If we admit that we can't rigorously prove the existanace of the big bang or evolution--that these represent hypothesis which can not be proven---then by the same token religions that worship a Deity have also made their own personal hypothesis about the nature and orgins of the universe--the existance of this Deity by defintion can not be rigorously proved either. Therefore is it most proper to say one holds with the theory of evolution, or one holds with the theory of the big bang, or one is a supporter of the theory of christianity?
2007-10-29 04:39:46 · 11 answers · asked by Anonymous in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
Evolution is a fact and a theory describing that fact. I feel we've been clear on this point before.
http://www.stephenjaygould.org/library/gould_fact-and-theory.html
The Inflationary theory is a theory, backed up by certain data
God? God is a naive guess, a way of slapping a human face on an impersonal universe. Its not even a hypothesis.
2007-10-29 04:43:58 · answer #1 · answered by Leviathan 6 · 3⤊ 0⤋
No, of all the scientific theories, evolution has one of the highest amounts of evidence. A hypothesis is a conjecture that is tested and refined, once enough evidence is gathered it is published and the tests are repeated and verified i.e. it is independently confirmed and validated.
So what Darwin did was essentially to propose a hypothesis and over the next seventy years the scientific community tested it and refined it. For the last 80 years, it has stood as an accepted theory and no challenging theories have been proposed.
2007-10-29 11:48:07 · answer #2 · answered by Pirate AM™ 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Science doesn't really deal with "proving" things. For things that are a hypothesis, science deals with supporting evidence and observations rather then "proof".
Evolution and the Big Bang were both hypotheses but are now theories. That means they are supported by observation, experimentation, and can be falsified. God is a hypothesis at best.
2007-10-29 11:51:49 · answer #3 · answered by Take it from Toby 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Evolution and the big bang are theories. That means they are well beyond the realm of hypotheses. That aside, even if they were untrue, there is no way god could take on the name of even a hypothesis since in science you must explain using natural causes.
I can't just say that the continents are in their current formations because god put it that way, I'd have to study them and provide a natural explanation.
2007-10-30 17:48:27 · answer #4 · answered by High Tide 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Both evolution theory and the inflationary model of the universe make testable predictions that contradict the previous theories and anything predicted by "common sense."
That is the whole point of a theory, that it makes useful predictions.
The validation of a theory is that its predictions can be shown to be true. Until that happens it is just a hypothesis.
Remember, a theory without an experiment to test it is nothing more than mere faith.
2007-10-29 11:45:58 · answer #5 · answered by Y!A-FOOL 5 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Taking the fact of evolution into account, if there were a creator, it would have to be even more "evolved" than us (a being who created the entire universe would have to be an extremely advanced, complex being).
But then who created this entity and how would it have evolved to such complexity? This is taking into account that _evolution is necessary for the creation of a complex being_.
To add, evolution isn't classified as a belief (i.e., it isn't based on faith but observance).
2007-11-01 14:59:11 · answer #6 · answered by Gen•X•er (I love zombies!) 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No.
Evolution and the Big Bang are SUPPORTED by observable EVIDENCE.
There is not one shred of evidence for a divine being. Religions are NOT theories they are mythologies until they can provide one piece of proof.
2007-10-29 11:44:52 · answer #7 · answered by thewolfskoll 5 · 2⤊ 0⤋
It seems a logical enough argument that I would not disagree with. I would have no problem with saying I am a servant of a theoretical God if people were doing the same for all the other 'hypothesis' questions.
Of course, getting that adopted as the standard formula to use about such things seems most improbable.
2007-10-29 12:24:16 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
I would be interested in seeing actual evidence of the big bang or evolution, instead of a bunch of fossils and the fact that the theory is based on what you think they looked like and acted like.
2007-10-29 12:12:13 · answer #9 · answered by afbdrummer 2 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Again and again with the same lame arguments. Can you people not find something new and, oh yeah you only have the one book for reference, nevermind.
2007-10-29 12:04:05 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