posted
What is it that bothers you -- that it is a political move to appease voters, or that it is a political move to appease religious voters?
That it's a political move to weaken the concept of scientific theory. Any move that weakens science solely to appease voters -- any voters -- is short-sighted and wrong.
What confuses me is even if the Big Bang theory was somehow a proven fact how this would in any way invalidate the possibility of a creator. Even if there was a designer he/she/they would have had to do the job somehow, why not with this process?
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by littlemissattitude: I think the problem comes because some (and please note that I said some, not all) scientists think that because God can't be proven scientifically, that means God does not exist.
How many other entities do you know of that exist, but which cannot be proven scientifically to exist?
I sometimes have my doubts about you. Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
So to be clear, what bothers people is the specific inclusion of a scientific term, properly used in this context, because the person including it wanted to make sure that the statement was scientific and did not venture into the bounds of religious thought?
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:What confuses me is even if the Big Bang theory was somehow a proven fact how this would in any way invalidate the possibility of a creator. Even if there was a designer he/she/they would have had to do the job somehow, why not with this process?
There are who believe in a completely literal and infallable Bible who believe the universe is less than 10,000 years old. A big bang trillions of years ago directly contradicts this.
While the big bang is compatable with many religious beliefs, it's not compatable with all of them.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: So to be clear, what bothers people is the specific inclusion of a scientific term, properly used in this context, because the person including it wanted to make sure that the statement was scientific and did not venture into the bounds of religious thought?
Given that he equated the state of being a theory to being a matter of opinion, I don't think it's at all clear that that's what he wanted.
After the change is made, I'd be willing to look over the NASA website and see if "theory" is also used when the text mentions gravitation, relativity, or electromagnetism.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dag, What bothers me is the inclusion of a scientific term for the purpose of painting a theory as conjecture. That it's properly used isn't the problem, but that it's used to leave space for the injection of religious ideas.
quote:The Big Bang is "not proven fact; it is opinion," Mr. Deutsch wrote, adding, "It is not NASA's place, nor should it be to make a declaration such as this about the existence of the universe that discounts intelligent design by a creator."
posted
While the big bang is not incompatable with many religious beliefs, it's not compatable with all of them.
I didn't say religious belief. I was asking how the Big Bang invalidates intelligent design. Should I assume they are synonymous?
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Actually, you didn't say intelligent design either - you talked about the possibility of a creator. I incorrectly assumed you were talking about religion.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:The Big Bang is "not proven fact; it is opinion," Mr. Deutsch wrote, adding, "It is not NASA's place, nor should it be to make a declaration such as this about the existence of the universe that discounts intelligent design by a creator."
What, exactly, is wrong with this statement. I assume everyone agrees that NASA should basically only be making scientific declarations (not counting announcements about what NASA is, has, or wil be doing, etc.).
Whether or not there is an intelligent design by a creator is not, according to pretty much every thread we have on the subject, a scientific question.
Therefore, NASA should not be making declarations about whether or not there is such a creator. The "or not" is just as important as the "whether."
Seems to me people are upset because he purposely didn't leave the impression that science was competent to say there is no designer.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Fair enough. But I intentionally did not specify a creator, as I am led to believe that Intelligent Design is science and not a particular religious doctrine.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Given that he equated the state of being a theory to being a matter of opinion, I don't think it's at all clear that that's what he wanted.
There are non-big bang scientific explanations of the origins of the universe. It's clearly not a fact.
quote:After the change is made, I'd be willing to look over the NASA website and see if "theory" is also used when the text mentions gravitation, relativity, or electromagnetism.
If the word theory is necessary to avoid confusion about the extent of the claim science is making, then I'd support such usage. If, as people insist over and over, whether or not there is a creator is not proper subject matter for science, then making correct use of scientific terms to prevent giving the impression that science is making a statement about the existence of a creator is not only accurate but necessary.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Because it is more than opinion, Dag. There is a fair amount of evidence that supports the Big Bang (red shifts, and the microwave background radiation, for instance). It might be the complete answer for the creation of the universe, but there is plenty of evidence that it constituted a part of it. More than just the opinion of some astrophysicists.
