The Big Bang, Children’s Fairy Tales and the Human Genome

10/19/2015

Although not a scientist, I still occasionally opine on things scientific… without ever using any sort of scientific method. Oddly enough, science sometimes does the very same thing, itself. That’s how we got theories like the flat earth, the sun rotates around the earth…and the current poster child, The Big Bang Theory.

Some say that there’s a number of glaring scientific deficiencies in astronomical theories. Not being a scientist, though, it’s not something for me to expound on. I work on logic, with lots of intuition liberally applied.

 

How did we get here?

It has been my observation that scientists sometimes violate their own rules. That is, they simply fail to observe (and measure). So, just how is it possible that something so basic to the scientific process is so completely ignored? Well, Robert Lanza, a scientist himself, offered up an explanation of sorts, “We have failed to protect science against speculative extensions of nature, continuing to assign physical and mathematical properties to hypothetical entities beyond what is observable in nature.”

Speculative extensions of nature and hypothetical entities, those are big words.  What exactly did he mean by that? Speculative extension of nature has to do with the fact that science has pushed beyond what’s observable in nature. When that happens, you can no longer observe…so they speculate and hypothesize instead…and then pass it off as valid scientific theory. So, today, cosmological theories dealing with such things as black holes, singularities and dark matter, are just that – theories, and speculative theories to boot. None of them are based on observation and so none of them have followed the scientific method.

Aside: Einstein, himself, published a scientific paper saying that the existence of black holes would violate his Theory of Relativity.  Other scientists have since concurred that gravitational collapse is impossible.

Even scientific geniuses like Einstein recognized the struggle to find certainty in their own work. As Einstein stated, “The human mind, no matter how highly trained, cannot grasp the universe.” In other words, the fundamental laws of nature are beyond man’s ability to comprehend them. Yet, it didn’t keep Einstein from trying (The Theory of Relativity, for example).

By definition, theoretical science produces theories, not proof.  Part of the problem is that these theories are generally based on mathematics and their formulae exist only on chalkboards, rather than being based on experiments performed in the laboratory as one might expect. Worse, these very formulae use fudge factors like eternity, dark matter or Einstein’s infamous “cosmological constant.”  Einstein, himself, referred to the problem with math, as follows: “As far as mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain; and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality.” 

So, what we wind up with is theories in search of some relevant facts. This is exactly backwards when compared to the proper process of scientific inquiry. Accordingly, even the scientists working on these theories often decry the state of affairs. For example, with respect to singularities, Professor Andrew Strominger of Harvard University, said that, “A singularity is when we don’t know what to do. What’s so embarrassing about singularities is that we can’t predict what’s going to come out of it.” That’s because scientists can’t even say for certain what a singularity is. I mean they believe that it exists because its part of their formulae, but no one has ever observed a singularity. As for The Big Bang Theory, Michael Turner, a cosmologist at the University of Chicago, stated, “If inflation is the dynamite behind the Big Bang, we’re still looking for the match.” In other words, as Prof. Strominger admitted, there are a lot of things that scientists don’t understand, and yet, strangely, they still describe them in a very precise way. That explains Richard Dawkins statement to a recent TED conference that now he has proof that evolutionary theory is correct.  The implication is that he must not have been certain in the past even though he said that he was.

Aside: Of course, since the Big Bang had a match there must also have been a match lighter. So science has developed some new, exotic theories to try and explain away the problem (see below).

 

The theory of everything

So, now that you understand a little bit of the process as to how science works, let’s tackle what Einstein and Stephen Hawking spent their whole careers searching for (in vain) – the Theory of Everything. Again, I’m not a scientist so I come from a totally different point of view. For me, such a theory can only be valid if it explains the basis of life. After all, a theory of everything, by definition, must explain how life operates and where it came from.

Back in the nineteenth century, world-renown microbiologist Louis Pasteur helped develop the Law of Biogenesis. Today, Pasteur has been relegated by many to the dustbin of science, although his theory is as valid today as it was then. What’s so important about his work is that Pasteur proved that it was not possible for life to have evolved from a bunch of dead chemicals (read: primordial soup). Life could only come from life. Even George Wald, an ardent evolutionist, eventually admitted that it had been scientifically proven that spontaneous generation of a living organism was impossible.

So, any theory which deals with the origins of the universe (e.g. The Big Bang Theory) has to allow for the evolution of life, especially that of man. Needless to say, The Big Bang Theory does not provide such an explanation.  Darwin, you understand, simply said that we evolved, randomly mutated as it were. Richard Dawkins expounded on Darwin’s theory saying that,”… life has no higher purpose than to perpetuate the survival of DNA….”

So, for Dawkins, DNA is superior to man, and why not.  DNA is a miracle. There are trillions of cells in our body each encoded with DNA instructions on how to operate and grow our bodies.  Bill Gates has said that, “DNA is like a computer program, but far, far more advanced than any software we’ve ever created.” More importantly, the work of Russian molecular biologist Pjotr Gariaiev, who was part of The Human Genome Project, has shown that DNA is self-organizing, self- directing and self-replicating. Further, neuroscientist David Eagleman duly noted that the brain’s neural circuitry uses algorithms undreamt of in modern science.  So our bodies are operated by a “living” biological system whose programming is far more advanced than any supercomputer. So, in one sense, Dawkins is right in that the level of sophistication of DNA virtually makes it a life-form unto itself.  

Aside: Yet, Dawkins never explained who created DNA. Inexplicably, science has been unable to identify the origins of DNA or the intelligence behind it.  Up until recently, most scientists even said that DNA was 90% junk – in other words, useless.

All of which brings us to consciousness, which is the nothing short of the trade secret of cosmology. Physicist Max Planck said, “I regard consciousness as fundamental. We cannot get behind consciousness. ” Yet, cosmologists usually eschew research on consciousness. Why?  That’s a big question but, for starters, consciousness infers Intelligent Design which is totally incompatible with evolutionary theory. Then, there’s all the sacred cows in cosmology which would have to be jettisoned (along perhaps with peoples’ careers). I, for one, wouldn’t lose any sleep over it, but I sincerely doubt that the scientific community would ever allow such a thing to occur.

 

The end of science

So, what we’re stuck with are a bunch of theories that have never been observed, let alone proven. For example in his much-discussed book, The End of Science, John Horgan talked about the limitations of science as it goes into areas that are unobservable (e.g. what lies beyond space and time). In order to remain relevant, science seems to feel obliged to try and go further back – back beyond The Big Bang. Otherwise, what we would all be left with is the incredible miracle of the universe instantaneously appearing out of nothing, and from nowhere. Oddly enough, the only people who might believe such a miracle would be the creationists, because that’s what they said that God did.

Accordingly, we now have a bunch of new theories that attempt to explain that while The Big Bang really was the beginning of our universe, it was not the very beginning of life. Life apparently came from other worlds (the Multiverse). However, if true, that only changes the question of how our universe was created to a question of how the Multiverse was originally created. Since that question will most assuredly never be answered, it will make it possible for anyone, indeed everyone, to espouse their favorite theory.  Since science will presumably not address the issue of life having to be created by life, it might even lead some people to posit that DNA might be some artificial form of intelligence, and that it created itself! Are you listening R.D.?

As shocking as that may seem, what’s more shocking is that Dawkins has actually admitted that DNA might have been the result of an “intelligent designer.”  Really, he said that?  Yes, in an interview with Ben Stein.  Check it out for yourself on YouTube.  It sort of harkens back to the Directed Panspermia theory of Francis Crick who won the Nobel Prize for discovering the molecular structure of DNA.

My conclusion is that the objections to Intelligent Design by scientists are usually based on ideology, rather than science.  As I’ve always said there are many different disciplines in science but really just two kinds of scientists – those that believe in a Creator and those that don’t.  Accordingly, science has developed a series of cosmological theories that I believe really have only one point – that the universe does not have an intelligent designer. Unfortunately, for some, DNA cannot be explained away in the usual fashion.  Genetics is moving so fast that it’s beginning to eclipse science in other disciplines, like cosmology and biology, with respect to the origins of man.

Epilogue

So that’s my take on everything from the Big Bang to the human genome. Like I said, my thinking is not scientific – but maybe that’s a good thing. After all, what would children’s books say if there was no Big Bang Theory. I might have to read a fairy tale to my kids entitled Once Upon a Bang-less Night.

 

 

“Science cannot solve the ultimate mystery of nature. And that is because, in the last analysis, we ourselves are part of nature and therefore part of the mystery that we are trying to solve.”

