"Big Bang Happened... Therefore God is Real!"
In the past week, evidence was discovered that pretty much cements the concept of inflation, the theory that when the universe started it underwent faster than light speed expansion a mere 10-35 seconds after it's inception.
Seemingly, a mere 10-35 after the confirmation hit the mainstream news, creationists leapt all over it. Some decried it as bunk, 'cause clearly the universe isn't as old as these heathen cosmologists will have us think.
Dr. Danny Faulkner, in an article from "Answers in Genesis."
This announcement undoubtedly will be welcomed as the long-sought proof of cosmic inflation so necessary to the big bang model. Biblical creationists know from Scripture that the universe did not begin in a big bang billions of years ago. For instance, from God's Word we understand that the world is far younger than this. Furthermore, we know from Genesis 1 that God made the earth before He made the stars, but the big bang requires that many stars existed for billions of years before the earth did.
Bible said it, God did it. Case closed. No further discussion from me. I'm just going to pack my stuff up and stop asking foolish questions.
A second camp, perhaps seen as more liberal by young earth creationist standards, embraced the news.
Leslie Wickman, "the Director of the Center for Research in Science (CRIS) at Azusa Pacific University (APU)." appears to be in the later camp. Right after roasting their s'mores, this camp has their counselors reassure everyone that science is catching up and proving their ghost stories true.
According to Leslie's bio "she is an internationally respected research scientist, engineering consultant, and inspirational speaker." So respected, in fact, that CNN gave her a prominent article in their Belief Blog section. They helpfully linked to the article on the main news page, where I clicked on it while steam began to build up right behind my ears.
Let's start with the title of Ms. Wickman's article:
"Does the Big Bang breakthrough offer proof of God?"
Hmm, perhaps a leading question. Still it's better than what their alternate choices likely were.
"The Big Bang: You Won't Believe What Happened First!"
"Top 1 Things Big Bang Breakthrough Proves"
At least the headline is a hypothesis that could be worked with and with some evidence, we might be able to lead to some thought provoking discussion.
The remarkable discovery, announced this week, of ripples in the space-time fabric of the universe rocked the world of science – and the world of religion.
Touted as evidence for inflation (a faster-than-the-speed-of-light expansion of our universe), the new discovery of traces of gravity waves affirms scientific concepts in the fields of cosmology, general relativity, and particle physics.
Yay for science! We're learning more and more everyday, offering more evidence to support these long standing theories!
The prevalent theory of cosmic origins prior to the Big Bang theory was the “Steady State,” which argued that the universe has always existed, without a beginning that necessitated a cause.
However, this new evidence strongly suggests that there was a beginning to our universe.
Nope. There's a lot of other evidence that suggested that our universe had a beginning. The evidence for inflation only tells us what the universe did after it began.
If the universe did indeed have a beginning, by the simple logic of cause and effect, there had to be an agent – separate and apart from the effect – that caused it.
Cause and effect only make sense in a timeline, there's not much evidence that time existed nor that it was even a meaningful concept before the Big Bang happened.
An agent... why would she use that word? It's a bit of a leap to imply agency from mere cause and effect. Agency leads one to think of a cognitive force that...
That sounds a lot like Genesis 1:1 to me: “In the beginning God created the heavens and the Earth.”
Oh, there we are! Wow, we sure got hit by the Bible uppercut pretty quick in this one. No time had elapsed between the previous quote and this one. No words were lost or minced. The sharp right turn (downturn?) happened exactly as presented.
So the leap to agency suddenly makes a lot more sense now. She's already answered the article's headline inquiry by using a couple of well placed fallacies and leaps of logic.
So this latest discovery is good news for us believers, as it adds scientific support to the idea that the universe was caused – or created – by something or someone outside it and not dependent on it.
She's still implying agency. Even if there was a cause, and that cause had a meaningful definition in limbo before the universe was created, you need a few more leaps of logic to say the Cause was a god. A few more leaps would get you to the Cause being The God. And a few thousand more leaps will be necessary to show that The God is the god of the bible and of Christianity.
But Wickman's already made two major leaps and we're barely halfway through the article. Add all the other creationists making logic leaps and bounds on a daily basis and they'll have God proven in no time!
If disconnected logic was capable of proving anything, that is.
Atheist-turned-agnostic astronomer Fred Hoyle, who coined the term “Big Bang,” famously stated, “A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintellect has monkeyed with physics."
"He's coming around to our side, maybe all you other atheists could learn a thing or two!"
We also need to remember that God reveals himself both through scripture and creation. The challenge is in seeing how they fit together. A better understanding of each can inform our understanding of the other.
So creation is proved by scripture and scripture is proved by creation. And they are somehow two separate things that rely on each other to be understood. Is this like that Trinity dealie?
It’s not just about cracking open the Bible and reading whatever we find there from a 21st-century American perspective. We have to study the context, the culture, the genre, the authorship and the original audience to understand the intent
Are you saying that the bible wasn't written by God? Or that God didn't have the perspective to have it appeal to a 21st Century? Or that he didn't know about America and how it would see things in this century? I was lead to believe that the audience of the Bible was <em>everyone</em> not a limited tribe of desert dwellers.
The creation message in Genesis tells us that God created a special place for humans to live and thrive and be in communion with him; that God wants a relationship with us, and makes provisions for us to have fellowship with him, even after we turn away from him.
We're not even talking about the inflation discovery anymore are we? This is quickly turning into a sermon.
So, we know that Genesis was never intended to be a detailed scientific handbook, describing how God created the universe. It imparts a theological, not a scientific, message.
Yet, you're using a discovery in science to lend credence to your personal theological philosophy.
(Imagine how confusing messages about gravity waves and dark matter might be to ancient Hebrew readers.)
I suppose God could have at least started with "I made the universe in a long time", not in 7 days. Isn't it confusing to lie to your chosen people?
These physical laws established by God to govern interactions between matter and energy result in a finely tuned universe that provides the ideal conditions for life on our planet.
You haven't shown how any of this proves that these are finely tuned rules etched by a creator.
Properly practiced, science can be an act of worship in looking at God’s revelation of himself in nature.
This article has not one shred of the scientific method being used properly. It's ridiculous to state how science should be practiced, much less properly. The use of inductive reasoning when it comes to rectifying science with a belief system twists science to meet personal conclusions, not to answer the questions we have of our universe and its origins.
Overall, I'm disappointed that Wickman's posting was anywhere near a mainstream media outlet. The lack of science in it is surprising from an author declared as a respected scientist and engineer who worked on Hubble and the ISS.
Unfortunately, it's more evidence in how personal worldviews can tint the facts of our media, research and scientific understanding.
Let me know what you think on twitter: @UnwashedBrains
areudirty
baratheonpilled
pixelskylines
snowghoul
yousharknotpass
dailybridgerton
tangentwithtanner
kaledo-art
