Astronomy and Creation
By scientist and priest Emmanuel M. Carreira, S.J.

Emmanuel M. Carreira, S.J.

If we clearly specify the proper methodology and area of applicability of each type of knowledge (scientific, philosophical and theological), we can expect that each viewpoint will contribute with a partial image to our understanding of the Universe, especially when we deal with the most complex subject, the human person. And if the limits of each kind of knowledge are respected, there is no reason to fear contradictions when their statements are compared: the data obtained at the lower levels should be respected and taken into account when we reason at higher ones.

This is particularly necessary when we consider the possible inference of the concept of Creation from the data of modern Cosmology, a branch of physical science that in the past century has underlined the finite spatial and temporal parameters of the Universe, and its dynamical evolution from the first event of the Big Bang until the surging of life on Earth and its development to the human level.

In our current use of terms, when -in a university environment- we distinguish between the Sciences and the Humanities, the word "Science" has a more restricted meaning than it had in earlier times. It no longer describes every kind of knowledge that is developed through logical reasoning, but rather it is used almost exclusively to refer to the study of the activity of matter, in a world considered as really existing and endowed with properties that can be verified by any researcher of any culture. This is the meaning of "Physics" in the most general sense that includes Astronomy, Geology, Chemistry, Biology, and their multiple interdisciplinary relationships.

Science is born from the search for answers to multiple questions, and it is developed by questioning those answers when they seem inadequate before new data. In the words of Einstein, all science presupposes a double "faith": that the world objectively exists -independently of my psychological preferences or cultural conditionings- and that it can be understood, because it is not absurd.

Scientific Thinking

Those statements can be further clarified by appealing to the three great principles of rational thinking: the principle of Identity, the principle of Non-Contradiction and the principle of Sufficient Reason. They deserve a detailed explanation, even if it is in a very concise form. The Identity principle, "What is, is" might appear as an empty tautology without special value. But it stresses the real nature of existing things and -as a consequence- their way of acting: things do what they do because they are what they are, without regard for my preferences or prejudices. In a more abstract and elegant form we can say that the way of acting is a consequence of the nature of each agent.

This is the reason why in science its objects are defined with operational definitions that prescribe specific ways to determine the identity of an atomic particle in terms of its mass, electrical charge, spin… Or a star is defined by its source of energy, and a living being by a metabolism that leads to self-assemblage and repair and to reproduction. Those properties should be applicable everywhere in the Universe, with the most important consequence: the ways of acting are stated as "Laws of Nature", universal and constant, because they do not represent an external imposition, but rather the fact that material things do act in a given way in the same specified circumstances. Oxygen and Hydrogen, under the same conditions of pressure and temperature -here and everywhere in the Universe- will always form a water molecule. They have no freedom or "spontaneity" to act in a different way.

This means that we cannot accept as equally valid different Physics for different cultures throughout history. And we do not grant a scientific standing to supposed data obtained in experiments that cannot be checked with identical materials and methods by other qualified researchers. The "Review of Irreproducible Results" is just a humoristic caricature of such claims that are not taken seriously in any scientific setting.

The principle of Non-Contradiction is the basis of rational thought: faced with an unequivocal question, from a unique viewpoint and at the same time, it is impossible that an answer be equally acceptable as YES or NO. And there is no third alternative either. The opposite view defines the "absurd" that needs to be excluded: this is the typical way of obtaining not only a scientific proof, but also one in Mathematics or Philosophy. The widespread notion that everything is just an equally valid opinion, and that everything is "relative", cannot be reconciled with any science or even with basic rationality. Nobody applies that way of thinking in real life: we all seek medical help from the best doctor, a correct design by the best engineer, legal advice from the best lawyer. Otherwise, as Einstein remarked, science would be impossible.

