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
cjb
Bountiful, UT

Re Craig Clark

Two or three times in earths history most all life has been wiped off the earth. According to the fossil record, new life took its place quite quickly. This is comparable with seeding. Not some random chemical process that creates life and would take eons to occur. Is this scientific enough for you?

donn
layton, UT

RE: Brave Sir Robin I’m an active LDS and I believe in evolution and the big bang. So what? Neither of those things prove or disprove the existence of God.

Evolution is in conflict with the teachings of Christ. He should have not healed the lame and sick if progress is measured the “survival of the fittest”. He taught self-sacrifice, but evolution is necessarily based on self-preservation in the struggle for existence.

The Bible says that death only entered the world as a results of one man’s sin(Romans 5:12)., but evolution requires suffering in death as an integral part of the process that brought man into the world.

Theistic evolution is a contradiction in terms. One should associate a wise, powerful loving God with such a monstrous system.

Darwinism’s concepts of “struggle” and survival of the fittest used them for such systems as Nazism and racism. Evolution is the basic premise for atheistic and humanistic religions, but also pantheistic religions.
All essentially based on accepting the space-time cosmos as the ultimate eternally reality and denying any real transcendent Creator of the cosmos. The uncreated creator of all else.

Ranch
Here, UT

This is what happens when conservatives get control of education; people don't get a quality education.

The Big Bang theory is much more believable than "god made it".

Twin Lights
Louisville, KY

I have no problem with the Big Bang or with science generally. Don't know why this causes anyone heartburn.

Jamescmeyer
Midwest City, USA, OK

@Candide
You're confusing "faith that we have a Heavenly Father" with faith as an adjective without context.

@Sasha Pachev
That was awesome. Thank you for illustrating that.

coltakashi
Richland, WA

People are confused about the relation of the Big Bang Theory to religion. When it was first proposed, by astrophysicists who included a Catholic priest, it was resisted by some atheist scientists because it sounded too much like Genesis: "Let there be light." Catholics identify it with creatio ex nihilo, creation from nothing by God. They are not advocates of Young Earth Creationism and don't think Genesis is talking about seven 24 hour days. The fact is that more recent refinements in the theory suggest that this was just one in an infinite series of sudden expansions of space and time, budding off previous universes, in an eternal multiverse, with new earths being created in an ongoing process. Indeed, something like that is described in the revelation recorded as Section 76 of the LDS scripture Doctrine & Covenants. Mormons belief in both eternal spirit and eternal matter is congenial to this more expansive view of the universe.

donn
layton, UT

@Twin Lights, “I have no problem with the Big Bang or with science generally. Don't know why this causes anyone heartburn”. True,

The idea of creation ex-nihilo is supported by the evidence of the Big Bang. The Big Bang shows that the universe had a beginning. There was a one time a specific point where all things were born and put into motion. If it had a beginning that means in had to have a “beginner”.(John 1:1).

William Lane Craig’s “We know that in the laws of nature (something Evangelicals would say was introduced in the creation) that something can not come from nothing. So Mormons need to answer “where did the pre-existing natural materials come from that God used to create?” And I would follow that question with “if they were created, why aren’t we worshiping their creator?”

ordinaryfolks
seattle, WA

Religionists of the fundamentalist sort have a fundamental problem that they can never solve. Their Bible can not be used to explain how something happened, but only perhaps why it happened. The Bible is incapable of explaining algebra, chemistry or medicine. Yet fundamentalists insist that science is wrong (and persist in believing in such nonsense as the 6000 year old Earth), without offering any proof, when science seems in conflict with their religion.

Scientists explain how things happened, and let their faith take them where it will. Some scientists are atheist/agnostic and others have some sort of religious faith. Science takes no pretensions to explain why we exist, only how we have come to exist. A scientist without religious belief, when presented with a living God walking on the planet, would just say something like "oops, I was wrong".

A fundamentalist religionist would continue to believe his/her faith (or parts thereof) even when confronted with incontrovertible denying the existence of the God or elements of their faith.

I prefer to live in a world wherein fact remains fact, and allows the individual to choose his faith. The reverse has not worked in the past.

Craig Clark
Boulder, CO

donn,

"....Theistic evolution is a contradiction in terms. One should associate a wise, powerful loving God with such a monstrous system...."
______________________________

Reactions like that do not persuade reasonable people to allow creationism to become part of the curriculum in our public schools.

Craig Clark
Boulder, CO

cjb,

"Two or three times in earths history most all life has been wiped off the earth. According to the fossil record, new life took its place quite quickly. This is comparable with seeding. Not some random chemical process that creates life and would take eons to occur. Is this scientific enough for you?"
______________________________

For me, it’s not scientific at all. The suggestion that life on Earth was due to seeding from an extraterrestrial source sounds more like a sci-fi film than science. You decide if it’s scientific enough for you.