I personally have not heard of any competing theory that can account for the background radiation evidence.
posted
Dag, if you can ensure that the reader's of NASA's web site use the scientific and not the popular definition of theory, I'm all for putting it on the web page.
posted
Dagonee, the Big Bang theory does not make a declaration about a creator or lack of same. It really doesn't. It seeks to describe the event, not any possible motivation that may have been involved.
As said, I don't have a problem with the word theory being used with it (I do myself). I don't have a problem with scientists deciding to add the word to make the description more accurate. I have a problem with the intent behind the decision. "The Big Bang is 'not proven fact; it is opinion,'" puts the theory into the Big Bag of Opinion where everyone's guess holds equal weight.
The outcome is the same whether done by NASA on their own or by the PR guy, but as a lawyer you know that intent changes the perception of events. This, to me, is another example of an anti-science agenda that disturbs me quite a bit.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
So if any scientific finding discredits a religious belief it should have to come with a warning, maybe a footnote or two?
quote:Whether or not there is an intelligent design by a creator is not, according to pretty much every thread we have on the subject, a scientific question.
This is exactly why the subject shouldn't have to have been brought up at all. Read the quote again. He's saying that, to study the big bang scientifically, it is also necessary to study the idea that there could have been a creator.
Posts: 2907 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:the Big Bang theory does not make a declaration about a creator or lack of same. It really doesn't. It seeks to describe the event, not any possible motivation that may have been involved.
Of course. Therefore, using a word, correctly within the context, that can help prevent creating the impression that it somehow resolves a religious question is a good thing.
quote: I have a problem with the intent behind the decision. "The Big Bang is 'not proven fact; it is opinion,'" puts the theory into the Big Bag of Opinion where everyone's guess holds equal weight.
This was not a public statement, and it is half right. It is not a fact - not even in the way evolution is said to be a fact.
quote:as a lawyer you know that intent changes the perception of events.
Yep. And the intent by some here (not you) seems to want to defend the borders of of science from intrusion in one direction (a good motive) but allow science to expand its own borders beyond its proper subject matter 9a bad motive).
Just as some people want to exploit on the confusion created by the word theory to make science less certain than it is, some people want to exploit the confusion created by the lack of the word to make science appear more certain than it is.
quote:So if any scientific finding discredits a religious belief it should have to come with a warning, maybe a footnote or two?
I didn't say that.
quote:This is exactly why the subject shouldn't have to have been brought up at all. Read the quote again.
The quote was in a private message to the web designer. It's not posted on the NASA web page.
The public statements made by NASA are accurate and use the term "theory" correctly within the scientific context.
The "subject" was brought up because of someone trying to make an accurate use of the word theory into something it's not.
quote: He's saying that, to study the big bang scientifically, it is also necessary to study the idea that there could have been a creator.
No, he's not. He's saying that the question of how the universe came to be is not solely a scientific question - as everyone here seems to have agreed. He's also saying that NASA should not present information in such a way as to imply that it is resolving the religious question.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:He's saying that the question of how the universe came to be is not solely a scientific question - as everyone here seems to have agreed.
Then he's wrong. "The Universe began in this manner" is a statement of historical fact; it is no less scientific, and no more religious, than "Napoleon won the battle of Austerlitz." It may be mistaken, for some particular value of 'this manner'; but it is not religious.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:"The Universe began in this manner" is a statement of historical fact; it is no less scientific, and no more religious, than "Napoleon won the battle of Austerlitz." It may be mistaken, for some particular value of 'this manner'; but it is not religious.
You yourself have said the existence of a creator is not the proper subject of science.
"The Universe began in this manner" cannot be wholly answered with[out] answering the question, "Was the Universe created by a Creator?"
You're right that it's a historical question. But it's not one subject to scientific proof.
This is exactly the kind of overreaching I was talking about in my previous post.
quote:"The Universe began in this manner" is a statement of historical fact.
<nitpick> It is many things, but it is not historical, as it predates the written word by over a trillion years. It is most definitely prehistorical. </nitpick>
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't see what is wrong with requesting that NASA be more clear in distinguishing between scientific theory and certain fact, when dealing with issues that are controversial.
