Religion and Science:

The Search for Truth and Understanding

Religion and science have fluctuated considerably with the variations and proportions of agreement and disagreement between the two disciplines throughout the history of human events. This is especially true and may be more emphatically demonstrated when discussions about cosmology and origins are considered.

In the TIMELINE we attempt to delineate in a pictorial manner the congruities and differences between religion and science at various points along the way in recorded history, at least as far as the discussions about cosmology and origins are/were concerned.

At Creatia, we hypothesize that religion and science got along with one another in ancient times and, also, during the earlier centuries of the Common Era. Also, in spite of all the disagreement that representatives of both religion and science have had with one another over the centuries from approximately the A.D. 700’s through the latter half of our current twentieth century, we maintain that the turn of our present century has an academic and experiential audience bursting with anticipation to bring persons of religion and science back together with the same closeness of purpose and discovery that once held true in ancient times.

It is the desire of Creatia’s editorial staff to assist, in a general way, viewers of this TIME LINE to grasp the ongoing history behind the ferment within religion and science about cosmology and origins in the past so that the future may abound with movement directed toward increasing impartial cooperation between these and all relevant disciplines. You can link to specific articles about each historical time period by clicking on the green buttons on the TIME LINE.


The Greek Philosopher-Scientists

Scores of deity myths were developed by the religious leaders during what is now referred to as the “Classical” age of Greek antiquity (ca. seventh – second centuries B.C.). Almost every activity that classical Greeks pursued was linked in some way to this god-legend conglomerate of religion.

“Philosopher-Scientists” who emerged during this era of Greek culture (ca. 640 B.C. – ca. 200 B.C.) are indicative of the escalation of the search for knowledge that took place during this very rich historical period of information development. Those who chose to make this their life’s ambition usually did so by building on top of the popular multi-god religious tradition already in place. In fact, the typical “philosopher-scientist” of this highly acculturated society saw himself as being placed above the usual activity of the common religion of the day, skirting out on the fringes of accepted knowledge in order to discover new and unique wisdom about the world around him.

Two of these most well-known Greeks, Aristotle and Plato, stated more emphatically what most of the other, lesser-known “Philosopher-Scientists” believed: that the universe is eternal, that it has no beginning and no end. This belief was fundamental to the Greek mythological beliefs of their classical age and quite different from the fundamental beliefs of another significant culture existing at the same time as well: Judaism, which religiously stated that the universe did have a beginning as well as a Beginner.

Several of these seekers of knowledge stand out because of their stated positions and/or their discoveries:

Early on it was Thales of Miletus (b. Ca. 640 B.C. – d. ca. 560 B.C.), none of whose writings survived, who eventually through history was dubbed “the father of Greek science;” although it is not certain as to his mathematical discoveries, he is credited with having accomplished certain deductive proofs about astronomical and geometrical phenomena. His deductive methods were an early indication that new knowledge was to be sought in some type of methodological, empirical fashion;

Democritus of Abdera (b. Ca. 460 B.C. – d. ca. 370 B.C.) was best known for his theory that all matter could be deduced down to different shapes of constituent atoms (he even used the term “atoms,” and believed them to be eternal, indestructible and unchanging). He also pursued knowledge in physics, astronomy, zoology, botany and the medicine of his day.

Plato (b. ca. 427 B.C. – d. ca. 347 B.C.) was more interested in pursuing pure knowledge for its own sake. He believed that this was the highest religion (far beyond the common polytheistic religion of his time) that one could attain to. His philosophical-scientific discoveries in the areas of arithmetic, geometry, astronomy, harmonics and pure knowledge did not place him at quite the same odds that it did with his teacher Socrates as contrasted with the religion of his day, but he was considered to be controversial with more widely accepted norms.

The discoveries and writings of Aristotle of Stagira (b. 384 B.C. – d. 322 B.C.) were more steeped in what he developed as a logical body of knowledge based upon scientific observation of natural phenomenon in the areas that he studied: biology, astronomy, cosmology, attainment of knowledge. His writings reflect a much more organized, methodological and refined system of knowledge accumulation.

All in all, the discoveries, writings and religious-philosophies of these great Greek adventurers depict men who were willing to rise above the commonly accepted religion of their day and venture forth into uncharted, undiscovered territory to brief the known world about its attainable outlook on reality for that period of history.

Quotable Quotes:

Democritus: “Nothing exists except atoms and empty space; everything else is opinion.”

“Everything existing in the Universe is the fruit of chance and necessity.”

Thales: “I will be sufficiently rewarded if when telling it to others you will not claim the discovery as your own, but will say it was mine.”


Brinton, Crane, John B. Christopher and Robert Lee Wolff. (1967). The Greeks. In A History of Civilization (Volume One). (pp.45-94), Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc.

Brooke, John Hedley. (1991). Science and Religion: Some Historical Perspectives. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

Levinson, Ronald B. (ed.). (1967). A Plato Reader. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Co.

O’Connor, John J. and Edmund F. Robertson. (December, 1996).Aristotle of Stagira/ Democritus of Abdera/ Plato/ Thales of Miletus. On The Mactutor History of Mathematics archive website (http://www-history.mcs.st-andrews.ac.uk/history/Mathematicians/).

Schroeder, Gerald. (1999). The Age of the Universe. On the Torah and Science Web Site (http://members.xoom.com/torahscience/bigbang1.htm).

Wheelwright, Philip (transl.). (1951). Aristotle. New York: The Odyssey Press.

Weisstein, Eric W. (1996-98). Aristotle of Stagira/ Democritus of Abdera/ Plato/ Thales of Miletus. On Scientific biography website (http://www.astro.virginia.edu/%7Eeww6n/bios0.html).




In the culture of the Maya, especially during the height of their Classic Period (300 A.D. – 900 A.D.), what we now know as their disciplines of religion, philosophy, prophecy, Astronomy and science seemed to be viewed and practiced by them in a holistic manner. Each discipline supported the other and no one discipline was asserted without the help and approval of the others. Their astronomical observances, being sensitive to the true cyclical nature of the heavens, provided the information to develop explanations for creation, religious ritual, philosophy of life and living, and everyday practice in real life. All seemed to blend together into a rather holistic worldview and societal reality.

Unfortunately, the framework and biases of todayπs western thinking does not offer a container that can hold Mayan cosmic understanding. Especially compared with the Maya,western science is a profane science because it is concerned only with the material things of a three-dimensional reality and denies (for all practical purposes) the supra-sensory spiritual realms or the ≥supernatural≤. The handmaiden of profane science is the profane intellect, which can analyze data and makes Aristotelian arguments for anything as it attempts to contain all truth within the ≥natural≤ universe.

The Calendars

The Maya had some seventeen different calendars. Many track back ten million years and even today are extremely difficult to understand. They utilized this understanding of the universe to determine the best ≥times≤ for all things. This article will concentrate on four of the most important calendars and an amazing understanding of a future time of cosmic completion.

Haab ≠ based on the cycles of the earth around the sun. It has 360 + 5 days totaling 365. It has 18 months with 20 days in each month (18*20= 360). The

19th month called Vayeb had 5 days. These last five days were considered extremely unlucky. Finally decoded in 1987, Jose Arguelles identified July 26th as the Haab new year.

Tun-Uc –  Is the moon calendar. It is based on 28 days and is broken down into 4 smaller cycles of 7 days each (these are the 4 phases of the moon).

Tzolkin ≠ is the sacred calendar used for cerimonial and ritual events and is based on the movement of the constellation ≥Pleiades≤. The Pleiades were seen as the tail of a rattlesnake called, “Tz’ab.” The sunπs revolution around the Pleiades cycle is 25,770 years. Yet, it is reflected in the calendar as a cycle of 260 days (which is the product of 13 and 20). 13,18 and 20 are the sacred Maya numbers.  The beginning of this count is on August 13th 1359 B.C.(Gregorian Date) or August 26th 1358 (Julian). This date was Each day was named with one of 20 day names plus a number that cycled from 1 to 13.  260 days equals 9 months, the gestation period for a human being. ≥Ahau Katun≤. The Tzolkin calendar needs adjustment only 1 day every 380,000 years. Compared to our Gregorian mess ≠ this is amazing.

Even as early as 800 B.C. and, more likely as early as 1000 B.C. — these Mesoamericans had realized that they could calibrate the beginning date of

their sacred almanac (August 13) anywhere within their homeland, even though the original fixing of that event took place only with the zenithal passage of the sun over Izapa in the far south of Mexico. This could be done simply by counting 52 days following the summer solstice and marking the

position of the setting sun against the horizon. They employed constructed artifacts (such as pyramids or the alignment of streets) in such locations to mark the resulting azimuths. It is these alignments which occur throughout the Mesoamerican cultural realm and whose average azimuth measures 285.5∫.

On that one special day in 1359 B.C., ther was a heliacal rising of the planet Venus (at 2:48 a.m.) over the volcano Tajumulco, the highest mountain in all of Central America.

The Tzolkin can be regarded as a periodic table of  Galactic frequencies, because it is a fractal of the vague count  of the 25,770-year precession of the equinoxes. The 25,770 -year periodicity of extinctions reported in extensive literature is related to comet showers, and possible pole shift.

The Tun or ≥Long Count≤ ≠ used to identify past and future events. It describes changes in the perception of human consciousness. It was developed 500 years after the Tzolkin and is said to harmonize with it using a 13:20 relationship. The long count is actually a modified base 20 number system: All periods except the Tun are 20 times the previous period.  The Tun recorded accumulated years of 360 days consisting of 18 months each having 20 days.

The Maya used placeholding arithmetic and were the first known people in history to use the concept of zero.  There are 13 lunar cycles in a year and 20 amino acids in the DNA. 13 * 20 =260, which is the exact number of different cells in the human body. It is believed that knowledge about the Long Count however was given to the Maya by a pre-classical people the ≥Epi-Olmec≤. The Maya brilliantly refined it. The Tun was typically used on stone markers that would commemorate certain events. The date is counted from time zero, the Tun beginning. Like the Jewish calendar, both the Olmecs and the Maya reckoned the beginning and end of their days from sunset.

