cogito

19 responses so far ↓

• 1 Lonnie Bruner // Mar 7, 2006 at 4:15 pm

  It’s obvious by the length and desperate tone of your post that your position is insecure.

  Creationism as a “theory” is so ridiculous that it doesn’t merit comment.

  However, it is interesting that religious people point the finger at scientists and their disagreements or inconsistencies instead of putting forth evidence of their own.

  The burden of proof is on religious people to offer a theory based on logic, reason, and most importantly, observable evidence. But we’ll be waiting a long time for that, no doubt.

• 2 Jacob // Mar 7, 2006 at 6:15 pm

  It’s easy to attack the “tone” of an article, isn’t it? That’s entirely subjective, and ultimately irrelevant. I think you would be hard-pressed to show how my analysis of the situation shows “desperation.” That said, let’s deal with the facts instead.

  This article wasn’t about Creationism as a theory. If you want to read about Intelligent Design as a “theory”, I recommend Aristotle’s Physics.

  As I just said, this article was not about Creationism as a theory; rather, it was about the problems with the Big Bang theory. Just about all of modern evolutionary biology relies on this theory, and it is confidently printed in textbooks. Thus, the burden of proof is on those that support the theory.

  My only conclusion is that you did not read the above article. My charge is the same as yours.The Big Bang theory is not based on logic, reason or observable evidence. Scientists will never be able to provide such. What, then, is your point?

• 3 futuregeek // Mar 7, 2006 at 9:27 pm

  Just about all of modern evolutionary biology relies on this theory, and it is confidently printed in textbooks. Thus, the burden of proof is on those that support the theory.

  Eh, no. Evolutionary biology does not rely on the big bang theory.

  It relies on the observation that life on earth has changed over time. It is supported by fossil evidence, genetics, observation, geology, history, etc. The big bang is irrelevant to the theory of evolution.

  Now, on the other hand, the theory of the big bang is confidently printed in text books because it is the best explanation for what we observe in the universe.

  The burden of proof is on those who would go against decades of scientific consensus.

• 4 Jacob // Mar 7, 2006 at 11:34 pm

  “…Evolutionary biology does not rely on the big bang theory.”

  There are only a few options: (1) this universe (including life) was created the way we see it now, (2) this universe was created to evolve or (3) this universe just happened, randomly and out-of-nothing.

  The historical materialist view is option 3. Whether we’re talking about Epicurus thousands of years ago or naturalistic evolutionary biologists today, the materialist worldview demands an explanation that eliminates intelligent creative input. Conveniently, the Big Bang fits the bill (look it up; it received a LOT of flack from the community when it was first suggested). In that sense, evolution relies on it. If it doesn’t, then it must acknowledge creative power of some kind.

  I am trying to be honest and scientific by pointing out that the Big Bang just does not work. I used the word “convenient” because science continues to build on evolutionary theory while glossing over the improbability of the Big Bang. Scientist routinely piece scientific findings into the evolutionary “framework” whether they truly fit or not. Why? Because so much time, effort, pride and humanistic motivation has been devoted to the theory. Strip away the Big Bang, and it all goes back to the drawing board. It doesn’t just rely on it; it cannot survive without it.

  It’s easy for this debate to turn to evolution, but let’s reserve that for another time. Let’s start at the very beginning. The Big Bang is based upon conjecture, and the modifications that have been made to account for uniformity in the universe are like bad science fiction. Remove all ideology, science should be more honest about the way it operates. The Big Bang theory is a necessary fantasy to keep the naturalistic worldview afloat.

  “Consensus” is ultimately irrelevant. Medieval science agreed the Earth was flat, didn’t it?

  Thanks for your comments; there is certainly more to come.

• 5 Johann // Mar 8, 2006 at 12:34 am

  One thing the 747 analogy also leaves out is that the tornado not only created the craft but also started it and left it running.

  (I really don’t know how I found your “Action in Distraction” blog, but I enjoy it.)

• 6 Lonnie Bruner // Mar 8, 2006 at 8:56 am

  Interesting article in NYT today.

