The emergence of the 'big bang' as a model for the origins of the universe was resisted by a group of scientists who preferred a 'steady state' universe, with no definite 'cause'. Today Christians are often quick to adopt the big bang as a model compatible with the Genesis account of creation. It's interesting to look at where these theories came from, and the different reactions to them on either side of the Atlantic.

Fred Hoyle is now famous for his astronomy, and is much quoted, or perhaps misquoted, in the debate concerning the 'fine tuning' of the universe. He grew up in Yorkshire, and won a scholarship to study physics at Cambridge in 1933. He shone as a student, came top of his class, and started a PhD in theoretical physics. As time went on though, Hoyle became convinced that this field was running out of steam, so he moved to astronomy and published several papers on star formation. During World War 2 he ran a research group working on radar systems for the admiralty. On his team were the two men, Hermann Bondi and Thomas Gold, would become close collaborators on the steady state theory.

The three worked on the steady state model of the universe alongside their more mundane research on radar. It was a new idea that fitted the data available at the time, but they had trouble publishing it. Whether this was because the model meant that matter had to be continually created in the centre of their expanding universe, or because it avoided the need for a moment of 'creation' is difficult to tell. Bondi had a Jewish background, but disliked religion, and later in life he was president of the British Humanist Association. With Hoyle's rejection of religion after experiencing Catholic–Protestant rivalries as a child, and Gold's secular upbringing, the trio weren't eager to support a creation ex nihilo (from nothing) event…

The unusual aspect of this story is the role of popular media in providing an alternative platform to get their theory some attention. Fred Hoyle developed a reputation as a populariser of science when he gave a series of talks for BBC radio in 1949. Through these he was able to talk about the steady state theory, and coined the term 'big bang' for the alternative model (as a joke, but it stuck!) He used this platform to vent his views on politics and religion, causing a serious backlash, and his views on religion attracted more attention than his science. The chairman of the BBC commented that "Hoyle has not the humility of a good scientist".

Hoyle did get the chance to broadcast the same lectures again, with very few changes. This time though, the religious programmes department made a few shows with scientists who were more sympathetic to faith, including Dorothy L Sayers, who was known for her work on science and Christianity as well as her detective novels. The BBC's magazine The Listener was bombarded with letters from people on both sides of the debate, including some containing very technical details from a number of scientists. It's amazing that the written debate over the data on the origins of the universe was played out in this public forum, mixed in with fairly hostile personal attacks.

The response from the Victoria Institute (a Christian philosophical society, most of whom were scientists) was at a complete, and apparently publicly voiced, tangent to the polemic so far. Here the steady state model was given proper consideration as a scientific theory, without discussing Hoyle's religious views, and the religious implications of both the steady state and big bang theories were discussed. For example, Charles Coulson, the Oxford mathematician who wrote two of the most useful books at the time on science and faith from an evangelical viewpoint pointed out that the steady state theory involved continuous (although very slow) creation of new atoms – which could be said to be evidence of God¹s sustaining power.

The reaction to the steady state theory in the USA was very different. The physicist George Gamow, who was famous for his popular science books where he discussed both models, was working on the big bang. He had some lively public discussions with Hoyle, but these didn't get anything close to the exposure Hoyle's views had in the UK, and the steady state model seems to have generally been seen as a more obscure British theory. It was seen as less of a threat to religion, with more attention given to the big bang as a compatible theory with Genesis. The most significant difference here compared with the UK reactions was the lack of public discussion between the scientists and Christians in the '50s.

What does this show us? That the steady state theory was given prominence only because of Hoyle's antagonism towards religion, and the interchange between scientists and Christians (and Christian scientists) in the public arena. This raises some interesting questions about science. Although the process of acceptance or rejection of cosmological theories has once again come down to experimental evidence, with larger and more accurate telescopes, personal belief plays a part in what scientists choose to pursue. It is also a cautionary tale for those who are too quick to 'baptise' any one scientific theory.

Ruth Bancewicz, CiS Development Officer