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

In summary: but not necessary... stepping stone to doing actual research), and the level of scientific understanding and expertise required for anything even approaching serious research is vastly different.
  • #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.
 
Space news on Phys.org
  • #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.
 
  • #61
Bernie G said:
The big bang coming from a point source or initiating from something larger is on topic.
Actually the science isn't, it's already been pointed out repeatedly that he doesn't know what he's talking about and this forum is to discuss the politicians. It doesn't matter what version he thinks is wrong.
 
  • #62
Bernie G said:
Would you prefer him or Hillary?
You put me in a bad spot with this question, but honestly him because Hilary should be in jail for some of the things she has done. She is not a person anyone should look up to as a leader she just appeals to the liberals and feminist for votes. Ben Carson I can look up to a little but he is not the ideal candidate
 
  • #63
Evo said:
Actually the science isn't, it's already been pointed out repeatedly that he doesn't know what he's talking about and this forum is to discuss the politicians. It doesn't matter what version he thinks is wrong.
Science has been wrong at times. Actually many times its just a dispute between theory and ideology and people have to pick a side. But if something is true beyond a shadow of a doubt which a lot of science is, it would be foolish for any candidate to deny it without any factual backing.
 
  • #64
Nico Crawford said:
Science has been wrong at times. Actually many times its just a dispute between theory and ideology and people have to pick a side. But if something is true beyond a shadow of a doubt which a lot of science is, it would be foolish for any candidate to deny it without any factual backing.
But we're not debating the science in this thread, and posts will be deleted to keep the thread on topic.
 
  • #65
gleem said:
With an ever strained federal budget will His beliefs still be able to influence NSF funding?
If he does, it would be very disappointing! The thought of him hindering scientific development such as the deployment of the James Webb space telescope is very unsettling.

Although i honestly doubt it. It's hard to fathom some of the things he believes to be true (as mentioned in the article posted), and so will the majority of the scientific community (i hope).
 
  • #66
phinds said:
Actually that sort of thing is quite common for fundamentalists in the US. I have a nephew who is scholastically brilliant and a very nice fellow, outstanding family man, with a PhD in math and a solid 4.0 throughout Electrical Engineering undergraduate school and he believes that Evolution is nonsense. Religious faith trumps logic every time.
A childhood friend of my wife married a biologist, who does not believe in evolution, who teaches biology at NC State...maybe he's retired by now.
 
  • #67
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. I'd vote for someone that mis-used e-mails over a nut any day. My personal opinion. E-mail, not scary, denial of accepted science, scary.

Got to ask yourself 'what would keep you up at night"? E-mail is at the bottom of my list. Deliberate fraud that Fiorina is doing, that would keep me up, anti-science nut, that would keep me up, Trump, that would keep me up.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes Monsterboy and phinds
  • #68
Personally, what would keep me up at night the most is Socialism.

I think losing government funding would be fine, and I really doubt Carson would be the only candidate to withdraw funding. Any real republican would withdraw funding because of their preference to Reagonomics over FDR New Deal tactics.. Taxes would probably go down with it.

Then you can just post the proposed scientific development on Kickstarter and it will be funded by whoever wants to. Because why not? (And then sell T-shirts. That's the best part).
 
  • #69
William T said:
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?

"If science loses funding, I have a feeling it'll be more because of Reaganomics..." Do you mean big science funding like green energy, the manned space program, and a manned Mars mission?
 
  • #70
Bernie G said:
"If science loses funding, I have a feeling it'll be more because of Reaganomics..." Do you mean big science funding like green energy, the manned space program, and a manned Mars mission?
I don't think manned missions are on the short term list or realistic/feasible goals.
 
<h2>1. What is the Big Bang Theory?</h2><p>The Big Bang Theory is a scientific explanation for the origin of the universe. It proposes that the universe began as a single, extremely dense and hot point and has been expanding and cooling ever since.</p><h2>2. Is the Big Bang Theory supported by evidence?</h2><p>Yes, the Big Bang Theory is supported by a vast amount of scientific evidence, including observations of the cosmic microwave background radiation, the abundance of light elements in the universe, and the expansion of the universe.</p><h2>3. How is the Big Bang Theory different from a fairy tale?</h2><p>The Big Bang Theory is based on scientific evidence and rigorous mathematical models, while fairy tales are fictional stories. The Big Bang Theory is constantly being tested and refined by scientists, while fairy tales are not subject to scientific inquiry.</p><h2>4. Why would someone call the Big Bang Theory a fairy tale?</h2><p>Some people may refer to the Big Bang Theory as a fairy tale because they do not understand or accept the scientific evidence and theories that support it. Others may use this term to discredit the theory for personal or religious reasons.</p><h2>5. Does Ben Carson's statement about the Big Bang Theory being a fairy tale have any scientific basis?</h2><p>No, Ben Carson's statement is not supported by scientific evidence. The Big Bang Theory is widely accepted by the scientific community and is considered the most plausible explanation for the origin of the universe based on current knowledge and evidence.</p>

1. What is the Big Bang Theory?

The Big Bang Theory is a scientific explanation for the origin of the universe. It proposes that the universe began as a single, extremely dense and hot point and has been expanding and cooling ever since.

2. Is the Big Bang Theory supported by evidence?

Yes, the Big Bang Theory is supported by a vast amount of scientific evidence, including observations of the cosmic microwave background radiation, the abundance of light elements in the universe, and the expansion of the universe.

3. How is the Big Bang Theory different from a fairy tale?

The Big Bang Theory is based on scientific evidence and rigorous mathematical models, while fairy tales are fictional stories. The Big Bang Theory is constantly being tested and refined by scientists, while fairy tales are not subject to scientific inquiry.

4. Why would someone call the Big Bang Theory a fairy tale?

Some people may refer to the Big Bang Theory as a fairy tale because they do not understand or accept the scientific evidence and theories that support it. Others may use this term to discredit the theory for personal or religious reasons.

5. Does Ben Carson's statement about the Big Bang Theory being a fairy tale have any scientific basis?

No, Ben Carson's statement is not supported by scientific evidence. The Big Bang Theory is widely accepted by the scientific community and is considered the most plausible explanation for the origin of the universe based on current knowledge and evidence.

Back
Top