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

[phinds]

In the same way that rejecting the creation of the universe in six days does not mean you are anti Christian.

Ah. Well, in my case, it does. We'll just have to agree to disagree.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

In the same way that rejecting the creation of the universe in six days does not mean you are anti Christian.

"anti-science" refers to the rejection of the scientific method as a reliable means of producing knowledge. Whilst it's technically true that holding a particular belief doesn't automatically make one anti-science in the case of evolution I find it hard to believe that anyone with strong feelings on it hasn't done a cursory look into it. Anyone who does and still believes creationism either doesn't understand what they've read or is rejecting the scientific method.

Given that we can safely assume that Dr Carson is intelligent enough to understand it does it not follow that he is anti-science?

 

[Derek Potter]

Ah. Well, in my case, it does. We'll just have to agree to disagree.

Most of my Christian friends see six-day creationism as a stupid American phenomenon having nothing to do with following Christ.

 

[QST]

I used to work for the USAF, Systems Command, Avionics Division, Advanced Electronic Devices Branch which was doing basic research on space plasma and photosensitivity of various metal-oxide-metal sandwich receptors. My training was in Solid State Physics. Since that time I have studied much more on the side of particle physics, relativity and theoretical physics. I also understand where the conservatives are coming from. Consider this. If you study out the history of almost any new scientific discovery you will find that most of the time it takes years and years to get the scientific community to accept anything that seems contrary to what they thought they already knew. For decades scientists have presented things as absolute fact and then finally be forced to admit that they were wrong. This happens over and over again. The new theory is laughed at; the scientist is ridiculed. Much pressure is applied to dismiss the idea and the person. Even legal ways are used to attempt to keep the new theory from being discussed, especially in schools. These kinds of prejudiced thinking, gestapo tactics and downright bullying does not go over well with the non-scientific community. It causes a lack of trust. Scientists, of all people, need to be open-minded and tolerant of others' views. Prove your case with real science and logic. I am afraid that there are too many scientists who also live like they have "faith" in science and the educational system rather than coming to their conclusions from logical facts.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

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. Adhering to the philosophy of science known as methodological naturalism does not mean that you must reject God. It just means that for purposes of conducting science, you have chosen to act as if He does not exist - whether He actually does or not. Science bound by methodological naturalism is really powerless to explore the possibility of God's existence in an unbiased way, since it simply ignores Him, if He really does exist. You have to engage in other disciplines, or choose a different philosophy of science to explore that. And I think everyone should explore that, it you are really on a quest for truth.

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.

 

[Derek Potter]

Believing that God created the universe does not mean that you reject the scientific method or that you are anti-science. Adhering to the philosophy of science known as methodological naturalism does not mean that you must reject God. It just means that for purposes of conducting science, you have chosen to act as if He does not exist - whether He actually does or not. Science bound by methodological naturalism is really powerless to explore the possibility of God's existence in an unbiased way, since it simply ignores Him, if He really does exist. You have to engage in other disciplines, or choose a different philosophy of science to explore that. And I think everyone should explore that, it you are really on a quest for truth.

It's nothing to do with whether God exists. Without a Biblical story which can be interpreted as six-day creation, there would be no reason for creationism. Christians would say "Goddidit by the Big Bang and evolution", atheists would say "It just happened by the Big Bang and evolution" (I'm simplifying.) This is why the majority of Christians in the UK get along perfectly well with their non-Christian colleagues. (Not all of course.) Unfortunately creationists take the story literally and weave a "theory" around it, one which is eminently testable and falsifiable. And it has been falsified big time. :) The honorable thing would be to say "Oops! We were wrong!"

 

[ZapperZ]

I used to work for the USAF, Systems Command, Avionics Division, Advanced Electronic Devices Branch which was doing basic research on space plasma and photosensitivity of various metal-oxide-metal sandwich receptors. My training was in Solid State Physics. Since that time I have studied much more on the side of particle physics, relativity and theoretical physics. I also understand where the conservatives are coming from. Consider this. If you study out the history of almost any new scientific discovery you will find that most of the time it takes years and years to get the scientific community to accept anything that seems contrary to what they thought they already knew. For decades scientists have presented things as absolute fact and then finally be forced to admit that they were wrong. This happens over and over again. The new theory is laughed at; the scientist is ridiculed. Much pressure is applied to dismiss the idea and the person. Even legal ways are used to attempt to keep the new theory from being discussed, especially in schools. These kinds of prejudiced thinking, gestapo tactics and downright bullying does not go over well with the non-scientific community. It causes a lack of trust. Scientists, of all people, need to be open-minded and tolerant of others' views. Prove your case with real science and logic. I am afraid that there are too many scientists who also live like they have "faith" in science and the educational system rather than coming to their conclusions from logical facts.

But then, I will point to you the discovery of high Tc superconductors that completely blew away the prevailing understanding at that time. How rapid was that acceptance from the moment of discovery to the Nobel prize? Think about it. These are the group of people you are accusing of of not being open to such change. And I can show this happening over and over again as well.

So what's the difference here? Is it due to the NATURE of the ideas and the nature of the supporting evidence? Do you want scientists in general to sway to every little bits of ideas and study and change their minds as rapidly as the latest diet trends?

Zz.

 

[gleem]

What about Einstein's rejection of quantum mechanics?

 

[Ryan_m_b]

I think it's worth pointing out that arguments within science are not anti-science, they are a key part of the process! Every day thousands of scientists disagree about how accurate various methods are, how valid interpretation of data is etcetera. But if you reject the method all together, perhaps because it conflicts with your worldview, then you are anti-science.

To bring it back round to creationism; I've seen and read creationists that make the argument that data can't be trusted because god (sometimes the devil) is testing us. They point to fossils and other things as being put there by god. They are explicitly rejecting the method.

 

[ZapperZ]

What about Einstein's rejection of quantum mechanics?

He did?

You are confusing his disagreement of the Copenhagen interpretation of QM with rejecting QM. He never questioned the validity of QM formalism. He just didn't think that QM described all there is to described out of a system. There is a difference here.

Zz.

 

[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.