Congressman attacks evolution

CAC1001

Not arguing from incredulity here. The evidence for the Big Bang is overwhelming. But with something like the universe, while we can be 99.99% sure about something regarding it, no one can be 100% sure is my point as no one was around back then to observe it. There is always the small chance that there is something missing that can pop up and change people's understanding around.

leroyjenkens

I think that guy took a time machine here from the dark ages.

daveb

Whether he was being disingenuous and pandering to his constituents (though why I can't fathom since the article said he was running unopposed), or actually believed it is neither here nor there. I have a friend with a degree in biochem, specializing in microbiology, and she completely rejects evolution and says the earth was created almost 7000 years ago in 6 days. So the idea that he has an MD and rejects evolution isn't all that odd. Tipler believes he has mathematically proven the existence of life after death, so it's not uncommon for otherwise well educated scientists to hold unscientific views.

The problem occurs when those views are used to set science policy. I haven't seen any evidence that it has (though I'm sure his views have been used to set policy - I just haven't found evidence yet). Anyone find any links that say this?

Ken Natton

Well there is another possibility. There is a school of thought that in some ways is more consistent than most of the anti-evolutionary arguments, that does not necessarily deny the science but holds that it is sinful even to make scientific enquiry. We should not presume to poke out noses into Gods affairs and should just accept the word of God as given to us in the bible, this view holds. Of course there is an inconsistency in holding that view and yet being prepared to enjoy other fruits of human technology. But just leaving that aside for a moment, it is the only argument I can perceive that has any basis on which to object to embryology, because, while the arguments that evolution is not testable are actually false, patently embryology is perfectly observable in action. The fact that it offers such powerful evidence in support of evolution might indicate why it is despised by anti-evolutionists, but they have to know that they are walking right into an unavoidable trap if they try to build any logical argument against it. Of course, this congressman was not building any logical arguments, he was offering only bluster and white noise. But somewhere in his heart, he must know that what he is saying is just so much nonsense.

Jack21222

We are much more than 99.99% sure. To characterize it as only 99.99% is to be disingenuous. Observations have ruled out a "no big bang" case to much more than the 3.8 sigma you're suggesting.

CAC1001

I understand what you are saying, but when dealing with something as mysterious and complex as the universe, no one can ever be 100% sure about something such as the beginning of the universe. If you were to time travel 100 years into the future, and look into astronomy research, you might find quite a few things that astronomers and physicists right now think they are certain about that they turned out to be wrong about.

Jimmy Snyder

The kosher laws in the old testiment make it impossible to to forego scientific inquiry. For example, it is forbidden to eat fish that don't have scales. Birds, of course, do not have scales and yet are edible. Why shouldn't they be, birds aren't fish. As you can easily tell just by looking. That is to say, by scientific enquiry.

SW VandeCarr

What I want to know is what God was doing before he made the universe. Genesis says "In the beginning..," but God must have existed before the beginning in order that he could begin the beginning. So what was God supposed to have been doing before beginning the beginning?

rootX

Some religions say God creates and destroys universes. So, he must be busy with universes that existed before ours. But, it's an interesting question where all this began.

I wonder if someone can answer it but I am satisfied with some questions left unanswered.

SW VandeCarr

Well, if there are an infinite number of universes being created and destroyed, then we don't need a beginning, so Genesis must be wrong.

Second question. Christians (or at least Roman Catholics) believe that Jesus was the product of an "Immaculate Conception" but a conception nonetheless. Therefore he must have been an embryo at one time. What might the good Congressman think about that?

EDIT: I suppose Genesis is just referring to our universe. But if God is infinite and eternal, as I think most Christians would believe, then the mere creation of one universe out of an infinite number would hardly be worth mentioning, would it?

Then again, this is supposed to have happened only 9,000 years ago, so maybe it's relevant to our history: Creation, some ice, some arrowheads, some cave paintings, some mammoths, then agriculture and before you know it the Pyramids and the Tower of Babel. (Lies put some of this stuff earlier than 7000 BC). I'm not sure about things like the dinosaurs and trilobites. Those fossils must have been put there by the devil.

leroyjenkens

Just sitting around doing nothing. You know, kinda like what he's doing right now.

SW VandeCarr

No! No! We can't have that! Idleness is a sin. Read my last post (and the quote of rootX) above. (#44)

SixNein

I could proclaim: It's just a theory that you exist.

Substitute theory for: The best possible explanation provided by the current accumulation of evidence.

phinds

You misunderstand the Big Bang theory. It is totally agnostic (has no comment about) how the universe BEGAN. It is all about what happened starting at one Plank time AFTER the singularity (whatever that was) occurred. You can argue all you want about what the singularity is (which is what I think your arguemnt really is about) but arguing against the Big Bang theory is just foolish.

Your misconception about what "Big Bang" means is VERY widespread, since it certainly SOUNDS like it means an explosion that started everthing.

SW VandeCarr

Personally, I don't think God did such a great job with our universe. It seems to be coming apart.

BobG

You're mixing at least two different religions together (and maybe more) that don't necessarily have the same beliefs and at least one (Catholic) that doesn't apply to the Congressman.

I'm not exactly sure how his church views Mary, but the semi-deification of Mary was one of the reasons Protestants split away from the Catholic church. On the other hand, he would be more likely to take a literal view of the Bible than Catholics would.

Aside from that, even if there were an infinite number of universes, ours would be worth mentioning to us. It's only the others that wouldn't be worth mentioning. With over 6 billion people in the world, your life is hardly worth mentioning to the vast majority, but you probably find it worth mentioning to your friends family.

daveb

It's the beginning. When a plan goes wrong, you go back to the beginning. So he's waiting for Vizzini.