• 7 Jacob // Mar 8, 2006 at 1:27 pm

  Thank you Johann for reading, and you’re right about the 747 analogy.

  Thanks for the interesting link, Lonnie. Please note that I am not willfully ignorant of micro-evolution. I do not deny the principle of natural selection; in fact, it would be nonsensical to deny it, for it is essentially a tautology.

  T.H. Morgan, the eminent geneticist and pioneer of fruit-fly research, seems to have been the first to spot the problem. He wrote (in the early 1900s): “For it may be little more than a truism to state that the individuals that are best adapted to survive have a better chance of surviving than those not so well adapted to survive.”

  Anyone can look around and see that living beings adapt. However, adaptation (even genetic) is much different than macroevolution. The claim that mutations are the source of the vast array of modern species is absurd (and what about plant life?). That is what I flatly oppose, as it makes absolutely no sense.

  This distinction is important, because opponents of Creationism often misrepresent and equivocate what Creationists believe and say. Microevolution is logical and observable. Macroevoltion is illogical, not observable, and most importantly lacking evidence in the fossil record. I acknowledge one and deny the other; therefore, it is incorrect to say I “deny that evolution occurs.” That is a dishonest tool used all too often in the debate.

  I’ll further deal with the micro vs. macro issue in a future post.

  Thanks again for your comments!

• 8 futuregeek // Mar 8, 2006 at 9:39 pm

  The 747 analogy is disingenuous.

  The origins of life are nothing like that. Instead, over millions of years, certain very simple proteins developed, became self replicating, and acquired characteristics that made certain proteins more likely to reproduce than others.

  Then, over millions more years, the proteins became more and more complex - until finally you reach complex life forms.

  This is neither a random process nor an unlikely occurrence. There is evidence that the building blocks of organic molecules are everywhere in the universe. The mechanism is an example of a self organizing system. It makes perfect sense to me, and it is the consensus of scientists that something like this is what actually happened. Decades of research support this claim.

  I repeat - the creationists bear the burden of proof. Pointing out inconsistencies is not the same as disproving.

  Now: I admit that the mystery of how life became “life” is profound. My little brain cannot comprehend it. Likewise, I am astounded by the nature of consciousness. While I can accept that I evolved from a primordial soup, I don’t understand how evolution reached the point where we can have this dialogue.

  However - there are enough problems with literal creationism that I accept the scientific explanation. Likewise, the “theory” of intelligent design” has too many problems to be acceptable.

  That leaves the scientists’ explanation.

• 9 futuregeek // Mar 8, 2006 at 9:53 pm

  the Big Bang just does not work.

  Care to debate an astrophysicist about that?

  Strip away the Big Bang, and it all goes back to the drawing board. It doesn’t just rely on it; it cannot survive without it.

  Eh, no. Let me repeat myself. Evolutionary biology does not rely on the big bang theory.

  The big bang theory is about the origins of the universe. It is also possible that the universe has always been here. But really that doesn’t matter, because the theory of evolution would still stand either way.

  Are there problems with the big bang theory? Yes, of course. We are making conjectures about something that happened billions of years ago. But it is based on observable evidence. If the evidence shifts, we can adopt a new theory. That’s the way science works.

  Remove all ideology, science should be more honest about the way it operates. The Big Bang theory is a necessary fantasy to keep the naturalistic worldview afloat.

  This is a classic example of putting the cart before the horse. Really Jacob. Think about those two sentences.

  Ideology, eh?

  So your Christian faith is not an ideology, huh? But limiting scientific inquiry to that which we can observe is an ideology.

  Ok. Now I understand.

  I guess there’s some conspiracy to foist this “materialistic worldview” upon the masses?

  Jacob, science limits itself to the natural and observable because these are things that can be proven. You cannot prove that god created the earth 6000 years ago.

  You might be able to prove that the earth is only 6000 years old - if the evidence supported that. But you can’t prove that god made it so.

