It seems prior to our modern understanding of science, scientific thought was primarily philosophical. Plato and Aristotle were the primary influences in all these areas of study. Aristotle followed Platonic understanding to a great degree, however, Aristotle continue to try and improve upon his teachers' philosophy and put forth his own ideas. In the above painting, the two are portrayed together, with Plato pointing upward putting forth the idea of absolutes. Aristotle is shown with his fingers spread wide and thrust down toward the earth emphasizing the acts of individuals or things in particular.
Copernicus was a doctor of canon law as well as a brilliant mathematician and astronomer. Copernicus’ great contribution, which revolutionized astronomy, was to disprove the astronomical system of the ancient Egyptian astronomer Ptolemy (a.k.a. Claudius Ptolemaeus c. 90-168 AD) and later Plato and Aristotle.
Copernicus's views were received with some skepticism as Aristtleism had become mixed with church doctrine and certain passages in the Bible were being interpreted literally as a defense of Geocentrism. However, after finally being convinced to publish his view on the astronomical system, he did so on the basis of his Christian conviction stating it was his, "loving duty to seek the truth in all things, in so far as God has granted that to human reason."
Galileo pointed to two positions, one which has always plagued the church stating: "they would have us altogether abandon reason and the evidence of our senses in favor of some biblical passage, though under the surface meaning of its words this passage may contain a different sense." and that of observational science stating: "Copernicus never discusses matters of religion or faith, nor does he use an argument that depends in any way upon the authority of sacred writings which he might have interpreted
It would be Galileo that would face the most severe attacks for being a proponent of a Heliocentric view. Galileo moved into a more modern view of scientific study and away from the philosophical understanding of science and would refer to St. Augustine stating: ". . . a most useful doctrine of St. Augustine's, relative to our making positive statements about things which are obscure and hard to understand by means of reason alone. Speaking of a certain physical conclusion about the heavenly bodies, he wrote: "Now keeping always our respect for moderation in grave piety, we ought not to believe anything inadvisedly on a dubious point, lest in favor to our error we conceive a prejudice against something that truth hereafter may reveal to be not contrary in any way to the sacred books of either the Old or the New Testament." - Galileo, letter to Duchess Christina
It is the idea that in our reason we can conclude certain things to be true that facts may later determine to be false. Geocentrism was being held by the Church, not because of observation but the interpretation of scripture. Therefore it was concluded that scripture was saying something it did not say. Galileo was highly criticized because it was thought he was contradicting the clear teaching of scripture, his argument was he certainly was not. He was only challenging a wrong interpretation of scripture.
erroneously. He stands always upon physical conclusions pertaining to the celestial motions, and deals with them by astronomical and geometrical demonstrations, founded primarily upon sense experiences and very exact observations. He did not ignore the Bible, but he knew very well that if his doctrine were proved, then it could not contradict the Scriptures when they were rightly understood" - Galileo, letter to Duchess Christina
His point is, that philosophy alone is insufficient in scientific matters, and relying upon scripture interpretation to determine the same is not wise. The Bible is not a scientific book, yet it contains truth, therefore one need not fear any scientific discovery to contradict Biblical truth. Our modern understanding of the way we view science does not conflict with what the Bible teaches. Alfred North Whitehead who wrote primarily at the beginning on mathematics, logic, and physics stressed that modern science was born out of the Christian worldview.
J.Robert Oppenheimer, whose achievements in physics included the Born–Oppenheimer approximation for molecular wave functions, work on the theory of electrons and positrons, the Oppenheimer–Phillips process in nuclear fusion, and the first prediction of quantum tunneling would echo the same sentiments as Whitehead, though neither men were known to be Christians. Oppenheimer believed that if it were not for the rationality of God in the Christian belief, the incredible labors of scientists would be without hope.
Our problems today arise not because Christianity and Science are at odds with one another, but because science has done what previously had plagued the church, they moved into the philosophical realm of explanation. They have mixed the truth of their discoveries with philosophical reasonings to develop credible theories of cosmic events.
