A Biblical
Approach
to Astronomy,
Part 1: Biblical
Presuppositions
and Cosmology
Wayne Spencer
There are many fundamental questions
about astronomy that need to be answered from a young age creation
viewpoint. There is a need to bring the Bible to bear on some of these
questions. But, in trying to answer scientific questions using
Scripture there is great
danger of making interpretational errors. A number of the conflicts
between scientists and Bible scholars, or between creationists and
evolutionists,
have been caused by incorrect interpretation of the Bible. Thus it is
important
to clarify how much we can learn about astronomy from Scripture. The
Biblical
issues related to astronomy must be addressed before there can be
definitive
answers to some of the scientific questions. In the days of Galileo
this
problem became an issue of great historical importance (especially
around
year 1633). The Catholic church had sanctioned the Ptolemaic view of
the
universe, which held that Earth was in the center of the universe and
the
Sun and planets orbited around it. But, the Copernican view (later
called
heliocentrism, holding that Earth orbited the Sun) was new in Galileo's
day. Galileo was Catholic and the Catholic church was not only a very
powerful
cultural force but it was also considered the seat of academic pursuits
and
it funded scientific research. Galileo was threatened with death at the
stake by the Catholic Church unless he recanted his view that the Earth
was moving around the Sun and that the Earth was not in the center of
the universe. Galileo recanted and spent the rest of his life confined
and alone under
house arrest.
The whole Ptolemaic vs Copernican
controversy
came about because the Catholic church did not interpret Scripture
correctly. There may have been some scholars at the time who would have
said otherwise,
but the view that the Sun moved rather than the Earth was apparently
entrenched
in Galileo's time in the thought of many Christians and Catholics. In
addition,
the intuitive ideas about motion that most people had were reinforced
by
the Ptolemaic model.
The old Ptolemaic system and
variations
of it are referred to as Geocentrism. Even today there continue to be
some Christian groups who hold that the Earth does not orbit the Sun.
The modern
form of this concept is referred to as Geocentricity.1
Geocentricity
is not the same model as the old Geocentrism. However, believers who
hold
to Geocentricity today continue to make interpretational errors that
lead
to their views. Geocentricity believers today are sincere Christians as
far as I know. There are two organizations today that promote
Geocentricity. One group believes the Earth rotates, the other believes
it does not rotate. They hold very strongly to the inerrancy of the
Bible, which I applaud them
for. Occassionally creationist publications will address the question
of
Geocentricity. However, to date these creation articles have mainly
attempted
to address scientific problems with Geocentricity. To me, the important
problem
with Geocentricity and the older Geocentrism is that they do not follow
sound
methods of Biblical interpretation.
Geocentricity believers also as
far
as I can tell always hold to a strict "King James only" view of the
Bible. So they would reject other modern translations. Because they
rely on the
exact words and phrases in the King James for their view, they tend to
come
to a forced unnatural interpretation of certain details. Remember it is
not any of our modern English translations which are inerrant, but it
was
the original autographs penned in the hand of the Biblical writers that
were
inerrant. This is one reason we should use more than one translation in
our personal study.
The strict "King James only" view
of
the Bible does not reflect sound scholarship. Other more modern
translations
are not perfect either, but relying exclusively on only one translation
while
disregarding others tends to lead to mistakes in interpreting
Scripture. The English language has changed significantly since the
King James Bible
was translated in year 1611. Also, many manuscripts of Biblical texts
in
their original languages have been found since 1611, including the Dead
Sea
Scrolls for example. These manuscripts allow scholars to have more
confidence
about what the Biblical text says. Furthermore, much has been learned
since
1611 from archeological and linguistic scholarship that has bearing on
Biblical
translation. A number of the arguments Geocentricity believers use
hinge
on verses in the King James that are very likely not translated well.
The
King James Bible is still a good translation for many uses, if you
understand
some of its limitations as a translation and enjoy its language style.
But
most Christians who hold to a strict King James view have no idea of
the
interpretational difficulties it causes them. Enjoying the language
style
and sound of the King James does not make a person knowledgable enough
to
adequately deal with the translational issues with it. This does not
mean
we should not use the King James at all, but for in-depth study other
translations
and reference tools should be used.
Some verses used in support of
Geocentrism
and Geocentricity include for example Psalm
93:1, Ps. 104:5, Ps. 119:90, and
Joshua 10:12-14. Geocentricity
believers today reject the hermeneutical
principle of phenomenological language (sometimes also referred to as
"observational"
or "anthropomorphic" language).2 This is the principle that
events
are described as they were seen and experienced by the people involved.
