What is this cartoon saying about the difference between

religion and science? Do you think this is fair?

The debate between creationism and the Big

Bang

Creationists and The Bible• 20th century development (new movement)

• Fundamentalists who sought to defend Christian theology against challenges of scientific developments.

• Attempted to demonstrate the truth of the Bible by using empirical method and science.

• When science conflicts with the Bible, the scientific theory is rejected.

• Scripture is the inerrant word of God (Literally inspired by God)• Thus questions of the origin of the universe are found clearly in

Genesis.

• Often attack Big Bang and evolution as ‘only theories’.

Inerrant – Not liable to

error

The Bible says the earth is young

• James Ussher (18th century) used the dates and info in Bible to work out that creation took place on 23rd October 4004 BCE.

• (and thus that the universe is now slightly over 6,000 years old)

• Other creationists: While genealogies go back to

Adam, the Bible does not necessarily tell us the date that Adam was created.

But the Big Bang Theory challenges the literal interpretation of the

Bible...

• Genesis says universe created in six days

• BUT evidence reveals that ....

• universe created over 13.7 billion years,

• The Earth is 5 billion years old

What is the evidence for this?

• Red Shift Effect (shows the universe is expanding)

• Radiometric dating – method of dating physical objects by measuring the amount of radioactive decay, e.g. Radiocarbon dating, effective up to 60,000 years; other forms of radiometric dating used for objects like rocks older than 60,000 years)

Other theological challenges by the Big Bang theory

• The Big Bang may appear to challenge God’s role as creator, the First Cause of the universe

• Providential creation (intentional expression of the goodness of God) ?

• Challenges the uniqueness of humankind

• Removes that humans were made for a purpose rather than through chance.

• Challenges the authority of scripture, and how we should interpret it.

So the scientific explanations of the universe pose a huge

challenge to several important Christian beliefs

The debate WITHIN creationism...

How creationists respond differently to these challenges

Young earth / Conservative creationism

• Earth only a few thousand years old (5,700-10,000 yrs), despite evidence

• ‘day’ – literally 24 hour period

• Humans lived alongside dinosaurs

• Fossil and geological evidence is dismissed as irrelevant since God may have ‘planted’ the so-called evidence as a test of faith.

• Apparent Age Theory – the universe appears old because when God created the world, Adam was already an adult, trees were already fully grown etc.

• 10-45% of American adults, depending on various polls.

Old Earth creationism Gap creationism• form of Old Earth

Creationism• six-day creation, literal

24-hour days,

• gap of time between two distinct creations in the first and the second verses of Genesis, explaining many scientific observations, including the age of the earth.

Progressive creationism• More liberal interpretation of Genesis,

without disregarding it.• They can accommodate the fossil

record and geological evidence through this interpretation.

• ‘day’ – period of time.• Psalm 90:4 “For a thousand years in

your sight are like a day that has just gone by.”

• Also known as the ‘Day/Age Theory’• Each of the days of creation in

Genesis represents a long age• The ‘days’ are not to be taken literally• God’s time is not the same as our time

Conflict between science and religion is epitomised in the debate between the Big

Bang and Creationism...

Some atheistic scientists, especially Richard Dawkins, have popularised an unbridgeable

gap

Faith ‘is the great cop out, the great excuse to evade the need

to think and to evaluate evidence. Faith is belief in spite

of, perhaps even because of, lack of evidence’

(Speech to the Edinburgh International Science Festival,

April 15, 1992)

Alistair McGrath, The Dawkins Delusion

“One of the greatest disservices that Dawkins has done to the natural sciences is

to portray them as relentlessly and inexorably atheistic. They are nothing of the sort; yet Dawkins’ crusading vigour had led to the growth of this alienating perception in many parts of North American conservative

Protestantism.”

NO NEED FOR GOD! (God of the gaps)

As the universe can be explained by various theories such as the Big Bang and evolution, there is no need to believe in a Creator God.

Peter Atkins, a leading chemist and atheist

I think it’s one of the several legs on which belief in God rests. If physics can

show that one can account for the creation without invoking a creator of any kind, then that is one of the legs saws away; it’s one more reason why

one shouldn’t believe in a Creator God.

• All Christians are NOT Creationists (and Biblical literalists) while all scientists are not atheists in the Dawkins camp.

• Many scientists are Christians.

• Many Christians accept the Big Bang theory and evolution.

Many attempts at reconciliation within the debate...

• Symbolic interpretation

• Scientific support for Christianity

• Intelligent Design

• Theistic evolution

Symbolic interpretation of Genesis• “The stories in the Bible

are setting out spiritual meanings of very great depth and significance.

They’re not meant to be literally true...

• (Keith Ward, theologian).

Big Bang supports Christianity• The Big Bang might be used to

support the doctrine of creatio ex nihilo since scientists think that nothing existed before the Big Bang.

