Lesson video

Hello, my name's Mrs. Robin and I'd like to welcome you to today's lesson on Christianity and the origins and value of the universe.

Today you're going to go to explain Christian beliefs about the origins and value of the universe and their response to scientific explanations.

Some keywords that we'll be looking at today are: Big Bang Theory, commodity, George Lemaitre, Fundamentalist, and Liberal.

Big Bank Theory is a scientific theory of the university's origin starting from a singularity approximately 14 billion years ago.

A commodity is something that can be used for personal gain.

George Lemaitre was a Belgian priest and physicist who laid the foundations for the Big Bang Theory in 1927.

A fundamentalist is someone who rejects modern knowledge in favour of a literal interpretation of religious texts, and a liberal is someone who prioritises modern knowledge and interpret religious texts metaphorically.

Today's lesson will have three parts.

We'll be looking at the origins of the universe, at Christian responses to scientific explanations, and at Christian teachings on the value of the universe.

So let's get started looking at the origins of the universe.

Andeep and Laura are asking some philosophical questions about the origins of the universe.

Andeep says: "Was the universe created or has it always existed?" Laura responds: "Does science support or challenge the idea of creation?" So what do you think might help us to answer these questions? If you are able to pause and turn and talk to someone nearby, please do, or you can pause and talk to me.

Come back when you are ready to rejoin.

Here's a picture of George Lemaitre.

George Lemaitre was a Belgian Catholic priest and physicist.

In the 1920s, he proposed the theory of an expanding universe.

It was him who introduced the concept of the primaeval atom, which later developed into the Big Bang Theory.

Lemaitre's ideas gained scientific support over time, but as a devout Catholic, Lemaitre believed science and faith could coexist.

Before the 20th century, most scientists believed the universe had always existed in a steady, unchanging state.

But new discoveries such as the Big Bang Theory, would challenge this.

So here we've got a timeline outlining some of the development of the Big Bang Theory.

In 1927, George Lemaitre first proposes that the universe started from a primaeval atom and is expanding.

In 1929, this was confirmed with Edwin Hubble who talked about the universe's expansion.

In a BBC radio broadcast, Fred Hoyle, who was a prominent physicist, actually mocked the Lemaitre Theory and he gave it the nickname of the Big Bang.

In 1964, Penzias and Wilson discovered Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation, which provided some evidence for the Big Bang.

And the Big Bang theory is now the leading explanation for the origins of the universe.

So let's check your understanding.

What is the missing word? A scientific theory which explains the origins of the universe is the ______ theory.

So pause the video, take a moment to jot down your answer and then come back when you are ready to check.

Well done if you put Big Bang.

Okay, so why is this the correct answer? Well, it's correct because it's the name of the theory attributed to Lemaitre, affirmed by other scientists such as Penzias, Wilson, and even later by someone called Stephen Hawking, And it can suggest that there's a starting point for the universe.

Remember Big Bang was actually a nickname originally given to the theory.

Here's a picture of the different Christian denominations.

Now, when Christians are thinking about questions such as: does science support or challenge the idea of creation, they would consult different sources of authority.

These could include the Bible, church teachings, which are known sometimes as tradition, particularly in the Catholic Church, church leaders, and they might interpret all of these sources differently or they might prefer or emphasise one over another.

We're gonna start with biblical teaching.

Genesis 1 outlines God creating the world in six days, while Genesis 2 focuses on the creation of Adam and Eve and humanity's role in creation.

Genesis 1 verse 1 says, in the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.

So what might the phrase the heavens and the Earth suggest about the extent of God's creation? Take a moment to think about your answer.

Pause the video and come back when you are ready to rejoin.

Perhaps you realise that it suggests that God is the creator of everything.

Genesis 1 verse 3 says, and God said, let there be light, and there was light.

What does this description of how God created suggest? Take some time to have a think about what the answer might be.

You can pause and turn and talk to somebody nearby if you're able to and come back when you're ready to rejoin.

So you might have noticed that it shows that God is powerful enough just to create through his words.

"So God created mankind in his own image, in the image of God he created them; male and female, he created them." Genesis 1:26 to 27.

What does the phrase image of God suggest about humans? So take your time to have a think about what that might suggest.

Pause and turn and talk to somebody or to me if you prefer, and come back when you are ready to rejoin.

Perhaps you notice that it seems to give humans a special status.

Genesis 2:7 says, "Now the Lord God had formed out of the ground, all the wild animals and all the birds in the sky.

He brought them to the man to see what he would name them." What does this suggest about the relationship between humans and the rest of creation? So have a think about what you might answer for that one.

