Quantcast

Comments about ‘Half of Americans skeptical of Big Bang’

Return to article »

Published: Tuesday, April 22 2014 8:50 a.m. MDT

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
Church member
North Salt Lake, UT

The title of this article is "Faith Untested". Shouldn't people want to test their faith to make sure they are believing in the truth. Why should a person never question or test their faith that they were born into?

UtahBlueDevil
Durham, NC

“Likewise, those who regularly attend religious services or are evangelical Christians express much greater doubts about scientific concepts they may see as contradictory to their faith.”

Which makes no sense what so ever. There are so many intersections faith and science that support each other... there is no need for them to be mutually exclusive of each other. Yes, there are areas where there are gaps... maybe even chasms.... but there are many areas where science and faith can walk hand in hand.

We believe in the divine creation of all that we know.... how that was actually done..... we don't know. Science can shed some light on that subject.

Ed Grady
Idaho Falls, ID

Science and faith are not mutually exclusive. This is such an old, worn-out topic.

cjb
Bountiful, UT

How could Americans not believe in the big bang? Every particle of their being was there when it happened, and its still happening.

Bruce
Angleton, TX

As a frequent critic of many of the policies of the LDS Church, I do have to give them kudos for a more realistic stance on evolution and the big bang. My understanding is that it is left to each individual to decide for themselves on things like the "Big Bang" and evolution. It seems that most LDS look to God as the architect that set things in motion using the laws of nature to accomplish a specific goal. This is a more enlightened approach and is less likely to produce conflict between religion and science.

Craig Clark
Boulder, CO

The hypothetical big bang is just mechanics. The driving question is was it a willful force that set it into motion. The idea that it was a haphazard phenomenon of physics is an answer I don't find satisfying.

cjb
Bountiful, UT

Re Bruce

I've never heard the LDS church come out and say evolution is responsible for the various species. I do know the early LDS church aka Joseph Smith and Brigham Young said all life comes from parents and in the case of people at least, (advanced) people who would become our parents came to earth and spawned us. My belief is that all life arrived here similarly. Anamials were brought here and plant seeds were brought here.

Can species evolve? The scriptures say yes. Life left to itself does evolve into other kinds of life. This is why God had to 'command' (i.e. set limits) life to reproduce after its own kind. Does God lift these limits at times if he wants to create new species? I would imagine he does. But evolution is not responsible for life being. All life came from parents meaning it has always existed.

andyjaggy
American Fork, UT

I've always found LDS people very open and realistic when it comes to science, for the most part anyway. It's one of the things I love about our religion. I personally don't think that the idea of a big bang contradicts my religious beliefs, but that is something I have studied and thought about and came to my own conclusions on.

Brave Sir Robin
San Diego, CA

I'm active LDS and I believe in evolution and the big bang. So what? Neither of those things prove or disprove the existence of God.

Craig Clark
Boulder, CO

cjb,

"....My belief is that all life arrived here similarly. Anamials were brought here and plant seeds were brought here...."
______________________________

Science says that all life, plant and animal, developed from physical and chemical elements present on this planet. Genesis says God created man from the dust of the Earth. Those two ideas are not incompatible.

Candide
Salt Lake City, UT

@Ed Grady

I have to disagree, faith and science are mutually exclusive. Faith is belief without evidence. Science is based on testable predictions that are peer reviewed and reproducible.

"Faith is the great cop-out, the great excuse to evade the need to think and evaluate evidence. Faith is belief in spite of, even perhaps because of, the lack of evidence."-Richard Dawkins

Nerd herder 12
Spanish Fork, UT

The idea that the big bang is proven science is far from the truth. Believing in this theory takes more faith than believing in an an omnipotent God. The idea that somehow a singularity that takes up no space exploded into everything for an unknown reason, then abruptly changed it's expansion rate for an unknown reason, then for some other unknown reason the anti-matter did not annihilate the matter that is the universe ... Just so you can deny a creator. This is not faith? Please. It takes more faith to believe this than to have faith in a God.

Dogma that says the earth is only 6000 years old is also not likely, but there is a lot of room for beliefs between that idea, and everything exploded from essentially nothing.

Sasha Pachev
Provo, UT

If you lack the scientific background and equipment to critically and thoroughly examine the evidence for a particular scientific theory, you are accepting it on faith - faith that whoever has the established reputation of having that knowledge is right. With things like electricity, magnetism, nuclear physics, DNA, various chemical reactions, proof by reputation/intimidation does not work so well because it is relatively easy to set up an experiment to debunk a theory that is full of hot air. When it comes down to the history of the Earth, when somebody with a reputation comes up with an idiotic theory, it is not easy to disprove it because the experiment is not currently feasible. Since there are not many people who would even understand the argument, if the stars align, it will be accepted on faith, but unfortunately still be taught as science.

nonceleb
Salt Lake City, UT

Faith in the Big Bang? There is physical evidence of background microwave radiation, the abundance of light elements, the discovery of super hot remnants, dense areas of singularity, and a still expanding universe with galaxies speeding away from each other. What evidence is there for an invisible creator who made the universe in a brief period about 6,000 years ago?

iron&clay
RIVERTON, UT

I use the three T's when describing 'scientific' thought....

"trendy, transitory theories".

CWJ
Layton, UT

@Brave Sir Robin, as a fellow LDS member, I too have come to a conclusion that evolution and the Big Bang can coexisist with LDS doctrine concerning creation. It is also my humble opinion that those in the fields of biology, anthropology, pyhiscs and such are on to mostly correct information. What I think though is that because-and this is solely my opinion-most in science tend to believe in forces other than the divine, they will always fall short of further enlightenment in regards to the biginning of the universe, or life on earth.

I believe that the big bang very possibly took place but in a sphere far beyond our understanding and comprehension. Who's to say that God used this phenomenon for the creation of this universe while He continued an existence in a likewise similar shpere. The materials from the big bang, I again believe, can quite possibly be the 'materials' that Jehova and Michael gathered as explained by Abraham and Moses. These materials were brought together is specific order and allowed to evolve during their respective creational periods.

Owl
Salt Lake City, UT

The original big bang theory was proposed by a practicing Belgian priest Georges Lametrie. When he was criticized by the pope he advised the pope not to mix science and religion. That advice in the 1920's still applies. Current Big Bang theory has been so modified with the inflationary epoch, abandonment of singularities and quantum mechanics that it is not what was originally proposed. And, it is constantly changing. As Stephen Jay Gould, a Harvard biologist and agnostic, noted faith and science are in separate non-competing magisteria. Thanks Prof. Gould.

Open Minded Mormon
Everett, 00

Science tell us how,
Religion tell us why.

I no more turn to a Science book for Salvation,
than I turn to the Scriptures for Physics, Chemistry, or Math.

People who can't reconcile Science and Religion like that,

are left to suffer the
either or,
All-or-Nothing,
silly arguements.

BTW -- I find the faithful lacking [hypocritical] when they rely of Science for heart surgery, cancer treatment, birth and anti-biotics --
and when they are all better, go to church and say Science is bogus.

It's like a Scientist finally praying on his death bed.

It's not one or the other -- it's both.

Nerd herder 12
Spanish Fork, UT

@ nonceleb

You should receive the Nobel prize since you have worked out all of the unproven and unexplained parts of the big bang THEORY. When I have studied the THEORY there is much that just has to be taken on faith since it is not explainable by quantum THEORY either.

Pops
NORTH SALT LAKE, UT

Sasha Pachev nailed it.

Yes, the Big Bang absolutely requires faith. It's based on the assumption that all red shift is due to relative motion of stars. If that assumption isn't true, then the Big Bang becomes the Big Mistake. And given that we don't know what 95% of the universe is made of, I'd say there's a 95% chance there's something else going on that's causing at least some of the red shift.

to comment

DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.
About comments