On the Big Bang

3/22/2014

I was born in 1971 and from childhood was taught about how God created the world (and the universe)  in seven days and many years later instructed Noah to build an ark in preparation for a flood that covered the earth.  From the beginning, I have accepted this as fact.  I have never confused it with the fables of Paul Bunyan, the fantasy of Leprechauns,  or the mythology of Zeus.  God, creation, and the ark were fact while Buynan,  Leprechauns, and Zeus were not.  I later learned that the Easter Bunny and Santa Claus were made up but that never shook my faith in God or the stories of Adam and Eve.

In 1983, I entered 7th grade with Mrs. Vance as my science teacher.  She was reluctantly obligated to tell us about the “theory of evolution” as one of the explanations of the origin of man.  Now at this point I know that some readers are already pounding their fist and shouting “It’s not a theory!  It’s proven fact.”  Nevermind the fact we still refer to the “theory of a relativity” (as opposed to “the principal -or the law- of relativity”).  Also nevermind the fact that Geometry abounds with theories.  It was simply taught to me as the “theory of evolution” from day one.  Mrs. Vance was clearly somewhat skeptical about it and would clearly rather not mention it.   The State of Georgia Public School System, however, felt otherwise.  So I was taught that man came from apes which came from fish which came from a sea on a planet which came from a big explosion (or bang).  The Big Bang was instant and was followed by millions of years of evolution.  It was not long before I accepted gravity and the periodic table of elements as scientific fact and the Big Bang and evolution as … well as something closer to Leprechauns.  Many years later as an adult I watched the 1968 version of “The Planet of the Apes” and thoroughly enjoyed it as fictional entertainment.  My wife, however, would not even watch it because she was raised to be even more dismissive of evolution than I was.  The very idea of apes being humanlike was too close to evolution which was too close to heresy.   In my late teens and early twenties, I saw several shirts, bumper stickers, and the like that said “I believe in the Big Bang theory.  God spoke and ‘Bang’ it happened.”.  This was meant to be a clever play on words that confirmed creationism and denounced the Big Bang.  

I have become increasingly dismayed to see science and religion pitted against each other as adversaries.  Many on both sides treat the two as mutually exclusive.  To me both have their appeal.  Science claims to forever be searching for the truth and willing to discard in an instant any idea that no longer holds water.  Religion claims to already know the truth and to be unshaken by the latest fad theory.    Some fear that too much attention to science breeds a society without morals and leads to abortions on demand.  Others fear that too much attention to religion breeds dogmatic ignorance and leads to the bombing of abortion clinics.  Some say religion is fine for feeding the poor and counseling the grieving, but should stay away from explanations of our origin.  Others say science is fine for creating more fuel efficient cars and curing cancer, but should stay away from explanations of our origin.  I, however, find myself in the middle.  I think the two increasingly support the other.  The only reason I care about creation at all is that it came from the Bible.  In general, the BC part of the Bible is less important to me than the AD part of the Bible.  While I discern a difference between the stories of Zeus as fiction versus the stories of Noah as fact, I do not discern a difference between Adam and Jesus as regards historicity.  Consider the statement: “I am 42 years old and am the President of the United States”.  It is not accurate.  At least not completely.  The fact that I am NOT the President of the United States does not invalidate the the fact that I AM 42 years old.  Many people view the Bible like this.  Part of it (such as the stories of Jesus) is true and part (such as stories of creation) is not.  While that is certainly possible and logical, it is also troubling.  If I were on the witness stand and made the above statement, it might be said that it brings into doubt the credibility of the witness.   In other words, if the Bible is wrong about creation, what else might it be wrong about?  Who is to say which is which?  This is the reason Christians are so adamant about creation.    

During my college years the term “Intelligent Design” began to gain favor over “Creationism”.  This seemed to be a peace offering from the religious side.  It was a way to say there is likely some intelligent force that engineered the universe with intent without having to mention a name for this intelligent force or spell out what thing was created on what day.  It took advantages of verses in the Bible that say that to God one day is like a thousand years (calling into question the 168 hour version of creation) and discounting the need to quibble over young earth or old earth views. It also allowed the religious to embrace (or at least accept) the idea of the Big Bang and still maintain their view of what initiated the bang.  What was once an opposing argument was now a supporting one.  The juxtaposition has continued from then until now.  This was most striking when just a few days ago news broke that a team of astronomers at the South Pole led by John Kovac discovered, through the BICEP2 experiment, ripples of primordial gravitational waves that came from Big Bang itself.  These waves support the idea of cosmic inflation which says the universe went from subatomic size to a trillion trillion times that in less than second.  I almost laughed out loud when I discovered that both science and religion seemed to be shouting “See! I told you so.”.

As for me, I first thought the Big Bang was just myth.  Then I thought it confirmed my religious beliefs.  Now, when I hear about the the Big Bang theory,  I mainly just think of the zany antics of Sheldon Cooper and his friends.