Big Bang?

[malignd at aol.com]

<<Actually, no. I made the point in regard to the Big Bang theory (i.e. 
as per the subject line) that "human Science can't explain how the 
universe came to be any more than human Religion can explain how its 
various 'Gods' came to be. The logic of both requires an enormous leap 
of faith on the part of the true believer.">>

You keep making these false binaries.  The big bang is a theory.  It 
fits the facts as we know them to date.  There is no leap of faith.  
You're prattling like an idiot.

-----Original Message-----
From: jbor at bigpond.com
To: pynchon-l at waste.org
Sent: Thu, 6 Oct 2005 07:42:16 +1000
Subject: Re: Big Bang?

   >> the binary opposition which I've 
 >> been challenging: i.e. the "science is truth and light and all must 
  >> kneel at its altar" vs "belief in god/s is primitive and idiotic 
and 
 >> believers are intellectually inferior" argument. 
 
 On 06/10/2005, at 4:13 AM, Mike Weaver wrote: 
 
  > I think what you started arguing was that science was a belief 
system > just like spiritual systems 
 
  Actually, no. I made the point in regard to the Big Bang theory (i.e. 
as per the subject line) that "human Science can't explain how the 
universe came to be any more than human Religion can explain how its 
various 'Gods' came to be. The logic of both requires an enormous leap 
of faith on the part of the true believer." 
 
  >> As I understand it, and I could be wrong, the only difference is 
that 
 >> ID proposes "God" as a first cause 
 > 
  > Yep yer wrong. Intelligent Design is not just about God as first 
cause > but by its very name about there being the application of some 
> intelligence to the design of natural phenomena 
 
  I'm actually not sure what distinction you're trying to make, or why 
it's different to what I wrote, which is the following: 
 
  > Intelligent Design isn't contesting the theories of evolution or > 
quantum physics or the expanding universe, or suggesting that these > 
things should be removed from the science curriculum. Is it? If it's > 
correct that these scientific theories and the concepts and methods > 
associated with the discipline will still be taught, then the claim > 
that ID is "an attempt to keep people stupid" is a straw man. 
 > 
  > As I understand it, and I could be wrong, the only difference is 
that > ID proposes "God" as a first cause, whereas traditional science 
either > can't or won't address that (pretty momentous) issue of a 
first cause. > Not that there's anything wrong with that; agnosticism 
is a > refreshingly honest and healthy stance to adopt in the 
circumstances. 
 
  I've heard it said that the human knee apparatus, if nothing else, 
gives the lie to the idea of intelligent design. 
 
 best