The Judeo-Christian Holy Scriptures devote some fifty chapters to dealing with the subject (see Genesis . . . and there are references elsewhere in scripture). That seems scarcely “simplistic” or “primitive.” Nor does it seem reasonable for anything Jewish to be labeled primitive. The Hebrew culture is too subtle and advanced to be characterized in that fashion (Not to mention the Christian culture of Western Europe, or the culture of Eastern Christian tradition).
I’ve heard of primitive “creation” myths relating such scenes as a giant turtle swimming in a great ocean and carrying the earth on its back, or perhaps a description of the creation of Man by Thor (or some such god) hurling a thunderbolt. None of these creation “myths” seem to actually start “in the beginning.” They all appear to assume some prior existence coming as preparatory to the relation of the creation “myth.” Perhaps there are other myths with which I am not familiar, that more closely adhere to the “In the Beginning” genre, but I’ve not encountered them on this forum. Admittedly, I’ve not sought out creation “myths,” having nothing but a coincidental interest in the subject.
Some of my scientific friends have acknowledged that the Biblical narrative of creation closely parallels, in general terms, what Science thinks to be its actual events. Others are so alarmed by that prospect that they have descended into attempting to discredit Scripture by treating it as though it is a physics textbook.
Perhaps your college astronomy teacher never elaborated on his hypothesis, since he seemed to regard all religious creation myths as simplistic, primitive events, but if that is not the case, did he ever speculate on the question if something can be the cause of itself? Or, did he speculate on the origin of ethics, perhaps the ethics of Science, and, if he did, whence came the values upon which its ethics are based?
Or, did he perhaps ever offer an explanation for the Biblical idiom “firmament” and the division of the waters above and the waters below? Which brings to mind the question of the origin of water itself and a description of its creation.
But, enough. I’ve more than exhausted both my theological and my scientific understanding.
A lot start with the deity(s) breathing or dreaming up the creation from scratch, animals created, man gets dominion over them, etc. There's really nothing original about the Christian one, except maybe the introduction of the concept of original sin.
Others are so alarmed by that prospect that they have descended into attempting to discredit Scripture by treating it as though it is a physics textbook.
No alarm necessary. If you claim it is the absolute literal truth, then expect it to be analyzed as such. If you see it non-literally or metaphorically, then there can be no conflict.
did he ever speculate on the question if something can be the cause of itself?
You mean like God? He always seems to get that special exemption to the logic.
But for what you're asking, he believed God caused the creation of the universe as science has later discovered it to be. Think "God created the heavens and the earth" = "big bang plus several billion years." He, like many other Christians, just didn't believe in the literal reading of Genesis.