Faith and Science: Some Details of the Big Bang

I wasn't going to do a follow-up on my creation vs. evolution post.  It went pretty well.  I had a few discussions on Facebook and everyone was friendly.  Plus, I don't have a whole lot more information on the topic to enlighten you with.  But then I saw this post on Buzzfeed which is described as a series of questions by self-identified creationists for Bill Nye.  Some of the questions make me a little bit crazy.  Maybe I can add something to this discussion.

I'm not a scientist.  But I am married to one.  An astrophysicist to be precise.  A Christian man of great conviction and integrity who studies the far reaches of the universe and teaches a class about a topic called "cosmology."  It's about what we know about the universe - also how, throughout human history we have conceptualized and sought to understand it.  Including origins.  Including the"Big Bang Theory" which is questioned in the above post.

Early in our marriage the pastor of the church my husband and I were part of at the time decided to preach a sermon on The Big Bang Theory.  The problem was that he didn't check with the person in his midst who actually had read the scientific papers on the theory and knew what science does and does not claim on the topic.  In the conversations that followed I learned a few facts.

First of all, scientists do start with a few assumptions which some who read and believe in the Bible may disagree with.  Scientists believe that we are not in a special time or place in the universe.  They make their conclusions based on the idea that the natural laws that we observe here and now have applied and will apply in all time and space.

The questions in the Buzzfeed post and some questions and statements I've heard in person from Christians make me think that some people have some misconceptions about these assumptions.  For one thing, people often assume that because scientists only consider the physical universe that they are ruling out the existence of any other reality.  This may sometimes happen, but it is not necessary for someone to take science seriously or to use it as a tool to understand the universe.  Science is a system - a way of observing and exploring the world in order to understand it better.  It values direct, quantifiable observations and rejects appeals to authority.  It sticks to a specific set of knowledge and answers certain types of questions.  It does not comment on even the possibility of the existence of a god who does not exist in the physical realm.

"But," you may say, "I have seen evidence of God all around me.  I see the beauty of a sunset, the wonder of a baby's birth, the amazing complexity of the genetic code.  How can these things be random?  They speak of a mind - a creator."  Maybe so, but until they find some way of directly observing that mind scientists will continue to slog along by observing with the tools they have now.

Second, the Big Bang Theory is based on direct observations and measurements.  Since light takes time to travel to earth astronomers are looking both at distant places and past times in the universe. Assuming that the principles they observe now apply uniformly allows them to draw conclusions about what happened in the past and what will happen in the future.

Third, "Big Bang" is not a very good name.  It implies an explosion of something into something else, which is what we always experience now.  But the theory actually describes a movement of something - matter, energy, space - into....nothing.  I can't really get my head around that.

Fourth, so far, scientist do not have an explanation for where the stuff came from.  And by definition the theory only describes what happens starting from an extremely (astronomically) small portion of time after the movement actually starts.  There is still mystery.  There is room for a creator.

Fifth, astronomers are not so heavily invested in this particular model of how the universe works that they can't admit that previous observations might have led to incorrect conclusions.  Is the expansion of the universe speeding up or slowing down?  The understanding of this question has completely reversed in the past couple of decades.  This does not mean that scientists have no idea what they are talking about.  It means that they make conclusions based on the data they have and as the data becomes more complete their conclusions can be more accurate.  This is fine because they are not asking you to believe anything.  They are trying to understand.

When we get closer to home science does make conclusions and predictions that we end up acting on.  That is a more complicated question and it has to do with the body of evidence - observations and experiments are repeated by different scientists and in different ways.  It gets messy.  But right now I'm sticking to the implications of this one area.

So what's the point?  The Big Bang Theory does not jive with a literal interpretation of the Biblical creation narrative.  It points to a time period much longer than a day during which the universe changed in order to reach the point we observe now.  But scientists who study the theory are not trying to disprove the existence of God. They are using the tools they have to make conclusions about the universe.

Is it possible to interpret scripture in a way that fits with the current scientific evidence?  Possibly.  But personally I don't feel the need to do that.  That's probably a topic for a different post.  Could God have created a universe that only appears to have an incredibly long "lifespan"?  Possibly.  But I don't understand why He would do that.  Could the nature of time have changed at some point?  Possibly, but if so it would most likely have left some kind of evidence which may, at some point be detectible.  The nature of time is something that physicists are extremely interested in.   

