I used to get into this discussion during the OJ trial. I would tell my female colleagues that the jurors could easily disbelieve the DNA evidence. Your ordinary person just does not believe in science and thinks it is magic. We are only 400 years removed from burning people at the stake for witchcraft. In many respects, we have come a long way but we still have a long way to go.
Science can be trusted. But many so-called scientists cannot. Faith, a belief in God, can be trusted. But many so-called religious leaders cannot.
Science should always be questioned. That is the basis of science as I see it. Scientists should always be willing to prove their absolute conclusions and identify their unproven conclusions as such. Or certainly define upfront in any discussion what assumptions(not absolute facts) were used to derive their conclusions. All theory should be identified as such. Hiding your data so it can't be verified should immediately cause the conclusions to be doubted. This whether it is for or against a particular topic. Politics and Science should be as separate as possible.
Faith, a belief in a god, can NOT be trusted. Faith and trust do not go hand in hand. Faith in a supreme being or, rather, an afterlife is nothing more than a fear of death. And that is a reason for wanting to disbelieve in anything that makes a belief in an afterlife uncertain.
Believing in science first asks you to believe that there are many things we don't know. That's scary to a lot of people. It's a lot easier to believe in an over-simplified world. When something happens that a scientist doesn't understand, he says "Wow, I can't explain that. I must really be in the dark. I should do a lot of research and tests to figure out what's going on. This might take a long time. It'll probably be hard too!" When something happens that a science denier doesn't understand, they say "Well if I don't understand it, I guess nobody could understand it, because it's God's will." Which one sounds like the easy way out? That's what a lot of people go with.
Big Bang theory is a very poor test since it is a very weak theory. Once we recognized that the expansion of the universe is accelerating and there has to be a previously unidentified force causing matter to move away from matter, scientists should have recognized that the Big Bang theory would not survive. Big Bang theory was precarious as to whether the universe is open or closed that the addition of a new force makes it untenable. To put it another way, since the Big Bang was a way of explaining the expansion of the universe as residual kinetic energy. Most force models we might consider behind the accelerated expansion would require that almost if not all the expansion is due to that force (Dark Energy). The 1 billion light year diameter void is impossible to explain under a Big Bang model. Assuming local speeds of 1000 Km/s and random speed distribution such a void could be 500 billion years old, to old for a Big Bang model to be viable. There is much more evidence supporting the non-viability of Big Bang Theory.
Ray Dog, I don't think the article was concerned with the validity of the Big Bang theory - rather the paper was about uninformed skepticism. Remember, the author found the same level of disbelief concerning the Big Bang as was manifested towards evolution. I agree that it would have been better to have chosen a stronger theory; however, that really wasn't the point of the analysis.
It's actually a good point, people are up in arms that a bunch of morons doubt science because they doubt the Big Bang, even though science doubts the Big Bang as well.
It takes faith to believe in God and it takes faith to believe in the following equation: nothing x's no one equals everything
Now there appears to be evidence of events before the Big Bang. So those who did not believe in it may be correct, although for the wrong reasons. Link
Without doubt there can be no faith. I don't know who said that, but I heard that very recently. (some place really cheesy too I think) There are all types of theories in science which are harder to believe than others. If you ask most people about the process of photosynthesis for instance, you would probably find little controversy or doubt. The concept seems straight forward enough, the evidence well founded. It is reproducable, and also (and I believe this is key) it is non threatening to them in any real way of being meaningful. People can say, 'plants make their own food in this way, and that is great, but it doesn't bring me to question any deeply held beliefs I have about the world and my place in it.' If you were to use that one singular example, then you could easily say, 'Most people believe in science.' On the other hand, there the example given in this thread. A theory of sciece which is commenting on a process with no eye witnesses, and is much more complex to understand than photosynthesis. Again, the key, is also that the theory of the 'Big Bang' does something that photosynthesis doesn't do. It brings a real challenge to people and what they believe in a real core way about who they are and the world. Does this mean God doesn't exist? Does this mean my life has no meaning and my life is merely a complex biochemical reaction with no real meaning or purpose? What does it mean if my life has no meaning? It could lead people to a Camus like existence where the only real question in life is that of suicide. That is why it is that much harder for people to believe. Personally, I side with Hodge (the Princeton theologian) who said (paraphrase), as Christians we never question scientific facts, because we believe God made science and science reveals and points to God. What we do question is how scientific facts are put together.' I believe it is right to question and doubt all our beliefs. To be in a constant state of learning, growing, believing and doubting.
As far as the religious angle goes I find it interesting that the first person to come up with the Big Bang basic concept (a Catholic Priest) did so partly out of religious grounds. He did not like the idea of an indefinite universe with respect to his beliefs and wanted an injection point where his hypothetical god could be seen as being responsible. Now it appears appears that conservative religious individuals are most likely to reject the theory, very odd. As for a prior posts about events before the Big Bang, based on measured redshifts and using the Hubble constant alone (ie Doppler redshift alone) we have known that we see objects much farther away in light years than the universe is old in years under BB theory. Superclusters and large voids are also much older than the universe. The inflation theory was invented as a rather weak attempt to get around it. The inflation theory is not supported by evidence, so that means the BB theory is invalid. Even more fundamentally the dark matter theory is not supported by evidence, so the BB theory is invalid.
Good post Theu. No doubt some science is more threatening to religious belief than others. The age of the universe and evolution seem to pose the greatest threats, at least to belief in inerrant revealed religious truth.
GT, your last statement is why I am still a scholastic and believe that theology is the queen of all the sciences. I know that in modern thought theology is separate from other sciences, but I do not see it as so. If God has revealed Himself, and indeed He has done so inerrantly, then how to we match up what we see/know of the created world, and what we know of Him? This is where theology, as a science, and other sciences meet. They meet, because they ask questions with regards to the same subject. Interestingly enough, given Christian revelation, the Bible (Old an New Testaments), never is comment made with regards to either the age of the earth itself or any 'big bang.' I actually find it interesting to think that the Greek idea of the 'unmoved mover' gets further developed by the Christian Aquinas. This seems to be a similar concept as the 'Big Bang.' I don't know enough about what 'caused' the Big Bang, but isn't that the scientific mystery that is before us?
GT, I guess I would count myself as someone who believes in an old earth and an historic Adam. Doesn't genetic anthropology point to an historic Adam as well?
GT, I wonder, just woder if the Y doesn't come from Noah, and the mitochondral stuff from Eve? Just a different way to look at it.
Even if the science proves that the story is not correct, the fable brings comfort to probably a billion people and a billion distraught people are not a good thing. Let them have their comfort, but keep their religion out of government. Holy ****! I can see Utopia like some people did about 200 years ago.