In the History of Science it has been remarked that the great Oriental cultures (in China, Japan, India) did not develop true scientific knowledge. They had very remarkable inventions (powder, printing, mathematical symbols…) and marvelous artistic achievements, but they did not seek a rational explanation of the material world. Two causes of that lack are suggested: first, in those cultures there is a philosophical tendency to undervalue matter, thus diminishing the interest in knowing it in detail. Second, and more important, there is an implicit or explicit obsession to reduce even those statements that are contradictory in the strict sense, to a true unity in a superior level of knowledge where the YES and NO are simultaneously accepted. With this way of thinking, science is impossible.

By contrast, science was developed first in the Greek and Roman environment, where rationality and order were supreme values, and where Christianity added the certainty that an all-knowing God had made only good creatures -even at the material level- and also gave matter laws that allow its study and the logical description of its behavior.

The principle of Sufficient Reason determines the methodology that should be followed in any science. Faced with a fact -a process that occurs in our experience, be it a direct observation or an experiment- it isn't enough to describe how it happens, but we must ask why. And the answer cannot be a simple "just because", an irrational evasive that doesn't satisfy even a 4-year old. Whatever is proposed as an answer must be a sufficient reason due to a logical connection with the final result, either because such relationship is already known or because it is suggested as an extension of previous knowledge, perhaps in an unexpected direction.

Because no believable tie is proposed between the positions of planets and stars in the sky and human behavior, astrology has no scientific standing. And because a simple mathematical calculation showed a century ago that the Sun could not shine by burning coal (it would have disappeared totally in less time than human civilization is well established historically) it became necessary to find a sufficient reason for its longevity in nuclear energy.

We cannot accept as a response to our questions a "just because" disguised with the word "Chance". Chance is not a physical force, no experiment can measure it or prove that it has any influence upon an event, and it cannot strictly be introduced into an equation, even if we use probability calculations when there is no known way to reach a given result. The only legitimate use of that word is to indicate that we are trying to establish a relationship between unrelated events that perhaps occur simultaneously in a given place.

I might come across an old acquaintance, after years of a total lack of contact, when I go to a train station at the same time that that person arrives from a trip totally unrelated to my travel plans. Because both of us have independent reasons to be there at that moment, we correctly say that we meet by chance, since that coincidence cannot be foreseen: the word "chance" does not provide a reason, but rather denies that there is an explanation. It is, in disguise, a mere "just because". The same is true if I ask why a cosmic ray of a precise energy hits a particular chromosome in a living cell and causes a genetic change, or if a meteorite wipes out a life form in a given environment.

When doing science, we look for reasons that provide explanatory power over the widest areas at different levels of material structures. Since a century ago, we have reached the assurance that all material activity occurs by four interactions or forces: two of unlimited reach (gravity and electromagnetism) and two of extremely short range, the strong and the weak nuclear, and that there is no reason so far to accept more. Everything that we observe in matter must be due to one or several of those forces, thus defining matter with its proper operational definition: it is anything and only that where that kind of activity can take place.

This concept embraces particles, energy, the physical vacuum, space and time. Matter is subject to change and to temporal development, implying evolution. Conservation laws -of the totality of mass-energy, of net electrical charge, of linear and angular momentum, and of other less known properties at the subatomic level- set limits to the possible activities of everything that falls within reach of our scientific study.

We are now led to the most demanding test of what Science -in the modern sense of the word- can embrace: we only recognize scientific standing to whatever can be checked experimentally, at least in principle. It is obviously possible that at a given time we might lack the technical means or the resources to carry out the experiment, but it should be possible to conceive how it could be performed. A clear indication of this criterion is that no Nobel prize is awarded even for the most promising theoretical development until its consequences are directly verified in an experiment that has a clear connection with the original idea.

Using that rule, we must consider as just "science fiction" any talk about "other Universes", defined as hypothetical material realities that have no interaction whatsoever with the observable world. This is true whether the supposed universes are coexisting with the only one we can know, or come into being as the necessary consequence of their mathematical possibility (in Quantum Mechanics) or are proposed as the eternal recycling of evolving physical systems.

