In this blog post, we will compare the Big Bang theory and creationism, two different views of the universe, and examine which belief we choose between science and religion.
How did we come to exist? This question is the most fundamental question and also an important question that led humans to venture out into space. Some people will answer this question based on the Bible, while others will refer to modern cosmology, such as the Big Bang theory. However, most modern people who are familiar with science refer to the Big Bang theory based on science and dismiss creationism as unscientific, criticizing it as a religious story or lacking in factuality. This argument has some merit, as religion cannot be scientifically verified. The scientific method is a process of elucidating the principles of phenomena using evidence based on experience and measurement, and since it is impossible to measure the existence of a supernatural god or to experience it universally, it is impossible to prove the existence of god through science. Therefore, it may be natural for the above story to arise. However, just because creationism is unscientific does not mean that it is false, nor should it be treated as false. In modern society, science has gained a high status, and there is a tendency to blindly believe in science. As a result, there is often a dichotomous way of thinking that scientific laws are true and everything else is false. From this way of thinking, it would not be unreasonable to say that science, which criticizes religion as unverifiable and based on blind faith, is also a religion that blindly believes in scientific knowledge. Therefore, we will depart from this perspective and take a broader view, not blindly believing in religious beliefs, but thinking, “It is possible to think that way,” and then we will tackle this topic in earnest. In addition, through this article, we will examine the views of religion and science on the universe through the cosmology of science and the creation theory of general Christianity.
In modern science, cosmology is a field that encompasses all scientific theories and at the same time deals with many philosophical questions. “How does the universe work?”, “What is the essence of reality?”, “Did the universe need a creator?” These questions were originally discussed in philosophy, but are now being discussed in science. Before discussing these questions, it is necessary to examine the position of science. Although not all science is like this, modern cosmology is based on a scientific determinism that the future and past of the universe are completely determined by a set of complete laws. By excluding the possibility of miracles or the active role of God, it limits the role of philosophy. Furthermore, it takes a position that bypasses the debate between realism and anti-realism through model-dependent realism, which states that “there is no concept of reality that does not depend on pictures or theories.” Based on this fundamental position, various models of the universe have been proposed, and through these, science understands the universe. According to modern science, the universe began with the Big Bang. About 13.7 billion years ago, an enormous amount of energy was concentrated in a very small point, and one day, this point exploded, giving rise to the laws of nature and the beginning of time. At one time, it was in conflict with the steady state theory, but based on Hubble’s observation that the universe is expanding, the Big Bang theory became the representative theory of cosmology. Going further, M-theory emerged as a grand unified theory that integrates various cosmologies. According to M-theory, there are an enormous number of universes, and the creation of universes does not require the intervention of supernatural beings, but occurs naturally from the laws of physics. As can be seen from the above argument, science does not seem to require God. This may be a natural result, since when scientific models of the universe were first conceived, the possibility of divine intervention was eliminated from the outset. We learn this result under the name of science, but I wonder if it can really be called science. This is because it does not reveal principles based on evidence from experience and measurement, but rather derives principles from assumptions and a few pieces of evidence that can be estimated. Of course, it is impossible to experience and measure anything beyond 13.7 billion years, so it is based on model-dependent realism, but this is closer to a belief that “it must be so” than science. In other words, cosmology has many blind spots.