  Likewise - who’s driven by ideology here? You’re trying to prove that your god created the earth according to your holy book? That’s not ideology? What is it then?

• 10 Jacob // Mar 10, 2006 at 12:33 pm

  It isn’t honest or fair to say that the 747 analogy is disingenuous. In fact, the illustration is perfectly analogous in its weakness. You said, “…over millions of years, certain very simple proteins developed…” Just like the anecdote, this concept still begs the question, “Where did the primary components come from?” That’s the point of the illustration; it fails where evolution fails. They both assume that all the “building blocks” were already there, ready to be assembled into a more complex structure.

  The focus of my article was the Big Bang, the necessary evil of evolutionary theory. We could - like many others - spend hours and thousands of words on the pitfalls of evolution; but, why waste that time going after a red herring? Arguing about how evolution might have occurred is indeed “putting the cart before the horse.” It seems myopic to paint the picture of proteins developing into more complex systems when there is no plausible explanation for the existence of those proteins in the first place.

  These comments have moved beyond what I am establishing in the above article. LET’S GET TO THE HEART OF THE ISSUE; there is no rational scientific explanation for the origination of matter. According to established scientific law, matter could not have existed eternally, nor could it have come into being from absolutely nothing. What a conundrum. The Big Bang conveniently “solves the problem” by asserting that thermodynamics were conveniently “put on hold” for just a little while so that matter could somehow spontaneous generate. By putting scientific law on hold to account for their inconsistencies, they have left the realm of science and are taking a leap of faith. The explanation of the Big Bang can only be called supernatural. That’s just how it is.

  Now, if that is acceptable to inquiring minds, why is it deemed so illogical that a Creator was behind it? That goes to explain the elemental consistency, the systematic nature of the universe, and the Big Bang’s greatest weakness: The Horizon Problem. Inflationary theory seeks to explain away this problem, but it can only be described as laughable. It calls for a period of 10^-35 seconds in which all we know about science and physics was put on hold — a perfect opportunity for “quantum thermal fluctuations” to occur. Honestly, why is that acceptable “possibility” from beyond science, and God isn’t? It’s inconsistent.

  Keep in mind, these are just the fundamental, insurmountable problems with the origin of matter itself. These need to be address even before we move on to the impossibility of dead elements giving rise to life, much less that life - over ANY amount of time - forming consciousness.
  If the Big Bang does not require PROOF, then it is faith. If that is acceptable given “evidence”, then God is certainly a rational option given the evidence (structure, consistency, life, consciousness).

  What are your problems with Creationism? I’d like to hear them detailed. I do not want to focus on Earth’s age, as I think it is a non-issue for both sides. I am not compelled to establish a strict 4000-10000-year age. There’s no need; it’s a distraction from the real issues.

  I want my readers to realize that the problems I have with the Big Bang are not “religious” problems. They are grounded scientific, philosophical problems. With regard to what you call “literal creationism”, I don’t know what exactly you mean by that. All I can say with regard to the Genesis account is that it is an explanation of supernatural events in language fitting for human understanding. This does not necessitate strict literalism, for I am not sure that language can capture a literal explanation of what took place. However, it establishes certain truths, i.e. - God created the universe from nothing, including man and human consciousness.

  The Big Bang seeks to account for these things without Creative input, and it jumps through a number of unscientific hoops to do so. I am simply asking for an honest comparison. Once we have addressed that, then we can worry about the ins and outs of evolution.

• 11 wheatdogg // Mar 10, 2006 at 6:24 pm

  Warning! Lengthy post follows.

  FutureGeek linked to your site in a post. Intrigued, I decided to visit to see what you had to say about the Big Bang. I teach physics and astronomy for a living, and I am always interested to see why people do not accept the theory.

  I am not going to comment on your quotation of Dr. Kaku, however. Superstring theory and its cousins are still too tentative, as they are awaiting some sort of supporting experimental or observational evidence. Rather I will address only your criticism of the Big Bang theory.

  First, I would like to clear up some apparent misapprehensions, which are actually pretty common even among people who say they accept the theory.

