A Brief History of Intolerance in Modern Cosmology

AiG ^ | January 21, 2009 | Dr. Jerry Bergman

[GodGunsGuts]

A Brief History of Intolerance in Modern Cosmology

by Dr. Jerry Bergman

January 21, 2009

Abstract

A review of some recent well-documented cases of intolerance in the cosmology field illustrates a common problem in science. Many relate to the Big Bang theory, such as the case of Geoffrey and Margaret Burbidge and Halton Arp. None of the accounts involved Intelligent Design advocates or creationists. This selection removes this compounding factor from the evaluation, but the cases have direct relevance to both Intelligent Design and creationism because both groups face the same resistance. It was concluded that it is critical for science to advance that new ideas must be evaluated on the evidence and not because they challenge established science. This problem has persisted during the entire history of science, the most well known example being Galileo...

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you oh so very much for your encouragements, dear sister in Christ!

Needs to be repeated often and to the evos, although you'll no doubt be accused of stretching things, twisting Scripture, not being literal, being too literal, whatever, to invalidate your comment.

ABG-Anything But God.

Indeed. Happens all the time and evidently for that very reason.

[count-your-change]

Glad you brought up house arrest. The Wholly Objective New Inquisition will not be so merciful to “your kind”. (no offense intended, I,m offensive enough unintentionally)

Here's a scenario: You, being a believer in a young earth, naturally teach your children the same as fact, it's what you believe reality to be, right? So why not?

The kiddie’s school science course’ approved and vetted teaching is that the some version of the “BiG Bang” (hereafter BB) is fact and truth and reality. But your kiddies aver not and explain Dad says ‘au contraire!’ to BB.

But if the BB really is fact, and you, being familiar with the BB, deny that reality, isn't that a fair definition of mental imbalance? Denying reality in the face of overwhelming fact? Hmmm. Infinite possibilities here!

But you, being an adult, the school psychologist says may believe any error you wish but teaching craziness to little Johnny or Johnette is child abuse and must be reported to “The Proper Authorities”.

Bring in the skinny broad social worker clutching a clipboard to her chest because she “knows how men are!” to quiz the kiddies about “all the other abuse” and you can finish the story.

You will believe, the truth is out where?

[SuziQ]

I don't have a problem with the Big Bang Theory. Why not just consider it the "First Day", in Genesis. We have no idea how long God's 'days' might be. It would be hubris on our part to limit God to OUR time frame.

Scientists may not know what caused it, but folks who believe in God can assume that He brought it into being.

[SuziQ]

I agree with Jewish physicist Gerald Schroeder - God's revelation in Scripture and in Creation agree when one considers relativity and the big bang/inflationary model. From the inception of this universe to now, six days have elapsed relative to the inception - though from our space/time coordinates, billions of years have elapsed. The two are not mutually exclusive, they are relative. Or to put it another way, Genesis 1 is written from the Creator's perspective - not the perspective of a creature. In my view, the perspective of Scripture does not change to man's until Adam is banished to mortality.

I hadn't read your comments, before I posted mine, and I've never heard of Gerald Schroeder, but it seems I was thinking the same thing as he!

[Alamo-Girl]

Indeed! I hope you will continue to investigate his views!

[count-your-change]

we’ve plowed this ground before but when you wish give a shout and I’ll gird my loins, draw my sword, lace up my boots, jump in the saddle, aahhh.....what have I left out?

[metmom]

The Age of the Universe
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1576941/posts

The link to this thread has been posted in crevo debates several times with very little response to it.

Notice the original thread has very little evo participation. What little there is is mostly derision, as expected.

For all the demands by evos to back up Scripture with science, they are clearly not interested in seriously considering the matter.

[LeGrande]

Hell must have frozen over, but I agree with you GGG.

Science now seems to be more about funding and grants than anything else.

Also Swordmakers ideas on the Electric Universe seem to fit the facts better than the standard cosmology.