And it is equally unscientific to present as real any state of matter where a given parameter should have an infinite value, since no instrument can measure anything above the limits imposed by the finite properties of its components. Even a mathematical calculation is discarded as erroneous if it leads to the prediction of real infinities of any type. An infinity can only be foreseen as an unreachable limit of a process that has no logical term, as would be the case if we think of adding all the natural integers or of collapsing matter inside a black hole.

The concept is not supported either when it is said that the process reaches that value in infinite time, since it would never be possible to say that that point had been attained. A case in reverse would be the assumption that at the beginning of the Universe (time zero of the Big Bang) matter was infinitely dense and hot: if we begin with those values, it would be impossible to obtain any finite value at an arbitrary time later: infinity is not diminished by any division or subtraction.

The limits of Science

Once we accept how Science is developed and the way it progresses in its effort to understand the material world, we are clearly obliged to recognize its limits: it cannot say anything about whatever cannot be measured or checked by an experiment. It will be unable to establish the literary value of a poem, the artistic quality of a painting, the ethical judgment of a human action. In fact, everything that belongs to the "Humanities" -and that embraces most of human activity- will be outside the realm of science. Even the fact that we develop science as a form of abstract knowledge cannot be checked experimentally: we can detect electrical activity in the brain but it doesn't tell us anything about its informational correlate, about its truth or error, pure illusion or deep understanding.

To say otherwise would be just as nonsensical as supposing that the voltages measured in the transistors of a TV set will tell me if the program presented is interesting or boring. No experiment can measure my enjoyment of a sunset or of a flower, nor explain why my arm is bent when I want.

When we try to understand an odd object found in an ancient tomb we are not satisfied with knowing its physical properties (size, mass, hardness) or its chemical composition. We want to figure out what it was made for, its finality, that would give a sufficient reason for its existence. But no experiment can check finality, even in the most obvious product of human technology, and no number can introduce it in a mathematical calculation.

In Biology it is impossible to speak of organs without reference to a specific function, without which the material structure would be meaningless: the eye, the heart, the ear are defined by their purpose, which can only be inferred from the suitability of each for a finality that determines the components and their way of acting. We have to take the step from Physics to Metaphysics when we really want to understand functions in any living organism, not merely describing how things happen, but why and what for.

This is also true when we talk about the Universe, the totality of material structures from the atom to the largest cosmic scale. Does it have a purpose? Why is it the way it is? Still more basically: Why is there something instead of nothing? Physicists and astronomers have come to grasp the need to discuss this level of inquiry: as human beings, they cannot be satisfied with a simple statement of fact: that the Universe exists, period. The physical reasoning both of elementary Newtonian theory and of modern Astrophysics and Relativity lead necessarily to deny the infinitude of the Universe both in space and time: with an infinite amount of mass around every point in infinite space, all points will have the same infinite gravitational potential, and thus no net gravitational forces would be possible.

And in infinite time all stars would have exhausted their nuclear fuels, thus requiring an answer to the fact that there are still many stars shining. One has then to choose between a single creation event in the past or the continuous creation of new star material through infinite time. In both cases, strict creation -the total coming into being of a reality that has no previous existence in any form- has to be postulated as the only sufficient reason to explain that stars are still visible in enormous numbers.

The need for a Universe where matter has the adequate properties to allow life to develop and to reach the level of rational beings, at least on this planet, has led scientists to wonder about the consequences of possible variations in the known physical parameters. Time and again it is found that even minute changes in the strength of the four forces or in the masses of elementary particles, or even the size of the Earth and of its orbit around the Sun, would render impossible our existence. The same constraints would apply if we were to look for life outside the solar system. The strong Anthropic Cosmological Principle -proposed by scientists, not by philosophers or theologians- is basically a statement of finality, inferred for the natural world by the same methodology that allows us to detect it in human artifacts.