Mayan ABCπs

These are the Mayan words for periods of time:

Day = Kin (keen)

Month of 20 days = Uinal (wee nal)

Year of 360 days = Tun (toon) =  aprrox. 1 year

20 Tuns = K’atun (k’ ah toon) or 7200 days

20 K’atuns = Bπaktun (bock toon)  or 144,000 days

Using modern notation, the Tun/Long Count is expressed simply by numbers. For instance, Monday, Jan. 1, 1996 was 1,865,799 days after the starting date, or 12 bak’tun, 19 k’atun, 2 tun, 13 winal, and 19 k’in.  This would be written as The Long Count was kind of like setting the year. Repeating day cycles akin to our day of week or month is specified in the Tzolkin.

The Calendar Round ≠ is the Tzolkin and the Haab mesh together! for a kind of cosmic gear clock. ≥Portal days≤ in the Tzolkin create a double helix pattern using 52 days and the mathematics of 28. With this combination, Maya were able to track and interpret sunspot events. A calendar round date usually follows a long count in most inscriptions. For example:

A typical Mayan date looks like this:, 3 Cimi 4 Zotz. is the Long Count date.

3 Cimi is the Tzolk’in date.

4 Zotz is the Haab date.

The Books of Knowledge

All but 5 Maya books of knowledge or codices were completely destroyed by the conquistadors. So much knowledge has been lost. The remaining Maya codices are named by the European city in which they are kept. Parisian, Madrid, Grolier, Prague and Dresden Codex.  The famous Dresden Codex is one of these surviving books and is the only one to contain ≥Long Counts≤.

Information in the Maya codices is formatted in one of two waysãwhat epigraphers call tables and almanacs.   The two may be distinguished in that tables contain dates in the Long Count calendar, whereas almanacs  generally only record Tzolk’in dates.  The Madrid Codex is composed entirely of almanacs, meaning that  there are no Long Count dates in the manuscript that allow it to be placed in absolute time.

Yet, in 1992, the University of Guatemala were finally able to correlated the Gregorian and Maya Calendars by identifying a common astronomical event: ≠ the eclipse of July 11, 1991 and  the Dresden Codex. This event was predicted by the Maya in the year 755 A.D although it was off by .11 days per event or1 day every 300 years.

This correlation between the Gregorian and ≥Tun≤ Mayan dating system that is generally accepted is called the GMT-correlation (Goodman-Martinez-Hernandez), under the leadership of Eric J. Thompson ≠ [584,285***].

Using the GMT correlation, Harvey and Victoria Bricker have shown that all Dresden Codex predicted 77 solar eclipses (including many not visible in the Yucatan) in the 33 year run of the table from 755 AD that occurred close to warning stations.  One of the clearest correlations between a solar eclipse and a Maya calendrical stone inscription or stela is that recorded on Stela 3 found at Santa Elena Poco Uinic in Chiapas, Mexico. Bearing a Long Count date of 5 Cib 14 Chen, which is Maya day # 1425516, this inscription most likely records the total solar eclipse whose path of centrality passed directly over this location at 12:48 P.M. local time — having occurred on July 16, 790 (Julian day # 2009802).

This established the beginning of  ≥The Long Count≤ and  thus the beginning of  of a cycle which lasts for 5,125.36 years as starting from dawn on Wednesday Aug. 13th  – 3113 or 3114 B.C (   It ends on Dec 21st 2012 A.D (  5125.36 years = 13 Bπaktuns.

The Precession of the Equinoxes

The ≥Great Cycle≤ is an actual astronomical event called the ≥The Precession of Equinox≤. It will take the Earth 25,770 years to complete and go a ≥full 360≤ around . Each 5,125.40 cycle equals 13 Bπaktuns of 144,000 days each. Each cycle of 13 Bπaktuns was reckoned as an Age or ≥Great Cycle≤. The evolution of each sub phase is presented in details (see Figure 1). Each sub phase last about 20 years.

The Mayas believed that at the end of the great cycle man man crossed the “Galactic Beam” or what we now call the galactic plane. At this point the solar system will experience a fundamental change. They named this change the “Galactic Synchronization”.

The Last Bπaktun

The last Bπaktun began on September 20th 1618 ( From the figure above, we can see that during the period from 1992 up to 2012 (, our earth has entered the last period of the last phase of the “Great Cycle”.

The Mayas believed this to be a very important period before the “Galactic Synchronization” -they named it the “Earth Regeneration Period”. During this period, the Earth will achieve a complete “Earth Purification”. We are now in a transition period called the ‘Cycle of the merge of the dark and the light.’  During this time humanity is going through great transition. This is a cycle of an increased frequency of change. This is also the age of needed purification.

Additionly, after the Earth regeneration period, the Earth will go beyond the boundary of the Galactic beam and enter the new phase in “Galactic Synchronization”.

Other Maya Dates

Judging by archaeological  evidence, 3114 B.C. corresponds exactly to the emergence of the Maya  civilization! Remember, the ≥start date≤ is a factor of the ≥Tun≤ calendar which was developed at least 500 years after other Mayan calendars. Somehow The Mayas very existence is intertwined with the cosmic clocks. 

In 1992 the Mayan calendar was the beginning of the final and last of the 13th phase in the calendar. Interestingly, there are Christians that believe that the Church as undergone a ≥radical shift in doctrine, purpose and function≤ , a ≥paradigm shift≤ in 1992. http://www.forerunner.com/forerunner/X0520_Ziegler_-_Paradigm_S.html

Cortez landed on good Friday, this day was the first day of a new 52 year cycle and was given special importance by the Maya. Unfortunately, they were right.

At the end of a calendar round in 1554, Mayan leaders decided that the end to ≥the world as they knew it≤ had come. Exactly 5 calendar rounds later in 1820, many Latin American countries declared their independence from Spain.

What happened  on 12/21 /2012?:

The great 25,770 year cycle comes to a completion and returns to where it started. It is believed by the Maya that:

≥This present linear fashion of time will transform into multidimensionality, and will not be limited to linear time on earth much longer.≤

Beyond the limited perceptions of and on this planet and solar system lies a cosmic scheme of underlying order in which the earth’s spiralaic flow of history unfolds in patterns of time. The cycle of light will come in full force on 12/21/2012.

We are now living in the last Bπaktun cycle of the last 5,125.36  year cycle of the 25,770 year ≥great cycle≤. is actually the same date as since the cycle repeats itself until the last cycle ( thatπs the one weπre in).  On 12.21.2012, the winter soltice sun will cross a point in the galaxy that it only does every 25,770 years. Functioning accurately though the ages, the Maya Calendar curiously stops on 2012.

On the more mystical side, the 2012 end date coincides with the end of the ≥Age of Aquarius≤ that we are now in. It is important to note however that traditional astrology is based on 2000 year old constellation positions that are no longer true. Maya astrology  is concerned with the ≥big picture≤ and correctly compensates for the movement of constellations relative to the ecliptic over time.


Astronomically, the winter solstice is a one of two days a year where the sun is farthest away from the celestial equator. For an in depth explaination of solstice and equinox go here: http://skyandtelescope.com/aboutsky/pressreleases/article_889_1.asp

The ecliptic is the path of the sun in the sky which is marked by the constellations of  fixed stars.  Here the moon and the planets can be found because they are bound, like the Earth, to the sun.  The winter and summer solstice occur on the ecliptic. The constellations on the ecliptic are also called the zodiac.


Every year the solstice occurs at a different point on the ecliptic as the earth slowly precesses. In other words, the earth wabbles or gyrates as it spins due to torque created by other heavenly bodies (primarily the sun and moon) and therefore has cycles of non-perfect elliptical orbits of the sun. The north pole sweeps out a cone shape in the celestial sphere. The circle this cone scribes has a diameter of  46.878 degrees.

Although the Babylonians were aware of the changing of the constellations, the Greek astronomer Hipparchus of Nicea discovered this phenomenon around the year 130 BC.  Comparing other ancient observations and by evaluating the shadow cast by the Earth on the Moon during a Lunar eclipse, he determined that the celestial intersections had moved about two degrees in 169 years. Note that Maya knowledge of this cycle greatly predates the Greeks and dates back as far as 3114 BC.

The complete cycle takes 25,770 years and yet the solstice points are never exactly repeated.  The precession cone itself wobbles due to the gravitational effects of other celestial bodies.  Because of this the path of the ecliptic varies with respect to the Galactic Center.

At sunrise on December 21, 2012 the winter solstice Sun rises to conjunct with the plane of the Galaxy or otherwise known as the Galactic equator at point C on chart. This plane travels down the middle of the cloudy Milky Way and includes the point: the Galactic center.

The Galactic center is in Sagittarius at R.A. 17 h  39.3 m and Dec. -28∞55¥.This exact point can only be known by measuring radiometric data in the K band. The center is impossible to determine directly at visible wavelengths because of the great amount of extinction caused by the interstellar dust. However, longer wavelength radiation can penetrate the dust and some fine images of the galactic center region have been obtained at infrared and radio wavelengths. This center is now believed to be comprised of black holes ≠ which would account for the bizarre properties observed.

This crossing  of the path of the ecliptic and the Galactic equator creates a cosmic cross – what Maya called the Sacred Tree, the Tree of Life.

The Galactic dirt on 2012

The accuracy of the cycle time for a complete precession circle is quite astounding, beyond anything deemed calculable by the ancient Maya.  Yet any solstice date from 1980 to 2011 has a closer conjunction.  Actually, the closest conjunction within this 26,000 year cycle already took place on December 21, 1998 [proximity to Galactic plane: 33 seconds].

It seems by using just this proximity of conjunction with todayπs Galactic plane, there is nothing special about the date 2012 [proximity to Galactic plane: 12 minutes 19 seconds].  However, it may well be that the position of other planets and/or stars in addition to the Galactic conjunction play a  part in the importance the Maya gave to this date. Also, other than the 31 or so years that the solstice conjunction is similar, the last time it got this close was a similar group of years around 49670 BC and the next time it will get this close will be in a group around the year 27549 AD

A few researchers believe the calendar end date is not even in December but maybe October 28, 2011. This is based on the idea that the long count is not precession based (man, materialistic) but connected to divine light. Others say a ≥temporal hierarchy of creation cycles≤ that cause time distortions and ambiguity of the Dresden correlations prevent determination of the actual end date.

