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

[Derek Potter]

What about Einstein's rejection of quantum mechanics?

He didn't reject QM. He rejected the extreme anti-realism that some of the Copenhagen crew were suggesting. He was quite right to do so. Naive or direct realism needs to be modified, realism as such does not need to be rejected. As a relatively minor matter, he thought that the problem would be solved by modifying the theory. Modifying it, not rejecting it. He was simply wrong about that. The fact is, it was very early days and the whole bunch of them were extremely puzzled by what QM actually means. Every one of the big names - Schroedinger, Einstein, Bohr, Born, Heisenberg blundered but making a mistake while developing a theory is not a rejection of the theory.

 

[russ_watters]

The problem, for me, is that a President of the US can't be in denial, he/she can't let personal beliefs cloud their judgement.

If you ever find such a person, let me know. I'd vote for them in a second too. No, Hillary most certainly does not qualify.

Hillary is the only one with Oval Office experience, that truly knows what the President has to do and know.

I have to laugh at that. If being in someone else's office while they perform their job is a relevant qualification for a job...well just extend that to any/every job! Heck, by that logic, Monica Lewinski is well qualified for the job as well!

The reality is, being President is a unique job and no one ever has exact experience with it until they get it. But the most common qualification is being a governor (which Bill was) because that's head-of-the-executive-branch experience.

 

[Evo]

If you ever find such a person, let me know. I'd vote for them in a second too. No, Hillary most certainly does not qualify.

I have to laugh at that. If being in someone else's office while they perform their job is a relevant qualification for a job...well just extend that to any/every job! Heck, by that logic, Monica Lewinski is well qualified for the job as well!

The reality is, being President is a unique job and no one ever has exact experience with it until they get it. But the most common qualification is being a governor (which Bill was) because that's head-of-the-executive-branch experience.

I take it you don't like Hillary. Anyone you're leaning towards? (I still like Hillary)

 

[russ_watters]

Nothing and no one can guarantee what a person will do with the power of the US Presidency, but at least with Hillary we will not be electing a wild card.

To me, what makes one a "wild card" is not their experience or lack thereof, it is knowing what policies they will support/drive. And I know very little about what Hillary will do/would govern. Based on her treatment of the Keystone pipeline (refusing to provide a position for months [years?] and then towing the party line when pressed), I guess I perceive her as towing her party line while trying to pretend to be wishy-washy. I'm not in favor of either of those traits.

 

[Monsterboy]

It is only by defining science by extremely strict methodological naturalism (limit it to exclusively naturalistic theories) - thus ruling out theism apriori - that you can (unfairly, IMHO) accuse men such as Carson (and by effect Newton too) as being anti-science. But if it is not fair to say that Newton was not a man of science, then it's not fair to say it about Carson, either

I don't think it is fair to compare two men separated by hundreds of years scientific development this way , Newton had no idea about evolution! Nobody had heard of it back then, if we take Charles Darwin's work back in time and present it to Newton, it might wreck his brain for sometime but when the evidence is presented , I think he might agree. If we go back to prehistoric times when man invented the wheel , can we claim that he(assuming one person invented it) was anti-science because he thought the world was flat ?? No , because the idea of a spherical world did not exist back then , there was no way he could have known , Ben Carson is in the 21st century with an internet connection, he has no excuse for being anti-science.

 

[russ_watters]

I'm sure that Dr. Carson would tell you that he believes in the scientific method. He has published peer reviewed medical research papers. Believing that God created the universe does not mean that you reject the scientific method or that you are anti-science.

We were specifically referring to creationism which (as with many religious tenets) makes very firm, testable beliefs about the world which can be confirmed or refuted with science. If you reject the science because it refutes your beliefs then you fill the definition of anti-science.

I agree with Ryan. Evolution may be The benchmark issue that best judges where a person stands when it comes to science vs religion. The science is just so solid that rejection of it in favor of religion means (to me) that anywhere science and religion intersect, religion will be chosen over science. It doesn't mean total rejection of the scientific method, just rejection of it when it conflicts with religion, which is still pretty bad and pretty much the same thing (not a hair I think needs to be split).

 

[russ_watters]

Anyone you're leaning towards?

No, I'm kinda waiting for the Republican field to thin out. It would take too much effort to read-up on all of them.