  It is not accurate to say the universe was created out of nothing, or that matter was created out of nothing. Clearly, something had to be there in the beginning. I will explain this idea later.

  It is not accurate to picture the universe exploding from the Big Bang into an already existing space, as a firecracker explodes into the air. At the time of the Big Bang and shortly thereafter, the universe was incredibly small, incredibly compact, and highly energetic. There was nothing but the universe present. This concept is understandably hard to comprehend, as we are used to seeing things expand into a space that already exists. In the case of the Big Bang, it is the space itself that expanded into a void. Indeed, many scientists, including Stephen Hawking, contend both time and space began at the time of the Big Bang. The Big Bang theory does not speculate on what if anything might have existed other than the universe, since we have no way to observe those other things. Our observations are limited to the universe in which we live.

  Here is the crux of the issue. The Big Bang, as with any scientific theory, depends on observational and experimental evidence. Without that evidence, a theory is mere speculation. As it is, a wide range of evidence in astronomy and particle physics supports the Big Bang. I will admit, however, that steady-state theorists contend the evidence supports their theory, though they are in the minority.

  So what is that evidence? I will touch on only the most compelling, and at that only briefly. Entire books have been written about the Big Bang, after all.

  Albert Einstein, 1905: The equivalence of mass and energy, E=mc-squared. This famous equation finally explained how stars could “burn” for millions, if not billions of years. Chemical and gravitational explanations predicted short stellar lifetimes. Einstein’s equation explains that the sun and stars convert mass into energy through nuclear fusion. The letter c in the equation is the speed of light — a huge number. So a tiny bit of mass goes a long way, and the sun has enough mass to shine for 10 billion years. We assume it is in its middle age now. E=mc-squared has been verified many many times.

  Albert Einstein, 1916: The theory of general relativity. One prediction of this theory is that matter warps space and time, creating gravity. Space is curved, and this has been confirmed many times since 1919. Einstein’s original equations predicted an expanding universe. At the time, astronomers accepted the steady state universe, so Einstein famously “adjusted” his equations to match the current accepted cosmology. He later said it was the biggest blunder of his life.

  Edwin Hubble, 1927: The expansion of the universe. Hubble was studying the light spectra of galaxies, and discovered their spectral lines (indicating elements) were shifted toward the red end of the spectrum (ROYGBIV). More distant galaxies had more pronounced redshifts. Thus, Einstein was in fact correct. The universe is expanding, presumably from a colossal explosion. Note that the galaxies are not expanding into an already existing volume. Rather, it is the space between them that is expanding.

  Various, 19th to 20th century: The transmutation of elements. There are two kinds of atomic nuclear processes, fission and fusion. Each results in an entirely new nucleus, and thus element. In fission, a nucleus splits into lighter nuclei. For example, uranium decays into barium and krypton energy. In fusion, two or more nuclei join (fuse) into heavier nuclei. For example, 4 hydrogen nuclei fuse into 1 helium nucleus a lot of energy inside most stars. (Plutonium and the other elements heavier than uranium are produced in just this way, artificially.) The Big Bang presumes the only elements around in the early universe were hydrogen and helium in roughly a 4 to 1 ratio, with trace amounts of lithium. The first generation of stars created the heavier elements through fusion and supernovae. Our sun is a second-generation star, since it contains other elements like calcium. (Stellar theory developed independently of the Big Bang theory, BTW.) This point addresses your #2.

  Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson, 1964: The cosmic background radiation (CBR). If the Big Bang happened, and if the space in the universe is expanding, then the original high energy radiation of the Big Bang should be now dramatically redshifted into microwave frequencies. That is what a group of Princeton astronomers had predicted in the early 1960s. Penzias and Wilson accidentally detected the CBR with a new, sensitive microwave receiver. Later observations have confirmed their observations and conclusions.

