Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Is cosmology an extension of creation science?

  1. Mar 16, 2008 #1
    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?
  2. jcsd
  3. Mar 16, 2008 #2


    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Cosmology is an attempt to understand our universe, i hope it has little to do with religion.
  4. Mar 16, 2008 #3
    Are you talking about astrology?
  5. Mar 16, 2008 #4
  6. Mar 16, 2008 #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. May 1, 2008 #6


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

  8. May 1, 2008 #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.
  9. May 1, 2008 #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.
  10. May 1, 2008 #9


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    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.
  11. May 1, 2008 #10


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    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.
  12. May 1, 2008 #11
  13. May 1, 2008 #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.
  14. May 1, 2008 #13


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    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.
  15. May 1, 2008 #14


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    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.
  16. May 1, 2008 #15
    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?
  17. May 1, 2008 #16


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    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.
  18. May 1, 2008 #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.
  19. May 1, 2008 #18
    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.
  20. May 1, 2008 #19
    Well if creation scientists belive God is all powerful then they can cast science into the
    dustbin, they don't need it anyway.
  21. May 1, 2008 #20


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    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.
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook