My head is spinning; I've just come from the Institute for Creation Research website. They propose that the big-bang theory is nearly dead, and that it will only survive a few more years, even with the recent observations by the COBE satellite.... I've read a bit about the big-bang theory, but I would welcome any other supporting arguements, and any opinions on why creationists believe it never happened...

__________________
The most compelling argument for intelligent life elsewhere is that none of it has tried to contact us... -Calvin "Calvin and Hobbes"

Actually, many creationists do believe that the Big Bang happened. I am not one of them. I believe that the Universe was created 30 seconds ago, and that everything that we can observe (all evidence for a Big Bang, our bank accounts, our own memories) were just part of the initial configuration of the Universe.

My wife, on the other hand, believes that the universe was created over the course of 14 billion years or so, starting with the Big Bang, and that everything that has happened since have followed natural laws which were set up at the beginning of time.

These are just two examples of creation theories which have no problem with the concept of a Big Bang, and which jive with all known observations. However, many creationists believe that current scientific theories are designed to strip God away from the subject of the origin of the universe. The term creation myth, for instance, has been used in scientific discussions. For many creationists, they see the Big Bang theory as the biggest threat to their beliefs. I can even see where they're coming from: some of the proponents of the Big Bang are saying that the theory 'proves' that God does not exist.

However, in order to 'disprove' the Big Bang, many creationists are pushing theories which match few, if any, of the known observations.

The existance of God is not falsifiable. Whether or not the universe was created 30 seconds ago, 6000 years ago, 14 billion years ago or was never created at all doesn't matter, and doesn't prove or disprove the existance of God.

_________________
If E = MC², why do I have less energy the more mass my body acquires?
That is all.

--Azpod... Formerly known as James Justin

[edit: cant spel]

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Azpod on 2002-04-29 16:27 ]</font>

Here are the three main references I found at ICR:

Has the Big Bang been saved?

The Big Bang Theory Collapses

Bumps in the Big Bang

Note that all of these are about ten years old. The main one seems to be the middle one, which appears to claim that there's more structure to the universe than is allowed for in the Big Bang. News to me! He also claims that there were a host of "Big Bang theory is a dud" newspaper and journal in the early 90's, though he does not provide a single reference.

The third entry claims that the COBE anisotropies could be caused by the Sunyaev-Zel'dovich effect, something that is beyond me to address. Meanwhile, he admits that creationists have no explanation for the CMBR.

__________________
Everything I need to know I learned through Googling.

The Cosmologist's Tale, an entertaining verse explanation of the Big Bang theory and its present status.

__________________
Everything I need to know I learned through Googling.

There are legitimate scientists with legitmate arguments in opposition to mainstream "big bang" cosmology. However, they are very much in the minority, and their argumenst are unconvincing. Detailed discussion of such things doubtless belongs over in the "Against the Mainstream" area.

The Institute for Creation Research champions the view of "young earth creationism", which holds that the earth & universe cannot be in excess of 10,000 years old, for strictly Biblical reasons. Despite the "look & feel", their actitivities in no way resemble anything we would call "science". Convinced that their interpretation of the Bible can't be wrong, they are obliged to invent monumental contortions to misrepresent observational data.

Humphreys' "Bumps in the Big Bang" is based on a letter which he submitted to Nature, and was rejected. He complained elsewhere that this was a sign of prejudice against creationism, on the grounds that a similar letter from "evolutionists" was published shortly thereafter. But the other letter actually reported on the results of observations, and Humphreys had no observations to report in his letter. In fact, nothing Humphreys has to say in that piece is original. It was all old news, which is why it was never accepted by Nature.

The Sunyaev-Zeldovich effect (SZE) is the observed result of CMBR photons scattering off of the hot electrons in the tenuous gas environment of a galaxy cluster. Humphreys simply states that the "bumps" in the temperature of the CMB could be caused by the SZE, but you notice that PhD in physics though he is, he never produces a single calculation of the expected amplitude of the effect. In fact, it is much too small to produce the observed bumps. Furthermore, PhD Humphreys overlooks the fact the the SZE distorts the spectrum of the CMB away from thermal. That distortion would be a dead giveaway that the CMB "bumps" are from the SZE and not related to big bang effects. So his "paper" was already invalid before he wrote it, had he bothered to find out what he was going to write about.

