Is cosmology an extension of creation science?

[W3pcq]

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?

 

[wolram]

Cosmology is an attempt to understand our universe, i hope it has little to do with religion.

 

[Snazzy]

Are you talking about astrology?

 

[Moridin]

No, physicist Sean M. Caroll claims that the majority of cosmologists are atheists.

http://preposterousuniverse.com/writings/nd-paper/

 

[my_wan]

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.

 

[malawi_glenn]

Quite cool that atheist F Hoyle was against BB when it first was postulated by Lemaitre

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georges_Lemaître

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Hoyle

 

[W3pcq]

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.

 

[Cvan]

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.

 

[Nabeshin]

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.

 

[Wallace]

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.

 

[boomerang]

Cosmology is an attempt to understand our universe, i hope it has little to do with religion.

Why?

 

[W3pcq]

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.

 

[Wallace]

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.

 

[jambaugh]

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.

 

[boomerang]

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?

 

[Wallace]

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.

 

[W3pcq]

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.

 

[boomerang]

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.

 

[boomerang]

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.

 

[Wallace]

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.