| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
According to BarbourFootnote1 some naturalistic defenders of the steady-state theory have claimed in its favor that it 'avoids metaphysical and theological biases' associated with a beginning in time. And some Christian authors have defended the 'big bang' theory as more consistent with the biblical doctrine of creation.
Barbour submits that both theories are capable of either a naturalistic or theistic interpretation. Both theories regress to an unexplained situation which is treated as a 'given'; the 'primeval nucleus' in Gamow's oscillating universe theory and the 'continual creation' of matter in Hoyle's steady state theory.
Nevertheless, at this time the standard 'big bang' model enjoys the widest acceptance of the scientific community. While this model can be interpreted as compatible with the traditional doctrine of creation ex nihilo
this is presently at best speculative.Themost constructive aspect of modern cosmology is that it attempts to scientifically describe the formation of the universe without religious recourse. The theories acknowledge their limited domain of describing mechanisms of formation of the universe and not purposes external to the system observed.
While the effort has not been flawless and many philosophical interpretations have been added to the scientific statements (particularly in the popularized versions) the effort has produced a cosmology essentially devoid of mythical content. The effort to produce a scientific cosmology has been conducted without any overt attempts at simultaneously producing a natural theology. It is interesting to note that this more or less objective effort has produced (at least in the minds of those who hold a concordists view of the bible) a cosmology that points to the biblical creative origin of the universe.
In an apologetic defense of the biblical creation narrative some caution must be used when attacking the weaknesses or embracing the merits of a particular scientific theory. This applies to both theories of cosmology or evolution.
The concordist's attempts to align the non-scientific biblical narrative of creation with the current scientific cosmology can be perilous. This approach runs the risk of setting-up an endless cycle of reconciliation of theological and philosophical aspects of Christianity with the mechanical details of each new theory or theoretical modification.
Perhaps a more fruitful strategy would be to expose the philosophical parasites that attach themselves to scientific theories and masquerade as scientific conclusions. If we are going to critique technical details of a scientific theory then we should stand along side the scientist as a scientist and critique the mechanical details of a theory on scientific ground.
This discussion should provide basis for;
• identifying and resolving "false" conflicts or pseudo-problems due to complementary descriptions of events,
• eliminating confusions between metaphysical inductions/deductions and physical inductions/deductions attributed to scientific interpretations of data,
• defining a proper interaction between science and theology in which a mutual, although distinct, concern for the truth about the nature of reality suggests a relationship more characteristic of allies than combatants.
Smith, Quentin (1992), Faith and Philosophy, Vol. 9, No.2, 217-237.
Presents an argument for God's nonexistence using Big Bang cosmological theory.
Craig, William Lane, (1992), Faith and Philosophy, Vol. 9, No.2, 238-248.
Refutes the arguments given in the previous citation.
Lindley, David (1993), The End of Physics: The Myth of a Unified Theory,
Provides an historical overview of developments leading to Big Bang cosmology and points out some of the presuppositional elements in the development of cosmological theories.
Schhroeder, Gerald (1990), Genesis and the Big Bang: The Discovery of Harmony Between Modern Science and the Bible, Bantam Books.
Attempts to harmonize our current understanding of cosmology, quantum mechanics, and general relativity with an essentially literal interpretation of Genesis.
Ross, Hugh (1991), The Fingerprint of God (Second Edition), Promise Publishing Company.
Presents a concordist view of modern cosmology and Genesis.
Weinberg, Steven (1992), Dreams of a Final Theory, Pantheon Books.
Justifies a reductionist view of cosmology.
Hawking, Stephen (1988), A Brief History of Time, Bantom Books.
Discuses the implications of theories of cosmology that would render the existence of a creator (God) as superficial because physics does not permit him to do any thing.
Peebles, P. J. E. (1993), Principles of Physical Cosmology, Princeton University Press.
Provides technical description of the Standard Big Bang Cosmology, some of its difficulties, and alternative models.
Kafatos, Menas and Nadeay, Robert (1990), The Conscious Universe: Part and Whole in Modern Physical Theory, Springer-Verlag.
Discusses how consciousness and the principle of complementarity can obviate various points of conflict between religion and science.
Penrose, Roger (1989), The Emperor's New Mind, Penguin Books.
Presents a summary of cosmological theory in terms of problems in quantum theory, gravity, and second law of thermodynamics.
The New Bible Dictionary (1982), Tyndale House Publishers.
Presents summaries of biblical cosmologies as variously interpreted.
The New Unger's Bible Dictionary (1988), Moody Press.
Presents summaries of biblical cosmologies as variously interpreted.
Issues in Science and Religion
Download a Word for Windows 6.0 version of "Cosmology"
Return to the Table of Contents
Return to the Crossroads Essays page
