The Big Bang Theory a Fairy Tale? So says presidential candidate Ben Carson....

Click For Summary
Ben Carson's dismissal of the Big Bang Theory as a "fairy tale" raises concerns about potential impacts on scientific funding if he were to become president. His beliefs may align with a growing fundamentalist movement that could threaten federal support for scientific research, particularly through the National Science Foundation (NSF). The discussion highlights the fear that a scientifically challenged leadership could undermine public faith in science and lead to reduced funding for critical programs. Historical parallels are drawn to past political actions that negatively affected scientific initiatives, suggesting a worrying trend. The conversation reflects broader anxieties about the intersection of personal beliefs and scientific integrity in governance.
  • #31
phinds said:
I think the fringe elements of pretty much every group qualifies, it's just that in religious groups almost everyone seems to qualify.

In the U.S., about 84% of the population identifies as a member of a religious group and among the remaining unaffiliated, 68% of them believe in a deity. I suspect your analysis of the views of those millions is ... incomplete. Start with geneticist Francis Collins, leader of Human Genome Project.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_Collins
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_Collins#Christianity
http://www.pewforum.org/2012/12/18/global-religious-landscape-exec/
 
Last edited:
Space news on Phys.org
  • #32
russ_watters said:
Religion is an easy explanation for many anti-science views, but for others where religion doesn't play a role, what explains it?

I think the commonality of both is rejections based on a form of intellectual derision, religion because it is perceived as a mockery of a firmly held belief and the others because they feel belittled that they do not understand science. Another is that often there are both positive and negative aspect to new knowledge and some people emphasize the negative. e.g. vaccinations.
 
  • #33
The anti-vaxxer movement is a good example of a dangerous anti-science group that isn't religious. IMO there are certain mindsets that aren't rational that can occur in any person/group but they are more intrinsic to religious belief.
 
  • Like
Likes HossamCFD
  • #34
I rather doubt that Carson would venture to intrude into trying to cut funding for the sciences he is not trained in. But I think that we do have to admit that there is a lot of speculation and that there are "fudge factors" attached to the Big Bang theory, so he could eventually be regarded right about that. If history is any indication, the big bang theory will probably eventually be replaced by something new.
 
  • #35
Athanatsius said:
I rather doubt that Carson would venture to intrude into trying to cut funding for the sciences he is not trained

It is not really about the methodology of the theory that is in question but the purpose of the research which according to Carson we already have the answer.
 
  • #36
I take him as an idiot savant. He has mastered one field, but is simply incapable of transferring that to a broader context. Religion is often at odds with observable science. At best, it describes a sequence of events. At worst it has one suspend all belief in what is known, observable or deducible. The more that is understood about natural law, the more religion has to recede into the background. The difficulty is that human's have the "tribal" gene. Many humans need a sense of belonging to something large than the individual. If it wasn't organized religion, it's the state that sits in as a proxy. At the rate we're going, it will be millennia (at least) for humans to "grow out of" the need to blame unseen forces for their lives, troubles, successes and fears. Humans abhor randomness. We are incapable of accepting that stuff happens all the time. Hurricane Sandy was blamed by Pat Robertson on the gays in NJ. I wonder who he's going to blame for the 1,000 year flood in SC. Will the governor of that state, Nicki Hally, maybe think that climate change may actually be affecting her state? We'll see.
 
  • #37
I'm not religious but don't believe the conventional big bang theory that our universe spontaneously came from a point source. I think its a simplistic explanation to explain our inflationary universe.
 
  • #38
Bernie G said:
I'm not religious but don't believe the conventional big bang theory that our universe spontaneously came from a point source. I think its a simplistic explanation to explain our inflationary universe.
There is no big bang theory that says our universe came from a point source. Sounds like you are getting your physics from TV, not from physics books.
 
  • #39
gleem said:
So says Ben Carson.QUOTE]

He is talking Religion, not science. This discussion seems to be out of bounds of the stated parameters for this web site.
 
  • #40
I really don't have time to dig into what Carson's true beliefs are, but one had to remember that all media rags have as much of an agenda as the candidates do and have no bones about spinning a story to try to persuade readers to their point of view.

If that includes bending or fabricating the truth, then so be it. There is ample evidence to support my claim. To paraphrase René Descartes, if someone proves false even once, it is wise to doubt.

Secondly, Congress is the body that actually holds the nation's purse strings. So, while the president may have some sway over the tone that his office sets, he doesn't have the authority to directly control how public funds are spent.
 
  • #41
NickAtNight said:
He is talking Religion, not science. This discussion seems to be out of bounds of the stated parameters for this web site.
The discussion is about statements made by a presidential candidate. This post is in "current events" and such topics are allowed, within bounds.
 
  • Like
Likes Evo
  • #42
Loren said:
I really don't have time to dig into what Carson's true beliefs are, but one had to remember that all media rags have as much of an agenda as the candidates do and have no bones about spinning a story to try to persuade readers to their point of view..
There's not all that much spinning that can be done regarding direct statements that he has made. Do you think Carson believes in the Big Bang Theory? Evolution? Does he not believe that the Earth was created in six 24-hour days? Do you think the liberal media has fabricated his statements about these things?
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes Torbjorn_L
  • #43
Carson's 2011 (IIRC) statements are a matter of public youtube record, recorded at a church speech I think, and has been responded to many times in articles since then.