Having done so, they are able to present us with amazing discoveries that are indeed truly fascinating. However, not yet having discovered or observed the full and complete picture, they then fill in the gaps with their philosophical reasonings of how those discoveries came about and developed. Since their philosophical reasonings are not rooted in Biblical truth but are in fact opposed to it, their theories naturally find themselves in opposition to Christian thought. Thus we have our apparent conflicts between Christian beliefs and the scientific community. There is a comparatively small group of scientists who do hold to Biblical truth much like Copernicus and Galileo. It is here we find those referred to as Creationists, they take those fascinating discoveries and apply them to the Biblical truth they understand, and from there try to develop a creatable workable model for the Cosmos.
One such example is distant starlight. With all the advances in technology and the measurability of the speed of light, it is an observable fact the stars are billions of light-years away. Since the creation account in Genesis only allows for 6 to 10 thousand years of earth history, you can say, "Houston, we have a problem!" The scientific community at large induces the Big Bang theory as an explication for this with an evolutionary process of billions of years to our present day. Presto, they have the answer. However, all they have is the distance of the stars and the speed of light as their observable facts. A big bang and billions of years of time are philosophical applications to explain the facts they have observed. For they did not observe the big bang, nor have they observed billions of years, those philosophical answers are used to explain what they have discovered. Admittedly that is a simplified version, for there are many complex factors involved, but it is the essence of the issue.
What is not talked about very much is the problems with the Big Bang and billions of years, the starlight provides very difficult problems for that model too. In the big bang, we are told, the light could not have been exchanged and the universe was expected to have many variations of temperature, but this was not the case when measured. To explain this difficulty they induce“inflation of the universe.” In other words, very quickly after the big bang, the fabric of space in the universe supposedly expanded very quickly (faster than the speed of light), then instantly slowed to the rate we see today. But what caused all that?
They suggest that some field existed that caused inflation. There is no direct evidence of inflation; that is, there is no independent evidence. Inflation was invented to solve the horizon problem. We have some very fascinating observable facts, but they don't tell the whole story. So what we call the Big Bang is a mixture of fact and imagination to try and explain a cosmic event. It is their imagination that is in contradiction to Biblical truth and not the observable facts.
Creationists as well have observed these fascinating facts, but they do not have the full picture to work with either. Therefore they postulate from a different perspective and offer models for this cosmic event as well. Some are more credible than others, remember, we don't have a full picture of the event, so whichever side we approach it from, we must postulate what may have occurred.
Some of these advancements are light in transit on the day of creation. This has several problems, so many have abandoned this idea in recent times. Then there is the speed of light decay, which had some promise, but also many difficulties.
Dr. Russell Humphreys has a model called the “White Hole” cosmology. He surmises a white hole is like a black hole, except that matter flies outward from a white hole whereas matter falls into a black hole. Near the boundary of a black hole or a white hole, space and time are distorted. According to Einstein’s theory of general relativity, this distortion can be described as stretching the fabric of space, and time progresses at different rates depending upon where you are. This would be akin to (Job 9:8 ESV verse (8) who alone stretched out the heavens and trampled the waves of the sea;). However, Mr. Humphreys has the same problem as the Big Bang group, his model is not observable or reproducible, but it is workable with fewer problems.
Dr. John Hartnett in a different model unlike White Hole cosmology where the bounded universe was in four dimensions, assumes five dimensions. Like the Humphreys model, the Hartnett model also relies on time dilation, a massive amount on earth. He postulates that most of this occurred on day 4 of creation week resulting from space expansion as God was creating galaxies. So time was running at different rates with six days passing on earth but more time passing elsewhere. Much of this dilation of time would have occurred during creation week, as opposed to Humphrey’s model where it occurred all along at a more steady rate. Hartnett has produced some interesting results and both models are still in development
.
There are a number of other very interesting theories that have been developed by creation scientists that are very plausible. Several offer explanations that present much fewer problems scientifically than the present Big Bang theory currently does. The problem of distant starlight actually turns out to be a bigger problem for the evolutionary model than it does for creation models. The bottom line is that Christians and science have nothing to fear from one another, they are best of friends.
Keep studying the plain text,
David
