In the middle of this piece, the author says that "the Big Bang hypothesis ... is premised on numerous unexplainable and scientifically irrational assumptions." But so is everything else. So, we see that persons use "religion" and this is found everywhere. The human race universally relied upon myth for most of history until very recently. But, when they found out that each tribe's myths were different, it was decided by many persons in the modern world that a better option is science. Why? Because the results are (mostly) consistent across cultures. Science can accomplish a lot; but, there are things we do not know. What does one do when one sees that there are these things that seem to be outside of science? The science that we know is limited. When we refuse to admit to this, we find out that myth and science are actually very similar because science is becoming just another myth! Yes. I really think this is the case. These two have tangible similarities. They are not as different as we had supposed that they were. So, today there is the case where: "Science got stuck."
We could look at myth, religion, and science as all of them being parts of our human "ways of knowing." Part of our creative urge to know. I have also written a little about "myth vs. science," which can be found by searching through my newsletter, going back a few months in two or three pieces of writing and and also other bits and pieces. Everyone needs to admit that science just does not -so far -know everything. We could end up being still very much in a world of myths. And believe it: Science is the new myth. So, the really deluded manner in which some persons think that science knows all, and is the only way to know, serves as the excuse for some really bad, and highly limited, "science" (if we call it that). Another example is when they just say "trust the science," which is just like primitive tribes because primitive tribes just trust the myths they believe in. But the myths are rather innocent and charming. When science becomes the new myth science loses its way; it does not fulfill its potential, and at that time there is a danger that is not solved by what passes for science. Something that we are calling "science" has now become a danger. And much worse it is, than myth or religion are, since those are subject to long cultural validation.
My final thought: Science should be a way of knowing; not a way of not knowing.
The physical is undergirded / supported/ sustained by the spiritual. The effects produced in the physical are of a spiritual basis. The physical might be measured and quantified by physical means. The spiritual cannot be so measured nor defined. It is an arrogant fool's game to attempt to "prove" the means of physical creation with or by physical means. For its foundation is spiritual. "The Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters..."
God is Light. His presence in Creation is Spirit.
Spirit created physical (including "science"). The Spirit is not known by physical means. One must believe (from the heart)...
The physical was created. How did the Spirit do it?
"The secret things belong unto the Lord our God..."
Love this post---living with a research (industrial, fiber optics) physicist for 51 years---in April, embarking on an 8-hour drive (thus, lots of time for listening and discussion), I asked him about the Big Bang "Theory". At the end of his explanation, I asked, 'so what preceded that big bang'? God? His response, a nod of the head.
Hugh: TY for your good, simple point. IMO that "faith" is required for either or both, that means we are in the realm of religion. In other words, no matter how many people object to religion coming into the picture, it will anyway.
Jay and I were friends and we co-authored a number of articles. He was an extraordinary man. I don't know if you're old enough to remember the old Reader's Digest, but they had a "My Most Unforgettable Character" section. Well, Jay was my most unforgettable character. He was 85 when he stopped jumping out of airplanes for fun. Amazing man.
The word science has literally become synonymous with lie. We now also know that scientists are for sale. When I hear the word or phrase trust the science it time to run.
I understand your feelings, but there is an enormous difference between Science and scientists. Science has NEVER lied — whereas many scientists have. We must not let the human failings of scientists undermine our belief in Science.
Science has done some good but in actuality more harm than good. Scientists continue to claim science produces absolutes. It does not produce many absolutes. Most of Einstein’s “absolutes” have been proven to be otherwise. The incredible hubris of science has done more to halt progress than advancement. Climate change for example. The carbon levels and oxygen levels are self regulating. When there is more carbon plants grow faster and bigger. In fact carbon levels are actually becoming dangerously low. The Big Bang Theory. This was a stupid nihilistic theory proclaimed by a Jesuit at the absolute glee of the pope at the time. It has been known for many decades that vaccines have caused so much disease and suffering. Just do a deep dive into the “Spanish Flue pandemic” an absolute fraud, the ridiculous aids epidemic and the even more ridiculous Covid pandemic. In fact take a deep dive into Virus in general. Darwin’s Evolution Theory, absolutely ridiculous. Even Darwin himself wrote extensively about his doubts about his own flawed conclusions. Let’s look at how Rockefeller paid to have a skewed and erroneous report by a Dr Flexner destroy holestic medicine so he could reap enormous profits from petroleum based drugs. Let’s look at the white coated Fauchi and his enormous lies that has caused untold suffering and death for 40 years in the name of science. In fact I was too kind on what the definition of science has evolved into. SCIENCE actually is synonymous with PROPAGANDA. I COULD GO ON FOREVER.-
Again, I understand your feelings, but there is an enormous difference between Science and scientists. Science has NEVER "done more harm than good" — whereas many scientists have. We must not let the human failings of scientists undermine our belief in Science.