 

[Geofleur]

Why? The Big Bang has only escaped the worst attacks from creationists because they have been so busy attacking evolution instead. Neither the Big Bang nor evolution fits with six-day creation in 4004 BC. Since creationism spawned Intelligent Design in a failed attempt to get around the US prohibition on teaching religion in schools, one may expect something similar for cosmology. I solemnly predict the Teleological Argument will be dusted off and re-branded as Fine-Tuned Purpose. I hear the scratching of pencils across paper right now! It will be easier for them the second time round, but that's going to be balanced against the fact that they are going to have to grapple with some serious maths.

In retrospect it seems kind of obvious, especially thinking about it strategically like that. I was very focused on the evolution front. In the news almost all you ever heard about was evolution. It just didn't occur to me that they might switch "teach the controversy" and the "wedge" strategy over to physics topics like the big bang.

 

[Bandersnatch]

It just didn't occur to me that they might switch "teach the controversy" and the "wedge" strategy over to physics topics like the big bang.

Look up Spike Psarris' talks on Youtube, if you don't mind for your brain to hurt for all the wrong reasons.

 

[phinds]

Look up Spike Psarris' talks on Youtube, if you don't mind for your brain to hurt for all the wrong reasons.

EEEEYYUUUUKKKKKK !

 

[Derek Potter]

I think the fringe elements of pretty much every group qualifies, it's just that in religious groups almost everyone seems to qualify.

Qualify as what? I can't tell what you're referring to but from tone of your remark it's an entirely gratuitous insult to those of us who do have a brain and occasionally use it. That's the majority in the UK, by the way.

 

[Evo]

No more off topic posts on religion. Posts in this thread need to be about Ben Carson and his personal views.

 

[russ_watters]

No more off topic posts on religion.

Partial response to a deleted post (oh, the power!):

Analyzing the issue from the direction of different flavors of creationism (or other anti-science beliefs) is looking the issue at hand from the wrong direction. It matters not why, precisely, the scientific conclusion is rejected in favor of the religious one, only that it is rejected for religious reasons. Indeed, certain sects such as, famously, the Catholic Church, may choose to modify their beliefs (ironic) to accept theories previously rejected. But even those decisions just serve to highlight the problem, that these issues are not being judged on their scientific merit alone. For the Catholic Church, acquiescence looks to me like an issue of marketing.

 

[Evo]

Partial response to a deleted post (oh, the power!):

Analyzing the issue from the direction of different flavors of creationism (or other anti-science beliefs) is looking the issue at hand from the wrong direction. It matters not why, precisely, the scientific conclusion is rejected in favor of the religious one, only that it is rejected for religious reasons. Indeed, certain sects such as, famously, the Catholic Church, may choose to modify their beliefs (ironic) to accept theories previously rejected. But even those decisions just serve to highlight the problem, that these issues are not being judged on their scientific merit alone. For the Catholic Church, acquiescence looks to me like an issue of marketing.

I'm trying to keep the thread about Carson, and not religion in general.

 

[russ_watters]

I'm trying to keep the thread about Carson, and not religion in general.

Fair enough -- I was just trying to emphasize why discussion of the particulars of the religious beliefs isn't relevant anyway. Feel free to remove.

 

[Evo]

Fair enough -- I was just trying to emphasize why discussion of the particulars of the religious beliefs isn't relevant anyway. Feel free to remove.

Nah, it's a good post.

 

[gleem]

Much of humanity will take the view of Dr. Carson for they like him cannot or will not grasp the assumptions and methodology the the science. It would be a matter of belief for most to accept this theory. I doubt an introductory physics course will cure it and may exacerbate it. With a superficial and thus dangerous knowledge of the science it can used against the science e.g. Carson use of Entropy to try and discredit the Big Bang Theory.

In this age of sound bites, texting, tweets etc where the attention span the average person is decreasing at an even more rapid rate and totally distracted what can be done? If you had the opportunity to talk to Dr. Carson at any length what would you say to him so that He might realized that the Big Bang Theory is credible and cause Him to reflect on His beliefs so that He might seek a resolution to this conflict?