(though it is doubtful from a textual perspective that this is what Genesis 1 says)

• The Big Bang could support the accuracy of Genesis 1 (the first thing to be created was

‘lightlight’)

Big Bang supports Christianity

• The Big Bang might be used to support the doctrine of creatio ex nihilo since scientists think that nothing existed before the Big Bang.

(though it is doubtful from a textual perspective that this is what Genesis 1 says)

• The Big Bang could support the accuracy of Genesis 1 (the first thing to be created was

‘lightlight’)

Intelligent Design• Fine Tuning• The Anthropic Principle

• If the physical laws of the universe were different there would be no life and no stars as we know them to provide energy to sustain human life.

• This is used as evidence to suggest the universe is created by God.

• Often Intelligent Design is linked closely with Creationism.• Arthur Brown1. Ozone layer’s purpose (to filter ultraviolet rays in order to protect

life) could not have happened by chance.• Dr Morowitz. 1. Complexities of protein molecules = the odds for such an object to

happen by chance stand at 1/10 236.

Uses scientific discovery to support belief in God

What are the problems with this theory?

Chance vs. Intelligent Design

• Atheists can argue that the universe is merely a matter of random reactions - CHANCE

However Keith Ward argued:• It would have been infinitely unlikely that this universe

would ever come to exist if it was a matter of blind chance.

• Therefore intelligent designer more likely.• Richard Swinburne = 1. Probability that the world happened by chance so small

- higher chance made due to a plan or purpose.

Goldilocks Effect

• The term ‘goldilocks effect’ derives from the children’s story “Goldilocks and the Three Bears”. In the story Goldilocks decides, amongst other things, to eat one of three bowls of porridge; the first being too hot, the next too cold, but the final one she picks for being “just right”.

• In debating the origins of life on earth it is argued that it cannot be random chance that the exact conditions exist for life

Theistic evolution • Classical religious teachings about God are compatible with the

modern scientific understanding about biological evolution.

• Big Bang and evolution tools used by God in his creation.

• Theistic evolution is not a theory in the scientific sense, but a particular view about how the science of evolution relates to religious belief and interpretation.

• Pope Pius XII used this idea to declare Big Bang in line with Christian belief

• God= agent of creation• Big Bang= mechanism of creation

Evaluation of the Big Bang Theory

• Big Bang theories are:• Incomplete• Depend on the existence of a large number

of scientific laws, e.g. Quantum laws (which we don’t yet fully understand)

• Based on evidence but also a certain amount of theory

• The Big Bang itself is not a sufficient explanation for the existence of the universe

NOMA: ‘Non-overlapping Magisteria.

• Stephen Jay Gould - concept of NOMA to describe the relationship between science and religion.

• (Magisteria – area of authority that someone has.)

• Religion and science can co-exist together because they each concern different areas and fields of human experience.

• Religion concerns meaning, purpose and moral values, while science concerns matters of fact and explanations of why things work as they do.

How / Why distinction

• Science explains how how things happen (mechanisms, processes...)

• Religion explains whywhy things happen (purpose, value...)

• BUT oversimplification?

• Science also tries to explain why, and religion often is seen to explain how (e.g. Gen 1).

• E.g. Gravity clearly explains why an object with a mass is attracted by other objects that have a mass.

Before Darwin…

• William Smith- (1769-1839) found fossils of different creatures to those in existence

• Charles Lyall- Principles of Geology (1830) process of continual change- ‘uniformitarianism’

• Both allowed for agency of God

• So God still creator and humans still special

Darwin (1809-1882)

• The Origin of Species (1859)

• First suggestion of mechanism for species to develop which did not need God

• Naturalist aboard HMS Beagle- 1831-1836

• 20 years to assemble evidence for his theory

Process of ‘Natural Selection’

• Within any species, variations/ characteristics which help some individuals survive better than others

• Those who survive have better chance of breeding and passing on their characteristics

• Over successive generations, these ‘helpful’ characteristics become found in greater number of individuals

• Hence, gradual modification in favour of characteristics which aid survival

Darwinism ‘Origin of Species.’Darwinism ‘Origin of Species.’

• Natural Selection

• “Survival of the fittest” (termed coined by Herbert Spencer) healthiest survive and pass on genes

• Darwin’s theory of Natural Selection would explain that the eye is the result of countless generations of genetic development and mutation.

• So what Aquinas and Paley see as intelligent design• Darwin sees as a natural and random process

Key events in the Darwinism v Creationism argument:

• This is where Professor Michael Behe. • He noted that Darwin had said that if a complex organism could be

found that could not have been created from numerous slight modifications (as would have to be the case if the theory of evolution were true) then his theory would fall apart.