Dr Jay Richards' book The Privileged Planet, is necessary reading for anyone interested. As noted, so are the lectures on Youtube by professor emeritus of maths, Oxford Univ., John Lennox. HIs talks are highly entertaining and meant to be understandable by the layman. Or laywoman. Or lay person.
Oh wait! Since genetic makeup is now irrrelevant, I identify as a dolphin (move over, Liam Thomas at the U. Penn swim team when I enter a real dolphin to your meets - remember genetics is non-determinative - make that "lay dolphin."
Robert Jastrow, perhaps THE pre-eminent astrophysicist around, back a few decades ago of so... Not that the intellectually dishonest left would know, but Jastrow might.
"Now we see how the astronomical evidence supports the Biblical view of the origin of the world. The details differ, but the essential elements in the astronomical and Biblical accounts of Genesis are the same: the chain of events leading to man commenced suddenly and sharply at a definite moment in time, in a flash of light and energy."
"There is a strange ring of feeling and emotion in these reactions [of scientists to evidence that the universe had a sudden beginning]. They come from the heart whereas you would expect the judgments to come from the brain. Why? I think part of the answer is that scientists cannot bear the thought of a natural phenomenon which cannot be explained, even with unlimited time and money. There is a kind of religion in science; it is the religion of a person who believes there is order and harmony in the Universe. Every event can be explained in a rational way as the product of some previous event; every effect must have its cause, there is no First Cause. … This religious faith of the scientist is violated by the discovery that the world had a beginning under conditions in which the known laws of physics are not valid, and as a product of forces or circumstances we cannot discover. When that happens, the scientist has lost control. If he really examined the implications, he would be traumatized."
"Consider the enormity of the problem. Science has proved that the universe exploded into being at a certain moment. It asks: What cause produced this effect? Who or what put the matter or energy into the universe? And science cannot answer these questions, because, according to the astronomers, in the first moments of its existence the Universe was compressed to an extraordinary degree, and consumed by the heat of a fire beyond human imagination. The shock of that instant must have destroyed every particle of evidence that could have yielded a clue to the cause of the great explosion."
"For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountain of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries."
Scientists have no proof that life was not the result of an act of creation, but they are driven by the nature of their profession to seek explanations for the origin of life that lie within the boundaries of natural law.
— Robert Jastrow, The Enchanted Loom: Mind in the Universe, (1981), p. 19
Not that the left is intellectually honest enough, but if something has no point of falsification, it is not science. Simple.
“The important thing is not to stop questioning. Curiosity has its own reason for existing. One cannot help but be in awe when he contemplates mysteries of eternity, of life, of the marvelous structure of reality. It is enough if one tries merely to comprehend a little of this mystery every day. — Albert Einstein
“What is necessary for the very existence of science and what the characteristics of nature are, are not to be determined by pompous preconditions, they are determined always by the material with which we work, by nature herself.” ― Richard P. Feynman And “Doubt is clearly a value in the sciences. Whether it is in other fields is an open question and an uncertain matter.” “…it is very important to doubt and that doubt is not a fearful thing, but a thing of very great value." — Nobel Prize winner Richard Feynman, The Meaning of It All
Jay Lehr called it brilliant, although he remained an atheist.
Unlike my religious friends, I don't see the Big Bang as an alternative to creation. The Bible says in the beginning God created the heavens and the Earth, and we know the universe is billions of years old, including the Earth. The Bible also says God is not a God of disorder, and with what information we have available I see no reason not to accept the idea the Big Bang as the tool that started the whole process. Miracles are nothing more than the application of scientific principles we don’t know about and don’t understand.
I also see the six days of creation account a bit differently. The Biblical chronology for the seventh day indicates a seven-thousand-year cycle, and I’m willing to accept that, but why does that have to apply to the other six days? I consider that to be a logical fallacy, as there’s not one iota of Biblical evidence to support that.
Just because religious leaders refuse to accept alternative views doesn’t make those views wrong, nor do the alternative views touted by scientists make the creation account wrong.
The word “day” in the Bible is subjective, as an example, saying a thousand years for man is a day to God. So, under that circumstance should we view the word day to mean:
(1. A “period of time”, as in 365 days is a year, or
(2. A “time period”, as in an era meaning undefined “periods of time.”