 

[Evo]

Much of humanity will take the view of Dr. Carson for they like him cannot or will not grasp the assumptions and methodology the the science. It would be a matter of belief for most to accept this theory. I doubt an introductory physics course will cure it and may exacerbate it. With a superficial and thus dangerous knowledge of the science it can used against the science e.g. Carson use of Entropy to try and discredit the Big Bang Theory.

In this age of sound bites, texting, tweets etc where the attention span the average person is decreasing at an even more rapid rate and totally distracted what can be done? If you had the opportunity to talk to Dr. Carson at any length what would you say to him so that He might realized that the Big Bang Theory is credible and cause Him to reflect on His beliefs so that He might seek a resolution to this conflict?

You can't talk sense to people that were brought up with these beliefs. The best thing is to make sure that Carson and people like him do not hold political offices where their misinformation can cause harm.

 

[Loren]

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?

I don't know, but I have seen a lot of quotes seriously taken out of context, again, to serve someone else's agenda.

I am only raising a red flag here because it is easy if not typical to take what is in print at face value.

As I said, I really don't know the man's true position on these things and I am weary to get it based on a media with its own agenda.

I see the Earth being created in six days as more of a parable, but irrespective of that — science mixes with religion no better than oil and vinegar.

 

[Loren]

You can't talk sense to people that were brought up with these beliefs. The best thing is to make sure that Carson and people like him do not hold political offices where their misinformation can cause harm.

The best thing is education, but even that gets corrupted.

As someone thousands of years ago said, the penalty for not getting involved in politics is to be ruled by your inferiors.

 

[Evo]

I don't know, but I have seen a lot of quotes seriously taken out of context, again, to serve someone else's agenda.

I am only raising a red flag here because it is easy if not typical to take what is in print at face value.

As I said, I really don't know the man's true position on these things and I am weary to get it based on a media with its own agenda.

I see the Earth being created in six days as more of a parable, but irrespective of that — science mixes with religion no better than oil and vinegar.

There have been videos of him saying these things posted in this thread. They are not misuses of things he said.

 

[Loren]

There have been videos of him saying these things posted in this thread. They are not misuses of things he said.

Again, unless you see the whole video or transcription of what he said you can't be sure of the real context.

He may be a true believer, but I can't make that call at this time.

 

[phinds]

I see the Earth being created in six days as more of a parable ...

But this thread is not about how you see it, it's about Carson and he can be seen on video saying that it is not a parable, it is the literal truth. Six 24-hour days. Period. He does hedge his bets on the age of the Earth and does not insist on 6,000 years but the creation was done in six of our normal days. He says the Earth might have been around, devoid of life, for millions of years before God decided to create everything on it in six days and he implies that that happened about 6,000 years ago.

 

[Loren]

But this thread is not about how you see it, it's about Carson and he can be seen on video saying that it is not a parable, it is the literal truth. Six 24-hour days. Period. He does hedge his bets on the age of the Earth and does not insist on 6,000 years but the creation was done in six of our normal days. He says the Earth might have been around, devoid of life, for millions of years before God decided to create everything on it in six days and he implies that that happened about 6,000 years ago.

Isn't this thread about how we see it in contrast to Dr. carson?

I think few people here would agree with Dr.Carson's view, myself included.

 

[Evo]

Again, unless you see the whole video or transcription of what he said you can't be sure of the real context.

He may be a true believer, but I can't make that call at this time.

Isn't this thread about how we see it in contrast to Dr. carson?

I think few people here would agree with Dr.Carson's view, myself included.

This thread is about what Carson thinks.

 

[hagar]

This thread is about what Carson thinks.

Politicians in general, whither new or old have a habit of saying what they think the people they are speaking to want to hear. This is true of both sides.

 

[phinds]

Politicians in general, whither new or old have a habit of saying what they think the people they are speaking to want to hear. This is true of both sides.

I agree but the problem w/ Carson goes deeper, I think. He BELIEVES the creationist nonsense, he isn't pandering to his audience.

 

[hagar]

I agree but the problem w/ Carson goes deeper, I think. He BELIEVES the creationist nonsense, he isn't pandering to his audience.

You may well be correct but it is probably a bit of both, we just do not know to what extent yet.

