I agree with not having creationism taught in school, but shouldn't the Big Bang theory also be removed?

Question

It is not a fact, afterall, and people go to school to learn facts, not ideas that require faith.

Dave A,

I never pretend to know everything.

Sit Ubu,

The Big Bang theory cannot be proven, and buren of proof lies on the scientific community to sway my opinion on this.

Oh, just so you guys know, I don't really subscribe to either idea. I acknowledge the fact that I do not know, and I really do not care how the universe formed. I simply focus on what is happening now.

Answer 1

The problem is that people think it takes a logical mind to believe in the "Big Bang Theory" etc... but I think it makes more sense for there to be a creator, as do millions of others. Big bang is a theory accepted by scientifically minded people... creation is accepted by faith minded people. Compare how many accept Big Bang, and Creationism. So I agree... both should be taught in schools not as the absolute truth, but as the two major 'theories' (as such) on how the earth was created. Simple.

Wonderful question!

Take care, God bless

Answer 2

You are right, the Big Bang is just a theory, as is a lot of physics (and biology and chemistry) taught at schools. However, there is evidence for the Big Bang. I myself am not a physicist, but as I understand it physicists suggested the Big Bang theory, and when they looked at the way the universe worked, moved, reacted and was formed it fit with their theory. Thus this is not a PROOF, as such, but it is EVIDENCE.

There is no evidence for creationism, and indeed there is evidence to the contrary - creationists hold that the world is only seven thousand years old, for example, which is clearly contradicted by carbon dating, fossils and so on.

Hope this helps.

Answer 3

So if schools don't teach students about how God (whether it's Jesus, Allah, Yahweh, or Jebus) created the world in 7 days, then they shouldn't teach them the Big Bang theory either? I believe in God, and I think that's completely ridiculous and, frankly, idiotic. Mathematics consists of many theories. Are you going to suggest that math should not be taught as well?

Science is not about faith, its purpose is to find out how things work through the process of observation, experimentation, and verification. Its theories changes and improves because new ideas and information are constantly being tested. Intelligent design, on the other hand, is only about faith and belief. And its initial beliefs and ideas are literally set in stone -- making it impossible to alter if it has been proven wrong. And in some cases, it has. Also, it doesn't claim itself to be a theory but as "the truth". Which is to me, quite scary.

Creationism is not science; it should not be taught as so, as the religious folks have insisted. This is where my disagreement lies. If it must be taught, at least call it for what it is: Religious Studies!

Answer 4

The reason Big Bang is considered a viable theory is because it was the theory which correctly predicted the frequency of the background radiation before the radiation was discovered.
Whether Big Bang actually happened is less important than the fact that whatever theory you propose has to fit in with all the available evidence (or more than Big Bang does anyway), explain some unexplained phenomena, and that you can successfully predict some fact about the universe which hasn't been discovered yet.

Answer 5

Well i think the majority of the ignorant morons who replied here show why the big bang theory is taught instead of creation. Ignorance and an unwillingness to admit the possibility of their idea being wrong. There is NO evidence of the truth of the big bang theory and whoever says there is, is nothing more than a pseudo-scientific moron. Show the proof and don't rattle on about radiation waves and other things that you have no evidence of.The big bang theory is relatively new next to the theory of creationism, and therefore should be treated as a new theory, compared with the older one.

Answer 6

The big bang is consistent with all the evidence. There is ample proof for it if you care to look and learn.

Meanwhile the only 'evidence' for creationism is the text of the bible.


Edit:

In science there is nothing more strong than a theory.
Scientific 'laws' come from an earlier, more conceited time. Bear in mind that Einstein's 'Theories' prove Newton's 'Laws' wrong.

The GPS system relies on the predictions of the theory of relativity. There is as much proof for the Big Bang as there is for relativity. Do you want the Theory of relativity dropped from science class too? What about atomic theory? What about semiconductor theory? Do you have proof for any of these theories.

If I were you I would want to get my facts right before shooting my mouth off.

Answer 7

Why would the Big Bang THEORY be removed? It is a valid scientific theory. Do you have some info you'd like to share with the scientific community that falsifies this scientific theory?

Edit: I put emphasis on the THEORY for a reason. The fact that the scientific community has deemed something worthy of being called theory means that said theory has been sufficiently tested, debated and researched so that it can be taught as something in the realm of fact. There is no evidence at the moment that would indicate the Big Bang Theory is invalid, and until that evidence comes forward the theory should continue to be taught in science class, along with hundreds of other theories. That is, after all, the main focus of science. Observe a natural phenomenon. Take an educated guess as to how/why such a phenomenon occurred. Make predictions based on this hypothesis. Test, retest and test these predictions. Open these tests and their results to the scientific community and the world at large. Allow so that these tests can be copied and verified. After an enormous amount of evidence and testing validates this hypothesis it then can become a scientific theory, which is basically the highest honor given to an idea. This is science. If you don't want the Big Bang Theory taught in schools because it is not what you view as a fact, then we should not have science classes.

The scientific community is not concerned with swaying your opinion. The scientists doing the work publish their findings for all to see. If you want to study and research, then do so. They are not politicians looking to garner public support. They do not view their work in terms of who can get the most lay people behind them.

Finally, since you mentioned Creationism, allow me to point out for the hundredth time the Creationsim in NOT a scientific theory. It is religious and does not meet the standards of theory, therefore there should be no debate as to whether it should be taught in science classes. Creationism makes no predictions that can be tested and DISPROVEN, which is key to being scientific.

Answer 8

Ask any honest Americans.............

what happened after that big bang of Sept 11, 2001AD?

To the atheist and/or evolutionist - a perfect creation. The fools will never learn! Psa 14:1 The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good.

To the creationist - utter mess and chaos!!


For a Christian, it is always chicken first, then the eggs. It is no wonder the chicken&egg question always have the evolutionists and atheists are always scratching their heads................. and tails!


.

Answer 9

IT'S CALLED A FREAKIN' THEORY YOU MORON. Not fact. Nothing can ever be 100.0000% proven in science. At least science admits that.

And then there's, you know, EVIDENCE to support the Big Bang theory. You've got...oh, how quaint, a millennia-year-old mythology book from the Middle East as the basis for your assumptions about the universe. Grand. That's smart, real smart.

Answer 10

"the concept propose the great universe prolonged from a tiny particle of organic hydrogen" bzzt incorrect no ask your self you think of it particularly is ridiculous... the version which you so fervently disbelieve is particularly ridiculous in keeping with threat your difficulty is that there is particularly no such situation as 'the' enormous bang concept... that's a artwork in progression as new theories and evidence are chanced on. it particularly is going to be so complicated to maintain up while you're already confident of the respond. of direction the recommendations on the borders of technology are speculative... there could be no progression in any different case. one situation that distinguishes technology from faith is that scientific speculations make some attempt to be testable... in keeping with threat no longer *suited now* yet in concept, one might desire to be waiting to make some length to assist or refute the hypothesis. supporters of the 'god' concept look to have abandoned that criterion, before. "the universe could no longer have been made out of roughly 3 components." who says that it replaced into? you're conscious, i desire, that widespread bang nucleosynthesis isn't the only technique concept to have replaced the isotope ratios? BBN isn't the alpha and omega. i think of which you're equivocating over the meaning of 'faith'. seems to me that believing in the evidence of the senses and rational inquiry isn't *fairly* an analogous situation as believing in unique, unevidenced entities.