Is the Big Bang theory scientific?

Question

The reason I ask this is because it is a scientific theory with religious implications. Most scientists would have no problem agreeing with this. What puzzles me is Intelligent Design is the same kind of question. They are looking for signs of intelligence not naming a god or his reasons just simpy whether or not intelligent design is detectable in living organsisms. So like the big bang theory it may have religious implications but should that discount it from being considered? We can detect intelligent/engineers involvement in automobiles and other complex machinery why is it impossible to consider intelligent causation in living organisms as well?

Actually lb. Although in the Dover court trial ID was accused of not being falifiable ironically the same person claimed it had been falsified. See Kenneth Milller claims and Michael Behe's responses to those claims.

Dues the point is this: If Big Bang is true and as I have said most scientists agree it has relgious implications. No one can see those regigious implications either. ID is not trying to see who God is or his motivation. Simply is design detectable in living organisms the same way it is detectable in complex machinery such as automobiles or computers.

Sorry for the crap spelling. My laptop is not as easy to use as a regular keyboard on top of that adding details doesn't have a spell check feature.

Sorry 3 but the problem with your equation is that it "just" exploded. What caused it to just explode as we know from other scientific theories that an object won't be set in motion unless being acted upon by another force. So what was the origen of that force and the cause of it.

Toadaly what you don't find is any proof that those so called intermediate eyes became the more useful eyes being used in other species. Yet because someone claims this it is accepted without proof.

Banefot Stephen Hawking has no proof of what he claims. In fact he made up a theory to try and explain a non God universe but when questioned he honestly admitted he was using a hypothetical nonsense equasion. This was found in the book the case for the creator which I don't have on hand but was written by legal editor Lee Strobel. So I have to think he checked his references.

October I am really glad when people like you answer because you demonstrate how little you really know about Intelligent Design other than reading other peoples criticisms. A hint try reading their material for yourself, if nothing else you will be able to critique them more effectively. Intelligent Design has nothing to do with yong earth creationism and if anything it was inspired by an agnostic who wrote the book Evolution a theory in crisis by Michael Denton and as hard as it may seem to believemost of the ID theorists believe in varying degrees of evolution.

Yahweh's toaster you just don't get it. For something to start it must have had a cause as I suggested it is in keeping with science to believe that an object remains dormant until acted on by an outside force? What was the cause of this force allowed everything to come into being? Like I said many many scientists have no problem accepting that a God may have been involved. But this doesn't disqualify it from being an accepted scientific theory.

Tuyet Thank you for providing us with that link it raises a valid point. Why are people trying to distort their message? Would it be to try and discredit them? Check out this link http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2006/02/post-4.html

Great Gazoo always an honour to have you IN THE HOUSE. As for your snowflake argument here is a response http://www.arn.org/blogs/index.php/3/2006/11/28/the_amazing_world_of_snowflakes

Darwinman I appreciated the tone of your answer. I will raise one small objection to your objection about automobiles. It is not necessary to know, feel, touch, meet or see an engineer in order to see that a car has been designed. It's many machine parts that work together to provide a specific function give us a good indication that it did not simply self assemble. Where else in the naturl world can we see something with that complexity. I would suggest the closest (and it isn't even close) nor is it a complex machine is a dam blocking a stream. The purpose wasn't to know the designer but simply is there evidence of design.

Leslie It is not very problematic that some people including relgious people reject ID. There are agnostics who accept it. I should add Darwin wasn't initially well received either nor was he peer reviewed in the modern sense of the term.

Answer 1

I might agree that what you wrote made sense. All except where you mention ID.

So which end of "the wedge' are you on?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wedge_strategy

Answer 2

Josh, you're absolutely correct and I concur with your decision to post this question under religion. Science is no longer about finding the truth . . . if a theory cannot be proven by observation it should be abandoned, this is fundamental to scientific thought. Scientists are naturally gotistical (and that's not a bad thing necessarily), but it does creat a situation where "I don't know" can't be said. These scientists claim that the Genesis account makes for good reading but is unscientific, then they proceed to write scientific garble that is both bad reading and no closer to the truth. Since the time the Big Bang theory was introduced in its present form people have become confused and think that here and there there must be proof because every scientist that is specialized in the "Big bang" fields (paleontology, Astronomy, etc.) have assumed the truth of the theory to move forward in their research . . . you cannot use logic to explain or discredit a concept that is assumed to be true. The Big Bang theory has become a foundation stone for modern science while never being proven . . . that's hardly scientific. I see someone named Spamandham decided to bring up the topc of "the rules changed". Which is a cornerstone in big bang theory. Apparrently, the "laws" of the universe have a habit of changing (assuming the big bang is true, none of the laws have changed since that one period of time). I find it interesting that the big bang creates a "law" that says that natural "laws" change, despite the lack of evidence to support that topsy-turvy postulate. Why haven't the laws changed since that time? The big bang theorists believe that the univers expands and then contracts (esssentialls like a side view of a DNA double helix) That means that the beginning of our univers may not have been the beginning . . . there could have been numerous universes existing prior (that's the claim, I won't debate). . . However, if it's true that the "rules" change (another claim) why has this system maintained its integrity, why hasn't it ever changed? (or at least never waivered from the pattern of change)

