I dunno what the fuss is all about.
A theory was posited (big bang) new data comes along indicating that we need a new theory to explain the new data.
What’s wrong with that?
I don’t think anyone needs to apologize for a theory that is now being cast in doubt.
You just described the scientific process.
New data sometimes means modified old or new theories replace I should say subsume old theories, repeat!
Too many people want science to be dogma!
Agreed - but lots of folks will hold onto a theory tightly in spite of the new data.
I believe that God created everything. The “how” is what science is trying to figure out, and ultimately leads to answers on how we can do things and create things ourselves.
A quote from Sir Isaac Newton:
From this fountain (the free will of God) it is those laws, which we call the laws of nature, have flowed, in which there appear many traces of the most wise contrivance, but not the least shadow of necessity. These therefore we must not seek from uncertain conjectures, but learn them from observations and experimental. He who is presumptuous enough to think that he can find the true principles of physics and the laws of natural things by the force alone of his own mind, and the internal light of his reason, must either suppose the world exists by necessity, and by the same necessity follows the law proposed; or if the order of Nature was established by the will of God, the [man] himself, a miserable reptile, can tell what was fittest to be done.
I don’t think anyone needs to apologize for a theory that is now being cast in doubt.
//
Neither do I.
On the other hand , the entire public education system has been teaching it, AND evolution , as fact for decades now, I think it’s only right they all eat crow by the butt load.
( and change the name of that tv program to “ the big bang error” )
( and nothing would make me happier than to see Young Sheldon have his little butt bared and spanked every time he gets snotty with an adult /-)
.
What is wrong is DECADES of stating, as if fact, that the Big Bang was true.
One should always state when a theory is a theory, and WHY it’s a theory. They never did, they covered up the reasons.
This is a problem with people (who are biased) vs the scientific method.
If you want to, you can see it everywhere - for example take a read on the history of Louis Pasteur, and how the founders of the theory of spontaneous generation derided and defamed him...In fact, I read his address to the Academy of Sciences - what he identified as problems with science are still at work today. (in fact, he addresses how science seems to prefer to go from one mis-truth to another rather than embracing an inconvenient (or unpopular) truth. We still observe this in strong force today. Witness the “Global Warming” now “Climate Change” Science for pay movement.
I totally agree. That said, because theories are only theories, science needs to remain skeptical and humble - characteristics that have unfortunately been in short supply.
Sounds familiar ... About 100-150 years ago, we (physicists) had another problem with electromagnetism and blackbody radiation. And we had men like Max Planck to help sort it all out.
People whose education in the natural sciences ended in 8th grade don't know about that ... and they feel like this is something new. That's stupid. Scientists live for this stuff ... it's an opportunity to be on the bleeding edge of developing new and better theories of physics. Exciting times indeed!
I disagree. I figure they've been propping up a dead line of thought, and sprinking fairy dust on it (inflation, dark matter, dark energy, and more), that I figure that apologies are warranted.
The fuss is about a certain, currently irreducible, fraction or cohort of people among us who are die-hard atheists.
The Big Bang theory, for them, has always been a great comfort, relieving them, however temporarily, of the responsibility of having to admit that they are wrong in thinking that there is not and has never been an all-powerful God the Father.
Take away the Big Bang theory and a whole lot of very, very smart but very, very intellectually darkened (and thus, spiritually vulnerable) people will have to contend, simultaneously, with an immense case of cognitive dissonance.
And that’s what we’re beginning to see, Charlie Brown.