At The Nexus Of Science And Religion

FREE hit counter and Internet traffic statistics from freestats.com

I confess to being one of those people who sees no real conflict between the concepts of science and of religion. For me, science is designed to answer the question "How?" and religion, the question "Why?"

There may seem to be overlap, but that's only because people are all-too often imprecise in how they use language. Science can tell us the Universe began in the Big Bang--but it cannot tell us why the Big Bang happened beyond a physical description of the conditions, which equals "how." Only religion can answer the larger philosophical question of Who prompted that "how" in the first place.

I was paying not enough attention to a program on the Science Channel HD this afternoon when I heard a cosmologist express an idea that was one of the most creative and yet simple observations I've heard in years. I regret that I wasn't paying closer attention. I have no idea what his name is or at what university he works--but I think his idea is well worth exploring. He himself admitted he may be wrong, but as he also rightly noted, this is how science and knowledge advance. People observe things; they formulate theories (in the scientific sense); they then test the theories by making more observations which will confirm, modify, or obliterate those theories. They then make further observations to test the "new" theories.

[Note that Darwin's "theory" of evolution is a "theory" only in that scientific sense; so far, no evidence has been repeatedly observed which contradicts it; at most, additional observations have caused minor modifications to the "theory's" details. Only the ignorant still deny that Darwin's general "theory" is correct.--Ed.]

Anyway, this cosmologist's idea came from his observation that, based on what we now know, the Universe cannot be as big as it is when considering how old it is. For when we "run the cosmic clock backwards," certain parts of the Universe that must at some point have been in mutual physical contact have not had enough time to come back together. He called this "the horizon problem."

So in a flash of insight, he postulated that at some point in the past, the speed of light must have been faster than it is now. He calls this "VSL," or "varying speed of light." Other scientists have called is idea the "very silly speed of light." If he is correct, however, we must retool Einstein's general theory of relativity . . . and I can no longer display my bumper sticker that says "186,000 miles per second. It's not just a good idea. It's the law."

But it makes sense to me, based on yet another fundamental law of science (and one against which I've been fighting most of my life): the second law of thermodynamics, which says in its most concise form that "entropy increases."

We all know that things change over time--hot things cool off, orbits decay (anyone remember SkyLab and Mir?), wind-up toys slow down. Entropy increases. Things get messier, often seemingly of their own accord. But the changes are due partly to loss of energy sources, partly due to the action of friction, and partly due to the effects of gravity. We all know gravity bends light waves. That's one of the major predictions of Einstein's theory which has been proved only recently. Only recently did we get the technological sophistication to make the measurements/observations in a way that can be confirmed independently. Remember, the sine qua non of the scientific method is independent corroboration, by observation or by duplicating experimental results. That's the main reason that those who claimed to have produced "cold fusion" failed. No one could repeat their results when performing their same experiments under rigorous, scientifically-controlled conditions.

The other thing I like about this cosmologist's idea is that it embodies Occam's Razor: when you have more then one possible explanation for something, the simplest one normally is correct.

He may well be proven wrong someday. Still, it doesn't matter to him or to me. What matters is that his idea will engender further scientific inquiry. With additional facts come additional knowledge, and that is never bad . . . despite what many claim happened in the Garden of Eden.