Maya architecture

The Maya priesthood relied heavily upon astronomical and derived mathematical data that they compiled in observatories developed as a purposeful part of the architecture of their urban construction. In order to do this the Mayan architectural scheme for the urban areas consisted of a layout plan in which the four regional capitals of the Mayan civilization were purposefully laid out to represent the four corners of the universe; in this plan, then, all gathered astronomical data could be used to mathematically and allegorically represent the universe according to the desire of the Mayan gods.

One example: A mountaintop was artificially leveled (probably by the shear power of Mayans themselves who, purportedly, were unaided by draft animals and wheeled carts) at Monte Alban (a Zapotec ceremonial center) in 250 B.C. in order to construct an astronomical observatory, the main feature of that whole urban layout. This was accomplished at that location so that the Astronomer-Priest (a main scientific-religious figure in the culture) could receive and interpret heavenly data for use in religious and practical interpretation for the Mayan people.

In 843 A.D. the Maya suddenly abandoned their great cities. Chicen Itza, Tulum and other archeological sites represent their most dramatic and lasting achievement, their actual calling card -monuments which recorded in a very precise manner the correlations between the galactic harmonic pattern and the  terrestrial solar calendar.

This picture of the Pyramid of the great city of Chichen-itza demonstrates the  Phenomenon of the Equinox of Light and Dark that reveal the serpents body. This phenomenon occurs only at sunset on March 21 and September 21. It shows us the cosmic serpent of Kukulcan on the slope of the pyramid and represents the creation clearly with the seven triangles of light (that represents the 7 days) and six triangles of darkness (that represents the 6 nights) The 13 Uinals. 13 Cycles of the Divine Creation, observe the rhythm process of creation, waves of light and dark that formed this dimension. Interesting, the Biblical account of creation also accounts for 7 days and 6 nights.

A few more interesting facts:

There are 13 dimensions above us.  Current theoretical physicist are able to resolve all competing string theories with a new theory that incorporates 13 dimensions.

Mayan prophets new of their impending European destruction and ≥Elders≤ in existence today supposedly still have all the lost knowledge.

There is only a 648 year difference between the creation of Adam according to the Jewish calendar** and the advent of manπs creation in the Mayan calendar.

One can download a windows Mayamic calendar program at:


Mayan Culture: The Desires of the Gods

In the culture of the Maya, especially during the height of their Classic Period (300 A.D. – 900 A.D.), what we now know as their disciplines of religion, philosophy, prophecy, astronomy and science seemed to be viewed and practiced by them in an holistic manner. Each discipline supported the other and no one discipline was asserted without the help and approval of the others. Their astronomical observances, being sensitive to the cyclical nature of the sun, moon and planets (i.e., the universe as they knew it), provided the information to develop explanations for creation, religious ritual, philosophy of life and living, and everyday practice in real life. All seemed to blend together into a rather holistic world view and societal reality.

Important to the Quiche language Mayan creation story is the point that death must be overcome first before humanity could be created. In the Popol Vuh (“The Council Book”) sacred text that survived the Spanish conquest and destruction of the 16th century, the gods attempt to create human beings before the rest of the universe is brought about, and they are not successful; they have to destroy their human experiments and start all over. Eventually the gods discover that two undergods, One Hunahpu and Seven Hunahpu, must defeat the Lords of Xibalba (the gods of death and the underworld) before these two can become the sun and the moon; only after the creation of the heavenly bodies, then, can humans be created in a way acceptable to the gods.

The Maya priesthood relied heavily upon astronomical and derived mathematical data that they compiled in observatories developed as a purposeful part of the architecture of their urban construction. In order to do this the Mayan architectural scheme for the urban areas consisted of a layout plan in which the four regional capitals of the Mayan civilization were purposefully laid out to represent the four corners of the universe; in this plan, then, all gathered astronomical data could be used to mathematically and allegorically represent the universe according to the desire of the Mayan gods.

One example: A mountaintop was artificially leveled (probably by the shear power of Mayans themselves who, purportedly, were unaided by draft animals and wheeled carts) at Monte Alban (a Zapotec ceremonial center) in 250 B.C. in order to construct an astronomical observatory, the main feature of that whole urban layout. This was accomplished at that location so that the Astronomer-Priest (a main scientific-religious figure in the culture) could receive and interpret heavenly data for use in religious and practical interpretation for the Mayan people.

Mayan Mathematics: “Their (Mayan) system of mathematics was an achievement not equaled for centuries in Europe.”


The Maya prove that ancient man was not intellectually inferior to modern man. How they were able to measure and predict an astronomical period that outlasted their civilization by a factor of 5 we will never know.  Unlike our contemporary science, for the Maya, Science and religion were one. There was no contradiction. The search for truth was the search for the truth of God.

They believed deep truths were given as signs in the heavens by the divine and they discovered these intricate and real relationships between the planets, sun, moon and our place in the galaxy. This is proof of design and not random evolution.

Our so-called ≥advanced≤ science has just recently provided empirical evidence of the calendarπs importance and it shines new light on the age old questions of mankind. Things do exist for a reason. The reason is a divine cosmic one. For those that seriously engage in a study of the Mayan Calendar this soon becomes evident and the former materialistic worldview loses all relevance.

Without special divine revelation, they affirmed a cosmos that testified to divine intelligence and to a creation that contained its own testimony of higher states of truth and existence. An ancient Mayan prayer asks for the gift of understanding. Instead of intellectual pride being used to replace the need for God, they used this gift to worship, honor and exult their concept of the divine.

The Bible records the coming of the Jewish Messiah, Yeshua HaMasiach (Jesus Christ) was divined by interpreting the stars. Wise men or Magi astrologers from the east correctly discerned the Son of Godπs birth. Yes, there exist dramatic celestial evidence which support an important astrological/astronomical event dated within scholarly approximations of Christπs birth date.

The Mayan Calendar stands as an accurate schedule of the Cosmic Plan, of the unfolding of all things that come into existence, and the cycles or waves and harmonic convergence that proclaim human events or possibly even govern manπs fate.

Similarly, Solomon, the wisest man that ever lived said;

≥ There is a time for everything, and a season for every activity under heaven:

a time to be born and a time to die,

a time to plant and a time to uproot,

a time to kill and a time to heal,

a time to tear down and a time to build,

a time to scatter stones and a time to gather them,

a time to love and a time to hate,

a time for war and a time for peaceä

Yes, the Mayan calendar is still in operation today. It predicts a rapidly approaching moment where the current creation will end and a new one will begin. The Bible talks about a similar event, the coming of Messiah and his establishing of a new order a millennium or 1000 year era:

“And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain, for  the old order of things has passed away.”

Book of Revelation 21:4


* the exact correlation of Mayan and Gregorian dates could be off. Possible range for the Mayan Calendar end dates are from :  1950 to 2050. 2012 was defined by the Thompson Project. Jose & Lloydine agreed.

**Pope Gregoryπs calendar, mandated in 1583 is the only calendar in the world  that does not intercalate at least two celestial cycles. The Jewish Calendar is a lunisolar calendar in use among Hebraic peoples ,reckoning from the year 3761 b.c., the creation date of the soul of Adam. The Jewish day starts at sundown.

*** Belief in the 584,283 correlation is based on the Calendar Round dates in use both during the conquest and maintained by some of the highland Maya today.  The 584,285 correlation is based on the relationship between astronomical events recorded by the classic Maya and the times these events were known to have ocurred.  584,285 assumes that a 2 day “slippage” has taken place over time. 584,283 was the more widely accepted correlation until quite recently, when a shift towards 584,285 began.  A supporting factor much in favor of the latter was the discovery that the text on a stela at Quirigua and the Dresden Codex, written centuries apart, both give the same date for an eclipse, one that matches the 584,285 correlation.


Aveni, Anthony F. (1977). Concepts of Positional Astronomy Employed in Ancient Mesoamerican Architecture (Chapter 1). In Native American Astronomy. (P.17), Austin, Texas: University of Texas Press.

Aveni, Anthony F. (1980). Ancient Mesoamerican Observatories. In Skywatchers of Ancient Mexico. (pp. 256-257), Austin, Texas: University of Texas Press.

Duncan, Roland E. (1997). Maya. In Comptonπs Encyclopedia Online v2.0. The Learning Co., Inc.

Gafford, Hilary. (April 29, 1998). Discovering Ancient Maya Religion Through Material Culture. On The University of Texas Website ( http://uts.cc.utexas.edu/~gafford/religion.html ).

Hooker, Richard. (1998). Creation Cycles. In Cultures in America. On World Cultures Website (http://www.wsu.edu:8000/~dee/CULAMRCA/CULARMCA

Jenkins, Dawn. (February 13, 1995). Mayan astronomy: lecture given at the regular meeting of the cuyahoga astronomical association. On The Maya Page Website ( http://www.astro.uva.nl/michielb/maya/ ).

Maya. (1994). In the Concise Columbia Electronic Encyclopedia. Columbia University Press.

Laningham, Ivan Van. The World Tree. (http://www.pauahtun.org/)

Calleman, Carl Johan. (2001) Mayonics and Solving the Great Mystery of Our Time. Bet-Huen Books. Internet Source (http://www.calleman.com/EngPages/main.htm )

Michielb. Mayan Atronomy. Internet Source (http://www.michielb.nl/maya/astro_content.html)

Maya Calendar and Cosmology. Internet Source (http://edj.net/mc2012/mayans.htm)

Maya World Study Center. Merida, Yucatan, Mexico. Maya Calendar. Internet Source (http://www.mayacalendar.com/mayacalendar/mayacalendar.html)

All About 2012. Internet Source (http://www.greatdreams.com/2012.htm )

Lords of the Earth. Internet Source (http://www.mayalords.org/ )

Saskatoon, Michael Finley. (2002) The Real Maya Prophecies:  Astronomy in the Inscriptions and Codices. Internet Source (http://members.shaw.ca/mjfinley/mainmaya.html )

Jenkins, John Major. (1994). The How and Why of the Mayan End Date in 2012. Cosmogenisis 2112. Internet Source (http://www.levity.com/eschaton/Why2012.html)

Vail, Gabrielle. (2002). The Madrid Codex. Internet Source (http://madrid.doaks.org/codex/Madcod.asp )

Maya Calendrics Software. Internet Source (http://www.hermetic.ch/cal_stud/maya.htm)

Mayan Astronomy by Crstalinks. Internet Source (http://www.crystalinks.com/mayanastronomy.html)

Aveni, Anthony F. (1977). Concepts of Positional Astronomy Employed in Ancient Mesoamerican Architecture (Chapter 1). In Native American Astronomy. (P.17), Austin, Texas: University of Texas Press.