I choose the second. All the Bible says at the end of each day there was an evening and a morning, a ____________ (fill in the blank) day. Why should we believe each of those days had any “period of time” in common? Why shouldn’t we believe each of those days were undefined millions of years old? When looking at the rock formations I think it certainly shows amazingly long periods of time in order to have formed as they did.
I knew the late Jay Lehr personally, and would communicate with him somewhat often. However, issues of faith never came up; we mostly discussed his area of AGW. I do know he got the Covid shot, sadly.
John, this is great and I totally agree with every word you wrote. I would just add one other major consideration, IMHO. Even if a singularity existed and then the Big Bang took place, what came before it? What caused the existence of the singularity in the first place? Science can’t answer that.
In fact, Sir Frederic Hoyle found the whole evolution thing so absurd, he likened it to a tornado going thru a junkyard and assembling a 747; Francis Crick, Nobel Prize winner of double helix fame, also thought it was absurd, reverting to the panspermia hypothesis (life came from outer space) How THAT got started they never say.
If anyone is interested, until the fasco-Marxists at Google ban him, see professor emeritus of maths at Oxford Univ. Dr. John Lennox, on evolution and the Bible. Just go to Youtube and search his name. There are plenty of ways to resolve current science with the Bible, which he enumerates.
You might think these types would have the intellectual honesty to actually review what a professor of maths at Oxford has to say about the Bible, creation and science... but you would be wrong. The utterly ignorant types like Sam Harris have zero intellectual honesty.
"Religion," strictly defined, is anything that tells us where we came from, why we are here, and where w are going." Period, end of story. And in fact, the courts have upheld the fact that atheism is a religion on that basis. To the Marxist atheists, we came from random collision of atoms (if that is so, HOW and WHY should we trust our reasoning? Of course, the fasco-Marxists never answer that), we are here as economic beings with no soul, and are going to oblivion.
Another "possible alternative" - Mankind's sense of our beginning is indeed the big bang, but who or what came before the big bang? By applying Nature's laws of science, we have roughed together how we "possibly" came from then to now. So what is Nature if not the Creator of existence? - all existence.
John, I might have sent this to you before, and if I did, I apologize, but for what it's worth, here's my two-cents worth on this subject. How about the BIG BANG AND GOD? Here's some logic that might help us understand how everything came from nothing.
BIG BANG AND GOD?
I found this masterful interview by the Hoover Institutes' Douglas Murray of 3 brilliant scientists to be nothing short of riveting. The title of the interview is "By Design: Behe, Lennox, and Meyer on the Evidence for a Creator". It is just under 1 1/2 hours in length, and it is far more intellectually and spiritually stimulating than anything I can imagine watching on regular TV programming.
I hope most of you will take the time to watch this interview, and if you do, please listen carefully to the compelling logic and wisdom of all 4 participants. One more thing I'd like to ask of you, is that AFTER you have listened to this interview, read a couple of short notes I've previously written, both pretty much on the same topic as this interview. If you do, I think you'll find that my two notes (the second of which includes another embedded interview of another physicist - Brian Green) are very much consistent, and add in a contributory way to the discussion amongst Behe, Lennox, Meyer, and Murray.
Assuming you've now watched the above linked interview:
The first of the two short notes that I referred to above is one I wrote to my two adult sons a few years ago (Dad's Words of Wisdom). The second is a response to one of my sisters-in-law about a lecture she asked me to comment on ("On Being" by Brian Green, which I have also included as a link). I hope you find it all at least thought-provoking. But if you think it all "too strange" to be given any credence, consider that the broadly accepted "Big Bang Theory" is all about the creation of everything from nothing. That's at least just as strange.
Dad’s words of wisdom
I was thinking about Lanza’s Biocentrism (a book) . A poor title choice on his part I think, because even biology is made of stardust, and Lanza goes on to say that all “things” in the cosmos are but virtual “constructs” of consciousness. I think his book should have been called “Conscious-Centrism”.
Imagine that consciousness (awareness) is the only “thing” real. If there’s nothing to be aware OF though, then that consciousness or awareness would just have to “construct” something. Otherwise, it would be like being a hammer with no nails to hit. So all the tools that all living organisms have to interact with all the elements of the “construct” (e.g. tools like sight, hearing, touch, taste, smell, emotion, and various other sensory tools of organisms other than human beings) are what gives the “construct” meaning and purpose. Take the biology out of the picture, leaving nothing to house the sensing “tools” or “interpretive/reaction centres”, and what’s left? Just consciousness. If the construct cannot be observed, then it doesn’t exist. This really isn’t a new idea. It’s been around in eastern philosophies for a very long time. Only probabilities of the various construct elements exist until observed (so says Lanza, and as exemplified by various unsolved paradoxes like the double slit experiments and Einstein's "spooky actions at a distance").
