Two Peas in a Pod: This Time, the Pope is Just as Wrong as the Physicists!

What is the best way to respectfully disagree with a pope? I guess the best way is to just state the case that, as wise as the pope is, and as much as he knows about faith, compassion, and virtue, it just might be that he’s a little wrong on some things, right? Well, my reaction to the words of Pope Francis yesterday is just that: I respectfully disagree. I have firm footing to stand on… after all, popes have been misinformed about science in the past, right? As long as he’s not speaking ex-cathedra on an issue of Faith or Morals, I am not obliged to take on Faith what he says.

Yesterday, Pope Francis said, “The Big Bang, which today we hold to be the origin of the world, does not contradict the intervention of the divine creator but, rather, requires it” (you can see more of his comments here). And on this point, the pope is wrong. Let me be more specific: IF there was a Big Bang, then I agree that it would have required a Divine Creator. But to take for granted that a Big Bang must have happened, just because the scientific evidence points to it? A big mistake, and an abrogation of authority.

The laws of physics are powerful: to a physicist, a little information about a projectile flying through the air in a big, swooping parabolic arc allows him to tell you exactly where the projectile was launched from, and at what speed; and allows him to determine where the projectile will land. And he’ll be right every time, because the laws of physics are well-known and very precise.

The physics that determine the scientist’s understanding of the origin of the universe are no different. We observe details about the world around us, apply the well-known physical laws that dictate how the universe behaves, and calculate backwards in time to arrive at the Big Bang… or, similarly, to arrive at the theory of evolution. The laws may be more complex, but the process is identical.

Think again of the simple example of the projectile seen arcing through the sky. What if God used his “magic wand” to create the projectile in mid-flight, and gave it all of the properties (speed, trajectory, etc.) to make the observant scientist conclude a launch point somewhere over on the farside of the hill. If the scientist didn’t see God create the projectile in mid-flight, he would be unpersuadable. He would only believe (the heathen!) that the projectile was fired from the point indicated by his calculations.

You see, scientists have no say over “initial conditions.” If they are not in complete control of the experiment to observe the starting point, then they can only assume that the same rules applied over the entire duration of the “experiment” they are trying to observe, and can only deduce the initial conditions.

But scientists were not paying attention during the origin of the universe. They can only tell us what the evidence indicates. But what we’re talking about is God--you know, the all-powerful Being that created the laws of physics and is not bound by them. So we are talking about a matter of Faith. You must believe that God created the universe - it can’t be proven. If you believe, then no amount of data can tell you how He did it, because He could have established the initial conditions in any manner He saw fit. It turns out that the physicists have to make an awfully big assumption: they assume God chose to be bound by the laws of physics that He created. And don't the Faithful have evidence that He does not bind Himself to these laws? If God performs miracles, then it follows that He chooses to violate His own physical laws from time to time.

At this point, I’d like to make clear what I’m NOT saying: I’m not saying that the Big Bang could not have happened. It could have. God could have chosen to create the universe through a Big Bang. What I am saying is that scientists have no business telling us how the universe started; they are not philosophers or theologians (as much as they might like to think that they are). The role of science is to tell us what the evidence and theories point toward. Our theologians and philosophers should interpret the scientific evidence together with Revealed Truth and are singularly empowered to draw conclusions; but instead, we see them bowing to the supposed final authority of science. And let's contemplate the possibility that it's not our place to know with certainty our origins; after all, it is hubris indeed to think that God can be fully understood.


The pope should reassert his authority and help us understand the most likely way that God might have created the universe; but he should not begin his speech by foolishly conceding that scientific assertions are undoubtedly right. After all, the only group wrong about physics more than the Church is… physicists!