Jastrow and Genesis

This is an exceedingly strange develop- ment, unexpected by all but the Books theologians. They have always accepted the word of the Bible: In the beginning Jastrow and God created heaven and earth. [p. 115] [The scientist] has scaled the mountains of ignorance. He is about to conquer the Genesis highest peak: as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries. [p. 116] In these passages and others like them, the message is conveyed that modern science David A. Conway plainly "leads to" the biblical account of creation, to the view of the theologians: "In God and the Astronomers, by Robert Jastrow spokesmen for the discipline that gave us an the beginning God created heaven and (New York: Warner, 1980), 173 pages, paper, unimaginable cosmos, humankind descen- earth." As Lance Morrow, author of a Time $4.95. ding from inert material, and a "Essay" (February 5, 1979) puts it, Jastrow mechanistically operating Nature — if such is telling us that "the Bible was right after all specialists as these report that their findings and ... scientists and agnostics ... now find When theologians or ministers give indicate that God exists, then we must take themselves confounded." arguments that support religious belief, we notice. It is as though the FBI announced hardly find it noteworthy. Even if their that it had reluctantly concluded that there reasoning is clever, no one seems to care were no foreign spies in the United States or much and they are seldom given a hearing in as though the president of NORMAL stated the popular media. Probably this is because that he now had unequivocal evidence that the apologists appear to be doing only what the occasional use of marijuana causes they are supposed to do. After all, it is their serious and irreversible brain damage. If job to defend religious belief. Their more even science dictates that God exists, then sophisticated arguments may appear in what more can the skeptic require? professional theological journals; the Since public statements by scientists are simpler ones are printed up in religious likely to be regarded as authoritative, the tracts. The New York Times and the scientist has special responsibilities when Reader's Digest are unlikely to pay atten- speaking to society about science. And if he tion, and the public neither knows nor cares is speaking in favor of religion, when his what has been said. words are likely to be taken as even more The basic astronomical story that Jastrow Yet when a scientist says that there are authoritative than usual, the responsibilities tells is, for the most part, the familiar one. It scientific arguments that support religion, should be taken particularly seriously. briefly recounts the work of Slipher, Hub- the popular press takes notice and people Astrophysicist Robert Jastrow, author of ble, Friedmann, Einstein, and others, which listen with respect. It is not hard to under- God and the Astronomers,' is a recent ex- led to the recognition that the universe is ex- stand why. The scientist is regarded as a ample of the scientist writing in support of panding. It takes account of the fact that un- genuine authority, an expert in esoteric traditional religious beliefs. Unfortunately, til recently the steady-state theory was a matters that are quite unintelligible to the he is also a vivid example of a scientist fail- viable alternative to the big-bang view but layperson. Further, the scientist is regarded ing to live up to the responsibilities imposed that Pensias's and Wilson's 1965 discovery as expert in matters of "hard fact." The by his role as a scientific authority. of background radiation led to the demise of scientist's knowledge is seen as dem- the former, leaving the big-bang view onstrably correct, else how could polio II without any widely held competitor. Such an have been eliminated and men have been Jastrow's book actually does not contain a account of the current status of the big-bang landed on the moon? Thus, the scien- single straightforward, unequivocal thesis. theory and the reasons for its acceptance is tist, speaking as a scientist, can be a power- But, through a series of assertions, pretty much the standard one. ful authority on any topic. qualifications, suggestions, implications, According to the theory, the big bang oc- The degree of authority is even greater and insinuations, one overwhelmingly domi- curred some twenty billion years ago. At when the scientist is speaking in favor of nant impression is left. It is that evidence for that instant, the density of the matter was in- religion. For in this area the scientist is the currently accepted big-bang theory, which finite, as was its temperature. The size is un- regarded as a sort of hostile witness. explains the expansion of the universe, known. The result of the explosion was the Unemotional, purely rational scientists, means that: forming of the expanding universe as it is ... the astronomical evidence leads to a conceived of today in physical cosmology. biblical view of the origin of the world. The Physics tells an amazingly detailed story David A. Conway is associate pro%ssor and details differ, but the essential elements in of how the universe came to be in its present chairperson of the Department of Philosophy the astronomical and biblical accounts of state. The story ranges from particle forma- at the University of Missouri-St. Louis. His Genesis are the same. [p. 14] tion in the first millisecond, through the publications include articles on philosophy Or, in other formulations: beginning of galaxy formation after one to of religion and social philosophy. The scientist's pursuit of the past ends in two billion years, to the formation of the the moment of creation. first stars after four billion years, and so on 32 Dtagakilagr to the formation of the planets, including the must mean something less, so that perhaps (Within the universe, each event has a cause; earth, after more than fifteen billion years what he is saying is only that there is scien- therefore, the event described as the origin (that is, some 4.6 billion years ago). On tific evidence for a beginning and a creator, of the universe must have a cause. Compare earth, the biological history includes or even more modestly, merely for a begin- this with: Each part of the machine is con- microscopic life-forms appearing some three ning. nected to another part of the machine; billion years ago, mammals fifty million With this we have what could be called the therefore, the machine is connected to a part years ago, and Homo sapiens two million "Humpty Dumpty defense" of Jastrow. of the machine.) years ago.' Homo sapiens now inhabit a Lewis Carroll's Humpty Dumpty tells Alice, It does not matter here what the answers planet revolving around one star in a galaxy "When I use a word ... it means just what I to these and other questions of a similar of 10" (100 billion) stars in a universe of un- choose it to mean—neither more nor less." nature may be. What matters is that they are countable billions of galaxies. Alice is unsure that he can do that, and, of philosophical questions about a The biblical account is not quite the same. course, he cannot. He can use words, and he philosophical, not a scientific, argument for "The heavens and the earth," complete with can mean what he likes. But the words a first cause. In various particular forms, the man and woman, were created by God in six themselves retain their genuine meaning, argument and the questions have been dis- days. The biblical writers conceived of the and his listeners will understand that mean- cussed by Aristotle and Aquinas, by earth as a finite, flat surface supported by ing, not Humpty Dumpty's private one. Descartes, Hume, and Kant, by contem- waters. Above this surface hovered the sun, And so to use the Humpty Dumpty porary Thomists and skeptics. The issues moon, and stars. And above those there was defense in Jastrow's behalf really is to de- are neither uninteresting nor unimportant, another area of water separated from the fend him by claiming that he does not mean but the basic argument is philosophical and, sky by the firmament. The whole structure what he says. What he says is plainly false, as an argument of its kind, on balance not was supported by gigantic pillars.' Neither but that is not what he means to say. For he very convincing. mankind nor the structure of the universe is using words in "private" ways. But now Thus, it is simply wrong to make it appear "evolved" or would evolve from its created there is a more serious charge than that it is obvious that "a beginning" implies nature. The creation took place, if it can be falsehood. He is using words in ways that a first cause, and it is doubly wrong to pre- dated from biblical sources, some six thou- can only mislead his readers, readers who sent this position in the role of "expert sand years ago.° are likely to be all too eager to grasp un- witness," of scientist reporting to the public The scientific account of the size and critically at any scientific verification of regarding "developments going on in structure of the universe, its age, its evolu- their religious beliefs. astronomy" (p. Il). It is no part of tion, and the origin of man within it is astronomical or any other sort of scientific radically different from the biblical one.

Load more