– Max Planck, physicist

 

 

 

 

Advertisements

173 Responses to “The Big Bang, Children’s Fairy Tales and the Human Genome”

  1. Arkenaten said

    The problem you are ultimately faced with is: Who created the Creator?
    Even accepting a creator raises more problems than can possibly be even considered. Hence, ID is regarded as crank science – and as it always involved this ”creator”, rightly so.
    There is nothing underhand or immoral with saying” ”I dont know”, and until we do know or reach a point where we might begin to understand, the term ”Creator”, including capital letter and all it encompasses and brings to the table must remain in the realm of pseudo-science and kept out of schools.

    • chicagoja said

      Outspoken as always Ark. However, ID is only crank science to those who don’t believe in it. As far as people admitting that they don’t know, tell that to the people who don’t believe in I.D. They’re positive it doesn’t exist when, in fact, they don’t know either.

      • Arkenaten said

        No, it’s crank science because they build on a foundation of ”God-Belief”, which is unsupported.
        And the god they usually refer to is Yahweh.or Yahweh in his human disguise,Jesus. Which is, quite frankly, horse apples.

        From Wiki

        Although arguments for intelligent design by the intelligent design movement are formulated in secular terms and intentionally avoid positing the identity of the designer,[n 15] the majority of principal intelligent design advocates are publicly religious Christians who have stated that, in their view, the designer proposed in intelligent design is the Christian conception of God.

        And this is why such disingenuous dipshits must not be allowed to preach to young kids. ( because it sure as hell (sic) isn’t teaching)

      • chicagoja said

        Except that a whole host of non-religious people also believe in some form of ID, including Einstein, Planck, Crick and apparently Dawkins (of all people).

      • Arkenaten said

        Some form … yeees, quite.
        And it this ”some form” of that is the little pebble in the shoe is it not?

        And one wonders why dear old Richard is not hollering from the bleachers to have ID taught in schools?
        Makes you wonder, doesn’t it?

        Maybe you know the answer?

      • chicagoja said

        My speculation is that there is too much evidence to support ID, at least with respect to the creation of the human species. Doesn’t necessarily mean,though,that there is a Creator, just higher life forms. Also, evolutionary theory is under serious attack in certain scientific quarters and I’m guessing that it will eventually have to be discarded anyway. Again, just speculation, the new consensus might become Directed Panspermia.

      • Arkenaten said

        Speculation. Yes:
        Higher Life Forms.Well; now we are talking Aliens, are we not, rather than some Supreme Designer who showed his backside to an octogenarian mountain climber.
        And the alien angle was what Dawkins tacitly alluded to even though that dipshit Stein was leading him on.

        I’m guessing that it will eventually have to be discarded anyway.

        Guessing?
        Under serious attack? From which quarter and from whom?

        And panspermia merely opens yet another can of worms; not necessarily a bad one for science although the religious might be pooping themselves. But once more – No God Needed.

        I really am struggling to understand your angle here and it would be helpful if you were less cagey and more succinct.

      • Are you actually arguing that ID is a legitimate scientific inquiry? If it is, how is the hypothesis being tested? With regards to the Big Bang Theory, one at least has cosmic background radiation to examine.

      • chicagoja said

        Of course, you can study background radiation all you want. It’s never going to prove the Big Bang Theory.

    • Ark,

      The Creator cannot be created otherwise he wouldn’t be the Creator.

      So, “Who created the Creator?” is THE classical example of a totally stupid question.

      • chicagoja said

        There is no such thing as a stupid question. The only stupid people I know are those that think that they already know the truth.

      • chicagoja,

        A question based on absurdity is a “stupid” question.

        Since being uncreated is the very nature of Creator, asking, “Who created the Creator?” is indeed stupid because it is based upon absurdity.

        Calling something stupid because it is absurd is not bad or evil.

        It is good because “stupid” is just another way of saying foolish.

        And “foolish” is an epic theme in the Bible, the written Word of God.

      • chicagoja said

        Absurdity is not an absolute. It’s simply your opinion that it’s absurd. Again, your logic is absurd.

      • Arkenaten said

        And you are the classic example of the totally stupid dingbat.
        Are the wardens allowing you out in the fresh air again?

      • Ark,

        The point as usual, is that we are not faced with the ultimate problem of, “Who created the Creator?”

        That is because, as I already proved, “Who created the Creator?” is a stupid question.

      • chicagoja said

        Your “proof” is not proof certain. In fact, it’s just your opinion. Get over it. Neither of you have any real proof.

      • chicagoja,

        All I have stated here are facts.

        All you atheists have stated are your opinions.

        Since the atheist cannot comprehend objective truth (for such is the nature of atheism), everything is reduced to mere opinion.

        For the atheist, “the truth” is whatever you opine it to be.

      • chicagoja said

        Of course, it’s your opinion that what you have stated are facts. Case in point – I’m not an atheist. Better luck with the facts next time.

      • chicagoja,

        If it walks like an atheist and quacks like an atheist, it’s an atheist.

        You can call yourself whatever you like, but you’re an atheist, heart and mind.

        I can say that because atheism is the prevailing, postmodern worldview.

        Pope Francis, the supposed Vicar of Christ, preaches the atheist worldview though he’d swear up and down that he is Christian.

      • chicagoja said

        Problem is… you have never heard me really quack. You have an opinion about me to be sure, but you have no clue who I really am. You need to read more of my posts.

      • chicagoja,

        All of your comments are you quacking.

        The fact that you even deny your own words, stored and presented for all to see in cyberspace, is another demonstration of the atheist worldview.

        The atheist says whatever he needs to in order to get through the moment.

        And the next moment and the next are all completely new and unrelated to any other moment.

      • archaeopteryx1 said

        The atheist says whatever he needs to in order to get through the moment.

        Now THAT’S the nonsensical SOM I’ve come to know! I thought you were acting just a little too sensible, but you were just conserving energy for your off-the-rails time.

      • Arkenaten said

        @chicagoja
        >blockquote>Neither of you have any real proof.

        ”Proof” is generally the preserve of mathematics.
        However, when it comes to evidence ….
        Well, now, that is a different kettle of fish entirely

      • chicagoja said

        Quit mincing words. You have no real “proof”. That’s why the Big Bang is only a theory.

      • Arkenaten said

        I am not mincing words at all. I try to use the correct word in its correct context
        Semantics tends to be one of the first Arrows out the Quiver of those with any sort of religious bent.

        Thus, I use the correct word, which is evidence.
        And the evidence suggests that the Big Bang is the most plausible explanation we currently have.
        The evidence also suggests that evolution is fact.
        Evidence strongly suggests that Jesus of Nazareth as per the miraculous god man the bible claims is simple Horse Apples and nothing but a Big Joke.

        And, unfortunately, evidence is almost cut and dried that Liverpool have no hope in Gehenna of winning this year’s English Premier League. Unless your ”Creator- Deity” can come up with a miracle, of course?
        What do you think? Worth a prayer or two?
        🙂

      • chicagoja said

        So you admit that all you have is evidence. Bravo. Science says that The Big Bang is a theory, not a fact, and therefore not a Law of science. To say that the evidence “suggests” that evolution is fact is not being intellectually honest. Evidence doesn’t suggest something to be a fact. The evidence either proves it or it doesn’t. If you have evidence, but it’s not conclusive, then it’s not proven (it is not a fact). So, again, you are mincing words. In the case of evolution, it is not proven so it is not a fact. Guess who agrees with me.

        Charles Darwin -“To suppose that the eye could have been formed by natural selection seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest possible degree.”
        Michael Ruse – “Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today.”
        George Wald -“One has only to contemplate the magnitude of this task to concede that the spontaneous generation of a living organism is impossible. Yet here we are — as a result, I believe, of spontaneous generation.”
        A. R. Wallace – “Natural selection is not the sole factor in evolution, which is directed by Intelligent Design.”

        So much for evolution is a fact.

      • Arkenaten said

        So you admit that all you have is evidence. Bravo

        I don’t have anything of the sort. I am not a scientist.
        Why are you behaving like a smug bastard? You think it is ”clever”. A measure of intelligence?

        To say that the evidence “suggests” that evolution is fact is not being intellectually honest. Evidence doesn’t suggest something to be a fact. The evidence either proves it or it doesn’t.

        Wrong –
        As per the dictionary…
        Scientific evidence is evidence which serves to either support or counter a scientific theory or hypothesis. Such evidence is expected to be empirical evidence and interpretation in accordance with scientific method.

        If I can look in a dictionary, why can’t you?

        Charles Darwin -“To suppose that the eye could have been formed by natural selection seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest possible degree.”

