Quote:
|
You seem to have made the common layman's mistake of confusing "theory" with "hypothesis".
|
Sorry - I didn't mean to come off sounding like that. [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_eek.gif[/img] [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_redface.gif[/img]
I do know the difference between a hypothesis and a theory, and I do know how substantial theories are in science. (I have a bachelor's degree in biology, after all.) Neither was I trying to bash the "Big Bang" theory, nor would I try - cosmology still confuses me too much to try to argue its points! I just know from things I have read that the "Big Bang" doesn't answer everything (at least the "skeptics" are saying that; I don't know if the "believers" are saying that), and if that is true, then that leaves room for alterations, whether it be in the theory or in our understanding of the theory or in our understanding of the ancient universe or something else. I had read a book last summer titled "Scientific Blunders" (sorry, I forgot the author's name). One of the major causes of some of these blunders was to hold too fast to an interpretation of how things are despite any inconsisitencies it may have or how strong the contradictory evidence was. Just look at how many things we believe differently now than we believed twenty years ago. I have come to learn through my studies that until all the questions are answered, it is wise not to hold too tight to a theory as if it were law lest you come out looking like a fool, as many in the past have done. We are taught, after all, to say, "The experiment supports the hypothesis," not "The experiment proves the hypothesis." That is what I meant.
If future discoveries further support the "Big Bang" theory - great. If it becomes less supported, or something else becomes more supported - great, too. We've learned things in the process of questioning and discovering. Isn't that the goal? (I just hope someone can discover a way to explain it all in a way that doesn't leave me feeling more confused!)