Big Bang Theory.
Before we conclude, there are a three things to note here:
First, notice that we have presented the Atheist and Young Earth Creationist arguments before making our own argument. This lets us divide the essay into two unequal halves: two arguments we disagree with, and three for our position. This uneven weighting makes our side appear stronger.
Second, notice that we have given the references for all the quotes. You would not need to do this in your essay (though, of course you could). It is enough to say, ‘God/Jesus says . . .’ or ‘In the Bible we read’. However, I have given the references here in case you want to look them up for yourself. Notice too, that I have added in some common quotes that you are probably already familiar with from your lessons.
Third, there is no conclusion. You could add one if you wanted, but it is not really necessary here. A conclusion, by definition, restates something you have already said. It can make the essay read better, but it does not gain you any additional marks.
Hopefully, the above plan makes sense. As noted, you could also use it to answer certain questions on the Christianity paper, and an expanded version of it would even work for A-Level RS (in the ‘Christianity and Science’ section). If you like, have a go at writing your own version of it and send it to us at marking@eductor.org. We will mark it and return it to you with a grade.
References
Cooper, Keith. 2023. ‘How Old is the Universe?’, Space.com <https://www.space.com/24054-how-old-is-the-universe.html> [accessed 17 November 2025]
Dawkins, Richard. 1995. ‘Good and Bad Reasons for Believing’, Richard Dawkins <https://richarddawkins.com/articles/article/good-and-bad-reasons-for-believing> [accessed 17 November 2025]
Dobrijevic, Daisy and Elizabeth Howell. 2022. ‘What is the Cosmic Microwave Background?’, Space.com <https://www.space.com/33892-cosmic-microwave-background.html> [accessed 17 November 2025]
——. 2023. ‘Redshift and Blueshift: What do they mean?’, Space.com <https://www.space.com/25732-redshift-blueshift.html> [accessed 17 November 2025]
Haarsma, Deborah B. 2017. ‘Evolutionary Creation’ in Four Views on Creation, Evolution and Intelligent Design, ed. by Stanley M. Gundry (Zondervan)
Ham, Ken. 2017. ‘Young Earth Creationism’, in Four Views on Creation, Evolution and Intelligent Design, ed. by Stanley M. Gundry (Zondervan)