Today, atoms make up about 5% of the universe; dark matter makes up about 23%; and what is very strange is that 72% is made up of this dark energy. — David Spurgo, Ph.D.
In the last century we have come up from thinking that the entire universe was within our own Milky Way to knowing that there are actually billions of other galaxies like the Milky Way, but separate from us. We now even know that the universe is expanding, they are even moving away from us. What is more that expansion is actually accelerating. The universe has gone from being this very familiar sort of homely place to being this huge vast vast expanse of emptiness. — Richard Massey, Ph.D., Royal Observatory Edinburgh
This is an interesting time for cosmology. In the Middle Ages, Copernicus and Galileo clearly showed that the prevailing European conception of the universe was seriously wrong. As physics advanced, the prevailing conception came to be that of a nearly infinite universe that seemed to exclude God. At the beginning of the 20th century, the Big Bank Theory proposed by Georges Lemaître became the dominant cosmological theory. But, at the end of the 20th century and up until now, there have been a plethora of theories, including string theory, etc. Yet, all of those theories still fit generally within the general framework of general relativity and quantum theory.
However, what has been unexpected has been the “discovery” of both dark matter and dark energy. I placed discovery in quotation marks because originally both were thought experiments to explain anomalous results. Since the original thought experiments, there have been findings lately that point out that the visible universe is more like foam on the largest part of reality than anything else. What we consider the universe is but 5% of what is really there. Worse, the current theories of dark matter and dark energy are still undefined enough that there are some major gaps in the understanding of cosmology. One possibility is that the Big Bang may end up in the Big Rip.
In the midst of all this, the Church has often struggled to know how to respond. All too often the Church has responded with either one of two extremes. One is the ferrous challenge of anything that appears to contradict the Church’s understanding of Biblical truth. The Roman Catholic Church’s persecution of Copernicus and Galileo is one example. Fundamentalist attempts to use post-modernist type of philosophical arguments to disprove any cosmological conclusions and prove Young Earth Creationism are the modern version of that same approach. Fortunately fundamentalists do not have the legal clout at this point to force their viewpoint.
In passing, most people do not realize that in 1632 the Inquisition approved the publishing of a book by Galileo. “In 1632 Galileo published his book, Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems, with formal authorization from the Inquisition for a book which presented a balanced view of both the Copernican and Ptolemaic theories. However, in the book, the Copernican theory clearly receives better treatment. Because of this, Galileo was ordered to appear before the Inquisition for trial.” Does this sound like the proposal made by many Young Earth Creationists? It should, it is the exact same one. The proposal is that the YEC theory must be taught equally alongside current cosmology. Mind you, just like in the Middle Ages, this is a fallback position from banning the scientific theory altogether. That was tried both with Galileo’s trial and with the Scopes trial. It worked in neither case.
The other extreme with which the Church has responded was that of unquestioning acceptance. One can read church pastors who quickly jump on the latest bandwagon and even use that to show how they do not believe in that superstitious nonsense of the masses of unwashed Christians. One good example of that is Bishop John Spong, though there are many others like him. They are the polar opposites of the YEC fundamentalists. Whatever is the currently fashionable theory, whether in cosmology or in geology or in evolution, they adopt an unquestioning attitude towards that theory and may, in fact, become among its most ardent supporters. One would think that when the theory changes that this would cause them problems, but this is precisely what it does not. Rather, they dance from theory to theory without the least mental pain or apparent awareness of their easily changeable foundations.
But, what needs to be the stance of Christians in the middle of all this?
===MORE TO COME===
My belief is that God did it. How He did it is none of my business and I probably wouldn’t understand it if He told it to me. It is a mystery.
Yer gonna open up a can of worms with that Galileo example.