¹ Griffin, David Ray, “Introduction to SUNY Series in Constructive Post Modern Thought” in Primordial Truth and Post Modern Theology, co-authored by David Ray Griffin and Huston Smith (New YorkState University of New York Press, 1989), xiiGoogle Scholar

² Ibid, xiii

³ Toulmin, Stephen, The Return to Cosmology: Post Modern Science and the Theology of Nature (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1982), 252.Google Scholar

⁴ See in particular Kuhn, Thomas S., The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1970).Google Scholar

⁵ For a more in-depth treatment of personal participation in scientific discovery and its validation, see Polanyi's, Michael ground-breaking work, Personal Knowledge: Towards a Post-Critical Philosophy (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1962).Google Scholar

⁶ Gerhart, Mary and Russell, Allen, Metaphoric Process: The Creation of Scientific and Religious Understanding (Fort Worth: Texas Christian University, 1984), 109.Google Scholar

⁷ There is an increasing number of books in which the culture dependency of scientific thought is being analyzed; see in particular the very helpful book by Harding, Sandra, The Scientific Question in Feminism (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1986)Google Scholar, and the collection of essays edited by Bleier, Ruth, Feminist Approaches to Science (New York: Pergamon, 1986).Google Scholar

⁸ The Doppler effect is the reason why the pitch or frequency of a train whistle appears higher if the train is approaching us, lower if it is receding. The same principle applies to light waves as to sound waves. The spectra of stars have dark and light features, due to their chemical make-up. At certain known frequencies which for light means certain colors, the doppler effect shifts them from their original frequencies. From this shift the velocity of approach or recession can be calculated.

⁹ Wolfgang Yourgrau accredits the term “Big Bang” to Fred Hoyle. Since he was deeply committed to the competing “Steady State” theory Hoyle intended the Big Bang metaphor to be derogatory; see “On Some Cosmological Theories and Constants” in Cosmology, History and Theology, ed. Yourgrau, Wolfgang and Breck, Allen D. (New York: Plenum, 1977), 189–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar For Gamow's explanation of his theory see his The Creation of the Universe (New York: Viking, 1952)Google Scholar and “The Evolutionary Universe” in The Universe: A Scientific American Book (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1957), 59–76.Google Scholar

¹⁰ Trefil, James S., The Moment of Creation: Big Bang Physics from Before the First Millisecond to the Present Universe (New York: Scribner's, 1983), 26–29.Google Scholar

¹¹ It is possible to trace the embryonic beginnings of contemporary postmodern science to the nineteenth century and the evolutionary theory of Darwin. The theory of natural selection was the first major chink in the armor of modern science. Even though “natural selection” was referred to as a law, it was a law unlike the laws of Newtonian science which was characterized by mechanism and determinism. Natural selection involved a spontaneous and unpredictable capacity for contingency in the structure of living forms.

¹² According to Heisenberg's Principle of Uncertainty, the more accurately a person knows the position of any subatomic particle by repeated experiment, the less accurately the person knows its velocity and vice versa. The Uncertainty Principle says in effect that it is not possible for a person to know both a particle's velocity and its position at the same time. The scientist can speak of the two within a range of probability, but cannot predict the behavior of any one particle.

¹³ Alfv́en, Hannes, “Cosmology: Myth or Science?” in Cosmology, History and Theology, 13–14.Google Scholar

¹⁴ It is not without significance that The Moment of Creation is the title of Trefil's scientific work on cosmology. Of related interest is the title for a 1992 article on the COBE findings, “The Handwriting of God,” Newsweek, 05 4, 1992, 76.Google Scholar

¹⁵ Gilkey, Langdon, “The Creationist Issue: A Theologian's View” in Cosmology and Theology, Concilium, 166, ed. Tracy, David and Lash, Nicholas (New York: Seabury, 1983), 61.Google Scholar

¹⁶ Pope Pius XII's address to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences is in Catholic Mind 50 (1952): 189–91;Google Scholar interest in the Pope's appraisal from the scientific community is evident in its publication in the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists 8 (1952): 143-46, 165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

¹⁷ Ernan McMullin, a student of Lemaître at the time, gives a first-hand account of his displeasure at the concordism if Pius XII in “How Should Cosmology Relate to Theology?” in The Sciences and Theology in the Twentieth Century, ed. Peacocke, A. R. (Notre Dame, IN: Notre Dame University Press, 1981), 53, n. 25.Google Scholar

¹⁸ Paul, Pope John II, “Message to the Reverend George V. Coyne, S.J., Director of the Vatican Observatory” in John Paul II on Science and Religion (Vatican City: Vatican Observatory, 1990), M 11-12.Google Scholar

¹⁹ Barbour, Ian G., “Creation and Cosmology” in Cosmos as Creation, ed. Peters, Ted (Nashville: Abingdon, 1989), 120–21.Google Scholar

²⁰ McMullin, , “How Should Cosmology Relate to Theology?,” 35–36.Google Scholar

²¹ Ibid., 36.