        Good grief! What next ? You going to quote Jules Verne as opposed to NASA?
        The business of the eye has been explained by modern biologists.
        Stop reading the back of 19th century Cornflakes packets.

        Michael Ruse – “Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today.”

        Now you are just being a dipshit. Go back and quote him in context.

        http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-ruse/is-darwinism-a-religion_b_904828.html

        Wallace? Really? Now you are just being a frakking half wit, for the gods sake.

        Stick to writing posts that you have demonstrated your strength and are quite enjoyable.
        Truly,you are out of your depth with this one.

      • chicagoja said

        It’s really quite simple. Something is a fact or it isn’t. If the evidence “suggests” that it’s true, it’s still not a fact. According to Wikipedia, a fact is “something that has really occurred or is actually the case.” In science, if it can be proven then it’s a fact and they refer to it as a Law, but if not it’s a theory. So, the Big Bang Theory and Evolutionary Theory are just that – theories which have not been proven. And your right about the scientific method. Unfortunately, the Big Bang Theory is untestable in that regard and so will remain a theory, at best. As for evolution, it has never been able to overcome the lack of fossils of intermediate life forms. That’s why Steven Jay Gould has described this situation as “the trade secret of paleontology.”

      • Arkenaten said

        Your understanding of the definition of what is a scientific theory is appear to be as limited as your presentation of a great many other ”facts” you use to try to bolster you case.
        Maybe you should rather take a little time and study a bit more?
        There are a great many scientists – something you readily admit you are not – who will gladly explain to you what the term Scientific Theory of Evolution and the Big Bang Theory really mean.

        And I am sure they could probably explain in laymen’s terms as well.

      • chicagoja said

        Just so that you understand, my post was vetted by two scientists.

      • Arkenaten said

        Really? Which part of the post?

      • chicagoja said

        the entire post.

      • Arkenaten said

        Then they are likely scientists that do not follow mainstream terminology.
        What are their credentials? Can you link to any of their work, please?

      • chicagoja said

        It’s my terminology as I don’t necessarily follow mainstream thought or terminology (in part, for my readers).

      • Arkenaten said

        So, not the scientists terminology then. Okay. Fine.
        Still, do you have a link for them, please? I’d be interested in reading their take on Evolution and what they consider the Big bang Theory really is all about.

      • chicagoja said

        Love nothing more than to give you some names, but they will have to remain confidential unless I can convince them otherwise.
        Try Google/YouTube. Not a YouTube person myself, but I’m pretty sure that they are there. Certainly, the theories are.

      • Arkenaten said

        If they are on Youtube extolling their views how confidential are they?Anyway, what info/title/tag do you recommend I type in the search bar?

      • chicagoja said

        Whatever you object to in my post, just Google it and see what comes up. Do the same thing on YouTube.

      • Arkenaten said

        Okay. First one. Here you go.
        This is exactly what I typed:
        ( so you can mirror the search if you want to)
        Genuine Scientific objection to evolution.
        All I got was crap about Intelligent Design and other bogus Creationist bulldust.
        I clicked web and videos.
        That took about fifteen seconds.
        Let me go check out The Big Bang Theory.
        Back in a minute or two ….

      • chicagoja said

        Read my comment to Arch that,
        “The evidence can not possibly lead one to believe that the universe (with no intelligence behind it whatsoever) was able to (poof) create the cosmos out of nothing and from nowhere… unless you have previously decided to believe in a certain ideology.”
        So, for you, everything that does not agree with your belief system is crap. What can I say?

      • archaeopteryx1 said

        Don’t you get it Ark? You’re supposed to hunt until you find someone who seems to agree with the sum of his post, but you’ll never know for sure if you have the right one.

        I have 40,000 world leaders who agree with everything I say – unfortunately, they all choose to remain anonymous. You DO believe me, don’t you?

      • archaeopteryx1 said

        So your post was vetted by people who don’t wish to be identified? Isn’t that just a tad convenient?

      • chicagoja said

        It is what it is? I’m just glad to have ’em. Actually, might not do such a post without such vetting.

      • chicagoja,

        The Big Bang is fact, not speculation.

        The laws of physics are such that cosmologists have worked out the structure of the universe fractions of a second after the Big Bang.

        Evolution is also a fact.

        The proof of evolution comes from genetics which is biochemistry.

        All life is based on the DNA molecule. That means all living things are related to each other on a molecular level.

        Evolution means that traits are inherited from one generation to the next.

        Such inheritance is both obvious (and has been for centuries) and provable through the science of genetics.

      • chicagoja said

        I agree that genetics is very useful in making a judgement about the origins of life. Your explanation of the science, though, is…well, unscientific, at best.

      • chicagoja,

        My explanations are indeed scientific because they come directly from what is taught in university level classes on the subject and the simple definition of words.

      • chicagoja said

        As has been proven, the Creator doesn’t “happen.”
        The Big Bang is fact.
        Evolution is also a fact.

        None of those things are facts or have been proven. What are you smoking these days?

      • chicagoja,

        That the Creator doesn’t happen is a fact based upon the definition of the word Creator.

        If you deny that the Big Bang and evolution have not been proven then you are simply proving further that you are an atheist because atheism is based upon the denial of modern science.

      • chicagoja said

        Your really in left field now. Actually, virtually all atheists believe in the Big Bang and evolutionary theory. What planet have you been living on?

      • chicagoja,

        Modern science is the result of the Christian worldview.

        Atheists who are wacko leftist fascists have commandeered science, politics, education and economics in their passion to destroy any belief in God.

        One cannot study science without seeing proof of the existence of God.

        But for the atheist, all ideas must be subordinated to leftist-fascism.

        That’s why they can bleat their desire for social just while at the same time seeing absolutely nothing wrong with selling butchered baby body parts for coin.

        Atheists are also prone to fanatical belief in proven hoaxes like global warming, alternative energy and ObamaCare.

      • archaeopteryx1 said

        Modern science is the result of the Christian worldview.

        Would that be the same Christian worldview that placed Galileo on house arrest because he said the earth revolved around the sun, not vice versa?

        Or maybe the Christian worldview that caused Ferdinand Magellan, the first man to circumnavigate the globe, to say:

        “The Church says the earth is flat, but I know that it is round, for I have seen the shadow on the moon, and I have more faith in a shadow, than in the church.”
        — Ferdinand Magellan —
        (1480 – 1521)

      • archaeopteryx1 said

        What planet have you been living on?

        Let’s just say, without going into detail, that SOM has been living a somewhat sheltered life —

      • archaeopteryx1 said

        atheism is based upon the denial of modern science.

        That is absolute nonsense, SOM – we depend heavily on modern science to refute all of the nonsense we find in the Bible – never leave home without it!

        “God is a pocket of scientific ignorance, that grows smaller and smaller as time goes by.”
        — Neil deGrasse Tyson —

        That the Creator doesn’t happen is a fact based upon the definition of the word Creator.

        Would you mind giving us your definition, so that we’re both on common ground?

      • Arch,

        All atheist arguments are based on absurdities, factual errors and other brands of sophistry.

        Atheists cloak their sophistry in “science” in order to bamboozle the ignorant.

        Since modern science is a product of the Christian worldview, the atheist claim to science is yet another absurdity since atheism is a rejection of the Christian worldview.

      • archaeopteryx1 said

        Well, see, I’m not in agreement that, “modern science is a product of the Christian worldview.” In fact, a full 85% of the members of the Academy of Science are atheists or agnostics, so any relationship between modern science and a ‘Christian worldview’ would be an extremely thin one.

        And I’m still waiting on your definition of creator that I asked you for.

      • chicagoja said

        You guys are great, even if you have a myopic worldview. An exchange of ideas can always be enlightening, except to those who already have their mind made up. Since I am not going to convince you of my position and likewise you are not going to convince me, my time can be put to better use elsewhere. Have fun chatting amongst yourselves. I’ll try to post your comments although there may well be some delays in my getting to the comments.

      • archaeopteryx1 said

        Stop it, SOM – you’re making sense! That’s so uncharacteristic of you.

        Evolution works in tiny increments over such a long time, that it’s difficult for most people to grasp. Possibly this will simplify it:

      • archaeopteryx1 said

      • chicagoja said

        Don’t watch YouTube if I can avoid it. What’s your point?

      • archaeopteryx1 said

        I’m sorry to hear that. YouTube allows one to attend lectures and view documentaries that, due to geographical distance, one could otherwise never hope to view.

        As for my point, if I stated it, you would justifiably ask for evidence, which is included in the video you maintain you won’t watch, so it becomes a Catch 22, and consequently moot. Hopefully, others will watch it.

