Lemaitre was aware of the creationism issues of the day, and he explicitly shunned the idea that his theory should be enlisted as a support for any side of the Creationism culture wars such as they already were at the time. (And that was no minor temptation for some, because it posited an actual beginning as opposed to the prevailing steady state universe model still popular then). Had it not been for the time scales involved, the big bang could have been (and I think was!) spun by some Creationists as a clear victory for themselves. Which may also help explain Hoyleās disdain for it and the bestowed moniker of mockery.
[Simon Singh: āBig Bangā published in 2005 by Harper Collins p. 362. In fact Pope Pius XII was one of the excited devotees latching onto LeMaitreās theory for apologetic purposes - but Father LeMaitre refused to get on that train!]
Itās something I learned about on this forum. Theoretically, the universe doesnāt explode from a specific point like a firecracker, but begins everywhere, and consequently everywhen. It is extraordinarily phenomenal when you think it about. Like a universe that begins in the present. According to Aquinas, by faith we believe the world has a beginning in the past. The alternative is an eternal universe that just keeps going into the past.
I will read your post from Answers in Genesis. But below is an excerpt from space.comā¦and I have seen this position posted elsewhere online ā in AI Overlook and moreā¦Thanks for bringing this up howeverā
The potential problem with distant galaxies isnāt that they exist. In fact, the modern formulation of the Big Bang theory, called ĪCDM cosmology (the Ī stands for dark energy, and CDM is short for ācold dark matterā), predicts galaxies to appear in the very young universe. Thatās because billions of years ago, there were no galaxies, or even stars, at all. When our universe was much smaller and much denser than it is today, everything was much more uniform, with only tiny density differences appearing here and there randomly.
But over time, those density differences grew, with the slightly denser pockets pulling more material onto them. Over hundreds of millions of years, those pockets formed into the first stars, and eventually grew to become the first galaxies.
In fact, one of the main goals of the Webb telescope was to discover and characterize those first galaxies, so finding galaxies in the incredibly young universe is a point in favor of the Big Bang theory, not against it.
Interesting. I donāt know if Lemaitre was YEC (could not see that right off in the article that I have excerpted below from amnh.org ā
It is tempting to think that LemaĆ®treās deeply-held religious beliefs might have led him to the notion of a beginning of time. After all, the Judeo-Christian tradition had propagated a similar idea for millennia. Yet LemaĆ®tre clearly insisted that there was neither a connection nor a conflict between his religion and his science. Rather he kept them entirely separate, treating them as different, parallel interpretations of the world, both of which he believed with personal conviction. Indeed, when Pope Pius XII referred to the new theory of the origin of the universe as a scientific validation of the Catholic faith, LemaĆ®tre was rather alarmed. Delicately, for that was his way, he tried to separate the two:
āAs far as I can see, such a theory remains entirely outside any metaphysical or religious question. It leaves the materialist free to deny any transcendental Beingā¦ For the believer, it removes any attempt at familiarity with Godā¦ It is consonant with Isaiah speaking of the hidden God, hidden even in the beginning of the universe.ā
In the latter part of his life, LemaĆ®tre turned his attention to other areas of astronomical research, including pioneering work in electronic computation for astrophysical problems. His idea that the universe had an explosive birth was developed much further by other cosmologists, including George Gamow, to become the modern Big Bang theory. While contemporary views of the early universe differ in many respects from LemaĆ®treās āprimordial atom,ā his work had nevertheless opened the way. Shortly before his death, LemaĆ®tre learned that Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson had discovered the cosmic microwave background radiation, the first and still most important observational evidence in support of the Big Bang.
Already done, and itās pointless because you either ignore them, somehow donāt see them, or mentally edit them away. How YEC adds to the text has been shown here numerous times by several people, how it ignores the grammar has also, and how it ignores the ordinary use of Hebrew ā and mixing science with theology is something you do constantly, and abounds on YEC websites.
In classical Big Bang theory, both of those are true: the universe begins as a single point, but that single point is āeverywhereā such that as space expands every point qualifies as the center.
āEverywhenā . . . I donāt think thatās part of it.
I thought space and time are supposed to be inseparable
T_aquaticus
(The Friendly Neighborhood Atheist)
28
That insistence is understandable. He didnāt want to make his religious beliefs a target for detractors, well, anymore than they already were. It could very well be that he was inspired by his beliefs, but that doesnāt matter in the scientific sense because he had the data to support his ideas. With all of the back and forth over ID and claims of bias, it is worth noting that a Catholic priest proposed a theory with unavoidable religious overtones, and that theory won the day because the evidence was solid. If the scientific community were as biased as some ID proponents claimed then astronomy would still be ruled by the Steady State theory.