The reasoning process from the known properties of matter, and the constraints that limit the activity that is compatible with life and its development through billions of years up to the level of Man, leads us to consider our existence as the factor that most strictly conditions the way the Universe had to be "adjusted" from its first moment to produce the suitable environment at least in one place in the immensity of space.

Such an adjustment is expressed more openly in Philosophy and Theology when we infer a non-material Creator, free from any space-time constraints, who alone has the power to create in the strict sense of the word, without any previous state to condition the development of the present Universe. To the question about what was there before the big Bang, science replies that there was no before, since time is an attribute of matter, and we are talking about the sudden appearance of matter in its entirety. The Creator cannot be simply another physical cause, once more acting according to laws of development that imply time and space.

As an immaterial -spiritual- agent, we must consider that the only activities proper to the Creator are those that define a personal Being, intelligence and free will. And since intelligence is shown in pursuing finality with suitable means, freely chosen, we are led to the obvious conclusion that the universe was created for the existence of persons, not because the Creator can be amused by seeing just stars burning down during endless eons or mindless organic robots -animals- scurrying over some planets for a limited time.

Science can never prove the existence or non-existence of such a Creator, since no experiment can make a suitable test, but our reasoning upon the contingency and limitations of everything material is the basis from which we can infer, with logical certainty, that a purposeful Creator is the only possible sufficient reason why there is something instead of nothing, and why the something is suitable for human existence. Such a Creator, not bound by time limits, should know with absolute certainty everything that each atomic particle does through the entire evolution of the Universe: for an infinite mind there cannot be anything unforeseen. There is no room for a chance event from the unique viewpoint that sees everything in a timeless NOW, for the agent who "has set the Universe in motion" with the necessary initial conditions to obtain its purpose without any error due to surprise developments.

The Universe and Man

We should finally analyze what is peculiar to human beings, defined as Rational Animals: we must find a sufficient reason for abstract thought (that allows science to develop) and for free activity (the reason why we are the subjects of rights and duties). Any effort to explain such obvious aspects of human life is doomed if we try to stay only within the area of the four forces that define what matter is, as mentioned before. It becomes logically necessary to accept an immaterial cause, the human spirit, impossible to obtain by any kind of physico-chemical reaction or by genetic evolution (always limited to changes in material structures).

The undeniable double level of biological and rational functions requires a double sufficient reason -matter and spirit- that does not imply a temporary and accidental dualism, but rather a mysterious joining of both elements into a single I who is the unique subject of all those ways of behaving. If we think that this isn't totally understandable we should not be surprised: matter itself cannot be completely understood according to its scientific description, where both General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics are certainly necessary and clearly applicable at different levels, but they still remain mysteriously incompatible.

Human reality allows us to accept that the universe is not absurd after all, even if Science tells us that its future evolution necessarily leads to the destruction of all material structures: the stars will cease to shine, organic life will be impossible, and the final state will be an immensity of emptiness, darkness and cold. With no other future perspective outside the destruction of even elementary particles into a diluted energy that will approach indefinitely the absolute zero of temperature, the materialistic scientist has to confess that "the more we know the Universe, the more absurd it seems" (Weinberg). No solution can be found in a supposed and anti-scientific recycling, devoid of any experimental support: to see the same absurd taking place time after time does not justify it, but rather underlines its irrationality.

Only human dignity, due to our spiritual element, allows us to see even matter as achieving a fulfillment that denies its meaninglessness, as St. Paul claims. Whatever is not matter does not have to be destroyed even if the laws of Thermodynamics oblige us to predict the final state of maximal entropy. The Universe has fulfilled its purpose making possible our existence, the only sufficient reason why the Creator brought everything into being.

An intelligent agent, a personal Being, can only find a reason to create in the possibility of establishing personal relationships with other persons, also endowed with intelligence and free will, that will be "images and likenesses" of the Creator and will be able to partake of the same mode of existence without any space-time limitations.

Part 2 - The Creation Account of Genesis in the language of Modern Science