Genesis 1: A Cosmogenesis? | by Fr. Stanley L. Jaki

Genesis 1: A Cosmogenesis? | Stanley L. Jaki | Reprinted from the August/September 1993 issue of Homiletic & Pastoral Review

“Nihil pulchrius Genesi, nihil utilius.” Nothing more beautiful than Genesis, nothing more useful.

Genesis 1 is the most newsworthy chapter in the Bible. There can never be more fundamental news than that all depends on God because he made all, indeed the all, or the universe. This news did not come from any of the sages of ancient cultures. Genesis 1 is the most memorable source of that news, though in a way which has been all too often taken for a confrontation with news science seems to provide about the origin of the universe. Legion is the number of exegetes and theologians who in modern scientific times wanted to appear more newsworthy by showing that there is an agreement, a concordance, between the majestic diction of Genesis 1 and the science of the day.
 
The latest frenzy along these lines was sparked by the news, disclosed at the Spring 1992 meeting of the American Physical Society, that irregularities were discovered in the 2.7°K cosmic background radiation through a satellite in charge of COBE, or “COsmic Background Experiment.” The discovery merely filled a gap in an already impressive evidence about the so-called Big Bang theory of cosmic development.

The term Big Bang may mistakenly suggest that it is about the absolute origin or beginning of things. Rather, it is merely about the fact that science can trace cosmic processes to 15 or so billion years back in the past and that the farther back into the past those processes are traced, the more crowded upon one another they are found to be. At that distant point all matter existed in the form of an extremely condensed radiation. Does this mean that Moses, or whoever wrote Genesis 1, received an early revelation about the 2.7°K cosmic background radiation or about Maxwell’s equations of electro magnetics?

However, really serious questions arise. If one gives a scientific twist to “Let there be light,” then consistency demands that the same be done through the rest of Genesis 1. One should then answer scientifically the following questions: How could the earth, a planet, come before the sun? How could plants, which live on photosynthesis, thrive prior to the sun’s appearance? What constituted the outer confines of the upper and lower waters? Last but not least, in what sense can the firmament, produced on the second day, be an object of science?

Read the entire article...

Comments

[Tim]

I came upon an interesting book by Dr. Gerald Schroeder who is an M.I.T. trained physiscist now living in Israel. He has a jewish take on the sciences as referenced in Scripture; ie the age of the universe. His obvious position is that in Genesis, religion and science are not necessarily in conflict.

http://www.geraldschroeder.com/age.html

It is a relativly short read and I would appreciate your comments.

[James]

I love Fr. Jaki's writings. We should use him more to enhance Catholic outreach to those who think that faith is opposed to science.

[Linus]

Give us a break. Jaki was a fine priest and a great intellect but very difficult to understand. And what is the point? God created the world, who really cares how it is described in Genisis? You bright guys need some entertainment I guess but how can you ever hope to explain all this to Joe and Jane, the typical Catholic. Thomas Aquinas was much easer to understand than Jaki - or the author of this article.

[Paleothomist]

Fr Jaki is no friend of Catholicism. He is too quick to accept as decided merely plausible and ultimately changeable scientific theories as the truth itself. Scientific theories come and go, but |Jaki writes as if our current ideas are infallible. If there seems to be a conflict between the Bible and current scientific theories, he assumes right away that it is the Bible that must be reinterpreted, rather than taken the more tentative approach outlined by Pius XII in Humanae Generis.

Further, Fr. Jaki constantly undermines the Church's theological tradition. In particular he oftern belittles St. Thomas Aquinas, cheifly by his uninformed statements about what St. Thomas and Aristotle actually wrote. Rather than actually finding out, his criticism seem to be cribbed from Gilson and Duhem.

No, Fr. Jaki should not be used as an outreach. He should be rejected.

[RP]

Linus,

The article was written for lay people, if you can't understand then read it again! To quote a priest I know, "There is no room for anti-intellectualism in the Catholic Church!"

PT,
Fr. Jaki probably did more good for the Church in one day than either you or I will do in our liftimes. He does not belittle St. Thomas but he does not hesitate to correct him. Fr. Jaki magnificently walks the lines of faith and reason as John Paul II outlined in Fides et Ratio. As many have noted, he has paved the way for so many Catholics in the areas of science and religion. Yes, he had strong opinions, but that is how Theology is done! Why do you fail to account for his devastating critiques of science? Show me one time where he attempts to undermine the Church's magisterial teachings? I don't recall St. Thomas ever stating in the Summa that he was infallible. How about the many times that Fr. Jaki praises Aristotle, St. Thomas and the Tradition! He often quotes them firsthand, for goodness sake his Gifford Lectures have over 100 pages of footnotes. You state, "He is no friend of Catholicism." Well, that comment was just plain stupid!