Whilst the Hot Big Bang model does offer a plausible explanation as to the creation of the universe, even physicists such as Hawking are fully aware of how unlikely such an event was. In “A Brief History of Time” Hawking recognises that “the initial state of the universe must have been very carefully chosen indeed, if the hot big bang model were correct right back to the beginning of time”. It is important to recognise the difference between unlikely and impossible; as although the creation of the universe occurring, purely as the result of a million and more variables all coinciding perfectly is hugely unlikely, it is still possible; there is no requiem for a guiding force.
The second major scientific model that must be considered when trying to find a plausible interpretation for the origins of the universe is that of the “Theory of Evolution”. Whilst the theory of evolution is generally accredited almost solely to Charles Darwin, and his book “Origin of the Universe”, a fractionally earlier scholar Jean-Baptiste Lamarck also wrote a similar although ultimately incorrect theory of evolution. Lamarck’s theory claimed that the organs a life form uses most increase in size and strength, whilst those used least wither, eventually disappearing; however the changes made are passed from generation, so for example giraffes inherited to the slightly longer necks of their ancestors.
However the more generally accepted theory, is that of Charles Darwin; when Darwin initially published his ideas he was met with contempt and disdain, as the commonly held belief at that time was that there was a Divine Creator, and the world was literally created as it is written in Genesis. Darwin however went against this belief, suggesting instead that every single living organism comes from a common ancestor, some simple life form that everything developed from. The mechanism through which this theory of evolution worked is called natural selection; it is the belief that if an animal were to be born with a new trait or characteristic beneficial to survival, then it would thrive.
As an animal with this new characteristic would have to devote less energy to merely surviving, it is likely that it would procreate more often, and at least some of its offspring would share in the prized characteristic, ensuring that the characteristic would be passed on through generations. However Darwin believed that the introduction of new characteristics was down to mere chance; he did not know as we now do that the introduction of new characteristics is the result of random genetic mutations. What Darwin created was a wholly impersonal law of nature that merely favoured those best adapted to survive, or more simply the “survival of the fittest”. Darwin’s theory whilst originally met with nothing but contempt, has stood almost unchanged to the modern day, and is still widely accepted as the explanation of how life on the planet earth originated.
However the society into which Darwin released his theory was completely unprepared to accept these radical new ideas; the generally held belief in the nineteenth century was that the Bible was literally true. The Bible tells the creation story, and this was, and by some fundamentalist Christians still is, believed to be the true chain of events climaxing in the Universe, as we know it. The Creation Story can be found at the very start of Genesis, the very first book of the Bible, indeed “the beginning” of the Bible is that “God created the Heavens and the Earth”. The creation story is famous for the fashion, and the time-scale in which “God created” the world in all its glory; “by the seventh day God had” completed his task, he was able to rest for a whole day. The whole process took God less than a week, but in that time the creation story claims God was not at all hurried, or hard-pressed to create the world; as each day God had the time to survey what work had been done, and make the judgement if “it was good” or not.
The Creation story unwittingly displays the heartfelt belief that God is omnipotent, as he was able to create the world easily, omnipresent, he was able to survey everything, the whole world, instantaneously, and also omniscient as he was able to make a reasoned judgement as to the worth of everything. The belief that God is all of these things is often linked with the same fundamentalist idea that the Bible is literally true; so there is little surprise in the fact when Darwin portrayed his beliefs they were met with outrage and bigotry. The reason Darwin was met by such a wave of anger was that his theory appeared to denounce the creed by which the majority of society was trying to live its life. It raised the question that, if the Bible lied about the creation story, where else did it lie? This was never Darwin’s intention, as he was himself trained as a vicar, he merely had difficulty accepting some of the ideas proposed in Genesis literally.
Samuel Wilberforce, the Bishop of Oxford, was one of the many who decried the Darwinian theory of evolution; he thought and argued them to be a threat not just to the church and the Bible, but also to the dignity of man. However the only cogent argument that Wilberforce could level, is that there is no explanation for the principle of free will within the theory. This draws huge similarities with the Anthropic Principle, as the argument from beauty hinges upon the single reason that there is no concrete way in which the recognition of beauty would aid survival. Whilst this debate was merely an example of how Darwinian theory was initially received; the Presbyterian Church in the USA is a poignant, and current reminder that many still argue against the validity of the theory of evolution.