The rest of the stuff is of no more value. The ICR is notorious for the extremely poor quality of "science" in their allegedly academic pursuits. One can only wonder that the State of California, last I heard, had accredited the graduate school at ICR.

I have never understood why Christians fight against this sort of thing as if it disproves the existance of God. When a magician does a trick and you discover HOW he did the trick does that mean the magician does not exist?

Could the Big Bang perhaps be the method God used to Create everything? Why not?

If Aliens do exist would this disprove the existance of God when there is no mention either way in the bible? God didn't mention atoms or coffee cups... do these somehow disprove the existance of God? No.

As for life before homosapiens. Didn't God tell Adam and Eve to REplenish the Earth?

I think it is worth pointing out that most christians do accept that the Universe is ~14Gyr old and that Genesis is not the literal truth.

The creationist argument is largely an american one, although there are worrying signs of it spreading to the UK.


Simon

Thanks for the good information everyone. As for the argument that many Christians don't believe in young-earth creationism; I was refering to ICR's viewpoint. My father happens to be a very religious man, but he's also a retired scientist from Lockheed Martin, and he can't stand the idea of making the bible the final authority upon which scientific observations are measured. I have no problem with a old-earth Christian viewpoint i.e. God created the world five billion years ago.

My thoughts exactly. I see no problem believing in the Bible and what science and common sense is telling us about the way the universe works. One can even be an "appearant age" creationist and take the approach the the universe was created 6000 or so years ago, but appears to be billions of years old. That doesn't have any conflicts with science, either.

__________________
If E = MC², why do I have less energy the more mass my body acquires?
That is all.

--Azpod... Formerly known as James Justin

Although this tends to be unpalatable to nearly everyone... It puts the creator in the position of fibbing... And it can't be addressed in terms of evidence...

(I may appear to be a dumpy middle-aged computer geek, but in truth, I am the god Apollo... How can such a proposition be falsified?)

Silas

I always suspected that if Apollo were alive today, he would be a dumpy middle-aged computer geek. [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif[/img]

Hardly a telling argument one way or the other, but have you ever noticed how the 'evidence' the creationists offer for a young earth always seem to focus on God's inattention to detail while he was faking the appearance of an ancient universe? What kind of worshipful attitude is that?

Why would the Creator be fibbing? The argument goes as follows: Adam was not created as an embryo; he was created as a man, with a certain age. Why would the universe be any different? The universe could have been created 30 seconds ago, 14 billion years ago or anywhere in between. And in fact, to those who believe in this argument and also hold a literal view of Genesis, then the Creator told us how old the universe is! [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif[/img]

And no, it can't be addressed in terms of evidence. That makes it non-falsifiable, and thus not a scientific theory. That doesn't mean it couldn't be true. It just means that there is no way to prove that it is false.

_________________
If E = MC², why do I have less energy the more mass my body acquires?
That is all.

--Azpod... Formerly known as James Justin

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Azpod on 2002-04-30 18:05 ]</font>

Because EVERYWHERE we look we find evidence,
that when coupled with known natural laws,
screams at us that the universe IS OLD.

If the universe
only has the "appearance" of being old, then
the evidence we find for such along with the
known natural laws are meaningless. More to
the point of this board, and making the most
dramatic of cases - nothing astronomers observe would be real - it would all be a big
facade, a show, a dream, a whatever, but it
wouldn't be real. Some creationists claim
that the evidence of scientists was put there
by the devil. But these are the World's (in
capital letters) data - did the devil create
the universe? And if all that we can learn
and experience is false, then this is the
universe created by the creationist's God?
(I could go on, but I'd be moving too
far afield from this board....)

Lest I get punished by the BA for being off-Astronomy, I'll make this quick.

It's also worth pointing out that Christianity is the religion of, at most, one fifth of the world's population.

There's nothing I know of that gives Christianity an exclusive claim to interpret science.

