Big Bang Theory A popular scientific theory but by no means a proven fact about the origin of the Universe.
The Big Bang theory suggests that a massive cosmic explosion took place about 14 to 20 billion years ago, out of which our known Universe expanded and developed.
The theory does not account for how the matter/energy required for the supposed explosion got there in the first place. Nor does it account for the high degree of specialization and structure found in life that theologians say points to an intelligent designer (i.e. God).
The Big Bang theory is not, as some believe, an adequate replacement for theologically-based creation stories. The Big Bang is arguably a modern scientific myth that has captivated the imagination of many people, as does any good myth.
Add to this, report errors, suggest edits or voice your opinion by posting a comment
Can you give a definition of fact and theory that will make sense? I’ve recently been saying that the Big Bang and Evolution are both theories, and have come across angry encounters with scientists who say I have no idea what I’m talking about. OK, I’m old (45) but when did the definitions change – my science teachers and profs never tried to tell us these were proven; therefore, facts.
Is it just the idea: if you repeat a lie long enough it will eventually be thought of as truth?
Comment by Michelle — February 25, 2008 @ 6:01 pm |
Most say that scientific theories rest on hypotheses which are either supported or falsified. However, the word “supported” does not mean “proved.”
The whole notion of science is complicated and I agree that its claims often pass uncritically for truth.
I think this is partly because the scientific method does yield good results in some areas. You might find this interesting…
http://earthpages.wordpress.com/2007/08/14/science/
(I posted it last summer and it needs an edit…)
Comment by Earthpages.ca — February 25, 2008 @ 9:11 pm |
Thanks for the link – it helps. Actually, I think we’re in the middle of a paradigm shift that is taking us further and further from the truth, while we pat ourselves on the back that we are so “knowledgable”.
Comment by Michelle — February 25, 2008 @ 10:51 pm |
I like the twist you’ve put on the notion of “paradigm shift.”
Usually the term “paradigm shift” connotes a positive broadening or rethinking of ideas presumed to be limited by cultural biases. A good example, I think, is the sub-atomic questioning of the nature of matter and energy.
However, one thing often overlooked here is the possibility that the Holy Spirit qualitatively differs from “matter/energy.”
Comment by Earthpages.ca — February 26, 2008 @ 4:28 pm |
In one bible study group we were discussing the passage from Colossians of Jesus holding all things together. One participant, a physicist became quite animated and said, “That’s got to be the answer to our question. We’re always trying to find what is keeping everything together. Science shows us it should be exploding and yet somehow it doesn’t.”
Comment by Michelle — February 26, 2008 @ 8:55 pm |