Even though there has been a huge conflict between the theory of evolution and the religious world, there has in fact been a much better reception of the Hot Big Bang Model, so much so that the Roman Catholic Church has claimed, in 1951, that the Model is in accordance with the Bible. This is a huge difference both from the treatment of Darwin, and the Treatment of Galileo one of the forerunners of the Big Bang theory, who was exiled for claiming, correctly, that the earth orbited the sun, not the other way round. The conflict between religion and science is well documented; often there is a feeling of Theism relying on a ‘God of the Gaps’ principle. Religion is able to fill in with blind faith, the gaps left in scientific reasoning; this idea is often well received, as it explains the recent decline in power of the church. Religion was at its most powerful, when most of the world was left in ignorance, but gradually science has begun to explain what was once viewed as miracles caused solely by the power of God.
This explanation of the issue does however seem to be scornful of the church, whereas the belief that science and religion are attempting to answer different questions, is not. Many people believe that science attempts to answer how the universe was created, the actual physical machinations of how the world was created; but religion offers an explanation as to why the universe was created. This means that science and religion are not actually in conflict, only different, and to many people this is the preferred state of affairs. Therefore it appears there are two ways in which the origins of the universe may be examined, through a religious perspective, which entails interpreting and understanding why; or through a scientific background, demanding that one determines the actual processes by which earth, or even the universe was created.
Part B: How far are these accounts compatible with each other? (6)
Although there are many significant differences between religious and scientific accounts on the origins of the universe, there is also a degree to which they are compatible. The belief that both science and religion offer a comparable outlook on this issue has been held by many of the leaders from both circles. One of the most famous scientists of the early twentieth century Albert Einstein, held the belief that “Science without religion is lame” but equally “religion without science is blind”; it is clear that Einstein believed a balance had to be struck between both religion and science.
This belief in a balance was after a fashion shared by Martin Luther King Junior, the majority of whose humanitarian work stemmed from a strong belief in the Christian God. King believed that “science investigates” but “religion interprets”, this belief meant that King was able to accept many of the advances in science a lot more easily than some of his religious peers. It is clear that in more recent times the gulf between science and religion has shrunk; fewer scientists openly dispute with the churches, but equally unlike in the past, the church no longer asks leading scientific thinkers to withdraw their life’s work if it does not meet the church’s approved scriptures.
This idea of mutual co-operation may be rooted in the work of Pope Pius XVII who felt that God gifted scientists with intellect, and so for them to not use what has been given them would be wrong. Pope Pius felt that all “technological progress” originally came “from God”, as it was God who had gifted scientists with the ability to make these breakthroughs. However this also meant that as all progress “comes from God” it “can and must” in turn “lead back to him (God)”. This throws an entirely different light on the prior debate between science and religion, as scientists are no longer attempting to disprove the Bible, but instead are merely carrying out God’s work in a different way. Ironically it could be claimed that as scientists are carrying out God’s work, by using their gifts in research, then instead of being heretics as has been claimed by fundamentalist Christian groups, they are the prophets of our age. Pope John Paul, the current Pope, has continued the precedent set, in that he invited the world’s leading scientists to a conference, to help the Roman Catholic Church understand the most recent research concerning the origins of the Universe. Indeed it appears as though these scientists had an effect on the church’s leaders, so much so that in 1951 the Roman Catholic Church officially pronounced the Big Bang theory to be in accordance with the Bible.
In particular it seems as though Darwin and his theory of evolution, have come under fire by religious scepticism. As however the concept of infinite regress is unfeasible, an interesting angle is that even if Man is derived from some smaller, and lesser being, eventually a point is reached when a creator must have introduced something to start the process. So it could be interpreted that rather than creating “man”, as Genesis claims, God laid the precise building blocks, required for mankind to develop and flourish into the race it is today. In this vein it has been discovered that the original Bible may have been misinterpreted, the “days” in the Creation Story, were originally merely a period of time. If this is considered the whole creation story is more feasible to a scientific mind; as the sequence in which God creates the world is almost the same as that in which it is thought to have occurred.
Many of the “the objections” that leading philosophers or scientists have had with the religious aspects of the creation of the universe are often levelled at “a naively imagined anthropomorphic God”. Keith Ward may be interpreted in such a way that is explained in scientists attempting to investigate a process carried out by an omnipotent, omniscient being, by working out if an all-powerful and all-knowing human could such a thing. This concept is of course naïve, but to imagine anything else is almost impossible, wherein the problem lies; humans can only liken God, or Gods to things there own experience or reasoning has shown them, whereas in reality he, and his methods are entirely outside this sphere.
Total Words: 2589