Remember that Hindu fundamentalists also believe scientists are falsifying data - they believe the Earth and the universe are much OLDER than scientists say.

And furthermore, Christianity is far from a unified front.

While this is off the subject of astronomy, I would like to point out that from a true scientific analysis, it is possible to present evidence supporting the case that the Bible was clearly written by men, without any 'devine inspiriation'.

Genesis, as an example, was written by men in one geographical area on our planet. The entire rest of the world is left out of the historical record except where the Bible writers' had interactions with others.

Doesn't it seem suspicious to you that the Jews, (descendents of Abraham), who wrote the original passages just happen to be the chosen ones? Yet all humans are supposed to be descendents from Adam and Eve, and later from Noah. Genetic evidence now supports the case that we are all one race. Descendents of Abraham are not distinguishable as a different lineage!

Most, if not all, ethnic groups developed religion independently of one another. From an objective viewpoint, none of these religions should have more weight than the others.

Many 'commands from god' in the Bible are arbitrary and inconsistant. Why put forbidden fruit around for people to eat? If you know everything, you would know the people would choose to eat it. These demands for obediance are repeated over and over in different scenes. Punishments vary from nothing to death. I could fill page after page with these types of examples.

Medical science is erroneous throughout the Bible. People with 'lesions' are kept out of the towns by priests. Handwashing would have done 1,000 times more good. Unclean meat shouldn't be eaten. Thorough cooking would have probably been a better idea.

Women are punished when Eve gives forbidden fruit to Adam by having pain with childbirth. So did the devil invent anesthesia? I also think you could study animal brain activity with pain and show some good evidence that pain with the birth of offspring is universal in mammals.

My point is there is sufficient evidence the Bible contains only those beliefs and the available knowledge of the ethnic group(s) writing the documents. I have yet to find anything that implicates an additional source of knowledge in the text.

If it looks like a duck...Or, as we say in medicine, if you hear hoofbeats look for horses not zebras...Or, as with the acceptable scientific principle applied, the simpliest explanation is usually correct.

Even farther off topic... In the last century, some theologians opposed the use of anesthetics for childbirth, for exactly that reason.

But, then, there were some who opposed Ben Franklin's lightning rod for theological reasons: it negated the Lord's lightning...

Instead of casting this as a battle between science and religion, I think this might better be taken as a battle between dogma and empiricism. Empiricism (which is highly valuable to science) is merely the practice of trying things out. Alchemy, while only modestly scientific, was highly empirical. Technology, per se, is somewhat scientific, but solidly empirical.

This actually leads to a debate as to whether "computer science" is really a science, or merely an empirical exploration of functionality, a la alchemy. There are some valid philosophical points to be made on both sides.

Astronomy is a science. Lens-grinding is empirical. Both lead to an increase in humanity's overall knowledge, and thus (as most of us would agree) both are good.

Silas

Silas, I like your examples but they show that religion is often harmful.

I have no desire for a battle of religion vs science. Clearly religion provides some benefit to the human race or it wouldn't have survived as such a universal trait. My objection is to belief without evidence. If not evidence, then what do you base that belief on?

I deal day to day with misconceptions and myths that are harmful to people in many ways. The president of South Africa has denied HIV drugs to women that would prevent HIV transmission to their newborns because he states he does not believe HIV causes AIDS.

Look at the false claims on almost every TV drug comercial. As a country, we waste as much money on worthless remedies as we need to provide real health care to every person on the continent.

Jerry Fallwell said in a TV interview that he's not worried about global warming and pollution because he doesn't believe 'man' could ruin the Earth 'god' created.

I believe very strongly that we need to teach our children how to distinguish a false claim from one supported by evidence. It is not facts they need to learn, it's how to recognize and interpret evidence.

Unfortunately, religion is a source of myths and misconceptions for many people. And, while it may be comforting to some to have their beliefs, religion has been the basis for many wars, much predjudice, and much hate.