Aveni, Anthony F. (1980). Ancient Mesoamerican Observatories. In Skywatchers of Ancient Mexico. (pp. 256-257), Austin, Texas: University of Texas Press.

Duncan, Roland E. (1997). Maya. In Compton’s Encyclopedia Online v2.0. The Learning Co., Inc.

Gafford, Hilary. (April 29, 1998). Discovering Ancient Maya Religion Through Material Culture. On The University of Texas Website (http://uts.cc.utexas.edu/~gafford/religion.html).

Hooker, Richard. (1998). Creation Cycles. In Cultures in America. On World Cultures Website (http://www.wsu.edu:8000/~dee/CULAMRCA/CULARMCA).

Jenkins, Dawn. (February 13, 1995). Mayan astronomy: lecture given at the regular meeting of the cuyahoga astronomical association. On The Maya Page Website (http://www.astro.uva.nl/michielb/maya/).

Maya. (1994). In the Concise Columbia Electronic Encyclopedia. Columbia University Press.


(b. A.D. 1194 – d. A.D. 1270)

Nachmanides, more commonly known by Hebrew followers as The Ramban (an acronym for one of his names, Rabbi Moshe Ben Nachmon), was born in Spain. His Spanish name was Bonastrug da Porta. As a young man he was reputed to have made a living as a physician, but he is most reputed as a philosopher, Biblical exegete and poet. He was chief rabbi of Catalonia until he emigrated to Israel in 1265.

His most well-known writing was the Commentary on the Torah (Perush Ha Torah), historically now the second-most read and studied commentary on Torah (after Rabbi Rashi). The Commentary on the Torah was published and available posthumously in two versions: the first in Lisbon, Portugal in 1489 and the second in Naples, Italy the following year, 1490. Nachmanides also wrote a commentary on the Halachah (Hebrew for “way” or “path” – a practical set of instructions for applying the Law [Torah] to everyday living). Additionally, he penned at least 50 other “lucid and logical works.”

Because he lived historically/geographically in Spain during the emergence of Ferdinand and Isabella’s (Roman Catholic-Christian) Inquisition, Rabbi Nachmanides became embroiled in a theological disputation with representatives of the Roman Catholic Church in Barcelona in 1263; although he won the theological argument, he was forced to flee Spain. From that point on he encouraged other Hebrews involved in disputations with the Roman Catholic hierarchy not to answer Inquisition proposals in a frank manner, preferring to approach Inquisition probing from an underground and “tongue-in-cheek” perspective.

In his Commentary on the Torah, The Ramban made what can now, in our day and time, be suggested as scientifically congenial statements about the Creation Account from Genesis 1 of the Old Testament. Such interpreted contentions include the following:

Because of multiple meanings for the Hebrew words used in Genesis 1, Nachmanides interpreted the six day Creation account in Genesis 1 to be a much longer period of time than just six 24 hour days; in fact, he considered it to be an enormous amount of time compared to previous standards; contemporary scientists who have studied his work have concluded scientifically that Nachmanides’ interpretation of Genesis could have equaled approximately 15-3/4 billion years (very close to what is accepted within today’s scientific community).

The Ramban also avers that the words which our contemporary Bible translators interpret as “morning” and “evening” in Genesis 1 do not actually equate with our English words for those phenomena. They actually mean “chaos/disorder” and “order” respectively and are, according to contemporary interpretations of Nachmanides’ commentary, the difference between what existed before the Big Bang and after the Big Bang, again respectively. This supports an ex nihilo (“out of nothing”) Creation viewpoint.

Nachmanides points out semantically from the text of Genesis 1 that Day One of the Creation is accurately described as exactly that, “Day One,” an absolute. From then on in the text, the next five days are described comparatively, “evening and morning, a second day, a third day, a fourth day, etc.. The Ramban suggests that Day One of the Creation was described that way on purpose, distinguishing it from the other six days. It is possible, therefore, that Day One was semantically described in an absolute fashion to denote that there was, after all, an actual beginning to all of Creation, that the universe was perhaps, not eternal after all, with no beginning and no end.

At age 72 The Ramban settled in Jerusalem and helped to reorganize the Jewish community there. He then moved to Acco to become head of that Jewish community.

English Translation of Commentary on the Torah:

Chavel, Charles B. (1971). Ramban (Nachmanides: Commentary on the Torah). (available by special order at amazon.com). $ 115.00


Brinton, Crane, John B. Christopher and Robert Lee Wolff. (1967). Politics and economics: late medieval west. In A history of civilization (volume one). (p.398), Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc.

Inquisition timeline. (1996). The Galileo Project Website at Rice University (http://es.rice.edu/ES/humsoc/Galileo/).

Is this view supported in classic medieval texts? (1997). On The Medieval History Support Website (http:// ) of the Jewish Theological Seminary.

Black, Harlan. (1999). The Jews and the medieval church. On the Tour of Jewish and World History Web Site (http://www.jewishamerica.com/TimeLine/medchur.htm)

Kaplan, Joseph, Tovia Preschel,Israel Moses Ta-Shma and Efraim Gottlieb. (1997). Nachmanides. The encyclopedia judaica (pre-publication edition). On the Encyclopedia Judaica Web Site (http://www.judaica.com/encyc.judaica/Nahmanides.html)

Satinover, Jeffrey. (1999). The age of the universe. On the Torah and Science Web Site (http://members.xoom.com/torahscience/bigbang3.htm)

Schroeder, Gerald. (1999). The age of the universe. On the Torah and Science Web Site (http://members.xoom.com/torahscience/bigbang1.htm)

Twersky, Isadore (ed.). (1983). Rabbi moses nahmanides (ramban): explorations in his religious and literary virtuosity. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.

Who was the ramban?(1996). On The Cultural Jewish FAQ Website (http://www.cis.ohio-state.edu/hypertext/faq/usenet/judaism/).

The Reformation and Science

The Reformation was, historically, speaking, an era of great religious ferment and change. In the 1500’s the European theater became a theological-ecclesiastical, political and military staging ground for cultural changes that would maintain upheaval in that part of the world until well into the Age of Enlightenment.

At the crux of these earth-shaking historical events were such persons as Martin Luther (b. A.D. 1483 – d. A.D. 1546) in Germany and Ulrich Zwingli (b. A.D. 1484 – d. A.D. 1531) and John Calvin (b. A.D. 1509 – d. A.D. 1564) in Switzerland and, then, John Knox (b. A.D. 1505 – d. A.D. 1572) in Scotland. In England King Henry VIII was establishing a Protestant Reformation as well, but more for political reasons than for theological change. Although these men were trained in Roman Catholic Church theology and obedience, at more or less simultaneous cross points in history they began to challenge the authority of that very powerful ecclesiastical-political entity in their lives and the lives of all people.

This Reformation in religion created favorable conditions for a reformation in science as well. The view of the emerging representations of Protestantism was that the sciences should be less subordinate to theology and more independent. To conciliate the conservative theology of the day, still in power, however, those defending the newly suggested Copernican theory of heliocentricity, for instance, were usually still willing to support theologies and teachings that continued to place mankind and the earth at the center of God the Creator’s concern and care symbolically; this still mildly pleased the churchly powers at the time, since it continued to agree with their theological and ecclesiastical teachings and gave them at least an outward semblance of continued, perceived authority.

Protestant teachings were beginning to allow much more latitude in learning about the natural world when this observation and learning did not intrude into the essentials of a person’s eternal salvation. The Protestant teaching of “Adiaphora” (Greek for “things indifferent” – it was appropriate to speculate on matters that were not essential to the basic, core beliefs of salvation – if the sacred scriptures were silent on a particular subject or said only enough to be considered vague in an area of discussion, most Protestant theologians were willing to allow room for non-theological opinion) opened up the possibilities of non-ecclesiastical empirical investigation and scientific speculation about what could be taking place in the natural world.

The Protestant teaching called the “priesthood of all believers” asserted that the power to decide theological and churchly matters should no longer be vested solely in the office of the clergy; laypersons had the right to be their own theologians within certain limits. As an individual living in the world, a layperson was, in a sense, much freer from a theological point of view to go exploring the natural world all around him and to develop his own conclusions about his observations, independent of the need to please the ecclesiastical authorities.

Luther on Creation (also paraphrasing Romans 1:20, New Testament): “We are at the dawn of a new era, for we are beginning to recover the knowledge of the external world that was lost through the fall of Adam. We now observe creatures properly…..But by the grace of God we already recognize in the most delicate flower the wonders of divine goodness and omnipotence.” [As quoted in Kobe, “Luther and Science,” (1995-98)].

Francis Bacon (b. A.D. 1561 – d. A.D. 1626): “When it pleased God to call the Church of Rome to account for their degenerate manners and ceremonies, and sundry doctrines obnoxious and framed to uphold the same abuses; at one and the same time it was ordained by the Divine Providence that there should attend withal a renovation and new spring of all other knowledges.” [Bacon, quoted in Eugene M. Klaaren. (1977). Religious origins of modern science. (p. 92), Grand Rapids, Michigan.]


Bainton, Roland H. (1950). Here I Stand: A Life of Martin Luther, New York: New American Library.

Brinton, Crane, John B. Christopher and Robert Lee Wolff. (1967). The Protestant Feformation. In A history of civilization (volume one). (pp. 459 – 492), Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc.