      • chicagoja said

        Of course, if it’s on YouTube, then it’s automatically true, especially if it conforms with your own way of thinking.

      • archaeopteryx1 said

        Of course, if it’s on YouTube, then it’s automatically true

        Uh, well, if as in this instance, I personally see and hear Neil deGrasse Tyson, then I can be reasonably sure that it is in fact Neil deGrass Tyson, and that he’s saying what I hear him saying, so yeah. Now as to whether or not what he’s saying is true, that’s for evidence to determine, but considering his educational background, I would as soon believe what I hear him say, as some antiquated 1800’s biologist’s opinion.

      • Ark,

        We prove most things to ourselves through common sense.

        The great shortcoming of atheism is forsaking common sense for Google.

      • Nan said

        SOM:

        The great shortcoming of Christianity is forsaking common sense for the bible.

      • archaeopteryx1 said

        The great shortcoming of Christianity is forsaking common sense for the bible.

        You GO, Girl!

      • Nan,

        Since the Bible has been acknowledged for literally millennia to be a book of great wisdom, it is no wonder that the atheist would have trouble finding any wisdom in it.

        You prove once again that atheism is the denial of common sense, just like I said.

      • Nan said

        You prove once again that atheism is the denial of common sense, just like I said

        You prove once again that Christianity is the denial of common sense, just like I said.

        SOM, we’ll never see eye-to-eye so long as you believe that a book, written by men who cannot be identified but say/think they heard some invisible entity give them special messages to share, is the end-all, be-all answer to the existence of this world and the individuals who live within it.

        Neither you nor I nor anyone else in this world can PROVE the existence of a supreme being. You choose to believe there is one and I say if that works for you … go for it. But don’t claim you have superior knowledge or more common sense than those who choose to deny the existence of such an entity.

      • chicagoja said

        Perhaps, the debate is over as yours was the only comment waiting for approval. If so, you are the winner (by far). Thank you for your thoughtful and insightful remarks, even if I didn’t agree with some of them.

      • Nan,

        Bible wisdom forms the basis of Western Civilization.

        So when you say, “Christianity is the denial of common sense,” you are committing the logical fallacy of establishing yourself as the authority for your own argument.

        Atheists prove that they can’t cobble together even the simplest rational argument, not because I say so, but because of the objective criteria of logic, what is obvious, and the simple definition of words.

      • archaeopteryx1 said

        “Atheists prove that they can’t cobble together even the simplest rational argument, not because I say so, but because of the objective criteria of logic, what is obvious, and the simple definition of words.”

        That sentence makes no sense without further elaboration.

      • Arch,

        That you need further elaboration for what is obvious and stated clearly in your own words proves my point further.

        There is no evidence, explanation, elaboration or proof that can dislodge the atheist from his 100% faith that everything just happens all by itself.

      • Nan said

        There is no evidence, explanation, elaboration or proof that can dislodge the Christian from his 100% faith that everything happened because of some supreme being..

      • archaeopteryx1 said

      • Nan,

        It was the pagan ancient Greeks who came up with the idea of God, the Creator, or First Cause.

        That was 500 years before the birth of Christ.

        Modern science has gone on to conclusively prove what the pagan, ancient Greeks were able to reason out through common sense.

      • archaeopteryx1 said

        What utter nonsense, SOM – the ancient Sumerians of Mesopotamia were worshiping gods 7,000 years ago, and doubtless there were many civilizations before that, that did as well – that doesn’t make it true, only that many believed it to be.

        As for science proving the existence of a god, that’s a total fabrication – JA was right when he asked what you were smoking.

      • Arch,

        The Creator, by nature, is one and only.

        Comparing the Creator or First Cause to other god’s is like comparing fine wine to swamp slug.

        Again, the atheist demonstrates a severe lack of basic education and vocabulary.

      • archaeopteryx1 said

        I have to wonder, SOM, if you forget your purpose between comments – you were saying that the ancient Greeks came up with the idea of a creator god, and I demonstrated that such belief in gods go back nearly 10,000 years before that. “The Creator, by nature, is one and only.” was your response to that, which has nothing to do with ancient Greeks.

        Even then, you’re demonstrating a “severe lack of basic education,” in that the Amurrites held a belief that there was a single creator god, Amurru, long before there was ever a race that called itself Jews or Hebrews. Clearly your lack of education prevented you from learning about the Sumerians, who occupied the Mesopotamian valley for over 4,000 years, but were ultimately overrun by the Akkadians, a semi-nomadic Semitic tribe who settled in the valley, overcame the Sumerians, and ruled for 500 years – it’s greatest leader, Sargon I, opened a trade route from Mesopotamia to the Mediterranean and all down the Levant, nearly to Egypt. Interestingly, as a baby, he was placed in a basket and floated down the Euphrates, where he was rescued and grew up to become a great leader – this of course, is where the Bible plagiarized the “Moses-in-the-bullrushes” fable.

        The Akkadians were eventually overrun by the Amurrites, around the time accredited to Abraham (for whom no evidence exists), and made their base at Aleppo, Syria. Their greatest leader, Hammurabi, created a legal code, and once again, the Jews plagiarized Hammurabi’s gift to civilization and it became the framework for their greatest invention, the Moses fable.

        Oh, just in passing – their god, Amurru, had another name – El Shaddai. And what does your god, Yahweh, tell Moses in Exodus 6:3?

        “And I appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob by the name of El Shaddai, but by my name JEHOVAH [ed. – read, “YAHWEH”] was I not known to them.”

        So either your obscure little desert god, who until the Jews latched onto him was worshiped only by a roving band of nomadic Middianites, was NOT the first single god to be believed to be a ‘creator god,’ or he was running around with an alias. Which was it?

        I can’t speak to your education or lack of it, SOM, but I can certainly address your accumulated knowledge, and it seems to be extremely limited, regarding religious matters, to the Bible, rather than knowing anything about the HISTORY of the Bible. You could certainly work on that, and one day, hopefully, become quite knowledgeable, but until then, I’d probably not say a lot about another’s “severe lack of basic education” – it’s that whole, ‘mote-in-the-eye” thing – you understand —

      • archaeopteryx1 said

        Arch, The Creator, by nature, is one and only. Comparing the Creator or First Cause to other god’s is like comparing fine wine to swamp slug.

        Curious here, SOM – is this opinion, or scientific fact? If the latter, please provide evidence.

      • archaeopteryx1 said

        Modern science has gone on to conclusively prove what the pagan, ancient Greeks were able to reason out through common sense.

        A full 85% of the National Academy of Science is either atheist or agnostic – I guess they haven’t yet gotten the news.

      • So?

        If 85% of the population is stupid, that doesn’t make stupid, wise.

        Again, you demonstrate the atheist’s basic inability to think rationally.

        2 + 2 = 4 even if 85% of the Academy of Science says otherwise.

        Don’t schools teach basic logic anymore?

        Apparently not.

      • archaeopteryx1 said

        2 + 2 = 4 even if 85% of the Academy of Science says otherwise” – I suspect that they would very quickly tell you that that statement is true only when dealing with a base 10 mathematical operation, otherwise, not at all.

        See, this is what you do – you very poorly attempt to obfuscate. For example, you say that atheists hate science – yet when I demonstrate that 85% of the National Academy of Science are atheists or agnostics, you drop your insistence that atheists hate science, and switch the subject of intelligence or lack of it – in other words, nothing to do with your original premise:
        So?
        If 85% of the population is stupid, that doesn’t make stupid, wise.

        Go back to school SOM – please – you’re embarrassing yourself.

      • chicagoja said

        I can either mediate between your two views (yours and SOM) or you can take your debate(?) somewhere else. Your choice.

      • Chicagoja,

        As usual, Arch is in the process of arguing with himself and losing.

        This is when I usually take my leave since Arch no longer needs me.

      • archaeopteryx1 said

        This is when I usually take my leave since Arch no longer needs me.” – For those who don’t speak SOM-ese, loosely translated, that means that SOM has painted himself into a corner he can’t get out of.

      • archaeopteryx1 said

        First of all, if I recall an earlier statement of yours, you indicated that you were going to be busy over the next day or so, but to proceed it we liked. Now your statement sounds as though one or both of us has done something offensive, and I don’t quite understand that implication.

      • chicagoja said

        Sounds like SOM left you to argue with yourself.

      • archaeopteryx1 said

        That’s his escape tag.

      • archaeopteryx1 said

        Personally, I was under the impression that SOM and I were having a discussion, rather than a debate, and consequently not in need of mediation. Do you see it as otherwise?