It's okay to complain when religious groups pressure the government into wrongly distorting science. But, there's no sense in complaining when religious groups pressure the government into presenting scientific claims in a more accurate fashion. No matter how much you dislike the motives of any given political group, it's only worth opposing them when they are actually doing wrong - not when they do right for the wrong reasons.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:You yourself have said the existence of a creator is not the proper subject of science.
Then I was mistaken. "There exists an extremely powerful being, who predates the Big Bang, and has thus-and-so qualities" is an assertion of checkable fact. That makes it the domain of science.
quote:"The Universe began in this manner" cannot be wholly answered with answering the question, "Was the Universe created by a Creator?"
I think you mean "without answering the question". On that assumption : Yes, I agree, and that is a question that is in principle answerable by science.
quote:It is most definitely prehistorical.
'Historical' in the sense of 'stuff that happened in the past', not 'things that were written down'. It is historical in the same sense that evolution is a historical fact.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
If we're nitpicking... Try a few billion years - certainly not more than two dozen - instead of a trillion.
quote:"The Universe began in this manner" cannot be wholly answered with answering the question, "Was the Universe created by a Creator?"
The question, "what came before the universe began" cannot be answered without answering the question, "was the universe created by a creator?" Saying that the universe began with a rapidly expanding field of particles says nothing about what came before it and how it got there.
Posts: 2907 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Then I was mistaken. "There exists an extremely powerful being, who predates the Big Bang, and has thus-and-so qualities" is an assertion of checkable fact. That makes it the domain of science.
Not if the Creator or the effects of the creator cannot be repeatedly (not more than once, but in a repeatable manner) detected by physical senses.
quote:I think you mean "without answering the question".
Yes, I do.
quote:Saying that the universe began with a rapidly expanding field of particles says nothing about what came before it and how it got there.
Techinically that tells us what was the universe like immediately after it began, not in what manner did it begin.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Not if the Creator or the effects of the creator cannot be repeatedly (not more than once, but in a repeatable manner) detected by physical senses.
And if this is true, in what sense does the creator 'exist'? You might as well claim existence for the IPU, praise be upon her. She's not detectable by physical senses either.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Here, more or less, is what's bothering me. Not prefectly parallel, but...
Say a teacher's biography is posted on a school's website and includes "Mrs. Jackson is a mother of three."
However, one of the administrators of the school who does not like Mrs. Jackson sends a memo to the web designer asking to have it changed to "Mrs. Jackson is a single mother of three" so that, according to his memo, "parents will know how sinfully immoral she is."
Seen from the outside, no problem. The revised bio is accurate. Mrs. Jackson would agree with it and parents most likely wouldn't notice or care. But the motive of the administrator provides an insight into his own biases and his competence for the position.
In this situation, the motive bothers me a lot where the actual change bothers me not at all.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:And if this is true, in what sense does the creator 'exist'? You might as well claim existence for the IPU, praise be upon her. She's not detectable by physical senses either.
1.) Because not everything important in the world is detectable by physical senses, even if the effects of those things are.
2.) Because the Creator does intervene in a time, place, and manner of His choosing.
quote:Say a teacher's biography is posted on a school's website and includes "Mrs. Jackson is a mother of three."
However, one of the administrators of the school who does not like Mrs. Jackson sends a memo to the web designer asking to have it changed to "Mrs. Jackson is a single mother of three" so that, according to his memo, "parents will know how sinfully immoral she is."
Seen from the outside, no problem. The revised bio is accurate.
But there are many people who would object to the description "single mother" being on the web page even without that memo, whereas the inclusion of the word theory here would raise no eyebrows without the memo.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Given that he equated the state of being a theory to being a matter of opinion, I don't think it's at all clear that that's what he wanted.
There are non-big bang scientific explanations of the origins of the universe. It's clearly not a fact.
"Not a fact" does not relegate it to the realm of "opinion" in the common understanding of the term.
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee:
quote:After the change is made, I'd be willing to look over the NASA website and see if "theory" is also used when the text mentions gravitation, relativity, or electromagnetism.
