Big Bang?

[kelber at mindspring.com]

Big Bang is presented as a hypothesis -- one of many developed by the Western scientific method, which has a reasonable track record of providing workable hypotheses.  Such hypotheses are based not on faith or anything approaching proof, but on reasonable probability.  By working with such hypotheses, scientists have been able to annihilate smallpox and nearly annihilate the human race.  Whether the result has been good or bad, the scientific method has been a reasonable approach toward understanding and shaping the natural world.  That's why it is the subject matter of science classes.  Divine creation is an assertion of faith, not a hypothesis developed by the scientific method.  Ergo it does not belong in a science curriculum.



--Original Message-----
From: jbor at bigpond.com
Sent: Sep 27, 2005 8:37 AM
To: pynchon-l at waste.org
Subject: Re: Big Bang?

Playing devil's advocate here, obviously, but there's a leap of faith 
required to accept the "cosmic microwave background" (?) and "the 
abundance of elements" as evidence for the universe from nothing 
hypothesis (or the Divine Creation hypothesis, for that matter), is my 
point. It's "evidence" of the same order as the Miracle at Lourdes.

best

On 27/09/2005 Paul Taylor wrote:

> Umm, I think the Big Bang's consequences are seen explicitly in the 
> universe around us: as I mentioned, the cosmic microwave background, 
> the abundance of elements... quite well predicted by that event.  That 
> gives it some plausibility in reality in which we live.
>
>  --PT
>
> On 9/27/05, jbor at bigpond.com <jbor at bigpond.com> wrote:
>> >> 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.
>>
>> On 27/09/2005 ioannissevastianos wrote:
>>
>> > Of course scientists can't explain how the universe came to be: they
>> > don't have enough data to go on. All they can do is formulate the 
>> most
>> > plausible hypothesis based on the available amount of data. That's
>> > what science does; it's an honest procedure and requires no faith. 
>> As
>> > soon as new data come along which refute the hypothesis, then it is
>> > abandoned and something else is put together in its place.
>>
>> I don't see much if any difference between a priest-caste of 
>> scientists
>> fantasising, with no proof or logical explanation, that the universe
>> magically appeared from nothing, and another group of equally
>> reasonable and intelligent men and women positing the existence of a
>> Divine Creator. They're equally implausible hypotheses, in my opinion,
>> with no reason to justify the imposition of either the one or the 
>> other
>> worldview as gospel.
>>
>> best
>>
>> >
>> > Religion, on the other hand, doesn't give a rat's ass (I always 
>> wanted
>> > to use that expression, thanks for the opportunity) what the data 
>> say.
>> > The Bible says so, so it's so. And you need tons of faith to buy 
>> that.
>>