      • chicagoja said

        Didn’t want to constantly spend time to review your comments (which will probably go on forever). Doesn’t seem to be much point in your conversation anyway as you are both talking past the other, no doubt because both of you are 100% sure that you’re right and nothing the other person might say is ever going to change that. Personally, I enjoy your little spat, especially since I think that you are both wrong. Besides, I don’t know about you, but I have another life.

      • archaeopteryx1 said

        Besides, I don’t know about you, but I have another life.” – I’m a multi-tasker.

      • archaeopteryx1 said

        There is no evidence, explanation, elaboration or proof that can dislodge the atheist from his 100% faith that everything just happens all by itself.

        That’s not true either, if you have such evidence, show it to me, but don’t refer me back to 2500-year old scientifically-ignorant priests, who hadn’t a clue as to how the universe and humans came to be, and filled the enormous gaps in their knowledge with their god d’jour.

      • Arch,

        I’ve given atheist after atheist, proof after proof of the existence of God, not from the Bible, but from modern scientific discoveries.

        Deny, deny, deny is all the atheist can do because atheism is by definition, the denial of science.

        I can explain that one to you, AGAIN, but I guarantee you that it will do absolutely no good.

        That’s because atheism is a 100% faith-based belief.

      • archaeopteryx1 said

        Deny, deny, deny is all the atheist can do because atheism is by definition, the denial of science.

        atheism |ˈāθēˌizəm|
        noun
        the theory or belief that God does not exist.
        DERIVATIVES
        atheist noun
        atheistic |ˌāθēˈistik| adjective
        atheistical |-ˈistikəl| adjective
        ORIGIN late 16th cent.: from French athéisme, from Greek atheos, from a- ‘without’ + theos ‘god.’

        Please point out the part about the denial of science —

        So you’re maintaining that a full 85% of the National Academy of Science, which are comprised of atheists and agnostics, deny science – that doesn’t even pass that common sense test you’re always touting.

        I can explain that one to you, AGAIN, but I guarantee you that it will do absolutely no good.

        Please do, I’m waiting —

      • Arkenaten said

        The great shortcoming of those who promote theism or most sorts of god- belief is they forsake all sense for a narrative construct – ”God”( sic) used to terrorize children and the rest of humanity for non compliance of heinous doctrine.

      • archaeopteryx1 said

        What is commonly known as ‘common sense,’ is largely subjective reasoning, and proof of nothing.

        Humans have a tendency to assign agency where there is none (hence, gods) – as a consequence, far too often, when one act (the breaking of a mirror) is followed by another (a misfortune), “Common Sense” will tell some that there is a causal relationship, whereas nothing could be further from the truth.

      • Arch,

        It is common sense that nothing just happens all by itself.

        When one studies science, engineering and mathematics, one develops a formal understanding that atheism is simply absurd, for nothing just happens all by itself.

      • Nan said

        “nothing just happens all by itself.”

        In the world we live in, this is seen as true because this is how we live our lives. Everything we experience is based on cause and effect. But when considering something as complex and vast as the creation of the universe, how can our finite minds ever grasp how it might/could have come into existence?

      • Nan,

        Why is the argument from complexity good when the atheist uses it but bad when someone uses it to infer the existence of God?

      • chicagoja said

        Very true; as Lincoln Barnett wrote, “Along with philosophers’ reduction of all objective reality to a shadow-world of perceptions, scientists have become aware of the alarming limitations of man’s senses.” Yet, some have been so arrogant as to presume otherwise. For example, Stephen Hawking has said that,”Because there is a law such as gravity, the Universe can and will create itself from nothing.” So arrogance knows no bounds.

      • archaeopteryx1 said

        Stephen Hawking has said that,’Because there is a law such as gravity, the Universe can and will create itself from nothing.’

        I’m sure he didn’t just make that single statement and leave it at that – it is entirely unlike Dr. Hawking not to explain what he means. I’d really like to hear the entire comment, perhaps you could drop a link as to your source.

      • archaeopteryx1 said

        nothing just happens all by itself” – Including gods.

      • Arch,

        The Creator doesn’t happen. We’ve already established that because of the meaning of the Creator.

        You’re demonstrating that to be an atheist you have to be stuck on stupid.

      • archaeopteryx1 said

        We’ve already established that because of the meaning of the Creator.

        One of my many talents, SOM, is that I paint – oils. I create a painting, I am its creator – please lay that definition of creator next to my statement, and explain to me how I always was, because I create.

        (That, of course, assumes a creator of the universe, and there is no evidence to support the existence of such an entity.)

      • archaeopteryx1 said

        “Who created the Creator?” is a stupid question.

        Yes, it is, SOM, it’s obvious that we humans created the “Creator” because we saw things we hadn’t the scientific knowledge to explain, and so we invented magic gods – 4 or 5 thousand of them over the years – to explain what we couldn’t understand. Most of us are outgrowing those now.

  2. Arkenaten said

    Oh. I forgot to add that I hope others comment on this post. I would honestly like to read some other takes on I.D.

  3. Darrell Barnett said

    Bravo. Excellent article, John. Keep up the good work.

    Darrell

    • chicagoja said

      Thanks for commenting. Always good to hear from you. The truth is a funny thing. Everybody thinks that they already know the truth – usually either science or a holy book has told them so. As you may have heard me say before, man must begin any quest for knowledge by admitting his own ignorance. That’s a tall order for some people.

      • Arkenaten said

        True ignorance posits a god in the gaps in human knowledge.
        This is not only ignorant but dangerous.

      • chicagoja said

        While you seem absolutely certain, there is no way for you to be absolutely certain…or as Voltaire said, “Doubt is not a pleasant condition,
 but certainty is absurd.”

      • Arkenaten said

        You seem to be behaving obtuse for some reason?
        I have stated that ”I don’t know ” is perfectly acceptable, but the current view of ID is generally promoted on the back of a Christian deity which is simply nonsense and utterly unsupportable.

        You throwing Dawkins into the mix as a supporter suggests you either completely misunderstood his meaning or you were being disingenuous, which I find distasteful.

        The only people who claim such certainty are generally religious fundamentalists, although you appear to be leaning in this direction with such obscure posts and no matter how you couch your terms is beginning to come across as more than a little silly.

      • chicagoja said

        You stated, “I don’t know is perfectly acceptable” but your comment was “true ignorance posits a god”. So, which is it? You either are certain about true ignorance or it’s your opinion. If it’s simply your opinion, don’t sound so certain and condescending. You say that the only people who claim such certainty are generally religious fundamentalists (which I agree with), but you also claim to be certain about who is ignorant (so presumably you know). I try not to say I’m certain about anything. My posts are simply my opinion which you are welcome to disagree with, as you frequently do. My objective in writing many of my posts is simply to question whether the reader knows the truth or whether it’s just a belief system, as most so-called knowledge” is… or as Vernon Howard said, “Do not confuse intelligence with conditioning.”

      • Arkenaten said

        My objective in writing many of my posts is simply to question whether the reader knows the truth or whether it’s just a belief system

        Because of posts such as this I am wont to ask the very same question of the author.

        Re: Certainty.
        As we are discussing Intelligent Design (sic) and as I have already mentioned that the vast majority of its proponents posit a Christian god I would have thought further pedantic explanation unnecessary?

        However … Yes, on this score, I am certain, based on the evidence presented there is no god responsible for the so-called Intelligent Design.
        I hope this is succinct enough?

      • chicagoja said

        If we are discussing the link between ID and a Christian god, then I agree with you since it is far from certain. However, your “certainty that there is no god that is responsible for ID” is as Voltaire said…absurd. In order to know that you would have to be able to tell me where life came from, you need to be able to understand reality and you need to prove what consciousness is. The most brilliant minds in the world can’t do that and obviously neither can you. You don’t have the life experiences to even begin to comment on these topics and therefore, like any belief system, you have adopted someone else’s opinion. Even they are not certain, even if they say they are (like Richard Dawkins, for example). So quit being so certain and take your own advice. I agree with you that I don’t know is perfectly acceptable.

      • Arkenaten said

        If we are discussing the link between ID and a Christian god, then I agree with you since it is far from certain.

        No, I said I am certain it is not the Christian god based on the evidence presented.

        However, your “certainty that there is no god that is responsible for ID” is as Voltaire said…absurd.

        As you have not made a case for any other gods then this is a moot point. Do you have a case for another god? If so, please present it.

        In order to know that you would have to be able to tell me where life came from, you need to be able to understand reality and you need to prove what consciousness is.