If the word theory is necessary to avoid confusion about the extent of the claim science is making, then I'd support such usage. If, as people insist over and over, whether or not there is a creator is not proper subject matter for science, then making correct use of scientific terms to prevent giving the impression that science is making a statement about the existence of a creator is not only accurate but necessary.
There's a difference between "Is there a creator?" and "Is the Bible literally true?" Theories like the Big Bang or evolutionary theory are silent on the first question, but implicitly answer the second with a negative. Going out of your way to use the word "theory" in this context implicitly grants equal weight to Big Bang theory and Young Earth Creationism, which is not valid given the firm evidential support for the former and lack thereof for the latter.
If the statement had read "Big Bang theory is one of several competing scientific theories," I would share your position and be fine with it.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Techinically that tells us what was the universe like immediately after it began, not in what manner did it begin.
Exactly. I'm talking about describing the beginning of the universe, not naming the cause for the universe beginning.
quote:But there are many people who would object to the description "single mother" being on the web page even without that memo, whereas the inclusion of the word theory here would raise no eyebrows without the memo.
Isn't the memo, and the permeation of NASA by pseudo-scientists that it indicates, what we're arguing about here? That, and how it's indicative of how IDists are highjacking the word "theory?"
Posts: 2907 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:"Not a fact" does not relegate it to the realm of "opinion" in the common understanding of the term.
No, it does not. It does mean it's not a fact, though.
quote:There's a difference between "Is there a creator?" and "Is the Bible literally true?" Theories like the Big Bang or evolutionary theory are silent on the first question, but implicitly answer the second with a negative.
This is true.
quote:Going out of your way to use the word "theory" in this context implicitly grants equal weight to Big Bang theory and Young Earth Creationism, which is not valid given the firm evidential support for the former and lack thereof for the latter.
This is not true.
quote:If the statement had read "Big Bang theory is one of several competing scientific theories," I would share your position and be fine with it.
Is the usage incorrect?
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Because not everything important in the world is detectable by physical senses, even if the effects of those things are.
But you specified that the effects should also not be repeatably detectable. If neither the Unicorn nor the effects of the Unicorn can be seen, is it sensible to say the she exists? Conversely, if the effects, but not the Unicorn itself, is detectable - then that is again within the domain of science. Nobody has ever seen an electron, either, but I am working with their effects as I write.
quote:Because the Creator does intervene in a time, place, and manner of His choosing.
Which, as I noted, places it within the domain of science again. The actions of human beings are unpredictable, but you would hardly classify them as theology for all that.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Exactly. I'm talking about describing the beginning of the universe, not naming the cause for the universe beginning.
And it doesn't describe the beginning - except to say "we don't know how to scientifically describe the singularity that was at the beginning."
The expanding field of particles happens after the beginning.
quote:Isn't the memo, and the permeation of NASA by pseudo-scientists that it indicates, what we're arguing about here?
The memo instructed a web designer to use an accurate word in order to avoid having the web site imply something outside the proper subject matter of the web site.
The memo was private, not a public statement. The usage in the public web site was correct.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm not questioning the usage; I'm questioning the motivation and intellectual honesty behind the decision to apply the usage selectively.
Added: And since the memo's author made his motive clear, I'm even less concerned about the correctness of the usage -- particularly since if the memo is implemented "to the letter," the usage will be selectively confined to scientific theories that conflict with a literal reading of the Bible.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:But you specified that the effects should also not be repeatably detectable.
Where did I say that?
quote:Which, as I noted, places it within the domain of science again. The actions of human beings are unpredictable, but you would hardly classify them as theology for all that.
I have repeatedly been told that testimony of the witnessing of such events is not scientific. If we can't predict when it will happen, either naturally or because of our intervention, then we can't verify it scientifically.
If you want to permit the testimony as scientific evidence, then that changes the whole discussion. We can revisit every topic we've ever discussed, then.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:I'm not questioning the usage; I'm questioning the motivation and intellectual honesty behind the decision to apply the usage selectively.
Added: And since the memo's author made his motive clear, I'm even less concerned about the correctness of the usage -- particularly since if the memo is implemented "to the letter," the usage will be selectively confined to scientific theories that conflict with a literal reading of the Bible.