Brooke, John Hedley. (1991). The parallel between scientific and religious reform (chapter III). In Science and Religion: Some Historical Perspectives. (pp. 82 – 116), Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

Fargis, Paul and Sheree Bykofsky (eds.). (1989). Major World Philosophers: Sir Francis Bacon. In The New York Public Library Desk Reference. (p. 214), New York: Stonesong Press.

Hooker, Richard. (1998). John Calvin, Henry VIII, Ulrich Zwingli. On World Cultures Home Page Website (http://www.wsu.edu:8000/~dee/).

Jackson, James. (1996). The Reformation and Counter-Reformation. On Dr. James Jackson’s Home Page Website (http://jcccnet.johnco.cc.ks.us/~jjackson/refo.html).

Kobe, Donald H. (1995-98). Luther and Science. On The Leadership University Website (http://www.leaderu.com/science/kobe.html).

Luther, Martin. The First Article: The Creed. In Luther’s Small Catechism. (p. 9), St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House.

Marty, Martin E. (1972). Protestantism, Garden City, New York: Image Books.

Marty, Martin E. (1959). A Short History of Christianity, New York: Living Age Books.

Smith, Huston. (1958). Christianity: Protestantism. In The religions of man. (pp. 302 – 308), New York: Harper Colophon Books.


The Galileo Mistake

One of those scientists born into the aftermath of the Reformation was Galileo Galilei of Florence, Italy. While his father encouraged him toward a study of medicine, Galileo’s true interests were in mathematics and natural philosophy.

Scientifically and technologically he is well known for his invention of the telescope based on Dutch lens development, observation of the Supernova of 1604, discovery of craters on the moon and four moons to the planet Jupiter and the invention of a mechanism to raise water to higher levels; using an inclined plane he demonstrated that all bodies fall at the same rate. He was the first to develop and utilize rigorous scientific experimentation procedures, once stating “Measure what is measurable, and make measurable what is not so.”

In 1612 he began to encounter decisive Roman ecclesiastical opposition to his theory of the motion of the Earth based on the Copernican hypothesis (i.e., the Earth is not immovable; it rotates around the Sun along with other planetary bodies).

Church officials believed it to be heresy because it seemed to violate the literal intent of such scriptural passages as Joshua 10:13 (“And the sun stood still, and the moon stopped,…..”), Psalms 93:1b (“He has established the world; it shall never be moved;”) Psalm 104:5 (“You set the earth on its foundations, so that it shall never be shaken.”). The Roman Catholic hierarchy urged Galileo to teach heliocentricity as hypothesis rather than as fact, attempting to give what they believed to be proper balance to all viewpoints then being considered in that day and time.

In 1632 he was summoned to Rome to defend his teachings before papal Inquisition judges; Galileo was recalcitrant in his position and was, then, “vehemently suspected of heresy (false doctrine)” and condemned to house arrest and cessation of publishing for the remainder of his life when he would not abjure (i.e., deny) his theory and teachings. Immediately after he mouthed a rejection of his teachings before the Church court, Galileo is reported to have whispered to himself “Epur si muove” (‘And yet it [the Earth] does move.’).

Galileo died under the Church’s edict in 1642, but not without having had a few of his later writings smuggled out of Italy by loyal students (e.g., his book Discourses on two new sciences was published in The Netherlands).

Although the sixteenth century has subsequently been tagged as the “Age of Genius,” it was also a time of interdisciplinary turmoil. The Inquisition and the Protestant Reformation had forever changed the manner in which religious representatives and theologians would dialogue among one another. This was true, as well, about the way in which those of religion would interact with others, including the emerging, curious thinkers and experimenters of science. The rift between religion and science would continue to wax and wane from this point in history on until well into the twentieth century.

Galileo on the Inquisition: “And who can doubt that it (The Inquisition) will lead to the worst disorders when minds created free by God are compelled to submit slavishly to an outside will? When we are told to deny our senses and subject them to the whims of others? When people devoid of whatsoever competence are made judges over experts and are granted authority to treat them as they please? These are the novelties which are apt to bring about the ruin of commonwealths and the subversion of the state.” (Written on the margin of his own copy of Dialogue on the Great World Systems.)

Galileo on God’s Creation: “And to prohibit the whole science would be to censure a hundred passages of Holy Scripture which teach us that the glory and greatness of Almighty God are marvelously discerned in all His works and divinely read in the open book of heaven.” (In his Letter to the Grand Duchess Christina of Tuscany, 1616).


Corbally, Chris, S.J. (1997, July 7). History of the Vatican Observatory and its Castel Gandolfo Headquarters. On the Vatican Observatory Web Site (http://clavius.as.arizona.edu/vo/history.html)

Brinton, Crane, John B. Christopher and Robert L. Wolff. (1967). The Inquisition/The Protestant Reformation. In A History of Civilization – Volume One. (pp.459-492). Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, Inc.

The Galileo Controversy (religious tract). (1996). On Catholic Answers Website (http://www.catholic.com/answers/TRACTS/galileo.htm).

Gerard, John. (1913). Galileo Galilei. In The Catholic Encyclopedia. Encyclopedia Press, Inc. (On-line version 1996 at Catholic Encyclopedia Website – http://www.knight.org/advent/cathen/06342b.htm).

Halsall, Paul. (1997). Galileo Galilei: Letter to the Grand Duchess Christina of Tuscany, 1615. On Modern History Sourcebook Website. Fordham University. (http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/galileo-tuscany.html).

The Holy Bible – New Revised Standard Version. (1990). Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers/Cokesbury.

Library of the Institute and Museum of the History of Science of Florence, Italy. (1994-98). Room IV Galileo Galilei. Library website (http://galileo.imss.firenze.it/museo/b/egalig.html).

Newman, J.R. (1956). The World of Mathematics. New York.

O’Connor, John J. and Edmund F. Robertson. (September, 1998). Galileo Galilei. On The Mactutor History of Mathematics archive website (http://www-history.mcs.st-andrews.ac.uk/history/Mathematicians/Galileo.html).

Weisstein, Eric W. (1996-98). Galileo Galilei. On Scientific biography website (http://www.astro.virginia.edu/%7Eeww6n/bios0.html).

Westfall, Richard S. (1995).The Galileo Project Website of Rice University. Department of History and Philosophy of Science, Indiana University (galileo@rice.edu ).


The European Enlightenment

The lessons of The Renaissance (the re-discovery of the immense value of human reasoning as the impetus for humankind’s progress, especially as learned by the great Classic Greek and Roman philosophers, mainly Aristotle) and The Reformation (i.e., the officially accepted Church in political and ecclesiastical power is not necessarily the only beacon of truth in the known world of the day) set the stage for a mind-boggling one hundred years or so of pervasive change that would make the world a very different place for centuries to come. This historic period of time during the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries is now called The Enlightenment.

The Enlightenment had its formative experiences in England and France with the “natural philosophies” of men such as Isaac Newton/John Locke and Rene Descartes/Voltaire respectively. The time was right and the new movement spread across Europe like a social and intellectual brushfire, extending its branches to Scotland, Germany, Italy, Spain and even to the New World. Human reason, experimental observation and systematic reporting of the universe’s natural laws and progress were the keywords of the philosophes movement, as it came to be called. Although God may have created His universe in the beginning, He had left it to humankind to learn about a rather well-ordered natural world in which human beings could learn enough to solve problems and make the world a much better place in which to live (Deism). Human reason, by learning about the surrounding universe, could cure humankind of past ills, bring about technological progress and help the world achieve utopian governments and a perfect society.

This, of course, set the stage for an awkward tension between religion and science: while there was overt disagreement with the powerful rule of the (Roman Catholic) Church over against the new intellectualism and desire for truth by experimentation, the philosophes still tacitly recognized the authority of the Church and gave a cumbersome deference to it. In Europe, the Roman Catholic Church, still assessing its losses from The Reformation, had officially censured Galileo Galilei in 1633 and The Inquisition was still looking for those who challenged Roman Catholic orthodox doctrine and teaching. The movement of the philosophes and the technological advances of the new age of human reasoning made for strained, but somehow contained, debate and disagreement between religion and science.

The classic debate in the heated discussions about creation during this time period seemed to center around the perceived role of God in the universe. Men of religion believed, according to their doctrine, that God had created the world and was still involved in running the universe and all within it in an ongoing way (called “Theism”). Men of science heartily asserted the “Deistic” point of view, that God had created the universe, but then bowed out with the intention to let mankind learn about the laws of nature around him and, then, improve the world.

The gap between the Church and natural philosophy widened and remained this way well into the twentieth century. As the new, more specialized sciences and sub-sciences developed and became more disciplined in natural observation, hypothesis, well-ordered experimental method and appropriate conclusion (the “Scientific Method”), men of science gradually moved away from asserting that God had a hand at all in the universe: perhaps even the Creation itself could be explained scientifically if more and more natural law could be discovered. Perhaps, even more, the “philosopher-scientist” contentions of Plato, Aristotle and others during the Greek classical age were true: that there was no Creation at all, that the universe was eternal, with no beginning and no end.


Brinton, Crane, John B. Christopher and Robert Lee Wolff. (1967). The Enlightenment: Eighteenth Century Science. In A History of Civilization (Volume Two). (pp. 45-46), Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc.

Brooke, John Hedley. (1991). Science and Religion in the Enlightenment (chapter v). In Science and Religion: Some Historical Perspectives. (pp.152-191), Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

Ferris, Timothy. (1997). Preface. In The Whole Shebang: A State-of-the-Universe(s) Report. (p.19), New York: Touchstone Books.

Halsall, Paul. (1997). The Scientific Revolution in the 17th Century. On The Modern History Sourcebook Website (http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/)

Hooker, Richard. (1997-98). The European Enlightenment: The Scientific Revolution. On The World Cultures Website (http://www.wsu.edu/8000/~dee/ENLIGHT/ENLIGHT.htm ).

Schroeder, Gerald (1999). The Age of the Universe. On the Torah and Science Web Site (http://members.xoom.com/torahscience/bigbang1.htm)

Scientific method. (1993-1996). In Encarta 97 encyclopedia (online version). Microsoft Corporation.