The biggest blind spot in modern cosmology is that it relies on chance. The Big Bang theory also relies on chance. The reason why orderly stars and galaxies were born from the chaotic explosion is that subtle differences in the density of matter immediately after the explosion contributed to the formation of atoms, which led to the birth of stars and galaxies. This raises the question, “Does this make sense when we consider the sophistication of the universe?” If we refute this more specifically through the anthropic principle, in the case of the nuclear force that constitutes matter, even a 1% difference in the nuclear force can change the amount of oxygen and carbon produced in stars by thousands of times. Even a change of 10³¹ in the gravity that is essential to the constitution of the universe would make the universe impossible. Einstein’s cosmological constant is precisely adjusted to 10⁵³ times 1. If neutrons were only 0.14% heavier than protons, nuclear fusion in stars would stop. If the mass ratio of electrons to protons were only 1% different, life would not exist. Carbon atoms have an excited energy of 7.65 MeV. Without this excited state, the carbon synthesis necessary for life would be insufficient at the center of stars. Summarizing these various adjustments, British theoretical physicist Roger Penrose argued that the probability of the universe existing by chance under the current conditions is 1 in 10¹²³⁰ (1/10¹²³⁰). Scientists also acknowledge the sophistication of the universe, and Dr. Stephen Hawking, who can be considered a representative of modern space scientists, also acknowledged that the laws of the universe seem to be tailor-made to sustain us. Therefore, Stephen Hawking and other scientists are looking for alternatives to solve the blind spots of the Big Bang theory, and the most representative alternative is the multiple theory, or M-theory. M-theory proposes a model in which our universe is just one of countless universes created by an infinite number of explosions. Therefore, it suggests that among an infinite number of universes, one or two universes are lucky enough to support life, and that those universes are the ones we live in. However, not only is there no evidence for this theory, there is also no mathematical verification to support it. Believing in the above hypothesis may require even greater faith than believing that God created the universe. From this point of view, it must be said that the cosmology claimed by modern science is also close to religion. Then, how does creationism explain this?
Creationism differs in that the world was not created by chance as described above, but was intentionally created by God. According to creationism, God created the world in six days. And according to the biblical genealogy, the age of the universe is about 6,000 years, which is vastly different from the 13.7 billion years claimed by science. However, such claims are impossible to verify scientifically because they involve the existence of a supernatural being, “God.” Therefore, although it is not possible to establish scientific principles or derive laws, people who believe in creationism support it by finding scientific evidence in the Bible or through counterevidence. For example, the claim that the world was created in six days and that the universe is about 6,000 years old cannot be scientifically verified because we have neither experienced nor measured it. However, it is possible to approach the claim that the universe is about 6,000 years old to a certain extent scientifically. We mainly know the age of the Earth and the universe to be in the billions of years. This is a method of measuring age using the half-life of radioactive isotopes, but there is one assumption involved in this method. One assumption is that the half-life is always the same, and another is that the isotopes must be in a pure state. If these two assumptions are not true, then the above method of calculating age is incorrect. There are recent examples of this, such as the radioactive isotope C14. C14 has a half-life of about 5,730 years, so it is used to measure objects that are tens of thousands of years old. At this rate, it should not be found in objects that are over 1 million years old, but it has been found, making the reliability of measurements difficult to determine. Another example is that the age of the Earth calculated using uranium is incorrect. The half-life of uranium is about 4.5 billion years, and when measuring the age of the Earth using this, it is assumed that it was pure uranium, that is, pure uranium without any other elements mixed in, and the amount of lead resulting from the half-life is calculated to be 4.5 billion years. However, if it was not a lump of pure uranium, but contained lead from the outset, the story would be different. Not only that, but the amount of helium produced in the process of turning uranium into lead is less than scientists claim (they claim that it all flew into space), which adds to the problem of measuring the age of the Earth. In addition to dating, we can also think about the age of the universe through models of galaxies and the shapes of stars. It has been discovered that the farther away a galaxy is, the faster it is moving away, and that the stars that make up those galaxies are also moving at different speeds. Considering that the universe is about 13.7 billion years old, older and younger galaxies should look completely different, but they are almost identical. This means that the universe is not that old.
As we have seen above, creationism, although not completely proven, has some scientific basis that can be supported to a certain extent. However, creationism depends entirely on the will of God, and there is no fundamental proof for it. Indirect proof can only be provided through evidence from other sciences or by refuting scientific contradictions, which has its limitations. However, just because it is impossible to verify the theory itself scientifically through supporting evidence does not mean that creationism is not true. In other words, the answer to the fundamental question of whether this is right or wrong depends on whether or not one has personal faith.
Religion and science are different domains. However, this does not mean that the domain of religion cannot be dealt with by science, or that the domain of science cannot be dealt with by religion. Nevertheless, at some point, we seem to have decided to divide these domains. We need to move away from dichotomous thinking and view science and religion from an objective perspective. Not only religion but also science starts from a leap of faith, as we have seen above, and there are many blind spots, such as discussions that are not in line with the nature of science. Therefore, we should refrain from blindly believing that science is highly objective and close to the truth. Therefore, we should not use science or non-science as a yardstick to judge the truth or falsehood of religion.