If Carson has changed his mind, it hasn't shown.
 
  • Like
Likes Evo
  • #44
I am happy to encounter skepticism in every field. I sympathize with serious people who cannot believe evolution is a good explanation for the biological world we live in. Likewise with the Big Bang. The question is, are those skeptics curious about the truth, or have they settled into dogmatic denial?

The real seekers are those who doubt a standard theory but want to find a logical explanation for what they see. That is a fair description of what a scientist does. But instead of hiding in blind denial, the scientist learns the current theories in depth. It takes years to see how the Big Bang and evolution are the simplest, most logical explanations for how our world came to be what it is today.

Many scientific theories developed in the 19th and 20th centuries are astounding and hard to believe. Yet the very same theories have been demonstrated over and over again to be among our species' most brilliant achievements.
 
Last edited:
  • #45
Ryan_m_b said:
The anti-vaxxer movement is a good example of a dangerous anti-science group that isn't religious.
While that's true for the UK, just an FYI, on this side of the pond, we have anti-vax movements on both the left and right(though the left one is far larger). The right-hand one is religiously motivated ("if God wants me to get sick...").
 
  • #46
russ_watters said:
And bizarre. Aren't STEMs supposed to trust each other more because they understand each other better than the general public does? I don't get it.

Medicine is not as STEM-y as the "hard sciences" of physics and chemistry. While relatively rare, there have always been some physicians who are susceptible to pseudo-scientific world views.
 
  • #47
There is an old Mark twain quote; "First get your facts, then you can distort them at your leisure." In this case the good Doctor didn't get all of the facts to begin with. Then the old twain quote took over. :)
 
  • Like
Likes CalcNerd
  • #48
Let's stay on the topic of the politician's beliefs, this is not the place to discuss science, this is Current Events. (not directed at you Edward)
 
  • #49
Has nobody mentioned that when it comes to the topic of private-sector funding, conservatives prefer Reaganomics, less government involvement in the private sector, and a shrink in government spending as a whole?

If science loses funding, I have a feeling it'll be more because of Reaganomics than Creationism.

Besides, as stated by some people during the Planned Parenthood disagreement, "Go Fund Yourselves". As scientists, how hard can it be to commercialize new discoveries?
 
  • #50
It's also a fairy tale that any of you think Ben Carson will win. It's pointless even discussing this
 
  • #51
Nico Crawford said:
It's also a fairy tale that any of you think Ben Carson will win. It's pointless even discussing this
It is not in any way pointless to discuss presidential candidates. The fact that Carson is so high in the poles is an interesting fact, given his anti-science beliefs and is well worth discussing. This discussion is not about who's going to win.
 
  • #52
phinds said:
It is not in any way pointless to discuss presidential candidates. The fact that Carson is so high in the poles is an interesting fact, given his anti-science beliefs and is well worth discussing. This discussion is not about who's going to win.
Very true it was a joke because he probably won't win. We can bet in it if you would like;)
 
  • #53
Nico Crawford said:
Very true it was a joke because he probably won't win. We can bet in it if you would like;)
*on
 
  • #54
Nico Crawford said:
Very true it was a joke because he probably won't win. We can bet in it if you would like;)
Oh, I quite agree w/ you that there's little chance of his winning. What a truly horrible thing if he did. I don't know which would dismay me more, the fact that we HAD such a know-nothing as president or the fact that we elected him.
 
  • #55
phinds said:
Oh, I quite agree w/ you that there's little chance of his winning. What a truly horrible thing if he did. I don't know which would dismay me more, the fact that we HAD such a know-nothing as president or the fact that we elected him.
Yes I agree but this is same nation of people who elect president who arm terrorist to fight other enemies just to watch them turn on us multiple times so nothing really surprises me anymore.
 
  • #56
pervirtuous said:
Let's not forget, according to prophecy, first will come the antichrist, the destroyer, who will fool everyone into thinking he is Christlike. He will destroy a third of the world. I can see this douchebag doing just that.
If he was a little smarter I could see it to;)
 
  • Like
Likes CalcNerd
  • #57
phinds said:
Oh, I quite agree w/ you that there's little chance of his winning. What a truly horrible thing if he did. I don't know which would dismay me more, the fact that we HAD such a know-nothing as president or the fact that we elected him.

Would you prefer him or Hillary?
 
  • #58
pervirtuous said:
Let's not forget, according to prophecy, first will come the antichrist, the destroyer, who will fool everyone into thinking he is Christlike. He will destroy a third of the world. I can see this douchebag doing just that.

"who will fool everyone into thinking he is Christlike" I think you mean Christie. He's doing badly in the polls.
 
  • #59
Any off topic posts will be deleted, just FYI.
 
  • #60
Evo said:
Any off topic posts will be deleted, just FYI.

The big bang coming from a point source or initiating from something larger is on topic.