Thus, when the long day of Joshua is described it is only telling how
Joshua
saw and experienced the miracle, not giving a scientific description of
what
actually took place. Geocentricity believers would argue that this
would
mean God would be revealing an untruth in His word, something that God
knew
was not really accurate.
I would think of it more in terms
of
God using the language skills and understanding of the individual He
revealed
His word to. There is nothing untrue about a description of what the
long
day of Joshua was like to experience, which is what we have in Joshua
10. God did not intend to describe the actual mechanical or scientific
aspects
of what took place. Scripture is not written from that perspective. We
simply do not know exactly how God made the Sun "stand still" for
Joshua's
battle. God did not tell us. But the fact that God did not tell us does
not mean it was not historical, or that it is a figurative story. We
should
still praise God for the miracle of it.
Thus, there is no challenge to
Biblical
inerrancy in the heliocentric view of the solar system, in which the
Earth
orbits the Sun. There was therefore no reason at all for the Catholic
church
to be threatened or concerned when a scientist like Galileo argued for
a
Sun-centered view. The Bible does not address the question of whether
the
Earth orbits the Sun or vice versa. It is sad that at that time in
history,
the church did not have a better understanding of how to interpret the
Bible. The heliocentric view eventually won out over the Ptolemaic view
after many
years of debate. You may be able to say God used experimental science
in
the Copernican debate to correct the overly simplistic assumptions made
by the Church about Earth's place in the universe.
The unfortunate result of the
Copernican
revolution was that the Bible began to be discounted in terms of its
authority and historical reliability. As science prospered in the
1600's and 1700's
the Bible was no longer taken to be authoritative, in matters that
pertained
to science. In time, science came to have more authority in
western
culture than the Bible. Thus there came to be a concept eventually in
society
that the Bible only speaks to personal, spiritual, and moral issues but
not
to objective truth such as in history and science. This is not how
things
should be because God's word speaks with equal authority in everything
it
addresses.
The Bible makes a number
references
to the stars and the universe. Often it teaches significant things
about
God from these passages. There are also some ways in which these
passages
confirm certain concepts in astronomy. It is important that we think
Biblically
as Christians, so that we can evaluate ideas we are exposed to from
science
and so that we can answer these ideas with our children or in speaking
with
others around us. Active leading Creationists still do not have a
consensus
on a number of basic questions about astronomy. Thus there is a need to
apply Scripture to lay the foundation for further creation research.
The Bible affirms God's knowledge
of
the stars and His sovereignty over them. The Apostle Paul mentioned the
stars in I Corinthians 15:41
for instance, saying that "star differs from
star in splendor (NIV)." This implies that stars are not all alike.
Today
we know from astronomical research that there are great variations in
the
properties of stars. Psalm 147:4
is also interesting regarding stars. The NIV Bible says "He determines
the number of the stars and calls them each
by name." This is amazing. Scientists do not have names for all the
stars,
they only name some of them and number the rest according to 2 or 3
different
classification systems. But God has names for them all! In the NAS
Bible it says "He counts the number of the stars." Note the use of
present tense
here. The Brenton English translation of the Septuagint (Greek) Old
Testament
says "He numbers the multitudes of stars." This Psalm as well as a
similar
verse in Isaiah 40:26 seem to
indicate there is an ongoing tracking of the
number of stars (by God) that has continued throughout history to the
present. This could imply the number of stars has not been constant
since Creation. Today we know that stars have an end to their existence
and most astronomers
believe stars can form today under the proper conditions. Whether stars
form today is a question creationists still debate. But the ideas that
stars
are not all alike, they change, and they have an end to their existence
are
very consistent with modern astronomy.
Stars can go through various
stages,
though if the universe is only 6 to 8 thousand years old there may not
have
been time for most of them to change much. The changes in a star that
naturally
take place as it uses up its "fuel" is called Stellar Evolution by
astronomers. Note that this is a use of the word "evolution" that has
nothing to do with
origins, except for how it is limited by a young universe less than
10,000
years in age. So, Stellar Evolution might be better called Stellar
Aging. There is nothing contrary to Stellar Evolution or Stellar Aging
in the Bible. In Part 2 of this series, we will look at how Intelligent
Design is evident
in astronomy.