 

[Monsterboy]

Politicians in general, whither new or old have a habit of saying what they think the people they are speaking to want to hear. This is true of both sides.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/170822/b...cation&utm_content=morelink&utm_term=Religion

About 42% of Americans believe that evolution is "just a theory ", so there isn't any great advantage. There are some who believe that evolution did happen but it was guided by God, so let's raise it to 50% , so there is only a 50-50 (almost) chance of success for being anti-science.

 

[phinds]

You may well be correct but it is probably a bit of both, we just do not know to what extent yet.

His belief in creationism long predates his interest in politics, so yes, I'd say we DO know.

 

[hagar]

His belief in creationism long predates his interest in politics, so yes, I'd say we DO know.

So then it is settled, both you and Carson are exactly at opposite poles.

 

[phinds]

So then it is settled, both you and Carson are exactly at opposite poles.

On this particular issue, yeah, I'd say so. I believe in science and he believes in God. But I don't think it matter nearly as much what I think, because I'm not running for president.

 

[hagar]

On this particular issue, yeah, I'd say so. I believe in science and he believes in God. But I don't think it matter nearly as much what I think, because I'm not running for president.

Then I will withdraw, I give you the last word.

 

[Derek Potter]

Partial response to a deleted post (oh, the power!):

Analyzing the issue from the direction of different flavors of creationism (or other anti-science beliefs) is looking the issue at hand from the wrong direction. It matters not why, precisely, the scientific conclusion is rejected in favor of the religious one, only that it is rejected for religious reasons. Indeed, certain sects such as, famously, the Catholic Church, may choose to modify their beliefs (ironic) to accept theories previously rejected. But even those decisions just serve to highlight the problem, that these issues are not being judged on their scientific merit alone. For the Catholic Church, acquiescence looks to me like an issue of marketing.

I wish you and others would stop referring to creationism as *the* religious view! It is at best *a* religious view, a very specific one largely ignored by everyone except Biblical-literalists in the US. The situation with the Catholic Church is very different. Obviously it was, or regarded itself as, the main repository of knowledge and wisdom until long after the Reformation. So you would expect it to attempt to understand and explain stuff, get some of it wrong and change its views as knowledge increased. It's different now because science is secularized and as far as I can tell, the Catholic Church accepts all the findings of science unequivocably. Though, having said that, I am not sure what its stance is on Schroedinger's Cat.

 

[Derek Potter]

My last comment - unless someone takes the bait :)

This thread is about what Carson thinks.

Actually it's not. It's about his potential for harming American science.

Might we see representatives of our community sitting before a congressional committee defending their research. Or more importantly Is he undermining our nations faith in science. With an ever strained federal budget will His beliefs still be able to influence NSF funding?

Perhaps Americans should welcome Carson and the possibility of having creationism examined for funding? It has, after all, been deemed a religion by an American court. Presumably funding committees are competent to decide what is truly science and what is crackpottery? Otherwise how do they decide what to fund? If they are not capable of deciding, then American science has bigger problems than Carson.

 

[hagar]

My last comment - unless someone takes the bait :)

Actually it's not. It's about his potential for harming American science.

Perhaps Americans should welcome Carson and the possibility of having creationism examined for funding? It has, after all, been deemed a religion by an American court. Presumably funding committees are competent to decide what is truly science and what is crackpottery? Otherwise how do they decide what to fund? If they are not capable of deciding, then American science has bigger problems than Carson.

Over the years even science has had quite a bit of “crackpottery” funded.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

About 42% of Americans believe that evolution is "just a theory ", so there isn't any great advantage.

That greatly depends on the distribution of those people and to what extend this factors into their political beliefs. If the electorate in your range (be it the geographical area you are running in or the party you are running for) have a higher percentage than the national average and it's an important political issue there is certainly an advantage.

 

[Derek Potter]

Over the years even science has had quite a bit of “crackpottery” funded.

Then we are doomed.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

Then we are doomed.

We really aren't. If you totalled up the amount of funding to legitimate science and how much went to crackpot nonsense I doubt you would even be able to see the latter because the former would dwarf it so severely. Plenty of funding has gone to bad scientists, "pointless" subjects and generally hasn't been allocated efficiently but even that is most likely a small minority.

 

[Monsterboy]

That greatly depends on the distribution of those people .
If the electorate in your range (be it the geographical area you are running in or the party you are running for) have a higher percentage than the national average and it's an important political issue there is certainly an advantage.

