scholarly journals Waarop is sy voetstukke ingesink? - 'n Besinning oor die skepping en die big bang

1998 ◽  
Vol 19 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
L.C. Bezuidenhout

Through the ages the debate between theology and the natural sciencesconcerning the origin of the universe was turbulent. Today the big bangtheory is almost generally accepted in scientific circles. In this article thedebate between theology and science is evaluated critically. The theologicalimplications of the big bang theory is discussed and the relevance of thecosmogony in Genesis 1 for a modem society is evaluated. Biblical modelsand scientific models of the birth of the cosmos do not have to be in conflictwith each other.

2010 ◽  
Vol 9 (2) ◽  
pp. 109-117 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rogério F. de Souza ◽  
Marcelo de Carvalho ◽  
Tiemi Matsuo ◽  
Dimas A.M. Zaia

AbstractThis paper reports the results of a questionnaire administered to university students, about several questions involving the origin of the Universe and life and biological evolution, as well as questions related to more common scientific themes. As few as between 2.4% (philosophy students) and 14% (geography students) did not accept the theory of evolution, because they believed in creation as described in the Bible. However, between 41.5% (philosophy students) and 71.3% (biology students) did not see any conflict between religion and evolution. About 80% of the students believed that the relationship between lung cancer and smoking is well established by science, but this number falls to 65% for biological evolution and 28.9% for the big bang theory. It should be pointed out that for 24.5% and 7.4% of the students the big bang theory and biological evolution, respectively, are poorly established by science. The students who self-reported being Christian but not Roman Catholic are more conservative in the acceptance of biological evolution and the old age of Earth and the Universe than are other groups of students. Other factors, such as family income and the level of education of parents, appear to influence the students' acceptance of themes related to the origin of the Universe and biological evolution.


1999 ◽  
Vol 35 (1) ◽  
pp. 57-72 ◽  
Author(s):  
WILLIAM LANE CRAIG

John Taylor complains that the Kalam cosmological argument gives the appearance of being a swift and simple demonstration of the existence of a Creator of the universe, whereas in fact a convincing argument involving the premiss that the universe began to exist is very difficult to achieve. But Taylor's proffered defeaters of the premisses of the philosophical arguments for the beginning of the universe are themselves typically undercut due to Taylor's inadvertence to alternatives open to the defender of the Kalam arguments. With respect to empirical confirmation of the universe's beginning Taylor is forced into an anti-realist position on the Big Bang theory, but without sufficient warrant for singling out the theory as non-realistic. Therefore, despite the virtue of simplicity of form, the Kalam cosmological argument has not been defeated by Taylor's all too swift refutation.


2012 ◽  
Vol 44 (1) ◽  
pp. 3-36 ◽  
Author(s):  
Helge Kragh

The standard model of modern cosmology is known as the hot big bang, a name that refers to the initial state of the universe some fourteen billion years ago. The name Big Bang introduced by Fred Hoyle in 1949 is one of the most successful scientific neologisms ever. How did the name originate and how was it received by physicists and astronomers in the period leading up to the hot big bang consensus model in the late 1960s? How did it reflect the meanings of the origin of the universe, a concept that predates the name by nearly two decades? Contrary to what is often assumed, the name was not an instant success—it took more than twenty years before Big Bang became a household word in the scientific community. When it happened, it was used with different connotations, as is still the case. Moreover, it was used earlier and more frequently in popular than in scientific contexts, and not always relating to cosmology. It turns out that Hoyle’s celebrated name has a richer and more surprising history than commonly assumed and also that the literature on modern cosmology and its history includes many common mistakes and errors. An etymological approach centering on the name Big Bang provides supplementary insight to the historical understanding of the emergence of modern cosmology.


Author(s):  
William Hasker

The doctrine of the creation of the universe by God is common to the monotheistic religions of Judaism, Christianity and Islam; reflection on creation has been most extensively developed within the Christian tradition. Creation is by a single supreme God, not a group of deities, and is an ‘absolute’ creation (creation ex nihilo, ‘out of nothing’) rather than being either a ‘making’ out of previously existing material or an ‘emanation’ (outflow) from God’s own nature. Creation, furthermore, is a free act on God’s part; he has no ‘need’ to create but has done so out of love and generosity. He not only created the universe ‘in the beginning’, but he sustains (‘conserves’) it by his power at each moment of its existence; without God’s support it would instantly collapse into nothingness. It is controversial whether the belief in divine creation receives support from contemporary cosmology, as seen in the ‘Big Bang’ theory.