A Biblical Approach to
Astronomy,
Part 2: Intelligent Design
of
the Universe
It is important to clarify how much
we can learn about astronomy from Scripture. Before there can be
definitive answers to scientific questions from a young age
creation viewpoint, it is important to clarify the limits of what
Scripture does and does not tell us about astronomy. There are a
number of issues in astronomy in which there is a need for creative
original thinking from young age creationists. In the light of Romans 1:18-20, intelligent design
must have relevance to astronomy. Much of astronomy tends
to be based on the assumption that the Big Bang model of the universe
cannot be seriously questioned. Even a number of arguments that
the universe is designed by a Creator are (wrongly) based on the
assumption of the Big Bang. Young-age creationists, who have a
commitment to the authority of Scripture need to carefully evaluate
arguments from astronomical research. It is easy to err in one of
two ways in this endeavor. Either we can allow our assumptions of
what the Bible teaches to lead us astray in how we understand science,
or we can allow our assumptions from science to lead us astray in how
we understand the Bible.
There are a number of references to the stars or astronomical phenomena
in Scripture. They generally emphasize God’s greatness and
power. Psalm 103:11
illustrates the magnitude of God’s love for us by the distances to the
stars! There are occasional references to constellations, and to
God “stretching out the heavens” at creation (see Isaiah 42:5, 44:24, 45:12, or Jeremiah 10:12). Isaiah 40:26 and Psalm 147:4 indicate God names all
the stars (see Part 1 of this series). Jeremiah 31:35-37 essentially says
that man will never be able to measure the heavens. Some of these
statements raise difficult interpretational questions about how they
should be understood.
For example, Isaiah 40:26
says God “brings out the starry host one by one and calls them each by
name. Because of his great power and mighty strength not one of
them is missing.” Should this be taken to mean that stars cannot
“die” as astronomers say? I would prefer to take it to mean
nothing in the universe, including stars or galaxies, is outside of
God’s control. So, no astronomical object would cease to exist
(such as a star exploding for instance) apart from God allowing
it.
In Jer. 31:35-37 mentioned
above, is Scripture somehow incorrect because astronomers have used
various types of observational data to calculate distances to galaxies
and other astronomical objects? I don’t think so. Every
time man learns a way to extend his reach in terms of what we can see
of the universe, there is always more out there. We have no way
of knowing how far the universe goes, we only know what we have
measured. There is even debate in astronomy sometimes about
whether the universe has a finite “size” at all. We know that
we’ve detected various galaxies and other objects at great distance,
but there is always more than we have measured. Many things about
astronomy should remind us of our human limitations and God’s infinite
nature.
Our Place in the Universe
The second verse in the Bible begins by describing the unfinished
condition of the Earth on the first day of the creation week.
Isaiah 45:18 says about the Earth, “he did not create it to be empty
but formed it to be inhabited.” Earth was made special to be the
home for life, especially human life. But it is not only the
Earth that had to be made special in order for it to be a safe home for
living things. God’s intelligent design had to extend from the
subatomic level within every atom to the largest scales of clusters of
clusters of clusters of galaxies. Without God’s intelligent
design on all these levels, we would not have a stable safe
existence. Earth is at the center of God’s attention in
Scripture. Genesis 1:16-17
include the stars in saying that astronomical objects were created “to
give light on the Earth.”
In 1984 astronomer William Tift and colleagues published some
observations about the redshifts of galaxies. Redshifts occur
when something, such as a galaxies’ motion, decreases the frequency and
color of the light given off by the galaxy (or star). These
changes in the light are used to estimate the distances to galaxies and
stars. Tift’s observations were very controversial and took a
long time for astronomers to accept. The measurements showed
redshift ratios did not take on just any values but they
concentrated around certain regularly spaced numbers. His results
implied there were regularly spaced walls of galaxies going out to
great distances.3 Over the years this observation has been
confirmed independently by other researchers and extended out to even
billions of light-years distance by the Hubble Space Telescope.
