Basic HTML Version
will have only one (dark and dis–
mal) end-is profoundly disturbing
to many scientists, astronomers, and
laymen alike. For many, the latest
conclusions of modern astronomical
science simply cannot be-or should
not be-true.
"This expansion is such a strange
conclusion," says Sandage. "One's
first assumption is that it cannot
really be true, and yet it is the pre–
mier fact. " For modem nonreligious
thinkers, there was great comfort in
a secular immortality of the uní–
verse, a grand system without begin–
ning or end , which cou ld be
achieved through the steady state or
oscíllating universe theories. But the
tr iumph of the big bang cosmology
has not only pointed to a definite
beginning for the universe, but toan
inevitable end as well. T he universe
not only is not immortal , its life
span appears to be rather clearly
defined.
The new cosmology is also very
unsettling because it brings us face
to face with the fundamental riddle
of ultimate origins. As long as the
universe could be plausibly said to
be eterna!, the question of origins
could be pushed into the remote
past, or perhaps dismissed , by sim–
ply saying the universe a lways
existed . But the big bang cosmology
has placed definite limits on the age
of the universe, and the question of
origins can no longer be easily
avoided.
Pe rhaps this is what bothered
Einstein, who, when he considered
the implication of the expanding
universe, wrote: "This circumstance
of an expanding universe is irritat–
ing.... To admit such possibilities
seems senseless to me."
Stated the famed Harvard as–
tronomer Harlow Shapely: " In the
beginning was the word, it was
piously recorded, and 1 might ven–
ture that modern astrophysics sug–
gests that the word was hydrogen
gas." But in his book
View from a
Distan!
Star,
Shapely was quick to
note: "Whence carne these atoros of
hydrogen ... what preceded their
appearance, if anything? That is
perhaps a question for metaphys ics .
The origin of origins is beyond as–
tronomy.
lt
is perhaps beyond phi-
40
losophy, in the realm of the to us
Unknowable."
A
Limit
to Cause and Effect
he big bang cosmology is
so frustrating because it
points to what may be a funda–
mental limit on the scientific con–
cept of cause and effect. Questions
concerning the prior history of the
universe cannot be answered be–
cause in the first moments of its
present existence the virtually in–
finite temperatures and pressures of
the primeva! cosmic egg would pre–
sumably have destroyed every par–
ticle of evidence that could have
provided a clue to the cause of the
great explosion. Such questions as
"What was the universe like before
the big bang?" may forever líe be–
hind the insurmountable barrier of
the moment of creation. " It is not a
matter of another year, another
decade of work, another measure–
ment, or another theory," contends
Dr. Robert J astrow, director of
NASA's Goddard I nstitute for
Space Studies. "At this moment it
seems as though science wiJI never
be able to raise the curtain on the
mystery of creation."
Still another reason for why as–
tronomers are irritated over the evi–
dence for an expanding universe is
that it seems to violate the spirit of
Copernicus. Nicolaus Copernicus
(1473-1543) is usually credited with
being the first to propose that the
earth was not the center of the uní–
verse. At the time, his suggestion
that the sun, not the earth, was ac–
tually the center of the universe
sounded dangerously heretical. But
in the ensuing centuries, the sun too
was dethroned from its alleged spe–
cial position, as was our Milky Way
galaxy and even our local group of
galaxies. As a result, by the mid–
twentieth century the official dogma
of astronomical science was that
there is no place in the universe
which is the center of the universe
and tha t the universe willlook basi–
cally the same no matter where an
observer is located.
The concept that there is no
unique place in the universe is often
extended to include
time
as weU
(i.e. , that the universe a lso looks the
same no matter
when
an observer
looks). But this is incompatible with
the big bang cosmology which spe–
cifically states that the universe did
indeed look much different in the
past and will look much different in
the future.
" How can we believe," asks Mas–
sachusetts Institute of Technology
astrophysicist Phillip Morrison ,
"that just a few billion years ago the
universe was totally different from
what we see today?
1
find it hard to
accept the big bang theory. 1 would
like to reject it." Yet the evidence is
that we do indeed live at a unique
moment in the life ofthe universe.
Finally, the new big bang cosmol–
ogy has proved unnerving because in
establishing that the universe had a
definite moment ofcreation, astrono–
mers have been brought-somewhat
unexpectedly and a bit reluctantly–
straight into the problem of the exis–
tence of a Creator God.
"Consider the enormity of the
problem," says Jastrow. "Science
has proven that the universe ex–
ploded into being at a certain mo–
ment.
lt
asks, 'What cause produced
this effect? Who or what put the
matter and energy into the uní–
verse?'"
Observes Dr. Jesse L. Greenstein,
astrophysicist at the California lnsti–
tute of Technology: " It is a terrible
mystery how matter comes out of
nothing. Could it have been some–
thing outside science? We try to stay
out of philosophy and theology, but
sometimes we are forced to think in
bigger terms, to go back to some–
thing outside science."
Perhaps the supreme irony of
modern cosmology is that the facts
of science, so often considered a
threat to belief in God and religion,
are in fact providing a remarkable
confirmation of the Genesis ac–
count: " In the beginning God cre–
ated the heaven and the earth."
o
RECOMMENDED READING
Where did the universe come from?
When did it begin? Who made it? For a
panoramic discussion ot the " whar · and
the " why " of the universe. write for the
free fu11-colorbooklet
OurAwesomeUni–
verse.
(Addresses are on the inside front
cover.)
The
PLAIN TRUTH December 1978