I do not believe the Bible is the word of any god. I do think it has caused more harm than good. But, I am not on an anti-religion campaign. I am on a pro-evidenced based interpretation of the world campaign. It is not evil nor devoid of human compassion to look for empirical evidence. Altruism, love, caring and such concepts are very empirical.

This is a wonderful thread filled with many, many intelligent posts. This kind of subject could have degenerated into an ad hominem littered thread (which would not have remained long if Bad Astronomer had anything to say about it). But everybody kept his/her? cool and there is a lot of interesting information throughout for readers to enjoy.

I am not going to add anything, because I think that science has been handled exceptionally well throughout and the humor has been a delight.

I loved the long poem in a post by To Seek: The Cosmologist's Tale, and read it carefully to make certain that accuracy with respect to our current understanding of cosmology was foremost. It passed (so I saved it).

I checked out all of the links. Wonderful.

Thank all of you so much for beautifully written posts in an interesting thread.

I personally believe that Creationists miss a lot exciting scientific information. All of you were careful not to place the emphasis upon Creationism but, instead, emphasized Cosmology where the emphasis belonged.

Bravissimo!

ljbrs [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif[/img] [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif[/img] [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif[/img] [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif[/img]

__________________
"There is in the universe neither center nor circumference." Giordano Bruno Born 1548. Torched 1600.

Oops; that was actually quite opposite of what I was trying to say!

Yes, agreement! We need to teach children "how" to think, not "what" to think.

But this was why I wanted to try to change the terms of the debate. It isn't really "science" vs. "religion." Religion is not the enemy.

Dogma is the enemy. Rules of procedure that prohibit change are unsuitable to our advanced knowledge. We can no longer accept "If it was good enough for my grandfather, it's good enough for me."

Empiricism is our friend. It's simply a process of trial and error (guided, of course, by scientific insights.) Empiricism is science's closest ally. If you want to know something...you go and get your hands dirty and eventually you'll find out.

Religion (and philosophy) is one of the better ways to deal with those things that cannot be known. Is the cosmos "personal" or "impersonal?" Is love an universal value? Must we die forever when we die? Do we have a purpose here?

Science can't answer those, and won't try.

There is a lovely quip, which I have heard attributed to one of the participants in the Scopes Monkey Trial: Religion is interested in the Rock of Ages, while Science is interested in the Age of Rocks.

Dogma is the enemy when it says, "Yo, Science, you're wrong!" And, upon a few occasions, science is the enemy when it says, "Yo, Religion, you're wrong!"

Silas

I agree, too. Unfortunately, the trend in education for some way to gauge how "effective" a teacher is and how "well" the students learn has led us to the use of standardized tests. Such tests stress the "what" more than the "how." Indeed, it's possible to pass a purely objective test without knowing anything about the subject being tested.

I think there are also too many people who are just as afraid of "how" people think as "what" they think.

Dogma is acceptance without critical thought... which is probably why people who cling fiercely to dogma (of any kind) don't really want people to learn "how" to think.

"I am more interested in the Rock of Ages than the age of rocks." -- Mathew Harrison Brady (Fredrick March), Inherit the Wind

I don't think it's necessarily bad for religion (science) to call science (religion) wrong. It's the context of that claim and what follows that can cause trouble.

And this gets us back to "creation science."

We have some people claiming that accepted scientific theory is wrong (which is in keeping with the precepts of science) and offering a religion-based pseudoscience as an alternative (which is not). If they wish to contest a scientific theory, that's good... that's what science is all about. But, they need to do so within the context and framework of science, offering rebuttals and/or alternatives that can be tested.

The existence of God cannot be tested, only accepted on faith. Or not.

__________________
Never attribute to malice what can be adequately explained by ignorance or stupidity.
Isaac Asimov

Yes, yes, yes, I believe we all understand eachother. As persons interested in science, it is clear we agree teaching children (and adults) to think critically is the most important issue.

I just don't have an issue that there are separate spiritual needs that science can't answer, etc. etc. I don't see science as some factual cold empirical side with religion on the other. I am not talking about analyzing everthing, certainly there is no need to find the scientific basis for an individual's love of art or choice of a mate, even though there are ways to study such things and some will do so as it interests them.