In the Big Bang view of the origin of the universe, it is very awkward,
perhaps impossible, to explain this. But creationist physicist
Dr. D. Russell Humphreys has published a recent paper showing that Big
Bang scientists ignore or do not think of a simple explanation of the
regularly spaced
galaxies.4
The regularly spaced galaxies shows an extremely large scale order in
the universe. Such a pattern cannot be an accident. The
best explanation is that galaxies were created in concentric shells
that are equally spaced in all directions. Our galaxy then would
have to be very near the center of the shells, otherwise the walls of
galaxies would not be equally spaced. Note that this would not be
the same as Geocentricity, which puts the Earth precisely at the center
of the universe. Rather the Earth would orbit our Sun and our Sun
would orbit the center of the Milky Way galaxy. The Milky Way
galaxy would be divinely placed in or near the center of the
universe. Scripture does not explicitly tell us anything about
where the center of the universe is in relation to us. But, this
finding certainly fits in nicely with the Bible’s emphasis on God’s
focus of attention being our blue planet.
This finding from astronomical science is very important. In Big
Bang cosmology, where our existence is ultimately an accident resulting
from natural forces, we could not have a special location in the
universe. Consider the following quote of Physicist Stephen
Hawking from 1973:
However we are not able to make
cosmological models without some
admixture of ideology. In the earliest
cosmologies, man placed himself
in a commanding position at the centre
of the universe. Since the time of
Copernicus we have been steadily
demoted to a medium sized planet
going round a medium sized star
on the outer edge of a fairly average
galaxy, which is itself simply one of a
local group of galaxies. Indeed we are
now so democratic that we would not
claim that our position in space is
specially distinguished in any way.
We shall, ... call this assumption the
Copernican principle.5
But God was not democratic in creating the universe! Also, God
made mankind distinguished as being created in His image. Man was
made for a personal relationship with the infinite Creator of the
universe.
There are a number of other scientific facts about where we are in the
universe that are of special benefit to us. In recent years some
scientists have realized these things that show how really “fortunate”
we are. For instance, if our solar system were located near the
center of our galaxy, we would be close to supernova explosions and
possibly dangerously close to a Black Hole where radiation and other
hazards could affect us.6
Our Sun orbits the center of the galaxy in a manner similar to Earth
orbiting the Sun. But, for the Sun (our star), there are many
other stars in the same spiral arm our Sun is near. Our Sun is
believed to be located between two of the spiral arms, but it happens
to move in synch with the spiral arms.6 This is good because if
it were moving faster or slower than the arms, it would cross the arms
and come close to other stars, which could cause various catastrophic
events to happen. Also, God has placed our solar system in the
middle of the spiral arms. This allows us to see both the dense
part of the central region of the Milky Way, and also see out into
distant space. If we were near the center of the galaxy, we would
not be able to see nearly as far into the universe because of all the
obscuring gas and dust that would block our view.
The Sun and the Earth
It is actually very significant that our star, the Sun, is an “average”
star. It is not too large or too hot. It is not a variable
star or part of a double or triple star system, which are quite common
in the universe. All these other types of stars would create
dangers to living things.
Our planet Earth is obviously specially made for life. This clear
from the study of other planets and moons in our own solar
system. It is also shown by recent findings regarding planets
orbiting other stars. Water is very necessary for life in many
ways and Earth is the only body we know of that is able to have liquid
water on its surface. Scientists debate whether Mars may have had
liquid water in the past, but Mars is not nearly so comfortable an
environment for life as Earth.
Earth has enough mass to hold gases such as carbon dioxide and oxygen
in an atmosphere so they do not escape into space. Earth’s
distance from the Sun is in the right range to make it’s temperatures
suitable for life. Also, if Earth were too close to the Sun, such
as like Mercury for instance, it would be tidally locked so that the
same side always faced the Sun. This would severely restrict life
or make life impossible. Earth’s Moon has a purpose as
well. The tides, caused by the Moon’s pull on the Earth, cause
the oceans to be essentially stirred and this has many benefits to sea
life and to us. Earth’s tilt is also very important and the Moon
helps stabilize Earth’s tilt. The seasons are due to Earth’s tilt
(23.5°). If Earth had no tilt it would cause ice to
accumulate at the poles and probably make much of the Earth too
dry. If Earth had too much tilt, the temperature extremes would
be too great for us.
Design, the Big Bang, and the Atom
We’ve seen how God has arranged our place in the universe and our place
in the galaxy. God has also intelligently engineered our star and
our planet to give us a safe stable existence. God’s intelligent
design of the universe extends further, down to the level of
fundamental physical constants and the properties of the atom
itself. A number of physicists and astronomers in recent years
have written about the many characteristics of the atom and the
fundamental forces of nature that have “turned out just right” to allow
for life. Some of these scientists argue that the properties of
the universe and the atom point to an intelligent Creator. Some
of these scientists are also Christians. However, usually these
arguments for design are put into the context of the Big Bang
cosmology. Thus statements will be made to the effect that God
controlled the Big Bang, especially in its early fractions of a second,
so that the universe would turn out as we find it today.