Pause, come back to the lesson when you are ready.

Perhaps you talked about the idea that humans have a responsibility for God's creation.

Let's check your understanding.

How does Genesis 1:3 describe the creation process? A, God created light and separated it from darkness.

B, God created through his word.

C, the Big Bang caused the creation of light.

And D, God created the earth before light.

Have a think about your answer.

Pause the video if you need to and then come back when you are ready to check.

Well done if you put that God created through his words.

So God simply said, let there be light.

Let's have a look at what the churches teach about creation.

The Orthodox church generally teaches that God is the creator of all things and that God's creative work could include processes like the Big Bang.

Similarly, the Catholic Church sees the Big Bang theory as compatible with the belief in God as a creator and in encourages non-literal interpretations of Genesis 1 and 2.

Protestant churches such as the Church of England, Methodists and Quakers argue that the Big Bang theory does not contradict the Christian teaching of creation.

The Evangelical Alliance UK, which includes Pentecostal churches, emphasises the belief that Genesis 1-2 describes a literal six day creation.

So you can see we have a little bit of a difference there between some churches and their teaching on creation.

Which church or churches are most likely to teach that Christians should not accept the Big Bang theory? A, Evangelical churches such as Pentecostal Churches, B, the Roman Catholic Church, C, Protestant churches such as the Church of England, or D, the Greek and Eastern Orthodox churches.

So take a moment to think about which churches it might be.

Pause the video if you need to and then come back when you are ready to check.

Well done if you put Evangelical churches such as Pentecostal churches, they were the only denomination that we looked at that really emphasised reading the Bible more literally.

So we're going to practise your understanding now on the origins of the universe.

Consider the statement "Christian teachings about the origins of the universe are compatible with the Big Bang Theory".

So this is an evaluation type statement that you might get at GCSE in an exam question.

I would like you to decide whether these points could be used to argue for or against the statement and to explain how.

Lemaitre was a Roman Catholic priest and a physicist.

Lemaitre's idea of a primaeval atom or beginning.

Scientific theories are backed up by evidence.

Something had to have started the Big Bang.

Stephen Hawking argued the universe could emerge naturally.

So take a moment to think about how you would use those points.

Would they be for or against? And why.

Pause the video.

Come back when you've had time to write your answers and you are ready to check.

So you could have said that Lemaitre was a Roman Catholic priest and a physicist was an argument before because Lemaitre believed in both God and the Big Bang.

That Lemaitre's idea of a primaeval atom or beginning could also be used for, because it fits with the idea that God started everything.

That scientific theories are backed up by evidence could probably be used against because science is relying on proof and religious teachings are based on faith.

Something had to have started the Big Bang could be an argument for, because some people would say that the Big Bang needs a cause, which could be God.

And Stephen Hawking arguing that universe could emerge naturally would probably be an argument against, because essentially Hawking is saying that universe didn't need God to begin.

Well done if you've got any of those correct.

So whether they're for or against, and your explanations are similar to the things that I've got there.

We're gonna move on to the second part of our lesson: Christian responses to scientific explanations.

Sam and Lucas are discussing the statement, "Christian teachings about the origins of the universe are compatible with the Big Bang Theory".

So that's a statement that we've just been considering in our recent task.

Sam says, atheists believe religious teachings about creation conflict with the Big Bang Theory because it explains the universe's origin without needing God.

Lucas responds, but Christians could argue that God created the universe through the Big Bang.

So science explains how the universe began and faith explains why.

What do you think, does the Big Bang theory influence your thinking on the origins of the universe? How? If you're able to turn and talk to someone nearby, please do or you can pause and talk to me, come back when you are ready to rejoin.

Christian beliefs about creation are varied.

We have fundamentalist interpretations.

So these are people that read the Bible more literally, and they do not take it metaphorically.

Within those interpretations, we have something called Young Earth Creationism.

Young Earth Creationism rejects the Big Bang theory and interprets Genesis literally.

So a Young Earth Creationist might say God created the universe in six literal days and the Earth is only a few thousand years old.

We also have within fundamentalist interpretations Intelligent design.

Now, believers in intelligent design do accept the Big Bang theory to an extent, but not fully.

So they might say God created the universe with a purpose and the Big Bang theory shows evidence of intelligent design.

On the other hand, we have liberal interpretations and most of the Christian denominations, strictly speaking, were actually arguing for being more liberal and flexible with understanding Genesis 1 and 2.

So these would view the Genesis account as metaphorical and prioritise the Big Bang theory as factual.

They might say the Big Bang Theory, the Big Bang itself is God's tool for creation.

Now, what all these interpretations agree on is that God is the Creator.