I really love this fact. It ranks right up there with Peter Higgs being in the audience at the LHC when the observation of the Higgs boson was announced.
Iāve read the Bible many, many times, and Iāve never read anywhere in the Bible that Moses wrote Genesis 1 or Genesis 2. Of course, you can make that assumption by extrapolating from certain verses, but that extrapolation is just thatā¦not explicit. When Joshua was told āKeep this book of the law always on your lipsā¦ā we would then extrapolate that āthis book of the lawā included Geneis 1 and Genesis 2.
But it doesnāt actually say that. At all.
So the āfaith in scriptureā is actually faith in a traditional belief about scripture that is outside of scriptureā¦namely, a particular tradition (buttressed by a particular mode of interpretation that was not native to the cultures that wrote and originally read these texts).
Itās not difficult to make a case that OT prophets didnāt understand the entirety of what the received from God. Shaky ground, thereā¦
That came up with a friend in a casual discussion with a rabbi, and he said the only reason to hold to Mosaic authorship is (and he sang like in Fiddler on the Roof) āTradition!ā (and mimicked the little dance Tevya does).
Thatās how most theology works, some more than others. YECers fail to acknowledge that their starting point is not the text of the scriptures but a tradition about that text. And as was hammered into us in grad school, the only way to avoid that is to be stubborn about sticking to the text ā not any translation, but the original.
Even when you get that pounded into you for six years itās not easy.
I think your idea that God created YEC then left it to write the Bible and create the universe is far more ridiculous. The Bible does not support that notion. It is neither Biblical nor Christian.
Neither is the creationist notion that God is a watchmaker designing the perfect machine Biblical or Christian. The Biblical understanding of God is a shepherd who raises up living things in a relationship rather than designing a bunch of machines.
Interesting read. Lemaitre devotes himself to science and it is science which discovers the truth in agreement with his religion, that the universe had a beginning.
The creationists have no interest in truth. They would rather tell lies in order to pretend they have the authority to simply dictate everything to everyone.
And that just addresses the major astronomical issues! The speed of light is so fundamental to all physics that Lisleās proposal screws with more than just observed light.
I donāt recall my upper level physics courses well enough to be certain, but wouldnāt Lisleās binary speed of light result in a different behavior for Earthās magnetic field? or any magnetic fields at all? If the speed of light is infinite towards the observer, wonāt that result in infinitely powerful magnetic fields along the way?
The Bible affirms that God is involved in and in control of all that happens, whether āscientificallyā or otherwise (e.g., miraculously). Exactly how that works, and how tightly constrained the outcomes are, is highly debated (see, e.g., predestination and free will). But the idea that God just sets up science and then it happens without God is not the biblical picture.
Such a deistic picture is a standard component of YEC and of ID anti-evolutionary arguments. Any claim such as āGod or evolutionā, etc., is saying that science does operate on its own. āYou are either created by God or by mindless molecular processesā, for example, is terrible theology and terrible apologetics. Molecular processes are creating you out of your lunch right now, and countless other molecular processes built you from a fertilized egg. None of the molecules have minds. The Moreland et al. Theistic Evolution book makes such a deistic assumption as the basis of its argument against theistic evolution. If itās theistic evolution, itās theistic, not deistic, and the whole book is a straw man argument. Although, when the theological problem is brought up, YEC and ID advocates often do admit that science does not remove God from the picture but then go right back to arguing that evolution does remove God from the picture (e.g., Dembskiās entry in the Worldview Study Bible).
Conversely, trying to āproveā God scientifically tries to put God within science, rather than correctly recognizing that science is describing Godās ordinary patterns of running the physical components of the universe.
This is a key property that clues one into what sort of theology one has absorbed, which connects directly then to how they respond to these scientific assertions. I heard one pastor once speak about how he valued personal relationship with a Fatherly God with whom he could be as intimate as the closest family or friend. When I relayed that view to another pastor friend of mine, that pastor reacted with horror at the notion that any of us could ever just casually approach the Creator of the universe as if He were just another character such as I might find lounging around my living room. According to that pastor, terror would be the more likely and appropriate emotion we should have. While both have points, and God likely could be a terror to me while Iām in rebellion, I nonetheless think this latter view of God is a product of Calvinist and other similar theologies. They tend to see all theological questions in terms of power, sovereignty, and retribution rather than love and tenderness. The former has God at an infinite remove from His creation other than that He controls it from on high as an autocrat. The latter can recognize gifts of freedom bestowed upon a creation with Godās involvement being more like a gardener or a loving Shepherd who wants relationship with free agents who can then also choose to love in their own right.