If you’re wondering where our consciousness goes when our biology component dies, the answer is nowhere, since there’s not only no time (therefore no future), there’s also no space to go to. The consciousness just IS, and both time and space are nothing but constructs of the consciousness. Their existence is only virtual, and solely to give context for the tools housed in the biology components of life, and employed by the consciousness component of life. So ‘what will the consciousness do?’ is a better question than ‘where will it go?’. It will just create another construct I suppose. I can’t wait to see what that IS (will be?) but I have to “die” first it seems. It’s difficult to understand the words “will” or "first" in this context, since both connote the existence of time. So does this mean that time must also be a construct of the ONE consciousness - the One-ness? Strange indeed!
It is noteworthy that The Bible discusses the Trinity ................ the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, as one entity. The One-ness of consciousness is a similar idea ............... the spiritual side of “being”.
Now I know why people study philosophy. It’s a great way to just wander and wonder. Two great past times. Did you know that science as we know it was born of philosophy? Check it out. It’s too bad that we don’t have an historical account of the first instances of “religious” thought. How could religion be anything other than an extension of philosophical musings?
By the way, consciousness (awareness) as we know it, cannot be explained with ANYTHING we know about physics, chemistry, or biology (the 3 basic sciences so neatly tied together and explained with math). I find that to be rather curious.
On Being - by Brian Greene
"If we didn’t have vast civilizational challenges upon us, we might be living in a constant state of wonder at what science in this century is learning and showing us about the cosmos and about ourselves — the new questions it’s giving us to live. We are the generation of our species to map the genome, to detect black holes colliding, to hear gravitational waves. The physicist Brian Greene is one of our greatest interpreters from the human enterprise that is science. And in his most recent thinking and writing, there’s a stunning evolution in his own approach to science and life and the matters of purpose and meaning. We delve into his exuberant, cosmic lens on living in the here and the now."
There's a typical arrogance (of some scientists and all atheists) that runs through the dialogue - If it can't be rationalized then it cannot be. I find Greene to be in this camp and he's in good company. Steven Hawking comes to mind. Scientists are often so vain in their accumulated knowledge of things that they cannot contemplate that some things are beyond their reasoning ability.
Mathematics is no more than a tool invented by man to help explain and understand the science in our lives. But oftentimes, the employment of mathematics can lead to the illegitimate extrapolations to end points and conclusions that might be plausible but certainly not proven to be valid and often not even probable. Not by ANY stretch of the imagination - NOT EVEN if the person owning that imagination is brilliant.
Regarding the laws that govern science (Nature's Laws) ..............
- why are they what they are?
- what if our "uni" verse is just one of many?
- why should we expect the laws of our "uni" verse to apply in all of them?
Greene ignores all of this and diminishes the idea of deities to being a product of ignorant imaginations. I beg to differ.
Where I can and do agree with Greene is in regard to his admiration and wonder of the sciences of our "uni" verse. All of it will never cease to amaze and intrigue me, so long as it remains pure and absent of political thinking and we are able to fend off its manipulation for political or other ulterior purposes. As a biochemist, I am a huge fan of Mother Nature with all her profoundly elegant checks and balances that have kept Earth so symbiotically livable for millions of years.
We are far more than "bags of particles in particular organizations" that have come together by pure and meaningless chance. There is thus far NOTHING of science that can explain any of the myriad manifestations of consciousness. I refer you to the teachings of Robert Lanza for an excellent discussion on this.
For more thinking similar to Green's, I recommend Steven Hawking's book "Grand Design". It is quite fascinating.
Excellent “Critical Thinking “ in regards to today’s article about the Big Bang Theory and Creationism! I am a proponent of creationism per the arguments you laid out. Simple put I am more knowledgeable today on this issue.Thanks to you, I am better prepared to further debate this issue with my friends!
In the middle of this piece, the author says that "the Big Bang hypothesis ... is premised on numerous unexplainable and scientifically irrational assumptions." But so is everything else. So, we see that persons use "religion" and this is found everywhere. The human race universally relied upon myth for most of history until very recently. But, when they found out that each tribe's myths were different, it was decided by many persons in the modern world that a better option is science. Why? Because the results are (mostly) consistent across cultures. Science can accomplish a lot; but, there are things we do not know. What does one do when one sees that there are these things that seem to be outside of science? The science that we know is limited. When we refuse to admit to this, we find out that myth and science are actually very similar because science is becoming just another myth! Yes. I really think this is the case. These two have tangible similarities. They are not as different as we had supposed that they were. So, today there is the case where: "Science got stuck."
