By Dr. Mark Waters

In 1931, Belgian cosmologist Georges Lemaître (1894-1966) published two papers, “The Expanding Universe” and “The Beginning of the World from the Point of View of Quantum Theory.” These short papers resulted in Lemaître’s legacy as the “father of big bang cosmology.” Lemaître, however, did not use the term “Big Bang.” This wording was coined by astronomer Fred Hoyle as a derisive reaction against Lemaître in a 1949 BBC broadcast. The previous year, Hoyle and others hypothesized an eternal, “steady state” universe. Before the research of Lemaître, Hoyle, and Sir Edwin Hubble, a majority of cosmologists asserted that the universe was static.

Lemaître’s calculations in 1931 and a previous iteration of his work in 1927 demonstrated two claims, (1) the universe is expanding and (2) an expanding universe logically extrapolates back in time to an infinitely small and dense particle that he called a “primeval atom,” now understood as the singularity that began expanding 13.8 billion years ago. Though Hubble was the first to observe physical evidence of the expanding universe in 1929, it was Lemaître (1927) who made the connection between expansion and the initial singularity leading to the claim that the universe had a beginning.

While the idea of an expanding universe was controversial among many in the scientific community, the suggestion that the universe had a beginning was the central point of contention. I have great respect for science and for scientists but, like any of us (including me), they can be so fixed upon an idea that their emotions and preconceptions trump critical thinking. In this case, an objection that some scientists had to the Big Bang theory was not based on scientific analysis but, rather, their fear that positing a beginning to the universe (against eternal static or steady state cosmology) could be used to assert a Creator. This objection could loosely be characterized as scientism, not science. 

The Big Bang, however, is not the key point of this article. The point in this context is that Lemaître, with a PhD from Catholic University of Louvain and another PhD from MIT, was also a Catholic priest with training in theology. I present him as a hard scientist who, simultaneously, was a person of devout faith. His mentor, Sir Arthur Eddington, was also a Christian and a member of the Society of Friends.

The promise of being a person of faith who affirms modern science led McMurry’s astrophysicist, Dr. Wayne Keith, and me to offer a course last spring entitled Faith and Science. We enjoyed co-teaching, co-learning, and especially curious and engaged students. A sampling of our topics included Big Bang, evolution by natural selection, the two conflicting creation stories in Genesis, brain/consciousness, the nature of time, God of the gaps, theodicy, free will/determinism/compatibilism, God’s action in the world, and more. 

We used the late Ian Barbour’s typology for analyzing interactions between each scientific theory alongside interpretations of scripture and faith. The typology includes four models: conflict, independence, dialogue, and integration. 

Barbour’s models are somewhat self-explanatory. Conflict, clearly, refers to conflict between faith and science. Independence means that faith and science are two separate fields of inquiry utilizing different kinds of questions and share no meaningful relationship. Each can be true within its own sphere. The famous paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould called independence “Nonoverlapping Magisteria.” Dialogue, the third model, is about learning from one another and understanding each other. Understanding the other may lead to reframed perspectives on either side or, at least, not stereotyping or demonizing the other based on misunderstanding. Mutual understanding, with or without agreement, is crucial. In class, the core concern that a few students expressed about Darwin’s theory of evolution was their misunderstanding that it asserts that humans came from monkeys. Instead, the theory demonstrates that humans and monkeys had a common ancestor in the distant past. Finally, integration refers to integrating specific elements of faith and science into a larger whole. Theistic evolution, though open to various interpretations and iterations, can be an example of integration. Theistic evolution is decidedly not the same as creation science or intelligent design, which most scientists and serious theologians consider to be pseudoscience. 

While most of us will validly find that one or two of Barbour’s four models appeal to us more than the others, I suggest that being “stuck” on any one of these models is short-sighted. Except for extremely highly specialized scholars trained in both science and theology, no single individual knows enough about every aspect of a particular scientific theory and, simultaneously, the complex intricacies of theology and biblical studies in an area related to that theory, to make declarative statements without first conducting significant background work. Actually, the whole career of the aforementioned dual-specialists involves consistent background work in both fields. Those of us who are not specialists in both science and theology (or either) have to discern conflict, independence, or integration through research and critical thinking at each juncture in the road. This process has to incorporate dialogue, whether in-person or accomplished through research within and outside of one’s own specialty. Rigorous study, dialogue, and reflection are the only way to affirm or deny any of these models in a specific case. This is why a course in faith and science should be co-taught by a scientist and a theologian. 

In class, Dr. Keith and I try to provide sufficient scientific and theological information on each topic to equip students to think critically and make their own decisions. We encourage students through discussion and targeted assignments to respond in ways that reflect conflict, independence, dialogue, or integration, or some combination of at least two of these, with reference to each theory addressed. We do not tell students what to think, but we do unapologetically seek to provide current scholarly information to help them to think broadly beyond what might be their comfort-zone.

In other words, we all have to do our homework rather than blindly stereotyping the “other” and their thinking. Michael Ruse, a philosopher of evolutionary biology, respectfully denies belief in God, but also rejects the simplistic thinking and toxic approach of the so-called “New Atheists.” Ruse states that Richard Dawkins, author of The God Delusion, would “fail any introductory philosophy or religion course.” Dawkins, professor emeritus of evolutionary biology at Oxford, is clearly smart within his own field, but he does not understand or utilize basic logic well enough to avoid ongoing logical fallacies when making his case against religion. In addition, he rejects philosophy and theology as legitimate areas of study, thus presupposing conflict before engaging or understanding. Of course there are people of faith, whether religious scholars or not, who are guilty of this same kind ideological thinking from the opposite corner. Fundamentalism is to religion what scientism is to science. 

As readers know, one can find an overabundance of dubious accounts of science, theology, and their interactions on the internet. Anyone wishing to learn more about the intersection of faith and science that represents legitimate scholarly perspectives in both specialties may want to start with The Center for Theology and the Natural Sciences or BioLogos (founded by Francis Collins, a prominent scientist and lay Christian who played a leading role in sequencing and mapping the human genome).

Dr. Mark Waters is professor of religion in McMurry University’s Department of Religion and Philosophy and Chair of the Division of Humanities, Religion, and Social Sciences

Top photo credit: Thomas Cizauskas on VisualHunt