First | Previous | Next
| Last |
| Index | Home
Slide 17 of 22
The editor of the prestigious weekly science periodical,
Nature, John Maddox, wrote an editorial entitled, "Down with
the Big Bang," where he hoped for the downfall of the Big Bang model,
because in it, he found it to be "philosophically unacceptable"1
and believes, theological creationists find "ample justification"
for their creationist creed in it.
Physicist Hubert Reeves remarked that the Big Bang "involves
a certain metaphysical aspect which may be either appealing or revolting".2
Christopher Isham observes:
"Perhaps the best argument in favor of the thesis that the Big
Bang supports theism is the obvious unease with which it is greeted
by some atheist physicists. At times this has led to scientific ideas,
such as continuous creation [steady state] or an oscillating universe,
being advanced with a tenacity which so exceeds their intrinsic worth
that one can only suspect the operation of psychological forces lying
very much deeper than the usual academic desire of a theorist to support
- "Apart from being
philosophically unacceptable, the Big-Bang is an over-simple view of
how the Universe began, and it is unlikely to survive the decade
ahead." Maddox, J. 1989. Down with the Big Bang. Nature
- Reeves, H., Andouze, J., Fowler, W. A., and
Schramm, D. N. 1973. On the Origin of the Light Elements. Astrophysical
Journal 179: 912.
- Isham, C. 1988. "Creation of the Universe as a
Quantum Process," in Physics, Philosophy, and Theology, A
Common Quest for Understanding, eds. R. J. Russell, W. R. Stoeger,
and G. V. Coyne, Vatican City State: Vatican Observatory, p. 378.