²² The widely held consensus among biblical scholars is that Genesis 1:1-2:4 is a myth from the Priestly tradition (circa sixth century B.C.E.), written to show how Israel's monotheist faith differed from that of the Babylonians, their polytheist oppressors. The Babylonian creation myth, Enuma elish, envisioned the universe as resulting from conflict among deities. In contrast, the progressive dynamic of creation in Genesis 1 emphasizes that the universe was fashioned by a God who creates in an orderly, purposeful, and nonviolent manner.

²³ This translation parallels more directly the opening line of the Babylonian myth, Enuma elish. See Plaut, W. Gunther, The Torah: A Modern Commentary (New York: Union of American Hebrew Congregations, 1981), 18.Google Scholar

²⁴ The mother of seven sons offers encouragement in the face of martyrdom with these words: “I beg you, child, to look at the heavens and the earth and see all that is in them; then you will know that God did not make them out of existing things; and in the same way the human race came into existence. Do not be afraid of this executioner, but be worthy of your brothers and accept death, so that in the time of mercy I may receive you again with them” (2 Macc. 7:28-29). Carroll Stuhlmueller argues that the mother is not necessarily relying on a common doctrine of creatio ex nihilo, unheard of in the Bible, but rather her words ought to be interpreted as new creation out of chaos. She is insisting that her child will be revived on the day of resurrection. See Stuhlmueller, Carroll and Bergant, Diane, “Creation According to the Old Testament” in Evolution and Creation, ed. McMullin, Ernan (Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press, 1985), 167.Google Scholar

²⁵ The first mandate of the Shepherd of Hermas begins with the confession that God created all things “out of which was not.” See “The Mandates of the Shepherd” in Shepherd of Hermas: The Gentle Apocalypse, adapted and introduced by William Jardine (Redwood City, CA: Proteus, 1992), 49.Google Scholar

²⁶ Against Heresies: A Refutation and Subversion of Knowledge Falsely So Called, Anti-Nicene Christian Library, 5, ed. Roberts, Alexander and Donaldson, James (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1968)Google Scholar, Bk. 2: chap. 10, #2 and #4, 156-46. Irenaeus uses creatio ex nihilo primarily against gnostic dualism and its belief that material creation is from evil deities that have gone astray. In contrast he argues that God called into being the substance of creation, when previously it had no existence.

²⁷ The Writings (De Principiis), trans. Crombie, Frederick (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1978), Bk. 2, chap. 2, #4 and #5, 75–77.Google Scholar In particular Origen calls those who would dispute that matter is uncreated and therefore co-eternal with the uncreated God “impious.” He cites 2 Maccabees 7 as backing for his argument.

²⁸ “Against Hermogenes” in Latin Christianity: Its Founder, Tertullian, ed. Coxe, Cleveland (New York: Scribner's, n.d.)Google Scholar, Bk. III, chap. 1, 477, and chap. 16, 486. Tertullian passionately condemns Hermogenes and others who teach the co-equality, co-eternity, and co-existence of matter and God. Elsewhere he condemns with equal passion the gnostic doctrine that matter originated in some evil principle.

²⁹ “On Genesis against the Manichees” in On Genesis: Two Books on Genesis against the Manichees, trans. Teske, Roland J. (Washington, DC: The Catholic University of America Press, 1991), Bk. 1, chaps. 6-7, 57-60.Google Scholar Creation from nothing was not an easy concept for Augustine to explain; it is significant that he emphasizes the omnipotence of God in this context. To say that an omnipotent God could not make something from nothing would be sacrilegious.

³⁰ Denzinger, Henricus and Schönmetzer, Adolfus, Enchiridion Symbolorum, Definitionum et Declarationum de Rebus Fidei et Morum, 36th ed. (Freiburg: Herder, 1976), #800;Google Scholar the Fourth Lateran Council's statement about creation is primarily leveled against the heresies of the Cathari and Albigenses.

³¹ Ibid. The decree states that the three persons of the Trinity “qui sua omnipotenti virtute simul ab initio temporis utramque de nihilo condidit creaturem.…”

³² Against the Manichees, Bk. 1, chap. 2, 50-51.

³³ Although Aristotle held that there was no beginning in time, Thomas Aquinas insisted that there was no conclusive argument either way. See Summa Theologiae, Ia, q. 46, trans. Fathers of English Dominican Province (New York: Benziger Brothers, 1947), 240–44.Google Scholar In Ia, q. 45, a. 1. Thomas indicates that he viewed the doctrine creatio ex nihilo as an affirmation of the emanation of all being from God, the Universal and First Cause, 232-33. The choice of the neo-Platonic term “emanation,” however, is not an indication of pantheism, since he clearly argues for the distinctness of created beings from God.

³⁴ Pelikan, Jaroslav, “Creation and Causality in the History of Christian Thought” in Evolution after Darwin, Issues in Evolution, 3, ed. Tax, Sol and Callendar, Charles (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1960), 38.Google Scholar

³⁵ Lash, Nicholas, “Considering the Trinity,” Modern Theology 2 (1986): 184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

³⁶ Summa Theologiae, Ia, q. 44, a. 1 (p. 229).

³⁷ Ibid., q. 45, a. 6 (p. 237).