Ian Barbour is considered a top scholar on the issue of the
relationship between religion and science. He lists three things
as examples of this so-called “fine-tuning” of the universe.7 The
first point he makes is about what he calls the expansion rate of the
universe. It has been said that if the expansion rate of the
universe were smaller by even a minute fraction, it would recollapse
and nothing would form. If it expanded too fast then the gases
would be moving too fast for any stars or planets to pull
together.
This argument presumes the Big Bang. As we will see more later in
this series, the Big Bang does not agree with the Bible and has
scientific problems as well. Thus, the “expansion rate” rather
than being an argument for intelligent design, is actually an
indication that the Big Bang would not work. The expansion of the
universe in the Big Bang requires a very special rate to work that
there is no physical explanation for a process that would cause the
rate to be just right. Yet, scientists either just view this as
an insignificant curiosity or they ignore the conflicts with the Bible
and suppose that God used the Big Bang. Neither way of thinking
is Biblical.
Barbour also refers to the Particle/Antiparticle ratio. This is
another problem with the Big Bang. The Big Bang should produce
equal quantities of matter particles and antimatter particles, such as
protons and antiprotons, electrons and positrons, and neutrons and
antineutrons. Antimatter particles and the corresponding matter
particles completely annihilate each other on contact, giving off
radiation. The problem is why does the universe have almost no
antimatter when the Big Bang would produce both types of matter?
Physicists believe that there was just one extra proton (regular
matter) for every billion antiprotons. The same thing would have
had to happen for neutrons and electrons in order for atoms to be able
to form. Again, rather than being an argument for design or being
just a curiosity, this is a problem with Big Bang theory.
However, Barbour also refers to the formation of the elements as one of
the “fine-tuned phenomena.” There is a force within the nucleus
of the atom known as the strong nuclear force. It essentially
holds the nucleus of the atom together. If the nuclear force were
slightly stronger or weaker some elements in the periodic table could
not exist. Carbon, which life and our bodies depend on so much,
might not be stable if the nuclear force were slightly stronger.
This I think is a valid evidence of intelligent design, though it is
not about the formation of the elements, but about their stability and
their beneficial properties. Paul Davies is an Australian
professor of Mathematical Physics. He makes an interesting
observation about the order in the universe. “It is particularly
striking how processes on a microscopic scale–say, in nuclear
physics–seem to be fine-tuned to produce interesting and varied effects
on a much larger scale–for example, in astrophysics.”8
This shows that God has thought through all the details from the
subnuclear level to cosmological distance scales. I will let God
sum this up in His own words from Isaiah
44:24 (NIV):
I am the LORD, who has made all things,
who alone stretched out the
heavens,
who spread out the earth
by myself.
References
- Bouw, Gerardus D., A
Geocentricity
Primer, published by Gerardus Bouw, 1999, 4527 Wetzel Avenue,
Cleveland,
Ohio 44109.
- Sproul, R. C., Knowing
Scripture,
InterVarsity Press, 1977, pp 73-74; also see Geisler, Norman, Baker Encyclopedia of Christian
Apologetics,
Baker Books, 1999, p 696.
- Astronomy, "Sky Surveys Reveal Regularly Spaced Galaxies," June
1990,
p 10; Tift, W. G. and Cocke, W. J., "Global Redshift Quatization,"
Astrophysical
Journal, 287:492-502, 1984; Napier, W. M. and Guthrie, B. N. G.,
"Quantized
redshifts: a status report, Journal of Astrophysics and Astronomy,
18(4):455-463,
1997.
- Humphreys, D. Russell, "Our galaxy is the centre of the universe,
'quantized'
red shifts show," TJ, Vol. 16, Number 2, pp 95-104.
- Hawking, S. W. and Ellis, G. F. R., "The Large Scale Structure of
Space
Time," Cambridge University Press, p 134, 1973.
- Ward, Peter D. and Brownlee, Donald, Rare Earth, Copernicus, 2000.
- Barbour, Ian G., Religion
and Science: Historical and Contemporary Issues,
HarperSanFrancisco,
1990, pp 204-205.
- Davies, Paul, The Mind
of
God: The Scientific Basis For a Rational World, Simon &
Shuster,
1992, p 196.