| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
There are presently three dominant theories providing a scientific account of the origin of matter (i.e., the physical universe):
• Steady State Model
• Oscillating Universe Model
• Standard or "Big Bang" Model
The first two models describe the universe as eternally self-existent. This view is expressed by Carl SaganFootnote1, "The Cosmos is all that is or ever was or ever will be." A cosmology that postulates an eternal universe avoids the philosophical and theological question of "Why does the universe exist?" and "How did the universe come into being?". If an object is self-existent the questions hold no meaning. An eternal universe also provides the large time or large number of trials to yield the necessary order to produce life by processes governed by chance. The essential tenet of this view is that the world as we know it is only one of many possibilities that occurred by accident (devoid of purpose or design). For the particular possibility that we know as reality to have occurred by random natural processes requires either an exceptionally lucky occurrence, long time periods for things to have evolved into their present state, or many previous events. The steady state model provides the long time period, and the oscillating universe provides the many previous events. The steady state model is philosophically similar to Aristotle's view of the universe as having always existed and always existing essentially in its present condition with respect to the existence of matter. The oscillating universe model is philosophically similar to Plato's idea of an eternal but changing universe.Footnote2
The Standard "Big Bang" Model is philosophically similar to the view of creation ex nihilo, although, there is much controversy concerning the interpretation of this model regarding statements about the actual origin of the universe. While the Big Bang Model is compatible with the biblical account of the cosmos as having a beginning it does not provide a 'knock-down' proof of biblical creation nor can a natural theology be derived from the model. The religious significance of the model is that it lends scientific support to a universe with a beginning and the possibility of ex nihilo creation. However there are also naturalistic interpretations of the theory and there is considerable uncertainty whether the big bang occurred in time or marked the beginning of time. A time line of the major events in the formation of the universe according to the Big Bang cosmological model is given in Figure 1. Very shortly after the Big Bang event and before approximately 10-43 seconds has expired the laws of physics change. Prior to this time gravity affected all processes. Before 10-12 seconds had elapsed there was grand unification. That is there were no distinctions between the four fundamental types of forces (gravity, weak nuclear, electromagnetic, and strong nuclear force). After one hundred thousand years nucleosynthesis had occurred in which elements were formed by the process of atomic combinations of neutrons and protons. After ten billion years galaxies formed followed by formation of the sun and planets of our solar system. Fifteen billion years after the Big Bang brings us to the present life on earth.
Although the Big Bang cosmology does not explicitly contain a metaphysical assertion of a creation event it is compatible with the idea. However, as noted by Adolf Grunbaum,Footnote3 the idea of creation is laden with the notion of a creating agency or cause external to the created objects, and the presumed beginning of the universe a finite time ago tends to suggest, in some quarters, the operation of a creator. The English astronomer Sir Bernard Lovell has given an explicitly theological twist to the most fundamental cosmological question by making two major claims: (1) there is an inescapable problem of creation in both the steady state and big bang cosmologies, but neither of them is capable of offering a scientific solution to it; and (2) a satisfactory explanatory solution 'must eventually move over into metaphysics' by postulating divine creation. Claiming that one can meaningfully speak of 'the time before the big bang,' Lovell reasons that: "One must still inquire ... how the primeval gas of the big bang originated. Science has nothing to say on this issue." The English physicist C. J. Isham wrote: "Perhaps the best argument in favor of the thesis that the Big Bang supports theism is the obvious unease with which it is greeted by some atheist physicists. At times this has led to scientific ideas, such as continuous creation or an oscillating universe, being advanced with a tenacity which so exceeds their intrinsic worth that one can only suspect the operation of psychological forces lying very much deeper than the usual academic desire of a theorist to support his/her theory." The advocacy of an oscillating universe by the atheistic British physicist W. Bonner is a case in point, since Bonner rejected a big bang model featuring a finite past in the belief that it lends support to divine creation. John Maddox, the editor of Nature, also judged the big bang cosmogony as "philosophically unacceptable," claiming that "creationists ... have ample justification in the doctrine of the Big Bang," because it is vitiated by "the philosophical difficulty that an important issue, that of the ultimate origin of our world, cannot be discussed."
In this discussion we will focus on the general philosophical issues surrounding the various points of opposition between biblical and scientific cosmologies. The major issues can be summarized as follows:
• design versus chance
• externally imposed order versus autonomously self-ordering
• temporal versus eternal
• creation versus formation
• "something more" versus "nothing but" {fallacies of reductive materialism and presuppositionalism)
These issues encompass the major philosophical influences on scientific interpretations of cosmological data leading to views in conflict with Christian views. Although historical interpretations of biblical cosmology have not been immune from philosophical presuppositions this problem is not addressed here. Our ultimate concern in this paper is to critique how philosophical preferences have influenced the development and interpretation of scientific cosmologies. Each of the above issues are discussed in detail in the following section. At this point we simply will summarize the primary points of opposition that have arisen between the scientific and biblical cosmologies. The distinctions between the scientific and biblical cosmologies given in the following table form the foundational beliefs in naturalism that are the source of conflict with biblical supernaturalism.
| Aspects of The Universe |
Scientific Cosmology | Biblical Cosmology |
|---|---|---|
| Existence | Necessary | Contingent |
| Form and structure | Chance or possibly the Anthropic Principle | Design |
| Reality | Nature is all there is. Reality consists of nature alone. | Reality consists of physical natural world plus supernatural realm. |
| Matter and energy | Eternal or Temporal depending on the particular theory | Temporal |
| Order | Self-ordering: internal physical causation | Designed: externally imposed order |
| Laws of nature | Self-governing: laws of physics are imposed by nature | Externally governed: laws of nature are supernaturally imposed |
This statement in made by Sagan in the introduction to his book, Cosmos. This is a philosophical presupposition of a naturalistic philosophy and not a scientific conclusion.
Gerald L.Schroeder, Genesis and the Big Bang, Bantam Books, 1992, pg. 70.
From Encyclopedia of Cosmology article by Adolf Grunbaum, Philosophy Department, University of Pittsburgh.
Read on to the next section in "Cosmology"
Return to the Table of Contents