Answer 3

of course the big bang theory is scientific. it has been subjected to rigorous scrutiny, experimentation and peer review. so far, no other theory for the origins of the universe has been able to displace it. intelligent design (which is simply creationism dressed in a lab coat) is not science because it is not subject to any of the methods that real science is. you site the automobile as a way of "detecting" intelligence in the design. fair enough, but, in this example we KNOW who the designer is or was, and could see, hear, feel, and touch that designer. this is PROOF of design. unfortunately for religious zealots, they can produce no proof for their "theory" of an intelligent designer. furthermore, nature provides all the proof we need to see that it does its own designing. the evidence for evolution theory is overwhelming and irrefutable and comes as close to being fact as science can ever come. the big bang theory may at some point in the future be supplanted by a better, more complete theory. only time will tell. but those who wish to force intelligent design on intelligent people will never be in the same league as actual scientists.

Answer 4

"scientific theory with religious implications"

No, it isn't. Not to mention ID is NON-Science- it assumes there was a creator because we don't understand how things "got started"- then doesn't demonstrate good reason for it. Claims made by science are tested, then retested, then challenged and retested. If ID was considered a science, the theory has already failed and been discredited. That's why it can't get passed to be taught in schools- its still religious. The Big Bang theory is NOT religious, as it doesn't assume there was anything intelligent involved and is a result of testing and observation.

Answer 5

There are currently problems with the Big Bang. The universe is to young for the distance between all of the matter in the observable universe. So, the idea of a central point from which all matter began is being ratified as we speak.

My theory is that the black hole at the center of every galaxy will some how be part of a the creative act of each galaxy and that appears to have occurred simultaneously through out the universe.

Answer 6

To have something "intelligently designed" would require an intelligent designer. If not, then it wouldn't be design. An intelligent designer, whether it is the Judeo-Christian God or not, is just purely supernatural, unobservable and unmeasurable, and thus unscientific.

What separates the Big Bang from creationism is that the Big Bang theory can be supported by physical evidence that would not make sense had it happened any other way (i.e. expansion of space-time, cosmic radiation). On the other hand, any anomaly that occurs in creationism can simply be dismissed by saying "because God made it so".

Answer 7

If we define that intelligent design is an all knowing creator who knew that if he "touched" the primodial singularity in such and such a fashion that the ensuing big bang would give rise in the course of time through the interactions of matter and energy a universe, stars, planets, ultimately evolution of intellgent creatures on the 3rd planet from an M class sun in the arm of the galaxy known as the milky way to this indigenous species--if he can create this elegantly--then I will consider intelligent design a viable theory not in conflict with science and observations of the universe.

Answer 8

The difference is that the big bang theory is widely excepted amongst physicists; even amongst those who would prefer a theory of continuous creation for philosophical reasons. On the other hand, Intelligent Design is not even accepted by eminent Christian biologists such as Joan Roughgarden or Francis Collins (both internationally famous). It is only accepted by those prepared to prostitute science in pursuit of apologetic purposes.

Answer 9

The only thing causing religious implications with the big bang is that it showed some religions' understanding on how the universe got here to be incorrect.

There's evidence for the big bang, but not for any gods.
We can find the architect, the blueprint, the steel mill.
We can't find the booger maker, the blueprints for the universe, nor the dirt manufacturer.

Answer 10

I don't see a problem. Science seeks to explain the universe through theory, for example the big bang theory or through Darwin's theory of evolution, and seeks evidence to support it. Religion seeks to explain the universe through religious philosophy's that require faith rather than evidence. So yes they seek to explain the same things. Religion sometimes gets stuck as people are too hooked up on historic texts that are taken at face value, causing doubt in the faith, science sometimes gets stuck in theories that are too complex for the evidence and loose credibility. Philosophical debate helps to resolve both. However the theory of intelligent design has little credence in either discipline.

Answer 11

The only religious implication in the Big Bang theory is as to "what caused the Big Bang". That question may seem reasonable, until you realize that the Universe itself wasn't caused by anything, bur rather has always existed in the "eternal now". This is well explained in Stephen Hawkin's book "A Brief History of Time", but the idea isn't new. St. Augustine used it to to explain why God himself doesn't have a cause.