Intelligent Design Should Not be Taught as Science

[freeztar]

YouTube - The New Atheist Movement

 

The last sentence is the most telling imo.

"It will take more than Richard Dawkins...etc...to unravel the faith."

 

Yep. I agree.

We have to keep chiseling.

[freeztar]

3) There had to be some form of prior physical law that caused the big bang.

 

That is a very good point, but it is not scientific. Science can explain things pretty well, up to a limit: Planck Time.

 

Below this limit, it is only chaos, or at least "unknowable".

 

"Something" causing the big bang is, therefore, an assumption. It's the same for science or religion, if you believe in it, it is true. The difference is that science is testable.

[InfiniteNow]

3) There had to be some form of prior physical law that caused the big bang.

 

Why?

 

While the point that TheFaithfulStone made is a challenging one, the very concept of time, cause, event, space... the very concept of anything you can conceive... is quite meaningless since the big bang represents t=0. There is no negative t.

 

While the Big Bang may not be the end all be all of explanations, when a discussion is held in it's context then NOTHING came before it, and this nothing includes time and space and cause and effect and everything else.

 

 

 

My concern is not just that Ben Stein is a drooling fool, it's that so many others on our planet soak this **** up like candy, going back for more.

 

If our schools teach ID, then they should also teach numerology, astrology, and the stork theory of childbirth. It's disgusting how far leave let ourselves get off course.

[DFINITLYDISTRUBD]

OOOooooo The big Bang.

 

Why is it even an issue? Religion can't prove it false and scientists can't prove it as the origins of the universe or that it even happened at all, well not yet anyway and even if they made it that far they'd then have to prove the cause...Which can't be proven either thus leading to a new vicious cycle of those for science and those for religion battling for minds. Man this crap gets old....and sadly can be found in many other threads.

[Southtown]

While the Big Bang may not be the end all be all of explanations, when a discussion is held in it's context then NOTHING came before it, and this nothing includes time and space and cause and effect and everything else.

 

"Something" causing the big bang is, therefore, an assumption. It's the same for science or religion, if you believe in it, it is true. The difference is that science is testable.

Thanks, guys. That's all I needed to know. :confused:

[Pyrotex]

That is a very good point, but it is not scientific. Science can explain things pretty well, up to a limit: Planck Time.

Below this limit, it is only chaos, or at least "unknowable"....

At least to the extent that we understand "space" and "time" right now.

 

If the geometry of space-time distorts in the presence of large gravitational fields, as some suggest, then near a big-bang class of gravitational field, space-time doesn't just distort, it undergoes some kind of extreme transformation. Like turning a tulip inside-out. No wonder our laws make no sense at that transition.

 

Conclusion: there may indeed be "something" prior to big bang. But our laws and understanding cannot tell us what that is. We can conjecture, and that's fine. But until we can think of some way to build a testable hypothesis, we're pretty much in the dark.

[Moontanman]

At least to the extent that we understand "space" and "time" right now.

 

If the geometry of space-time distorts in the presence of large gravitational fields, as some suggest, then near a big-bang class of gravitational field, space-time doesn't just distort, it undergoes some kind of extreme transformation. Like turning a tulip inside-out. No wonder our laws make no sense at that transition.

 

Conclusion: there may indeed be "something" prior to big bang. But our laws and understanding cannot tell us what that is. We can conjecture, and that's fine. But until we can think of some way to build a testable hypothesis, we're pretty much in the dark.

 

Am I the only person who has read about brane theory? Is there some reason the speculation about the BB is somehow more likely than brane theory? Brane theory not only addresses "before the BB" it indicates that what we see as the BB is an illusion caused by our inability to see the big picture.

[freeztar]

Am I the only person who has read about brane theory? Is there some reason the speculation about the BB is somehow more likely than brane theory? Brane theory not only addresses "before the BB" it indicates that what we see as the BB is an illusion caused by our inability to see the big picture.

 

Why not start a thread on it?

[Moontanman]

Why not start a thread on it?

 

If I can get some help from people with more math skills than I have I might, brane theory is easy for me to see in my mind, I have always been able to see higher dimensions in my mind but expressing those veiws is difficult since most people have to see it mathmatically. I don't speak the language of math well enought to make others see what I do.

[Pyrotex]

Am I the only person who has read about brane theory? Is there some reason the speculation about the BB is somehow more likely than brane theory? Brane theory not only addresses "before the BB" it indicates that what we see as the BB is an illusion caused by our inability to see the big picture.

Yes, I have read a bit about brane theory and have seen some "NOVA" specials on it and Discovery Channel shows.

 

I am not sure just what it is about brane theory that repels me, but I just cannot take it seriously. Gianormous branes creating universes just strikes me in somewhat the same way as gianormous purple unicorns. What can I say? :mad: I have no criticism to offer of brane theory.

[Moontanman]

Yes, I have read a bit about brane theory and have seen some "NOVA" specials on it and Discovery Channel shows.

 

I am not sure just what it is about brane theory that repels me, but I just cannot take it seriously. Gianormous branes creating universes just strikes me in somewhat the same way as gianormous purple unicorns. What can I say? :mad: I have no criticism to offer of brane theory.

 

At the very least Brane theory makes as much sense as the entire universe, including time and space as well as matter, jumping into existance from nothing. At least to me.

[Pyrotex]

At the very least Brane theory makes as much sense as the entire universe, including time and space as well as matter, jumping into existance from nothing. At least to me.

No, no, no! :mad:

 

The entire universe, including time and space, jumped into existance from a gianormous purple unicorn egg!

 

I buy you books and I buy you books and all you do is chew on the covers! :) :hyper:

[Moontanman]

No, no, no! :mad:

 

The entire universe, including time and space, jumped into existance from a gianormous purple unicorn egg!

 

I buy you books and I buy you books and all you do is chew on the covers! :) :hyper:

 

WOW:eek_big:If only I had known before I made that purple omlet:doh:

[Moontanman]

No, no, no! :mad:

 

The entire universe, including time and space, jumped into existance from a gianormous purple unicorn egg!

 

I buy you books and I buy you books and all you do is chew on the covers! :) :hyper:

 

All this talk of unicorns makes me think of the one I saw in the circus:hyper:Did anyone else see the unicorn, it was even on TV a couple of times:eek:

[nkt]

I'm still not convinced that we need Branes to explain anything. I can follow the Big Bang theory from the period of rapid inflation through to the observed universe today, and I have a simple and straightforward theory that explains matter clumping, which relies on nothing more than common sense and special relativity.

 

As regards the idiots who teach creationist theory as fact, I read that a recent report found that this was down to a lot of the teachers not having a solid science background, and so not teaching *any* origin theory as they didn't want to get in to such tricky areas when they wouldn't know more than the students. So the answer is probably to press for legislation saying that a science teacher must have some formal training in science. After all, I wouldn't want a Home Economics teacher as bad at cooking as me!

[Grains]

Any hypotheses attempting to venture before the big bang, into how or why space, matter, and energy came to be, will be unrepeatable and unobservable, and therefore unscientific, treading in the realm of religion.

 

Please help me understand:

 

If science cannot go back before the big bang then what created science?

[InfiniteNow]

Please help me understand:

 

If science cannot go back before the big bang then what created science?

 

Science was created as humans became more intelligent and sought ways to describe and understand the world around them. Certain approaches, like religion, posited answers that were not provable, and also often wrong. Those who posited suggestions which could be tested allowed themselves to change and to adapt to new information, and through a reductionist approach, became more skilled at accurately describing the universe. Hence, science was born, and become the more appropriate approach to understanding, learning, and knowledge.

 

Also, since the big bang as presented today sprang both space and time into existence, the concept of "before the big band" is without meaning, since time itself did not yet exist.