[ForGod'sSake]

Thanks for the ping to this long but interesting article. The upshot if it all??? Confusion reigns when the Scientific Community™ unknowingly or unwittingly sets out to determine how God does things, like creating the universe for example -- and all that's in it. Their ill advised efforts to eliminate their confusion when facing the work of an Almighty God, all the while trying to make a name for themselves, is fool's errand.

More answers might manifest themselves if they would only ask Him, but I dunno. God will reveal to us what He wants to revealed to us, nothing more.

That said, I don't begrudge the Scientific Community™ their desire to explore. I enjoy hearing and reading about new discoveries and Man's tilting at frontiers. God gave us an inquisitive mind and the freedom to let it roam. I submit we, in the main, may not use it altogether in the way He intended. But freedom is all about making choices...

[ForGod'sSake]

Meant to add on my previous reply that 44’s apparent enamorment with the Scientific Method™, but more specifically to the Scientific Community™, is indicative of the sad state of science. Science can now best be described as Political Science.

[tpanther]

I’ve been arguing for a while that science is not immune to godless liberals (hijacking evolution theory) no more than anything else:

journalism
law
politics
history
etc.

[GodGunsGuts]

==we’ve plowed this ground before but when you wish give a shout and I’ll gird my loins, draw my sword, lace up my boots, jump in the saddle

Nothing like that. I was just curious which creationist cosmologies you consider nonsense. Who knows, I might even agree with you. But then again, I don’t recall crossing swords with you on this issue, so perhaps you know a little something about what my response will be that I don’t :o)

All the best—GGG

[SuziQ]

I wonder if those who want to doubt what science believes to be the age of the universe, either because they believe in the literal interpretation of Genesis, or because the scientists who are positing the theories of the Big Bang seem to assume it simply appeared one day, lo those billions of years ago, have considered another possibility.

Maybe God is revealing Himself slowly to those non-believers, using their intellect and the disciplines they have decided to study, to show not only how He created the Universe and everything in it, but the sheer beauty of each system of life as it came into being, and adapted along the way.

In the meantime, we, who already believe He can do all things, can rejoice that those who have difficulty accepting Him through faith alone, can begin to believe through their own careful scientific observations. I'll rejoice for them, when they come to believe, even if they, as Thomas did, have to 'touch' Him in order to do so.

[GodGunsGuts]

Time to breakout the iceskates :o)

[count-your-change]

The accounting for starlight from far distant stars with an explanation that says, if I understand it, that the stars are old but the light from them is young to us.

And the wet version of the big bang, wherein the universe was a ball of water 2 light years in diameter, collapsed to form everything. It takes a judo on Genesis to make it support this. As propounded by Dr. Humphreys.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you so much for the link! Indeed, threads that actually require a discussion of the issues tend to go to crickets very quickly.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you so very much for sharing your beautiful testimony and insights!

[metmom]

The accounting for starlight from far distant stars with an explanation that says, if I understand it, that the stars are old but the light from them is young to us.

So the further out we see, the further back in time we're looking. And what information about the beginning is that showing us?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observable_universe

The age of the universe is about 13.7 billion years, but due to the expansion of space we are now observing objects that are now considerably farther away than a static 13.7 billion light-years distance. The edge of the observable universe is now located about 46.5 billion light-years away.

Estimates of the matter content of the observable universe indicate that it contains on the order of 10 [to the 80th] atoms. The vast majority of the energy density is contributed by dark matter and dark energy.

[DoctorMichael]

So transparent even a caveman knows the difference.

"Grog say.......Warning!
This is a Meta-article that contains no
site-specific scientifc data or research whatsoever
and is produced by an obscure, unrecognized, non-scientific
internet group attempting to pass off their agenda as scholarly.
Buyer Beware!"

[count-your-change]

One thing it tells us is that there was a beginning, not an easy concept for some, I guess. Another is that if the farthest objects are 13 billion years old we can’t really say much about their condition at this moment seeing they’ve had 13 billion years to change or not.