A brief summary of recent developments in theoretical cosmology is given. The impact of Professor Hawking’s “A Brief History of Time” is put into perspective. Lectures on the subject by Professor Jaki, at a Symposium in Madrid (1990), a Summer Course at El Escorial (1993) and at the UAM, Madrid (2002) are introduced.

The Vatican Study Week on “Cosmology and Fundamental Physics, October 2, 1981 to which S. Weinberg, D.W. Sciama, J.E. Gumn and S. W. Hawking and Ya. B. Zeldovich contrinuted is introduced. The introductory remarks by H.A. Brück are reproduced in full as well as a summary of Professor’s Hawing communication “The boundary conditions of the universe”.

The successive editions (1988, 1996, 1998, 2005) of “A Brief History of Time” are briefly commented upon. Some big questions such as “Where did me come from?”, “Why is the universe what it is?”, brought forward but left unanswered by Professor Hawing, are pointed out. A “complete unified theory of physics” is within the reach today’s theoreticians, according to him.

A brief summary of Professor Hawing is lecture is given at the Center of Mathematical Science, Cambridge University, July 20, 2002, entitled “Gödel and the end of physics”. An overview of the triumphs of mathematical physics from Newton to t’Hoff is followed by the final statement that it may not be possible to formulate a theory of the universe in a finite number of statements, which is reminiscent of Gödel’s theorem.

After pointing out that Einstein’s dream to discover the grand design of the universe was unrealistic, Hawkings and Mlodinov say that a few key developments (Mtheory, COBE satellite’s data, WMAP satellite’s data) enabled physicists to achieve that dream. They conclude that God is not necessary because the universe is self-sufficient. The classical objections against God existence were known already to Greeks, Romans and Jews in Alexandria and had been rigorously reformulated already in the 13th century, Relevant quotes of St. Thomas Aquinus, Chesterton and S.L. Jaki are brought forward. It is the strongest mark of the divinity of man that he talks of this world a “strange world” though he has seen no other.

First, the limits of Science, Philosophy and Theology, and the proper methodologies of each field of knowledge must he recalled in order to speak meaningfully of material reality, living or non-living. The existence of infinite universes as the theoretical reason why Einstein’s cosmological constant is so close to zero is impossible to verify for those other universes. Eddington, Dicke, Carter, Barrow, Wheeler and Hawking himself have underlined the need for most precise values of the different cosmic parameters (Anthropic Principle). Finality is a metaphysical problem when we speak of the Universe and to deny it leaves us with an absurd. We should admit that there is no scientific answer as yet for any of the important questions posed by biology. “The Emperor’s New Mind” of artificial intelligence is a fraud, as pointed out by Penrose. In “The Great Design”, their authors present the multiplicity of undetectable universes (than appear out of “nothing”) as the explanation of the fact that the one we detect is suitable for life. No Science can predict what I will do next minute. Neither can it predict the free activity of the Creator who holds the Universe in existence.

As Whitehead pointed out, science sprang from the heart of the Christian West. This has been well documented by P. Duhem and S.L. Jaki. This assertion is illustrated by quotes from various Christian natural philosophers precursors of Copernicus, Galileo, and Newton, including Abelard of Bath, Tierry of Chartres, Robert Grossetteste, William of Auvergne, Thomas Aquinas, Roger Bacon, Etienne Tempier, Jean Buridan and Nicole Oresme. Christian belief provided a “cultural matrix” for the growth of science.

Modern science is characterized by an impressive capability to describe in quantitative terms an enormous variety of natural facts. If the world had not been made rationally, scientific knowledge would be impossible. P. Duhem in his “Le systeme du monde…” Vol.II, summarizes the role of the Medieval Catholic Church in destroying the pagan doctrine of the “Great Year” which implies an eternal universe. Unlike in the pagan Greek cosmos, all bodies, heavenly and terrestrial, were now on the same footing. This made eventually possible to think that the slow fall of the Moon in his orbit and the fall of an apple on earth could be governed by the same gravitational law.

A new approach to thinking about nature was developed in post-Renaissance Europe embracing an ever increasing body of theoretical and technical knowledge. It was accepted that there was and there is evolution both in “inert” and in living mater. This approach implied interactions ruled by “laws” not externally imposed. It applied to Astronomy, Geology, Physics, Chemistry, Biology and established the basis for the industrial revolution and changed the approach to Medicine, Economy and the transmission of Culture. At earlier periods the human experience of the world was interpreted in terms of mythological and religious models. Then in terms of scientific (formal) geometrical models and finally in models based upon scientific causality (first the mechanical model and then the dual model encompassing Relativity and Quantum Mechanics). The current success of astrophysics can only be expressed in the context of the “cosmological principle”: the universe is homogeneous and isotropic. We can extrapolate our laboratory experiment under the same physical laws to infer the part and predict the future. But science has a proper subject and its own limits.

Lord Rayleigh comments on crude views about nature at the 54th Meeting of the British Association for the Advancement of Science. Many first rate scientists, true pioneers of physics, chemistry, astronomy etc. have opposed materialism and philosophical relativism. Both religion and science can claim objectivity if there is a world independent of human thought. Planck and Einstein affirm it unmistakably. Historically there have been some outstanding scientists leaning to agnosticism or materialism, like Mach, Poincaré and Bohr, but they are rather exceptions to the general rule.

According to today’s Cosmology the universe has a finite mass, a finite (but growing) “age”, and a finite (but growing) space-time extension. The product of Ho (Hubble’s parameter) by to (the present “age” of the universe) is at the present epoch Hotto = 0.942 ± 0.065, therefore more than 2/3 implying an open universe (k<0). A finite, open universe is contingent (it could have been otherwise) and therefore created. Quotes of Planck and Einstein on the subject are given.

Every thinking person seeks answers to the question: Why is the Universe the way it is? Einstein asked himself: Did God have any freedom in choosing the initial parameters when creating? The “Anthropic Principle” presents Man as the conditioning factor to explain why the universe is the way it is. Change, design, contingency, creation and finality in connection with the question: Why the Universe is the way it is?