Reading Connections #2: Creation of Nature: Then and Now

After reading a segment of 'nature and god, wisdom and will' from Shapin's "The Scientific Revolution," I got a better idea of the common perception of people at that time regarding the creation of 'nature.' Shapin refers that nature shows solid evidence of design, that it's 'artfully' contrived, which was generally accepted by mechanical philosophers. If this design isn't accounted for by the intelligence of nature itself, then this artful design had to arise from something outside of nature. This train of thought was the basis of one of the most important 17th century arguments for the existence, intelligence and creation of nature from a deity, or God. This argument of design links the practice of science and religious values in this early period. This wide idea or argument, or common perception that God, or a deity is responsible for the intelligent and specific design of nature was the cornerstone of common or natural theology. Shapin was essentially pointing out that around the end of this period religion and science meshed and reconciled fairly well. Generally, the blend between religion and science at this point coincided together without many disagreements. There was a widely perceived common thought that God truly exists, and the evidence of the creation of nature exists, due to a seemingly highly detailed natural world so perfect that it only is attributed to God's creation. As i read about Shapin's take on how many people of the 16th and 17th centuries were deeply rooted in the 'ethical' belief of this intelligent design from a higher power, I did some research on some current beliefs on the theories and thoughts of the creation of nature.

I located an article from BBC news, titled, "Universe child of previous one." Which refers to how a joint UK-US team has attempted an alternative theory of cosmic evolution. The article suggests that the Universe undergoes cycles of "Big Bangs" and "Big Crunches", meaning our Universe is merely a "child of the previous one". It challenges the conventional view of the cosmos, especially the views of the 16th/17th century scientific revolution. The new ideas may explain why the expansion of the Universe is accelerating. Professor Paul Steinhardt of Princeton University is quoted from the article, "at present the conventional view is that all of space, time, matter and energy began at a single point, which then expanded and cooled, leaving the Universe as it is today...It can be thought of as a child of the previous universe." This new theory suggests that there's a continuous cycle of universes, with each a repeat of the last, but not an exact replica. The new idea builds on previous work by the same team, and is set to challenge the current model. When observations showed the Universe to be expanding, this caused some of the biggest unanswered questions about the origin and characteristics of the universe and cosmic physics.
The article outlines the modern thought and theories of the creation of the universe, Professor Neil Turok, of Cambridge University have developed a theory to explain the cosmological creation. They suggest that time actually began before the Big Bang, meaning there was a preexisting universe. This would also mean that the current Universe is much older than presently accepted. "At present there may be an alternative 'dark matter' universe that exists at the same time as ours, but we could never reach it," explains Professor Turok. He says the best way to think of this is to think of a pane of double glazing with a fly on it. The fly is unable to cross over from one side to another, just like we are unable to get from one universe to another. These two universes are drawn together by the force of gravity and will eventually collide. This means that things that are happening now will help to create another universe in the future. This modern article expands concepts in our class because it shows the massive evolution and knowledge that humans contain of the universe and nature itself, and the massive evolution of the theories and thoughts of thinkers of how and why the universe exists and was created. This source is relevant to our class because it shows the modern scientific conception of how our universe was initiated. This source depicts how our modern lifestyle seems to lack a strong connection between science and religion. This study, and other scientific studies are mostly reliant on the science, rather than any religious aspects. There seems to be a lot more disagreement, and less of a friendly connection on issues between science and religion in modern times. Scientific study, at least in my mind, appears to have a less direct involvement and agreement with religion in our modern day rather than the time Shapin was referring to.

Works Cited:

Cruddas, Sarah. Universe 'child of previous one'. 5 May 2006. BBC News. 24 Oct. 2008 <http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4974134.stm>

Shapin, Steven. The Scientific Revolution. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1996.