So there's variety, but there is also something that all Christians would agree on.

Let's check your understanding.

Which statement is likely to be made by a fundamentalist Christian? Is it A, the universe was made in six 24 hour days, B, God created the Big Bang C, the Big Bang shows there was no creator or D, the Genesis creation story is a metaphor for God's power? Take a moment to think about your answer.

Pause the video and come back when you're ready to check.

Well done if you put A, the universe was made in six 24 hour days.

A fundamentalist is taking that account literally.

Fergus is a liberal Anglican and he's been asked whether the Big Bang theory supports or challenges the idea of God as creator.

He says The Big Bang theory doesn't conflict with belief in a creator.

Many Christians see it as God's tool for creation.

Genesis can be interpreted metaphorically to show God's power.

Science and faith can compliment each other in understanding creation, both offer insights into the world and our place in it.

Thinking about a scale from zero to 10, we have challenge zero and support at 10.

Where would you put Fergus view on the scale and why? So is he saying that the Big Bang theory supports belief in God as creator, or is it a challenge? Is it a problem in his view? If you're able to turn and talk to someone nearby, please do, or you can pause and talk to me, come back when you are ready to rejoin the lesson.

Rachel is a Plymouth brethren.

She's a fundamentalist and a Young Earth Creationist.

She has been asked whether the Big Bang theory supports or challenges the idea of God as creator.

Rachel says, the Big Bang theory challenges the idea of God as creator because it contradicts the Bible's account of creation.

Scripture teaches that God created the universe in six days.

So it's a young earth.

While the Big Bang theory suggests an old universe.

Have a think.

Where would you put Rachel's view on the scale and why, is she seeing the Big Bang as a problem for believing in God as creator? Or is it providing support? How close is her view to Fergus? If you're able to pause and turn and talk to someone nearby, please do, or you can pause and talk to me, come back when you are ready to rejoin.

We are going to check your understanding now, Is this true or false? Liberal Christians agree with fundamentalists that science helps us understand the origins of the universe.

Take a moment to think about whether it's true or false, and I'd also like you to think about why.

Pause the video and come back when you are ready to check.

Well done if you put false.

But why is this statement false? It's false because liberal Christians interpret the Bible metaphorically and accept scientific explanations of the origins of the universe, whereas fundamentalist Christians interpret the Bible literally and do not accept scientific explanations of the origins of the universe.

The task B on Christian responses to scientific explanations.

I'd like you to explain two ways that Christians might respond to scientific explanations of the origins of the universe.

To answer the question, you might want to use the suggestions below.

Point: So you might say some Christians or even insert the name of a particular group of Christians, state what they believe and then develop it with this means.

And then a second point, other Christians, or again, you could actually name the group and develop that with a what their belief means.

Pause the video, give yourself time to write these two paragraphs, point, develop, point, develop, and then come back and see what you could have said.

You may have said Fundamentalist Christians believe that God created the earth or the world in six literal 24 hour days as described in Genesis.

This means that they reject scientific explanations of the origins of the universe because they are not included in the Bible, which they see as the literal word of God.

Liberal Christians accept scientific explanations of the origins of the universe because they interpret the creation story metaphorically.

This means that they believe that while Genesis teaches why the world was created, the big bank theory might explain how so scientific explanations are not seen as being in conflict with the idea of God as creator.

So well done if you manage to actually name the groups of Christians, it's okay if you put some or other, but naming them is really excellent.

And if you manage to show those two approaches to interpreting Genesis 1.

The third part of our lesson is going to be on Christian teachings on the value of the universe.

Sam and Joan are asking some philosophical questions about the value of the universe.

Sam says "do we have a responsibility to protect the earth?" And Jen asks, "does the earth belong to humanity to use as a commodity?" What might help us to answer these questions? Pause the video, if you can talk to someone nearby or you can talk to me and then come back when you are ready to move on.

Let's have a look at some Bible teachings on the value of the universe.

Genesis 1:28 says, "God bless them and said to them, 'be fruitful and increase in number.

Fill the earth and subdue it.

Rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky and over every living creature that moves on the ground'." So this suggests that God has given humanity authority over creation because God is addressing humans when he tells 'em to fill the earth and subdue it and rule over it.

It could be seen as permission to use the earth's resources as a commodity.

So as for personal gain, which is sometimes known as dominion, or it could be seen as a call to care for and protect creation, and this is usually referred to as stewardship.

"God saw that it was good" is a phrase that is repeated throughout the creation story.

So for example, in Genesis 1:31, it concludes with "God saw all that he had made and it was very good." If God sees creation as good, it means that everything has value and purpose.