We could look at myth, religion, and science as all of them being parts of our human "ways of knowing." Part of our creative urge to know. I have also written a little about "myth vs. science," which can be found by searching through my newsletter, going back a few months in two or three pieces of writing and and also other bits and pieces. Everyone needs to admit that science just does not -so far -know everything. We could end up being still very much in a world of myths. And believe it: Science is the new myth. So, the really deluded manner in which some persons think that science knows all, and is the only way to know, serves as the excuse for some really bad, and highly limited, "science" (if we call it that). Another example is when they just say "trust the science," which is just like primitive tribes because primitive tribes just trust the myths they believe in. But the myths are rather innocent and charming. When science becomes the new myth science loses its way; it does not fulfill its potential, and at that time there is a danger that is not solved by what passes for science. Something that we are calling "science" has now become a danger. And much worse it is, than myth or religion are, since those are subject to long cultural validation.
My final thought: Science should be a way of knowing; not a way of not knowing.
The physical is undergirded / supported/ sustained by the spiritual. The effects produced in the physical are of a spiritual basis. The physical might be measured and quantified by physical means. The spiritual cannot be so measured nor defined. It is an arrogant fool's game to attempt to "prove" the means of physical creation with or by physical means. For its foundation is spiritual. "The Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters..."
God is Light. His presence in Creation is Spirit.
Spirit created physical (including "science"). The Spirit is not known by physical means. One must believe (from the heart)...
The physical was created. How did the Spirit do it?
"The secret things belong unto the Lord our God..."
It doesn't really matter, does it?
Love this post---living with a research (industrial, fiber optics) physicist for 51 years---in April, embarking on an 8-hour drive (thus, lots of time for listening and discussion), I asked him about the Big Bang "Theory". At the end of his explanation, I asked, 'so what preceded that big bang'? God? His response, a nod of the head.
There is no conflict between science and religion. Science is the orderly investigation of God's creation.
K.J.
Really excellent commentary! Whether one chooses Big Bang or God, faith is required to accept either or both.
Hugh: TY for your good, simple point. IMO that "faith" is required for either or both, that means we are in the realm of religion. In other words, no matter how many people object to religion coming into the picture, it will anyway.
Jay and I were friends and we co-authored a number of articles. He was an extraordinary man. I don't know if you're old enough to remember the old Reader's Digest, but they had a "My Most Unforgettable Character" section. Well, Jay was my most unforgettable character. He was 85 when he stopped jumping out of airplanes for fun. Amazing man.
The word science has literally become synonymous with lie. We now also know that scientists are for sale. When I hear the word or phrase trust the science it time to run.
I understand your feelings, but there is an enormous difference between Science and scientists. Science has NEVER lied — whereas many scientists have. We must not let the human failings of scientists undermine our belief in Science.
Science has done some good but in actuality more harm than good. Scientists continue to claim science produces absolutes. It does not produce many absolutes. Most of Einstein’s “absolutes” have been proven to be otherwise. The incredible hubris of science has done more to halt progress than advancement. Climate change for example. The carbon levels and oxygen levels are self regulating. When there is more carbon plants grow faster and bigger. In fact carbon levels are actually becoming dangerously low. The Big Bang Theory. This was a stupid nihilistic theory proclaimed by a Jesuit at the absolute glee of the pope at the time. It has been known for many decades that vaccines have caused so much disease and suffering. Just do a deep dive into the “Spanish Flue pandemic” an absolute fraud, the ridiculous aids epidemic and the even more ridiculous Covid pandemic. In fact take a deep dive into Virus in general. Darwin’s Evolution Theory, absolutely ridiculous. Even Darwin himself wrote extensively about his doubts about his own flawed conclusions. Let’s look at how Rockefeller paid to have a skewed and erroneous report by a Dr Flexner destroy holestic medicine so he could reap enormous profits from petroleum based drugs. Let’s look at the white coated Fauchi and his enormous lies that has caused untold suffering and death for 40 years in the name of science. In fact I was too kind on what the definition of science has evolved into. SCIENCE actually is synonymous with PROPAGANDA. I COULD GO ON FOREVER.-
Again, I understand your feelings, but there is an enormous difference between Science and scientists. Science has NEVER "done more harm than good" — whereas many scientists have. We must not let the human failings of scientists undermine our belief in Science.