AZTrojan
Tucson, AZ

@Candide
" Faith is belief without evidence. Science is based on testable predictions that are peer reviewed and reproducible."

Well, then you just defined both the Big Bang and molecules-to-man-evolution as non-science since neither are based on testable/repeatable predictions. Both are faith based concepts.

Mister J
Salt Lake City, UT

re iron&clay

**I use the three T's when describing 'scientific' thought.... "trendy, transitory theories".***

And yet you are using the internet, probably drive a car, etc... all products of you guessed it... Science

Hank Pym
SLC, UT

re: Craig Clark

"For me, it’s not scientific at all. The suggestion that life on Earth was due to seeding from an extraterrestrial source sounds more like a sci-fi film than science. You decide if it’s scientific enough for you."

I agree that it wasn't E.T. But, if a biochemical reaction occurred in space then landed on earth to get life going that IMO would not be a shock.

A Scientist
Provo, UT

The LDS Church a "realistic stance on evolution"?

For Mormon believers, Prophet and President of the LDS Church, Joseph Fielding Smith resolved the question between scriptural creationism versus evolution by insisting:

"You must choose the one and reject the other, for they are in direct conflict and there is a gulf separating them which is so great that it cannot be bridged, no matter how much one may try to do so."

In the midst of his dispute with B.H. Roberts over this issue, James E. Talmage declared unequivocally:

"The Holy Scriptures should not be discredited by theories of men; they cannot be discredited by fact and truth."

Elder Bruce R. McConkie (sustained by believing Mormons as one of only a dozen or so men on the earth at the time who are "prophets, seers, and revelators") emphatically stated:

"There is no harmony between the truths of revealed religion and the theories of organic evolution."

He also condemned the intellect of all Latter-day Saints who believe in evolution as "weak and puerile".

I think he was right about that.

SCfan
clearfield, UT

Don't understand why the big bang in any way would undermine a religious/creationist point of view. If anything is reinforces it in my mind. To paraphrase. In the beginning there was nothingness. Then "let their be light"........... And the interesting thing about science holding to the big bang is that they readily admit that there is no way they can account for what was going on or happened before the big bang. And that is where I am very comfortable to conclude that something had to have been happening before. Namely, the creation of matter itself. Very supernal and unprovable from a scientific point of view. But undeniable that the matter did exist. Otherwise there would have been nothing to "big bang" with.

UtahBlueDevil
Durham, NC

@candide... you said " I have to disagree, faith and science are mutually exclusive." Really? In what way? Who said scientific "fact" is absolute?

I work in consulting to the oil and gas industry. There is a lot of science that goes into finding the underground geological structures that indicate the likelihood of reserve. There is all kinds of math and science that go into the process. But in the end, we take that "knowledge" and then drill with a certain amount of faith that what we mathematically deduced is true. Our goal is produce models that reduce the amount of faith... but no science has led to a 100% confidence level.

If science were 100% absolute or true, we would not see the evolving way we understand the world we live in. Models over time have been adjusted by increased understanding, or new factors we didn't model or know about.

That is why it is called scientific theory, not scientific fact.

I do believe in certain levels of micro evolution. We can see it even in humans over the last 1000 years. But nothing has been shown to me that Gods hand has not played a part.

antodav
TAMPA, FL

This is really quite sad, and embarrassing, to be honest…but not at all surprising. A proper understanding of the nature and method of Creation, as well as of the Scriptures, gives no reason whatsoever why sound, firmly established scientific principles such as evolution and the Big Bang can’t coexist with—and indeed, even be incorporated into—religious truth. Unfortunately, most of the Christian world tends to be anti-science and anti-intellectual in general, in spite of the great scientific achievements that have been wrought in the past by Christians. Evangelical Protestantism’s insistence on a strict, blind, literal interpretation of scripture (while interpreting some things that ought to be taken literally, such as the nature of the Godhead), as metaphorical) has done a tremendous amount of damage to Christianity’s reputation among the scientifically literate. Thankfully, however, the LDS Church has always taught that scientific truth ought to be embraced alongside religious truth, and its doctrines clarify certain points that leave other Christians who confine their knowledge solely to the Bible (as they have it) in darkness. Once again why I’m grateful to belong to this Church and no other.

Sequoya
Stafford, VA

I concur with the excellent comments above that there is nothing mutually exclusive about belief in God and the Big Bang. I further concur that the Big Bang, while possibly true, is just a theory based on incomplete knowledge -- we are still learning. We see through a glass darkly, and in part ... (New Testament somewhere)

Further, I disagree with the idea that Faith is blind. Faith is usually based on partial evidence.

Finally -- all truth can be circumscribed into one great whole.

to comment

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