This suggests creation has worth, not because it's a commodity, but because God made it with care.

"You made them rulers over the works of your hands; You put everything under their feet." This is from Psalm 8:6, and it confirms that God has given humanity authority over creation.

Let's check your understanding now.

True or false, the Bible says that humans are rulers over the earth.

Take a moment to think about your answer and have a think about why as well.

Pause the video and come back when you are ready to check.

Well done if you put true.

But why is this true? Well, the Bible says humans are rulers over the earth.

As stated in Psalm 8:6, "you made them rulers over the works of your hands.".

A 2022 survey asked Americans about their views on the value of the earth, and it measured them based on their religious commitments.

So some had a high commitment, some had medium, and some had low.

And it looked at whether they mostly agree that God gave humans a duty to protect the earth.

So 92% of those who had a very high religious commitment really felt that God had given humans this duty.

76% felt that God had given humans a duty and 24%.

Now, that's not to say that people who have a low commitment don't feel that they have that duty, but it's just asking about whether they feel the duty comes from God.

So what does this data tell us about what religious people believe about the value of the earth? If you're able to pause and turn and talk to someone, please do, or you can talk to me and then come back when you're ready to move on.

So the high percentage of Americans with a high level of religious commitment who agreed that God gave humans a duty to protect the earth indicates that people have a strong belief in stewardship where protecting the earth is seen as part of their duty to God.

Most churches agree on the importance of stewardship, caring for creation.

Danielle, a Roman Catholic, and Charlie, a Baptist, are discussing their views on Genesis 1:28.

Danielle says, "Genesis 1:28 teaches us to be stewards of the earth, which means caring for creation and protecting it.

Whilst we need to use the Earth's resources to survive, we have to be careful not to treat it as a commodity".

Charlie says, "I agree, the words rule over in Genesis 1:28 mean we should be responsible stewards and manage creation wisely,".

Asher attends a Pentecostal church and he's been asked how he understands Genesis 1:28.

Asher says, "Genesis 1:28 gives humanity dominion over the earth, meaning it is a commodity which God has given us the right to use.

We should think about our needs and wants before considering the needs of other living things or the earth itself.

However, God declared creation to be good, and so we have a responsibility to use these resources wisely.".

How is Asher's view different from Danielle and Charlie's? So pause the video, take a moment to think about your answer and then come back when you're ready to rejoin the lesson.

We are going to check your understanding.

What is stewardship? Is it A, belief that we can use the universe as a commodity, B, the God-given duty to humankind to look after the created world and all life within it, C, the belief that humans have the right to use the earth however they wish, or D, the belief that the earth has no value beyond human use.

Take a moment to think about your answer.

Pause the video if you need to, and then come back when you are ready to check.

Well done if you got B, the God-given duty to humankind to look after the created world and all life within it.

So let's practise our understanding of Christian teachings on the value of the universe.

Sam is explaining why most Christians disagree with the statement "The earth is humanity's to use as a commodity".

She has made some mistakes, rewrite her explanation so that it is correct.

Most Christians would disagree that the earth is a commodity because Genesis 1:28 give humans dominion over the earth, which means we can take whatever we want for ourselves.

We don't need to worry about the Earth's wellbeing because it was made for our benefit and God's declaration that creation is good, doesn't require us to protect it or consider the needs of other living things.

So take a moment, reread her answer carefully, and then rewrite it with her mistakes corrected.

Pause the video, come back when you are ready to see what you could have written.

You could have said, most Christians would disagree that the earth is a commodity because Genesis 1:28 gives humans stewardship over the earth.

This means they have a responsibility to care for and protect the earth rather than a licence to use it however, we please.

They would say that because God said creation was good, humans should look after the earth and make decisions that reflect a care for the wellbeing of the earth and all its creatures.

Well done if you managed to get any of those points across.

So making it clear that for most Christians, the earth is not a commodity and that most of them would argue for stewardship.

So in today's lesson on Christianity and the origins and value of the universe, we have looked at how George Lemaitre proposed a primaeval atom theory in 1927.

Genesis 1 describes God's six day creation, and Genesis 2 focuses on humanity's relationship with creation.

Fundamentalist Christians take Genesis literally whilst liberal Christians understand Genesis metaphorically.

Many Christians, including Catholics and some Protestants, view the Big Bang as God's design.

Most Christians, so Orthodox Catholic, Protestant, see Genesis 1:28 as supporting human stewardship over the earth, and a minority interpret Genesis 1:28 as supporting human dominion over the earth, allowing earth's use as a commodity.

We've covered a lot in today's lesson.

Thank you for working with me and well done.