  Our current theories of physics can take us back to a time just 10 to the -43 seconds after the Big Bang. We essentially run the movie of the expanding universe backward. In that early universe, there was only energy, very high energy. As the universe expanded and cooled, energy “condensed” into protons, electrons and other particles. As it cooled further, those particles formed simple atoms, then molecules, then larger structures. So, it is not that matter just appeared from nothing. It arose from the energy of the early universe. This addresses your item #1.

  Current theories do not address how that energy came to be and what happened before that 10^-43 seconds, Superstring theory might provide some answers, but it is too early to tell. No scientific theory can offer an answer as to why the universe came to be, either.

  As for your saying the theory of (biological) evolution depends on the theory of (cosmological) evolution, aka the Big Bang. They are in agreement only in timescales. Biological evolution depends on there being billions of years available for organisms to evolve from simple structures to more complex structures. If the Big Bang theory did not predict a longer lifetime for the universe, then both theories would be questionable. There is nothing in the Big Bang theory, however, that relates to or even requires biological evolution. Meanwhile, evolution does not require the Big Bang theory to work; all it needs is a very old universe, which can be explained by a number of other cosmological theories, such as the steady state universe.

  I apologize for the lengthy post. I just suggest that you should be better informed before you object to a theory that is widely accepted by most scientists.

• 12 Jacob // Mar 11, 2006 at 12:46 pm

  I’d like to thank everyone for their thoughtful and well-informed comments. John (Wheatdogg), I appreciate your time and the references you provide. I am working on an article for another publication this weekend, so I will be unable to comment at length for a few days. However, I do intend to respond, and I am excited by the thoughtful discussion that has ensued. Check back soon or subscribe to the RSS feed below!

• 13 futuregeek // Mar 11, 2006 at 3:49 pm

  It isn’t honest or fair to say that the 747 analogy is disingenuous. In fact, the illustration is perfectly analogous in its weakness. You said, “…over millions of years, certain very simple proteins developed…” Just like the anecdote, this concept still begs the question, “Where did the primary components come from?” That’s the point of the illustration; it fails where evolution fails. They both assume that all the “building blocks” were already there, ready to be assembled into a more complex structure.

  In the case of the origins of life, the building blocks of life were already there - organic molecules. They are all around us, probably widespread throughout the universe. The reason that life is now so complex is self replication - something that a tornado in a junkyard doesn’t give us. That’s why the analogy is disingenuous - it is apples to oranges.

  As for the big bang and the origin of matter - I don’t think that the theory of the big bang precludes a creator - that is, a creator whose existence is outside of the theory. There’s no reason why God couldn’t have caused the big bang. But the theory doesn’t concern itself with that one way or another. If you have faith that God created the universe, your faith doesn’t have to be threatened by the big bang theory - unless your other interpretations of the bible would be threatened by an old universe.

  I am no astrophysicist and I don’t know a lot about the big bang. You can believe what you want about it, that’s fine with me. I’m not equipped to argue with you about it, find an astrophysicist.

  Now, what I will argue with you about is a statement like this:

  Jacob said:

  As for the age of the earth, you are correct that genealogical timelines imply that the earth is around 6000 years old. There could be other factors to consider in that estimate, but if that is what is implied by the Bible’s account, I am willing to accept that. What evidence do you have to indicate that the world is billions of years old? Carbon dating? It’s extremely interesting to me that the scientific community continues to accept carbon dating when it has been
  shown (time and time again) to be grossly inaccurate.

  In the past you have stated that you can accept that the earth is only 6000 years old. This was in the context of a thread about biblical inerrancy when it comes to homosexuality.

  Now you seem to be saying that you don’t believe the earth is 6000 years old.

  What are you arguing here? Are you arguing for a literal reading of the bible, and a literal understanding of the creation of the universe, or not?

  In this current post, you say you are a creationist, and that you reject the evolutionary model. Please define these terms for me, because when you call yourself a creationist, I assume you mean that you believe the earth to be 6000 years old etc.

  In this comment thread, though, you say that it doesn’t matter how old the earth is.

  So what are we arguing about, exactly?

