The second account is the steady state theory. This is an alternative theory to the Big Bang, and was proposed in 1948 by Hermann Bondi, Thomas Gold, and Sir Fred Hoyle. They found the idea of a sudden beginning to the universe philosophically unsatisfactory. Bondi and Gold suggested that in order to understand the universe we needed to make observations of its distant parts, which would of necessity be observations from the past. In order to interpret those observations we must use the laws of physics, and those have been formulated at the present time. If the state of the universe was different in the past how could we be sure that the laws of physics were not different in the past as well? If they were different no valid conclusions could be drawn. For Bondi and Gold not only would the laws of physics have to be the same in all parts of the universe, but at all times as well. The Universe would also be the same, always static, always contracting or always expanding. The first two could be ruled out by the simple observation that the sky is dark at night.
Hoyle approached the problem mathematically and tried to solve the problem of the creation of the matter seen all around us, which in the Big Bang theory is all created at the start. He proposed that the decrease in the density of the universe caused by its expansion is exactly balanced by the continuous creation of matter condensing into galaxies that take the place of the galaxies that have receded from the Milky Way, thereby maintaining forever the present appearance of the universe. In order to produce the matter, a reservoir of energy would be required. In order to prevent this reservoir being diluted, by the creation of matter and by the expansion of the universe, he made this reservoir negative. The expansion and creation now work against each other and a steady state of energy is maintained.
The steady-state theory is now no longer accepted by most cosmologists, particularly after the discovery of in 1965, for which steady state has no explanation for.
- “Theological reflections on Creation and on the origins of the universe add nothing to our understanding, indeed they simply muddy the waters. Scientific accounts say all that needs to be said.”
Assess this view in the light of any scientific and theological accounts that you have studied.
A common understanding of the relationship between religion and science is that they stand in opposition to each other. On the one hand you have religious belief with its foundational premise that God is the reason why the universe and everything in it exists. On the other hand you have the sciences with their initial principle that the explanation for why things happen in the universe and why anything is here does not require God just good science.
However, the scientist turned Anglican priest John Polkinghorne believes Christianity should work within the context of a modern scientific understanding and try to bring together both sides. In other words, science and religion should fund each other rather than work against each other. Polkinghorne clearly believes it is possible for humans to observe the world in order to understand more about God. Such a belief also influenced the work of such scientists as Isaac Newton (1642-1727) and it was also on this premise, that to understand the world is to understand God, that some of the arguments for the existence of God were developed (E.g. ).
Concerning theological and scientific accounts of the universe, we can consider the Big Bang Theory, a scientific account of the origin of the universe. Is it adequate enough to say all that needs to be said? Scientists are constantly discovering new and exciting ideas and technologies to help us progress as a race, not to mention uncovering new information regarding nature. Nevertheless the origin of the universe is not something that can be proved and therefore doesn’t say all that has to be said. Scientists have an idea about how the universe was born through the widely acknowledged Big Bang theory; however we still do not have any idea what came before it. Some people believe it to be perfectly reasonable to assume that God was the cause of the Big Bang and all that follows in the creation of the universe. Were the Big Bang actually to be proved beyond doubt in the future, some would hold that it is yet another scientific step of knowledge that has been taken and is essentially what God has laid out for us through creation. In other words, God has created everything in our universe, even the universe itself, and every discovery that science makes is just another step in God’s plan for us to understand His creation. This linking of God and the scientific creation accounts is held by Arthur Peacocke (1978) Creation and the world of science, who was a physical biochemist and Anglican priest: ‘Time, in modern relativistic physics … has to be regarded as owing its existence to God … It is this “owing its existence to God” which is the essential core of the idea of creation … Scientific cosmology … cannot, in principle, be doing anything which can contradict such a concept of creation’.
The idea in the Steady State Theory is that of a perfect cosmological principle; the idea of a steady and non-changing universe. Such an idea to today’s scientists is virtually unknown since the obvious discovery of red-shift in the universe which ultimately proves that it is not steady, but expanding. However, they cannot disprove it as such, although they have a good idea that it may be incorrect because of red-shift. Were the Steady State Theory to be correct, there must be an ultimate cause; which seems to point to a religious cause. A non-linear universe such as the one of described in the Steady State Theory provides a certain amount of evidence for a God which transcends time, a timeless God, outside space and time. However, a counter argument to this viewpoint is that one is approaching the existence of a timeless God from a scientific perspective, which will ultimately try and rationalise our understanding of God and try and place Him within scientific boundaries, personifying him in the process. Thus, it is not really very applicable or valid, but still could incite some response.
The Genesis creation narrative is obviously not a scientific account of the universes origin. It can be helpful to us as human beings as theological reflections on the can convey particular truths about our world which science cannot. They can tackle various ideas of reality, upon which science seldom deals with. This is not to say that by, for example, reading the Bible from cover to cover, one swiftly acquires a whole new outlook on life and different stances on issues such as the question of the origins of the universe. The Bible is a compilation of events and oral and religious traditions which have been collected in an arranged order. It is not to be read as a structured order of events, but rather to make people achieve a greater understanding of their purpose and place in the world, science simply cannot offer this. Biblical accounts attempt to explain that the world that God has created as essentially good, yet also with its imperfections and wrongs, e.g. the Fall of Man, Adam and Eve. The Genesis creation myth is clearly not a scientific account, I believe, instead that it is an analogy.
One obviously can see that theological accounts on the creation of the universe are never going to explain how we are here, but instead provides a fundamental message for people. They question why we are here, which to many religious believers is paramount. That is not to say that scientific accounts are invalid, without them, we would have little knowledge about our scientific history and surroundings. Theological and scientific arguments can never be placed beside one another because they seek different answers. I feel though, that theological accounts should not be overlooked and seen to add nothing to our understanding and merely “muddy the waters.” However, they are ostensibly ineffective to the atheist, particularly in our ever more secular culture where individuals on the whole are becoming less religious.
