On my way home from my class I heard a re-broadcast of Midmorning on KNOW from Monday, the 14th. They had guest Simon Singh, author of “Big Bang: The Origins of the Universe” answering calls and emails from those listening to the program. It was only mildly interesting to listen to because Singh already has his mind made up — the Big Bang, while theory, is the only worthy theory of teaching when it comes to the origin of life.

He made remarks to the effect that the job of science is to essentially explain natural things with natural evidence. One example being the process of heating up the molecule H₂O in all its forms — from ice you have water, from water steam, from steam plasma and the science behind that. While he is care-free in his exploration of the theory of Big Bang being the true origin of the universe, it still remains this: a theory. Not truth. Not hard, cold fact. It’s simply a theory with some plausible explanations for the way things came to be.

Now I’m not one to stand up and say, “Mr Singh, you’re wrong!” simply because his sincere opinions and beliefs are contrary to my own. But I will say this — he’s boxing himself into a narrowly-defined world of scientific views, where God is conveniently left out of the picture. His belief is that religion and God should be left out of science, regardless of your faith or persuasion — but by staunchly adhering to that belief, he fails to truly explore the possibility that perhaps the mysterious, unknown supernatural figures [God] may also be very natural and have a great deal to do with the balance of things in the natural.

Science has had a life cycle of millions of theories that have been tested, thrown out, kept, made law, whatever — people stepping out on great limbs of scientific hunches (the educated guess) to make claims that something is ____ because ______.

Hubble believed that some of the most distant stars are red in color and that they are red because they are moving further out away — the galaxy is expanding and growing. Now you can take the most powerful telescope you’ve got and study all the stars in the universe that you want, but you still really don’t have proof that the stars are actually moving outward or further out — Singh’s conclusion that it is a result of the Big Bang. Maybe it is. Maybe it isn’t. Until you can actually measure and compare the distance of a star one year to its distance one year later or even ten years later, you’re still making assumptions or educated guesses based on other factors that could be related.

So here’s my beef and then I’m going to try and go back to bed — yes, I was lying awake and couldn’t get this out of my head, so I had to blog it out.

Say it however you want or position it how you will, The Theory of Evolution and the Big Bang are both just theories. They’re not documented proof and I believe will always have a certain level of unknown mysteries about it. But to inundate our children with it at the elementary and junior high levels in their science classes is simply unnecessary. In math they teach about the facts about math — two plus two is four. Not might be four. In History they teach about American and World History (albeit somewhat tainted — tainted because history was usually “written” from the perspective of the victor/conqueror of that period). Bottom line, we teach our kids facts.

In science, lets teach them about atoms and molecules, the basics of biology and astronomy. But when it comes to theories, leave that subject matter for the older students who are curious and wish to pursue the study of the Big Bang theory or Evolution. Sure, give the kids a basic cliff notes version of the theory of evolution or teach them how some scientists think the solar system was created by some big cosmic bang they can’t explain. But don’t teach it like it’s fact.

And don’t think I’m going to leave the Intelligent Design group out of this little rant. James Dobson and the crew can just settle down when it comes to petitioning for the schools to force them to teach Intelligent Design (ID), added as a component of the science curriculum. There really isn’t much about ID that offers good scientific study. Don’t get me wrong, I do believe that there’s more to what went into the creation and evolution of our world than just some plasmic explosion in the sky that cooled down to form stars and planets and sophisticated, opinionated and intelligent people blogging at 12:20 am CST. I find it difficult to comprehend how my life is at all an accident or an after-the-fact bi-product of some chemical, atmospheric reaction in the sky.

How I think the whole matter should be settled… give both sides 30 minutes worth of teaching, presenting to the kids that these are two theories that are sincerely believed by different people. And after the one hour dedication to big bang and creationism is presented in your science class, you’re done with the deal for the year. If the kids really want to learn more, have BOTH resources available for them to explore on their own.

When I was a kid, I got really excited in science class when the teacher taught about the weather and storms. But most inevitably it was a passing, brief subject taught in the context of something more general. So to satisfy my own curiosities and learn more, I would just go check books out at the library and learn about it on my own. I believe the same should be done with this whole quandry between Creationism and Evolutionism. Neither camp should be given the majority platform in a school setting but given equal opportunity for the kids to listen and decide for themselves.

Back to Mr. Singh. I don’t know what he’s so afraid of, mixing the idea of supernatural involvement in science — that it’s some cosmic, superstitious thing people cling to when trying to explain the unexplainable. A crutch. But is it really a crutch? Is it just some whimsical idea that perhaps we’re apart of something much larger than we can see ourselves in the here and now?

I think if Mr. Singh took a more explorer/adventurer approach to science, he wouldn’t be afraid to explore how science and the supernatural can and do co-exist. I’ve just seen too many “coincidences” in my life to just dismiss that there is no “higher power” or a Creator. I don’t see the harm in presenting the theory of ID alongside the theory of Evolution. Let the kids duke it out internally for themselves; let THEM decide. But let’s get back to teaching proven FACT in our schools and stop worrying about this “origin of life” mumbo jumbo.

November 18, 2005, 1:33 am

Filed under: Awareness, Culture, Spirituality

1 Comment »

1. Jamison said,

   November 18, 2005 @ 8:19 am

   Dude. I think I heard the same program you did, or at least a similar one from earlier in the week. The thought that kept popping into my head was, “Why is science so scared to mix with theology?” Science is more than willing to mix with other disciplines like history and philosophy, but when it comes to theology, out ya go. Most other schools are willing to mix too, even theology mixes with science in terms of archeology and dating of religious artifacts. But can science learn to play nice with the “God-people”? Guess not, and frankly that’s sad.

   It’s worth noting that it hasn’t always been like this. Sir Issac Newton was a scientist and a theologian, in fact he wrote more about God then about science. His drive for truth was often motivated by his desire to more deeply understand the divine. He wasn’t scared of mixing the two.

   In terms of ID, I can see science’s point that we can’t just go running to the “I guess God did it” excuse everytime we come to a mystery. But does that mean that the thoughts and theories of theology should just be excluded all together? One of the callers on the show I was listening to called in and mentioned that the Koran described the creation of the world very similar to the Big Bang, but the show’s guest cut him off and started into a little rant about how most religions want to say that the scienctific theories are in their sacred texts. Frankly, I think that’s a wonderful place to have a scientific discussion! “How did the ancient peoples see science, and what can we learn about their understandings?” “Isn’t it interesting about the various convergences of scientific thought within the various sacred texts?” Questions like that don’t hinder our discovery of the future, but they enhance our quest for truth.

RSS feed for comments on this post

Leave a Comment

You must be logged in to post a comment.