GOM is right in the sense that there is still much about the universe we don’t understand yet, and the beginning of the universe, in particular has still not been explained definitively. I have to confess that I don’t really understand the physics of Big Bang theory. I’ve read Hawking’s Brief History of time at least four times and (to steal a line from elucidator) I think I now have a firm grasp of the table of contents. I understand that Hawking has somewhat modified BB so that it no longer requires an infinite singularity, but I don’t really have the knowledge to analyze, or even comprehend his reasoning. Regardless of that, though, the fact that we don’t know for sure how the universe began does not mean that we can’t figure out how old it is, or see that it is expanding, or see that there is a uniformity of cosmic radiation. BB takes this data and fashions a scenario which would and incorporate and explain everything that is already observable. The thing is, though, if we acquire more data, or if we find a better theory, we will discard BB. Science follows the data, not blind allegiance to doctrine.
The fallacy for Biblical literalists is their assumption that attacking or punching holes in a particular scientific theory is ipso facto evidence for their own beliefs. Disproving evolution, if that could be done, still does not prove that Genesis is correct. As a matter of fact, the literal truth of Genesis has already been definitively falsified in so many of its details that it simply not rational to cling to it as science. That doesn’t mean it can’t be read for its allegorical truth. Science does not attack the primal message of Genesis (God created the universe. God created man. At first, man lived in harmony with God and the universe, but that harmony has been disrupted. man must find his way back to that harmony. Man must find his way back to God).
It’s the moral of the story that matters, not the literal truth of it. Jesus taught in parables. It would be silly to get into an argument about whether there really was a “Good Samaritan,” because that would be utterly missing the point, even if there was a Good Samaritan.
I think that Spong is saying we need to look for the pure messages of the Bible instead of getting hung up on it’s literal historicity.