Author(s):  
Matthew Y. Heimburger

The Big Bang theory is a scientific model of the universe that posits a state of dense, centralized matter before the current, observable expansion of the universe in one giant explosion. While ‘the Big Bang’ was a phrase first used somewhat facetiously by British astronomer Fred Hoyle in 1949, it rested on earlier theories and observations by George Lamaitre, Albert Einstein, and Edwin Hubble. The implications of Big Bang theory have been far-reaching. For some, the Big Bang’s suggestion of a ‘beginning of time’ lent itself to familiar religious teleology. For others, it provided a rigid, mechanistic model of the physical world, which in turn affected ideas in the social sciences and humanities. This is not to say that Big Bang theory was a ‘grand unifying theory’—even in the 1920s, the rather precise predictions of Einstein’s theories of relativity conflicted with the conclusions of Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle and quantum mechanics. Still, the idea that the physical world exists due to the violent expansion (and subsequent contraction) of matter suggests a rather small place for humanity in the larger scheme of things. There is little room or need for free will in such a system—at least when it comes to matters of large-scale significance. Today, the Big Bang often stands as a euphemism for debates over God and human determinism in the universe, and lends itself to philosophic traditions such as nihilism and existentialism.


Author(s):  
Helge Kragh

The presently accepted big-bang model of the universe emerged during the period 1930-1970, following a road that was anything but smooth. By 1950 the essential features of the big-bang theory were established by George Gamow and his collaborators, and yet the theory failed to win recognition. A major reason was that the big-bang picture of the evolving universe was challenged by the radically different picture of a steady-state universe favoured by Fred Hoyle and others. By the late 1950s there was no convincing reason to adopt one theory over the other. Out of the epic controversy between the two incompatible world models arose our modern view of the universe. Although the classical steady-state model was abandoned in the mid-1960s, attempts to modify it can be followed up to the present.


1990 ◽  
Vol 123 ◽  
pp. 459-484 ◽  
Author(s):  
James H. Williams

During an interview in September 1986, some three years prior to seeking political asylum with his wife at the U.S. Embassy in Beijing, Fang Lizhi was asked how he felt about the progress of political reform in China. Fang responded, “I must start with cosmology in answering this question.”Fang's linkage of politics with cosmology – a branch of astrophysics concerned with the origins of the universe – must seem peculiar to those who know him only as a human rights advocate and critic of the Chinese Communist Party. Yet this was no idiosyncrasy on Fang's part. Fang's life and published work from the early 1970s to the present leave no doubt that his emergence as the symbolic leader of China's democracy movement is deeply rooted in his experiences and outlook as a scientist.Fang's personal universe began to expand in 1972, when he and his colleagues at the University of Science and Technology of China (USTC) published a paper in Physica entitled “A Solution of the cosmological equations in scalar-tensor theory, with mass and blackbody radiation.” This innocuous-sounding article met with a furious response from leading theoretical circles of the Party. Fang et al. had broken a long-standing taboo by introducing the Big Bang theory to the Chinese physics world. Insofar as the Big Bang contradicted Engels's declaration that the universe must be infinite in space and time, Fang's paper was tantamount to heresy.


2010 ◽  
Vol 10 (2) ◽  
pp. 83-98 ◽  
Author(s):  
Carl H. Gibson ◽  
Rudolph E. Schild ◽  
N. Chandra Wickramasinghe

AbstractThe origin of life and the origin of the Universe are among the most important problems of science and they might be inextricably linked. Hydro-gravitational-dynamics cosmology predicts hydrogen–helium gas planets in clumps as the dark matter of galaxies, with millions of planets per star. This unexpected prediction is supported by quasar microlensing of a galaxy and a flood of new data from space telescopes. Supernovae from stellar over-accretion of planets produce the chemicals (C, N, O, P, etc.) and abundant liquid-water domains required for first life and the means for wide scattering of life prototypes. Life originated following the plasma-to-gas transition between 2 and 20 Myr after the big bang, while planetary core oceans were between critical and freezing temperatures, and interchanges of material between planets constituted essentially a cosmological primordial soup. Images from optical, radio and infrared space telescopes suggest life on Earth was neither first nor inevitable.


2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Xiaoping Hu

This article presents a new theory on redshift of light from celestial bodies. Lately it has been found that the Hubble constant calculated from different methods discord so much that calls arise for new physics to explain. Also, in addition to many unsolved puzzles like dark matter and source of expansion force, we shall show in this article that the current theory of redshift implies a few hidden, unreasonale assumptions. By assuming photon has temperature and its thermal energy is fully converted to wave energy, this article shows that photon can have a new redshift called Temperature Redshift, which not only is more significant for remote stars or galaxies, but also better fits the observational data, including those used in Hubble constant calculation. As such, if true, this new theory not only adds to our new understanding of photons, but may totally change our current understanding of the Universe, i.e., the Big Bang theory.


2019 ◽  
pp. 84-92
Author(s):  
Nicholas Mee

We now know the universe began with the Big Bang 13.8 billion years ago, but for several years debate raged between the supporters of the Big Bang theory led by George Gamow and supporters of the Steady State theory led by Fred Hoyle. Hoyle showed that the elements were synthesized in the stars, not in the Big Bang as Gamow believed. But Gamow’s colleagues Alpher and Herman predicted the existence of the cosmic microwave background (CMB) created immediately after the Big Bang. The CMB was discovered by Penzias and Wilson and this provided the crucial evidence that the Big Bang theory is correct. The CMB has since been studied in detail by a series of space probes.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document