        Nope. Don’t have to prove a thing. And I don’t have an answer for where life originated. If you are positing a god then you must provide the evidence. Once again, I am simply saying:”I don’t know”. (Other than dismissing with impunity all evidence presented for gods so far.)

        The most brilliant minds in the world can’t do that and obviously neither can you.

        It’s nice to think I have something in common with the most brilliant minds. Who would have guessed?

        You don’t have the life experiences to even begin to comment on these topics and therefore, like any belief system, you have adopted someone else’s opinion.

        Such arrogance! Good heavens. My opinion is my own based on considerable research. That it happens to coincide with the opinion of a great number of other people suggests we all share a similar belief and have conducted similar research.

        Even they are not certain, even if they say they are (like Richard Dawkins, for example). So quit being so certain and take your own advice. I agree with you that I don’t know is perfectly acceptable

        You seem to be struggling with basic comprehension for some reason and beginning to get tetchy. The phrase, ‘’I Don’t know’’ is a perfectly acceptable response to the question: ‘’Is there a god/creator of our universe/s?’’
        My response: I am certain, refers to the evidence so far presented for every single god /creator claim and this includes Intelligent Design.
        I hope we are on the same page now?

      • chicagoja said

        No, we are not on the same page. If there is to be an exchange of ideas, then you cannot be certain. Otherwise, your talking and everybody else has to listen as to how certain you are. You keep switching between your certainty and I don’t know, so how would anyone know what you think. Why would they care? You often have very valid points but they are always wrapped in the context of I’m right and your wrong. You say that you don’t have to provide evidence to back up your assertions. Fine, but without that why should anyone take you seriously? This dialogue started some time ago with you saying that you were certain that “true ignorance posits a god” which you have never explained and certainly not proved. Unfortunately, you have not added anything of value in this running dialogue, although I was hoping that you would. Again, under the circumstances, why should anyone take you seriously (even if you are right)? So, we’re not the same page and since this is my blog I get the last word.

  4. […] am all for reading quirky, off the wall perspectives on any number of topics and this bloke is a pretty good writer and often posts some interesting […]

  5. archaeopteryx1 said

    Wow, I don’t even know where to begin —

    On that basis alone, The Big Bang Theory is sheer nonsense. – That’s one of the most absurd statements I have ever heard.

    As for The Big Bang Theory, Michael Turner, a cosmologist at the University of Chicago, stated, ‘If inflation is the dynamite behind the Big Bang, we’re still looking for the match.’

    Could you please tell us where you found that quotation and when Turner said it?

    Even George Wald, an ardent evolutionist, eventually admitted that it had been scientifically proven that spontaneous generation of a living organism was impossible.

    You neglected to mention that George Wald’s claim to fame was that he discovered that vitamin A was a component of the retina. His further experiments showed that when the pigment rhodopsin was exposed to light, it yielded the protein opsin and a compound containing vitamin A. This suggested that vitamin A was essential in retinal function. That hardly qualifies Wald as an expert in abiogenesis.

    So, any theory which deals with the origins of the universe (e.g. The Big Bang Theory) has to allow for the evolution of life, especially that of man.

    Not at all. cosmology is not concerned with any form of biology, they’re separate fields entirely – but I can certainly see where positing that could well open the door for you to insert “creation.”

    So, for Dawkins, DNA is superior to man, and why not.

    It took billions of years for single-celled organisms to ever find a way or a reason to combine into multi-celled lifeforms, and man, along with all of the other multi-celled organisms, are just the most recent products.

    Yet, Dawkins never explained who created DNA.

    Anthropomorphizing just a bit, aren’t we?

    Physicist Max Planck said, ‘I regard consciousness as fundamental. We cannot get behind consciousness.’

    Within what context did Planck say this? Please steer me to the article from which the quotation was taken.

    …what we would all be left with is the incredible miracle of the universe instantaneously appearing out of nothing, and from nowhere.

    Clearly, you’re unfamiliar with Lawrence Krause – this is exactly what Krause maintains happened.

    Life apparently came from other worlds (the Multiverse).

    Where did you ever get such an idea? You were right, you’re not a scientist – to the best of my knowledge, no one reputable has ever said that.

    As I’ve always said there are many different disciplines in science but really just two kinds of scientists – those that believe in a Creator and those that don’t.

    According to Neill Degrasse Tyson, 85% of the National Academy of Science are atheists or agnostics, so I suppose that what you say is true, but I’m not sure that it proves anything.

    …in his much-discussed book, ‘The End of Science,’ John Horgan talked about the limitations of science as it goes into areas that are unobservable (e.g. what lies beyond space and time).

    I’m confused – aren’t your god and his heaven unobservable?

    I might have to read a fairy tale to my kids entitled Once Upon a Bang-less Night.

    OR, you could simply read them some of the fairy tales found in the Bible, such as talking snakes and donkeys, men being swallowed by large fish, saviors levitating into the sky – that book has more fairy tales than The Brothers Grimm!

  6. KIA said

    I’m sorry if the question sounds dense, but how would you evidentially Get from a possible deism that is the result of ID to the personal, self existent, all knowing and all loving God of the bible? This is what the whole argument for ID is aiming at isn’t it?

    • chicagoja said

      Certainly for deists it is. And your right, you can’t get from I.D. to the all-loving God of the Bible. But then again, I don’t believe in the all-loving God of the Bible.

  7. Allallt said

    I’m glad you open this post very openly and honestly. You are transparent about your epistemic approach (logic and intuition) and your lack of familiarity with science. You’d be surprised how rare a self-aware opening is.

    How did we get here?

    It has been my observation that scientists sometimes violate their own rules. That is, they simply fail to observe (and measure). So, just how is it possible that something so basic to the scientific process is so completely ignored? Well, Robert Lanza, a scientist himself, offered up an explanation of sorts, “We have failed to protect science against speculative extensions of nature, continuing to assign physical and mathematical properties to hypothetical entities beyond what is observable in nature.”
    Hopefully, with such an honest opening, you’ll be open to the idea the description of science given here doesn’t accurately portray the philosophies or practices of science. This is particularly true of theoretical physics, which is about building models to explain observations. When Lanza tries to critique science by saying the science community has allowed speculation to runaway, unfettered by observation, Lanza is poorly representing the methods that underpin openly hypothetical and speculative areas of science. String Theorists, for example, make no bones about the fact it is a near-purely mathematical model.
    In fact, the current goal of String Theory is for the model to produce a prediction that is perceptible, so that we can actually start to build the empirical defense of String Theory (which we don’t currently have).
    Even more oddly, Lanza attempts to discredit spacetime in his diatribe against the practices of theoretical science. Einstein made the observations in his lifetime that supported spacetime. Einstein even speculated about something he said we may never see: gravitational lensing. We’ve observed that now, too.
    I’m not denying―and I don’t think anyone reasonable would―that observations are never pure; observers are part of the model they observe and building narratives using induction is fraught with human categorisation. But as many people observe the same things and construct similar models, that spawn more hypotheses that are also tested, those concerns become less… concerning.
    Big Bang cosmology is the interesting one, actually. There’s a hierarchy of concerns relating to knowledge: cosmology, ontology, epistemology, methodology and communication. Exactly what that means isn’t relevant, except to say “communication” is often the weakest link. Certain individuals in the scientific and peer review community fail to be properly ruthless or open to questions on epistemology or ontology, but the community at large is good pretty good at it. In fact, it’s in the individuals’ self-interest to be good at it. Each scientist wants to damage other papers so they can produce a superior one: that makes scientific papers very robust things. The problem is, the currency of “truth” (there’s another conversation for another day) loses value when it leaves the scientists hands and goes into the hands of “the media” for communication. Communication is the weakest link.
    In the public eye, Big Bang cosmology is the pinnacle of scientific understanding. But the conversation in universities is very different. The Big Bang model is split into two steps: the singularity and the phase. The Big Bang singularity is still speculative. It’s an extrapolation from winding back the evidence we have now for expansion. The Big Bang phase is different: the phase takes account of the moments immediately after the (hypothetical) singularity. It’s the rapid expansion. The models of the Big Bang phase produce predictions we have observationally verified. So, the model is a lot more complex than the public understands, and that’s the fault of communication. (And then the Big Bang model is not the only model taken seriously in the academic community.)
    This failure of science communication is often confused for a failure of science. But it’s a failure of a system of media that uses currency as a currency, and not truth as a currency.
    (It’s worth looking up what dark matter is: it’s not speculative; it’s descriptive.)
    We know Black Holes violate Relativity, all of quantum mechanics violates Relativity; nothing is so evidently paradoxical as a quantum particle with massive embedded gravity… but science knows that and there are people on working on “quantising” relativity. And there are observations that support the claims of black holes, not least the orbiting of galaxies around a centre emitting Hawking Radiation: it’s not a claim unfettered by observation.
    Models of reality that explain large amounts of data and observations is a theory. A theory, in science, is the highest level; there is no “proof”. “Theory” and “proof” are words that have very different meanings in colloquial and technical use. Academically, “proof” only exists in mathematics. It portrays the failure of science communication that this linguistic error is so very common: scientists avoid the word “proof” and use the word “theory” and the public isn’t given the tools to understand what scientists are saying.

