The Steady State theory of the universe was propounded in 1948 by Fred Hoyle and several other astronomers. It was in competition with the so-called Big Bang theory, which had its roots in Einstein's general relativity theory. How does the cosmology of The Urantia Book compare to these two theories?

The Steady State theory proposes a universe without beginning or end. It is a universe where expansion takes place, but not because of the explosion of a cosmic egg at the beginning of time. The Steady State theory proposes that matter appears spontaneously in space and thus the universe is growing because of this occurrence. While the Steady State theory has its fans, for most astrophysicists it was eventually supplanted by the Big Bang theory.

Some physicists, after solving Einstein's equation describing general relativity, found that their solutions suggested that the universe is expanding from some small source. Oddly enough, Einstein wasn't too happy about this interpretation, according to Robert Jasrow in "God and the Astronomers."

In fact, Einstein introduced a universal constant into his equations that would keep the universe forever in a static condition, poised eternally on the brink between collapse and expansion. Later in his life, he termed this universal constant as the "biggest blunder of my life." It was only after he personally examined the red shift seen on photographic plates of distant galaxies taken by the famous Edwin Hubble that Einstein conceded that the universe was indeed expanding.

Several pieces of evidence were found that pushed the Big Bang into first place among theories of the origin of the universe. The evident increase in red shift as we look at galaxies further and further from us was the first crucial piece. The next piece was the background radiation first proposed in 1948 by Fred Hoyle and several other astronomers but not observed until 1965. According to supporters of the Big Bang theory, this radiation is red shifted energy left over from the Big Bang itself. Another confirming piece of evidence was the relative abundance of helium in the universe, more--so we are informed--than could be accounted for by fusion in stars. Today, the Big Bang is accepted by most astronomers despite some lingering problems. But where stands the cosmology of The Urantia Book?

We are told by the authors of life Urantia Book that the universes are, "projected and planned by the Paradise Architects of the Master Universe" and their plans are carried out by the Primary Eventuated Force Organizers and the Associate Master Force Organisers (329, 357). There are ways that The Urantia Book theory of the origin resembles the Steady State theory. Just as in the Steady State case, matter appears in space but in the form of ultimatons which are derived from energies that are stepped down from the energy originating from nether Paradise. In the Big Bang theory, all the matter and energy that comprise the present universe have been constant since the Big Bang, but the Steady State theory and The Urantia Book both assert that the amount of matter is constantly increasing. Both sources deny the Big Bang. On the other hand The Urantia Book theory does posit a beginning to the universe as does the Big Bang theory.

In The Urantia Book story, it is difficult to say when time and space began. Was it with the appearance of Havona? While Havona is an eternal creation, it does lie in pervaded space (129) and has sequential time. (153) If time and space arose with Havona, then they are eternal and the Urantia Book universe is like the Steady State theory regarding time and space, but if time and space are not eternal, then The Urantia Book universe is like the Big Bang theory as concerns time and space.

While we do not know about whether time and space are eternal, we are told by the authors of The Urantia Book that the material universes have a time/space origin. We could go back to a time when there was nothing outside of Havona. It was "without form and void..." as we are told in Genesis 1:2. But in due time, the Master Force Organizers began their whirls in space that condense matter from the Paradise derived energies. The seven superuniverses and first outer space levels slowly emerged from apparently empty space, nebulae by nebulae. (169) Thus, the material universe we know did indeed have an origin, not a Big Bang but rather more of a Slow Bang.

next column>

The Urantia Book authors seem rather prejudiced against the Big Bang theory. They go to pains to disparage the idea that the universe is flying apart. On p, 134, the author tells us, "Many influences interpose to make it appear that the recessional velocity of the external universes increases at the rate of more than one hundred miles a second for every million light years increase in distance." The author goes on to tell us that these tremendous velocities are an illusion due to angles of observation, other time space distortions, and the fact that the seven superuniverses are revolving in direction opposite to that of the first outer space level. Even if the universe isn't flying apart at the rate supposed by our astronomers, it is nevertheless expanding according to The Urantia Book's explanation of space respiration on p. 123. Therefore, we should observe some redshift due to this expansion. How much? We are not given enough information to calculate that. So in the matter of expansion, The Urantia Book universe is like the Big Bang universe. But the ultimate fate of the universe is more like the Steady State concept than the Big Bang idea.

The Big Bang theorists tell us that our universe has three possible destinies, depending on its total mass. It may continue to expand forever, and just burn down to nothing. Or, it may stop expanding and begin to contract, ending in a Big Crunch. A third possibility is that the universe might reach an equilibrium point where it ultimately stops and neither expands or collapses. The Urantia Book author of Paper 11 tells us that the universe expands and contracts on a regular basis, each expansion or contraction taking a billion years. Obviously, there are limits in place controlling how far the universe can contract or expand. It would be catastrophic if galaxies were brought too close together; their mutual gravitation would cause chaos and disruption in each of them. And it would seem that expansion is limited by the speed of light. If uniform expansion is assumed then the galaxies are carried along with the space containing them. The outermost galaxies then travel at the highest rate of speed, and the speed of material objects cannot exceed the speed of light. So, the picture we see is the Master Universe expanding to some fraction of its average size, and then expanding beyond that average size by a like amount. Do the differences mean the cosmology of The Urantia Book is irreconcilable with the Big Bang theory?

Some folks might say that the Big Bang is obviously wrong because it disagrees with The Urantia Book. Frankly, the evidence in favor of the Big Bang theory is very persuasive. However, there are problems with the theory that astronomers handle with various "work-arounds." The problem with finding an alternative is that there is no other theory that so completely agrees with the observations. The Steady State theory died because it was not supported by the observed facts. Unless a new theory comes along to supplant the Big Bang, students of The Urantia Book will have to decide how to deal with criticism of the cosmology of this book. Shall we defend it, or shall we disown it when people challenge us on it?

Much depends on our beliefs about the book. And the time to decide our reactions may not be far in the future. Sooner or later, the public will become aware of The Urantia Book. We can hardly reconcile the cosmology of The Urantia Book with the Big Bang. Perhaps we can point to the authors' statement that the cosmology of the book is not divinely inspired and if we don't know where the truth lies, simply say, "I don't know, but I am willing to listen to all the theories and wait till enough evidence is in hand to make a reasoned judgment." It's hard to attack a person who is willing to intelligently discuss the issue at hand. We can also point out that there are problems with the Big Bang theory, and that new data could surface which shows science has been misinterpreting the evidence. It seems to me that it will be a real challenge to get a fair hearing from proponents of the Big Bang theory. But perhaps their reaction will depend in part on the image we project and our reaction to our critics.

It is good that we will not all respond the same way to challenges to The Urantia Book. It will show that we are not a closed community of people, unlike those in the rest of the world, but rather that we are a normal cross section of humanity, some unwavering in their beliefs, some skeptical, some naive, some gullible--and even some open-minded folks who are willing to consider all the evidence. In other words, we're just like them. And it's a lot easier for everybody to listen to ideas presented by people they are comfortable with--people who lower the drawbridge of hospitality rather than those who pour boiling oil on the strangers outside the walls. And maybe in the long run, the important thing is not who's right or who's wrong in their cosmology, but rather how we treated each other in the midst of controversy and heated argument.