Dr Jay Richards' book The Privileged Planet, is necessary reading for anyone interested. As noted, so are the lectures on Youtube by professor emeritus of maths, Oxford Univ., John Lennox. HIs talks are highly entertaining and meant to be understandable by the layman. Or laywoman. Or lay person.
Oh wait! Since genetic makeup is now irrrelevant, I identify as a dolphin (move over, Liam Thomas at the U. Penn swim team when I enter a real dolphin to your meets - remember genetics is non-determinative - make that "lay dolphin."
Robert Jastrow, perhaps THE pre-eminent astrophysicist around, back a few decades ago of so... Not that the intellectually dishonest left would know, but Jastrow might.
"Now we see how the astronomical evidence supports the Biblical view of the origin of the world. The details differ, but the essential elements in the astronomical and Biblical accounts of Genesis are the same: the chain of events leading to man commenced suddenly and sharply at a definite moment in time, in a flash of light and energy."
"There is a strange ring of feeling and emotion in these reactions [of scientists to evidence that the universe had a sudden beginning]. They come from the heart whereas you would expect the judgments to come from the brain. Why? I think part of the answer is that scientists cannot bear the thought of a natural phenomenon which cannot be explained, even with unlimited time and money. There is a kind of religion in science; it is the religion of a person who believes there is order and harmony in the Universe. Every event can be explained in a rational way as the product of some previous event; every effect must have its cause, there is no First Cause. … This religious faith of the scientist is violated by the discovery that the world had a beginning under conditions in which the known laws of physics are not valid, and as a product of forces or circumstances we cannot discover. When that happens, the scientist has lost control. If he really examined the implications, he would be traumatized."
"Consider the enormity of the problem. Science has proved that the universe exploded into being at a certain moment. It asks: What cause produced this effect? Who or what put the matter or energy into the universe? And science cannot answer these questions, because, according to the astronomers, in the first moments of its existence the Universe was compressed to an extraordinary degree, and consumed by the heat of a fire beyond human imagination. The shock of that instant must have destroyed every particle of evidence that could have yielded a clue to the cause of the great explosion."
"For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountain of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries."
Scientists have no proof that life was not the result of an act of creation, but they are driven by the nature of their profession to seek explanations for the origin of life that lie within the boundaries of natural law.
— Robert Jastrow, The Enchanted Loom: Mind in the Universe, (1981), p. 19
Not that the left is intellectually honest enough, but if something has no point of falsification, it is not science. Simple.
“The important thing is not to stop questioning. Curiosity has its own reason for existing. One cannot help but be in awe when he contemplates mysteries of eternity, of life, of the marvelous structure of reality. It is enough if one tries merely to comprehend a little of this mystery every day. — Albert Einstein
“What is necessary for the very existence of science and what the characteristics of nature are, are not to be determined by pompous preconditions, they are determined always by the material with which we work, by nature herself.” ― Richard P. Feynman And “Doubt is clearly a value in the sciences. Whether it is in other fields is an open question and an uncertain matter.” “…it is very important to doubt and that doubt is not a fearful thing, but a thing of very great value." — Nobel Prize winner Richard Feynman, The Meaning of It All
John,
Thank you for sharing. I'm a believer, but I don't think that's unscientific. Here's my annual Shall Every Knee Bow article.
https://paradigmsanddemographics.blogspot.com/2022/12/shall-every-knee-bow.html
Jay Lehr called it brilliant, although he remained an atheist.
Unlike my religious friends, I don't see the Big Bang as an alternative to creation. The Bible says in the beginning God created the heavens and the Earth, and we know the universe is billions of years old, including the Earth. The Bible also says God is not a God of disorder, and with what information we have available I see no reason not to accept the idea the Big Bang as the tool that started the whole process. Miracles are nothing more than the application of scientific principles we don’t know about and don’t understand.
I also see the six days of creation account a bit differently. The Biblical chronology for the seventh day indicates a seven-thousand-year cycle, and I’m willing to accept that, but why does that have to apply to the other six days? I consider that to be a logical fallacy, as there’s not one iota of Biblical evidence to support that.
Just because religious leaders refuse to accept alternative views doesn’t make those views wrong, nor do the alternative views touted by scientists make the creation account wrong.
The word “day” in the Bible is subjective, as an example, saying a thousand years for man is a day to God. So, under that circumstance should we view the word day to mean:
(1. A “period of time”, as in 365 days is a year, or
(2. A “time period”, as in an era meaning undefined “periods of time.”