Weisstein, Eric W. (1996-98). Isaac Newton. On Scientific Biography Website (http://www.astro.virginia.edu/%7Eeww6n/bios0.html)


Charles Darwin: One Viewpoint In Evolution

Charles Darwin (b. A.D. 1809 – d. A.D. 1882) did not “invent” evolution; he only added a two-fold nineteenth century theory of evolution to the debate and discussion that already existed. For centuries previous to the 1800’s (from the Greek classicists up to Darwin’s historical time) various philosophers, metaphysicists and scientists conjectured in the arena of evolutionary explanations when putting forth theories with reference to the origins and development of life in general and, then specifically, humankind.

What seems to be more true about Darwin and his theory, however, is that his assertions became (and still are) the focal point for late nineteenth century and, now, twentieth century debate and discussion as to an authentic theory that could conceivably stand the test of the scientific method. The divisions between persons of science and religion would grow with the advent of Darwin’s hypotheses and the rifts would widen in the following decades, even into the end of the twentieth century.

Darwin’s well known voyage as the ship’s hired naturalist on the H.M.S. Beagle (from December 27,1831 to October 2,1836) was a serendipitous adventure obtained as the result of not having been able to secure employment as a country clergyman following his graduation from divinity school. It was this voyage, with Darwin’s manifold observations and educated guesses as to how floral and faunal species changed along the coast of South America and, then, the Galapagos Islands, that reinforced some previously – held assumptions on which he had been ruminating. He was profoundly impressed with a copy of Charles Lyell’s newly published Principles of Geology as he read and digested it on the ship voyage (with it’s “Uniformitarian” approach to geology and other scientific disciplines). The “double dose” of Lyell’s book and what Darwin viewed as empirical scientific evidence of evolutionary activity on the Beagle journey deeply shaped the thoughts that he would contemplate and eventually organize for the next twenty – three years.

Shortly after his return from the H.M.S. Beagle expedition, Darwin published his observations and preliminary impressions of a theory of evolution in A Naturalist’s Voyage on the Beagle (1839). He did, however, purposely put off his publication of a much more involved treatise on the subject because he knew and felt very deeply that his heartfelt theories would arouse great controversy. His speculations and, then, his doubts about what he was formulating with reference to an evolutionary scientific theory would cause him to vacillate in abundance until, in 1859, he gave in to enough pressure to beat to the publisher others who were speculating similarly on his “general” and “special” theories of evolution.

In his now firmly established book On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favored Races in the Struggle for Life (1859), Darwin proposed the following assertions/tentative conclusions:

All species of organic flora and fauna have evolved from the most simplistic life forms into more and more complicated life forms gradually over a much longer history of the earth than previously believed (perhaps millions, even billions of years); this has been dubbed as Darwin’s “general” theory of evolution;

Randomly (without seeming logical/rational patterns) life forms have changed gradually from generation – to – generation (“micro-evolution”) over earth’s long history and all living species can be traced back to a common “primordial soup” which knew no speciation early on in the history of living things (“macro-evolution”), now called Darwin’s “special” theory.

Darwin called this evolutionary process “natural selection” and asserted that only the “fittest” organisms survive to produce offspring that reflect their micro-evolutionary changes that they, in turn, then pass on to the next generation of the species. Over a period of millions/billions of year’s of gradual development, then, we may resultantly have what we label as “species” nowadays, but they are only manifestations of macro-evolutionary leaps from species – to – species over earth’s long history.

Darwin further entangled himself in controversy by publishing The Descent of Man (1871), a book in which he specifically considered the evolution of the human species. He applied essentially the same “general” and “special” theories that he had propounded in The Origin of Species to the species Homo sapiens.

The “general” and “special” theories of evolution, as proposed by Charles Darwin, generated the controversy that he feared they would. In succeeding years and decades the lines would become more and more drawn between those who would favor Darwin’s theories usually over against a Lamarckian evolutionary viewpoint.

After the publishing of The Origin of Species Darwin’s apprehensions about how the conventional scientific community would receive his new speculations re-emerged: he spent the rest of his life defending his theories and producing revised editions of his well-known writings, attempting to develop innovative nuances to his theories in order to keep abreast of new criticisms. His belief in an intelligent Designer of life had wavered enough toward the end of his life for him to be considered an agnostic by those around him.

Darwin’s theories also created spin-off theories and belief systems in other disciplines of science, philosophy and religion. Disciples and other loyalists to Darwin applied his theories to other disciplines such as the social sciences with Social Darwinism and Eugenics, for instance.

Just recently, a major news magazine article quoted Pope John Paul II as declaring that Darwin’s theory of evolution is “more than just a theory” and is fully compatible with the Christian faith; furthermore, he went on to say that a “convergence” of scientific evidence gathered in the past 50 years makes “a significant argument in favor of this theory.” There are, of course, other religious and spiritual disciplines that disagree strongly with Darwin and his theory, so it is safest to state that controversy still surrounds the dialogue between religion and science on the matter of origins when Darwin and the theory of evolution is mentioned.

Quotes from Charles Darwin:

“I was so struck with the distribution of the Galapagos organisms, &c. &c. (sic), and with the character of the American fossil mammifers &c. &c. (sic) that I determined to collect blindly every sort of fact, which I could bear any way on what are species…..At last gleams of light have come, and I am almost convinced. (Quite contrary to the opinion I started with) that species are not (it is like confessing a murder) immutable.” [personal letter to Joseph Hooker, 1844]

“I see no good reason why the views given in this volume should shock the religious feelings of anyone. It is satisfactory, as showing how transient such impressions are, to remember that the greatest discovery ever made by man, namely the law of the attraction of gravity, was also attacked by Liebnitz ‘as subversive of natural and, inferentially of, revealed religion.’ A celebrated author and divine has written to me that ‘he had gradually learnt to see that it is just as noble a conception of the Deity to believe that He created a few original forms capable of self-development into other and needful forms, as to believe that He required a fresh act of creation to supply the voids caused by the actions of His laws.’ ” [Darwin, Charles. (1859). The Origin of Species, p.239]

“I can see no limit to the amount of change, to the beauty and complexity of the co-adaptations between all organic beings, one with another and with their physical conditions of life, which may have been affected in the long course of time through nature’s power of selection, that is by the survival of the fittest.” [Darwin, Charles. (1859). The Origin of Species, pp.114-115]

“In my most extreme fluctuations, I have never been an atheist in the sense of denying the existence of God.” [personal letter, 1879]

“…..the more we know of the fixed laws of nature, the more incredible do miracles become.” [from Darwin, as quoted in Charles Darwin: Voyaging by Janet Browne, 1995]

“When I am dead, know that many times I have kissed and cried over this.” [comment by Charles Darwin, handwritten as a note at the bottom of a letter written to him by his wife; she questioned the balance between his evolutionary theories and his personal Christian faith and was concerned for him; reportedly, Darwin was expressing to his wife the conflicts in his own mind. As quoted in Barlow, N. (1958). Autobiography of Charles Darwin, pp. 237]

“The mule always strikes me as a most surprising animal: that a hybrid should possess far more reason, memory, obstinacy, powers of digestion and muscular endurance than either of its parents. One fancies art has here outmastered Nature.” [Darwin, Charles in his Diary of the Beagle, p. 247, as quoted in Stevens, L. Robert. (1978). Charles Darwin. (p. 139), Boston: Twayne Publishers]

Quotes About Charles Darwin:

“As for the argument from design (that is, if the universe is orderly, there must be an Orderer), Darwin not only denied it, but claimed credit for having demolished it himself.” [Referring to a note in Darwin’s Autobiography (pp. 93-94) as quoted in Stevens, L. Robert (1978). Charles Darwin. (p. 124), Boston: Twayne Publishers]

“Charles Darwin, a member in good standing of the Church of England and an officer of his parish church at Down, in Kent, for many years.” [National Academy of Sciences/Committee on Science and Creationism. (1984). Science and creationism: a view from the national academy of sciences. (p. 1)]

“But it is also clear that his (Darwin’s) kind of belief, though orthodox, was a very loose, English-style orthodoxy in which it was far less trouble to believe than it was to disbelieve.” [Brown, Janet. (1995). Charles Darwin: Voyaging. (p. 325), New York: Alfred A. Knopf, Inc.]


Birks, Steve (ed.). (1996). Quotes on Creation & Evolution: Evolution as a Theory/On the Origin of Life. On the Steve’s Place Website (http://www.netcentral.co.uk/steveb/create/).

Brentnall, John M. and Russell M. Grigg. (1997). Darwin’s Slippery Slide into Unbelief. On the Creation Ex Nihilo Website (http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v18n1/v18n1m.htm).

Brinton, Crane, John B. Christopher and Robert Lee Wolff. (1967). Darwinism. In A history of Civilization: Volume Two. (pp. 298-305), Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc.

Browne, Janet. (1995). Charles Darwin: Voyaging. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, Inc.

Denton, Michael. (1986). Evolution: A Theory in Crisis. Bethesda, Maryland: Adler & Adler Publishers, Inc.

Hart, Thomas E. Darwin and the Removal of Design. On the Victorian Web Website (http://www.stg.brown.edu/projects/hypertext/landow/victorian/darwin/darwinth1.html).

Larson, Edward J. (1997). Summer for the Gods: The Scopes Trial and America’s Continuing Debate Over Science and Religion. New York: Basic Books.

Sheler, Jeffery L. (1996, November 4). Outlook: Evolution. U.S. News and World Report.

Stevens, L. Robert. (1978). Charles Darwin. Boston: Twayne Publishers.

Weisstein, Eric W. (1996-98). Charles Darwin/Jean Lamarck. On Scientific Biography Website (http://www.astro.virginia.edu/%7Eeww6n/bios0.html).

White, Michael and John Gribbin. (1995). Darwin: A Life in Science. New York: Dutton.

Charles Lyell’s (b. A.D. 1797 – d. A.D. 1875) Principles of Geology:

Darwin read and was profoundly influenced by Lyell’s Principles of Geology Being an Attempt to Explain the Former Changes of the Earth’s Surface by Reference to Causes Now in Operation (18) while on the Beagle voyage. In his book this Scottish geologist argued for a “Uniformitarian” view of the geological formation of the Earth.