Well, I was specifically talking about running for president (or prime minister) depending on the country, one cannot take different stands on evolution on different geographical areas( that will be funny) depending on the electorate there.

 

[Derek Potter]

Well, I was specifically talking about running for the president (or the prime minister) depending on the country, one cannot take different stands on evolution on different geographical areas( that will be funny) depending on the electorate there.

Like New Yorkers evolved from reptiles but Texans popped up out of the ground one day? Sounds like a good film.

 

[russ_watters]

Well, I was specifically talking about running for president (or prime minister) depending on the country, one cannot take different stands on evolution on different geographical areas( that will be funny) depending on the electorate there.

Why not? Sounds like a good idea to me. Note that while that can be difficult to pull off, it happens. Politicians' positions follow a version of Relativity: their positions are not constant vs position (geography) or time (specifically, the day after the primary election).

 

[Bernie G]

"Carson can be seen on video saying that it is not a parable, it is the literal truth. Six 24-hour days. Period. He does hedge his bets on the age of the Earth and does not insist on 6,000 years but the creation was done in six of our normal days. He says the Earth might have been around, devoid of life, for millions of years before God decided to create everything on it in six days and he implies that that happened about 6,000 years ago."

Sounds like baloney. That makes only a little more sense than Hawkins saying this all came from something smaller than the point of a needle. If Carson backed up his beliefs with some phony math he would have a lot more credibility, at least in California.

 

[gleem]

He says the Earth might have been around, devoid of life, for millions of years before God decided to create everything on it in six days and he implies that that happened about 6,000 years ago."

Maybe Dr. Carson has inadvertently mixed up the account of creation in Genesis with the genesis project from the Star Trek movie "Wrath of Khan"

 

[HossamCFD]

Sounds like baloney. That makes only a little more sense than Hawkins saying this all came from something smaller than the point of a needle

Do you mean \Lambda CDM? This has a lot more support than just that of Hawking. In fact it's normally referred to as the standard model of cosmology.

if Carson backed up his beliefs with some phony math he would have a lot more credibility

The support of \Lambda CDM is more than phony math. It explains important observations (e.g, structure and anisotropies of the CMB, abundance of light elements).

 

[phinds]

Like New Yorkers evolved from reptiles but Texans popped up out of the ground one day?

So THAT'S where @Drakkith came from

 

[Drakkith]

So THAT'S where @Drakkith came from

We don't like to talk about it...

 

[gleem]

Looking more into attitudes toward science particularly in Congress I discovered Georgia Representative in the US Congress, a former physician, Paul Broun sat on the House subcommittee on Energy and Environment. He was definitely anti-science.

From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Broun

On September 27, 2012, in a speech at the Liberty Baptist Church Sportsman's Banquet,[68] Broun stated that the sciences of embryology, evolution, and the Big Bang are "lies straight from the Pit of Hell ... lies to try to keep me and all the folks who are taught that from understanding that they need a savior.

Science educator Bill Nye questioned Broun's ability to serve on the House Committee on Science, Space and Technology, stating, '"Since the economic future of the United States depends on our tradition of technological innovation, Representative Broun's views are not in the national interest"' and that '"He is, by any measure, unqualified to make decisions about science, space, and technology."'[73]

In response to Broun's statements, in the 2012 general election, over 5,000 voters in the 10th District voted for Charles Darwin as a write-in candidate.[74][75]

On the bright side in his quest for a Senate seat in 2014 he lost and could not seek reelection to the House and Charles Darwin got votes.

But beside Ben Carson, How many more Paul Brouns are there but not as outspoken?

 

[Hornbein]

"Carson can be seen on video saying that it is not a parable, it is the literal truth. Six 24-hour days. Period. He does hedge his bets on the age of the Earth and does not insist on 6,000 years but the creation was done in six of our normal days. He says the Earth might have been around, devoid of life, for millions of years before God decided to create everything on it in six days and he implies that that happened about 6,000 years ago."

The Bible says that the Earth was created before the stars. Does Carson go for that?

 

[phinds]

The Bible says that the Earth was created before the stars. Does Carson go for that?

Does it matter? Since he believes in a literal 6 24-hour day creation, why worry about what other nonsense he believes?