Is the "Big Bang" Theory Irreligious?

Editorial published in Harrisburg Patriot-News, 25 July 2002, page: A-13.

During the current textbook controversy in the Annville-Cleona school district, critics of modern science have made two points that are not consistent. First, they worry that evolution is morally harmful, because (they say) it reduces everything to chance, whereas the Bible teaches that the world was made purposefully. Second, they object to a book that mentions the "big bang" theory of the origin of the universe, presumably for similar reasons. Apparently they do not realize that the "big bang" theory has led many scientists and others to see abundant evidence of divine purpose all around us. The history of the theory, and the religious overtones it has for many modern writers, contradict any effort to dismiss the theory as immoral or irreligious.

What we now call the "big bang" theory grows out of work done in the late 1920s by a Belgian astrophysicist, Georges Lemaitre-who was also a Roman Catholic priest. His theory explained recent observations by Edwin Hubble, showing that the universe is expanding in size. Lemaitre's theory implied that the universe has not always existed, but that it originated at a certain point in the past. Although Lemaitre advised the Pope not to give his theory a strongly religious interpretation, many have seen it as very friendly to belief in a creator God, and some have even called it a "proof" of God's existence.

Certainly the late Sir Fred Hoyle saw it that way. Precisely because he did not believe in God, and because he did not like the implications of Lemaitre's theory, Hoyle ridiculed the theory, calling it the "big bang" in derision. (Ironically, today's religious critics of the theory do exactly the same thing, from exactly the opposite motivation.) In 1948, Hoyle and two other English astronomers proposed the "steady-state" theory, to provide an alternative explanation without the implication that the universe had a beginning. However, the "steady-state" theory has been unable to explain a large amount of observational evidence gathered since the mid-1960s, and today it has almost no defenders in the scientific community.

Another feature of the "big bang" theory is also widely seen as having theistic implications. A large collection of scientific facts, related to the theory, gives one the overwhelming impression that the universe was "finely tuned" to allow the existence of life. In other words, it almost looks as if the universe "knew" that life was the intended result and "planned" accordingly. Even Hoyle was impressed, saying at one point that nothing had caused him to question his atheism more than this.

Many writers have seen in cosmic "fine tuning" overwhelming evidence for the existence of a purposeful God who created the universe. The list includes Jewish writers, such as Nobel laureate Arno Penzias and Israeli physicists Gerald Schroeder and Nathan Aviezer; and some prominent thinkers who are not religious in a traditional sense, such as astronomer Robert Jastrow and Welsh physicist Paul Davies. Among the most enthusiastic supporters of the "big bang" theory are many prominent conservative Christians, such as philosopher William Lane Craig, astrophysicist-evangelist Hugh Ross, and nearly all the leaders of the "Intelligent Design" movement.

Religious critics of the "big bang" theory frequently use arguments for design formulated by the "Intelligent Design" people. Apparently they do not realize that the "big bang" theory is central to the "Intelligent Design" position. Indeed, to see Christians attack the "big bang" theory as irreligious resembles theater of the absurd.

I close with a final irony. If religious critics of the "big bang" knew more about the theory they are criticizing, they might not oppose its inclusion in public school reading materials. But their stated goal is to prevent this type of education from taking place-an attitude which will only help prevent future generations of religious people from understanding a scientific theory that does not deserve to be attacked as irreligious.