(Scientists) will attempt to re-create the situation that existed in the split seconds just after the creation of the universe.
This particular quotation is interesting because it illustrates the willingness to refer to the creation of the universe. The question, though, is: what exactly does this mean? What do the BBC news department mean by it, and what are their listeners understanding by it?
For an orthodox Christian, creation refers to the bringing into existence of the material of the universe; creation, in the sense of the first moment of creation, refers to the bringing into existence of that universe from nothing "in the beginning", at a particular moment in time. It also indicates the sustaining of the universe in its existence so that it does not cease existing at any moment. An orthodox Christian will also recognise that this act of creation requires a being who is himself outside of the universe - noticing that the material of the universe does not have the power of bringing into existence, though it does contain intrinsic laws of development and progression. [Christians would also recognise the creation of spiritual beings (angels), though this is less relevant to a discussion of the visible universe; the creation of man as a composite material/spiritual being would also be included in such an understanding of creation.]
Most people's practical understanding is probably less clear than this, amounting to some sense of the "beginning of the universe", without specifically noticing the question of bringing into existence from nothing and without noticing the aspect of sustaining. It is probably more a sense of a particularly important moment of change or forming, than of bringing into existence.
(Scientists) will try to re-create the conditions just after the big bang that created the universe...
.... the big bang that led to the creation of the universe ....
These quotations - also from Radio 4 news bulletins this morning - demonstrate that the use of the word creation has not had a clear meaning today. At one level, it is possible to comment that this is just a carelessness in the use of language on the part of the script writer of the news bulletins. However, there is a clear trend, certainly within popular science writing and I believe amongst scientists themselves, that considers the universe to be in some way self-explaining. This is I think the intention of those scientists who have written, as scientists, about the anthropic principle; I think some Christians have been a bit incautious in employing the anthropic principle in support of the argument that the material universe was created for the coming of man, given that this is a bit at odds with the intentions of many of the scientists writing about it. An account which views the big bang as creating the universe is completely consistent with this notion of a self-explaining universe, carrying with it a certain carelessness in the real meaning of the word creation.
I recall reading, I think amongst the myriad works of Stanley Jaki (sorry, I haven't been able to find a good link about him - and it is time for my dinner!), a certain caution about identifying the moment of the big bang with the moment of creation. I think his point was that, strictly speaking, what the science could tell us about was the history and principles of the development of the universe over time, extrapolated backwards to a particular moment of "beginning" in the process that we are now able to study that is identified as a big bang. It did not rule out, as science, the possibility that another form of rationality with its own history existed before that which we now are not able to study. It is possible to be too ready to bring together the theological notion of creation and the scientific notion of creation/the big bang.
But it has been rather fun to see that word creation in use, albeit somewhat badly ... It perhaps prompts us to be clear about our own understanding and use of the word.
No comments:
Post a Comment