Lyell (and others before him, such as the Scottish geologist Hutton) proposed “Uniformitarianism” in contrast to the widely accepted “Catastrophic” versions previously proposed in history; the “Catastrophic” theories primarily stated that the great geological changes which had taken place in the Earth’s geological layers on its crust were due to cataclysmic events (e.g., great global floods) taking place at intervals in the Earth’s history.

The “Uniformitarian” approach as maintained by Lyell suggested that the Earth’s history was much longer (perhaps millions of years rather than a few thousand years) than previously believed and that the changes in its crust geology took place gradually. In taking its own time, then, the Earth’s geology developed much more slowly than the processes suggested by “Catastrophism.”


Albert Einstein: “Relative” to the Universe

Albert Einstein (b. A.D. 1879 – d. A.D. 1955) was already coming into fruition as a physicist when the nineteenth century gave way to the twentieth; his discoveries in theoretical and applied physics would, of course, change forever the method and manner in which the universe (and its space and time) would be conceptualized. Almost as important as his contributions to physics and cosmology was Einstein’s support throughout the first half of the twentieth century for the growing impact that such philosophical movements as rationalism, positivism, relativism and materialism had been having on science in general during the seventeenth, eighteenth and nineteenth centuries (The Enlightenment). The rules for discussion between religion and science were changing with “light speed” (all puns intended here!) during the first half of the twentieth century.

Einstein’s first impacting contributions to science came in 1905 when he received his doctorate from the University of Zurich and, subsequently, published three theoretical papers that have now been substantiated as being of central importance to twentieth century physics. The third paper, entitled “On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies,” contained what became known eventually as the “Special Theory of Relativity” and was actually Einstein’s attempt to explain why Scottish physicist James Clerk Maxwell’s (b. A.D. 1831 – d. A.D. 1879) mathematical assertions about his well-accepted “Theory of Electromagnetism” were correct. Einstein’s “Special Theory of Relativity,” of course, finally became just as well-known, well-debated and well-accepted as Maxwell’s theory.

As soon as these papers had been published, however, Einstein immediately began work on extending and generalizing the theory of relativity to all coordinate systems. His full “General Theory of Relativity” was finally published in 1916. His more-than-brilliant depiction of time and how the interplay between gravitation and the space-time continuum affected time (now called “Time Dilation”) stood the experimental tests of time and is now still well-accepted.

By way of his discoveries in theoretical physics, Einstein developed a religious philosophy that came to “inform his science.” Denying the logical possibility of a personal God (i.e., one who intervened in personal human affairs), Einstein, however, was anything but an atheist. In describing the radiant beauty, the harmony and the awesome structure of the universe Einstein sometimes utilized the term “God” to depict a Divine Reason, Spirit, or Intelligence: a God who was identified with the universe and its laws taken together.

While Einstein was usually not enamored by the religious apologists of his day for his belief in a non-traditional God different from those described in various sacred scriptures, he also received enormous peer pressure from fellow scientists because of his unswerving belief in a Creator of the universe. In a now well-known dialogue of 1935, the Danish physicist Niels Bohr argued that recent developments in quantum mechanics demanded a “complete renunciation of the classical idea of causality and a radical revision of attitudes toward the problem of physical reality.” In response to this, Einstein, asserting his eccentric belief in a beginning and a Beginner, stated, “I am convinced that He (God) does not play dice.”

Although many scientists during the twentieth century continue to affirm belief in a particular God and/or a particular religion, there are many learned persons of science who have managed to make the pursuit of scientific knowledge itself a kind of religion. Some have called this unyielding faith in natural philosophy and the pursuit of a more complete understanding of the laws of the universe as its own religion of sorts: “scientism.”

The earlier twentieth century revolution in physics, vanguarded primarily by Einstein but then, also, by others in the sciences, seemed to have been an important factor in widening an ever-growing gap of understanding between science and religion.

 Einstein’s Belief In God: “I believe in Spinoza’s God who reveals Himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns Himself with the fates and actions of human beings.” [Telegram of 1929]

Einstein on Science and Religion: “But, on the other hand, everyone who is seriously involved in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that a spirit is manifest in the laws of the Universe – a spirit vastly superior to that of man, and one in the face of which we with our modest powers must feel humble. In this way the pursuit of science leads to a religious feeling of a special sort, which is indeed quite different from the religiosity of someone more naive.” [As quoted in Dukas, Helen and Banesh Hoffman. (1979). Albert Einstein – The Human Side. Princeton University Press.]


Board of Trustees of the University of Illinois. (1995) Einstein’s Legacy/Unwinding the Clockwork Universe. In Spacetime Wrinkles. At web site http://www.ncsa.uiuc/edu/Cyberia/NumRel/NumRelHome.html

Brinton, Crane, John B. Christopher and Robert Lee Wolff. (1967). Man’s Fate in the Twentieth Century: The Sciences. In A History of Civilization (Volume Two). (pp.652-653), Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc.

Brooke, John Hedley. (1991). Science and Religion in the Twentieth Century – Toward a New Understanding of Science: The Revolution in Physics. In Science and Religion: Some Historical Perspectives. (pp.321-334), Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

Brunner, Borgna (ed.). (1998). People/ Maxwell, James Clerk. In The Time Almanac 1999. (p. 660), Boston: Information Please LLC.

Ferris, Timothy. (1997). Contrarian Theological Afterward. In The Whole Shebang: A State-of-the-Universe(s) Report. (pp.303-312), New York: Touchstone Books.

Gribbin, John. (1981). The Origin of the Universe: The Expanding Universe (Chapter One). In Genesis: the Origins of Man and the Universe. (pp.5-37), New York: Delta Publishing Co.

Harrison, Paul. (1996). Albert Einstein. On The A to X-Files – Albert Einstein’s Thoughts On….. Website (http://www.angstromprod.com/xfiles/albert.html)

Menton, David N. (1991). Carl Sagan: Prophet of Scientism. Missouri Association for Creation, Inc.

Ross, Hugh. (1996). Einstein’s and Hawking’s Conclusions About God. On The Y Files Website (http://www.yfiles.com/relativity.html)

Scott, Jon. (1997-98). Was Einstein an Atheist? On The Talk.Science Archive Website (http://www.mytownnet.com/content/WA/Aberdeen/Einstein.htm)

Hyperlinks to Short Articles – Albert Einstein:

1) “Special Theory of Relativity:”

Einstein’s first theory of relativity, eventually dubbed the “Special Theory of Relativity,” was first published in 1905 within the paper entitled “The Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies.” In it he broke away from Isaac Newton’s dependence on space and time as distinctive, invariable frames of reference and he attempted, apparently in a successful manner, to address contemporary inconsistencies discovered in James Clerk Maxwell’s electromagnetic theory.

Two postulates were theorized by Einstein in his 1905 paper:

1) The speed of light is the same for all observers, regardless of their motion relative to the source of light; and

2) All observers moving at constant speed should observe the same physical laws.

In fusing together the logic within these two postulates, then, Einstein asserted that the only way these things can happen is if time intervals and/or lengths change according to the speed of the system relative to the observer’s frame of reference. This insight conflicted with traditional scientific logic based upon Newton’s and Maxwell’s assertions; Einstein’s claims, however, have since been confirmed to hold true in a number of subsequent, solid experiments.

When Einstein discovered this relativity of space and time he also discovered something very revolutionary: matter and energy are interrelated, even equivalent. The similitude of space and time was summed up by Einstein in the famous equation: E = mc2.

Einstein’s 1905 theory is referred to as the “Special Theory” because it is limited to bodies moving in the absence of a gravitational field.

2) “General Theory of Relativity:”

Einstein spent eleven years between 1905 and 1916 nurturing and formulating his “General Theory of Relativity” which claimed to account for the effect of gravitation on space and the flow of time. This “General Theory” proposed that matter causes space to curve.

In this theory Einstein speculated that smaller masses travel toward larger masses because the smaller objects are traveling through space that is warped by the larger object. It is difficult for us to fully envision this phenomenon, since we can only observe in three dimensions: Einstein’s theory conjectures that this space-time warp occurs in a seven dimension configuration which includes one dimension for time.

The theories advanced by Einstein, including his “General Theory of Relativity,” are generally expressed mathematically via complex equation sets involving tensor algebra and Riemannian geometry. They are utilized in order to describe and “squeeze” a seven-dimension circumstance into a more understandable three-dimension space-time continuum. The involved mathematical calculations describe how an object curves space and how the curvature, then, stretches or squeezes matter in three spatial directions, i.e., north-south, east-west and up-down.

3) “Time Dilation:”

The “Special Theory of Relativity” as maintained by Einstein took into account that time does not flow at a fixed rate. This effect of “Time Dilation” is only minuscule in most circumstances within the universe as we understand it, but it does become quite significant at very high velocities that approach the speed of light.

The equations of relativity, moreover, when “generalized” to account for gravitation predict that gravity (or the curvature of space-time by matter) either stretches or shrinks distances (depending on their direction with respect to the gravitational field under scrutiny) and the flow of time appears to slow down or “dilate.”

Example: An observer located a far distance from a black hole (an area of absolutely dense matter with an extremely strong gravitational attraction) would view time passing remarkably slowly for a person falling through the black hole’s boundary and would never see the person actually fall; time, as measured by the observer, would seem to stand still.

Big Bang

The Big Bang Theory and Our Present State of Knowledge

For the dominant latter portion of the twentieth century it has been the Big Bang Theory that has prevailed in theoretical physics and, by necessarily convincing argument and appropriate fit, other branches of science. Also known as the “Standard Model,” it offers a sometimes empirically, but mostly theoretically, plausible explanation for how the universe began and how it continues to operate/function. It is this theory, as well, that has become the subject itself of anything from gentle discussion to heated debate among scientists, theologians and philosophers as to the origin(s), history and, indeed, the future of the universe in which we abide.