Once again, the motive was to make it clear that only science was being discussed, not religion.
Please point out where it says it will only be applied to those theories which conflict with a literal reading of the Bible?
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:However, one of the administrators of the school who does not like Mrs. Jackson sends a memo to the web designer asking to have it changed to "Mrs. Jackson is a single mother of three" so that, according to his memo, "parents will know how sinfully immoral she is."
Seen from the outside, no problem. The revised bio is accurate. Mrs. Jackson would agree with it and parents most likely wouldn't notice or care. But the motive of the administrator provides an insight into his own biases and his competence for the position.
But Mrs. Jackson would have both a right and a good reason to hide the fact that she is a single mother. I don't think science should desire to hide the fact that its theories are, in fact, theories. And I think the motive of the administration, in this case, is to highlight that fact, to avoid stepping on religions that disagree.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dag, to your last question: Yes, because he man betrays his motives. I'm willing to add "theory" to any reference of the Big Bang, but only if using the more scientifically rigorous definition. This guy clearly is trying to apply the more popular definition, and I would _never_ support that definition applied to the Big Bang. Further, IMO, using the popular usage IS incorrect. I would suspect most people decrying this decision feel similarly. It's a nuance you are apparently not willing to concede, or perhaps you haven't noticed it, I don't know.
BTW, I think you sidestep some issues by pointing out other "theories" that a) look more like hypotheses, and b) don't try to explain things like the cosmic background radiation.
quote:Not if the Creator or the effects of the creator cannot be repeatedly (not more than once, but in a repeatable manner) detected by physical senses.
quote:Once again, the motive was to make it clear that only science was being discussed, not religion.
How do you know this?
quote:I have repeatedly been told that testimony of the witnessing of such events is not scientific. If we can't predict when it will happen, either naturally or because of our intervention, then we can't verify it scientifically.
Well, I don't know. We can't predict or cause earthquakes, either; is it therefore unscientific to study them? We can't predict when somebody will decide to go on a killing spree, but I don't think it is unreasonable to study such a thing. So the study of god-interventions is not necessarily unscientific; but eyewitness testimony isn't even considered reliable in a court of law, much less a scientific journal.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dag, actually, you're wrong on the point about "the beginning". Before the expansion, there was no Time (capital-T), so saying "before" is nonsensical. This is all in light of current theories and evidence.
Now, there may be a cause that created the universe, but it didn't happen before, it just happened.
posted
The instructions in the memo were confined to Big Bang theory with the express intent of reminding everyone that it doesn't conflict with the notion of a creator, but Big Bang theory does not conflict with the concept of a creator itself. Putting "theory" after it doesn't change that.
However, it does conflict with many of humanity's creation stories, including a literal reading of the Genesis account of creation. That's the conflict that the memo is aimed to resolve, and in this context the selective appelation of "theory" is invalid because it implicitly attachest he same tag to Young Earth Creationism, among other things.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:And it doesn't describe the beginning - except to say "we don't know how to scientifically describe the singularity that was at the beginning."
The expanding field of particles happens after the beginning.
That's fine, I can work with your definition of beginning if you insist. In that case, the Big Bang theory doesn't make any claims as to the beginning of the universe, but the events immediately following the beginning of the universe. It still has no bearing on the question of a creator.
Posts: 2907 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
But there are many people who would object to the description "single mother" being on the web page even without that memo, whereas the inclusion of the word theory here would raise no eyebrows without the memo.
Sure it would. Just as "single mother" means different things to different people -- did you automatically read it to mean "unwed mother" or "widow" or "foster mother"? Single mother covers them all but they invoke different reactions from some people -- "theory" means different things to scientists and nonscientists. Not the point.
As I said, not a perfect analogy by any means. It's there to hopefully demonstrate where my point of contention lies; the motives of the PR man and, by extension, his employers.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
The word "theory" as used in the public site is accurate within the scientific use of "theory." Why, exactly, would it raise eyebrows?
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
KoM, if you think the existence of a Creator is valid subject matter for science, I'll pose the same question being used to browbeat IDers: propose an experiment about it.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