I choose the second. All the Bible says at the end of each day there was an evening and a morning, a ____________ (fill in the blank) day. Why should we believe each of those days had any “period of time” in common? Why shouldn’t we believe each of those days were undefined millions of years old? When looking at the rock formations I think it certainly shows amazingly long periods of time in order to have formed as they did.
Those are my thoughts!
Rich Kozlovich
Paradigms and Demographics
I knew the late Jay Lehr personally, and would communicate with him somewhat often. However, issues of faith never came up; we mostly discussed his area of AGW. I do know he got the Covid shot, sadly.
John, this is great and I totally agree with every word you wrote. I would just add one other major consideration, IMHO. Even if a singularity existed and then the Big Bang took place, what came before it? What caused the existence of the singularity in the first place? Science can’t answer that.
I always had that same thought... Where was the singularity, and who lit the fuse?
Not that the idea of a singularity makes any sense in the first place, but, if it did...
In fact, Sir Frederic Hoyle found the whole evolution thing so absurd, he likened it to a tornado going thru a junkyard and assembling a 747; Francis Crick, Nobel Prize winner of double helix fame, also thought it was absurd, reverting to the panspermia hypothesis (life came from outer space) How THAT got started they never say.
If anyone is interested, until the fasco-Marxists at Google ban him, see professor emeritus of maths at Oxford Univ. Dr. John Lennox, on evolution and the Bible. Just go to Youtube and search his name. There are plenty of ways to resolve current science with the Bible, which he enumerates.
You might think these types would have the intellectual honesty to actually review what a professor of maths at Oxford has to say about the Bible, creation and science... but you would be wrong. The utterly ignorant types like Sam Harris have zero intellectual honesty.
"Religion," strictly defined, is anything that tells us where we came from, why we are here, and where w are going." Period, end of story. And in fact, the courts have upheld the fact that atheism is a religion on that basis. To the Marxist atheists, we came from random collision of atoms (if that is so, HOW and WHY should we trust our reasoning? Of course, the fasco-Marxists never answer that), we are here as economic beings with no soul, and are going to oblivion.
Another "possible alternative" - Mankind's sense of our beginning is indeed the big bang, but who or what came before the big bang? By applying Nature's laws of science, we have roughed together how we "possibly" came from then to now. So what is Nature if not the Creator of existence? - all existence.
John, I might have sent this to you before, and if I did, I apologize, but for what it's worth, here's my two-cents worth on this subject. How about the BIG BANG AND GOD? Here's some logic that might help us understand how everything came from nothing.
BIG BANG AND GOD?
I found this masterful interview by the Hoover Institutes' Douglas Murray of 3 brilliant scientists to be nothing short of riveting. The title of the interview is "By Design: Behe, Lennox, and Meyer on the Evidence for a Creator". It is just under 1 1/2 hours in length, and it is far more intellectually and spiritually stimulating than anything I can imagine watching on regular TV programming.
I hope most of you will take the time to watch this interview, and if you do, please listen carefully to the compelling logic and wisdom of all 4 participants. One more thing I'd like to ask of you, is that AFTER you have listened to this interview, read a couple of short notes I've previously written, both pretty much on the same topic as this interview. If you do, I think you'll find that my two notes (the second of which includes another embedded interview of another physicist - Brian Green) are very much consistent, and add in a contributory way to the discussion amongst Behe, Lennox, Meyer, and Murray.
Here's the link to that interview: https://www.discovery.org/v/by-design/ Watch it now.
Assuming you've now watched the above linked interview:
The first of the two short notes that I referred to above is one I wrote to my two adult sons a few years ago (Dad's Words of Wisdom). The second is a response to one of my sisters-in-law about a lecture she asked me to comment on ("On Being" by Brian Green, which I have also included as a link). I hope you find it all at least thought-provoking. But if you think it all "too strange" to be given any credence, consider that the broadly accepted "Big Bang Theory" is all about the creation of everything from nothing. That's at least just as strange.
Dad’s words of wisdom
I was thinking about Lanza’s Biocentrism (a book) . A poor title choice on his part I think, because even biology is made of stardust, and Lanza goes on to say that all “things” in the cosmos are but virtual “constructs” of consciousness. I think his book should have been called “Conscious-Centrism”.
