Fred Hoyle, Geoffrey Burbidge and Jayant Narlikar in their new book A Different Approach to Cosmology have committed the closest thing to sacrilege in the profession of science that is possible. They have questioned the truthfulness of the Big Bang theory ... and done so based upon a consistent interpretation of the scientific evidence.
The question which might immediately spring to some minds is "but how could so many highly educated scientists possibly be wrong in this time of great enlightenment?" Their answer is, "Modern extra galactic observers rarely describe their data without a great deal of interpretation and literally all of this is done almost without exception by assuming a Friedmann (i.e., Big Bang) model for the universe....It is difficult to sort out what is actually observed from what is claimed to have been seen." (Emphasis is mine) In other words, assume the model is true and then interpret the evidence to fit it. Sound familiar?
Using new mathematical analyses of observational data, their new book A Different Approach to Cosmology published by the Cambridge University Press in 2000 makes the following points:
But if this were not enough, from within the halls of professional science, their voice rings out with a piercing clarity that may shock the public's confidence in the scientific establishment. Admittedly, these are disenchanted voices with scientific establishment's status quo and who are trying to convince the establishment that their alternative theory is right. Even allowing for this disengruntlement, listen to what they confess: (the following emphases are mine)
"We have shown in this chapter that personal beliefs and personal prejudice do enter strongly into cosmology." p. 76"Cosmology [has] been dominated in the past by a small number of facts and large measures of belief." p. vii.
"Much of what has gone on has not simply been due to advances in observation and theory. It has clearly been affected by the attitudes, personalities, prejudices and beliefs of the scientists who made the advances." p. viii.
"It is interesting how prejudices have continued to govern theorists about whether the cosmological models are open or closed." p. 12
"to what extent these ideas can be called 'physics' as opposed to 'speculations' will form part of a later discussion." p. 14.
"This mistreatment of the observations is a good example of the prejudices that were abroad ..." p. 66.
"By making his claim so strongly and so publicly, Ryle had carried out a pre-emptive strike against the steady-state model. No matter that his data were suspect and perhaps wrong. His claims were believed by very influential scientists." p. 70.
"... many in the scientific establishment believed the above claim because Oort said so. And this is often how science progresses - or regresses." p. 70.
In light of these confessions and the following quote from professor Dingle, the public would seem to be justified in at least giving pause about how much certainty they place in cosmological statements. "The ideas to which we give publicity are accepted as genuine scientific pronouncements and as such influence the thinking of philosophers, theologians and all who realize that in no intellectual problem, however fundamental, can scientific research now be ignored." Ibid., p. 77.
What is my point?
First of all, we need to be cautious when people tell stories which reconstruct the past based upon interpreting some evidence. There are several reasons for this, but one of the most significant is that the story which is being told is based upon the assumption that it has accurately represented the true cause for the present state of the evidence. To put it another way, any particular theory is simply one interpretation of the evidence. Not only is it possible that the interpretation might be wrong, but it might be that we do not even yet know all of the possible causes. For example, in this quasi-steady state verses Big Bang dispute somebody must be wrong. And it is at least theoretically possible that both sides have made some false basic assumptions and hence both interpretations of the evidence are wrong. The language of "if we assume ...., then ...." dominates cosmology.
Secondly, a little bit of sophistication may be needed on our part to distinguish between the scientific method and the scientific establishment. Science is a method. People, as we well know from personal experiences, can be driven by many different motivations whether they are politicians, business professionals, theologians ... or scientists. Even if the motivations are pristine, there is still the potential problem of failing to be objective.
Thirdly, I am not suggesting that everyone start quoting Hoyle's, Burbidge's and Narlikar's theory as gospel truth. Creationists will obviously disagree with their quasi-steady state theory of cosmology. But this book is valuable for creationists in that it reminds us of the principle that not everything which comes wrapped up in a pretty bow claiming to carry the authority of science is actually empirical science. After all, at least either the Big Bang or the quasi-steady state theory must be wrong for they cannot both be right.
Finally, do not misunderstand me to be criticizing the scientific method. This method has enabled us to gain valuable tentative understandings about what is true regarding the present state and functioning of our world. But science is tentative, because today's "knowledge" is always open to adjustment and even repudiation based upon tomorrow's evidence and discovery. Science is great and through it we are enjoying its fruits, but the scientific method as a means to knowledge does have limitations. It does not tell us everything we want or need to know.
I have no idea where the scientific community will end up in its evaluation of the claims and the reinterpretation of the evidence which Hoyle and company has presented. But I do know that whenever a sacred cow is sacrificed, people get real upset. I also know that the establishment (whoever they might be in any given occasion) can be tempted to use circular reasoning to justify its position through interpreting evidence in such a way so as to support the status quo beliefs which are assumed to be true. It can be hard to be objective when someone is convinced that they already have the truth. (This should be a powerful lesson for theologians as well!) I am not arguing against being certain. I am just suggesting the need to be scrupulously careful in building and defending ideas.
It will be interesting to watch these events unfold. But regardless of what the scientific community as a whole might decide, I do have an Eyewitness who saw and has testified to what really happened. "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth."
Barry Newton, Copyright © 2000