Ultimately I believe that we (the Evangelical Christian community) should really take a look around us.  The Bible is not a scientific text.  Science is not a religion.   Using our senses and intellects to observe the world is not a threat to God.  Believing that God ultimately is responsible for the existence of the world is not a threat to science.  But closing our minds to what we might observe because we need the facts to conform to an idea we already have....that isn't consistent with what I believe about the Bible or God.  And it isn't what I see happening in science.  I'd love it if we didn't do that. I'd love it if we decided to use the tools we have and embrace the exciting challenge of learning as much as we can about the world.

Why I Will Not Be Watching the Evolution/Creation Debate Tonight

 photo credit: Mike Shaheen via photopin cc

So while I'm scrolling through my Facebook feed this morning I come across a couple of different posts reminding me that tonight is the night that Bill Nye "The Science Guy" will be debating Ken Ham of the Creation Museum.  Mostly they are from Christians who seem to be hoping that this will finally be the time that the creation narrative gets it's proper due and evolution gets put in its place.  I have been seeing posts from some of the more progressive Christian bloggers I follow commenting on this.  They are more likely to be hoping that the likeable Nye will present his case in a way that will at least challenge Creationists to consider the options.

OPTIONS!?! Where am I going with this?  Wait.  Back up.  Progressive Christians?  Where are they progressing to, you ask?  Hang on.  This is all too much for one blog post that I can type up between changing diapers and ferrying kids to school.  I should probably stick to focusing on doing those things while I'm actually doing them, but instead I'm thinking about how I can make this important point about the Evangelical church in America and how we view science and how changing that could have such a positive impact on our ability to follow Christ.  Focus.

The point I want to make is that I believe that we are wasting our energy setting up this "science vs. Christianity" divide and using evolution as a test to determine which one comes out on top.  Neither science nor the Bible demand this.

Science first.   Ken Ham says, in this interview with CNN, "Our public schools arbitrarily define science as explaining the world by natural processes alone."  I'm not sure why he says this is arbitrary, but if he means that science is the study of what can be observed (and manipulated) in the natural world then I agree.  But somehow he then jumps to the following conclusion:  "In essence, a religion of naturalism is being imposed on millions of students."  Wait.  Is science being defined as the only way to understand the world?  Are students being taught that any question can be answered by observing the natural world?  If so then he's right that "They need to be taught the real nature of science, including its limitations."

But lets not lay this at the door of the study of evolution.  The belief that science can answer all our questions and that nothing that can't be observed in the natural world actually exists is philosophical and can't be proven, shown to be false or even properly commented on using observation or manipulation of the natural world.  It has as little to do with science as the belief that God exists.  But it is not necessary to hold this view if science in order to study evolution.  Evolution uses fossil records, DNA and direct observation to examine how species have changed over time.  It stands (or falls) on the strength of these observations.  Allowing for evolution does not necessitate discounting the supernatural world.

Which leads pretty much directly to the question, "Doesn't believing the Bible require us to abandon evolution?"  I believe that it does not.  Our pastor spent a couple of months teaching about the Genesis creation account.  Obviously I'm not going to be able to flesh out the whole argument here, but the essence, as I see it, is this:  The Bible should be understood first through the eyes of the audience for which it was originally intended.  Ancient people were not trying to answer the question "Where did all this stuff come from?"  They wanted to know "What is the purpose and function?"  Essentially, "Why is all this stuff here?  How does it relate to God?"

This does not mean that the account couldn't also address the question of how the stuff got here, but it means that it probably isn't intended to.  Ancient people would have most likely assumed that God made the stuff (if they had ever considered the question) but the Genesis account was not meant to tell us how.  The Bible is not a science text book.  It uses language that is figurative.  We no longer believe that it's necessary yo hold that the sun actually moves through the sky in order to take a proper view of passages that talk about the sun rising or setting.  We can take scripture seriously without demanding belief in a seven day, nothing to everything creation sequence.

This is not an argument for (or against) "guided evolution."  The point is not whether or not God was involved at any point in bringing matter into existence or in shaping it into the forms we now observe.  The point is that spending our time arguing about whether God is right or science is right is futile.  They can both be right.  They are not enemies.

So how does this help us to be better followers of Christ?  On reflection I realize that this probably deserves a blog post of it's own.  In short, Jesus did not, while he was on earth, allow himself to be swept up in arguments that were not central to his goals.  What is the greatest command?  They wanted to trip him up, but he was focused.  Love the Lord your God.  And love your neighbor as yourself.

I believe that this debate distracts from the real goal of Christians to model Christ's love.  Not because the truth is not important but because the friction - the conflict - isn't real.  We don't have to deny the existence of God to take science seriously and we don't have to deny the validity of the study of evolution to take God - or the Bible - seriously.