• 14 wheatdogg // Mar 17, 2006 at 3:56 pm

  Jacob,
  You may still be busy with your other activities, but if you have a chance, please check out this link.
  There is new evidence for the Big Bang, and this explanation is quite clear, IMHO.

  Cheers!

• 15 Jacob // Mar 22, 2006 at 2:22 pm

  Well, the site style is where I want it now. Also, notice below that I’ve added the option of receiving e-mail updates for follow-up comments. As always, you can also subscribe to the global comments feed (RSS) at the very bottom of the page.

  Now for the discussion at hand; I have got some responses I will post later today. I am going to address a couple of issues separately. Hopefully you all haven’t given up on me. Thanks again for your thoughtful comments.

• 16 Anderson Imes // Apr 5, 2006 at 3:33 am

  The only thing I find confusing about this discussion is that (as I understand it) the Big Bang Theory only describes how the current shape and orientation of the galaxies came to be. I don’t think the Big Bang Theory addresses the creation of matter itself, just it’s current position.

  The theory as I understand it says that the “start” of the formation of the current state of the universe was with all matter concentrated in a small point and exploding outward with great force. Scientists came up with this theory based on the movement of other galaxies with respect to the milky way and found that they follow the same pattern as they would had they all originated from a single point.

  I don’t think the theory addresses the creation of matter, only the current state of matter. Further theories are that the Big Bang is a continuous cycle within a universe that is “bowl shaped” and that the only thing that existed before the big bang was the previous big bang, and so on. Of course that’s just one theory.

  Anyway, I thought some of the comments weren’t addressing this correctly.

  Also, if my description of the Big Bang is correct and all this theory describes is the reason for the lengthening of distance between galaxies, I fail to see its relationship to evolution (other than the time it would take for the big bang to cause our galaxy to be in its current position).

• 17 Anderson Imes // Apr 5, 2006 at 3:41 am

  Just so I’m clear, I think it’s just the comments that diverge from my description, not the article.

  These are indeed the questions that remain unanswered, but how can we prove such a thing? If its the case that neither creationism nor theories that address ‘the-before-the-big-bang’ can be proven, aren’t we humans just choosing one faith over the other?

  If that’s the case, what makes one faith flawed?

• 18 futuregeek // Apr 8, 2006 at 4:16 pm

  Anderson,

  Which comments are you referring to specifically?

• 19 wheatdogg // Apr 11, 2006 at 3:23 pm

  anderson –

  The BB does more than explain the “lengthening of the distance between the galaxies.” (Actually, what is happening is that space is expanding, carrying the galaxies along with it.)

  Particle physics, astronomy and the so-called unification theories all play a role in developing the BB theory. Our universe right now is very cold, aside from stars and planets. The interstellar temperature is about 3 K, or about 3 degrees above absolute zero. The early universe, being much more compact, was hotter. The very early universe was hot enough to make normal matter (atoms) impossible; electrons could not settle into orbits around nuclei.

  At very high energies (temperatures), the forces are familiar with now combine or unify. The weak nuclear force and electromagnetism were the last to split. At an earlier time, the electroweak force and the strong nuclear force were as one. Here our physics models stop, since we do not understand the fourth force, gravity, as well as we should. So we do not yet have a Grand Unified Theory uniting all four fundamental forces.

  Actually the BB theory does address the creation of matter. Once the universe cooled enough, quarks and leptons “condensed” out of the energy. Quarks formed protons and neutrons at cooler energies. Then electrons joined with them to form atoms.

  The BB theory predicts the early universe was about 3/4 hydrogen, 1/4 helium with small amounts of lithium and beryllium. That ratio between H and He still persists, but of course we have other elements around now! Stars created those others.

  The BB theory only deals with the shape and formation of galaxies in a peripheral way. Other theories exist to explain those phenomena. The BB theory looks at the “big picture” — the shape and evolution of the universe.

  A really good book addressing the science of all this is “Coming of Age in the Milky Way” by Timothy Ferris. Although it’s about a decade old, most of the science in it is still valid. PBS aired a video by the same name. Amazon or your local library might have it.