Big Bang

It is evidence that the scientists involved weren't bounded by preconceived notions. The evidence doesn't support the old theory, so the theory has changed to one that does fit the evidence.

Creationists should take note.

I know, I know.

Big Bang.

That's what she said.

I've read before that many scientists feel that the more they learn, the deeper their faith becomes.  Many of the astronauts who have been to the moon have expressed similar sentiments.   There's certainly more going on in this universe than we feeble humans have the ability to understand and comprehend. 

On what do you base your assertion that the entire scientific community is acting as though "they" came up with the concept of first beginnings 75 years ago?

You're attempting to confuse, or have confused, science with scientism. They're very different things.

As I'm sure Dontracy and others could quickly attest, science and religion are not incompatible or at odds with one another, quite the contrary. As a matter of fact, they've been inextricably intertwined for centuries, particularly in this area of study. Science and Christian theology have been simpatico on the question of first beginnings for many, many years.

How sure are you that the scientists who received the award or the committee who decided it aren't devout Christians? The mainstream scientific community has a large number of very devout people. Statements like yours do them a disservice.

I thought "I hope I get invited to *that* party."

Heh.

"First Annual BT Big Bang"

Come to think of it, that's about how the Confessions thread ended. Allegedly.

 I think you do me a disservice and read things in my post that weren't there.  I am a scientist and am also a Christian and I do NOT believe that science and religion are at odds.  In fact, the point I was making was just the opposite of what you are accusing me of saying.  I believe science supports religious beliefs. 

I recomend two books, "The Science of God" and "The Hidden Face of God" both written by an MIT physicists and microbiolgist who addresses the creation of the universe and the origins of life from a scientific perspective. 

Back to your first question, as a scientist and as a Christain, I base my "assertion" on observation. 

~Mike

 I think you do me a disservice and read things in my post that weren't there.  I am a scientist and am also a Christian and I do NOT believe that science and religion are at odds.  In fact, the point I was making was just the opposite of what you are accusing me of saying.  I believe science supports religious beliefs. 

I recomend two books, "The Science of God" and "The Hidden Face of God" both written by an MIT physicists and microbiolgist who addresses the creation of the universe and the origins of life from a scientific perspective. 

Back to your first question, as a scientist and as a Christain, I base my "assertion" on observation. 

~Mike

edited: 

Rogillio and Red Corvette, after re-reading the original post I see your point about the compatibility of science and religion. It's clearly stated in the last paragraph. I withdraw my comments in that regard.

However the point I was addressing is based on the second and third paragraphs. These sections stipulate that it is only in the last few decades that science has aligned itself with the "Creationists/religious community".

I would like to know what these statements were based on. I believe the passage I orginally quoted as well as "the vast majority of scientists believed that there was no 'beginning' to the universe" are demonstrably untrue. I'm curious what these statements are based on. Observation of what? Beliefs from 75 years ago?

Mike, I'm not picking a fight. I'm honestly curious.

This assertion is based on polls taken by Scientific America back in the 1930 or 40s.  I read this in one of the two books I cited above.  The books are at home so I can't cite the exact issue of Scientific America.  I will look for the books tonight and see if I can find them.  It's been a few years since I read the books so they are in my attic...somewhere.

~Mike

This is an issue that Christians have camped on that I don’t really believe is an issue.

What method God used to create the universe really doesn’t matter.  If it was the “big bang”, then fine.  If it was some other method, then fine.  To the believer the source of creation is still the same.

I believe this also goes for one’s view of the book of Genesis (beginnings).  Some Christians believe it is allegory and some believe it is an actual story.  The result is the same either way.  An allegory or metaphor can be used to illustrate a spiritual truth.  Therefore, if Genesis is an allegory, it is still representing God’s active involvement in creation.  If it is an actual story, the same is true.   Either view can hold that God was the source of creation.  The opinion that the Genesis account came from other early creation stories can be countered with the argument that those stories came from Genesis.  They were both written in the same time period. 

Until recently, the Genesis account answered the questions man had about creation.  It served the purpose God intended for it.

It basically comes down to faith; which is what Christianity is all about anyway. 

Faith in a God who loves mankind…
Faith in the communication he gave us…
Faith that in some miraculous way the death, burial and resurrection of a
           God/Man named Jesus could pay for the sins of the world….and…
Faith that believing in this Man provides forgiveness and eternal life.

And I guess, faith that science will support and complement the Scriptures, not refute them….and vice-versa. 

Unfortunately, everyone has some preconceived notions and bias'.  Even scientists.

Of course, but my point is that science offers a way to around preconceived notions and bias--the scientific method, experimentation and peer review.

OK, here is what I based this statement on:

Ironically, scientific method and experimentation are the two things missing from most of the theories of evoloution and the origins of life.  If life could begin in a cesspool of primordial scum, then 'experimention' ought to be able to reproduce this to support the scientific method.  But it can't.  Nor can they demostrate evolution outside of species.  They can only point to evidence of 'evolution' w/i a species NEVER out of a species.

There are many, many scientists who take exception to evolution.  Gerald Schroeder is the author of Genesis and the Big Bang and an MIT PhD physicist.  He said he generally accepted the tennats of evolution until he did his graduate work in microbiology.  I won't go into all the examples he sites where the 'scientific community' has violated thier own methodolgies but I will reccomend his books.  No, he is not Christain....he is a scientist and he evaluates life and the universe in light of physics and microbiology not opinions.

~Mike

In many, many cases I agree.  I still think there are preconceived notions in the scientific community about the theories of evolution and creation.  Even the article posted above when read carefully has some preconceived notions.... (although I realize it is a very brief summary of their work and their writings may address some of their assumptions.)

Your point is taken.  Here's a question....do you believe all scientists are free of bias and preconceived ideas?

I know this question was directed at Jim but I like to offer an answer. 

Scientists are people and everyone has opinions and opinions sometimes bias our research.  Sometimes we think the answer is "intuitive" or self-evident and then we set out to prove it sceintifically.  It is extemely hard to put aside everything we have been taught in school as fact and buck the 'conventional wisdom' of our peers.

I am a test engineering manager and fundamentally, we test to find the 'brokes'.  But sometimes we are accused of designing the test to validate what we believe is a valid design.

To the post before yours...about the creator of the creator.  I thought about this some last night and find it an interesting concept.  I don't think it buys us anything in our understanding to supposed a subordinate creator as one would then have to reason who created the original creator.  The problem boils down to this, we have a finite mind and connot comprehend an infinate being.  The idea of 'no beginnin and no end' does not compute in our pea brains.  When I try to imagine the edge of the physical universe it confounds me.  What is out there past the billion and billion of light-years?  Nothing...nothing but space...but even empty space needs bounds doesn't it?  OK, my head is about to explode....

~Mike

Kristen, I'd say then that you were given some bad catechesis.  That's not what the Catholic Church teaches. 

Or maybe another way of saying it is that the Church sees things like the Big Bang as being consistent with Catholic teaching.

I hope that's not the reason why you chose to leave the Church.  If it is, you may want to take another look.