Imagine that consciousness (awareness) is the only “thing” real. If there’s nothing to be aware OF though, then that consciousness or awareness would just have to “construct” something. Otherwise, it would be like being a hammer with no nails to hit. So all the tools that all living organisms have to interact with all the elements of the “construct” (e.g. tools like sight, hearing, touch, taste, smell, emotion, and various other sensory tools of organisms other than human beings) are what gives the “construct” meaning and purpose. Take the biology out of the picture, leaving nothing to house the sensing “tools” or “interpretive/reaction centres”, and what’s left? Just consciousness. If the construct cannot be observed, then it doesn’t exist. This really isn’t a new idea. It’s been around in eastern philosophies for a very long time. Only probabilities of the various construct elements exist until observed (so says Lanza, and as exemplified by various unsolved paradoxes like the double slit experiments and Einstein's "spooky actions at a distance").
If you’re wondering where our consciousness goes when our biology component dies, the answer is nowhere, since there’s not only no time (therefore no future), there’s also no space to go to. The consciousness just IS, and both time and space are nothing but constructs of the consciousness. Their existence is only virtual, and solely to give context for the tools housed in the biology components of life, and employed by the consciousness component of life. So ‘what will the consciousness do?’ is a better question than ‘where will it go?’. It will just create another construct I suppose. I can’t wait to see what that IS (will be?) but I have to “die” first it seems. It’s difficult to understand the words “will” or "first" in this context, since both connote the existence of time. So does this mean that time must also be a construct of the ONE consciousness - the One-ness? Strange indeed!
It is noteworthy that The Bible discusses the Trinity ................ the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, as one entity. The One-ness of consciousness is a similar idea ............... the spiritual side of “being”.
Now I know why people study philosophy. It’s a great way to just wander and wonder. Two great past times. Did you know that science as we know it was born of philosophy? Check it out. It’s too bad that we don’t have an historical account of the first instances of “religious” thought. How could religion be anything other than an extension of philosophical musings?
By the way, consciousness (awareness) as we know it, cannot be explained with ANYTHING we know about physics, chemistry, or biology (the 3 basic sciences so neatly tied together and explained with math). I find that to be rather curious.
On Being - by Brian Greene
"If we didn’t have vast civilizational challenges upon us, we might be living in a constant state of wonder at what science in this century is learning and showing us about the cosmos and about ourselves — the new questions it’s giving us to live. We are the generation of our species to map the genome, to detect black holes colliding, to hear gravitational waves. The physicist Brian Greene is one of our greatest interpreters from the human enterprise that is science. And in his most recent thinking and writing, there’s a stunning evolution in his own approach to science and life and the matters of purpose and meaning. We delve into his exuberant, cosmic lens on living in the here and the now."
Listen on Apple Podcasts: https://podcasts.apple.com/ca/podcast/on-being-with-krista-tippett/id150892556?i=1000529001590
My Response to the interview of Brian Green
There's a typical arrogance (of some scientists and all atheists) that runs through the dialogue - If it can't be rationalized then it cannot be. I find Greene to be in this camp and he's in good company. Steven Hawking comes to mind. Scientists are often so vain in their accumulated knowledge of things that they cannot contemplate that some things are beyond their reasoning ability.
Mathematics is no more than a tool invented by man to help explain and understand the science in our lives. But oftentimes, the employment of mathematics can lead to the illegitimate extrapolations to end points and conclusions that might be plausible but certainly not proven to be valid and often not even probable. Not by ANY stretch of the imagination - NOT EVEN if the person owning that imagination is brilliant.
Regarding the laws that govern science (Nature's Laws) ..............
- why are they what they are?
- what if our "uni" verse is just one of many?
- why should we expect the laws of our "uni" verse to apply in all of them?
Greene ignores all of this and diminishes the idea of deities to being a product of ignorant imaginations. I beg to differ.
Where I can and do agree with Greene is in regard to his admiration and wonder of the sciences of our "uni" verse. All of it will never cease to amaze and intrigue me, so long as it remains pure and absent of political thinking and we are able to fend off its manipulation for political or other ulterior purposes. As a biochemist, I am a huge fan of Mother Nature with all her profoundly elegant checks and balances that have kept Earth so symbiotically livable for millions of years.
We are far more than "bags of particles in particular organizations" that have come together by pure and meaningless chance. There is thus far NOTHING of science that can explain any of the myriad manifestations of consciousness. I refer you to the teachings of Robert Lanza for an excellent discussion on this.
For more thinking similar to Green's, I recommend Steven Hawking's book "Grand Design". It is quite fascinating.
Have a great day!
Russ
John,
Excellent “Critical Thinking “ in regards to today’s article about the Big Bang Theory and Creationism! I am a proponent of creationism per the arguments you laid out. Simple put I am more knowledgeable today on this issue.Thanks to you, I am better prepared to further debate this issue with my friends!
Stay Safe and Well!
MJL
Thank you for your support.