In 1927 Georges Lemaitre (b. A.D. 1894 – d. A.D. 1966), a Belgian physicist/cosmologist and a priest, began to put together the theoretical inferences that would later be modified by the Russian mathematician Alexander Friedmann (b. A.D. 1888 – d. A.D. 1925) and, much later (1948), by the Russian-American physicist George Gamow (b. A.D. 1904 – d. A.D. 1968) into the theory that would eventually acquire the label “Big Bang Theory.” 1

In a nutshell, the popularly accepted tenets of today’s “Big Bang Theory” state that:

The universe originated from an initially dense state of high energy that was extremely hot (approximately 100 billion degrees Celsius);

This primordial energy burst forth in an explosive array that formed an initial dense concentration of matter that has continued to expand outward since the actual “big bang” itself;

The “big bang” universe is isotropic (i.e., “exhibiting properties with the same values when measured along axes in all directions”) and homogeneous (i.e., “of uniform structure”);

We know that the universe continues to expand out from its primordial state;

We know what the ‘big bang” was like, but can know that only as far back as 10-43 seconds after it took place. Anything before that very tiny moment of time cannot be accounted for with our present state of knowledge.

With regard to research about the “Big Bang Theory,” many scientists, theologians and philosophers in the latter half of the twentieth century have come to recognize that, within our observable universe, two basic types of knowledge seem to be attainable: analytic knowledge 2 is that which we seem to be able to know almost with 100% certainty, and synthetic knowledge 3, which lies outside of analytic knowledge and cannot be known with 100% certainty given the most current level of information and experimental methods available.

Scientists, theologians and philosophers seem to be able to handle, at least to a certain extent, two types of events in our universe: reproducible events, which can be observed and experimented with because they either happen over and over again or can be made to take place over and over again; and unpredictable events which can, at least, be observed and reported when they happen via statistical inquiry. There is, however, a third type of event, one called a singular event (or singularity) that cannot be reduced to observable or statistical inquiry because it was only capable of happening once in our universe and it will not ever happen again.

From the best theoretical physics and theoretical mathematics of the Big Bang Theory comes the assertion of a singular event that is, admittedly, impossible to reproduce (although many scientists working with supercolliding machines believe that, within a few decades, it may be possible when the level of scientific information and observation methods are improved): the Creation of the universe.

In 1965, two scientist-researchers at the Bell Telephone Research Laboratories, Arnos Penzias and Robert Wilson, were using an extremely sensitive antenna to measure galactic radio waves. In using their antenna they observed some very weak and unexplained electromagnetic radiation that “seemed to be coming simultaneously from all directions in outer space.” They soon perceived that this radiation was specifically what had been predicted by the Big Bang Theory. This rather constant emission is now known as the Cosmic Background Radiation and is almost universally accepted as a standard measurement of the original Big Bang radiation.

Although this is admittedly what makes discussion among theologians, scientists and philosophers about the origins of the universe a difficult subject with which to wrestle, it is also the framework which is making it more possible for all who are willing to come together to dialogue. It seems as if, after all, science and religion may have more common ground than ever believed since the time of The Enlightenment. The best of our knowledge as we approach the new millennium does not allow us, whether from the vantage point of religion or science, to know empirically what or who the origin of the universe is based in. Many continue to speculate, and many have come to believe that appropriate dialogue has brought many to the discussion tables who would not have thought of doing so as recently as 50 years ago.

Quotable Quotes:

Wernher von Braun (b. A.D. 1912 – d. A.D. 1977): “I find it as difficult to understand a scientist who does not acknowledge the presence of a superior rationality behind the existence of the universe as it is to comprehend a theologian who would deny the advances of science.” [from Morris, Henry M.. (1982, 1988). Men of science, men of god: great scientists who believed the bible. Master Books.]

Paul Davies (British-born mathematical physicist/professor of philosophy): “It is impossible to be a scientist, even an atheist scientist, and not be struck by the awesome beauty, harmony, and ingenuity of nature. What most impresses me is the existence of an underlying mathematical order, an order that led the astronomer Sir James Jeans to declare, ‘God is a pure mathematician.’ “

Gregg Easterbrook (Journalist): “if nothing else, the theological idea of creation ex nihilo – out of nothing – is looking better all the time as ‘inflation’ theories increasingly suggest the universe emerged from no tangible source. The word ‘design,’ rejected by most 20th-century scientists as a theological taboo in the context of cosmology or evolution, is even creeping back into the big-bang debate.” (In U.S. News and World Report, August 10, 1998)

Leon Lederman (American theoretical physicist): “We don’t know anything about the universe until it reaches the mature age of a billionth of a trillionth of a second – that is, some very short time after creation in the Big Bang.”

Lederman again: “When you read or hear anything about the birth of the universe, someone is making it up. We are in the realm of philosophy. Only God knows what happened at the very beginning (and so far She hasn’t let on).”


1 The original term “Big Bang” was coined by Fred Hoyle in an interview on BBC radio. He used the term originally in a derogatory sense to set it off from the theory that he himself held to at that time, the “Steady State Theory.” The term “Big Bang,” however, stuck.

2 An example of analytic knowledge within the field of mathematics that has been acquired and seems to be 100% certain might be: 2+2=4.

3 Two examples of synthetic knowledge, which could also be asserted on the basis of “faith” and/or “belief” as well as observable/theoretical information and are, therefore, not at all near 100% certain, that may suffice for our discussion:

It is far from 100% certain that all known matter is built from six quarks and six leptons, as many theoretical physicists assert presently; however, some of the latest findings in theoretical physics and theoretical mathematics have impelled many to believe to a degree of conclusion that these were the earliest building blocks for all matter in the “Big Bang” universe, even though our present state of intelligence is probably decades away from demonstrating this and, therefore, approaching anything like 100% certainty about the matter; and

It is far from 100% certain that an Intelligent Designer, a Creator, a God, actually created the universe and all within it. The theoretical and/or allegorical information about creation available from various sacred texts (e.g., The Bible, The Quran, etc.) and from the undemonstrated theories of many theologians and/or scientists and/or philosophers has not yet been substantiated with anything near 100% empirically certain observation.


Aviezer, Nathan. (1999). The big bang theory. On The Torah and Science Web Site. (http://members.xoom.com/torahscience/bigbang2.htm)

Brinton, Crane, John B. Christopher and Robert Lee Wolff. (1967). Man’s Fate in the Twentieth Century: The Sciences. In A History of Civilization (Volume Two). (pp.652-654), Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc.

Ferris, Timothy. (1997). Preface. In The Whole Shebang: A State-of-the-Universe(s) Report. (pp.14-17), New York: Touchstone Books.

Gange, Robert. (1994). The Fingerprints of God: The Origin of the Universe. The Forerunner.

Haines-Stiles, Geoff. (1996). Why do scientists believe in the big bang theory? On the Live from the hubble telescope web site/NASA (http://quest.arc.nasa.gov/hst/QA/Universe_Origins/)

Lederman, Leon with Dick Teresi. (1993). The invisible soccer ball (chapter 1). In The God Particle: If the Universe is the Answer, What is the Question? (p.1), Boston: Houghton Mifflin Co.

Morris, Henry M. (1998). Can Scientists Be Christians? The Mandate, 18(29).

Odenwald, Sten. (1987). Beyond the Big Bang. Kalmbach Publishing Co. Available on web page: (http://www2.ari.net/home/odenwald/anthol/beyondbb.html)

Weinberg, S. (1977). The First Three Minutes: A Modern View of the Origin of the Universe. (p.188), New York: Basic Books.

Weisstein, Eric. W. (1996-98). Friedmann, Alexander/Gamow, George/Lemaitre, Abbe’. On scientific biography website (http://www.astro.virginia.edu/%7Eeww6n/bios0.html)

Whitmore, Bradley C. (1993-1996). Cosmology. In the Encarta encyclopedia (CD-ROM version). Microsoft Corporation.

Galileo Revisited

To commemorate the 100th anniversary of Albert Einstein’s birth, Pope John Paul II convened his Church’s Pontifical Academy of Sciences, the College of Cardinals and the Diplomatic Corps in Vatican City on November 10, 1979. The precipitating purpose for this gathering, according to John Paul II, was “that theologians, scholars and historians, animated by a spirit of sincere collaboration, will study the Galileo case more deeply…..”

In 1981 the Roman Catholic Pontiff created an ongoing commission to “coordinate the research of theologians, scientists and historians which would help to further clarify the events which occurred between Galileo and the Church and, more generally, the Ptolemaic – Copernican controversy of the 16th and 17th centuries in which the Galileo affair is situated.” While the commission was empowered to study the Galileo incident specifically, it also was given the authority by John Paul II to consider related issues having to do with exegetics (i.e., Bible interpretation and applicability to the Galileo situation), general culture, science and epistemology (the study of knowledge, its acquisition and its distribution), and history and jurisprudence.

After more than a decade of intensive work and dialogue, the commission made recommendations to Pope John Paul II. Then, on October 31, 1992, the Pope officially closed the work of the commission, declaring that the “church had erred in condemning Galileo Galilei in 1633 for asserting that the Earth revolves around the sun.”

Incidentally, something associated with the Galileo commission’s relatively brief work that continues to perform practical scientific functions is the Vatican Observatory. This astronomical observatory, started and funded by Pope Gregory XIII in 1582 (actually, before the Galileo controversy took place), originated in the Roman Catholic Church’s desire to be as scientifically accurate as possible at the time in order to reform the calendar. Although the location and the purposes for the Vatican Laboratory have changed over the past four centuries, it is still functioning as an interdisciplinary program between religion and science with facilities at Castel Gandolfo close to Rome, Italy. In cooperation with the University of Arizona in the United States, a second research center (the Vatican Observatory Research Group) was built and staffed in Tucson, Arizona and works collaboratively with staff at the Steward Observatory at the University of Arizona.

This in – depth, very successful undertaking on the part of theologians, scientists and historians has been indicative of the cooperation yearned for (and somewhat achieved) by concerned and informed persons and movements in the latter half of the twentieth century. The hope is that as many as possible will desire to imagine and, then, actualize increasing cooperation between religion and science.

%d bloggers like this: