Is cosmology an extension of creation science?

In summary: So it's not surprising that there may be different versions or theories regarding the beginning of the universe. That's just how science works. It's not about choosing one version over the other, but rather understanding and considering all of the evidence and theories in order to gain a better understanding of the universe. In summary, cosmology is the study of the universe and its origins, using scientific methods and evidence to develop theories and understand the complexities of our universe. It is not an attempt by the church to hijack science, but a legitimate field of study that is constantly evolving and seeking to explain the mysteries of our existence. While there may be some religious implications and beliefs associated with cosm
  • #1
W3pcq
109
0
Is cosmology an attempt of the church to highjack science? Is this cosmology the beginning of a new breed of "science" where belief is protected and taught under the name of science?
 
Space news on Phys.org
  • #2
Cosmology is an attempt to understand our universe, i hope it has little to do with religion.
 
  • #3
Are you talking about astrology?
 
  • #5
No but the religious right uses all kind of outrageous arguments in an attempt to hijack science. Some will use the Big Bang and some will deny the Big Bang, whatever fits their religious sensibilities. The Discovery Institute had set in their sights to subvert naturalism itself in science. Reading the Kitzmiller v. Dover transcripts is hilarious.
 
  • #7
I wish I never asked this question. My main motivation for questioning this is more to do with the twist the media puts on these things and the way the public is led to believe certain things. Not really the science, but the belief.
 
  • #8
The media puts a twist on a lot of things this day and age. It's difficult to distinguish what's fact and what's just out there to make some cash.

Cosmology, in my opinion in its broadest sense is a method of extrapolating current particle and theoretical physics as close to the big bang (or other model) as possible, attempting to create a coherent framework for the development of our universe.
 
  • #9
W3pcq said:
I wish I never asked this question. My main motivation for questioning this is more to do with the twist the media puts on these things and the way the public is led to believe certain things. Not really the science, but the belief.

Really? I wasn't aware that the media put this particular spin on cosmology. I've never heard of big bang models or any cosmological theory as an attempt at religious hijack of legitimate science. Maybe I just live under a rock here, but I've just seen a handful of simplified, but informative, nova specials as far as the public media is concerned. What twist exactly are you referring to, because I'm simply not seeing it.
 
  • #10
I agree with Nabeshin. Cosmology (like a lot of science) often gets reported somewhat inaccurately and there is a tendency to sensationalise (particularly if black holes are involved!), but I don't see any of what you are referring to W3pcq? The current model of Cosmology isn't very old, barely a decade, so it's not like ideas get grafted in and can't be overturned easily.
 
  • #11
wolram said:
Cosmology is an attempt to understand our universe, i hope it has little to do with religion.

Why?
 
  • #12
It is just that understanding our universe has everything to do with religion. It has everything to do with validity of religions, and the creation science movement is very strong now days in the media. I was just wondering. If the universe was created from a singularity, then the bible may be correct just off a little. If the universe has no beginning, then there is much more wrong with the bible.
 
  • #13
Don't judge science based on what religions say and don't judge religions based on the outcomes of science. There is nothing to be gained by doing this and much to lose, both for religions and for science. There are religious scientists, agnostic scientists and atheist scientists, so it's pointless to try and argue a single case for whether science does or does not support religion or the other way around either.
 
  • #14
Consider cosmology as the natural extension of the question "Is the Earth flat or round?".
One is asking what is the shape of the space-time universe...

and like that question theological assumptions such as "creationism" have nothing to contribute to the answer.
 
  • #15
W3pcq said:
It is just that understanding our universe has everything to do with religion. It has everything to do with validity of religions, and the creation science movement is very strong now days in the media. I was just wondering. If the universe was created from a singularity, then the bible may be correct just off a little. If the universe has no beginning, then there is much more wrong with the bible.

That's down to your interpretation of the bible, anyway, it appear's you are unsure
of which version of cosmology to believe?
Which one do you put your faith in, so to speak?
 
  • #16
boomerang said:
That's down to your interpretation of the bible, anyway, it appear's you are unsure
of which version of cosmology to believe?
Which one do you put your faith in, so to speak?

That's the whole point right? Science doesn't work on belief or faith but only verifiable evidence. I don't mean that to demean religious faith, but the point is that it is a whole different type of discourse, so it's pointless to compare or choose between the two.
 
  • #17
The creation science movement has specifically been motivated by the age of the universe and the age of earth. Creation scientists deny carbon dating, and have struggled to come up with an age of the universe. This age of the universe thing to them is important. I'm not saying anyone who practices religion is part of the movement.
 
  • #18
Wallace said:
That's the whole point right? Science doesn't work on belief or faith but only verifiable evidence. I don't mean that to demean religious faith, but the point is that it is a whole different type of discourse, so it's pointless to compare or choose between the two.

I was not asking to him to choose between religion and science, but the versions of
'science' he proposed as the beginning of the universe.

Note I quoted science there, because if it is was verifiable evidence it is hard to see how
it could have came up with two different answers. I mean if it come up with one answer
then fine. What science tends to do in these area's is to try and fit the evidence it has
into some sort of theory(s).
The thing is with science is that it tends to throw up as many questions as it does answers.
Rather like peeling back the layers of an onion, there always seems to be another layer underneath.
 
  • #19
W3pcq said:
It is just that understanding our universe has everything to do with religion. It has everything to do with validity of religions, and the creation science movement is very strong now days in the media. I was just wondering. If the universe was created from a singularity, then the bible may be correct just off a little. If the universe has no beginning, then there is much more wrong with the bible.

Well if creation scientists believe God is all powerful then they can cast science into the
dustbin, they don't need it anyway.
 
  • #20
boomerang said:
What science tends to do in these area's is to try and fit the evidence it has
into some sort of theory(s).
The thing is with science is that it tends to throw up as many questions as it does answers.
Rather like peeling back the layers of an onion, there always seems to be another layer underneath.

Yep, that's a pretty accurate and succinct description of science. As I said, this is very different to the nature of religion, so the two shouldn't be compared.
 

1. What is the difference between cosmology and creation science?

Cosmology is the scientific study of the origins and evolution of the universe, while creation science is a belief system that incorporates religious beliefs and interpretations of creation into scientific explanations.

2. Is cosmology considered a valid scientific field?

Yes, cosmology is a legitimate and widely accepted scientific field that is constantly evolving and advancing through research and experimentation.

3. Can creation science and cosmology coexist?

There is no scientific evidence to support the claims of creation science, so it cannot be considered a valid extension of cosmology. However, individuals are free to hold personal beliefs that incorporate both cosmology and creation science.

4. How does cosmology explain the origins of the universe?

Cosmologists use scientific principles and evidence to explain the origins of the universe, such as the Big Bang theory, which states that the universe began as a singularity and has been expanding and evolving ever since.

5. Is there any overlap between the concepts of creation and the scientific understanding of the universe?

There are some similarities between the concepts of creation and scientific explanations of the universe, such as the idea of a beginning or origins. However, creation science relies on religious beliefs and interpretations, while cosmology is based on empirical evidence and scientific principles.

Similar threads

  • Cosmology
Replies
8
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • STEM Academic Advising
Replies
12
Views
343
Replies
7
Views
545
Replies
7
Views
2K
Replies
7
Views
8K
Replies
2
Views
1K
Replies
12
Views
2K
Replies
22
Views
6K
Replies
13
Views
2K
Back
Top