• Behe focussed on the flagellum of bacterium - he said the flagellum was far too complex to have developed through evolution – he said it was ‘a machine’ not something that had evolved from a simpler organism. It must therefore have been created by a Designer – this is the Theory of Irreducible Complexity (as in it’s impossible to reduce it to a simpler level) and Intelligent Design. Behe said such evidence could be found even at molecular level.

Supporters: Anthropic Principle Supporters: Anthropic Principle ( relating to humans)( relating to humans)

• F. R. Tennant in ‘Philosophical Theology’

• Universe is not chaotic - more deliberate

• Universe designed so that evolutionary process would create an environment in which intelligent life could exist.

(supports both evolution and Designer God)

• If minute changes occurred intelligent life probably wouldn't have developed.

• E.g. the earth is roughly 91-93 million miles away from the sun, if it was any closer or further away humans could not exist on the earth.

• Therefore God must exist

Aesthetic ArgumentAesthetic Argument

• F. R. Tennant• Humans appreciate the beauty of their surroundings

–enjoy art, music and literature.• This not necessary for survival (e.g. not important in

evolution)• Therefore evidence of a divine creator not just

natural selection.• Very good criticism again evolution• Support of Teleological – purpose of design• However remember Dawkins provides argument

about memes.

The Flying Spaghetti Monster theory

The Flying Spaghetti Monster was created by an Oregon State physics graduate, Bobby Henderson in 2005 as a protest against the decision of the Education board in Kansas to insist that Intelligent Design should be taught alongside Evolution. He wrote an open letter to the board professing belief in a supernatural creator who he said resembled spaghetti and meatballs. He called for his ‘Pastafarian’ theory of creation to be taught alongside evolutionary theory and Intelligent Design in science lessons.

So what is so good about Science?

• Empirical• Testing hypotheses• Question and challenge• Search for answers in physical world• Observation.

Something is observed to take place (e.g. Newton’s apple).2. Hypothesis

The scientist proposes an explanation of their observation (eg gravity).3. Experiment

The scientist tests the hypothesis. Stage two is repeated if the experiment reveals flaws in the hypothesis.

4. LawWhen enough experiments have been carried out, a ‘scientific law’ can be produced. It is a general rule that to make predications and inform other observations. Again, it can be revised if something else happens to falsify the rule.

5. TheoryThe scientist may develop a theory to link several laws together and form an underlying principle.

Evaluation of scientific method• Scientists are only human and might become rather attached to

their laws and theories, despite counter-evidence.• A number of assumptions are made to give parameters to the

experiment. Not all factors would be considered– Eg would you, as a scientist, consider

adding being a Crystal Palace supporter as a criteria in a study of causes of dementia?

– Would you consider adding religious belief as a criteria in a study of mental health issues?

• Perception can be fallible.– We expect to see things, so we see them.– We don’t expect to see things, so we miss them.

On the other hand

• Scientists are often willing to re-examine the evidence and consider new theories.

• Religions are not.

• Despite all the philosophical attempts to form ‘proof’ for the existence of God, most religious people don’t use reason and logic, they simply have faith.

• A feeling of ‘just knowing’.

How did the universe come about?

• The Big Bang (theory initiated by Yorkshireman, Fred Hoyle)

• 12-15 billion years ago (consensus is 13.7)

• A cosmic “explosion” of enormous energy and heat

• Started as a “singularity”, i.e. a space one billionth of the size of a proton

• How big is a proton? You could get about 500,000,000,000 of them in the dot of an “i”

• What was outside of this space – there was no outside!

• It is possible that this “singularity” was a relic from an earlier collapsed universe

• Scientists claim they can look back to one ten million trillion trillion trillionths of a second after the Big Bang

• In less than a minute after the Big Bang the universe was a million billion miles across and growing fast (“inflation theory”)

• Inflation caused ripples and eddies which allowed clumps of matter to form stars and planets

• In three minutes 98% of all matter there is or will ever be was produced

• About 4.55 billion years ago our sun was formed

• About 4.45 planet earth – formed from two grains left over from the formation of the sun, growing in size as they bumped into other debris

• About 4.4 billion years ago an object the size of Mars crashed into the earth, blowing out enough material to form a companion sphere, the Moon

• For the next 500 million years the earth continued to be pelted by comets, meteorites and galactic debris, bringing new materials and elements

• How big is the visible universe?

• A million, million, million, million miles across – but this is only a tiny, tiny fraction of the universe itself

• Why did all this happen?• Impossible to say!• It just did!• In philosophy, the

universe exists “by necessity”

• Some scientists claim that eventually they will achieve an absolute understanding of the origins of the universe (e.g. Stephen Hawking)

HTTPS://ITHINKTHEREFOREITEACH.WORDPRESS.COM/

If you would like further information please follow the link below to my

blog: