Was There a Beginning?
Many astronomers worked hard to find conditions that would let stars make all the elements in their interiors. Some of them wanted to succeed because they didn’t like the idea of a beginning. Why was that? We will see shortly, but first there are prior, scientific questions.
Science teachers tell young people that scientists make observations, develop hypotheses, test their ideas with experiments, and finally propose theories in agreement with all the evidence. The teacher usually explains that this procedure is what makes science objective and distinguishes it from folklore and prejudice. But things are not quite so ideal and simple. It is hard to find scientists who are really objective. Science achieves objectivity through debate. Sometimes better explanations win out over prejudice. The process is slow, sometimes painful, and still uncertain.
A study of the history of science will show that our ideas have moved through a series of supposedly very clear examples called paradigms. We may think we have understood a particular phenomenon very well. Later research may find an exception to the paradigm.
For example, people saw how waves move through water. Later experiments proved that air carries sound waves. From this people concluded that all waves move in some material medium. In the 19th century people supposed that a kind of all-pervading solid substance called the luminiferous ether must fill the universe to transmit light waves. Today we know that such a substance does not exist, but light propagates through empty space anyway.
When the old paradigm no longer covers all cases, someone comes up with a new explanation that does. Eventually the better explanation may prevail, but not necessarily because it convinces everyone. Some old paradigms have disappeared only because the people who proposed them and believed them grew old and died.
Especially in origins research there are many pitfalls waiting to trap the unwary. Philosophical preferences have driven some famous people to wrong conclusions. Few people have sufficient humility to admit their errors when others show they are wrong. The truly great scientists are those who put their ideas to the test and refine them constantly.
Let’s examine the recent history of ideas about the universe. Some people have insisted that the universe had no beginning. That implies that the universe is infinitely old, eternal, and uncreated. Is this idea in line with the facts?
A study of the history of science will show that our ideas have moved through a series of supposedly very clear examples called paradigms. We may think we have understood a particular phenomenon very well. Later research may find an exception to the paradigm.
For example, people saw how waves move through water. Later experiments proved that air carries sound waves. From this people concluded that all waves move in some material medium. In the 19th century people supposed that a kind of all-pervading solid substance called the luminiferous ether must fill the universe to transmit light waves. Today we know that such a substance does not exist, but light propagates through empty space anyway.
When the old paradigm no longer covers all cases, someone comes up with a new explanation that does. Eventually the better explanation may prevail, but not necessarily because it convinces everyone. Some old paradigms have disappeared only because the people who proposed them and believed them grew old and died.
Especially in origins research there are many pitfalls waiting to trap the unwary. Philosophical preferences have driven some famous people to wrong conclusions. Few people have sufficient humility to admit their errors when others show they are wrong. The truly great scientists are those who put their ideas to the test and refine them constantly.
Let’s examine the recent history of ideas about the universe. Some people have insisted that the universe had no beginning. That implies that the universe is infinitely old, eternal, and uncreated. Is this idea in line with the facts?