I am a perfectly happy camper without worrying about my 'purpose in life'. My life does not have a spiritual void that needs to be filled to make me a whole person. Certainly, many people feel they do need such fulfillment. By itself, there doesn't seem to be any harm in such beliefs, and for some, it is clearly beneficial.

However, back to the scientific analysis, I think there is sufficient evidence to conclude that there is nothing in the Bible that suggests it was inspired by anyone other than the people who wrote it and/or the people who passed the stories down to the people who wrote it.

I don't say this to claim anyone is right or wrong. I do think that blind faith, dogmatic thinking, and, what not keep people from honestly looking at the evidence. To say god cannot be disproven avoids dealing with the evidence. Creation science presents false evidence and false premesis. Some want to believe the Bible so they try to make science fit rather than taking the evidence and following it to its conclusion. But what about the evidence that the Bible was written by men, just as other ethnic groups passed on their religious beliefs with oral or written traditions?

There is a repeating response to questions about the entire Bible. That response is to shift the argument away from the evidence by claiming that god cannot be proven nor disproven. That may be, and, if a person wishes to hold on to that belief they probably should. In doing so, however, it is easy to close one's mind to other evidence. Just as creationists close their mind to the evidence for evolution, the same thing happens to many when evidence is discussed that questions other beliefs they don't wish to address.

That's certainly true here, since it isn't relevant to the purpose of the Bad Astronomy BBS. Find me on a good theology discussion area, and we can have a jolly good time. But, for form's sake, not here...

("...and gets himself killed at the next Zebra crossing")

Silas

In response to last post, (sorry, the reply with quote isn't working):

I am not discussing theology. I am discussing science. I think the conversation started with creationism pseudoscience and its relationship to the science of the big bang model of the universe's beginning.

My point was that, the arguement that god cannot be proven nor disproven is not a barrier to scientific examination of the Bible. The creation story in the Bible is the equivilent of other cultures' creation stories. This can be evaluated through social, anthropolgical, and biological sciences.

Astronomical, geological, paleontological, and, biological sciences provide little if any evidence supporting Biblical versions of events. Some historical events described are supported by archeology.

There is a lot of 'bad astronomy' in the Bible. If one wants to claim belief in the Bible and belief in the scientific process for evaluating the world around us, I think it is worthwhile to consider other blindspots that might be occurring.

What? Prove it.

__________________
~AstroMike

Ouch... I wouldn't have phrased it the way beskeptical did, just out of etiquette...

Genesis is heavily influence by Chaldean astrology, and refers to the firmament, with strong implications that the world is flat. (The implications are so strong that there are still "Flat Earthers.")

The problem is that this isn't "bad astronomy." For the time, it was GOOD astronomy! It took an awful long time before this view of the skies was changed.

There are lots of little nit-picks, such as the "lesser light" that "rules the night," or Joshua making the sun stand still, etc. etc. Luke tells of the three astrologers following the "star" of Bethlehem (all sorts of errors involved there...)

None of it matters. The ancient Jews were not a scientific people. They were nomads who only grudgingly acclimated to city living, and who had no interest in astronomy. (The fact that they used a lunar calendar shows their disinterest in farming.) They weren't stargazers, nor philosophers, and so, of course, their writings were inattentive to such details.

Silas

Silas raises a good point; the bible is a bad source for scientific evidence because it wasn't written by god, and isn't even god's words. It was written and interpreted by people, many of whom weren't motivated by scientific thought. Maybe it would do ICR and the rest of the creation-scientists good to "take the bible seriously, but not literally"

Interesting thought. It's only bad astronomy if there is at the time a more accurate knowledge that is being overlooked. So we can't call it "bad", we can only call it "wrong", as later discoveries invalidated the previous conceptions.

Or is this just a nitpick over semantics?

__________________
...And that, my liege, is how we know the Earth to be banana-shaped. --Sir Bedevere

Of course, if they did that, they would invalidate the very reason for their existance. [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif[/img]

__________________
...And that, my liege, is how we know the Earth to be banana-shaped. --Sir Bedevere