    We have a uniquely biased view of life, as our experience of life is only at this far end of 3.5 billion years of evolution; we see life as complex and filled with protein machinery and balanced interdependencies in the physiology of the individual and ecology. That type of life, it seems very fair to say, will not spontaneously arise. However, that is not the understanding of life we currently have: work has progressed a long way since the Urey-Miller experiment in the 1950s. Over the last decade we have been able to demonstrate intermediaries between strictly chemical and strictly biological systems. The origin of life was probably not an event, but a process. (And, as I mentioned earlier, I’d be cynical of a scientist that either has or has been reported as saying something has been “proven”.)
    This chemical/biological process is “abiogenesis”, and it should not be confused with Big Bang cosmology or any other cosmogonies. Any given theory, like “The Big Bang”, is only meant to explain a limited set of observations of a particular theme. In the same way Germ Theory of Disease doesn’t explain weather systems, cosmogonical theories are not meant to explain abiogenesis. Equally, abiogenesis is about the start of life and evolution is about the diversity of life: they are not meant to explain the same set of observations and should not be confused (especially not for convenience).
    Also, don’t confuse complexity and uncertainty with teleology and intelligence.

    Ben Stein specifically and repeatedly asked Dawkins to entertain the idea of intelligent design and how it could be a plausible narrative or idea. Entertaining an idea in such narrow parameters, then Dawkins discussed extraterrestrial authorship of DNA, but it is not Dawkins lead theory and neither does it make it into scientific discussion.

    • chicagoja said

      Thank you for your comment. Of course, that means that Crick’s views are apparently not acceptable to mainstream science.

      • Allallt said

        Which of his views? Directed panspermia? No, that’s not acceptable to mainstream science, or “science”.
        Jason Wright, an astronomer from Penn State University, said: “Aliens should always be the very last hypothesis you consider”.
        After all, there’s Occam’s razor to consider.

      • chicagoja said

        Let’s all place Jason Wright higher up in the pecking order than Francis Crick. By the way, would you change your opinion if you met an alien, or would you still deny it?

      • Allallt said

        No, lets not place one scientist above another. The science community isn’t structured like a religion, where one person is more important than another.
        We’re placing the particular utterance of Jason Wright that confirmed to some of the reasonable rules of academic enquiry (like Occam’s Razor) over the blind claim of directed panspermia uttered by Crick.
        I mean to offence to Crick, you’ll see he had a place in my discussion about the most influential biologist (I do respect him): https://allallt.wordpress.com/2015/06/18/1531/

        I’ve written about aliens more than once. Hopefully this will elucidate my position on aliens quite clearly: https://allallt.wordpress.com/tag/aliens/

      • chicagoja said

        Fair enough, but would you publicly state that you believe in aliens if you had met one?

      • Allallt said

        No.
        But I think you need to read my posts to fully understand why.

      • Allallt said

        Occam’s razor.

      • chicagoja said

        This was not a question of assumptions, hypotheses and logic. I was simply asking that if you knew something for a fact would you tell people about it or might you be possibly be inclined to withhold that truth because it ran counter to your publicly held position on that issue.

      • Allallt said

        If I knew it, I think I would. I just doubt I’d “know” it.

    • archaeopteryx1 said

      Well said!

  8. Argus said

    Let me see now … In the beginning, all was a timeless nothing. And in that eternal nothing a change occurred, and suddenly we have the verses (uni or multi—call it how you see it).

    I follow so far — so why all the dissent?
    Oh.
    Of course, it’s childish squabbling over a name: some call the Event by the name ‘Big Bang’ while others call it ‘God’.

    I have no problems with either, being simply alternate names for the same thing—and to all just as unprovable; and (let’s face it) equally as hypothetical. Wishful, almost.

    Anyway—in a timeless nothing what could possibly change to trigger the Creation?
    I think the jury will be out for a very long time …

  9. […] had linked to this wonderful post, where the author declared that, “…The Big Bang Theory is sheer nonsense.” After […]

  10. karenh1234567890 said

    There is a basic misunderstanding that is involved in this type of discussion of science. It is a very old misunderstanding that dates back to the 4th Century BCE. Back then it was the Atomists (Leucippus & Democritus) on one side and the Pythagoreans, Platonists, and Aristotle on the other side.

    The Atomists were answering why questions with mechanical answers.

    The Pythagoreans, Plutonists, and Aristotle were answering why questions with teleological answers.

    Let’s take the question of the spherical nature of the Earth.

    The Atomists would answer this by saying something like “You can see that the Earth is a sphere, because the shadow that the Earth makes on the moon during an eclipse is the shadow of a spherical body.” This is a mechanical answer.

    The Pythagoreans would answer this by saying something like “The Earth has to be a sphere because it was created by God who made it as perfect as possible and a sphere is a perfect solid.” This is a teleological answer.

    Whoever you have been reading or watching has also been conflating speculative, bleeding edge small-t theories like Multiverses where evidence has not yet been found with generally accepted capital-T Theories like Special Relativity, Thermodynamics, Quantum Mechanics, etc. There is a big difference between the two.

    “The atomists, unlike Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle, sought to explain the world without introducing the notion of purpose or final cause. The “final cause” of an occurrence is an event in the future for the sake of which the occurrence takes place. In human affairs, this conception is applicable. Why does the baker make bread? Because people will be hungry. Why are railways built? Because people will wish to travel. In such cases, things are explained by the purpose they serve. When we ask “why?” concerning an event, we may mean either of two things. We may mean: “What purpose did this event serve?” or we may mean: “What earlier circumstances caused this event?” The answer to the former question is a teleological explanation, or an explanation by final causes; the answer to the latter question is a mechanistic explanation. I do not see how it could have been known in advance which of these two questions science ought to ask, or whether it ought to ask both. But experience has shown that the mechanistic question leads to scientific knowledge, while the teleological question does not. The atomists asked the mechanistic question, and gave a mechanistic answer. Their successors, until the Renaissance, were more interested in the teleological question, and thus led science up a blind alley.”

    Russell, Bertrand (2008-06-30). History of Western Philosophy: And Its Connection with Political and Social Circumstances from the Earliest Times to the Present Day (pp. 66-67). Touchstone. Kindle Edition.

  11. To reject the Big Bang means to reject science since the Big Bang is a perfectly logical, reasonable conclusion that is based on the Laws of Nature and Christian Gospel teachings.

    And to reject science means to reject the Christian worldview that spawned modern science.

    It is rarely ever noticed that Christian Western Civilization is the only civilization in human history that progressed past the slave and the beast of burden as the not so roaring engines of the economy.

    Also, Christian Western Civilization is the only civilization in human history where modern science was allowed to develop.

    • chicagoja said

      Thank you for your comments. The Big Bang Theory is an unproven theory that does not follow the scientific method. There is nothing perfectly logical about it. That is, creating the universe out of nothing and from nowhere. Your logic of the Big Bang to the Laws of Nature to Christian teachings is… well, illogical. It was Einstein, himself, that said that the fundamental laws of nature are beyond man’s ability to comprehend them. Western Civilization may have “outlawed slavery”, but slavery of various kinds are promoted by Western Civilization around the globe today. It’s interesting to note that slavery can be traced back to the Bible and to the god of the Old Testament.

      • The Big Bang in fact has been proven.

        The structure of the universe and the Laws of Nature lead to the inescapable conclusion of Big Bang.

        In fact, the Big Bang is also one of the many proofs of the existence of God given to mankind courtesy of modern science.

        I can give you other scientific proofs of the existence of God if you wish.

        Modern science disproves atheism and proves that the Christian worldview is correct.

      • chicagoja said

        To be proven, a scientific theory must be developed in accordance with the scientific method. The scientific method is based on observation and there is no way to recreate The Big Bang and therefore no way to observe (and measure) it. That’s why the Big Bang is called a theory, and not a law. It is definitely NOT proven. There are no scientific proofs possible for God since there is no way to observe what exists beyond space and time.

      • archaeopteryx1 said

        The Big Bang Theory is an unproven theory that does not follow the scientific method. There is nothing perfectly logical about it. That is, creating the universe out of nothing and from nowhere.

        Much better that it should be created out of nothing by a god who, himself, was created out of nothing and from nowhere.

      • Arch,

        You don’t get to define the way things are since you are not Creator or First Cause of the universe.

        And the idea that everything just happened all by itself is yet another example of absurdity put forth by atheists.

        Such an idea is contrary to common sense, scientific reasoning and scientific discovery.

        Newton’s Laws of Motion, upon which our entire modern world is based, proves the futility and falsehood of the atheist idea that everything just happens all by itself.

      • archaeopteryx1 said

        And the idea that everything just happened all by itself is yet another example of absurdity put forth by atheists.

        And yet you pray to a god that just happened all by itself – and fail to see the absurdity in that.

      • chicagoja said

        I hate agreeing with Silence, so I won’t… but his argument is actually slightly better than yours. It’s seems more plausible that some ill-defined and ill-conceived entity created everything out of nothing as opposed to the universe creating itself out of nothing (by accident).

      • archaeopteryx1 said

        I hate agreeing with Silence, so I won’t

        I can certainly understand that feeling, but face it, neither of us was there, consequently, we can only go where the evidence leads us, and though there may be scant evidence for a ‘something from nothing’ universe, there is none for a god who just “always was.”

      • chicagoja said

        The evidence can not possibly lead one to believe that the universe (with no intelligence behind it whatsoever) was able to (poof) create the cosmos out of nothing and from nowhere… unless you have previously decided to believe in a certain ideology. When that happens, you get someone like George Wald, who pondered the vast array of factors both real and hypothetical that would have to arise spontaneously all at once in order for inanimate matter to evolve into even the most primitive one–celled form of life, and wrote, “One has only to contemplate the magnitude of this task to concede that the spontaneous generation of a living organism is impossible….Yet here we are as a result, I believe, of spontaneous generation.” In other words, being an ardent evolutionist, he couldn’t bring himself to come to any other conclusion. Compared to that, a magical God who also goes poof in the night seems almost plausible. Certainly, I would say that something of that incredible magnitude was more likely to have occurred due to some form of intelligence than just a dumb universe pulling a rabbit out of a hat (thin air).

      • archaeopteryx1 said

        Ah, but if a “vast array of factors both real and hypothetical that would have to arise spontaneously all at once in order for inanimate matter to evolve into even the most primitive one–celled form of life,” just imagine how much more vast an array of factors would have to arise, for a magical ‘creator’ to poof into existence –!

      • Arch,

        As has been proven, the Creator doesn’t “happen.”

        Like Ark you are trying to use stupid to disprove something that you personally find distasteful.

        Consequently, both you and Ark provide clear proof that atheists have no idea how to reason.

      • archaeopteryx1 said

        You forget, you and I go back several years. I’ve seen your idea of ‘reason’ far more often than I would have liked.

    • archaeopteryx1 said

      The Islamic scientific community was naming the stars while “Christian Western Civilization” was still running around, burning people who didn’t share their beliefs of love, hope and charity.

      • Arch,

        Look at ISIS burning its way through the Middle East and invading Europe and you will see why the “Islamic scientific community” was completely ineffectual.

        The “scientific community” of the Christian Middle Ages, in fact, put it all together to form the foundation of the scientific revolution that led to the formation of today’s modern world.

      • archaeopteryx1 said

        “Look at ISIS burning its way through the Middle East and invading Europe and you will see why the ‘Islamic scientific community’ was completely ineffectual.”

        Rather reminiscent of the Crusaders burning their way through the Middle East, isn’t it?

  12. The reason we can call “Laws of Nature,” laws is because they are in fact comprehensible.

    The Bible, the Word of God, begins with the Book of Genesis whose major theme in its creation stories is that God is rational, comprehensible and that the universe (all of nature) is under man’s dominion.

    Modern science is the way man comprehends the natural world.

    • chicagoja said

      Your right. We call them laws, when in fact we don’t even understand them. Even Socrates knew that. As for the Bible, there is no proof that it is the Word of God, but if I had the time I could give you a thousand reasons why it is not. You could start by reading my last post on Christian apologetics. Modern science may be the way that man attempts to comprehend the natural world but Einstein said that that was not possible. What your left with is that nothing exists except atoms and empty space; everything else is opinion. Your statements are just that – opinions, with no proof certain to back it up.

    • Nan said

      You know what’s REALLY absurd? To believe anything that’s written in the bible. And even more so, that it’s the “word of god” — a being that cannot be proven to even exist, let alone write or speak.

      • chicagoja said

        Now, now Nan. Isn’t the Bible the Word of God because the Bible says so? Now that is absurd. Even an idiot knows that religious texts are claims not truths. Texts only become truth to a reader when that reader has faith in the texts.

      • Nan,

        Please state one item in the Bible that is absurd.

        And apologies for referring to the Bible as the Word of God.

        I usually do that only when conversing with other Christians.

        I will base any further comments on modern scientific theory and natural law theory from here on out.

      • archaeopteryx1 said

        Please state one item in the Bible that is absurd.

        Uh, talking donkeys –?

      • chicagoja,

        The Bible, like other great literary works from antiquity are chock full of wisdom even if one views them to be works of fiction.

        The Iliad and the Odyssey by Homer are two such works.

        The Great Books of our Western Heritage comprise mankind’s treasure trove concerning the nature of God, man and universe.

      • chicagoja said

        I agree. The first logical thing you’ve said.

  13. makagutu said

    I don’t want to spoil the party but just to paste something chicagoja left out while trying to bolster his claim that Darwin was a creationist of some sort. The whole quotation

    To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree. When it was first said that the sun stood still and the world turned round, the common sense of mankind declared the doctrine false; but the old saying of Vox populi, vox Dei, as every philosopher knows, cannot be trusted in science. Reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a simple and imperfect eye to one complex and perfect can be shown to exist, each grade being useful to its possessor, as is certainly the case; if further, the eye ever varies and the variations be inherited, as is likewise certainly the case; and if such variations should be useful to any animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, should not be considered as subversive of the theory. How a nerve comes to be sensitive to light, hardly concerns us more than how life itself originated; but I may remark that, as some of the lowest organisms in which nerves cannot be detected, are capable of perceiving light, it does not seem impossible that certain sensitive elements in their sarcode should become aggregated and developed into nerves, endowed with this special sensibility.

    You can check it out in the origin of species

    • archaeopteryx1 said

      Wow, Mak – two birds with one stone! JA’s effort to quote Darwin out of context, and SOM contention that science simply equals common sense!

      You went the extra mile, neither of them was counting on that.

      • chicagoja said

        Slight correction. There was no effort on my part to quote Darwin out of context. The quote stands. Everyone can read it and decide for themselves.

      • archaeopteryx1 said

        The quote stands. Everyone can read it and decide for themselves.” – You mean if, as Mak did, one wants to hunt for the rest of it. How many Fundies are likely to do that, as opposed to accepting the tiny slice you quoted, as Darwin’s full belief? Unarguably sheer deception.

      • chicagoja said

        If you read the quote carefully, you’ll notice that the part that is not included says that Darwin reasoned blah blah blah and said that it is “likely the case”. That’s not science. It’s simply his opinion. From a scientific standpoint, Darwin said that the eye doesn’t fit the theory of evolution. It’s only through his “reason” that he was able to make the statement that it is likely that it conforms. It’s sort of like the transitional fossils that Darwin acknowledged that he couldn’t find but he “reasoned” that they would be found in the future. Of course, they have not been found since leading Steven Jay Gould, a well-known evolutionary biologist, to admit that this was “the trade secret of paleontology.” So, that’s what great science Darwin’s theory is. It’s based on reason, and not science. And that’s why the quote stands. You can (and no doubt will) disagree with me if you want, but you’d be wrong.

      • archaeopteryx1 said

        Speaking of Steven Jay Gould —

      • archaeopteryx1 said

        In considering the creationist rebuttal to Charles Darwin’s challenge, in his essay, “Evolution as Fact and Theory,” Gould accuses that;

        “Creationists pervert and caricature this debate by conveniently neglecting the common conviction that underlies it, and by falsely suggesting that evolutionists now doubt the very phenomenon we are struggling to understand”.

        In short, Gould accuses religious groups not necessarily of being wrong, but of failing to examine all the “facts” presented by evolutionists. For, science, according to Gould, “recognizes that old information might be explained in surprisingly new ways”. Creationism’s failure to adhere to that definition of science, by failing to hold their theories up to scientific scrutiny, results in Gould’s opinion that creationism cannot be considered science.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: