Comments on: Creationists turn their sights to Physics

By: Andrew

Andrew — Thu, 20 Jul 2006 11:41:15 +0000

To the extent that question has an answer: nobody knows.

By: Alan Trowbridge

Alan Trowbridge — Thu, 20 Jul 2006 11:36:27 +0000

Whether you believe in creation or the big bang, I have one simple question. Before the universe existed, what was there?

By: Joe

Joe — Mon, 06 Feb 2006 03:57:20 +0000

It is really annoying the way that non-scientists misunderstand the word theory – they think it means something more along the lines of conjecture, or hypothesis.

By: Krypto

Krypto — Sun, 05 Feb 2006 23:38:36 +0000

If that were what he was saying, that’d be reasonable. But he’s not – he’s misunderstanding the idea of a scientific ‘theory’ in that he thinks it’s just an idea. It’s more than that – it’s a hypothesis that explains all available data, as well as making predictions that have been shown to be correct. He pushes the idea of a deity like it’s up there with the Big Bang ‘theory’ in terms of the amount of evidence, and that’s just not the case. ‘Theory’ may mean that colloquially, but scientifically it means something entirely different. It’s yet another a thinly-veiled attempt to force religion into education.

What other theories, btw?

That’s the silly part – creationism and the big bang can easily go together. They can just say ’some deity created the big bang’, and until science comes up with something else they can go on believing that and nobody will mind (unless they start trying to force it into education.)

By: Ed

Ed — Sun, 05 Feb 2006 18:33:10 +0000

The Big Bang is a theory though. It does seem correct that they should put ‘theory’ after it.
I don’t really see an issue with this. It just emphasises that there are other (new) theories out there supported by some top scientists.

I’m not sure that creationism and the big bang theory can’t go together, but hey.