All the science in the world

"Danger, Will Robinson" post!
Not too long ago, my husband and I watched one of the shows in the series, The Hawking Paradox, based on the scientific discoveries of – three guesses – Stephen Hawking. So for the past, I don’t know, 30, 40 yrs, he’s been studying black holes as part of his research on the big bang theory. (Caveat: I’m no physicist. I don’t claim to be. What I’m writing is an example of Western culture, so bare – or is it bear? – with me while I attempt to explain something over my head.) At some point, Hawking looked at the evidence and said that the matter (or information, as this show termed it) being sucked into the black hole doesn’t just compact more and more to some crazy density, but when the black hole disappears (if I remember correctly, he observed the disappearance of black holes – not that he ever saw the black holes themselves, but a black spot that scientists assume are black holes, so I guess observing the disappearance of a black hole would be to re-see matter, see something where the black spot was – oy vey), so when the black hole disappears, so does the matter.
What! the other scientists exclaimed. That goes against one of Newton’s laws (the one that says that matter doesn’t disappear, nor does it appear, everything is here – I’m wording that terribly, but as I said, not the scientist, and I think you guys all recognize the law I’m trying to describe, albeit pitifully). Proofs and more proofs crowded chalkboards and composition notebooks everywhere. (Anyone see that play, Proof ? Excellent play.) And you can imagine the implications – if there are black holes in the universe being sucked away, how long until everything is sucked away. And if there are black holes in the universe, then there are black holes in our own brains sucking away our memory (yes, I can see you all falling back on that one as an excuse – sounds like a Calvin excuse for not finishing his test). Then Hawking stands on the stage of some major convention (last minute, of course, and everyone makes way). I’ve found the answer! You see, he says, there are black holes and they disappear and take away this matter (or information or energy), but it’s okay because there are parallel universes, so it’s all good. Even Stephen. The media went wild, and the physicists thought Hawking had one too many knocks to the head.
Now here’s my point with all of this. A few years ago, I read C.S. Lewis’ The Discarded Image (highly recommend it for any of you who enjoy the study of culture). As we all know, Lewis’ specialty at Oxford was Medieval and Renaissance literature. This is his text book of sorts. I love studying other cultures, especially the medieval and its transition to modern and enlightenment, because it helps me better understand the culture we’ve been in and the transition we’ve been experiencing. The best part of TDI was the epilogue in which Lewis says that he doesn’t mean to highlight the Medieval Model (Lewis uses the term Model where we would use culture or worldview) as the epitome of mankind. He doesn’t think we should go back to it. He thinks Models/cultures shift, and that’s okay.
But let me get to my point with this post (the crowd cheers).
Here’s what Lewis says about how science fits into all of the model-shifting:

“The demand for a developing word—a demand obviously in harmony both with the
revolutionary and the romantic temper—grows up first; when it is full grown the
scientists go to work and discover the evidence on which our belief in that sort
of universe would now be held to rest. There is no question here of the old
Model’s being shattered by the inrush of new phenomena. The truth would seem to
be the reverse; that when changes in the human mind produce a sufficient
disrelish of the old Model and a sufficient hankering for some new one,
phenomena to support that new one will obediently turn up. I do not at all mean
that these new phenomena are illusory. Nature has all sorts of phenomena in
stock and can suit many different tastes” (p. 221).

In other words, there’s enough science in the world to prove anything, and the science now is shifting to suit the next paradigm, just as it shifted to support the modern paradigm. We’re not always improving, as Modernism claimed. We’re just always changing. And now we have alternate universes, possibilities of life on other planets, and What the Bleep? to sustain our chosen path.
In missions, I repeated this mantra: It’s not wrong, it’s just different.