³⁸ Hawking, Stephen, A Brief History of Time: From the Big Bang to Black Holes (New York: Bantam, 1988), 122.Google Scholar

³⁹ Ibid., 136. This position reflects the reality that the Big Bang is built upon a singularity to which the laws of physics cannot apply. It represnts a kind of limit or boundary to scientific inquiry, an event about which one can only speculate.

⁴⁰ McMullin, , “How Should Cosmology Relate to Theology?,” 52.Google Scholar Exploration of possible consonance has been undertaken by several theologians since the McMullin essay was published. In addition to Ian Barbour's contribution which will be addressed later, see Peters, Ted, “On Creating the Cosmos” in Physics, Philosophy and Theology: A Common Quest for Understanding, ed. Russell, Robert John, Stoeger, William R., and Coyne, George V. (Vatican City: Vatican Observatory, 1988), 273–96Google Scholar, and Russell, Robert John, “Cosmology, Creation and Contingency” in Cosmos as Creation, 177–209.Google Scholar

⁴¹ Willem B. Drees develops a proposal for constructive consonance between cosmology and theology in Beyond the Big Bang: Quantum Cosmologies and God (La Salle, IL: Open Court, 1990).Google Scholar On the whole, Drees presents theories of quantum cosmology well; however, his treatment of God is less satisfying because he virtually ignores the trinitarian nature of the Christian understanding of God.

⁴² Pannenberg, Wolfhart, “The Doctrine of Creation and Modern Science,” Zygon 23 (1988): 9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁴³ An Introduction to Systematic Theology (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1991), 40–42.Google Scholar

⁴⁴ Ibid., 41.

⁴⁵ Barbour, , Religion and the Age of Science, 142.Google Scholar

⁴⁶ Ibid., 145.

⁴⁷ Ibid., 145-46.

⁴⁸ Ibid., 230-31.

⁴⁹ Ibid., 233.

⁵⁰ Ibid., quoting Whitehead, Process and Reality (New York: Macmillan, 1929), 521.

⁵¹ Whitehead's conception of creativity reconciles God with scientific evolution, a constantly changing Darwinian world in which genuine novelty is being continuously produced. God is envisioned to be the source and stimulus of an evolving world. Process thought critiques creatio ex nihilo as an archaic symbol, because it is connected with a classical concept of God which depicts the creator as a static, pre-existent, and transcendent Being, who suddenly created a world in the beginning out of nothingness, but has since remained totally apart from it.

⁵² Gilkey, Langdon, Reaping the Whirlwind: A Christian Interpretation of History (New York: Seabury, 1981), 113.Google Scholar

⁵³ Ibid., 114.

⁵⁴ Barbour, , Religion and the Age of Science, 235;Google Scholar in the accompanying endnote he cites Cobb, John B. Jr., and Griffin, David Ray, Process Theology: An Introduction (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1976), chap. 3.Google Scholar

⁵⁵ Ibid.

⁵⁶ “Mother” is included: (1) God is parent and not exclusively father in relationship to the Son; (2) in “The Creed of Faith” of the Council of Toledo (675) the Mother quality of the divine parent is expressed in these paradoxical words in reference to the birth of the Son: “from the womb of the Father” (DS §276).

⁵⁷ Lash, “Considering the Trinity,” 186. It is quite likely that the structure of the Summa Theologiae in which Thomas Aquinas treated De Deo Uno and De Deo Trino separately may have contributed to the neglect of the Trinity in modern theism.

⁵⁸ Walter Kasper speaks of the modern age's abstract theism of a unipersonal God as “the heresy of theism.” He argues that this unipersonal God is a popular form of a Christianity half under the influence of the Enlightenment. See Kasper, Walter, The God of Jesus Christ, trans. O'Connell, Matthew J. (New York: Crossroad, 1984), 294–95.Google Scholar

⁵⁹ Rahner, Karl, The Trinity (New York: Herder and Herder, 1970), 22.Google Scholar

⁶⁰ Schoonenberg, Piet, “Trinity—The Consummated Covenant: Theses on the Doctrine of the Trinitarian God,” Studies in Religion/Sciences Religieuses 5 (1975–1976): 114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁶¹ For a more thorough and very helpful treatment of the relationship of the concepts economic and immanent Trinity, see LaCugna, Catherine Mowry, God for Us: The Trinity and Christian Life (San Francisco: Harper Collins, 1991), 211–41.Google Scholar

⁶² Rahner, Karl, Foundations of Christian Faith An Introduction to the Idea of Christianity (New YorkSeabury, 1978), 181Google Scholar

⁶³ Rahner, Karl, “Christology in the Setting of Modern Man's Understanding of Himself and His World” in Theological Investigations, vol 11 (New YorkCrossroad, 1982), 224Google Scholar My treatment of the creative activity of the divine Father and Mother, which will follow, is dependent on Rahner's analysis of God's involvement in evolution presented in this essay

⁶⁴ Johnson, Elizabeth A., She Who Is: The Mystery of God in Feminist Consciousness (New York: Crossroad, 1993), 135.Google Scholar