How should Catholics respond to modern cosmology (Big Bang, expanding universe)?

Catholics should evaluate modern cosmology critically, distinguishing empirical data from philosophical assumptions. The Big Bang theory is acceptable insofar as it posits a beginning of the material universe in time, which aligns with Genesis and the doctrine of creation ex nihilo. However, the theory is often presented with atheistic or pantheistic overtones, treating the universe as self-creating or eternal in potential. The expanding-universe model, mathematically sophisticated as it is, rests on unverified assumptions about cosmic homogeneity and the interpretation of redshift. Catholics must affirm that God created the cosmos in time, maintains it continuously, and structured it with the Earth at the center. Modern cosmology is provisional science, not revealed dogma. (See Galileo Was Wrong, Vol. 2, chs. 10-12; Catholic Apologetics, ch. 7.) The Big Bang theory, proposed by Georges Lemaître (a Catholic priest), suggests the universe began from a singularity approximately 13.8 billion years ago. This beginning is compatible with Catholic teaching, which has always affirmed that the world was created in time (Fourth Lateran Council, 1215). Creation ex nihilo, from nothing, implies a definite start. Unlike the ancient pagan cosmologies, which imagined eternal cycles, the Big Bang supports a linear, finite history. However, many secular scientists remove God from the equation entirely. Stephen Hawking famously asked, "What need is there for a Creator?", implying that quantum fluctuations could produce universes spontaneously. This is philosophical materialism masquerading as science. The Big Bang does not eliminate God; it demands Him. A singularity is not "nothing"; it is an infinitely concentrated state requiring a cause. Only God can bring being from absolute non-being. Cosmic expansion is inferred from the redshift of distant galaxies. Edwin Hubble observed that the galaxies appear to recede, with redshift proportional to distance. The standard interpretation is that space itself is expanding. However, alternative explanations exist: intrinsic redshift (light losing energy over vast distances), gravitational redshift, or the rotating universe pulling light from distant sources. These alternatives are dismissed not because they fail empirically but because they challenge the uniformity assumption underlying modern cosmology. The Big Bang model presupposes the Cosmological Principle: the universe is isotropic and homogeneous, the same in all directions and at all locations. This assumption is Copernican in spirit: no place is special, including the Earth. Yet observations contradict it. The Axis of Evil in the cosmic microwave background, quantized redshifts, and galactic alignment all point to an anisotropy centered on the Earth. If the Earth is observationally central, then the Cosmological Principle is false, and the Big Bang model requires radical revision. Modern cosmology uses General Relativity to model the universe. The Friedmann equations, which describe cosmic expansion, assume a uniform distribution of matter. But General Relativity also permits non-uniform solutions, including geocentric models. In fact, Einstein's field equations allow a stationary Earth surrounded by a rotating cosmos. The choice of the expanding-universe model is philosophical, not necessitated by the math. Dark matter and dark energy are hypothetical constructs invented to preserve the Big Bang model. Observations of galaxy rotation and cosmic acceleration do not match predictions, so scientists postulate invisible matter (96% of the universe) to fill the gap. This is ad hoc reasoning. A geocentric model with a finite, rotating cosmos does not require dark matter. The data fit naturally when the Earth is central and the universe is bounded. The Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB), discovered in 1965, is presented as definitive proof of the Big Bang, the "afterglow" of creation. Yet the CMB can be interpreted differently. If the universe has a boundary and rotates around the Earth, the CMB could be thermal radiation from the outer shell of creation, not an expanding echo. The temperature uniformity (2.7 K) is consistent with a stable, rotating cosmos. The Church Fathers, the medieval theologians, and the magisterial documents consistently affirmed a young Earth and a recent creation. Modern cosmology's 13.8-billion-year timescale contradicts this tradition. While the Church permits theological development, it cannot reverse explicit doctrinal teachings. The solution is not to allegorize Genesis but to question the assumptions underlying deep-time cosmology: radiometric dating, uniformitarianism, and the constancy of physical laws. If the Big Bang is true, and the stars formed billions of years before the Earth, then the Genesis order (Earth before stars) is metaphorical. But metaphor cannot be imposed on texts that the Church has historically understood literally. The Fourth Lateran Council, Vatican I, and the Catechism all affirm that God created "the beginning of time." Catholics may accept the Big Bang provisionally, but they must reject any interpretation that denies the inerrancy of Scripture or the primacy of the Earth. Modern cosmology is not settled science. It is an evolving model built on layers of untested assumptions. Catholics must evaluate it the way the Church evaluated Aristotle: accept what aligns with faith and reason, reject what contradicts revelation, and remain skeptical of speculative constructs. Ultimately, the cosmos is not a random explosion but a purposeful creation, with the Earth at its center and Christ as its meaning. Cosmology must serve theology, not replace it.